Hri Kumar Nair
Singapore
“This has a direct bearing on how liberally orders for OCPOs and FROs will be made. To conclude, the Bill gives us more tools to attack and dismantle OCG and ensure that they and their sympathisers do not benefit from the proceeds of crime.”
“I thank the Minister for the answer. I have two supplementary questions. Could the Minister let us know what is the number of pending cases with MOM on unpaid salaries?”
“According to section 11, such a landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy and can re-possess the property a minimum of 14 days after giving notice. Could the Minister give an estimate of how much the bond is likely to be?”
“LTA has announced that beginning February 2015, the contribution rate of deregistered cars to the Open Category will be reduced from the current 15% to 10%. But why not just scrap the Open Category entirely and transfer its quota entirely to Category A?”
“Second, I renew the call I have made since 2010 to lift or remove the income ceiling. The income ceiling is too blunt a tool. It does not take into consideration the circumstances faced by each family, such as the number of dependants.”
“This will enable students to make informed decisions before and during their university. Second, by better matching demand with supply. I understand that the Law Society currently maintains a page of training contract listings.”
The complete record
Every one of 461 lines we hold for Hri Kumar Nair, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
“Mdm Speaker, I acknowledge what the hon Member has said. They have come to this House to answer the questions they can answer or are willing to answer. They have not answered all the questions that we have posed to them and they are certainly not answering the questions that they do not want to answer. And all I need to ask them to do is to pick up the Hansard of Mr Shanmugam's speech where he has posed a number of very highly relevant, very legitimate questions and just answer those. That is a good start, and I invite him to do that today and, if not today, then in the near future, and not six or 12 Page: 50 months down the road. On the second point, I was restating the figures given by Mr Khaw in his speech where he made it clear that the Aljunied Town Council had an operating surplus of over $3.2 million, and it has now become an operating deficit of over $700,000 after the WP took over.”
“The WP team should also procure an undertaking from FMSS and FMIS that they will make all their papers and their staff available for that investigation. That is the only way to put this matter to rest. I really hope, for the sake of the residents, that the result will be that AHPETC has suffered no loss or will be able to recover their losses – that is good for the residents. But we need to do that investigation and find out. But if WP is not willing to do this, then that says everything. Mdm Speaker, last year, we debated in this House what constructive politics means and how we would like to see our political landscape evolve. The Motion reflects an intention and desire to do what is necessary for the good of Singapore and Singaporeans. But it is not enough for the WP to simply say they support the Motion. If they mean what they say, they must follow through by doing everything they can to ensure that all the legitimate questions posed have been answered and this entire mess is cleaned up once and for all.”
“They did no wrong and they deserve better. The answer cannot be same-old business as usual or "I will improve going forward". That cannot be the answer or, at least, the complete answer. Most of all, Ms Lim, Mr Singh and the entire team, they need to assure this House that no public funds under their care have been lost, misappropriated or are unaccounted for, and that AHPETC has not suffered loss in the real sense and not the narrow sense they want to use. They have said much in this House – many speakers, all of them have had their say – but they have carefully avoided saying that there has been no loss. And if they can give that assurance – that there has been no loss – then they must tell us how they know. How are they able to give that assurance, given the findings in the AGO report, the missing documents, their own auditors' refusal to sign off on the audit and their own inability to say when the accounts for FY2013 will be ready? Despite all their claims that everything is hunky-dory, it will be done, they still cannot give a commitment as to when those accounts will be ready. And if they cannot give a complete and satisfactory answer to the highly relevant questions Mr Shanmugam posed, then something must be done. It is now close to four years since they took over. I do not know if there is a statute of limitations for excuses, but they must have long exceeded it. What is the right and only thing to do? Do what any responsible company and board of directors in such a situation would do – for AHPETC to commission a complete forensic investigation and, thereafter, undertake legal proceedings to recover all losses and damages Page: 49 suffered by it, regardless of who the potential or prospective defendant may be.”
“But that facade completely fell away when Mr Pritam Singh said that he will answer to residents who ask him questions during his house visits and he will not answer the questions posed in this House. Let me ask Mr Singh this: does this mean that you will keep silent if no one asks you? How many residents does he think would have read the report and fully digested its contents? How many will have the accounting or legal training to know the full implications of the report and know the right questions to ask? And is your answer going to be, to every question asked, "Do not worry, AGO said no wrongdoing"? The real question is how is the WP team going to account to their residents? In fact, not just their residents, it should be all Singaporeans, because half of their revenue comes from Page: 48 Government grants which we all contribute to. Make no mistake, if this had been any other company, the directors would have been immediately removed and a Receiver appointed to protect its assets. No doubt about it. This happens many times in the private sector, and I do not think anyone will dispute that. AGO has explained why it does not know certain things because it has not been shown the documents. Ms Lim and her colleagues attempt to play down and rewrite the findings in the AGO report. Their attempts, really, do not change the findings themselves and certainly does not make things right. If Ms Lim and her team are truly for transparency and accountability, which they say they are, they should help all of us understand what really happened, not obfuscate, deflect and distract. We should not forget that we are dealing with hard-earned public funds and, ultimately, the interests and welfare of Singaporeans living in Aljunied, Hougang and Punggol East.”
“My second problem with that statement, because as Mr Shanmugam explained and as any person with any common sense knows, loss does not only occur when money is stolen. There are numerous instances in the report of possible breaches of fiduciary duties by AHPETC officers. We now also know that FMSS was paid far more than other Managing Agents. We now know that there were substantial over-payments to FMSS, which would not have been discovered but for the audit. And we also know that an operating surplus of over $3.2 million has become a deficit of over $700,000. That money is not going to come back. This is something we still have not heard an explanation for. Could there be more examples? We do not know because the accounts for FY2013 have not yet been submitted. While lapses can occur in all organisations – and I accept that – my experience has also shown me what distinguishes a good organisation is its response to discovering those lapses: failings are acknowledged, systems tightened, losses made good and those responsible dealt with. So, what was AHPETC's response? First, to brush off the many lapses as, I quote, "mistakes and omissions due to inadvertence, human error, IT system constraints and a lack of experience dealing with certain scenarios." And then, second, to misleadingly spin the report as an endorsement that there was no wrongdoing. It was a blasé response from people charged with handling millions in public funds. They did initially come to this House with a different, more contrite tone – I thought I heard that – and I acknowledge their saying that they will support the Motion.”
“13, "PwC was not provided with sufficient documentary evidence for it to independently ascertain the manner and extent of verification of the payments at the cheque-signing stage by the Chairman and Vice Chairman." At paragraph 5.28, "AHPETC did not have a proper system to ensure that documents were properly accounted for and safeguarded. AHPETC was unable to provide supporting documents for the period April to July 2011 to its auditor." At paragraph 5.31, "AHPETC also could not provide some documents required during the current audit that concerned transactions taking place after AHPETC had taken over from the previous Town Council." So, it has nothing to do with the previous Town Council. "In response to reminders, AHPETC indicated that it could not locate some of the documents and was still looking for others, three months after the request for the documents." And then the report concludes at paragraph 4.1, I quote, "until the weaknesses are addressed, there can be no assurance that AHPETC's accounts are accurate and reliable, or that public funds are properly spent, accounted for and managed." In short, AGO cannot say if public monies have all been accounted for because documents which AHPETC were obliged to keep are missing. So, contrary to what Ms Lim and her colleagues want the public to believe, the AGO report does not, by any stretch, Page: 47 confirm that no monies are missing, or that there is no criminal or dishonest activity. Rather, it says that it does not know because of the way the Town Council has mismanaged its operations. If AHPETC considers this an endorsement, then it speaks volumes about its attitude towards managing public funds.”
“In short, their own Town Councillors were misled. Ms Lim now says all these were errors, rounding-up errors, and so on. But such an error is so flagrant that it certainly raises suspicions and warrants a more thorough investigation. What is important to appreciate is that it is not the AGO's remit to determine whether dishonesty was involved. And even if we accept that a mistake had been made at the outset, Page: 46 it is hard to believe that the nine months of over-payment was not discovered. But the worst thing for me in this entire debate – really, the worst thing for me – was that Ms Lim and her team said in response to the AGO report that it confirms that no monies are missing nor has criminal or dishonest activity been uncovered. Mr Low repeated that argument yesterday and I think it is being said ad nauseam in this House. This is a consistent line they are giving to this House and, no doubt, to their residents as well. But this is blatantly misleading on two counts. First, the report says no such thing. In fact, after that statement came out, AGO responded that Ms Lim's, and I quote, "broad conclusion cannot be derived from AGO's audit". What does the report, in fact, say? An important element of the cases I mentioned involves piecing together what went wrong and tracing or figuring out where monies have gone to. By and large, this can be done because almost all transactions leave paper trails and forensic accountants use documents to analyse, reconstruct and draw a picture of what had happened. But what does the AGO report say about the state of the AHPETC documents? I will quote some portions. At paragraph 5.”
“Mr Png says there are oversight committees, but PwC was unable to determine if the Chairman and Vice Chairman of AHPETC adequately verified payments to related parties before they sign the cheques. Mr Png repeats what Ms Lim says, and says that these are over recurring payments and that if you do not pay them, the rubbish will pile up high. But again, that is not the point. They keep missing the point. Just because there is a contract does not mean you pay blindly. Where is the oversight? In other words, what is the assurance that the very people who are in a conflict did not take advantage of their position? The report makes it quite clear that there was no such assurance. There was no assurance that the services they were being paid for were performed or performed adequately. In other words, these people were patting themselves on the back while lining their own pockets. And, now, they have all ended up in knots. So, these are egregious breaches that demand a proper explanation, not excuses. And it cannot be a question of inexperience. Second, was the appointment of FMSS, the party in conflict, in the best interests of the Town Council? The report says that there was no open competition in FMSS' appointment and, therefore, no assurance that AHPETC obtained competitive prices for their services. The report then gives an extraordinary account of how FMSS' fees came to be approved. It states that the AHPETC Town Councillors were assured that FMSS would charge about the same amount as the previous contractors. But this was false. The report notes that the combined fee of the previous contractors was only about $49,000 a month. As it turns out, the fees billed by FMSS for the period from October 2011 to June 2012 averaged $67,000 a month, more than 35% higher.”
“What is more important is what the AGO report actually says. And these findings cannot be brushed off as down to inexperience or a lack of resources. This entire episode raises questions about the competence, accountability and integrity of those who run AHPETC. Minister Shanmugam gave examples yesterday and some are worth restating. First, the appointment of FMSS and FMSI and their ownership by the Secretary of AHPETC and his wife, who is also the General Manager of FMSS – both hardcore WP members. By any standard of corporate governance, the engagement of FMSS and FMSI involves a conflict of interest. Ms Lim suggests that FMSS was appointed because CPG did not want to continue as Managing Agent. But there is still no explanation as to why FMSS was formed seven days after the election results, and before CPG discontinued its services. But that is not all. There is nothing wrong per se with an engagement which involves a conflict of interest, provided – and this is critical – it is in the best interests of the organisation, the conflict is fully and properly declared and disclosed, and the risks are managed. The AGO Page: 45 report makes it clear that all this was not done. The AGO report notes that PwC Consulting did not see any documentary evidence that the AHPETC Town Councillors had considered the full extent of the conflicts of interests involved and the safeguards needed. We are still waiting for an explanation why the minutes do not reflect that Mr Loh and his wife's ownership of FMSS was not declared. Still waiting for that. But that is still not all. We heard the examples yesterday of how the Secretary, General Manager and Deputy General Manager routinely issued works orders and approved payments, effectively, to themselves.”
“Indeed, AGO routinely audits Government agencies and does not shirk from highlighting lapses, and Page: 44 Members of all parties in this House have rightly criticised those lapses and held the Government to account. So, why should WP be let off easy just because they are the Opposition? And why should their residents be forced to accept anything less than full accountability? This cannot be the right way forward. And sure enough, when Mr Low and Ms Lim spoke yesterday, they tried to downplay the breaches and make excuses for themselves – we are small; we are learning; the system is against us; these are only procedural lapses. That is playing politics. And these excuses are flimsy. Mr Low says that, unlike the PAP Town Councils, it is very difficult for WP to find a Managing Agent. But the Bishan-Toa Payoh Town Council does not have a Managing Agent. For the last 19 years, we have been managing the Town Council ourselves. We employ our own staff and ensure that they are trained and have the proper skills to do their job. We are not perfect, but we consistently score an all-green rating in our TCMRs; our accounts are submitted on time and, all the time, are unqualified. Mr Low also had no Managing Agent when he ran Hougang Town Council. So, this issue of a Managing Agent is a complete red herring. Mr Chen Show Mao, a very experienced corporate lawyer, then suggests the rules on disclosing conflicts are unclear and difficult to apply. But that is not correct. The rules are simple; he must know that. Besides, they have professionals they can turn to for advice. And if the rules are so unclear, why is AHPETC the only Town Council with difficulty following them? So, Mdm Speaker, to me, all these are deflections and distractions.”
“Mdm Speaker, in my 24 years as a lawyer, I have investigated the affairs of a number of companies, including listed companies, and have authored a few audit or investigation reports myself. It has been my experience that lapses are invariably caused by human failings. You may have good systems in place but, ultimately, your systems are only as good as the people who run them. There will always be individuals who will ignore or try to get around the rules – sometimes because they are lazy or complacent, sometimes because they are incompetent and sometimes, unfortunately, because they are dishonest. Almost always, they are not questioned or challenged because of the positions they occupy. In every case I have been in, losses were suffered. And so, the findings in the AGO report are depressingly familiar to me. I have read a number of media and online reports which have portrayed the report's findings as "lapses in control", "inadequate oversight" or "poor management of records". Indeed, there are many such findings in that report. But these understate the gravity of the findings. So, I had planned to come to this House to make the point that these are serious matters. But then I encountered something quite bizarre. The people I discussed the matter with kept telling me – do not attack the WP; they will only get more sympathy; find a way to move on; you have to keep in mind the politics. I could not get my head around that. Has it really come to this? This is a matter involving public funds. How could anyone, in good conscience, ignore or downplay what the AGO and PwC have found? These are not partisan bodies. And Mr Png accepts that.”
“To conclude, I support the Bill as it is an attempt to find a fair and reasonable compromise between several legitimate but conflicting interests. Those who oppose it should say how they will look after the interests of the other side. But from a practical point of view, these laws are logical and effective, provided they are implemented in a sensible manner. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. 2.08 pm”
“That being the case, I would like to ask the Minister: will the application process for a permit be made simple and how will it be made simple and Page: 20 what guidance will officers be given in respect of the enforcement of the law? Next, a point on resources. Police Officers, but not Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs), have powers of arrest under section 30 of the Bill. Given this difference in powers, I would like to ask the Minister: will more Police Officers be deployed in the liquor control zones given that these have been designated areas with higher risks? Further, now that we have two zones, do we have sufficient resources to meet our needs? Finally, if I have one criticism of this Bill, it is that, it unnecessarily, I think, singles out foreign workers. While the rest of us will not be allowed to drink in public places past 10.30 pm, we are free to drink in our homes. But that same consideration does not apply to foreign workers. Section 38(5) designates foreign worker dormitories as a public place for the purposes of section 14(1). The concern I believe is that since foreign workers can no longer drink in public, they will go back to their dormitories to drink. That may be so, but unless there is good evidence that this will cause problems – and I hope that the Minister will tell us what that evidence is – there is no reason to single them out. I think it sends the wrong message and it may feed certain perceptions and I hope the Minister will reconsider this provision. The concern could perhaps have been addressed in enacting appropriate rules and regulations governing the use and residence in foreign worker dormitories.”
“This is important because there is no point having a law if people do not know where the prohibited areas are or how it will be enforced. It is easy to take out a map and circle areas which appear far enough from residential areas. But how do you reflect this on the ground? And you will have the absurd situation where the length of one foot step or the length of one stride is the difference between lawful and unlawful behaviour. And to paraphrase Charles Dickens – the law should not be an ass. So, it is clear that it is difficult to find the sweet spot and that the balance has to lean to one side. I am in favour of leaning it on the side of folks who are affected by bad behaviour. But that should not be the end of the matter. We should also make sure that we do not make things difficult for people who drink responsibly. That should be in the way the law is implemented. First, in the application for a permit. For example, take a person who is now required to get a liquor consumption permit to drink past 10.30 pm at, say, a BBQ event at East Coast. He should be allowed to ask for that permit as part of the application for the BBQ pit itself. In other words, make it as simple and as painless as possible, without involving multiple steps – perhaps an additional box to tick in the online application with no extra charge. The same spirit should underlie enforcement measures. The Police should exercise leniency where the drinking occurs in areas far away from residential areas and where there is no unruly behaviour. The Ministry has, in fact, sought to reassure the public that the Police will exercise their discretion in a tempered manner.”
“Smoking in public, for example, is heavily restricted and many people are glad for it. In the case of drinking, there is indisputably a public interest in ensuring that residents are not disturbed in their own homes. The Bill does not make us unique. Many jurisdictions have adopted partial restrictions comparable to these. London has Controlled Drinking Zones where police can request people to stop drinking alcohol and ask them to surrender their drink. In Adelaide, areas such as the CBD and parklands have been designated alcohol-free zones. Even in Rome, the Eternal City, public consumption of alcohol from glass bottles is banned from 10.00 pm to 7.00 am. And for all other alcohol, the ban begins at midnight. Some jurisdictions have even gone further: in New York City, Ontario, Oslo and Perth, public alcohol consumption is banned at all times. Page: 19 I cite these examples not to say that we should copy others, but simply to suggest that the argument that the Bill makes Singapore different or gives Singaporeans less rights is inaccurate. More importantly, drinkers have options that residents do not. The Bill does not stop people from drinking in coffee shops, restaurants, bars, clubs, private homes and at licensed events even after 10.30 pm. While those who wish to drink have alternatives, residents who are disturbed do not. What about their right and liberty to peaceful and safe surroundings? Fifth, if the concern is about residential areas, can we not confine the new restrictions to those areas alone? In fact, that was my first reaction when I heard about the Bill. The problem then, I think, becomes one of legal definition. It is easy to say "non-residential areas", but that is very difficult to define, to rationalise and to enforce.”
“Apart from the noise, residents are worried for the safety of their family members when coming home late. They are also angry about the trash that is left behind. Besides, the problem is particularly acute for families who live near popular gathering spots. So, the numbers are not going to tell the whole story or convey the real suffering these families put up with. In short, we cannot dismiss this as a fictitious problem or one that affects only a handful. Our residents have legitimate concerns that we should address. Third, can we not just give the Police more enforcement powers? The answer is we can, but that will not solve the problem. Residents will still have to call the Police when disturbed. And unless we expect the Police to arrest everyone who makes noise, it is simply not practical. Besides, who gets to define what is a disturbance, and if it is vague, how are the Police going to do their job? The Bill improves the current position as it makes enforcement simpler and clearer. To put it another way, an offence framed in terms of consumption is better because it is difficult to draft an effective law in terms of conduct. But more importantly, with this law, I expect that there will be fewer incidents of people drinking past 10.30 pm in public places and, therefore, far fewer incidents of residents being disturbed. The fourth question: does this law curb personal liberties? Of course, it does. People will no longer have the freedom to drink in public places or to buy takeaway alcohol past 10.30 pm. But let us put things in perspective. The right to drink wherever you want and whenever you want is not a fundamental liberty. We have prohibitions against other types of behaviour where the public interest is affected.”
“But in reality, these do not go far enough. Take, for instance, the complaint of – and I am sure, many of us in this House often hear – people gathering, drinking and making noise late at night at void decks or nearby sitting areas. The resident is disturbed from his rest. He bears the burden of calling the Police. The Police take time to respond as this is not an emergency situation. And when the Police arrive, they have very little power to do anything if the people are not intoxicated, because there is a difference between being high and loud on alcohol and being so drunk as to be incapable of taking care of oneself, or at least I am told. The Police have no power to tell them to leave and even if they could, the drinkers will just end up in another part of the neighbourhood. So, the Police advise them to tone it down, they agree and then they start up once again when the patrol car turns a corner, or they return again another night. The game plays itself out time and again. So, who suffers? The residents. Why should they have to put up with this? And do we really want vital Police resources to be taken up to deal with such issues? The second question: is this such a big problem? Some commentators have asked the Ministry to provide statistics. And if they are available, they should be shared. But realistically, Page: 18 I would be surprised if the data is meaningful precisely because many of these incidents, like the example I gave, do not involve criminal behaviour. And not everyone who is affected will call the Police. But I have received enough such complaints on my walkabouts and block visits about the ruckus caused by drinkers who gather at void decks or nearby benches to know that this is a real issue.”
“Mdm Speaker, the introduction of this Bill has met with strong responses – both for and against. All the arguments made will likely be rehashed in this House today. But once we drill down to the details, the conclusion is clear: Page: 17 everyone wants the same thing. We all want peace and quiet at night where we live. We all do not want the problems associated with irresponsible drinking, including the noise, the littering and the risk of bad or criminal behaviour. At the same time, we also want the freedom to relax and drink responsibly, whether in private or public. The real question for this House, therefore, is this: can we draft a law or pass a law which meets all these interests? Is there a sweet spot in the middle? And if we cannot – and this is the real test – which side should the law lean in favour of and are there any ways to mitigate the effects on the other side? In this case, where both sides have reasonable and legitimate concerns, it is not enough to say you agree or disagree with the law. You need to say how you propose to address the real concerns of the other side. To deal with whether the Bill strikes that right balance, there are a number of questions we need to tackle. First, if the concern is about alcohol-fuelled misconduct, are our current laws not already sufficient? And the answer is no. Our laws criminalise some types of behaviour. For example, it is an offence for someone to be drunk and incapable of taking care of himself in a public place – section 18 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. It is also an offence for an intoxicated person to appear in a public place and cause annoyance to any person and that is section 510 of the Penal Code. On paper, these appear adequate.”
“My concern is that this may not be a cost-effective way of recovering premiums. Given that monthly premiums will in most cases run into double digits, the outstanding premiums are not likely to be large, even if outstanding for some time. There is a real possibility that the cost of bringing proceedings will far exceed the sum owed. I would like to ask the Minister what is the threshold amount owed before proceedings will be filed? And if the defaulter has no known assets, what then? I appreciate that the recovery body must, as a matter of principle and in fairness to everyone, take all reasonable steps to recover unpaid premiums. However, the purpose of recovery will be defeated should costs spiral beyond what is sensible. Finally, Madam, a point on healthcare costs. Greater insurance coverage will be of limited help to Singaporeans should the cost of healthcare rise significantly as a result of this Scheme. What are the Government's plans to contain or manage healthcare costs in the Page: 108 years ahead? A particular concern that arises in the context of insurance programmes is overconsumption. In the case of MediShield Life, the worry is that people will seek and doctors will prescribe, unnecessary treatment and medication. In particular, where doctors or medical centres profit from the sale of medicine or from procedures, there is every incentive to overprescribe or prescribe more expensive procedures and medicines. There will also be the need to administer this entire Scheme, which means more bureaucracy, more red tape and ultimately, more costs. Not only will this deplete the pool of funds, resources will be diverted from those who truly need them. So, I would like to ask what the Ministry intends to do to contain costs going forward.”
“As we all contribute and share in the national risk pool, we should know how the Scheme operates and how it is funded. We certainly also have an interest in making sure that costs are reasonably contained. In this regard, I wish to make the following points and ask for the following clarifications. First, the proposed section 4(2)(b) states that premiums payable by "other persons" may be deducted from an individual's Medisave account in circumstances to be prescribed by the Rules. It is unclear who these "other persons" are. So, the Rules will prescribe who "these persons" are and the circumstances which one's Medisave account will be debited to pay for the premiums for these "other persons". May I ask who these "other persons" are and who will be asked to pay? Further, will a person be entitled to object to such a deduction and if so, on what grounds? Second, as the Scheme will already subsidise those who cannot afford to pay, there is understandably a need for a robust recovery mechanism to compel those who can afford to pay but fail to do so. Still, we should ensure that defaulters are not treated in an unduly harsh manner. I think that is the likely intention behind section 11, which provides that a demand note must first be served on the defaulter before further enforcement actions can be taken. However, it is not clear how much time a defaulter will have to remedy the situation. This can be contrasted with section 87 of the Income Tax Act, which states that if payment is not made within one month from the date of service of the demand note, the Comptroller may proceed to enforce payment. And I hope the Minister will address this point. Third, section 15 allows the recovery body to sue for unpaid premiums.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. This Bill goes into some detail of the MediShield Life Scheme – who will administer it, how the premiums will be recovered, how we will retrieve health information and so on. But while we go into the specifics, I think it is important that we remind ourselves the philosophy behind the Scheme, as that informs many of the provisions. We are all familiar with existing social security schemes like CPF and Medisave. Essentially, these plans revolve around and depend on the individual. Each account holder is responsible for building up sums in his account to fund his own housing, retirement and healthcare needs. The individual takes care of himself. MediShield Life is different. It is a lifeboat with all Singaporeans on board. There are no separate accounts. Everyone contributes and everyone benefits. For the lower-income, middle-income and the Pioneer Generation (PG) and pensioners, the Government pays the premiums, partially or even entirely. And for all of us, there are Transitional Subsidies. Some will of course benefit more than others. The elderly, those who are less well-off and those who incur higher medical costs may receive more than they contribute. But that is perfectly acceptable, because when it comes to healthcare, those who are more able should help others. We are in this together and it is not about who benefits more. I therefore fully support the principle of including every Singaporean in the Scheme, including those living abroad and those who may not require to be in on the Scheme. I likewise support having an effective and efficient system of ensuring that everyone contributes his or her share to the Page: 107 common pool does so and I hope the exemptions and exceptions will be few.”
“The loan extended may well be below the value of the pledge but above the valuation in writing which the pawnbroker gives him.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for her responses. Can I clarify something she said? She said that the loan extended will not exceed the valuation and I am not sure that there is a provision in the Act for that. The reason why I am concerned about low market valuations or artificially low valuations is simply this – if I could just illustrate with an example. If the pledge is worth $120 and the pawnbroker extends a loan of $100, he may be incentivised to provide a valuation of $80. So, when a pawner comes to redeem, he has to redeem $100 loan plus a profit. But if the pawner has to sell the collateral, he gets $120 because that is what it is worth. But if he loses the item or destroys the item or misplaces or does something wrongful with it, he only compensates the pawner $80. That is my concern about artificially low valuations – where, if the valuation is low enough, it provides the incentive for the pawnbroker to actually not do his job properly. Insofar as market forces are concerned, I do not think that is going to be a right answer because, where the pawner is concerned, he is only looking at the amount of loan he gets and not so much the valuation which the pawnbroker gives him.”
“For example, under section 74(2)(a)(i-ii), a pawnbroker must "take appropriate steps to identify, assess and understand the money laundering and terrorism financing risks" in relation to its pawners and the jurisdictions which its pawners are from or in. Pawnbrokers may not know what steps are needed to be taken or where to begin. In fact, these requirements are even difficult for banks or lawyers and other professionals who are expected to have money laundering regulations or systems in place. As such, I would like to ask whether the Ministry will assist pawnbrokers to understand what they need to do and help them implement such systems.”
“Consequently, rather than continuing to store the goods, a pawnbroker will likely allow its redemption or sell it off. Perhaps, the purpose of this section would be better achieved if the pawnbroker is prevented from dealing with the pledge for a fixed period upon receiving notice. This would give the rightful owner sufficient time to obtain a Court order. This protection is especially important where there is sentimental value attached to the wrongfully pawned goods, as in the case of a family heirloom. In such cases, monetary compensation would not suffice. Fifth, some points of clarification on section 66. Subsection (4) is unclear as to what the pawnbroker must do after receiving an application from a person who claims to be entitled to redeem a pledge but does not have a pawn ticket. What "reasonable inquiries" are pawnbrokers expected to carry out? Would cross-referencing the applicant's details with its own records suffice? Additionally, section 66(7), which is similar to section 67(5), is unclear. I would like to clarify in what instance the pawnbroker will receive immunity when he omits to do something. It is a very strange way of drafting the Bill, in my view. My final point is a practical one. Part 5 of the Bill introduces a new obligation for pawnbrokers: to develop and implement measures to prevent money laundering and Page: 61 terrorism financing. This is a timely move, given the growth of the pawnbroking industry. My concern is that the Bill's requirements, which are understandably complex and numerous, may be challenging for smaller pawnbroking businesses to implement.”
“In view of this, could the Minister explain the rationale behind section 60(5)? Next, a similar complication arises under section 65. This section governs the pawnbroker's wrongful realisation of the pledge. Once again, the pawner is entitled to be compensated with reference to the valuation at the point of pawning. According to section 65(1)(b), if this valuation is lower than the loan and profit secured by the pledge, the loan and profit are extinguished. But, the amount actually realised by the pawnbroker in selling Page: 60 the pledge may be higher than the valuation. There may be a surplus. Does this surplus go into the pawnbroker's pocket? If so, this again rewards pawnbrokers who deliberately give low valuations and then wrongfully realise the security. 3.30 pm [Deputy Speaker (Mr Seah Kian Peng) in the Chair] To say that the pawnbroker has no property to pledge is not an answer, as he may have onward sold it to third parties. Neither does a pawnbroker, who wrongfully realises a pledge, commit an offence. It appears that the existing offence under section 33(g) of the existing Act has been removed in the Bill. What is the rationale behind removing this offence? I hope the Minister will clarify this issue as well. Fourth, a point on section 67 which seeks to protect the rightful owner of the goods that have been wrongfully pawned. Under section 67(4)(b), in the absence of a Court order, a pawnbroker may choose whether or not to deal with the pledge. This is so even when there is a dispute pending between different persons who are claiming to be the owner of the goods. It is questionable if giving pawnbrokers this discretion truly protects the rightful owner. A pawnbroker that refuses to deal with the pledge cannot charge interest on the loan in section 67(6).”
“That being the case, pawnbrokers may be incentivised to give unfairly low valuations because any surplus goes straight into their pockets. To some extent, competition between pawnbrokers for business may reduce such practices. Still, there is a danger that low valuations may become an industry-wide phenomenon, erasing the intended cost benefit to the pawner. What are the measures in place to ensure fair business practices? Further, it appears from the proposed section 48(3) and section 62(2) that a pawner or third party who has suffered loss can claim against the pawnbroker if it is shown that the pawnbroker did not act in good faith or did not take reasonable care in giving the valuation. Can the Minister clarify what this means and how this may be demonstrated? My second point concerns section 60. If the pawnbroker loses or damages the pawned goods, the pawner is entitled to be compensated with reference to the valuation at the time it first took possession of the pledge and that is set at section 60(5). However, the value of the goods may have increased or decreased since the point of pawning. Concerns of fair valuation aside – keeping in mind the incentive to give low valuations – surely, the loss suffered by the pawner is more accurately represented by the goods' valuation at the point of redemption. After all, this is the value of the goods the pawner would have received had it not been for the pawnbroker's default. This provision also lends itself to abuse. Where the value of the pawned goods has risen – say, in the case of gold bar or jewellery – an unscrupulous pawnbroker may pretend to misplace the goods and then later sell them off. The pawnbroker benefits from doing so as it only compensates the pawner the amount of the valuation at the point of pawning.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. The new Bill comes on the back of recent developments to Singapore's pawnbroking scene. The industry now has a softer image. New pawnshops are modern, brightly-lit and inviting – a sea change from the intimidating grilled storefronts some of us will recall. Pawnbroking is also on the rise. I will not recite or repeat the statistics that have been recited in this Chamber but, clearly, the business is booming. Is this something we ought to be concerned about? Arguably, pawnbroking loans, being secured loans, pose less of a risk to the customer or pawner. The pawner cannot borrow beyond his means as he is limited by the value of the collateral. Also, should he be unable to make repayment, he forfeits the pawned goods and that is the end of his debt. There is no danger of the debt snowballing and affecting his other assets. Yet, we should not overlook the fact that there may be troubling reasons why more are seeking quick cash or short-term loans. More could be under financial strain, forcing them to pawn their belongings to make ends meet. Or, credit may be too difficult to obtain from moneylenders and financial Page: 59 institutions. Accordingly, I would like to ask the Ministry whether the Ministry has data explaining the surge in pawnbroking activity. Also, what is the Government doing to monitor the situation? Moving on to the specifics of the Bill, I would like to raise several points for consideration and clarification. The first has to do with the removal of the auction system. The intention behind this is to enable cost savings to be passed on to pawners. However, one consequence of this change is that pawnbrokers are no longer obliged to return any surplus from the realisation of the pledge to the pawner. Instead, they keep the surplus.”
“Mdm Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister of State on his ability to count, at least until 23. Supplementary questions – I appreciate that he is thinking of setting up the agency and I fully support the setting up of that agency. Is the Ministry thinking of criminalising certain breaches of consumer contracts? And what is the scope of the agency? Is it likely to govern all consumer contracts or just certain kinds of consumer contracts? Page: 47”
“Thank you, Madam. Just three clarification points. I hear what the Minister says in relation to the framework of rules which will apply to both local lawyers and foreign lawyers. But could I get some clarity on that? I have raised a specific example. In the case of a matter before the SICC or where firms are bidding to represent the client in the SICC, will a foreign firm and a local firm be subject to the same professional rules, because they both can appear before the tribunal in the SICC? That is my first clarification. The second is a comment in relation to a non-lawyer, non-legal practitioner. I hear what the Minister says that the non-legal practitioners who hold an equity stake or some other position in law practices will be subject to the same professional rules, but the penalties are quite different. Where a lawyer is found to have breached professional standards, the ultimate price he pays is really to lose his licence and be debarred from practice. That will be quite irrelevant to a non-legal practitioner, and so the consequences are not as grave for him. Is it envisaged that different types of penalties will apply to non-lawyers who breach professional rules? And the final clarification is really my request for the Minister to give again a short overview of how he sees the legal landscape developing in the future.”
“I support the new reporting requirement for Singapore-qualified lawyers to disclose the number of hours they spend each year on pro bono work. My initial reaction was that pro bono is voluntary and should not be the subject of oversight or regulation. People like to run lawyers down, but many lawyers regularly give up time and income to help others, and without calling attention to what they do. Nonetheless, we can and should do more, and this reporting requirement will facilitate that effort. It allows us to assess the gap between the supply of pro bono work and its demand, and what we can do to narrow that gap. It will also help lawyers take stock of what they have done and assess if they can do more. Yes, lawyers need to earn a living, but we should never forget that we also have a critical role to play to ensure access to justice for all. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“Page: 92 That said, under section 36G, a non-legal practitioner shall not be a director, partner or shareholder in, or share in the profits of, law practices unless he or she is first registered. To register, an individual must first satisfy "such requirements as may be prescribed". Again, we appear to have relegated important issues through subsidiary legislation. What will these requirements be and why can we not have some basic requirements spelt out in the Act? This is not a matter of procedure or implementation, but a fundamental shift in the way law practices will be organised and run. This is happening in other jurisdictions. Australia and the UK have liberalised their systems to allow legal services to be conducted through what they call Alternative Business Structures (ABS) like the Multi-Disciplinary Practice (MDP) and the Incorporated Legal Practice (ILP). In fact, Australia made the news in 2007 when two of its law firms became the first in the world to list on the stock exchange. Today, Singapore is taking a tentative step towards permitting ABS models. But to what extent? Will we eventually see lawyers and accountants in Singapore teaming up to give financial management advice? Or engineers, architects and lawyers banding together to provide real estate development services? Are we going to take the next step of allowing lay individuals to invest in law practices, and to what extent will that compromise professional and ethical standards because lay individuals would want a return for their investment? I would hope that Minister, with his breath of experience and knowledge, can perhaps give this House perspective of how he sees the legal landscape develop in the future. Let me end on a positive note.”
“So, essentially, the Director's functions are left open-ended. It is worth noting that the Director's power to require documents or information to investigate a possible breach of law or rule is already provided for in sections 2B and 2C. So, the rationale for the Director's powers under section 2F cannot be to facilitate an investigation of possible misconduct. With regard to the second purpose, it suffices to say that the Director may ask for virtually any information under the guise of "compiling statistics". Section 2E then allows any information in the Director's possession to be furnished to the Attorney-General, the Registrar of the Supreme Court, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education, the Council of the Law Society, the Law Society, a Ministry or department of the Government, an Organ of State or a Statutory Board and so on – so long as the information is required by and for the performance of any of their functions. The group of persons and agencies the information can be shared with is therefore very large. Taken as a whole, these provisions raise serious privacy concerns. I would like to clarify what is the purpose of section 2F and why does it need to be drafted so widely? What are its limits? And I hope the Minister will give some clarity. My fourth point has to do with allowing non-practitioners to own equity in, or share in the profits of, a law practice. I support this amendment in principle. Individuals in other areas of expertise – in financial management or accounting for example – can add considerable value to law firms, and should be allowed to take equity. This will allow law practices to retain and reward talent.”
“I renew the comments I made on the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill on leaving too many matters to subsidiary legislation. But I hope the Minister will nonetheless shed some light on how this assessment will be carried out. On a related note, foreign lawyers who represent parties in the SICC do not fall within the definition of a "regulated legal practitioner" in section 71. So, these lawyers will not be Page: 91 regulated by the PCC. Instead, they will be registered under section 36P and complaints against them may be made under section 36S. So, it is a different regime. Section 36Y(2)(j) states that the Rules Committee may make rules "regulating the professional practice, etiquette and conduct of foreign lawyers registered under section 36P". Could the Minister clarify how these rules will compare to those governing Singapore and foreign lawyers? Furthermore, the Bill is silent as to whether a foreign lawyer who has had due cause shown against him may be debarred from applying to register in the future. Will this be covered in the Rules? Third, I would like to raise some questions about section 2F, which gives the Director of Legal Services wide-ranging powers to require law practice entities to provide information. According to section 2F, the Director may require information from law practice entities or their directors or partners for (a) carrying out his functions under the Act; or (b) compiling statistics on law practice entities. A failure to comply with the Director's requirement is an offence punishable by a fine, imprisonment or both under section 2G. With regard to the first purpose, section 2A states that the Director is to administer Part IVA and IXA and to perform such other functions as the Minister may assign to him.”
“These differences are manifested in all areas of practice, from case management to witness preparation to billing and fees. Conduct that is acceptable overseas may be regarded unacceptable here. Contingency fees are a case in point. For the non-lawyers in this House, these are fees charged for a lawyer's services that depend on the result – so you only get paid if there is a favourable outcome or settlement in your client's favour. While permitted in several countries, including the UK, contingency fees are prohibited in Singapore. Fees are only one example. There are other important differences such as the rules against conflicts of interest: in what circumstances can a lawyer take on a case which involves a previous client or where in a matter which he has advised previously. My question is this: what rules will we adopt in regulating foreign lawyers or lawyers practising foreign law? Will they be held to the same standards as Singapore lawyers? If different, are we potentially making it more difficult for Singapore firms to compete with foreign ones? Just taking an example, in the SICC, will we, for example, permit a foreign firm to offer contingency fee arrangement while a local firm cannot? And how will that level the playing field between a foreign and a local law firm? My second point concerns foreign representation in the SICC. Foreign lawyers who wish to act in SICC proceedings must first be registered under section 36P. They may be granted full registration or restricted registration in accordance with the qualifications and requirements prescribed by section 36P(3)-(4). The Bill, however, does not spell out the criteria that will inform this assessment. These matters will be left to subsidiary legislation.”
“Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. I declare my interests as a legal practitioner. Our legal industry is undergoing a sea change. It is almost unrecognisable from the industry I joined 23 years ago. The number of foreign lawyers and foreign law firms has grown significantly in the past decade. With the growth of the arbitration market in Singapore and the new Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) which will be set up early next year, there will continue to be interest in the Singapore market from foreign players. Additionally, we are about to liberalise the business structures of law firms to allow greater participation of non-lawyers. The Bill paves the way forward by updating our system of regulation and facilitating upcoming developments. In this regard, I would like to raise several points. The first concerns section 71, which among other things, empowers the Professional Conduct Council (PCC) to make rules governing every "regulated legal practitioner". This refers to Singapore lawyers and foreign lawyers who are registered to practise law in Page: 90 Singapore or have interests in Singapore law practices. Currently, the regulatory regime is bifurcated. Lawyers practising Singapore law are governed under section 71 while those practising foreign law come under the purview of the Attorney-General. There is also no formal institutional disciplinary process for lawyers practising foreign law. Given that approximately 20% of Singapore's total lawyer population now consists of foreign lawyers, this move towards consolidating our regulatory regime is a welcome one. One issue that will arise in devising a unified regulatory approach has to do with the different standards of conduct and ethics that apply in different jurisdictions.”
“There is no doubt that there is great interest internationally in the SICC. I have lost count of the number of times foreign lawyers visiting Singapore have asked my colleagues and me about it. The simple question is this: how will we define its success? Does the Ministry have benchmarks it expects the SICC to meet, whether in terms of the number of cases, the value of disputes, the growth of the legal sector or even the direct or indirect revenues it generates for Singapore and Singapore businesses? In short, do we have a list of KPIs which we hope the SICC will meet?”
“Third, I would like to comment on section 18J, which provides for the transfer of cases from the SICC to the High Court and vice versa. Again, the details governing such transfers will be set out in the Rules of Court. Nonetheless, cases properly brought before the High Court, may, without the consent of the parties, be transferred to the SICC. Such transfers may affect costs because the SICC fees may differ from High Court fees. Such transfers may also have an impact on certainty as the SICC Rules and practice directions will now govern the proceedings. Further, foreign rules of evidence may apply to the proceedings and foreign representation may be allowed. These factors may not have been contemplated by the parties when they first brought the dispute to the High Court. Therefore, I would like to Page: 79 clarify the circumstances in which a transfer may be made. My fourth point has to do with representation by foreign lawyers in the SICC. This is provided for by section 18M of the Bill. The provision states that a party to a case in the SICC may, in accordance with the Rules of Court, be represented by a foreign lawyer who has been registered under Part IVB of the Legal Profession Act. This implies that there are two pre-requisites for foreign representation: first, the Rules of Court must permit it; and secondly, the lawyer must be duly registered. Again, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister regarding the Rules. What are the conditions that must be satisfied before a party can be represented by a registered foreign lawyer? For example, will foreign representation be restricted to cases governed by foreign law? My final point has to do with our goals for the SICC and this is a broader point.”
“This should be contrasted with section 5(2) of the International Arbitration Act (Cap 134A) which specifically defines what an international arbitration is. What this means is that Parliament has no direct control over a matter as fundamental as the SICC's jurisdiction. I would like to ask the Minister why this cannot be prescribed in the Act. And what are the definitions and conditions that will be prescribed by the Rules of Court that cannot be set out in the Bill? Section 18D can be contrasted with sections 15-22 of the SCJA, which sets out the jurisdiction of the Singapore High Court in a straightforward fashion. I understand the purpose is to allow flexibility. But there should be a balance between certainty and flexibility, particularly on fundamental issues like jurisdiction. My second point concerns the pre-action certificate. This is governed by section 18E of the Bill. According to this provision, parties intending to bring an action in the SICC may apply for a pre-action certificate to state that the intended action is international and commercial in nature for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the SICC and that such matters as the Rules of Court prescribe had been satisfied. I understand the rationale is to ensure that only the proper cases are brought before the SICC. My concern is that it adds an extra layer to the process of making a claim to the SICC, and will have implications on time and costs, therefore making the SICC less attractive. The method prescribed by the Act is for parties to file an original summons – I know it is supposed to be heard on expedited basis, but could there have been a simpler way to get the pre-action certificate issued. And could the Minister elaborate on how this application will be expedited?”
“With our well-developed legal infrastructure and reputable judiciary, and also our willingness to allow experienced judges and practitioners from elsewhere to participate, the SICC represents a new way of thinking about international dispute resolution. I would like to deal with several aspects of the Bill. First, a large number of details concerning the SICC will be prescribed by subsidiary legislation, that is, they will be issued without scrutiny and debate in this House. This is no doubt understandable and warranted for technical details and procedural matters. For example, rules governing how questions of foreign law will be determined and rules governing court procedures and practices in the SICC are suitably dealt with by rules. However, I question why important and fundamental aspects of the SICC should not come directly under Parliament's purview. One such aspect is the SICC's jurisdiction. This is governed by the proposed section18D, which sets out three conditions that must be fulfilled for the SICC to have jurisdiction over a dispute. First, the action must be international and commercial in nature. Second, the action Page: 78 must be one that the High Court may hear and try in its original civil jurisdiction. And then we come to the third condition, which states that the action must satisfy "such other conditions as the Rules of Court may prescribe". Given that these three conditions must be fulfilled together in order for the SICC to have jurisdiction over the action, the conditions prescribed by the Rules of Court are pivotal. Further, the new section 80(2A)(b) allows rules to be made to prescribe what constitutes "an action of an international and commercial nature".”
“Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. I will deal with the provisions establishing the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC). Before that, I declare my interests as a lawyer practising in cross-border disputes. The Bill represents a bold move towards cementing Singapore's position as a leading destination for international dispute resolution. The growth of cross-border investment and trade, particularly in Asia, heralds a corresponding increase in demand for first-rate, efficient and dependable dispute resolution mechanisms. That is the value proposition, the brand, Singapore is able to offer in Asia. More than a few Asian clients have told me that they regard the Singapore system as one which will give a fair, just and reasonably expedient outcome. And so if two or more parties from different Asian countries enter into a deal, they will likely want their disputes to be settled in a neutral environment, and with the assurance that the outcome will be determined on the merits of the case and on the merits alone. And we have seen the results of that confidence in Singapore. Singapore is today regarded as the leader in Asia for arbitration, and the number of new cases handled by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is increasing steadily. And this, as the Minister said in the last Bill, did not happen by luck or accident. But not all disputes can be arbitrated, and there remains an opportunity to provide a platform for international parties to resolve their differences in a court setting. The establishment of the SICC is a bold and creative move to fill that gap.”
“I would like to raise another general clarification. There appears to be no exceptions to section 65B in the Bill. So, what happens when a driver's violation of section 65B is arguably reasonable or defensible? Let us say the driver needs to make an emergency call to the police, fire department or an ambulance, but it might not be practicable or safe for him to pull over or stop the vehicle. How will such cases be dealt with? Will it be entirely a matter of prosecutorial discretion? Mdm Speaker, as this Bill deals with responsible driving, I have a personal appeal to the TP. Driving while distracted by mobile communication devices is the mischief one provision of this Bill addresses. But there are other irresponsible habits that we need to crack down on. One of my bugbears is seeing children without seatbelts on or not in their safety seats. This contravenes the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Wearing of Seat Belts) Rules, but it happens all the time. The sight of parents cradling their babies while seated in the front passenger seat or of children jumping around in the back is far too common. I am sure many of us have seen that as well. People forget that children who are not strapped in, become projectiles in a sudden stop. And we really need to do more to educate the public about this. While the road traffic situation may have improved in Singapore in recent years with fewer fatal accidents, there is still much more I think that the Ministry can do to deter errant drivers and cultivate safer and more responsible road use. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. 3.28 pm”
“Second element – a mobile communication device refers to a mobile telephone and any other hand-held device with a "communicative function", which is defined in section 65B(3). My concern is that the range of devices contemplated by the provision is too narrow. What about iPods or MP3s or DVD players? Or hand-held game consoles like the Nintendo 3DS? Using these devices while driving is clearly dangerous, but they appear to fall outside the scope of the offence. One solution could be to adopt the position taken in Ontario, Canada, where the restriction includes both hand-held wireless communication devices as well as hand-held electronic entertainment devices. However, this still leaves open the problem I mentioned earlier, of drivers being distracted by the mounted screens of these devices, such as watching a video or reading an email. Ontario's legislators have dealt with this problem Page: 51 by banning display screens of televisions, computers or other devices visible to the driver that are unrelated to the driving task. And I think we should consider adopting a similar approach. The third element involves using the device when the car is "in motion". On this, I seek a clarification. The express wording of section 65B implies that it is not an offence for a driver to use a mobile communication device when the motor vehicle has stopped at a traffic light or where he is in a traffic jam. May I ask if this is the intended effect of the provision? If so, then it is not a satisfactory situation, in my view. The restriction should apply to the entire driving process. Drivers should remain alert to road conditions and any other road users until the car is safely parked. This is a better approach that many other jurisdictions, such as the UK, have adopted.”
“While we cannot make driving while using mobile devices 100% safe, we can and should impose laws to make our roads safer for everyone. Let me now move on to the specifics of the Bill. The proposed section 65B expands the scope of the offence of using a mobile device while driving. The offence can be broken down into three elements. First, use of the device. Second, the device must be a "mobile communication device", and third, this use must take place while the motor vehicle is in motion. I will comment on each of these elements in turn. First, section 65B(3) states that the "use" in relation to a mobile communication device means "to hold it in at least one hand while operating any of its functions". It appears that the intention behind this definition is to get drivers to either place their devices in holders or to use hands-free tools. If this is the case, why not just say so in the provision? The offence can easily be drafted as a ban against the use of mobile communication devices, subject to the two aforementioned exceptions. The present drafting is problematic, I think, as it potentially allows drivers to place the device on their laps or on the dashboard. A further problem that arises is that the definition permits the use of devices placed in holders. A literal reading of the provision allows drivers to watch videos and read text messages and emails if such device is placed in a holder. It even allows drivers to play a game, text or surf the Internet by tapping on the screen of a device placed in a holder. Could the Senior Minister of State clarify whether such cases are meant to fall outside the scope of the offence?”
“Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. I shall focus my speech on the old section 65B dealing with the use of mobile communication devices. There has been much debate around the world on how best to regulate the use of mobile and other electronic devices while driving. Different countries have different solutions. Some jurisdictions, like the UK, have banned the use of all hand-held mobile devices. Others, like Ontario, Canada, have extended their legislation to include not just wireless communication devices, but electronic entertainment devices as well. Yet others, like the US state of California, have different rules, depending on the experience of the driver. Here, in Singapore, there is a need to step up our game against irresponsible and unsafe driving habits. A review of section 65 is certainly timely because a recent survey commissioned by Samsung showed that a whopping 83% of Singaporeans surveyed admitted to using their mobile phones while driving. I think I can safely venture that most of us in this House, if not all, have all seen people using their phones while driving. Page: 50 Everyone knows that using phones while driving is not safe. So, we comfort ourselves by saying that we can use hands-free devices. But there are many studies which claim that using hands-free devices is equally dangerous as using hand-held devices. This is because the real distraction is the phone conversation and it matters less that you have both hands on the wheel. Therefore, the real message we should send is that people should not use their mobile devices at all while driving. But such a blanket restriction is not feasible, and it will be a rule more honoured in breach. The Bill, therefore, reflects a compromise.”
“Thank you, Madam. I appreciate the Minister's explanation on net present value of cash and it is quite complicated. Could I ask whether MND will publish not only the methodology, but the figures they use in ascertaining the net present value of cash, because one can discount on different basis and by applying different percentages, their results could be quite different? So, if MND could publish the workings and the methodology, that may help explain things.”
“Will they need strategic training, as well as an in-depth understanding of cross border, as well as global legal systems? Secondly, once a request is received or put forth, how long does it take for approval and processing before the mutual assistance can be rendered in general? Thirdly, do we have some regional understanding on this matter, for example, between ASEAN countries or do we have to rely on bilateral arrangements we have with each individual country. Fourthly, Madam, in general, how does Singapore make a decision pertaining to a request? Do we consider if we have had similar assistance from that particular country before, that is, reciprocity, or have we ever encountered, or are likely to encounter, a case whereby a particular Country X has been unhelpful previously on a case and now we have to handle a case from that same country. Are we likely to decline a request if it is not in our Page: 49 interest to provide that assistance? And finally, despite the expansion of coverage of the type of crimes and offences, what if there is a request for mutual assistance for one that is not on that new standalone expanded list? I would assume a case-by-case assessment would be done here and would apply but will there be other considerations as well? I support the Bill, Madam. 3.20 pm”
“Furthermore, the new sections 20(4) and (5) relax the requirement for dual criminality in the case of a request relating to foreign tax evasion, so that we can now give assistance in cases where the tax being evaded is not of a type imposed in Singapore. Page: 48 However, de facto reciprocity must continue to be a key tenet of this law. I would, therefore, like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether it is or will remain the Government's policy to exercise its discretion to offer assistance only to those countries which are likewise cooperative or receptive to our requests? A second instance of this Bill's facilitation of international crime enforcement is evident in its removal of the requirement of a certificate when proving a foreign drug offence. This Bill removes the certificate requirement, allows for other forms of evidence to be adduced to prove the foreign drug offence. And of course, this is sensible. Ultimately, this Bill heavily complements the amendments proposed in the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) (Amendment) Bill, now act and goes towards further enhancing Singapore's global anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing initiatives. I would, therefore, like to ask what steps the Ministry is taking to increase the network of countries we can cooperate with, so that those who commit crimes in our country will not be able to seek refuge elsewhere and, likewise, those who seek refuge here can be brought to justice. 3.18 pm Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Madam, I stand in support of this Bill. With the mutual legal assistance framework being strengthened, can I enquire a few clarifications? Do we have a list of legal representatives who can participate in this Act?”
“Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. Transnational crimes pose a unique problem. Since more than one country is involved in the planning, execution or impact of the crimes and house those who mastermind or execute them, individual countries often do not have the jurisdictional reach to effectively investigate and arrest criminals. Partnerships between countries are necessary. In this regard, a key tenet of Singapore's legal infrastructure in our fight against transnational crime is the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MACMA). I support this Bill as it represents a step forward in international crime enforcement by significantly widening the scope for cooperation between Singapore and other countries. One clear instance of this is the Bill's removal of the general requirement of dual criminality. Back in 2006, the MACMA provisions had been amended to remove the need for a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) treaty between Singapore and the foreign country as a pre-condition for legal assistance, so long there is an undertaking of reciprocity. Now, this Bill goes one step further. While section 20(1)(f) of the current MACMA imposes the requirement of dual criminality on every request by a foreign country for assistance in a criminal matter for coercive measures, clause 4 of this Bill deletes section 20(1)(f), and introduces the new section 20(3), which imposes the requirement for dual criminality only if the request relates to assistance in obtaining evidence, enforcement of confiscation orders, and assistance in search and seizures.”
“Indeed, the Second Schedule includes the offence of importing fresh fruits or vegetables without a licence under section 7 of the Control of Plants Act, the offence of importing or manufacturing animal feeds without a licence under section 4(5) of the Feeding Stuffs Act, and the offence of supplying adulterated or counterfeit health products under section 16 of the Health Products Act. The result of such an overly inclusive provision is that institutions, such as banks, will have to shoulder the onerous burden of reporting details of such seemingly disparate and wide-ranging offences. This might unnecessarily hinder the productivity of these institutions and result in indiscriminate reporting. Could the Minister help explain the reasoning behind such a wide definition of "serious offence"? Mr Deputy Speaker, while the proposed amendments do indeed help to facilitate the detection and prosecution of money laundering offences, we must continue to monitor local risks, such as the use of our casinos or even property purchases as a possible vehicle for money laundering. We also need to keep pace with threats brought about by technology. Technology has created new vehicles for money laundering, such as digital currency like bitcoins, or even virtual goods in online gaming that have real cash value. In this regard, I Page: 98 note that MAS has already taken some steps to regulate virtual currency intermediaries for money laundering and terrorism financing risks. I support the Bill. 5.56 pm”