Indranee Rajah
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a clarification in relation to two written answers on childcare leave issued by the Prime Minister's Office on 25 September 2025 and 3 February 2026 in response to Parliamentary Questions filed by Members of Parliament Ms Cassandra Lee and Ms Valerie Lee respectively.”
“Based on Year of Assessment (YA) 2025 data, about 9,500 working mothers claimed a lower amount of Working Mother's Child Relief (WCMR) under the fixed-dollar basis than they would have under the previous percentage-based basis, for children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2024.”
“We regularly receive feedback on enhancing child-related leave provisions, including the Member's suggestion. In recent years, parental leave provisions have been significantly enhanced, such that parents now have 30 weeks of paid leave, including 10 weeks of Shared Parental Leave.”
“The Government does not have data on the number of transactions involving multiple units on a single residential title that have not been subdivided. Such properties are treated as a single property for Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) purposes when it is bought, so no ABSD is foregone.”
“The Government publishes data on personal income tax, which is publicly available on www.data.gov.sg. This includes data on the number of course fees relief claimants and the amount of the relief granted. The Member may refer to the website to access the data for the first three questions.”
“In considering the duration of leave, we will look at the need. In this case, as I have explained, there is a difference between those who give birth physically to a child and those who adopt.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,520 lines we hold for Indranee Rajah, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 29 of 51.
“Second, victims will be able to participate in the compensation order process by making submissions or giving evidence. This is meant for simpler cases – the criminal Courts are simply not equipped to deal with complex hearings usually dealt with by civil Courts. Dragging out proceedings to deal with compensation will have a knock-on effect on the Court’s ability to deal with other cases. Third, the Court will be empowered to order compensation of the dependants of a person whose death was caused by an offence, for bereavement and funeral expenses. In conclusion, Sir, these amendments, when set against the background of the changes that we have made over the past decade, are comprehensive and progressive. They keep pace with the evolving values of society and with international best practices. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 11.50 am”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Members though I, hopefully, will be able to finish in the next few minutes.”
“The Courts' powers to order compensation in the CPC recognise that criminal law is not just about the public’s interests but also about the interests of individual victims. MinLaw has been looking at ways to make the victim compensation regime more effective. In 2010, we made it mandatory for the Court to consider in every case whether it should order compensation. The Bill now goes significantly further. First, the Court will be required to give reasons if compensation is not awarded, where it has the power to do so.”
“The new minimum detention periods mean that disruption, if any, to education will be further reduced. For some of the trainees, they can pursue their educational goals on supervision in the community as early as the sixth-month mark. Despite the changes, it is important to emphasise that the purposes of RT have not changed. It achieves the sentencing objectives of rehabilitation and deterrence. It offers the Courts an option to rehabilitate the offender in a structured environment while achieving deterrence. RT will continue to be the preferred option for cases where the need for rehabilitation corresponds with the need for heightened deterrence. It should ordinarily be imposed on repeat offenders or for serious offences like drug trafficking. Each case should, however, be treated on its own facts and there may be exceptions where RT is unsuitable due to the characteristics of the offender or the heinous nature of the offence committed. New procedures to prevent abuse of Court process in concluded criminal cases. The Bills will give the Court more control over applications to re-open concluded criminal cases where all appeals have been exhausted and civil applications that have a similar effect, by codifying the procedure set out by the Court of Appeal in its recent judgments and providing for other aspects of procedure not covered in previous judgments. We have looked at the procedure set out by the Court of Appeal and we agree that it strikes the right balance between preventing miscarriages of justice and the need for finality in criminal proceedings where all appeals have already been exhausted. Next, improving the victim compensation order regime.”
“The trainees will go through programmes that will help them take charge of their rehabilitation. They will need to soberly reflect on their offences, how to stay crime-free and strengthen their relationships with their family. The RT regime has been an important and effective one but we are always striving to see how we can improve. Over the years of running the reformative training regime, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) has gained a deeper understanding of evidence-based rehabilitation. The proposed changes reflect this deeper understanding, allowing SPS to take on a risk – and performance-based approach in determining the intensity of intervention in RTC for the trainee. A key feature of the proposed changes is that the minimum detention period for reformative training will be reduced from 18 months – to six or 12 months, depending on the intensity of the rehabilitation the offender requires. This will be based on the time required for programming to mitigate the risks and address the needs of the RT trainees, according to their profiles. The amendments, hence, allow for a more nuanced assessment of the intensity of rehabilitation required, depending on each individual's likely response to RT and level of motivation to change. Currently, trainees are already grouped by risk profile and rehabilitation needs, where they undergo rehabilitation in an environment that minimises contamination. The new minimum detention periods mean that, for some of the trainees, they can be released from detention and placed on supervision as early as the sixth-month mark to begin their reintegration into the community. Currently, trainees are already provided with opportunities for education and skills training while in detention.”
“It is because of cases like this, that we see value in expanding the eligibility criteria for community sentences, so that more offenders can benefit from the rehabilitative opportunities offered by community sentences. This will have to be done in a controlled manner, to strike the right balance with deterring crime. Offenders who have previously served short sentences of imprisonment or previous terms of reformative training will be eligible for community sentences. The MTO will be made available for a prescribed list of more serious offences which are punishable with up to seven years’ imprisonment. This is up from the current availability of MTOs only for offences punishable with up to three years’ imprisonment. The Bills also increase the maximum duration of an MTO to 36 months and allow the Court to order a period of in-patient treatment as part of the MTO. This will allow the IMH to deliver a more effective treatment programme, where needed. Finally, the Bills will give the Court the power to impose a suspended imprisonment sentence, together with a community sentence. The suspended sentence will take effect the moment a community sentence has been breached. This will encourage compliance with community sentences, when imposed in suitable cases. Next, changes to reformative training. Besides community sentences, the Bills also make major changes to another sentencing option that is focused on rehabilitation – the reformative training (RT) regime. The RT regime is specifically geared towards the rehabilitation of young offenders. It emphasises both discipline and rehabilitation in a structured environment, where officers provide supervision and guidance to the RT trainees.”
“The introduction of community sentences in 2010 was widely welcomed by members of this House and by stakeholders in the criminal justice system. We have monitored the use of community sentences ─ they have been popular and have worked well in targeting the root causes of crime. When implemented well and for suitable cases, community sentences can give those who commit minor offences a good chance at rehabilitation without unnecessary disruption to their lives. Let me cite an example: patient A was a pharmacy student in his early 20s when he was charged with the theft of a laptop at the university hostel. He was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). He was subsequently placed under a Mandatory Treatment Order (MTO) for two years. This entailed regular consultations with his psychiatrist and he was given anti-depressants. His sister was also supportive; in fact, he moved in with his sister so that she could provide closer monitoring. The case manager also followed up regularly to provide counselling. His treatment was, therefore, a combination of pharmaceutical and psycho-social care. Patient A remained offence-free throughout the MTO period and succeeded in completing his Pharmacy degree. He continued seeing his psychiatrist at IMH after the MTO to continue treatment. Things could have turned out very differently for this young man, if he had been sentenced to imprisonment. While our rehabilitative programmes have grown in sophistication over the years, being cut off from his supportive family network and the disruption to his studies may have undermined his successful rehabilitation.”
“It is, therefore, an opportune time to expand the pre-trial disclosure requirements to more offences. With the inclusion of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Moneylenders Act, Remote Gambling Act, Prevention of Human Trafficking Act and Casino Control Act, practically all the major criminal offences will now be covered by the pre-trial disclosure regime for criminal cases. In recent years, the Courts have seen a rise in the use of psychiatric expert evidence in criminal cases. Most of the psychiatrists who give evidence are objective and professional. However, there are a few instances where such evidence has fallen short of the basic standards of objectivity and competence expected of expert witnesses. In one case, the Chief Justice had this to say about the psychiatrist who had given evidence: “not only was the report patently lacking in objectivity, it was plainly erroneous... experts owe their duty first and foremost to the Court and not to the client who pays their fee...” The Bills will require that psychiatrists be admitted to a Court-administered panel of psychiatrists, before they can be called upon to give expert evidence in Court. This will safeguard the objectivity and quality of psychiatric expert evidence. We have discussed this approach with the Courts, and they are supportive. We also took in feedback from the Criminal Bar on two practical areas: one, we will formulate the selection criteria to ensure that there is a sufficient pool of psychiatrists available; and two, procedures for the ad hoc admission of foreign psychiatrists will be put in place so that Defence counsel can call such psychiatrists as expert witnesses in appropriate circumstances. I move on now to sentencing and other powers of the Court. The community sentencing regime.”
“On the whole, abolishing the Committal Hearing and substituting it with the transmission procedure and criminal disclosure obligations will shorten the waiting time for trial and free up precious judicial resources to focus on the substance of cases. Extending video link hearings to pleas of guilty and sentencing. Currently, the law provides for remanded accused persons to appear before the Court through video link for various procedural matters. This reduces the security risk of transporting remandees between prison and the Courts. We are expanding the use of video links to hearings for the taking of pleas and sentencing hearings in the State Courts. The use of video links for such hearings is already in practice in countries, such as the UK, Canada and some states in the US and Australia. Video links will not be used for trials and judges will retain discretion on whether the accused should be physically produced in Court. To provide operational flexibility, the Minister will be able to prescribe other proceedings, both procedural and substantive, in which the accused person may appear before the Court through video link, if remanded at the time of the proceeding. MinLaw is working with MHA and the State Courts to pilot this for selected cases in the later part of this year. We will evaluate the experience of using video links for such hearings before extending the procedure. Next, expanding the Criminal Case Disclosure (CCD) procedure to cover more offences. Pre-trial disclosure was introduced in the CPC in 2010 as one of the most major changes to criminal procedure in the history of our criminal justice system. Disclosure has been welcomed and both Prosecutors and Defence counsel have grown comfortable with the system of disclosure.”
“As a safeguard, any rule made by the CPRC will have to be approved by both the Chief Justice and the Minister. We have discussed this proposal with the Courts and they are supportive. Streamlining pre-trial procedures in the High Court and extending the transmission procedure to replace the committal hearing procedure. Under the present law, cases triable in the High Court must first go through a procedure called a Committal Hearing, before the case is put before the High Court. The only exception would be serious sexual offences, such as rape, which are transmitted to the High Court by the Public Prosecutor’s fiat. This is called the transmission procedure. Historically, this procedure was meant to filter out cases where the Prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to justify a High Court trial. Such cases are filtered out in two ways: first, the Prosecution is required to disclose the evidence that it has on hand before trial; second, the Defence is allowed to cross-examine the Prosecution’s witnesses to test the evidence. Today, the main benefit of this procedure has become the pre-trial documentary disclosure, as the Defence seldom chooses to cross-examine Prosecution witnesses. Doing away with the Committal Hearing will shorten the time that the accused has to spend in remand pending trial. A similar review in England and Wales a few years ago also resulted in the abolition of Committal Hearings there. We will continue to require the Prosecution to disclose its case and evidence, in accordance with the criminal disclosure regime, for most cases that today would have been subject to the Committal Hearing procedure.”
“Unlike some criminal fines, the financial penalty will not be subject to a statutory maximum. One reason for this is that the harm brought about by corporate offending may eclipse any pre-determined statutory maximum that may be prescribed. The corporation may also be required to implement programmes for corporate reform going forward and to assist in investigations and prosecution of other wrongdoers, including individuals. There are also safeguards: all DPAs will require High Court approval. Approval will only be granted if the High Court is satisfied that the DPA is in the interests of justice; and its terms are fair, reasonable and proportionate. Our intention is that in assessing the proportionality of the conditions proposed, the High Court will balance the extent of the wrongdoing, including the revenue or profits attributable to the wrongdoing, with the ability of the corporation to comply. To ensure transparency, DPAs must be published after High Court approval unless the Court orders otherwise. Next, the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee. A structural change to the way criminal procedure is regulated is that a Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, chaired by the Chief Justice, will be established. Currently, almost every change in Court procedure, even on technical issues, needs to be tabled in Parliament. The responsibility for making Court-related procedural rules, for example, timelines for filing documents, will be shifted to the CPRC. This will allow for Court procedures to remain nimble and up-to-date and is the practice in other countries, such as the United Kingdom. Besides the Chief Justice who will chair the Committee, the Committee will consist of representatives from the Judiciary, Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Government and the Bar.”
“So, there are these considerations, but it is the right thing to do where doing so would help the accused person’s recovery. The alternative would be to confine them for extended periods of time, which may not be necessary or helpful. Due weight will be given to medical opinion, and the necessary conditions imposed, to minimise the risk of re-offending as much as possible. A maximum duration will be set for confinements pursuant to the Minister’s orders. The Courts and medical professionals will be given a greater role in supervising such persons and determining what measures to take with respect to such accused persons. An accused person released under these CPC provisions may still, however, be subject to detention under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act if he or she is assessed to remain a danger to himself or herself, or to others. Next, Deferred Prosecution Agreements. The Bill introduces a legislative framework for the Prosecution to enter into Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) with corporate offenders. This gives Prosecutors another tool to more effectively deal with corporate offending. This tool is particularly useful where prosecution of a corporate offender unnecessarily punishes not just the management, but also the employees and shareholders of the corporate entity for what might be the acts of a small number of employees or officers of the company. The corporation must be represented by counsel and the framework will only apply to scheduled offences. Under a DPA, the Prosecution agrees not to prosecute a corporation in exchange for strict compliance by the corporation with a series of conditions. Such conditions can include: admission of wrongdoing by the corporate offender; and requiring the corporation to pay a financial penalty.”
“We will also expressly allow the Court to exclude the general public while permitting certain categories of persons to be present, for example, bona fide representatives of the press or media, the families of the victim or accused person, or other persons as the Court may identify in its discretion. Next, enhancing and rationalising the fitness to plead/unsoundness of mind regime. The law provides for special procedures to deal with two categories of accused persons with special needs. First, those who are "unfit to plead", in other words, not capable of making their defence at the time of trial; and second, those who are acquitted on the basis that they were of unsound mind at the time that they committed the offences. The procedures balance the need to ensure that such persons are not a danger to themselves or others and the need to respect the fact that such persons have not been convicted of any offence. They are also designed to provide such persons with the best possible opportunities of recovery, in a controlled environment. The Bills make quite significant amendments to this regime, to allow the Courts and medical professionals to play a more involved role in determining the most appropriate action to take in respect of such persons. For example, such persons may be released with certain conditions where they are not assessed to be a danger to themselves or others. There is a risk in doing this; we have seen instances in other countries where release has led to harm. For example, it was reported in 2016 that a man in New Zealand who killed a person but was acquitted on the basis of insanity was released after a few years in detention and, then, had gone on to commit another violent attack in a train station.”
“They will not be allowed to ask questions about the victim's sexual behaviour with persons other than the accused, where such behaviour does not relate to the charge, unless they have leave of Court. Application for leave must be made in the absence of the victims. This will help prevent a re-occurrence of the incident that the press reported on late last year, where a defence lawyer embarked on a line of distressing questions when cross-examining an alleged victim of molestation. Finally, clause 77 will allow the video-recorded statements of vulnerable victims, such as victims of serious sexual offences, to be used in place of their oral evidence-in-chief in Court. Testifying in Court can be a difficult experience for such victims. Where possible, we want to minimise the trauma that these victims face in the Court process. This will only be implemented in later phases. We recognise that this must be implemented sensitively in order to help arrive at the truth and we will work with stakeholders on training and methods. Next, the Courts' discretion to order exceptions to open Court proceedings. The Bill also makes amendments to the State Courts Act and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, to fine-tune the Courts' discretion to order exceptions to open Court proceedings. The Courts already have this discretion. What we are doing is to clarify the scope of the discretion by setting out a non-exhaustive list of matters that the Court may consider when deciding whether to grant such an order. So, we are not amending the discretion per se; we are just setting out a list of non-exhaustive matters that the Court can take into account.”
“First, the publication of information leading to the victim's identity will be automatically prohibited, even before the case goes before the Courts. One of the fears that victims have when deciding whether to report sexual offences is that media coverage will cause them further distress. This is why the Courts often grant gag orders to prevent the publication of information that may lead to the identification of a victim. However, the case must be before the Court before such an order can be granted. This means that if a person gets wind of the identity of a victim and the case has not yet come before the Courts, under current law, that person can make public information revealing the victim's identity. Some suspects may even do this to intimidate the victim and make them basically pay a price for making a Police report. To prevent this, the Bill will move the restrictions upstream. Anyone who knows that another person is an alleged victim of a sexual offence will not be allowed to publish any information that may lead to the identification of the victim's identity. So, for example, a person could have confided in a colleague that she was the victim of a sexual offence. If this colleague makes public the fact that the person was such a victim, the colleague would be committing an offence. And this applies, even if the person has not reported the offence to the Police. Second, all victims of sexual or child abuse offences will give testimony in a closed-door hearing, unless they wish to give evidence in open Court. Third, we will amend the Evidence Act so that we can put in place subsidiary legislation that restricts the kinds of questions the Defence can ask.”
“In other words, the accused person will have to be remanded until the High Court decides on the bail review. If the State Courts grant bail for a bailable offence and the Prosecution intends to apply for review, the State Courts will have a discretion on whether to allow the accused person to go on bail pending determination of the review. Third, the Bill creates three new offences to ensure that bail remains effective. It will now be an offence to abscond whilst on bail or personal bond; to leave the jurisdiction without permission, for persons whose travel documents have been impounded by investigators; and to indemnify a surety, or, if you are a surety, to agree to be indemnified. I now move on to Court procedure and evidence and the proposed amendments for enhancing protection for victims of sexual and child abuse offences. In the past two years or so, there has been a concerted effort to ensure that vulnerable victims of crime are sufficiently protected by our criminal justice system. One particularly vulnerable group of victims are those who are subject to sexual or child abuse. We have re-examined every step in the system, to minimise the trauma that such victims experience in the process of bringing perpetrators to justice. Some measures have already been implemented by the Police, for example, the one-stop centre for medical examinations to minimise waiting time for sexual crime victims, enhanced training curriculum for Police officers to better handle sexual crime cases and the pilot of a Multi-Disciplinary Interview (MDI) model for children who had been sexually abused. These Bills introduce a suite of measures to further enhance protection. Let me highlight a few examples.”
“In practice, many accused persons charged with "non-bailable" offences are released on bail with conditions intended to ensure their attendance in Court. On that note, we are making certain offences non-bailable: cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code. This brings cheating in line with the treatment of other similar offences carrying similar penalties, for example, criminal breach of trust (CBT). Offences which concern false evidence and offences against public justice will also be made non-bailable. These offences relate to interference with the administration of justice. Second, the Courts' powers relating to bail and personal bonds will be clarified and enhanced. For example, important bail or bond conditions, such as to surrender travel documents or to surrender to custody when required, will be imposed by default unless the Court orders otherwise. Many of these conditions are, in fact, already ordered by the Court as a matter of course, but this will further tighten the system. Electronic tagging or "e-tagging" will be allowed as a condition of bail. This will assist the Police in monitoring accused persons who have been released on bail. The Court will be given the discretion to withhold bail for bailable offences punishable with imprisonment, if there are substantial grounds to believe that the accused person would abscond. The rules on execution of bail pending a bail review will be tightened. If the State Courts grant bail for a non-bailable offence and the Prosecution intends to apply to the High Court for a review of bail, the State Courts will be required to order that the accused person is not allowed to go on bail until the review is determined.”
“The Minister for Law had said in late 2014 that the Ministry would be reviewing the framework on bail. This was after the 2014 hostage-taking incident in a Sydney café perpetrated by a person who was accused of a serious crime and, yet, had been released on bail. He went on to take 17 innocent persons hostage in a Sydney café. The incident eventually led to the death of two innocent persons. There is a need to strike a balance. On the one hand, the presumption of innocence means that it would be unfair for someone accused of a crime to be kept locked up in remand when he or she has not yet been found guilty by a Court. But on the other hand, there must be sufficient means to secure the accused person's continued attendance in Court, to ensure justice is served. The system must also ensure that those who may pose a danger to public safety, are at risk of re-offending while on bail, or who may interfere with evidence, are not released on bail. With these considerations in mind, the Bill strengthens the bail regime in a number of ways. First, the Bill makes certain adjustments to the categorisation of "bailable" and "non-bailable" offences. It may be helpful if I clarify for Members the meaning of "bailable" and "non-bailable" at this point, to avoid confusion. If an offence is “bailable”, it means that the accused person is entitled to bail as of right and if the Prosecution objects, then it is for the Prosecution to show why the person should not be granted bail. If an offence is "non-bailable", on the other hand, the accused person is not entitled to bail. He or she must show the Court why bail ought to be granted. If they fail to do so, they will be remanded.”
“To increase investigators' efficiency when processing electronic evidence produced under such an order, the amendments will allow regulations to be made to specify how such production orders must be complied with, including the format of the reply and the method of delivery. This is intended to enable electronic replies in machine-processable formats. We have consulted industry stakeholders who provide data to our investigators and have taken into account their feedback in determining the requirements that will be imposed. Investigators will also be empowered to access, secure and safeguard evidence on computers, regardless of whether the evidence is stored on a computer inside or outside Singapore. Many people now use web-based email accounts or web storage accounts. Technically, such data may reside in computers outside Singapore, even if the data is accessed from within Singapore. Applicable laws in other countries will be duly considered when such powers are exercised. Next, on to the search of women suspects. The Bill makes a small but important amendment to the search powers of Police officers and immigration officers. Currently, women can only be searched by female officers. The amendments will allow a male officer to search a woman, in specific circumstances. These are: first, if the officer reasonably suspects the woman of involvement in a terrorist act; second, the officer believes, in good faith that the terrorist act is imminent; and third, the officer believes, in good faith, that the search cannot be made within a reasonable time by a woman officer. This will allow searches of women suspected of being terrorists where time is of the essence and any delay could mean loss of lives. Next, strengthening the bail regime.”
“The Bill will allow such statements to be taken via video recording. This will assist the Courts to try cases more effectively when investigation statements are sought to be admitted in a criminal trial. First, they will be able to take into account the interviewee's demeanour when deciding on the weight to be accorded to statements. Second, video-recordings also provide an objective account of the interview, to assist the Court in deciding on any allegations made about the conduct of the interview. The implementation of VRI requires significant investment of infrastructure and training. It will, therefore, have to be implemented in phases. In the first phase of implementation, we intend to make it mandatory to conduct VRI for suspects in rape offences under section 375(1)(a) of the Penal Code. However, we recognise that there may be instances where there is a need for exceptions. These are set out in the legislation. For example, there may be a need to record a handwritten contemporaneous statement from an accused person at the scene of the crime, when the person is arrested at the scene. The legislation allows for flexibility to take into account such operational exigencies. The next set of amendments relate to the powers of investigation relating to evidence stored on computers. Crimes increasingly involve the use of computers, smartphones and the Internet. We are enhancing the computer-related powers of investigation in the CPC to keep pace with this evolving environment. Investigators will be able to order the production of evidence stored on computers where such evidence is in the subject's possession or power. Our investigators have also been analysing and searching through large amounts of data.”
“The Law Society President, Mr Gregory Vijayendran, acknowledged this in his address at the Opening of the Legal Year 2018 when he said, "The Bar appreciates the constructive consultations we have had with the Ministry of Law on amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code. The Law Ministry officials have shown considerable respect for the Law Society's perspectives, a number of which were accommodated. Even when we agreed to disagree, the process was positive and the dialogue, candid." Finally, there were on-going consultations with the Judiciary, the Attorney-General's Chambers and other Ministries. There was broad support for the amendments proposed. I would add that we are, concurrently, in the midst of a fairly fundamental review of the Penal Code. The Penal Code Review Committee comprises representatives from the Judiciary, AGC, Criminal Bar, academia and the Government. The proposed changes to criminal procedure that we are discussing, taken together with the proposed changes to the Penal Code, will put our criminal justice system on a strong footing going forward. Let me now deal with the overview of the changes. The amendments can be split into three main categories. First, investigative processes. Second, Court procedure. Third, sentencing powers of the Court. Under these three categories, there are more than 50 discrete proposals. I will not go through the technical amendments in detail, although Members are welcome to ask questions, but I will briefly cover the non-technical amendments. Let us start with "Investigative Processes" and the introduction of video recording of interviews (VRI). Under the current law, law enforcement agencies taking statements under the CPC can only do so in writing.”
“Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, the Government has made important changes to the criminal justice system over the past decade. These changes have been towards a more progressive, balanced and modern criminal justice system that protects society from crime. In 2010, we repealed and re-enacted the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), after a sustained period of review of more than two years. In 2012, we amended the Evidence Act to reduce the stress that complainants of sexual offences experience during the Court process. In 2012, we made calibrations to the death penalty regime. And in 2015, the Government began funding criminal legal aid, through the Law Society. The amendments in these Bills continue in this spirit. Let me recap the key principles which underpinned the revisions to criminal procedure in 2010. First, the presumption of innocence must be respected. Second, there must be fair processes – they must reflect a balance between various interests and each society must decide for itself what a fair balance is. Third, accurate outcomes – the system must be effective at arriving at the truth to ensure that the guilty are held accountable and the innocent are not convicted. The current amendments are made with the same principles in mind. We made a sustained effort to obtain and consider feedback. Public consultation was held for a month in July to August 2017. We received around 30 contributions from a wide spectrum of society: the general public, civil society organisations, banks, technology companies and the Bar. We also had extensive dialogue with the Law Society and the Criminal Bar from the start of the public consultation until January this year when we had a dialogue with the Criminal Bar and then we took on board a number of their suggestions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill is closely related to the next Bill on our Order Paper, the Evidence (Amendment) Bill. Sir, may I, therefore, suggest, with your permission, that the debate on both Bills take place now as both these Bills are closely related? Members would be welcome to raise questions or express their views on both Bills during this debate. But we would still have the formal Second Reading of the Evidence (Amendment) Bill as well, to ensure that procedural requirements are dealt with. However, the proposal is to have the substantive debate for both Bills take place now to avoid duplication or overlap, so that all substantive arguments can be captured cogently in a single debate.”
“Mr Speaker, the Government carefully scrutinises all proposals for land acquisition. We weigh all available land options on their suitability to meet the requirements of a public development, before deciding on any land acquisition. Where private land is needed, MinLaw and Singapore Land Authority (SLA) work closely with the landowners and developing agencies to ensure that the acquired land can be handed over in time for development. Affected landowners are given sufficient time to make alternative arrangements, such as relocating to a replacement property. The time taken for agencies to commence and complete development of acquired land parcels vary, depending on the scale and complexity of the project. Once the state takes possession of the acquired land, development works, generally, commence shortly after.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Finance Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to make additional provision in accordance with Articles 148(2) and 148C(2) of the Constitution for expenditure in excess of the sums authorised by the Supply Act 2017. The additional sums have been approved by the House in the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year, 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018, as contained in Paper Cmd 14 of 2018. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Finance, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In accordance with Article 148(1) of the Constitution, Heads of Expenditure to be met from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund, other than statutory expenditure, have to be included in the Bill to be known as the Supply Bill. The purpose of the Supply Bill before Members is to give legislative approval for the appropriations from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund to meet the expenditure for the Financial Year, 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019. The Heads of Expenditure and the sums that may be incurred in respect of each Head are shown in the Schedule to the Bill. These have been approved by the House in the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year, 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019, as contained in Paper Command No 13 of 2018. The Supply Bill, when approved, will empower the Minister to issue warrants authorising expenditure up to the amount for each Head as shown in the Bill to be paid out from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions." [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolutions accordingly agreed to. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has come to certain resolutions. [(proc text) First Resolution reported – (proc text)] [(proc text) That the sum of $95,602,276,800 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Main Estimates for the financial year 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019, contained in Paper Cmd 13 of 2018. (proc text)] [(proc text) Second Resolution reported – (proc text)] [(proc text) That the sum of $33,633,204,400 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019, contained in Paper Cmd 13 of 2018. (proc text)]”
“I would not go through the whole thing but let me just give some excerpts where he said: "During my lunch remarks just now, I emphasised how important it is for our companies to guard and uphold the principles of good governance and integrity in business dealings. This is especially so for our Singapore-based Temasek portfolio companies. Singapore has a reputation as a clean place for both business and Government. We take this reputation very seriously. It is a hallmark of our nation and the fundamental value on which we have built our economy." He also went on to say: "We are stewards, responsible not just for short-term profits, but really the long-term future of our companies." And he called for their support to bring together all their board members, along with their CEOs and key executives, for their next Roundtable. I mean, in short, he is setting the guidance and direction for the portfolio companies. And the third question was whether I was aware if Temasek is querying suspicious things. I think it really depends on what the scenario is. I do not have information on what Temasek's information on specific portfolio companies is. But I think I can say this much with confidence. As shareholders, when you have your shareholders' meetings, obviously the audited accounts are placed before the shareholders. I would certainly expect Temasek, as a shareholder, if it sees anything in the accounts that look suspicious, to query it. Do I know or have any personal knowledge what their representatives do at their shareholders' meetings? I do not, but does MOF expect Temasek, when it sees something suspicious in audited accounts, to raise it at shareholders' meetings? The answer is yes.”
“Mr Chairman, if I may just take the last question first. Essentially, as the shareholder of Temasek, we do not get involved in their commercial decisions. But MOF's expectation of Temasek is that it must uphold the highest standards of integrity, highest standards of governance, do not get involved in anything illegal, and make sure that they adhere to the highest standards of corporate governance. That is our expectation of them. They are a professional team and we expect them to live up to that expectation. So, in terms of the specific question whether we get involved in what they should invest in, what they should not invest in, the Government does not step into that. But our expectation is that Temasek must act properly and have good compliance with governance and the highest standards of integrity. And they, in turn, I think expect that, too, of their investee companies, as Members would have seen from the discussion that the Chairman had with its investee companies. Ms Sylvia Lim's second question was where she said that corruption is now an OB marker. Actually, corruption has always been an OB marker, not just now. It has been that case for a long time. But the Member asked whether I was aware of specific investment principles. I will come back to what I said earlier, which is that, obviously, Temasek will not condone anything that is illegal, anything that is in breach of international regulations, basically anything that constitutes bad conduct or improper governance. I think if one reads the speech given by Mr Lim Boon Heng to the investee companies, it really sets out or outlines what his expectation is.”
“I note Mr Ang's very passionate advocacy in this area. As I said, we will review our policies to ensure that they remain relevant and effective.”
“Many donors contribute out of passion and heart for the community, and not just for tax incentives. Mr Chairman, allow me to conclude. The Government continues to ensure fiscal prudence, create opportunities for our businesses and enhance citizen experience with technology. We have made good progress in these areas, and we will continue to improve. We are committed to work in partnership with our businesses, the community and citizens in this journey.”
“Mr Ang Hin Kee has also made representations to IRAS on behalf of the Association. Currently, private hire ride-hailing car drivers are not allowed to claim tax deduction on any car-related expenses. This is in line with our long-standing national car-lite policy, as tax deduction of expenses incurred for a private car is not allowed. Private hire car drivers can, however, claim tax deduction on non-car related expenses, such as commission paid to third-party operators, administrative charges imposed by third-party operators, and the proportion of expenses for mobile phones used in the course of providing their services. That said, we note the feedback. We will continue to monitor changes in business models and consumer habits in this area and will review our policies to ensure they remain relevant and effective. Mr Azmoon Ahmad spoke about tax deductions for donations. Extending the 250% tax deduction for donations is one of our efforts to encourage the spirit of giving in our people. Total donations by individuals and companies have increased by 52%, from $1.8 billion in 2009 to $2.7 billion in 2015. Internationally, our 250% tax deduction for qualifying donations is one of the most generous tax deduction schemes today. Tax deduction for both corporate and individual donations in Hong Kong, the US and Australia are at 100%. At 250% tax deduction rate, the Government co-funds 42.5 cents for every dollar donated by companies. In addition, the Government co-funds up to 55 cents for every $1 donated by individuals. A flat tax deduction rate, rather than a tiered tax deduction system suggested by Mr Azmoon Ahmad, ensures that donors who have the ability to donate more are not accorded exceptional tax treatment.”
“This informs how Temasek exchanges and shares views and perspectives with the boards and management of its portfolio companies, so as to better understand their strategies and operating environments. Third, Temasek conducts regular roundtables or forums on topics of interest to the portfolio companies. Temasek organises or sponsors forums on topical issues. These include topics, such as cybersecurity, insider trading and corporate contributions to community. Some of these forums are also open to other companies in Singapore outside of Temasek's portfolio, as part of Temasek’s contributions to support good governance and sound stewardship. Changes or new legislation against corruption, such the Bribery Act in the United Kingdom (UK) and the laws on corrupt practices in the United States (US) and Singapore are covered. Other topics include corporate and functional aspects, such as legal, finance, HR or IT. These would be roundtables or forums for the practitioners. For example, Temasek is organising a roundtable on governance and ethics with its portfolio companies in the coming months, on norms and practices on ethical business operations and expectations. Through these forums, Temasek actively encourages certain key practices, such as long-term incentives contingent on performance, or the institutionalisation of formal code of conduct or code of ethics. I move on now to the topic of tax deductions. Several Members asked about tax deduction matters. Let me thank Mr Ang Hin Kee, Executive Advisor to the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap for their feedback on tax deductions for private hire car drivers. Two other Members of Parliament (MPs) have spoken on this issue in recent months.”
“Shareholders should not really be jumping into the day-to-day management; that is left to the Boards. But if Mr Perera's question is: do they engage with investee companies, share ideas, talk to them generally about broad topics and investment things, then the answer is yes. GICs' investment teams engage the management teams of their portfolio companies to encourage policies and business practices that support sustainable long-term financial performance. For Temasek as shareholder, it plays the role of an advocate for good corporate practices. Let me share three areas that Temasek is developing such practices. First, Temasek fosters an ethos of integrity, good governance and sustainability. It does not condone improper conduct and malfeasance. Temasek expects companies in its portfolio to abide by sound corporate governance and robust codes of conduct and ethics and to comply with all laws and regulations of jurisdictions in which they have investments or operations. So, just last week, Mr Lim Boon Heng, the Chairman of Temasek, reiterated his expectation of governance to the Chairs of major Temasek portfolio companies at the annual Temasek Chinese New Year lunch. Mr Lim said, and I quote: "In markets where practices are questionable and compromising integrity is required to win business or contracts, we have to be very clear – there is a bright red line our companies should not cross…. We are also entrusted with the responsibility of being the owners and guardians of the company’s reputation, and we must always live up to that trust". Second, Temasek regularly monitors the strategy and performance of its portfolio companies and keeps abreast of industry developments that impact them.”
“Mr Leon Perera and Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the roles played by Temasek and GIC in relation to their investee companies. Ms Sylvia Lim also asked what role Temasek can play in promoting ethical behaviour in the entities that Temasek invests in. Both made a reference to the Santiago Principles. I should mention that GIC was one of the founding participants of the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds that came up with the Santiago Principles. Before I address what GIC and Temasek do, I think it will be helpful if I just restate, once again, the legal position with respect to shareholders and companies, so that we all know the framework that we are talking about. Under company law, the shareholders of a company have certain powers, which is to appoint and remove boards, and to have a statutory right to the audited financial statements of the company. However, shareholders do not interfere in the business decisions or operations of its portfolio companies. These are the responsibilities of the respective companies’ boards and management. Temasek and GIC are shareholders of their investee companies. So, they hold the boards of their investee companies responsible for conducting their affairs properly and delivering sustainable returns over the long term. Mr Leon Perera then asked – he understands, of course, that I said that Temasek and GIC do not interfere with the management of the companies – does that mean that they are truly hands-off? Well, it depends on what he means by "hands-off". If by "hands-off", he is asking do they interfere or get involved in/with the day-to-day management and operation decisions of the companies, then of course, no, because that goes against the general principle of how companies are set up.”
“We have cut down physical letters, saving $300,000 and 160 trees annually. Second, the Accountant-General’s Department (AGD), together with the Public Service Division (PSD), the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and MOE, introduced the PaC@Gov mobile app for public officers in 2017. This enables common staff transactions, such as leave and claims to be carried out anytime, anywhere. Since the launch, more than 50% of our officers using PaC@Gov have downloaded the mobile app and more than 400,000 transactions have been carried out through the app in the past year. Third, we understand the importance of cash flow to businesses. The Government processes an average of two million payments to more than 23,000 companies annually. The late payment rate for the public sector, comprising both Ministries and Statutory Boards, has been reduced by more than half over the past three years and is currently at an average of 6.5%. We target to bring down the late payment rate below 5%, in other words, to achieve at least 95% of timely payment to businesses. We are working to automate the procurement-to-payment process, which will enable faster payments to businesses. We encourage businesses to issue electronic invoices when providing goods and services to the Government. A paperless and more efficient processing will result in faster payments to vendors. From 2018, all businesses that transact with the Government only need to submit their payment details once. Businesses do not have to submit their payment details every time they transact with a different Government agency. This helps to increase convenience to businesses. They can also use the Vendors@Gov mobile app to track their payment status anytime, anywhere. I move now to the issue of Governance.”
“To ensure greater convenience for companies, ACRA will be simplifying the filing of annual returns for exempt private companies and private dormant relevant companies in 2018. This will potentially benefit 150,000 companies. Under the simplified process, some of the information will be pre-filled and the companies will just need to go through six simple steps to file the annual return, down from the current 24 steps. ACRA will also be providing the simplified filing service on its "ACRA On The Go" mobile app, so that filing by these companies can now be done anytime and anywhere. To make it even more convenient when it is time to file, companies will be prompted by a short message service (SMS) with a link to the mobile app. With over 30,000 companies incorporated each year, some new companies may not be familiar with their corporate tax obligations. To help them get it right from the start, IRAS is introducing a new company startup kit. This interactive kit provides tailored information, such as tax-filing timeline and follow-up actions, and automatically sends email notifications with reminders on filing due dates. IRAS will pilot this with around 3,700 startups that are due to file their first tax return this year. Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked how the Government is making better use of technology and improving processes to make timely payments to businesses and individuals. Let me share three areas where MOF has leveraged technology to improve the experience of our citizens, public officers and vendors. First, we have moved towards SMS notifications for the GST Voucher (GSTV). Since 2017, about 790,000 GSTV recipients with mobile numbers registered with SingPass have benefited from timely and accessible updates.”
“By adopting such solutions, SMEs can now prepare their financial statements and tax submissions in one day, as compared to an average of four days previously. The association targets to benefit 300 SMEs by September 2018, and over 1,500 SMEs in the subsequent 12 months. The Government will continue to work closely with trade associations to accelerate the pace of digital adoption and raise productivity of our SMEs. Third, IRAS’ API marketplace allows anyone to develop applications that interface seamlessly with IRAS' systems. This is a significant move taken by IRAS to open up its interfaces to facilitate business and productivity solutions. JustLogin and Sage Software Asia are two local enterprises that have incorporated IRAS’ Auto-Inclusion Scheme API into their payroll software. This allows employers to submit their employees' income data directly to IRAS via the vendors' payroll software. Sixty employers have benefited from this seamless tax filing in 2017. For 2018, IRAS has worked with 45 other payroll software vendors to benefit many more employers. This will raise efficiency and effectiveness across the industry. Such collaboration allows innovative solutions to be developed by the private sector or the community. We encourage more of such efforts to co-create business solutions with the Government. The Government will continue to harness technology to help save citizens' time and effort, as well as provide faster responses and payments to them. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked for an update and an overview of how MOF is enhancing citizen experience with technology under the Smart Nation Drive. I would like to announce two initiatives that will be launched in the coming year to help companies meet their regulatory obligations.”
“One such example is Nufin Data's New Efficiencies More Options (NEMO), a cloud-based supply chain financing solution which helps traders boost their cash flows by connecting buyers, suppliers and funders to turn trade receivables and payables faster into free cash flow. More services will be rolled out in the coming months. We welcome collaboration and will continue to engage the various stakeholders to innovate and keep the services offered vibrant. Together with design thinking consultants and DesignSingapore, we have engaged companies to identify areas where new services could be created to support their trade digitisation journey. We also have a developer sandbox which will release specific Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and data to interested developers to tinker and come up with innovative service offerings. Collaboration does not stop at our borders. We are also working with overseas partners to make cross-border trade cheaper, safer and more efficient. These tie-ups will give businesses access to their regional and global partners. An example is the Global Trade Connectivity Network that will use distributed ledger technology, which is the technology behind block chains, to build an information highway between NTP and the Hong Kong Trade Finance Platform. Second, the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME), with support from the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) Singapore, ACRA and IRAS, has developed the SME Cloud Exchange Network software. This partnership aims to increase SMEs’ productivity by offering them accounting and human resource (HR) solutions to help them file returns to ACRA, IRAS and Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board.”
“Mr Chairman, let me address Members' questions on creating opportunities for businesses, enhancing citizen experience with technology and the Government's position on corporate governance and tax-related matters. Miss Cheryl Chan asked how MOF is collaborating with the private sector to co-create solutions for businesses. In line with this Budget's thrust to build a vibrant and innovative economy, Government agencies, including MOF, continue to partner businesses, trade associations, unions and overseas government regulators to deepen international connectivity and strengthen enterprise capabilities. Let me share three such initiatives. 12.30 pm First, is NTP, which Miss Cheryl Chan asked about. This is a one-stop platform spearheaded by Singapore Customs, with support from MTI, GovTech and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), among others. It incorporates existing TradeNet and TradeXchange systems, synergising business-to-government (B2G) and business-to-business (B2B) processes, while introducing new services. The NTP enables trade and logistics businesses to share and reuse data and documents faster and more securely between partners and the Government. This end-to-end digitisation of trade documents and processes will increase business productivity, improve process efficiency, and strengthen mutual trust across the trade value chain. The B2B tier of NTP went live in December 2017. This first phase involves working with commercial providers to offer value-added services that go beyond customs and logistics. These include service solutions in supply chain financing and trade news.”
“That is one of the things that we will consider in our review.”
“30 pm Furthermore, extradition is a resource-intensive process. The volume of requests can place a significant burden on our Government agencies and judicial system. More importantly, an extradition arrangement, without adequate protection, carries risks to people in Singapore, including our citizens. In summary, we are open to more extradition treaties and arrangements but would take a careful and considered approach.”
“Thank you. Let me now address Ms Sylvia Lim's queries. My Ministry is committed to facilitating greater international cooperation to combat transnational crime, in accordance with our domestic laws and international obligations. We are, therefore, open to concluding extradition treaties and arrangements. Within ASEAN, there is no ASEAN-wide initiative for the mutual recognition of arrest warrants. However, Singapore has special extradition arrangements with Malaysia and Brunei, given our shared common law tradition and close relationship, which allow for the swift surrender of fugitives based on the recognition of arrest warrants. All ASEAN member states, including Singapore, are also members of the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), which provides a platform for international law enforcement cooperation. At present, Singapore is actively engaged in negotiations for a Model ASEAN extradition treaty, as Ms Sylvia Lim noted. We have achieved significant progress and, like many other ASEAN partners, are hopeful that work on this instrument will be concluded as soon as possible. As Ms Sylvia Lim acknowledges, our existing extradition network extends to 43 jurisdictions across the globe, including major jurisdictions, such as the US. We have also signed an extradition treaty with Indonesia, which is pending ratification by Indonesia. With regard to expanding our network, it is not just a matter of numbers alone. Negotiating an extradition treaty is not without complexities. As Ms Lim has noted, relevant considerations include whether such an arrangement would be mutually beneficial for Singapore and the other country, and whether any divergence in legal systems and procedures can be rationalised. 4.”
“We strive to incorporate Singapore legal principles and standards at the negotiating table of international platforms, such as ASEAN, the Hague Conference of Private International Law and the UN Commission on International Trade Law. We also work with international organisations to promote greater understanding and use of the Singapore legal system. We will also continue to develop uniquely Singaporean legal solutions to serve the international market. One example is our restructuring regime mentioned earlier. These initiatives will strengthen Singapore’s global market position, build Singapore’s thought leadership, and prepare our legal sector for the future. However, the private sector, too, must do its part and get their firms and people ready to compete in this fast-changing landscape. Mr Chairman, may I beg your indulgence to have a few minutes to complete my response, otherwise, I would not be able to respond to Ms Sylvia Lim’s cut on extradition.”
“The programme covers technology products for practice management, online legal research and online marketing. About 100 Singapore law practices have benefited and adopted over 100 technology solutions. The "Lawyers Go Global" programme was launched in February, together with the Law Society and International Enterprise (IE) Singapore. This will help Singapore law practices internationalise through overseas mission trips to fast-growing regional countries and workshops. The Law Society will also initiate a marketing campaign later this year to raise the profile of Singapore lawyers abroad. The programme will be especially useful for the small and medium-sized law practices. Last but not least, we are supporting Singaporean lawyers in deepening skills and qualifications, through the SkillsFuture Study Awards. To date, 44 Singaporean lawyers have received the award. PSPO will continue to work with Singapore law practices on training and secondment opportunities. In relation to the inhouse counsel community, which Mr Patrick Tay spoke about, my Ministry continues to work with EDB to promote Singapore as a location for companies’ regional and global headquarters, including inhouse counsel teams. We encourage the inhouse counsel community to continue raising their standards of practice and are heartened by the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association’s recent ground-up efforts in this regard. Ultimately, the continued success and relevance of Singapore lawyers and Singapore law practices will also depend on how widely Singapore laws and standards are used in commerce and dispute resolution. My Ministry is working on the promotion of the international use of Singapore law, standards and frameworks in line with the Working Group recommendations.”
“The Infrastructure Office is intended to be a platform to connect infrastructure stakeholders, enable information exchange on infrastructure opportunities in Asia, facilitate infrastructure investments and financing, and help infrastructure players, including professional services providers, access these opportunities. My Ministry, through the Professional Services Programme Office (PSPO), will be working with the Infrastructure Office and other agencies, such as ESG, MAS and Economic Development Board (EDB), in this endeavour. To access these new opportunities, Singapore lawyers and law firms must also embrace the disruptive changes, reinvent themselves and move up the value chain. During a CFE engagement session, I was asked by a Singapore practitioner whether we could protect the wills practice for lawyers. I suggested in reply that rather than focusing purely on wills preparation, which is an area that can be easily templated and commoditised, he could instead expand his practice and offer a comprehensive suite of services related to wealth management to clients, such as estate planning, and trust and asset management − the legal aspects of it. Going into high value-added services would gain him access to a bigger market and higher fees. Of course, he could still continue to do wills as well, as that is part of wealth management. My Ministry has been implementing the various strategies from the Professional Services ITM, including (a) technology adoption; (b) internationalisation; and (c) capability development. On technology adoption, raised by Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Rahayu Mahzam, we launched "Tech Start for Law" last year to help small and medium-sized Singapore law practices adopt basic technology to increase productivity.”
“The Finance Minister announced the setting up of an Infrastructure Office during the Budget Statement. Let me explain the purpose and the thinking behind the Infrastructure Office. Projections estimate that US$26 trillion may be spent over the next 15 years on infrastructure projects in Asia. Many of such projects are looking for financing, and financers are looking for projects to fund. But the projects are unable to obtain financing due to lack of bankability, usually occasioned by the lack of proper project preparation, project structuring and technical issues. Singapore is uniquely placed to address these problems. We are a leading financial centre, and Singapore-based banks have provided loans or financial advisory services for an estimated 60% of infrastructure projects in ASEAN. Commercial banks with project finance teams and project structuring expertise are located in Singapore. Multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank and its sister agencies, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), have also a significant presence in Singapore and offer a critical source of infrastructure finance and project structuring expertise. We also have accountancy firms with project advisory teams, engineering consultancies, local and international law firms with project financing and infrastructure dispute resolution expertise, and other professional services companies in architecture, engineering and project management.”