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 30 of 51.
“ACRA has also set up the Institute of Corporate Law Panel, with industry stakeholders, to provide feedback on corporate law reforms. With such feedback, ACRA publishes interpretations of specific legislative provisions, which reduce commercial ambiguity. Third: IP. We have built a robust infrastructure and a good reputation in IP protection, as Mr Christopher de Souza noted. Our patent office is one of only 20-odd offices in the world that can examine international patent applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. We have also established partnerships with more than 30 foreign IP offices to accelerate patent applications filed in their jurisdictions. Last year, we amended the Registered Designs Act and Patents Act, to keep pace with technology changes, and improve IP protection. IPOS has also taken steps to help businesses realise the full value of their IP. IPOS, with its partners, have designed programmes to train professionals for high value roles in IP management, strategy and valuation. These include the Masters of IP and Innovation Management at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), and the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) for IP Professionals. IPOS' IP Academy has also trained more than 4,000 individuals in areas, such as IP management and commercialisation. In January, IPOS launched the SkillsFuture Study Award for candidates of IP courses. IPOS also helps businesses develop their IP commercialisation know-how. IPOS’s IP ValueLab provides consultancy services on IP audit, due diligence and strategy, to help businesses secure investments for growth. To date, IP ValueLab has engaged more than 300 local businesses. Fourth: projects and infrastructure.”
“The CLAS Fellowship, which is generously sponsored by five law firms since 2015, has enabled lawyers to join LSPBS to exclusively handle criminal legal aid cases. In the past three years, over 20 firms have signed MOUs and taken on over 600 CLAS cases in total. I would like to thank the legal fraternity for their pro bono spirit and strong support for CLAS. Let me now touch on another important area of MinLaw's work: getting the legal services sector ready for the future economy. The Working Group on Legal and Accounting Services under CFE made several recommendations in this area, which we are in the process of implementing. Minister Shanmugam has addressed dispute resolution. I will outline our plans to capture opportunities in: (a) restructuring; (b) corporations; (c) IP; and (d) projects and infrastructure. First: restructuring. We have moved to strengthen Singapore’s position as an international debt restructuring centre for Asia. We amended the Companies Act to provide more flexibility and options for corporate restructuring. Since May 2017, more than 15 restructuring cases have been filed with the Singapore Courts. We hope to encourage greater use of our legal frameworks and professional services, to facilitate more successful local and international restructurings. Second: corporations. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) and the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA), together with my Ministry, have been working on enhancing the legal regime for corporations. In 2017, MOF introduced a new re-domiciliation framework to allow foreign companies to transfer their registration to Singapore. This enables them to pursue substantive economic activities here as Singapore companies, while retaining their corporate history.”
“If this special direction is further breached without reasonable excuse, the respondent is guilty of an offence, and the criminal Court convicting the respondent may make a community order against him. A community order includes a Mandatory Treatment Order. Not all mental health cases need be dealt with through the Courts. Persons with concerns about neighbours with mental health issues who may require assistance can contact the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and its community partners for assistance. If the person is a danger to himself or others by reason of his or her mental disorder, the Police can bring the person to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for mental health treatment. The person will be warded if assessed to require management in an in-patient setting. I will now touch on criminal legal aid. The Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) is administered by the Law Society, with support from the Government. CLAS assigns a lawyer to accused persons who have been charged with a crime and who cannot afford to hire a lawyer. Since 2015, the Government has provided close to $6 million to the Law Society Pro Bono Services (LSPBS), enabling CLAS to help almost four times as many applicants in 2017, compared to pre-2015. CLAS has also worked to improve its processes. The application processing time has been significantly shortened after a direct phone-link between CLAS and Prisons was installed in March 2017. Further improvements include the installation of a direct video-link between the CLAS office in State Courts and Prisons. My Ministry will continue to support and work with the Law Society to improve CLAS, just as we have done with LAB. The continued success of CLAS is only possible with the strong support from the legal fraternity.”
“I thank Mr Murali Pillai for his suggestions to simplify the process for estate administration. In 2017 and this year, we have been working on reforms to the civil justice system. When completed, we will be able to review the estate administration system in the context of the civil justice reforms. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about neighbourly disputes involving parties with mental disorders. As a starting point, neighbourly disputes are best resolved amicably between parties, or via community mediation. As a last resort, affected residents may consider filing a claim at the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals. The Tribunals provide a simplified and low-cost avenue for resolving all types of neighbourly disputes. They are equipped to handle cases involving parties with suspected mental health issues. Where appropriate, inhouse psychologists and Court counsellors will, first, conduct a preliminary assessment on the individual, and may, with the person’s consent, refer him to the onsite psychiatrist for a preliminary diagnosis and follow-up plan. 4.15 pm In the usual case, a successful applicant will, in the first instance, obtain an Order from the Tribunal. In the event of non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order, the affected party can apply for a “special direction" directing the respondent to comply with the disobeyed order. During the application for a special direction, the Tribunal may order any person, for example, a family member of the respondent, to enter into a bond. In making this order, the Tribunal may impose conditions or give directions to that person. One such direction or condition could be to order a person suspected of mental illness for assessment and/or treatment.”
“PAVE helped her to find shelter and then referred her to LAB to seek a personal protection order (PPO) against her father. While LAB handled the legal matters, PAVE provided counselling and emotional support. The young lady succeeded in obtaining the PPO with the help of PAVE and LAB. Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Louis Ng asked if we would review our means test, so that more Singaporeans can be helped. We are doing so and will announce details when ready later this year. Even as we seek to help more, our guiding principle is that our system should assist those with meritorious cases but who really cannot afford a lawyer. Mr Chen Show Mao asked if legal aid can be provided for arbitration. Legal aid is provided in respect of matters which may be litigated in Court, including related alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings. However, we do not provide legal aid for arbitration, as it is a private, consensual dispute resolution process. Typically, arbitration is used for high value commercial dispute resolution, and involves much higher costs, compared to Court litigation. We must, therefore, be careful about extending legal aid to such cases. Nevertheless, there are various existing avenues for individuals to seek assistance and redress. (a) LAB can provide legal advice to an applicant on an arbitration clause in his contract and, if there are merits to do so, represent the applicant to challenge the arbitration clause or the arbitration award in the Courts. (b) Additionally, parties who wish to resolve their dispute by arbitration in a quick and cost-effective manner can consider the Law Society’s arbitration schemes, including its Pro Bono Arbitration Scheme, which adopts streamlined procedures and waives the fees of the sole arbitrator.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank the Members who spoke. I will cover three main areas. First, enhancing access to justice. Second, building the legal services sector. Third, extradition. Advancing access to justice is one of my Ministry's core missions. We regularly monitor the civil and criminal legal aid schemes and will enhance them where necessary to ensure access to justice for those less able to fend for themselves. Singapore was the first in Southeast Asia to enact a legal aid scheme in 1958. Over the past 60 years, LAB had assisted many low-income Singaporeans in civil legal proceedings. Many improvements have been made over the years. First, we have enhanced LAB’s systems and processes to better serve applicants. LAB has gone completely paperless with a new case management system, increasing efficiency by allowing different officers to work on a single file simultaneously. The new system also saves applicants' time, by allowing them to correspond with LAB and submit relevant documents online. Those who are less IT-savvy, such as the elderly, can continue to correspond with LAB by post or in person. Staff at the MinLaw Services Centre also assist the applicants to complete, submit and print online documents and forms if they require help. Second, LAB has established a referral protocol to refer applicants who require non-legal assistance to social agencies and Promoting Alternatives to Violence (PAVE), a family violence specialist agency. Likewise, these agencies will refer their clients to LAB for legal assistance where necessary. Such cross-referrals provide better support to the vulnerable and also increases awareness of the aid channels. In one case, a young lady who had been sexually abused by her father sought help from PAVE.”
“Mr Deputy 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 Deputy Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has come to certain resolutions. [(proc text) First resolution to be reported, (proc text)] [(proc text) "That the sum of $339,311,600 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018, contained in Paper Cmd 14 of 2018." (proc text)] [(proc text) Second resolution to be reported, (proc text)] [(proc text) "That the sum of $87,153,500 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018, contained in Paper Cmd 14 of 2018." (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, the Government does not, as a general rule, comment on the existence or non-existence of investigations by our investigative agencies, including the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. This is to ensure that the investigative work of these agencies is not jeopardised and that affected individuals or entities are not prejudiced if, at the end of investigations, no offence is disclosed. If there is good reason to do so, or a basis for investigation, the authorities will investigate. I should add that Keppel Corporation is a public-listed company and is accountable to its shareholders. The boards and management of Keppel Corporation and its subsidiaries, including Keppel Offshore and Marine Ltd (KOM), are responsible for the proper conduct of their businesses. It is incumbent upon them to run their businesses honestly and competently. This would include detecting, reporting and preventing corrupt behaviour. Under the United States' Deferred Prosecution Agreement, KOM is also under a legal obligation to implement rigorous compliance and internal controls to "prevent and detect" corrupt practices. Keppel's public statements, since the Brazilian case has come to light, indicate that they understand the seriousness of the matter. The current management has asserted zero tolerance for corruption, the need to win back the trust of stakeholders and their "determination to hold (themselves) to the highest ethical standards everywhere (they) operate". The shareholders of Keppel Corporation, including Temasek, expect these statements to be fully observed and will hold them to account, should they fail to do so.”
“That is a very valid and pertinent question, and it is something that MOF is studying. Because our view is that when you look at the cost of a project, you must consider not just the initial development but how much that project is going to cost you over time. So, we are looking to see how that should be dealt with and reflected.”
“Okay. My comments at this stage would simply be that when it comes to mega projects, we have to look at what is the most optimal way to do the funding. We are still in the process of doing that. We do not rule out different ways of doing the funding but we are not committed to a single model. So, in short, we will try and find the most optimal way to do the funding and spread it out over the proper period of time.”
“I think what the official had commented on was something about how you should not have pre-funding. Is that what the Member is referring to?”
“Sorry, can I just check: when the Member referred to comments yesterday, whose comments yesterday? Or was he referring to The Straits Times report this morning, I think?”
“Mr Speaker, the projects are reflected in the Budget Book, which is year by year. So, each year, you look at the relevant Ministries' budgets. For mega projects, it is spread out but, typically, will be found in the budgets for MOT, MND and for the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources. If the Member is asking whether the Budget Book sets out the expenditure in the next 15 or 20 years, you will not get that. What you will get is the expenditure for that year, but you can track it on a yearly basis.”
“The second stage seeks to refine and optimise the overall design, including the space take-up, construction method and procurement approach, to achieve greater value-for-money. The Gateway Process also allows agencies to work with DPAP to come up with alternative solutions that can achieve better or similar outcomes at lower costs over its lifecycle. One example is the construction of the Tuas Terminal Phase One where the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore came up with a method of reusing excavated and dredged materials from other sites for its land reclamation. This saved a few hundred million dollars by reducing the amount of sand needed. The measures to manage large infrastructure project costs do not end at project approval. When a tender is called by the project agency, this is usually done through competitive open tender which allows price discovery. There is also a robust assessment of the cost-benefit tradeoff before an award decision is made by the tender approving authority, which typically comprises senior officials. For example, the award decisions for large infrastructure contracts called by the Land Transport Authority are approved by its governing Board. At any stage after a project is approved, re-approval is required if there are material changes to the project scope, or cost increases exceeding 10% or $100 million, whichever is lower. The agency involved is required to provide justifications for the changes, which are scrutinised again by MOF before seeking re-approval from DPC.”
“There are comprehensive measures in place to ensure the cost efficiency of publicly funded infrastructure projects, with greater scrutiny on projects that are of higher value or risk. Projects that exceed $100 million, which make up over two-thirds of our infrastructure expenditure, are subject to scrutiny by the Ministry overseeing the project as well as the Ministry of Finance (MOF) before they are allowed to proceed. To help MOF perform this role, the Centre for Public Project Management (CP2M) was set up in 2011 with a multidisciplinary team of architects, engineers and quantity surveyors who review the scope, design and cost reasonableness of the proposals. Changes may be made to revise the project scope or optimise the project design to achieve greater value-for-money. After the project passes the review by MOF, approval must be obtained from the Development Planning Committee (DPC), which comprises three Cabinet Ministers. If a project is estimated to cost above $500 million, it is put through a rigorous Gateway Process. This includes projects like Changi Terminal 5 (T5) and Tuas Port. Such projects undergo a few stages of reviews by the Development Projects Advisory Panel (DPAP) supported by CP2M, before they are submitted to the DPC for approval. DPAP comprises senior public officers, academics and industry practitioners with deep technical expertise and experience in major infrastructure developments. This allows us to draw on the expertise and best practices in both the public and private sectors. The first stage of review assesses the strategic business case of the project and allows MOF and DPAP to be involved upstream in project planning.”
“Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 3 and 4 together?”
“This will reduce the need for physical space and, hence, rental costs and, at the same time, expand their businesses. To strengthen their bargaining position, SMEs can also consider working with their respective trade associations to spearhead discussions with landlords, and leverage the Fair Tenancy Framework to level the playing field for themselves. We have also launched the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs), a collaborative effort between the Government, Trade Associations and Chambers, and industry, to help our businesses transform and grow. SMEs are encouraged to participate in the ITMs so that they can achieve their full potential for growth and profit. In conclusion, we should be slow to constrain market players unduly through legislation. The best way forward is to promote entrepreneurship and help our SMEs grow bigger and stronger which would improve their relative bargaining positions, individually and collectively. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." Adjourned accordingly at 7.08 pm”
“As such, the way forward for SMEs should be to strengthen their bargaining power through growing their businesses, bolstering their negotiating positions with the assistance of business and trade associations, such as SBF, ensuring that they have other options and alternatives while, at the same time, seeking out ways to raise productivity, reduce cost and maximise profits. The Government has many schemes and programmes which SMEs can leverage to achieve these outcomes. For one, Government landlords like the Housing and Development Board and JTC have sought to ensure that their respective tenancy agreements do not contain onerously one-sided clauses. These are alternative premises for SMEs to consider renting. SMEs should also consider leveraging Government schemes to build business capabilities, innovate and improve productivity. For example, SMEs can tap on schemes, such as SPRING Singapore's Capability Development Grant, to defray up to 70% of qualifying cost when they embark on projects to develop their capabilities in 10 key areas. In addition, the Government provides near-term support for SMEs to manage their business costs, such as the corporate income tax rebate and Wage Credit Scheme. These support schemes all work together to assist SMEs in transforming their businesses by uplifting their productivity in developing new capabilities. Therefore, SMEs which do not get the benefit of the savings from property tax in the specific clause mentioned by the Member can, nevertheless, access various schemes which will help their businesses as a whole. SMEs can also explore whether rental costs can be reduced through new business models. SME retailers, for example, might consider expanding through e-channels beyond the traditional “brick-and-mortar” retail shops.”
“In making these judgement calls, the Court may run the risk of substantively altering the bargain struck between two commercial parties, causing uncertainty in the process. In fact, this has been one of the common criticisms of the application of “statutory unconscionability” in Australia. Enacting such legislation in Singapore can cause market distortion and, eventually, market inefficiency, to the detriment of all. Unintended consequences can arise as well. For example, should the landlords, which this legislation targets, respond by increasing the rental rate to address the added business cost, this might end up hurting SMEs even more in the long run. However, not having general protection legislation does not mean that there are no safeguards under our laws to protect against injustice. General contractual principles, such as the doctrines of duress, undue influence and unconscionability, apply to all contracts. These doctrines have been applied by the Singapore Courts to prevent a contracting party from being unfairly exploited by the other, when entering into a contract. In relation to the demolition clause highlighted by the Member, the High Court has held, in the case which the Member referred to, that such a onerous clause will be “usually interpreted very strictly” in favour of the tenant, as the Courts recognise that “premature termination of the lease generally imposes inconvenience, if not hardship, on the tenant”. The outcome of Mr Murali Pillai's aunt's case does, in fact, illustrate how the law, as it currently stands, allows the Court to protect against unscrupulous behaviour. Fundamentally, the issue, as the Member pointed out, is that of bargaining power.”
“Of course, one can legislate to the effect that landlord must have a clause that option to renew will be on the basis of market rate, full-stop. But that may not solve the problem as the tenant and the landlord may disagree on what the market rate is. If they cannot agree, the tenancy will either not be renewed, in which case the tenant will still have to find new premises, which is the same position that the tenant would have been in if he had rejected the landlord's revision under the sample clause; or the tenant can continue with the lease, while both parties litigate the market rate, which will sour the relationship, and likely rule out a further lease beyond the option term, which may not be in the tenant's interest. Of course, you can then have a clause that says that the option to renew will be on the basis of market rate to be determined by a third-party valuer. Then you will have the question of who should pay for the valuer's fees. I highlight this not to suggest whether the standard clause produced by Mr Murali Pillai is a good clause or a bad clause, but simply to point out that, in every situation, there will be different views on what is fair, and the answer is not always clearcut. Ideally, the contract should reflect a mutually agreed negotiated position, taking into account the parties' commercial considerations. Introducing legislation is not without difficulties. Just as in the property market today, there exists a wide spectrum of landlords and tenants with varying bargaining powers, and in differing circumstances. This makes it difficult to determine whether a particular clause is unfair or simply the result of a valid, albeit hard commercial bargain.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the hon Member has spoken about the imbalance in the bargaining positions of SMEs vis-à-vis bigger players. He has suggested a general protection approach through legislation. The Government is empathetic to challenges faced by SMEs. The question is how should we approach this issue and what should be the underlying philosophy that underpins our policy and approach? In Singapore, our underlying philosophy is that, in general, free-market principles should apply and the Government should intervene only when necessary, for example, to address systemic market failures. Even when we do intervene, we try as far as possible to have the right regulatory touch and avoid heavy-handed interventions that could lead to distortion or unintended consequences. This philosophy has ensured that our businesses, big and small, can respond quickly to market signals and adjust their business strategies accordingly. It has led to growth and good outcomes for all. In a competitive business environment, consumers benefit. In any economy, it is inevitable that there will be competing demands and different interests. The question is how to strike the right balance. Take, for example, the sample clause on the option to renew, which the Member had handed out. From the landlord's perspective, what he wants is certainty. He does not want to be put in a position where the tenant can automatically renew the lease without knowing what the rent is, as that would be unfair to the landlord. The landlord would argue that his clause is fair because his revisions must be pegged to market rate, and the tenant has the choice not to renew and rent elsewhere. So, as Members can see, there are conflicting viewpoints.”
“The Ministry has taken note of the suggestion by the Court of Appeal and we will consider this as part of the broader review for legislation.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the Ministry of Law, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Social and Family Development and other agencies have been working together over the past year to review the laws relating to child abuse, with a view to enhancing protection for children. This includes a review of the adequacy of penalties for the entire spectrum of child abuse offences. We will announce more details when the review is completed.”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Today, of course, it is one of the top arbitral institutions in the world, and this has come about due to the changes in the international landscape and the concerted efforts from the Singapore Government and key stakeholders. The amendments proposed in this Bill follow our consistent approach in assiduously refining the services that we have to offer. One possibility why the SICC has yet to hear arbitration-related matters could be precisely the uncertainty over whether the SICC has jurisdiction to hear IAA matters. So, we have clarified that and we expect that with these amendments, the users will find Singapore an even more attractive seat for arbitration. We will continue to support the SICC in its efforts to educate and raise awareness to users on what it has to offer. As awareness of what the SICC has to offer and the SICC's reputation grows, users will become more familiar with the SICC and will be attracted to adopt the SICC jurisdictional clauses. The SICC will also continue to refine and improve its services to continue to meet the needs of users. And in that respect, I welcome Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan's various suggestions, including the one on the possible "conversion" of money judgments to arbitral awards. We will take into consideration his suggestions as the SICC continues to evolve and grow. It is our belief that we need to keep our ears close to the ground so that we can move quickly and respond to user feedback, as appropriate. And so, I do welcome Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan's feedback as well as that from the businesses, the profession and other stakeholders. Thank you very much. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to.”
“The Ministry continually works with the Supreme Court on arrangements to provide for the recognition of Singapore Court judgments, including SICC judgments, in other jurisdictions. So, for example, Singapore is a party to The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. The Convention currently has 30 Contracting Parties, including Singapore, Mexico and the European Union and its member states, except for Denmark. Last year, China signed the Convention, joining the US, Ukraine and Montenegro as signatories to the Convention. As the number of Contracting Parties to the Hague Convention grows, the SICC's reach will expand as well. Outside of treaty arrangements, the enforcement of judgments is also possible in many countries, including Singapore, so long as applicable and necessary requirements, for example, jurisdictional requirements, are met. But these are early days still for the SICC and for international commercial litigation in Asia. I do not have on hand statistics of contracts where SICC clauses have been inserted. But we have heard, anecdotally, of high-profile users inserting SICC clauses into their contracts and are heartened by this. It will take some time, obviously, because the clauses go into the contract at an early stage and you do not know when the dispute will arise. Sometimes, it can be a few years and sometimes even decades before a dispute surfaces. So, it will take some time before we see more reference to the SICC clauses. Just to illustrate this point about it taking some time, if you look at our success in arbitration as a reference, the SIAC was established in 1991 but it only started to see success years later.”
“And it is certainly not the case that the Supreme Court has required that the pre-action certificate be applied for in every SICC case. Mr Pillai suggested that the pre-action certification procedure helps to promote certainty compared to the other methods for classifying a matter as an "offshore case", as it allows for the classification to be made at an early stage. The need for the pre-action certification procedure was more compelling when the SICC was first established because there was concern that parties might have been uncertain about whether the SICC even had jurisdiction or whether a case was an "offshore case" with no substantial connection to Singapore. Since then, the SICC has generated case law to clarify the requirements of an "offshore case", and there is a greater familiarity with the SICC. Potential users of the SICC can continue to direct their questions, prior to the commencement of the case, to the SICC Registry for general guidance, including on issues relating to jurisdictional criteria, with the caveat that this does not constitute legal advice. They can also refer to the SICC Practice Directions. Let me round off my response by addressing Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan's other questions and comments in relation to the SICC. The SICC has done well as a trailblazer for dispute resolution in Asia. Since its establishment three years ago, the SICC has broadened the suite of dispute resolution options available to regional and international parties, and established a track record of producing sound and expeditious judgments. I thank Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan for raising the issue of enforcement, which we recognise is a key ingredient in the success of the SICC.”
“The intent of these amendments is for the SICC to hear IAA-related cases that the High Court can hear, subject to the proceedings fulfilling the relevant jurisdictional requirements and conditions. The conditions will be set out in the Rules of Court, which help to define the SICC's jurisdiction, as necessary. The Rules of Court are still in the process of being drafted, and Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan's suggestion will be carefully considered. This brings me to Mr Louis Ng and Mr Murali Pillai's questions on the conditions and definitions which will be prescribed in the Rules of Court. Clause 4(b) allows the Rules of Court to prescribe what constitutes an international commercial arbitration and such other conditions that any proceedings must satisfy. The specific Rules of Court are still being drafted. Once they are completed, they will have to go to the Rules Committee which is chaired by the Chief Justice. Whatever the eventual shape and form of the definitions and conditions, the Rules of Court, being subsidiary legislation, cannot enlarge the jurisdiction of the SICC as provided for in the SCJA, they can only serve to define or refine it. I come now to pre-action certification. Clause 3 of the Bill deals with the removal of the pre-action certification procedure. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Murali Pillai have raised questions about the rationale for removing the procedure. The pre-action certification was envisaged as an option that parties could use to certify, among other things, that the intended action is international and commercial in nature, and can therefore be heard by the SICC. However, the feedback received from the Supreme Court has been that the procedure has been of limited utility.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their comments and support of this Bill. Let me now address their comments and queries. I will first address Mr Louis Ng's question regarding why we are amending section 18D of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and in relation to this, Mr Louis Ng and Prof Mahdev Mohan's questions on the jurisdiction of the SICC. Mr Louis Ng correctly pointed out that the IAA provides that the High Court is the competent Court to hear matters relating to international commercial arbitration, and that the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill provides that the SICC has the High Court's original civil jurisdiction. With respect to the wording of section 18D of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill, although we have felt that it was clear, from time to time, we do get some questions as to the wording and its extent, and really, we felt that rather than have any lingering doubt about this, it would be better to clarify it and make it clear from the outset to avoid unnecessary litigation on this going forward. And so, to reassure Mr Louis Ng, we are not extending or conferring additional jurisdiction on the SICC. What we are doing is clarifying its existing jurisdiction. This is clear from the explanatory statement of the Bill, which says that the Bill seeks to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, to provide for clarity that the SICC has jurisdiction to hear any proceedings relating to international commercial arbitration that the High Court may hear. Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked if the SICC will now be able to sit as the curial Court in investment arbitration award-related cases under the IAA.”
“However, feedback received by the Supreme Court has been that the procedure has been of limited utility. It will therefore be removed. The SICC's early successes place Singapore in a good position to continue to serve as a leading centre for the resolution of international commercial disputes. We will continuously refine and develop this offering to meet the needs of parties to such disputes. The amendments in the Bill are part of this on-going endeavour. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Allowing the SICC to hear matters relating to international commercial arbitration will also increase Singapore's attractiveness as a seat of arbitration, primarily because the widely acknowledged high quality of the bench hearing arbitration-related matters will now be further enhanced by the inclusion of the international judges who sit on the SICC. Currently, only Singapore-qualified lawyers in Singapore law practices may appear before the High Court for IAA and IAA-related matters. There will be no change to this status quo. The IAA is part of Singapore law, with features that are tailored for the Singapore arbitration landscape, and there is a developed body of local jurisprudence based on our Courts' interpretation and application of the IAA provisions, which Singapore lawyers are well versed in. Hence, parties which have arbitration-related matters heard in the SICC must be represented by Singapore-qualified lawyers. Foreign lawyers, who may be registered to represent parties in an "offshore case" as defined in the Rules of Court, will not be able to appear before the SICC in respect of IAA matters. This will be so notwithstanding that the foreign lawyers had represented the parties in the original arbitration. The Rules of Court will be amended accordingly to clarify that an "offshore case" does not include matters under the IAA. Finally, clause 3 of the Bill removes the option of applying for a pre-action certificate. When the SICC was established, it was envisioned that potential parties should have the option of applying for a pre-action certificate to certify that the intended action is international and commercial in nature, and can therefore be heard by the SICC.”
“To ensure that the SICC continues to fulfil its objectives, the main amendment in the Bill seeks to make it clear that the SICC also has the jurisdiction to hear the same kind of proceedings relating to international commercial arbitration that the High Court can hear, and which satisfies such conditions as the Rules of Court may prescribe. Under the IAA, the High Court has jurisdiction over certain matters in relation to international commercial arbitration. For example, parties can apply to the High Court to seek the setting aside of an arbitral award given in Singapore. Since the SICC was set up as a division of the High Court, it has always been the intention that parties should be able to appear before the SICC for IAA-related matters. Clause 2 of the Bill makes this position clear. Accordingly, parties may choose to commence an action in the SICC for an IAA-related matter, where the conditions in the Rules of Court are satisfied. A case may also be transferred to the SICC from the High Court and vice versa, in accordance with transfer requirements as set out in the Rules of Court. Parties in these arbitration cases will benefit from the added option of having their applications heard by the SICC judges whose expertise covers a range of civil and common law jurisdictions. These are jurists of the highest calibre, hailing from diverse geographical backgrounds such as Australia, continental Europe, Hong Kong, Japan, the United Kingdom (UK), the United States (US) and Canada. Many of them are also very experienced in arbitration law.”
“Since its establishment, the SICC has heard 17 cases with diverse subject matters, including construction, investment, banking and finance and shipbuilding, and involving parties from jurisdictions including Japan, Israel, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Hong Kong, India, Indonesia and Australia. These are all high-value cases. Two of the 17 cases included parties who availed themselves of the option to engage foreign lawyers. In the others, parties were fully represented by Singapore counsel. The SICC has received positive reviews for the quality and speed of its judgments. For example, the first case heard in the SICC concerned a large-scale industrial project involving business interests in Australia, Indonesia and Singapore. The SICC issued two judgments for the case, which included a claim of about US$750 million and a counterclaim of about US$59 million. The first of the two judgments was described in the Global Arbitration Review as a "masterclass" in how to deal with the rules of interpretation, public policy and the implication of terms. Commentators have noted that the SICC is, and I quote, "…an innovative commercial court designed for international commercial cases… and the option of having their disputes adjudicated by experienced commercial judges from Singapore and international judges from common law and civil law jurisdictions". It has also been noted, and here I quote again, "despite being in its infancy, the SICC is proving to be a key contributor to international construction law jurisprudence…" Yet another commentator has noted that most judgments were delivered within three months of the date of the last hearing, and some were even handed down less than a month after being argued.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". The Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill introduces amendments in relation to the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC). First, the Bill makes clear that the SICC has jurisdiction to hear any proceedings relating to international commercial arbitration that the High Court may hear under the International Arbitration Act (IAA). Second, the Bill streamlines the SICC's procedure by removing the option of pre-action certification. The SICC was established in 2015 as a division of the High Court to hear international commercial disputes, including those governed by foreign law. The underlying objective of the SICC is to be a neutral venue for international commercial litigation for parties with little or no connection to Singapore but who need and value a neutral jurisdiction with strong rule of law, experienced and highly respected judges and access to high quality legal and professional services for their dispute resolution. It is also to broaden the suite of international dispute resolution options available to regional and international parties and to complement our already well-established international arbitration services. Key features of the SICC include: (a) flexibility on certain procedures, for example, on rules of evidence and discovery; (b) its bench which combines highly qualified and experienced local judges with high quality international judges, comprising eminent foreign jurists who can hear disputes governed by foreign law; (c) the option for parties to engage foreign counsel to represent them before the SICC where the case is an "offshore case", that is to say, matters with no substantial connection to Singapore.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his suggestion. We will look into it. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“The Registry conducted a geospatial study with the Singapore Land Authority in 2017 and found that borrowers are increasingly borrowing from moneylenders situated outside their neighbourhoods. On the whole, there is no evidence that the location of moneylenders induces borrowing. Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor the situation. As for the recommendation on standardising loan products, MinLaw took in the recommendation and amended the Moneylenders Rules in 2015 to mandate that all loan contracts provide for payment of equal instalments at equal intervals of time, to facilitate comparison of loan packages. But beyond this, MinLaw is mindful that over-standardisation could prevent moneylenders from properly catering to the diverse risk profiles and needs of individuals who borrow from them. We believe the best approach is to provide specific directions, such as Registrar's Direction No 1 of 2017 which, amongst other things, prohibit short-term loans which are repeatedly refinanced or renewed. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude by thanking the Members once again for their support of the Bill and for their invaluable feedback. The proposed amendments to the Act are important to support safer access to credit from licensed sources by those who most need it. MinLaw will continue to work with other agencies and stakeholders to protect individual borrowers while maintaining their access to credit. Sir, I beg to move. 6.40 pm”
“The Bill introduces a new section 6A, which provides that only a company with the prescribed paid-up capital may hold a licence after the appointed day. A licence held by any other body or individual person will be deemed to have been revoked, and he will be considered to have been engaging in moneylending without a licence, which is punishable under the current section 14. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh has also asked a number of questions on the recommendations of ACML. For the recommendation on the lifting of the moratorium on the granting of new licences, as mentioned in my speech earlier, MinLaw is exploring lifting the moratorium in a limited and controlled fashion to allow a few new players with established track records in related financial areas to pilot new business models. More details will be released when ready. For the recommendation on the creation of guidelines for debt-collecting practices, a point which Mr Alex Yam has also raised, MinLaw is working with MLAS to develop a handbook for licensed moneylenders to encourage professional and fair business practices, which include debt recovery approaches. MinLaw currently does not track statistics on how many moneylenders employ their own debt collectors and how many of them outsource this. That said, there are existing laws that adequately address unlawful debt collection practices, such as the Protection from Harassment Act and the Penal Code. I turn now to the recommendation relating to the monitoring of the location of moneylenders, and note that Mr Desmond Choo has also asked if MinLaw will work with MND to curb the number of facilities in the heartlands.”
“Sir, section 3 of the Moneylenders Bill states that "any person, other than an excluded moneylender, who lends a sum of money in consideration of a larger sum being repaid shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to be a moneylender". This presumption is sufficiently expansive to cover peer-to-peer platforms and their participants. The Government has been monitoring such platforms and has so far not found them to have run afoul of our laws. We will continue to keep a close watch to ensure a proper balance between providing the space for these fintech innovations and protecting vulnerable Singaporeans. Mr Desmond Choo has also asked about the number of complaints against licensed moneylenders received by the Registry. In 2016, 124 reports were received by the Registry, and this number dropped to 104 in 2017. There are two main types of reports received. The first type are requests for assistance to renegotiate their contracts with the moneylenders. Such requests would be referred to an appropriate VWO for assistance. The second type is complaints about debt collection and harassment. The Registry will speak to the moneylender concerned and also advise the complainant to lodge a Police report if the debt collection activities in question may be criminal in nature. The Registry will continue to take licensing action when infractions are committed. MinLaw issues press releases when moneylenders are convicted of offences under the Moneylenders Act. Nonetheless, we will take Mr Desmond Choo’s suggestion on board and consider how to make the list of suspended moneylenders more visible on the Registry’s website. Mr Alex Yam has asked about the measures being taken to get the remaining licensees who have not corporatised to comply.”
“Next, in relation to the Bill’s prescribed conditions on the suitability of individuals to participate in moneylending activity, Mr Louis Ng has asked how the Singapore authorities are able to assess whether an individual had previously carried out moneylending activity in a foreign country but had his licence revoked. The Registry has a number of tools which allow them to conduct checks on relevant personnel and their involvement in foreign moneylending businesses, and where there is evidence to suggest that a further investigation should be carried out, we will work with the relevant authorities to do so. Mr Louis Ng has also asked whether the Registrar will be providing reasons when rejecting an application and what channels and grounds of appeal are available to a rejected applicant. Even though there is no statutory right of appeal available for a rejected applicant, the Registrar will provide the rejected applicant with reasons for the rejection. It is worth highlighting that the grounds for denial of approval are largely based on indisputable matters of fact, as spelt out in subsections (4) to (5) of sections 11A and 11B of the amended Act. That said, subsection (7) of the same two sections does provide that the licensee seeking to employ or hire an applicant has a right to be heard by the Registrar, and that the Registrar may not refuse to grant such approval unless the licensee has been heard first. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh also asked about peer-to-peer lending platforms, and whether the present law is effective to tackle the potential of such platforms being de facto moneylenders.”
“Under the law, there is a distinction between the non-payment of debt, which is a civil claim, and cheating, which is a criminal offence. Not all cases of defaulting debts will result in criminal investigations or prosecutions. Moneylenders are encouraged to review and strengthen their due diligence processes before issuing loans. Rule 9(2) of the Moneylenders Rules states that a licensee "shall require the borrower to provide reliable and independent documentary evidence in support of all information provided in the loan application form and verify the information against such evidence". This would include a borrower’s actual address. Besides asking for a borrower's identity card to verify his actual address, other documents like Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) and Central Provident Fund (CPF) statements and utility bills can be requested from a borrower. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Alex Yam have also asked about oversight over whether moneylenders fulfil their obligation to update MLCB after dispensing a loan under section 30N of the amended Act. In addition to the Registrar’s regular audits, section 24A of the amended Act requires all licensees to conduct independent audits of the licensees' accounts and to submit those audited financial statements to the Registrar every year. These will help ensure that moneylenders are reporting all their transactions accurately. If these audits reveal that there are loans which have not been reported accurately, appropriate action will be taken against the licensees.”
“If a borrower approaches a moneylender and is offered a loan and does not immediately decide if he wishes to take it, the system will reserve that amount against his name. This way, the borrower cannot borrow over the permitted cap, even if he approaches a second moneylender before confirming his loan with the first moneylender. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Dr Intan Mokhtar have asked how a borrower’s limit will be checked. We have designed a rigorous process to enforce compliance with the aggregate cap. Before granting a loan to the borrower, section 30N of the amended Moneylenders Act requires moneylenders to obtain a real-time credit report from MLCB. The credit report will contain aggregated information about all the loans the borrower has taken from licensed moneylenders. After obtaining the report, the moneylender must ensure that a further loan will not result in the borrower exceeding the aggregate cap before granting that loan. Failure to abide by this verification process is punishable by a fine of $20,000 and/or imprisonment of up to six months. Given the penalties, to answer Mr Alex Yam’s query, the nominal fee of 50 cents per credit report is unlikely to deter moneylenders from conducting due diligence before lending. In fact, the majority of moneylenders already purchase these credit reports as a matter of course. There are also in-built checks within the MLCB’s IT system to prevent a moneylender from unknowingly lending beyond the aggregate cap, and the Registry will conduct periodic audits to monitor compliance. With the MLCB in operation, such borrowers who fail to repay their loans will leave a record. In the event of default, the usual form of recourse is for the moneylenders to pursue a civil claim against the borrowers for an unpaid debt.”
“Sir, moneylenders' access to data is limited to the circumstances spelt out in the Bill, that is, to determine an individual's creditworthiness, and the data provided to a moneylender is limited to the individual's details and the borrowings of that individual. The usage and disclosure of such information by moneylenders are also subject to the regulations I mentioned earlier. Individual licensed moneylenders, just like clinics or financial institutions that also possess sensitive personal information, will need to comply with the PDPC’s guidelines on the management of data breaches. In comparison, MLCB is the custodian of all borrower data across the industry. There is, therefore, an imperative to impose a higher duty of care for MLCB to maintain the confidentiality and security of borrower data, as we have done under section 30ZA of the amended Act. As for Mr Louis Ng's question about public agencies’ use of data, only the specific officers and departments that require the data will have access to it. The Public Service is governed by Instruction Manuals, which oblige public agencies to protect personal data, and access information only on a need-to-know basis. Some Members have also raised a number of questions relating to how various provisions of the Bill will be operationalised and enforced. Mr Gan Thiam Poh has asked whether the reports relied upon by moneylenders are based on other moneylenders updating the system, and whether any lead time might lead to system arbitrages and leakages. MLCB is a real-time credit bureau, and any loans taken by a borrower will be automatically updated against his record.”
“The harsh penalties reflect our serious stance towards such abuses of borrower data. All of these provisions seek to deter illegitimate usage and disclosure of borrower information. At this point, I would like to clarify how MLCB operates. The MLCB is a centralised data bureau. It is not a moneylender. The private company that operates MLCB will be designated under the amended Act and subject to the full suite of legal obligations we are introducing in the new Part IIIA of the Bill. These include strict requirements on maintaining borrower privacy and data confidentiality. MinLaw regulates the MLCB. Moneylenders may only submit borrower information to MLCB through the MLCB’s secure information technology (IT) portal. As to Dr Intan Mokhtar's query on the sharing of borrower information, section 30Q of the amended Act prohibits moneylenders from sharing borrower information with anyone else besides MLCB, the Registrar and its own employees in the course of their work. This means that an individual's banks and employers, or any moneylender that he has not approached for a loan, will not be able to access his credit report unless he chooses to provide it. Likewise, under section 30W of the amended Act, MLCB is not permitted to disclose any borrower information, except to a moneylender processing a loan application from the concerned individual, to the individual himself, to the Registrar, or to a public agency as directed by the Registrar. Mr Louis Ng asked whether licensees should be subject to greater oversight in relation to data protection, and Dr Intan Mokhtar asked how much individual information will be shared.”
“Anyone who receives an SMS or WhatsApp advertisement should not respond and should instead make a report to the Police. The Police will also conduct an investigation to establish the identity of the person sending the spam message and take action which may include the termination of the SIM cards with the telecommunications companies. If the moneylender has a licence, the Police will refer the case to the Registry which will investigate and take appropriate action. The Police are also working with MLAS, IMDA and PDPC to educate the general public on how to deal with such spams sent by unlicensed moneylenders offering loans. I now turn to another important issue which some Members have highlighted – the usage and protection of borrowers' data. Mr Yee Chia Hsing has cited instances where his constituents received unsolicited SMSes from unlicensed moneylenders offering loans, after they had approached licensed moneylenders. MinLaw takes a strict view of borrower data protection, and the Bill reflects this. For example, section 30R of the amended Act imposes duties on every moneylender to maintain the security of any information in any credit report received from the designated credit bureau. Failure to comply is punishable by a fine of $20,000 and/or imprisonment of up to six months. Any licensed moneylender found to have colluded with an unlicensed moneylender by passing on customer information will have his licence revoked and will be prosecuted under the Moneylenders Act. Such behaviour is punishable under the Act by a fine of between $30,000 and $300,000 for individuals and between $50,000 and $500,000 for bodies corporate, as well as up to six strokes of the cane for a first-time offence and up to 12 strokes of the cane for subsequent offences.”
“Subsection 2 of that section and the Registrar's Directions also set out the types of information which must be stated clearly in the advertisement, including the licensee's business name and licence number, and the contractual interest rate being offered strictly as a percentage per annum. Section 19 of the Moneylenders Act already requires moneylenders to clearly explain the loan terms to borrowers, and Rule 8 of the Moneylenders Rules specifies the details that moneylenders must convey to borrowers. These include the nominal interest rate, the method of computing interest, and the permitted fees payable, among other things. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has also asked about advertisements for hire purchases. These are regulated by the Hire Purchase Act, not the Moneylenders Act. To enable consumers to make informed decisions about hire purchase schemes, the Hire Purchase Act specifies the minimum information that owners must provide to prospective hirers in writing before they enter into a hire purchase agreement, such as charges for early settlement, effective interest rates, interest rates for overdue instalments, and administrative charges. An agreement that does not provide such information will not be enforceable. The Government strongly encourages consumers to review the terms carefully and assess their ability to meet the financial commitments before signing any such agreement. More broadly, MAS is working with MoneySENSE to raise consumer awareness on the potential costs and pitfalls of instalment plans. Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Yee Chia Hsing and Mr Louis Ng have asked whether we are working with MHA and other agencies on the problem of illegal advertising using spam text messages.”
“I am glad to inform the House that unlicensed moneylending-related cases registered a 10-year low in 2016. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the current measures to ensure that the situation remains under control. I now turn to moneylending advertisements and the transparency of borrowing costs. Mr Louis Ng had asked about MinLaw's plans to regulate advertisements by licensed moneylenders. Mr Alex Yam has asked if moneylenders will advise borrowers on the costs of borrowing, and how the Registry of Moneylenders will ensure that they do so, while Mr Desmond Choo has asked whether MinLaw will consider imposing a condition requiring all moneylenders to provide a full disclosure on the total amount payable for their loans on their websites and advertisements. The advertisement of moneylending services is tightly restricted under existing laws and regulations. Under the Registrar’s Directions on Advertising issued on 31 July 2013, licensed moneylenders are only allowed to advertise on the facades of their approved places of business, their own Internet websites and business or consumer directories in print or online media. Licensed moneylenders are strictly prohibited from advertising on online social platforms, by mobile SMS or other messaging applications, such as WhatsApp or WeChat. Platforms which do not fall within the Registrar’s Directions on Advertising are also prohibited. Section 16 of the Moneylenders Act provides that such advertisements must not contain false or misleading material.”
“The campaigns educate individuals on how to avoid the pitfalls of excessive debt, how to effectively manage debt, and the importance of sound financial planning. In the current campaign running from November 2017 to January 2018, MoneySENSE’s key message is on the prudent use of unsecured credit. In addition to these efforts to enhance borrower protection and inculcate responsible borrowing, unlicensed moneylending has been and will continue to be tackled head-on. We already have in place stringent laws to penalise unlicensed moneylending. In the 2010 amendments to the Moneylenders Act, penalties for unlicensed moneylending were increased, and a person convicted for the first time for an offence of unlicensed moneylending will be liable to caning of six strokes. In response to Assoc Prof Daniel Goh’s query on the number of unlicensed moneylending cases reported and the number of offenders arrested, there were 550 reports of unlicensed moneylending to the Police in 2016, while 1,100 persons were arrested in that same year. This is a continued decline from the 1,255 arrests made in 2015. Hence, there is no evidence that the 2015 tightening pushed more borrowers to unlicensed moneylending. We will, however, continue to monitor this closely. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Gan Thiam Poh have asked whether the Government will be enhancing penalties for unlicensed moneylending activities. The Government takes the view that the current penalties are sufficient. Besides the severity of penalties, strong enforcement is important. The Police adopt a multi-pronged approach: tough enforcement action, leveraging technology through the use of Police cameras, community partnership and public education.”
“Based on a 2013 study commissioned by MinLaw, borrowers who were interviewed said that the top three reasons for borrowing were to pay household bills, settle an outstanding loan from another moneylender, and to pay debts owed to friends or relatives. That said, such self-reported information cannot be independently verified and, thus, may not accurately represent why borrowers take out loans from moneylenders. What can we do to help over-indebted borrowers? Er Dr Lee Bee Wah had asked whether borrowers who have reached the cap will be required to attend credit counselling. People borrow for different reasons and we have no plans to make credit counselling mandatory. However, to complement the aggregate cap, MLCB will send letters to over-indebted borrowers who are likely to exceed the cap when it comes into effect, to advise them to reduce their debt early. The letter will also contain details of VWOs which are able to assist borrowers with financial counselling and debt management, including restructuring or consolidating their moneylending debt. Borrowers who need help can approach these VWOs. Additionally, as I mentioned in my speech, MinLaw will continue to work with VWOs and the moneylending industry to help these borrowers to improve their situation. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Desmond Choo have suggested educational campaigns on financial management and debt issues. There are ongoing public education efforts. MoneySENSE, a national financial education programme spearheaded by the Financial Education Steering Committee chaired by MAS, has conducted campaigns on the prudent use of unsecured credit and to encourage prudent borrowing habits by consumers.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their speeches and for their support of the Bill. I will now respond to the queries raised by the Members, which fall under several broad themes: (a) borrower protection and public education; (b) unlicensed moneylending; (c) advertising by moneylenders; (d) usage and protection of borrowers’ confidential data; (e) operationalising and enforcing the provisions of the Bill; and (f) the recommendations of ACML. I will address each of these in turn. Some Members have raised concerns about whether the aggregate loan cap will drive borrowers to borrow from unlicensed moneylenders. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked about the moneylending trends which have led to the introduction of this aggregate loan cap. As explained in my speech, the cap was a recommendation of ACML in 2015 and has been calibrated to achieve a balance between protecting borrowers and preserving reasonable access to credit. Since the recommendation was made, we have observed an upward trend in the amount of outstanding debt owed by moneylending borrowers. Among Singaporean borrowers who took out loans between March 2016 and March 2017, nearly 2% will have an outstanding balance exceeding the income cap. This is not a big number, around 610 borrowers, but the aggregate cap will help us to nip the over-borrowing in the bud before it gets worse. Mr Gan Thiam Poh had also asked for 2017 statistics on the number of borrowers and the amount of outstanding loans, and why people borrow. As at the third quarter of 2017, around 41,000 individuals borrowed from moneylenders, and around 80% of these were Singaporean Citizens and Permanent Residents subject to regulatory loan caps. Their total outstanding loan amount was $339 million.”