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 32 of 51.
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Second Minister for Finance, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Property Tax (Amendment) Bill 2017 comprises three amendments to the Property Tax Act to update the legislation and introduce new powers to improve tax administration. A public consultation exercise on the draft Bill was held from 4 May to 25 May this year. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has evaluated the feedback received and, where relevant, incorporated them in the final Bill. The Bill has three amendments. First, amendments relating to the Valuation Review Board; second, amendments to clarify and enhance information gathering for tax compliance purposes; and third, amendments relating to digital property tax notices. First, we will amend the Act to allow the Valuation Review Board, in the absence of any member of the Board due to resignation, illness or any other cause, to continue to hear and determine the appeal if the parties consent and there are at least two remaining members. This change will provide greater convenience to appellants, and mirrors existing provisions for the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Board of Review. Similar provisions will also be enacted for the Income Tax Board of Review through the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill. The amendment will apply to all appeals held before the Board after the Bill is gazetted, and also to appeals, the hearing of which has begun before the gazette date. Second, we will amend the Act to provide clarity and enhance the information gathering powers of the Comptroller of Property Tax, the Chief Assessor and the officers authorised by them.”
“The change is a minor amendment to clarify existing policy. If a building on a land to be developed is demolished, the GST treatment on such sale should follow the same GST treatment of the vacant land rather than the approved use of the building. There will be minimal impact to businesses and individuals. In cases where such sales of land would now attract GST, GST-registered developers can claim the GST paid from IRAS as input tax. We note Mr Louis Ng's comments on GST and e-commerce. The Minister for Finance, in the Budget this year, mentioned that with increasing digital transactions and cross-border trade, some countries have taken steps to adjust the GST system to ensure a level playing field between their local businesses which are GST-registered and foreign-based ones which are not. We are studying how we can do likewise. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(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)]”
“Of the 41 suggestions that we received on the Bill, 30 suggestions or 73% were on customer accounting. We accepted 24 of these 30 suggestions. We understand the disruption and increased compliance cost to businesses and have studied the practices in other countries before proposing this change. The type of GST fraud that we seek to deter has been encountered in the European Union (EU). In response, many EU countries have applied customer accounting, or what they call domestic reverse charge, to similar supplies of goods. To help businesses cope with the change, we have postponed the implementation date of customer accounting from 1 January 2018 to 1 January 2019. This will provide more time for businesses to adjust. We also raised the threshold for customer accounting to apply from $5,000 to $10,000. What this means is that the supplier will continue to charge GST to GST-registered customers on sales of prescribed goods that are $10,000 and below, and customer accounting will only apply if these sales are above $10,000. This will reduce the compliance burden on retail businesses, including mobile phone retailers, to carry out checks on small purchases. Further, mobile phones sold with subscription plans will be excluded from customer accounting to reduce the impact on affected businesses. IRAS has also published an e-tax guide and will reach out to businesses trading in such goods. To help businesses with system changes, IRAS will work with standard accounting software vendors on upgrading their software to cater for customer accounting. Ms Thanaletchimi also asked whether the change in the sale of Government land with existing buildings to be demolished would affect property prices and translate into higher cost for businesses and individuals.”
“Mr Speaker, I wish to thank the Members who have spoken on the Bill and for their support. Let me now address their comments. On the issues raised for the proposed amendment concerning digital tax notices, as this runs across all three tax Bills, I hope the Members would not mind if I address this in the following Bill, that is, the Property Tax (Amendment) Bill, which actually sets it out in more detail. And I believe these three Members are also speaking on that Bill. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Ms Thanaletchimi and Mr Louis Ng spoke on the difficulties that SMEs and microenterprises might face on the submission of the GST returns. The change is part of our periodic review of the GST system to improve tax compliance and to be fair to businesses that respect the due date and file on time. SMEs and microenterprises are unlikely to be adversely affected by this change for two reasons. First, 94% of GST returns are filed on time, which shows that the majority of GST-registered businesses do not have problems complying with the filing due date. Second, most SMEs are not liable for GST registration. Compulsory GST registration is only required for businesses that have annual turnovers of more than $1 million. For those who choose to volunteer for GST registration, we encourage them to be compliant with our tax rule. Businesses which face financial difficulties can contact IRAS to discuss alternative payment arrangements. Mr Louis Ng and Ms Thanaletchimi noted that the amendment to deter GST fraud might cause disruptions and increase business costs to the majority of businesses which are largely compliant. Mr Louis Ng asked if we received suggestions about it during our public consultations.”
“Another administrative change will provide for the basis to implement an opt-out approach for digital GST notices. As digital tax notices for property tax, GST and income tax will be rolled out in phases, starting with property tax, I will elaborate on this change in my speech on the Property Tax (Amendment) Bill. The remaining legislative changes are intended to ease business compliance or clarify existing legislation. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Customer accounting will not apply to all goods and services. At this stage, customer accounting will be applicable for supplies of mobile phones sold without mobile subscription plans, memory cards and off-the-shelf software. These goods are commonly used in GST fraud. We will monitor the situation and assess if there is a need to prescribe more goods or services, taking into consideration the impact on businesses. Clauses 2 to 4 of the Bill provide for the changes. Second, we will amend the Act such that the Comptroller can require selected businesses to maintain an electronic inventory system with details of sales and purchases. The Comptroller can also require additional details, such as the model and serial number of the goods, to be provided in invoices. These additional requirements will facilitate the identification of goods in the event of a GST audit and apply to selected businesses identified on a risk assessment basis. These businesses will be informed in writing of the requirements, and sufficient time will be given for implementation. Clauses 5 and 7 of the Bill provides for the changes. Third, to deter late filing, we will provide for the monthly penalty of $200 for late submission of GST returns to commence immediately after the filing due date. Currently, a penalty of $200 is imposed for each completed month that the return remains outstanding. A GST-registered business is not penalised even if it is late in filing its return after the filing due date, as long as it files within one month of the due date. This is unfair to businesses which respect the due date as the due date and file on time. A $200 penalty imposed at the point of the GST filing due date will deter late filing. Clause 9 of the Bill provides for the change.”
“"B" sells the goods to customers like you and I at a higher price because he needs to make a profit and charges us GST of $9. In this situation, "A" must pay to IRAS the $8 output tax which he collected from "B". "B", in turn, must pay IRAS the output tax of $9 which he collected from us, but he can offset that against the $8 input tax which he paid to "A". So, at the end of the day, "B" only needs to remit to IRAS the difference between his output GST, what he charges his customers, and his input GST, which is what he paid "A", and that net is $1. So, this means that at the end of the day, IRAS collects a total of $9 GST from the entire transaction: $8 from "A" and $1 from "B". However, IRAS has come across cases where "A" absconds with the GST collected from "B", and businesses like "B" further along the supply chain continue to claim the input tax. When that happens, IRAS is now short by the amount of tax which "A" has absconded with. So, using the example above, if "A" absconds with the output tax, but "B" continues to offset his input tax, it means that, at the end of the day, IRAS only receives $1 instead of the $9 which should rightfully have been paid to it. The proposed amendments seek to avoid this scenario from happening by introducing customer accounting. Under customer accounting, GST-registered sellers like "A" will no longer charge GST on the sale of prescribed supplies to GST-registered business customers like "B". Instead, the GST-registered business customers, that is, "B", will self-account to IRAS for the GST chargeable, as output tax and, at the same time, claim input tax on these purchases, which will exactly offset the output tax. This will deter fraud schemes, such as the scenario described earlier.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Finance, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.” The Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill 2017, or the GST Bill in short, provides for amendments to improve tax administration, ease business compliance or clarify existing legislation. A public consultation exercise on the draft bill was held from 12 May to 4 June this year. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has evaluated the feedback received and, where relevant, incorporated them in the final Bill. The Bill contains three key amendments to improve tax administration. These are: (a) the extension of customer accounting to prescribed supplies commonly used in GST fraud; (b) the requirement for electronic record keeping and additional invoice details for selected businesses; and (c) the provision for the monthly penalty of $200 for late submission of GST returns to commence immediately after the due date for filing. I will deal with each of these in turn. First, we will extend customer accounting to prescribed supplies commonly used in GST fraud. Currently, GST-registered businesses charge GST on taxable supplies when they sell to other businesses. This is the output tax. Businesses which purchase such supplies consequently pay GST on those purchases. This is known as the input tax. They are allowed to offset the GST they pay for their purchases against the GST they collect on their sales and pay the net difference to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS). The way it works is as follows. Let us, say, we have a GST-registered business "A". "A" sells taxable supplies at a price inclusive of GST of $8 to another GST-registered business "B".”
“This is consistent with the drafting approach adopted for legislation in the recent years, for instance, in the recently passed amendments to the Town Councils Act, the Banking Act and the Securities and Futures Act. Mr Louis Ng also asked what would happen if information obtained from the individual under the claim of self-interest does raise concerns which ought to lead to civil or criminal prosecution. In situations where the information provided contains evidence of a more egregious matter than an audit breach, the AG may report and bring the matter to the Police or other relevant enforcement agencies. These agencies would have access to more extensive powers of investigation, which would then allow them to obtain the necessary evidence to proceed with the civil or criminal prosecution. Mr Speaker, Sir, once again I would like to thank the Members for their thoughtful comments and support for the Bill. [(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)]”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Louis Ng for their observations and their support of the Audit (Amendment) Bill. Mr Liang Eng Hwa highlighted the need to ensure that we do not add to the regulatory burden of companies and that there should be some executive leeway given for situations where public money may be given to non-government entities to carry out emergency tasks. We agree that the right balance needs to be struck and will be mindful that the scope and the extent of the audit should be commensurate with the circumstances of the case. The amendments have been designed to avoid adding to the regulatory burden of companies. The "follow-the-dollar" audits are not meant to replace the normal audit processes. As I explained in my speech, "follow-the-dollar" audits will not be activated lightly. The threshold for triggering such audits is high. It can only be directed by the Minister for Finance and only if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. The audits will also only be limited to whether the funding terms and conditions have been complied with. Mr Louis Ng asked about the intent of specifically excluding the privilege against self-incrimination in this Bill, given that there exists a broad obligation to compel an individual to furnish explanation and information to the AG. The insertion of this clause is to make explicit what is already in practice, that a person cannot rely on the common law privilege against self-incrimination to refuse to give documents or information or to answer questions from the AG. By stating this clearly, we can avoid time-consuming negotiations to clarify the obligations on the provision of privileged documents which will diminish the efficiency of the audit process.”
“Mr Speaker, our approach on this matter has not been to say that once in every few years, we will do a review and do a check and see where we are on social mobility. For this Government, our entire approach and, in fact, the raison d'être on which Singapore was founded on in 1965, was really to be a place where everybody can progress. In fact, if we look at the proclamation of Singapore's Independence, it said that this would be a country founded on the principles of liberty and justice, and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society. What that means is that from Day 1, this Government is committed to the progress of its people, and that includes reducing the gap among people who have unequal situations. That is the reason why every year, during Budget, we review what we can do better. It is part of each Ministry's duty and responsibility to see where the gaps are. The report is actually, as I indicated earlier, shown in the SPOR report. We also publish the socio-economic indicators and outcomes every year in the Key Household Income Trends report by the Department of Statistics. So, in other words, this is not something we do every five years or every 10 years. It is part and parcel of the day-to-day work of the Ministries, and we look at it every Budget as well. Occasionally, we may have bigger reviews but it is really something that is done each and every day of the Ministries' work.”
“Our means-tested health and long-term care subsidies also ensure that those with lower income receive more assistance, while the Goods and Services Tax Voucher scheme supports lower-income families with their day-to-day expenses. All these schemes add up to a system that is highly progressive. All in all, low-income households receive almost $4 of benefits for every dollar of tax paid, while the middle-income households receive almost $2 for every dollar of tax paid. Mr Perera referred to the ranking by Oxfam and Development Finance International. The rankings were based on the absolute amount of social spending, with the assumption that the higher the level of spending, the better will be the situation, regardless of whether the spending leads to effective outcomes. The authors have acknowledged the limitations of their study in representing the different circumstances of individual countries. This is the case for Singapore, where we target our subsidies and assistance to those who are more needy. This focused approach to reducing inequality enables us to keep our tax burden low while ensuring our social expenditure is prudent, fair and progressive. Our approach has served us well so far. We have kept inequality in check, even as income gaps widen elsewhere. Our Gini coefficient has moderated over the last five years. Our people have also seen good income growth with the lower income seeing their real per capita household income grow by close to 20% over the last five years. Such indicators are published every year in the Key Household Income Trends report by the Department of Statistics, and every two years in the biennial Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review (SPOR) by the Ministry of Finance. The Government has been and remains committed to addressing inequality.”
“Mr Speaker, the Government is concerned about inequality and takes serious efforts to address it. Our concern underpins the design of many of our policies and schemes. Our key strategy for tackling inequality is to ensure that all Singaporeans, especially those who are less well off, are able to access good opportunities, earn higher incomes and enjoy a higher standard of living. We do this by providing the necessary support to our citizens at various stages of life, with more support going to the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. We invest heavily in education so that every child, regardless of socio-economic background, can have access to a good education and develop to his full potential. A child who attends primary and secondary school receives around $11,000 in educational subsidies per year. Children from lower-income families receive even more support through the Ministry of Education's Financial Assistance Scheme and bursaries. Students with more needs receive additional support through various support programmes. These ensure that we preserve social mobility for our next generation. For workers, we introduced the SkillsFuture movement to support skills upgrading so that they can take on better jobs. We also have the Progressive Wage Model to help lower-wage workers upskill and earn better wages, and Workfare to supplement their income. We have seen encouraging results so far. In the last five years, incomes of lower-wage workers have grown in tandem with median income growth. For those in their silver years, we have introduced the Silver Support Scheme to provide additional support to seniors who have low incomes through life and have little family support.”
“Mr Speaker, the hon Member may have misunderstood the nature of an audit. An audit will highlight or precipitate forensic inquiry if there is reason to do a forensic inquiry. So, if you go in and if you find there is conflict of interests, for example, payments to related third-parties or that your system as a whole enables the same person to approve a payment, submit a request for payment and sign a cheque for payment, that would require a forensic investigation. But if you go in and you find that there is, in MOH's case, a possibility of an overpayment which actually has not even occurred and you point it out and you can rectify it, and if the nature of that is because, as I have explained earlier, human error, negligence or non-compliance, that, in itself, does not trigger a forensic audit. What you have to do is you have to look at the nature of the lapse. Is it something that requires a further and deep investigation, or is it something that does not? In this case, as I have explained earlier, the Financial Statements of the Government are fair and accurate. They are reliable. So, you can take the statements as reliable. Then, the second part of the audit is that you look to see whether or not the rules and processes are adequate and have been complied with. In this case, it would appear that the rules and processes are adequate, but, in some cases, they were not complied with that does not necessitate a forensic investigation. So, it is quite correct for MOH to say that the audit did not, in this instance, disclose evidence of fraud.”
“MOH. Mr Speaker, I think what the hon Member is really asking is whether an AGO report can prove a negative. You cannot prove a negative. One does not go around looking to see whether I can disprove or show that there is no fraud. An audit, by its nature, selects samples. It looks at the samples and it considers whether the system as a whole is robust and, if it picks up a point that the system, in itself, has got inefficiencies or deficiencies, it will highlight it. An audit, by its nature, also, if it encounters a specific lapse or error, such as overpayment or under-reimbursement, it will also highlight that. So, what an audit does really is that it does sample checks, sees whether the system as a whole is robust and efficient, and it highlights specific lapses that it may encounter. That is the nature, not just of an audit by AGO, but of all audits.”
“Mr Png referred to "the Ministry" in his clarification. May I enquire which Ministry?”
“The Economic Development Board (EDB) has completed the remedial action for all payment related lapses, including recovery of monies in the two incidences of overpayments. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) is also taking corrective actions to make good under-reimbursements and to recover over-reimbursements for the Government-paid Paternity Leave scheme. The Ministry of Health (MOH) also completed its review of the claims by its agents and service providers. There is no overpayment as the additional sums claimed by its agents have not been paid out. MOH will only be reimbursing its agents for the correct amount due to them. The Government agencies are taking the necessary corrective actions in respect of the lapses highlighted in the AGO report.”
“Mr Speaker, the Auditor-General's (AG's) report reflects its findings in respect of two types of audit conducted every year on Government agencies. The first concerns whether the accounts of the Government are reliable and prepared in accordance with the law. The second concerns the rules and procedures in individual public agencies, for example, whether the rules and processes are adequate and have been complied with. On the former, the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) has given the Government's Financial Statements this year an unmodified audit opinion, as has been the case in previous years. In other words, in the AGO’s opinion, the Financial Statements have been presented, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework. This means that the accounts of the Ministries, departments and Organs of State have all been found to be reliable and prepared in accordance with the law. On the latter, AGO has highlighted in its report some areas in which there have been procedural lapses and where the Government agencies can do better. We take these findings seriously. Let me address Mr Png's question on investigating all improper payments and its recovery. I should clarify at the outset that there is no indication in the AGO report of any payments due to fraud, misfeasance or dishonesty. The cases highlighted by AGO this year largely concerned overpayments and payments made without prior approval, arising from human error, negligence or failure to follow established procedures. In each of these cases, agencies have been taking prompt actions to recover any monies which might have been erroneously paid out. AGO noted that the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) has recovered the overpaid amounts.”
“For example, IMH's "Response, Early Intervention, Assessment in Community mental Health" teams (REACH) have been working with school counsellors to assist students with psychological, emotional and behavioural problems, including students with addictions. Interventions are provided within the student's school or, if necessary, at the IMH Child Guidance Clinic (CGC). Children and youths who have committed offences and are suspected to have underlying mental health conditions, may be referred from the Police or MSF to IMH's "Forensic Rehabilitation, Intervention, Evaluation and Network Development Service" (FRIENDS) team. The FRIENDS team will provide assessment and treatment, including group therapy and home visits, and work with community resources to support these youths. To conclude, the Government will continue to identify and address any gaps in the support structures available for those with mental health conditions, but this cannot replace support from the community. The key to prevent re-offending often lies in the person regularly receiving treatment, including taking his or her medication. For this, there is no substitute for community support. I hope that family and friends, VWOs and other community leaders can continue to work together to support the rehabilitation of these persons. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." (proc text)] Adjourned accordingly at 7.31 pm”
“For instance, inmates whose conditions are unstable will be escorted to IMH upon their release, for continued treatment. IMH also makes arrangements for those requiring outpatient psychiatric treatment. For those who may not be able to return home, the Singapore Prison Service works with VWOs, such as the Singapore Association for Mental Health, to emplace them in special care homes. We regularly examine our practices and systems to ensure that the best possible measures are in place to give these offenders their best shot at effective rehabilitation, subject to what is feasible, given available resources. We will carefully study Mr Murali's comments, including the UK approach he has referred to, to ensure as much as possible that nobody falls through the cracks. Finally, we have various intervention strategies to prevent re-offending in cases where those with mental health conditions have been given warnings for certain wrongdoing but not charged in Court. These strategies often entail close cooperation between various Government agencies. Our Police Force works with multiple stakeholders, including the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), the Family Service Centres and IMH, to achieve this objective. Where an Investigation Officer assesses that there are relevant issues through the course of investigation, such as underlying mental or socio-familial issues, a referral will be made to the appropriate agency for their follow-up. The Community Policing Unit also engages community groups regularly. Where appropriate, they are able to render support to reduce re-offending. There are also a number of programmes available to persons with mental health conditions who are at risk of committing offences.”
“One area where we think the line should be drawn is where mandatory minimum sentences are concerned. Such sentences are only prescribed for very serious offences. Justice would not be served by imposing CBS for such offences. However, we are prepared to explore whether eligibility for CBS can be extended to offences with specified minimum sentences, which are prescribed for relatively less serious offences. Stakeholders we consulted had generally supported the continued exclusion of such offences, but we will relook the legislation and seriously consider whether CBS can be extended to these offences. Mr Murali's other point relates to the availability of treatment for offenders whose mental health conditions have been clinically assessed as being not susceptible to treatment. There are good reasons why these offenders are not given MTOs. It would pose a danger to the public and undermine confidence in our criminal justice system if offenders who would otherwise be imprisoned are allowed to remain in the community, even though there is no prospect that the underlying cause of their offending can be addressed through medical treatment. This does not mean that these offenders are not given treatment. I understand that all inmates diagnosed with mental health conditions are seen regularly by prison psychiatrists. There is a large spectrum of such conditions, and the medical professionals will decide on the degree of treatment and management required. The Singapore Prison Service also works closely with IMH and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) to ensure continuity in monitoring and treating inmates with mental health conditions once they are released.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his speech. In principle, the Government shares the same objectives as Mr Murali. We have been moving in the direction of extending more rehabilitative options to those who commit offences, especially those who suffer from mental health conditions. The Community-Based Sentencing (CBS) scheme was introduced in the CPC in 2010 to harness the resources of the community in rehabilitating offenders. Let me just highlight two schemes. Each year, the Courts have been making about 80 MTOs, which are targeted at persons with mental health conditions; and 80 Community Service Orders (CSOs). We have seen encouraging results on both these schemes, and I have been told that some who complete their CSOs even continue to volunteer with the organisation where they served their sentence. We can go further, and intend to do so. In fact, one key plank of MinLaw's proposed amendments to the CPC is to expand the CBS scheme. For offenders with mental health conditions in particular, we are proposing to expand the range of offences that are eligible for MTOs. However, we must take a balanced approach. Not all cases are suitable for CBS. Some crimes may be too serious and it would not serve the justice system well to allow the offenders to be on the CBS regime. Some offenders may not benefit from CBS. Hence, the regime has to be carefully calibrated. We will need to draw a line somewhere, even if that means that some will fall outside the regime. Nevertheless, we will continue to examine the eligibility requirements and extend the line where appropriate. This brings me to Mr Murali's point relating to the availability of CBS for offences with mandatory minimum or specified minimum sentences.”
“Mr Low must be mistaken. All I did was point out that there were certain allegations made against the Government. I stated our position on that. And there is nothing at all that prevents Mr Lee Hsien Yang from responding if he wishes to, publicly. All I am doing is stating the Government's position on various issues. On the second part, on appointments, as I had said earlier, when the AG was appointed, the Prime Minister consulted the Chief Justice, he consulted the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, as well as the incumbent AG on the appointment. Due process was observed and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the current appointment of the AG. On conflicts of interest, I have already answered that. It is not necessary for me to repeat it again. Indeed, it is only Mr Low and Ms Sylvia Lim who keep raising this issue. There is no basis for any concern that the AG has not acted in a manner that is entirely proper.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I have already answered the question. If there is any matter on which the AG or Deputy AG have acted on when they were in private practice and, if that same matter comes up when they are in AGC, they obviously cannot advise the Government on it and they will not do so. With respect to the other matters, I have already explained. There have been instances before when either the AG or Judges may have been close friends with Ministers or anyone else, but that has not deterred them from doing their duty. I understand what Ms Lim is saying. She is saying actual conflict and, sort of, appearances. In terms of any actual conflict, I have already stated the position quite clearly. They know their duty and they will carry out their duty. They will not act where there is any conflict of interest. And as far as appearances go, if the Member has any specific allegation of that, please highlight it. Because as far as I can see, there has been no form of impropriety, appearance or otherwise.”
“So, in short, the officers in the AGC, whether it is the AG, Deputy AG or anyone down along the line, all observe proper rules of conduct.”
“On the first question, the short answer is that the AG and the Deputy AG are not advising the Government on any matters in which they have previously been involved. In other words, whatever it is that they may, in private practice, have advised people on, when they come into the AGC and if it impacts on those areas, then they would not advise on it. So, if the Member's question is, for example, is Mr Lucien Wong advising the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road, the answer is no. For the very simple reason that in AGC, there are other officers. So, this is not a difficult thing. All lawyers know this. If you had acted on something, and you happen to change organisation or go somewhere else, and there is a conflict, you recuse yourself. It is very simple. It is not a difficult thing to do, and lawyers do it in practice all the time. The AG and Deputy AG are observing these rules. I can assure Ms Sylvia Lim that the rules of conflict are being observed. On the other point, Ms Sylvia Lim said it is different from the Bench where there is security of tenure but in AGC there is no security of tenure which puts a different complexion on things. It does not put a different complexion on things. All lawyers, good lawyers, understand their duty, which is simply this: if you are in a position of conflict, you do not act, you recuse yourself. As to whether it is desirable to have distance, the correct question really is, the officers of AGC, do they act independently? In other words, if there is a conflict, do they stand aside? Do they apply their minds to this without fear or favour? Do they do their duty? And the answer to those questions is yes, they do act independently, they apply their minds and they carry out their duties without fear or favour.”
“Whatever it is, there is no reason to drag Singapore and Singaporeans through this dispute. That is contrary to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's values. Mr Leon Perera gave the analogy of a company and its shareholders and he asked why the whistleblowers are not being interrogated by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). That is the wrong analogy. If something is really wrong, then the correct thing for the whistleblowers to do is to go to CPIB and file a report. That is the way it should be done if you think that there is something wrong. Or if anyone else thinks that something is wrong, you can file and lodge a formal report. The CPIB cannot be expected to look into unsubstantiated allegations. On the Ministerial Committee, Mr Leon Perera may wish to look again at the Deputy Prime Minister's speech today where he explained the role and the terms of reference of the Ministerial Committee. So, what do we have at the end of the day? At the end of today, we have had one full day of debate. Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling have made plenty of allegations, but we have not seen any substance and no evidence. In Parliament, no one has said that there is any evidence of abuse. I am sure that the MPs have all looked carefully through the allegations. In fact, Mr Low himself had said that the siblings had presented no evidence. To me, that is most significant because it shows our people that these allegations are just that − allegations. [Applause.] 7.00 pm”
“Well, she has said many things about many people, including the Prime Minister, members of Cabinet and others. Singaporeans will look at the facts and reach their own conclusions. On the issue of whether Minister Shanmugam is somehow in a position of "conflict", he has explained his position publicly on 17 June. In 2011, some members of the Lee family had approached him for his views about various options for the house. He shared some thoughts and suggestions with them. However, he also made clear to them that legally, the Government had the full power to gazette or acquire based on historical significance, and that many Singaporeans, including Ministers in Cabinet, were likely to take the view that the house should be preserved. He told them that this was also his strong personal view. At that time, Minister Shanmugam was already a Cabinet Minister. He was not consulted as a lawyer and did not advise them as clients. Mr Lee Kuan Yew had spoken with other Cabinet Ministers about the house as well. It would be absurd to suggest that they can all no longer participate in Government work because they had spoken to him, or some family member about the house. This is really a red herring, intended to divert attention away from the real issues. And so, we come back to the key point. What is this dispute really about? The Ministerial Committee is not making any decisions. It is putting up a range of options for Cabinet to look at. Nothing needs to be decided now. Indeed, nothing can be decided now as Dr Lee is still living in the house. That might take 20 to 30 years. Therefore, the house cannot be the reason for the dispute. The trigger for all the allegations by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee appear to be something else.”
“Members will recall that the Law Minister, Mr Edmund Barker, was very successful, one of our founding fathers, and was an old friend of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and a partner in Lee & Lee. This did not prevent him from being a good Law Minister. With respect to past judicial appointments, these have included lawyers who acted for Mr Lee Kuan Yew, such as Mr Joseph Grimberg, or who worked in Lee & Lee, for example, Justice Lai Kew Chai, and Mr Andrew Ang, who is currently on the Bench. All were or are well-respected members of the Bench. Former Chief Justice Yong Pung How was an old friend of Mr Lee's from Cambridge. He is credited with modernising the Singapore Judiciary during his time on the Bench. In these roles, all of them observed the appropriate conflict rules. Ultimately, the most important considerations are the quality, character and the integrity of the individuals involved, and that is the hallmark of our system. And, indeed, in many first-world countries, the AG is even a sitting member of parliament or a politician. In the United Kingdom, the AG is a Cabinet minister. Similarly, in Australia. Our system is based on a slightly different model. But as I have said before, it goes too far to suggest that AGC officers must not have previously had any links with any Ministers or political party. On the questions about alleged conflict regarding Minister Shanmugam, Mr Low Thia Khiang's comment on him being Mr Lee's friend − well, being a friend of Mr Lee Kuan Yew does not disqualify him from doing Cabinet work. This includes being in the Ministerial Committee to give views. The Committee's role has already been explained. Mr Low alluded to Dr Lee Wei Ling's comment that Minister Shanmugam was a "changed person".”
“He does not involve himself in his new firm on matters which his old firm had acted for. This has been debated before, in relation to the appointment of the AG and Deputy AG. Mr Lucien Wong, we have already referred to his credentials previously. He was the senior partner of the largest law firm in Singapore. He is widely acknowledged as the top legal mind, consistently recognised as one of Singapore's best, and his appointment was welcomed by the Bar. The Law Society has called him "a formidable and creative legal mind" with "proven management skills", a "practical track record" and a "skillset uniquely equipped to deal with the evolution of the changing legal environment in Singapore". As a lawyer of almost 40 years' standing, Mr Wong would have had thousands of clients. There is no reason why this should be an excuse for us to pass him over and choose a less qualified candidate. Similarly, Mr Hri Kumar is amongst one of the top six to seven litigators in Singapore today. If you look at the people from within the Service who have been appointed to key positions − the Deputy AG and the Solicitor-General as well − these are young, some of them in their 40s. We hope that, in the future, from among their ranks, someone can become AG. Mr Wong's appointment as AG was decided after a thorough and rigorous process. The Prime Minister consulted the Chief Justice and the Chairman of Public Service Commission and the incumbent AG on the appointment. The Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA) unanimously advised that the President concur with the appointment; and the President, acting in his discretion, also supported it. It is also not unusual for the AG to be known to the Ministers or the Prime Minister.”
“The involvement of MCI photographers is in line with MCI's policy of supporting former Prime Ministers and Presidents after they leave office. After Mr Lee's passing, MCI photographers were deployed to take photos of various personal and official items belonging to Mr Lee at 38 Oxley Road. This was done for the purposes of national archival and documentation. Similar photographic recordings were done during Mr Lee's lifetime, of his study at home, and of the basement dining room. If there are any specific instances of alleged impropriety beyond that, these should be identified, rather than making general unsubstantiated allegations. The Government takes this very seriously. There are stringent rules in place and serious consequences for those who have been found to have contravened the rules. I move now to conflict of interest. Questions about alleged conflict on the part of the Attorney-General (AG) were asked. The laws and rules on conflict are very clear. These rules on conflict will be observed. The AG and Deputy AG Hri Kumar will not be involved where there is any conflict. They have abided by the rules of conflict, and there is no basis to suggest that either the AG or the Deputy AG has not observed those rules. An example of how the rules work would be when lawyers move from AG's Chambers (AGC) to the Bench and vice versa. So, take, for example, former Deputy AG Tan Siong Thye, who was from AGC. He recuses himself from any AGC-related matters, now that he has returned to the Bench. Likewise, the Chief Justice, in relation to any matters he handled when he was at AGC. Similar rules apply in private practice as well. If a lawyer moves to a new firm, he observes the rules on conflict.”
“So, the issue of whether he was independently advised is a serious issue. However, it is not for the Ministerial Committee or Cabinet to decide on this issue, nor is the Ministerial Committee or Cabinet attempting to do so. Deputy Prime Minister Teo has already explained that the Ministerial Committee looked at the will as part of trying to understand Mr Lee's thinking on the matter. The terms of the will, insofar as they relate to the house, would be relevant to that. The siblings provided different views on the drafting of the will. Each party was given the opportunity to comment on the other side's views, as is only fair. You cannot hear one side without hearing the other. But the Committee is not conducting an investigation, and Deputy Prime Minister Teo made it clear that it is not for the Committee to decide whose claims are valid. It is simply trying to understand, as best it can, what were Mr Lee's wishes. So, really, there is no basis for all these allegations that have been levelled against the Ministerial Committee. Mr Png Eng Huat read out a catalogue of allegations from the Internet. Is he associating himself with these allegations, or simply regurgitating them? If he is adopting them, then please put forward some specific evidence. Mr Png also referred to allegations that improper influence had been asserted over civil servants. This is a very serious allegation, not only against Ms Ho Ching, but also against the Permanent Secretaries and senior civil servants as well. There are clear rules within the Civil Service to guide the conduct of public officers. Mr Png referred to the cataloguing of Mr Lee's items. MCI had explained this last week.”
“Well, is not that exactly the same thing that Deputy Prime Minister Teo had said, leaving aside the bit about values? In other words, no total preservation and no development? If that is the case and if he is saying exactly the same thing as Deputy Prime Minister Teo, where is the dispute? Both agree that the extreme ends of the range are out. So, if the Ministerial Committee is studying the intermediate options within the range, what is wrong with that? Nothing has been decided. How can studying these options be an abuse? On the will, the concerns of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee with the Ministerial Committee and all the allegations appear to have been triggered by questions on the will. Why are they so concerned? We know from the facts disclosed that issues have been raised with regard to the will and who drafted it. If it was drafted by Mrs Lee Suet Fern, then an issue arises because she is the wife of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his share of the estate was increased under the last will. Under our law, the lawyer drafting the will is required to be independent. As our Court of Appeal has said, "the preparation of a will involves serious professional responsibilities which solicitors must uncompromisingly observe and discharge". So, if the lawyer has an interest in the will, the lawyer must make sure that the person making the will gets independent advice. Some have said, "But Mr Lee was a very good lawyer. He was Cambridge-educated. Are you saying he did not know what he was signing?" No one is saying that at all. That is not the issue. The issue is whether he received independent advice as the law uncompromisingly requires. And we do know that Mr Lee had consistently in his lifetime taken independent advice − for his lawsuits and for his first six wills.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, many Members of Parliament (MPs) have asked what this dispute is about. That is a very good question. On what to do with the house in the future, the Committee is studying a range of options. What is so wrong about that? Deputy Prime Minister Teo has said that he personally would not support options at either end of the range. At the one end, preserving the house for visitors to enter and see, which would be totally against the wishes of Mr and Mrs Lee. On the other hand, demolishing the house and putting the property on the market for new private residences. Initially, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said, he had "not thought beyond demolition". If that is true, he could not have ruled out redevelopment. Then, he later said that before the Ministerial Committee was formed, he had offered a memorial garden. So, it appears that he had thought beyond demolition, earlier. He did not make it clear if a garden is still his position now. After I pointed out the four possible options for the property, including the fact that demolition clears the way to appeal for redevelopment, Mr Lee Hsien Yang now says that he has no "inclination" to develop the house for profit. "Inclination" is a word that leaves a lot of room for change of mind. Why is he being so careful? If he changes his mind, then the land is potentially worth a lot. Why does Mr Lee Hsien Yang not just rule it out categorically? But let us take his statement at face value and see what else Mr Lee Hsien Yang said on Saturday. His exact words were "preservation of the house would be trampling on Mr Lee Kuan Yew's values, and it would be an affront to these same values to develop a luxury "LKY" condominium".”
“(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)]”
“Because as Members may recall, a design has to be new to be registrable. Mr Louis Ng also asked about the potential overlap between the registered designs regime and the patent regime. The registered designs regime and the patent regime confer different protections. Design features that are dictated solely by the function which the article or non-physical product has to perform are excluded from protection under the registered designs regime. In contrast, functional features may be protected by patents, if they fulfil the patentability requirements. Using the example of a virtual keyboard, its design features, such as a new combination of shapes and colours, can be protected under the registered designs regime. At the same time, patent protection may be sought for new and inventive functional features of the virtual keyboard. Mr Louis Ng's third point is about exclusive rights in relation to devices which project a range of non-physical products. Mr Louis Ng referred to a situation where a device is capable of projecting a range of non-physical products, of which just one bears a registered design. An example could be a device that can project virtual computer keyboards in different designs, and just one of the designs is registered. In this case, the owner of that one registered design can pursue civil infringement action if a third party sells the device without his permission. This is because the registered design owner's exclusive rights include selling a device that can project his registered design. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(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.”
“My Ministry is currently considering these recommendations in conjunction with our ongoing broad-based review of Singapore's civil justice system. Mr Louis Ng raised three main points for clarification about the Bill, and I will address them in turn. The first point is about the requirement for a non-physical product to have an intrinsic utilitarian function. The registered designs regime is intended to protect design features of commercial products with useful functions. For example, designs intended to be applied to articles which are works of sculpture will be refused registration. This can be seen from section 7 of RDA read with rule 9 of the Registered Designs Rules. Further, the Third Schedule of the Registered Designs Rules gives an idea of the products for which designs can be protected. These include table knives, forks and spoons, and jewellery, for example. This intention currently applies to tangible articles and will apply to non-physical products going forward. Hence, the requirement that non-physical products have an intrinsic utilitarian function. Designs of other things that do not fulfil this criterion may be protected under the copyright regime. Mr Louis Ng's second point is about the interface between patent protection and registered design protection. Mr Louis Ng raised a concern about the possibility of a designer registering the design of his non-physical product after a patent over it has expired, thereby extending the exclusivity period. This is not possible. The patent specification is made public as part of the patent application process. If the patent specification contains the design drawing, then a design based on it cannot be registered as the design is no longer new.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken for their support of the Bill. Mr Patrick Tay rightly noted the need to increase the level of awareness about the registered designs regime amongst businesses, especially SMEs. IPOS regularly partners industry and design associations to do so. For example, on World IP Day last month, IPOS and the Design Business Chamber Singapore ran a workshop on Transforming Enterprises Through Business Design, where participants learnt about the upcoming changes to the designs regime and how design can bring value to businesses. IPOS is also working with the DesignSingapore Council to raise awareness about registered design protection and how such protection can be used as a strategic business tool. I welcome Mr Patrick Tay's invitation for IPOS to work with the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) various units and I will ask IPOS to do so. In addition to these collaborations, IPOS will explore issuing guidance notes to address specific knowledge gaps, for example, the interface between registered design protection and copyright protection. This will add to the wealth of IP information and guidance that businesses can obtain from IPOS' website, as well as at IPOS' one-stop Service Centre IP101 at Manulife Centre. Mr Patrick Tay also spoke about the importance of ensuring that businesses, especially smaller businesses, have a cost-effective means of enforcing their registered design rights. This is something that MinLaw is looking into. We had appointed a Committee, comprising representatives from the judiciary, the IP Bar, academia, IP-rich companies and Government agencies to review the IP dispute resolution system in Singapore. The Committee has made recommendations on how enforcement costs can be reduced.”
“Clause 10(b) amends section 11 of RDA to enable multiple designs to be filed in a single application, subject to certain requirements. This amendment will make it easier for applicants to file multiple designs in a single application. It will also lead to more efficient processing by the Registry of Designs. The Bill also makes consequential amendments to the Copyright Act. Our current policy is to minimise concurrent copyright and registered design protection. This is to prevent over-protection. This policy is articulated in the Copyright Act, which provides that in certain circumstances, copyright is not infringed. As we will now allow the registration of designs of non-physical products under RDA, these provisions in the Copyright Act have to be amended to take into account design protection for non-physical products. This is effected by clause 28 of the Bill which amends sections 7, 70, 73 and 74 of the Copyright Act. This Bill implements recommendations from our review of the registered designs regime in Singapore. It allows our regime to stay up to date as design creation and technology evolve, and to be more conducive for the design community. Our IP regime should provide a balanced and effective means for designers to protect their creative works. In this way, we support the growth of the design industry and the use of designs in Singapore. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“A design that is registered or published before the application to register is filed, is not considered new. Therefore, it cannot be registered. However, section 8 of RDA contains a few narrow exceptions to this general rule. For example, if the design has been displayed at one of the few recognised international exhibitions, and the application was filed within six months of the opening of the exhibition, then the design can be registered. This six-month period is commonly referred to as the "grace period". We have received feedback from the industry that the current grace period provision should not be so restrictive. It needs to support modern business practices, where designers increasingly need to disclose their designs before applying to register them. For example, they could be trying to source for investors at an exhibition that is outside the narrow list of recognised international exhibitions. To this end, clause 7 of the Bill inserts a new section 8A, which will give designers greater flexibility by extending the grace period from six months to 12 months, and expanding the situations under which the grace period provision may be relied upon to include any disclosure originating from the designer. It should be emphasised that disclosing a design before applying for protection still carries risks. Not all jurisdictions have a similarly broad or long grace period provision. We would, therefore, strongly encourage designers to always be judicious about disclosing their designs before applying for design registration. IPOS will work with stakeholders and intellectual property (IP) professionals to ensure that this message is conveyed clearly to design applicants. I now turn to clause 10 of the Bill.”
“Such a product (a) does not have a physical form; (b) is produced by the projection of a design on a surface or into a medium, such as air; and (c) has an intrinsic utilitarian function, meaning it does not merely portray the appearance of the thing or convey information. We are also making other related amendments. For example, clause 17(a) of the Bill amends the exclusive rights that a registered design owner has, to take into account non-physical products. These amendments to broaden the scope of design protection are timely, as the design landscape has evolved significantly since RDA was first enacted more than 10 years ago. With these amendments, the design registration system will better serve the needs of designers and businesses. I now turn to the amendments to change the default position on ownership of a commissioned design. Under the current section 4 of RDA, when a design is created under commission, the person commissioning the design is treated as the owner of the design by default, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. Clauses 3(a) to 3(c) of the Bill amend the current legislation so that in commissioning situations, the designer will be treated as the owner of the design by default. However, the designer is free to deal with his design by contract. For example, he can assign the design to the person commissioning the design. By recognising the value of design creation and the creative effort of designers, these amendments will encourage the growth of our local design industry. Let me now touch on the amendments related to the grace period provision for the registration of designs. Before speaking about the amendments proper, I should provide some background. Generally, only designs which are new may be registered under RDA.”
“For example, an artisan designing and making jewellery by hand can operate a "blog shop" selling handmade jewellery, with items in each particular design sold in small quantities. Under the current definition, it is not completely clear whether the designs of such articles, produced outside an industrial factory setting, can be protected. Clause 2(a) now makes it clear that they can be protected. Second, clause 2(c) amends the definition of "design". It removes the requirement for features constituting a design to be applied by an industrial process. It also accords protection to colours as a design feature. Colours can play a significant role in the appearance of products. Businesses that look to build a strong association between a particular colour scheme and their products can now protect such colour schemes as part of their designs. I should clarify that our intent is not to accord design protection to colours per se. For example, a designer cannot simply claim the colour orange, without any other design feature, for its vacuum cleaner, and prevent all others from using the colour orange for their vacuum cleaners. Third, we will allow the registration of designs of non-physical products. We have noticed an emerging trend of new products that do not have a physical form. We want to better prepare our design protection regime in anticipation of such products becoming more common in the future. An example of a non-physical product is a virtual keyboard that is projected by light onto a surface, and that can be used to type characters in the same manner as a physical computer keyboard. Clause 2(e), therefore, introduces a new definition of non-physical products.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Design is an important driver of innovation and value creation for businesses. Good design enhances the value of a product. It can turn something plain and ordinary into a product that is attractive, inspiring and user-friendly. It also allows businesses to differentiate their products from their competitors', thus enabling businesses to grow and create good, well-paying jobs in Singapore. Recognising this, the Design 2025 master plan was developed last year. To support the growth of the design industry, we need a progressive and forward-looking design protection regime. The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) have reviewed our registered designs regime. This Bill implements the recommendations from the review. The main amendments are, first, to broaden the scope of design protection under the Registered Designs Act (RDA); second, to change the default position on ownership of a commissioned design; third, to broaden the scope of, and lengthen, the designs grace period provision; and fourth, to allow multiple designs to be filed in a single application more easily. I will now describe the main features of the Bill. The first set of amendments broadens the scope of design protection under the RDA. First, clause 2(a) amends the definition of "article" to clarify that it is anything that is manufactured, whether by an industrial process, by hand or otherwise. With the Internet transforming advertising and customer acquisition, small businesses with low volume products targeting niche markets are becoming viable.”
“And then, what do you do? The Government has to take a position. The Government must make a policy decision. The Government has to make that call. So, we draw in ideas from the consultations. We put it together and then it is delivered at the Budget Statement. But the Budget Statement is actually still subject to the approval of Parliament. Parliament comes back and gives its final input and suggestions. That is why the Motion that is moved by the Minister for Finance, when we have the Budget debates, is that "this Parliament approves the fiscal policy of the Government". So, the process is really designed to be as efficient as possible but, at the same time, taking on broad feedback, and to the extent that it is not possible to incorporate something in a particular financial year but if it is a good idea, we will see if we can incorporate it in the months ahead, or in the following year.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank Mr Ng for his comments and clarifications. There are really two parts to the consultation. Mr Ng spoke about explaining. The explaining part comes after the Budget has been delivered. Prior to that, there is a great deal of consultations and the consultations take place not just in the month or two before the Budget Statement is delivered, but it sometimes takes a long time. For example, the Pioneer Generation Package is something which had its genesis in Our Singapore Conversation which started in 2012. It was announced in Budget 2014. It was two years in the making from feedback from people about their concerns and also the feedback that they wanted to honour the elderly. So, it took two years to put together that particular package. We also have, for example, in this year's Budget, the Global Innovation Alliance (GIA) and SME Go Digital programme. This was something that was borne out of the CFE discussions and recommendations. So, prior to the Budget, there were a lot of consultations, some of which were years in the making, some of which were in that year itself, some of it were in the months prior, or a month or two before. What we do is, rather than releasing a draft Budget in detail, as I mentioned earlier, we talk about themes. For example, on elder care, how we can assist for an ageing population. These are themes that we float and discuss with people, and then we put them into the Budget. Because whatever it is, in any Budget Statement, there will always be different views. For example, if we were to put up a Budget and say, "We want to raise worker levies", what do you think the response would be? There would be some who may say, "Yes, let us do it straightaway". I suspect there would be a lot more who would say "no".”
“The current spread of engagement opportunities during the year, growing more intensive nearer Budget Day, achieves the goal of engaging Singaporeans to think about our future, as Mr Louis Ng's suggestion intends. The Budget is not a destination, but part of a journey of feedback-gathering, analysis, policy review and refinement, in order to improve Singapore and the lives of Singaporeans.”
“Madam, we agree that engaging and consulting the public are valuable to the Budget process. In fact, preparations and consultations for the Budget take place all year round. Throughout the year, the Government gathers feedback and studies data to formulate and implement better plans. This consultation effort goes beyond MOF and includes the outreach and consultations by other Ministries and REACH to Singaporeans, businesses, workers and various sectors. The feedback gathering is intensified around the end of the year, typically by early December, in a more formal Budget feedback exercise. The process is structured along certain themes and questions, which, in a way, reflects some of the areas being examined for the coming Budget. For Budget 2017, REACH had Listening Points across Singapore over 10 December 2016 to 8 January 2017 to provide accessible, open booths for Singaporeans to give their views for Budget 2017. REACH also hosted events, such as the Pre-Budget 2017 Conversation and Facebook Q&A Session, for Singaporeans to directly engage with policymakers and Members of Parliament. MOF ran engagement sessions with stakeholders, such as trade associations and grassroots leaders. This past year, through the work of the Committee on the Future Economy, there were additional engagement sessions with students, industry leaders, unionists and academics. Feedback received during these consultations had further contributed to the formulation of the Budget. On the timing of consultation, we have found from our interactions with companies and stakeholders that many of them would prefer to give their views closer to the Budget as the economic situation for the coming year is clearer and business concerns become clearer.”
“This has been and will continue to be Singapore's approach. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(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)]”
“Where a trustee acts so egregiously to commit fraud or criminal breach of trust, he or she can be prosecuted under the criminal law. We have not seen any trend or development indicating a need to criminalise breaches of a trustee's statutory duty of care. Finally, Mr Louis Ng asked if there were any plans to enhance our legislative framework with regard to the regulation of accountants and precious stones and metal dealers. The short answer is yes, we are looking into it. Since 2014, Singapore has implemented a cash transaction reporting regime for precious stones and metal dealers. This was to reduce the risk of money laundering and terrorism financing associated with transactions involving precious commodities. In September 2016, the National Steering Committee for Combating Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing announced that it will study how the regulatory regime for this sector can be further strengthened. Accountants, on the other hand, have to comply with the Ethics Pronouncement 200 (EP 200) issued by the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants in November 2014. EP 200 sets out the applicable anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing requirements and guidelines for professional accountants in Singapore. In addition, public accountants are regulated under the Accountants Act and the rules and standards prescribed under it. Following the Companies (Amendment) Bill, which has just been passed by this House, consequential and related amendments to the Accountants Act will be made to give more bite to the applicable rules and standards for public accountants, including EP 200. As Mr Louis Ng noted, a whole-of-Government approach is essential in developing a coordinated strategy to combat financial crime.”
“The underlying financial wrongdoing is actually already criminalised under existing legislation, such as the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act and the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act. The proposed amendments to the Trustees Act supplement this by making trust information available to our law enforcement authorities when required. Prescribing a criminal sanction for such breaches already underscores the seriousness of a breach, and Singapore is one of the first few common law jurisdictions in the world to criminalise such breaches. In the circumstances, my Ministry assessed that a fine not exceeding $1,000 would be appropriate as it balances the need for deterrence with the need for a proportionate sanction. That said, given that this is an evolving regulatory space, we will continue to monitor the domestic situation as well as international best practices and respond accordingly. Second, Mr Louis Ng asked if the Ministry has considered the viability of setting up a central registry of all trusts that have connections to Singapore. We have considered the issue but, at present, have no plans to set up such a registry. There is no clear evidence that having a central registry would strengthen Singapore's regime for countering financial crime. Third, Mr Louis Ng asked if criminal sanctions ought to be prescribed for a trustees' failure to discharge his statutory duty of care under the Trustees Bill. It must be borne in mind that the aim of criminal liability is to protect a wider public interest. We have already proposed to criminalise breaches of a trustee's record-keeping and transparency obligations.”