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 33 of 51.
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken for their support of the Bill. Ms Thanaletchimi asked how changes in the FATF Recommendations and GF requirements would be made known and about the lead time that will be given to affected parties to comply with the revised requirements. In the event that the FATF Recommendations and GF requirements are revised, we will first study such revisions closely to see if we need to make corresponding amendments to our laws. If amendments are made to the subsidiary legislation, these will be publicised through the Government Gazette. MinLaw and the relevant agencies may also consider public education campaigns to effectively communicate the changes and ease the transition process. In determining an appropriate date for the commencement of the revised legislation, we will take into account the complexity of the revisions and the extent to which they differ from the existing regime. If the changes are significant, we will provide a longer lead time before the revised rules take effect. These steps will help affected parties to understand the changes and give them sufficient time to adapt to them. Ms Thanaletchimi also asked whether a trustee may authorise an agent to fulfil the trustees' obligations under section 84A(2). There is nothing in the law today that prevents a trustee from doing so. This is a matter which we are presently reviewing in the preparation of the regulations to be made under section 84A(2). I turn now to the four issues raised by Mr Louis Ng. First, the Member asked if the maximum fine quantum of $1,000 for breaches of the regulations ought to be raised, to better deter illicit activities, such as money laundering and tax evasion.”
“Finally, the Bill empowers the Minister to exempt certain express trusts or classes of express trusts from the proposed Part VII of the Trustees Act. An exemption may be granted having regard to various factors, such as whether the trustee is already subject to pre-existing laws which prescribe similar or analogous standards as those found under Part VII; or whether the activities of a trust are already subject to regulatory oversight or supervision. For example, trust companies are presently already subject to the regulatory oversight by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). Additionally, under the regulatory notices issued by MAS, regulated trust companies are already required, when acting as trustees, to discharge duties which are similar to those envisaged under Part VII. Breach of such regulatory notices may render trust companies liable for an offence punishable by way of a fine not exceeding $1 million. To sum up, the amendments contemplated are part of a concerted effort to ensure that legal entities, such as companies and LLPs, as well as legal arrangements, such as trusts, do not readily lend themselves to financial crime. We will continue to monitor domestic and international developments in combating transnational financial crime to ensure that any vulnerabilities to our legal and regulatory framework are accurately identified and swiftly addressed. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Second, in prescribed transactions, the Minister may require the trustee to disclose to the other party in the transaction that the trustee is acting for the trust. This ensures that accurate information of a trust is readily available to the relevant law enforcement agencies when they require it through the exercise of their investigative powers. Some of these duties already exist under the common law. For example, in discharging the obligation to understand the terms of the trust, a trustee must necessarily obtain information on the identities of the beneficiaries or class of beneficiaries of a trust. In addition, a trustee is also obliged to keep and furnish accounts of the trust on request and to be familiar with and preserve trust property. The proposed amendments will reinforce the pre-existing duties of trustees under common law. They will also give more clarity to trustees on the expected standards that they should meet. From a law enforcement perspective, the proposed amendments ensure that information relevant to a trust is ready and available. This enables authorities to more quickly obtain information of a trust that is under investigation. Such greater transparency minimises the abuse of trust structures to conceal assets for money laundering, terrorism financing and tax evasion purposes. To discourage the breach of regulations, the proposed amendments empower the Minister to prescribe breaches of the regulations as offences punishable by way of a fine. Having regard to the comparative severity of the existing sanctions under the Trustees Act in respect of other offences, the maximum fine for such breaches is $1,000, which is a proportionate sanction for the purposes of Part VII.”
“Trusts can also arise by operation of law. These include resulting trusts and constructive trusts, which are deemed at law to be constituted when certain legal conditions are fulfilled. Trustees are obliged to discharge certain duties. These duties may be prescribed by common law, that is, law developed based on decisions by judges in individual cases. These include the duties to be familiar with the terms of the trust, to be familiar with the state of the trust property and safeguard the trust assets, and to furnish the accounts of the trust for inspection on request. Trustees' duties may also be prescribed by statute or any other regulation. For example, section 3A of the Trustees Act imposes a statutory duty on trustees to exercise reasonable care and skill in the discharge of their powers of investment and any duty in relation to the investment of trust funds. The Bill introduces a new Part VII to the Trustees Act, which will apply to an express trust that is governed by Singapore law, administered in Singapore, or in respect of which any of the trustees is resident in Singapore. In respect of the express trusts covered by the Bill, the Bill empowers the Minister to, amongst others, impose the following duties on the trustees. First, the Minister may require the trustee to obtain, maintain and keep up-to-date information relating to and records of the trust. These include (a) the identity and particulars of the parties relevant to the trust, which include the settlors, trustees, beneficiaries and those who effectively control these parties; (b) the identity and particulars of an agent of, or a service provider to, the trust; and (c) accounting records relating to the trusts and information on the assets of the trust.”
“As a member of FATF and GF, Singapore has regard to the standards promulgated by these international bodies and participates in the peer assessment exercises conducted by these bodies on its members. In September 2016, the National Steering Committee for Combating Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing announced that Singapore will follow up on certain areas of improvement recommended by the FATF assessors. This included enhancing the transparency on beneficial ownership of companies, limited liability partnerships and trusts, and ensuring that such information is more readily accessible to law enforcement agencies. To this end, the Bill introduces a framework for the Minister for Law to prescribe the necessary regulations, so as to give effect to the FATF recommendations and GF requirements concerning beneficial ownership and identity information and/or the keeping of accounting records in relation to trusts. Similar amendments were introduced in respect of companies and limited liability partnerships (LLPs) by way of the Companies (Amendment) Bill and the LLPs (Amendment) Bill which were passed in this House earlier today. Before I take the House through the main features of the Bill, let me first outline the existing legal regime concerning trusts and trustees. Trusts are essentially relationships or vehicles in which property is vested in a person known as a trustee. The trustee is obliged to hold and manage such property for the benefit of other persons known as the beneficiaries. Trusts can be created by the act of an individual declaring his intention to create a trust. For example, an individual may create a trust and appoint a trustee to manage the assets of his estate. Such trusts are broadly termed as "express trusts".”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Singapore is one of the leading financial centres of the world. We have earned a reputation for being a clean and trusted international financial centre. We have anchored our financial sector on three pillars. First, building a strong legal and regulatory framework. Second, implementing a robust regime of supervision to monitor compliance by all regulated sectors. Third, staying committed to cross-border cooperation in the global combat against transnational financial crime. We will continue to ensure that our legal and regulatory framework is responsive to the evolving threat of cross-border financial crime, such as money laundering, terrorism financing and tax evasion. Financial crime has become increasingly sophisticated. Company and trust structures are sometimes used to facilitate movement of funds for money-laundering, terrorism financing and tax evasion purposes. There have been increased efforts globally to enhance the transparency of trusts and company structures. This will facilitate the more efficient tracing of assets which, in turn, will assist the investigation and prosecution of financial crime. As a responsible member of the international community, Singapore has done and will continue to do its part to combat financial crime. In this regard, Singapore is a member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an intergovernmental body which sets standards and promotes implementation of anti-money laundering and terrorism financing measures. Singapore is also a member of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes (GF), a multilateral body which promotes and implements international standards on tax transparency.”
“In determining the period of retention, we took into account international standards, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes standards, as well as the minimum retention period of five years in jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. 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)]”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank Mr Louis Ng for his comments and support of the Bill and his positive acknowledgement of MOF and ACRA's stakeholder engagement efforts. I would also like to thank the respondents who took part in the engagement for their useful feedback. Let me address the two questions from Mr Louis Ng. Mr Louis Ng's first question is whether MOF will conduct a thorough review about our corporate regulations to remove unnecessary costs for the business community. He has also suggested that ACRA conduct another review of regulatory fees. We would like to assure Mr Louis Ng and the House that MOF and ACRA regularly review our corporate regulations to ensure that our regime is robust and yet business-friendly. Apart from reviewing the laws, MOF and ACRA also review ACRA's regulatory fees every few years. In the fee review in 2014, ACRA also streamlined over 100 ad hoc and routine transactions, resulting in reduced costs to businesses. We will continue to monitor areas where we keep business costs reasonable. On the second issue of record retention, Mr Louis Ng has asked whether MOF is exploring most cost-effective means of technology for retaining records of wound -up LLPs. Liquidators of wound-up LLPs will have the flexibility to decide how the records should be kept. The law does not prescribe the format for keeping records. The business community should explore and adopt the most cost-effective means to keep their records. Mr Louis Ng has also asked for the rationale for the minimum retention period of five years. This period is equal to that for companies.”
“With the change, LLPs can execute documents by having them signed by two partners of an LLP, or a partner of an LLP in the presence of a witness who attests the signature. Notwithstanding the change, LLPs can choose to retain the use of a common seal based on business needs. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The proposed amendments in the Limited Liability Partnerships (Amendment) Bill are intended to align with the changes in the Companies (Amendment) Bill, which has just been passed. The first set of amendments is to implement transparency-related changes. Like companies, limited liability partnerships (LLPs), will be required to maintain registers of controllers at prescribed places. Obligations similar to those required of companies will apply to LLPs, recipients of notices from LLPs and their controllers. The Minister will also be empowered to direct the Registrar to maintain a central register of controllers of LLPs in the event a central register becomes a new internationally-agreed standard. Besides the register of controllers, the LLP Act will be amended to implement three changes on record retention. First, to require the liquidator to retain the LLP's records for at least five years, instead of the current two. Second, not to allow an LLP that is wound up by its partners or creditors to destroy records early. Such an LLP will have to retain its records for at least five years. Third, to require former partners or managers of an LLP that has been struck off and dissolved to retain its accounting records and registers of controllers for at least five years. As with the changes for companies, we intend to effect the transparency-related changes for LLPs by 31 March 2017. Existing LLPs will have 60 days after the laws are effected to comply with the new requirements. The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) will publish guidance to help LLPs comply with the new requirements. The final set of amendments will remove the requirement for a common seal.”
“As soon as possible after this Bill is passed. [(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)]”
“And we abide by the arms-length principle for pricing of related party transactions and there are also mechanisms in place for the exchange of information among tax authorities. So, I think the underlying principle here is that we are a substantive jurisdiction and not one of those where you can just come here purely for tax purposes. Finally, Mr Dennis Tan asked about clause 25 and the portion which allows for the Minister to designate certain institutions. This relates to the carve-out of entities from judicial management. The thinking for this is really to consider excluding financial institutions. This was done with input from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). And the reason is that, for financial institutions, there is a bespoke resolution regime which is administered by MAS to restructure these entities. So, there is a specialist route or track for financial institutions. Our current provisions already carve out some financial institutions like banks and insurance companies. What the amendments do is they will allow the Minister to designate some additional financial institutions but, primarily, it is because it is a specialist track and this is something which really best comes under the purview of MAS. Madam, with this, I beg to move.”
“Mr Dennis Tan may recall a Pacific Andes Resources Development case. That was heard in September of last year and our High Court held that we did not have the jurisdiction to grant the worldwide moratoriums. That restructuring did not take place here. In this current environment where you can actually see that there are many companies which have a need for restructuring, we felt that it was imperative to put these amendments in place as soon as possible, so that our Courts will not lose the opportunity to hear such restructuring cases and it would also be good for our professionals, especially those in the restructuring space, because the sooner this is in place, the sooner our people will be able to get their share of the work and do the restructuring work that is very much clearly in demand out there. Mr Dennis Tan also asked whether ACRA will provide some literature on minority rights in view of these amendments. And the answer is yes. ACRA will put the materials on its website after the Bill is passed and it will continue to engage with companies to disseminate information to the minorities who will know what their rights are. I think that is an important thing to do. Mr Dennis Tan also raised the point about inward re-domiciliation and said that he hoped that this would not incur the ire of some other countries. We certainly hope not. In so far as tax and corporate re-domiciliation are concerned, it is very important to establish or reiterate that, from the Singapore perspective, we are a jurisdiction where there must be substantive activity for tax purposes. We certainly do not wish to be a centre where you just come here purely for tax purposes without any underlying substantive activity.”
“Mr Murali Pillai has also suggested giving financial institutions access to the register of controllers to facilitate their customer due diligence processes. We have considered this issue carefully as the issue was also raised during our engagement with stakeholders. There were concerns about privacy and potential misuse if the register of controllers is available for public inspections. Such concerns apply even if access is limited to certain professional intermediaries. As this will be a new register, we decided to take a more conservative approach by restricting access to the register only to the Registrar and public agencies for the purpose of administering and enforcing their respective laws. Let me now turn to some of the comments and questions raised by Mr Dennis Tan. I think the Member's first comment was why it was necessary to bring this Bill so quickly. He appreciated that there was a report but he had hoped for more time to consider. In fact, the restructuring amendments on which the Member spoke were contained in the report for the recommendations to enhance Singapore as a restructuring hub. That report came out on 20 April 2016, and it has been in the public domain. We went for public consultation in October and December 2016, and effectively, substantively, the provisions that we are putting in place now are the same. There is very little change from the report because the comments that we got back were really sort of finetuning comments. The Government gave its response on 20 February. We brought it in at this time really because, given the current economic climate, we do not want to lose the opportunity of Singapore being a restructuring hub with these enhanced provisions as soon as possible.”
“We are also mindful of the impact of these changes. Thus, the Bill will only require companies to maintain the registers. We have also not gone as far as to require a central or public register of controllers. Second, Mr Murali Pillai has asked about the amendment on establishing the state of mind of an entity for the purposes of criminal proceedings. Specifically, Mr Pillai has asked why the amendment adopts the "agency principle" and not the common law position on "identification principle". Before I address this comment, let me first provide the context of the amendment and elaborate on the "agency principle" and the "identification principle" cited by Mr Pillai. The Companies Act contains offences that apply to companies. As a company is a legal entity, it can only act through individuals. The agency and identification principles are used to determine the state of mind of a company when ascertaining whether the company committed an offence. The "agency principle" states the mind of a corporation's officer, employee or agent as that of the company. In contrast, the "identification principle" takes into account a narrower range of individuals, usually the senior management and company directors. For the register of controllers, the amendment on the state of mind of an entity uses the "agency principle". This is because the proposed obligations for companies, such as sending notices to potential controllers, are likely to be performed by companies' officers and employees. The provision is also a standard clause in recent Bills, such as the Info-communications Media Development Authority Act 2016, SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Act 2016, Credit Bureau Act 2016 and the Government Technology Agency Act 2016.”
“The proposed 60-day period in the Bill is equivalent to that of public companies to issue share and debenture certificates. The proposed period is sufficient for re-domiciled companies since the certificates will be for existing shares or debentures that are issued under the law of jurisdiction from their home jurisdiction. Furthermore, the interest of the share or debenture holders in obtaining the certificates also have to be considered. Mr Louis Ng has asked about the circumstances under which the Registrar will approve a company's application to have its first financial year longer than 18 months. It is not prudent to comprehensively set these out as the reasons will vary with the unique circumstances of each company. The registrar will assess each application based on its own merits. Mr Louis Ng's other question is on the five-year record retention period for struck-off companies. The Bill sets out the minimum retention period. We have set it at five years after considering the five-year period set by FATF and GF. The UK and Hong Kong also adopt similar periods. Let me now turn to Mr Murali Pillai's comments on the register of controllers. First, Mr Pillai has asked whether the Government has considered delaying the implementation of the register of controllers until such time when there is a level playing field amongst major financial centres. There is strong and growing international momentum to increase transparency of beneficial ownership through the implementation of registers of controllers. In June 2015, the European Union issued the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive to require member states to maintain central or public registers of beneficial owners. Australia and Hong Kong are also conducting public consultation on similar reforms.”
“The amendments to Article 25 have been made to give our Courts flexibility in cooperating with foreign courts and practitioners. It is also in line with other jurisdictions, such as the UK. In this regard, Mr Edwin Tong has noted that the Supreme Court of Singapore has adopted the Judicial Insolvency Networks' Guidelines on Cooperation and Communication in Cross-border Insolvency Cases. These guidelines are a bespoke framework which will guide our Courts on communication and coordination with other courts in cross-border insolvency matters. Additionally, aside from Singapore, the guidelines have also been adopted by the US Bankruptcy Courts of Delaware and the Southern District of New York. Other courts are also expected to adopt these guidelines in the near future. Let me next address the specific questions raised on other amendments in the Companies (Amendment) Bill. Mr Louis Ng has asked whether companies that have re-domiciled to Singapore under the new inward re-domiciliation regime can represent themselves as Singapore-registered companies upon issuance of the Notice of Transfer by ACRA, or only after ACRA is satisfied with the submission of documents evidencing de-registration in the company's prior place of incorporation. Under the new regime, a re-domiciled company will be treated as a Singapore-registered company upon issuance of the Notice of Transfer. However, if the company subsequently fails to submit documents showing its de-registration from its country of domicile, ACRA may revoke its registration in Singapore. Mr Louis Ng has also suggested giving re-domiciled companies an additional 30 days, on top of the proposed 60 days, to issue share and debenture certificates.”
“They are not pertinent to this set of amendments. With respect to this set of amendments on restructuring, Mr Patrick Tay asked a question on whether or not you could exempt employee claims from the moratorium. But I think that would defeat the purpose of a moratorium. See, with restructuring, what you are really trying to do is: the company is in trouble, it is bleeding, it has got a problem. You are trying to give it breathing space where it is kind of like a "time out". And the "time out" enables you, hopefully, to get in rescue financing or to see how to restructure it so that it can continue as a going concern. If it is done well and done properly, then these employees, hopefully, will be able to get their salaries and continue to hold on to their jobs. The difficulty of exempting them from a moratorium is that just as you are talking to somebody who is prepared to give you rescue financing, then suddenly an employee claim comes and then another group of employee claims comes. And the management is trying to fight and hold off these claims as you are talking with the people who are going to put in financing. It does not enable the management to focus on getting the company back on its feet. So, the restructuring context is slightly different and the whole idea of the moratorium is to give the company time to take stock of all the different debts and try to get it back on its feet, hopefully, for the betterment of all the creditors, including the employees, and have the employees continue in employment. Moving on, Mr Louis Ng queried why Article 25 of the Model Law was amended. States are given the flexibility to modify this Model Law and many jurisdictions have adopted the Model Law with amendments.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank all Members for their comments and support of the Bill. Let me first address the specific questions that Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Louis Ng have raised on the restructuring-related amendments. Mr Henry Kwek suggested introducing cram-down provisions to bind shareholders to restructuring proposals. Shareholders' cram down exists in Chapter 11, but Chapter 11 is an insolvency process that reorganises both the debt and equity of a company. By contrast, the new provisions support creditor schemes, which only bind the company's creditors. The current cram-down provisions ensure that the scheme distributes a company's property to its creditors in a fair and equitable manner and are not concerned with adjustments to shareholder interests. In order to justify cramming down shareholders' rights, shareholder meetings must be called and the company should be shown to be insolvent. Neither requirement exists in the current framework, so a fundamental paradigm shift to the regime is required to introduce shareholder cram down. The current scheme process is familiar and has worked well. So, at this stage, we have improved the process by adapting elements of Chapter 11 that mesh well with our scheme framework, instead of moving to a different system. Next, Mr Patrick Tay had made several suggestions to protect employees' claims for unpaid salaries. I think it is important to distinguish between two scenarios here. One is where it is a restructuring scenario and the other where it is a liquidation scenario. So, for the proposals concerning employee preferential debts in a winding up, these are related to corporate liquidation, and reforms to that process will be tackled in later phases of amendments to the insolvency framework.”
“Together with the new inward re-domiciliation regime, these amendments will increase our competitiveness and strengthen Singapore as a leading financial centre. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“I will now turn to amendments pertinent to cross-border cases, which are increasingly common because businesses conduct their operations and dealings all over the world. Clause 40 sets out a list of factors for the Court to consider when deciding whether a foreign company has substantial connection to Singapore in order for it to be wound up under this Act. The impact of this list goes beyond winding up, as a foreign company that can be wound up under this Act may make an application for a scheme of arrangement or judicial management. This list will provide greater certainty to foreign debtors that wish to restructure in Singapore. Clauses 41 and 50 adopt the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997), which is a well-understood and internationally respected framework that governs the recognition and assistance of foreign insolvency proceedings. Clause 45 abolishes the current rule that requires liquidators of foreign companies to "ring fence" Singapore assets and pay off debts incurred in Singapore first. However, "ring fencing" for specific financial entities, such as banks and insurance companies, will still be retained. These amendments will provide greater certainty of outcome in cross-border cases and significantly enhance Singapore's capability in dealing with cross-border insolvencies. In conclusion, the transparency-related amendments will enable Singapore to better mitigate the risks of money laundering and financing of terrorism. The Bill will also reduce the regulatory burden on companies and improve corporate governance in Singapore. The enhanced debt restructuring framework will give business entities in financial difficulties greater flexibility to restructure and survive.”
“These provisions, therefore, prevent a minority dissenting classes of creditors from unreasonably frustrating a restructuring that benefits creditors as a whole. Fourth, pre-packs. The final feature adapted from Chapter 11 are provisions for pre-negotiated restructurings between the company and its key creditors or "pre-packs". Other creditors will not be affected as the pre-pack is sufficient to save the company. The new provisions facilitate approval of these pre-packs as the Court may dispense with calling creditor meetings if certain safeguards are met. I will now move on to amendments relating to our judicial management scheme. Judicial management is a temporary Court-supervised procedure where a company unable to pay its debts is managed by a judicial manager. Clause 25(a) will allow the Court to make a judicial management order when a company "is likely to become unable to pay its debts", as opposed the current "will be unable to pay its debts". This will allow the judicial management process to commence earlier in the day, when the prospects of saving a company are higher. Clause 25(d) will allow the Court to make a judicial management order despite objections from certain secured creditors if the prejudice caused to unsecured creditors is disproportionately greater. Presently, the Court cannot grant a judicial management order if these secured creditors oppose the application. Clause 28 will introduce rescue financing provisions, which mirror the provisions introduced for schemes of arrangement. These three enhancements to the judicial management regime will improve its efficacy as a corporate rescue process.”
“Features of Chapter 11 that will be adapted include: providing an automatic moratorium on filing an application, for a period of up to 30 days; allowing the Court to give the moratorium worldwide effect; and extending the moratorium to related entities relevant to the restructuring. Finally, the new provisions will provide for carve-outs from the moratorium through subsidiary legislation. This will address situations where the moratorium may cause disproportionately adverse effects on certain transactions. An example is contractual obligations under set-off and netting arrangements. Next, rescue financing. The next feature of Chapter 11 that is being adapted are rescue financing provisions. Rescue financing consists of new loans which provide working capital during the restructuring. Without rescue financing, a viable company may be unable to restructure, but lenders may be reluctant to provide additional financing to troubled companies. To facilitate rescue financing, the Court will be empowered to order that rescue financing be given super-priority. That means priority over all other debts or to be secured by a security interest that has priority over pre-existing security interests, provided the pre-existing interests are adequately protected. This is consistent with the approach in Chapter 11. Third, cram-down provisions. Another feature adapted from Chapter 11 is to allow the Court to approve a scheme even if there are dissenting creditor classes, but provided safeguards are met. Presently, the Court can only sanction a scheme if the requisite majority approval has been obtained from all classes of creditors.”
“While Singapore is already a regional forum of choice for restructuring, these amendments will enhance Singapore's restructuring processes which are schemes of arrangement, under section 210 of the Bill, and judicial management, under Part VIIIA of the Bill; and improve our capability to deal with cross-border insolvencies and restructurings. These proposed changes will further enhance our restructuring framework and status as a centre for international debt restructuring. With this background in mind, let me explain the key amendments relating to restructuring. I will first cover amendments to the schemes of arrangement. In a scheme, the company presents a debt restructuring proposal at meetings of its creditors or classes of them. If the proposal is approved by a majority of creditors that hold 75% of the company's debts at these meetings and is sanctioned by the Court, the proposal becomes binding on the creditors. The key amendment is clause 22, which introduces a new set of provisions that apply to schemes which implement debt restructuring proposals. These provisions adapt parts of Chapter 11 of the United States (US) Bankruptcy Code (Chapter 11). I will highlight the key features of these new provisions. First, moratorium. The provisions will allow the Court to order a moratorium in favour of a company that is proposing or intends to propose a scheme. The moratorium prevents creditors from taking action against the company, such as commencing legal proceedings or enforcing security rights, and gives the company breathing room to put forward the restructuring proposal.”
“This will be in addition to the current regime whereby private companies can dispense with the holding of AGMs if all shareholders approve. The Bill also includes safeguards, such as allowing any shareholder of a private company to ask for an AGM within prescribed timelines. Third, clause 6 will remove the requirement for a common seal to execute documents, such as deeds, and for certain documents, such as share certificates. The use of common seals has become outdated. Jurisdictions, such as Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (UK) no longer require the use of common seals. The Bill will allow companies to execute documents by having them signed by company officers who are duly authorised to do so. However, notwithstanding this amendment, companies can choose to retain the use of a common seal based on their business needs. Mdm Speaker, I will now move on to the debt restructuring amendments. Debt restructuring refers to the process undertaken by companies in financial difficulty to renegotiate the terms of their debts and save their businesses. The need for debt restructuring is on the rise globally. Recent high-profile cases include Hanjin Shipping's attempted rehabilitation in Korea and ongoing efforts for Singapore-listed businesses like Swiber and Ezra. A successful restructuring averts liquidation and allows the company to continue as a going concern, which benefits not only the company owners but also employees who keep their jobs and others who rely on the company for their own businesses. It also allows the company's creditors to receive a higher repayment under the restructuring proposal than in liquidation.”
“This includes samples of the notice that companies can use to send to their shareholders, directors and any other relevant persons to assist them in obtaining the information required for their register of controllers. Mdm Speaker, I move next to the second set of amendments. These seek to reduce the regulatory burden and improve the ease of doing business. There are three key changes. First, clause 42 introduces an inward re-domiciliation regime in Singapore. Foreign corporate entities will be allowed to transfer their registration to Singapore, besides the current options of setting up a subsidiary or branch in Singapore. Inward re-domiciliation is akin to changing "corporate citizenship". Transfer of registration will thus be useful to foreign corporate entities that wish to retain their corporate history and identity. Foreign corporate entities may choose to re-domicile for various reasons, such as for a more conducive regulatory framework or to be closer to their shareholders or operational base. A foreign corporate entity that is re-domiciled to Singapore will be required to comply with the requirements of the Companies Act like any other Singapore company. Second, clauses 9 to 10 and 14 to 16 will align the timelines for holding annual general meetings (AGMs) and filing annual returns with the companies' financial year end. The Bill will require listed companies to hold AGMs and file annual returns within four months and five months after their financial year end respectively. Non-listed companies must hold AGMs and file annual returns within six months and seven months after their financial year end respectively. The Bill also exempts all private companies from holding AGMs, subject to safeguards.”
“The change will not impose any additional compliance responsibility for foreign companies which already maintain registers of members in their place of incorporation. Clause 47 will require locally incorporated companies to maintain the third new register, which is the register of nominee directors. The Bill will also require nominee directors to disclose their nominee status and the particulars of their nominators to their companies. This mitigates the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing being done through nominees. Next, record retention, or the second key change. When a company is wound up, clause 38 will require the liquidator to retain the company's records for at least five years, instead of the current two. Furthermore, a company that is wound up by its members or creditors will not be allowed to destroy records early. Such a company will have to retain its records for at least five years. For a company that has been struck off and dissolved, clause 39 will require its former officers to similarly retain all books and papers of the company for at least five years, including its accounting records and registers. The five-year period takes reference from standards under FATF and GF. The changes will allow enforcement agencies to access past records for their investigations. These amendments will boost Singapore's ongoing efforts to maintain our strong reputation as a trusted and clean financial hub. We intend to effect these amendments by 31 March 2017. To help companies prepare to comply with these new requirements, existing companies will have a transitional period of 60 days from the commencement of the law to maintain the registers of controllers. ACRA will also issue further guidance to companies.”
“Companies will be required to take reasonable steps to identify and obtain information on their controllers, including sending notices to potential controllers or persons who have information about the controllers. Besides companies, the Bill will introduce obligations for two other groups of persons. First, any person who receives a notice from the company must provide his particulars to the company if he is a controller. If the person is not the controller, the person must provide any information on the controller that he is aware of to the company. Second, controllers will be required to provide and update their particulars to the companies. Mdm Speaker, the topic of transparency of beneficial ownership continues to gain international attention and momentum. Internationally, there are discussions about central or public registers of controllers and the automatic exchange of beneficial ownership information. At the Group of 20 (G20), there is greater focus on ensuring availability of beneficial ownership information of legal persons to regulators and law enforcement agencies. The Bill only requires companies to maintain non-public registers of controllers. However, this information must be provided to the Registrar and law enforcement authorities upon request. The Bill also provides a reserve power for the Minister to direct the Registrar to maintain a central register of controllers should it become necessary to do so. Let me now deal with the next register. Clause 46 will require foreign companies registered in Singapore to maintain public registers of their members. This brings the position of foreign companies into alignment with the current requirement for locally incorporated companies.”
“FATF is an intergovernmental body that sets global standards for combating money laundering, terrorist financing and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system. As a member of FATF, Singapore undergoes mutual evaluations by FATF. In Singapore's fourth mutual evaluation last year, FATF assessed that Singapore has a strong framework for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism. FATF also recommended some areas for improvement. One of these was to enhance the access of law enforcement agencies to information on the beneficial ownership of legal persons. Singapore is also a member of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes (GF). Amending our laws will enable us to better implement international standards on tax transparency. Let me now elaborate on two key changes under this category of amendments. The first pertains to registers of controllers, members and nominee directors. We are requiring three new registers to be maintained by companies. First, clause 47 will require locally incorporated companies and foreign companies registered in Singapore to maintain registers of their controllers at prescribed places. A controller, or more commonly known as the beneficial owner, refers to an individual or a legal entity that has interest in or significant control over the company. The Bill defines "significant control" and "significant interest" and uses a 25% threshold to help companies determine when control and interest are significant. The 25% threshold is consistent with those in the FATF's guidance documents, the United Kingdom's (UK's) legislation on registers of people with significant control, and the European Union's Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Companies Act was last amended in 2014, mainly to implement the recommendations of the Steering Committee for the Review of the Companies Act. Since then, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) have undertaken another review of the Companies Act to ensure our regulatory regime continues to remain robust, relevant and in line with international norms. The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has also considered the recommendations of the Insolvency Law Review Committee (ILRC) and the Committee to Strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Restructuring to enhance Singapore's debt restructuring framework. These reviews have prompted the current amendments which fall into three categories. First, amendments to improve the transparency of ownership and control of companies in line with certain international norms. Second, amendments to reduce the regulatory burden and improve the ease of doing business and, third, amendments to enhance our debt restructuring framework. Several rounds of public consultation on the proposed amendments were conducted and the feedback has, where appropriate, been incorporated into the amendments. Mdm Speaker, let me now take Members through the key amendments in the Bill. First, improving transparency of companies. The first set of amendments seeks to make the ownership and control of business entities more transparent and thus reduce opportunities for the misuse of corporate entities for illicit purposes. This will help Singapore to better meet the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. The short answer is that all the questions that the Member has asked are really a matter for the Temasek Board. They would have to review as to when it is timely to have somebody come in, who those candidates ought to be. As I had explained in my earlier answer, they do this review regularly. As to when a new CEO may come in, that will really depend on the Board. The important thing to understand is that Temasek operates as a commercial entity. So, this is not something where the Government interferes with that management. They approach it the same way any other corporation or commercial entity does, which is, you determine when you think is the best time or if there is a need to have a change of CEO or a succession. As and when the need arises, you will do what is necessary.”
“Mdm Speaker, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam had explained in Parliament in 2009 that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) succession planning at Temasek is a key responsibility of its Board of Directors. The Temasek Board conducts annual leadership succession reviews as a matter of good governance. As reported annually since 2004 in the Temasek Review, the Temasek Board has a board committee which reviews and makes recommendations to the Temasek Board on management leadership development and succession planning for key positions. This includes Board as well as CEO succession plans. For CEO succession, the Temasek Board reviews and tracks a list of candidates annually. These include those from within the company as well as those from outside Temasek, both in Singapore and abroad. This confidential list of candidates ranges from those who can step in immediately, to younger candidates who could be potential successors beyond the five-year period. The Temasek Board meets with potential successors regularly to get to know them and assess their suitability, including young potential candidates early in their careers, inside as well as outside of Temasek. The timing and candidate for CEO succession are the purview of the Temasek Board. As Temasek is a Fifth-Schedule Company under the Singapore Constitution, the CEO's appointment is subject to the concurrence of the President.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to make provision in accordance with Articles 148(2) and 148C(2) of the Constitution for additional expenditure in excess of the provisions authorised by the Supply Act 2016. The additional sums have been presented as Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year, 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017, as contained in Paper Cmd No 9 of 2017. Madam, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time. (proc text)]”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In accordance with Article 148(1) of the Constitution, Heads of Expenditure to be met from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund, other than statutory expenditure, have to be included in the Bill to be known as the Supply Bill. The purpose of the Supply Bill before Members is, therefore, to give legislative approval for the appropriations from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund to meet the expenditure in the Financial Year, 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018. The Heads of Expenditure and the sums that may be incurred in respect of each Head are shown in the Schedule to the Bill. These have been approved by the House in the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year, 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018, as contained in Paper Cmd No 8 of 2017. The Supply Bill, when approved, will empower the Minister to issue warrants, authorising Expenditure up to the amount for each Head as shown in the Bill to be paid out from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund. Madam, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time. (proc text)]”
“Mdm 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)]”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has come to certain resolutions. First resolution reported − [(proc text) "That the sum of $87,564,044,800 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Main Estimates for the financial year 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018, contained in Paper Cmd 8 of 2017." (proc text)] Second resolution reported − [(proc text) "That the sum of $33,240,004,900 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018, contained in Paper Cmd 8 of 2017." (proc text)]”
“So, it does not necessarily have to take the form of an OBR. The expertise is out there available to him, and he can avail himself of it as and when he needs it, if and when he thinks he needs it.”
“All right. I thank Mr Low for clarifying that. With regard to the first clarification on whether we should need to wait till international markets to lose confidence before setting up such an institution, I think the correct approach to take is to make sure that international markets do not lose confidence in us to begin with. This has actually been our approach for the last 50 years. It is an approach of fiscal discipline, financial prudence, effective spending, sustainable revenues. And this is all underpinned by the constitutional safeguards. So, the short answer really to that clarification is that we must make sure that we never get to that situation. We are already in the situation where international markets have confidence in us, and that is indicated by our AAA rating. So, we must continue to do as we have been doing, which is to maintain fiscal discipline and financial prudence. The second question on whether having such an independent institution will enhance public confidence, it really goes back to the same thing. You have to make sure that whatever you do, you spend within your means, you do not rack up huge deficits, that you stay within your forecasts and you just make sure that, basically, you do not spend beyond your means. So, the answer to the second question is really the same as the answer to the first question. The Member's third question was whether or not, having such an institution could provide useful inputs to the Elected President. The Elected President, of course, has access to the Council of Presidential Advisors, but he is not precluded from seeking expertise from consultants or any other sort of expertise that he may need in order to make the kind of decisions that he needs to make under the Constitution.”
“Lose confidence, I see. Lose confidence in us, you mean? All right. And the second clarification, because Mr Low went so quickly, I am afraid that I could not catch his question. Something about having such independent institutions to enhance something?”
“Mdm Chairperson, before I answer, may I just clarify with Mr Low his first and second clarifications? For the first clarification, he said, "Do we need to wait until the international market", and then something? I am sorry, I missed that word. Could he just repeat?”
“But the Government cannot achieve this outcome alone. As the Finance Minister has stressed in his Budget speech, we will need to work in partnership with community organisations and individuals, especially since many of our social challenges are complex and multi-dimensional. Madam, allow me to conclude. One key theme has recurred in these discussions. It is about the role of Government in catalysing growth and building a strong and resilient society. We will do this within a credible and trustworthy system of checks and balances. We have made good progress in these areas and we will continue to refine and improve. We are committed to work in partnership with our businesses, the unions and citizens in this journey.”
“00 pm Mr Edwin Tong has also highlighted that HDB dwellers receive on average about four times the amount of Government transfers when compared to private estate dwellers in 2016. I would like to clarify that this is correct if you compare the transfers received by 1- and 2-room HDB flat residents with those living in private properties. This is a reflection of our progressive system. But if you take into account 3-, 4- and 5-room flats, then the ratio is different. We have been able to achieve good social outcomes, including when compared to other countries. For example, we have one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. More than 90% of Singaporeans, including many young Singaporeans, are homeowners. Compare this to Britain, for example, where the rate of home ownership among those aged 25 to 34 has fallen by about 20% in the past decade, from 59% to 37%. Our education system provides our students with a good foundation. Our students consistently do well in many international education rankings. But besides developing our students intellectually, we have also placed a lot of emphasis on values and character development, as part of holistic education. Our healthcare system is recognised for providing good quality and affordable care in a sustainable way. The Bloomberg Healthcare Efficiency Index, which considers life expectancy and total healthcare costs per capita and as a percentage of GDP, places us near the top consistently. We do not claim to have the best system, but we have done quite well over the years. Going forward, we will need to manage rising healthcare costs, while helping older Singaporeans age well. The Government will continue to improve our social programmes and schemes to foster a caring and inclusive society.”
“For example, all Singaporeans, including those who live in private housing, can receive retraining support, subsidies for inpatient and outpatient care, and preschool and education subsidies. Education can be quite significant. For instance, a child entering primary school in 2016 would stand to benefit from over $100,000 in today's terms in education subsidies by the time he/she completes secondary school. With post-secondary education, it is even more. When property is taken into consideration, many schemes consider the AV with a threshold of $13,000 and/or $21,000. The AV is reviewed annually. An AV threshold of $13,000 already covers all HDB flats, while the AV threshold of $21,000 covers about 80% of residential properties, including some lower-value private properties. This means only those who live in private properties with AVs in the top 20% are excluded. In short, while there is always room for improvement, what we have today is a system that is fair and inclusive. At the same time, we exercise flexibility and will consider appeals on a case-by-case basis. Those in genuine need of help will receive help. Mr Edwin Tong highlighted cases in which a resident may be living in a private property under extenuating circumstances, for instance, renting only one room or living with friends in a private property on goodwill terms. For these, if they have any specific needs, the best approach would be to appeal to the relevant agencies, which will consider various appeals on a case-by-case basis and on their merits. There may also be schemes at the constituency level that can be tapped on, and these can be checked at the respective constituency offices. 4.”
“Nonetheless, we recognise that no criterion is perfect. Each come with trade-offs. For instance, a wealth criterion that requires an individual to report his personal savings may be a more accurate assessment of his wealth, but that would require the citizen to apply for benefits rather than receive them automatically. The annual value (AV) of property criterion, which does not need to be separately reported, allows us to deliver benefits automatically. Different trade-offs arise with other means-testing criteria. I thank Mr Murali Pillai for pointing out the limitations of using household income and for his suggestion to migrate to family means-testing. Even if data analytics can map our family trees based on administrative data like births, deaths, marriages and divorces, it may not fully capture family relationships, which can be complex and fluid. The Government is also not privy to family dynamics. Hence, to date, the household income remains the best available proxy for family support. But we will keep in mind good and practical ideas on how to improve on this. I thank the Members for their suggestions. There is another benefit of household means-testing. It enables us to make it more convenient for Singaporeans to benefit from our social schemes, as applicants do not need to provide information on family members who do not stay with them. Mr Edwin Tong also spoke about schemes that do not apply to those who live in private housing. Our underlying principle is to provide support according to need, and those in private housing are generally better off than those in public housing. Nevertheless, there are schemes which extend to those in private housing.”
“By the way, the Silver Support Scheme is not for all HDB dwellers, but only for seniors who have had low income through life and now have little family support; likewise, ComCare and MediFund as safety nets for those in need. Assoc Prof Randolph Tan spoke about the "broad" coverage of the GST Voucher (GSTV). The GSTV has different components, each with a different objective. For instance, the GSTV − Cash payment, is meant to help the lower income offset some of the cost of daily living. The eligibility criteria are deliberately set such that coverage is broader than schemes like ComCare and MediFund which target only the very needy. In this way, we can cover more Singaporeans with lower income. Meanwhile, the GSTV and Utilities (U)-Save are meant to help both lower- and middle-income households offset some of their utilities expenses. By extending the benefit to eligible HDB households, we cover about 70% of properties, including the middle-income group. If we put together all our different social schemes, we have a progressive social system where support is extended to all, but those with greater need receive more. I agree with Assoc Prof Tan's caution that we need to avoid a creep towards all schemes giving something for everyone. By careful design, we can have a system that is sustainable. Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Edwin Tong raised thoughtful points about our current means-testing system. Broadly speaking, our means-testing criteria consider income or wealth, or a combination of both, in order to determine how much support to give. For some schemes, we also consider the number of dependants in a household, with per capita means-testing criteria. This is fair and helps us target our schemes at those who need more assistance.”
“But at the same time, we want to design the scheme in a way that does not erode our societal values of family and community support and, more importantly, the value of a strong work ethic that Singaporeans share. Third, is the scheme sustainable? We have a responsibility to ensure that each generation does not burden the next with unsustainable spending. This is why we have schemes with different objectives to support Singaporeans in different circumstances and with different needs. This is our approach of providing gradated tiers of support, so that every Singaporean can benefit from our social schemes in one way or another. We have schemes that support strategic objectives, such as better education and health outcomes. These cover all Singaporeans, regardless of income or wealth. Those with lower incomes receive more assistance, which should be the case, but Singaporeans across the board receive some support. For example, eligibility for the SkillsFuture Credit, the Pioneer Generation Package and the Marriage and Parenthood Package is not dependent on income or wealth. For schemes, such as childcare, education and some healthcare subsidies, all Singaporeans can receive benefits, but those with lower incomes generally receive more assistance, which should be the case. We also have schemes that are more targeted. Some provide benefits not just to the lower income, but also to the middle income, for example, subsidies for housing and intermediate and long-term care. Others are more tightly scoped for those who need more help. These can range from MOE's Financial Assistance Scheme, WIS and the Silver Support Scheme.”
“There are leaders who are recruited from other companies, like Mr Tan Chong Meng, who was with Shell before joining the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA), and Mr Piyush Gupta who held various senior management roles at Citigroup before joining DBS Group as CEO, and Mr Neil McGregor who will succeed Mr Tang Kin Fei as Sembcorp Group President and CEO with effect from April 2017. Mr McGregor is currently the Senior Managing Director and Head of Energy and Resources at Temasek International. He was previously a CEO of LNG Corporation and Managing Director of YTL PowerSeraya. So, you can see that the GLCs recruit from diverse sources. Obviously, the Civil Service may be one of those sources, but it is not the only source. At the end of the day, they recruit just as other companies do, which is, they look for the right talent for the right need and they recruit based on merit. I move on now to some of the other cuts. Some of the Members have also asked how we set the eligibility criteria for our social schemes. Mr Edwin Tong and Mr Murali Pillai asked if our means-testing criteria are sufficiently flexible to accommodate diverse circumstances. Assoc Prof Randolph Tan asked if our schemes can be made more targeted. The queries raised by the three Members reflect the wide and diverse views on how social schemes can be designed. In designing our social schemes, we are guided by a few key principles. First, what is the objective of the scheme? If it is a scheme to support the needy, the eligibility criteria will be set to target the intended beneficiaries. If it is meant to benefit more, the criteria will have to be set for a broader coverage. Second, is the scheme design fair and progressive? We want to make sure that those with less receive more support.”
“The AGO's findings are reported to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which can call on the relevant agencies to explain lapses or take corrective actions. The net result is that markets have confidence in our system. This can also be seen from the fact that we are among the few countries today that continue to enjoy AAA credit rating. I move on to Mr Leon Perera's cut. He had referred to the recruitment of a former civil servant in GLC. I should, at the outset, explain that the GLCs operate as commercial entities. The Government does not get involved in the recruitment of their senior management. That is something which they do very much as a matter of their own needs. GLCs, like other companies, recruit senior managers based on their circumstances and their needs. At the more senior levels, experience can cover a wide range of domains. It may mean industry-specific knowledge or functional expertise, like recruiting a finance professional to be the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). It may encompass broader management experience in organisational transformation or leadership qualities. At the end of the day, it is for each company to decide what is most relevant or useful for it. Mr Perera might have been under the impression that GLCs recruit only from the public sector, but that is not the case. If you take a sampling, for example, we have seen leaders who are promoted from within organisations, such as Singapore Telecommunications' (Singtel's) Group CEO, Ms Chua Sock Koong, who first joined Singtel in 1989, and then we have Singapore Airlines' (SIA's) CEO, Mr Goh Choon Phong, who joined SIA in 1990. These are people promoted from the ranks. Then we also have lateral recruitment.”