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 35 of 51.
“The reason for having this criterion is to ensure that the settlement agreements are of a quality that can be readily recorded by the Courts. For now, trusted institutions like SIMC and SMC will be considered for designation as mediation service providers. The mechanism will be reviewed and may be opened up to more institutions when it has been successfully implemented and becomes more established. Ms Thanaletchimi asked if the Bill applies to tripartite mediations conducted under the Industrial Relations Act, or mediations conducted under other legislative frameworks, for example, the Family Justice Court under the Women's Charter, or mediations conducted by the Small Claims Tribunal. The Bill will not apply to mediations conducted under the Industrial Relations Act, those conducted by the Family Justice Court under the Women's Charter, or those conducted under the Small Claims Tribunal framework. As explained earlier, this is to prevent inconsistency with existing legislative frameworks and rules guiding those mediations. So, our approach is really not a one-size-fits-all. We encourage mediation for all, but within each type of category of claim or type of action, there may be a more specialist approach. So, we have got existing frameworks for existing specialist areas, like family law and industrial relations. Ms Thanaletchimi also sought clarification on whether the Bill requires the presence of lawyers representing the interests of the parties involved in drafting the mediation agreement. The Bill does not require the presence of lawyers. It is up to the parties as to whether they wish to involve their lawyers in the mediation.”
“SIDRA is the first regional institution dedicated to thought leadership and training and educational excellence in negotiation and dispute resolution. As for specialist mediators, both SMC and SIMC have specialist lists of mediators available for parties to choose from. The specialist mediators span a wide range of industries and sectors, such as banking, finance, family, probate and so on. Mr Patrick Tay suggested putting in place a grievance system to deal with complaints about mediators, while Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked if we will, in due course, establish a form of disciplinary tribunal to govern professional ethics rules for mediators. The mediation industry is a growing one and a heavy-handed approach may not be the best way to go forward at this point in time. With greater training and accreditation of mediators by the various mediation institutions, we hope that the mediation community will continue to develop its own approach through professional ethics guidance. But we will continue to monitor this, as the industry continues to professionalise, and we will finetune our framework as we learn from experience. Ms Thanaletchmi and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef both had questions on designated mediation service providers and certified mediators under the Bill and who will be appointed. The "designated mediation service provider" and "certified mediator" contained in the Bill serve a limited purpose. Specifically, in order for parties to make use of the provision to enable the enforcement of a mediated settlement agreement recorded as a Court order in clause 12 of the Bill, it is a pre-requisite that the mediation in question is administered by either the designated mediation service provider or conducted by a certified mediator.”
“There are also existing incentives for aided litigants to consider mediation as a viable dispute resolution option. The Legal Aid Bureau encourages all legally aided applicants to settle their disputes amicably. That makes sense because it saves time, it saves cost. Only if mediation is not successful or not possible, for example, because the other party does not wish to mediate or does not turn up, would the applicant be advised to proceed with litigation. And this is particularly so for family-related proceedings. If an applicant unreasonably refuses to mediate the matter, and the Legal Aid Bureau is of the view that mediation would be a good way to resolve the dispute at hand, a recommendation can be made to the Legal Aid Board on whether to refuse or cancel aid in the matter. Mr Patrick Tay and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef both spoke on the importance of setting standards and professionalisation of the mediation industry. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef also asked if we had considered the issue of specialist mediators. The Bill does not itself regulate the provision of mediation services or accreditation of mediators. Flexibility is important in ensuring the industry can develop. What we have done is to put in place measures to improve training and standards for the mediation industry, in line with our aim to grow Singapore as an international commercial mediation centre. To that end, we have established SIMI as the premier independent professional standards body, to promote mediation and set high competency standards in mediation practice. For mediation training and research, there is also the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (SIDRA).”
“Yet, as the Member has pointed out, it is important to balance a pro-mediation approach against party autonomy to choose for themselves which dispute resolution option best suits their needs, and not to unduly restrict individuals' rights of access to Court, or where they have agreed to other dispute resolution options, such as arbitration. So, in short, we offer an array of options, and parties can pick and choose whatever suits them best. On the issue of extension of limitation periods, this will require careful study. In the majority of cases, however, it is unlikely that an ongoing mediation would have any great impact on a limitation period, given that mediation typically is a quick process. There are also existing incentives in the Court process to encourage parties to settle. The Mediation Bill itself will introduce provisions to support an application to stay Court proceedings, on the basis of a mediation agreement, a point noted by many of the Members who spoke. The Court may also take into account parties' attempts to settle for costs of Court proceedings. And parties are also actively encouraged to consider mediation. For cases in the State Courts, disputes may be referred for mediation at the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution. New changes under the Supreme Court's Practice Directions also encourage lawyers and parties to consider if mediation is appropriate for their case. If we were to extend limitation periods, where mediation takes place, this wider context would have to be considered. The Member's second set of suggestions related to the provision of legal aid. I should clarify that legal aid does, in fact, cover mediations which are conducted as part of the process of resolving the dispute between parties.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank all the Members who have spoken and for their strong support of the Bill, Mediation is now an integral feature of our dispute resolution landscape. Mr Murali Pillai sought clarification on whether the Bill is intended to promote mediation as a mainstream form of dispute resolution mechanism as opposed to being an "alternative" dispute resolution option. If so, he suggested that parties can be encouraged to turn to pre-action mediation to resolve their disputes, before resorting to litigation or arbitration, through: (a) allowing an extension of time limits on a claim where this is being mediated; and (b) extending legal aid to cover mediation, and requiring aided persons to comply with advice by their assigned solicitors to submit their cases for mediation. First, on the question of what type of dispute resolution, our position has always been to encourage parties to find the most "appropriate" dispute resolution mechanism. So, it is still an "a": it is not "alternative", but "appropriate". If you think about it, what we have been doing is that we offer different products. You can have arbitration and litigation, and mediation complements the other two. So, there is a lot of flexibility there, and it is really what suits the parties' needs. So, in that context, mediation is complementary to litigation and arbitration and it is important to recognise that there are unique circumstances behind individual disputes, and having alternative dispute resolution mechanisms will enable the parties to find the right solution to address their issues. We are committed to mediation as a means for parties to settle disputes amicably and in a cost-effective way.”
“The Court may subject the stay order to any terms and conditions as it thinks fit and make further orders to preserve the rights of parties. The provision will provide parties to a mediation with assurance that their legal position in any Court proceeding can be preserved pending the outcome of mediation. Fourth, Legal Profession Act provisions. The fourth key aspect of the Bill is amendments to the Legal Profession Act, which make it clear that the restrictions on the practice of Singapore law will not apply to the mediation context where the mediation is conducted by (a) a certified mediator; or (b) administered by a designated mediation service provider. These are similar to existing provisions for arbitration. Such provisions will support international commercial mediation in Singapore by providing flexibility for parties intending to mediate to choose their own mediators and counsel, and encourage foreign mediators and counsel to use Singapore as a venue for mediation. Mdm Speaker, the present reforms are part of our overall effort to ensure Singapore's dispute resolution framework continues to be progressive and user-focused. The introduction of the Bill is timely. With a strong base of legal talent, high-quality dispute resolution service providers and standard-setting professional bodies, the Bill will serve to create a more conducive environment in Singapore for international commercial mediation and reinforce Singapore's position as a premier venue for the conduct of international commercial mediation. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“These positions seek to reflect current practices and expectations of mediation users. Confidentiality and privilege are considered key cornerstones of the mediation process. Today, however, such rules are based on a mixture of common law privileges, contractual protections and equitable remedies for breach of confidence. In practice, parties may not be clear on how such protections apply to their individual circumstances. Under the Bill, a protected mediation communication includes anything said or done, documents prepared or information provided in the course or for the purpose of the mediation. This also includes the agreement to mediate, and the settlement agreement, if any. Mediation communications are protected in two broad ways under the Bill. First, a mediation communication cannot be disclosed to any third party to the mediation, unless this falls under one of the listed exceptions, for example, party consent, or for the purpose of requesting legal advice and so on. Short of these exceptions, any further disclosure will require the leave of Court, or an arbitral tribunal if the request for disclosure is being made in the context of arbitral proceedings. The usual civil remedies for a breach of confidentiality will be available if unauthorised disclosure is made or threatened. Second, a mediation communication is not to be admitted into evidence in any Court, arbitral or disciplinary proceedings, except with the leave of a Court or arbitral tribunal. Next, stay of Court proceedings. The third key aspect of the Bill is a provision to stay Court proceedings. The Bill will provide parties to a mediation agreement with a specific statutory basis to apply to Court to stay any ongoing Court proceedings in relation to the same dispute.”
“The additional expedited method provided by the Bill is as follows. First, once parties reach settlement, subject to the Bill's requirements, parties may further agree to apply to Court to have the settlement agreement recorded as a Court order. To use this procedure, all parties to the agreement must agree to the application being made. The settlement agreement must be in writing, and the mediation administered by a designated mediation service provider, or conducted by a certified mediator. Such safeguards aim to ensure that the quality of the mediated settlement agreement is appropriate for being recorded and enforced as a Court order. The Court may refuse to record the settlement agreement as a Court order under certain circumstances, for example, if this is contrary to public policy, if the subject matter of the agreement is not capable of settlement, if any term is not capable of enforcement as an order of Court and so on. Parties who are not able to use this procedure, for example, because other parties refuse to consent to the application, will still be able to commence court proceedings to enforce the settlement agreement as a contract. Consequential and related amendments are made to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and Family Justice Act to make clear that the Court has jurisdiction to record such mediated settlement agreements as Court orders. Second, restrictions on disclosure and admissibility. The second set of key provisions relate to confidentiality and admissibility of mediation communications. The Bill makes clear that except under narrow circumstances set out under the Bill, communications made in a mediation cannot be disclosed to third parties to the mediation and cannot be admitted in Court or arbitral proceedings as evidence.”
“To prevent inconsistencies with existing mediation legislation and frameworks, for instance, community mediations governed by the Community Mediation Centres Act, mediation processes conducted under, or provided by or under any written law, will be excluded. In the same way, the Minister may, where appropriate, also exclude specified mediation proceedings. The key features of the Bill are to strengthen the enforceability of settlement agreements resulting from mediation; clarify confidentiality and admissibility rules; provide for stay of Court proceedings; and make clear that the restrictions under the Legal Profession Act do not apply under certain circumstances. I will now take the House through these four key aspects. First, enforceability provisions. The first key aspect of the Bill relates to strengthening the enforceability of mediated settlement agreements. The lack of enforceability of a mediated settlement agreement is an oft-cited concern of mediation. To illustrate, having gone through significant time and effort in a mediation, parties may finally reach a settlement agreement. However, if one party later reneges on his obligations, the innocent party needs to commence Court proceedings, firstly, to prove a contract exists and, secondly, that the terms have been breached. This lack of enforceability is seen as an inhibiting factor in attracting commercial parties to mediate a dispute, since finality and certainty of dispute resolution outcomes is key. The Bill, therefore, provides an additional expedited way for parties to ensure that the settlement agreement is enforceable. It does not alter or restrict the Court's existing powers to record a settlement agreement as a consent order, in cases where the dispute is already before the Court.”
“SIMI works closely with more than 20 domestic and international organisations to promote mediation and set high competency standards in mediation practice. Besides building strong institutions, Singapore needs a legislative framework for mediation if we desire to be an international centre for commercial mediation. This Mediation Bill provides such a framework. Its provisions will strengthen the enforceability of a mediated settlement agreement. They will also provide much-valued certainty for cross-border mediation users, in areas where the common law position is unclear or differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The Bill will implement the last of the recommendations made by the International Commercial Mediation Working Group. Its provisions incorporate inputs from public consultation and extensive stakeholder engagement with lawyers, mediation and alternative dispute resolution practitioners and service providers, academics and mediation professional bodies. The stakeholders we consulted are very much looking forward to this new legislation. It will help draw even more international commercial mediation work to Singapore and further strengthen Singapore's position as an international dispute resolution hub. Let me now address the Bill's features. First, the scope of the Bill. The Bill will apply to mediations which are conducted wholly or partly in Singapore; or internationally, where the agreement to mediate provides that Singapore law or the Bill, if passed, should apply. The Minister is also able, on consultation with the Chief Justice, to extend any provision of the Bill to any mediation conducted by or under the direction of a Court.”
“It provides a more cost-effective, flexible and faster means of settling disputes. Mediation is also well-suited to our Asian context, where harmony and amicable resolution are valued highly in the dispute resolution process. It is particularly attractive for parties who desire to preserve long-term relationships and continue to do business. In 2013, the Chief Justice and the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) set up an International Commercial Mediation Working Group to look into developing the international commercial mediation space in Singapore. Arising from the Working Group's recommendations, in 2014, the Ministry set up the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) and the Singapore International Mediation Institute (SIMI). I am happy to report that both institutions have done well in just two short years. SIMC has, as of end 2016, successfully attracted case filings from parties from more than 20 different jurisdictions and a wide range of industries and sectors. The sums in dispute ranged from S$0.5 million to more than S$600 million. Part of SIMC's success lies in its strong focus on meeting the needs of businesses. For example, SIMC has worked across institutional boundaries, to partner the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) to develop the SIAC-SIMC arb-med-arb, an innovative protocol that offers businesses the option of both arbitration and mediation. As a professional standards body for mediation, SIMI has successfully implemented and maintains a four-tiered credentialing scheme for 116 − and growing − local and international mediators, and a three-tiered partner scheme for two − soon to be seven − organisations offering mediation services and/or training.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Singapore is today a leading centre in the world for cross-border dispute resolution, alongside London, Paris, Geneva and Hong Kong. While our legal sector is relatively small, over the last 10 years, we were able to go beyond our shores, ride the wave of rising inter- and intra-Asia trade and investment and establish for ourselves a global brand name as a trusted location for high-quality cross-border dispute resolution. We are trusted, not only because of our legal expertise, but also because people know that we are, and will remain, neutral, and that our legal regime is stable. In the next decade, when trust commands an even higher premium, Singapore is well poised to achieve even more. We are tabling two Bills today − the Mediation Bill and the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill − as part of a number of moves that we will make in 2017 to grow dispute resolution work in Singapore to the next level. Strengthening our position as an international dispute resolution centre will benefit Singaporeans and Singapore. First, it helps create growth and jobs for Singapore law firms and lawyers, amidst a more challenging economic environment. Second, exposure to more, and more wide-ranging, legal work helps broaden and deepen the legal expertise available for domestic cases. Third, our position as a legal service hub will bolster Singapore's overall attractiveness as a business hub and create value for other parts of the economy. I will now address the Mediation Bill. In Singapore, we provide a full suite of dispute resolution services so that businesses can pick and choose the services that best meet their particular needs. Mediation is one such service, complementing Court litigation and arbitration.”
“There is, therefore, a need to raise the limit to cater to the issuance needs for Government securities for the next five years beyond 2017. The outstanding amount of securities is projected to reach S$690 billion by the end of 2022. About 84% of the increase is expected to be issued to CPF Board to meet its investment needs. We expect CPF balances to continue to increase due to growth in the resident labour force and wages, various Government transfers and CPF policy enhancements. The remaining 16% of the increase would be primarily for MAS to increase the issuance of SGS in line with the growth of our financial markets to enhance the efficiency and liquidity of Singapore's debt markets in particular, and the issuance of SSB to individual investors. The increase in issuance limit for Government securities has no impact on the Government's fiscal position. All the borrowings will be invested and not spent. Under the Protection of Reserves Framework in the Constitution, the Government will continue to have to operate on a balanced Budget and can only spend the reserves accumulated during its term. I propose, therefore, that the ceiling for issuing Government securities be raised by S$200 billion, to S$690 billion. The proposed limit of S$690 billion will apply to the outstanding amount of Government Securities, and is expected to last us five years till 2022. Madam, I beg to move.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That this Parliament, in accordance with Article 144(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and section 11(1) of the Government Securities Act (Chapter 121A of the 2014 Revised Edition), resolves that the Minister for Finance be authorised to borrow, by the issue of Government Securities in Singapore under that Act, a further sum not exceeding Two Hundred Thousand Million Singapore Dollars (S$200,000,000,000), thereby in total a sum not exceeding Six Hundred and Ninety Thousand Million Singapore Dollars (S$690,000,000,000)." Madam, the Government Securities Act was set up in 1992 to provide for the issuance of Government securities in Singapore. The securities are issued not for Government spending, but to fulfil other specific purposes: the Singapore Government Securities (SGS) are issued to develop the domestic debt market; the Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS) are non-tradable bonds issued primarily to meet the investment needs of the Central Provident Fund (CPF) and the Singapore Savings Bonds (SSB) are issued to provide individual investors with long-term savings option. The proceeds from the issuance of securities are not spent; they are invested. There is a limit on the amount of securities the Government can issue, and this limit is authorised by Parliament. The last increase in the issuance limit was in April 2012, when Parliament approved the increase of the Government's issuance limit from S$320 billion to S$490 billion. The approved increase was projected to serve the issuance needs of the Government for five years till 2017. As at March 2016, the outstanding amount of securities is S$429 billion, and we are on track to fully utilise the current limit by end of 2017.”
“With regard to electronic filing, we agree with Mr Louis Ng on the need to consider the difficulties that may be faced by small and traditional businesses with the introduction of mandatory electronic-filing or "e-filing" for corporate income tax returns. To assist companies, especially small and traditional ones, the mandatory e-filing will be introduced in a phased approach as follows. First, companies with turnover of more than $10 million in YA 2017 will be required to e-file for YA 2018; Second, companies with turnover of more than $1 million in YA 2018 will be required to e-file for YA 2019; Third, all other small companies will only be required to e-file their corporate income tax returns from YA 2020. We would also like to assure Mr Louis Ng that IRAS will help companies transit to e-filing. First, IRAS will be holding e-filing workshops for SMEs and tax agents where participants can experience e-filing using a demonstration kit. Second, there is a hotline available to answer questions regarding e-filing services. Third, SMEs can visit the IRAS taxpayer service centre for one-to-one assistance. Fourth, IRAS will also reach out to taxpayers to provide assistance where necessary for the companies to e-file. [(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)] Page: 18”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his support of the Bill. With regard to Mr Louis Ng's query on the rationale behind the reduction of the Corporate Income Tax (CIT) rebate quantum cap by $10,000, it may be helpful if I explain the circumstances. In Budget 2013, a three-year CIT rebate of 30% of tax payable, capped at $30,000 per Year of Assessment (YA) from YA 2013 to YA 2015 was given as part of the three-year transition support package to support firms in their restructuring efforts. So, that was 2013. In Budget 2015, the CIT rebate was further extended for another two years, that is, for YAs 2016 and 2017, at the same rate of 30% of tax payable, but up to a lower cap of $20,000 per Year of Assessment. The intent was to continue to support firms in the period of restructuring, while Page: 17 phasing out the support gradually. I note Mr Louis Ng's concern on the current economic climate. In light of the difficult and uncertain business conditions amidst the economic slowdown, the CIT rebate was further enhanced in Budget 2016 from 30% of tax payable to 50% of tax payable, but the cap of $20,000 rebate for each year for YA 2016 to 2017 was maintained. And the intent was to address the immediate concerns while encouraging companies, especially the SMEs, to restructure. The cap remains at $20,000 per Year of Assessment to ensure the focus remains on SMEs. Apart from the CIT rebate, however, businesses can also benefit from other grant schemes, for example, the Wage Credit Scheme and the Capability Development Grant, which are targeted at smaller businesses. We will continue to monitor closely the economic outlook and consider further business assistance measures if necessary.”
“The remaining legislative changes are mostly technical in nature or relate to improvements in tax administration. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 12.36 pm”
“125 billion will be required to submit to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) an annual report containing the income, taxes paid and other indicators of their level of economic activities in every tax jurisdiction where they operate, from their financial years commencing on or after 1 January 2017. IRAS will then exchange the reports bilaterally with jurisdictions with whom Singapore has concluded Competent Authority Agreements. Clauses 53, 54, 55, 56 and 58 of the Bill provide for the implementation of country-by-country reporting. Madam, MOF regularly reviews and refines the income tax regime. I shall now outline two other key changes arising from MOF's periodic review of the tax regime. First, we will delink the income tax relief limit for CPF cash top-ups from the CPF top-up limit from 1 January 2016. The CPF top-up limit to the Retirement Account has been raised from the Full Retirement Sum (FRS) to the Enhanced Retirement Sum which is 1.5 times of the FRS, from 1 January 2016. To keep tax benefits focused on supporting basic retirement needs, the limit on tax relief for cash top-ups will be maintained at the FRS. Clause 24 of the Bill provides for the change. Second, we will grant tax deduction of up to 200% for qualifying expenditure incurred on qualifying retail bonds issued from 19 May 2016 to 18 May 2021. Such qualifying expenditure include professional fees, origination, underwriting and distribution fees, as well as advertising and marketing expenses. This will further encourage the issuance of retail bonds and broaden the range of investment options available to retail investors. Clauses 16 and 18 of the Bill provide for the changes.”
“Clause 11 of the Bill provides for the change. Fourth, to support firms, especially SMEs, to seek new markets and new growth opportunities overseas, the Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation scheme has been extended till 31 March 2020. Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill provide for the changes. Fifth, to enhance progressivity of our personal income tax systems, the total amount of personal income tax reliefs an individual can claim will be capped at $80,000 per Year of Assessment. This change will take effect from Year of Assessment 2018. Clauses 25 to 28 of the Bill provide for the changes. Sixth, to encourage volunteerism among businesses, a pilot Business and Institutions of Public Character (IPCs) Partnership Scheme was introduced from 1 July 2016 till end 2018. Businesses that organise their employees to volunteer and provide services to IPCs, including secondments, will receive a total of 250% tax deduction on qualifying expenditure incurred, subject to the receiving IPC's agreement. The qualifying expenditure will be subject to a yearly cap of $250,000 per business and $50,000 per IPC. Clauses 17 and 18 of the Bill provide for the changes. Madam, Singapore has joined the inclusive framework for the global implementation of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. As a BEPS associate, Singapore has committed to Page: 15 implementing country-by-country reporting, a minimum standard under the G20/OECD action plan to counter BEPS. Singapore-headquartered multinational enterprise groups with global consolidated revenues exceeding $1.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time. The Income Tax (Amendment No 3) Bill of 2016, or "the Bill" in short, covers income tax changes announced in the 2016 Budget Statement, an amendment to implement country-by-country reporting, as well as other changes arising from the periodic review of our income tax regime. We sought views from the public on the draft Bill from 8 July to 29 July 2016. MOF has evaluated all the feedback received and, where relevant, accepted the suggestions. Madam, the tax changes announced in the 2016 Budget Statement have already been debated in this House. These changes seek to transform our economy through enterprise and innovation, as well as to build a more caring and resilient society. Let me highlight the key changes. First, the existing Corporate Income Tax rebate will be raised from 30% to 50% of tax payable, with a cap of $20,000 rebate each year for Years of Assessment 2016 and 2017. This will provide greater support to help all qualifying companies, especially SMEs, to address immediate concerns, while encouraging restructuring. Clause 51 of the Bill provides for the change. Second, to support more mergers and acquisitions, the M&A scheme was enhanced to allow 25% tax allowance on the first $40 million of the cost of qualifying share acquisitions incurred each year, up from $20 million. Companies can, therefore, enjoy a maximum tax allowance of $10 million on their qualifying share acquisitions, up from $5 million. Clauses 23 and 63 of the Bill provide for the changes. Third, to provide upfront certainty to companies for their corporate restructuring, the non-taxation of companies' gains on disposal of their equity investments has been extended until 31 May 2022.”
“Mdm Speaker, as I indicated in my response earlier, it much really depends on the country in question because there are a number of factors at play. Compatibility of legal systems is one of them, obviously. But in the context of our neighbours, I am able to say that ASEAN has been discussing a model ASEAN Extradition Treaty as a sort of template, and this model will, when finalised, provide a useful basis for ASEAN member states in their own bilateral negotiations for extradition treaties with one another. So, it is something that is being looked at, a sort of framework that member countries can tap on should it turn out that the circumstances and conditions are right for them to enter into bilateral arrangements.”
“Where there is greater divergence in the respective legal systems and procedures, the differences will need to be rationalised or a consensus reached as to the legal procedures to be applied before an arrangement can be concluded.”
“Madam, Singapore has bilateral extradition treaties with the United States, Hong Kong and Germany, and extradition arrangements with 40 declared Commonwealth countries, including Canada, under the London Scheme for Extradition within the Commonwealth. We also have special extradition arrangements with Malaysia and Brunei based on the endorsement of arrest warrants. We have signed an Extradition Treaty and a Defence Cooperation Agreement as a package with Indonesia, which is pending ratification by Indonesia. Singapore is also a party to a number of multilateral instruments which provide for extradition. These include the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. As a responsible and effective member of the international community, we are committed to facilitating greater international cooperation to combat transnational crime, in accordance with our domestic laws and international obligations. For Singapore to have an extradition treaty with another country, for example, Thailand, there must, first, be a common desire from both countries to have an arrangement for the reciprocal handing over of fugitives in the interest of law and order. Both countries must find it mutually beneficial to enter into such an arrangement. The next step is then to examine each other's legal systems and procedures to determine compatibility. Sometimes, these arrangements are easier to conclude when countries come from the same legal traditions and have very similar legal systems and procedures.”
“Unlike AHPETC, too, there was no question of personal gains in any of the lapses highlighted in this year's AGO report. And finally, the Ministries and the agencies have, in all instances, taken steps to rectify the weaknesses identified. Our system is transparent, accountable Page: 18 and responsive and we look forward to the same in AHTC as it hopefully rectifies its problems.”
“Notwithstanding the shortcomings and failures identified by their own auditors and, subsequently AGO, AHPETC did not take prompt measures to rectify these problems despite repeated requests by the Ministry of National Development (MND) to do so. This resulted in MND having to bring an application to Court and it was only after the Court order was made that KPMG was appointed as an independent accountant by AHPETC. KPMG has been issuing monthly reports since April 2016. In its latest monthly report published in July 2016 – four years since AHPETC's auditors first voiced their reservations about the accounts – KPMG has stated that "progress remedying the control failures has been slow." We understand that AHPETC is working on its remedial plans. In the June 2016 KPMG report, AHTC has updated and implemented its revised conflict of interest policy which now extends to AHPETC's Town Councillors, management and employees, and supporting procedures to manage conflict of interest. However, the other remediation plans on the governance of related party transactions were still unresolved. By contrast, every Government agency takes AGO findings seriously. Where there are lapses, they are openly acknowledged and steps taken to address them as soon as possible. The Auditor-General has himself noted their commitment to rectify the lapses and put in place measures to prevent future occurrences. So, to conclude, let me emphasise once again that the lapses found in the Government are wholly different from AHTC's problems. Our accounts are reliable, unlike AHTC's. There is no systemic weakness in Government agencies, unlike what the auditors have found at the Town Council.”
“There is certainly no culture of non-compliance. Third, in the case of AHPETC, there are serious issues to do with personal gains from related third-party transactions. The general manager, deputy general manager and secretary of the Town Council were also the owners and directors of FM Solutions and Services Private Limited (FMSS) which provided managing agent services to AHPETC and received payments. In addition, the secretary of AHPETC was a sole owner of FM Solutions and Integrated Services (FMSI) which provided maintenance and lift rescue services to AHPETC and, likewise, received payments. In a review carried out by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA), it was found that the profit margins of FMSS were abnormally high. The total payments by AHPETC to FMSS owners and directors amounted to 22% of FMSS' revenue in FY2012/2013 and grew further to 36% in FY2013/2014. The conflicts of interest highlighted by AGO in the AHPETC case are fundamentally different from the case of Nanyang Polytechnic (NYP) and its subsidiary, NYP International (NYPi), that was highlighted in the AGO report. As explained by Acting Minister for Education, Mr Ong Ye Kung yesterday, in the case of NYP and NYPi, there were no questions of personal gain. There was no personal interest involved on the part of the directors of NYP and NYPi and no leakage of money to any third parties. NYPi is wholly owned by NYP and any profits made by NYPi will only benefit NYP. Fourth, our Government agencies and AHPETC have been completely different in the way they responded to problems when they are found.”
“Madam, I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his question. There is a world of difference between the lapses found in Government agencies and those of Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) or now known as AHTC. They are different in scale, in nature and in the way Government agencies and the Town Council have each responded to problems when they are found. First, AHPETC's accounts have been unreliable. Its own auditors repeatedly gave the Town Council a "Disclaimer of Opinion", which is the least desirable audit opinion. AGO concluded in 2015 that there was "no assurance that AHPETC's accounts are accurate and reliable or that public funds are properly spent, accounted for and managed." There is no similar problem in the Government. The accounts of Ministries, Departments, Organs of States and Statutory Boards have all been found by AGO and independent auditors to be reliable and prepared in accordance with the law. Public funds are properly accounted for and we know what they are being used for. Second, the problems at AHTC, formerly AHPETC, are of a systemic nature, not just a matter of individual lapses. The independent accountant, KPMG found a further 70 control failures in AHTC in addition to the 115 found previously by AGO and statutory auditors. To quote KPMG in their July 2016 report, "Control failures are pervasive, cutting across key areas of governance, financial Page: 17 control, financial reporting, procurement and records management over the course of five years …. there is an issue larger than the sum of individual lapses at AHTC". As I explained earlier, there has been no such systemic problem in the Government. From this year's and past years' AGO reports, there is no evidence of widespread compliance problems.”
“As Members may recall, this was an area that needed improvement, as highlighted by AGO a few years ago. We took major steps to strengthen public sector procurement. Since 2014, Permanent Secretaries and Chief Executives of agencies have been required to report to the Ministry of Finance regularly with an assessment of the findings in procurement audits and their follow-up actions. We published the Essentials of Procurement Handbook to ensure top management is apprised of procurement issues. The procurement specialist track was launched in 2014 and we updated the accompanying training programmes to professionalise the procurement function. We also instituted the Procurement Leaders Programme to groom procurement leaders to better guide and supervise their officers. We will continue to tackle all lapses identified each year with the same resolve. So, let me summarise. We have a system that is transparent and accountable, and with the Government responding to every weakness that is found. The fact that we have found reports of lapses from AGO each year reflects this transparency and accountability. It is a part of the workings of a robust system – which includes a diligent and impartial AGO, and Government agencies that willingly submit to AGO's audit and have their lapses displayed openly and seek to rectify them promptly. It is not perfect, but it is a system that has given Singapore international recognition for clean and efficient Government.”
“Singapore has consistently been ranked by institutions, such as the World Bank and Transparency International, as amongst the least corrupt nations in the world, with the likes of Finland, Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark. The third question is just as important. How do Government agencies respond to AGO's observations? The Auditor-General has himself noted from our public agencies' responses that they take the AGO audit observations seriously, including putting in place measures to prevent future occurrence. The Permanent Secretaries of each Ministry and the Chief Executives of the Statutory Boards are responsible for ensuring that the lapses are rectified and steps are taken to minimise recurrence. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about actions taken on officers responsible for lapses. Where there is evidence of individual responsibility for the lapses, the officers responsible have been subjected to the appropriate disciplinary actions. Twenty-eight officers have been counselled or warned arising from this year's audit findings. One officer was put on a performance review process for repeated poor performance and subsequently, left the organisation. Let me highlight two areas where we have taken actions to avoid problems that tend to occur amongst our agencies. The first is contract management, particularly amongst agencies that do not manage construction projects regularly and, hence, may not have sufficient expertise and experience to robustly assess costs. The new Building and Infrastructure Centre of Excellence that we have set up under JTC this year will advise Government agencies which lack in-house expertise, and help us strengthen the public sector's capabilities in managing infrastructure projects. Page: 16 The second example is procurement.”
“Third, how are Government agencies dealing with the lapses that are found so as to avoid the problems being repeated? Page: 15 AGO's report highlighted several lapses amongst our agencies. However, I can say with confidence from this year's AGO report and past years', that there is no evidence of systemic weakness within Government agencies with regard to compliance. Most of the lapses were due to non-compliance by individual officers. In some cases, individual agencies had not followed full and thorough procedures in approving contracts or payments, as required in our internal rules. The respective Ministries and agencies have, in all instances, taken steps to rectify the weaknesses identified. It will be unrealistic to expect that there are no lapses found within the system each time a serious audit is done. With over 140,000 officers in the Public Service handling hundreds of thousands of transactions each year, human laxity or errors of judgement will happen. We take each and every lapse seriously, but if nothing was found by AGO, we would be very concerned about the independence and rigour of AGO's audits. Secondly, there is no suggestion of financial malfeasance, such as fraud or corruption, in the findings of the AGO. If there are any suspicions of wrongdoing, AGO does not hesitate to report them to the relevant authorities and highlight them in its report. From time to time, we do come across such instances. We have zero tolerance for fraud or corruption. Everyone knows this: the Government acts promptly and thoroughly to investigate such cases. Indeed, this zero tolerance has itself kept fraud and corruption in check. This is why we have a situation in Singapore that many countries seek to emulate.”
“I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Lim Biow Chuan for their questions. Let me first highlight that there are two types of audits that the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) conducts on Government agencies. Each is important in a different way. The first concerns whether the accounts of Government agencies are reliable and prepared in accordance with the law. The second involves checks on individual public agencies' compliance with rules and procedures, for example, the rules that guard against wastage of public funds and excess spending. The first issue is whether the accounts of public agencies are proper and reliable. AGO has given an unmodified audit opinion for the Government Financial Statements this year, just as in previous years. The same is true for the Statutory Boards, all of which received an unmodified audit opinion from their respective auditors for the financial year (FY) 2015/2016. In other words, the accounts of the Ministries, Departments, Organs of State and Statutory Boards have all been found by independent auditors to be reliable and prepared in accordance with the law. Public funds are properly accounted for and we know what they are being used for. The second type of AGO audit, as I mentioned, concerns the rules and procedures in individual public agencies, for example, those that aim at avoiding wastage. Are the rules adequate and were the rules complied with? As we review AGO's findings in this regard, there are three key questions we ask within the Government and which everyone should be concerned about. First, what is the scale of the shortcomings and do they reflect a systemic weakness in the Government? Second, is there financial malfeasance, for example, fraud or corruption?”
“Madam, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 6 and 7 together?”
“This comes under the Suspicious Transactions Reporting Office. What they have done is to remind the financial institutions(FIs) and intermediaries like the lawyers and accountants to report suspicious transactions. Whatever has been reported to them, they are reviewing and looking at them. Obviously, in the course of investigations, it would not be appropriate to name individuals or entities at this stage because some of them may well turn out to be in the clear. But I have no doubt that the Commercial Affairs Department will take strong and decisive action against any individual or entity that is found to have been guilty of wrongdoing.”
“MAS and ACRA are conducting checks to ensure that the professional intermediaries under their supervision have acted in compliance with their obligations to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing. The Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office (STRO) in the Commercial Affairs Department has also reminded lawyers and accountants to report any suspicious transaction they come across. STRO will analyse the information and evaluate if an offence might have been committed. Where appropriate, STRO will disseminate the information to the relevant authorities in Singapore or overseas for further investigation. Mdm Speaker, Singapore is an economy and business hub that attracts, generates and retains substantive economic activities to create skilled and quality jobs. Our conducive business environment is attractive to firms for a range of competitive reasons, including a skilled labour force, good infrastructure and competitive tax rates, as well as our strong commitment to the rule of law. Safeguarding the integrity of our financial system against illicit funds and activities is paramount in ensuring that Singapore continues to be a financial centre trusted by international investors and global FIs. Our regulatory and supervisory regime meets international standards and enables effective exchange of information with overseas tax authorities, including banking and trust information. Hence, too, it deters illicit funds, including proceeds of tax crimes, from using our Page: 41 financial system. To reiterate, Singapore stands ready to fully assist foreign authorities in their investigations into potential illicit activities, in accordance with our international commitments to global standards.”
“The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) have been reviewing the information released in May 2016 on the individuals and entities named in the Panama Papers. Among the entities named, there was one Singapore-incorporated company. There were also individuals and overseas entities with some association with Singapore, for example, where they have some association with a company service provider (CSP) or a person who was said to have a Singapore address. In addition, financial institutions(FIs) and CSPs in Singapore were named as intermediaries that had dealt with the said individuals or entities. Mdm Speaker, I should clarify at the outset that the use of offshore vehicles, in and of itself, is not illegal. Offshore vehicles can and are commonly used for legitimate purposes, such as mergers and acquisitions, and estate planning. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), which released the Panama Papers, has, indeed, itself highlighted that being named in the Panama Papers does not automatically constitute a basis for suspicion or evidence of wrongdoing. The approach taken by our authorities in connection with the Panama Papers, therefore, is to look into whether there was actual wrongdoing by any individual or entity in Singapore. If so, we will take firm action. MAS and ACRA have reminded FIs and CSPs respectively of their duty to periodically review their customer relationships. These professional intermediaries have also been asked to ascertain that their customers are using offshore vehicles strictly for legitimate purposes. If there is any ground for suspicion, the professional intermediaries are legally obliged to file suspicious transaction reports.”
“Mdm Speaker, I said it before, once; I said it before, twice; and I will now say it again a third time. It is not the intention of the Government to be using costs to intimidate anyone. As I have indicated, when the Government has to defend a matter or pursue a matter, it will do so after having taken advice, doing so rationally and doing so if it thinks that it is the right course of action. That is the first thing when it comes to taking proceedings. With respect to the amount of costs that a person may face, when a person brings proceedings against the Government, that person would, no doubt, be legally advised, and also have an indication of the amount of costs that would be incurred. And it should not be forgotten that if costs ought to be awarded against that party, it does mean that that party, at the end of the day, ultimately failed against the Government. Meaning that, that case should not have been brought in the first place. And the final safeguard is really the Court. It is in the hands of the Court to ensure that the amounts of costs that are awarded are fair and just. And as I have said, this Government will pursue a course that is reasonable and rational and that the costs sought are commensurate with the claim. So, it is not the intention of the Government to intimidate anyone.”
“Madam, I think what I can say is this: when this Government is engaged in litigation, whether it is brought by somebody else or whether the Government has reasons to initiate it, the Government does its best to be fair, objective and rational about it. So, it would not be our approach to use costs to be oppressive, but to seek costs where we think that it is fairly and justly incurred and to leave it to the Court to make the appropriate decision on the quantum of costs to be awarded and the number of counsels to be taken into account.”
“Madam, I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his clarification. I am sorry if I was not sufficiently clear just now. First, it was prompted by our Court of Appeal's decision, but when the Government drafted these provisions, the Government did look at the UK case and some of the wordings were based on that. That is as far as I can go. Obviously, when our Courts apply it, and when they look at other precedents, our Courts will have to give effect to the law as our Courts see correct. What I do not want to do, is to suggest in any way that our Courts are bound by another court's decision. So, the short answer to the Member's question of whether we looked at the UK case in question, the answer is yes. But as to what was it that prompted this particular amendment, it was our Court of Appeal's decision.”
“Madam, it is not always the case that somebody who brings the proceedings against the Government is impecunious. I just want to flag that as a first point. So, there are any number of parties with different situations and they may have different financial means. The second point as to why it is necessary or why should the Government not limit itself, the answer is that there is no one size fits all when it comes to the issue of costs. There will be some instances where a lot of work is required and where it is very complex, and where there will be others where it is much more straightforward and simpler. At the end of the day, it is really for the Court to decide. And our Courts, in this matter, I believe, are objective and fair. The idea is that if it is a case that really a lot of work was incurred, and it appears to the Court that it is fair and just to award costs for more than two counsel in such a situation, the Court can do so; but if the Court, having taken into account the circumstances of the case, feels that it is not equitable to do so, then it will be up to the Court. So, at the end of the day, I think it rests with the Court to do the right thing, with respect to costs.”
“Madam, with respect to the costs, as I had indicated, the idea was to just bring it in line with what is available to other civil parties, that means, even where the Government is not involved. So, it is not intended to be used in an oppressive manner but really where if costs are incurred, it gives the Court the discretion to allow costs for more than two counsel, if the Court really thinks that this is an appropriate case to do so. So, the safeguard there is that it lies in the hands of the Courts. With respect to the question on the Wills Act, I am not able to comment if there was a specific reference to the UK case. What I can say is that we had specific regard to our Court of Appeal's case and, the intention, as I had indicated, was to make sure that our Courts have the power to rectify a clerical error or our Courts have the power to give effect to the testator's intention. That, really, is, as I have stated, the intent behind this. With respect to the third question, I think that the Minister would have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. I am not setting out any specific guidelines in this instance. But basically, when the Minister looks at it, he would have due regard as to what cases should be exempted.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members for their comments and for their support of the Bill. Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Louis Ng asked about the amendment to the Community Mediation Act and the removal of the need for the CMC to submit an Annual Report. Mdm Speaker, we continually review our laws to see if our processes are still relevant or if the objectives of those processes can be achieved by other means. In this case, the CMC is a department of the Ministry of Law (MinLaw), which is held accountable through its accounts and budget estimates which are available in the annual Budget Book which is presented to Parliament. However, we do agree that information on the activities and the operations of the CMC should be available to the public. Insofar, as information and statistics relating to the CMC are concerned, they will continue to be available on the CMC website, and this includes statistics on the number of mediations conducted, CMC's success rate and the types of disputes handled by CMC.”
“The Court may exercise this power where it is satisfied that the will fails to carry out the testator's intentions due to a clerical error or a failure to understand the testator's instructions. This amendment will allow the Courts to better give effect to the testator's testamentary intention. It arises from a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, which strongly suggested that the power to rectify wills is not available to our Courts. In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Third, the Council will also be allowed to transfer certain amounts from the Compensation Fund to a fund established by the Law Society to purchase or maintain a library, where no grant is made from the Compensation Fund in any year and there is no application for a grant from the Compensation Fund that is pending at the end of that year. Clause 15 amends the Legal Aid and Advice Act to enable the Legal Aid Bureau not to charge any registration fees for an application for legal aid or advice. This takes out one step in the registration process and makes it administratively more convenient for applicants when they apply for legal aid. Clause 35 amends the Remote Gambling Act 2014 to enlarge the jurisdiction of the District Court or a Magistrate's Court to try cases and sentence offenders under that Act. This allows the District Court or a Magistrate's Court to hear cases and impose the maximum fine or imprisonment term set out in the Remote Gambling Act 2014, notwithstanding the limits prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code. Currently, in contentious proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks, there is no avenue for appealing against interlocutory decisions. There can be potentially severe consequences where interlocutory decisions have the effect of bringing proceedings to an end. An example would be when an interlocutory decision leads to a trademark application being treated as withdrawn. Clause 45 amends section 75 of the Trade Marks Act to allow for appeals in such situations. Clause 50 of the Bill amends the Wills Act to expressly confer our Courts with the power to order rectification of a will upon application of any interested person.”
“The amendments to the Legal Profession Act will enable SILE to enact rules to administer and provide for the conditions for entry to the courses, tests and examinations for Part A. Second, the UniSIM Law School was recently established, and its law degrees will be recognised for the purposes of admission to the Singapore Bar, similar to those from the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Singapore Management University (SMU). The Legal Profession Act and the Singapore Academy of Law Act will be amended to ensure that UniSIM Law School and the members of its faculty will have the same standing or restrictions as those which are correspondingly applicable to NUS, SMU or their faculty members. Third, allowing the Presiding Judge of the Family Justice Courts and the Presiding Judge of the State Courts to refer matters to the Law Society or the Disciplinary Tribunal. Presently, any Judge, Judicial Commissioner, Senior Judge or International Judge of the Supreme Court may refer matters touching on the conduct of any regulated legal practitioner to the Law Society or the Disciplinary Tribunal. The Bill amends the Legal Profession Act to confer the same powers on the Presiding Judge of the Family Justice Courts and the Presiding Judge of the State Courts. Lastly, there are a number of amendments arising from requests made by the Law Society, which I will summarise. First, the composition of the Council of the Law Society will be amended in order to better reflect the composition of the members of the Law Society who are entitled to vote for the election of the members of the Council. Second, it will no longer be compulsory for the voting of Council members to be conducted in a physical space via ballot.”
“ITLOS is an independent judicial body established by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to hear disputes concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS. Clause 12 of the Bill amends the International Organisations (Immunity and Privileges) Act to empower the Government to apply the Act to relevant international organisations and bring ITLOS within the scope of the Act. This ensures that the Government has the power to grant the legal capacities and to confer the privileges and immunities necessary for ITLOS to carry out its functions in Singapore. Turning now to the amendments to the Legal Profession Act and the Singapore Academy of Law Act, clauses 16 and 38 of the Bill contain three main sets of amendments to both Acts, namely: (a) to allow the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) to enact rules for the administration of the Part A course and examinations; (b) to deal with the establishment of the new Law School of SIM University (UniSIM Law School); and (c) to allow the Presiding Judge of the Family Courts and the Presiding Judge of the State Courts to refer matters to the Law Society or the Disciplinary Tribunal. Clause 16 of the Bill also contains a number of amendments which were proposed by the Law Society of Singapore. Let me explain these amendments in turn. First is allowing SILE to enact rules for the administration of the Part A Course and Examinations. Since 2015, SILE has taken over the administration of Part A of the Bar Examinations, which is one of the requirements for overseas trained law graduates from overseas scheduled universities to become a qualified person.”
“The Mental Capacity Act was passed in 2008, and it introduced two frameworks to deal with the issues arising from the lack of mental capacity. First, it conferred powers for the Court to appoint deputies to make decisions on behalf of persons who lacked mental capacity. Second, it introduced the Lasting Power of Attorney, a legal instrument which allows individuals to appoint a "donee" to make decisions on their behalf should they lose mental capacity. The Bill amends nine Acts to include the reference to a donee of a Lasting Power of Attorney under the Mental Capacity Act, where there is already a reference to a deputy. This ensures that donees will have the same standing as deputies under those Acts, when the donor loses mental capacity. I will next turn to the amendments which allow the designation of other political office holders to hear appeals. Clauses 10, 19, 25, 30 and 32 amend the Immigration Act, Massage Establishments Act, Passports Act, Private Security Industry Act and Public Entertainments and Meetings Act respectively, to empower the Minister for Home Affairs to designate other political officeholders of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to hear appeals under these Acts in his place. This is consistent with other newly introduced and recently amended laws and facilitates administration by allowing political officeholders to focus on various responsibilities and portfolios within the Ministry. Let me touch on the amendments to the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act. In 2015, Singapore signed a Joint Declaration with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to allow ITLOS proceedings to be hosted in Singapore in future.”
“This practice will continue, subject to any adjustments that may be made by the Chief Justice from time to time. Lastly, the Bill amends the Family Justice Act and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to confer certain individuals with protection from personal liability where the acts are done in good faith and do not involve any fraud or wilful misconduct. Child representatives, appointed to represent the interests of a child, will be protected from personal liability under the Family Justice Act. Registered medical practitioners, psychologists, counsellors, social workers or mental health professionals appointed by a Family Court or the High Court to examine or assess a child or person will be protected from personal liability under the Family Justice Act and Supreme Court of Judicature Act. The immunity provisions ensure that these professionals, who do not represent any of the parties before the Court and lend their expertise to assist the Court in arriving at a fair and just decision, will be able to perform their duties without fear of legal liability, so long as they act in good faith and without fraud or wilful misconduct. The Bill also introduces amendments to the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act and Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. As the Family Justice Courts hear proceedings under these three Acts, these Acts will be amended to allow the Family Justice Rules Committee to make Family Justice Rules to prescribe the relevant procedure for proceedings under these Acts. I will now turn to the amendments arising from the Mental Capacity Act.”
“The Bill amends the Family Justice Act to restrict the right of appeal from the Family Court to the High Court, where any order specified in the new Second Schedule is made by the Family Court. This ensures that the right of appeal is consistent across the lower Courts, namely, the Family Court, District Court and Magistrate's Court. The Bill also amends the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to restrict the right of appeal from the Family Division of the High Court to the Court of Appeal, such that certain interlocutory orders made by the Family Division of the High Court are either not appealable, or appealable only with leave of that Court or the Court of Appeal. This aligns the appeal regime in the Family Division of the High Court, with that applicable to non-family proceedings in the High Court. I will now touch on the amendments requiring family proceedings to be commenced in the Family Courts. Currently, the practice is for applications for all family proceedings to be filed in the Family Court, except those proceedings which the Chief Justice has directed to be heard and determined by the Family Division of the High Court. The Bill makes this current practice law by providing that all family proceedings must be commenced in the Family Court at first instance, except those classes of family proceedings which the Chief Justice has directed to be heard and determined by the Family Division of the High Court. Presently, this exception applies to probate cases involving estates which exceed $5 million in value. For family proceedings commenced in the Family Court, the current practice has been to transfer contested matters where the assets are above $5 million or, where the case is complex, to the Family Division of the High Court.”
“Madam, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Madam, this Bill contains various amendments to several Acts. The amendments are mainly technical in nature. I will highlight the key amendments. Presently, the Evidence Act requires the Courts to presume the genuineness of laws and reports of judicial decisions contained in books, where such evidence is tendered in Court. However, as the presumption only applies to those contained in books, it does not apply to laws or reports published online, even if they are published on official websites authorised by the government of a country. Clause 6 of the Bill extends this presumption by requiring the Court to presume the genuineness of (a) any legislation that is published on an official legislation website; and (b) any law report published on a website that publishes official or authoritative reports of decisions of the courts of a country. The amendment will also make clear that the presumption is applicable only to official or authoritative reports of decisions of the courts of a country. Clauses 7 and 43 of the Bill contain three main sets of amendments to the Family Justice Act and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act respectively. These amendments seek to: (a) align the right of appeal between family cases and non-family cases; (b) clarify that all family proceedings must be commenced at the Family Court; and (c) introduce immunity provisions for certain groups of individuals. Let me first touch on aligning the right of appeal. Presently, under the Family Justice Act, family proceedings can be heard, at first instance, by: (a) the Family Division of the High Court, in which case, appeals are heard by the Court of Appeal; or (b) the Family Courts, in which case, appeals are heard by the High Court.”
“Madam, I wish to thank the Members, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Foo Mee Har, for their support for the Bill.”