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 36 of 51.
“The Wider Approach is an effective approach preferred by our FIs because it removes the need for them to repeatedly review whether the accounts are reportable each time Singapore enters into a new Competent Authority Agreement. The Wider Approach has been adopted by many jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom (UK), Sweden, Japan and Korea. Mdm Speaker, I wish to make it clear that while FIs are empowered to collect and retain the CRS information for all non-Singapore tax residents from 1 January 2017, they will only need to transmit to IRAS the information relating to tax residents of jurisdictions with which Singapore has signed a Competent Authority Agreement, for IRAS to implement AEOI under the CRS accordingly. Clause 9 of the Bill provides for this. The amendments also ensure effective implementation of the CRS, including vesting in IRAS the necessary administrative powers to do so. The changes include mandating the electronic filing of returns and information and are provided for in clauses 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Bill. Next, Madam, I will deal with the changes to the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme. These were announced in the 2016 Budget Statement. The key changes are as follows. First, as we move towards more targeted measures under the Industry Transformation Programme as announced during the recent Budget, the PIC cash payout rate will be lowered from 60% to 40% for qualifying expenditure incurred on or after 1 August 2016. Second, to streamline and expedite processing of PIC cash payout applications, electronic filing of PIC cash payout applications will be made mandatory from 1 August 2016. The PIC changes are provided for in clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“To date, more than 90 jurisdictions, including major financial centres, such as Dubai, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland, have also endorsed the CRS and committed to implementation timelines of 2017 or 2018. The proposed amendments in this Bill will enable FIs to put in place necessary processes and systems to collect CRS information from 1 January 2017, in order to meet our timeline to commence first exchange of information under the CRS in 2018. Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill make amendments in relation to existing provisions in the Income Tax Act, which had previously been introduced in 2013 to implement the Singapore-United States Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act Inter-governmental Agreement (FATCA IGA). The provisions introduced in 2013 provide the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) the necessary information-gathering powers to fulfil Singapore's role in facilitating FATCA-compliance under the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA). These powers include the routine collection and transmission of relevant information as well as enforcement powers to sanction non-compliance. The amendments in this Bill make clear that these existing provisions are also applicable to any other AEOI agreement that is in accordance with the CRS. This will enable Singapore to sign Competent Authority Agreements (CAAs) with other jurisdictions to implement AEOI under the CRS. Second, the amendments in clause 8 empower FIs to collect and retain the CRS information for all non-Singapore tax residents, instead of only from tax residents of jurisdictions with which Singapore has an AEOI agreement. This is known as the "Wider Approach".”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Income Tax (Amendment No 2) Bill 2016 covers two sets of amendments. The first set of amendments allows Singapore to implement the Common Reporting Standard (CRS), an internationally agreed standard for automatic exchange of financial account information. The second set of amendments gives effect to the changes announced in the 2016 Budget Statement to the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme. The draft Bill on the first set of amendments was released for public consultation from 1 to 18 March 2016. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has evaluated all the feedback received and, where relevant, accepted the suggestions. Madam, let me explain each of the two sets of amendments in turn. The first, in relation to the implementation of the CRS. Singapore is firmly committed to upholding internationally accepted standards for the exchange of information under the CRS. Members might recall that in 2014, the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax purposes, of which Singapore is a member, and the Group of 20 (G20) major economies, endorsed automatic exchange of information (AEOI) under the CRS as a global standard, and asked all members to commit to a timeline of 2018 or earlier for implementation. The CRS sets out the financial account information to be exchanged, the financial institutions (FIs) required to report, the different types of accounts and taxpayers covered as well as the customer due diligence procedures to be followed by FIs. Singapore had announced in November 2014 that we would implement the CRS to commence AEOI by 2018.”
“Madam, if an applicant has made an application and has been rejected, one has to ask the reason why. If it is because the person has failed the means test, then it would be really quite difficult for the Legal Aid Bureau to accede because the parameters are set, and the Legal Aid Board cannot waive those parameters of their own accord. However, if it is a means issue and you do not fall within the legal aid means test, there are other possibilities. Provided that the person cannot afford his or her own lawyer, he or she could be referred to the Pro Bono Services Office of the Law Society where, on a case-by-case basis, the Law Society may accede to a request for assistance where it is not legal aid as such, but they would try to find lawyers who may be willing to do it at an affordable rate. So, the Pro Bono Services Office is one option. There is another option. This is located in the State Courts itself. It is called the Community Justice Centre. It is a charitable organisation but it is working on this joint project with the State Courts where lawyers contribute their time and service on a discounted basis. You can go to the first floor of the State Courts, take a left turn, the office is there. They will direct you to the place to go accordingly. So, these are for people who fall through the gap, if you like, where they cannot easily afford their own lawyer but, at the same time, do not meet the means test for legal aid. If the reason for rejection happens to be that they do not meet the merits test, then that would be really quite difficult because, obviously, they do not have a good case. It would not be useful to pursue the claim when there is no merit.”
“Madam, legal aid is an important aspect of access to justice in Singapore. To qualify for legal aid in civil matters, under the Legal Aid and Advice Act, applicants will have to satisfy a means test. The means test is satisfied where the applicant's disposable income is not more than $10,000 per year and he or she has not more than $10,000 of disposable capital. The Ministry of Law regularly reviews the means test to ensure that those who are unable to afford to hire a lawyer can still obtain legal advice or representation. In 2013, the Act was amended to allow approximately 25% of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents to qualify for legal aid under the means test, up from 17% previously. At the same time, the Director of Legal Aid was also given a new discretion for family proceedings which involve children or protection orders to ensure that the most vulnerable persons in a family dispute are eligible for legal aid. We will continue to monitor and review the criteria for the means test regularly. For applicants who satisfy the means test, legal aid will be granted if the Legal Aid Board is satisfied that the applicant has reasonable grounds for taking, defending, continuing or being a party to the proceedings. The applicants who were granted legal aid were helped in a wide range of civil matters. Around half of the cases were matrimonial matters such as divorce and applications for custody of children, and a further 15% to 20% of cases involved property or estate matters or claims. A more complete list of services offered by the Legal Aid Bureau can be found on its website.”
“Madam, I think that if a person has a serious financial hardship, what the person should do is approach IRAS and speak to them. As a general rule, IRAS does not waive income tax liabilities. You need to have some financial prudence and discipline but, at the same time, you also need to balance that where individuals generally want to pay but for some reason, their circumstances really, really do not allow them to. So, the best approach is to speak to IRAS. Currently, they do have interest-free instalment plans. They would try, where possible, to exercise flexibility. But at the end of the day, we have to do two things: maintain the fiscal prudence and discipline in tax recovery for the state and, where possible, balance that with compassion on the part of individuals.”
“Mdm Speaker, under the existing Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) General Interbank Recurring Order (GIRO) scheme, taxpayers can pay their income tax by up to 12 monthly interest-free instalments. A taxpayer who faces financial hardship may apply to IRAS for longer instalment plans.”
“The reason why the Bill does not include things like employment contracts is because they are not covered in the Convention. The Convention does not extend to this. The reason for that is because this is a Convention that deals with international civil and commercial matters. It is in the realm of international trade and international investment and it is meant to address commercial disputes. Employment matters fall under the category of more personal law where individuals are concerned. By their nature, they tend to be governed by more domestic regimes, and so it does not fall within the ambit of the Convention and, thus, does not come within this Bill. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)] Page: 73”
“It means parties must think carefully when choosing an exclusive choice of court forum. Logically though, I think that this would act as a natural filter because, by and large, parties act rationally. So, they are likely to take into account the factors that I mentioned earlier – neutrality, that the system is not corrupt. They will look at the robustness of the system in which that court resides, and they will make their choices accordingly. So, that would act as a sort of natural filter. Page: 72 Secondly, the Convention and the Bill have their own safeguards. For example, the Convention permits the Singapore Court to refuse recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments on certain specified grounds. The Courts must refuse to recognise or enforce a judgment where the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud in connection with the matter of procedure or when the defendant was not notified of the proceedings against it, and recognition or enforcement is incompatible with the public policy of Singapore. There are also some discretionary grounds where the Courts can refuse recognition or enforcement. Those operate as safeguards. Essentially, at the end of the day, what being a party to the Convention means is that it extends the enforceability of the judgments of our Courts and that, in turn, is good for the industry and for Singapore as a dispute resolution hub as a whole. I thank the Members once again for their support.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Vikram Nair for their strong support for the Bill. There are just a couple of points to which I should reply. First, Mr Vikram Nair raised the question of whether there was a limitation because of the relatively smaller number of contracting states. The answer to that is we certainly expect it to grow. But even with the present signatories as well as states that have ratified, it is already very promising. Having the EU, for example, as a contracting party immediately extends our reach to the EU, save, of course, for Denmark. In addition to that, the US and Ukraine are signatories to the Convention and there is growing interest in the Convention in the region. We, for our part, will certainly, as suggested by Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Vikram Nair encourage more ASEAN member states to become parties to the Convention. I think Mr Vikram Nair also raised the issue of what would happen if we are obliged to recognise judgments from Convention states with less robust systems and whether that would necessarily have to take place. Possibly so, but I think that this is mitigated by two things. One is the element of choice; and second is built-in safeguards in the Bill. Let me explain what I mean. First, choice. The Convention applies where there is an exclusive choice of court agreement. So, once they choose the forum, it means that parties have made a choice of that court. You have to assume that when they make that choice, they took into account the relevant factors, including the robustness of the judicial system of which that chosen court is a part. This really means that they have taken it into account and what the Bill does is it gives effect to that choice.”
“Such implementation and ratification will enhance the overseas enforceability of judgments of our Courts, further incentivise parties to litigate their disputes here, and demonstrate our commitment to contribute towards facilitating international commerce. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 3.06 pm”
“However, the Convention provides certain limited Page: 66 grounds on which the Singapore Courts must or may refuse to recognise or enforce such foreign judgments. Examples of where a foreign judgment will not be recognised or enforced include where the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud or where recognition and enforcement of the judgment would be against Singapore's public policy. In such instances, the Bill makes it mandatory for the Singapore Courts to refuse recognition and enforcement. The Bill also provides certain discretionary grounds for refusal. Declarations can be made under the Convention to exclude or modify its application to specific matters; to allow the Courts to refuse to hear disputes or decline to recognise and enforce foreign judgments in certain limited circumstances; or to extend the Convention obligations to non-exclusive choice of court agreements. Singapore is currently not making any declarations, but the Bill provides the Minister with the power to make regulations to incorporate the effect of any such future declarations. The Bill only applies vis-à-vis other contracting states to the Convention. It would not apply where the court chosen under the exclusive choice of court agreement is a court of a non-contracting state. In such cases, the current law applicable to enforcing such agreements, as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, would apply. Finally, in line with the Convention, the intention of the Bill is that when it is applied, regard shall be had to its international character and the need to promote uniformity in its application. In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, this Bill will give effect to the Convention and allow Singapore to ratify it.”
“It does not apply to exclusive choice of court agreements in personal, family or consumer matters. It would not, therefore, apply to matrimonial matters, bankruptcy, insolvency, employment or personal injury. Part 2 of the Bill deals with the jurisdiction of the Singapore Courts in cases of an exclusive choice of court agreement that falls within the scope of the Bill. Briefly, if a Singapore Court is the chosen Court under an exclusive choice of court agreement, the Singapore Court will have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute at hand. The Singapore Court, generally, cannot decline jurisdiction on the ground that the dispute should be decided by a court of another state. Conversely, if the Singapore Court is not the chosen court, the Singapore Court must, generally, stay or dismiss the matter. Clause 2(2) of the Bill makes it clear that references to the High Court in an exclusive choice of court agreement to which the Convention applies is to be construed as including SICC, unless a contrary intention appears in the agreement. This addresses a situation where an action which is commenced in the High Court pursuant to an exclusive choice of court agreement specifying the Singapore High Court as the forum is subsequently transferred to SICC. Clause 2(2) makes it clear that the High Court includes SICC and removes any doubt that the intention of this Bill is for the Convention regime to apply to SICC, notwithstanding the transfer. Part 3 of the Bill relates to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Generally, where a foreign judgment is valid and enforceable in the state in which the judgment originated, it will be recognised and enforced in Singapore.”
“Under the convention regime, parties will have greater assurance that: the court chosen by them under an exclusive choice of court agreement will hear their dispute and not some other Page: 65 courts; and the courts of contracting states will enforce the judgment of the chosen court. This gives greater certainty which will, in turn, enable parties to better manage the risks involved in cross-border business and promote a more conducive legal environment for international trade investment. Singapore signed the Convention on 25 March 2015. The Convention came into force on 1 October 2015. There are presently 28 states which are parties to the Convention. It is an opportune time for Singapore to implement and ratify the Convention. Doing so will be beneficial to our position as a dispute resolution hub. First, it will enhance the enforceability of Singapore judgments in other jurisdictions. This includes judgments from SICC, which was established as a specialist court to hear international commercial disputes, including disputes which have no substantial connection to Singapore. Second, the ability to enforce our judgments more widely will be an added incentive for parties to choose Singapore courts, including SICC, in exclusive choice of court agreements. We have consulted various stakeholders, such as the Law Society, foreign law firms, academics and the Judiciary. They support the signing of the Convention as they recognise the benefit that will result from judgments of the Singapore Courts being more easily enforced or recognised in foreign jurisdictions. I will now highlight some important features of the Bill. In line with the Convention, the Bill only applies to international civil or commercial matters.”
“When choosing the jurisdiction or forum to resolve their disputes, parties typically consider several factors, including whether the forum: (a) provides certainty as to how the law is to be interpreted and applied; (b) is a trusted forum, that is, neutral and not corrupt; (c) is competent and efficient in resolving disputes; and whether the judgment or award obtained can be easily enforced domestically and overseas. This is particularly relevant where parties' assets are located in another jurisdiction. Arbitral awards have wide enforceability because of the New York Convention. In contrast, court judgments are generally more difficult to enforce in other jurisdictions, especially if the two jurisdictions concerned do not have reciprocal arrangements or treaties on the enforcement of judgments. In common law jurisdictions, for example, a party would, generally, have to commence fresh proceedings in that other jurisdiction and sue on the court judgment as a debt. This incurs additional time and costs. It can also be open to more challenges, especially if the defendant disputes that the original court had jurisdiction to make the judgment sought to be enforced. The Convention provides greater certainty on where disputes between parties will be litigated and where judgments can be enforced. And it does so in two ways. First, it establishes an international legal regime for upholding exclusive choice of court agreements in international civil or commercial cases. Second, it governs the recognition and enforcement of judgments amongst courts of the contracting states. In this regard, it does for court judgments of contracting states what the New York Convention does for arbitral awards.”
“For litigation, we recently established the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) to meet demand for commercial dispute resolution in the region and internationally. And for mediation, we established the Singapore International Mediation Centre to provide mediation services for international disputes. In the recently concluded Committee of Supply debates, the Minister for Law informed Members that the Government will create new frameworks to help our lawyers seize opportunities. The Convention regime, which today's Bill seeks to implement, is one such framework. This Bill will boost Singapore's position as a dispute resolution hub in Asia by enhancing the international enforceability of Singapore Court judgments. Greater enforceability will make our Courts a more attractive forum for determining cross-border disputes. This, in turn, will generate more opportunities for our legal industry. The implementation of the Convention also demonstrates Singapore's commitment to be a global player in facilitating international commerce. Drawing more complex cross-border Page: 64 commercial cases to our Courts will allow us to develop and shape commercial law, as well as international jurisprudence, relating to the Convention. Let me, first, explain the broad framework of the Convention which is being implemented by this Bill. Parties to commercial contracts commonly specify where disputes arising under the contract are to be resolved. If the parties specify that disputes arising from the contract are to be resolved in one jurisdiction to the exclusion of other jurisdictions, that is known as an exclusive choice of court agreement. If they specify one jurisdiction, but do not exclude other jurisdictions, then that is known as a non-exclusive choice of court agreement.”
“Mdm Speaker, this is the last Bill on the last day of a long and intensive Parliamentary session. So, I know how much Members will be looking forward eagerly to this Bill with keen interest and the Ministry of Law will endeavour not to disappoint. Mdm Speaker, on behalf of the Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". The Choice of Court Agreements Bill seeks to give effect to the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements done at The Hague on 30 June 2005, which establishes an international legal regime for upholding exclusive choice of court agreements in international civil or commercial cases and governs the recognition and enforcement of judgments amongst parties to the Convention. Globalisation has led to unprecedented growth in international trade and investment. This has seen a corresponding increase in cross-border disputes, and a heightened demand for cross-border dispute resolution services. Current economic conditions notwithstanding, in the long term, international trade and, consequently, the need for international dispute resolution, are expected to grow. The establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community in 2015, which allows for freer movement of goods, services, investments, skilled labour and capital in the region, will add to this demand. Singapore is well-placed to meet this increased demand. Today, we already offer a full suite of international dispute resolution services. In arbitration, we are one of the most preferred seats of arbitration in the world. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) had a record year in 2015, with 271 new cases involving $6.23 billion in disputes.”
“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)] Page: 58”
“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 2015. The additional sums have been presented as Supplementary Estimates, which have been considered and approved by the House as Command Paper No 3 of 2016. 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)] Page: 57”
“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 2016 to 31 March 2017. 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 2016 to 31 March 2017, as contained in Paper Command No 2 of 2016. 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)] Page: 56”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has come to certain resolutions. [(proc text) First resolution reported – (proc text)] [(proc text) "That the sum of $82,389,729,300 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 2016 to 31 March 2017, contained in Paper Cmd 2 of 2016." (proc text)] [(proc text) Second resolution reported – (proc text)] [(proc text) "That the sum of $32,161,255,600 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 2016 to 31 March 2017, contained in Paper Cmd 2 of 2016. (proc text)]”
“So, in this case, the Government is able to continue its operations as per normal as the Finance Minister has, with the prior approval of the Cabinet, authorised interim expenditure pending the Supply Bill becoming law under Article 148B (4) of the Constitution and we are, therefore, funded for this period. This has been done before, in 2002 when, likewise, the new Parliament opened on 25 March 2002 and Budget Day was on 3 May 2002, thus pushing back the Parliamentary calendar and requiring interim funding under Article 148B (4) of the Constitution. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: One of the chief problems faced by specialised caregivers is their own retirement adequacy. Government assistance and direct subsidies, at the point of service, help them for the immediate needs. But many of them are themselves well advanced in age after the end of care and will not do well in the labour market. My question is: how is the Government looking into enhancing the retirement adequacy of this group in the long run?”
“Mdm Chairman, the Government's financial year is from 1 April of the year to 31 March of the following year. So, in this case, as Parliament opened at the beginning of the calendar year in January, we had a very heavy Parliamentary schedule, and so, the Government's Budget was presented on 24 March 2016, taking into account the President's Address and the debate on the proposed policies as well as programmes of the Government in January. The Supply Bill 2016 can, therefore, only be passed by Parliament and enacted after the start of our financial year and, under the Order Paper, Parliament is currently scheduled to vote on the Bill after the end of COS on 14 April 2016. Once passed, the Bill would be submitted to the President for assent before it can be enacted as the Supply Act. So, I think, really, Mr Liang Eng Hwa's question pertains to that period after the end of the preceding financial year on 31 March to the time the Supply Bill is passed and how we are funded for that period. The Government is able to continue its operations as per normal because Article 148 of the Constitution allows for expenditures in the interim until the Supply Bill is passed. Under Article 148B (4) of the Constitution, the Finance Minister, with the Cabinet's approval, can authorise spending from various Government funds to keep public services running until the Supply Bills are passed into law. However, the amount that is spent must not exceed one quarter of the total sum approved for the particular service in the past year's Budget.”
“I think what we can say, Mdm Chairman, is that we have taken note of the suggestion. We will look into it, and in due course, if there is anything to be done further on it, of course, we will let the public know.”
“Feedback has been generally positive, and we intend to ramp up our outreach efforts to another 2,000 businesses this year. Mr Saktiandi also commented on difficulties faced by SMEs in applying for business grants. It is a question of achieving the right balance. In administering grant schemes, the Government is accountable for the money spent. We, therefore, require information to monitor the output of the support we give to businesses to ensure that the money is used for the proper purpose. At the same time, we recognise that applications for grants should not be unduly burdensome and a deterrent instead of an encouragement. As such, we constantly review the appropriate level of documentation and information that is required for grant applications. In last year's Budget, we simplified the application process for SPRING's Capability Development Grants below $30,000 by reducing the information required. In this year's Budget, of course, Minister Heng Swee Keat announced the launch of the Business Grants Portal. That will simplify the application processes. 12.15 pm Mdm Chair, in conclusion, MOF will continue to review Government procurement processes to ensure that we remain open to innovative ideas and support the co-creation of solutions in delivering public services. We must continue to ensure financial prudence, but we must also be fair to our companies and their workers. We will also continue to review our corporate regulatory regime to ensure that it remains relevant while facilitating ease of doing business in Singapore.”
“MOF and ACRA are reviewing other corporate regulations to facilitate business, including: (a) requirements on the use of common company seals; (b) the holding of annual general meetings (AGMs); and (c) the filing of annual returns. Details of the proposed changes will be announced during MOF's public consultation on the regulations later this year. We will continue to work closely with businesses to avoid unnecessary burdens on businesses. Ms Sun Xueling highlighted the need to ensure that our licensing requirements remain conducive for promising new technology and business models in her Budget debate speech. We agree. The Pro-Enterprise Panel, comprising business leaders and senior public officers, was set up in 2000 as an internal advocate for businesses within the Government. The Panel works closely with public agencies to provide timely, effective and practical solutions to address the regulatory concerns that businesses face, including those in new technology areas. Since its inception, the Pro-Enterprise Panel has reviewed more than 1,800 suggestions and more than half have led to changes in regulations and rules. Mr Saktiandi also highlighted that some companies might inadvertently overlook regulatory and compliance requirements. On our part, we try to reduce the likelihood of default. Where possible, our agencies facilitate compliance by sending reminders ahead of statutory deadlines, such as for AGMs and filing of annual returns. ACRA has also partnered other Government agencies, such as the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), the CPF Board and SPRING Singapore, to organise information sessions on statutory obligations for new and aspiring business owners.”
“What I would suggest in this case, really, is for the tenderers to propose this if they feel that either the price of the materials or anything that forms part of their costs, is something which would be subject to fluctuation and needs to have some sort of price escalation in years to come. It is something that they should raise with the Government. Let me assure Members that we regularly review Government procurement practices to keep abreast of developments and ensure that procurement clauses are reasonable and fair. Of course, we welcome feedback as we learn from them as well as the practices in other countries and the private sector. We will also continue to raise the capabilities of our procurement officers and community in the public sector, so that they can handle Government procurement well and ensure that public monies are spent prudently. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked what can be done to reduce the compliance burden and facilitate the ease of doing business. As Mr Saktiandi noted, Singapore has been ranked No 1 in the World Bank Group's Ease of Doing Business Index for the past 10 years, ahead of other countries, such as Korea, Japan and the United States. So, we are not doing badly. However, we cannot be complacent. As we press on to transform our industries, we will continue to review our regulations to facilitate doing business in Singapore. Over the past year, ACRA has implemented significant changes to the Companies Act to reduce the regulatory burden, provide greater business flexibility and improve the corporate governance standards in Singapore. These include exempting small companies from statutory audits and allowing public companies to issue non-voting or multiple vote shares.”
“However, in other sectors where procurement policy is not a suitable or appropriate means of impacting wages, we have other ways to assist, such as through the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS), which has been enhanced in this Budget. Mr Zainal Sapari also spoke about unfair contracts and options to extend. Options to extend contracts are a common practice internationally and in the private sector. The benefit of an option to extend is that it enables a longer-term relationship with the supplier if the supplier has provided good quality service and demonstrates the ability to continue to do so. The extension also means continued employment of the suppliers' employees. It could operate unfairly, however, if the extension does not allow for any increase in contract price in subsequent years to take into account wage increments. This can be avoided if price increases upon extension are factored in from the outset. Our practice is to ask Government agencies to remind tenderers of multi-year contracts to factor in wage increments for their workers. We also explicitly allow tenderers to present their price bid on a year-by-year basis, so as to factor in annual wage increments. Mr Chen Show Mao spoke about encouraging the increased use of price escalation clauses in Government contracts. We are open to this in the appropriate situations and where it is right to do so. For example, in standard clauses for construction contracts, we do explicitly allow for material price fluctuations based on material price indices which are published by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), and that is based on objective indices which are published independently.”
“The objective of public tenders is to procure goods and services required for the delivery of public services in a fair and transparent manner and, given that we are spending public monies, to obtain value-for-money in our procurement. Value-for-money does not mean always and only going for the lowest price. Agencies also consider quality factors in their evaluation as this has a bearing on value and these are spelt out in the tender documents. Where Government intervention is required to meet certain policy objectives, we generally do this through targeted measures rather than through conditions of procurement. This avoids mixing multiple objectives into the Government procurement process which could result in distorted outcomes. That is the broad principle. So, for example, to help social enterprises, which Miss Cheryl Chan spoke about, the Singapore Centre for Social Enterprise, also known as raiSE, was set up to provide support in areas, such as funding, business advisory and training. We believe that this is a better approach to helping social enterprises stay viable rather than to artificially set aside Government contracts to sustain them. However, in very specific instances where the evidence suggests that Government procurement practices can make a substantial difference, we will take the appropriate action. For example, we have our effort to support the Progressive Wage Model in the cleaning, security and landscape sectors. To combat the risk of cheap sourcing and suppressed wages in these sectors, and following agreement with our tripartite partners, the Government took a deliberate decision to accredit or license companies that pay according to the Progressive Wage Model and to buy only from these companies in these sectors.”
“An example of how we do this is the Accreditation@IDA programme. Set up in 2014, this programme helps promising Singapore-based technology startups to establish their track record to have a better chance at securing Government and private sector projects. The accreditation programme evaluates and accredits companies to give potential buyers the assurance of their quality. IDA also partners companies in their development process by providing advice and recommendations to strengthen their product, improve financial management, and better manage intellectual property. To date, the programme has assisted 29 companies, of which 12 have obtained accreditation status. We expect more to be accredited in due course. We have also revised our Government procurement rules, within the parameters of our international trade agreements, to make it easier for Government agencies to procure innovative solutions from these companies. They will be considered first when agencies seek to buy technology services or products. More than 15 contracts have been awarded to accredited companies and many more are currently in various stages of discussions towards signing of a contract. Subject to obligations under international trade agreements, we are open to working with suitable industry partners to recognise promising startups in other sectors so that they can compete favourably for contracts and build up their track record. In his Budget debate speech, Mr Zainal Sapari suggested using Government procurement practices to achieve certain objectives, such as raising wages for low-income workers. Mr Chen Show Mao also talked about price escalation clauses. I thought it would be helpful to clarify the Government's approach on this.”
“SMEs are also encouraged to attend the engagement sessions organised by industry associations and the Government to better understand Government procurement processes. For example, earlier this year, the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) organised a Government Procurement Fair for SMEs, where various Government agencies, including MOF, participated to clarify the Government's procurement practices. SBF is also developing a Best Practice Guide to help SMEs better understand Government procurement principles and processes and how to bid for Government contracts. Another simple but useful thing which SMEs can do to improve their access to Government procurement opportunities is just register for a Government Electronic Business (GeBIZ) account. If you are registered on GeBIZ, you will automatically receive alerts on new procurement opportunities. The system also allows businesses to save their business information, making it easier for them to submit bids. Registration is straightforward and can be done online. Best of all, registration of the first GeBIZ account is free. To help suppliers find and participate in Government procurement opportunities, we revamped the Government procurement portal GeBIZ in January this year. The revamped portal has a more user-friendly interface which was developed following extensive consultations with businesses that use the portal and has received much positive feedback from existing suppliers and new users. We will continue to work with the industry associations to improve outreach and education to SMEs in this area. We also recognise that SMEs without a track record may find it challenging to win tenders. We are open to helping SMEs with innovative ideas and quality products to compete and establish their track record.”
“Under this initiative, JTC partnered a local company, Samwoh Corporation, to successfully trial the use of sedimentary rocks excavated from the Jurong Rock Caverns to pave a stretch of road outside Mediapolis. The rocks had little value in themselves but, with this initiative, the rocks have acquired a new value, and the initiative has potential to be implemented across other new roads in Singapore. This is an illustration of how a partnership between the public and private sectors can create value for our enterprises while meeting public needs. So, we are reviewing the initiative to see how it can be more effective in public-private co-innovation, alongside other existing efforts to promote collaboration. On helping smaller firms access Government procurement opportunities, Members will be heartened to know that over the past three years, SMEs have been successful in securing Government projects under our open procurement system, capturing more than 60% of total Government contract value and around 85% of all Government tenders. This share of the total number of Government contracts is significantly higher than in other countries, such as the UK. Our SMEs have successfully tendered not just for smaller projects, but also for more sizeable ones. For the past three years, by contract value, about 50% of all contracts above $50 million were awarded to SMEs, a very respectable proportion. We would encourage more SMEs to participate in Government procurement. Those who need information on how to go about doing so can refer to the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING Singapore) and MOF websites.”
“00 pm A good example is IDA and the Sentosa Development Corporation's (SDC) recent Integrated Guest Experience Innovation Challenge, an open invitation for participants to develop ideas to enhance guest experience for visitors to Sentosa. Proposed ideas included innovative solutions involving data analytics, wearable devices, virtual assistants and augmented reality. SDC is currently exploring the possibility of inviting the shortlisted participants to develop their prototypes for implementation. Those shortlisted need not go through a separate open tender, as the objectives of fair and open competition, transparency and value for money would have already been met through the Innovation Challenge. We are working on introducing outcome-based procurement in the cleaning, security and landscape sectors over time. For example, rather than specifying headcount for security contracts, agencies could specify areas to be monitored and the response time expected of security officers in the event of an alert. This would enable tenderers to consider using technology and innovative deployment of their staff to support our efforts to raise productivity and wages in these sectors, a point made by Mr Zainal Sapari in his Budget Debate speech. This alternative procurement approach will require Government agencies to change the way they call and evaluate tenders and how they monitor service providers. It will also require changes by service providers in the way they respond to tenders and provide their services. It will involve some effort, but we believe that this is a move in the right direction. Mr Liang Eng Hwa also asked about the PPCIP initiative and suggested that it be boosted. There have been some successes under PPCIP.”
“Another example is the recently deployed Volunteer Broadcast System mobile app for Food from the Heart. Many are familiar with Food from the Heart, a non-profit organisation whose volunteers collect unsold bread from bakeries and hotels daily and deliver it to welfare organisations and self-collection centres within the heartlands for distribution to beneficiaries. Previously, volunteers had to call in to the coordinating centre to plan their delivery routes. The centre staff had to manually search and suggest delivery routes for the volunteers. To get replacement volunteers, the centre had to call volunteers individually, a manually intensive task. At a GeoHackathon event organised by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), one of the winning ideas was an app that used SLA's geospatial data to update the organisation and its volunteers on real-time collection and delivery information. With the app, volunteers can quickly identify which collection or distribution point has not been visited and select their routes, without having to call the centre. What used to take 30 minutes to find a volunteer replacement is now just a "click away" and this has significantly improved productivity for both the centre and the volunteers. Mr Liang Eng Hwa will be pleased to know that as we promote the generation of new ideas, we also seek to adopt more flexible procurement processes, where practicable, to facilitate the adoption of innovative solutions. Under the outcome-based procurement approach, we encourage Government agencies to specify desired outcomes rather than prescribe solutions in their tenders. This approach allows vendors to propose innovative solutions to develop prototypes and potentially be awarded the contract subsequently. 12.”
“Mdm Chairman, I thank the hon Members for their thoughtful comments. I will address three broad themes that were raised in the debate: first, how the Government can partner industry to facilitate innovation and growth through our procurement processes. Members spoke about support for innovative SMEs, co-creation of solutions and helping smaller firms access Government procurement opportunities; second, principles underlying our procurement approach; and third, improving the ease of doing business and reducing compliance burdens. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will address the other cuts. We share Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Miss Cheryl Chan's views that Government agencies should be open to developing innovative solutions together with the private sector. The world today is becoming increasingly complex and the multi-faceted issues we face require us to work in partnership with one another, each playing our part. And this is the spirit of partnership underlying this year's Budget. Government agencies are crowdsourcing ideas more, and involving communities and businesses in problem solving through hackathons and innovation challenges where individuals and firms can participate in developing and co-creating innovative solutions to challenges faced by businesses or the society. So, in the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore’s (IDA) Hackathon@SG last year, Goji, the winning team, developed a data visualisation tool which allows corporate and financial data from the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) to be easily and quickly viewed. This can potentially be developed further for credit risk analysis. ACRA is working with the team to explore how we can implement the idea.”
“What I referred to were 171 applications. I do not have the specific breakdown, but if the Member would like to file a question on that, then we can provide relevant information.”
“This takes the form of: (a) encouraging employers and unions to make provisions in collective agreements for retrenched workers, or, in the case of non-unionised employees, to follow best practices in redundancy situations; (b) helping workers to retrain, re-skill and remain employable through SkillsFuture; (c) providing job-matching assistance through Jobs Bank, e2i and WDA, amongst others; and (d) Budget 2016, which devotes significant attention to how retrenched workers can be helped under the section "Supporting Our People through Change." I also understand the Minister for Manpower will be speaking on how to support retrenched workers. Mr Chairman, MinLaw will continue to take steps to grow the legal industry, promote the use of law, enhance access to justice and strengthen the rule of law in Singapore.”
“IPOS also has arrangements with other patent offices, to allow businesses to rely on IPOS' search and examination reports in other countries. Page: 100 My Ministry and IPOS have recently completed a review of the registered designs regime. We will expand the scope of protection for designs in view of technological advances and modern business practices. So, for example, virtual designs, artisanal or handcrafted design items and colours will be protectable. These and other recommendations were positively received in the 2014 and 2015 public consultations. They will support the Design 2025 Master Plan in promoting the creative and innovative use of design as a source of growth and productivity. 6.45 pm Mr Desmond Choo asked whether ex gratia support could be provided to workers in deserving circumstances in connection with land acquisition. Like Mr Choo, the Government is sympathetic and will provide assistance to retrenched workers. However, it is important not to conflate what are two separate issues: first, compensation for land; and, second, support for retrenched workers. The Land Acquisition Act compensates property owners by paying market value for land which is acquired. We should continue to maintain that principle. Introducing other elements will distort what is essentially compensation for the market value of the land. Nevertheless, there is assistance for retrenched workers.”
“The content and curriculum are designed specifically with Singapore law in mind. It is not just a matter of converting something that you have learnt overseas. The content will focus on things like the Women's Charter, Criminal Procedure Code, Penal Code, Misuse of Drugs Act, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act – all of which are not taught by overseas universities. Moreover, it has a unique practice-oriented approach which is embedded in the curriculum. They will have to learn things like the judge-led approach which is part of our family law reforms. When you take all of these together, we felt that the JD programme would be better in terms of producing family and criminal lawyers of high quality. Although the JD programme will take longer than a conversion course, we felt that it would be better in terms of outcomes. With respect to NUS and SMU, obviously, criminal and family law modules are taught there. We cannot compel their graduates to take up practice in these areas, but we can and do encourage them to do so. There are pro bono schemes in those universities to expose them to these areas, including, for example, the Innocence Project. Mr Christopher de Souza asked about developments in the designs and intellectual property regimes. IP gives businesses a competitive edge in today's innovation-driven globalised economy. The 2013 IP Hub Master Plan aims to develop Singapore as a gateway for businesses to protect and use their innovations world-wide. We have done well in our efforts to achieve this goal. The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) search and examination unit is the only unit in Southeast Asia appointed as an international searching authority under the World Intellectual Property Organisation's Patent Cooperation Treaty.”
“Thank you. Fresh graduates from local universities and overseas scheduled universities (OSU) generally choose not to practise in the areas of criminal and family law. There is a high attrition rate amongst those who do, due to the stresses and emotional Page: 99 demands. The current oversupply thus does not meet this very real need. The ULS programme, however, is designed to do so and will, in fact, help the smaller law firms who are short of lawyers. While the ULS law degree will qualify its graduates for general practice, it is expected that they will practise family and criminal law. Its entire design – from admission and selection criteria and curriculum – is geared to encourage this outcome. ULS is targeted at mature individuals with relevant work experience who would be better placed to decide at the outset if they want to practise in these areas. Mr Tan also asked about MinLaw's position on external law degrees and degrees from non-scheduled universities. The Government's position is that we must have high standards and a high quality of education for the practice of Singapore law. This is because the practice of law has widespread impact – it affects the lives of people, society and the economy. External law degree holders and non-OSU graduates who wish to practise can now seek admission to the Singapore Bar via the ULS JD programme. The Fourth Committee had suggested that one should look at a conversion programme to allow them to practise. But after much consideration, the Steering Committee for the Third Law School felt that the JD programme would be a better route to practice for these people rather than a conversion programme. This is because the ULS is a specialist law school. Its raison d'etre is actually to produce good family and criminal lawyers.”
“MinLaw will continue to monitor these community justice platforms to ensure efficient and affordable resolution of community disputes. Mr Dennis Tan asked about the implications of the UniSIM Law School (ULS) graduates entering the market. The ULS intake will be relatively small – 60 in the first batch and around 75 students in steady state. It will thus not have a significant implication in terms of overall numbers. Moreover, its first batch of students will graduate in or around 2020, by which time, the current situation should have resolved itself. However, what ULS will do is to provide a steady pipeline of family and criminal lawyers. These are areas in which there is an impending shortage if nothing is done. Mr Chairman, before I proceed, I would like to seek your indulgence to continue past the 30 seconds remaining to me. Otherwise, MinLaw would not be able to do justice to Mr Dennis Tan's questions, as well as to Mr Desmond Choo's and Mr Patrick Tay's.”
“This will enable a more holistic appraisal of the pro bono landscape. I turn now to community justice. MinLaw has put in place affordable and effective mechanisms for resolving community disputes while preserving community bonds. These include: CDRT, POHA and the Small Claims Tribunals. Mr Patrick Tay talked about these initiatives. The CDRT was established on 1 October 2015, about six months ago. It provides an avenue to resolve community disputes, including through Court-ordered mediation. As at 31 January 2016, 32 claims were filed. These typically involve complaints about excessive noise, littering, obstruction or interference with movable property. Out of 13 claims referred by the CDRT for mediation, four were successfully settled; five are pending mediation. In total, 11 claims have been disposed of and 21 remain pending. These are early results but they are positive. Victims may enforce CDRT orders by applying for Special Directions upon default of the orders. As at 31 March 2016, no such applications have been filed. POHA took effect on 15 November 2014. As at 31 January 2016, 171 applications for Protection Orders were filed, including by victims of online, sexual, workplace and debt collection-related harassment. In total, 54 Protection Orders and 45 Expedited Protection Orders were granted. Some of these were granted by consent. A number of applications were also withdrawn. This suggests that some disputes are being resolved amicably. 799 Magistrate's Complaints have also been lodged under the Act. Mr Patrick Tay asked if the claim limits of the Small Claims Tribunals would be increased. This is being reviewed by my Ministry and the State Courts as part of the review of the Small Claims Tribunals Act.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank Members for supporting MinLaw's work and for their cuts. Dr Tan Wu Meng and Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan spoke about access to justice. Access to justice is critical to the rule of law. My Ministry works with the Judiciary, the Law Society and other stakeholders to enhance access to justice, particularly for lower income and vulnerable Singaporeans. The Legal Aid Bureau provides legal aid and advice on civil matters, such as divorce, estate matters or personal injury. Applicants must satisfy a means and merits test. The Primary Justice Project launched by the State Courts, the Law Society and the Community Justice Centre provides basic legal services at a fixed low cost, with a view to resolving disputes amicably and expediently. Since 2015, MinLaw has also provided funding support for the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) run by the Law Society. In 2015, the scheme benefited 2,433 accused persons, of which 1,324 received full legal representation or legal services not involving Court attendance. This is a significant increase from 2014, where only 431 accused persons received full legal representation. Persons facing capital charges are also ensured legal representation under the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO). The needy can also receive free basic legal advice at legal clinics. These include the Community Legal Clinics network run by the Law Society; the Community Justice Centre at the State Courts; and other legal clinics at Community Centres or run by voluntary welfare Page: 98 organisations, charities and religious organisations. We have been promoting a strong pro bono culture within the legal fraternity. Since 2015, Singapore lawyers are required to disclose the number of hours spent in each preceding year on pro bono work.”
“The Minister has previously responded to the Member on the same topic. As stated earlier, the governance arrangement between the Government and our investment entities is that the individual investments are the responsibility of their respective management teams, while the Government monitors the performance of their overall portfolio. The investment activities of GIC and Temasek Holdings are oriented towards generating long-term returns on a sustainable basis. Investing in companies with environmentally unsustainable practices could negatively impact the commercial value of the investments over the long term. GIC and Temasek have informed us that they do not have investments in such companies causing the haze. Temasek has stated that it fully supports zero-burning policies for land clearance and would urge companies and plantation owners to support and implement responsible and sustainable practices in their operations and supply chains. GIC has also informed the Government that the palm oil companies in Indonesia that GIC invests in have confirmed that they observe zero-burning policies for their plantations. Some of these companies are working towards certifications that require adherence to zero-burn practices. GIC's investment teams engage actively with the companies' management and highlight to them that such responsible actions are important to maintain the long-term value of the companies. The Government will continue to monitor the haze issue and take further steps if necessary.”
“It is a little difficult for the Government to step into that arena, as it were. What one would have to rely on are the general principles of contracts. There is obviously bargaining power; that is one of the things that you take into account. But when a contract is particularly unfair and crosses a particular line, then, in some cases, in the Courts, the Courts will strike it down. We do have the Unfair Contract Terms Act. If it contravenes the Unfair Contract Terms Act, then, obviously, certain things will not be enforced. That is a matter of general law and that has developed over time. That is fairly well-settled. With respect to the other question of a body to encourage mediation, in fact, we do have the Singapore Mediation Centre. It hears not just international cases but also domestic cases as well. I agree with the Member that mediation or amicable resolution is something to be encouraged. There are tribunals where you can take your cases for mediation.”
“May I clarify with the Member when he asked in the first question, what the Government can do to encourage fair and reasonable contracts in the private sector, does the Member mean contracts between the Government and the private sector, or does the Member mean the private sector at large?”
“For example, in the creative design industry, the industry norm allows up to three rounds of consolidated changes after the design concept has been signed off. But this does not apply to architecture design of buildings. Given the differences across industries and situation in which a procurement is made, any audit on whether the tender specifications are fair would have to take into account the context and the circumstances when the particular procurement is called. To address concerns about appropriate contract clauses, MOF works with lead agencies for the major categories of buys that the Government spends on, and provide guidance to agencies and procurement officers. For example, we work with Building and Construction Authority (BCA) for the procurement of construction services and Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) for procurement of IT services. Similarly, MOF is working with DesignSingapore Council to advise Government agencies on best practices for procurement of design services. Today, every agency which intends to procure services or products will indicate the agency's contact person's details in the GeBIZ procurement notice. I would encourage suppliers who have any questions about a specific tender or quotation, whether on the tender specifications or contractual terms and conditions, to contact the agencies. Where the questions or concerns pertain to an agency's procurement practice, suppliers can also raise these to the agency's Quality Service Manager. Apart from these channels, suppliers may also give their feedback on government procurement matters to MOF's Quality Service Manager or on the GeBIZ feedback page.”
“Madam, Government agencies are expected to conduct procurements in a fair and reasonable manner. To guide agencies, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) provides templates on the contractual terms and conditions for common types of buys which agencies make. Agencies can choose to use these templates or adapt them accordingly to cater to their specific unique needs. From time to time, these templates are reviewed, taking into account feedback that we receive and any appropriate industrial norms. For example, following industry feedback, our IT procurement contract terms were amended so that when the original equipment manufacturer's vendor defaults, the replacement vendor is compensated at prevailing fair market value instead of having to accept the previous vendor's rates. We have clear guidelines to agencies that liquidated damages should not exceed actual damages/losses suffered in the event of a breach. There are also contracts which do not impose liquidated damages. Whatever the case, Government agencies are advised to work closely with their contractors to resolve issues early. As far as possible, agencies and contractors are not to let problems escalate to the point where contractual non-fulfilment is reached. There are training modules that guide officers on how to write the tender specifications or the scope of work expected of the tenderer. However, it is not possible for training to cover every scenario on what is fair or unfair, or every type of purchase that Government agencies make. The Government buys a wide variety of goods and services, and each industry has differing practices and norms. What is considered the norm and reasonable in one industry may not be so in another.”