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 8 of 51.
“Thank you. The new Shared Parental Leave (SPL) scheme is a significant enhancement of our parental leave provisions, providing 10 additional weeks of paid leave that can be shared between both parents to care for their infant. The implementation date of 1 April 2025 was set after extensive consultation with the tripartite partners. We had considered implementing the new scheme earlier so that more parents can benefit. However, employers had requested for a longer lead time to prepare for this change, as companies need to update their administrative processes and to put in place new measures to manage their employees’ extended absences. This is especially so because the new SPL scheme involves a leave-sharing feature, which requires coordination between both parents and their respective employers. Time is also needed for the Government to effect various legislative and operational changes. We fully understand that parents who miss out on the enhancements could feel disappointed. However, the deferred start date is necessary to ensure that all stakeholders involved are ready to implement the changes. Implementing the new SPL from 1 April 2025 strikes a balance between giving employers sufficient time to make the necessary adjustments in this tight labour market and allowing parents to benefit from the enhancements as soon as possible. As such, we are not able to bring forward the implementation date. Parents whose babies are born before 1 April 2025 will still be eligible for comprehensive support under the Marriage and Parenthood package.”
“The total number of resident deaths has increased from 18,200 in 2014 to 25,600 in 2023. The total number of Citizen deaths has increased from 17,700 in 2014 to 24,700 in 2023. Based on current trends1, the number of Citizen deaths could exceed the number of Citizen births in the first half of the 2030s.”
“We encourage supervisors and colleagues to be supportive when working parents need to tap on these measures to care for their children.”
“Today, each working parent is entitled to six days of paid childcare leave per year, when their youngest Singaporean child is below seven years old. In addition, each working parent will be entitled to two days of paid Extended Childcare Leave per year when the youngest child is aged between seven and 12. These childcare leave provisions are on top of annual leave entitlements and are designed as such because older children are generally more independent compared to younger children. Hence, parents with younger children are granted more childcare leave provisions. There are no plans at present to raise the age ceiling for childcare leave. Primary schools are not required to conduct Home-Based Learning (HBL) on a regular basis. They may conduct HBL on a few days each year based on the schools’ needs and as part of emergency preparedness in case they need to shift to HBL in contingency situations. Schools will inform parents in advance so they can make alternative care arrangements if needed. Student care centres also remain open as per other school days. In considering any further enhancement to leave provisions, including increasing childcare leave for parents with older children, we will need to strike a balance between supporting the needs of parents and the impact on employers’ manpower and operational requirements. Therefore, beyond legislated leave provisions, we encourage employers to put in place other sustainable family-friendly workplace practices, such as flexible work arrangements (FWAs). The Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests will take effect from 1 December 2024. The mandatory Guidelines will enable employers and employees to have open discussions and work out arrangements that can meet both parties’ needs and constraints.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Reimagining the Future of Education”
“Mr Speaker, I really hope not to have to belabour this point, but it is a simple point. Trade unions elect their own leaders. If they have leaders today who are members of the PAP or vice versa, it does not mean that that will always be the case. But the point that Mr Giam is missing is that the trade unions have a mind of their own. They have leadership. They know what to do. And they will act in a way that they think is best for their unions and for their workers. So, at the appropriate time, they will have their elections. They will choose their leaders. You do not know whether they may or may not be affiliated with the PAP, whatever it is. But at the end of the day, it is the unions who choose their leaders and it is the unions who choose whether or not they are affiliated with or work with or have a symbiotic relationship with a political party. That is entirely up to the trade unions, and we should let them continue to do and decide for themselves as they think best. But at the end of the day, it comes back to this. We have a Bill to pass and let us pass this Bill so that we can confer rights and protections on our platform workers.”
“The short answer – I cannot speak on behalf of the NTUC, but how I would see it is this. It would be entirely up to the workers and the trades union congress to decide whether to have any political party that they support and if so, which one. What I can say is that the PAP would do its very utmost not to have to give them a reason to think that we would never support them, or that as a government, we would not do our very best for the workers and the trades union congress. So, I would not venture into all these hypothetical questions – and you can see that Mr Giam is venturing more and more into the political realm. I would just bring the debate back to this. This is about platform workers. This is about our gig workers. This is about people who do not have much protection and who need protection, and we are trying to get this Bill passed so that they can have that protection. The WP obviously wishes to – I mean, let us all be quite frank. We all know that next year, there has to be a general election. Well, by next year, there has to be a general election. It may be this year, it may be next year, but we all know that by next year there has to be one. And we also know that whenever a general election appears or is round the corner, the political rhetoric ramps up. The political parties can slug it out amongst themselves, but do not put the platform workers in the middle of this. Do not make them the pawns or the beating bags for this. We have a Bill to pass. Let us focus on this Bill, because with this Bill, we can do better for our workers, our gig workers, and protect them.”
“I will just say this – which is that that is an ample demonstration of how when you are on a particular topic, then you make a side-step and say this is about something else; and then we have another side-step and say this is about something else. So, I think the short point to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is that this is about the Platform Workers Bill. Let us keep this to the Platform Workers Bill.”
“If I may just make this clarification since Mr Giam is going to proceed with the rest of his speech on the basis that unions and political parties have to be independent and separate. In fact, anyone who knows anything about democracies will know that in many of the democracies in the world, unions and political parties actually have a close relationship. The UK Labour Party, which is currently now in power, is very closely associated with their trades union congress. In fact, their trades union congress actually has contributed to the political party, as I understand it. In the US, the unions are also closely associated with some political parties. That is also the case in Canada. If one were to do the simple exercise of just googling unions and politics or unions and political parties, you will actually see that there is a very clear explanation as to why unions and politics are very closely involved. So, if Mr Giam is going to proceed with his speech on the basis that they must be independent and neutral, he must also understand that that is not the case in democracies around the world.”
“Mr Speaker, I, too, have a clarification for Mr Giam, which is this: is it Mr Giam's position that unions have to be independent of and not associated with political parties?”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2." [(proc text) Resolved, "That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2." – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent, and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon's speech?”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Art Education: Cultivating Creativity in Classrooms and Communities”
“Sir, I will attempt to adjourn Parliament again. [(proc text) Resolved, "That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." – [Ms Indranee Rajah].(proc text)]”
“Ms He, I am sorry to interrupt. I believe the procedure has not been completed. The Member may wish to take a seat for the procedure to move the Adjournment Motion to begin.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed."”
“We recognise that many parents with young children require support in managing their work and caregiving responsibilities. We have therefore progressively increased parental leave provisions over the years. The most recent enhancement was implemented on 1 January 2024, when Government-Paid Paternity Leave was doubled from two to four weeks on a voluntary basis and Unpaid Infant Care Leave from six to 12 days per parent per year in their child's first two years. We are presently studying how to strengthen parental leave support for those with infants who typically have high care needs. In considering any enhancement to leave provisions, we need to strike a balance between supporting the needs of parents and the impact on employers' manpower and operational requirements. Therefore, beyond legislated leave provisions, we also encourage other sustainable ways that support parents in juggling work and caregiving commitments, such as flexible work arrangements (FWAs). The Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests will take effect from 1 December 2024. The mandatory Guidelines will enable employers and employees to have open discussions and work out arrangements that can meet both parties' needs and constraints. It is also critical for our workplaces to have a family-friendly culture, where parents are supported in tapping on these measures when required. We encourage employers, supervisors and colleagues, to play their part by being supportive of working parents who take time off or use FWAs to care for their children. We will also continue to work with tripartite partners and community partners to foster societal and workplace norms that embrace families.”
“The framework sets out clear rules and guidance on the grants management process, from grant design, approval and disbursement, to monitoring and anomaly detection. This is part of the same five-stage process that was referenced in the AGO report. MOF, in collaboration with the Civil Service College, will continue to strengthen capabilities in grants administration and knowledge of the grants governance framework. MOF is also working with agencies responsible for grants management to uplift capabilities in data analytics, fraud detection and investigation. These capability building efforts include providing practical resources to agencies. For instance, a fraud risk management checklist has been developed by MOF and the Commercial Affairs Department to help agencies better prevent and detect fraud or abuse through improved grant design, administration and audit.”
“Each year, the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) conducts thematic audits in specific domains, including grants management. For financial year (FY) 2023/2024, the focus was on selected parenthood support measures1 managed by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA), where a total of $4.55 billion was disbursed from 1 April 2021 to 30 June 2023. The AGO thematic audit is in addition to existing proactive measures put in place by Government agencies, which include internal audit checks, risk management, leveraging data analytics to flag suspicious transactions and designing effective controls. These help to ensure good governance, reduce recurrence of lapses or human error and minimise fraud. AGO’s audit found that, in general, MSF and ECDA had put in place processes and controls across the various grant stages to ensure proper management of the schemes. Based on test-checks conducted, AGO noted over-disbursements of $446,000 in grants and subsidies. There were also indications of possible abuse of Government-Paid Leave Schemes (GPLS) for disbursements amounting to $1.16 million, and potential irregularities in withdrawals from Child Development Accounts (CDA). MSF and ECDA have commenced reviews on cases with indications of possible abuse or potential irregularities. Where over-disbursement is established, MSF and ECDA will seek to recover the amounts in full to prevent loss of public funds. MSF has blocked further GPLS claims from employers suspected to have abused the system while pending investigations. The Government remains committed to ensuring good governance and processes in our grants administration. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) issued a grants governance framework to all agencies in 2020.”
“We recognise that many parents with young children require support in managing their work and caregiving responsibilities. We have, therefore, progressively increased parental leave provisions over the years. The most recent enhancement was implemented on 1 January 2024, when we doubled Government-Paid Paternity Leave from two to four weeks on a voluntary basis, and Unpaid Infant Care Leave from six to 12 days per parent per year in their child’s first two years. We are presently studying how to strengthen parental leave support for those with infants who typically have high care needs. In considering any enhancement to leave provisions, including increasing childcare leave for parents with more children, we will need to strike a balance between supporting the needs of parents and the impact on employers’ manpower and operational requirements. Therefore, beyond legislated leave provisions, we also encourage other sustainable ways that support parents in juggling work and caregiving commitments, such as flexible work arrangements (FWAs). The Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests will take effect from 1 December 2024. The mandatory guidelines will enable employers and employees to have open discussions and work out arrangements that can meet both parties’ needs and constraints. It is also critical for our workplaces to have a family-friendly culture and we encourage employers, supervisors and colleagues to be supportive when working parents need to tap on these measures to care for their children. On the Government’s part, we will continue to work with the Tripartite Partners and community partners to foster a conducive environment to support Singaporeans’ marriage and parenthood aspirations.”
“Mr Speaker, I do not think I have more to add to what Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean has said, other than the fact that you take the assessment based on what you see. If we do not see that there is a particular need, then there is no need to pass legislation or move a Bill. But Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean's point is perfectly well taken, which is that it is good to encourage people to step up.”
“I am sorry, Sir, because I was listening to Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean and I had forgotten Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's question, would the Member like to repeat it? Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: The question is whether, it is not so much whether we observe that some people are indeed stepping forward. I am certain that is the case and we have news reports that say this. My question is, what we do not observe is all the instances where people have chosen not to step forward because of fear of liability. That is fundamentally unobservable as a counterfactual and, that is why, I asked whether the Minister would agree that we would not know the full extent to which individuals have not stepped forward.”
“I thank the Member for his clarification. I had actually addressed that earlier, because he asked whether all jurisdictions compel bystanders to provide aid. And as I had explained, which was also explained by Prof Jayakumar, there are two forms. Firstly, there are some jurisdictions where you have Good Samaritan laws because you want to reduce hesitation. So, in other words, it is because people are reluctant to step forward and help. And in some other jurisdictions, they take a more aggressive approach and they say you must help. But of course, having said you must help, then the corollary is you also provide the waiver of liability. So, in short, there is no one-size-fits-all, you have a law where there is a need or you assess that you want to do it for a particular reason. In this case, this Bill is a Private Member's Bill. The need, as I understand it, is Mr Louis Ng feels that people are hesitant to donate because they are concerned about liability. The context of the Ministers for Law talking in the emergency medical assistance context was that there was not a need because people are not hesitant to step up, number one. And number two, there is no major concern about liability because our law pitches the liability at your level of skill or expertise. So, if you are a doctor, you are held to a higher standard. If you are just an ordinary person helping out, you are held to that standard. So, the considerations are different.”
“And second, to impose a positive legal requirement on people to assist others in distress, unless they will put themselves in danger. On the first point, that is, to overcome bystanders' hesitation, the various Ministers for Law explained in their replies that, in Singapore, we have not encountered reluctance on the part of our citizens to step forward to help in those emergency situations. And on the second point, Prof Jayakumar said that helpful bystanders do not face any major liability concerns in Singapore. For civil liability, a person who offers assistance need only comply with what is expected of a person of his or her skills or experience, so an untrained person would not be held to the standard of a doctor, for example. As for criminal liability, that is generally premised on an intent to cause harm or injury. A person who has acted reasonably and in good faith is unlikely to be held criminally liable. As such, in the context of rendering emergency assistance, it is MinLaw's assessment that there is no need to introduce a Good Samaritan law, though MinLaw said that it would continue to study the experience of other jurisdictions and would review our position if the need arises. The context of the current Good Samaritan Bill is different. First, it deals with food donations, not emergency medical services. The considerations are different. And second, as I understand it, Mr Louis Ng is moving the Bill because potential donors are hesitant to donate because of potential liability concerns. And this is different from the emergency scenarios addressed by the Ministers for Law, where they have not encountered reluctance to step forward and there are no major liability concerns.”
“Mr Speaker, I had not actually intended to speak on the Bill, but this is more of a clarification in response to a few points raised by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had made a few observations regarding the Bill and statements made by various Ministers for Law in response to questions. And I was one of those, at that time, Senior Minister of State for Law, who had addressed a question on the point of Good Samaritan Bills. I believe Assoc Prof Lim asked why this particular Good Samaritan law is deemed necessary, when an analogous law that would do the same for involuntary harm by a helpful bystander would not. And actually, the question, if you had listened to his speech, was actually answered by Assoc Prof Lim himself. He had said this, and I quote, "Granted, the context of those Good Samaritan discussions was distinct and applicable more to the provision of on-site physical or medical assistance to those in need. Importantly, such laws in many other jurisdictions compel aid, whereas the Bill in question is essentially voluntary in nature." And that is exactly right. In short, the context of the previous Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and the replies to them is different. The previous PQs referred to Good Samaritan laws in the context of rendering medical or emergency assistance to people who are ill or injured. For example, in his reply, Prof Jayakumar explained that Good Samaritan laws adopted in other countries broadly take two forms. First, to reduce bystanders' hesitation to render assistance because of significant liability concerns. In these jurisdictions, there are laws granting persons who offer aid in emergency situations, certain protections from legal liability.”
“IMC will share its full findings and recommendations in the fourth quarter of this year. In the meantime, agencies have already been working on and putting in place regulatory and legislative changes that are in alignment with IMC's forthcoming recommendations. For example, the Corporate Service Providers (CSP) Bill, which will be introduced for Second Reading at this Parliamentary session, will increase penalties for breaches by CSP and introduce requirements for nominee directors to be "fit and proper". These proposals were in development prior to the case and were refined to benefit from the insights gleaned from IMC discussions.”
“The reply addresses Parliamentary Questions for Written Answer Nos 5 and 6 filed by Member of Parliament Dr Tan Wu Meng and Member of Parliament Mr Liang Eng Hwa respectively. The Government is committed to upholding Singapore's status as an open and trusted financial hub. A strong financial sector needs to be built on a clean, robust and credible system. We adopt a zero-tolerance stance towards money laundering and will decisively act against any persons involved. The Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) was set up in end-2023 to review our anti-money laundering regime (AML) by drawing learnings from the billion-dollar money laundering case. This inter-agency review focuses on four areas: (a) what more can be done to prevent corporate structures from being abused by money launderers; (b) how financial institutions can enhance their controls and collaborate more effectively to guard against and flag suspicious transactions; (c) how other gatekeepers in the ecosystem, such as real estate agents, lawyers, precious stones and metals dealers and corporate service providers can better guard against money laundering risks; and (d) how we can strengthen our monitoring and sense-making capabilities to better detect suspicious activities. IMC's work builds on existing efforts, including the agencies' regular reviews, to ensure that our AML regime continues to be effective even as criminals find new ways to circumvent our controls and safeguards. As tackling money laundering risks is a whole-of-society effort, IMC has also been engaging a range of industry stakeholders, such as financial institutions, real estate agents and corporate service providers, to understand the challenges they face and how we can better support them to reinforce their controls against money laundering.”
“All I can say is that I have not been looking at that, at this stage. So, I could not rule it out sometime in the future, but as far as I am aware, and I am not speaking for any other Ministries, but in the course of looking at the work, we were not looking for a regulatory regime for the art market. That said, it does not mean that art would be excluded from examination in the context of looking at anti-money laundering. Anything which is an asset and has value can potentially be a receptacle for illicit funds to be parked in and then later on, transacted. I think the best way I can summarise it, is that there is no, at the moment, an intention to do a legislative regime for this. But art, given its value – some art are very valuable, some are not so – but it is potentially something that could be used in money laundering and we will obviously look at it if it looks suspicious. 6.35 pm”
“But, of course, obviously the agencies will keep on eye on that as well.”
“But what we have moved to in these two Bills, is a regime where: first, if you are a CSP and if you are a nominee director, you have certain obligations. A nominee director has the same obligations as any other directors – you have fiduciary duties and this is certain minimal level of competence. We decided that it would be better for the individuals and the persons appointing them and the companies to determine whether this person is fit and proper and has the right competence. There are some people who are extremely good with the corporate governance, the corporate law and they are practitioners; they can be easily be nominee directors for a large number of companies. Because for them, the knowledge is at their fingertips. So, if you set a number of 10, a number of 20 and then say, that at company number 21, you must go training, it makes no sense. I would not say to a top corporate lawyer, who happens to be a nominee director that, that is something that they have to do, because they are practising that every day. But it is quite different from somebody else, who, let us say, it is only a nominee for one company, but has completely no idea about corporate matters and is just put there because he happens to be a friend of somebody, but truly, he knows nothing about accounts, or anything. So, even one nominee directorship for him would be too much. So, when we were looking at this, setting a number did not really advance our attempt to strengthen the regime. So, we thought it is much better for people to pay attention, think about how much they themselves can actually cope with; whether they actually have the right skills in competencies, have the CSP to look at that, also have the company to look at that and you make that determination.”
“On the second point, I think it is very difficult to define really precisely, but when you have a term like key appointment holder, the definitive word is "key". So, if it is a junior officer in the company who does not really have a lot of responsibility for the decisions which are taken, then obviously that person would not be regarded as a key appointment holder. It would be a question of fact in each case, but I think it is generally recognisable. It is not a question of age, because you may have somebody who maybe young, but let us say, in a company that happens to be the shareholder's son. All the other directors or appointment holders may be older, but if the director's son says this has to be the case, everybody goes along with that. Depending on the circumstances, he could well be a key appointment holder. So, you can see from the definition, that the definition laid out certain well-recognised key appointment holders, which is the sole proprietor himself, the partner, the director. But you do not want to be so tight that you actually leave out people who may really be the persons having the control or the say. That is why the last provision needs a little bit of room for a court or any regulatory agency, when looking at the facts, you identify somebody who really acts in all ways as the key appointment holder and it would land on that person. So, I hope that addresses the question. On the first question, if I understood Mr Chua correctly, he was saying, "Can we still not have training courses when a person exceeds a certain number of directorships". Is that the question? Okay. I think that would have been in the background when you are setting a certain number.”
“I would like to conclude with a word of encouragement to the gatekeepers who have been diligently fulfilling their anti-money laundering obligations. Your efforts are not in vain, they are deeply appreciated and crucial in maintaining Singapore's reputation as a trusted business hub. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.”
“Where X is the limited liability partnership, then it would be a partner or manager of the limited liability partnership and, I think, in other cases it would be persons principally responsible for the management and conduct of X's business activities in providing corporate activities. So, that is set out in the Act. Then I think he asked what if any of the key appointment holders did not successfully complete the prescribed course of training and what is the level of intensity or duration of such courses. The CSPs must complete mandatory AML/CFT courses, as part of the registration and renewal. So the course is mandatory at the point of the CSP's registration or renewal. My understanding on the intensity of the course and this is not set in stone because, obviously, this may be adjusted. But at the moment, it is a half-day course by professional instructors with about a one-hour test, subsequently; and the pass mark is 80%. Subsequently, of course, the CSPs must ensure that the employees are adequately trained in the AML/CFT laws and regulations. I think that covers the queries. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude by thanking the Members for their support of the two Bills. The Government has always taken our responsibilities to combat financial crime seriously, even before the authorities uncovered the $3 billion money laundering case last year. Since then, however, money laundering has been a prominent topic in the media. So, I am grateful for the support and for our unity, as a society, in recognising the need for and the importance of combating financial crime. These amendments will further advance our efforts to combat financial crime, by strengthening our regulatory regime for CSPs and minimising the misuse of legal persons.”
“He had asked, I think, whether in a situation where you have a group of companies connected to each other providing different corporate services to the same set of clients, whether it is necessary for them to have duplicate registration and whether there will be duplicate, I think – there will be duplication in maintaining the due diligence for the AML risk. The first thing to understand is that, if it is different companies providing different corporate services, the different entities each must comply and register. I mean, it depends on the nature of what they are doing. But if you are an entity that is providing corporate services and you have two entities, then it has to be two registrations. If you are providing different services, you still have to register separately. It is not a duplication though. It goes by entity. This is also because they would be providing different services, which are associated with different risk. So, you go by entity. And I think he asked about the definition of key appointment holders under the Act. There is a definition under the CSP Act of key appointment holders. That would be under section 2, the general interpretation section and it defines "key appointment holders", in relation to any person. Let us call that person X. So, a key appointment holder means this in relation to any of the following persons: where X is a sole proprietorship, then the sole proprietor is the key appointment holder. Where X is a partnership, or limited partnership, then a partner of the partnership or limited partnership. Where X is a company, then a member of the board of directors or an individual for the time being holding the office of chairperson or chief executive officer of the company.”
“On the whole, we do not expect the new requirements in the Bills to significantly increase compliance costs on CSPs or affect the ease of doing business in Singapore. The requirements in the Bill are existing best practices that CSPs should already be adopting. In addition, we have taken steps to ensure that the transition will be as seamless as possible. For the requirement for all CSPs to register as CSPs, even if they do not transact with ACRA, existing Registered Filing Agents will be transited seamlessly and need not re-register with ACRA, until their existing registration expires. Entities that have not yet registered with ACRA will have six months to do so after the commencement of the new CSP regime. ACRA will communicate the effective date of commencement in advance, provide the necessary support, such as guidance, and sufficient lead time for CSPs to implement the necessary changes. Similarly, for the registers-related requirements, ACRA will notify companies ahead of time of the timeline and the means to file the necessary information. I also agree with Mr Choo and Ms Chandradas on the necessity of training. We will explore working with the relevant stakeholders, such as the professional bodies and the labour union, to develop training courses to support individuals in acquiring the necessary skills to fulfil the obligations in these Bills. I think there were a couple of other queries which Mr Louis Chua had raised.”
“Companies that do not maintain accurate and up to date information in their registers can face fines, which we are enhancing as part of this Bill. The measures and underlying principles broadly apply to both local and foreign companies that are required to maintain the registers. Next, data protection. As Mr Yip mentioned, the data that is contained in these registers is of a sensitive nature and must be safeguarded appropriately. Hence, it is critical to strike the right balance between the need for transparency and data protection. This is why we always monitor this trade off and are prepared to introduce changes where necessary. For example, we have introduced a new framework for differentiated information disclosure, not in this Bill but in the ACRA (Registry and Regulatory Enhancements) Bill that was just read earlier. The framework will protect confidentiality of personal information by limiting public access, while still allowing selected, specified parties to access the information to fulfil their legal obligations. On ease of doing business, I also agree with Mr Yip, Mr Wee and Mr Parekh about the need to balance between compliance cost, ease of doing business and the extent of controls and safeguards to combat financial crime. This is why we have consulted stakeholders extensively and carefully calibrated the requirements in both Bills to ensure that on one hand, appropriate measures can be taken in relation to those who breach their obligations, while on the other hand, we continue to ensure that Singapore remains open and friendly to legitimate businesses, and the cost of compliance remains manageable.”
“On a related note, Ms Chandradas asked how a corporation's "state of mind" will be proven under clause 29 of the Bill. This will depend on the wording of the particular offence and the general principles of criminal law. As for avenues for legal protection and appeals, if a CSP is found to have contravened any of their obligations, ACRA will first inform the CSP of the contravention, regardless of whether there is any regulatory action against the CSP. In cases where ACRA intends to take regulatory action, a "show cause" letter will be sent to the CSP, setting out the contraventions. The CSP will then have the opportunity to make written representations to ACRA to explain as it were. This is provided for in clause 22 of the Bill. If further actions are taken, clause 23 of the Bill allows for appeals to the Minister for regulatory actions. Mr Speaker, I will now address questions raised on the Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. Mr Yip asked about the measures that are implemented to ensure data accuracy of our various corporate registers. First and foremost, it is the responsibility of companies to ensure that the information they maintain in their registers is accurate. While we understand that companies depend on the information provided to them from their controllers or nominee directors, the companies will be responsible for sending notices to their controllers annually to ensure that the information is kept up to date. In addition, ACRA leverages data analytics and conducts ongoing inspections to verify that the information contained in the various registers is accurate and up to date.”
“Beyond these legislative amendments, ACRA has also stepped up their supervisory and enforcement efforts for those who hold a large number of nominee directorships and exhibit other high-risk indicators and ACRA will continue to do so. Moving on to the third bucket of queries around penalties and avenues for legal protection. Mr Wee and Mr Lim asked about the criminal liability that will be imposed on registered CSPs and their senior management for breaching their obligations to combat financial crime and the quantum of the fines. Imposing criminal liability for breaches relating to anti-money laundering obligations is consistent with the legislation governing other gatekeepers in Singapore, and better reflects the serious nature of the breaches. Such liabilities would be adjudicated and determined by the Courts. To Mr Lim’s suggestion for the banks to be held accountable for money laundering breaches rather than CSPs, I would say that guarding against money laundering is a whole-of-society effort and the CSPs must play their part. I agree that banks are a critical gatekeeper, and they do have onerous obligations and there are existing AML regulations in place for banks. Banks will similarly face sanctions, including fines, if they breach any obligations. The quantum of up to $100,000 for the maximum fine of such breaches is also consistent with those of other designated non-financial businesses and professions in Singapore. It is a maximum quantum and the actual amount of fine meted out would depend on the facts of each case. To Mr Wee's suggestion to distinguish between minor compliance issues and serious breaches, this has and will remain in place as ACRA will still be able to take regulatory action for breaches of a less serious nature.”
“Again, I would like to repeat the general principle from my opening speech, which is that ultimately, each CSP must exercise professionalism and undertake responsibility for its actions or lack thereof. Mr Louis Chua had asked about the issue of whether or not we should have a regime where we specify the number of nominee directors or have a threshold of nominee directors. On this, it was previously mentioned that ACRA was studying if it would be useful to limit the number of nominee directorships that one can hold. We studied the proposal closely. It is included in the inter-agency discussions and conducting of public consultation. But after considering the feedback received, we decided not to go ahead with that proposal. This was because prescribing the number of nominee directorships that an individual can hold, could be a blunt tool that is unnecessarily restrictive. It would make it difficult for individuals who are capable of fulfilling their obligations, despite holding more than the prescribed number and who may have legitimate reasons for holding multiple nominee directorships. At the same time, bad actors could always find ways to get around the prescribed number. It could also inadvertently raise the cost of doing business as companies may need to source from more individuals to fulfill this requirement. So, that said, we still remain committed to addressing this issue. Earlier, I had spoken about two new measures that we are introducing: the requirement for CSPs to arrange for the appointment of individuals as nominee directors by way of business and for the CSPs to ensure that the nominee directors appointed through them are fit and proper.”
“ACRA will subject all applications received after the "cooling off" period to higher scrutiny. In instances where applicants did not meet the requirements, such as the "fit and proper" criteria, ACRA will not approve their re-registration, even after two years. Besides enforcement, ACRA also publishes guidance and participates in industry fora to share best practices and raise awareness, so as to better support the sector in discharging its AML/CFT obligations. Let me turn now to questions pertaining to nominee directors. Mr Don Wee, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Lim Biow Chuan sought clarifications on the requirement for CSPs to be satisfied that the individuals they arrange to act as nominee directors are "fit and proper". The "fit and proper" factors will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation, but would include assessing an individual's conduct and compliance history, integrity and whether the person has the competency, capacity and capability to fulfil his obligations as a director. ACRA will also provide additional guidance on how CSPs can fulfil this obligation. However, CSPs must also exercise their professional judgement when making arrangements for individuals to be nominee directors. Mr Ng also asked how CSPs should discharge this ongoing obligation to ensure that nominee directors are "fit and proper". Once an individual is appointed as a nominee director, it is the company's obligation, under the Companies Act, to ensure that their directors, nominee or otherwise, remain "fit and proper". However, if the CSP has reasons to believe that its appointed nominee director is no longer "fit and proper", after the appointment, it should also take appropriate action, such as informing the company involved to replace the individual concerned.”
“Mr Don Wee also asked about the new requirement for CSPs to detect and prevent the proliferation financing of WMDs. These duties would be similar to the existing duties of CSPs to counter money laundering and the financing of terrorism. CSPs will be required to screen against sources of information, like the relevant regulations under the United Nations Act. The sources of information will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation and ACRA will also publish guidelines to raise the industry's awareness and understanding of proliferation financing. We do not expect this requirement to significantly increase the CSPs' compliance obligations. Mr Don Wee and Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked how the requirements in this Bill will be enforced to ensure that CSPs comply with their obligations. Today, ACRA already conducts regular inspections to ensure CSPs comply with their anti-money laundering obligations. During these inspections, ACRA will assess, among other things, the CSPs' approach to assessing money laundering or terrorism financing risks; obtaining of beneficial ownership information; record-keeping; and customer due diligence procedures. If CSPs are found to violate or be negligent in any of their obligations, they could be subject to fines and regulatory action from ACRA, including cancellation of their registration as a CSP. Following a cancellation, entities and individuals are not allowed to reapply for registration for a period of two years. Mr Desmond Choo referred to this as the two-year "cooling off" period and suggested to extend its duration. An entity or individual may reapply to ACRA after two years, but this does not mean that their registration would necessarily be successful.”
“Key appointment holders and RQIs will be subjected to screening checks by ACRA and the CSP must also complete a prescribed AML/CFT course before their application for registration will be considered. More details of the registration requirements for CSPs can be found at clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill. Any conditions on registration will be published by ACRA. Mr Don Wee asked about the requirement for accounting service providers to be registered as CSPs. Amongst accounting service providers, only those that carry out any designated activity defined by FATF to have money laundering risks, need to register as a CSP. Examples of designated activities include, carrying out transactions for a customer relating to the management of client monies and bank accounts and the buying or selling of real estate. For accounting entities that are already registered with ACRA under the Accountants Act, they do not need to apply to ACRA to be separately registered as CSPs. They will be automatically be registered as CSPs. To Ms Usha Chandradas' queries, other professionals, like practising lawyers and law firms who provide legal services on tax matters, do not need to be registered with ACRA. They are actually heavily-regulated, but that is under a separate legislation and regime. This Bill is also not intended to cover other services, such as taxation services provided by non-accountants and the art market. Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Neil Parekh and Mr Louis Ng inquired on the obligations of CSPs. The measures in this Bill do not fundamentally affect CSPs' obligations insofar as customer due diligence and AML/CFT checks are concerned. They reinforce the existing measures that the industry is already familiar with.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Members for their support of the Bills. In their speeches, Members made reference to the $3 billion money laundering case. I just want to emphasise, as I did to my opening speech, that the proposals in the Bills were actually already in development even before the case was uncovered. So, the amendments do not stem from nor are they solely in response to that particular case. But that said, we refined certain proposals to incorporate the insights gleaned from the ongoing Inter-Ministerial Committee as well as lessons learnt from the case. For instance, as part of the CLLP Bill, we are strengthening upstream controls and corporate transparency by ensuring that persons exercising control of legal persons behind-the-scenes, or registrable controllers in short, are identified at the point of incorporation. Such information would be immediately available to relevant authorities. With this context, let me now address clarifications on the Corporate Service Providers Bill or CSP Bill, before moving on to the Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. First, on the CSP Bill, Members raised queries around three main themes. First, the registration criteria and obligations of CSPs; second, nominee directors; and third, penalties and avenue for appeals, which I will address in turn. Mr Neil Parekh, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Desmond Choo asked about the criteria to register as a CSP. These requirements and mechanisms to register as a CSP are similar to our existing regulatory regime for Registered Filing Agents or RFAs. In summary, CSPs are required to be a registered business entity with ACRA and must appoint a Registered Qualified Individual (RQI) who meets the qualification requirements.”
“This information will be useful to banks, CSPs and other gatekeepers who may, for instance, wish to conduct additional checks on companies with many nominee directors or shareholders. Mdm Deputy Speaker, together, these two Bills fortify our legislative and regulatory framework against the misuse of companies and other legal persons, reflecting our collective approach towards money laundering. This issue cannot be single-handedly tackled by an individual stakeholder. All stakeholders, including companies and CSPs, must each play their role in the fight against financial crime, by upholding transparency and adhering to their AML obligations. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Those who do not update their registers in a timely manner already face penalties under the Companies Act and LLP Act. This Bill makes three enhancements. First, we will raise the maximum penalties for companies and LLPs that commit offences relating to their registers, from $5,000 to $25,000. These offences could include failing to maintain their registers, keep the information up to date or correct inaccurate information. Next, we will make it an offence for persons to provide false or misleading information about their registers to ACRA, with a fine of up to $25,000. This will apply to persons who did not act with reasonable due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the information that they provide to ACRA. Third, we will require companies and LLPs to verify and update their controllers' information on an annual basis. The second set of amendments will further enhance transparency around nominee arrangements. Today, individuals who are nominee directors or shareholders are required by law to disclose their particulars and nominee status to their companies, but there is no requirement for them or their companies to share this information with ACRA. To promote even greater transparency, the Bill will require companies to provide the full information of nominee arrangements to ACRA, such as the particulars of the nominee directors and shareholders, as well as the identities of the nominators behind these nominees. This information will only be available to ACRA and other public agencies for the enforcement of any written law. However, ACRA will make public which of the company's directors and shareholders are nominees. In other words, an individual's status as a nominee director will be made public, although the identity of the nominator will not be disclosed.”
“The general principle is that, CSPs must apply their professional judgement and appoint individuals who possess the necessary competencies as nominee directors. CSPs should also be satisfied with the capacity, conduct and integrity of these individuals, which could include checking their compliance records to evaluate if they have the capacity to take on additional directorships. CSPs who are found guilty of breaching this requirement, can face a fine of up to $100,000. Madam, let me now move to the second Bill, the Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, which will introduce amendments to the Companies Act and the LLP Act to complement the CSP Bill in enhancing Singapore's anti-money laundering regime. There are two sets of amendments in this Bill which will help to enhance the transparency of companies and LLPs. The first set of amendments will enhance the accuracy of the information contained on the various registers that are currently maintained by companies and LLPs. Today, both companies and LLPs are required to maintain registers of their registrable controllers or beneficial owners. These are individuals or corporate entities that have a significant interest in or significant control over the company or LLP. In addition, companies are also required to maintain registers of their nominee directors and nominee shareholders respectively. These registers promote transparency by ensuring that when there are persons exercising control of legal persons behind the scenes, they are known to the authorities. But the usefulness of these registers depends on their accuracy. A register with inaccurate, incomplete or out-of-date information is of no use to the authorities.”
“All directors play an important role in preventing the misuse of companies. They owe fiduciary duties to a company and are required to discharge their duties responsibly, with honesty and reasonable diligence. Nominee directors have the same legal obligations as other directors. Those who fail in discharging their duties can face sanctions, including disqualification and debarment. We recognise that nominee directorship arrangements are a legitimate service provided by many CSPs, to support their overseas-based clients to set up a company in Singapore and fulfil Singapore's requirement for an ordinarily resident director. However, such arrangements are vulnerable to abuse and can lead to the conduct of illicit activities if the nominee directors do not perform their fiduciary duties well. As important gatekeepers in the ecosystem, CSPs cannot arrange for nominee directorships in a cavalier manner. In some cases, we have observed individuals who are clearly unfit to bear the responsibilities of being a director, but were arranged by errant CSPs to act as nominee directors. We will, therefore, do more to tackle the misuse of nominee directorship arrangements. First, we will require that individuals can only act as a nominee director by way of business if the nominee directorship was arranged by a CSP, unless the individual himself is the sole proprietor of a registered CSP. This could include a scenario in which, for example, an individual receives a fee for providing such services to his clients. Those found guilty of breaching this requirement can face a fine of up to $10,000. Second, CSPs will be required to ensure that the individuals they arrange to act as nominee directors are fit and proper.”
“The second key area of the CSP Bill is the introduction of fines on CSPs and their senior management for non-compliance with their duties to combat financial crime. Today, ACRA already imposes sanctions on CSPs and their registered qualified individuals for non-compliance with ACRA's regulations. These include financial penalties of up to $25,000 per breach, or in egregious scenarios, the suspension or cancellation of their registration. Since 2021, ACRA has taken an increasingly strict stance over CSPs and registered qualified individuals found to be non-compliant. Between 2021 and June this year, ACRA has imposed 41 sanctions against CSPs and registered qualified individuals. In 31 of these cases, the registration of the CSPs or registered qualified individuals was cancelled or suspended. We will tighten our regulations for breaches of obligations to combat financial crime. We will increase the sanctions for non-compliance by CSPs of their obligations to detect and prevent money laundering, from the existing financial penalty of $25,000 to a fine of $100,000. Additionally, the senior management of such firms, such as the chief executive officer (CEO), can, in certain circumstances be held liable for such breaches. For example, if they knew or ought reasonably to have known that the offence would be or is being committed, but failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent or stop the commission of that offence. Then, upon conviction, they can, likewise, be fined up to $100,000. The third area of the CSP Bill, will address the potential misuse of nominee directorship arrangements. A nominee director is a person who is appointed as a director of a company, but acts according to another person's directions.”
“Today, non-residents looking to set up companies in Singapore must engage a CSP to do so. While this is not mandatory for locals, many locals still opt to engage CSPs to facilitate company incorporation. Regardless of whether their clients are Residents or not, all CSPs must conduct customer due diligence before incorporating a company. This Bill will enhance our regulatory regime for CSPs to deter the misuse of companies and bolster our efforts to combat money laundering. There are three key areas of the CSP Bill. First, all entities carrying on a business in Singapore of providing corporate services must register with ACRA as a CSP. Under the current regime, only CSPs that carry out transactions with ACRA on their customers' behalf are required to register with ACRA. These transactions involve the statutory filing of documents in the course of providing corporate secretarial services. There are nearly 3,000 CSPs regulated by ACRA today, and filings done by these CSPs account for 70% of ACRA's filing transactions. With this Bill, we will expand ACRA's regulatory scope to include Singapore-based entities that provide corporate services, even if they do not transact with ACRA. These could be, for example, entities that provide corporate services exclusively to overseas clients and, hence, do not transact with ACRA. In addition, we will also extend the obligation to register to include entities that, in relation to their provision of accounting services, carry out specific services defined by the Financial Action Task Force. The widened coverage of ACRA's regulatory regime will ensure that all entities providing corporate services from Singapore, regardless of whether they serve local or foreign clients, have the same obligations in our fight against financial crime.”
“Thank you. Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) regularly review the effectiveness of our anti-money laundering policies to ensure that our regime continues to stay relevant, amidst evolving threats and increasingly sophisticated crimes. Today, the House will be debating two Bills which are intended to strengthen Singapore's anti-money laundering regime. First, the Corporate Service Providers Bill (CSP Bill), to enhance our regulatory regime for corporate service providers; and second, the Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, which will complement the CSP Bill by enhancing the transparency of companies and limited liability partnerships (LLPs). Money laundering has been a subject of significant public interest recently, largely due to the $3 billion money laundering case uncovered last year. While insights from the incident have been incorporated, I would like to emphasise that the proposals in both Bills are part of MOF and ACRA's ongoing enhancements and were in development even before the case was uncovered. Let me start with the CSP Bill. Corporate service providers (CSPs) play an important role in anti-money laundering. CSPs provide a range of services to businesses, such as helping them to comply with regulatory requirements, like the filing of annual returns; as well as other services, such as arranging for another person to act as a director of a business. As CSPs may support companies in a number of key company activities, they serve as gatekeepers against the misuse of companies. They are, therefore, regulated by ACRA to ensure that they fulfil their obligations.”