K Shanmugam
Singapore
“Bank accounts are frozen when there is reason to suspect that the bank accounts are involved in illicit activities, including money laundering activities.”
“The Singapore Police Force does not track the requested data. Distinguishing artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content typically requires more detailed forensic examination which may not be necessary in every investigation and may also not be conclusive as to whether AI-generative tools were used.”
“The Building and Construction Authority’s Code on Accessibility provides baseline requirements for accessible and inclusive buildings. It stipulates a minimum width of 1.5 metres or 1.8 metres for primary accessible routes, depending on the building type.”
“The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licence) Rules under the Road Traffic Act set out the scope of the medical assessment required for motorists aged 65 and above who wish to retain their driving licences.”
“When a Police report has been made, the Police will investigate to determine if a criminal offence has been committed. If there is reasonable suspicion that a case is scam-related, the Police can direct online service providers to restrict Singapore users' access to the relevant online activity under the Online Criminal Harms Act.”
“Through intelligence sharing and coordinated enforcement actions, the cross-border operation disrupted a transnational drug trafficking syndicate and downstream drug trafficking activities, with the UK arresting seven persons so far and further investigations underway.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,552 lines we hold for K Shanmugam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 36 of 92.
“Sir, I want to remind the House, share with the House and Mr Leong some numbers. Over the last 10 years, the last decade, there has been an increase of 110,000 Employment Pass and S Pass holders. During the same period, the local PMETs increased by 300,000. So, local PMETs increased by 300,000. Employment Pass and S Pass holders, 110,000. Second, the number of PMET job vacancies have been around 30,000 over the past five years. Third, the size of our PR population has remained stable in the last five years. From 2016 to 2020, it is at about 520,000. In fact, it has been stable even before that, but we will just take five years. So, with these numbers in mind – local PMETs increased by 300,000; foreign PMETs increased by 110,000, Employment Pass and S Pass holders; PR population, stable and Mr Leong agrees that we need some foreign PMETs. Today, it is 350,000. If that is too much, then can he tell us what is the right number? Is it 300,000? Is it 200,000? Or is it 100,000?”
“When I finish, if there are clarifications, Mr Leong can ask me, just like I am asking him. Can I, Sir, ask through you, and I think I heard the answer in Mr Leong's speech, confirm that Mr Leong accepts that we need some foreign PMETs for our economy? For example, that we cannot have zero PMETs. Can I, Sir, through you, have him confirm that?”
“I will take it, Sir, based on the answers that Mr Leong really does not know about these legal provisions, despite the wording of his Motion. And he has no understanding of the provisions of CECA. And I assume that he has the same concerns about the provisions in the US FTA, the China FTA, and the Australian FTA. And, if so, I hope to see those FTAs being referenced in future rather than CECA being singled out. If what he says is true. I have another clarification to seek, Sir: the PSP's claim that CECA allows the 127 categories of Indian professionals to come here freely to work. Minister Ong has pointed out that that is false and that they have to first meet our work pass rules. Does Mr Leong now accept that? Again, a short question. I hope, a short answer.”
“Yes, maybe he can look at these statements and say which part of it he disagrees with. Does he disagree that we have applied it this way? Does he say that the Minister was lying in Parliament? Or does he say that the interpretation that the Minister has given is inaccurate and that we should, in fact, or are obliged to give free movement of all Indians into Singapore?”
“Again, Sir, that is a confusing answer. The Minister has said that there is no free movement allowed. We apply and we are entitled to apply our workforce rules and that this is how it has been operated since CECA has come into force and, likewise, for the other FTAs. Which part of that statement does he disagree with, Sir?”
“Sir, I would like Mr Leong because Motion stands in his name; he has put this Motion, he has referred to provisions. If he does not know the answer, he can say he does not know the answer. And I am not sure the answer is going to be found in the phone.”
“Sir, as a point of order, let us stop at the legal document first. I wanted to get, Sir, through you, to Mr Leong, because Minister Ong specifically raised this and Mr Leong said they need more time to study this. We have had August and September to study it. So, first of all, the English meaning, unless some other language may be different, but the English meaning of "the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like CECA" means what they say, which is the legal provisions in CECA. So, let us not try and wriggle out of that. That is what it means. Second, before we talk about implementation, first, in terms of the legal provisions, I have read out what the Minister said, what these provisions are, does Mr Leong have any basis to contradict that or challenge that, or does he accept it?”
“Sir, first, I do not understand that answer because it says here in his Motion "anxiety among Singaporeans on jobs and livelihoods caused by the foreign talent policy and the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like CECA". That is just untrue, based on what Minister Ong has said. We are arguing about your Motion which refers to the provisions of CECA. Sir, I am afraid Mr Leong does not even know what his Motion says. He did not even draft it. So, that is our first question. Second question: will he now, in the context of his Motion, agree that we are debating the provisions of CECA? And will he accept that there is nothing in CECA that allows for free movement of Indians into Singapore?”
“Sorry, Sir, a point of order. Sir, through you, may I remind Mr Leong there are two different issues. One, what does CECA or the other FTAs allow? That is a matter of interpretation of the agreement. That is what we had been debating in July and Minister Ong said there is nothing in CECA that allows for free flow. The second is, within the framework of CECA or any other FTA, and I note that Mr Leong only wants to know CECA and not any other FTAs, how many have come in? Those are matters of numbers and details, and we can deal with that separately. Hopefully, we will not take another hour for that. But, first, as a matter of interpretation, the Minister who, as a civil servant, was negotiating this agreement, referred chapter and verse, and had explained how the Government applies that policy, that it is subject to our work pass rules. And that is how it has been applied for the last 15 years. So, unless Mr Leong says that Minister Ong Ye Kung lied or that the Government policies are other than what it says it is, let us just get an answer. Do you accept that there is nothing in CECA that allows for free movement of PMETs? That is all. It is a simple question.”
“This is false because, as I explained earlier, all foreign PMEs have to meet our work pass conditions in order to come and work here", "The second common criticism is that intra-corporate transferees from India can also freely enter Singapore to work. Based on my explanation on how the Chapter works, this is again not true. Intra-corporate transferees also have to meet our work pass qualifying criteria." Then, he said, "Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope we can put a stop to all this misinformation about our FTAs in general, and CECA, in particular." So, bearing that in mind, Sir, can I ask, through you, for Mr Leong to respond to questions posed by Mr Ong Ye Kung that CECA does not allow a free flow of Indians into Singapore?”
“Thank you. With that, Sir, I want to go back to some of the questions that were raised and not answered the last time in July. My colleague Ong Ye Kung said that CECA does not allow a free flow of Indians into Singapore. He made that very clear to this House and to Mr Leong. I will also remind Mr Leong that it has been explained that nothing in CECA says that Singapore must unconditionally let PMEs into Singapore, and all foreign PMEs have to meet our work pass conditions in order to come and work here. Just to remind Members and Mr Leong, I will repeat what Minister Ong had said. He said in this House, by reference to Chapter 9 of CECA, that it "makes it clear that the Government's ability to regulate immigration and foreign manpower is not affected by the agreement. The Government retains full rights to decide who can enter the country to live, work, become PRs or become citizens. This is clearly set out in two clauses. They are standard clauses commonly found in all FTAs." And then, he refers to Chapter 9.1.2 and 9.1.3. He then says, "There is a strong immigration carve-out and National Treatment is not found in Chapter 9 of CECA, nor any other corresponding Chapter in the FTAs that Singapore has entered into", "...nothing in this agreement implies that Singapore must unconditionally let in PMEs from India. Contrary to PSP’s claim, our ability to impose requirements for immigration and work pass has never been in question in CECA or any other FTAs that we have signed." And he made a couple of other points, if I may refer to, "PSP pointed out that CECA listed 127 categories of professionals, hence, claimed that Indian nationals in these professions can all freely come here to work for a year.”
“And it will be even longer if we do not get answers. Nobody is shutting anybody out. Just a logical conclusion.”
“We are not talking about shutting out. In fact, we are having a long debate, we are going to be here for very long.”
“Mr Leong, it is commonsensical, is it not, that those PSP members will not be the only ones who think that your statements are racist? If they can think like that, your own party members, then, other Singaporeans can reasonably think that your statements are racist too. It is a simple point.”
“We have heard that. That was not my question, Sir.”
“Some of Mr Leong's party members interpreted his statements as being racist and I quoted. One of the quotes is "You are targeting the Indian community and it is totally a racial undertone". My question was, if his own party members can think like that, it is entirely possible for other Singaporeans to take a similar view.”
“I am sorry, Sir. A point of order. That has nothing to do with what I asked.”
“Thank you. Moreover, we have, I think, Sir, Mr Leong's confirmation that he supports FTAs. I then ask, Sir, through you, does Mr Leong accept that his and his party's statements on CECA having been interpreted by some of PSP members as being racist, may well be interpreted by Singaporeans as racist as well?”
“Thank you. Sir, my understanding therefore, is that Mr Leong is equally concerned about the US FTA, the China FTA, the Australian FTA and CECA, and that CECA is not specifically being singled out. If I may just have that confirmation before I move on?”
“Sir, may I ask, through you, which aspects of the China FTA, the US FTA and Australian FTA bother Mr Leong like CECA?”
“Which ones? Sir, if I may ask, which ones?”
“I think Mr Leong does not know his own Motion. It says "in some FTAs like CECA". So, there are some FTAs which do not concern him and there are some FTAs which concern him. This is your own Motion, Mr Leong. Just tell us what it means? And why CECA?”
“Again, I am a bit confused. My question was a simple one. It is simply that if you look at the Motion which I read out, it highlights CECA. I am just trying to understand whether CECA has a special place in Mr Leong's affection and mind, or is it treated the same as all the other FTAs. If it is the same as all the other FTAs, why is CECA getting special mention? That is all. A simple answer will do.”
“Yes. Let us then have that recorded as he and PSP support CECA and FTAs in general. May I ask then why is CECA specifically identified in the Motion when I assume there is nothing to distinguish between CECA and other FTAs in Mr Leong's mind?”
“Thank you. Would that include, Sir, support for CECA?”
“So, may I ask, Sir, through you, to Mr Leong, one, just tell us does he and does PSP support FTAs? A simple answer will do.”
“Thank you. Mr Leong, so, your party members, you say some of them, think you are racist based on your statements. Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask Mr Leong to confirm that, therefore, other Singaporeans may also go away with similar views that what he says is racist? And, second, Mr Leong says, now, they have got nothing to object to CECA and other FTAs. I think it is an important statement and I would like that recorded. I think we all need to note that. But assuming that, then, we have over 20 FTAs —”
“You protested here that you are not a racist and that these statements and sentiments ascribed to you are a diversion and a distraction. But your party members are quoted as saying, that you are targeting the Indian community and they say it is totally a racial undertone. Mr Leong, your statements have been interpreted by your own party members, as being racist. People in your party think your statements are racist. Would you accept? I do not expect that you will accept that you are racist, but would you accept that people in your party think that your statements are racist and have said so? It is a simple factual statement. May I seek that clarification from Mr Leong Mun Wai, Mr Speaker?”
“Thank you, Sir, for letting me join this debate. I would like to say a couple of things and then, ask some questions of Mr Leong Mun Wai. Mr Leong has said that CECA is not the PSP's main concern, but it has been thrust upon them by the Government. The Motion today, would you not agree, shows what he says to be untrue? It specifically refers to CECA and may I remind him of what it says? I quote, "That this Parliament calls upon the Government to take urgent and concrete action to address the widespread anxiety among Singaporeans on jobs and livelihoods caused by the foreign talent policy and the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like CECA." And this is not something that is thrust upon the PSP or Mr Leong Mun Wai. I think you will know that, at the launch of the PSP on 3 August 2019, Dr Tan Cheng Bock made it a point to emphasise that PSP was targeting CECA. And since entering Parliament, Mr Leong, you have repeatedly commented on CECA, comments which carry clear racial undertones. For example, your post on 22 June 2021, I quote, "the most important economic policies that have affected the jobs and livelihoods of Singaporeans relate to foreign PMETs and free trade agreements, in particular, the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement with India." But today, we heard you say that you are in favour of free trade agreements. So, is it that you are in favour of free trade agreements, but specifically oppose CECA? That is what it looks like, based on what you have said so far. Your comments have troubled your own PSP members. They have said that your statements in Parliament on CECA were targeting the Indian community.”
“Because that is in everybody's interest. How do you get to that is something that I am sure MTI and to some extent, MOF, will have considerably more interest than MinLaw has. [(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. – [Mr K Shanmugam]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Of course, even if it is not a profit and loss account, what they have must be helpful to come to that conclusion. Otherwise, the question is, how did they know? If they have other material, something to show that their business has come down and that is probative, that will be accepted. It does not have to be a properly drawn up profit and loss account in the way accountants will understand. Making a statutory declaration is a serious matter, but we provided for it last year and some people did do it. If the landlord refuses to accept that, then it is a matter between landlord and tenant, and they can then go for assessment, too. The final question is a much broader one from Mr Dennis Tan. It is that he sees the market moving, consolidation by select retailers. I assume, by that, he means the more successful, perhaps the more high-profile retailers, and they are causing the rentals to go up and that is affecting SMEs. This is not a situation that arises only during COVID-19. The more successful ones are prepared to pay the rental and that impacts on other retailers who may not be as successful and who are then squeezed out from, say, prime locations. And sometimes, it is a cycle: if you are not in the prime location, then your business does not go up. I sympathise with it but those are quite outside the framework of this particular piece of legislation. And that relates to really how you structure the market and what sort of approach we want for the economic structure. Does the Government or Government agencies intervene to tell landlords what they can charge, what sort of tenants they can have or they must have a certain mix of tenants, whether we can or ought to do it and how do we make sure that SMEs have a decent stake in the business?”
“I thank both Members for their questions. On Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim's question on less savvy tenants and how can they navigate the framework more easily, we have considered the experience from last year and put in place some measures. Some tenants are not conversant in English. They found the framework difficult to understand. So, we made the processes as simple as possible and also the various resources to explain the scheme, including infographics; these will be translated into other languages. We also work with partner agencies and industry associations to ensure that these resources are disseminated quite widely. And webinars will be organised to explain the scheme to stakeholders and address queries. On Mr Zhulkarnain's other question, we are making it mandatory for the party making the application to inform all parties along the PTO chain. The determination may affect the rental waiver to be enjoyed by all. So the determination should be binding on all, because people can be affected. Turning to the points made by the Member, Mr Dennis Tan, on the first point about tenants who may not be keeping detailed accounts, I think the starting point is that the tenants have to show that their income has gone down, business has gone down, from that specific premise. I think we can all agree on that. The question is how. We accept that some tenants may not have kept detailed accounts, may not be able to show it in the way that the normal profit and loss accounts are kept. The law allows – and this is not the first piece of legislation; previous COVID-19 legislation as well – them to swear a statutory declaration that their business has gone down by the required amount and attach whatever evidence they have.”
“Before the Member leaves, I missed the part on business rentals. Perhaps he can explain that to me again? I did not quite get the point on business rentals.”
“Hence, the Bill includes a provision to give the Assessors greater flexibility and discretion to take into account exceptional circumstances of landlords and to determine if it is just and equitable to make appropriate adjustments to the rental waiver obligations between the landlord and tenant. Finally, besides the rental waiver framework, the Bill also introduces minor amendments relating to Part 10A of the Act. Part 10A allows construction project parties to seek an assessment on the determination of adjustments to the contract sum arising from foreign manpower salary increases. These amendments are largely administrative in nature to make clear that different application fees can be prescribed for an initial application for a determination and to allow MND to charge application fees for subsequent determinations made after the initial one. Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the representatives from the various industry groups, and individual landlords and tenants who engaged with my Ministry in helping us come up with this Bill. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“This can be done via email, which is preferred, to minimise potential disputes between landlords and tenants, or registered mail. If the rent has already been paid, the equivalent amount can be offset against their next rental payment. In designing the framework, we also considered the interests of landlords. We recognise that some landlords have been proactive. They provided assistance to their tenants in the form of direct payments and rental waivers. These landlords can offset such assistance from the rental waiver obligations if the assistance was provided in respect of rental obligations incurred on or after 16 May 2021, which was the start of the first Phase Two (Heightened Alert) period. Some landlords may themselves face financial hardship in having to provide the mandated rental waiver, for example, retirees who depend on the rental income for their day-to-day expenses. They can apply for relief to be assessed by an independent Rental Waiver Assessor who will take into account specific factors in each case. There will be objective criteria, including the annual value of their property and whether the rental income forms a substantial part of their total income. If they meet the criteria, the Assessors can exempt them from providing the rental waiver. There may be different circumstances on the part of landlords, which warrant special consideration, for example, landlords who gave their tenants flexibility and relief by providing short-term lease extensions with significantly reduced rent. It is not possible to define the criteria to account for all these circumstances in full within the legislation.”
“One, they must be a small and medium enterprise (SME) or a specified non-profit organisation with annual revenue of not more than $100 million. Two, their tenancy must have been entered into before 20 July 2021 if it is a fresh lease; if it is a renewal, then renewed before 20 July 2021. Three, their tenancy must be in force from 5 August to 18 August 2021 and they must have experienced at least a 20% drop in their average monthly revenue at the specific property during both the Phase Two (Heightened Alert) periods compared to the Phase Three period from 28 December 2020 to 7 May 2021. That is the reference period. This third criterion is an additional criterion. It is not required for the two RSS payouts from the Government. Those payouts include half a month of rent for the period of 14 May to 29 May 2021, which has been disbursed starting from 6 August and half a month of rent for the period of 22 July to 18 August 2021, which will be disbursed in October. If tenants meet the first two criteria, they will receive a Notice of Rental Waiver automatically from the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) in the first half of October 2021. Tenants who do not receive a Notice but assess that they meet all the criteria can make a manual application. We will announce, in due course, the date on which applications open and other administrative details. If the tenant also meets the third criterion – that is, a 20% drop in revenue – then the tenant will not be liable to pay rent in respect of the period of 5 August to 18 August 2021 provided that the tenant sends a copy of the Notice and proof of the revenue drop to the immediate landlord within 28 calendar days of the date of the Notice.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". The Minister for Finance announced in his Ministerial Statement on 26 July this year that the Government would provide an additional two weeks of direct rental support for qualifying tenants and owner-occupiers of privately-owned commercial properties. This was because the tightened safe management measures under Phase Two (Heightened Alert) imposed a number of restrictions. The Minister for Finance also said that the Government would consider requiring landlords to provide a matching two-week rental waiver for eligible tenants. This Bill introduces the legislative framework to implement the mandatory rental waiver by the landlords. Let me briefly explain the rationale behind this Bill. There were two Phase Two (Heightened Alert) periods, 16 May to 13 June and 22 July to 18 August, both this year. During these periods, dining in was not allowed. Indoor mask-off activities were restricted. Operating capacity was decreased. These restrictions impacted some businesses. Rental expenses were a persistent pain point. The Government decided to support through the Rental Support Scheme, or RSS for short. The RSS is part of a broader suite of measures put in place to address the impact of Phase Two (Heightened Alert) measures. These include the Jobs Support Scheme and the various COVID-19 grants. In total, more than $2 billion has been set aside to cushion the business impact of Phase Two (Heightened Alert). Let me now explain the key features of the Bill. Eligible tenants will receive from their landlords two weeks' waiver of gross rent, including service and maintenance charges. To qualify, they must be tenants of privately owned commercial properties and they must meet three criteria.”
“Now, Sir. I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a third time. May I put one matter on record, Sir. A number of Members have raised questions and even if they did not speak, I have decided to respond, like Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim. He had given his points to me and I made sure that we have responded on the record. Thank you.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the amendments* standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement be taken and, again, the reasons for the amendments have been explained yesterday. [(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 35: to leave out line 27 to the end of line 13 in page 36, and insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) “29B.—(1) A District Judge sitting in a Family Court may, on his or her own motion, summarily dismiss any appeal made against a decision of the Registrar relating to civil or quasi criminal proceedings, if the District Judge is satisfied of any of the following: (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) every issue in the appeal has already been decided by a Family Court or a higher court in an earlier matter in which the appellant was involved, and the appeal therefore has no merit; (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) such conditions as may be prescribed by the Family Justice Rules are met. (proc text)] [(proc text) (2) Before summarily dismissing any appeal under subsection (1), a District Judge sitting in a Family Court must — (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) give the appellant a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the appeal should not be summarily dismissed; and (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) consider any representations of the appellant. (proc text)] [(proc text) (3) In this section, “appeal” includes part of an appeal.” (proc text)] [(proc text) Amendments agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 26 to 229 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) (5) If, within 14 days after the service on the applicant of a notice of the dismissal of an application by the General Division of the High Court in the exercise of its appellate or revisionary jurisdiction or the Court of Appeal under subsection (1), the applicant gives to the Registrar of the Supreme Court — (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) notice of an application for permission to amend the application so as to raise a question of law; and (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) a certificate signed by an advocate specifying the question to be raised and undertaking to argue it, (proc text)] [(proc text) the Chief Justice (in the case where the application is made to the Court of Appeal) or any Judge sitting in the General Division of the High Court (in the case where the application is made to the General Division of the High Court) may grant permission to the applicant to amend the application accordingly and restore the application for hearing. (proc text)] [(proc text) (6) In this section — (proc text)] [(proc text) “application” means any application under this Code and includes a criminal motion and an application under section 400 or 404, but does not include — (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) an appeal, an application for permission under section 394H(1), a review application or an application under section 397(1); or (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) an application under section 417(1) for an order for review of detention; (proc text)] [(proc text) “review application” has the meaning given by section 394F(1).” (proc text)] [(proc text) Amendments agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 14 to 24 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the amendments* standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement be moved. The reasons for the amendments have been explained in the speech by Minister Edwin Tong yesterday. [(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) (1) In page 22: to leave out “ ”. ” at the end of line 23. (proc text)] [(proc text) (2) In page 22: after line 23, to insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) “Summary dismissal of applications (proc text)] [(proc text) 238B.—(1) Any application may, without being set down for hearing, be summarily dismissed by a written order of the Court, certifying that the Court, having perused the application and any accompanying material, is satisfied that the application has been brought without any sufficient ground. (proc text)] [(proc text) (2) Before summarily dismissing an application, the Court — (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) must consider the applicant’s written submissions (if any); and (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) may, but is not required to, consider the respondent’s written submissions (if any). (proc text)] [(proc text) (3) Where the Court comprises more than one Judge, the decision of the Court to dismiss the application summarily under subsection (1) can only be made by a unanimous decision of all the Judges sitting in (proc text)] [(proc text) (4) Notice of the dismissal must be served on the applicant.”
“Sir, there are two amendments to clause 13, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?”
“As I have said, this is a matter that can be taken up with the Courts. Make the application and then they will have to make a decision. It is difficult for me to set it out in broad terms today. [(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. – [Mr K Shanmugam]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)] [Mr Speaker in the Chair] [(proc text) Clauses 1 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clause 13 –”
“I think this simply takes from the principle, Mr Singh, and Members will accept, really, that the AG is a senior Legal Officer, the Guardian of the public interest. If he says that, "I am saying this as a matter of public interest", we do not want an extended argument, trying to delay proceedings by the parties, by saying whether there is or there is no public interest. It should be dealt with on the more substantive points. If, subsequently, the Court finds that the AG case has got no basis or he contributed in the ways that the Courts have identified in very, very narrow categories, they have powers to deal with it.”
“Let me explain. When the ex parte application is made, the Court makes the order for the AG to be added but the parties can then subsequently say, that should not have been done.”
“I think both questions actually come back to one: is it two stages? Is it one stage? Just to be clear, what is being done is nothing new. It is the standard process when there is an ex parte application. When there is an ex parte application, the Courts hear the party making the ex parte application. It has got to be prima facie. And if, on the face of it, it is completely clear that there is no basis, then they will throw it out. But when it moves on to the substantive hearing, these issues will arise in much greater detail. And that is when the Court then goes into it in-depth. But I think this is fairly standard, it happens all the time. For example, the parties can, as I have said, oppose the AG having been added. And they can raise a number of grounds for the AG having been added. After the AG has been added ex parte, the parties can oppose that procedure and the process. The Court will then consider if such an application is made. If the Court confirms that the AG has been rightly added, then the next step is to deal with the substantive issues, the point or principle that AG makes and how it impacts one or the other parties' arguments or the outcome itself.”
“In that sense, they would prefer if the AG is not present, but that is not the way hearings and arguments should go.”
“The AG should be entitled to put forward his position why it is or it is not in the public interest to make a particular order. And that is for the Courts to decide. So, the AG applied to intervene to make representations on the issue of public interest privilege under the Evidence Act. Application for intervention was filed in the High Court. The company resisted the application. There was dispute on the addition of the AG to the proceedings. It was resolved by the Court of Appeal 20 months later. The Court of Appeal allowed the AG to intervene, affirmed the AG's position as Guardian of public interest and it further held that if the AG does not intervene despite taking the view that there are issues of the public interest, then the AG would, in fact, be in dereliction of his public duty. All that is good, but 20 months have been lost. Taking into account what the Court of Appeal had said and the fact that you do not want these things to be unnecessarily delayed, I will say this to Members. As in the cases cited, parties to civil litigation are often seeking to interpret the rules in their own favour. If they succeed, sometimes, it is the man in the street who will pay the bill, ultimately, if it is against the public interest. The AG is intervening to protect the man in the street – the common man. We are moving to enact a clear statutory framework for the AG's right to intervene, to lend certainty to this area of law, so that parties can proceed expeditiously to the substantive issues in the case. As I have said, the addition of AG to the proceedings is a procedural step. It does not mean that either of the original parties has somehow "lost" or "won" the original lawsuit, though I can understand, they may not like what the AG is going to say.”
“The Court's assessment will be made based on the interests of justice. It can take into account and balance various considerations, including the possible inconvenience, costs to a party, if AG is added; and the potential benefits if AG is allowed to join the proceedings, to add his perspectives on the matter. Any Court will proceed on the basis that the AG is a Guardian of the public interest, and if he comes to Court and says there is an important matter of public interest here, it is, generally, not assumed that the AG is being frivolous. There must be a serious point and it is a matter of public interest. When someone comes in, particularly the AG, to put forward the arguments, the Court knows that it will be of tremendous assistance to the Court. Ultimately, how it decides is for the Court, but the Court gets tremendous assistance from the AG. Mr Pritam Singh asked if this is a shift in the common law position. He has asked why not we just stick with the existing position, why do we need a new framework. The common law position does allow AG to intervene. For example, in the case of ARW v Comptroller of Income Tax, the Appellant was a private company, which applied for specific discovery of internal documents belonging to IRAS. So, this is a taxpayer, I believe, who sought documents from IRAS, but it goes beyond that to a broader principle of when you can apply for documents against a Government agency. Whether it should be allowed or it should not be allowed is a matter for the Court. Whether such a principle should apply to all public departments in the context of a private civil dispute, albeit against IRAS, is a matter of public interest.”
“So, this relates to the provision of medical advice. To take another example, the AG has intervened on the nature and scope of professional and ethical duties. For example, in Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore, on what duties are owed by lawyers in making claims for costs. In such cases, it is sensible, obvious, that the AG must have a right to intervene, to protect the public interest and put forward arguments. Ultimately, of course, it is up to the Courts to decide on the validity of the arguments. So, the amendments provide for the right of the AG to intervene for that purpose but, ultimately, the Court decides on the merits of the substantive case. The AG's presence assists the Court and also informs the Court of the possible broader implications on the public interest. Third, the AG's application to intervene is only an intermediate step in the dispute. Broadly, there is a two-stage process. At the first stage, the Court will check to ensure that the AG has set out adequate details, the basis, grounds for his request to be added as a party. Only if the Court is satisfied that the AG has explained the reasons for his intervention sufficiently, then the Court will grant permission for the AG to intervene. Of course, that is prima facie. If anyone wishes to oppose the AG's intervention, then they may apply to set aside the Court's permission. This brings us to the second stage, which will involve the AG and the other parties, because the first stage is ex parte. At this stage, the parties can raise any concerns they might have about the AG's addition to the proceedings. If any party objects to the intervention, the Court will assess whether the permission that has been granted to the AG should now be reversed.”