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 47 of 92.
“At first sight it looks simple enough: two months plus two months. But it is actually quite complex. Just to take one point: how do you pass down the waiver of rental relief through three or four layers of intermediate landlords? What happens if one of them is a non SME? And multiple questions of that sort. And when does it take effect? When would the landlords give the reliefs and to whom? And how do you handle the moratorium and the best balance between the different interests. And the aspects relating to smaller landlords, REITs, the types of tenants who should qualify. And of course, the other contracts that should be dealt with in a myriad of situations. It was a significant effort to conceptualise, crystallise, get the feedback from different stakeholders, take in the feedback and then, draft the legislation in about three weeks. I saw the best of the Public Service: how different agencies came together, worked round the clock. MTI and ESG gave us the data which allowed us to work out where the balance ought to be, who ought to qualify. They attended all our meetings, including with stakeholders, helped to tweak our proposals and also worked their own loan schemes, and identified for us how the loan schemes may help. MAS played a crucial role in re-assuring the REITs as well as the landlords, and talking to the banks. They also attended all the meetings, including stakeholder meetings. IRAS, MCCY, MHA, MND, HDB, JTC. If I can say this – all roads lead to MOF and all roads lead from MOF as well. They attended all our meetings, very supportive, facilitated and agreed to pay for the bill. The private sector lawyers: Patrick Ang and Sushil Nair. I mentioned them during COVID 1. They did a lot of work here as well.”
“So, we are making some clarificatory amendments. For example, the information and matters disclosed in the course of proceedings before an Assessor, are to be kept confidential. For late payment, payment arrears and interests that accumulate during the relief period under COVID 1, we will put a cap on how much late payment interest there can be. The cap will not apply to secured loan facilities given to SMEs, as well as hire purchase agreements taken out with banks and finance companies. MAS has worked with banks and finance companies on various relief measures to support individuals and businesses affected by COVID-19. These measures include principal repayment deferments for SME secured loans and hire purchase agreements. Borrowers can also extend their loan tenure to spread out their loan repayments over a longer period. Banks and finance companies will also take into account their borrowers’ repayment ability after the relief period and adjust repayment plans if necessary. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now conclude. The reliefs contained in this Bill will have substantial impact. All in all, up to 260,000 SMEs may benefit from the Government rental assistance. There are an estimated 31,000 SMEs in the F&B and retail sectors. They, their employees will benefit from the additional relief that is being granted. We are moving this Bill to help our SMEs. We hope that businesses will be able to make good use of the easing of pressure to focus on transforming and levelling up to thrive in our new operating environment. And a large number of office and industrial tenants will also benefit. While it is unusual, let me conclude by saying a little about the process for preparing this Bill, which runs into about 40 pages or so.”
“When the circuit breaker kicked in on 7 April, Company A could not return scaffolding materials because of the circuit breaker. Company B says it is going to charge for an additional month of hiring fee. In these cases, the affected parties are not parties to the construction contract but they are parties to contracts that are nevertheless affected by the stoppage in construction work or other circuit breaker measures. The Bill therefore provides a mechanism for parties in some of these contracts to seek relief. They will be allowed to apply to an Assessor, who may then make a determination to either adjust the manner in which prescribed obligations are to be performed; or vary a prescribed term in a contract in order to achieve a just and equitable outcome. The precise scope of contracts, the obligations to be covered and the kinds of adjustments that Assessors may make will be set out with more clarity in subsidiary legislation. A similar approach will be taken for supply related contracts. Let me now quickly touch on some on the other amendments. COVID 1 was passed and came into force in April this year. As of 1 June, we have had more than 4,000 Notifications for Relief and about 500 applications for determinations have been filed. During this period, we have observed that the operation of the Act has been effective. The fact that out of the 4,000 Notifications, only slightly more than 10% have come forward, suggests that most of the others had managed to settle it. And because of the clarity of the previous Act, our understanding is that a lot of people have managed to deal with their issues along the lines provided for in the legislation without having to even file an NFR. But we have been talking to the Assessors to get feedback on how it is working.”
“In such cases, it would be unfair for the tenant to have to pay double rent or similar charges under the contract or the law. The Bill allows us to deal with these situations, through subsidiary legislation. We will provide that a tenant who cannot vacate the premises due to COVID-19 may serve an NFR under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act. And the tenant will be protected from enforcement. In addition, the tenant will not be liable for double rent. In some situations, it might be fair for the tenant to pay some amount, especially if the tenant continued to derive benefit from the premises. We will prescribe the circumstances and how that amount can be assessed. Finally, we have also received feedback that stoppage of construction work has led to difficulties. There are also difficulties with supply-related contracts. These difficulties have also been caused to contracting parties, who may not themselves be parties to a construction or supply contract. For example, a developer who has entered into a contract to fit out an office may be unable to do so within the timeline stipulated in the contract because of COVID-19 restrictions on construction work. That would expose the developer to liquidated damages for failure to deliver the fitted out office on time, through no fault of the developer. The second example, say the tenant has entered into a tenancy agreement which provides for a three-month rent-free period for the purposes of renovation and fitting out, but is unable to proceed with construction works due to the COVID-19 restrictions, effectively losing the benefit of the rent-free period entirely. The third example, a live example, a company, say Company A rents scaffolding materials from Company B, until 14 April for a project.”
“Tenants will also be expected to negotiate in good faith the terms of repayment. Any Court, when deciding whether the conduct is criminal, will likely take into account the totality of the conduct. We have also heard concerns from the REITs about potential constraints on their operating income and cashflow. REITs are concerned that they may be liable for additional tax and that their abilities to meet financial covenants in bank loan agreements could be affected. They also worry that this could have a knock-on impact on S-REIT investors and the S-REIT industry as a whole. We discussed this matter carefully with MOF, IRAS, MAS, the banks. MOF and IRAS have temporarily extended timelines for the distribution of taxable income by S-REITs to qualify for tax transparency treatment. Leverage limits for S-REITs have also been increased from 45% to 50%. This will give S-REITs more flexibility to manage their cash flows and prevent them from incurring additional tax expenses. Corporate landlords, which include S-REITs, can also approach their banks or finance companies to explore funding if they face cashflow issues. Banks have also assured MAS that there will be no automatic enforcement of loan covenant breaches for landlords impacted by the requirements under this Bill. Besides cash-flow difficulties, what has been happening in the industry is that people face difficulties in a variety of other ways. For example, take tenants whose tenancies expired or were expiring during circuit breaker period who had difficulties moving out because they were not allowed to go back to the office or shop to pack up or they could not find any movers or they are delayed because they cannot find workers to carry out the work, to put the place back to the original condition.”
“As a safeguard, we will provide that all outstanding arrears, including interest and other charges, will be accelerated and immediately payable in accordance with the terms of the original contract, if instalment payments under the scheme are not paid within the prescribed time after they become due; or if the tenant terminates or repudiates his lease agreement during the rescheduled repayment period; or if the lease agreement is terminated due to other defaults by the tenant. Landlords may also draw the existing security deposits to offset accumulated rental arrears during the repayment period. They may do so, until there is the equivalent of at least one month of rent remaining in the security deposit. At the end of the repayment period, the tenant will be obliged to reinstate the security deposit, as provided in the contract. In addition, we will require tenant who have rescheduled the payment of arrears, to provide specified documents and information to their landlords if the lease agreement is: one, terminated or repudiated during the repayment period; and two, there are two or more rescheduled repayment instalments outstanding. The documents and information to be provided will include filing a statutory declaration on their statement of accounts from April 2020 until the termination or repudiation of the licence. The tenant will also be required to set out how he proposes to repay the outstanding rental arrears. This will ensure transparency and accountability, but only in respect of tenants who terminate and have at least two months of the repayments instalments outstanding. If any criminal behaviour is revealed – for example, if the tenant was using the period of relief to fraudulently dissipate assets – then there could be criminal sanctions.”
“They can also apply for an extension of loan tenure by up to the corresponding deferment period to make the monthly instalments more manageable. SME landlords who face financial difficulties can already apply to defer the principal repayments on their mortgages under the industry relief package that MAS announced some weeks ago. Larger landlords can likewise work with their banks and finance companies if they require assistance. Those who need to access additional credit to meet their immediate cashflow needs can either apply for mortgage equity withdrawal loans or loans under ESG’s Temporary Bridging Loan Programme or Working Capital Loan Scheme, if they qualify. SME tenants who are eligible for the additional relief described above can also get relief under the third plank of the Bill. They will be allowed to defer payment of a part of the rental arrears accrued from 1 February, until 19 October 2020. They will have to start repaying the arrears from November 2020. These arrears, of course, do not include, for example, the four months which have been waived – these are no longer payable. Tenants can elect to repay their rental arrears in equal instalments, with payment of the first instalment to start no later than November 2020 and that can be done during the duration of the remaining term of their tenancy, up to a maximum of nine months, with interest capped at 3% per annum. If the tenancy is shorter, then, it has got to be paid during the term of the tenancy. For commercial properties, the maximum amount of arrears that can be paid in instalments, will be five months’ base rent. For industrial and office properties, the maximum amount of arrears that can be paid in instalments will be four months’ base rent. This means that landlords take on some credit risk.”
“Meanwhile, to preserve the status quo, the Bill provides for a moratorium on enforcement action for non-payment of rent in the time between the Act coming into force and the triggering of the landlords’ obligations. Even before the Act comes into force, tenants who are unable to pay their rent and require protection from eviction can serve a Notification for Relief under COVID 1, as it exists today. Second, we recognise that many landlords may have already given relief. This could be in the form of rental waivers or rebates. These landlords will be able to set off the equivalent value against the amount of waiver that they are required to give under the Bill. The kinds of reliefs that landlords have given and which can be taken into account for this purpose will be set out in subsidiary legislation. Third, what if the tenant has already paid the rent for the months in which relief is meant to be granted or for the months for which relief is meant to be granted? In such a situation, the landlord will be required to credit any amounts already paid to the tenant. This may be in the form of the waiver being applied in the next month of rent that is due. If the lease is coming to an end, the landlord will have to provide a refund to the eligible tenant. Fourth, MAS has separately announced some additional relief from banks and finance companies in relation to landlords’ existing loan repayment obligations. Individual landlords who have been required to provide relief to their tenants under this Bill can apply to defer both principal and interest payments on their commercial and industrial property loans till the end of the year. So, if moratorium is given until October for tenants; landlords will get assistance from their financial institutions.”
“They will be required to grant qualifying SME commercial tenants an additional waiver of two months’ rental, of base rent; and qualifying SME industrial and office tenants an additional one month’s waiver of base rent. This additional relief will apply to SME tenants who have suffered at least a 35% drop in average monthly revenue in April and May 2020, compared to the same period in 2019. This will be calculated at the rental unit or outlet level. Tenants must have entered into their tenancy before 25 March 2020, or extended such a tenancy to get this relief. There are smaller landlords who face genuine hardship. For example, retirees who have purchased a small commercial property, and the rental yield from that property forms a very large proportion of their income. For this group, they may seek an assessment on grounds of financial hardship. The assessment will take into consideration the annual value of the landlord’s properties, and whether the rental income forms a substantial part of his or her total income. Qualifying landlords will only be required to give half of the additional rental waivers. And we will set out the criteria for landlords to qualify for this in subsidiary legislation. During our consultations, stakeholders have asked for clarity on a few matters. Landlords wanted more clarity on when their obligations will be triggered. Tenants wanted clarity on when they will be entitled to the relief. For the landlords, their obligations will be triggered when IRAS issues the notice of the cash grant or nominal notice to eligible property owners. IRAS will provide more details of the cash grant on its website, once it works the details out.”
“Thank you, Sir. Let me now take Members through the key features of the Bill. The Bill has three key aspects. First, landlords will be required to ensure that the benefits of Governments assistance are given to the actual, intended beneficiaries. That is, the SME tenants operating in rented premises and this will include licencees. Second, landlords may also be required to provide a further waiver of up to two months’ of rent to qualifying SME tenants. And third, SMEs who qualify for the rental waiver will also be given time to repay some of their remaining rental arrears, at an interest rate that will be capped. As said earlier, most of these reliefs apply to SME tenants, including sub-tenants and licencees. The rental relief framework will also apply to eligible Non-Profit Organisations and eligible tenants of Government properties. The Deputy Prime Minister announced property tax rebates from the Resilience and Unity Budgets. The Government will be providing approximately two months of rental assistance for eligible SME tenants of qualifying commercial properties and approximately one month of rental assistance for eligible SME tenants of other non-residential properties; basically, industrial and office properties. This will be done via rental waivers, granted by landlords. Agencies are working out the details, which will give landlords clarity on the relief that they are required to offer; and give tenants clarity on the relief that they will get. This will be set out in subsidiary legislation. The Bill will require landlords to match what the Government is doing.”
“If viable SMEs go under because of temporary cash flow difficulties, the economy as a whole suffers, the value of property will also suffer. So, the essential point: everyone has a stake in the viability of the SMEs. My third and final point is: go back to the eligibility criteria. They cover SME renting commercial, industrial or office space for the operation of their business and those with a turnover of not more than S$100 million per annum and where they had a reduction in turnover of more than 35%, which is a substantial hit.”
“What is necessary in this situation is a fair sharing of obligations because of the exceptional times that are before us. The fair sharing has got to be between the Government, the landlords and the tenants. On the Government’s part, you have seen four Budgets amounting to almost $93 billion, including two months' rental assistance for retail, F&B tenants; one month for office and industrial tenants, as well as broad salary support and other credit-easing facilities. So, if you look at the rest of the burden, what is a fair sharing of the remainder between landlords and tenants? And the related question is, will the market left to itself be able to find an equilibrium that reflects the principle of fairness? The answer to these two related questions depends on a number of points. First, all Singaporeans, including landlords, have a shared interest in seeing our SMEs do well. Second, in a climate like this, expecting market forces to push towards a fair equilibrium is not realistic. Third, what is the alternative if we do not intervene? SMEs play, as I have said, a critical role in the Singapore economy. In 2019, the 260,000 SMEs in Singapore contributed to 45% of our GDP and 72% of our employment. If many of our SMEs for whom a stable cash flow is fundamental, are unable to survive, the domino effect on the rest of the economy will be very substantial and a lot of jobs will be at stake. Our people will suffer. For landlords, their asset value will be affected by the broader economy. There is a clear correlation between growth of property prices and economic growth. If our SMEs do well, the economy is given a boost, property owners will continue to enjoy the stable value of their assets.”
“Her landlord has offered her 10% discount for April and May 2020. COVID-19 is quite an unforeseeable event, both in magnitude and speed of impact. It is wiping out the hard work that many people have put in into their businesses. So, if landlords insist on payments that tenants cannot afford, tenants will have to give up. Landlords then have to take their chances to recover something in the insolvency proceedings, together with other creditors. Landlords will then also have to find replacement tenants. In this market, not realistic. Therefore, it is in everyone’s interests to take a sensible approach, ensure everyone comes out of this together, ready to recover. If you look at restaurant booking platform Chope, they did a survey: 81% of their respondents said they would not be able to operate beyond the next six months, based on cost and revenue that they had during the circuit breaker period. After watching all of this carefully, taking in the feedback, looking at the numbers that were coming in, we decided that there is a need for a substantive intervention. The challenge that rent poses to small businesses, is not a problem unique to Singapore. A number of other countries have seen that and they have intervened. I will just give the examples of Australia and Germany. In Australia, landlords are required to offer rent waivers and deferrals to SME tenants. And SME tenants are allowed to repay the deferred rent over a period of at least 24 months, interest-free. In Germany, landlords are not allowed to terminate a tenancy for non-payment of rent. And arrears with accumulated interest can be repaid before 30 June 2022; that means, two years of extension. Let me now move, Mr Speaker, to the premises underlying this Bill.”
“Retail sales, if you exclude supermarkets, hypermarkets and convenience stalls, retail sales in March 2020 declined by 13.3%. In April 2020, nearly 61%. These numbers do not even show the full impact of the circuit breaker because data for May 2020 is not out yet. We can, obviously, expect the numbers to be very weak. Revenue has fallen but meanwhile fixed costs continue. For many businesses, in the F&B, retail sector, two significant components of such costs are manpower and rent. As regards manpower, the Government through the various Budgets has put in the Jobs Support Scheme, waived the Foreign Worker Levy and put in a number of other schemes to help, together with partners like NTUC. This Bill seeks to deal with the rental obligations, amongst other things. Many landlords have taken a helpful approach and a long-term view. They have shared the burden with their tenants. Nevertheless , we received a lot of feedback from struggling SMEs that they need more time to recover. Many cannot operate until Phase Two, and even then only partially. Landlords’ concessions have been uneven. Many landlords have rendered substantive assistance, but several others have not. The point is that accumulated arrears should be handled fairly. I will share one piece of feedback as an illustration. This is a tenant who is a mother of two young children. She started a company two years ago, providing enrichment lessons to children. She leased some space for the business as a sub-tenant. She renewed her lease for one year, just before COVID-19 hit. All revenue that came in went to support the business – payment of rent, salaries for trainers and other operational costs. But from February 2020, parents began to keep students away. Classes have been suspended since March 2020.”
“At the time, I emphasised that COVID 1 only deferred contractual obligations. I also explained to this House that the Bill gave businesses breathing space. It also gave the Government some time to take in feedback, assess the evolving situation, conduct a deeper analysis and decide whether more substantive interventions were needed. Over the past two months, we have done precisely that. We have monitored feedback, assessed the situation, thought carefully about what else needed to be done. And we have decided to intervene in a more substantive way to deal with the issue of rent. And also, intervene in some other areas. I will explain why. Two months ago, the circuit breaker began. For many, including the businesses most affected by those measures, April now feels like a lifetime away. Globally, we were looking at 1.2 million infections and 67, 000 dead. As of 1 June, we are looking at more than 6 million infections and more than 370,000 dead. Various restrictions had already been put in place by then, but the circuit breaker caused a substantial increase in the restrictions. The situation today? The Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers have explained in considerable detail. I will just recap two key points. The economic situation and outlook has deteriorated substantially. MTI is now forecasting a contraction of between 4% and 7%. And there is a lot of uncertainty. We are taking a cautious approach in lifting the circuit breaker measures. Many industries are affected. And for some, the impact has been near catastrophic. Latest data from the Department of Statistics, some just released today. If you look at F&B sales in March 2020, they declined by 23.7%. In April 2020, they declined by 53% on a year-on-year basis.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". This Bill comes before Parliament in the midst of very serious challenges faced by us, which both Ministers and Members of Parliament have spoken about a number of times. In my speech, I will explain why we need this intervention, explain the principles behind the Bill and set out the key features of the Bill. Just under two months ago, I moved an urgent Bill in this House – the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill, which I will refer to as “COVID 1”. COVID 1 was, in itself, a major intervention. In my speech then, I explained why intervention was needed – economic shock, unprecedented in magnitude in terms of impact and the speed with which the impact was felt. I also set out the principles for such intervention. The starting point is always the sanctity of contract – a fundamental, key aspect of the rule of law and we do not lightly intervene. But sanctity of contract cannot be an absolute. I said that intervention is needed when the core interests of our people are at stake and there is a need to safeguard the fundamental integrity of the economic structure for the common good. Such intervention has to be reasonable and of generally limited duration. In COVID 1, we put in what I called a “legal circuit breaker”. It provided a framework to hold in abeyance the strict enforcement of certain legal rights for a period of time. The objective was to give businesses some cash flow relief and breathing space to make adjustments. For example, if a business tenant is unable to pay rent during the relief period because of COVID-19, the landlord cannot evict the tenant during the relief period. The moratorium runs until 19 October 2020.”
“Between 20 April 2020 and 29 May 2020, 1,254 Notifications for Relief relating to leases or licences of non-residential property have been served using the online system. We have always encouraged parties to first discuss, understand each other's positions, and try to reach a mutual agreement. It appears that many of those who submitted NFRs may be negotiating or have reached a mutual agreement with the counter parties, without requiring an Assessor's determination. In the same period, 125 applications (excluding rejected or withdrawn applications) for an Assessor's determination relating to leases or licences of non-residential property were filed with the Registry. Slightly more than half of the applications are filed by landlords or master tenants in the role of landlords. The Minister for Law has appointed 266 assessors to hear applications for determination under the Act. There are enough assessors to ensure that applications for determination are disposed of in a timely manner. The process is also designed to be simple and efficient, so that applications can be dealt with quickly.”
“All in all, under the SRF and SIRS, drivers can receive up to $1,300 of Government support per month in support to tide them over this challenging period. This is in addition to the Solidarity Payment, and other cash payouts announced under the enhanced Care and Support Package. The Government also notes that some PHC operators and rental companies have stepped forward to offer rental waivers and discounts on commission fees. To enable drivers to supplement their income, LTA has also temporarily allowed drivers to deliver food and groceries. To date, more than 10,000 drivers have taken on deliveries, and this has helped to cushion the fall in ridership earnings. LTA will continue working with tripartite partners to help drivers. Support is also available for drivers who are looking to upskill and move laterally into adjacent sectors, or into new sectors. Under the Self-Employed Persons (SEP) Training Support Scheme, SEPs can receive up to $10 per hour when they attend approved courses. To sum up, the Government has been working closely with tripartite partners in the PHC ecosystem to come together and share the burden in an equitable manner. For now, the Government has assessed that legislative intervention is not necessary. We will however continue to monitor the situation, and make changes if necessary.”
“The COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 (the "Act") provides temporary relief from legal action for those who are unable to perform certain contracts as a result of COVID-19. The Government has studied the possibility of extending temporary relief under Part 2 of the Act to rental agreements between vehicle hire companies and Private Hire Car (PHC) drivers, but has assessed that this is not necessary for the time being. Part 2 of the Act imposes a moratorium on legal action, so that parties have time to negotiate and work out their differences. However, this does not, in itself, address the substantive decline in earnings faced by drivers during this period. To this end, the Government has been working closely with the taxi and PHC operators, the National Taxi Association (NTA), and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA), to provide targeted relief for drivers. The current package of relief measures includes cash grants, initiatives by operators, creating supplementary sources of income for drivers, and providing upskilling opportunities for drivers to move into adjacent sectors. For instance, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has worked with tripartite partners to launch the Point-to-Point Support Package (PPSP) to support drivers who have seen their livelihoods badly affected. Through the PPSP's Special Relief Fund (SRF), active PHC drivers can receive up to $10 per vehicle per day (or $300 per month), until 12 October 2020. Apart from the SRF, PHC drivers can also draw on the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) which provides eligible persons with $1,000 per month for nine months (or $9,000 in total).”
“Counselling helplines, manned by Home Team psychologists, are available to all Home Team officers, including those who are involved in COVID-19 operations. During this period, we have stepped up the manning of these helplines. Home Team Departments have also put in place other measures to ensure the well-being of our officers working on Singapore's response to COVID-19. Our in-house psychologists and para-counsellors look out for distressed officers. Supervisors and commanders engage officers frequently to gather feedback, motivate and raise morale. Self-care materials and guides are disseminated to officers on a regular basis. We have also distributed "care packs" which include personal items such as reusable masks, Vitamin C supplements, and hand sanitisers. Home Team Departments have also implemented various physical measures to protect our officers and these measures are elaborated in the reply to Q*38 on today’s Order Paper by Mr Christopher de Souza, as published in the Circular for Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Reached by End of Question Time on 4 June 2020.”
“Launched in 2013, the initiative aims to impart elderly residents with crime prevention knowledge by keeping them informed of the latest crime situation and encouraging them to share relevant advice with their peers. These activities will resume gradually with the easing of safe distancing measures. The key to the fight against scams is a discerning public. We should be sceptical of promises of incredulous inducements, transact only on reliable platforms, and always check with the relevant authorities when approached by dubious entities purporting to be their officials. Everyone has a part to play in the fight against scams. Members of the public are urged to stay vigilant and report possible scams promptly to the Police.”
“From January to April 2020, a total of 5,425 scam cases were reported with at least $60.4 million cheated. Of these, 394 were COVID-19 related scams, with at least $1.4 million cheated. There are three scam types of concern that are related to COVID-19. First, e-commerce scams relating to the sale of face masks and hand sanitisers. Second, scams where scammers impersonate officials from the Ministry of Health (MOH) to obtain from victims their personal data and information. Third, phishing scams involving fraudulent emails and text messages containing fake offers or fake information on COVID-19 payouts, to trick victims into divulging their credit or debit card details and One-Time Passwords (OTP). The Police have been taking action against such scammers. Between 3 February and 8 April 2020, they mounted island-wide operations leading to the arrest of 27 persons who were involved in scams amounting to more than $484,000. In these cases, the scammers had exploited the use of e-commerce platforms and online channels such as Gumtree, Facebook Marketplace, Carousell, WhatsApp and Telegram. Of the 27 subjects, 16 have been charged in Court. The Police are also ramping up public education and awareness efforts. They and the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) are working with the Ministry of Communications and Information to issue scam advisories via WhatsApp on the Gov.sg platform. Prior to the COVID-19 situation, the Police were already working with Residents’ Committees and grassroots volunteers to spread scam alerts to residents, including senior citizens, via WhatsApp and community events like block parties, roadshows, festive events and Community Safety & Security Programmes (CSSPs). One such CSSP focusing on the elderly is the Silver Watch Group.”
“These include measures to ensure early detection, infection control and safe distancing. Following the cases detected in late April and early May, there have been no new cases in prison.”
“As part of the Singapore Prison Service's (SPS) precautionary measures, all newly admitted inmates in the Changi Prison Complex are segregated for 14 days away from the general inmate population. All newly admitted inmates undergo swab tests for COVID-19 upon admission and at the end of the segregation period, before they are allowed to join the general inmate population. As at 3 June 2020, three inmates and one staff nurse from SPS's medical service provider had tested positive for COVID-19. These cases are not linked to one another. The inmates were admitted from the community to prison on different days and had tested positive for COVID-19 during their segregation period. The first inmate tested positive on 21 April 2020, the second inmate on 22 April 2020 and the third inmate on 9 May 2020. They were immediately isolated from the rest of the newly admitted inmates under segregation, and housed in a separate prison facility. Two of the inmates have since been discharged from the facility, while the other remains clinically well. The staff nurse tested positive for COVID-19 on 24 April 2020. He has since recovered and is back to work. There were no cases of further infection of COVID-19 arising from these cases. SPS will only very cautiously and gradually de-escalate circuit breaker measures, given that the prison is a very high risk setting for the spread of COVID-19. Family visits and programmes for inmates will not resume immediately at the end of the circuit breaker period, but only in a slow, step-by-step manner, over a few phases depending on the general situation in the community. SPS will retain the precautionary measures it had implemented since the start of the COVID-19 crisis.”
“Home Team psychologists and in-house para-counsellors look out for distressed officers. Home Team Departments have also intensified the manning of counselling helplines. The Ministry will support and care for our officers working on Singapore's response to COVID-19.”
“The Home Team officers are deeply involved in the COVID-19 crisis, from coordinating the whole-of-Government response at the Public Service level and supporting the Multi-Ministry Task Force, to implementing COVID-19 border policies and measures, supporting MOH in contact tracing, and enforcing Stay-Home Notices and egregious breaches of safe distancing. The Home Team has put in place various measures to protect and support the officers. Home Team Departments have implemented split teams and safe distancing at workplaces. Officers who can work from home will do so. Temperature checks are conducted twice daily to ensure that our officers are well before they perform their duties. We are delivering more services using automation or through digital means to reduce physical contact. For officers who may have to come into contact with potential COVID-19 cases, for example SCDF's Emergency Medical Services personnel, and Home Team officers helping manage the situation at Government quarantine facilities and foreign worker dormitories, they will don the necessary personal protection equipment (PPE), such as mask, face shield, gloves, cap and goggles. Alternative accommodation is arranged upon request for officers deployed for COVID-19 related operations, to minimise contact with their family members during the period of deployment. We are also mindful about the mental well-being of our officers during this period. Supervisors and commanders engage the officers to gather feedback, motivate and raise morale. Self-care materials and guides are disseminated to officers on a regular basis. We have also distributed "care packs" which include personal items, such as reusable masks, Vitamin C supplements, and hand sanitisers.”
“1 For all other legal activities, where law practices may need to work from their office on an exceptional basis, they may apply for time-limited exemptions as and when necessary. This is to enable law practices to continue serving the urgent legal needs of citizens and businesses. Second, we are coordinating measures to provide relief via legislation to individuals and businesses. One such example is the relief for certain types of contracts under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020, which recently came into force on 20 April 2020. This will help Singaporeans, from SMEs struggling to pay rent, to wedding couples whose weddings have to be postponed. We will monitor the situation closely, and will consider further measures as needed.”
“The Ministry of Law and many of our partners continue to provide legal services during the circuit breaker period. (a) The Legal Aid Bureau continues to provide legal advice, legal assistance, and legal aid on civil matters, to Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents with limited means. (b) Accused persons with limited means may also continue to apply for criminal legal aid from Law Society Pro Bono Services (LSPBS) for matters which the Courts continue to hear. (c) Persons in need of legal assistance may also seek help from Law Society's Community Legal Clinics as well as several other legal clinics. Given the need to reduce movement of people, services will be delivered remotely via video conferencing, email or telephone, where possible. In addition, members of public can access various online tools that provide useful legal information. For example, the iLAB chatbot on the Legal Aid Bureau's website provides tailored legal information on divorce and family violence. It is also able to generate simple legal documents for those who can self-help. Another example is the Community Justice Centre's Automated Court Document Assembly and Generation, which provides step-by-step guidance on filing certain court forms. Ms Rahayu also asked about the Ministry's efforts at coordinating specific legal support for those affected by COVID-19. There are two aspects to our efforts. First, we are supporting law practices in their continued provision of legal services during the circuit breaker period. The Ministry of Law has worked with the Ministry of Trade and Industry to allow the continued provision of urgent and essential legal services.”
“Exempted developers must continue to meet the exemption criteria to retain their exemptions. They will also be subject to monitoring and other safeguards, including an annual declaration of material information, such as the members of their Board and substantial shareholding interest.”
“The objective of the Residential Property Act, or RPA, is to safeguard residential land for Singaporeans, and prevent foreign housing developers from hoarding or speculating in residential land. Under the Qualifying Certificate regime, or QC regime, which is administered under the RPA, foreign housing developers are required to complete their developments within five years of issuance of the QC and dispose of all residential units within two years of completion. The QC regime is not a market control mechanism. A housing developer that is a Singapore company is not subject to the QC regime. A Singapore company is defined in the RPA as one that is incorporated in Singapore, and all its directors and members are Singapore citizens or Singapore companies. This strict definition meant that housing developers which are essentially Singaporean or have a substantial connection to Singapore were not considered as Singapore companies, if they are publicly listed and their shares are freely traded. This is why we introduced the exemption framework under the QC regime earlier this year. It allows publicly listed housing developers with a substantial connection to Singapore to be treated as Singapore companies within the meaning of the RPA, when they acquire residential land for development. The exemption framework better aligns the QC regime with the objectives of the RPA. Housing developers that wish to obtain exemptions from the QC regime on the basis of a substantial connection to Singapore, are assessed based on strict criteria, including whether they have a Singaporean chairperson and Board majority, a significantly Singaporean substantial shareholding interest, and their track record in Singapore.”
“Within the Liquor Control Zone at Little India, there have been about 30 breaches recorded against shops and about 260 breaches recorded against individuals each year, for the past four years. The most frequent breaches are liquor consumption outside prescribed hours, public drunkenness, and the supply of liquor outside trading hours. As of 30 March 2020, Police have revoked three liquor licences in Little India. MHA's assessment is that liquor-related law and order issues are under control, and there is no need to further reduce the number of liquor licences in Little India, for now. MHA will regularly review this policy.”
“I thank the hon Member. As to my setting out what he might have said in responding to things that he may not have said, I am entirely happy to accept that he may not have said it and I may have mistakenly ascribed to him what someone else has said. My apologies. On arbitration, I understand the point that Mr Murali makes. I want to be very careful about this. We will study it, but given how much effort we have put into making Singapore an International Arbitration Centre, I want to be very careful about doing anything that potentially affects that perception. We must also look at how many contracts fall in this category that he mentioned – international party and a Singapore party, arbitration in Singapore, coming out of the International Arbitration Act. If it is not that many contracts – my understanding is it may not be that many – then I think we need to analyse it as a balance of benefits and the damage that could be done to our reputation through perception. [(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)]”
“Mr Saktiandi asked what the Government is doing to ensure that the reliefs given to employers are reaching employees – whether in terms of helping them keep their jobs or upgrading their skills. These are outside the scope of this Bill and they were dealt with by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday and today.”
“In the situation that Mr Murali pointed out, the couple have as much obligation to accept the goods and services as an obligation to pay the price for it. If the contract is to have a wedding banquet of a photography services, but they have become unable to accept the services because of the new measures, they are unable to perform. Mr Murali also sought clarification on the phrase "inability to a material extent caused by a COVID-19 event." The Bill is intended to cover situations where COVID-19 has meaningfully caused the inability to perform. It need not be the dominant cause but it cannot be a remote, insignificant cause either. It can cover situations where there is more than one reason for the inability to perform the obligation as long as COVID-19 is a material reason. Mr Murali also sought to clarify whether a contractor who intends to seek relief under clause 6, which prevents the other party from calling on a performance bond, has to serve notice on the other party. The answer is yes. The notification for relief has to be served in order for the contractor to rely on clause 6. If the notification for relief is not served expeditiously, the other party may call on the performance bond. A balance has to be struck between providing relief to the contract and certainty to the beneficiary in the event of default. The paying bank also needs to know whether to honour the payment of the performance bond. Mr Murali recommended that MinLaw look at digitising wills, should the circuit breaker restrictions extend beyond four weeks. As we explained during the Committee of Supply or COS speech this year, we are reviewing the probate and administration regime and we will consider his suggestions as part of that review.”
“There have been some questions on Assessors. Mr Saktiandi, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr de Souza had a number of questions on Assessors. There is no minimum or maximum cap on the value of the claims that may be brought to the Assessors. We will seek to appoint a sufficient number of Assessors to ensure that the process is as quick as possible, as efficient as possible, and my Ministry will also be looking at implementing a quick and simple online process of making an application, sending documents, receiving determinations. Hearings may also be held via video-conference where that is viable. Mr Liang Eng Hwa suggested giving Assessors powers to direct a process to restructure loans. That will be outside the scope and ambit of this Bill. The Assessors do not have that power and the primary purpose here is to suspend obligations for a period. Mr Lim asked what is to be done if there is clear prejudice shown by an Assessor. How would MinLaw ensure that the Assessor would always be impartial? The process will have to comply with the rules of natural justice and judicial review remedies will be available, when there is breach of natural justice or corruption, for example. Mr Douglas Foo asked if Assessors would be covered by indemnity insurance. The Assessors will not be acting in their professional capacity. The Bill provides that they will have no liability with respect to anything done in good faith, so there is protection. Mr Murali asked and sought clarification on the phrase "unable to perform an obligation", in relation to event contracts. It is meant to cover the performance of obligations. The intention is to look at whether a party can perform a contract.”
“He has imposed the restrictions and there is nothing any of us can do about it. He has actually made it into a criminal offence if you breach those regulations – Part 7 of this Bill. So, we just have to comply. Now, that impacts on everyone. It is outside the scope of this Bill except to the extent that anyone wants to claim liquidated damages against the contractor. So, what happens to all these people who are in temporary arrangements? I think everything has got to extend by a certain period. However long the Minister of Health tells you that you cannot move, you are stuck. And that in turn depends on health assessments which obviously must override all other considerations because if we are not careful there can be a substantial spread. In those situations, the law outside of this Bill provides for certain types of reliefs, Mr Lim knows. If you are not able to perform, if the law requires you to be in a certain situation, there is nothing you can do. You cannot complete on a certain date. And I am given to understand that during this period, 7 April to 4 May 2020, HDB will also not issue any new renovation permits, but HDB will allow on-going renovation works to be completed if it would take only a few days to complete essential works. Basically, if you can do the work within two or three days, and it can be safe for residents to stay, HDB will allow you to do it. For those with no other housing options in this situation, HDB will be prepared to allow a few more days to complete minimal essential works to make the place liveable in the interim. And the rest of the works can be carried out later. For those whose flats are undergoing transactions, sale purchase, the buyer and seller will have to discuss new dates. That is essentially it.”
“Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked a related point whether putting in this Bill will give struggling tenants a false sense of hope that they may not need to pay. I expect that tenants, our commercial people, are quite savvy. I am quite sure they will try and understand what the obligations are. But in any event, MinLaw will put it out in very simple terms as much as possible and push it out. I think even if the tenant is under such a misconception, I am sure the landlord will correct those misconceptions pretty soon. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked if the landlord will be prohibited from imposing interest on late penalty fees for rent. He also spoke about this with respect to bank loans. These are outside the scope of this Bill but Members will know that the MAS initiatives cover quite some aspects of what he has mentioned. Ms Joan Pereira asked if the Government will be putting in place further mechanisms to monitor the situation of smaller businesses. Mr Liang Eng Hwa also called for economic agencies to help companies cope with their payment obligations. Mr Saktiandi asked whether the inability of businesses to fulfill contractual obligations would count against their credit ratings. These questions all raised broader policy questions beyond the ambit of this Bill. I can tell Members that the economic agencies are monitoring the economy very closely. Ms Jessica Tan spoke about construction contracts, how delay in construction contracts will impact individuals or businesses for whom the works have been committed. Mr Lim Biow Chuan also said that he has residents who cannot shift out of their tenanted residential homes because the contractors are not able to complete renovations due to the circuit breaker. Well, you can look at the Minister for Health.”
“We have got to be very careful talking about these interventions. If we say we are studying intervening in order to reduce the payments that tenants make, then you can be sure a lot of tenants, even those who can pay, will not pay. They will say "Let us wait for what the Government is coming up with". If we say we are not going to deal with this, then a lot of landlords, who might have been willing to accommodate a better arrangement with their tenants, will say "Well, since the Government is not going to come in and do anything, therefore, we do not need to come in and help". So, I think Ministers standing at this box need to be very careful in answering these questions. Let us focus on this Bill. This is a suspension. You can be sure that the economic agencies are actively looking at the situation and looking to see how best to handle it as we go forward, and they will take into account all the feedback that has been given. Mr de Souza asked whether the Assessor can determine that the security deposit may be used to offset rental arrears. The answer is a clear yes. It does not even need to go to the Assessor. We have already said there is nothing to prevent set-off by the landlord against the security deposit. It is not in every case that the Assessor will have to even decide, review after two to three months. It will depend on the circumstances and, really, if the parties can work it out themselves more sensibly, then it does not even have to go to the Assessor. If the landlord can show that, yes, there is a queue of tenants waiting to come in and it is unfair to the landlord to allow a particular tenant to carry on without paying rental, that is something the Assessors will take into account.”
“This Bill is one part of, as I have said, the three aspects, the packages put up by the Deputy Prime Minister, the initiatives by MAS. But I understand the points that Mr Chong makes and some of the others make, and I know that some of it is with a genuine concern for tenants. So, really, we are on the same side seeing how we can help the tenants. And is that best done by extending the payment period by two years and giving them a longer period to pay? I want to be careful about it. At this stage, we are focusing on immediate cash flow relief by suspending for a period of six months, or rather, the Bill is for six months; relief is for a period of months, as determined by the Assessor. Mr Louis Ng had a couple of points which would have meant substantive intervention or substantive alteration of the rights. One is to extend the period for payment. The other is even more radical – why do we not automatically reduce the rental? I want to be very careful about it because, as Mr Chong Kee Hiong and others have pointed out, there are also landlords who are small businesses themselves. They may have one small building with some tenants. And if you tell them that the rent is going to be reduced automatically by a certain percentage, will they survive and is it fair to them? These are all issues that require much more careful deliberation by Ministries, beyond MinLaw. It requires an economic analysis; it requires an assessment of how the situation plays out over the next few months. Meanwhile, if the Bill passes, we apply a tourniquet, we hold the ring, we give people time. It also gives the time for the Government to assess the situation as it proceeds, do a deeper economic analysis to see whether any other interventions are justified.”
“Mr Chong Kee Hiong also made a good point about – and others, too – you know, supposing they get a six-month rental holiday, even if we set off two, three months, there will be some months of rental accrued and, at the end of that period, it will be a substantial amount. Can they pay up? Well, Mr Louis Ng had a suggestion for that. He asked why do we not be like the Germans? Give an additional two years for them to pay. I do not think the landlords would want that. At the same time, would it mean because some will not be able to pay, therefore, we should not even give them relief now? That would effectively be an argument to say we should not intervene; we should let whoever is going to go bust, go bust, and that would inflict a lot of damage. The proposal we have, there is no perfect solution simply because the situation is very economically dire. There is pain. There is no complete solution. It is a question of how do you share out that pain? If we have a perfect solution where everyone can walk away with their contractual rights, of course, we would do that. But that is not the real world. So, do we say some tenants will not be able to pay at the end of six months and, therefore, we should do nothing now? And, therefore, let a lot of other businesses which can pay go bust? What will the REITs and the landlords be left with in such a situation eventually? So, I would say to the bigger players, look, you are getting the benefits from the Government packages. Play your part and help share some of the pain, too. It cannot simply be that you get all the benefits on one side and, on the other side, you only look at it in terms of your contractual rights.”
“They are going to get Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) paid for their employees following that. They are going to get the whole series of other benefits. MAS has also worked with the financial institutions to provide for credit flow. Other issues that they may have in terms of people not paying rent and having a knock-on effect on their credit position, these are issues that I am sure MAS will be able to talk to them about and then talk to the banks about. We cannot prevent banks from exercising their rights, but I think, overall in Singapore, everyone can take a sensible approach. Essentially, the relief is provided for tenants who are not going to be able to pay anyway. So, all these consequences that one sets out – oh, you know, this is going to impact on the rate of return, it is going to impact on the cash flow of the landlords and so on – but we are dealing with tenants who are not going to pay you, who are not able to pay you. Second, you already have security deposits for a few months. So, your cash flow would not be affected for a few months. And I have indicated the Assessors will be given guidance that, in the first place, in general, they will say for three months, the tenant can suspend payment, if the tenant seeks. Not all tenants will seek. If the tenant seeks that permission, they will be given that for three months and then the Assessor can look at it. The Assessor can give a longer period or shorter period but the general guidance will be three months. The entire system is under threat. It is not business as usual.”
“Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Chong Kee Hiong all spoke about landlords, especially the smaller landlords who may require rent proceeds to service other obligations, such as mortgage payments. Mr Saktiandi also spoke about landlords who are REITs, and Mr Chong Kee Hiong as well, and the eventual impact that non-payment of rent would have on retail investors. Sir, on REITs and landlords, I have spoken in extenso earlier. The Bill does not alter the payment obligations of the tenants to the landlords. The landlords can show the Assessors that the tenant, in fact, has the financial capacity to pay a part, if not all, of the rent. If the Assessor finds that the tenant is able to pay all or part of the rent, he may determine that the tenant pays that part or in full either immediately or after the expiry of a prescribed period. Now, how do we balance the interests of the landlords and the tenants? Mr Chong Kee Hiong pointed out that the rate of return will be affected. I spoke at some length about rates of return. I think, at this point, the real question is not the rates of return but how do we protect the parties. Even if we do not have this Bill, the rates of return are going to be impacted. How many tenants are going to be able to pay? How many tenants are not going to be able to pay? And when a tenant is not able to pay, you put him into bankruptcy, you put him into liquidation, are there a queue of tenants waiting to come in? Is it not going to affect the bottom line anyway? So, those are the realities of the current situation and the landlords are being helped in a significant number of ways. As I have said earlier, they are going to get 75% of their employee wage cost paid for in April.”
“It depends on how long this situation lasts and how long the Bill is valid for; in the first place, as I have said, it will last for six months. We will see. I am unable to say beyond that. Mr Liang Eng Hwa expressed concern that the reliefs would trigger counter-claims because service providers could charge an upfront fee or price a risk of non-forfeiture in the fees charged. The Bill does not cover contracts entered into on or after 25 March 2020. So, these points would not apply to this Bill. Because the parties are contracting with full knowledge – willing buyer, willing seller. Mr Murali Pillai asked whether relief under the Bill could apply on a mutual basis, for example, if a hotel was unable to proceed with the event because its workers are on Stay-at-Home Notice, and he asked why big companies ought to be covered. Sir, the principle is one of fairness, justice and equity. On the whole, the Bill helps the weaker party. But that does not mean always that the bigger party is at fault. For example, if the hotel is unable to proceed because of COVID-19, is that the hotel's fault, and should we try and find some other alternate arrangement? The relief under clause 5 of the Bill would apply to either contracting party which is unable to fulfill obligations and revise them in a way that seeks to be fair to both parties. For any party to obtain relief, whether big or small, it would have to show that it was unable to perform the obligation and comply, meet the other requirements in the legislation. If the hotel's workers are subject to Stay-at-Home Notices and it can show that it has got no other resources and cannot get any other workers, and if it complies with and fulfills the other conditions in the Bill, it will be covered.”
“One possibility, which I think is the fairest, is that as a rule, if you have booked an event or a certain venue, if now you cannot hold it because of COVID-19, the fairest is to postpone, if that is possible. And then, the event or the event planner or the hotel does not lose out. They still have the contract. You do not lose out because your deposit is not lost. Both sides find a reasonable accommodation. If that is, for one reason or another, not possible or not suitable, if the contract has to be cancelled, then the question is how much to refund and what is a fair amount to be given back, and those are matters for the Assessors. And I made the point earlier. Just because you do not want to proceed with the event does not mean that you must get back 100%. If the event companies have spent some money, if they have done some work and so on, they need to be compensated for that. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about whether contracts for tours with travel agencies and air tickets will be covered. The contract for tours with travel agencies will be covered. There should be no forfeiture of deposits. Tours can be postponed. Otherwise, alternate arrangements can be directed by the Assessors. Contracts for air tickets are not covered. Airlines have their own re-booking, refund and cancellation policies that are broadly similar internationally, and we should not intervene in those. Many airlines are currently sorting out those issues with their passengers as well as travel agents. Mr Saktiandi asked about events that are slated for the later part of the year and whether the Bill could offer protection for such contracts. The answer is – his guess is as good as mine.”
“Simply because they have chosen to come to Singapore, we should not impact on their arbitration. We should leave it to them to decide. If they have chosen Singapore law, then COVID-19 will become part of Singapore law if Parliament passes it. So, we thought about this quite carefully. Mr Christopher de Souza asked, what about actions taken before this legislation comes into force? For example, deposits which may have been forfeited. Now, the Bill covers deposits which may have been forfeited. So, as I said earlier, that has got to unwound. Other than that, if other actions have been taken, if properties have been possessed, it is difficult for us to go back and unwind retroactively. But pending legal actions must be stayed if the categories of contracts are covered by the Bill. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the scope of contracts that are covered. He asked about wedding couples who want to cancel their bookings. It covers hotel bookings, it covers all goods and services relating to the event, and for those who have already cancelled, if the deposit has been forfeited, as I explained earlier, relief is available. And I have explained what sort of relief is possible. I have also pointed out the need to balance between recovering the deposit immediately and the ability of the other party to pay, because everyone is suffering from COVID-19. It does not mean that the event planner or the other contractual party who has taken the deposit can immediately pay back the deposit to everybody who is demanding immediate payment. So, there needs to be some justice, which is why we have gone via the route of Assessors to look at individual facts and decide. Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about remedies. I spoke about it in my earlier speech.”
“I think I can give the same answer, and the Member can take it up with us. But I want to tell him this. I think we need to be careful about trading contracts. There are many wide varieties of trading contracts. Some of them are international in nature and we ought to be careful about imposing our legal obligations on international parties, because that can also have a disproportionate impact on Singapore as a commercial hub. So, we need to be careful about that. If we are talking about trading contracts within Singapore, Mr Murali Pillai is a lawyer. If it is a question of say, delivery of certain supply, and that supply is no longer available or supply has been affected by logistics, the contracts usually provide for relief in themselves. The law also provides for relief. But if Mr Murali Pillai believes that over and above that, we can identify a class of contracts that can be circumscribed and be subject to relief, we will be happy to consider them. There was a question about hire-purchase agreements. If the item is for business, as I said in my speech, that will be protected. Mr Murali Pillai also asked about international arbitrations or arbitrations which are not local, and can there be a moratorium? We carefully considered this. We have been promoting Singapore as a cross-jurisdictional, international arbitration centre. Two parties who are unconnected to Singapore often come to Singapore to arbitrate and I really do not think it is our business then to be saying automatically that there should be a moratorium. If a French man and a Chinese party have dealings with each other, and they have chosen Singapore because of its neutrality, and the law that applies is, let us say, a foreign law.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who spoke. I tried to note down as many of the questions as I could. If I have missed out on any of them, it is not intentional. Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Patrick Tay asked if we could extend the protection that this Bill offers, to cleaning firms, security firms and others. The general point I want to make is that this COVID-19 Bill is not intended to be a general intervention to all contracts. At the same time, Members would have noted it gives me the power to add further categories of obligations and contracts beyond the five that are specified. Both Mr Zainal and Mr Tay are Labour Movement Members of Parliament. I suggest that NTUC study these two contracts that they have specifically talked about, whether they think that a case can be made out – that COVID-19 has particularly affected these contracts and some relief ought to be given, because performance has been affected by COVID-19 in an unexpected way and it is unfair to expect performance. If they can make a persuasive case, we will be prepared to add those categories, but always bearing in mind that this is not simply a case of – there is some problem and therefore we need to help people in their contracts. It has got to go beyond that and be a matter of principle. There should be unfairness in enforcing the contracts and we must find a fair way in resolving the issues. Subject to that, my Second Reading opening speech made it very clear that we have a duty to help the people who have been affected by COVID-19. We should not ask people, we should not require people to be held very strictly to the contracts if they have been affected by this massive event. So, we will take a sympathetic approach. Mr Murali Pillai asked about trading contracts.”
“Others in the committee included Mr Lim Sim Seng from DBS; Ong Yew Huat, now non-Executive Director of UOB; Andrew Lim, Group CFO of Capitaland; Keith Magnus, co-Chairman, Asia and Senior Managing Director of Evercore; Mr Ganesh from Soilbuild; Mr Melvin Ang, Chairman of an entertainment company MM2 Asia; and the Attorney-General Mr Lucien Wong himself, supervised the drafting of the Bill, clause by clause, together with outstanding officers from AGC. We were lucky to have the AG himself personally involved. As some here will know, he is recognised as world-class and the best corporate lawyer in Singapore when he was in practice. He gave us much valuable advice – what worked, what was doable, what was not doable. And because of him and his AGC team, the private sector professionals, and the Government agencies coming together, we were able to bring this Bill to Parliament so quickly. I wish to thank all of them. We owe them a lot in helping us with this Bill, and the large numbers of Singaporeans, who I hope will be helped by this Bill. We have made it such that we can add on to it because almost inevitably, issues will arise, and we could not have foreseen all of them. We will come back to Parliament where necessary and deal with them. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“If everyone looked after their own narrow self interests, we will not come through this crisis well. The Bill, therefore, provides a framework to hold the strict enforcement of certain legal rights in abeyance for a period of time. That buys time for landlords and tenants, banks and lenders, other contracting parties, to focus their minds on how to get through the crisis. But the law can only go so far. It is also up to each individual Singaporean to have a sensa of fairness. We hope that the spirit of SGUnited will underpin the many conversations to be had between contracting parties on how to move forward from this. If we are unable to pull together as a society, to have this sense of fairness, I am afraid that even the most interventionist of laws would not ensure that we can recover well. Let me end by coming back to how we put this Bill together. We decided in late March that an intervention of this type is going to be necessary. We set up a committee of private sector professionals and different Ministries. We had to be careful because, as Members will note, the total value of the sector that is being dealt with is over $120 billion. With the help of the committee, we were able to both conceptualise the ideas and draft the legislation in nine days. The work involved many agencies – MOF, MTI, MND, MAS, AGC. Two private sector lawyers, Sushil Nair and Patrick Ang, recognised as amongst the leading experts in their field, worked with us to conceptualise the framework, almost full time over the course of nine days.”
“You have got to serve a statutory demand and you have got to wait for a number of days before you can serve a bankruptcy notice. That used to be 21 days. We are going to make it six months. Which means, you have got to serve a notice and wait for six months. And the person must owe you at least $100,000 before you can proceed for bankruptcy. Likewise, we are going to deal with debts that companies owe for insolvency purposes. Increase from $10,000 to $100,000. A company cannot be made a bankrupt unless it owes a minimum $100,000. And likewise, we are also going to increase the number of days from service of a demand, from 21 days to six months. The Bill will also provide a defence to an offence under section 144 of the Bankruptcy Act for a bankrupt who incurs debt without expectation of being able to pay for it. This is in the context of debts that were incurred during the period for which temporary measures apply and a similar defence will be provided in relation to the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, as well as the Companies Act. Sir, let me now conclude this part of the speech for this Bill before my colleagues take over. The measures in this Bill are one part of the wider efforts to address the impacts of COVID-19. We will do all we can to alleviate the economic pain being felt. We cannot take away the pain completely, but we can help Singaporeans meet their immediate needs and ensure that our economy, as a whole, receives some help. At the same time – and this is a message that we have consistently reiterated – this is not a crisis that the Government acting on its own can overcome. It needs the cooperation of all Singaporeans. The essence of this Bill reflects that spirit.”