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 77 of 92.
“The emails have been redacted to remove personal particulars and also some other information they have set out. Coming back to bullying amongst our youth, a recent Microsoft Study surveyed 25 countries on the issue of bullying amongst youth aged eight to 17. According to the study, 86% of those surveyed worldwide had Page: 64 experienced bullying online, offline or both. The situation in Singapore is, unfortunately, reflective of the global trend. Eighty-three percent of youths in Singapore aged eight to 17 have been bullied either online, offline or both. Unfortunately, Singapore was also found to have the second highest rate of online bullying of youth at 58%, behind only China at 70%. The Straits Times ran a report last month highlighting that our children are particularly vulnerable to cyber risks. According to the report, more than eight out of 10 households are connected to the Internet. Activities, such as web-surfing, chatting online and posting on social media networks, have become commonplace, especially for our young. With these come the increased risks of cyber bullying, whether as a bully or as a victim. In schools, we are familiar with the kinds of bullying that take place – name-calling, inappropriate jokes, intimidating behaviour and the like. Bullying of children by other children can scar – both the bully and the bullied – for life. Worse, bullying of children can also lead to devastating consequences. Again, this is a worldwide trend with increasing frequency. I will use three examples to illustrate what is happening. In the United Kingdom, 14-year-old Hannah Smith hanged herself last year after weeks of taunting by anonymous cyberbullies. She received messages telling her to kill herself.”
“In another case, cyber bullies targeted the baby of a blogger. The blogger gave birth prematurely because there had been a life-threatening condition during her pregnancy. Cyber bullies called her baby an "alien". They said the baby should be euthanised. This was really quite sickening behaviour. It comes from the basic bullying instincts of some, unchecked by any notion of civil conduct and aided by anonymity. Comments like these go beyond what any decent human being would consider to be the proper exercise of free speech. I have also been receiving emails from members of the public after news of this Bill came out. The majority of them are women, recounting their personal experiences and welcoming the Bill. One writer described her harrowing experience with a fellow colleague. After she had rejected his advances, this colleague began spreading rumours about her at the workplace. It was said that she was a lesbian, and was a loose woman. This caused the writer to feel very harassed for several years and, of course, her colleagues reacted negatively towards her. Despite all that, the writer did not leave her job as she needed to support her family. Another writer feared for her safety as her employer, who was the harasser, had a violent temper. A third writer told us that she was a victim of harassment and stalking from about five years ago and that her life has never been the same since. She continues to be traumatised until today. The writers went through serious trauma and that left indelible marks in their lives. Bullying amongst our youth is also a serious issue and, by the way, those writers have given me permission to have redacted copies of their emails circulated and I will do so at the end of my speech.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Let me first set out the context. Harassment can take place anywhere, anytime and in any form. Sexual harassment has been an issue. It can take place within and outside the workplace. Stalking conduct can be following a person, loitering near a person's office or residence, repeatedly trying to contact a person by calling him or her, sending SMSes, emails and so on – it is basically trying to impose unwanted communication on another person, to try and get that person's attention. Harassment can take place in the physical space and in the online space. Cyberspace makes harassment easier and, in some ways, more egregious, because it can be anonymous, borderless, viral and permanent. Late last year, REACH commissioned a study involving more than 1,000 Singapore residents above the age of 15. More than 80% of those surveyed felt online harassment to be a serious issue. The survey had a margin of error of 3%. These findings correspond with the very grave instances of harassment being reported. The instances are far too numerous. I have summarised a few cases as illustrations and, after my speech, I will have them handed out to Page: 63 Members, but if I may speak about some of them here. In one case, an online netizen impersonated a doctor and posted provocative and offensive comments in her name on Facebook. No one waited to see if what was posted was true. The doctor did not get to defend herself. Allegations were swiftly followed by attacks. Many netizens harshly criticised the doctor for the comments. Some online netizens even uncovered her personal information and posted photos of her online. Really, Members have to ask if that is fair and acceptable.”
“I think the Member may want to ask that of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources.”
“If there is any need for review, we will forward it and if their response is positive, we will start talking". We welcome the Foreign Minister's statement. It reaffirms the position Malaysia has taken previously on honouring the agreement – indeed, that cannot be in any doubt – and acknowledges that a review on the water price is Page: 9 possible only if Singapore agrees with such a review. Ms Lee also asked about the Johor government's reported proposal for a price review. We have only heard of this proposal from media reports emitting from Johor, but there have been no official approaches from Malaysia on this issue. It would thus be premature to speculate on the impact of any such approach on our bilateral relations. We enjoy good relations with Malaysia at all levels, starting with the two Prime Ministers. But good relations also depend on both parties taking a broad approach to the relationship and honouring all agreements between the two countries. We will continue to work to enhance our cooperation and friendship with Malaysia in order to benefit both our peoples.”
“Then Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad said in 2002 that Malaysia did not revise the water pricing when it was due because they thought Singapore would also revise the price of treated water supplied to Malaysia. One can refer to the Bernama report on 11 October 2002. Then Johor State Assembly Speaker, Zainalabidin Mohd Zain, said that the Johor government had not made a mistake in not pressing for a review in 1986, and said, "There was no point in doing so because Johor was dependent on Singapore for its treated water supply, and Singapore would have also increased its price of treated water sold to Johor." This was from New Straits Times, 3 July 2002. Under the agreement, after Malaysia decided not to review the water price in 1987, there is no longer any right to review the price of water. Had Malaysia exercised the right to review the water price in 1987, Singapore might then have made different investment decisions to develop Johor River, for instance, that Linggiu Dam project of 1990. In the event Malaysia chose not to review the water price in 1987 and, on that basis, Singapore then took several actions which also benefited Malaysia. This included building the Linggiu Dam at the cost of over $300 million, which has increased the yield of the Johor River, and enabled both Johor and Singapore to draw water from it during this dry season. Our position on this issue is well-known to Malaysia. We have stated this publicly and also conveyed it to the Malaysian government, including at the highest levels. The Malaysian government understands the position. Foreign Minister Anifah Aman said on 17 February 2014 that, "an agreement is an agreement. When there is an agreement, we will honour the agreement.”
“Mdm Speaker, Ms Ellen Lee has asked whether Malaysia had the right to review the price of raw water sold to Singapore. We have stated our position on this issue and also conveyed it officially to the government of Malaysia on several occasions. As I had mentioned in my COS speech yesterday, neither Malaysia nor Singapore can unilaterally change the price of raw water sold to Singapore. Indeed, neither party can unilaterally change any of the terms of the 1962 Water Agreement. This is no ordinary agreement. It was guaranteed by both governments in the Separation Agreement in 1965, which was registered with the United Nations. Both countries have to honour the Water Agreement and the guarantee in the Separation Agreement. Any breach of the Water Agreement would also be a breach of the Separation Agreement and of international law. Singapore's position is that Malaysia has lost its right to review the water price. The Water Agreement provided for the review after 25 years. Specifically, there was a right to review the price jointly in 1987. However, Malaysia consciously chose not to review the price. It had good reasons for this. Malaysia benefits greatly from the current pricing arrangement. Johor buys 16 million gallons per day of treated water back from us at 50 cents per 1,000 gallons. Fifty cents per 1,000 gallons is only a fraction of the true cost to Singapore of treating the water, which includes building and maintaining the entire infrastructure of the water purification Page: 8 plants. Malaysian leaders have acknowledged that Malaysia benefits from the current arrangement and explained that, indeed, that was why Malaysia made a carefully considered decision not to review the water price in 1987.”
“I think it is entirely understandable that not just China but many countries will affirm their good relations with Russia, including us. But that does not prevent us from taking a specific view on any particular action. We have made our own position clear. China has not quite said what it thinks about Russian actions, but I do not think we should draw a conclusion from the fact that the President of China spoke with the President of Russia that China is either approving or condemning the specific actions in Crimea. But what it tells us is that every country understands what its interests are. Interests are permanent, friends are transient. Each country will behave according to its size and weight and what it considers to be its interest. What China is doing is obviously calculated in China's interest.”
“Yes, we see it as part of our foreign policy aims.”
“I think most Singaporeans, including the younger generation, understand the fact that we are small and the limitations that it brings. The extent of understanding may vary. I think every country faces this issue that what happens in the foreign policy space is not often understood in the domestic scene. Smaller countries have less of a problem because people can see for themselves every now and then what happens to them when Page: 150 international events and regional events impact them very directly. We just have to continue trying. I can give no better answer.”
“Thank you, Sir. The remaining 20% of the issues to be dealt with, the tariffs and coming down of the barriers, obviously are the most difficult ones. There have been intense negotiations and obviously some progress. There is goodwill on all sides, but given the differences in economic development, obviously there are some concerns amongst some of the countries about completely opening up and we are trying. Everybody recognises that come 2015, we need to make progress. We have already agreed on a post-2015 vision as well. We will have to do what we can this year and next year. There is goodwill. And we will continue trying after that. Now, what does that mean for the man in the street? When you bring down the tariff barriers, what does this represent? ASEAN has over 600 million people. Its economy, the weight of its economy, is something in excess of $2.2 trillion. That is bigger than the economy of India. Page: 149 If you look at the map of Asia, what are the big economic blocks? India, China, Japan. Everybody recognises that. Not a lot of people realise that ASEAN is a huge economy within itself. Imagine if that economy, growing at anything between 4% and 5%, a bit more, a bit less, can bring down the barriers and create a large economic community. The sum of the parts is much greater than what we would achieve individually. Freer flow of goods, services. Of course, professional services, there will always be more difficulties. But if we can get at least the goods, basic goods, basic services moving without too many barriers, that will be a tremendous achievement and it will add to the economic growth and it will yield substantial benefits for the people of ASEAN.”
“Russia responds by saying that the lawfully elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown by a coup; and Yanukovych has invited them into Ukraine to help. Russia wants to protect Russians in Ukraine; and Russia refers to American actions in Grenada in 1983. Will the Security Council take meaningful action beyond being a debating forum? Unlikely, given the vetoes that the P5 have, and Russia is one of the P5. So, what will happen hereafter? One has to assess Russian interests in Crimea. Since the 18th Century when Russia annexed Crimea, Russia has always considered its interests in Crimea to be vital. Russian actions against the Ottoman Empire, in pursuance of these Page: 131 interests, led to the Crimean War over 150 years ago. Britain and France decided to confront Russia then, through military action. Russia lost that war. If one had stepped back and considered the matter, as Ukraine was going through its protests in the last several weeks, it would have been fairly obvious that there was a significant risk of Russia moving to protect what it will consider to be its vital interest. We do not know what was or was not considered by the different parties. And we do not know what the P3 and EU plan to do next. What is obvious now is that it is, unfortunately, Ukraine and its people who have to face the consequences of all that has happened. Singapore's stand: we strongly object to any unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country under any pretext or excuse. Russian troops should not be in Ukraine in breach of international law. The sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine must be respected. International law must be respected. There can be no qualifications to this.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the hon Members for their comments. The task for MFA is to chart a course in an uncertain world: a course that best protects our country, our economy and advances our people's interests. How do we do it? Page: 130 First, build and maintain a strong international network of friends; and actively participate in international organisations which are relevant to us; support key regional organisations and platforms, like ASEAN, EAS and so on; and maintain strong relationships with our neighbours to the extent possible. I say that because it depends on principles of mutual respect for each other's sovereignty and interests. These principles have to be applied in the real world – a world in a state of dynamic flux, where geopolitical relationships change. Often, they change quickly. As we speak, yet another new crisis has been added to the international problems already facing all of us. What is happening in the Ukraine impacts on all of us at several levels. There is a potential impact on the World Economy and therefore our economy as well. Other countries will see what patterns of behaviour are possible. This is a situation of a standoff now between a big country and a small country. It offers several lessons for Singapore in real politics, international law and international relations. Russian troops are in control of parts of Ukraine. The United Nations Security Council has been debating the issue for days. Russia and the P3 have been making points against each other. The P3 point out that moving troops into another country is in gross violation of international law, and that Russia has breached a 1994 MOU that it had signed. I will refer to this MOU later.”
“Thank you, Madam, for letting me deal with this question as well. Underlying all these questions on moneylending is this: can we do something? I have tried to explain this a number of times before. If we can take care of all the moneylending issues through legislation, we would have done that long ago. It is not a question of us saying, "Okay, we impose caps on this, we do this, we do this, we do this", and the problems go away. You are then going to see them going underground and the unlicensed moneylender problem will shoot up. At the end of the day, you have a problem when people need money for whatever reason, sometimes good, sometimes bad. Then, they are desperate and they will do whatever is necessary to go and borrow the money. Page: 118 So, let us deal with that. The problem is not the law. The problem is not the lack of caps. Caps can help if it is not a real market. If it is a fixed market, and we impose caps, it can help. But if there is a real market out there and after an assessment of risks, this is the interest that has to be charged, if you impose an artificial curb, the borrower and the lender will find alternate means and they will be driven underground. We used to have a huge unlicensed moneylenders problem in the past. So, we have been imposing curbs, we have been reviewing it and the reason why we are cautious is that the real nature of the problem has to be understood. The last time round, when we introduced a whole series of curbs, there were a number of points made – some publicly in Forum letters – that this is going to drive people underground. So, it is a balance, but we have to try and protect the borrowers, and we will.”
“Mdm Chair, it is really, of course, not within our control to increase the number of countries. Each country will have to decide by itself. I think what would make a significant difference is if the EU accedes to the Choice of Court Agreements Convention that I referred to, and we too accede to this Convention, together with the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (RECJA) and the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (REFJA), I think we will get pretty good coverage. But parties will have to make an assessment of enforceability when they choose a jurisdiction. We believe that there will be enough parties who would be interested in coming, particularly because they will also take into account issues Page: 117 of enforcement when they voluntarily agree with each other to come to Singapore.”
“Parties who prefer the transparency of open Court proceedings, the availability of appeal, or are involved in multi-party or non-arbitrable disputes, may prefer SICC to conventional international and commercial arbitration. There are similar models elsewhere, including the High Court of England and Wales, which has a specialist Commercial Court in London, well known for the large number of cases which involve international parties. The Dubai International Financial Centre Courts were established to handle international commercial disputes as well. Why would a party choose SICC? Singapore is known for its commitment to the rule of law. Our judiciary is well regarded internationally for quality of judgments and efficiency. Singapore is a neutral venue in Asia and this makes us especially attractive to foreign parties involved in cross-border disputes.”
“New cases rose from 99 in 2008, to 259 in 2013 along and in tandem with a series of measures that we have taken. The total value of disputes rose to a record high of more than $6.06 billion in 2013. That exceeds the combined total of $4.93 billion for 2011 and 2012. SIAC's caseload is predominantly international. More than 80% of cases involve at least one foreign party. Establishing the SIMC and SICC will extend our success in arbitration into adjacent areas of commercial mediation and court-based commercial litigation for international cases. The idea is to provide users with an entire suite of dispute resolution services and they can choose from those which best meet their needs. Let me say something about the SIMC. Mediation is an important complement to arbitration and litigation. It allows parties to mutually arrive at mix of legal and non-legal solutions in an efficient and cost-effective manner. It is intended that SIMC will offer world-class commercial mediation services. It will also have a panel of high quality international mediators and experts, and it will provide innovative user-centric products and services. My Ministry is currently working with industry stakeholders including the Singapore Business Federation, the Singapore Academy of Law and SIAC to establish SIMC. We will put in place necessary legislation to strengthen and support the framework for mediation. We expect that the SIMC will be launched later this year. Page: 107 Now, let me turn to SICC. Similar to SIMC, SICC also aims to attract international cases which have little or no connection to Singapore.”
“Mdm, I thank Members who have given their comments. Two key themes emerge from most or several of the Members who spoke. First, developing a vibrant legal sector; and second, enhancing Singapore's legal framework to strengthen our society. On developing a vibrant legal sector, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Alvin Yeo expressed support for the establishment of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) and Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC). Let me set out the economic context. Cross-border trade and investment in Asia is growing. From 2010 to 2020, global GDP is expected to increase by 73% to over US$100 trillion by 2020. During the same time period, it is expected that Asian economies will more than triple, from US$10 trillion to US$34 trillion. The volume and complexity of cross-border disputes are expected to grow in tandem. Page: 106 Singapore's legal sector has also grown substantially. From 2008 to 2012, the nominal value-added of legal services sector grew by slightly more than 25%. The value of legal services exported from Singapore grew by more than 60%. Demand for effective and trusted dispute resolution services will continue to rise. Singapore is well-positioned to be neutral third party venue for dispute resolution in this region. We have a highly trusted and sound legal system. We started some years ago to develop international arbitration in Singapore. That has been achieving significant success. Singapore is now the third most preferred seat of arbitration, after London and Geneva. SIAC is the fourth most preferred arbitral institution worldwide. In recent years, Singapore law firms ranked amongst the top international arbitration practices in Asia. SIAC's caseload is also growing.”
“There are two avenues through which a bankrupt may be discharged. First, the High Court may discharge a bankrupt by granting him an Order of Discharge, following an application made either by the bankrupt or the Official Assignee. Second, the Official Assignee may discharge a bankrupt by issuing him a Certificate of Discharge, provided his proven debts do not exceed $500,000 and at least three years have lapsed since the commencement of his bankruptcy. In deciding whether to grant a discharge to a bankrupt, the High Court and the Official Assignee take guidance from relevant case law that has examined the issue of discharge. Some of the factors that are considered include the cause of the bankrupt's insolvency and his culpability in incurring the debts; the bankrupt's conduct prior to and during his bankruptcy; the contributions made by the bankrupt for the benefit of his creditors; and whether there are any objections by the creditors to the discharge. Page: 155”
“Thailand held elections on 2 February 2014. The announcement of the final results will take some time, since voting has not been completed. In the meantime, demonstrations continue in Bangkok and several other provinces, with occasional outbreaks of violence. Bangkok and its surrounding districts remain under a state of emergency imposed by the Thai government last month. Singapore naturally watches these developments with concern. Thailand is an important country and the second largest economy in ASEAN. It contributes actively to the building of a stable and prosperous ASEAN Community. Thus far, we have not observed significant economic disruptions resulting from the unrest in Thailand. Supply chains remain mostly in place and Singaporean companies in Thailand have not encountered major disruptions to their operations, although they reported a slight drop in overall business volumes. However, businesses also take political and security considerations into account. Prolonged unrest could affect confidence and the business environment, which, in turn, could be a setback for Thailand and even ASEAN as a whole. It is, therefore, our hope that all quarters in Thailand will be able to find a political solution and work towards the restoration of peace and order in the country so that the situation will return to normal as soon as possible. Page: 62”
“I assume the Member is directing the questions to me, not to the Minister for Defence. As regards the first question on whether the naming was a calculated act of internal politics, I think we have to take the Foreign Minister of Indonesia at his word that there was no ill will and there was no malice, which means that it was a decision taken at a professional level. What it also makes clear is that there was not enough consideration or perhaps even a substantial degree of thought given to how Singapore might perceive it, and therein lies the rub. So, I would not want to speculate on whether there were broader reasons. I will take the Foreign Minister at his word, as to what he has said. On the Member's second question whether it is an abang-adik relationship: without characterising it in those terms, I think it is not just in this region, in every part of the world, an inalienable fact of international diplomatic relationships is that every country will use every advantage it has to pursue its interests. And obviously, their size, economic weight, military might, all of these are factors that are often used in negotiations and discussions. By definition, we will always be at a disadvantage because of size. And we have overcome that disadvantage. What the episode shows in this particular instance is that since 1973/1974, as the Minister for Defence pointed out, we have built a very strong relationship with Indonesia at various levels, including the military-to-military relationship, and we have helped each other on many occasions. A strong bond and mutual trust have been built up. What this episode has shown is that, nevertheless, there was not, at the minimum, due consideration for how we might feel. As Singaporeans, we have to remember that and note that. Page: 16”
“I think what the Indonesian government, through its Foreign Minister, has said is that there was no ill will or malice. I do not think there has been an expressed statement in terms that they are not being honoured for killing Singaporeans.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. The point about bigger and smaller countries is never going to change for us. It is not a new issue. It was always there from the time we became independent. The size of others was used as a bargaining chip with us. We withstood that. In international relations and international diplomatic exchanges, the weight and the might of the participants are usually the most important factor. We have been able to hold our own, punch well above our weight simply because we have been faster, skilful and successful. If we were not successful, we would not be having this debate here. As we go forward, we must fully expect that others will progress, will indeed seek to move us and move our policies towards their direction. It is not just the region. It is beyond the region. Everyone. And to deal with that, we need to look at it at three levels. One, at the core, our defence has to be top rate. If we cannot protect ourselves, nothing else matters. Two, beyond that, we need to make sure that our regional relationships, both bilaterally as well as multilaterally through organisations like ASEAN, are strong so that we can deal with issues, diplomatically, bilaterally as well as through regional platforms which help move everyone along. Three, at the larger level, we do need, therefore, a very strong network of international partners beyond the region. We have to be successful economically, socially, in defence, all of it. That is the requirement for Singapore to survive.”
“I thank the hon Member for the question. There are some press reports about potentially some statues being put up but they remain as press reports. From our perspective, the question is this: looking at some of the comments that have come up from Indonesia – where they have said there is no ill will, there is no malice – it almost appears there is no reason to think otherwise. They had proceeded without really considering the impact on Singapore or how Singapore might view it. The fact that we have now registered our point, we have taken it up, we have said exactly how we felt, we have issued a Third Person Note, their Defence Minister has outlined what is and is not doable with the Indonesian Navy in the context of this ship, I think we have made it crystal clear where we stand, and that is achieved. The objective of making sure that it is at least in the consciousness of Indonesia that there is a certain mutuality to that relationship. Our responses have been calibrated. We take it one step at a time. We wait to see what happens as regards to the statues.”
“The warship will travel to different places, bringing painful memories wherever it goes. This is something that Singaporeans quite justifiably will find hurtful. I am sure that Page: 9 many Indonesians would feel the same way if they were in our position. Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa has said that Jakarta takes this issue "very seriously" and that there is no "ill-will" or "malice". We welcome his comments. That is a step in the right direction. I agree fully with Minister Marty's remarks that there is a need for mutual respect between Singapore and Indonesia. As we go forward, it is important for us to know that the marines are not being honoured for killing Singaporeans. It is also important that it is understood and acknowledged that the naming of the ship impacts on Singapore, especially the families of those killed and injured. A fundamental tenet of our foreign policy is that we deal with other countries – irrespective of size – as sovereign equals, based on mutual respect. Just as Indonesia expects others, including Singapore, to show sensitivity to its concerns, we too expect the same of Indonesia. We see Indonesia as an important partner of Singapore and we value their friendship and support. We have a strong bilateral partnership and also cooperate closely in ASEAN where our interests converge on many issues. We, therefore, hope that it will be possible for us to maintain and strengthen this friendship and cooperation. The naming of the ship has caused an impact. And we have stated what our position is on that issue.”
“The facts of the MacDonald House bombing are not in dispute. The two Indonesian marines, Usman and Harun, in civilian disguise, planted a bomb in MacDonald House. It was part of a campaign of terror targeted at civilians. This action was quite contrary to international law. The two marines had committed a serious crime. They were tried in the Courts in a fair trial. Their appeal went all the way up to the Privy Council in London and they were found guilty and hanged in 1968. Not many remember that Usman and Harun were not the only Indonesian saboteurs whom we arrested during the Konfrontasi. Two other marines, Stanislaus Krofan and Andres Andea, were caught and sentenced to death for the crime of carrying a bomb which exploded. Indonesia also appealed for their release. We pardoned them, because there were no deaths. In total, 45 Indonesian saboteurs were released and returned to Indonesia. But we could not pardon Usman and Harun because their crime was very serious and civilians had been killed and injured. Not pardoning Usman and Harun was a defining moment for Singapore. Had we agreed to release them, it would have set the precedent for our relationships with all bigger countries. That precedent would be that we will – or we should – do what a bigger country asks and pressures us to do, even when we have been grievously hurt. That is a different concept of sovereignty that is not good for us and which we cannot accept. The Indonesians consider Usman and Harun heroes. But for Singaporeans, in particular the victims and their families, their action was criminal, not heroic. We do not quarrel with Indonesia's sovereign right to choose their heroes. But it is quite another thing to name a warship after these two marines.”
“Thank you. Mdm Speaker, the hon Members want to know the position taken by Singapore and by Indonesia on this matter over the last two weeks. We have taken a principled stand. We have expressed our concerns directly and clearly to the Indonesian government. We have heard their response. I recently spoke at some length to the Singapore media about why we feel this way and why we take the position we are taking. Allow me to briefly set out the main points. We were surprised and disturbed to learn that the Indonesian Navy was naming a warship after the two marines, Usman and Harun. I was, in fact, in Jakarta when the news came out in the media, and spoke immediately to the Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa to convey our concerns. Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen also called and spoke to their Indonesian counterparts. We respectfully requested that Indonesia takes our concerns into account and reconsiders its decision to name the warship Usman Harun. Later, we followed up with a Third Person Note (TPN), which is a formal diplomatic note, to the Indonesian Page: 8 government to register our regret. We asked Indonesia to undertake constructive steps to minimise the damage to our relationship. In particular, we noted that both countries had considered the episode closed in May 1973 when then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew visited Indonesia and scattered flowers on the graves of the two marines. That was a gesture to close a painful chapter in bilateral relationships. The naming of the ship now reopens this issue. Why are we concerned about the naming of the warship? We have to look at what happened in 1965 and what it meant then; and what does the naming of the warship mean to us now.”
“Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I will take Question No 1 and then Minister for Defence will take Question No 2, and then we could answer the hon Members' questions.”
“The number of Magistrate's Complaints lodged in 2011, 2012 and 2013 which relate to the criminal offence of voluntarily causing hurt is 513, 880 and 943 respectively.”
“It is not in Singapore's interest in this case, and at this time, to be publicly speculating on whether China might or might not announce an ADIZ over the Spratly Islands, which is an area of contention among several countries. I would add this point China, as well as several of the countries which have commented on China's new ADIZ over the East China Sea, have strong relationships with Singapore. Page: 150 There are deep economic, as well as strategic relationships between us and all of them, including China. Thus, I would urge Members to exercise some care, and to look at the facts carefully, if and when they comment on these issues. Specific to the South China Sea, let me reiterate our position. Singapore is not a claimant state in the South China Sea dispute and does not take any position on the merits of the various territorial claims; however, we have several vital interests. We have a fundamental interest in ensuring peace and stability in the South China Sea, a vital sea line of communication for our survival. We urge all claimants to resolve their disputes in a peaceful manner, in accordance with international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). We also have a fundamental interest in upholding all states' inherent right to freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea. We hope that all parties to the Declaration of Conduct (DOC) on the South China Sea will exercise restraint and avoid taking unilateral actions that will amplify concerns and escalate tensions. ASEAN and China have begun work on a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea and we should focus on concluding the Code soon.”
“Mr Singh has asked whether Singapore’s interests are affected by China’s declaration of an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) over Page: 149 the East China Sea. Every country has the right to establish ADIZs. ADIZs are not uncommon. Besides China, the US, Japan and some ASEAN countries have also established ADIZs. The East China Sea ADIZ announced by PRC overlaps with ADIZs which had been declared by Japan and South Korea. This overlapping of ADIZs could cause some complications. Singapore is a major aviation hub. Changi Airport is connected to the Northeast Asia region and beyond. Our primary concern is with the freedom of overflight and safety of airliners, in accordance with international law and regulations. For example, given the overlapping ADIZs, what will happen, if pilots are given conflicting instructions by two control centres? The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has sought clarification from the Chinese authorities on the implementation of the East China Sea ADIZ. Likewise, Singapore has also sought clarification from China on what it means for civil aviation. The other aspect is regional stability. China's ADIZ is part of a series of actions and counter-actions taken by different parties over many months that have increased tensions in the region and, in this instance, in an airspace that has busy commercial airways. There is not much point debating who started it or which party is right or wrong. It is more important to ensure that all the parties concerned work together to lower tensions and enhance mutual trust and cooperation. With regard to the second part of Mr Singh's question, it is a hypothetical question.”
“Sections 13A to 13D of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act ("MOA") criminalise acts that constitute harassment. Acts of harassment may also be offences under other legislation such as the Penal Code, Women’s Charter, and Moneylenders Act. In terms of civil remedies, it might be possible to make a claim based on the common law tort of harassment. The High Court's earlier decision in Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram and another v Mehta Naresh Kumar [2001] Page: 142 3 SLR(R) 379 implied that there was such a cause of action. However, a recent High Court decision queried the existence of this tort in AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd v Chandran s/o Natesan [2013] 4 SLR 545. An inter-Ministry group has been reviewing the laws against harassment and related antisocial behaviour, including cyberbullying, because the trends are worrying. A recent Microsoft Study in 2012 on bullying among youth aged eight to 17 worldwide in which 25 countries were surveyed found that bullying was particularly pervasive in six countries, including Singapore. Eighty-six percent of those surveyed had experienced bullying online, offline or both. The survey also indicated that Singapore had the second highest rate of online bullying of youths (58%), behind only China (70%). At a conference organised by the Institute of Policy Studies to discuss the problem of harassment in November 2013, proposals to strengthen our laws were discussed. Based on the feedback, the Government's present thinking is to build on the existing legal framework to provide a ladder of remedies to tackle the broad spectrum of harassing acts and related anti-social behaviour. We will give more details in due course.”
“Mdm Speaker, perhaps, then, could I ask Mr Singh to re-file the question because we had prepared the answer on the basis that it meant what it said, which is ADIZ over the South China Sea.”
“The Singapore Statutes Online (SSO) is maintained in-house by a dedicated unit within the Attorney General's Chambers. Generally speaking, new content is updated within three working days. As for repealed legislation and past versions of current legislation, these are already available to subscribers of LAWNET, which is a service provided by the Singapore Academy of Law. Past Government Gazettes are also available on the eGazette website on subscription. There are contractual arrangements between the Government (MCI) and the Government Printer which entitle the Government Printer to charge a subscription as consideration for maintaining the eGazette website at their own cost. Page: 132”
“The Public Trustee's Office has, in the last few years, received an average of 4,500 applications per year to claim un-nominated CPF monies belonging to deceased persons. From 2008 to September 2013, there were a total of 26,006 such applications. The Public Trustee's Office has, since FY2011, targeted to pay out the un-nominated CPF monies within four weeks from the date on which all documents verifying the beneficiaries' entitlement are received and has been tracking that benchmark. The Public Trustee's Office has met this target for more than 95% of the cases since then. As soon as the Public Trustee receives the un-nominated monies from the CPF Board, a letter will be sent out to notify the next-of-kin and provide information on how to make a claim as well as the list of documents required. Applications to claim un-nominated CPF monies may be made online or at the Public Trustee's Office. The Public Trustee's Office also maintains an online portal which provides information for next-of-kin and a guide to assist Page: 190 applicants in making the application. Those who need further assistance may also engage the services of e-helpers.”
“The bombing incidents which resulted in casualties were deplorable. Myanmar is fully aware of its role and responsibilities as ASEAN Chair in 2014. Myanmar has commenced early and extensive preparations for its ASEAN chairmanship. It understands that the security of all visitors is a top priority of the Myanmar Government. Singapore will continue to support Myanmar's chairmanship and assist in whatever way we can. We have full confidence in the Myanmar Government's seriousness and ability in ensuring the security of its citizens and visitors. We are working closely with other ASEAN member states to ensure that Myanmar's ASEAN chairmanship will be a success.”
“This is a serious issue which impacts on the national security of countries. We have seen the media reports and are following developments closely. However, we will not comment on media reports that we are unable to verify the facts and could be speculative. Nevertheless, MFA has been informed by our security agencies that we continue to keep a close watch on any development that may have security implications for Singapore and we will take appropriate action as needed. Page: 143”
“As of 1 October 2013, there are 201 pawnshops in Singapore. Over the past five years, the number of pawnshops has increased from 114 in 2008 to 191 in 2012, giving an increase of 77 pawnshops during this period. Pawnbroking loans are essentially secured loans. Under the law, pawnbrokers are allowed to charge an interest rate of no more than 1.5% per month. The majority of consumer loans in Singapore are issued by banks and finance companies. Overall, the amount of pawnbroking loans constitutes around 3% of the amount of consumer loans issued by banks and finance companies. The total amount of pawnbroking loans granted this year, as at 31 August 2013, is about $3.7 billion. Such loans include loans that are refinanced using the same collateral. Typically, around 95% of pledges are redeemed by pawners. Page: 128”
“The Ministry has regular chats with the foreign law firms, as well as Singapore law firms. The conditions under which they can practise are made quite clear in the documentation that is given to the law firms. These are also on our website. Equally, for example, when a firm is awarded a licence to operate as a QFLP, the terms and framework within which it can practise as such are clearly set out. Likewise, when a firm enters into an FLA, that framework is also set out. The Attorney-General has the right to ask questions where we believe that some questions need to be asked. On the whole, from what we can tell, the law firms appear to have been complying. Where we have noticed a transgression, or what appears to be a transgression or an inaccurate or misleading statement, we will certainly call them up. In this case, the hon Member has filed a question. I am sure the firms involved will take careful note of what I have said.”
“However, strict conditions continue to be imposed vis-a-vis the practice of Singapore law. Specific areas of domestic law work, such as litigation, criminal law, family law and conveyancing, are "ring-fenced" and can only be handled by Singapore law firms, through lawyers called to the Singapore Bar. In these areas of law practice, the SLP must use its own letterhead and file court papers in its own name. These areas remain, and must remain the province of Singapore lawyers and Singapore law firms. My senior officials have called in the partners of Clifford Chance and the local law firm, Cavenagh Law, and told them that their statements conveyed an inaccurate picture and should be stopped. SLPs and FLPs which have entered into FLAs with each other must exercise restraint in their publicity and refrain from overstating the facts. Their representations to the public and media should be clear as to what their FLA is and is not. I think clever word play should be avoided. We will also not condone arrangements where the SLP is, for all intents and purposes, a proxy of the FLP. Page: 40 All collaborations must comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the law.”
“I think the Member's question may have been prompted by a recent article in the Legal Business magazine, published on 8 July 2013. It quoted a partner of Clifford Chance as saying that it is "the first full service firm in Singapore offering litigation advice". A similar statement was repeated in an 8 July 2013 press release by that firm. Page: 39 This, and an earlier 11 December 2012 press release, promoted the firm's Formal Law Alliance (FLA) with a Singapore law practice, Cavenagh Law, as "the first international firm with a full service, integrated law practice in Singapore". The statements could be read to mean that a foreign law firm can now practise litigation in Singapore. That would not be accurate. Singapore Law Practices (SLPs) and Foreign Law Practices (FLPs) based in Singapore may collaborate as two free-standing firms under an FLA. This enables co-branding and billing, and the sharing of office premises, resources and client information. In addition, partners of the firms within an FLA may, subject to the Attorney-General's approval, hold concurrent partnerships in the SLP and FLP. However, foreign participation in the SLP is subject to an overall one-third cap. In addition, both firms should remain separate and distinct entities, and may only provide such legal services as they are respectively permitted to provide. The legal services sector operates in a global and increasingly competitive market. Our recent changes over the last few years have been beneficial to our economy and to our legal sector which have grown quite well. It gives Singapore firms greater flexibility to collaborate with FLPs to enhance their international competitiveness and grow. It also gives Singapore lawyers access to a greater range of opportunities and work.”
“The number of undischarged bankrupts for each year from 2007 to 2012 aged (i) 45-55 years; (ii) 56-65 years; and (iii) over 65 years, are provided in the tables below respectively. A breakdown in percentages for the three causes of insolvency that the Member enquired on, is set out in the tables below for the years 2007 to 2012. This is based on information declared to the Official Assignee by the bankrupts. A bankrupt may declare more than one cause of insolvency. In addition, the category titled "income not matching expenditure" in the three tables consists of bankrupts who have declared "overspending" and/or "low income" as causes of insolvency. Other causes of insolvency include ill health, liability as a guarantor for a debt, inability to pay a judgment sum ordered by a court in Page: 127 criminal or civil proceedings, and gambling. Page: 128”
“What was expected by the US Administration, and which is also our own expectation, is that this matter be dealt with transparently and in accordance with the rule of law, and that we do everything to get to the truth. This has been done and, as such, we do not expect that this incident should have any bearing on our good relations with the US. Prime Minister Lee had a good visit to the US in April, where he had useful discussions with President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and other leaders within the US Administration on bilateral cooperation and developments in the region. We were also pleased to welcome Vice President Biden to Singapore last month, where he had good meetings with the President, Prime Minister and former Minister Mentor Mr Lee Kuan Yew. This exchange of visits at the highest level is a strong reflection of the Page: 165 state of our bilateral relationship with the US.”
“However, we must understand that the US has its own unique political culture which imposes its own demands on its legislators. The US Senate has since passed the Continuing Resolution without the Senators' amendment. Members will draw their own conclusions from this. With regard to the Member's question on US funding received by IME, IME is a national research institute funded by and under the purview of A*STAR. It receives about S$53 million of research funding annually from A*STAR. In addition, the institute receives another S$10 million annually in funding through joint project collaborations with industry and other research organisations. Over the last five years, IME received a total of just under S$875,000 of research funding from US government sources. The funding IME received from the US entities was for research collaborations conducted with them. In summary, the Singapore Government made every effort to be open and cooperative, which the US Administration appreciates. Following the delivery of the Coroner's findings, the US Embassy released a statement on 8 July 2013 describing the Coroner's Inquiry as "comprehensive, fair and transparent". We have to understand that the American political system is such that its Congressmen often have to take steps like those taken in this matter. We are, however, not a country that bows to external pressure or media reports as our long track record has shown. The US Administration knows well that Singapore has a longstanding, open and strong relationship with the US based on shared interests and mutually beneficial cooperation in many areas, including economic, defence and security. We do not believe that the US Administration would jeopardise this strong relationship on the basis of inaccurate allegations.”
“Members may wish to know that Mr Bonner also left the inquiry prematurely, soon after the parents had walked out. Given the serious allegations about illegal transfers of US technology to the Chinese company Huawei, we also made the offer to host a US team to conduct a process audit at IME for the US to satisfy itself that we take the protection of intellectual property rights very seriously. The audit has been conducted. We have not received any follow-up questions from the US so far. I had met with the Montana Senator Max Baucus during my visit to Washington DC and conveyed the same assurances and offers as I did to Secretary Kerry and US Attorney-General Holder. I informed Senator Baucus that the Todd family would be invited to attend the Coroner's Inquiry during which they could question the witnesses as well as the investigative findings and forensic reports. I also pointed out that Dr Todd was involved in only one minor project with Huawei which did not involve Gallium Nitride – the substance which has fuelled the wild media speculation on the nature of IME's work with Huawei. The value of the nine-month project was less than S$15,000, and Dr Todd's actual involvement in this project was only over a few days. While IME did discuss a possible project with Huawei involving Gallium Nitride, this project never materialised. Senator Baucus did not inform me during the meeting of his intention, together with Senator Jon Tester, to table the Amendment to the Continuing Resolution which will block US funding to IME. In view of the assurance I had Page: 164 already given, and Singapore's long track record of taking our public commitments seriously, we were, of course, deeply disappointed when we learnt of it. We gave our response on 17 March 2013.”
“We were always clear, however, that the FBI had no power to intervene in the investigations, which were strictly under the purview of the Singapore Police Force. US Secretary of State John Kerry and US Attorney-General Eric Holder both understood that the FBI had no jurisdiction over investigations in Singapore. They, therefore, appreciated the extra steps that our Police had taken to share the evidence and their investigative findings with the FBI. Page: 163 One of the features of this case was that there was intense media speculation even before the inquiry had begun. On 15 February 2013, an article was published in the London edition of the Financial Times entitled "Death in Singapore", written by Raymond Bonner and Christine Spolar. In that article, the authors made wide-ranging claims against Dr Todd's employer, the Institute of Microelectronics (IME). These claims were based on unsubstantiated speculation and impugned the integrity and efficacy of the Singapore Police Force. Our authorities chose not to respond to the various allegations made prior to the Inquiry, as they recognised that the truth could only be arrived at through a careful examination of the evidence, and not through speculation and sensationalist reporting. Dr Todd's family participated in the inquiry and had the opportunity to raise their concerns. However, as Members know, they walked out of the inquiry after their key witness Dr Edward Adelstein changed his original testimony and confirmed that Dr Todd was not killed by garrotting. Even though the family walked out of the inquiry, their written statements were presented to court in their absence and the issues they raised were comprehensively dealt with by the Coroner in his written findings.”
“A public Coroner's Inquiry was held, as required by law, in May, June and July this year. A total of 74 witnesses gave evidence. The Coroner found that there was no foul play involved in Dr Todd's death and that he had committed suicide by hanging. Our Police and the FBI have a longstanding, open and cooperative relationship. This extended to the investigation into Dr Todd's death. Both sides engaged constructively in this matter, and were committed to ensuring that the investigation was thorough and all relevant evidence was made available during the Coroner's Inquiry. The Police shared their investigation findings with the FBI, and sought their assistance in respect of some matters falling within the jurisdiction of the United States. They worked with the FBI to obtain the Todd family's cooperation and assistance in the investigations. One example of how the FBI assisted was with regard to the hard-disk drive which Mr and Mrs Todd claimed to have found in Dr Todd's apartment. This was a central claim in their homicide theory. Mr and Mrs Todd claimed that they found the hard-disk drive in Dr Todd's apartment, and that it had been accessed by an unknown third party who had deleted a particular file. This was not true. The Singapore Police Investigation Officer found the hard-disk drive. He gave it to Mrs Todd after checking its contents. The Investigation Officer had accessed the hard-disk drive and not some unknown third party. The FBI gave a report which confirmed what the Singapore Police said. The discussions between the Police and the FBI were acknowledged as being "productive and forthright" by the US Embassy in its press statement on 21 March 2013.”
“Civil proceedings can be brought by any person in charge of managing the deceased's estate against the errant driver for compensation.”
“Fatal road accidents can give rise to both criminal and civil liability. Criminal prosecutions are under the purview of the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). Where police investigations reveal that a traffic fatality resulted from criminal conduct, the AGC may prosecute the errant driver. Such charges are usually brought either under section 66 of the Road Traffic Act for dangerous driving causing death or section 304A of the Penal Code for causing death by a rash or a negligent act. The maximum penalties for these offences are a fine, or an imprisonment term of up to five years, or both. Disqualification orders prohibiting the offender from holding or obtaining a driving licence may also be imposed. The Member's question refers to a situation when criminal proceedings have been brought by the state and a sentence has been imposed by the Court. The question posed is whether in this situation, the law allows families of fatal road accident victims to pursue further proceedings and appeal against the sentence imposed by the Court. Page: 128 With regard to criminal proceedings, as the prosecution is by the state, the decision as to whether or not to pursue the matter further or to appeal lies with the state. Where the sentence is manifestly inadequate, the prosecution will appeal against it. The Public Prosecutor's decision is made objectively, taking into account the severity of the offence and the consequences, the impact on the victim, as well as the broader public interest. The victim's family would not be in a position to appeal against the sentence in such criminal proceedings. However, if the family has concerns, the family may raise them to AGC, which will consider all relevant factors in deciding whether to appeal.”
“I thank Mr Desmond Lee for his comments on the amendments which the Bill makes to the Evidence Act and Legitimacy Act. Sir, I would conclude by thanking the hon Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. Once again, thank you.”