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 78 of 92.
“For example, Queensland's Status of Children Act takes an even broader approach. This Act applies to all persons whether or not born in Queensland; and whether or not a person's father or mother has ever been domiciled in Queensland. In contrast, the Bill here applies Page: 100 where there is a substantial nexus between the parties and Singapore. That ensures that the right persons are protected whilst precluding application of the Bill to persons with no connection to Singapore. Mr Desmond Lee queried what group of persons clause 3(1)(b)(v) of the Bill is intended to encompass, since clause 3(1)(b)(ii) and (iii) provide for husbands and "de facto partners" respectively. Clause 3(1)(b)(v) is meant to address situations where there is an ART mix-up involving a person domiciled in Singapore, who does not fall within the other limbs under clause 3(1)(b). For example, there is a Singapore-domiciled husband and his foreign wife, Mr and Mrs A, and the fertilisation procedure is in Singapore. An ART mix-up occurs and Mrs A's eggs are wrongly implanted in a foreign woman, Mrs B, who is undergoing fertility treatment with her foreign husband, Mr B, in Singapore. Under such a situation, clause 3(1)(b)(i) to (iii) will not apply because the gestational mother and her husband, that is, Mr and Mrs B, are not domiciled in Singapore. Clause 3(1)(b)(iv) will also not apply because Mrs A is not domiciled in Singapore. However, clause 3(1)(b)(v) will extend the application of the Bill to Mr and Mrs A. So, we try to think of different situations. Ms Ellen Lee's suggestions on increasing public education for ART and child-rearing, in general, we welcome that. We will inform MOH of her suggestions.”
“Mr Dhinakaran suggested refining the definition of "de facto partner" to include a condition of parties being in a "live-in relationship" at the time of the fertilisation procedure. The Bill requires the "de facto partner" to be "living in a relationship [with the gestational mother] as if he were her spouse". So, really, it is a quasi-spousal relationship that entails living together. Again, we prefer not to be prescriptive about this. We take a broader approach in terms of timing. A sperm donor who becomes a "de facto partner" subsequent to the fertilisation procedure could also apply to be declared father of the child. Assoc Prof Eugene Tan commented that the Bill has limited scope. I said so in my Second Reading speech. The Bill focuses on a narrow and technical area. Its approach is to give more certainty on how the parenthood is to be determined. On the issue of extraterritoriality, both Assoc Prof Eugene Tan and Mr Hri Kumar Nair are concerned about the applicability of the Bill where "foreign" elements were involved in the ART process. The Bill applies where the fertilisation procedure is carried out overseas but the child is born in Singapore. Under clause 3, the fertilisation procedure need not be carried out in Singapore. I have outlined the situations where the Bill will apply in my earlier speech. Even if those conditions are satisfied, under common law, a Singapore Court may refuse to hear a case if it is more appropriate for the case to be heard elsewhere. Every court has to determine which is the most appropriate forum and applicable law under common law principles. It is no different here. Choice of law issues is a feature of legislation in other jurisdictions which deal with the status of ART children.”
“Clause 10(7) provides that the welfare and best interests of the child is the first and paramount consideration of the Court in its determination of parenthood. And under clause 10(7), the Court can consider "any other relevant matter". This can include the views of other persons. Mr Dhinakaran called for "good-will by non-biological parent" to be included as a factor. The list of factors under clause 10 is not exhaustive. "Goodwill by non-biological parent" can be considered under the existing clause 10 factors. Now, the factors that can be considered are, namely, the bond which has developed between the child and non-biological parent; the ability of the non-biological parent to provide for the child's needs; and as an additional factor the Court deems relevant. So, the list of factors is broad enough. Mr Desmond Lee suggested that in ART mix-ups, we should introduce a "cut-off" time for all interested persons seeking to make an application for a Page: 99 Court declaration of parenthood when the child at the centre of the mix-up reaches a certain age, for example, 21 years. And after that age, only the child may make an application. Again, the approach we have taken is that the welfare and the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration. While that is so, the Bill is also about the rights and obligations of potential parents. It is in the interest of greater certainty vis-a-vis parental obligations and maintenance, inheritance and succession rights to allow applications and contests of parenthood after the child becomes an adult. Also, the age of the child and the fact that the child may be an adult are relevant factors that the Court can consider when hearing an application in an ART mix-up situation. That is the approach we have taken.”
“I prefer not to limit the Court's discretion by laying down fairly prescriptive rules as to what course of conduct will or will not amount to acceptance. An Page: 98 example of acceptance will include the man taking care of the child, paying for maintenance, upbringing and so on. Turning to applications for Court declarations of parenthood, Mr Hri Kumar Nair's point was that the scope for making an application for a Court declaration of parenthood under clause 10(3) of the Bill is wider than the scope for contesting the application under clause 10(6) of the Bill. Someone with an interest in the well-being of the child, but who is not seeking to be treated as a parent, for example, an older sibling or a grandparent, will not be able to contest an application because that is limited to those who can be parents. Clause 10(3) is intended to cover situations where potential candidates for parents cannot or do not wish to apply for a Court declaration of parenthood. In such cases, third parties are given the standing to apply to Court to determine the parenthood of the child as it is in the best interests of the child that parenthood is determined. For example, if all the potential candidates for parents have passed away, and there is an estate and you need to determine whether the child is a beneficiary, you might allow someone else like a trustee to apply to Court in order to determine the parenthood so that you know what the child is or is not entitled to. A different situation applies when there is already an application for declaration of parenthood under clause 10(6). The views of other persons who have an interest in the well-being of the child can still be heard, but not as parties or contestants to the application.”
“Such a gentleman will be in the same position as a man who marries a woman with naturally conceived children from previous relationships. So, he will be the step-father. We need to be clear as to what the Bill seeks to cover. The Bill does not seek to address the legality of egg-freezing. Members, including Ms Tan, may have broader issues but those have to be conveyed to MOH. As regards Ms Tan's comment on "reproductive tourism", again, insofar as it touches on surrogacy and its legality, you have my answers. We recognise that the Bill has got to be forward-looking. The Bill is technology neutral. It focuses on key principles rather than technical definitions and recognises that as social consensus changes, the laws have to change and adapt, insofar as it is within my Ministry's purview. Assoc Prof Eugene Tan questioned whether consent can be withdrawn after the fertilisation procedure and before the child was born. Consent cannot be withdrawn. If you look at clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill, consent must be given "at the time the fertilisation procedure was carried out". Mr Hri Kumar Nair asked what conduct or actions constitute acceptance. The lawyer's answer is that acceptance has to be inferred through a "course of conduct". Now, Mr Nair knows that "course of conduct" has come up before the Courts on several occasions. It is neither useful nor right for me to try and define what amounts to a "course of conduct", for instance, whether it is a single act, or multiple acts, or a series of acts. We ought to leave this determination to the Court, because the primary factor is the welfare and best interests of the child. However, acceptance by the father or intended father must be with the knowledge that the child is not genetically his.”
“It has also been raised with them before. As Assoc Prof Eugene Tan pointed out, the real point of this Bill is to make sure that children who are conceived through the ART process are not left in a legal limbo. The gestational mother would be treated in law as the legal mother. The husband or "de facto partner" may be treated as the father if the conditions that are set out in the Bill are satisfied. It is also open to the couple to adopt the children. Ms Tan Su Shan gave examples of possible areas where the Bill may have gaps. She spoke about egg-freezing by women who may wish to have the option to conceive later. She also asked if stored embryos from married couples, where the husband unfortunately passes away, may be used in Singapore. This Bill does not seek to deal with the rights over stored embryos. It is not within this framework. Medical related matters, including procedures and practices provided by AR centres, are also under MOH's purview. MOH has certain licensing terms and conditions. AR centres are required to obtain written instructions from married couples on the use of unused embryos Page: 97 in the event of death of a spouse. There is no legislation on the legal status of embryos. As regards to the use of eggs which were frozen overseas for later use, on the assumption that the subsequent embryo is subsequently implanted into the woman herself, the woman is the legal mother, as she is the gestational mother. If she had a husband or "de factor partner" at the time of the fertilisation procedure, he can be the legal father if the conditions stated in the Bill are satisfied. If the husband or "de facto partner" became so only after the time of fertilisation, he will not be entitled to be the legal father.”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Members for their suggestions and comments. First, let me turn to the genesis of the Bill and IVF mix-ups. Ms Tan Su Shan made a few comments on the Bill being finally here and the reasons for that. The main reason for the Bill being introduced is the growing number of children conceived as a result of ART. Possible reform in this area was studied since early 2010, before the Thomson Medical Centre's IVF mix-up. In the course of the last two and a half years or so, we had also considered the Law Reform Page: 96 Committee's 1997 Report extensively. As regards the ART processes, we accept Mr Desmond Lee's comment that we need stringent regulations and rigorous safeguards. It is important to uphold the integrity of the ART process. The existing safeguards are in the licensing terms and conditions (LTCs) which MOH issues under the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act. The LTCs set out the requirements on laboratory procedures to ensure identification of patients and specimens at every critical step of the ART procedure. All ART centres must comply with these standards. MOH regularly conducts audits to ensure compliance. Turning now to parenthood, Ms Tan Su Shan advocated intention-based parenthood. While she did not specifically say as such, I think in essence, this would lead to an argument for surrogacy, because the natural conclusion of her suggestion is that an ART child would be regarded as the child of the commissioning couple if all the parties involved so intended. As I have said in my Second Reading speech, this Bill is a technical one dealing with the parenthood of children born through the ART process. It is not intended through this Bill to address the larger question of surrogacy. That is an issue within the purview of MOH.”
“This enables relevant scientific evidence, for example, DNA evidence, to be produced before a Court to displace the presumption of paternity under that section. If you turn to the Legitimacy Act, clause 17 amends section 3(1) of the Legitimacy Act. This was a suggestion of the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) Law Reform Committee. Previously, an illegitimate child whose father is domiciled in Singapore at the date of marriage can be legitimised by the subsequent marriage of his parents. Now, this rule is extended to children whose mothers are domiciled in Singapore at the date of marriage. The effect is legitimation of the child where either the father or mother has a strong connection to Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 5.11 pm”
“If the gestational mother subsequently marries her de facto partner after the ART treatment, the rules on legal fatherhood pertaining to husbands under clause 7 will also apply. Page: 79 As for the position of gamete donors, clause 5 dissociates parenthood from biological descent. Sperm or egg donors are not to be automatically treated as parents of the child except as provided for by the Bill. Let me now turn to the legal parenthood and status of children conceived as a result of an ART mix-up. The wrong egg, sperm or embryo used in the fertilisation procedure as a result of mistake, negligence, recklessness or fraud could take place. The Bill sets out the default position to ensure certainty, in the interests of the child. Absent an application to Court, legal parenthood would be determined as if the mix-up had not taken place. But any interested party – for example, the other sets of parents in the mix-up – can apply to Court for a declaration that he or she be declared as the parent of the child. This particular provision is unique to Singapore. Through this, we seek to achieve two objectives: (a) ensure that the child will not be left parentless if no one wants to take care of the child after discovery of the mix-up; and (b) give the Court flexibility to declare parenthood where a different result would be in the best interests of the child. We also seek to make amendments to the Evidence Act and Legitimacy Act. These are relevant to all children, whether conceived naturally or through ART. Let me turn, first, to the Evidence Act. Amendments to the Evidence Act will modernise our laws relating to evidence of paternity. Clause16 repeals and re-enacts section 114 of the Evidence Act.”
“The gestational or birth mother will be treated in law as the mother of the child. Clauses 7 and 8 govern legal fatherhood. The Bill provides for several broad scenarios. Clause 7 deals with the situation where the gestational mother is married. The gestational mother's husband will be regarded as the legal father of the child where the husband is: (a) the genetic father of the child; (b) not the genetic father, but had consented to the ART procedure. Consent is presumed unless the contrary is proven; or (c) not the genetic father, did not consent to the ART procedure, but accepted the child as a child of the marriage, knowing that the child is genetically not his. Clause 8 deals with the situation where the gestational mother is in a relationship with a man, as if he were her spouse. The Bill terms this man her "de facto partner". In such cases, legal fatherhood is premised on a court declaration of parenthood, not the operation of law. The "de facto partner" will not be treated as the legal father of the child, unless an application is made to the Court, and the Court so declares under clause 8. The circumstances under which such Court declarations may be made are similar to those governing the legal fatherhood relating to husbands under clause 7. In terms of what the Court has to consider, the welfare and best interests of the child is the Court's primary consideration when exercising its discretion. Clause 10 sets out a list of factors which the Court may have regard to when considering what is in the welfare and best interests of the child. These include the child's wishes and the bond developed between the child and any of the parties to the proceedings.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill deals with the legal parenthood and status of children conceived through assisted reproduction technology, or ART. This is now being introduced because of the increased use of ART treatment in Singapore. We have been studying possible legislation in this area. We consulted the public last November on a draft Bill. That followed earlier consultation with family law experts and religious groups in 2011. We studied the Law Reform Committee's 1997 Report on the status of children conceived through ART. We also looked at and discussed the legal position and practices of other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Having undertaken this review of the legal and socio-cultural issues, both locally as well as abroad, we settled on a new legislative regime which embraces the unique realities of families and children in Singapore. The Bill really represents the culmination of these efforts. It attempts to do three things: (a) clarify the legal parenthood and status of children conceived through ART; (b) clarify the legal parenthood and status of children conceived where the wrong egg, sperm or embryo was used in the fertilisation procedure; Page: 78 and (c) modernise laws relating to legitimacy and evidence of paternity. The Bill does not go into or seek to regulate the provision of ART services in Singapore. Neither does it seek to deal with surrogacy issues. These will continue to be regulated by MOH. I will now take the House through the main provisions of the Bill. The premise of the Bill is that a child conceived through ART should have at least one legal parent. The status of legal motherhood is governed by clause 6.”
“These allegations of Police brutality ought to have been raised by the drivers or their lawyers in court. They did not do so. In any event, after a full investigation, the IAO concluded that the allegations were not substantiated. The AGC agreed with this conclusion. The drivers themselves also subsequently retracted their statements. Their allegations were baseless. Page: 109”
“Ms Lee requested to first copy some of her work from the hard drive. The officers agreed to this. After copying her Page: 108 work, Ms Lee delivered up the hard drive to the officers. On 7 February 2013, the Police approached Ms Lee again and sought her further assistance for access to her laptop and mobile phone. They did not request for her desktop. Ms Lee's lawyer agreed with AGC that her equipment would be examined in her presence. The examination was done later that day. The items were not seized. The hard drive was returned to Ms Lee after the investigations were completed. The laptop and mobile phone were not seized, as I have explained. The videos, which were publicly available, alleged Police brutality. As explained earlier, the voluntariness of the confessions would have been an important question which would have been for the trial judge alone to determine, based on evidence properly introduced in court. I should add that AGC has stated that this was an interference with the administration of justice. Consider if the reverse had happened, and third parties had posted a video online alleging the guilt of the drivers. This would have been equally wrong. Everyone accused of a crime is entitled to a fair hearing. We cannot allow a public airing on questions of guilt and innocence, while the trial is on-going. Consider a case where an accused is alleged to have molested someone. How would we as a society react if someone were to post a video alleging that the accused was a serial molester, and goes into the facts of the case which is in court? This is why we require all relevant allegations to be made in court. It is improper to make them outside, while proceedings are on-going, as such allegations may interfere with the administration of justice.”
“The four former SMRT drivers were charged in November 2012 for the offence of engaging in a conspiracy to instigate other drivers to take part in an illegal strike. All four drivers were represented by lawyers and pleaded guilty to the charges on 25 February 2013. On 28 January 2013, while proceedings were on-going, two videos were uploaded on a website administered by Ms Lee Seng Lynn. In these videos, two of the drivers had alleged that they had been physically assaulted by the Police in the course of investigations. The videos were posted for viewing by the public while, as stated earlier, the criminal proceedings were on-going. The allegations in the video were also widely reported in the mainstream media. These were serious allegations. The truth or otherwise of the allegations would have been relevant in deciding, at the trial, whether the drivers' confessions were made voluntarily. That, in turn, could have related quite directly to the criminal proceedings themselves. The allegations thus had to be investigated quickly. The allegations also raised the possibility of a disciplinary offence under section 40 of the Police Force Act. Police officers from the Internal Affairs Office (IAO) were tasked to conduct the investigations. They have the power to secure all relevant evidence under section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Ms Lee's equipment was relevant to verify, among other things, the authenticity of the videos, and may potentially have had to be produced in court. Ms Lee herself was also a relevant witness. On 5 February 2013, in exercise of their investigative powers, the IAO officers sought Ms Lee's cooperation to hand over her external hard drive containing interview footage of the drivers.”
“According to Malaysia's Ministry of International Trade and Industry Report 2012, their economy has performed well over the last year and is expected to achieve a GDP growth of between 5% to 6% this year. The good investment prospects and positive economic outlook will continue to Page: 104 encourage investor interest in Malaysia, including from Singapore. Developments have also kept apace in IM. According to the Iskandar Regional Development Authority (IRDA), IM has exceeded its initial investment targets and, as at March 2013, attracted RM111.37 billion in investment commitments since its launch in 2006. The close proximity between Singapore and IM allows investors to leverage the comparative strengths of each location as part of an integrated value chain. Singapore is the top foreign investor in IM and our investments account for over 15% of IM's total foreign investment in sectors, such as education and healthcare services, manufacturing and property.”
“The Malaysian General Election returned the Barisan Nasional to the Federal Government. Prime Minister Najib Razak can be expected to now push ahead with his transformation plans for Malaysia. We have made significant progress in strengthening our bilateral ties with Malaysia under Prime Minister Najib. Both sides have also taken a constructive approach to dealing with issues. The resolution of the Points of Agreement in 2011 was a milestone event and a turning point in the relationship. It showed that Singapore and Malaysia could resolve difficult bilateral issues amicably and to our mutual benefit. It also set a firm foundation to enhance our cooperation and work on long-term plans together. As we deepen cooperation over a broad range of areas, this will give Singapore and Malaysia greater stakes in each other's prosperity and success. Our joint projects in Iskandar Malaysia (IM) and in Singapore are progressing well. Other projects, such as the High Speed Rail (HSR) Link announced at the Leaders' Retreat in February 2013 and the Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link, will significantly enhance connectivity, as well as boost economic and people-to-people ties. The Iskandar Malaysia Joint Ministerial Committee (JMC) has been tasked to look into the details and modalities of the HSR link. We welcome further details of Malaysia's feasibility study for the HSR Link and look forward to continuing discussions with the Malaysians. Economic relations have grown from strength to strength. Singapore has traditionally been one of the largest investors in Malaysia. Our foreign direct investments (FDI) into Malaysia have grown from a stock of S$18.3 billion in 2006 to S$34.3 billion in 20112.”
“If steps have not been done, it will also be obvious. Let us take it step by step. This is something that Minister Vivian has also been trying to do through the Ministerial Steering Committee on Transboundary Haze Pollution. How effective? How much we can achieve? Mr Low and Members understand what is achievable and what sometimes is not.”
“Thank you, Mr Low. I did not say that raising it at the United Nations is not an option. I have expressly said that we have not ruled anything out nor have we ruled anything in. I am on record at least three times saying that. What I have said is we have a number of options available at the United Nations. I will be going up to the United Nations General Assembly in September. There are other occasions. What we have wanted to avoid is upfront stating that we will do this and we will do this and we will do this, because (a) it curtails our options; and (b) I think it increases tensions. As Members will know, the Indonesian President, in a very statesman-like gesture, made an apology and then faced pressure within his own country for having apologised. What we want to avoid is creating a situation where, for political reasons, parties or people within Indonesia then take a position to say, Singapore is threatening us and, therefore, we must react and, therefore, we must not do what they ask. I think we can very quickly get into those sorts of dynamics. International relations have to be handled delicately. Singaporeans' interests are primary. We will take that as our primary goal. Where we raise it, when we raise it, how we raise it, whether issues of international law get involved, we have worked out the options. But I do not think it is very fruitful to come out and talk about them in great detail. It will create more tension. What is most important is to see the current very good arrangement that we have managed to get at the last ASEAN Ministerial Meeting because we agreed on a trilateral process, we agreed that actions taken by countries must be reported to the Leaders. That requires every country to report to the entire ASEAN Leadership what they have done.”
“I would like to point out that we have brought forward the Sub-Regional Ministerial Steering Committee on Transboundary Haze Pollution. As I indicated in my answer to Ms Ng, there is also an agreement that every country will report at the next ASEAN Leaders' Meeting and regularly on what steps have been taken to deal with the problem. I have talked about the Trilateral Cooperative Process between Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, where we have agreed that agencies and experts will come together to try and see what can be done. So, these are the things that are within our power to agree on. Internationally, we have put these together, and got agreements at short notice. We will see how it proceeds.”
“As I have said in answer to your first question, we will consider all options, depending on the situation and after an analysis of the overall relationships with all the countries concerned. It is not only us, other countries as well. Indonesia suffers, Malaysia suffers, southern Thailand suffers. Brunei has suffered from the haze. So, this is a regional issue and our first priority must be to try and deal with it regionally and, if there are difficulties along the way, we need to consider what else needs to be done. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, from this year's haze problem, we can see how vulnerable we are and it is good that we are trying to solve it as best as possible. I would like to ask Minister are there any plans agreed by the Ministers from the ASEAN countries and is there any timeframe? And I would also like to thank the grassroots leaders and the PA staff for taking active action in helping our residents.”
“In terms of whether we have to put up with it year after year, and whether clear steps have been worked out as to what would be done within Indonesia, we have raised the issue at the United Nations previously and I have pointed out that international law provides some avenues. I have also indicated in my speech that we have to look at the impact on us and what further steps we can take, and work that against what other impact there will be on regional, bilateral and multilateral relationships. It is something that we are quite focused on, working out the different steps and an analysis of what every step means for the country as a whole. In terms of whether precise steps have been worked out by ASEAN as to what Indonesia ought to do, what has been done at the last ASEAN Ministerial Meeting is that all countries, not just Indonesia, have been asked to take steps to deal with this problem and, quite crucially, report to the Leaders on what steps have been taken. So, there is a requirement that this be reported to the Leaders at the ASEAN Summit. That is quite an important requirement because it requires every country to then come forward and say what they have done and what they have not done. I do make a distinction between statements of such a nature which require countries to come out and explain what they have done, and actual steps on the ground. I have pointed out to Members what limitations there are because every Page: 17 country is sovereign. There is no point in us saying to our people that some things can be done on the ground in another country when we are not in a position to ensure that. So, we need to be clear about what we can and cannot do.”
“We, on our part, have been speaking with Indonesia and others regularly. As the Member knows, there is the Ministerial Steering Committee on Transboundary Haze Pollution which holds meetings where we discuss these issues. As I have explained elsewhere, countries are sovereign. What they do within their own borders is an exercise of their own sovereignty. Whether they ratify an agreement is also an exercise of their sovereignty. What we can do is urge, point it out, raise it – which we have been doing regularly. We had the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting. Indonesia has assured us that they will put it before the Parliament. I do not want to go into what we might do if Option A happens, Option B happens, or Option C happens. That would be unproductive and not in the best interests of bilateral relationships. As I have said, ultimately, whether the haze problem gets solved depends on what actions are taken on the ground in Page: 16 Indonesia. Our role is to try and urge, offer assistance, and raise it. Beyond that, what we can do domestically, we will, of course, do.”
“Between neighbours, it is important to keep relationships friendly and take a constructive approach to sorting out issues. This is what we have always tried to do with Indonesia. Exerting pressure would change relationships between countries and move Page: 15 them from being friendly to either cool and correct, or unfriendly. We are linked on so many levels that when one country exerts pressure on one issue, both sides will feel the impact on the overall relationship. This holds true for all our bilateral relationships. It does not mean that we will not do anything no matter how severe the impact is on us. But we must maintain a clear, long-term perspective of the bilateral relationship, and do our utmost to avoid hurting this relationship as much as possible. Dr Lee has asked whether Singapore can take the haze problem up at the United Nations. That is possible, we have done so before. However, this is not just about raising the issue. Our goal is to put in place systems and processes to prevent the smoke haze from recurring. Right now, our focus is on taking actions on the ground, and making progress through ASEAN, the Sub-Regional Ministerial Steering Committee on Transboundary Haze Pollution and the TCP. But we will regularly review the options available to mitigate and resolve this problem.”
“This view, expressed by me and my Indonesian and Malaysian counterparts, Dr Marty Natalegawa and Dato' Sri Anifah Aman, was strongly supported by all the Foreign Ministers at the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Brunei on 30 June. Hence, our collective agreement to strengthen national and regional capacities to deal with the smoke haze. This includes a commitment to establish effective monitoring, rapid response and fire-fighting systems. We also tasked our senior officials to consolidate ASEAN's existing initiatives to combat the smoke haze, and recommend regional cooperation measures. The progress of these efforts will have to be submitted to the Leaders at the next ASEAN Summit. Dr Marty, Dato' Sri Anifah and I also met in Brunei a day before the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting. This informal meeting was a follow-up to the telephone calls I had with them a few days earlier. We had candid and constructive discussions on how to deal with the smoke haze. We agreed to establish a Trilateral Cooperative Process, or TCP for short, to tackle the problem. The TCP will look at ways to strengthen joint efforts to mitigate the smoke haze. The process will involve officials and experts from the foreign ministries and related agencies of the three countries, and will complement existing platforms, such as the Sub-Regional Ministerial Steering Committee on Transboundary Haze Pollution. Ms Ng has asked what pressure can be brought to bear on Indonesia. We should focus on cooperation and persuading our neighbours to work together with us to put in place a long-term solution. Relationships between countries can vary depending on the circumstances. They can be friendly, they can be correct and cool, or they can be not very friendly.”
“I have asked the Attorney-General to study the possibility of introducing such legislation. I have also asked him to consider what legal options are available, if credible and usable evidence is received that Singapore-linked companies are involved. The primary responsibility for taking action against those companies, of course, still lies with Indonesia. Mr de Souza asked whether the use of international law provides an avenue to deter irresponsible parties from causing fires that result in the annual smoke haze. Countries do have international obligations to prevent, reduce and control pollution if activities within their territories have a transboundary effect. For instance, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted at a UN Conference in 1992 outlines two key principles: (i) responsibility to ensure that activities within a country do not cause damage to the environment of other countries; and (ii) obligation for countries to inform and consult with others Page: 14 whose environment may be negatively affected. Ms Tan asked about the likelihood that Indonesia will ratify the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution. The Indonesian government had told us that it will be submitting this Agreement to the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR) for ratification soon. However, we also know that some Indonesian legislators feel that Indonesia does not benefit from the Agreement. Indeed, this is the second time that the Indonesian government will be submitting the Agreement to the DPR. We hope that Indonesia will expedite the ratification of the Agreement. Countries in the region must work together to deal with this common challenge.”
“Page: 13 This cooperation included renewing environmental collaboration between Singapore and Jambi province. We had good cooperation under a Master Plan to deal with land and forest fires in Jambi. The project had, however, lapsed, and the air quality and weather monitoring stations we had helped to install required repair. We have informed Indonesia that we are ready to send a technical team to assist with the repair, renew our cooperation with Jambi, and extend it to other fire-prone provinces if Indonesia is willing. As in previous years, we have also offered a haze assistance package that includes aircraft for cloud seeding, satellite imagery, and hotspot coordinates. Indonesia has yet to take up our offer of assistance, but the offer remains open. Our expression of concern did not sit well with several Indonesian Ministers. But President Yudhoyono gave a sincere public apology to the people of Singapore and Malaysia, and promised to spare no efforts to tackle this serious problem. This was an act of statesmanship that we have welcomed. We also welcome President Yudhoyono's assurance that action will be taken against errant plantation companies, whether based in Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia or elsewhere. As to whether Singapore-linked companies are involved, we have formally sought clarification through a Diplomatic Note, and have requested that Indonesia provide any evidence of wrong-doing that Indonesia has. We are awaiting Indonesia's response. Mr Lim and Mr Singh have asked whether criminal sanctions or pressure can be applied to companies found to be causing the haze. Assoc Prof Tan has asked whether extraterritorial legislation can be introduced. This is being considered.”
“Madam, this year's smoke haze has been the worst Singapore has ever encountered. The sentiment of our people is entirely understandable. Caused by fires in Riau and other parts of Sumatra, the smoke haze has not only affected Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia, but also southern Thailand. When the number of hotspots in Sumatra increased in mid-June, our National Environment Agency contacted the Indonesian Ministry of Environment on 14 June to seek an urgent update. They also requested that mitigating measures to deal with the hotspot situation be taken. When the smoke haze situation worsened, NEA followed up with a letter to the Indonesian Ministry of Environment on 17 June to register the alarming increase in hotspot activities in Sumatra. The next day, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan telephoned Indonesian Environment Minister Kambuaya to call for urgent action. I likewise spoke with my Indonesian counterpart Dr Marty Natalegawa. Arising from this, the CEO of NEA visited Jakarta to meet with Indonesian officials on 20 June. To further underscore the seriousness of the matter, Prime Minister Lee sent Minister Vivian to Jakarta as his Special Envoy on 21 June to convey a letter to Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. We stressed the following: (i) this is a recurrent problem that has regional implications; (ii) we needed strong and immediate action on the ground to put out the fires, and also legal action against the companies involved; (iii) if any Singapore-linked companies were involved, Indonesia should share with us the names of the companies and evidence so that we can take up the matter; (iv) countries in the region had to work together to overcome the problem; and (v) Singapore stood ready to cooperate with Indonesia.”
“Mdm Speaker, may I seek your permission to provide a combined reply to Question Nos 1 to 5 addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Question Nos 6 to 8 addressed to the Minister for Law. The answers to the issues raised in those questions are linked. For Question Nos 1 and 2, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources has agreed that he will address part 1(a) of Question No 1 and parts, 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) of Question No 2, as those questions relate to his portfolio.”
“There are eight nurseries at Bah Soon Pah Road operating under tenancy agreements managed by SLA. These tenants can continue to operate on the land until the expiry of their tenancies, the earliest of which will expire only in 2018. It is premature, at this stage, to comment on how many nurseries will be subject to new tenders beyond 2018, as the planning agencies have not determined if the sites will be required for development upon expiry of the tenancies. The eight nurseries are operating on properties that are available only for interim use. We adopt the following practices in the management of properties that are available for interim use. First, we ensure that the duration of tenure and option for renewal, if any, are explicitly spelt out in the tenancy agreement to provide clarity and certainty. A tenancy is typically for a total tenure of nine years unless the development of the site concerned needs to start earlier. Second, after nine years, in the interest of fairness and transparency, an open tender is conducted so that all interested parties have the opportunity to bid for use of the property. Third, we, generally, conduct the tender six months in advance of the expiry of the existing tenancy. If the incumbent wins the tender, he can continue operating on-site without disruption. If the incumbent does not win the tender, he will have sufficient time to plan for relocation.”
“Asst Prof Tan, we on this side of the House know all about political entrepreneurship. We have seen it. I do not, of course, want to specifically comment on what the candidates' motivations may have been. All I can say is that, when candidates go out and say they are going to do this and that, they should know whether or not it is legally possible, given their qualifications, and given the clear explanations as to what the President's powers and functions are. They would know the answer, if they apply their minds to it. And yet they make these statements. People have to draw their own conclusions as to why the candidates do it. When appeals to emotion are made and played up, it is not often easy to counter them with logic and reason but we will continue to try.”
“But certainly, I would take the view that some of the candidates probably found it politically expedient to present what they would do if they were elected. I think that certainly got a segment of the electorate rather excited. In any case, I take the position that, in the end, it is still important for the electorate to be informed so that people do not get too politically entrepreneurial.”
“We want to make sure of that, and as everyone can see from the moves that we have made in the last few years, and as the Member will recognise, standards have been refined considerably. I think the Member will welcome the changes, for example, to the disclosure regime. Last year, when we had a meeting with the members of the criminal bar, several stood up and welcomed the changes. One of them, a leading member, said, "This is the best time to practise at the defence bar." But that does not mean that the current position is crystallised. We have to continuously evolve, look at Page: 57 the best practices, and we welcome suggestions by Members and others. Secondly, as far as criminal case disclosure is concerned, again, we put it in because we believe that it is the right thing to do, and it has been put in place for many pieces of legislation. But let us see how it works before we expand it to other agencies, other pieces of legislation. So, that rationale has already been explained. The speed with which the regime can be expanded depends also on the ability to make sure that the agencies can comply with the processes, and whether they believe it is workable in their particular context. That is the case in the specific context of CPIB and PCA. That is also the case for other agencies and other pieces of legislation, and we will continue to have conversations with CPIB and other agencies on this. Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Madam, I would like to raise a question with the Minister for Law. I appreciate his assessment that some of the presidential candidates, perhaps, misperceived the office of the Elected President.”
“Madam, I will answer the question. The Government takes ownership of this issue. Obviously, the Member is entitled to ask the Government and someone has to answer. The gist of the response on video-recording is that, in the past when MinLaw took up the issue, it is often that the office-holders were double-hatting, or because of the specific context of the legislation before the House. Now, today's question is operational in nature: video-recording has to be done by the police if it is instituted, and the Member knows that. 2.15 pm Therefore, given the operational nature of the issue, given the fact that MHA agencies have to deal with it, they will have to assess whether it is feasible, whether they have the necessary resources, and what implications it has on their investigative procedures. On these operational issues, we defer to them. We are happy to relay the answer on their stance, but we also think that it would be more productive, in the specific context in which this question is raised, that it be put directly to MHA, perhaps in the form of a parliamentary question. But we are happy to respond, and we have responded today. We also recognise the rationale for the Member's point, as well as Mr Kumar's point, and we would put it across for MHA's consideration. So, if the Member wishes to continue to raise the issue with MinLaw, we will be happy to answer; we are just making the additional point that the Member could consider specifically raising it with MHA. In response to the Member's point as to whether or not MinLaw is interested in making sure that standards of evidence in court are up to scratch – I would reply, yes, absolutely.”
“In most other areas, the President has limited discretionary power, mostly acting on the advice of the Cabinet, or being constitutionally required to consult with the Council of Presidential Advisers." So, it is very clear. Asst Prof Tan has set it out, I have set it out, and others have set it out. I would suggest that in the specific context that Asst Prof Tan mentioned, of candidates – or some of the candidates at least – saying what they thought Page: 50 the powers were – that it is not a problem of public misunderstanding. It is perhaps a misperception of what candidates may have considered to be the powers of the Elected President. I agree with Asst Prof Tan that public education is important and the Government will continue to clarify these areas. Students are educated on Singapore's system of government, including the President, and on their responsibilities as citizens. These include their responsibilities as voters in presidential and parliamentary elections. They are taught at a level commensurate with their maturity through compulsory subjects, including Social Studies, and Citizenship and Character Education. The Senior Minister of State for Law will take the remaining cuts.”
“Finally, on Asst Prof Tan's suggestions on improving Singaporeans' understanding of our system of Government, especially the role of the Elected President. Since 1988, when the idea of the Elected President was first mooted, the Government has explained the role of the Elected President several times. In 1999, then-Prime Minister Goh made a statement in this House. In 2011, statements clarifying the role of the Elected Presidency were issued. The role of the President, as stated in the Constitution, is not very difficult to understand. Article 21 states clearly that the President acts on Cabinet's advice, except in certain specified areas: the use of past reserves; appointments to key public offices; ISA detentions; CPIB investigations; and restraining orders relating to the maintenance of religious harmony. I think it is very clear. If I may refer to Asst Prof Tan's own article which was published on 31 May 2011 in the media, and I quote, "Singapore's Head of State is not vested with the same powers as the Executive President of the United States, France and many Latin America countries. Despite our President being elected, our system of Government remains a parliamentary one, in which policy making and law making are the prerogatives of the Cabinet and Parliament. Put simply, the Elected President is not designed as a countervailing source of political power in our system. The Elected President has two key custodial functions: That of protecting Singapore's financial assets and safeguarding the integrity of Singapore's public service… In layman's term, the President holds the ‘second key'. But the President cannot initiate a drawdown of the reserves or make key appointments, laws or policies; his powers are inherently reactionary.”
“In this context, Mr Desmond Lee asked whether our laws would allow a HDB flat owner who is in financial distress but not yet a bankrupt to downgrade to a small flat without having the proceeds of the sale taken by creditors. Under the Housing and Development Act, HDB flats in general cannot be used as security. In bankruptcy, the HDB flat owned by at least one citizen will not vest in the Official Assignee; that is to say that it is not available to the creditors. The High Court has also ruled that that protection also applies to proceeds from the sale of the HDB flat. Those in financial distress should be aware of these bankruptcy protections. We will also ask MND and HDB to see if there is a gap in this area. Next, if I can move to resolving community disputes. Mr Patrick Tay and Dr Janil Puthucheary spoke on this. We note their concerns and suggestions. Community disputes, as Members recognise, fall into many categories, ranging from noise disturbances to unpleasant smells. Some are bona fide and some may suggest extreme sensitivity. It is inherently difficult to resolve these disputes because emotions tend to run high and views on what is acceptable behaviour are very subjective. The existing framework of criminal and civil laws, I think, may need to be relooked at. My Ministry is working with MND, MHA and MCCY to see if we can develop a framework that can apply to this set of issues. This was broadly Page: 49 referred to yesterday by the Second Minister for Home Affairs in the context of what should be the norms of acceptable conduct between neighbours, enhanced mediation processes and calibrated sanctions to enhance compliance. This is a work in progress and we welcome suggestions, but bear in mind that legislation cannot solve all issues.”
“For the Moneylenders Act and Rules, we enhanced the enforcement powers of the Registry of Moneylenders, extended interest rate caps, prohibited up-front fees which increased borrowing costs, and removed exceptions to caps on unsecured lending. This and earlier measures reduced the volume of moneylending, and the number of moneylenders fell from 249 in 2011 to 209 in 2012. The value of the loans fell from $480 million to about $260 million over the same period [Please refer to Official Report of 7 July 2014]. Page: 48 Moving forward, we will continue to reform the law across the different areas of legislation that MinLaw covers. One of the major areas that will be covered this year is our bankruptcy and insolvency regime. Mr Vikram Nair asked if we can consider an easier regime to discharge certain types of bankrupts: bankruptcies due to business failure and bankruptcies due to unsecured consumer credit. I think there is merit in differentiating between the different types of bankrupts. We have started a review of our discharge policies, but I ask that Members bear in mind that we have to balance between the creditors' interests and discharging bankrupts where it is just to do so, without creating a moral hazard. We will certainly consider the Member's views in the review. We will also consider the Member's views in the context of the Insolvency Law Reform Committee. That Committee will be finalising its report on the Omnibus Insolvency Bill which will improve and streamline personal bankruptcy and corporate insolvency regimes. We will also consult the public after reviewing the Committee's report and our discharge policies.”
“More flexibility was also given for Singapore firms to collaborate with foreign firms. Under the International Arbitration Act, we updated the definition of arbitration agreements, recognised emergency arbitrators, clarified the tribunal's power to award interest and allowed judicial review of negative jurisdictional rulings. As regards the Foreign Limitation Periods Act, it was made clear that, where a case is governed by foreign law, the issue of limitation will be governed by foreign law. This has made Singapore a more neutral forum. The amendments were made as part of an overall effort to develop our arbitration sector. It is difficult to pinpoint the effect of each change on the legal sector, but you can see, in broad terms, the overall effect on our legal sector. In 2012 – the nominal value-add from legal services was estimated at around $1.85 billion. In 2008 – it was $1.48 billion. That is a 25% increase. And if we have a vibrant legal services sector, that will in turn support the banking sector, the finance sector, corporate headquarters in Singapore and areas which require sophisticated legal support. Other changes we made include the Legal Aid and Advice Act, where we updated the means test to keep pace with the cost of living, and try and protect vulnerable persons in family disputes. With the amendments, an additional 300,000 citizens and PRs can meet the income test. That is about 25% of Singapore residents, up from the current 17%. The Civil Law Act was expanded to give greater discretion to distribute property of deceased persons with no heirs. For example, unclaimed CPF monies are now covered. That Act came into effect on 15 February 2013 and I have tasked the Public Trustee to take charge of its administration.”
“Mdm Chairperson, I thank all who spoke. Mr Hri Kumar asked for an update on the impact of significant legislative changes in the past year. MinLaw administers over 80 Acts, which is about 20% of the Statute Book, which we review and seek to reform from time to time. A number of reforms were made in the last financial year. Looking at criminal justice, the Evidence Act was amended to expand the court's discretion to admit hearsay and opinion evidence. As regards sexual assault victims, we made it clear that cross-examination on sexual history can only be done when directly relevant. Together with MHA and AGC, we worked on and brought before this House, reforms to the mandatory death penalty in relation to drug trafficking and murder, as well as the procedure for the Court of Appeal to review death sentences. The transitional cases are now being dealt with. We will monitor the impact on our crime rates as a result of these changes. Separately, a law reform committee led by the Senior Minister of State for Law will be looking at rationalising the Penal Code offences relating to homicide and hurt where death is caused; and whether and to what extent mentally disabled offenders should be punished differently across the whole spectrum of criminal law. Mr Kumar also asked about hate speech in the context of the Internet. I think that Members would know that yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Teo made some comments about reviewing this area. We will update the House when that review is completed. To boost the legal services sector, we amended the Legal Profession Act, the International Arbitration Act, and the Foreign Limitation Periods Act. If you Page: 47 look at the Legal Profession Act, we widened ad hoc admissions for Queen's Counsel.”
“Madam, as regards Ms Irene Ng's point, we will certainly try and do that – or to continue, within our limited resources. But we will certainly try and continue. If I may also deal with the point about remuneration of Foreign Service Officers. We try and keep morale up; we try and reward them appropriately. But, of course, there is always a difference in perception, within the service, as to whether the remuneration is adequate. It is a continuing conversation that we will have to have in the Foreign Service with the Public Service Division.”
“But there is a limit to what we can do in the context of an ASEAN where each member has its own interests and where many, many countries are interested in ASEAN, because it is a region which is dynamic and growing.”
“I think the question raises two aspects. It is not just about relationships within ASEAN that may have an impact on ASEAN unity. It is also about relationships between specific ASEAN countries and external powers, which could have an impact on ASEAN unity. ASEAN, as an organisation, moves on the basis of consensus. The inherent logic of ASEAN acting together is obviously there, but at the same time, each country looks at its own interests while looking at it within the framework of ASEAN unity. And on specific issues, any country may well decide its interests do not coincide with that of the other countries. In such situations, it is not often easy to convince any particular country that, for the sake of ASEAN unity, they should take a particular position. Every country understandably will put its own interests, front and centre. What are we doing about it? We work closely with many other countries to try and move ASEAN further, for example, towards the vision of ASEAN 2015. If you take the South China Sea dispute, the Foreign Ministers' meeting last year in Phnom Penh did not end in a glorious success. There was no joint Page: 35 communique. But soon thereafter, we had the Six-Point principles issued at the initiative of Indonesia. We were very supportive of Indonesia's initiative. Likewise, we, in our own way, have talked to all the different ASEAN countries to see how we can come together and move together. We have played a significant role in the ASEAN 2015 vision, both on the trade and industry side, as well as on the MFA side. We work very closely with our partners in ASEAN.”
“Let me take those three questions in sequence. For visa-free travel to Myanmar, it depends on the Myanmar authorities. Each country decides the framework for immigration, and the current approach of the Myanmarese government is that they require visas. Sometimes, these issues depend on reciprocity as well. In general, and I am not just talking about Myanmar, if reciprocity is required, then from our end, we will also have to Page: 34 consider and assess the security situation which depends on Home Affairs and its agencies. That really answers the third question as well in terms of Malaysia and Singapore. As regards ASEAN 2015, it is a goal, a vision, something that we want to achieve. It is in our interests as well as the interest of all the ASEAN countries to achieve it. And we have a two-speed process for that because different countries are at different levels of development. We have made considerable progress in terms of removing tariff barriers, in terms of people-to-people connections and political and strategic issues. What I can say to Members is that we will continue to work very hard to try and achieve it. It does not just depend on us; it depends on other countries, their internal processes and political processes. So, we will have to see. 1.15 pm”
“Countries like Brazil and Mexico are playing important roles in international bodies, such as the UN, G20 and WTO. This is why we opened our first Embassy in Latin America in Brazilia in September 2012. Minister Shanmugam will be visiting Brazil in early April. It is also interesting to note that the Latin American countries are expressing greater interest in Asia, in ASEAN and in Singapore. We have stepped up political engagement in the past few years, both at the leaders' and at the official levels, through institutionalised bilateral political consultations. In the past three years alone, we have concluded five air services agreements with Brazil, Ecuador, Paraguay, Colombia and Uruguay. We have signed a DTA with Panama and are in negotiations with Ecuador, Peru and Uruguay. We have also signed a partial Visa Abolition Agreement with Brazil, and both Uruguay and Mexico have unilaterally waived visa requirements. These agreements, including work on investment guarantee agreements, will make it easier for our companies to do business in Latin America. 1.00 pm Ms Ellen Lee asked about the passing of Venezuelan President Mr Hugo Chavez. First of all, let me express my condolences to the people of Venezuela on the passing of President Hugo Chavez who will be sadly missed by his people. Singapore enjoys good economic ties with Venezuela. We understand that presidential elections will be held in 30 days and Vice-President Nicholas Maduro will assume the presidency in the interim. We will continue to work closely with President Chavez's successor in strengthening our bilateral relations. Senior Minister of State Mr Masagos Zulkifli, will now speak about our engagement of major markets in the Middle East.”
“Similarly, investments from Singapore into EU countries have been gaining strength. It stands at $47 billion as at 2011. Repsol is the latest. It is a commercial decision by our business. For increasing our presence in EU and in Singapore, it is important to have deep economic relations. We will continue to be supportive to our businesses in expanding the economic opportunities overseas. We have maintained good relations with other key partners of strategic importance to us. The EU-Singapore FTA joins a network of FTAs that Singapore has with the world's major economies – ASEAN, US, China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, India and Australia. We are also negotiating the Transpacific Partnership Agreement which started with Brunei, Chile and New Zealand, and now includes the US, Australia, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia and, more recently, Mexico and Canada. We hope Japan will join soon. Japan is a strategically important country that should not be excluded. These FTA networks are not just important economically but also strategically. They provide strong institutional links to key global and regional powers. Members will know how vital international trade is to Singapore. As our FTAs are all WTO-plus – in other words, they have better terms than WTO commitments – collectively, they help to provide an added impetus to global trade liberalisation talks. We would like to thank Mr Ong Teng Koon for highlighting the potential of Latin America as well as giving us an education on football. It is important that we continue to engage emerging markets in Latin America. We fully recognise Page: 29 that it is increasing in economic and political influence. Trade with the region has more than doubled since 2005 to reach US$30 billion in 2011.”
“It covers not just conventional trade issues, such as tariffs and custom procedures, but also newer issues, such as renewable energy generation and sustainable development. MFA and MTI had to negotiate these issues carefully, consulting multiple stakeholders, including our local agencies and business associations and the 27 EU member states and understanding the present and future realities and needs of both parties. Our general approach towards all negotiations is that it is more important to do it right than to do it fast. We are confident that we have secured a comprehensive and high quality agreement that will benefit both businesses and consumers of both regions. We are also negotiating the EU-Singapore Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (ESPCA), which is a broad framework agreement for deeper Page: 28 economic, political and cultural cooperation between Singapore and the EU. Approval of the EU FTA and ESPCA by the EU Council and ratification by the European Parliament and national Parliaments of 27 EU member states is a complex process and will take time. Ms Ellen Lee also asked about people-to-people exchanges with the EU. In fact, we agree with Ms Lee that we need to promote broad-based exchanges between Singapore and the EU and, in fact, we have been doing so. On the education front, the Universities have already started many exchange programmes and also, on the cultural front, we have many offerings from European countries and performance groups in the area of film festivals, performances, exhibitions of paintings and art work. There are extensive exchanges across a broad range of areas, from political, economic to people to people. EU countries are important sources of investments in Singapore.”
“I will be visiting the United States shortly, in fact, next week, where I will meet Secretary Kerry. If schedules allow, I also plan to visit Page: 27 China later in the year. Second Minister Grace Fu, Senior Minister Masagos Zulkifli and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sam Tan will respond to the remaining questions. But let me emphasise some key points. The uncertain geopolitical situation and global economic uncertainties continue. We have worked hard to ensure that we are well positioned to meet those challenges. We have worked to strengthen ASEAN, built up bilateral accounts with our regional neighbours as well as major powers, but we cannot be complacent. We will continue to stay alert and nimble, and to respond to challenges and opportunities. People are the key to diplomacy – there is no substitute for people – and MFA is fortunate to have quality staff. The Foreign Service must remain competitive, both with other services in the public sector and in the private sector. And that is necessary for maintaining the high standards in safeguarding and advancing Singapore's interests. The Second Minister for Foreign Affairs (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Madam, Mr Ong Teng Koon and Ms Ellen Lee asked about our relations with the EU and other major economies, including the Latin American countries. Ms Ellen Lee also asked about the time taken to conclude our FTA negotiations with the EU. Negotiations on the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement started in March 2010. It was substantively concluded on 16 December 2012. This is about the same time as we have taken to negotiate our FTAs with the US, China and India. Both the EU and Singapore wanted the FTA to be comprehensive and ambitious.”
“China, geographically, is obviously an intrinsic part of the region with strong historical links, as well as growing economic ties with all ASEAN members states. China's growth is fundamental for Singapore's own success and for the region's success. It has provided strong support for ASEAN Connectivity, for example, the US$10 billion ASEAN-China Investment Cooperation Fund and US$15 billion credit support scheme. It is in our region's interest to keep both the United States and China engaged in our region in a collaborative manner, accommodating each other's and the region's interests to enhance peace and stability in the region. The US and China are deeply interdependent across a broad spectrum of areas. Neither can prosper without the other, and both know that. Many bilateral platforms of engagement between the two exist as well as engagement within the regional architecture, for example, the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), but we must recognise that competition is an intrinsic part of any great power relationship – interdependence co-exists with strategic wariness. If tensions rise within them, that will unsettle the region, and the domestic politics in both countries is an unknown x-factor. Singapore's consistent position is to maintain strong links with both – close cooperation and common interests across a range of issues, and good personal relationships between our leaders and theirs, sustained through leadership changes in both countries. And there are good institutional links, for example, the Joint Council for Bilateral Cooperation with China and the US-Singapore Strategic Partnership Dialogue. These relationships are maintained by frequent high level exchanges.”
“We will keep up our commitment to help Myanmar in capacity building. With Brunei, the special relations are based on close personal ties, common strategic outlook and interests. Long-standing cooperative arrangements include the Currency Interchangeability Agreement and, of course, SAF training facilities. Minister of State Teo Ser Luck, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Hawazi Daipi, Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Ms Irene Ng asked about the United States engagement with Asia in the light of the appointment of a new Secretary of State and the growing US-China competition in this region, and how it might affect Singapore's bilateral relations with the United States and China. The US-China relationship is a defining relationship for the region and the world. The United States has strong historical presence in the region since the end of World War II. That has brought a long period of peace, prosperity and stability for the region and it is a foundation for growth. Page: 26 It is an important trade and investment partner for Singapore and the region. It is our single largest foreign direct investor and the fifth largest trading partner, at about US$200 billion of bilateral trade with ASEAN and the fourth largest foreign direct investor in ASEAN. It is a vital source of technology and management expertise. The United States' engagement of our region has to be based on US' interests and not personalities. That has been a basic continuum for more than 30 years, although the tempo of engagement has stepped up of late. This is welcomed and it is significant that President Obama attended the ASEAN-US Leaders' meeting every year. We hope that the new Secretary of State, John Kerry, will continue the US' active engagement of the region and will make an early visit to Southeast Asia.”
“This depends on our community-building efforts, particularly the economic pillar, which must continue beyond 2015. 12.45 pm Brunei's Chairmanship this year will be crucial. Brunei is an experienced and committed member of ASEAN. We are confident that it will promote consensus through consultations with all ASEAN members and Dialogue Partners. Singapore strongly supports Brunei. We will work closely together with the others to ensure that its Chairmanship is a success. Page: 25 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked about Singapore's bilateral relations with our neighbouring countries. We have built a firm foundation of strong bilateral relationships in the region. We have good relations with all ASEAN members, in particular, strong ties with Malaysia and Indonesia, which are strong, broad-based and steady bilateral cooperation. All sides recognise the benefits of working together. The Leaders' Retreat with Malaysia in February took place successfully, and there will be one with Indonesia in April. Elections are expected to take place in Malaysia soon and, in Indonesia, of course, by mid-2014. We will work with both countries and their leaderships, and we will continue to strengthen many existing institutional links. With Vietnam, we have many high level exchanges. Bilateral relations continue to strengthen. The 40th anniversary celebration is later this year and we are working towards a strategic partnership. With Thailand, we have strong long-standing ties, underscored by strong institutional linkages. The Thailand-Singapore Civil Service Exchange Programme, which I officiated with the Thai Foreign Minister in January, is one example and brings our civil services closer together. With Myanmar, the story is positive and encouraging with an upward trajectory in developments.”