Leon Perera
Singapore
“I thank the Nominated Member, Mr Mark Chay, for his clarification. I did, in my speech, allude to my awareness of the existence of sports scholarships and I mentioned a few, nor in my speech did I claim that there is no Government support for these less well-known sports.”
“Sorry, again. I acknowledge that, of course, no system is perfect. I think we all acknowledge that. My colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim presented data on the performance of different countries in sporting excellence, government spending relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask one short supplementary question. I am wondering if the Government will consider requiring or mandating private companies to provide an elderly or parent care leave to some extent, or flexible work arrangements that will allow for time for eldercare and parent care duties?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. He referred to the service quality framework that the Government uses vis-à-vis SingPost because SingPost is a Government licencee.”
“I was suggesting that the determination of consistency of the Ministerial Code of Conduct be done by an independent organisation. It could be the AGO, it could be a judge or retired judge or someone else to put that imprimatur of independence. I was not suggesting either or. You may disagree with that.”
“At the end of the day, healthcare is, and will remain, must remain, a profoundly human endeavour. There is no more important goal in healthcare than attracting, retaining and bringing out the best from our great healthcare workers.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,226 lines we hold for Leon Perera, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 25.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, one way Singapore could be a beacon to other nations is by showing how economic development and environmental sustainability can go hand-in-hand. Just as Singapore was lauded in the past for national innovations like the HDB and EDB, we can be admired and emulated in the future for mastering the intersection between economic development and environmental sustainability. To do this we must be ambitious, united and smart. Sir, in my speech on the Motion, I will speak about a few broad principles that will stand us in good stead as we address the challenge of climate change as a nation. And I will provide several examples of policies we can adopt under each of these thrusts. Firstly, we should place people in the centre. We must go into battle with a keen sense that the costs of climate change affect people unequally. A rise in temperatures affects those who cannot afford air-conditioning more, for example. Our climate change policies should be calibrated to reduce those inequalities. Secondly, in this climate change cause, transparency is a powerful ally. Government plays a crucial role here. More information being made available about how well we are doing will facilitate public scrutiny and well-informed public debate about the inevitable policy trade-offs inherent in any debate on climate change. And thirdly, in terms of Singapore’s longer term green vision, our green goals should be ambitious but smart – we should aim for more green substantive targets but also ensure that our approaches add value to our economy in terms of cultivating pools of expertise, know-how, talent and entrepreneurial acumen that will drive a high-quality economy through partly exporting those skills to the region and the world.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the climate change Motion before us today raises one of the gravest challenges we face as a nation to the platform of Parliamentary debate. The number of speakers on this Motion from all parties in the House attests to the gravity of this issue. I support the amendments proposed by the hon Member for Hougang, Mr Dennis Tan. The climate crisis is an emergency. Before we act, we must acknowledge the serious consequences of not acting. The hour has come for Singapore to call a spade a spade and join the close to the over 30 other countries in the world who have declared climate emergencies. As Mr Dennis Tan eloquently argued, the costs of getting climate change wrong in terms of the impact on sea levels, the weather and other dimensions of the crisis are so severe as to more than warrant the term emergency. The word emergency signifies several things. One is the seriousness of the crisis. But another is the fact that this is a crisis that will deeply affect the nation as a whole and every person in it – rich and poor, fortunate and unfortunate, well-educated and not. An emergency calls for all hands on deck. And it is in this spirit that Mr Dennis Tan’s other amendment, defining a role for civil society in our response, is important. As I argued in my maiden speech in this House in 2016, independent Singapore has traditionally had a strong state but a less strong civil society and domestic private sector. In this long 21st century, we need all these sectors to be strong, to contribute to diverse ideas in the public square and to augment our nation’s capacity to execute the best of those ideas, alongside a balanced political system to foster accountability, diversity of views and alternatives.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer and assurances. Just two supplementary questions. Firstly, just to clarify that the timeline for rolling out the vaccine to migrant workers will still be within the same timeline as mentioned by Senior Minister of State Dr Janil Puthucheary earlier, for the country as a whole. Will the migrant workers be vaccinated within that overall timeline band? And that is important given the particular risks that they face, as the Minister pointed out. Secondly, will the Government be working with NGOs who work with migrant workers to help to reinforce these messages and help to provide assurances and education to facilitate the take-up of the vaccine?”
“With that in mind, I would like to ask the Minister for information regarding the proportion of successful applicants to total number of applicants and the average duration companies have had to wait for an outcome. I would also like to ask if the MAS would consider providing: (a) a clearer fixed timeline and process including an appeal process so applicants know when to expect an outcome; (b) more resources to help innovative businesses understand and navigate the licencing process. For instance, project innovate by the UK's financial conduct authority targeted support to innovative businesses in navigating the FCAs at the authorisation process. This achieves good results. Firms coming through this programme in the UK are being authorised on average 40% faster than the standard applicant. I note that the MAS launch the payment Regulatory Evaluation Programme in 2019, meant to assist payment service providers and seeking legal advice from registered Singapore law practises relating to the PSA. This entails a sample questionnaire for potential applicants to approach law firms with, and the list of legal practitioners who can provide advice in relation to the PSA, but it does not provide targeted support like what is being done in the UK. Furthermore, this programme will cease in January 2021, one year after the PSA has come into force and the transitional period has ended; and (c) I would like to ask if the MAS can provide high-level guidance on the criteria determining approval or rejection of a licence.”
“Many companies reportedly find themselves stuck on the waiting list for long periods. Moving beyond a completely black box approach to a greater degree of transparency, could provide more support to viable businesses to get licence and go to market faster. It may also enhance Singapore's attractiveness as a fintech Hub. While MAS does provide some basic criteria, for example, base capital requirements, fit and proper requirements of shareholders and employees, no entity is familiar with the actual determining factors that make or break a licence application. Companies may apply for exemption status to continue operating on a small scale for six months while waiting for the licence but cannot scale up during that time. These companies also struggle to account to their investors or shareholders and their future plans and as a result, go into hibernation or may leave the country. There are 366 firms who applied for exemption from holding a licence under the PSA for specific payment services for a specified period while waiting for their licence. And there are likely even more in the pipeline, namely those who directly applied for the licence without seeking exemptions, those who are still seeking legal advice and have not yet applied, and those who will only apply after this amendment passes. For example, DPT marketers and custodian service providers. There are 439 firms who currently hold the payment licence. While it is understandable that the full licensing criteria cannot be disclosed due to the risk that some applicants may game the system, as it were, this has to be balanced against the need for some transparency, so as to enhance Singapore's attractiveness as a fintech hub.”
“Secondly, while I acknowledge that this amendment is necessary to uphold the reputation of Singapore as a trusted financial hub, it is unclear if other countries are doing the same with regard to monitoring the movement of illicit funds or suspicious transactions with regard to DPTs from Singapore to a third country or vice versa. While according to an FATF review and I quote, "Twenty jurisdictions advised that they have extended their regime to include value-added service providers or VASPs conducting operations from their jurisdiction", the review did not appear to identify the specific jurisdictions or provide specific details about these regimes. Furthermore, the review then noted that such a diversity in approach and I quote, "may present challenges in identifying which VASPs are regulated by each jurisdiction". In respect of other jurisdictions specifically, for instance, there do not appear to be similarly expansive definitions, which have been implemented or proposed with regard to cross-border money transfers in Hong Kong or the Cayman Islands, even though these jurisdictions have proposed to enact or have enacted legislation in connection with the FATF guidelines. Hence, I would like to ask if the MAS will, going forward, monitor the extent of international regulation of VASPs in line with the FATF recommendations and calibrate the onerousness of our own regime in line with what is being done internationally, with an eye to our competitiveness. Fourthly, Sir, I would like to speak about the need for greater transparency and less of a black box approach in the payment service licence application process. The payment service licence process required for firms covered under the PSA is perceived by some industry players as a completely black box.”
“While consumer protection is an important concern, feedback from the industry, especially smaller firms, suggest that this is a cause for concern by them. For instance, the proposed amended section 21(A) may be too onerous in the view of some in the industry. It should be borne in mind that excessive regulation could curb entrepreneurship in a sunrise industry and crowd out smaller players and start-ups leaving only the bigger players to dominate. This in turn would be bad for entrepreneurship and innovation in the longer term. I would like to ask what steps would be taken by MAS to ensure that smaller companies and new entrants to the industry are able to meet these enhanced regulatory standards. Thirdly, Sir, the expanded definition of cross-border money transfer services raises questions in terms of its enforceability and benefits for Singapore, in terms of congruence with other competing jurisdictions. This amendment Bill expands the definition of cross-border money transfer service to require licensing of service providers like brokers in Singapore that actively facilitate cross-border money transfers between entities in different countries, although monies are not accepted or received in Singapore. Under the current PSA, such providers are not covered. While it is laudable that Singapore is taking the lead on cross-border regulation of VASPs and adopting FATF recommendations, there are two concerns. Firstly, this may be difficult to monitor and enforce if the flow of money is from one foreign country to another foreign country. How does the Government intend to monitor and enforce this?”
“Perhaps, more guidance and defining incidentality would be helpful for entities to make an assessment as to whether a token's payment function is merely incidental to its core business function of providing custodial service. In addition, Sir, it is unclear who the onus is on to determine whether a token is a DPT or not. Whether that falls on the custody service provider to assess whether a token it seeks to custodise is a DPT thus having a payment function warranting a licence application, or whether it falls on the token originator to warrant that its token is not a DPT and thus the custody service providers have no need to apply for a PSA licence. For example, must a wallet service provider conduct its own analysis as to whether a token that it seeks to custodise falls under the definition of a DPT under the PSA or whether it may carry out its custody service, as long as the DPT provider is already a licence entity? Perhaps, there should be further consideration as to whether the PSA should provide an exemption for custody service providers in the event that the token issuer is already licensed. This is to prevent unnecessary dual licensing. Secondly, Sir, I would like to speak on how the perception of increased regulatory powers by MAS may spark fears of over-regulation and potentially excessively stifled innovation, especially among smaller players. The amendment Bill before us provides additional powers to the MAS to, firstly, impose user protection measures on certain DPT service providers; and secondly, impose additional measures on any DPT service provider or class of DPT service providers by way of subsidiary legislation.”
“Also, industry feedback suggests that the definition of arranging or inducing an individual to enter into a transaction is vague. Perhaps, the Minister could provide further clarifications on the exact types of activities that fall within the definition of "arrange" or "induce". On token custodians, there are also concerns from stakeholders in the DPT space that the definition of control in the proposed limbs F through H is somewhat vague. While MAS had clarified that I quote, "A DPT service provider will have control of a DPT if it has the ability to control access to any DPT or to execute transactions involving the DPT", further regulatory guidance as to what this control exactly is, would be helpful. I would also suggest that MAS consider in the fullness of time offering relaxation on MAS requirements, for entities who pose less of a threat. For example, relaxing the audit requirements or periodic returns requirements for a token advertiser. Next, Sir. Current companies who one, have a capital markets licence, and two, provide a token custody service must still hold a payment service licence with an exception available, if a token's function is merely incidental to the business of that payment service provider. In the prior crypto wave in 2017, companies who dealt in digital tokens were required to hold a capital markets licence if such tokens resembled security or shares. Now, these companies have to also hold a major payment institutional licence or standard payment institutional licence under the PSA, if the tokens that they custodise hold the payment function.”
“Such entities will have to be licensed and regulated to the same extent as a token exchange. While it is laudable that the Payment Services Act or PSA is amended to greater meet the Financial Action Task Force or FATF standards, it maybe onerous for certain payment service providers to meet the same licensing requirement despite posting different or lower levels of risk. Here, I would like to note in passing, that my parliamentary colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim will be making a similar argument in the context of the moneychangers actor and small businesses. Sir, the PSA licensing regime currently requires DPT service providers to meet relevant MAS requirements on cyber hygiene, periodic returns, business conduct disclosure and communications as well as annual audit requirements, amongst others. However, a token marketer or token custodian such as, a wallet service provider, for example, may not pose the same risks as a token originator or a token exchange to warrant such regulation by the MAS PSNO requirements. Specifically, for a token marketer limb E of the proposed inclusion, states that an entity who induces a person to buy or sell a DPT ought to be regulated, although this entity may not come into possession of the DPT at all. While some marketing may be performed by a DPT custodian, other entities such as, for example, a professional public relations company asked to design or execute an ICO campaign or even a blogger writing about hot ICOs, may conceivably be caught in the net. What then is the purpose of requiring such an entity to meet periodic returns and our audit requirements if they are merely in the service of marketing a token and might it be too onerous for such an entity to meet the whole suite of MAS PSNO requirements?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in recent years Singapore has built up its reputation as a fintech hub. To preserve that, we have to ensure that our regulations strike the right balance between carefully managing risks and encouraging innovation. In 2018, Singapore was the second most popular country in the world for ICOs, and as of November 2020, 234 blockchain companies were operating in Singapore. E-money has also received high adoption rates here and our consumers need to be protected. Seventy-seven percent of Singaporeans already used digital wallets, though there is still much room for improvement in the adoption of digital payments, as my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Louis Chua Kheng Wee we will expand on. We have to ensure consumer confidence has not misplaced. Trust in people is earned, not given. Trust in business is also earned and this is where a sound regulatory framework plays a crucial role. The Payment Services (Amendment) Bill is a step in the right direction of proactive regulation of the payment space. Sir, I shall focus the remainder of my speech and raising questions and suggestions in relation to the attributes of proportionality and possibility and transparency in relation to the Bill. I declare my interest as the CEO of a Research Consultancy that undertakes work in the fintech space, among other sectors. Firstly Sir, I shall speak on the expanded definition of DPT service provider in this Bill. The expanded definition of DPT service provider will capture more activities, but more guidance is needed from MAS as to what constitutes certain activities such as, control, inducing and arranging. The expanded definition of DPT service provider will capture entities who offer token custody services or entities will market or advertise token sales.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the two Ministers for their detailed Statements. Just three supplementary questions for the Minister for Health. In regard to where the vaccines will be administered, can we take it that they will be administered at polyclinics, public hospitals? Will GP clinics also be involved? Will every effort be made to ensure that the vaccines can be administered in locations that are close to where people are living in diverse locations across the country? The second question is, will every effort be made to bring the vaccination process to elderly Singaporeans who are in nursing homes, senior care centres and so on, who may not exactly be very ambulatory? And, thirdly, just to follow up on the question that my colleague Mr Gerald Giam asked, I do not believe it was answered. Is the Government evaluating the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine as well?”
“I thank the hon Minister for his points. Just a few clarifications. Firstly, I cited a number of countries that have an ombudsman – not only Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia, but also Hong Kong, Australia, various European countries. I am wondering if the Minister is making the argument that having an ombudsman actually lowers the quality of justice, and is there any evidence to that effect? Is the Minister also saying that all countries that have an ombudsman, generally, because of some causative effect of having an ombudsman, actually fare more poorly in terms of justice indicators and so on and so forth? Is he making that argument? I do not think he is, but I do want to clarify that. Secondly, I think he talked about Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia; and he selected just those countries of all the ones I mentioned. Would the Minister acknowledge the possibility that those countries, without an ombudsman system, may actually fare even lower in the rankings than where they currently are at? Thirdly, I believe that the Minister would argue that we have fundamentally strong criminal justice institutions and so on, but I would like to invite the Minister to agree with me that even though things are good, there is a possibility that they can be better. There is always room for improvement. Would he agree that ideas like the ombudsman may help us to get to that goal? Lastly, just very briefly, to respond to the Minister's point on QSM and Meet-the-People sessions, I did address that in my speech. QSM is not an independent process that is outside of the authorities, Statutory Board or Ministry that is the subject of the complaint. Meet-the-People sessions do not include an independent fact-finding process. I just want to make that observation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, and just in time, the office of the ombudsman would concentrate professional investigative resources into handling complaints of lapses, errors, poor processes and blind spots in the work of public servants. In doing so, it would strengthen public confidence in the state among our citizens since they would know that there is an independent avenue of redress accessible to the ordinary citizen who cannot afford costly legal action against the Government. Such a move would be a significant step towards achieving what this Motion today calls for, making justice accessible to all.”
“Why does an ombudsman risked triggering a flood whereas these other institutional forms of complaint handling do not? Moreover, if a flood of complaints is occasioned by the creation of an ombudsman as it were, might that not be proof that there were latent grievances that members of the public hesitated to bring forth reasons of lack of confidence in existing channels of redress? If a reasonable fraction of those latent or pent-up grievances turn out to be legitimate, would addressing them not be a good thing for the quality of justice and fairness in our social fabric?”
“Sixth, we have the CPIB but the CPIB only investigates and resolves allegations of malfeasance, corruption and so on, which are potentially criminal offences, not oppressive, unfair or rude behaviour by public servants, for example; or flaws in the complaints handling process, for example. And seventh, we have Meet-the-People sessions. It has been a hallmark of our system that Members of Parliament write letters of appeal to Government agencies to address the grievances of constituents. But, Sir, these appeals are subsequently addressed by the agencies themselves. The process does not amount to an independent investigation by an external agency, resourced and qualified to do the same. Members of Parliament's letters merely present the perspective of the constituent. There is no independent fact-finding. Lastly, Sir, let me address the objection that creating an office of the ombudsman will incite a flood of frivolous complaints against public servants, consuming enormous resources and sparking the growth of a complaint culture that may undermine confidence in the Public Service and induce public servants to do their work defensively, as it were. One can discern echoes of such an argument in the response of former Law Minister, Mr EW Barker to the idea of an ombudsman in the 1960s. Considering this argument more closely, one can see that this is an argument against creating responsive complaints handling processes of any kind rather than being an argument specifically against the institutional form of an ombudsman. If we are worried about the system being flooded with frivolous complaints, ought we not to similarly abolish Quality Service or QS departments in Ministries, for example?”
“However, the PSC is not an investigative body per se and does not possess the resources and expertise to look into complaints against the Public Service to approximate what we see in the office of the ombudsman in, say, Hong Kong and Australia. Moreover, the PSC does have powers to conduct investigations into misconduct by public servants, but only on a complaint by a Permanent Secretary as relates to sections 3 and 4 of the Public Services Disciplinary Proceedings Regulations. This means that PSC cannot conduct investigations and complaints brought by members of the public. Fourthly, we have REACH but REACH again is not an investigative body that can probe the actions of public servants and provide closure in a way that is seen as independent. Fifth, we have the Auditor-General's Office or AGO but the work of the AGO is primarily focused on the annual audit of public sector which involves randomly selecting agencies for audit checks on a sample check basis as auditors do. No doubt the AGO can be ordered to conduct off-cycle special audits. In 2016, I obtained a Parliamentary reply to the effect that there have only been two AGO Special Audits ordered by the Government in the past 20 years. The first related to claims made by Opposition Members of Parliament in Parliament about healthcare subsidies in 1996. The second was a request audit of the Workers' Party left Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council in 2014. However, Sir, the AGO is currently not set up to field the broad complaints about public sector lapses, errors or poor quality of service.”
“I should stress that this is one model for constructing such an office that seems to me to be reasonable but the question of the operating model for an ombudsman warrants far deeper scrutiny before an appropriate model is defined. Next, Sir, I would like to deal with objections to the idea of an ombudsman. Currently, the Singapore Government rejection of the notion of an ombudsman seems to be premised on the fact that there are sufficient mechanisms already in place to receive public feedback, safeguard public trust and maintain the integrity of public institutions. I shall attempt to deal with these objections one by one. First, we have the possibility of internal reviews within Ministries and Statutory Boards. But as I mentioned earlier, these would risk not being seen as independent and thus potentially leave open the possibility of a growing trust and confidence deficit. Second, we have the citizen's right to sue the Government in Court. However, most citizens in Singapore believe that this avenue of redress comes with considerable, if not, prohibitive cost, in terms of money and time, and they believe this for good reason. Citizens will first have to find a law firm willing to sue the Government and face the AGC as an opponent. Next, if it is a judicial review action, leave of Court to commence such an action must first be obtained and only then can action be brought. Therefore, two sets of legal costs are involved in a judicial review action. Third, many documents are in the Government's possession and these may be denied to a litigant due to a claim of official secrecy. All these factors, taken together, explain the rarity of such legal action. Thirdly, we have the Public Service Commission or PSC.”
“Sir, there are various models on how an ombudsman could actually operate, found in different jurisdictions around the world. The classical model is that of an office with extensive powers to investigate cases, question witnesses and requisition documents, one where the ombudsman may work towards mediation of conflicts. If no solution can be reached, they will provide recommendations to the relevant administrative unit. That is the classical model. In this model, the office would have no power of coercion and can only apply soft pressure to get the recommendation accepted. The ombudsman would submit an annual activity report to Parliament. Sir, this is close to the model common in Western Europe and some commonwealth countries, including the UK, Australia, Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands and Hong Kong. So, in other words, the model for an ombudsman could be as follows: the office investigates all complaints using an objective process of fact-finding. The office of the ombudsman would then recommend follow-up action to the public sector agency concerned. If the follow-up action is not undertaken to a satisfactory extent, the ombudsman would have recourse to the Courts or would have other means of recourse, such as publishing its findings, for example. The ombudsman would be appointed by Parliament for a fixed term and would be answerable to Parliament. The office of the ombudsman could be enshrined in the Constitution in an Article that could also specify the grounds for disqualification. Such an Article on disqualification could be modelled on Article 72 of the Constitution for the Presidential Council for Minority Rights or the mechanism for the removal of Judges under Article 98(3)(iv).”
“The office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in Australia safeguards on aims to safeguard the community in its dealings with the Australian government. It is responsible for ensuring that the actions of agencies are fair and responsible by: (a) handling complaints; (b) conducting investigations; (c) performing audits and inspections and (d) encouraging good administration. The office of Commonwealth Ombudsman was created by law in 1976 in Australia. The Act provides that the Ombudsman is to investigate the administrative actions of Australian government departments and agencies. The Ombudsman interestingly is also the law enforcement and ombudsman and can investigate complaints about the actions of the Australian Federal Police or AFP, and about the policies, practices and procedures of the AFP as an agency. If a person is dissatisfied after making a complaint to the AFP, they can make a complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman reports to Parliament, at least annually, on the comprehensiveness and adequacy of the AFP's complaint handling. Sir, next, I would like to talk about next steps. I have argued for the creation of an office of independent ombudsman in Singapore to investigate complaints against public servants. We propose submitting the idea of creating such an office as an item to be considered in the external review described by my Party Chair and Member of Parliament, Ms Sylvia Lim. The review process could consider the role such an ombudsman could play in our current eco-system of laws, regulations and practices, in the context of the questions raised by the Parti Liyani's case and taking into consideration and useful lessons from the study of the operating model for an ombudsman in force at other jurisdictions.”
“A 2011 report by the Asian Development Bank or ADB noted that most Asian Ombudsman Association or AOA members focus on the following mandates. One, providing redress for individual complainants. Two, addressing systemic issues to improve public administration. And three, enforcing accountability in government. The ADB report noted that an ombudsman can be established either under the Constitution by statute or administrative regulations. Some relevant Asian AOA member institutions of interests and their legal basis includes the Ombudsman of Indonesia created under presidential issuance decree number 44; the Ombudsman of Hong Kong created under the Ombudsman Ordinance in 1989; Malaysia's Public Complaints Bureau created under administrative circular number 4 in 1971; the Philippines Office of the Ombudsman created under the 1987 Constitution Republic Act. Sir, I shall highlight for more detailed treatment here, just two examples, Hong Kong and Australia. Established in 1989, the Ombudsman in Hong Kong monitors public governance. The office strives to improve the quality of public administration and enhance the culture of service through independent objective and impartial investigation into complaints received and by self-initiated studies in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Ombudsman has powers to: firstly, investigate complaints from aggrieved persons about maladministration; secondly investigate complaints against government departments and agencies for non-compliance with a code of access to information; and thirdly, initiate direct investigation into issues of potentially wide public interest and concern. Next, let me turn to Australia.”
“An ombudsman should be able to investigate such incidents in the first instance and recommend corrective action where necessary while the Government focuses on developing sound public policy. The Government could then consider any policy recommendations made by the ombudsman in its annual report. Secondly, an ombudsman could also quash unsubstantiated claims and vicious attacks on the Public Service by conducting a transparent and independent investigation into any allegation. And thirdly, the transparency and independence of the ombudsman will help build trust in the Government. Next, Sir, I would like to consider examples of other jurisdictions that have created the office of an ombudsman or its equivalent. A 2018 OECD working paper noted that almost 30% of governments have included independent institutions like ombudsman offices to foster a more "open state" which OECD recommendation on the council open government defines as and I quote, "When the executive legislature judiciary independent public institutions and all levels of government recognising the respective roles, prerogatives and overall independence according to their existing legal and institutional frameworks collaborate, exploit synergies and share good practises and lessons learnt among themselves and with other stakeholders to promote transparency, integrity, accountability and stakeholder participation and support of democracy and inclusive growth." Notably, 96% of the ombudsman institutions studied in this report focus on complaints against the public administration and 67% also conduct mediation of such complaints between citizens and the public administration. This is the OECD, the club of more developed economies.”
“Firstly, an ombudsman could undertake an inquiry that is independent from and seen to be independent from a public sector agency, which is the subject of a complaint, setting it apart from internal enquiries that occur within Ministries or Statutory Boards, by the quality service department, for example. Having access to such a check would, in fact, bolster the standing of the Public Service. Secondly, an ombudsman would be equipped with investigative resources and a remit to independently investigate complaints that organisations like the Auditor-Generala's Office and Public Service Commission do not currently have. Thirdly, an ombudsman may uncover policy gaps or institutional shortcomings that are not related purely to corruption, accounting or corporate governance that are dealt with by the CPIB and Auditor-General's Office, as I argued in Parliament in 2018. The office of the ombudsman could therefore table a review paper every year analysing in aggregate, the cases it had dealt with, describing any systemic patterns discerned and putting forth evidence-driven recommendations for systemic change in how the Public Service interfaces with citizens. In 2016, during the public discussion on the Constitutional amendment to the elected presidency scheme, scholar Mr Chirag Agarwal published an op-ed essay outlining outlining how an ombudsman could benefit Singapore, and I think it is worth citing that. To paraphrase, he argued firstly, the delivery of public services has become more complex and citizens have become more demanding. Parliament has had to address specific incidents involving Government agencies.”
“In 1994, as has been alluded to earlier today, then backbencher and current Law Minister Mr K Shanmugam also raised it in Parliament, suggesting that an ombudsman, and I quote, "might actually help retain the confidence of people in the system, to have an intermediate institution which can provide for a quick and effective remedy and reserving the final appeal to the minister for extreme cases". In 2011, then Member of Parliament and now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, called for the establishment of an ombudsman during the debate on the President's Address, noting that former President, Mr Tony Tan, had revived interest in this during the presidential campaign. Mr Singh asked a Parliamentary Question in 2012 as to whether the Government will consider whistle blower protection legislation and the institution of a national ombudsman to act as a layer of deterrence against wayward civil servants. In response, then Deputy Prime Minister Mr Teo Chee Hean stated that there are multiple channels for raising irregularities. Independent bodies, like the Public Service Commission, the Auditor-General's Office and CPIB are involved in the process. Sir, other Members of Parliament who have spoken in favour of the idea of an ombudsman over the years include Mr Zaqy Mohamad in 2013, my colleague, then Non-Constituency Member of Parliament and now Member of Parliament Mr Dennis Tan in 2016, Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin in 2016 and Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Kok Heng Leun in 2017 and myself in 2018. Sir, there are a number of arguments for an ombudsman in the Singapore context. I shall attempt to summarise these in the following three points.”
“However, the ombudsman would not have the authority to investigate complaints against the Judiciary so as to protect the vital tenets of judicial independence from any potential or inappropriate external interference. Sir, the idea of creating an office of the ombudsman in Singapore is not new by any means. Let me recount some highlights of past public discussion about the proposal to establish an office of the ombudsman in Singapore. The idea has in fact been debated publicly and in this House on many occasions. The 1966 Wee Chong Jin Constitutional Commission recommended instituting an ombudsman to ensure an independent check on the acts and decisions of the public sector, apart from the principle of Ministerial responsibility. The Government then responded that it was not rejecting the proposal but that it was not the right time to institute it. This was in the 1960s because citizens had not yet developed a clear understanding of their rights and obligations. According to then Law Minister, Mr EW Barker, such an institution would be, and I quote, "flooded by complaints by people who do not know what are the limits of his jurisdiction". In 1990, then Member of Parliament Mr Davinder Singh called for the establishment of the ombudsman, noting that, and I quote, "it is in our interest that we develop a system of accountability, a system which will assure the man in the street that if he has a grievance, he can take it up to a person or a body who has a right or has a power to look into it, look into the files of the Ministry, if necessary, or bring a complaint of shoddy treatment up to the superiors".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, fairness, access and independence should be affirmed as cornerstones of Singapore's justice system. In pursuing these goals, we should address shortcomings and blind spots in our current institutional matrix of laws, regulations, policies and practices relating to justice. Sir, I should focus my speech on only one recommendation that I would argue would advance significantly towards that goal – creating the office of an ombudsman. The Workers' Party has advocated for setting up the office of an independent ombudsman in our GE 2015 and 2020 manifestos. In its GE 2011 Manifesto, the Workers' Party proposed the establishment of an independent Police Complaints Commission for some of the same reasons. Sir, an ombudsman would function as an independent office to investigate complaints about administrative decisions or actions of a public agency, including delay, rudeness, negligence, arbitrariness, inconsistency, oppressive behaviour or unlawfulness. Parti Liyani's case has raised the question of wider access to the criminal justice system and avenues of redress on the part of those with lesser means. An ombudsman would provide access to an independent public office with remit and resources to investigate potential wrongdoing, errors, lapses or weaknesses in the conduct of public officials. The office of the ombudsman would be open to Singaporeans of all backgrounds and income profiles. The remit of the ombudsman in our proposal would extend to the conduct of all public servants, including the Police and the prosecution service. In so far as the Police are concerned, this role has parallels with that of independent Police Complaints Commission's or councils found in other jurisdictions, such as the UK and Hong Kong.”
“Secondly, Sir, the PDPC could, during this transitional period, provide guidance and possibly subsidies for adopting compliant IT systems, to reduce the compliance burden on these organisations while encouraging good data protection practices. This would be particularly helpful for SMEs and business-to-business or B2B companies in Singapore, as these often store data in an unstructured way, using folders in an ad hoc fashion. As such, if a data breach were to happen, the data review process could be particularly complex, time-consuming and costly for them. Thank you.”
“Sir, such an obligation seems to me to be not overly onerous on businesses. Fourthly, businesses, especially SMEs, sole proprietorships and some not-for-profit organisations, may experience difficulties in adhering to these new, more rigorous regulations. I would like to ask when this Bill will come into effect and would the Government consider allowing for a transition or grace period? Such a suggestion would be in line with, firstly, the previous 18-month transition period adopted before most of the substantive provisions of the PDPA took effect when it was enacted in 2012; and secondly, the two-year transition or sunrise period which was given when the GDPR was adopted by the European Union in 2016, during which time there was delayed enforcement so that organisations would have time to prepare. During this transition period, the PDPC could consider providing greater support to SMEs and volunteer organisations in several respects. Firstly, training of staff to understand the new requirements imposed and guidance to introduce new processes and frameworks in compliance with those requirements. For instance, in the 2018 SingHealth data breach, the delay of 28 days in the reporting of the incident to senior management could be attributed to lack of staff training and absence of a reporting framework to some extent. Voluntary organisations, in particular, may benefit from such training as they may lack knowledge of these requirements. For instance, in 2019, Henry Park Primary School Parents' Association was found by the PDPC to have been negligent in failing to make reasonable security arrangements to protect members' personal data and appoint a Data Protection Officer.”
“Given that such an overly broad "escape" clause may undermine the legal spirit of the mandatory data breach notification requirement, I would like to ask: what are circumstances in which the Government may activate this clause, and would the Government consider tightening and carefully circumscribing the scope and use of this clause, to reduce any potential for abuse and the perception of arbitrariness? Secondly, Sir, the amended Bill creates new offences to hold individuals accountable for egregious mishandling of personal data on behalf of an organisation or public agency. The thrust of the PDPA is to hold businesses responsible such that risk can be treated as a business cost rather than something to be potentially placed on individual "scapegoats" who may have little bargaining power as employees. With new offences for the unauthorised mishandling of personal data by individuals, including employees, there is the possibility that "scapegoating" may happen. Junior employees with lesser bargaining power may be held liable, while higher ranked employees and the organisation itself may face reduced accountability thereby. While the amendments spell out possible grounds of defence that the accused individual may take, has the Government given some thought to what additional measures should be put in place to prevent such "scapegoating"? Thirdly, I would like to speak about what has been referred to, in the context of the GDPR, as the "right to be forgotten". I would suggest further extending the retention limitation obligations in the PDPA to be aligned with Article 17 of the GDPR, where individuals may interface with an organisation to request the deletion of data and where withdrawal of consent may lead to an obligation to immediately delete personal data.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the PDPA Bill seeks to update the original PDPA Act to strengthen data privacy protections and individual data autonomy, ensure greater accountability on the part of organisations and enhance the power of the PDPC. I do not oppose the Bill and agree with the comments expressed by my Parliamentary colleagues Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Louis Chua Kheng Wee. I shall focus my speech on just a few areas where I would like to pose technical clarifications and suggestions. Firstly, Sir, I would like to speak on the mandatory data breach reporting guideline. I suggest that the we could, in section 26B, provide a clearer and more precise definition of "significant harm" to an individual that would warrant notification. In other words, it would be helpful if the Government could provide a statutory definition or further guidance as to the factors that are to be taken into account in assessing the nature of the "harm" and any relevant thresholds before the PDPC would hold the view that "significant harm" has been occasioned, so that organisations have clarity in their assessment as to when a data breach will be considered a notifiable data breach. The definition provided in section 26B subsection 2 currently seems rather broad. Also, on this point, allowing for exemption of organisations by the PDPC from notifying affected individuals of data breaches in the new section 26D is problematic. In this clause, the obligation to notify affected individuals can be waived "subject to any conditions that the [PDPC] thinks fit".”
“The last point is really on the Senior Minister of State who talked about the contrast between Minimum Wage and Progressive Wage Model that with the Progressive Wage Model, you are less likely to lose jobs because that is a negotiated outcome with employers. But would the Senior Minister of State accept that you can have a process to set a Minimum Wage nationally, with reference to research and facts that involves consultation with employers before that Minimum Wage is set, so you do not surrender that advantage as well.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Just some points of clarification to the Senior Minister of State, Dr Koh Poh Koon, who gave a spirited defence of the PWM model. We have said that we do not think that PWM and Minimum Wage are mutually exclusive. My first question is really how long does the Senior Minister of State envisage the rolling out of the PWM to all the vulnerable workers who are now earning very low incomes; how long would that take? The number could be 100,000 or 36,000 depending on the definition used, but how long we are going to take to address the needs of that group? Secondly, Senior Minister of State Koh also talked about how a Minimum Wage inevitably becomes politicised, but the Senior Minister of State presumably does not feel that PWM inevitably becomes politicised. Why does Minimum Wage inevitably become politicised but the PWM model does not also become a political football and become politicised. Third point of clarification is really on how the Minimum Wage may hurt our SMEs. Senior Minister of State did say that the number of people who will be affected by a minimum wage of $1,300 per month could actually be very small. So, how does such a small number actually effect a very substantial hurt or a disadvantage to SMEs if the number is basically small? In making this point, I would note that some discussions publicly that have happened about Minimum Wage within the business community, that have been reported in The Business Times and so on, have shown that many business owners are in fact open to a Minimum Wage if it is not set too high because they also want to pay their employees with dignity.”
“A single work coach will follow a claimant throughout their time on benefit, helping to match claimants to jobs that suit their skills and help to fill skill gaps by offering training to claimants who require it. Work coaches are trained to play a complex role, almost like a social worker – in listening, encouraging, advising and ensuring jobseekers have access to support. Work coaches seek to understand the barriers faced by each jobseeker and deliver a personalised approach to support them, sometimes coaching them to develop the requisite skills and confidence. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, the coming wave of industry disruption and job displacement will affect jobs in a way that is hard to underestimate. And thus has it always been when cars replaced horses, when electric power replaced gas lighting and so on and so forth. It behoves us to prepare for that coming wave by considering ideas, like fixed term foreign work passes, jobs anticipation programmes and end-to-end KPI-driven jobs coaching.”
“Sir, in the past, I have also spoken in this House about the Korean jobs dictionary which aims to compile and disseminate information about the nature and outlook for most types of jobs in Korea. The aims and approach, while not similar to the Denmark example I cited, have some points of commonality. At this point, let me declare my interest as a CEO of an international research consultancy that undertakes research on such issues among other things. And lastly, we currently have various mechanisms and platforms for workers of the receiving end of industry disruption to receive help in respect of job matching and career coaching. I have referred some of my constituents in Serangoon onto such services and they are not without value. However, it is less clear if the providers of such services practise an approach where one career coach sticks with a prospective employee from end-to-end, seeing him or her through to a successful placement. The KPIs for such agencies and data on success versus failure are also not clear. What is the ratio of success? How does it vary, based on industry vocation, gender, age, race, PwD status or other variables? It would be good for such data to be made public so that success can be measured and debated publicly. In doing so would not mean accepting that the employee has no responsibility for her or his success in finding a new job. It would just mean that some transparency and a proper account management approach may be more effective in enabling us to refine our strategies for finding jobs for displaced workers. In the UK, for example, around 13,500 work coaches and job centres hired by the department for work and pensions aim to move jobseekers on benefits or income support into employment.”
“Journalist Thomas Gross, in a 2018 article wrote and I quote, "Most Swedish workers who are replaced by machines fairly quickly land another job as good as their old one, thanks to a network of job security councils jointly run by industries and unions, that retrained laid-off workers in skills that are still in demand and out of reach of robots. Moreover, while unemployed and learning new skills, workers are buoyed by a safety net that includes generous jobless benefits." Sir, going forward, Singapore will need to seriously up its game in both skills upgrading and interim structural income support with the latter tied to the former. Secondly, I would suggest that the Government look into working with employees and other stakeholders in industries at risk from disruption to get them to anticipate the risks and start planning for what to do if and when their industry gets disrupted and they lose their job. This is not an idea without precedent. Denmark's national skills anticipation system, for example, seeks to compile accessible and detailed information on labour market trends and skills demand for 850 occupations in order to: firstly, support the work of job centres in helping individuals find better job opportunities; and secondly, to informed education, employment and skills policies. Denmark's main skills anticipation activities include: skills forecasting, for example, statistical forecasting of education status and the demand and supply of labour; skills assessments, for example, quantitative sectoral assessments on imbalances in the labour market; skills foresight, for example, sectoral assessments on future needs in the labour market and employer surveys.”
“By adopting an approach like fixed term work passes, we can bring in foreigners with rare but future-ready skillsets while buying time for Singaporeans to be trained in those very same skillsets, in a way that gives some assurance to those Singaporeans that the training would have a decent chance of landing him or her a good job in a future-ready industry. Sir, fixed term work passes will also be attractive to foreign professionals because they would have several years of working experience here. They may also be able to find another employer, perhaps in a different industry before the end of that term. Otherwise, they could be posted to another city by their employer. Sir, before I leave this point, I would like to make the observation that as the pace of disruption picks up, Singapore would benefit from a redundancy insurance scheme but one in which additional income support can be tied to training and reskilling for growth sectors. Some economists have argued that the Scandinavian economies succeeded in shifting big sections of their workforce – for example, in Sweden's obsolete shipyards – to more productive skilled occupations, thereby facilitating the upgrading of the Swedish economy at a much faster and more durable pace. In contrast, some states and cities in the US saw de-industrialisation because they did not have concerted state-sponsored retraining and income support policies. This led, in some cases, to entire communities and regions becoming impoverished and facing social decay, in turn fueling populist politics.”
“The lead time to create a critical mass of Singaporeans trained in these skills could be years and the challenge faces the chicken and egg problem discussed above. As in many Singaporeans may not want to invest in such training out of uncertainty about whether it would be worth. However, workers with such skills may be available at short notice in other cities in the world to be recruited for work in Singapore. Silicon Valley, for example, London or Israel or China. In order to attract and support such investment projects that create jobs, either from foreign investors or from domestic investors and entrepreneurs, can our economic agencies offer limited term foreign work passes for individuals with such specialised skills? The term could be five years, for example. To attract big investment projects in a competitive investment climate, a mix of fixed term and non-fixed term Employment Passes could be offered. For the fixed term passes, the idea would be that the employer would be expected to hire a Singaporean to fill that position when the term of the pass ends. That fixed term, say, five years could then be used to set up training for Singaporeans to acquire those skills. That could be formal academic training or employer-led training, using one of the many existing schemes that we have. When the term ends, there would be enough Singaporeans with the relevant skills to fill that position; and if they are not and that is proven, the pass can be extended a little longer. The presence of the employer in Singapore with fixed term foreign work passes will provide some assurance to prospective Singaporean employees that their efforts to train for a role in this new industry would be likely to lead to a good job.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, one response to all of this is to say, "We don't want disruptive industries, let's legislate to ban them". But I do not think any serious commentator or stakeholder will really argue this nowadays. Such a move would doom us to economic irrelevance. So, I would not spend any more time addressing that straw man argument. How then can we attract and anchor disruptive next generation industries in Singapore and, at the same time, and in tandem urge our workers to transition from sunset at-risk industries to these new industries, thus creating a virtual cycle of enhancing employability and protecting jobs on the one hand and attracting and rooting these industries in Singapore, on the other? There are a few chicken and egg conundrums here. The first conundrum is how do we attract employees to join or to train for riskier, less mature disruptive industries like AVs, AI and so on when they may not feel assured that there will be a job there at the end of their training or that the job will be sustainable. The second conundrum is how do we nurture the growth of such industries in Singapore when there are few workers with the relevant skills in the short term, without relying on an unsustainable importation of skilled foreign workers? Sir, to address these questions, I shall conclude my speech with a few suggestions. Firstly, Sir, I would suggest that our economic agencies study a new model for attracting and supporting investments in next generation industries. Many of these industries rely on highly specialised skills that may not be taught in courses available in Singapore or courses that are widely subscribed to.”
“To raise the example of jobs like driving taxis and private hire cars which are I and others have spoken about in the past, many of these jobs could be wiped out by autonomous vehicles in the years to come. Many younger entrants to these industries may find themselves on the wrong side of industry disruption when they hit their late 30s, 40s or 50s, at which time reskilling and transitioning to a new industry will be hard. Should we not give some thought to these challenges and encourage these workers to plan for the same? Sir, let us now look at the same issue from the perspective not of workers but of the economy as a whole. We do want to attract and root disruptive industries in Singapore so that they can become engines of our economic growth. Why? Because if we anchor the technical skills, employee qualifications, business know-how and entrepreneurial talent behind these industries of the future in Singapore, that will enable us to export these skills to the region and the world, thus facilitating high-quality, inclusive economic growth. If there is an insufficient supply of workers for these new industries, workers whether through traditional industries including sunset industries, that means these new industry investments may not come to Singapore. Rather, they may go to Hong Kong or Bangkok or Jakarta or Shanghai or Hyderabad. Or it could mean that if and when these new industries land in Singapore there would be too few Singaporeans with the will and skills to take jobs there so workers will have to be imported on Employment Passes and special passes. This may mean that it would hard to establish a strong Singapore Core in such industries going forward. It may also mean that these investments may be less firmly anchored in Singapore in the future.”
“Schemes such as the PCP, CSP, SGUnited Traineeship, Mid-Career Traineeship and others have been put in place, some for a long time, some recently to address the systemic risk to jobs in certain industries as well as the risk to employability among certain segments such as older PMETs. There are various CETs and SkillsFuture programmes for training. The newly formed National Jobs Council has said that it will work with the Future Economy Council on the overall upgrading of the economy, including addressing the issue of future proofing jobs. However, there are limitations to these schemes. Firstly, these schemes have not yet made a huge impact on the job market. The tsunami of industry disruption that is likely to emerge in future argues for more scalable schemes which induce more workers to join the industries of the future, including industries that are not big employers right now. In 2019, close to 4,500 individuals were placed through PCPs which is comparable to the placement achievement in 2018. However, this is a very, very small percentage of the labour force. Under the Adapt and Grow initiative, including PCP and CSP, more than 31,000 local jobseekers were placed in jobs in 2019, similar to the 2018 number. However, not all of these placements would be in emergent disruptive industries. Secondly, these schemes address certain types of at-risk segments such as older PMETs or those who are retrenched. There is perhaps insufficient attention at the policy level to industries that are doing okay now, like delivery or driving jobs or certain types of clerical and service jobs which are at risk from industry disruption a few years down the road but for whom there is no urgency on the part of employers and employees to prepare for a more uncertain future right now.”
“But it is possible that COVID-19 has, in fact, delayed the advance of these disruptive industries by delaying timelines for R&D and new business investment. As COVID recedes, the threat and opportunity from these disruptive trends may return to the old trajectory, which means that many jobs in Singapore will be jeopardised not from COVID but from long-term industry disruption. Sir, I enjoyed reading former US presidential candidate and entrepreneur Andrew Yang's compelling book about industry disruption, aptly entitled "The War on Ordinary People". It argues that the threat of industry disruption hollowing out middle market, skilled jobs as chillingly imminent. Among the examples he cited was that of a person who was exchanging emails with another person whom he thought was the secretary of a business associate. He later discovered that the person he was emailing with whom he had exchanged pleasantries and had a fruitful conversation over email was, in fact, an AI-driven bot. Lest anyone misunderstand my reference to Andrew Yang, let me make clear that I am not arguing for universal basic income or UBI here, as I think the jury is still out on the topic and addressing UBI now would be premature – though it is something we should keep an open mind about. Sir, the Government has been cognisant of the risk to the jobs from industry disruption. Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat in his COVID-19 Statement in Parliament last week spoke about providing holistic support for vulnerable workers and for ensuring that workers have the skills to stay relevant. He also spoke of the even greater urgency for middle aged and middle income workers to gain new skills and transition into jobs with good long-term prospects.”
“Simply put, these refer to new industries like drones which may displace conventional last-mile delivery, including food service delivery, artificial intelligence or AI which may displace clerical jobs or functions like para-legal work or even radiology, autonomous vehicles which may displace jobs like taxi and private hire car driving and quantum computing which is possibly the mother of all disruptions and may drive machine learning, pattern recognition and other activities traditionally associated with AI beyond the bounds of what is conventionally recognised as AI today, in turn potentially displacing many skilled white-collar jobs. What does the advent of all these disruptive industries mean for Singapore? A Cisco Oxford Economic Study in 2018 projected the following: 85,000 existing roles will disappear from the labour market, pushing workers into other industries and occupations. Singapore is said, according to this report, to confront a gap in average skill levels of 14.3 on a scale of 0 to 100 – higher than Vietnam at 13.4, Malaysia at 12.7 and Thailand at 8.5. According to this report, the three sectors in line for most displacement in Singapore are: firstly, wholesale and retail with 80,000 jobs displaced; secondly, manufacturing with 55,000 jobs displaced; and thirdly, transport with 50,000 jobs displaced. Also, the 2017 Global Future of Works Survey by Willis Towers Watson found that companies in Singapore expect automation will account for an average of 29% of all work done the next three years, a big increase in 14% of work being done using automation in 2018 and just 7% in 2015. Mr Speaker, Sir, these forecasts were made before COVID. Some may argue that these are alarmist projections.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic has wrought havoc on the economy of the world and Singapore and as the virus mutates and countries react, we must realise that our efforts may resemble the labours of mythological Sisyphus – who kept rolling a boulder up a hill, only to see it roll down again and again – at least until an effective vaccine is widely available and may be even lasting beyond that. However, we do need to look beyond COVID and to do that, we have to look before COVID. There were many deep economic trends already gathering pace before COVID, including rising geo-political tensions, nativism and economic nationalism. Mr Speaker, Sir, in my speech today I shall focus only one of these trends – industry disruption. The rise of Industry 4.0 or disruptive industries more broadly has been much talked about around the world, among economists, experts, business persons, unions, activists and politicians. Industry 4.0 refers to the Fourth Industrial Revolution where data from the Internet of Things and other sources revolutionises economic activity. Industry disruption more broadly refers to the recent wave of new technologies and business models that threaten or, should I say, promise to disrupt existing industries.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Sir, it is my understanding that I am due to speak tomorrow.”
“To meet these new stricter timelines, more resources would need to be made available. I would also like to ask if plans are being made for the SMC to handle the current backlog of cases to be in line with these new requirements. Last but not least, I would like to raise the issue of the composition of the SMC returning to a subject I raised during the 2019 Committee of Supply debate. Currently, the Government appoints a large number of SMC members. And in the past the majority of SMC members were not directly elected by the medical practitioner community. Anecdotally, it would appear that a perception still exists among the medical practitioner community that the SMC acts like a Government arm and as such the outcomes of disciplinary processes may reflect the Government's stance more than what is fair and agreeable to doctors. The counter argument to that kind of perception is that an SMC, where the majority of members are elected from the medical profession, may become a body that tilts more towards the interests of doctors than patients or the wider society, in lieu of the hand of the Government to inject considerations of broader societal interest. In considering this question and it is a big question, I would like to suggest that the Government considers regularly measuring the state of opinion among doctors towards the SMC to ensure that confidence is high. And in light of these findings, consider how best to tweak the balance between elected and appointed seats on the SMC, if at all. After all, an SMC which enjoys a high degree of confidence from the medical practitioner community would be a strong bulwark against any creep towards defensive medicine. 4.19 pm”
“One point I would make here in passing is that I suggest that the Government and the SMC analyse the current doctor composition on such committees to assess if senior and retired doctors are over-represented. One doctor in private practice I spoke to, had describe being in the SMC or serving in DTs as a "thankless job". Another doctor commented that a friend recently mentioned that you received 11-feet high stacks of notes to go through before a case, with little compensation and support to speak of. Sir, I do not have a perfect solution to this. The stipend paid to doctors for their service could be increased, but there are of course limits to this as this may tend to raise the fees doctors need to pay for the SMC's costs which may pass through to consumers. One possibility is to automatically assign credit when doctors serve on disciplinary tribunals to count towards doctors' mandatory Continuing Medical Education or CME requirements to maintain good standing as medical practitioners. However, this would need further and consultation so as to be done in a manner that does not compromise CME goals. My suggestion here would be for the Government to work with SMC to study this problem and consider better ways to incentivise and support doctors serving and Disciplinary Committees, including considering non-monetary forms of recognition and the provision of better supporting resources. Next Sir, I would like to ask if the Minister could provide assurance that sufficient resources will be dedicated to allow adherence to stipulate the timelines under this new MRA. There is a perception that the SMC is stretched thinly on resources explaining the long timelines taken to resolve complaints and the existence of a significant backlog of cases.”
“Moreover, an inquisitorial system for the SMC would give more power to the DT in directing the proceedings and offers the advantage of seeking the truth instead of taking sides. But the adversarial approach is perhaps most appropriate where the defendant needs to prove innocence in relation to a very serious charge. In fact, this point of feedback was raised during a review in 2014. I would like to suggest that a separate non-adversarial track or parallel track for disciplinary proceedings be created which could be activated based on mutual consent among both parties or by an order from the DC, which may decide to order such proceedings in cases where, for example, one party is of lesser means and may thus be disadvantaged by the need to hire skilled legal counsel. For this to work, the DT members would need to be adequately trained, as alluded to earlier in my speech. Next, I would like to speak on recognition and support for doctors serving in disciplinary committees or as expert witnesses. Currently, while a small honorarium is paid to some Complaints Panel members from the private sector, DT members are not reimbursed for the time spent on working on a case. The DT's two senior doctors would usually have to block out their clinical appointments for about a week for each DT case, representing a significant trade-off in respect of income. As a result, active private doctors who run busy practices often decline the invitation to be in the DT. Yet, it is important to have full-time working doctors in DTs as it ensures its decisions are relevant, up-to-date and reflect ground realities.”
“This may result in doctors having to pay more in terms of their contribution to the SMC and medical indemnity insurance, in turn leading to rising healthcare costs borne by consumers. In 2018, the SMC's net legal expenses for disciplinary proceedings – 880,000 – comprised a significant 10% of total operating expenses of $8.8 million. The 2019 work group report recommended the creation of in-house prosecution and legal advisory units to improve access to legal resources. This suggestion would also solve the issue of insufficient legal support provided to the CCs at present. Members of the legal and prosecution units may be drawn from the Attorney-General's Chambers or from the pool of Legal Services Officers to tap on their legal and prosecutorial experience. However, it is unclear if having in-house counsel would help to save on legal costs compared to outsourcing, that begs the question of whether the SMC has done a cost-benefit analysis of having an in-house legal unit versus continued reliance on outsourcing to commercial law firms. I would urge the Government to work with the SMC to look into this question and act accordingly. Next, I would like to raise the possibility of creating a parallel disciplinary process that departs from an adversarial system to an inquisitorial system so that witnesses, that are agreed to by both sides, may be questioned by the DT to form an opinion. Currently, the DT members may sit quietly for much of the proceedings while lawyers and witnesses duel in front of them. An inquisitorial system would remove the incentives and therefore the biases inherent in a "conviction at all costs" attitude on the part of the prosecution. It may also substantially lower legal costs.”
“I note that the 2019 work group report had recommended that such specialist training in legal matters be provided to members and that the DC should consider working together with the Singapore Judicial College, the Singapore Academy of Law and Singapore Medical Association on the provision of training. I understand that there are existing training courses provided for being an expert witness. But my suggestion here is for more comprehensive training to all relevant personnel with clear certifiable outcomes. I understand that Minister Edwin Tong did allude to the responsibility of the DC in ensuring that training is provided to DC members and would be grateful for more details on how this will be executed. Next, the Bill seems to be silent on the question of who the SMC uses as its Prosecuting Counsel. The current practice of using commercial law firms may be unsustainable due to skyrocketing legal costs, sometimes, at the expense of fair judgments. I did note that, in his Second Reading speech, Minister Edwin Tong did allude to the creation of a legal unit within the SMC as part of the changes that will happen after the passage of this Bill if it is passed. I would be curious to know whether all legal work would be handled by this in-house legal unit and there would be no more reliance on outsourced lawyers, or would that be a hybrid model going forward. The context for raising this question is as follows. The 2019 work group observed that commercial law firms appear to have an attitude of securing convictions at all costs, even at the expense of disregarding the ECEG and previous Court of Three Judges judgments in some cases. Legal costs borne by the SMC have been known to be high, potentially posing a concern.”
“The Judges claimed that if the Complaints Committee members and the Disciplinary Tribunal members as well as both Prosecuting and Defence Counsel had all studied the ECEG properly as well as previous Court of Three Judges' judgments that were relevant, the unjust outcomes could have been avoided. Beyond the medical aspects of the case, the members may not be familiar with legal concepts, such as rules of natural justice and due process, burden of proof, a minimum standard for professional misconduct, which is an issue of mixed fact and law and proportionate sentencing. For instance, in the Soo Shuenn Chiang's case, the DT wrongly accepted the guilty plea because of the failure to properly assess the facts of the case and whether the acts which Dr Soo admitted to, rose to the level of professional misconduct in the first place. I would like to suggest the provision of certified training in the ECEG, medical ethics and relevant legal concepts for members of the named committees. Training of all members involved in the disciplinary process is key to ensuring justice. Section 57(2b) states that the Disciplinary Commission or DC is responsible for training members of the complaints panel or health committee. For greater rigour, the amendments should include a requirement for certified training in the ECEG and medical law before someone can act in the disciplinary process. Such training would surely help raise confidence in the disciplinary processes among the medical community.”