Louis Ng Kok Kwang
Singapore
“It does not matter whether the report was made to the Police or the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether an individual who reports an offence under the Bill to the Police will be similarly protected by the whistle-blowing protections under section 53?”
“In my Adjournment Motion six years ago, I shared the story of Emma, a single unwed parent who came to see me at my Meet-the-People Sessions, together with her two-month-old daughter. They were both living in a shelter. As I shared previously, when I asked why Emma did not shed a tear, she told me that she no longer had any tears left.”
“It is not just Nee Soon East cleaners who pay kickbacks. This, again, is a widespread problem that we have not done enough to detect and tackle. To tackle this more effectively, we need to treat kickbacks as seriously as corruption. We need our laws to have a more deterrent effect to have any chance of wiping out kickbacks.”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for answering my cut on second-hand smoke. And I am sure he expects me to clarify further. But I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there is no current technology to catch someone smoking at home and, so, because of that we cannot legislate a ban.”
“Madam, for years, I have spoken up repeatedly in this House, calling for the Government to take action to protect the lives of fellow Singaporeans from second-hand smoke. I have spoken up so much that Senior Minister of State Amy Khor once said that she is immune to me already. But on a more serious note, this is a serious issue.”
“We should end the discrimination and allow them to qualify for the PPHS. Mandate Sterilisation of Pet Cats I have spent a good part of my life calling for HDB to allow the keeping of cats in HDB flats. Many have called for this and I am glad the Government has finally changed our policies and allow the keeping of cats in HDB flats.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,801 lines we hold for Louis Ng Kok Kwang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 37.
“Sir, let me start by thanking members of the public, students from Cape Yale-NUS and NGOs like ItsRainingRaincoats, Sama Sama and COVID-19 Migrant Support Coalition (CMSC), who are here in the gallery in Parliament to support this Motion, for their unwavering efforts in helping our migrant friends and giving a voice to the voiceless. Sir, every parent wishes for the opportunity to watch their child grow up. Witnessing your child's first words and first steps are magical moments for any parent. I feel lucky to have been there for my three daughters through their years of laughter, tears, tantrums and, of course, joy over unboxing LOL dolls. Children do grow up so quickly and these precious, fleeting moments will never happen again. It is time we will never get back. Unfortunately, for most of our low-wage migrant workers, these are milestones they will experience only through phone screens, from thousands of miles away. Sir, three years ago, I accompanied Hanif, a cleaner at Nee Soon Town Council, as he visited his family back home in Bangladesh and to also welcome his first child into the world. During that trip, I met the wives, parents, siblings and children of Nee Soon Town Council cleaners who had not had the opportunity to visit home. I watched these family members video-call our Nee Soon cleaners in Singapore. I could hardly bear the sight as they wept with heartache and longing for one another. I met so many of our cleaners' families who have never met their fathers. It is the same for Hanif's son, Al Ameen, who is now three years old. Hanif has not been there to watch his son grow up. He proudly shows me all the photos of his son on his phone, including this morning when we met.”
“This Bill tackles serious crimes and exposes airlines to significant criminal liability. Can Minister share if the Government has worked with the airline industry to ensure proper review of their cargo processes so that airlines do not inadvertently expose themselves to criminal liability under the Bill? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill. 2.49 pm”
“Sir, this Bill gives effects to Singapore's obligations under the Beijing Convention. The Bill proposes to criminalise certain dangerous actions relating to aviation, including the use of aircraft as a weapon. Even in this time of reduced air travel, it is a necessary update to our law and helps enhance aviation safety. With the passage of this Bill, Singapore is once again standing with the international community and showing its commitment to the international rule of law. I have just two short clarifications on how we can help the airline industry comply with the requirements under this Bill. My first point has to do with the technical guidance to assist compliance by the airline industry. The Bill introduces offences relating to the transport of certain dangerous materials and BCN weapons. Airlines routinely transport dangerous goods. This is why the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has in place Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air. When drafting the Beijing Convention, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) had proposed to deem an airline carrier as compliant with the Beijing Convention as long as they can show compliance with the Technical Instructions. This was not accepted by the delegates at the Beijing Diplomatic Conference where the Beijing Convention was drafted. Nevertheless, to provide guidance to airlines in navigating the implementation of this Bill, can the Minister share if and how the ICAO's Technical Instructions should be considered by the Courts in Singapore in the interpretation of this Bill? My second point is on support extended to the airlines to ensure compliance with the provisions in this Bill.”
“Sir, during last year's climate change Motion, I spoke extensively about how Captain Planet, that children's cartoon, motivated me to care more for the environment. Through that sharing, I learnt that many people did not know who on earth Captain Planet is and that I really am getting old. But I am glad many went to find out about Captain Planet and the important message of protecting our planet. Sir, let me end with a quote from Gaia, the spirit of Earth in Captain Planet, and I quote, "The feeling that one person can't make a difference is the greatest obstacle of all." Small as Singapore may be, I hope we can all believe in her ability to make a difference in the global fight against climate change.”
“I hope the Government will use this to help subsidise decarbonisation projects in the private sectors as well as limit the impact on lower-income Singaporeans by issuing more U-Save rebates or vouchers under the Climate Friendly Households Programme. Let us make this transition an inclusive one. My third and final ask is that we expand the coverage of the carbon tax. Currently, carbon tax applies only to facilities emitting at least 25 kilotonnes of CO2-equivalent in a year. This covers around 50 facilities that contribute about 80% of our total carbon emissions. We should be aiming for a higher coverage. I understand that the Government set a high threshold to limit compliance costs by smaller emitters. But smaller emitters, those emitting at least two kilotonnes of CO2equivalent, are already “reportable facilities” and have to pay the costs of monitoring and measuring their emissions. Given that any additional compliance costs would likely be minimal, it would make sense for the carbon tax to cover all reportable facilities. This would, after all, be in the spirit of a whole-of-nation fight against climate change. Emitters, small and large, have a role to play. In conclusion, let me summarise my proposals: first, the Government should pledge to achieve net zero emissions by 2050; second, it should increase the carbon tax rate significantly; and third, it should expand coverage of the carbon tax to include all reportable facilities. The fight against climate change must involve decisive action. On the matters of net zero targets and carbon taxes, we need to move much faster. I thank the Ministries and agencies for their hard work so far in helping Singapore play its part in the global fight against an existential crisis.”
“Last October, Minister Grace Fu said, “We will continually review and enhance our climate targets.” I thank the Government for its openness to revising its targets. Given the increasing severity of the climate crisis and the potential for sparking a whole-of-nation response, will the Government commit to reaching net zero emissions by 2050? My second proposal today is that we increase the carbon tax significantly. There is no question that the carbon tax is the most powerful tool we have to slash emissions. Everything else – from green jobs to green financing that we are debating is important, very important. But the carbon tax has the highest potential to reshape incentives and motivate action. But our current rate is $5 per tonne. Finance Minister Lawrence Wong said last October that this is too low. I agree with him. How high should it be to sufficiently slash emissions? One range from the High Commission on Carbon Prices, which is supported by the World Bank, proposed that US$50 to US$100 is needed by 2030. The IMF similarly recommends a rate of U$100 by 2030. Even higher prices have been suggested by LSE’s Grantham Institute, which proposes US$145 and the OECD, which provides a central estimate of U$147 My ask is that we look at the studies that have been done by these institutions and the principles for how they arrived at these prices. I hope we can adopt the principles and approaches to derive a price that Singapore needs to reach net zero emissions by 2050. An increase in the carbon tax will also mean an increase in tax revenue.”
“In this spirit, I come to this House with three proposals: first, we should commit to achieving net zero emissions by 2050; second, we should increase the carbon tax to a price necessary to achieve net zero emissions by 2050; and third, we should expand coverage of the carbon tax to include all reportable facilities. Let me start with my first ask. The Government should commit to achieving net zero emissions by 2050. I have pushed for this many times in this House now. Sir, 2050 is not just a random year. It is based on science; global emissions must be net zero by 2050 if we want to have any hope of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Singapore’s current commitment is to reach net zero as soon as possible after 2050. This runs not just against what science say is needed, it runs against what many other countries are doing. Already, 136 countries have set concrete target years for carbon neutrality. This is 70% of all the countries. It includes nearly every developed nation in the world. Last year, the US, Australia and Israel also committed to reach net zero by 2050. What is stopping us? I understand that the Government may want to focus on actions, not targets. And I do thank the Government for taking the right actions: releasing the Green Plan and for sharing how it will transform Jurong Island into a sustainable chemical and energy hub. But actions are motivated by targets. It will be harder to get to net zero by 2050 if we are not actually intending for that to happen. In addition, setting a target in line with scientific and international standards set a strong message to Singaporeans. This would help the Government achieve what it says is needed: a whole-of-nation approach to climate change.”
“Importantly, Xiang Tian is still doing this infamously in his slippers, although I am aware he is finally not wearing his slippers today. He sacrificed them to be able to enter Parliament. Sir, Xiang Tian's work makes these complex but important topics more accessible to the public and makes it easier for the public to get involved, such as in consultations on land use and development plans. Xiang Tian tells me that LepakInSG has exciting plans coming up to facilitate discussions between green groups in Singapore. I cannot wait. We are also very fortunate that at the PAP Youth Wing, we also have young activists working tirelessly on climate change issues. Wei-Shan is one such activist, leading a team of volunteers who are passionate about making a serious difference. We have been on many late-night calls with the YP team led by Wei-Shan. Last year I talked about the familiar sight of her two young children on our many Zoom calls. Like my daughters, they remain a regular and welcomed presence on our calls over the past year. Welcomed in most cases, except when my daughter Katie appeared completely naked when I was on a Zoom call listening to the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally live. I was horrified and I sure hope that no one, including the Prime Minister, saw. Sir, Esther, Lastrina, Cheryl, Swati, Xiang Tian and Wei-Shan inspired us. Along them are countless other activists and citizens who have fought so hard against climate change in their own ways. Their call for action is loud and clear. I hope we can heed their call.”
“I am happy to share that SYCA celebrated their sixth birthday in November last year. With this milestone, other leaders have stepped up. Lastrina has empowered and inspired many others and this movement has grown. Two of the leaders at SYCA are Cheryl and Swati. Passionate about fighting climate change, they attended COP26 as youth representatives. But their journey to COP26 was full of challenges, involving complicated logistics and fund-raising. Yet, their go-getter attitude exemplifies exactly what we want to see from our youths today. They shared with me that, to quote: "We are cautiously hopeful because we are see changing mindsets and positive actions all around us. We have seen our peers push for change and encourage positive impact through conscious food choices, recycling and sustainable energy use. There are students, entrepreneurs, teachers, artists and individuals in various professions among us who work tirelessly to achieve this. They inspire us to keep going and empower other individuals who have this shared vision of this world." Last year, I also shared the story of Xiang Tian, a young man who leads LepakInSG, a youth initiative that circulates environmental events to motivate others to get involved. One year on, Xiang Tian remains optimistic about what we can achieve through collective action. He told me: "One thing that makes me hopeful is the increasing number of people who are learning more about the climate crisis and other environmental issues and taking actions to push for change." In the past year, LepakInSG has been active on social media, explaining the important environmental impact studies and baseline studies we have done.”
“I am happy today to share more about what they have done to further the fight against climate change, and I am happy they are up in the gallery, joining us in Parliament for this important debate. Let me start with an update on Esther, the Chief Sustainability Officer of City Developments Limited. Last year, I shared how it really is not common to see a business leader advocate about climate change like she does and how despite all her time working with titans of the industry, her inspiration comes from youths. She continues to walk the talk. This past year, she attended COP26 in Glasgow as a private sector representative with our activists. At COP26, Esther proudly flew Singapore’s flag and spoke at the Built Environment Leaders Panel, a main stage event. But it is not just at COP26 where Singapore’s activists and businesspeople stand together. Back home, Esther led CDL’s partnership with young activists from the Singapore Youth for Climate Action, or SYCA. Together, CDL and SYCA launched a campaign called "Keep Calm and Love Our Planet". Climate change can feel too big, too difficult a problem for the youths of the world. The campaign aims to dispel the sense of paralysis and instead motivate youths to take action against climate change. If you have not spoken to Esther before, I strongly encourage you to do so. She is a breath of fresh air, overloaded with enthusiasm and passionate about working together with our youths to save this planet we call home. And this brings me to the young leaders at SYCA – Lastrina, Cheryl, and Swati, who Esther works closely with. Last year, I shared how Lastrina co-founded SYCA in 2015 to shine a light on what young people can do for the environment. Her message is one of empowerment.”
“Sir, it is too hot and too wet! If you recall, this was what I said one year ago, when this House came together to declare climate change a global emergency. Yet, somehow, the world has become even hotter and even wetter. July 2021 was the world’s hottest month. Regions, from sunny California to snowy Siberia, faced their largest wildfires in history. The Arctic hit a record high of 38 degree Celsius. Catastrophic floods struck India, Europe, Malaysia, Australia and China. In China’s Henan province, a year’s worth of rain fell in a single day. And it is not just heat and rain either. Extreme winter weather left nearly 10 million people in the US without power and water. It killed 318 people and caused nearly US$200 billion of damage, making it the deadliest and costliest natural disaster in US history. The science is clear: climate change will increasingly usher in extreme weather and throw lives and livelihoods into disarray. As an open country, Singapore will undoubtedly be hit hard. This is a grim picture, and we are running out of time. This is why my fellow GPC Members and I have returned to this House just one year later to call again for the Government to take further steps to tackle climate change, to sharply reduce Singapore’s carbon emissions and urgently move towards an inclusive low-carbon society. We are not alone in this fight. As the climate crisis worsens, the people of Singapore have taken up the fight in their personal and professional lives. I shared the stories of some of these inspiring individuals in this House last year, including Esther, Lastrina, Xiang Tian and Wei Shan.”
“My second point is about plans for allowing CFAs to act in international mediation proceedings. Singapore has taken steps to position itself as a global mediation hub. The passing of the Mediation Act in 2017 provided a framework for international mediation in Singapore. The Ministry has indicated that CFAs will be allowed, as a start, to international and domestic arbitration, certain proceedings in SICC, and related Court and mediation proceedings. Can the Minister clarify whether CFAs will be allowed to act in international mediation proceedings that do not arise from permitted categories of arbitration or litigation? My third point is about the classification of cases that are transmitted to other forums. It is not unusual for cases to be transmitted for hearing before different forums. For instance, the current Rules of Court contemplate the transfer of proceedings from the General Division of the High Court to the SICC, and vice versa. Given that CFAs will only apply to certain categories of cases for a start, can the Minister clarify how the CFA framework will take into account cases that are commenced in one forum, then transmitted to another forum? Is there a possibility under the proposed CFA framework that a case may be commenced in a forum where CFAs are permitted then transmitted to another where CFAs are not permitted? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill will take a landmark step in providing CFAs between lawyers and clients in certain cases. This will help level the playing field for Singapore lawyers in international dispute resolution and also increase access to justice. I have three points of clarification. My first point is about the coverage of the Bill’s CFA framework. This Bill will establish a single framework for CFAs. For a start, it appears that CFAs will be permitted for international and domestic arbitration proceedings, proceedings before the Singapore International Commercial Court, and related Court and mediation proceedings. These are likely to be transnational, high-value commercial disputes. The Ministry has indicated that it will continue to study whether CFAs can promote access to justice in other categories of proceedings, including domestic proceedings. But the consideration for cases on the other end of the spectrum – domestic cases involving indigent litigants, will be different. In cases involving indigent litigants, there may be a greater need to be more protective of the interests of the litigant, as compared to those of parties in high-value commercial disputes who will likely be well-advised. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] In establishing the overarching framework under the Bill, can the Minister share what steps the Ministry has taken to ensure that the framework is sufficiently flexible to extend to all categories of disputes? The lessons learnt from initial applications of the CFA framework to high-value commercial disputes may have limited application to cases involving indigent litigants. How will the Ministry study the suitability of CFAs for enhancing access to justice for indigent litigants?”
“Thank you, Sir. This Bill amends how intellectual property rights are registered in Singapore. This strengthens our position as a global IP hub and brings us closer to Singapore's IP Strategy 2030. I am sure Minister Edwin Tong will be glad to know I have three quick fire points of clarification. First, can Minister clarify when a Breeder’s test should be submitted when registering a new plant variety? The new section 18A of the Plant Varieties Protection Act phrases this as a voluntary option for applicants. This could create uncertainty whether or not to expend resources on the test. This is especially relevant as Breeder’s tests may sometimes take several planting seasons. Clarity will save applicants time and resources. Second, will the Ministry clarify the principles for interpreting a disclaimer under the Registered Designs Act? The new section 30A only states that the rights are "restricted accordingly". This does not appear to consider that disclaimers may also expand the rights of a registered design. For example, can a disclaimer as to colour expand the protection to all designs of that type regardless of colour? Lastly, our IP Strategy 2030 can play an important role in protecting the environment and fighting climate change. Innovation and technology has the potential to help us lead more sustainable lives and adapt to a changing world. I would like to ask the Minister to consider updating our IP strategy to include a focus on promoting sustainability innovation in Singapore. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“To help clarify the differences between minor and aggravated prison offences, can Minister provide examples of acts that would fall under the catch-all minor and aggravated prison offences? Can Minister also clarify if the Superintendent has final authority in determining whether the offences committed is a minor or aggravated prison offences and whether the Commissioner has the authority to disagree with the Superintendent’s categorisation of an offence as a minor or aggravated offence? My third and final point is about exceptions to prison offences. The Ministry has said the new Employment Preparation Scheme will include an in-camp phase during which inmates may work or study outside prison during the day and return to reside at a “work release centre” in the evening. Can Minister clarify if prison offences conducted at work, study and residence locations under the scheme would be deemed to be within prison? This is significant, as certain prison offences do not apply to prisoners serving their sentence outside prison. Would it no longer be an aggravated prison offence for a prisoner to assault another prisoner while working together outside the prison under this scheme? Can Minister also clarify why it is no longer a prison offence for a prisoner to carry out aggravated or repeated assault on any other prisoner, or wilfully causing themselves any illness, injury, or disability if a prisoner is outside of prison under the scheme? In summary, I hope Minister can clarify my points on assessing a prisoner’s eligibility for employment preparation, determining the severity of prison offences and providing exceptions to prison offences. Madam, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Madam, the amendments in the Bill today will promote inmates’ rehabilitation and reintegration into society. I previously shared in this House the inspirational stories I heard from ex-offenders and how “family” was the one word they used most frequently in their stories. I also spoke about how I strongly believe that strengthening family ties is important to improve the rehabilitation process for inmates. I am supportive of the amendments in this Bill, which not only sends a signal about the focus on rehabilitation, but also provides a concrete framework for achieving it. I have three points of clarification. My first point is about eligibility for employment preparation. The new section 59L provides that a prisoner is eligible to be released for employment preparation if the prisoner has served not less than 14 days. Can Minister clarify whether this 14-day period includes any time that has been spent in remand? Can Minister share at what stage of the imprisonment would the Commissioner assess a prisoner’s suitability for employment? Should a prisoner be initially assessed as unsuitable, when will the prisoner next be re-assessed? My second point is about the categorisation of prison offences. The new sections 72 and 73 set out minor and aggravated prison offences. Each section includes broad, catch-all offences. For instance, it is a minor prison offence to carry out any “act, conduct, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order or discipline in the prison”. It is an aggravated prison offence to carry out any “gross act of misconduct or insubordination”. But it is not clear that acts that are prejudicial to the good order or discipline in the prison are any less severe than acts of gross misconduct or insubordination.”
“What purpose does the cap serve? What are the principle and methodology by which the Government has set the $580 billion as the cap? In summary, I hope the Minister can clarify how MAS reached its definition of excess foreign reserves, how liquid GIC and Temasek's foreign reserves are, what role the Government will play in constraining MAS' RMGS redemptions and how the $580 billion limit was determined. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“In 2019, when MAS transferred $45 million to the Government for GIC to invest, MAS stated, "In the event of an extreme adverse scenario, the foreign reserves held by the Government are also available to ensure that MAS operations are not compromised." Can the Minister share how foreign reserves held by GIC and Temasek would be availed to MAS in the event of such an extreme adverse scenario? By design, GIC and Temasek's assets are less liquid and higher risk. So, it seems unclear how the amount of foreign currency envisioned as necessary in such an extreme scenario could become quickly available. My third point is about the redemptions of the RMGS by MAS. Can the Minister explain what role will the Government play in setting conditions for the redemption of the RMGS by MAS? Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam had said that MAS will have "sole discretion to redeem the RMGS for foreign assets before maturity and without penalty." Yet, section 15B(2) of the amended Act states that the Minister's agreement will be required in setting conditions surrounding a repayment and redemption of RMGS. This seems to contradict the notion that MAS will have sole discretion. It opens the door for a future Minister to institute a penalty for early redemptions or, indeed, any other kind of condition. Can the Minister share why the Bill does not provide MAS with sole discretion on redeeming the RMGS prematurely and without penalty? What conditions does the Ministry expect to set in relation to the repayment and redemption of the RMGS? My fourth and final point is about the $580 billion limit. Section 15A(2) of the amended Act limits the Government from accepting more than $580 billion of foreign reserves from MAS. Can the Minister share how it decided on $580 billion as the limit?”
“Sir, this Bill provides a much needed solution. Since 2016, foreign reserves managed by MAS have grown by an average of 11% each year, outpacing our GDP growth. MAS needs only a fraction of these reserves on hand to manage our domestic price stability. The rest of it would be better utilised by our GIC, our sovereign wealth fund, to maximise investment returns. This Bill provides a framework for that transfer to happen. The framework delicately balances the need to maximise investment returns with the need to give MAS enough flexibility to maintain price stability. That said, I have four points of clarification. My first point is on the definition of excess foreign reserves. Since 2019, MAS has said that it does not need more than 65% of GDP in foreign reserves to achieve its goal of maintaining medium-term price stability. Can the Minister share details on the reviews MAS has conducted in order to arrive at this calculation? What scenarios and factors did it consider? Given that the 65% has not changed in the past three years, can the Minister share how regularly MAS plans to review the amount of foreign reserves it needs? In addition, does MAS envision the scope for this 65% to be further reduced and for a greater proportion to be channelled for GIC investments? This is given the fact that even in the worst months of the Asian Financial Crisis and the Global Recession, we saw very minimal, if any, decrease in foreign reserves managed by MAS. Of course, I understand future crises and currency speculation may demand unusually high amounts of foreign reserves to combat. This brings me to my second point on worst-case scenarios.”
“Thank you, Sir and I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Could I have two clarifications? One, I am not asking for 100% compulsory work-from-home, but to legislate the right to work from home and also to give employers the right to reject for work-related reasons. So, for example, if there is a face-to-face meeting that day, then the employee would not be allowed to work from home. Two, I do agree with the Minister of State. We should not jump into legislating things, but the fact is that we have been debating this right to work from home for quite a number of years in the House now, even in the pre-COVID-19 days. COVID-19 has shown that work-from-home is possible, so I am just wondering what is stopping MOM from legislating this right to work from home.”
“How will the Ministry support our small businesses to ensure these regulations do not unfairly burden them? In summary, I seek clarification on three things: the need to list directors or CEOs in the register, the definition of nominee shareholders and the ways the Ministry will support small businesses in complying with the new regulations. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill gives effect to the Financial Action Task Force's recommendations on the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing. Preventing the illicit movement of funds is key to Singapore's role as a respected international financial hub and I am glad we are taking steps to strengthen our protections. I have three points of clarification. First, can the Minister clarify the reasons why directors with executive control and the CEO must be listed in the register if no registrable controller is identified? Why are these two groups specifically listed? Does this mean that no other person can have executive control and is not relevant to be disclosed in the register? Further, this requirement seems repetitive, given that the information about directors and CEOs are already filed with ACRA. Second, can Minister provide more clarity on the definition of "nominee shareholders"? What would be necessary before someone is considered "accustomed"? The amendment states that the nominee must also receive dividends on behalf of the principal shareholder. Is it sufficient that there is an agreement for the nominee to receive dividends, or must there be an actual distribution into the hands of the nominee? If it is the latter, this creates a problem where it is impossible to clarify nominee status for companies that do not issue dividends. Third and finally, can the Ministry share how it will support small businesses in complying with these new regulations? The new regulations apply not only to multinational corporations or financial institutions but also small local businesses. For small businesses, these rules can be complex and require proportionally larger costs to comply with.”
“While the cases concerned the enforcement of gambling debts which were incurred abroad, a relevant issue considered in these cases is the local policy position on gambling. In those cases, the Court had also considered local legislation on gambling, including the Gaming Act, Casino Control Act and Common Gaming Houses Act. Can the Minister clarify if the consolidation of laws on levies and collection of duties on lawful betting and lotteries have any effect on the public policy position on gambling in Singapore? If so, how should the Government's position on gambling be understood? In summary, I hope the Minister can shed light on my clarifications relating to the remission of gambling duties, the imposition of penalty taxes and Singapore's public policy on gambling. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill will consolidate the laws on duties for lawful forms of gambling. I have three points of clarifications to raise. My first point is on the remission of gambling duties. The new section 12(1) provides for the remission of gambling duties when the gambling duties are incompatible with the purposes of the Act. Can the Minister clarify under what circumstances will gambling duties be considered incompatible with the purposes of the Act? Further, the Minister may delegate the exercise of his or her powers in relation to remission to a Commissioner or public officer. Can the Minister clarify if there are limits to the categories of public officers to whom the Minister's powers can be delegated? My second point is on the amount of penalty tax that can be imposed on outstanding gambling duties. The new section 14(2) limits the amount of penalty tax that can be imposed to 50% of the amount of gambling duties outstanding. I agree that the amount of penalty tax should not be excessive for an individual. That said, can the Minister share what enforcement tools are available to the Ministry for the recovery of gambling duties if these remained unpaid even after the maximum amount of penalty tax has been reached? Can the Minister also share what softer measures are available for the Ministry to work with an indebted individual to meet his or her debts? My final point is the effect of the present Bill on Singapore's public policy on gambling. The position of Singapore's public policy on gambling has been scrutinised in a series of Court of Appeal cases, including Liao Eng Kiat vs Burswood Nominees Ltd and Poh Soon Kiat vs Desert Palace Incorporated.”
“We can move them to the relevant criminal statutes, such as the Penal Code. Let me be clear. Renaming the Women's Charter does not mean we have achieved the goal of gender equality. Data and stories make clear that there is still a painful inequality in everything, from attitudes to affluence. The renaming would help reshape minds, but it would not be enough by itself. We will continue to need changes in laws and mindsets to make progress on the road towards gender equality. In summary, my points today are: one, that the Ministry should make flat applications easier for parents with shared care and control; two, the Ministry should mandate the Children-in-Between Programme for children with divorced parents; and three, that we rename the Women's Charter to the Family Charter. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“When the Women's Charter was enacted in 1961, it was instrumental in protecting the rights of women. Today's amendments ensure that the Charter continues to do so, including by clarifying the rights and duties of husbands and wives. As we modernise this law, we should also consider making its name more appropriate. My proposal is that we rename it to the Family Charter. This is for three reasons. First, the bulk of this law protects not just women but men and children as well. This is true of the existing law. But it is also true of today's amendments. No-fault divorces, children support programmes and modernised marriage solemnisations are all good not just for women but also for families in general. Second, bundling family- and children-specific laws under a Women's Charter has the unintentional effect of suggesting that women have some unique place in raising children. It runs against everything else this Government is saying that men need to contribute equally at home, that employers should not treat women and mothers differently. I know the Government does not mean to send this message, but that is what it looks like. This is bad for women, and it is bad for families. Third, there is a rising, incorrect sentiment that the Women's Charter is bad for men. Research by AWARE and Quilt.AI found that one of the main narratives in online misogyny is that "men are unprotected by the law." The problem is summed up by one of the examples cited in the research: "Where is the Men's Charter?" Undoubtedly, we know these voices are wrong. But renaming the Women's Charter to accurately describe its scope can help defuse the anger. I am aware that Part 11 and other provisions of the Charter are specific to crimes related to women.”
“Divorce rulings also already decide on custody, care and control and division of matrimonial assets, which are equally contentious. So, why not housing? Second, HDB should drop its requirement for mutual consent as long as the other parent already owns private property. Third, HDB should automatically allow parents to list the child as an occupier if both parents are of lower income. These proposals will help avoid adding housing instability to the children of divorced parents. My second suggestion is about the "Children-in-Between" programme. It is an exceptionally good programme that provides counselling and support for children whose parents are undergoing divorce. I raised this previously and am again calling for the Ministry to consider making it mandatory for all children whose parents are undergoing a divorce. In the past few years, many people undergoing divorce have approached me for help, and many are in tears as they share their painful journey. Often, I see their child, at times, a very young child, hugging their parents, comforting them and providing tissues to wipe their tears. The children step up, but I often wonder if they truly understand what is happening to mummy and daddy and whether we are providing them with enough help during this very confusing, painful and distressing period for someone who is so young. Sir, my proposal is that the Court should, by default, order that all children of divorced parents participate in the "Children-in-Between" programme. Parents can appeal to opt out. Currently, and unfortunately, less than 2% of children affected by divorce attend this programme. We should do a lot more to make this number as close to 100% as possible. My final suggestion is about renaming the Women's Charter.”
“5% of Court judgments in 2020, up from 5.6% in 2016. As mentioned, HDB requires such parents to obtain mutual consent from the other parent before listing their child as an occupier in an HDB flat application. This creates three problems, all of which are bad for the children. First, during divorce proceedings, parents may fight more aggressively for sole care and control to secure their right to apply for a subsidised HDB flat. Second, after divorce, parents may continue fighting over this issue of mutual consent. Third, when one parent refuses to grant consent, the other parent and their child may be stuck in housing instability. This affects the child's material and emotional well-being. I know those with difficulties can appeal. Since 2016, HDB has granted 13 out of 20 such appeals and approved another seven rental flat applications related to shared care and control cases. But allowing appeals does not solve any of the above three problems. Our policies may still create tension, conflict and instability as a default for children in such cases. I have three proposals for fixing this policy. First, the Ministry should work with the Family Courts to enable the Courts to settle the question of mutual consent at the stage of divorce. If both parents reach an agreement, it should be stated in the Matrimonial Property Plan and reflected in the divorce judgment. If they do not, each parent should present their reasons to the judge, who can make an order on which parent gets to list the child as an occupier. This is not overly intrusive, as judges already settle property matters during divorce proceedings, such as by dividing the matrimonial property.”
“Sir, parting ways with someone you used to love or perhaps still love may not be an easy process. When a child is involved, it could get even harder. Going through a divorce is an emotionally draining period and we should do our best to help fellow Singaporeans. We should make sure our policies do not make the divorce process more acrimonious. The proposed amendments to the Women's Charter are a step in the right direction. They modernise our marriage processes, allow for no-fault divorces and expand divorce support programmes. They acknowledge the reality that marriage, despite our best hopes and efforts, may break down. In such situations, our laws should help everyone affected, especially the children, to move on. But I hope we can do more, much more, and I have three suggestions to make. My first suggestion is with regard to parents with shared care and control. Couples know that if they get shared care and control of their child, they will have to fight each other for who gets to list their child as occupiers in their application for a HDB flat; essentially, who gets subsidised public housing. If one party gets sole care and control, then he or she is guaranteed this subsidised housing. Is it in the best interest of the child for their parents to have a more acrimonious divorce? We know that having a roof over one's head is essential and is perhaps one of the biggest worries following a divorce, especially for the lower income. Sir, will the Government consider working with the Family Courts and changing its policies to provide children of such parents with less housing instability? We know that our Courts are increasingly ordering divorced parents to have shared care and control. Such orders have almost doubled in recent times, comprising 9.”
“Under the new Article 111L, an appointed member to the LSC may hold office of three to five years and is also eligible for reappointment. Both Articles do not set out any limits for such reappointment. Limits on reappointment are not uncommon in private and public institutions. Such limits steer institutions towards leadership renewal and organisational changes. Can the Minister confirm whether there are limits on the reappointment of any member to the LSC and JSC? If not, can the Minister share the rationale for not limiting the number of reappointments that a member can hold in both the LSC and JSC? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of both Bills.”
“The PSC will also advise the President on the appointment of up to two members each on the LSC and JSC. It would be good if the Minister can share some safeguards in place to ensure the public can continue to have high confidence in the independence of the LSC, JSC and PSC. My second point is on recruiting a wider range of talents from beyond the existing legal service into the JSC. In July this year, my colleague Mr Murali Pillai delivered an Adjournment Motion with Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Lim Biow Chuan on the feasibility of setting up the JSC for judicial officers. In his Motion speech, Mr Murali spoke about the flexibility the JSC may have in recruiting a wider range of talent. He gave the example of how someone with experience in programming who is taught law may be able to navigate the technical facts of a case much better than a legally-trained Judge. I echo these sentiments. Additionally, the three Members spoke on the benefits of the movement of judicial officers and legal service officers across judicial and legal service branches. Such rotations are beneficial for the officers and the respective branches. That said, I think we can all agree that it is important for the judicial service to be staffed by officers from a diversity of backgrounds beyond the legal service. Recruiting talent from diverse backgrounds will help with responding to increasingly complex and specialised cases before the Courts and also for maintaining trust in the judiciary’s independence. Can the Minister share the plans to diversify the talent pool of judicial officers within the JSC? Lastly, under the new Article 111D, an appointed member to the JSC may hold office of three to five years and is eligible for reappointment.”
“Sir, the Bill proposes to establish a Judicial Service Commission (JSC), separate from the Legal Service Commission (LSC). The restructuring will allow both the LSC and JSC to benefit from greater specialisation and flexibility. This is needed to tackle the increasing complexity of the legal landscape. Our legal system and judiciary are greatly respected for impartially and efficiently dispensing justice. The amendments will help us to maintain the good standing of our legal system. I have three points of clarification to make. My first point is on the independence of the LSC, the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the JSC. The public place great trust in our institutions. Results released in March this year from an IPS study showed that 81% of the public had a great deal or quite a lot of trust in the Government; 82% said this of the Courts, and 80% said this of the Civil Service. In the 2020 World Justice Project Rule of Law Index measuring the rule of law in countries, Singapore was placed 12 out of 128 countries. The Rule of Law Index looks at, among other things, accountability and open government. In the 2019 World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report, Singapore was ranked 14 out of 141 countries for judicial independence. It is very commendable that we have such high levels of trust locally and internationally in our public institutions. We should work hard to maintain this. My clarification is on how we can safeguard the good reputation of our public institutions by ensuring independence of the JSC, LSC and PSC. There are some concerns that the proposed Articles may mean some overlap among the Commissions for the LSC, PSC and JSC. For example, the Chairman of the PSC will be the Vice-President of both the LSC and JSC.”
“Is the borrowing limit merely meant to signal the Government's stance on maximum borrowing? Relatedly, will the Ministry consider introducing a strengthened check-and-balance for when the Government seeks to increase its borrowing limit or to borrow beyond the existing limit? For example, we could require such activities to require a two-third vote of approval by the Parliament in addition to the President's concurrence. This process change would reflect the sanctity of the borrowing limit and the severity of increasing or bypassing it. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, I support this Bill, which will bring about greater clarity by consolidating and harmonising the Government's borrowing powers. I have two points of clarification to make. My first point is on the merging of limits under the Government Securities Act and the Local Treasury Bills Act. The new section 11 of the Act will replace the separate borrowing limits for Government securities and Treasury Bills with a single borrowing limit. My concern is that we currently have a much higher borrowing limit for Government securities than for Treasury Bills – more than nine times as much. The Government had its rationale for maintaining this disparity. As such, I have three related questions: One, what was the initial intent of having a much higher borrowing limit for Government Securities and Treasury Bills? Does the Ministry see this initial intent as no longer relevant, given that this intent is no longer reflected in the combined borrowing limit? Two, will this combined limit now result in a greater reliance on Treasury Bills compared to Government securities? Three, will the Government internally maintain a separate borrowing limit for Government Securities and Treasury Bills? My second point is on the approval required for borrowing beyond the $1.065 trillion limit. Both the existing section 11 and the new section 11 allows the Government to borrow beyond its limit as long as there is a Parliamentary resolution and presidential concurrence. I would like to seek some clarification on the approval process. In both cases, all the Government needs is for the Parliament to pass a resolution by simple majority and for the President to concur. The $1.065 trillion limit appears to make no difference.”
“Is the burden of proof then on the Comptroller to show that the recipient, in fact, had access to and should have relied on other information? This clarification is important because the term “best available information” is so general that it might pose enforcement issues. Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill. 6.47 pm”
“In the event that the two conditions are not satisfied, can the Minister share what other factors a supplier should take into account to determine who the “direct beneficiary” of the service is? In particular, where multiple layers of contracts exist between a service provider and the beneficiary of a service, where should a supplier draw the line in determining its “direct beneficiary”? My second point is on the use of best available information to determine whether goods are distantly taxable. The new section 14(1B) provides that a recipient may rely on the best available information to determine whether goods are distantly taxable if the recipient is unable to verify the location of the goods at the point of sale of the goods or how the goods will be transported to a place in the customs territory. In the public consultation conducted on the Bill, MOF had declined to accept a suggestion that the Bill prescribe information that businesses should rely on to determine if a supply of goods are distantly taxable goods that fall within the scope of GST. MOF declined to prescribe the information to reduce compliance burden and has stated that IRAS will provide examples in its e-Tax Guide. While the examples will be useful, what will also be important in the event of a dispute is which party bears the burden of proof. Can the Minister elaborate where the burden of proof lies and how the burden shifts in determining whether there was compliance with the tax treatment of distantly taxable goods? For instance, does the burden of proof shift to the Comptroller of Income Tax once the recipient is able to show a preliminary case that they relied on the best available information?”
“Madam, this Bill will update our GST regime. Significantly, this Bill will extend GST to imported low-value goods. This ensures a level playing field for local suppliers and overseas suppliers. Additionally, the Bill will also update the GST treatment for media sales to more closely reflect the reality of how services are advertised and consumed. I thank MOF for consistently consulting the public on its Bills, including this Bill. I also commend the Ministry’s diligence in always providing summaries and its responses to key feedback received in its consultations. I have two points of clarification to make on this Bill. My first point is on the GST treatment for the supply of media sales. The amendments to section 21 mean that the GST treatment for supplies of media sales depends on where the customer and the direct beneficiary of the service belongs, rather than where the advertisement is circulated. IRAS’ e-Tax Guide has provided some guidance on how to identify the “direct beneficiary” of media sales. In particular, the e-Tax Guide provides that the contractual client will, generally, be regarded as the sole direct beneficiary where two conditions are satisfied. First, the service agreement does not require the services to be provided to another person. Second, the supplier liaises only with the contractual client and is accountable only to the contractual client. Can the Minister clarify if both conditions must be satisfied in order for the contractual client to be deemed the sole direct beneficiary? Or is it sufficient that either one of the conditions is satisfied? The e-Tax Guide also provides that when the two conditions are satisfied, the supplier does not need to look beyond the contractual client in determining the correct GST treatment.”
“Can the Minister clarify whether there are any guidelines or subsidiary legislation in determining how a monument’s “character or appearance” is affected? As something that seems quite subjective, it would be useful to have some factors for consideration. Similarly, can the Minister also provide some examples of what may be considered “necessary in the circumstances” and whether there is a legal or factual threshold to be met? My final point is about conditions for a warrantless entry. With the new section 27, a Director or a Monument Inspector will have the power to forcibly enter any land or site without warrant if certain conditions are fulfilled. I agree with the Director and Inspector having stronger enforcement powers and understand that there could be certain situations where taking enforcement action can be urgent. However, I note that time sensitivity is not one of the conditions that have to be met for the Director or Inspector to enter the premises without a warrant. Can the Minister clarify why this is the case? If the enforcement action is not urgent and no monuments are in immediate danger, I do not see why the Director or Inspector should not apply for a warrant before entering the premises. This will ensure that proper process is followed and reduce the likelihood of allegations of improper misconduct made against the enforcers. Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill. 5.09 pm”
“Madam, it is important to safeguard our heritage for the benefit of future generations of Singaporeans. This Bill sends a clear signal on the importance of our heritage sites and gives the authorities the tools they need to protect these sites. I have three points of clarification to make. My first point is about the punishment for those who damage our monuments. The new section 15 provides some leniency to those who damage or alter our monuments. One situation is when a person acts in good faith to comply with a Government order or requirement. I welcome this amendment. It would be unfair to punish someone who acts in good faith and is complying with a Government order. In the spirit of providing effective deterrence against people damaging our monuments, could I also suggest that MCCY work with monument owners to ensure there are clear signs and labels to inform members of the public when they come across a monument? The list of gazetted monuments is long. I am sure that many members of the public have no idea even when they are in or around a national monument. This will especially be the case as we expand the definition and start gazetting less concrete things like bodies of water and plots of land. Deterrence works best when expectations are clear, after all. My second point is about clearer definitions. I agree with the existing defence in section 15(8) being retained. A person will not be liable for a section 15(4) offence if he had acted because of a person’s or property’s safety and had exercised all reasonable care to ensure that the act or omission would have no more effect on the “character or appearance” of the monument than was “necessary in the circumstances”.”
“If the Government is not able to share the specific number, can it at least confirm whether attempts at an attack have taken place? The Cyber Security Agency said in July that there had been no massive ransomware attack on our critical infrastructure. But have there been other types of attacks? After all, some attackers may aim to cause damage rather than collect a ransom. Second, will the Government update our laws to ensure high cybersecurity standards in our energy and utilities sector specifically? Minister Josephine Teo said in October that the Government has been reviewing our cybersecurity laws. I hope that this review will consider new regulations specifically for our water supply and energy supply systems. Third, does the Government have plans for dealing with a successful cyber attack on our energy and water infrastructure? Are there clear actions that would be taken on emergency supplies and crisis communications? After all, we can do our best to build defences, but we should not pretend that a successful attack will never happen. When it does happen, we must have contingency plans to address the unrest and emergencies that would emerge. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill. 3.46 pm”
“The latest IPCC report on climate change stresses that there is only a small window of opportunity left for countries to keep the 2050 temperature increase below two degree Celsius. Power generators will need time to adapt to any new regulations. Will the Ministry commit to setting an aggressive timeline for releasing EMA’s new policies? In addition to sharing its timeline, will the Ministry proactively share with the public the expected emissions impact of any new power generation? After all, as Minister Grace Fu mentioned this year, the Green Plan is a living plan, designed and executed in collaboration with our people. Let us empower members of the public to understand and support policies that will help Singapore reach its climate goals. My final clarification relates to cyber attacks. Today’s Bill focuses on energy security. However, it does not directly deal with one of the largest global threats to energy infrastructure: cyber attacks. In 2008, an oil pipeline exploded in Turkey after cyber attackers managed to raise the pressure within the pipeline. In 2015 and 2016, cyber attacks in Ukraine shut down electricity to hundreds of thousands of people for hours. In May this year, a cyber attack forced the temporary shutdown of one of the US’ largest gas pipelines. There have been many more of such attacks. We must be proactive and aggressive in closing any cybersecurity gaps in our energy infrastructure. To this end, I have three questions. First, can the Government share how many cyber attacks have our energy and water infrastructure faced in recent years? I am talking about entities across the entire supply chain, including gas pipelines, generation plants, energy retailers and more.”
“Sir, this Bill expands the Government’s power to safeguard our energy security and reduce greenhouse gases in energy generation. I support this Bill as it has the potential to protect the day-to-day energy needs of Singaporeans and to contribute to our commitment towards fighting climate change. I thank MTI for conducting a public consultation for this Bill and publishing a public response to inputs received. I hope we will continue this good practice of gathering and responding to public feedback for legislative amendments. I have three points of clarification to make. My first clarification relates to the expansion of borrowing powers. Clause 2(a) of the Bill expands the powers of EMA. With this change, EMA can now raise loans and grant charges over EMA’s property. I understand that the goal is to ensure energy security by freeing EMA to fund its construction of critical energy infrastructure. However, it seems like this change also opens a gap in our energy security. After all, borrowing from foreign financiers may also mean granting them rights and interests over parts of our energy infrastructure. Can the Minister share in what circumstances would such foreign funding be approved by the Government? What safeguards would the Ministry implement to limit the risks of foreign funding to our energy infrastructure? My second clarification is on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In its response to feedback from the public consultation, MTI said that EMA would use its new powers under this law to develop “further targeted measures” that would reduce the power generation sector’s emissions. Can the Minister share EMA’s timeline for consulting the sector and for releasing new standards and policies? Put simply, we are already behind schedule.”
“If a senior volunteer's age does not hinder his or her performance in any way, there is no reason why they should be discouraged from continuing their good work. We should be rewarding them instead for their kindness and desire to give back to our society. In the same spirit of this Bill, senior volunteers should not be discriminated against and we should similarly take a strong stand on this. Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of both Bills.”
“The Bill empowers the Minister to prescribe each age to "any class of employees". This is new language not present in the current Act. The term "class of employee" is not defined in the Act or in the Bill. Can the Minister share whether this change is meant to give the Minister the power to apply a differentiated retirement age and re-employment age to different types of employee? Can the Minister share if the Ministry has plans to apply differentiated retirement and re-employment ages to employees in different sectors? My last point is close to my heart. Today's Bill is about senior workers but I would also like to emphasise the importance of senior volunteers, which I know is outside the scope of the Bill. Specifically, I would like to emphasise the importance of not discriminating against seniors who serve in volunteer roles. We have made a strong stand on discrimination at workplaces based on age. We are now proposing to increase the retirement and re-employment ages to give people the opportunity to work longer. Can we also ensure that there is no discrimination based on age when it comes to volunteerism? It seems contradictory to say that someone is not too old to work but is too old to volunteer. Volunteers may start their community involvement only late in their lives. They should be given the opportunities to serve for an appropriate amount of time. I do agree in leadership renewal but restrictions on leadership tenure should be based on time served and not age. It is clear that volunteers help to shape our society and country into a better place. They make time, despite their busy schedules and out of the goodness of their heart, to help others.”
“Members who made top ups before 1 November 2008 would have done so based on their understanding of the rules at that time. Certainty of the rules is important for members to have confidence in our CPF system. By changing the rules and allowing a period for refunds, could this lead to a risk of an exodus of funds from Retirement Accounts as members choose to exercise this option? Will exceptions be made to allow for the prior rules to apply to members with valid reasons? Next, the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill proposes to give our older workers the option to work longer if they choose to do so. Our older workers are treasure troves of experience and our younger workforce has much to learn from them. I support this legislative move to allow them the flexibility to work longer should they wish to do so. In line with this short Bill, I have three short points of clarification to make. My first point is about the minimum retirement age. Section 4 of the Act is being amended to constrain the minimum retirement age the Minister can prescribe. Currently, the Minister can prescribe a minimum retirement age of anywhere between 62 and 67 years. With the new amendment, that range shrinks to between 62 and 65 years. Can the Minister clarify why this range has been reduced? I understand the Government's current plans are only to raise the minimum retirement age to 65 by 2030. Is the amendment merely to align the new law with the Government's stated plans or is there some other reason for legislatively tying the Minister's hands on this matter? My second point is about differentiated retirement and re-employment ages. The Bill appears to tweak the Minister's power to specify retirement and re-employment ages.”
“My second clarification relates to the reimbursement of funeral expenses on the death of a member with no CPF nomination. The new section 25A provides for the reimbursement of reasonable funeral expenses but only to a beneficiary, which would be persons entitled to the CPF monies under various rules. In reality, funerals are often arranged expediently upon a person's death. Loved ones may not know how much CPF funds are available, how much they can use and, indeed, whether they are even beneficiaries at all. This may lead to confusion and stress over funeral arrangements. I have three suggestions that would help. One, can the Ministry publish guidelines or a framework to help beneficiaries understand how much funeral expenses will the CPF Public Trustee typically agree to defray? Two, can the Ministry expedite the process of informing beneficiaries of their nomination and of the CPF funds available upon a member's death? Three, can the Ministry allow the Public Trustee to reimburse reasonable funeral expenses to a wider class of beneficiaries who have incurred these expenses in good faith? The death of a loved one is always painful. I am glad this Bill helps soften the blow and I hope the CPF Board will consider my suggestions to take further steps in that direction. My third clarification relates to the option to apply for a refund of money transferred to top up Retirement Accounts before 1 November 2008. Currently, I understand that Retirement Account top-ups before November 2008 are returned to the giver when the recipient passes away. The repeal of section 19A changes this and such top ups are no longer returned to the giver. What are the reasons for this change?”
“Sir, CPF is an important institution to help Singaporeans prepare for their retirement. It affects Singaporeans in a direct and tangible way. I support the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill, which grants greater flexibility in CPF rules and simplifies various CPF processes. This will allow CPF to better support Singaporeans at various milestones in their lives. That said, I have three points of clarification to make. First, I seek clarification on what will be considered a "significant condition", particularly in relation to auto-immune diseases. The new section 15AA allows withdrawals to be made by members who have not reached 55 years of age but are suffering from a significant condition. Additionally, the amended section 77 will provide that the Minister may make regulations, including to provide that a condition is a significant condition only if approved by the Minister and causes disability of a description or to an extent specified by the Minister. Can the Minister confirm that this is not intended to limit all significant conditions to only conditions that cause disability and that the Minister retains broad discretion in determining what conditions are deemed significant conditions? Can the Minister also clarify if serious auto-immune diseases, such as those included under the Chronic Diseases Management Programme (CDMP), will be considered and included as significant conditions? Early withdrawals will ease the burdens on these patients by giving greater liquidity to manage their finances. The increased financial support and flexibility by allowing CPF withdrawals before reaching 55 years of age would be immensely helpful to patients of auto-immune diseases.”
“Under the new section 17A(4), the Minister also has the power to revoke any Minister’s certificate previously issued. Can the Minister clarify under what circumstances would the Minister’s certificate be revoked? Is there a time limit in exercising the revocation? If the certificate is revoked after the body has been buried, cremated, or transported out of the country, can the Minister share what methods and procedures are in place to ensure that the quality of the resumed investigation under the new section 17A(4)(a) will not be compromised? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, I support this Bill, which will allow for greater flexibility in the Coroner’s discharge of duties. This flexibility will save the valuable resources of the Coroner, Police, Health Sciences Authority and all other related parties. That said, I have three quick points of clarification. My first point is on the Coroner’s investigation process. Body viewing is one of the steps the Coroner must take in investigating and determining the cause and circumstances surrounding a reported death. Having a proper procedure in place is important because it provides reassurance to the deceased’s family and similarly protects the Coroner from any allegations of wrongdoing or negligence. With the amendment to make such body viewing discretionary, can the Minister share what remaining mandatory requirements the Coroner has to fulfil in its preliminary investigation? My second point is on the safeguards to ensure correct identification of bodies. I note that existing safeguards to ensure the correct identification will remain. As Minister has shared, these safeguards include the tagging of the body with the deceased’s particulars at the scene and at the mortuary, the Police signing off on a Body Identification Form and sending it to the Coroner. Can the Minister share if additional steps will be taken to strengthen the existing safeguards to ensure correct identification notwithstanding the removal of the mandatory body viewing requirement? My third point is on the revocation of certificates to release the bodies of deceased persons to foreign states. The new section 17A provides the Minister’s power to issue a Minister’s certificate to release the bodies of a deceased person to foreign states in certain cases.”
“Notably, the wording of section 17C tracks the wording used in section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). Section 3 of POHA deals with the offence of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress. One of the defences to section 17C is that the accused did not know or had no reason to believe that the words, behaviour or communications would be perceived by the target person. However, this is not a defence to the similar offence of intentionally causing harassment in section 3 of POHA. Instead, this defence appears only in section 4 of POHA. Section 4 of POHA deals with the offence of behaviour, which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Importantly, section 4 is different from section 3 of POHA in that it does not require intention to cause harassment. It seems inconsistent that a defence to a harassment offence in POHA that does not require the element of intention now applies to a harassment offence in the Private Security Industry Act, which requires intention. In addition to inconsistency across legislation, this seems difficult to understand in principle. Surely, someone who acted with the intention to harass another person should not be allowed to say that they had no reason to believe that harassing conduct would not be perceived by the victim. Can the Minister clarify why this defence applies to intentional harassment under section 17C when it does not apply to intentional harassment under POHA? Does this suggest that intentional harassment under the Private Security Industry Act has a different scope from intentional harassment under POHA? Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”