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 17 of 37.
“Sir, I grew up watching Captain Planet and the Planeteers. Some of the younger Members in this House will have no idea what I am talking about. It was a cartoon series about protecting our planet. I loved it. This is how the opening went, "Our world is in peril. Gaia, the spirit of the Earth, can no longer stand the terrible destruction plaguing our planet. She sends five magic rings to five special young people: Kwame, from Africa, with the power of Earth; from North America, Wheeler, with the power of Fire, from the Soviet Union – yes that is how old this cartoon is – Linka, with the power of Wind; from Asia, Gi, with the power of Water; and from South America, Ma-Ti, with the power of Heart. When the five powers combine, they summon Earth's greatest champion, Captain Planet." I also remember the show's catchy theme song, but I remember Speaker's Facebook post about not getting any ideas about singing in Parliament, so I shall not sing it. Plus, it is getting pretty late.”
“" In the same vein, Sir, let us not also in our twilight years, have to look our children in the eye and tell them we saw climate change coming and did not do all that we could to avert this climate crisis. There is more work to be done. I hope our Government will continue working with the private sector, with our activists, and with all Singaporeans to do it. I am confident that by working together, we will win this battle against climate change. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 3.39 pm”
“Optimism because Singaporeans, more than ever before, are speaking up and taking action. The Government is listening and has done a great deal. We are spending more than $1 billion in carbon tax revenue for the next five years to help our industries become more efficient. We are building solar panels on our flats, reservoirs, ports and even airbases to increase our use of renewable energy. We are making aggressive plans to replace conventional vehicles with EVs and hybrids to cut transport emissions. We are facilitating green loans and green bonds to help green businesses grow. We are making big bets on carbon capture, hydrogen and other aspects of climate science as part of a massive $25 billion research blueprint. We are doing a lot. But still, we need to do more. Let us deepen and accelerate our climate change efforts. Let us slash our emissions while building new industries and creating new jobs. Let us commit to 2050 as a target year for net zero emissions so we catch up to the many countries we often compare ourselves to, such as Korea and Japan. Sir, three years ago, I was in London for a conference. I listened to His Royal Highness Prince William as he delivered a passionate speech that has stuck with me all these years. He shared about how he had just returned from a visit to Namibia, Tanzania and Kenya, and how some of the rhinos he saw were under such threat that they had more bodyguards than he had. He said, "It is heart-breaking to think that by the time my children George, Charlotte and Louis are in their 20s, elephants, rhinos and tigers might well be extinct in the wild. I, for one, am not willing to look my children in the eye and say that we were the generation that let this happen on our watch.”
“The kids are now brainstorming and coming up with ideas on how to build this new nature park. They are excited. There is more we can do to protect our flora and fauna. It starts by not destroying the natural habitat. Many of these species have inhabited this land long before us. They bring life to our island. They remind Singaporeans that a world exists beyond the containers of steel, glass and concrete that we live in. They provide enriching spaces for scientific research. We call it nature, but it is also identity and it is also heritage. Buildings can be rebuilt. Art can be preserved. But it will take hundreds, if not thousands, of years before a living, breathing eco-system like a forest regrows itself. Sir, we have committed to planting a million trees in Singapore over the next 10 years. Let us also commit to protecting a million existing trees in our existing forests. Ms Rachel Ong will share more of her thoughts on this topic. Mr Christopher de Souza will also discuss this in his speech in his Adjournment Motion. Sir, let me end with a quote as always. This, by the former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, "We are the last generation that can take steps to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Future generations will judge us harshly if we fail to uphold our moral and historical responsibilities." Sir, way back in 1956, the New York Times published an article, titled "Warmer climate on the earth may be due to more carbon dioxide in the air". It was a warning about climate change and how human actions will contribute to it. I live this moment in sadness and optimism. Sadness because we are somehow fighting the same battle that our forefathers fought decades ago. But, also optimism – because we are now much clearer about what we can do.”
“I share their concerns and I too hope that the Ulu Pandan Forest and other forests like the Clementi Forest will be protected. I believe we can work together to find a middle ground and embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore. Sir, our forests are carbon sinks. They are our vanguard in our fight against climate change. In fact, because we have cut down so much forest in recent years, Singapore's land now emits more carbon than it absorbs. It is needless to say that forests are also sites of great, irreplaceable biodiversity. The importance of biodiversity in forests is why when I amended the Wild Animals and Birds Act through a Private Member's Bill last year. We included a new section 10 that empowers the Director-General, Wildlife Management to "issue directions to developers to carry out wildlife-related measures to safeguard wildlife, public health or safety, or the health of the eco-system." This was meant to give our Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports more teeth. It also allows wildlife-related conditions in our EIA reports to be formally issued as directions. Developers must comply, or they may be punished by $50,000 fines or six months' imprisonment. Sir, I am glad that there is good news in that we are protecting more green spaces that were previously not protected. Indeed, we are setting up the new Khatib Bongsu Nature Park and the Sungei Buloh Nature Park Network. I have brought many people, young and old to explore Khatib Bongsu in the past few months and they are all in awe of the amazing biodiversity we have in Singapore and the need to conserve the precious green spaces we have left. Just last Saturday, my GRC colleague, Mr Derrick Goh and I kayaked with students from Secondary schools in Nee Soon to explore Khatib Bongsu.”
“We must provide the education and the data needed for people to act in line with their moral compass. This will also help Singapore cut emissions. Ms Nadia Samdin will share more on the topic and Ms Hany Soh will also speak about community involvement. The seventh topic is charging points for electrical vehicles or EVs. EVs are the future of motor vehicles. Singapore aims to phase out cars with internal combustion engines by 2040. But this shift will be hard if we do not have enough charging points for them. The Government needs the private sector to build more charging points. We need to find new ways to help them do so. Mr Gan Thiam Poh will speak on this topic. Mr Gan will also speak on the eighth topic, data-sharing mechanisms. The world of business competition is a treacherous place, but robust data-sharing frameworks can help provide the trust needed for industry players to share data, become more efficient and reduce emissions. The ninth topic is climate defence. Total Defence has six pillars. It is time to add climate defence as the seventh pillar to reflect how climate change is an existential threat for Singapore. Mr. Seah Kian Peng is passionate about this topic and will discuss this in his speech. Beyond the 10 topics, we are all also concerned about our forests in Singapore. Recently, the Government shared an environmental baseline study carried out by HDB to guide future plans to the Dover, or I should correct it now, Ulu Pandan Forest. I thank HDB for consulting nature groups on the findings and also publishing the study online to seek further public views. I thank Minister for his comprehensive reply during Question Time earlier. Many Singaporeans have spoken up.”
“We need to be honest with ourselves: without a high enough carbon tax, even with all the other things we do, our emission level might remain high – far too high. Research studies from Ireland, Scotland and British Columbia find that a revenue-neutral carbon tax, where the money collected is poured back into the economy, could slash emissions while boosting the economy. That is the path we need to take. Mr Don Wee will share more of his thoughts on this topic. Mr Henry Kwek will also share his views about cutting our emissions. The second topic is professionalisation of the carbon documentation industry to heed the UN's call for global harmonisation of carbon documentation standards. The third topic is embedding sustainability into our industry transformation maps (ITM) or having an ITM for the sustainability sector. Both of these topics flow from the reality that climate change is terrible, but the fight against it can create good jobs for Singaporeans and grow our economy. Miss Cheryl Chan will share her take on these two topics. The fourth topic is the Green Mark scheme. Green Mark sets standards and certifies sustainable construction. It is a good idea, but its standards need to be improved. A Green Mark Silver or Green Mark Gold building, today, may not be very green at all. The scheme needs to be tightened. Ms Poh Li San will speak on this topic. The fifth topic is climate education and the sixth topic is increasing public access to emissions data of top-emitting entities. Both of these topics are about empowering our citizens. How can we teach our young ones about climate change? What can we do for them outside the classroom? And can we release more data on carbon emissions to the public? Sustainability is an increasingly integral part of people's lives.”
“This can just be an adapted version of the confidential Resource Management Plans that they already must prepare. It will tell the public how each Ministry is greening its operations. To sum up, we can do a lot by enhancing our Government's sustainability standards. I will also note that many of our Government's contractors also service other clients. When we tighten our sustainability requirements, it can spark process improvements across the supply chain, creating a multiplied effect. But Sir, the Government's work does not stop at its procurement or its operations. It sets policies, and this means there are a lot more things it can do. My colleagues will focus on nine other topics and propose changes in policies. Again, these proposals were formulated from over a year of public consultations with business leaders, researchers, activists and fellow Singaporeans. Some of the ideas were sparked by YP's Climate Change policy team. The Members' various legislative assistants also contributed to making this happen. My thanks to my own climate change team, led by Elliot. They have done extraordinary work. Sir, the first topic is carbon tax. The carbon tax is perhaps Singapore's most important policy tool against climate change. I agree that we needed to start low to avoid spooking investors and I agree that our economy needs to emerge from COVID-19 first. But our 2030 target of $10 to $15 per tonne increase is far too low. Some feel that it simply will not work as a way to slash emissions. IMF, which has one of the most conservative models out there, says our rate needs to be no lower than S$99 in 2030 to keep climate change at safe levels. Even if we decide that $99 is too high, $15 is not anywhere near enough.”
“Let me kickstart the discussion with the first topic: stepping up sustainability standards in the Public Service. Government is big business. In 2016, our 35,000 Government contracts were worth a whopping $22.6 billion. As the largest employer and one of the biggest business clients in Singapore, the Government can move the standard business practices of entire industries, just by enhancing its sustainability standards. It is good that we have the Public Service Taking The Lead in Environmental Sustainability initiative. It is also good news that Minister Grace Fu said last year that the Government is already looking at a sustainable framework for Government procurement. We should ensure that these higher standards are robust. First, life-cycle costing should be expanded to more categories of products. Life-cycle costing is simple. It means when we buy something, we look not just at the price tag, but also at how much it will cost us to maintain, use and dispose. This practice helps us spend less and waste less. The Government currently requires its agencies to do it only for electrical appliances. We should do it also for vehicles, furniture and other products. Second, Government contracts should measure and set standards for carbon footprints. It is already a common practice in Europe. We should mandate it, especially, for high-emissions infrastructure projects. In addition, we can increase standards on accredited efficiency. For example, public procurement standards currently require air-conditioners to have only three ticks of efficiency. We can raise the standard to four or five ticks, which will save us money in the long run while cutting emissions. Third, every Ministry should be required to publish a yearly Sustainability Report.”
“Having worked for over 10 years in the maritime sector, an industry at the heart of global business, she recalls that MNCs were working on sustainability, even before it became a buzzword in Singapore. That is why she believes good climate policy must be pragmatic. Of course, it must reduce emissions, and of course, it must ensure the welfare of Singaporeans. But the path to that outcome should involve working with the private sector. Acknowledge their concerns. Help them find alternatives. They have the capacity to change, and we all benefit if we help them to do so. That is why Cynthia and her passionate team of activists at the YP climate change policy team envision such an important role for businesses in their position papers. But business aside, climate change is, for Cynthia, about responsibility. "We have treated the Earth badly," she says. It is time we do what is right for the future generations. I hope Members of this House do not make the mistake of thinking any of these people work alone. Xiang Tian, Lastrina, Wei-Shan and Cynthia were all at pains to emphasise the work of others. They are just four names amongst thousands in Singapore who are waging the battle against climate change in their own ways. We may not agree with everything climate activists say or do. But let us pause and remember: these are Singaporeans who care deeply about helping and protecting something other than themselves. Is that not something we should cherish? Just as importantly, they speak up because they believe in the capacity of this Government to listen. Is that not something we should respond to? And so we should. This Motion today responds to their call. Today, my fellow MPs and I will discuss 10 topics.”
“But almost 10 years ago, she heard what the experts were saying about climate change. "Something worrying was happening," she said. It was time to graduate from appreciating the environment to helping it. And so, in 2015, she started the Singapore Youth for Climate Action with some friends. She understands instinctively how powerless other youths feel in today's world. The solution, she says, is to shine the light on what they can do. Speak up. Organise. Collaborate. Build a movement. Talk to decision makers. Everyone has a role to play. Her message is one of empowerment, and Singapore is lucky to have her. Sir, I am happy to share that our People's Action Party's youth wing also has its own activists passionate about sustainability and climate change. For Wei-Shan from our Young PAP, or YP, sustainability has a lot to do with changing people's mindsets. She has first-hand experience with this. Running a business that designs gifts, she found that clients would almost always opt for plastic packaging even when she recommended greener alternatives. Hard to change people's minds, she says. It is a challenge, but it is one we cannot shy away from. That is why the many public consultations organised by Wei-Shan and her passionate team mates at YP brought industry experts and climate activists to the same table. Each party gets the chance to persuade and be persuaded. Good policy, she says, must balance the viewpoints of different groups. Wei-Shan is also a mother of two young children. We are used to seeing their faces during our many Zoom calls. These little ones fuel her passion for sustainability. "I want the world to be better for them in 10, 20 years’; not worse," she says. Like Wei-Shan, Cynthia's passion is informed by her work.”
“I have spoken with many of them in the past few years and decades. Let me share a few of the personal stories they shared with me. Xiang Tian is a young man studying at the Singapore Institute of Technology. You may have seen him holding a microphone and giving a heartfelt speech at the Singapore Climate Rally in 2019. But his passion for the environment goes much further back. It started in kindergarten, when NEA gave out a Green Package to his class. His memory is vivid: it was three books and one music CD, instructing him on how Singapore will pile up with trash if he did not reduce, reuse and recycle. And so he did. But that was not enough. He learned, as we all do, that big problems require big solutions. So, he started studying engineering, with an eye on finding solutions. He connected with other passionate people. He founded LepakSG, which consolidates environmental events in a single calendar. "Lepak" means relax, but he is nothing but hard work. In fact, what he finds energising is that the climate change community are the kind of people who, like him, are happy to volunteer their Friday nights and weekends discussing problems, researching solutions, gathering feedback, reaching out to public agencies. "No one is Superman," he told me. "We cannot save the world by ourselves. But we can move others and we can change systems." And that is exactly what he is doing and, as many of us know, he is doing this while infamously always wearing his slippers. Like Xiang Tian, Lastrina found a connection with the environment at a young age. Her dad came from Pulau Sakijang Pelepah, or what some of you may know as Lazarus Island. Growing up around sea captains and divers, she gained a natural appreciation for the environment.”
“Our third and last reason for bringing this Motion here today is that it responds to voices Members of this House must all have heard. These voices come from Singaporeans, young and old. In the past few years we have seen them build, organise, research, educate and advocate to move the needle on climate change. Let me start with a voice from the private sector. Esther has been City Developments Limited's Chief Sustainability Officer for over 25 years. It really is not common to see a business leader advocate about climate change like she does. In one breath, she is talking about Sustainable Cities Index; in another, she is casually dropping data about Canada's climate change policy. Let me quote her interview with Eco-Business: "We should ask ourselves what sort of solutions can really tackle the climate emergency and how we can take action. There is no point in just talking if you do not take action." Good thing, she also walks the talk. She has worked with her company to cut emissions, secure green loans, fund green start-ups and create awareness campaigns. She has won the SDG Pioneer award, given by the UN to business leaders who have done an outstanding job advancing their Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs. Despite all her time working with titans of industry, her inspiration comes from youths. To quote her again, from interview with The Edge: "Given their energy and desire for a bright future, youths play a vital role in helping our planet to recover from the harm humans have inflicted. We need to engage, encourage and empower youths to drive the green agenda and impart them with the necessary skillsets and tools to drive sustainability for decades to come." I could not agree with her more about youths being the future.”
“Farms and fisheries will be reshaped, disrupting supply chains. The polar ice caps will melt, opening new shipping routes that bypass Singapore’s port. There may be price instability. Businesses and consumers will both be affected. There may even be geopolitical conflicts over water resources. In other words, we cannot hope to escape climate change through superior engineering and high-quality design. Globalisation means climate change will find a way to hit our livelihoods, our breadbaskets and our peace. This brings me to the second reason we have brought the Motion to this House: it upholds Singapore's reputation of fulfilling our international commitments. As Minister Vivian will tell you, we are a little red dot, but there is nothing little about our voice. We have led negotiations in the most significant multilateral agreements of our time. We have hosted peace summits, had UN conventions named after us and had our people elected to lead UN agencies. All this is made possible because our diplomats at MFA and our Public Service work so hard. But it is also made possible because Singapore has a reputation for responding when the international community calls. So, our Motion today responds to what is perhaps the most critical call of our century – former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's call that every country must take urgent, immediate action to combat climate change. More than anyone else, Singapore understands the significance of going together, not going alone. On these rough tides, every pair of hands counts. We have signed the Paris Climate Agreement, but we must do more. Our recommendations today provide specific proposals on what we can do.”
“The GPC for Sustainability and the Environment as well as the Young PAP have worked hard and worked together – in partnership with climate activists, business leaders and members of the public – to come up with these recommendations. We are pushing hard for changes but, at the same time, we are mindful not to push people and businesses away. We are mindful of the trade-offs, particularly for our economy and jobs, and we have sought to find the right balance. All of us believe that a healthy economy and a healthy planet can go hand-in-hand and should go hand-in-hand. Sir, let me start by sharing why my fellow Members and I have brought this Motion to the House today. Our first point of departure is the common understanding that climate change is a global crisis that strikes at the very foundations of how Singaporeans live. In his 2019 National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Lee called climate change “one of the gravest challenges facing humankind.” He outlined how Singapore will be hit. Rising sea levels may put coastal areas underwater. Floods may become more frequent. Developers will have to build at higher levels than before. Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars will have to be spent on massive projects, such as building polders. Singapore has always managed to build our way around problems. We built upwards, touching the sky with skyscrapers and HDB blocks. We built outwards, reclaiming land from the sea. We built our NEWater plants, turning waste into water. But climate change is not an ecological threat that our engineers can just build around. It is an economic and political threat. Near and far from our borders, cities and villages will face the test of climate change. Some will sink into the ocean. Others will be consumed by wildfires.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Sustainability and the Environment, I beg to move*, "That this House calls on the Government, in partnership with the private sector and the people of Singapore, to deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and to embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore". [(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the names of Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Don Wee. (proc text)] Sir, it is too hot! And I am sure everyone has also realised it is too wet! The past January was the wettest January in the past 100 years. Floods submerged our pathways and toppled our trees. Many of our deliverymen got stranded in shelters because it became too dangerous to ride. The past two decades were also the hottest decades on record. But if you think you are sweaty now, get ready to sweat more: Singapore is becoming hotter twice as quickly as the rest of the world. Our climate is changing for the extreme. Our science and our senses tell us so. As Minister Grace Fu shared last month, “With climate change, we can expect more of such erratic weather in future.” Sir, I remember learning about climate change when I was still a little boy. In fact, I was 10 years old when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up in 1988. It saddens me that my daughters Ella, Katie and Poppy will grow up facing the same environmental issues I learnt about when I was in school so many decades ago. Sir, we must do more – a lot more and a lot more urgently. Today, my fellow Members of Parliament and I will present recommendations on 10 topics.”
“Lawyers generally advise against signing deeds using electronic signatures because of the risk that deeds governed by Singapore law or signed in Singapore may not be enforceable if signed using electronic signatures. Can Minister clarify if deeds signed using electronic signatures, which comply with all other formalities required for deeds, are enforceable? Lastly, the explanatory statement to the Bill makes clear that the adoption of the Model Law and the inclusion of trade documents under the Electronic Transactions Act is part of a wider initiative by the Government to support the electronisation of documents and transactions. As part of IMDA's consultations in 2019, IMDA proposed removing the exclusion of Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). In other words, it is proposed that electronic LPA should be allowed. The Bill explains that these other transactions, such as LPAs, will be deleted when the legislative and administrative frameworks supporting electronisation are ready to be implemented. I understand that an Office of the Public Guardian Online Electronic System is in the works to allow LPAs to be registered electronically. Can Minister share how it is working with MSF to ensure that the needs of the elderly are taken into account when rolling out the Electronic System? We need to consider that they might not be familiar or comfortable with such a system. While LPAs are of course not only for the elderly, they are a significant population that will make use of this instrument. We should ensure that any Electronic System caters to their needs. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill is a step forward in Singapore's progress towards digitalisation. This Bill will adopt, with modifications, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records. This allows the recognition of electronic records of trade documents at international ports and supports our digitalisation efforts. I have three clarifications on the Bill and on Singapore's efforts to move towards electronisation. My first point is on the effectiveness of national digitalisation in international trade with other countries at varying stages of digitalisation. Any single transaction in international trade is likely to involve multiple parties in various jurisdictions. It will be important for all parties involved to be certain that electronic documents will be legally valid and enforceable in jurisdictions where the documents may be needed to be enforced. The reality, as the Minister pointed out, is that the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records has only been adopted by Bahrain. While Singapore's adoption of the Model Law will make Singapore one of the first mover countries, the current low rate of uptake may mean that electronic trade documents recognised in Singapore may not similarly be recognised abroad. Minister had addressed this point earlier, but could I ask whether we working with other countries to provide assurances that electronic trade documents will similarly receive recognition abroad? My second point is on electronically signed deeds. During the circuit breaker period, electronic execution of contracts became much more common practice. However, deeds remain one category of documents where it is unclear if electronic signatures may be accepted.”
“Can the Minister clarify how a public body's opinion, belief or state of mind should be determined? Third, the Court of Appeal, again, in Asia Development Pte Ltd vs Attorney-General [2020] SGCA 22, suggested that it is good practice for Government agencies to clearly identify the role and capacity in which they are acting, and to explain this promptly when challenged. The Court also noted that it would be helpful to adopt a measure of formality in communication of Government decisions so that there is little room for confusion over which party one is dealing with and in what capacity they are acting. Can the Minister share if there are plans for public agencies to adopt the Court’s recommendation in practice? Madam, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Madam, this Bill will update and refine drafting practices, clarify the system for delegation of ministerial functions, and provide for Parliament’s continuity arrangements. These are necessary and welcome amendments. I will focus on the amendments on the delegation of ministerial functions. I have three points to raise. First, the Bill proposes to allow the delegation of a Minister's function to a public body or public officer unless express or implied contrary intention appears in the Act. It would be very useful to the Court to have clear guidance on how contrary intention should be inferred. The Court of Appeal in Asia Development Pte Ltd vs Attorney-General [2020] SGCA 22 cited an English case for the position that the Court should consider the nature, scope and purpose of the function vested in the Minister and the relevant language of the statute and of the specific provision. Can the Minister provide more specific guidance on what factors should be considered in inferring implied contrary intention? Moving forward, would the Ministry consider requiring Ministries to include more express language on the delegation of Ministerial function when drafting Bills to avoid Courts having to go through the process of inferring intention? Second, the Bill allows delegation of function to a public body or a public officer. Helpfully, the Bill clarifies that if a ministerial function depends on the Minister’s opinion, belief or state of mind, the delegate may exercise the function based on the delegate’s opinion, belief or state of mind. While this can be done where a ministerial function is delegated to a public officer, it is less clear how opinion, belief or state of mind of a public body should be determined.”
“My second area of clarification is on environmental sustainability. One goal of the AFAMT is to enhance the sustainability of multimodal transport operations. Can the Ministry share how Singapore's AFAMT National Work Plan aims to achieve this goal? The reason I am asking is that a region-wide strategic alignment on transport and logistics is a great opportunity to coordinate ASEAN and Singapore's plans for sustainability. In 2019, the European Commission released a report, titled "Transport in the European Union: Current Trends and Issues". The report provides an array of recommendations on how the EU member states can align the development of their multimodal transport network in an environmentally sustainable way. One recommendation is to impose environmentally differentiated port charges to stimulate investment in green vessels. Will the Ministry work with regional partners to study such initiatives? This can foster the longer term development of sustainable transport infrastructure in ASEAN and advance Singapore's status as a global logistics hub. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill gives effect to the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Multimodal Transport (AFAMT) signed in 2005. By streamlining the multimodal transport of goods among ASEAN member countries, AFAMT facilitates trade and greater regional economic integration. A strong logistics hub is the backbone of trade. As Minister Iswaran said at the launch of the Logistics Industry Transformation Map (ITM) in 2016, "logistics is a critical enabler of our economy and our everyday lives". Singapore has fared well in the past few years, placing seventh in the world and second in ASEAN in the World Bank's 2018 Logistics Performance Index. More recently, Singapore's strength in logistics has also put it in good stead to become a COVID-19 vaccine distribution hub for the region. The AFAMT will strengthen our position as a logistics hub and help build a more agile and dynamic logistics network with the region. Sir, I have two areas of clarification on the Bill. My first area of clarification is on the registration regime set out for the Singapore Competent National Body. The process of appealing decisions made by the Competent National Body would benefit from clarity in two respects. First, will a holder of a registration certificate be able to appeal the Competent National Body's decision to add to, vary or revoke any of the conditions of a registration certificate? Second, rather than the Competent National Body state in writing the reasons for refusal to issue or renew a registration certificate only if requested by the applicant, can the Ministry consider making known the reasons for refusal upfront? Providing reasons for refusal to issue or renew a registration certificate upfront would avoid unnecessary back-and-forth and save everyone some time and effort.”
“My fourth and final point is about the enforcement powers of compliance officers. The Bill empowers the Licensing Officer to appoint compliance officers to assist the Licensing Officer in the exercise of its enforcement powers. These compliance officers are private contractors, not public agents. Despite not being public agents, compliance officers may exercise a range of enforcement powers under the Bill. Can the Minister clarify how compliance officers will be supervised in the exercise of these powers? Will compliance officers be held to the same standards of accountability as public servants? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“The result appears to be an expansion of the law, with the proposed Act requiring licences for imitation, replica and ornamental weapons, while existing laws do not. For instance, under section 13(6) of the existing Arms and Explosives Act, a licence is not required to possess a sword or dagger kept in a dwelling for ornamental purposes. While clause 94 of the Bill deems ornamental or theatrical weapons as lawful purpose for possessing an offensive weapon under the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, it is not clear how imitation, replica or ornamental weapons are treated under the new Guns, Explosives and Weapons Control Act. Can the Minister clarify if the term “weapon” is intended to cover imitation, replica or ornamental weapons? If so, can the Minister share how it intends to address the enforcement issues that may arise because of the over-inclusiveness? Would the Ministry consider, for instance, issuing class licences for activities involving objects that fall within the definition of weapons but would not ordinarily be used to cause harm, such as imitation, replica or ornamental weapons? My third point is about variation orders for class licences. Section 57(1) of the Bill allows the Minister to vary a class licence by order in the Gazette. However, the Gazette is not necessarily accessible to the layperson. To propose to vary a class licence, the Minister is required to publish a notice on a website or in other forms readily accessible to the public. While the proposal to vary a class licence must be published, the order to vary itself is not subject to these requirements. For consistency and transparency, will MHA ensure that the variation order itself be published in forms readily accessible to the public?”
“Sir, this Bill seeks to consolidate and update our laws relating to guns, explosives and weapons. The regulation of guns, explosives and weapons is important to the safety and security of Singaporeans, and our regulatory framework should be updated to account for changing technologies and threats. I have four clarifications to raise on this Bill. My first clarification is on the proposed definition of “store” and the four limbs of the definition. The definition first sets out the first and second limbs, followed by the phrase “and includes”, then the third and fourth limbs. Can the Minister clarify if this should be interpreted to mean that the first and second limbs are broad definitions, and the third and fourth limbs are specific examples of the first and second limbs? Can the Minister also clarify if the third and fourth limbs are examples and do not exhaustively set out situations where a gun or major part of a gun is deemed to be stored? I seek this clarification because the third limb refers very specifically to being in possession of any explosive or explosive precursor for more than 24 hours. The fourth limb refers specifically to controlling or managing 12 guns or major parts of a gun. These very specific numbers seem to provide an opening for someone to circumvent the law by possessing an explosive for only 23 hours or controlling only 11 guns. My second point is on the definition of "weapon". The Bill defines weapon in the First Schedule, which comprises a detailed list, such as arrows, knives and swords. The First Schedule does not provide any exceptions for imitation, replica or ornamental weapons. By contrast, the definition of gun or explosives in the Bill does provide exceptions for imitation guns and explosives.”
“Thank you, Sir. I think the "Children in Between" programme is an important one. But as the Minister of State has just shared, the problem really is that the take-up rate is so low. So, I am just wondering whether MSF will consider making this programme mandatory, just like how we make the parenting programme mandatory as well.”
“Okay, I will keep it really short. Just two clarifications. One, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for sharing that they are going to review subsidies for PGD. Can I just ask how long this review will take and when we can expect the results? Two, just wondering whether we will review the number of subsidised IVF cycles again? Again, as I have shared, it was seven years ago that we reviewed it. Is there an upcoming review for this?”
“" Sir, I hope everyone will have the chance to experience these moments and to share these stories about their loved ones. The road here was a difficult one. For Amy and I, as well as Josephine, Winston, Cheryl, Keith, Amelia, Geoffrey, Sophia and John, and many, many other couples, parenthood is a castle with high walls. We must do everything we can to open the gates to those who come knocking. I know I am asking for the Government to give out more money, increase our expenditure at a time when our budgets are tight. But what we are offering fellow Singaporeans is a chance to become a parent and that is truly priceless. Let me end with a quote, as always. "Nothing brings us more elated joy or paralysing fear. Nothing is so wonderful and daunting, heart-breaking and soul-lifting, taxing and exhilarating as raising a child. And certainly nothing will stretch us, inspire us and motivate us to better ourselves quite like being the one that little person looks up to." I should also end by saying that I am not speaking up to get more subsidies so that I can have more children. Sir, my castle is full. I am terribly outnumbered with a queen and three princesses. This castle is permanently closed. But, Sir, I know what others are going through and I hope we do more for them so that more couples can enjoy the gift of parenthood. 7.43 pm”
“It is also positive news that the Government is considering allowing IVF subsidies to be applied at private fertility treatment centres and is reviewing Government support for PGD and PGS. These are all welcome developments. But we can and we should do more. In summary, my proposals are, one, increase the number of subsidised IVF cycles from six to eight; two, introduce subsidies for PGD; three, remove the three-fresh, three-frozen quota for IVF subsidies; and, four, introduce fertility leave for all employees. These proposals will help more couples undergoing IVF and, most importantly, reduce their stress levels as they embark on this stressful but potentially rewarding IVF journey – potentially rewarding for the couples and also for Singapore as we try hard to increase our total fertility rate. Sir, I will say again that parenthood has been one of the best journeys of my life. Ella, Katie and Poppy bring us immeasurable joy every single day and, of course, to be honest, immeasurable pain at times as well. My three little ones are, fortunately and unfortunately, as stubborn as me. I have more stories to share. Recently, Poppy gave me a kiss in the morning and said, "I love you, daddy" and went back to sleep. I love these warm fuzzy feeling moments. I love the silly moments, too. I sometimes find photos Katie has taken of herself on my phone without me knowing and some selfies she took together with me while I was asleep. Those are the only photos on my phone when my centre parting is not perfectly dead-centre. And I love the proud moments. Ella will pick up snails and caterpillars and move them off the pavement so nobody will step on them. As they said, "Teaching a child not to step on a caterpillar is as valuable to the child as it is to the caterpillar.”
“So, the reality is that even on the sacred topic of making a baby, many Singaporeans are dependent on the goodwill of their employers, and this is not right. I propose that we allow husbands and wives to take several days of fertility leave per year. To ensure the leave is taken for its intended purpose, we can consider requiring employees to furnish MCs from fertility clinics and allow fertility clinics to provide men with MCs when they accompany their wife for their IVF appointments. In addition to allowing Singaporean women to more easily access IVF treatments, fertility leave also has two additional positive side effects. First, it could help with our fertility rates. South Korea, a country with fertility rates nearly identical to ours, introduced fertility treatment leave as part of their efforts to raise fertility rates. Second, it makes clear that fertility treatments like IVF are not the concern of women alone. The emotional support of their husbands is essential. Just like parenting, conception should be a two-person job. Sir, let me end by saying that the Government has done a lot in expanding access to and affordability of assisted conception treatments. Over the years, we have introduced the co-funding scheme for IVF treatments, increased the co-funding to more cycles and also increased the co-funding limits. We have also lifted the age limit of 45 years old for women to undergo IVF and extended IVF subsidies to women who are 40 years or older. I also raised the issue of pre-implantation genetic screenings, or PGS, previously and I am glad the Government has started a pilot for this.”
“Indeed, Minister Gan himself said last October, "The success rates for fresh and frozen eggs are largely comparable." Sir, I think this quota adds unnecessary stress on couples undergoing IVF. Some couples may need one fresh cycle and five frozen cycles while others may need five fresh cycles and one frozen cycle. Giving couples more flexibility might help reduce the stress and anxiety these couples face and lowering their stress and anxiety levels might help increase their success rate. I propose we drop the three-fresh, three-frozen quota for IVF subsidies. We simply provide subsidies for a given number of cycles, which can be either fresh or frozen. My final recommendation is about time. Financial subsidies are important but providing people with precious time is also important. I propose we introduce fertility leave for both husbands and wives to take time off work for IVF treatments. IVF is an extremely stressful journey. This is particularly true for working women who have to juggle their career alongside the side effects and time commitments of their IVF treatments. Sir, I asked over 160 people who worked while they were undergoing IVF. More than half found it difficult to take time off work for IVF-related treatments. The existing 14 days of sick leave is insufficient for them. Some end up taking no-pay leave and this is a strain on their already tight budgets due to IVF. As for men, I believe we want to be with our wife during these tough times. When I spoke with Amelia and Geoffrey, Geoffrey told me that he wished he could take more time to accompany Amelia to her IVF appointments. But he cannot take medical leave to accompany his wife to these appointments.”
“It might also mean lower costs for the Government, as fewer IVF cycles may be needed before a successful pregnancy. Yet, for all its benefits, not a single dollar of subsidy or MediSave is available for PGD. PGD can be expensive. For Amelia and Geoffrey, paying $18,000 for PGD was the only way to prevent their second child from inheriting a rare genetic disease that can lead to liver failure. Another couple, Sophia and John, had already faced three miscarriages. They found that a genetic condition was at fault and had to pay $10,000 for PGD to prevent more miscarriages and to avoid birth defects. I hope the numbers are as big a shock for Members of this House as they were for these couples. These are huge sums of money. Sir, my proposal is that we extend the current IVF subsidy structure to PGD. For Singaporean couples, this means a 75% subsidy for PGD for subsidised IVF cycles. PGD is needed only by a small percentage of couples. So, overall subsidy costs for the Government are likely to be limited. We should also allow PGD to be paid using MediSave, subject to a cap, so that MediSave does not get exhausted by such procedures. This is already the case for IVF treatments. Couples deserve their chance to have healthy children and we should support them. My third proposal is to remove the quota on fresh and frozen cycles for subsidised IVF treatment. Currently, the Government's subsidy of six IVF cycles comes with a condition: three of the cycles must be "fresh" and the other three must be "frozen". I will spare this House the scientific nitty-gritty of what "fresh" and "frozen" mean. But suffice to say, expert opinion is split and the medical literature is inconclusive about whether one is clearly better than the other.”
“I should pause here and clarify that nobody chooses to do a seventh cycle of IVF unless they have to. Each cycle involves mood-changing medication, weeks of daily painful injections and multiple visits to the doctor. We can and we should do more. I am not proposing that we extend subsidies to unlimited cycles of IVF. I propose that we extend subsidies to the seventh and eighth IVF cycles. If needed, we can reduce the subsidies for these cycles to ensure that the scheme remains sustainable. Sir, I should add that the Government has previously increased the number of subsidised cycles. This was done about seven years ago and it is time for us to review this again. If the argument is that most couples have a successful pregnancy before or during their sixth cycle, then extending subsidies to the seventh and eighth cycle would not cost the Government much. Why not, then? We should remember that this additional subsidy is meant for couples, such as Josephine, Winston, Cheryl and Keith, who have clearly shown, through years of trying, that they are serious about wanting to become parents. They deserve our support. My second proposal is to introduce subsidies for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, and allow the balance to be paid out of MediSave, subject to a limit. PGD is sometimes conducted during IVF cycles and it is important in two ways. One, for couples with a family history of genetic disorders, it ensures that the embryo does not inherit serious medical conditions. Two, PGD increases the likelihood of a pregnancy being successful. Studies done by researchers at the University of Valencia and at Japanese hospitals found that PGD significantly reduced miscarriages and increased the chances of pregnancy. This, of course, means happier outcomes for couples.”
“Fertility is an existential problem in Singapore and the Government has done much, such as expanding the Baby Bonus Scheme, to provide more support to couples in their decision to have children and to lighten the financial costs of raising children. But I do not think we are doing enough for those who want but struggle to have children. I met several such couples at a dialogue session I organised last November through the Singapore IVF Support Group. The couples spoke candidly about the many challenges they faced and I thank them for sharing their personal stories and passionate recommendations with me. Today, I will share their stories with you and offer four proposals on how the Government can help couples like them. My first proposal is for the Government to subsidise more cycles of IVF. For most couples, IVF is a story of trying and trying again because only about 18% of attempts succeed. This is not a cheap procedure. Each cycle, each roll of the dice, can cost up to $15,000 at our public hospitals. The Government does help with subsidies for six cycles. Starting from the seventh cycle, you pay the full unsubsidised amount. This is a painful reality for many couples. One couple I met are Josephine and Winston. They have gone through nine IVF cycles, paying about $20,000 out-of-pocket and $15,000 via MediSave already. Today, they are still without a child and will continue to try. It will cost them. Another couple I met are Cheryl and Keith. They were luckier. By their sixth cycle, the very last subsidised IVF cycle, they managed to conceive and are now happy parents to a bubbly one-year-old. But they now find themselves in an agonising position of wanting a second child. They wonder: can we really afford to go through IVF unsubsidised?”
“Sir, I have shared stories about my children numerous times in this House. Being a parent to Ella, Katie and Poppy has been one of the greatest joys for my wife Amy and I. I share so many stories of them because I am so grateful that I have three happy, healthy children. I am grateful for all the lessons they have taught me and they have undoubtedly made me a better person. I love and treasure them so much and I want to share the joys of being a parent with everyone. Sir, beyond all these, I am simply grateful that I am able to have kids. Amy and I fought very hard to have children. There was a point in our lives when we could not have kids. The story I have shared less is that we were able to have our three children only with the help of in-vitro fertilisation, or IVF. Going through IVF was like being on an emotional roller coaster ride. It was a journey filled with pain and anguish, excitement and disappointment, and hope and happiness at times. It was financially, physically and emotionally draining. We were only able to have a child at our seventh IVF attempt. When we were undergoing IVF, I was taking home a salary of about $2,000 a month. We had to pour all our income and savings towards having a child. Like us, many couples have struggled to conceive. KK Women's and Children's Hospital says 15% of couples are unable to conceive within 12 months of trying for a baby. This number is also increasing. There were over 7,700 assisted reproduction procedures carried out in 2017, up from about 5,500 in 2013 – a 40% increase in just four years.”
“Better feedback will help our Government get more relevant reports as well as help financial institutions take strong internal actions against bad actors. Industry experts say the same thing. At a seminar held by the Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (ACAMS) last October, the panelists from the industry noted that there has not been sufficient focus on the financial aspect of tackling the illegal wildlife trade. Will the Government consider sharing feedback with greater details when financial institutions do provide suspicious transaction reports, including on the illegal wildlife trade? To ensure that its feedback is relevant, will the Government also consider holding discussions with ground staff at financial institutions to assess the efficacy of its existing feedback? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill. 5.01 pm”
“In this spirit, I ask that we work more closely with financial institutions to ensure that their internal controls can accurately identify signs of illegal activity, particularly when it comes to illegal wildlife trade. This is not a new idea from me. It is a best practice recommended in a June 2020 report by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), titled "Money Laundering and the Illegal Wildlife Trade". I quote, "There is a need for both the public sector to share additional information with reporting entities, including feedback on [suspicious transaction reports] filed, and for reporting entities to review whether current internal controls against money laundering from the illegal wildlife trade are in line with identified risks... Where competent authorities have shared information, financial institutions have been able to incorporate this into their transaction monitoring systems and, in turn, provide richer intelligence for [law enforcement authorities]." My team spoke to some employees of local financial institutions who monitor transactions. They agreed with this recommendation. Some shared their concerns that they may only receive generic responses from the authorities with regard to the suspicious transaction reports they file. This creates two problems. One, the employees do not know whether the signals they are looking out for are relevant or not. The feedback from the authorities with regard to the suspicious transaction reports is not specific enough to motivate meaningful operational changes. Two, the employees have little information on the status or outcomes of Government investigations. This means they struggle to take internal follow-up actions to adjust the risk levels of these clients.”
“Today's world is also plagued by massive data leakages and malicious hackers. A month does not go by before some company we know spills our private information and order history into the wild. Having sought the views of the public and the industry, can the Minister share whether MAS has reached a final policy stance on whether it envisions providing any space for anonymised financial transactions in Singapore? My second point relates to user protection. The Bill provides powers for MAS to enact regulations on licensed DPT service providers. Many of the regulations pertain to the DPT service provider's maintenance of and safeguarding of assets belonging to users. I support these powers. User protection is essential. It helps keep our financial system stable and it protects the assets of Singaporeans. As part of its efforts to protect users, will MAS consider introducing other forms of user protection measures? In particular, will MAS consider regulating DPT servicer providers to ensure they do not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct concerning their offerings? DPTs are fresh, different and interesting. Service providers will likely latch onto these qualities when marketing to unsuspecting consumers. Regulating how DPTs at an earlier point when they are marketed to consumers would complement regulations at a later stage on money management by service providers. After all, it will be harder to defraud or otherwise harm a customer who knows what they are getting themselves into. My third point relates to the illegal wildlife trade. This Bill expands our regulatory scrutiny of international money transfers and that is a good thing.”
“Sir, the proposed amendments in this Bill will expand anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regulations to cover more categories of payment service providers. The list will include those providing services centered on Digital Payment Token (DPT) and those facilitating cross-border money transfers where the money does not pass through Singapore. I agree with this step. The fight against money laundering and terrorism financing is the fight to make sure that crime does not pay. This mission, by necessity, must include all players of our finance industry. Before I continue, let me thank MAS for conducting a public consultation which shaped the proposed amendments we see today. Public consultations help us formulate better policies and I hope MAS will continue this good practice. I have three points of clarification to make on this Bill. My first point is about anonymity in our payment eco-system. In its public consultation, MAS made clear that this Bill will obligate DPT service providers to conduct customer due diligence to guard against money laundering and terrorism financing. These requirements mean that short of peer-to-peer trading, there is no way to trade cryptocurrencies in Singapore anonymously. This removes one benefit of cryptocurrency, which is its anonymity. I will say, first, that I fully agree with the intent of this Bill – bad actors must not be allowed to use Singapore's financial system for their purposes. But cryptocurrency's quest for anonymity is perhaps one we can empathise with. Today's world is plagued by compulsive tracking. You cannot access any digital services without someone storing every little bit of information about where you are, what you do and who you are.”
“Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Minister for the reply. Could I ask whether MSE is studying whether there is micro-plastic in our local seafood that is bred in the kelongs in Singapore waters? Secondly, I think we do a lot of beach clean-ups and it really is never-ending. I am just wondering whether we can go a bit upstream, work with our neighbouring countries and support some of their waste management and waste disposal plans?”
“Thank you, Sir. Just one supplementary question. Could I just check whether there will be sign language available for the live-stream, as well?”
“Some of these points were addressed by Minister Shanmugam earlier and I am glad he has stated that some changes will be made. But I hope that all the points I have raised above will also be considered. Sir, I recognise that there may be operational and cost considerations to having interpreters quickly and universally available. But we cannot have a situation where Police questions can be misunderstood, and we cannot allow suspects the opportunity to later claim that they had misunderstood questions. In the grand scheme of things, the cost of interpretation is a small price to pay for the procurement of justice. Sir, in conclusion, I propose three things. One, the introduction of the Appropriate Adult Scheme for foreign domestic workers. Two, the mandatory video recording of all Police interviews. Three, the mandatory provision of language interpretation during Police interviews, with high standards set to ensure professional quality, prompt availability and no misunderstanding. Time and again, we have seen cases turn on the uncertainty of what happens in the interview room. When this occurs, it does a disservice to suspects, Police officers, prosecutors, judges and all Singaporeans. My proposals will help alleviate these problems.”
“The key words here are "in their own language", which is used in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) in some sections. We need to enhance the CPC. The Code is vague. It states that people who do not understand English should be provided interpretation in a language they understand. It provides no clarity on what is the standard of "understanding" and who gets to determine it. Sir, it is clear that we need to tighten the Code to ensure there is no misunderstanding during the course of Police interviews. I propose that we set high but reasonable standards for language interpretation during Police interviews. First, all Police interviews start with the Investigation Officer (IO) informing suspects that they can request for an interpreter. Second, the suspect should be provided an interpreter in their own language. They should get to declare what this language is and this should be officially recorded. Third, the interpreter should have professional certification or relevant experience to ensure their services rendered are of suitable quality. Fourth, new rules should be introduced to mandate that interpreters follow certain protocols. For one, they should stick strictly to interpretation and avoid providing any legal advice or personal inputs. Programmes could be set up to accredit interpreters who receive training in this regard. Fifth, Police interviews should not start unless the interpreter is in the room. Sixth, the interpreter should arrive with minimal delay. Otherwise, a suspect may accept the absence of an interpreter to avoid being detained for an unduly long period of time. Seventh, the interpreter should not only translate the final statement, but also interpret what the Police officers and the suspect say.”
“Sir, I recognise that fairness, access and independence are indeed cornerstones of Singapore's justice system. With that in mind, I have some proposals that I believe will help strengthen our criminal justice system. Many of what I will share has been discussed previously, but I hope to share further points in detail on some of these proposals. My first point is about the Appropriate Adult Scheme that I raised in my Parliamentary Question that Minister addressed earlier. But can I appeal to the Government to re-consider and include foreign domestic workers for a start under this scheme and not all work permit holders? The scheme allows an independent and trained adult to accompany vulnerable groups who have to give statements to the Police. It is meant to ensure that the vulnerable person is not misunderstood during the interview. It makes sense to also include FDWs into the scheme. After all, when we recently raised penalties for crimes against vulnerable people, we did specifically include FDWs as a class of vulnerable people. I completely understand the tremendous workload of our Police officers. So, may I suggest that MHA work with the NGOs for this and it might help ease the workload a little. I would be glad to help facilitate this process. My second point is about video recording, and Minister has addressed this point significantly. All I am asking is whether MHA could share the timeline for the full implementation of this video recording. Hopefully, this can take place sooner rather than later. My third point is about language interpretation. Can we ensure that all suspects are provided an interpreter in their own language and not just in a language that they understand, which the Minister has mentioned earlier?”
“Sir, some of the feedback that I have received is that they do not want to travel all the way to CMC for the mediation. So, I am just wondering whether we can consider doing the mediation maybe at the CC or the RC so that it is nearer to where the complainant and the neighbour is. That way, it might increase the amount of participation in terms of mediation.”
“Thank you, Sir. Could I just ask the Senior Minister of State, out of the feedback that were received, what percentage was actually related to second-hand smoke in people's home? Secondly, could HDB help in mediating some of these cases between neighbours when it comes to second-hand smoke and not just pass it on to NEA?”
“In this event, can the Minister clarify whether an extension of time automatically applies where a contractor applies for relief and serves a Notification for Relief? If so, can the Minister clarify how this extension of time beyond the four-month period interacts with the contract provisions on extension of time? Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of both Bills. 5.45 pm”
“Will Minister explain what factors were taken into account when stipulating this specific duration of time? Will there be any possibility of the fast-track process being extended and what are the factors that determine this extension? Further, the intention behind the Bill of allowing smaller companies to avoid the increased costs and time associated with the usual court process should continue to apply after we have emerged from this crisis. Will Minister therefore share if the Ministry will consider adopting the provisions of this Bill on a permanent basis for MSCs and possibly even all SMEs in the future? For my final point, I turn to the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill. The universal extension of time is a welcomed move. I understand there are currently some uncertainty on whether an extension of time automatically applies once a contractor has applied for relief from liquidated damages under Part 2, section 6 of the current Act. As a practical safeguard, some contractors may be legally advised to continue applying for an extension of time pursuant to the contract provisions. However, this gives rise to its own set of issues. Importantly, an extension of time under the contract may be discretionary. Further, condition precedents for the extension of time stated under the contract may not have been fulfilled. I understand this is a common defence raised. The universal extension of time of four months addresses this uncertainty. However, contractors who require relief for a longer period of time may still have to seek recourse under part 2, section 6 or negotiate under their contract provisions.”
“For instance, I understand that Credit Counselling Singapore will administer the restructuring assistance scheme for sole proprietorships and partnerships. Can Minister share if the Simplified Insolvency Scheme will be complemented by programmes that provide closer guidance for MSCs and their creditors through the restructuring process? Second, the new subsection 50(1A) allows exempted individuals to hold an insolvency practitioner’s licence without being "a qualified person." The licensing regime for insolvency practitioners was introduced in the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018. It was a welcomed move to increase professional standards in this area. However, allowing exemptions to basic qualifications required of insolvency practitioners, so soon after the new regime is in place to raise standards, might send a contradictory message on the expected standards of insolvency practitioners. Can Minister clarify in what situations does the Ministry intend to use this exemption clause? What checks and balance will be in place to ensure that exempted individuals perform to the standards expected? For example, will exempted individuals be required to hold any basic qualifications? Can Minister clarify if this exemption is intended to cope with the short-term increase in case-load from the fast-track process or is this intended to be a general longer term exemption? Can Minister also share if exempted individuals will be provided with any guiding principles on how to apply the relevant insolvency principles in relation to winding up or restructuring? Fourth, although the fast-track process introduced by the Bill is limited to just six months, it is very possible that the effects of COVID-19 on small- and medium-sized MNCs will exceed this duration.”
“Madam, the IRDA Bill aims to alleviate difficulties that may be faced by micro and small companies or MSCs during COVID-19. Many businesses, including our MSCs, may not be able to weather this storm. If they are to survive, they may need significant restructuring. The Bill recognises the reality that the experiences of MSCs facing restructuring or winding up are going to be very different from that of companies with more substantial assets. I commend the effort to streamline the processes for MSCs that are in this position. I also support the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill which addresses difficulties faced by another group – companies in our construction sector. I have three points of clarification for the IRDA Bill and one point on the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill. First, the IRDA Bill lowers the threshold vote from creditors required to commence restructuring. Currently, approval from a majority of creditors holding 75% in value of the debt owed must be obtained to approve a Scheme of Arrangement. This Bill lowers the threshold from 75% to two-thirds. The threshold is important because a company that is able to continue without intervention should not be forced to undergo restructuring at the whims of a small number of creditors. Restructuring may also compromise the rights of creditors, including those that vote against approving it. To ensure that we strike a correct balance, will Minister share what further safeguards are in place to help businesses in the face of potentially overzealous creditors? Related to this, can Minister share what guidance is provided to MSCs and their creditors in deciding whether and when to undertake restructuring?”