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 18 of 37.
“Can Minister confirm that this information will be reflected on IRAS’ “Report Tax Evasion” website so whistleblowers are aware of their options? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Can the Minister also clarify for how long businesses are expected to retain these documentations, given that the timeframe for the Comptroller to determine if a supply is part of a Missing Trader Fraud is open-ended? We want to avoid the situation where honest businesses do their due diligence checks but cannot back it up because they discarded or deleted supporting documents after a period of time. We also want to avoid the situation where fraudulent businesses can realistically claim to have discarded supporting documents even when no such checks were done. My final point is a proposal for an anonymous reporting channel for whistleblowers. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners 2018 report revealed that tips are consistently and, by far, the most common detection method for fraud. Fifty percent of the cases are detected through tips. Businesses or individuals may, in the course of their due diligence checks, come across potentially fraudulent suppliers or entities. We must make sure businesses or individuals feel safe coming forward. Currently, it is unclear the parties who will be privy to the tip beyond the generic email provided at ifd@iras.gov.sg on IRAS' “Report Tax Evasion” website. This should be made clear to whistleblowers. And if these parties are the very target of the tip, there should be an alternate reporting channel whistleblowers can turn to. Can the Minister clarify the parties that are privy to the tips sent to the IRAS email address mentioned and whether there are alternate reporting channels for whistleblowers to report suspicious or fraudulent arrangements that are potentially related to these very officers?”
“Can the Minister clarify the key considerations the Comptroller will take into account when evaluating a company’s involvement in fraud? For example, in the UK, adequate and timely checks by the company to ensure the integrity of its supply chain will be viewed favourably. Providing these key considerations will be useful in guiding honest businesses in their due diligence checks so as to mitigate risks of an unwitting involvement in fraud. Because the level of checks expected for business sectors that are commercially risky or vulnerable to fraud and other criminality is higher, can I propose that the Minister identifies these sectors so businesses know to step up their due diligence checks and also share a separate set of key considerations businesses in these sectors can align to? Given that we also expect more intensive checks for industries more susceptible to fraud and criminal activities, can the Minister identify such industries and share additional guidelines specific to these industries? After all, if we are going to ask more of certain businesses, it will help if we can also provide more support for their compliance. Can I also request the Minister to then share and incorporate these guidelines in the IRAS e-Tax Guide so businesses are able to access this information easily? My third point of clarification is on the documentation businesses are expected to maintain as part of their due diligence checks. Can the Minister clarify in regulations or codes the methods and level of detail of documentation businesses are expected to maintain to be deemed to have taken “reasonable steps to ascertain whether the supply was part of a fraudulent arrangement”?”
“Sir, this Bill will strengthen safeguards of public monies and Singapore’s national interests. It is more crucial now than ever in the existing financial climate to ensure that tax revenue is protected from fraud or loopholes. In doing so, this Bill draws lessons and references from similar provisions in other jurisdictions, such as the UK and Australia. I support this Bill, which will improve GST administration and enhance the Comptroller’s powers to safeguard public monies, investigate tax offences and counter GST fraud. That said, I have four points of clarification on this Bill. First, I would like to clarify how we are supporting SMEs’ compliance with due diligence requirements. The amendments to section 20 require businesses to undertake due diligence checks to avoid being involved in a fraud that they “should have known”. I understand the need for businesses to step up and take reasonable steps against fraud. However, big businesses and small businesses have different resources and capacity to conduct checks. What is a reasonable step for a big business and a small business may not be the same. Can Minister clarify how it will ensure that such requirements do not constitute an onerous burden to our SMEs? I am aware that the Minister plans to provide guidance for businesses on what constitutes “reasonable steps” in section 20. Beyond that, can the Ministry share whether it will offer training and industry-specific resources to ensure small businesses can still effectively conduct their due diligence checks? My second point of clarification is on the Comptroller’s review process when investigating fraudulent arrangements. A company involved in fraudulent arrangements could face the severe penalty of deregistration.”
“However, the bulk of the guidance on what constitutes tax avoidance has been provided by the Comptroller in the IRAS e-Tax Guide or in case law rather than the Parliament's clarification on whether certain uses of the ITA provisions constitute tax avoidance. Can the Minister clarify if the arrangements listed in the IRAS e-Tax Guide should be understood as arrangements that the Parliament considers as tax avoidance? My third point is on the comptroller's discretion in pursuing tax avoidance arrangements. Under the current Act, the Comptroller may disregard tax avoidance arrangements. The new section 33(2) proposed by the Bill replaces "may" with "must". In response to public feedback that the Comptroller should be allowed to retain discretion on whether to take action against tax avoidance arrangements, the Ministry stated that the amendment is consistent with the strong stance taken against tax avoidance in Singapore. While I agree with the strong approach against tax avoidance, the new section 33A(7) also provides that the Minister may "for good cause, remit wholly or in part any surcharge or interest payable under this section". The surcharge here refers to the 50% surcharge that must be paid if a tax avoidance arrangement is found on top of any penalty. The ability of the Comptroller to remit the surcharge or interest appears to be slightly inconsistent with the strong stance we have taken against tax avoidance. Can the Minister clarify under what circumstances the surcharge or interest may be remitted? What constitutes "good cause"? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill covers a broad range of issues, including the implementation of measures announced in the Unity Budget and COVID-19 crisis measures in the later Budgets. I have spoken up previously on our COVID-19 support measures and I am supportive of the increased financial support that we are providing in these difficult times. In this speech, I will focus instead on another important issue – tax avoidance. This Bill proposes significant changes to strengthen our tax avoidance regime. I have three points to make on these changes. My first point is on the test for tax avoidance arrangements. The Bill proposes to repeal and re-enact section 33, which allows the Comptroller to disregard tax avoidance arrangements. The test for tax avoidance is set out in the case of Comptroller of Income Tax versus AQQ, which sets out a scheme and purpose approach for interpreting section 33. CIT vs AQQ remains the landmark decision for the approach to applying section 33 and has been followed in subsequent cases. The IRAS e-Tax Guide on anti-avoidance provisions also states that the Comptroller adopts an approach based on the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in the CIT vs AQQ case. Can the Minister clarify if the existing test for tax avoidance in CIT vs AQQ continues to apply to the re-enacted section 33? My second point is on the principles for determining tax avoidance. To determine whether there was tax avoidance, again, CIT vs AQQ requires that the Court look at whether the use of a specific provision in the ITA was within the contemplation of Parliament.”
“However, adoption of these systems could also mean there are more opportunities for bad faith actors to interfere. If we are adopting both or either systems, can Minister share what steps will be taken to protect the integrity of the e-Apostilles or e-Registers given that the documents may contain extremely sensitive information? Notwithstanding these points, I stand in support of the Bill. 6.47 pm”
“Can Minister share whether SAL will verify that the document complies with content and format requirements to qualify as a public document? My third point is on apostille fraud which is a problem within the international apostille system. One example of apostille fraud is using an apostille to legitimise a fake document. This may be done, for instance, to legitimise a fake academic certificate issued by a degree mill. There are existing offences for forging documents or providing false information to a public servant, which potentially may cover instances of apostille fraud. However, apostille fraud is arguably even more serious given that it undermines the integrity of Singapore's systems on the international stage. While the Apostilles Convention itself does not provide for any penalties, the Apostilles Handbook makes clear that sanctions may be provided for by domestic law. Can Minister share the rationale for deciding not to introduce specific offences for apostille fraud under the Bill? Finally, can Minister share whether Singapore will be adopting both the e-Apostilles and e-Registers system. An e-Apostille is an apostille that is issued in electronic format with an electronic signature. An e-Register on the other hand is a register of apostilles that is kept in electronic form and which is accessible online by the recipient of the Apostille. COVID-19 has restricted cross-border mobility but individuals still have to get their foreign public documents authenticated. The e-Apostille and e-Register system have provided a convenient way to get around this problem for many other countries, such as Brazil, Bulgaria, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela and the US.”
“Sir, like Mr Murali, I am extremely excited about this Bill as well. Sir, if this Bill is passed, Singapore will join 118 countries as a party to the Apostille Convention. This Bill gives effect to our obligations under the Convention. This will streamline our processes for recognising foreign public documents and make it easier for our public documents to be recognised in other contracting states. With the apostille process in place, individuals will not have to go to two sets of government authorities to legalise foreign public documents. This will significantly cut down on bureaucratic processes, which I think we can all agree, is a good thing. I just have four points of clarification to make. My first point is on the criteria for disproving certified documents. Section 11 of the Bill provides that the origin of a foreign public document certified with an Apostille will be presumed to be "sufficiently proven" unless "the contrary is proven". The origin of a foreign public document, as Minister mentioned, is defined in section 7 as comprising three elements: the authenticity of signature, the capacity of the person signing and the identity of the seal or stamp. Can Minister clarify whether problems with just one element of the origin, such as the authenticity of the signature, is enough to cause the origins of the document to be insufficiently proven? My second point is on the scope of verification that will be done by the Singapore Academy of Law or SAL before issuing an apostille. Generally, SAL is only supposed to authenticate the origin of the public document and not whether the document is valid. However, defects in the document’s validity may mean the document does not qualify as a public document.”
“It will help organisations comply with the new Act. My third point is about data porting obligation. The Bill empowers individuals to make data porting requests. This means individuals can ask organisations to send their personal information to other organisations. Organisations can say no only under conditions outlined in the new Twelfth Schedule. Will the Commission be releasing guidelines and examples to help organisations understand whether each of the conditions applies to them? The guidelines should especially clarify three conditions. First, these guidelines should clarify when the data would “reveal confidential commercial information” that could “harm the competitive position of the organisation”. I am sure many companies will be keen to cite this condition if they are asked to transfer data to a competitor. Second, the guidelines should clarify when the data is “trivial”. Third, the guidelines should clarify when the data porting request is “frivolous” or “vexatious”. Data porting is a new concept to many organisations in Singapore. Organisations will benefit from greater clarity on what counts as trivial, frivolous or vexatious. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill. 4.59 pm”
“If the Commissioner later disagrees with this assessment and reviews the organisation’s assessment, will the Commissioner do so by holding the organisation to the standard of a reasonable person? Can Minister also clarify whether the Commission will consider a good-faith, systematic assessment by an organisation as a mitigating factor in deciding whether and how much to penalise the organisation for failing to notify the Commission of a data breach? My second point is on the definition of adverse effect. The Bill now allows organisations to avoid asking for consent in certain cases. In several cases, they have to assess whether their action will have an “adverse effect” on individuals. Under section 15A, organisations have to assess the extent of adverse effect to decide whether deemed consent by notification is sufficient consent. Under section 17, organisations have to weigh such adverse effects against the “legitimate interests” of the organisation or of other people. Can Minister define what it means to impose an “adverse effect” on an individual and what are some examples of it? Such clarity is important because organisations will likely face practical challenges in identifying every possible adverse effect on an individual, and a wrong assessment may lead to harsher penalties for them. In line with the Act’s shift to a risk-based accountability approach, I would also suggest applying a standard of reasonableness when determining whether organisations have fulfilled their obligations. In other words, they should be required to assess the “adverse effect” on an individual only to the standard of a reasonable person. Finally, can Minister also clarify the intended differences between “significant harm” and “adverse effect” on individuals?”
“Sir, since we passed the Personal Data Protection Act in 2012, the Personal Data Protection Commission has been busy. It has investigated numerous data breaches and received a record-breaking 4,500 complaints last year. Data protection has become only more concerning and this Bill helps address those concerns. I am heartened by the amendments requiring organisations to inform people who are affected by data breaches and to help people port their data to other services. These changes will help Singaporeans feel a greater sense of control over their data. Many will welcome these enhancements. That said, I have three points of clarification on this Bill. My first point is on data breaches. The Bill introduces a requirement for organisations to notify the Commission and affected individuals in certain instances where there is a data breach. One instance is when the data breach results in, or is likely to result in, significant harm to an affected individual. I understand the Commission intends to prescribe classes of personal data considered likely to result in significant harm to individuals. Beyond this, can Minister clarify what other circumstances will be prescribed to help organisations assess whether a data breach may lead to “significant harm” to affected individuals under section 26B? Further, can Minister clarify what standard the Commission will apply when it reviews an organisation’s assessment on whether a data breach is notifiable? An organisation may decide not to notify affected individuals of a data breach because they assess that there was no significant harm caused and the breach was not of a significant scale.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for sharing what the Government is doing in terms of the salaries for senior workers, but could I ask whether MOM has detected any pay gap between what a senior worker is getting for the same job as compared to a younger worker?”
“Let us give our people a better chance of saying "I'm glad I did".”
“In other words, the evidence suggests that legislating the right to work from home would help, not hinder women from succeeding at the workplace. Sir, in conclusion, I hope we will legislate this right to work from home. Employers can reject the request with specific business-related reasons and employees who want to choose to work from the office can still feel free to do so. I believe this is a good middle ground win-win proposal. For years, we told everyone that work from home helps with work-life balance, reduces employees absenteeism, leads to higher productivity, saves costs of office space and attracts and retains value employees. It even helped save lives during this pandemic. For months, we make it law. All I am asking is that we now make this law permanent. Minister Lawrence has said that working from home must be embraced as a new normal even after circuit breaker ends. We are now at a 50% work from home policy and I urge the Government not to reduce this any further, but instead take a step forward and ensure that work from home truly becomes a new normal. Let me end by stressing that work from home is not just for fathers and mothers. It is for those are not married as well. At some point in our lives, we will have to care for someone else – be it children parents, grandparents, spouses, partners, friends and other loved ones. We will all need to be care-givers some day and we should have the flexibility to do so. Working from home also helps with work-life balance and our well-being so it is also about caring for ourselves. Let us emerge stronger, as I have said many times in this House, spend time with those you love. One of these days, you will either say "I wish I had" or "I'm glad I did".”
“Teresa, a working mother wrote to me, saying that working from home has meant that she did not have to worry about childcare arrangements and could pick up her children from childcare, bring them to appointments and take care of them when they did not have school. The right to work from home will provide parents like Teresa and many other employees with legal grounds to request to work from home when they need to without being penalised. It will enable those who have been discouraged and forced out of the workforce to rejoin their fellow Singaporeans. In these hard times, Singapore's economy needs every leg up we can get. The right to work from home will help. Finally, let me address potential downsides and how we can solve them. MOM has previously stated that this legislation can have unintended consequences for the very group it is meant to benefit and protect. For example, it may discourage employers from hiring groups seen as likely to take up the benefits. I am equally concerned about such outcomes. So, I studied the issue. The UK has done what I am calling for. It provides the right for all workers to request for work from home, which employers can reject only based on certain business reasons. A study conducted in 2018 found that less than 5% of UK workers who worked from home or used staggered hours experience negative consequences due to their working arrangement. It is extremely unlikely that getting to work from home hurt someone's career. By contrast, the study found that work from home has been shown to reduce women's likelihood of working part-time after childbirth, reduces the motherhood penalty and potentially increase wage premium for women, especially in the longer run.”
“Ctrip, the Chinese travel agency I mentioned previously, halved their attrition rate of their employees, with a work from home policy. Businesses that allow their employees to work from home do grow stronger. Let us help our businesses recover from this COVID economy in a way that emphasises efficiency and reduce costs. And through the Productivity Solutions Grant, the Government is also helping to make a work from home policy possible for businesses. The fourth and final reason for legislating the right to work from home is that it will be good for our economy. I cited research showing that a work from home policy reduces employee attrition. What I have not mentioned is that so often, this attrition employees are women. When you add up the effects on the national level, we see shocking trends. Let us talk about female labour force participation rate. On that, Singapore scored 61.1% in 2019, far below other countries in Southeast Asia, such as Vietnam at 72.5%; Cambodia at 75.2% and Lao PDR at 76.8%. It is often said that Singapore's only natural resource is our people. Yet, we are not even employing half of our people, our women efficiently. Why is our female labour force participation rate so low? According to the McKinsey Global Institute, the culprit is care-giving and childcare responsibilities. The study estimates that if we close this gap, more than $26 billion could be added to the Singapore's GDP by 2025. We need every dollar of that and we need to close that gap. The solution is to empower our mothers to work from home.”
“A study conducted this year by the US National Bureau of Economics found that a pandemic would likely cause fathers to become more interested and experienced in childcare, reducing the childcare responsibilities on mothers and increasing gender equality at the workplace. This rings true for Singapore too. An IPS study found that fathers who had more time to be with their children at home were able to better develop effective childcare skills. When fathers become more adept with handling childcare responsibilities, their families rely less on the mothers for childcare. This not only improves delegation of home responsibilities more equally between fathers and mothers but allow working mothers to focus better at work. In short, when fathers buck up at home, mothers get to lean in at work. Gender equality happens when everyone chips in. The third reason is that it would be good for businesses. It does so by increasing productivity. A 2011 guide by the tripartite committee on work-life strategy says that working from home enhances business performance and competitiveness for employers as employers can optimise manpower and resources deployment. International examples back up this point. A study again by the US National Bureau of Economic Research found that employees of China's largest travel agency, Ctrip, were 13% more productive while working from home. Having employees work from home also help companies reduce fixed costs, such as office rental and workstation set-up costs and staff turnover related costs. As early as 2001, MOM stated that work from home allows workers to better combine their work and personal responsibilities which helps to reduce absenteeism and attrition.”
“A survey conducted by Focus on the Family Singapore this year found that out of nearly 2,500 fathers, 70% became more involved with their families during the circuit breaker. Of this group, more than 80% said they connected better with their kids. This pandemic has hurt many Singaporean families but it has also provided opportunities for parents, especially fathers to bond with their children like never before. A recent media article spotlighted the stories of several fathers during the circuit breaker and how COVID-19 has given fathers a chance to bond with their kids. Marketing manager Imran talk about how his wife and him are so glad that he has now more time to play and eat together with his two toddler children. Imran talked lovingly about how his kids now miss him even when he stepped out of the house briefly. Shahid Nizami, a managing director, spoke about how he had to strike a balance between working from home and supervising his son, Kain's home-based learning and how he jammed with his son for a virtual talent competition, with his son on drums and the dad on a guitar. He said, "This has been really special for both of us." It is clear that many fathers now want to reconsider their work-life arrangement and we should not waste this opportunity. The right to work from home will give fathers more flexibility and more time to spend with their loved ones. Second, the reason this working from home would help benefit mothers. One mother, Sheena, wrote to me, expressing her joy at seeing more fathers picking up their kids from schools these days as a result from our work from home policy which she says used to be a rare sight previously. Fathers picking up their children from school is part of a bigger solution.”
“Sir, this COVID pandemic has badly affected our economy, many lives and livelihoods. But if there is something positive, it has reminded us about the important things in our life, the things that we may have taken for granted. Sir, I learnt a very painful but important lesson over the circuit breaker. I realised that I missed out on so much of my children's childhood over the last couple of years. While working from home, I was able to spend so much time with my little ones. Together – Ella, Katie, Poppy and I cooked, ate, played, enjoyed bedtime stories and even managed to set up a tent in our living room. Before this pandemic, I was never able to spend so much time with them. I was often out on the ground at work, like most of us, and by the time I got home at night, the kids would be fast asleep. The reality is that work from home is something that us, as Members of Parliament will not be able to completely do as our work is often on the ground. But many fellow Singaporeans can benefit from it. In a survey of 9,000 respondents across night 90 companies conducted this May, 90% of respondents said they wanted to continue working from home. Singaporeans do want such an arrangement. Sir, we should respond positively and legislate the right to work from home for all employees and require employers who reject the request to provide specific business-related reasons. Working from home will benefit all employees, whether you're married or single. Employees will have better work-life balance, more freedom, spend less time commuting and it promotes employee well-being. Beyond this, there are four other main reasons why we should give people the right to work from home. The first reason that it will be better for fathers.”
“Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Minister for the reply. I would just want to make further points for the single unwed parents. I think this Government has said that single unwed parents are no less a mother or a father just because the child is born outside of marriage. So, I really hope the Government could reconsider not providing the Baby Support Grant to the single unwed parents. We also have to bear in mind that the median salary of a single unwed parent under 35 years old is about $600 a month. So, the $3,000 is actually about five months of their salary and it could really provide a lifeline for them during this pandemic.”
“Thank you, Sir. I just want to reaffirm that I do agree that we should have an appraisal system as well. But could I ask the Minister, he mentioned earlier that MOE is studying alternative appraisal models. So, could the Minister share what some of these models are that MOE is currently studying?”
“I thank the Minister for the reply and giving some of the survey results as well. But I want to make two points. One is that we actually have done away with class ranking because we said that learning is not a competition. Why then do we make teaching a competition? Does the Minister agree with me that by ranking teachers against each other, it might make them compete against each other and collaborate less as well. I know there are some survey results that show that a percentage feels that they can collaborate but I am just wondering whether ranking does help to move the needle towards making them compete against each other. Two, can I ask whether MOE has studied this issue in terms of whether it benefits the students? So, does ranking the teachers actually benefit the students?”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister of State for saying that the Ministry will be doing a review. Could I ask how long this review will take? And second, whether the NGOs will be consulted during this review process?”
“Could I ask the Minister of State, out of the 85% of the companies that are offering FWAs, how many percent are actually offering WFH arrangements? Second, can I also ask what was the Ministry's consideration when we so drastically reduced our WFH policy from 100% to 50%? Why do we not just have a set of conditions or criteria where, if an employee is required to go back to work, then, they go back to work; rather than halve it quite immediately?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Could I just ask whether we are aware of what is the number and the percentage of children who are differently-abled or who are in pre-schools that do not offer this DS-LS programme. The second point, I think that there are some that are out there, who are in these schools that do not offer the DS-LS programme. I am wondering whether ECDA is watching this space and seeing how we can support these children. Because I am worried that without the DS-LS programme, it really will be detrimental to their development.”
“I have spoken up about this for more than a decade now. I know this is not part of this Bill but I hope Minister will address this point. Let me reiterate what I said in this House in March this year, "HDB has stated that cats are generally difficult to contain within the flat. When allowed to roam indiscriminately, they tend to shed fur and defecate or urinate in public areas and also make caterwauling sounds, which can inconvenience your neighbours. It does not make sense that one is allowed to keep a dog and now a big dog, but not a cat, not even a little kitten. Dogs can also shed fur and defecate or urinate in public areas. What is more, they bark. HDB's concerns can be easily addressed. We can ensure that pet cats do not roam indiscriminately and are sterilised. Sterilised cats do not make caterwauling sounds. I have seen first-hand how all these simple measures can be taken and people can keep cats in their flats without affecting their neighbours." In response to my question, MND said, "When HDB receives a complaint, they go down and investigate. If the cat is not causing any disamenities, the resident will not be asked to remove the cat". I appreciate this reply but my question then is, what is the point of having a rule that we do not enforce? So many people are already keeping cats in HDB flats. Many of us, as Members of Parliament, see this during our home visits and some of us even take photos with our HDB residents and their cats. Sir, I sincerely hope that MND will amend the Housing and Development (Animals) Rules to reflect what we already accept in reality – that HDB residents are allowed to keep cats, which can be removed if they are found to cause disamenities in the community. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill. 6.”
“Sir, ensuring that homeowners can repay their bank loans is in the interest of homeowners, banks and our financial system. My second clarification relates to falsehoods, transfers and acquisitions. This Bill gives HDB new powers to compulsorily acquire flats in certain cases. In particular, HDB now has the power to do so in cases where applications for flat ownerships in an acquisition or transfer between relatives contained a false or misleading statement. I have two sets of questions related to this proposal. One, in relation to both the existing section 56 and the new amendment, can Ministry clarify whether homeowners are allowed to amend the false or misleading statements in HDB applications they have submitted? If so, what are the channels for them to amend their statements? We must take a strong stance against the use of falsehoods in HDB applications. But where such falsehoods are assessed to be innocent or non-material, we should provide channels for voluntary correction. Two, the amendment of section 56 introduces the terms "transfer" and "acquisition". There is no definition for either term in the Act for the purpose of section 56. Can Minister clarify what situations do "transfer" and "acquisition" refer to? In particular, does the definition of "transfer" in section 56 differ from its definition in section 49, which expressly states to cover only section 49? Section 56 has significant impact on lives, as it empowers HDB to compulsorily acquire flats. Clear definitions with examples, provided on Parliamentary record, will help avoid any doubt in its interpretation. My final point is that we have not gone far enough in reviewing our HDB policies. The policy of not allowing the keeping of cats in HDB flats has to be reviewed and changed.”
“Madam, this Bill makes two key changes. First, it enables banks to use HDB loans as collaterals to borrow from MAS. Second, it empowers the HDB to seize flats in certain cases where homeowners provide falsehoods to HDB. I agree with these changes. They help banks release funds into a tight economy. They penalise the use of falsehoods by HDB applicants. Sir, I have three clarifications to make. My first clarification is about HDB loans. The Bill allows banks to use HDB loans granted by them to obtain credit facilities and repurchase transactions from MAS. Previously they could not. This empowers MAS to inject more liquidity into our financial system. Indeed, MAS has recently created a new credit facility that allows certain banks to pledge home loans as collateral. But there are risks. In this crisis economy, homeowners will increasingly feel the brunt of unemployment and salary cuts. More home loans will become delinquent or default. MND itself said in 2018 that prolonged unemployment and drops in household income are two main reasons why households fall into mortgage arrears. If households cannot repay their loans, banks will find it harder to repay MAS. To clarify the significance of this amendment, I have two questions. First, can Minister share data on what has been the default rate of HDB bank loans in the past five years? Second, what is HDB's forecast of the default rate of HDB bank loans in the next 24 months? I was initially going to ask if HDB will continue to suspend late payment charges on HDB mortgage arrears. I am glad the Minister has announced that given the current economic conditions, HDB will further extend this to 31 March 2021. This is indeed a much needed lifeline for many Singaporeans.”
“Can the Minister also provide assurance that practical circumstances of doctors will be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of such advice? Sir, Minister Edwin Tong said himself in a speech in 2019 that doctors must be able to trust the system and that if it is not clear what standards are required of doctors, doctors may end up giving more information than necessary. He said, "Ultimately, we can do more harm if we assume that simply giving more information means the patient has more understanding. Paradoxically, it is the complete opposite. Giving more information could lead to less understanding. Ultimately, no one benefits from this kind of defensive medicine because medical costs will go up and patients do not get the best advice from their doctors. Patient safety will be compromised." I hope we will provide a framework for a system which doctors can trust and that would be fair to the circumstances they face. The system should take into account practical constraints, patient's preferences and the types of medical procedures. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of both Bills.”
“8 doctors for every 1,000 patients. The OECD average ratio is 3.5 doctors for every 1,000 patients. At the same time, I understand that doctors have very limited consultation time with their patients due to their workload. With a short amount of time, doctors are expected to assess needs, comb through a vast amount of medical history information that may be available on the National Electronic Healthcare System, explain the situation and assist patients to make informed clinical decisions. Due to consult time constraints and possible differences in language and levels of understanding, patients may not be able to convey their concerns well enough to their doctors as well. Doctors similarly may not be able to extract enough information to understand every aspect of the patient's concerns. Time is also required to build understanding and to build confidence in the patient to undergo a recommended treatment. The stress of having to meet hospital KPIs measured in terms of consult time and manpower may also be overwhelming. I understand some doctors fear what is reasonable to the court may in fact be humanly impossible to achieve. They also fear that such expectations can lead to further burnout amongst doctors. If the calibration is not done well, this may tilt the balance towards doctors practicing defensive medicine while simultaneously managing consultation time. Can the Minister share what additional support will be given to our doctors to allow them to meet these enhanced standards of advice that is required to be given to our patients? For example, will the doctor-patient ratio and consultation time be increased in public hospitals?”
“The existence of discretion suggests that it is sometimes acceptable to the medical council to avoid escalating the matter even when a doctor has caused the death of a patient or has been convicted of a serious criminal offense. What factors mitigate against the severity of such incidents? Two, what are the envisaged cases where an interim order is required and it is deemed "necessary for the protection of members of the public or otherwise in the public's interest"? What factors or principles should guide the consideration of the Interim Orders Committee? Three, when should the medical council escalate matters to the Disciplinary Commission as opposed to seeking interim orders? If a patient's health is being threatened, these two avenues are available to the medical council. Can the Ministry provide examples where it would be more appropriate to pursue an escalation to the Disciplinary Commission as opposed to seeking interim orders? Sir, I believe that this Bill will lead to better outcomes for both patients and doctors and I stand in support of it. Next, I also thank the Ministry for the direction taken in the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill towards a more patient-centric approach. This is consistent with the growing international consensus on the need for greater patient autonomy and informed consent. My only concern on this Bill is again on manpower and time constraints doctors face. I understand that doctors have significant concerns on how to meet the proposed patient care standards given the manpower and time constraints doctors face. The current doctor-patient ratio in Singapore is one doctor for every 444 patients or 2.3 doctors for every 1,000 patients. In comparison, there are 2.8 doctors for every 1,000 patients in the UK. The European Union average ratio is 3.”
“Firstly, how many cases does the Ministry forecast will reach the Inquiry Committee but not the Complaints Committee? Secondly, there is an existing problem of some Complaints Committee members avoiding risky decisions and passing the buck to the Disciplinary Tribunal to make a decision, according to the work group. What will be done to ensure Inquiry Committees avoid this same exact practice? My third point of clarification relates to the dismissal of frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or non substantive complaints by the Inquiry Committee. The Minister had earlier addressed this point substantively and I just wanted to confirm that the Inquiry Committee will share its decisions and reasons with the complainant when it dismisses the complaint. My next point was addressed by the Minister about the legal advisory unit and I will move on to my fifth point, which is about the avenues now available to the medical council in serious cases. It can do two things currently. Firstly, escalate a complaint to the President of the Disciplinary Commission and it can do so when the doctor has a criminal conviction, caused the death of a patient, is the subject of an adverse finding by a coroner or is assessed to pose some other serious threat to patient health. Secondly, seek interim orders that can suspend a doctor or impose conditions on a doctor's work. It can do this when it determines that the order would protect members of the public or otherwise serve the public interest. I have three questions on this point. One, when is it appropriate for the medical council to choose not to escalate matters to the Disciplinary Commission?”
“One, of the non-SMC members appointed to the Complaints Panel in 2019, how many were doctors and non doctors? I ask this because we are lifting the limits on these numbers, but the change will not help if each number is currently nowhere near its limit. Two, how many Complaints Panel members does the Ministry aim for the Complaints Panel to have in 2021? What steps will the Ministry take to achieve this target? My second point of clarification is on the purpose of the Inquiry Committee. This Bill introduces the idea of the Inquiry Committee. Any time a case reaches the SMC, two doctors from the Inquiry Committee will decide whether the case is frivolous. If yes, they throw it out. If no, they pass it to the Complaints Committee to investigate. But do we actually need it? According to the work group, only 7% of SMC complaints have been dismissed as frivolous or vexatious. For the other 93% of the cases, this new proposal adds five weeks and two doctors without actually changing the outcome. This does not help SMC's manpower problems. Instead, it makes them worse. I have to agree with a group of doctors interviewed by the work group who has said that a new committee is not the solution. The most elegant solution, in my view, is to skip the creation of the Inquiry Committee. We let the Complaints Committee determine whether a case is frivolous but set a deadline of three weeks for them to do so. If the case is not frivolous, they seamlessly continue their investigation. This way, we keep the committee sensitive to time and focused on tasks while avoiding the work of forming new committees and the friction of transferring investigations between them. If we do decide to keep the Inquiry Committee, I have two questions for the Ministry.”
“Sir, in recent years, the Singapore Medical Council or SMC has faced several questions about his disciplinary process. Some cases brought to the SMC has taken a long time to resolve. It has created agony for some patients and doctors who wait up to seven years for justice to see its day. For several doctors, they question whether justice is even on the table and some cases brought by SMC were misguide and ended up being overturned by the High Court. The Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill is a step in the right direction. It helps the process produce fairer, quicker and more consistent outcomes. I support the Bill and I would like to thank MOH for convening the work group to review the taking of informed consent and SMC Disciplinary Process in March 2019. The work group engaged doctors, doctors' associations, patient advocacy groups, lawyers and members of the public, producing a rich report whose imprint is clear in this Bill. That is it. I have some points of clarification on this Bill. My first point relates to manpower, as many have raised before me. This Bill adds several layers to the SMC's disciplinary process to reach its conclusion. A given case may not pass through as many as six committees, the Inquiry Committee, Complaints Committee, Review Committee, Health Committee, Interim Orders Committee and Disciplinary Tribunal. By my count, a case may require as many as 17 different committee members not including experts or lawyers. Some new measures will help with staffing, such as lifting the limits on the number of non-SMC members who can join the Complaints Panel. But, I worry that this is not enough, after all, we are talking about a status quo where lack of manpower has delayed the process by years. As such, I have two questions.”
“Thank you, Sir. Can I ask the Minister whether he can confirm that the tripartite guidelines or advisory will make clear that employers should not request for information on a person's mental health condition unless the condition has a direct connection with their ability to perform the job role.”
“Thank you, Sir. I was really hoping she would just said yes, but just two clarifications. One, I think the problem is that we are viewing this as a neighbourly dispute issue. If we view this as a public health crisis then the policy direction and the policy outcome might be completely different. Two, I expected that we would raise the issue of whether it is enforceable and I addressed that in the speech that it can be. Why can we not just use the cameras that we use for high-rise littering there is pointing at the facade of the building that can capture someone who is throwing a cigarette butt out of their window. Why can we not use the same camera to capture someone smoking at their windows or the balconies and not point it inside to the house. So, if they are lying down on their bed and smoking, that is okay. I am just saying move them away from the windows and balconies so that it minimises, not completely eradicate, but minimises the effects of second-hand smoke on the neighbours.”
“We must not let "hard to enforce" be an obstacle to saving lives Finally, I would like to share the experience of Mr Su, like me, a former smoker. He shared with me that he used to enjoy sitting at his balcony with a coffee and cigarette, and his neighbours would respond by slamming their balcony doors and windows. Mr Su quit smoking after becoming a father. But he now finds the tables have turned. He is the one slamming the window now because he has neighbours who are now smokers. Belatedly, he realises the impact he has had on his neighbours. We cannot afford to wait for smokers in Singapore to reach this same realisation. Sir, in conclusion, for the sake of the health and lives of our children, our elderly parents and other non-smokers, the GPC proposes that this Government introduces a ban on smoking near windows and at the balconies of HDB flats and private apartments. This is a public health concern we cannot continue to deny and leave unresolved.”
“One condominium in Singapore, Foresque Residences, has already implemented this restriction on their own. Last year, an overwhelming 84.4% of residents voted in favour of it. We believe many other residents in HDB flats and private apartments would welcome such a restriction in their estates. Last but not least, our proposal is enforceable using existing technology already used on the ground. NEA has been using cameras to catch high-rise litterbugs. These surveillance cameras are focused only on the external facade of the housing units being investigated to capture the act of littering. It can even capture someone throwing cigarette butts out of their window. These cameras have contributed to hugely increasing a number of successful enforcement actions from 10 in 2011 to over 1,200 in 2018. They are effective. Separately, NEA has also been using thermal surveillance cameras to catch residents smoking at prohibited areas, such as common corridors, lift lobbies and staircase landings. These cameras can "detect objects in meeting high heat and capture images of the smoking offence". NEA can use all these existing technologies to catch those who smoke near windows and at balconies. We have years of experience fine-tuning their use and to minimise privacy intrusion and to maximise successful enforcement. What is missing now is just the legislation. If Minister's reply is that these technologies are not viable, then NEA should implement alternative solutions to facilitate enforcement. After all, when high-rise littering started killing people, we acted urgently to deploy solutions on the ground. Second-hand smoke near windows and balconies also kills people and we should act on it with the same urgency.”
“Our proposal is not new. The US, as well as several provinces of Canada, does not allow smoking in public housing. What is more, our proposal is very similar to what our NEA officers already do. They issue advisories to residents, telling them, "not to smoke near the windows or at the balconies, as a way to minimise the amount of cigarette smoke emitted from their premises". All our proposal does is empower our officers to enforce their current advisory. In the past, NEA has also said that restricting people's actions in HDB flats would be an "intrusive regulatory approach". However, our law already intrudes on people's behaviour within their homes. We ban residents from being nude in their own homes if other people can see it. We ban residents from keeping cats in their own homes because we feel it might affect their neighbours. Just this March, this House passed my Private Member's Bill, which bans the feeding of wildlife in any place, including private residences. So, we do draw the line somewhere. Why do we draw the line at nudity, pets and feeding wildlife, but not at second-hand smoke, something that kills hundreds of people in Singapore a year? Sir, I am sure NEA is not unaware of the impact of second-hand smoke. After all, we do have existing laws that restrict someone from smoking in their car in the no smoking zone along Orchard Road if their windows are down. So, all our Government Parliamentary Committee or GPC asks for is to mirror these restrictions when it comes to our homes. Ultimately, our proposal seeks to balance the interests of both groups. We allow smokers to smoke within their homes as long as they stay away from windows and balconies. We allow non-smokers to avoid the perils of second-hand smoke. It is a win-win situation.”
“For Ms Lim and other Singaporeans, second-hand smoke is a silent assassin that poisons them in their own homes and they have no way to run. Sir, NEA has previously said that second-hand smoke is a "neighbourly" issue. It is true. Neighbours should try to solve problems by talking to each other – and they do try. When it does not work, they seek mediation and support from HDB, NEA, TC, RC, CMC, CDRT and Members of Parliament, a whole alphabet soup of authorities. Yet, many residents have found these channels ineffective. One such grievance was shared with me by Ms Ana. She has suffered a second-hand smoke of a couple living below her unit for at least 10 years. The couple smokes throughout the day. She has applied for CMC mediation, but her neighbours refused to attend the mediation, citing their right to smoke within their own home. Similarly, her Members of Parliament have told her that they are "powerless" and "their hands are tied". These stories highlight why talk is not enough. CMC mediation is voluntary and does not work when neighbours refuse to participate. Even when Members of Parliament want to help, they cannot seek help from law enforcement because there is no relevant law or regulation to enforce. A different solution is needed. The "neighbourly" issue of second-hand smoke is not the same as loud karaoke coming from next door or wet laundry dripping from upstairs. It causes long-term health damage and death. It cannot be solved the same way we solve all these other neighbourly disputes. Sir, the GPC for Sustainability and the Environment proposes that the Ministry bans residents from smoking near the windows or at the balconies of their HDB flats and private apartments. This would minimise the effect that second-hand smoke has on their neighbours.”
“Mr Chia shared how his baby cries whenever he inhales his neighbour's second-hand smoke. Mr Chia feels that he has tried everything. He shut his window panels for most of the day and even installed a fan to blow the smoke away. Yet, toxic fumes continue to enter into his home. Zyen is another helpless resident. Her baby suffers from a lung infection and her neighbour smokes. She says, "He smokes at midnight and the second-hand smoke drifts into our room when we are sleeping soundly." How much more long-term damage will her baby suffer, she wonders. Another resident, Ms Lam, lives with her elderly parents. She often wakes up in the middle of the night to close the window so that her parents are not affected by her neighbours' second-hand smoke. But this also means there is no ventilation in the home for fresh air. They do not sleep properly and they are stressed out. These are just some of the many concerns that residents have shared with me just over the past few weeks. Statistics shows that they are not alone. In the first four months of this year, NEA received 11,400 complaints related to smoking, a 20% increase from last year. This increase was largely due to people smoking in or near homes. With more people working from home because of COVID-19, the number of cigarette-smoke disputes escalated to the Community Mediation Centre or CMC has quadrupled from two cases a month to now eight cases a month. Ms Lim is yet another example. She said that her family started having eye and throat irritation, headaches and nausea during the circuit breaker period due to the prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke. Her neighbour smokes seven to eight times a day, causing her to be "literally basked in a cloud of smoke" every day.”
“Sir, I was a smoker for 17 years. I quit because of what I am going to talk about today – second-hand smoke. To be very honest, I did not quit for myself. I quit because I knew that second-hand smoke will severely affect the health of my daughter. I did not want her to suffer because of my choice to smoke. The rights of smokers have to be protected. They are adults, old enough to decide whether they want to smoke or not. But we need to make sure that others are not affected by their decision to smoke. Affected here is not just about not liking the smell of smoke or the discomfort of seeing the smoke. When I say affected, I mean you could die because of second-hand smoke. The World Health Organization has said that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke, which can cause coronary heart disease, stroke and lung cancer. Those inhaling second-hand smoke are actually exposed to more chemicals than the smokers themselves. Sidestream smoke, the main component in second-hand smoke, is four times more toxic than the smoke that a smoker inhales from the cigarette. I am especially concerned about how second-hand smoke especially affects the vulnerable amongst us. According to MOH, even the slightest exposure to second-hand smoke can harm babies and young children. For them, even a little is already too much. Sir, for me the most alarming thing is this. In 2016 alone, 383 people in Singapore died due to second-hand smoke. That is about one person dying every single day. We must do something. For years, many residents have reached out to me about their neighbours smoking at balconies and at windows. Second-hand smoke enters their homes, and they feel helpless about the health risks facing their families.”
“" Can Minister share how we intend to ensure that cleaners are treated with fair labour practices? I propose we start by raising the employment standards required of cleaning companies under the Enhanced Clean Mark Accreditation scheme. Specifically, let us require that companies provide cleaners, whether foreign or local, with sufficient breaks and rest days without reducing their take-home salary. Our increased hygiene standards can only be sustainable if cleaners are well rested and adequately paid. Let us ensure they are. Sir, I hope Minister can consider the proposals raised by the GPC. Ultimately, the GPC believes that public hygiene is everyone's personal responsibility and we need to go upstream to solve this problem. While this Bill will help, we urge all Singaporeans to move away from the mindset that cleaners will be there to clean up after us. We should be a "Clean Singapore", not a "Cleaned Singapore". Notwithstanding our clarifications, the GPC for Sustainability and the Environment stands in strong support of the Bill. 4.35 pm”
“Take, for example, an existing course offered by the Singapore Polytechnic for ECOs in the construction sector. It is conducted entirely in English and requires participants to answer 100 questions in a two-hour electronic examination. Many ECCs and ECOs in the cleaning industry are seniors and would likely struggle with the language requirement and the electronic test-taking component. Can Minister share if such courses for ECCs and ECOs in the cleaning industry will be conducted in more languages and more accessible formats? It will help operators meet these new requirements without having to replace their existing staff. Let us not allow language barriers and teaching formats to get in the way of cleanliness and safety. In their speeches, Mr Don Wee and Ms Nadia Samdin will also be speaking on grants to support cleaners in undergoing training courses and career development for our cleaners. My last point is about labour conditions. Let us remember that higher hygiene standards also means more work for our cleaners. Many are already struggling. Mdm Low, a 67-year-old cleaner, told the media that she cleans the toilets four to five times during each of her 12-hour shift. She said, "Just an hour after I finished cleaning, I come back to find unflushed toilets, water pooling around the basins, and sometimes puddles of urine on the floor." One respondent to our public consultation also raised these fair questions. He asked, "Would not improving cleanliness at these places require more labour? How do we know that this would not add to the gruelling work that cleaners already have to do? How is the Government going to ensure safe and sustainable labour standards with added labour?”
“Under that scheme, food establishments are rated for their hygiene and must prominently display the grade they receive – A, B, C, or under the new system, Gold, Silver or Bronze. This provides an objective measure for the general public to determine the level of cleanliness of a food establishment. They can use this information to decide whether to purchase from a food establishment. For a start, will the Ministry consider implementing a similar grading system for public toilets at coffee shops and hawker centres? A visible, objective benchmark gives operators something to strive towards and could help promote higher standards. My second proposal builds on our idea of a grading system. Will the Minister consider linking the grading system to the licensing duration and licensing fees of coffee shops and hawker centres? For instance, we could offer a slightly longer licence term or lower licensing fees for coffee shops and hawker centres that attain and maintain a certain minimum cleanliness grade. This provides incentives for premises that have done well, to keep up the good work, and for premises that have not done so well, to raise their standards. In their speeches, other Members of the GPC – Ms Poh Li San, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Miss Cheryl Chan – will also be sharing their views on a grading system and other incentives for maintaining public toilet cleanliness. My third proposal is about training. I understand that the Environmental Control Coordinators or ECCs and Environmental Control Officers or ECOs, of specified premises will have to undergo training to be registered with NEA. But I am concerned that their training will not be conducted in suitable languages or formats.”
“Third, the GPC proposes that cleaners be trained in suitable languages and formats, and be treated with fair labour practices. Fourth, The GPC hopes that the proposed amendments will not result in an increase in the cost of living. Sir, we all have a stake in public hygiene and the GPC has reached out to the public through social media for their feedback on this Bill. We will be raising some of the public’s concerns in our speeches. I personally have four points to make. First, I propose we introduce a grading system for cleanliness at specified premises, starting with public toilets at coffee shops and hawker centres. A grading system will help increase hygiene standards in public toilet. These standards have fallen in recent years, according to an SMU survey aptly named "Waterloo". Over 25% of the 6,000 respondents said they would not use the toilets in coffee shops and hawker centres. Our GPC's own public consultation received many comments about bad experiences at such toilets. One commenter, Mr Tan, said, "Many of our friends have said they rather hold their tummies than to let it out at the kopitiam toilet." But the problem affects us even if we avoid using the toilets. As Mr Jack Sim, Founder and CEO of the World Toilet Organisation said, "Remember that even if you do not use these dirty toilets, the cooks who prepare your food are using them. If there is no soap to wash their hands, you may be eating their dirt." This is a very unpleasant thought but a very real possibility that we need to remember. Sir, I believe a grading system for cleanliness will help. It can be similar to the Singapore Food Agency's Food Hygiene Recognition Scheme.”
“Sir, I love it when I bring my three daughters out by myself and have some Daddy-Daughters time while Mummy takes a break. It is precious quality time, which I wish I have more of. I am glad to share that I no longer need to change nappies. They are big girls now and use the toilet. That is of course absolutely good news but also absolutely bad news at times. Every time they say the words, “Daddy, I need to wee wee”, it sparks a mad crazy frantic race to find a toilet. Not just any toilet but a male toilet, which has clean seats, which my daughters can sit on. That, unfortunately, is a hard thing to find, especially in coffee shops and hawker centres. The reality is that many of our public toilets stink. And I am not just talking about the smell. Often, seats are covered in urine and the entire facility is unhygienic. Sir, my daughters and I are extremely supportive of this Bill. This is a public health issue that we all need to tackle. It is also not just about toilets but about maintaining cleanliness in premises with high footfall and immuno-vulnerable occupants. Sir, the Government Parliamentary Committee or GPC for Sustainability and the Environment strongly supports this Bill as well. The GPC Members will share different perspectives on how we can raise our public hygiene standards. Together, our speeches will articulate four key proposals. First, the GPC proposes that we implement a grading system to measure the cleanliness of public toilets and incentivise operators by linking these grades to licence renewal or tax rebates. Second, the GPC proposes that the Ministry reviews and considers expanding the scope of premises covered by the Bill.”
“These grounds include fraud, corruption, breach of the rules of natural justice or contravention of Singapore’s public policy. One of the key components of arbitration proceedings is finality. However, this should not be at the expense of leaving questions of law unresolved. This may potentially have significant impact on the substantive rights of parties. Furthermore, the opt-in mechanism allows parties to choose to exercise this right or to rely on the default position. This adds to Singapore’s commitment in giving parties the flexibility to determine certain issues and procedures in their arbitral proceedings, as compared to court proceedings. In fact, the right to appeal on a question of law has already been expressly recognised in our domestic arbitration. Section 49 of our Arbitration Act provides that a party to arbitral proceedings may, with the agreement of all parties and with the leave of the Court, appeal to the Court on a question of law arising out of an arbitral award. Giving parties this option to have a right to appeal on a question of law may not only encourage more parties to arbitrate in Singapore, but also assist in determining case law in Singapore. Sir, in conclusion, I look forward to Singapore increasing its global standing as a centre for international arbitration. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill. If I may add, Sir, I slowed down my speech and spaced it out significantly so that I did not deliver my speech in a quick-fire fashion as Minister Edwin mentioned at the last Sitting about my speeches. I took into account the Minister’s previous feedback and I hope that he will now agree to all my proposals in this speech.”
“Under section 18(1) of the Arbitration Ordinance, unless agreed by the parties, no party may publish, disclose or communicate information relating to the arbitral proceedings and awards. Notably, this confidentiality extends to the existence of arbitration proceedings. This position is also mirrored in article 45.1 of the 2018 Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre Rules. Hong Kong was ranked among the top five seats of arbitration worldwide in 2018 and still continues to have a lead over our own SIAC in 2019. We note that codifying confidentiality obligations may lead to some challenges. For instance, there may be difficulties in defining the scope of the duty of confidentiality and its exceptions. However, such difficulties are already present in our current approach of implying the duty of confidentiality in arbitration. In fact, it is not uncommon for arbitration proceedings to be delayed because of parties disputing over their scope of implied duty of confidentiality. The delay reduces one of the main draws of arbitration – its efficiency. I hope the Minister will consider codifying confidentiality obligations, whether in the Act itself or in subsidiary legislation, as this would encourage parties to arbitrate in Singapore. My final clarification is on the exclusion of the proposed opt-in mechanism for parties to incorporate a right to appeal to the High Court, on a question of law arising out of an arbitral award. Can the Minister clarify the reasoning behind deciding against including this right to appeal on a question of law? As things stand, parties may only apply to the High Court to set aside an arbitral award on relatively limited grounds.”