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 26 of 37.
“The United Kingdom introduced the Unexplained Wealth Orders under its Criminal Finance Bill this year and its High Court issued in September the first such order, compelling a jailed Central Asian banker and his wife to explain how they were able to afford an extravagant lifestyle that included ownership of a London mansion and a golf course. Earlier this month, Malaysia announced that they were also looking into its implementation. Transparency International has identified £4.4 billion worth of London properties that it says were paid for by illicit funds and argues that an unexplained wealth order is a crucial tool for governments to combat the use of such dirty money. This Bill we are reading today tackles the supply side of this problem by regulating our housing developers. An unexplained wealth order would complement this law by tackling the demand side of the problem. Would the Ministry consider adopting unexplained wealth legislation to bolster our AML/CFT regime? Sir, in conclusion, Singapore must show the world that it acts against dirty money. This Bill goes some way towards achieving that. But let us clarify what it means for local businesses and see how much more we can do. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“We are asking them to check on their own clients who are paying them and at times paying them a lot of money. Again, we need to be more specific, otherwise, these amendments will be futile. Lastly, on this point, can the Minister clarify if the person who is liable for prosecution for failure to do due diligence is actually the person on the ground doing the due diligence? My concern here is that if a property agent is the one doing the checks and we are going after the director who has never really met the customer, is this going to be effective? The person who is doing the checks know that he or she is not going to be prosecuted, and the director who might receive hundreds of these reports from hundreds of property agents will never be able to properly do the due diligence. My third point is about other things we can do. The Government can do more to combat the flow of illicit funds. The unexplained wealth order is one idea that has gained traction in recent years. What is the Government’s stance on the unexplained wealth order and will the Government consider implementing it in the law? The idea is as follows. The authorities can apply to the Courts to issue an unexplained wealth order. The order would compel an individual suspected of criminal activity to explain how they obtained their assets. The order would allow the authorities to freeze and recover assets if the individuals cannot explain, one, why they own assets worth more than their income and, two, how they have acquired the assets legally. Several parts of Australia have implemented and actively used this law against those suspected of criminal activity.”
“Sometimes these broad guidelines are translated into specific measures. For instance, the Bill states that developers must appoint a compliance officer at the management level. This is clear and unequivocal. It is useful to companies trying to do the right thing by the law. However, more often, the guidelines are left broad. In section 5C, developers are told they must take appropriate steps to identify, assess and understand the risks in relation to its purchasers. Would it be enough to run the purchasers’ names through regulatory searches and sanctions lists? Or is there a need to commission an investigative firm to dig, expensively, into the background and history of the purchaser? Numerous other parts of the Bill are written with some ambiguity. At one point, developers are told not to deal with purchasers that have "an obviously fictitious name". What is an obviously fictitious name? Sir, I understand that not everything can or should be codified as specific instructions within the law. But we cannot ask them to significantly increase their costs of doing business while remaining ambiguous about what we want from them. The law should allow a developer, acting in good faith, to confidently say, "I do not need to be fearful of a $100,000 fine." Further to my earlier suggestion to provide housing developers with guidelines, these guidelines could also shed light on what concrete steps developers are required to take to be in compliance with these new requirements. Sir, the intent of these amendments is good but I hope this does not just become another “tick in the box” exercise. We must remember that we are asking developers who are there to make a profit to do their due diligence which might end up with them making less profits.”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. Real estate is a popular outlet for illicit funds. Money launderers and terrorism financiers often invest in real estate for the same reasons other people do: the prices are stable, the values generally appreciate over time, and you can live in it or rent it out. This Bill sends a clear message to Singapore's housing developers: you must not be involved with these criminals. They cannot be your customers, your shareholders or your officers. You must take concrete steps to guard against their involvement, and you must report any suspicions you have. Sir, I stand in support of this and I will raise three points for clarifications. My first point is about implementation. In an interview conducted by The Business Times this February, a housing developer commented that conducting customer due diligence might be, I quote, "quite tricky", for big projects on launch days. It is hard to conduct due diligence when there are so many buyers and so much urgency for everyone involved. The developer said, "The process in the show flat does not quite work that way." Can the Ministry share how developers can best cope with the demands of the new law while not compromising their business operations? Will the Ministry provide guidelines on how housing developers can adapt to this new law? My second point is about specificity. It seems to me that this Bill leaves quite a bit of room for housing developers to make their own judgement calls. The word “appropriate” appears 12 times in what is a fairly short bill: appropriate steps, appropriate mechanisms, appropriate arrangements, appropriate measures. The word “adequate” appears seven times: adequate safeguards, adequate programmes and adequate procedures.”
“I was going to ask about the rationale for this change, but the Minister has answered it in her speech. But I want to add that the PWS is important as it warns all of us of imminent threats that could endanger lives and properties. I know this is not part of this Bill, but what is also equally important is the fire alarm system and we need to address the lack of central fire alarm systems at our HDB blocks. I appreciate that SCDF will be introducing a new requirement for all new residential units, and residential units undergoing works which impact fire safety, to install Home Fire Alarm Devices. It is good to provide early warning to the occupants of the affected unit, but what is also important is to provide warning for other residents living in that block. This will not only help all residents in the affected block but also the SCDF officers responding to fight the fire. Every second counts in a fire emergency and lives will be saved if people are aware of the fire early and can evacuate early. The dangers our SCDF officers face will also be reduced if people are evacuated early. We also need to remember that it is not only the fire that kills but, more often than not, also the smoke. While the fire might be contained in the unit, the smoke is not. I have raised this issue several times already and I sincerely hope that MHA will consider mandating central fire alarm systems at our HDB blocks, similar to what is already present in condominiums. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Sir, the intention of this Bill is to expand the legal powers of SCDF officers to respond to a wider range of incidents, especially during non-fire emergencies. This can only be a positive move and I stand in support of it. I seek a few clarifications regarding this Bill which the Minister essentially addressed in her opening speech. First, the official Press Release by MHA states that such non-fire emergencies could include responding to emergency medical services calls. For a better understanding, could the Minister provide further examples of other day-to-day emergencies which do not constitute as a civil defence emergency? Under clause 3, powers will be given to SCDF officers to enable them to act in good faith and with reasonable care to save lives and prevent injuries. It would be helpful to receive clarifications on these circumstances since the powers of SCDF officers are extensive, including breaking into private places and vehicles. Second, clause 7 introduces a new scheme allowing ex-NS men who were enlisted in SCDF to continue serving as volunteers. Could the Minister provide more information on this scheme? For example, how would their roles differ from the Civil Defence Auxiliary Unit (CDAU) or SCDF's volunteer force set up in 2006? Would the ex-NSmen volunteer under a separate scheme? The Bill also states that the Minister may, from time to time, authorise that the NSmen be paid for their services. Under what circumstances will they be paid? Third, I understand that the Bill also requires building owners to provide space and grant SCDF officers access to install, maintain and repair the outdoor sirens that are part of PWS as well as other emergency devices.”
“However, given that the claim has gone through an initial round of merits testing, it may not need the in-depth assessment given to a new claim. Again, considering the strict timelines that must be adhered to in an appeal, would the Minister consider an expedited process for assessing whether to extend legal aid to an aided person who wishes to file an appeal? Similarly, a new application for legal aid must be made for an aided person to enforce the judgment. Could the Minister also clarify the rationale for subjecting the aided person to another full round of means and merits testing to obtain legal aid in enforcing the judgment? The means of an aided person would similarly not have changed much after obtaining the paper judgment from the Court. The merits of the case would be further reinforced by the favourable judgment given by the Court. Having supported an aided person all the way to the point of obtaining a paper judgment, surely it would be logical for Legal Aid to see the claim all the way through until the aided person obtains the sum claimed, which is the entire objective of filing a claim in the first place. Would the Minister consider allowing an initial Grant of Aid to extend to enforcement processes that an aided person may need to undertake? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Is the Ministry tracking the trends in legal costs and the proportion of households for whom legal representation remains inaccessible? Will the Ministry consider increasing the percentage of qualifying citizens and PRs? Next, currently, an aided person who wishes to appeal a decision must make a new application for legal aid. In the Assigned Solicitor's Guide, the solicitor is advised that they cannot act for an aided person who is looking to appeal a Court judgment. There are strict timelines that must be adhered to in an appeal. This is acknowledged in the Assigned Solicitor's Guide, which advises the aided person to file a Notice of Appeal on their own before making a new application for legal aid. However, whether the aided person decides to appeal is likely to depend on whether they are able to obtain further legal aid. In this situation, it is left to the Assigned Solicitor to decide on their own initiative whether to assist the aided person in filing the Notice of Appeal. Could the Minister clarify the rationale for subjecting the aided person to another round of means and merits testing to obtain legal aid for the appeal? The means of the aided person might have changed, but I doubt it would have changed significantly for most persons. Admittedly, the merits of the case may need to be considered afresh if it is going to an appeal. An unfavourable decision may cast new light on the merits of the claim. In a favourable decision where the aided person is appealing against the amount awarded, it should be considered whether the sum awarded truly is so unsatisfactory as to warrant an appeal and whether this should be supported with legal aid.”
“Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. Many Members, myself included, have asked for the Director of Legal Aid to be given broader discretion to extend legal aid to those who do not qualify under the means test. I am heartened to see that the Ministry has taken on board our suggestions in allowing the Director general discretion to grant aid if it is just and proper to do so. It was announced just last week that, from next year, a new system set up by LAB will help applicants access legal aid more quickly by allowing lawyers to browse and select cases, and legal aid applicants to check the status of their applications. These legislative amendments, coupled with improvements in implementation, are progressive moves towards improving access to justice for the most vulnerable and our becoming a more compassionate society. Sir, I have three clarifications. Firstly, the Ministry has stated that the qualifying limit for the new means criteria to be set in subsidiary legislation will take into account the latest income data to maintain the number of eligible households. However, if legal costs have increased, access to lawyers may be beyond the reach to a larger number of households. If that is the case, rather than holding the number of eligible households constant, legal aid may need to be extended to a larger number of households. When the Act was amended in 2013, the criteria was relaxed to increase the percentage of qualifying citizens and PRs from 17% to 25%. The last large-scale study of legal costs in Singapore was the 2001 Census of the Legal Industry and Profession. The census had suggested that the billable rate of law firms had steadily increased between 1998 and 2000.”
“I would like to join my fellow Members to thank the Minister and MFA especially, for all the work they have done to try and resolve the crisis in Rakhine State and in Bangladesh as well. I have three supplementary questions. One, I previously asked the Minister whether Singapore will be sending a second consignment of humanitarian aid to the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and the Minister at that point, replied that it is pending further assessment. Now that he has been to the refugee camps, could I ask for an update on whether we will be sending these humanitarian supplies? The second is on the repatriation, which I agree should happen. But I am wondering whether once they are back in Rakhine state, whether there are plans to grant them citizenship. Because as the Minister mentioned, we have to address the root causes, and one of the root causes of why they fled and resulted in this crisis is because they did not have citizenship. And the third is in the repatriation process, whether there will be UN peacekeepers on site. I think that was one of the requests of the refugees, to ensure that this repatriation is both safe and secure for them.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, can I just ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether MOM is studying why the FDWs are borrowing money during their employment in Singapore? What are the main reasons? If we are not studying it, can I ask whether MOM is willing to conduct this study so that we understand what the root of the problem is, and then we can really address it?”
“I worked with Hanif who is from Bangladesh and has been a cleaner for the last 12 years. I learnt a lot from him, how difficult his life has been and yet how he is so full of smiles and so dedicated about making sure he does his job well for us. His enthusiasm for life was infectious and residents love him and treat him not as their cleaner but as their good friend and, for some, their family member. I had dinner with Hanif's family when I was in Bangladesh earlier this year and I saw firsthand how proud they were of him and most of all, how much they miss him. Like all of us, Hanif works hard and sacrifices for his family. Hanif got married recently and his wife is now expecting their first child. Sir, I got to experience Hanif's work as a cleaner, but I doubt we can ever fully appreciate how difficult it must be for him to be so far from home and for so long. How difficult it must be to not be with his wife who is now pregnant and how difficult it must be to not be there for his or her childhood. Sir, our cleaners like Ah Eng and Hanif do a lot for us for very little. They help to ensure we have a clean environment to live in, to work in and a clean environment to enjoy our food and drinks in. They are sometimes a forgotten group of people, and we need to make sure they are fairly treated. I am thankful that this Bill highlights the important work they do for all of us. It recognises their efforts and shows how much we appreciate all that they do for us. Sir, "being told you are appreciated is one of the simplest and most uplifting things you can hear". Let me end by saying a big and heartfelt "thank you" to all cleaners in Singapore. Sir, I stand in full support of this Bill.”
“" But if we leave out our foreign cleaners from the PWM and, bearing in mind that they likely form the bulk of the cleaning sector and workforce, how then will we achieve higher productivity, improve profits and enjoy better service standards and quality? Can I ask if MEWR is looking into this and how to further encourage companies to adopt progressive wage principles for foreign cleaners? Can I also suggest that MEWR studies what is being done in the construction sector and see if we can implement similar policies for the cleaning sector? In the construction sector, the Higher-skilled (R1) scheme encourages employers to help their workers upskill. This increases the quality and productivity of the workforce and provides wage progression pathways for higher skilled Work Permit holders. Employers can upgrade their Basic-skilled R2 workers to Higher-skilled R1 workers by meeting minimum experience, minimum wage or certificate requirements. As incentives, employers pay a lower levy and enjoy an extended employment period for the Higher-skilled worker. Will MEWR consider this for the cleaning industry? Further, at least 10% of construction workers must be higher-skilled R1 workers. Would the Senior Minister of State consider similarly making it a condition of cleaning business licence that 10% of their foreign cleaners must be higher-skilled workers who again meet minimum working experience, minimum wage or certification requirements? This could address my earlier point and might help us achieve higher productivity, improve profits and enjoy better service standards and quality in the cleaning sector. Sir, I have also worked with our cleaners at the Nee Soon Town Council and experienced firsthand how difficult their work is and how backbreaking the work is.”
“I appreciate that it might not be easy for us to legislate that PWM is mandatory for all local cleaners regardless of who hires them. But can the Senior Minister of State clarify what MEWR is doing to plug this gap? This is important for cleaners like Ah Eng whom I had the privilege of working with when I gained some experience as a coffee shop cleaner. She has been a cleaner for the past two decades and, as I shared on Facebook, "She was so hardworking, so caring and so dedicated. She taught me a lot and a lot more than cleaning a coffee shop." Ah Eng's husband passed away when her two children were still young and she single-handedly brought them up through working as a cleaner. Hers is a story of resilience, sacrifice and hard work. I understand that she is currently hired directly by the coffee shop and, as such, PWM is not mandatory for her and she may not receive the Annual Bonus proposed in this Bill. I honestly think this is not fair and I sincerely hope that the Senior Minister of State can look into this and ensure that local cleaners like Ah Eng can benefit from the PWM as well. Our foreign cleaners also do not benefit from PWM. But I am grateful that MEWR has encouraged employers to incorporate the principles of progressive wages into the wage structure of their foreign cleaners. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State what percentage of our cleaners are foreigners and how many cleaning companies actually apply the PWM to foreign cleaners? If such data is not currently collected, would the Ministry consider collecting this information? The PWM is also about increasing productivity and standards. MOM states that, "higher productivity increases business profits for employers. Service buyers also enjoy better service standards and quality.”
“In the Occupational Wage Survey conducted by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), it indicated that the median basic and gross wages of full-time resident cleaners grew by 9% and 12% per annum respectively from 2012 to 2015. I support the proposed move of this Bill to take the PWM a step further by mandating the payment of an Annual Bonus. In my interactions with Nee Soon East residents who are cleaners, they have expressed appreciation of this change. Sir, it is important for all of society to move forward together. Where market forces place a downward pressure on wages of certain sectors, like cleaning, it is important for the Government to intervene. The PWM and now the Annual Bonus are a step in the right direction and help to lift the income levels of lower-wage workers. I do have some questions and clarifications about the enforcement of PWM. How are employers who game the system in order to skirt wage increments flagged out? What are the penalties or other enforcement mechanisms in place to put pressures on companies to implement recommendations and adhere to the PWM? Can the Senior Minister of State also clarify whether the wages and benefits under the PWM are reset for those who perform the same job functions and roles when the cleaning service providers are changed? Sir, the PWM is a very positive step forward for cleaners. But the issue now is that it does not apply to all cleaners. For example, I understand that PWM is not mandatory for a cleaner who is hired directly by a food and beverage (F&B) establishment. If the same cleaner is employed by a licensed cleaning company and is sent to the same F&B establishment and does the same exact work as a cleaner, PWM then becomes mandatory.”
“Sir, I declare my interest as Chairman of the Nee Soon Town Council and I stand in full support of this Bill. The proposed amendments will help to make a significant difference in the lives of our cleaners. Our cleaners play a vital role in our community, and yet some receive very little appreciation for the work they do for us and, for some, they receive very little income as well. This Bill is a positive step forward and helps to ensure that our cleaners' work becomes a little bit easier and they also feel more appreciated. I worked with our cleaners in Nee Soon East and will share some of their stories in this speech. I will also make some suggestions on how we can help our cleaners further and seek some clarifications. Sir, this Bill proposes to utilise air pressure to move waste through pipes to a bin centre, which replaces the older and more labour-intensive way of clearing waste. It is an encouraging step to move towards using cleaner and more efficient processes. It will benefit our cleaners, and we can benefit from a reduction in odour issues, improve overall hygiene and our living environment. I am glad that the Government is footing the bill for the installation of PWCS. However, it will be the Town Council who will maintain it and our maintenance costs might go up. Can I ask if the Government will be providing any grants to the Town Councils to help offset the possible increased maintenance costs at least for the first few years? Next, since the introduction of PWM in 2012, companies across industries have gradually rolled out the changes to positively benefit low-wage workers.”
“While the second limb implies that there should be no fault on the part of the respondent in failing to raise the objections earlier because they could not have known of these reasons, the first limb is not clear on the element of the respondent's fault. Can MOF clarify whether section 19(6A)(a) requires that the new circumstances arose out of no fault of the respondent? Sir, clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“The Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) has jurisdiction to hear a tort for damage caused to property, which includes claims for losses or expenses incurred by owners of property as a result of careless, reckless or improper acts by others. There is no requirement that the claims for losses or expenses be supported by written agreement on the amount. It is also able to hear claims arising from oral agreements. The SCT is similarly intended to provide an efficient and inexpensive channel to resolve consumer-supplier disputes. The power of SCT to consider loss or expenses claims in the absence of clear documentation does not seem to impede the expediency of the tribunal. As such, can the Ministry of Finance (MOF) clarify why loss and expenses claims should be beyond the power of adjudicators to assess? If these claims cannot be resolved by the adjudication process, parties have to resort to arbitration or litigation, as MOF has stated. As pointed out by BCA, these matters are slightly more complicated, which will incur even greater costs for parties if they have to adjudicate or litigate these claims. These are precisely the cases that require a simpler and cheaper dispute resolution process. It would be more efficient for all heads of claims relating to the same dispute to be heard by a single body. Lastly, the new section 19(6A) clarifies that a respondent setting aside the adjudication determination can only raise a fresh objection to the payment claim if: one, new circumstances had arisen; two, the objections could not have been made earlier because the respondent could not have known of these reasons; or three, there was a patent error.”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill, which refines the framework for efficient and low-cost adjudication of payment disputes in the construction industry. I would, first, like to commend BCA on the public consultation that it conducted in June 2018 on the proposed amendments. Following the consultation, BCA provided responses to key feedback received and refined some proposed amendments after hearing the public's suggestions. I am heartened by BCA's engagement with the public in crafting this Bill and believe that the process has resulted in a stronger piece of legislation. I have just three clarifications on the proposed amendments. Firstly, the new sections 19(1A) and (1B) clarify that the adjudication review starts anew if all new review adjudicators are replaced. During the public consultation, it was suggested that the adjudication review start afresh when the majority of the panel of review adjudicators is replaced. BCA responded that if the replacement adjudicators need more time to bring themselves up to speed, the review adjudicators can seek an extension of time subject to the consent of both the claimant and the respondent. If parties can consent to extending time to allow review adjudicators to be brought up to speed, why not also allow parties to consent to having the review start afresh? Next, the new section 19(5A) clarifies that adjudicators can only consider damage, loss or expense items which are supported by documents showing agreement between parties on the amount or a certificate certifying the claim issued under the contract. BCA had stated that this keeps adjudication speedy and low cost by removing the need for adjudicators to consider complex loss and expenses claims.”
“Lastly, clauses 2(b), 3, 41, 42, 45, 46 and 47 propose to enhance IRAS’ powers to investigate tax crimes. I support the intention and agree with the need to take a whole-of-Government approach to crack down on tax crimes, given the increasing sophistication with which these crimes are carried out. It is also stated that “These powers under the proposed amendments will be exercised only by trained IRAS investigation officers and where necessary so that investigations are not impeded.” Could the Minister clarify what such training entails and share what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse of powers by IRAS officers? I understand the Minister has replied to some of these in his opening speech. Will these officers undergo training similar to what our Police Officers go through? I understand the Minister earlier mentioned that they undergo similar training to what our Singapore Customs officers go through. So, why not training that our Police Officers go through instead? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Next, section 14ZB will similarly extend the Business and IPC Partnerships Scheme for another three years until December 2021. The Scheme complements the tax deduction for qualifying donations by encouraging employee volunteerism through businesses. Would the Minister similarly consider formalising the 250% deduction for businesses' expenditure when employees volunteer and provide services to IPCs? Would the Minister also consider extending the scope of the Scheme? I have two suggestions on how this Scheme might be expanded. First, owners of the businesses, such as sole-proprietors, partners and shareholders who are also directors of the same company, are not qualifying employees under this Scheme. Can the Minister clarify the rationale for this exclusion, and would the Minister consider extending the Scheme to owners of businesses? Business owners volunteering their own time and services can send a very strong message on the value of volunteerism to their employees. Second, could the Scheme be extended to charities that do not have IPC status? IPC status allows charities to issue deductible receipts for qualifying donations to donors. As the Scheme pertains to giving through acts of volunteerism rather than monetary donations, expanding this scheme to non-IPC charities would not blur the fundamental distinction between IPC and charities. IPCs are rightfully held to a higher standard of compliance and governance, which not all charities have the resources to meet. However, non-IPC charities continue to serve equally worthwhile causes and employees should be encouraged to volunteer with non-IPCs as much as with IPCs. In this regard, there does not seem to be a good reason for drawing a distinction between the two.”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill and would like to thank the Minister for the proposed amendments, which will allow PHC drivers to claim tax deductions for car-related expenses. This is an issue I, along with several other Members of this House, have raised previously and I am glad that we are finally levelling the playing field and ensuring that it is fair. Sir, the Bill makes broad amendments as announced in Budget 2018. I would like to focus on three areas in particular. First, the extension of the tax deduction for qualifying donations. Second, the extension of the Business and Institutions of a Public Character (IPC) Partnership Scheme (BIPS). And lastly, IRAS' enhanced enforcement powers. Sir, section 37 will be amended to extend the 250% tax deduction for qualifying donations until December 2021. I would first like to declare my interest as the Chief Executive of an IPC. My interest notwithstanding, I support this extension in the spirit of giving and fostering a sense of community. Charities rely heavily on public donations, which empower us to make a difference in the community. The donations are our lifeline and, to be honest, fundraising remains a challenge for many of us, especially in recent times. With this extension of tax deduction, I believe we can encourage more Singaporeans to give back and strengthen our community by donating more on issues we care about. This deduction has been extended multiple times since it was first introduced as a temporary measure in 2009. Would the Minister consider formalising the deduction as a permanent measure after 2021? This would send a stronger statement of the Government’s commitment to support voluntary giving. It would also give the IPCs some greater assurance and stability.”
“Does the party have a right of appeal against the granting of the restraint order in the first place? Under the UK’s Civil Procedure Rules relating to civil restraint orders, an application for permission to commence an action or make an application may be determined without a hearing. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify whether a hearing is necessary where a party applies for leave of Court to commence an action or make an application? Under sections 73C(5) and 73D(5), the Court may extend the period for which an extended or general civil restraint order remains in effect if it considers it appropriate to do so. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify whether the Court has the power to do so on its own initiative or whether an application from a party is required? Can the Senior Minister of State also elaborate on the circumstances or factors to be considered in determining whether an extension is appropriate? Sir, I appreciate that these amendments are intended to allow the Court to tailor procedures to meet the needs of individual cases. Nonetheless, flexibility should be exercised in a principled manner that respects the individual's right to be heard. I hope the Senior Minister of State will be able to clarify the above matters and provide litigants with greater clarity on when the provisions may or may not apply. Notwithstanding the above concerns and clarifications requested, I do stand in support of the Bill.”
“However, I am concerned that the expanded powers may have the converse effect of leading to the Courts being more willing to resort to restraint orders. The new section 73C provides for an extended civil restraint order which restraints an individual from commencing an action or making an application which concerns any matter "involving, relating to, touching upon or leading to" the legal proceedings at hand. These are incredibly broad terms. Can the Minister elaborate on the factors that the Court should consider in determining whether a new action or application falls under an extended civil restraint order? The wording of "involving, relating to, touching upon or leading to" in section 73C is taken from paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of the Practice Directions 3C of the UK’s Civil Procedure Rules. Is the scope of the language under the new section 73C intended to be identical to the interpretation the UK courts have taken of extended civil restraint orders under their Civil Procedure Rules? The new section 73D(1) provides that the Court may make a general civil restraint order where an extended civil restraint order "would not be sufficient or appropriate". Can the Senior Minister of State elaborate further on what factors the Court should consider in determining whether an extended civil restraint order is sufficient or appropriate? Can the Minister also provide some examples of when an extended civil restraint order would be deemed insufficient or inappropriate? Next, sections 73B(5), 73C(6) and 73D(6) allow a party subject to a restraint order to appeal where the High Court refuses to grant leave to commence an action or make an application. However, this right of appeal is in relation to the new application or action after a restraint order has already been made.”
“Sir, section 34 will be amended to allow the Minister to specify in the Fourth and Fifth Schedules which civil matter may or may not be brought on appeal to the Court of Appeal. The amendment moves the determination of appealable civil matters further from Parliamentary scrutiny. Changes to the Schedule can be decided by the Minister in consultation with the Chief Justice, as the Senior Minister of State has mentioned in his speech, without needing to be passed through Parliament. In its response to the public consultation conducted, the Ministry noted that there is sufficient accountability since the Minister is answerable to Parliament. The rationale of moving the list of appealable and non-appealable civil matters from the main body of the text of the Act to the Schedule is to provide flexibility for amendments. However, this decision is a significant one that involves curtailing parties' rights of appeal, as was noted by respondents to the public consultation. Whether a civil matter should be appealable is a decision that warrants further deliberation and debate. The amendment suggests that the need for flexibility outweighs the value of deliberation. Could the Senior Minister of State elaborate further on why the list of appealable and non-appealable civil matters might need to be amended so urgently that it justifies moving the decision out of Parliament's oversight? Next, sections 73A to 73D are significant new additions to the SCJA which grants the Court more tools to restrain unmeritorious and vexatious proceedings and litigants. The new order that the Court may grant are intended to introduce a more nuanced approach to restrain a vexatious litigant.”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill, which updates our civil procedure framework. In particular, I welcome the clarification that the Court may hear matters through live video or television link. This aligns the legislative framework with the tools already at the disposal of Court users, such as the Technology Courts, and Mobile Technology Facility Services for use in non-technology Courtrooms and hearing chambers. The Bill also proposes a number of other amendments, which have been perceived by some members of the public as imposing limits on a litigant's right to be heard. These amendments include requiring leave of Court before an application can be made to admit further evidence on appeal, allowing the Court of Appeal to determine a broader range of matters based on written submission, and allowing the Court of Appeal to summarily dismiss appeals or applications on its own motions. While each amendment may be unremarkable on its own, the collective effect of all these amendments is to significantly encroach on the various aspects of the right to be heard. The right to be heard is a fundamental rule of natural justice. We should be cautious when imposing any limits on that right. As such, I will be seeking clarifications on two matters. First, the Minister's power to determine which civil matters may or may not be appealed to the Court of Appeal. Second, the range of restraint orders that a Court may now grant for vexatious proceedings. The rationale for imposing these limits and the scope of their application should be clear so that litigants do not feel deprived of their right to be heard. Justice must both be done and be seen to be done.”
“One last query. I have asked actually how many, but I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary replied with a percentage. Could I just get an absolute number of how many people are actually affected by second-hand smoke in terms of death or diagnosis? I know that the figure in Japan is that 15,000 people die every year because of second-hand smoke. So, I am just wondering whether we have the statistics for Singapore.”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I think many people are aware of the dangers of smoking. But I think very few are now aware of the dangers of second-hand smoke. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned a bit about the outreach efforts. So, I am just wondering whether MOH should be increasing our outreach efforts to make sure people are aware of the dangers of second-hand smoke and also what they can do to prevent inhaling second-hand smoke.”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned just now that we are currently not collecting data on the generational-correlated offenders. So, I am just wondering whether MHA can start collecting such data, so that all the programmes that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, we can see whether it is working, and we can start to see whether the trend is going up or going down as well.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for the reply. In his reply, I think he said that he was doing assessment on the ground to see whether to send a second consignment to Bangladesh. Can I just check when this assessment will be completed? I understand that the United States (US) had done an assessment and, just last week, they announced that they will double the aid to refugees in Bangladesh and Myanmar. I have been on the ground in the refugee camps in Bangladesh. I have seen what conditions they are living in. I have heard the stories firsthand of how much they have suffered, seen children with bullet wounds and how they have been scarred for life. And the people there really do need help. I understand that there had been many landslides recently as well. So, I am really hopeful that Singapore will provide this second consignment of humanitarian aid. There is a second part of my Parliamentary Question (PQ), and it is whether we will increase our financial contributions to UNHRC so that we can help refugees around the world rebuild their lives.”
“I will use the two minutes, Sir. I know we have the guidelines; I know this will not happen overnight as well. Malaysia has announced that they are going to do it by 2030. So, I am just wondering if MEWR has a long-term plan of eliminating single-use plastics in public sector events. Can we at least commit to, say, we will eliminate this by 2030? So, maybe not NDP 2019, but NDP 2030? Can we do this?”
“Sir, I have three clarifications. I think the Senior Minister of State mentioned about encouraging, but can I confirm whether the Public Service is planning to eliminate single use plastic in our catering of events? Same for NDP, I think the Senior Minister of State mentioned that we are going to encourage, but I think planning would have probably started for 2019. So, can I confirm that NDP 2019 will only use reusable items with minimal packaging? Lastly, for the proposed carrier bag charge, can I ask whether MEWR can at least do a study on this issue and whether they can report back to this House once the study is completed?”
“But I hope the Senior Minister of State's reply to my speech will not focus on what we have done and what we are currently doing. Those are already publicly available. I hope her speech will focus on what more we can do, beyond incinerating the plastic, recycling plastic waste, trapping the waste before it enters our waters, the packaging agreement and the mandatory reporting. Lastly, Sir, I hope the Senior Minister of State can address these questions. One, will we be putting more emphasis on plastic waste reduction in our public sector's sustainability plan? Two, will the Public Service be eliminating single-use plastic from their catering events? Three, will NDP 2019 use only reusable items with minimal packaging? Lastly, and four, will the Government implement a charge for single-use carrier bags of all materials and not just plastic bags? Sir, this Wednesday, Ella and her schoolmates will be doing a coastal clean-up. I am sure she is going to find lots of plastic on our shores. I sincerely hope that when my two other daughters Katie and Poppy grow up, there will no longer be a need to do coastal clean-ups. 7.49 pm”
“But, in fact, carrier bags may be a significant cost to retailers. Yi Hong Minimart spends $2,000 to $3,000 on plastic bags each month, or one month alone. These costs are obviously passed on to consumers, raising product prices. Hence, we are already paying for these plastic bags. A shift towards a plastic-lite practice throughout the retail industry will give customers more choice in whether to pay for plastic bags and also help retailers save money and the environment. As such, while a plastic bag charge looks like it will increase cost for everyone, in fact, it will do the opposite and might help to bring cost down for everyone. Sir, in conclusion, environmentalist Robert Swan said, "The greatest threat to our planet is the belief that someone else will save it". Let us not play the waiting game. Although we live on this planet as if we had another one to go to, we do just have this planet we call home and we all need to save it, together and urgently. Sir, just two days ago, my daughter Ella and I were at the opening of the Turtle Hatchery on Sisters' Island. On the boat ride there, Ella exclaimed, "Look daddy, there is so much rubbish in the sea, we need to pick them up to save the animals". There really was so much plastic trash. It was shocking and painful to see so many plastic bags and bottles in the oceans, in Singapore waters. I shared this on Facebook on Saturday night and you can see over 80 plastic bottles in the oceans in one of the photos I took. Sir, a four-year-old knows that this wrong. A four-year-old knows that we must do something to combat this plastic problem. Surely, we, as the Government, should take the lead and do more. Singapore has done a lot.”
“To make sure that the plastic bag charge policy is tailored to Singapore's unique situation, bags used to carry fresh produce should be exempted from this charge. Using reusable bags to carry fresh produce, raw meat or seafood may be unhygienic, so plastic bags should be given out for free for such items. I understand that Hong Kong is already doing this. In this way, people can still obtain some free bags to bin their trash, maintaining the cleanliness and safety of our rubbish chutes and waste disposal system. There are, of course, critiques of what Hong Kong is doing, how people are gaming the system because of this free bag exemption, how enforcement is difficult – and if I may add, the media asked me about this yesterday – and how the compliant rate is only about 50%. But, at least, Hong Kong is trying and I rather be optimistic and say, "Not bad, 50% of retailers are compliant; good start!" A plastic bag charge has proven to be effective in Singapore. After implementing a 10-cent plastic bag charge in 2017, lifestyle brand Miniso reported that customers’ plastic bag usage dropped by 75%. As IKEA Singapore demonstrated, this charge can also be a stepping stone to comprehensively eliminate use of all disposable plastic items. In 2007, they implemented a 10-cent plastic bag charge; in 2013, they stopped offering disposable bags entirely. Today, they are working to remove all single-use plastic products from the IKEA range and restaurants by 2020. Based on the survey by zero-waste Singapore, many Singaporeans have responded positively to the possibility of a plastic bag charge. This may benefit retailers as well as customers. When we receive plastic bags from shops, we often think we are getting them for free.”
“The Senior Minister of State had previously stated that we ought to consider encouraging all Ministries and agencies to eliminate single-use plastics from their catering and events. This is really what our Government ought to do in order to walk the talk and lead by example. And I hope we start this practice at Singapore's biggest party, our National Day Parade (NDP). This year's NDP fun pack contained many plastic items individually wrapped in plastic, and even an NDP 2018 plastic bag for each person to bag their waste. If NDP 2019 next year were to use only reusable items with minimal packaging, it would send a strong signal that our nation is committed to building a sustainable world. Secondly, we must cut down the demand for single-use plastic bags by implementing a charge for single-use carrier bags of all materials. As Senior Minister of State Amy Khor had recently pointed out, substituting plastic bags with paper or other biodegradable plastic bags may have negative environmental outcomes, as the latter have higher carbon footprints. I agree with the Senior Minister of State that we should ensure consumers do not substitute carrier bags but, instead, make the switch to bringing their own reusable bags. Using one reusable bag a year can save 125 plastic bags from being littered or incinerated and the reduced demand for plastic would drastically decrease plastic production. Let me stress that this is about reduction and not replacement. This Motion is about a plastic-lite Singapore, not a plastic-free Singapore. And I do understand the public concern that plastic bags are necessary to bag household trash. I, too, use plastic bags to throw my rubbish down the rubbish chute.”
“Multinational brands like Hyatt Hotels, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) and IKEA, as well as local businesses like Unpackt, The Green Collective, Plain Vanilla, and Muthu's Curry, have taken the initiative to reduce or eliminate plastics in their operations. And just last month, the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS) launched "#recycle more, waste less", a nationwide campaign to discourage the use of single-use plastics. In the public sector, the Government is engaging stakeholders to voluntarily reduce all types of packaging waste and cut the use of single-use plastic items. Soon, we will mandate businesses to report on the type and amount of packaging they put on the market and their plans for reduction. We also have the Singapore Packaging Agreement, which encourages businesses to minimise packaging waste. At our new hawker centres, we have also disallowed the use of disposables for dine-ins. And lastly, the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) will be developing an inaugural Zero Waste Masterplan to be released next year. But the Government can and should do more. Sir, I propose two policy changes. Firstly, we need to review the public sector’s own waste generation practices. In our Public Sector Sustainability Plan 2017 to 2020, the word "plastic" is only mentioned once, in the paragraph on recycling. The plan does talk about waste reduction. But I hope we can add the word "plastic waste reduction" to be more specific. I hope we can put a stronger emphasis on the reduction component rather than the recycling. Otherwise, we are again focusing on the symptoms of the problem.”
“We really need to start thinking about our plastic bag use. Senior Minister of State Amy Khor previously said, "Unlike many of the countries that have imposed a ban or mandatory plastic charge, plastic bag charge, we do not directly landfill our plastic disposables but incinerate them. As such, we do not face the land and water pollution issues that plague those countries." But, Sir, is it okay to waste so much plastic, simply because our waste will be burned or removed from sewage discharge into the ocean? Or phrased differently, is it alright to litter just because someone else will clean up after us? Burning the excessive number of plastic bags we throw away is again addressing the symptoms of the problem. Again, we need to tackle the root of the problem. And we all agree on this. As Senior Minister of State Amy Khor has stated, we must "adopt a holistic approach and tackle this upstream". We should go to the source of the problem and cut plastic waste by cutting plastic use. Minister Masagos has also recently pointed this out, "the issue with plastic waste here [is] not about improper disposal, but about reducing the demand", and "everyone [should work] together instead of waiting for someone else to take action". There are lots of people taking action in Singapore. Sir, many people have formed groups like Plastic-Lite SG, Zero Waste SG, Tingkat Heroes, and Straw-Free Singapore, organising campaigns and outreach efforts to educate others about how to fight our throw-away culture. This groundswell has also rippled through the private sector.”
“Just two weeks ago, Jo Teo shared on Facebook about her experience at an International Coastal Cleanup organised by Little Green Men: "Today was an eye-opening experience for me. Having done beach cleanups with students, I’ve always thought that our beaches were ok. Not too dirty, maybe an odd piece of litter here and there. Perhaps we’ve always gone to 'cleaned' stretches of beaches." "Today, we were at a small stretch of Chek Jawa that is a little away from the boardwalk area where people typically visit. At first glance, it seemed to be fairly clean, yet in less than two hours, 30 plus of us collected well over 200 kilos of plastic! Plastic is really a HUGE problem! Imagine! We were only cleaning a tiny stretch of coastline perhaps just 50 metres long! What about those still in the water?” We can continue cleaning our shores and continue trapping litter before it enters our waters. But we need to move beyond addressing symptoms of the problem. In August, at the Foreign Ministers' meeting in advance of the East Asia Summit, the Ministers noted that one of the root causes of marine plastic debris is the excessive use of plastic bags. That is the root of the problem, which we must tackle in order to successfully combat marine plastic debris. If every country just focuses on trapping waste before it enters the waters, we will be combating marine plastic debris problem forever. We need to tackle the excessive use of plastic and I hope that Singapore will take the lead in this. In 2016, Singapore discarded 27 billion plastic bags, an average of 13 bags per person per day. This throwaway culture is so deeply ingrained. Even when I bring my own reusable bag to the supermarket, the cashier sometimes puts my groceries first into a plastic bag, and then into my reusable bag.”
“This November, Singapore will host officials from ASEAN countries along with several non-ASEAN countries, to discuss several issues, including a Statement on a Regional Plan of Action on Combatting Marine Plastic Debris. Sir, many of the nations who will gather for this Summit have already demonstrated a firm commitment to action against plastic waste. Indonesia has pledged US$1 billion per year to various initiatives targeting plastic consumption and pollution. Malaysia has just announced their zero-waste plan that aims to abolish single-use plastic by 2030. The whole country or some cities in the United States, India, Myanmar, Australia, South Korea, Cambodia and China have either implemented some form of plastic bag charge or banned plastic bags or other single-use plastic items. Soon, Brunei and New Zealand will join them. Given that much of the world’s ocean plastic originates from here, in this region, our actions can have a truly global impact. Singapore's platform as a regional leader and host of the East Asia Summit gives us the ability and responsibility to step up our own plastic reduction efforts at home and call on every member nation to do the same. Sir, Singapore is doing our part, but I feel we need to, we can and we must do more. We are doing well at tackling the symptoms of the problem. Singapore’s efficient waste management system ensures that litter in our waterways is removed with litter traps before it reaches the sea. But oceans do not follow national borders. Whether the marine litter comes from us here in Singapore or other countries, it still ends up in our food and still washes up on Singapore's shores. And there is a lot of it.”
“Sir, 1.8 not million, not billion but trillion. A recent study found 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic, weighing a total of 80,000 tonnes, currently floating in a stretch of ocean between California and Hawaii. And researchers estimate that humans dump eight million tonnes of plastic in the ocean every year. The facts and statistics are beyond horrifying. As I looked into the problem further, I found video after video of people diving in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) waters full of plastic trash. It was truly disheartening. Sir, I believe that we have reached a turning point for this issue of plastic waste. If we do not do anything about it, there will be more plastic than fish in our ocean by 2050. The plastic does not just stay in the sea. It breaks down, releasing greenhouse gases that worsen global warming. It chokes and kills a million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals every year. And ultimately, it breaks down into microplastics and is eaten by fish, crabs and mussels. This comes back to us on our plates, in our food. It comes back a full circle and our own plastic trash harms us directly. Plastic can no longer be seen just as an environmental problem. It is also a danger to our own health. It must be addressed as an urgent public safety issue. Speaking at the Group of Seven (G7) Summit earlier this year, the United Nations (UN) Secretary General told world leaders that we are facing a "global emergency" over the plastic in our oceans, and that "leadership is needed now, more than ever" to protect "our collective future and security". Thus, I am heartened to see that Singapore is taking the initiative in organising international cooperation on this issue, through the 13th East Asia Summit.”
“Our reputation as a clean, fair and transparent financial hub takes a hit with every mention. Not to mention that the legitimate concerns about money laundering and fraud, and an ever-pervasive problem in a world of complex financial and corporate arrangements. Currently, the Bill provides little guidance on the scenarios in which the Government would investigate VCCs, their managers and their shareholders. It states that any investigations would be in the interest of the public, creditors or the shareholders, or based on allegations of misconduct. It would be good if the Second Minister can further outline the practices, principles, policies and systems it has in place to safeguard against misconduct related to VCCs. Sir, my second point relates to the average Singaporean. In 2016, then Senior Minister of State, and now Second Minister Indranee Rajah, said at a conference of investment management professionals that the introduction of VCCs would create more "good jobs" in the professional services sector, including in accounting, legal, compliance, marketing and information technology. That was quite some time ago. The MAS' public statements in more recent weeks have not addressed similar topics and have instead tailored its message to investment managers. In addition to what Second Minister Indranee said, VCCs will surely contribute to the Singapore economy by paying corporate registration fees, name registration fees, annual filing fees and legal fees. This direct impact can be measured in dollars and cents. Can the Second Minister provide an estimate or outline of the benefits that the establishment of VCCs in Singapore would bring for the average Singaporean? Sir, clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“My concern stems primarily from the fact that unlike regular companies in Singapore, VCCs do not need to disclose their list of shareholders or their financial statements to the public. While this is consistent with how unit trusts are already treated and with what investors expect from an investment fund, it nonetheless limits the level of public scrutiny and places the sole responsibility on the Government to spot and uncover misconduct. We have learnt from the leaks of the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers that highly secretive company structures can hide unlawful activities. These leaks have triggered worldwide investigations and toppled governments. If this Bill succeeds in its goals and investment funds re-domicile from offshore jurisdictions to Singapore, the gaze of the world will inevitably turn towards our nation. How will we distinguish ourselves from places like the Cayman Islands? We should be concerned about the risks to Singapore's international reputation. Fairly or not, Singapore is already widely labelled as a tax haven. In 2016, UK charity Oxfam labelled Singapore the "fifth worst" corporate tax haven in the world. This year, Tax Justice Network, a global non-government organisation (NGO), ranked Singapore fifth on its Financial Secrecy Index. A 2018 research paper by economics professors from Berkeley and Copenhagen also branded Singapore as a tax haven. The risks come amid a sustained global push against tax havens. Entities like the European Union (EU) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have moved to blacklist tax havens, though neither has included Singapore on their lists. But researchers, reporters and NGOs namedrop us when reporting on this issue nonetheless.”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. When investment managers are deciding where to house their funds, they look for three key things: privacy for their investors, flexibility in their operations, and tax exemptions from the Government. Until now, we have had no corporate structure providing all of these features. This means that asset managers based in Singapore have been overseeing funds mostly domiciled in offshore jurisdictions like Cayman Islands. I am happy to say that this Bill plugs the gap. It allows investment funds to use popular global accounting standards rather than just the Singapore standard. It allows non-disclosure of the fund’s investors and financial statements. It allows investors to exit their investments easily. And as the Second Minister clarified in his 2018 Budget Statement, existing tax exemptions will be extended to this new company type. I commend the MAS for taking a consultative approach on this issue. In 2017, it held a public consultation on the issue. Industry observers and interested citizens provided feedback, and the MAS responded by tweaking its proposal. The final product blends sensible Government with industry expertise. That said, I have some clarifications to make. The first point relates to the investigation of VCCs for misconduct. Can the Second Minister clarify in what circumstances would the Ministry investigate the affairs and ownership of a VCC? What are the processes that the Ministry has in place to ensure that VCCs conduct themselves in a lawful manner? I appreciate that the Second Minister has shared some information about this in her opening speech.”
“A quick point to echo what Member of Parliament Zainal Sapari has said whether we really can provide some subsidies for the hawkers at some of these social enterprise hawker centres who are really not doing well. I know they came in knowing what the rental is. But the fact now is that, in contrast to what Assoc Prof Daniel Goh had stated, some of them are really finding it hard to break even – the social enterprises. So, can we provide some help to the hawkers at these social enterprise hawker centres which really are not doing well because of very low footfall?”
“Can I also ask what would be the guidelines used in determining the suitability of locating a smoking facility under section 3B? This would be very important. I raise this as in some of the current eateries where there is a designated smoking area, it really does not matter where you sit as you will get the second-hand smoke whether you are in the designated smoking area or not. Lastly, I refer to the new section 4A which provides authorised officers with certain powers of entry. More specifically, to ascertain if a place has contravened the Act, officers are able to enter, inspect and search places, seize documents or materials, take possession of belongings, and photograph or film without a warrant. A maximum fine of $2,000 is imposed on first offenders and $5,000 on repeat offenders who obstruct authorised officers exercising these powers. While some powers of entry are necessary for effective enforcement and to achieve better outcomes for people affected by second-hand smoke, the scope of powers and the maximum fine imposed might appear to some to be excessive. Further, these powers may be exercised by non-uniformed public officers, as with many of the other Bills passed recently. I understand the need to empower non-uniformed public officers, in this case NEA officers, to help with enforcement. Nonetheless, this has to be balanced against privacy concerns, and I would like to ask what measures would be in place to prevent the abuse of such broad powers. Sir, notwithstanding these comments, I stand in full support of this Bill as it signals a strong resolve by the Government to protect citizens against second-hand smoke. It is a firm step towards our vision of a smoke-free lifestyle in Singapore.”
“We have regulations saying you cannot be naked in your own house. Under section 27A of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, a person cannot be naked in a private space while being exposed to public view. I also want to add that it was reported just last month that the United States (US) implemented a ban on smoking inside public housing to improve indoor air quality, to reduce residents’ exposure to second-hand smoke, and to help smokers to be more successful at quitting. According to a nationwide study they conducted, people who lived in homes where smoking was prohibited were 60% more likely to quit smoking for at least 30 days, compared to people without this prohibition. Next, Sir, in a Facebook comment, Mr Loh shared with me the very common experience of pedestrians forced to breathe in second-hand smoke when they walk behind smokers who smoke while on the move. Chiyoda-ku City in Tokyo has banned smoking while walking. New York City is now also considering a Bill that would similarly prohibit people from smoking while walking on sidewalks. Would the Ministry consider a ban on smoking while walking, which would stamp out the unpleasant situation highlighted by Mr Loh that many of us have faced? Such a ban could be piloted on major streets with heavy pedestrian footfall, such as those in the Central Business District and the Civic District. Further, earlier this year, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor shared that the Ministry is exploring the feasibility of expanding the designated smoking area scheme first implemented in Orchard Road to other parts of Singapore. The Senior Minister of State mentioned this in her opening speech. Can the Ministry provide more updates on this review and share if there are plans to scale up the scheme?”
“Many of my residents complain about being affected by second-hand smoke when their neighbours smoke at their windows or balconies. As HDB units are close to one another, what happens next door inadvertently affects neighbours. For those who live next to, or above, chain smokers, the problem can be very acute. Imagine being exposed to and having to tolerate second-hand smoke from your neighbours every day for years with the only reprieve being moving out altogether. This is the reality faced by some of my residents, which I am sure is shared by many others. I understand that the Act currently covers smoking in private vehicles in cases where windows are not fully wound up and smoke is expelled into smoking prohibited places. I understand that it also covers any area within five metres of windows, exits and entrances to buildings where smoking is prohibited. These restrictions are based on the logic that cigarette smoke can be expelled up to five metres away. As such, applying the same logic, can the law be extended to prohibit smoking in private homes where the smoker is smoking at a window or door within five metres of their neighbour’s windows and doors? This might not be the perfect solution. But my hope is that the Ministry would study this issue further, do a public consultation about it and try to find a middle ground. I appreciate that the Senior Minister of State's reply will be what she said previously, that “Smoking within residential premises, in the home, in private space, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Government.” But we do have regulations that cover what you do in your home, in your own private space. For example, we have regulations that prohibit making excessive noise in your own house.”
“Sir, we have been progressively expanding the list of smoke-free places in Singapore, moving step by step towards our vision of prohibiting smoking in all public places. I understand that NEA’s goal is to move the policy from a prohibitive list to a positive list, which states places where smoking is allowed. This Bill is a step in that direction and I stand in full support of it. As a former smoker who smoked for 17 years, I am passionate about fighting against the dangers of smoking. As a father, I am now doing all I can to protect my three daughters against the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. Eighty-five percent to 90% of the smoke in every cigarette ends up as second-hand smoke and there is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke. The World Health Organization has reported that second-hand smoke contains at least 60 cancer-causing chemicals. Those who are exposed to second-hand smoke face similar health risks as a smoker. These include eye, nose and throat irritations, respiratory tract infections, heart disease and cancer. Children and pregnant women are particularly susceptible to the effects of second-hand smoke. Further, children of smokers are more likely to pick up smoking themselves. Sir, I am in strong support of this Bill and my only hope is that we can do more. We are now doing a lot to protect people from second-hand smoke in public areas. But the concern which Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has just mentioned is that what has been raised also previously in this House is: what are we doing to protect people from second-hand smoke in their own homes? It would seem at odds to protect people from second-hand smoke in the public areas where they spend less time and not protect them at home where they spend more time.”
“I am heartened that the Stamp Duties Act outlines clear penalties against the falsification of records and that the Bill defines terms, such as electronic signatures. Does the Government have plans to go beyond these measures to promote awareness of and address concerns about the security and reliability of using electronic records to execute real estate transactions? In this and in many other digital areas, consumers are charting new waters, and there is enough importance in housing that the Government should provide a lighthouse, if not a map, for the people. Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I am in support of this Bill that keeps our property regulatory framework up to date with developments on the digital frontier.”