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 29 of 37.
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply, but I have also asked how much has been spent on NRP for each year in the last three years. Can I also clarify that the figure that the Senior Minister of State gave of 44,200 tonnes, is that the total amount collected from the Singapore domestic recycling sector or is that the figure that was collected by NRP?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. The issue really is that the officers who are scanning the bags have so much to look out for that it is really difficult for them to also look out for wildlife products. I hope that the Ministry of National Development would seriously consider the proposal to set up a wildlife sniffer dog programme. Secondly, the sniffer dogs are already deployed in our fight against drugs, so why not also use them in our fight against wildlife trafficking?”
“But we now need to make sure that they do not work in a system where they feel they need to be silent, where they feel they need to be "Yes, Sir" men or women and where they feel that nothing will change even if they speak up. Sir, I support this Budget. 5.39 pm”
“So, if you’re a young upstart who is dreaming of doing great things, be prepared to know your place, shut up and just do what your bosses tell you to." "Some people are happy just to be quiet and do as they’re told in exchange for a stable job with good pay and perks. But if you’re the type who wants to be a superhero and change the world, you won’t find the outlet you seek in the service. It’s ironic that MPs are calling for civil servants to be 'less rigid' and to 'think outside the box'. Recently, MP Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, in an interview, even suggested that civil servants give 'cut and paste' answers. Ask any young civil servant and they’ll tell you that their superiors frown upon those who speak up or try to introduce fresh ideas." Sir, we urgently need to change this perception, change this system, recognise that we need to empower our public servants and ensure that the Public Service attracts superheroes and people who want to change the world. We have called for the Public Service to innovate. And Minister Ong Ye Kung told public servants that, "The main obstacle is ourselves". It is, indeed. We, and by "we", I mean us in this House and the senior management in the Public Service – need to make sure that our public servants work in a system where everyone can speak up and where everyone can be heard. Sir, let me end with a quote, as always. In the words of Napoleon, "The world suffers a lot, not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people". Our public servants are good people. As I had shared in my Budget speech last year, "These are a rare breed who devote their lives towards serving Singapore".”
“Some public servants shared that they have regular dialogues with their CEO and Permanent Secretaries. They have pigeonhole sessions where they can share their views openly. Moving forward, we should continue this open and transparent practice of having all-hands staff meetings frequently, where all levels of public servants have direct communication channels with senior management. This should also be made available to all public servants, not just in some Ministries or Statutory Boards. I also suggest that we have an internal Quality Service Manager (QSM) within Ministries and Statutory Boards. We are all aware of the existing roles QSMs play. They focus on external feedback from members of the public. I suggest we put in place internal QSMs to follow up on feedback given by public servants and, similar to how we handle public feedback, they ensure that the feedback is looked into and the loop is closed. They will help give our public servants a voice and ensure that their views, feedback and suggestions are looked into so that the Public Service is strengthened. Sir, whatever I have shared here is what I have heard directly from the public servants themselves and is perhaps not new. These sentiments are already in the public domain and let me share parts of what Joanne Poh wrote a few weeks ago, in a post entitled "Civil Service: The Ins and Outs of the Iron Rice Bowl", where she provided advice on whether a career in the civil service is for you. She said: "While there are many perks of working in the civil service, be prepared to work in an environment that some find stifling. There tends to be a very strict top-down hierarchy where things are done 100% by-the-book.”
“Deputy Prime Minister Teo had said that "leaders receive 360-degree feedback on their leadership qualities when they attend milestone leadership development programmes". Again, many public servants I have spoken to fear a bad appraisal if they speak up, oppose their bosses' views and challenge the status quo. Hence, they do not speak up although their suggestions may, in fact, improve the lives of their fellow countrymen. This current appraisal system does not incentivise risk-taking and innovation, and I suggest we change it. Urgently. So, that is first question I am asked, "Will I get into trouble if I speak up and share my thoughts with you". The second question is, "Even if I meet you and share my thoughts, nothing will change. So, what’s the point?" The second question to be honest is much more troubling than the first. It shows that these public servants have given up. They are thinking: why care? Why try, then get frustrated and then get upset for nothing? We are in danger of becoming what Calvin, in the comic book Calvin and Hobbes, said, "If you care, you just get disappointed all the time. If you don’t care, nothing matters, so you are never upset". We need to make sure that, one, we make it easier for public servants to voice their concerns and, two, make sure that we follow up on the concerns they raise. We need to ensure they feel empowered. Some public servants I met also told me directly that it is almost impossible to feel motivated to do more because mediocrity is rewarded. Status quo is a prized possession. They want to make a difference, which is why they joined the Public Service, but they do not feel empowered to do so. Through these meetings, I also learnt that each Ministry or Statutory Board functions differently.”
“This culture of being afraid, of keeping quiet, of not rocking the boat, is detrimental to the Public Service, to any organisation and, most of all, detrimental to Singapore. This culture results in the loss of good ideas, of better ways of doing things and the loss of good public servants. As the Prime Minister has so rightly said, "I try not to surround myself with 'yes, Sir' men. That is important because if all you have are people who say, 'three bags full, Sir', then, soon, you start to believe them and that is disastrous. You need people who have their own views, whose views you respect, whom you can have a productive disagreement with and work on ideas which you might not have come up with, or who improve on ideas you had". We need to make sure we do not have a Public Service filled with "yes, Sir" men and women. To demolish this culture, we need to break our entrenched processes and bureaucracy – the same entrenched processes and bureaucracy Minister Ong Ye Kung spoke about at the Public Service Conference in 2017. We urgently need to cut the extremely long red tape that may be frustrating not just for members of the public but also our public servants. One suggestion from the public servants is a revamp of the appraisal system, which, they feel, prevents them from speaking up. I suggest that we redesign the Public Service appraisal system by studying the 360-degree appraisal review used by the private sector in MNCs like Google and Alibaba. This will allow employees to review and grade their direct managers, resulting in a holistic 360-degree review, instead of just a one-way top-down appraisal system. We do have some 360-degree appraisals currently but I understand that this is not regular and does not seem to include all public servants.”
“This fear is troubling, extremely troubling. In fact, Sir, after I delivered my Budget speech about the Public Service last year, there were Facebook comments and I received messages telling me to be careful, I will get into trouble for speaking up too much. My sister was also passing me messages from her friends, telling me to be careful. I made it a point to publicly say that I did not get into trouble for speaking up, that this fear is mythical. Having said that, this fear of speaking up, whether we want to acknowledge it or accept it, is very real. A panel of academics and former senior civil servants echoed the same sentiments at a forum last year, "that Singapore needs more people to speak up and challenge authority. They lamented the reluctance of civil servants to pose contrarian views when facing political office holders". But Prime Minister's wish for Singapore is that we "be blessed with a 'divine discontent' ─ always not quite satisfied with what we have, always driven to do better". We do have this "divine discontent" but what we need to work on is ensuring we are able to hear it and that people are not afraid to speak up, that they do not accept the status quo and that they will fight for changes that will lead to an even better Singapore. This fear of showing this "divine discontent" was also present in my meetings with the public servants. I remember one sharing his views during the meeting, which was contrary to mine and halfway through he stopped and said, "Actually, I’m feeling quite afraid of opposing your views, as you are a Member of Parliament. And I realise that, subconsciously, I started my sentence by saying 'With all due respect, Sir', in the hope that you will be less offended with what I was about to say".”
“Sir, I am thankful for a Budget which is forward-looking and focuses not only on the dollars and cents but, very importantly, also on the heartware of this nation, about caring for others, about looking after those who have helped to build Singapore. This year, I have 18 specific recommendations for the Government and have filed 18 cuts. These recommendations, however, are not mine but those of members of the public and civil society organisations. Together, we have brainstormed, edited and edited and edited and crystalised them into these 18 recommendations. My heartfelt thanks to members of the public and groups, such as Architects of Life, Autoimmune Illness Support Group Singapore, Singapore Youth for Climate Action, AWARE and TWC2. I thank them wholeheartedly for being a part of this. Sir, in my speech last year, I spoke about the Public Service. The Public Service is the heart of our entire system; they play a crucial role. The success of this Budget and Singapore relies heavily on them and, this year, I will again focus my speech on how we can strengthen our Public Service. In the past year, I have reached out to public servants through closed door dialogue sessions to better understand their concerns, the difficulties they face and their aspirations. I am grateful that they have shared their views with me very honestly and candidly. Almost without fail, I will be asked two questions: the first is, "Will I get into trouble if I speak up and share my thoughts with you?" And for those we met, there is a general consensus that people will get into trouble if they speak up in the Public Service. They fear that they will be labelled as troublemakers, that their bosses will get angry; they fear that it will affect their appraisal and their promotion.”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. IMDA has also stated that it would be conducting a full investigation into the incident where the postman was dismissed for throwing away mail. Can the Minister share what the scope of the investigation is and, based on this investigation, if SingPost will be further reviewing the workload of postmen and postwomen? Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: IMDA is doing the investigations. I do not have the details as yet. But once we are finished with the investigations, we will communicate the outcome to SingPost. And if there are further remedial measures that SingPost will have to take, we will ask SingPost to comply with them. At the end of the day, as I have mentioned earlier, we control the outcome through our Quality of Service standards and, if there are lapses in SingPost, we will have to deal with it accordingly. 11.30 am”
“Can I ask the Minister of State when is the next time this regulation is going to be reviewed? And during that review, whether MOM will consider adopting a system of workplace injury reporting similar to those of the United States (US), UK and Australia?”
“I thank the Minister of State for the response. I just have two supplementary questions. How does MOM know whether there is currently under-reporting of workplace injuries? Second, has MOM come across cases where doctors issue less than three days of medical certificate (MC), so that the employer does not need to report the work injury to MOM, and what steps MOM will be taking to address this?”
“Just one last question. We talk about over-crowding and I cannot see a reason why whether a person is related or not would determine whether the place is over-crowded. If there are nine people staying in there who are related, it would still be over-crowded, even if the nine people were unrelated. So, can the Minister clarify why there is this point about whether they are related or not, in terms of deciding whether it is over-crowded?”
“I also asked in the Parliamentary Question about the minimum space standard. Can the Minister clarify why we are not going to publish this minimum space standard? This is what is actually being done in the European Union and Canada already.”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. Will the Minister consider using this maximum number of occupants allowed in a flat that is being rented out as the same criteria to be applied when the single unwed parent or a divorcee is considered whether they can live with their parents or family members as an alternative accommodation? I am suggesting this as this would make sense if the family wanted to rent out the flat and they are not allowed to because they have met the maximum number of occupant limits and would be considered overcrowded. Then, surely, the same family cannot provide accommodation to their child or siblings who are single, unwed or divorced.”
“Could I check where would the ash be disposed of? The second question is whether we considered renewable energy instead. Minister Ong Ye Kung has replied to the earlier Parliamentary Question about how that is a growing sector and whether the Ministry of Trade and Industry will consider that instead of this coal gasification plant.”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. I have two supplementary questions. One is, how will the substantive amount of ash be disposed of, specifically the fly ash, as this is known to be hazardous? Second, which is important, is how do we reconcile the different messages we are sending to the public now? On one hand, we are saying it is a Year of Climate Action to reduce our carbon footprint but, on the other hand, we are opening up this coal gasification plant which will increase our carbon footprint?”
“These include restrictions on place of residence, reporting requirements, restrictions on leaving Singapore and curfew requirements. The rationale provided is that this provides the Minister more flexibility to impose obligations and restrictions on criminal law Police supervision. Given how intrusive some of these measures may be, it would be more desirable for these restrictions to remain under the principal Act where it can be subject to legislative scrutiny. Can the Minister elaborate on the circumstances that have prompted the move of these restrictions into subsidiary legislation? Are there specific situations in which these powers have proven to be inadequate in providing supervision and what are some examples of further powers that may additionally be required? Lastly, the new section 47(5A) will extend Police powers to investigate an arrestable offence under section 33(3) to CNB officers. As I raised during the Second Reading of the Immigration (Amendment) Bill last month, extending Police powers to Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officers and now CNB officers are an expansion of Executive powers that should always be done cautiously. Can the Minister clarify if these amendments were prompted by challenges faced by the Police in responding adequately to section 33(3) offences? Sir, I note with appreciation the Government's repeated assertions that the powers under the Act will be exercised judiciously. In the spirit of "public safety, peace and good order", I stand in support of this Bill, but I urge the Government to exercise its powers under the CLTPA with great restraint, to provide full GDs, to take into account recommendations of the Advisory Committees, and to also provide reasons when recommendations are not accepted.”
“If this has happened several times, my concern is that the objective of an independent advisory committee is undermined if a significant number of recommendations not to detain are ignored. Why might the decision be made against adopting recommendations of the Committee which would have made its recommendation after scrutinising the investigations and documentary evidence, hearing the detainees present their case, and examining the detainees, investigating officers and witnesses? Can the Minister provide some examples as to why a recommendation is not accepted? Also, where its recommendations are not accepted, can reasons be publicly made for such a decision? Another question raised is why there is a need for the CLTPA to cover the offences under the Fourth Schedule when these are already dealt with under their respective legislation? During the last renewal of the CLTPA, Minister S Iswaran, and today Minister Shanmugan as well, had explained that the CLTPA is intended to complement the other legislation like the OCA and Misuse of Drugs Act by addressing situations where it is not possible to prosecute persons in Court because witnesses are fearful or unwilling to testify. One suggestion put to me is whether the other legislation can be amended to address the difficulty in securing witness testimony in open Court. Has the Ministry studied other solutions for addressing this problem which will lessen the need to rely on the powers under the CLTPA? Next, the current sections 33 and 34 set out the restrictions on persons subject to a PSO. The Bill amendments will have the effect of moving these restrictions into subsidiary legislation. Many of these restrictions involve significant limitations on an individual’s personal liberty and freedom of movement.”
“Sir, the need to extend the CLTPA every five years is an important safeguard which ensures Parliamentary scrutiny to ensure there is continuing need for the Executive to exercise the exceptional powers under the CLTPA. It bears reminding that the power to detain without trial under the Act is a significant exception to the fundamental rule of law principle enshrined under Article 9 of our Constitution that no person should be deprived of liberty without a fair trial. Indeed, during the Second Reading debate in 2013 when the Act was last renewed, Minister S Iswaran provided the guarantee that “the Government will always make a rigorous case based on a thorough assessment of all circumstances and the criminal landscape each time we seek Parliament’s approval to extend the CLTPA”. While I understand the continuing public order and security pressures that justify the exercise of these powers, we should never forget the extraordinary nature of the CLTPA and closely examine the grounds for the Act every time it comes up for renewal. My Facebook post seeking public feedback on the Bill has generated a fair bit of comments. These amendments clearly concern many Singaporeans and I would like to raise four points for clarification, many of which come directly from members of the public. The first point was about the judicial review and I am glad that the Minister has clarified this in his speech. That will allay a lot of the concerns on the ground. My second point is on the Advisory Committee. Can the Minister provide information on the number of cases over the past five years in which the Advisory Committees make a recommendation not to detain but this recommendation was not accepted?”
“I understand that the information has been published on the PUB website. But as many in this group are older in their years or less educated, they may need additional assistance navigating these changes and I hope that the Senior Minister of State and the Ministry will consider this. Next, I also understand that LWSPs are required to attend a mandatory refresher course once every three years. Will sanitary plumbers, once under the new LP scheme, be also required to take this course? Lastly, from the consumers' point of view and as many Members have raised, let us, say, if I am renovating my house and need a plumber, how would I know if my usual plumber has obtained a new licence? Would the new LPs carry around a card? Furthermore, let us, say, if I need repairs for the water pipe in my house, how would I know if I am required to engage the services of an LP or if a freelance handyman would suffice? Notwithstanding the above clarification, Sir, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Sir, I welcome this move to revise the licence for this LWSP scheme requiring all sanitary plumbers to be licensed under a new LP scheme, along with water service plumbers. Efforts to streamline regulations and combine both types of plumbers under a single scheme can only lead to enhance professionalism for the plumbing industry. Enhanced professionalism of our plumbers can only lead to a more reliable water system with fewer faults. These points will benefit all Singaporeans and I stand in support of this Bill. I understand that the interim period given to plumbers to undergo training for the new licence is six months from 1 April to 30 September this year. After this period, plumbers who have not undergone additional training will not be able to offer their services. I would like to ask how this six-month duration was determined and the factors considered to ensure that this length of time is sufficient. The Senior Minister of State had mentioned earlier that 96% of plumbers will be able to obtain their new licence. But can the Senior Minister of State also confirm that the other 4% will be able to complete their training and obtain a new licence by the deadline of 30 September? Next, I would also like to ask what steps PUB had taken to ensure that our nation's plumbers have been well-informed of these changes and what steps will be taken to ensure a smooth transition for this group. Were stakeholder consultations conducted prior to the Bill and, if so, what were some of the concerns raised and how were they addressed? Other groups which I believe would be affected that the Senior Minister of State had also mentioned include the handymen who want to upgrade themselves and obtain a plumber's licence.”
“For instance, SMEs may face challenges of cost, lack of resources, lack of time, or difficulty in implementing existing sustainability indicators that are too complicated to be adopted or too high level for practical usage by small companies. Sustainable growth is possible for SMEs. Founded by Susan Chong in 2002, Greenpac is a multi-million dollar business that provides eco-friendly packaging to Fortune 500 companies. What we need is a concerted effort to push the sustainability agenda for SMEs, and Enterprise Singapore, as the leading agency for SMEs, would be well-placed for that. Can the Minister share what plans Enterprise Singapore has to support SMEs’ adoption of sustainable business practices? Sir, I believe that Enterprise Singapore can be greater than the sum of its parts and support the move, which demonstrates a whole-of-Government approach in responding to future developments and challenges. Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“For instance, the Singapore Exchange (SGX) has made it mandatory for all listed companies to report their environmental, social and governance practices from 2018 onwards on a "comply or explain" basis. Beyond large listed companies, we can do more to increase uptake of sustainable business practices by SMEs which are the biggest employers and contribute to the bulk of growth. SMEs make up 99% of our enterprises. Individual efforts by SMEs to adopt sustainable practices would, collectively, represent an enormous leap forward. To be sure, there are moves in that direction. SMEs are part of the supply chain for listed companies and would be impacted by SGX regulations. I also applaud initiatives by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), such as increasing funding for SMEs to green their premises, providing free feasibility assessments against BCA Green Mark standards, and piloting the Behavioural Change Programme to encourage building users to adopt sustainable behaviours. Another initiative is the Energy Efficiency fund, which supports businesses, including SMEs, in identifying and undertaking energy efficiency retrofits. We need more of such initiatives that are specifically targeted towards SMEs. In 2010, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) stressed that "the prospects and strategies for a green growth economy cannot be entirely understood without taking fully into account the production, technology and management practices of SMEs". Sustainability efforts may need to be tailored to meet the needs of SMEs.”
“Can the Minister provide an update on its efforts and clarify whether Enterprise Singapore will be the principal agency managing all SME accounts, moving forward? Also, during Question Time in September 2017, the Minister had alluded to the challenges in synthesising the missions of two organisations and the concern that one may prevail over the other. With this focus on overseas expansion, small firms may have concerns of being neglected. The concern was articulated by SBF's Teo Siong Seng who had voiced the concern of whether micro-enterprises, such as mom-and-pop shops in HDB estates, will be ignored in the process. Minister Iswaran has articulated an inclusive mission to "create globally competitive Singapore enterprises" which will apply "to the whole range of enterprises from startups to scale-ups and large local enterprises". He has emphasised that there would be "no dilution or diminution in terms of the services rendered to the wide swathe of SMEs that we have in our ecosystem". While this is heartening to hear, can the Minister share what concrete plans it has to ensure that small and micro-enterprises are not neglected? I would also like to highlight the need to include sustainability as part of the conversation on the growth of SMEs. At the Singapore Apex Corporate Sustainability Awards in 2017, Minister Heng stated that pursuing sustainability is a "matter of survival" for businesses. As highlighted by Minister Heng, "studies show that sound sustainability standards lower a company's cost of capital and result in better operational performance. Investor demands and customer expectations are increasingly favouring sustainable businesses." Environmentally and socially sustainable growth has been receiving greater attention.”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill, which will consolidate and coordinate Government efforts in nurturing a vibrant ecosystem for SMEs. I wish to raise just four points for clarification and consideration. As the Minister would be aware, a recent survey by QBE Insurance that was published just last week, found that only 14% of SMEs intend to expand overseas while 45% have no plans to internationalise soon. Insufficient funding, unfamiliarity with foreign markets, concerns about competition in foreign markets were some of the reasons cited. Enterprise Singapore has the mandate of supporting our enterprises in internationalising. How does the Minister intend to respond to these findings? The merger of SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore is a significant undertaking and Minister Iswaran has emphasised that the priority is to "ensure a smooth transition". Assurance had been given that, in the transition period, support for SMEs will not be affected and companies can continue to apply to SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore for assistance under the existing programmes. At the same time, Enterprise Singapore is intended to streamline existing grants and provide a comprehensive suite of support from a single agency. Can the Minister share whether he foresees any issues in harmonising the programmes of the two agencies and what steps will be taken to reduce any inconveniences to the companies? Further, I understand that SME accounts are currently managed by different agencies. The Minister had highlighted efforts to streamline the account management so that there is a principal agency managing a particular relationship with a company, whether it is EDB, IE Singapore or SPRING Singapore.”
“I have residents who are 90-year-old grandparents who check their email and WhatsApp constantly. To them, technology is no longer just a novelty, but an integral part of daily life. Unfortunately, these residents are the most vulnerable to hacking. Would CSA work with the People's Association (PA) to develop programmes to teach the fundamentals of cybersecurity? Finally, I would like to ask MCI whether there are plans to amend the Bill to require all hacked companies to report breaches. This would give CSA greater visibility on the types of hacks that are happening in Singapore. Rather than waiting for a CII to be attacked, CSA might be able to identify trends and take preventative measures. This will also prevent incidents from going unreported, for example, like the Equifax breach in the US, which resulted in the sensitive data of 145 million citizens being stolen, or Uber paying off hackers who had stolen customer information. After all, every day that a breach goes unreported is another day that people are at risk of identity theft or credit theft. Sir, in conclusion, I stand in support of the Bill. Anything we can do to improve our national resilience to outside threats is a positive step. But let us not forget that thousands of SMEs and millions of Singaporeans still do not know how to stay safe in cyberspace. We will never be truly resilient unless all of us, collectively as Singaporeans, can effectively mitigate the risks of being online.”
“As many have mentioned, last year, thousands were affected when WannaCry ransomware hit our shores. But the threat can come from within Singapore, too. Singapore hosts 1.6% of all the malware in the world, which is an astronomical amount considering that our island holds only a very small fraction of the world's population. The very fact that we are a connected and smart country means that we are more at risk to cyberattacks. An idea to start with is with our young ones. The UK, for example, has set aside £20 million to fund co-curricular activity (CCA) clubs in schools that focus on cybersecurity training. This not only teaches children how to be good online citizens, but it also creates a pipeline of future cybersecurity specialists. Would MCI and CSA consider working with the Ministry of Education (MOE) on this? Another possibility would be to provide grants to SMEs to beef up their cybersecurity awareness. Many businessmen may be unaware that being hacked could ruin their company. A recent survey conducted by QBE insurance found that only 23% of all surveyed SMEs are concerned about security of sensitive data while 35% of smaller SMEs have no cyber protection at all. Smaller companies do not have large IT footprints but will face serious operational risks if their systems were down. Precision engineering firms would not be able to continue to manufacture if they were attacked by ransomware. Others would lose customers if customer data was to be hacked. Would MCI and CSA work with SPRING Singapore or the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) to help SMEs and startups pay for anti-virus software or hire consultants for cybersecurity reviews? Next, we can explore ways to do more for our most vulnerable residents – the older generation.”
“Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. Singapore runs on computers. Everything from our transport system and fire departments to our hospitals and military relies on the availability of sustained access to computer systems and networks. This also means that a successful cyberattack on our CII would not simply pose a threat to our way of life but could seriously endanger our national security. Therefore, I applaud MCI and CSA's efforts to develop the resilience needed to ensure that when we are attacked, we will stay strong. I have seen how technology, used in the right way, has uplifted people. Ride-sharing and food delivery applications have given many people a new outlet for income, and entrepreneurs have embraced e-commerce to expand their market. Technology has helped many to climb the socio-economic ladder. Ensuring our CIIs are resilient to a large-scale cyberattack is important. But there is more to who we are as a country than just 11 critical sectors. Small businesses must be resilient to hacks and learn how to maintain business operations, but regular Singaporeans should also be armed with tools to stay safe online. A 2015 survey published by IT Security firm ESET notes that although 76% of Singaporeans know of some precautions to take when going online, only 44% actually do anything about it. So, how can we help our SMEs, our Instagram influencers and first-time e-retailers stay safe and be able to continue their business operations when they are hacked? How can we help the older generation, the aunties and uncles, to learn the best practices of using the Internet so that they can avoid becoming victims of cybercrimes? The risks that regular people face online are increasing.”
“Thus, it appears that SMEs, by their very nature, are better placed to embrace innovation and position their businesses to adapt to changes rapidly, in line with the principles of the Bill. If we are structuring the tax incentives to largely allow for bigger companies to meet the criteria, can the Minister clarify how this is in line with the principles of the Bill? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications and suggestions for the Minister's consideration, I support the Bill.”
“Can the Minister provide data over the past three years on the relationship between the number of foreign MNCs with a regional office in Singapore which are enjoying such tax incentives and the percentage of Singaporeans in managerial positions in these MNCs? Mr Fong clarified that this query is not coming from a place of an anti-foreigner sentiment, but it is taking a practical approach as, logically, MNCs would enjoy significant costs savings, from such tax incentive schemes and general manpower costs savings, if they are able to upskill Singaporeans over a period of time and transfer these skills from expatriate foreigners to Singaporeans. Third, on a broader practical level, how do these legislative amendments and various schemes and incentives from Government agencies, such as EDB and the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) Singapore, all work together from the perspective of an SME which wishes to take advantage of these available tools? From the Minister's reply in 2016, I understand that for the current PC Incentive scheme, between 2011 and 2015, only two out of 71 PCs were awarded to SMEs, of which only one was a local SME. The explanation then was that PC application requires companies to commit to economic contributions of a substantive scale. Hence, it is natural that bigger companies qualify. Keeping in mind that the principle behind this Bill and the Act is to put in place tax incentives to encourage innovation, I wish to ask whether there are ways in which our SMEs can benefit from these amendments. Smaller companies are able to respond and react to market conditions and remain agile and flexible.”
“I note that the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) published a table stating that IDI incorporates the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD's) Base Erosion and Profit Shifting reports (BEPS)-compliant modified nexus approach and it is meant to encourage the exploitation of IP arising from R&D activities. Can the Minister clarify how the IDI works in practice with the legislative amendments in this Bill? On the point of BEPS, I understand from a Facebook feedback by Mr Gregg Fong that as a result of the BEPS framework, tax authorities globally have put in place more stringent rules to ensure taxpayers pay their fair share of taxes. Therefore, it is unwise to assume that tax incentives remain attractive for MNCs in this post-BEPS era, and now, more so than ever, tax incentives need to make business sense for MNCs and economic sense for Singapore. In this context, the queries raised by Mr Fong are: how do these Bill amendments and the existing broader tax incentive schemes fit in with Singapore's broader strategic goals? Mr Fong pointed out that, historically, the initial intention of tax incentives was to attract top MNCs to invest in Singapore, and this worked very well. The tax incentives were then gradually tweaked as Singapore’s economy grew. Can the Minister explain how the current amendments adjust the tax incentives such that they remain relevant and are aligned with Singapore's current strategic goals? And can the Minister clarify what these amendments will mean for companies which did invest and are continually investing in Singapore? Also, do the existing tax incentive schemes and these amendments ensure fair employment opportunities for Singaporeans in managerial positions?”
“I raised a related point in 2016 during the previous iteration of the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill on the need to have clearer qualifying criteria for PC and DEI. Then, Minister Lim Hng Kiang replied that it is a balance between clarity, transparency and ensuring we remain flexible and responsive to the increasingly complex economic environment. I understand the Minister's point, but I have two follow-up queries. One, I think responsiveness can be achieved through the mechanism of legislative amendments, which allows the Government to continually review the incentives and schemes to maintain their relevance. This possibly explains why we are legislating amendments to the Act via this Bill within a relatively short period of time from the last amendment in March 2016. Two, flexibility may also be achieved through the actual operative provisions in the Bill, instead of relying on broad definitions of a key term. To my mind, it is a tenuous argument to rely on flexibility to justify why the definition of an important term, such as IP Income, should be left to the Minister to prescribe. Hence, will the Minister consider including a specific clear definition of IP Income within the Bill? Second, can the Minister clarify how the amendments relating to the exclusion of IP income as stated in clause 5 of the Bill fit into the new IP regime administered by EDB, named IDI announced during the 2017 Singapore Budget?”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. It is encouraging that the Government continues to support companies through tax reliefs. However, I would like to seek some clarifications and offer some suggestions. First, clause 2 of the Bill amends section 3 of the Act by inserting a new definition of "Intellectual Property Income". This is defined as "any intellectual property income prescribed by the Minister under section 102". Section 102 of the Act, amongst other things, empowers the Minister to make regulations that may be necessary or expedient for purposes of carrying out provisions of the Act. Can the Minister clarify why the meaning of IP Income is not specifically defined within the Bill? What are the assessment criteria that will be considered by the Minister in prescribing a particular income as IP Income? Will this be based on quantitative or qualitative data? The reason I am asking is because greater transparency and less ambiguity in the legislation itself will only enable Pioneer Service Companies and Development and Expansion Companies to better understand what constitutes IP Income and, correspondingly, whether their activities will fall under the tax incentive scheme. I understand that EDB does publish guidelines from time to time on its website, such as guidelines related to the Pioneer Certificate Incentive (PC) and DEI. However, if the principle behind the Act and this Bill is to encourage companies to grow capabilities, develop high-value and substantive economic activities, through tax reliefs, then it is crucial for companies to have a clear understanding of what the parameters are for them to qualify for tax reliefs. A clear understanding will allow companies to better plan their business and growth strategies.”
“But in line with the spirit of the Bill to increase transparency, could we also disclose this information to members of the co-op and even members of the public? Greater transparency on how co-ops are governed would be in line with the general objectives of this Bill. Lastly, I refer to clause 44 which empowers the Registrar or an authorised person to inspect documents and information. As with many of the recent Bills, we are providing extended powers usually reserved for the Police, for example, to enter and search premises without warrant, take "any relevant things" and retain it for as long as is deemed necessary. Clause 63 also makes it an offence for individuals who delay or obstruct the discharge of the Registrar's duties. I wonder if these extended powers are necessary, and hope the Minister can provide clarifications on why this is needed. Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Sir, the cooperative movement in Singapore reached a significant milestone two years ago, celebrating its 90th birthday. There has been a steady increase in the number of co-operatives in Singapore serving a variety of needs, a strong recognition of the effectiveness of the cooperative business model. It is heartening to see members of the public coming together to support each other in a spirit of self-help and mutual assistance, and the Government must do all it can to support this ecosystem. I support the Bill's bid to enact tougher rules to ensure co-operatives, the members and their funds are not abused for personal benefits. I would like to seek just a few clarifications. Firstly, I would also like to commend clause 17 in the Bill for promoting inclusivity, by allowing groups such as the mentally disabled and younger people to be members of co-ops. As an entity addressing social needs, co-ops are well-placed to lead the way in demonstrating how doing good can also mean doing well. Next, I refer to the new section 32C, which requires credit societies to inform the Registrar of any new developments or changed circumstances. However, the Bill does not specify any penalties for failing to do so. To ensure credit societies comply with these new rules, should we not also impose punitive measures? In addition, I would like to raise a point about the new section 9A, which allows the Registrar to modify the terms and conditions of the registration of a society at any time. Similarly, the new section 16BB empowers the Registrar to modify terms and conditions for a non-credit society to become a credit society and vice versa. I understand that the Registrar must notify the society in writing informing them about the changes.”
“I have read the Ministry's response to feedback received through REACH and have found it to be very comprehensive. Each comment received a detailed reply. It also showed that feedback received from the public was well-researched and proved to be constructive. I hope that more Bills will undergo similar public engagement, something that I firmly believe will help us to draft the best Bill. Sir, these changes will strengthen accountability and public trust in our charity sector, and can only reap benefits for beneficiaries that we are trying to support. I stand in support of the Bill, and I am sorry, Sir, I forgot to declare at the onset. I declare my interest as the Chief Executive of a charity.”
“" Many of these charities and IPCs depend on volunteers and donations from private fundraising activities. There may be a dampening effect on fundraising for these charities, often already faced with additional barriers to fundraising, such as the 80:20 rule. These charities promote the Singapore spirit of generosity in some of the most difficult places, and should receive our fullest support. I also raise the issue of crowdfunding, which has proven to be an effective platform for the needy, but have also suffered a few cases of malpractice. I understand that the Commissioner will be issuing a new code of practice for crowdfunding, but I would like to ask the reason for not including these changes into the Charity Act and thus making them mandatory. On support for charities, I refer to the recent Charity Transparency Awards, noting that only 41 out of the possible hundreds or even thousands of charities assessed by the Charity Council made the cut on disclosure and transparency. This suggests that there is room for the majority of charities in Singapore to enhance their performance in the criteria assessed, such as financial management, internal control, fundraising management and conflict of interest. I suspect that this is because most charities are resource-strapped. Just like ACRES, we often rely on volunteers, a very small pool of full-time staff members and limited funding, and are often busy fighting day-to-day fires. Has the Ministry looked at ways we can better support charities, other than those that the Minister had mentioned in the Opening speech, especially the smaller ones? Finally, I would like to commend MCCY for its efforts to engage the public which I hope will become commonplace.”
“First, the revised definition of "fundraising appeal" as proposed in clause 10 may have a dampening effect on funding for the charity sector. Based on feedback I received and also via Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH), there were questions raised about whether an "appeal" includes unsolicited funds. There were also questions on what "a confined group of persons" mean. Would this refer to private fundraising activities? I understand the Minister had provided some examples earlier but how do we define small-scale private fundraising? And these small-scale private fundraising activities are commonplace in the charity sector, for example, a bake sale at a company event, or a birthday party. Surely, the law will not extend to these cases as well. I hope that the Ministry be clear on certain types of fundraising appeals which can be exempted from which provisions in this Act. Furthermore, charities raising funds for foreign purposes need to apply for a permit, and this requirement now extends to private events. Application permits are an administrative hassle and, unless the application process can be simplified, I fear that this may not bode well for charities which conduct activities abroad, such as humanitarian charities. As I mentioned in my Budget cut last year, "The Government is providing funds to help firms scale-up and internationalise and helping build capabilities to operate overseas. We should do the same for our IPCs. We should support our local IPCs who internationalise, who fly the Singapore flag proudly overseas and who lend a helping hand to our neighbours. Let us not be seen to just venture into other countries to compete, to take but also to give and to help.”
“Sir, this Bill is timely to restore the public's trust in Singapore's charity sector, after a few high-profile scandals in the past years, which shocked the nation. I am heartened to see that there is constant review of the Charities Act, with the last one just seven years ago, and that we continually seek to strengthen accountability in this sector. I have the privilege of starting my own charity 17 years ago when I was a little boy. Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES) has a gone a long way since our birth in 2001 in my bedroom in my parents' house. I actually never told my parents I used our home address as the first ACRES address but I guess now is a good time to tell them. I can tell you that it is not easy starting and running a charity in Singapore and, in fact, many said I would fail when I first started ACRES. As a charity fully dependent on donations, I am aware of the difficulties local charities face in raising funds to sustain their operations. It would be a great pity to see a rare few black sheep wreak distrust in the charity sector, hampering the necessary work of more than 2,000 registered charities in Singapore. Fundraising success depends on the goodwill of the public, and goodwill is often very fragile, dependent on the level of trust held by the public that the dollar donated makes a positive impact on the lives of the beneficiaries. Trust hangs by a thread and, once broken, is terribly difficult to restore. Thus, I am encouraged that constant reviews and amendments of the Charities Act help to prevent errant behaviour and ultimately, protect the good work of the vast majority of charities in Singapore. However, parts of the Bill may have the contrary effect of hampering the charity sector due to the lack of clarity.”
“Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“If so, to avoid misinterpretation of intent, can I suggest that the following language be adopted instead: "For the avoidance of doubt, the Singapore International Commercial Court (being a division of the High Court) has jurisdiction under subsection (1) to hear any proceedings relating to international commercial arbitration that the High Court may hear and that satisfy such conditions as the Rules of Court may prescribe." Next, clause 4(b) of the Bill seeks to delete section 80(2A)(c) of the Act and substituting it with the following: "to prescribe, for the purpose of section 18D(2), what constitutes an international commercial arbitration, and any conditions that any proceedings must satisfy before that Court may hear those proceedings." Essentially, within the context of section 80(2A) of the Act, if the amendment is passed, Rules of Court may be made to define what an International Commercial Arbitration is for the purpose of the proposed section 18D(2). The IAA already has several references to the term "international commercial arbitration". I think it is fairly clear what an arbitration is. Section 5(2) of the IAA sets out when an arbitration is international. Finally, when it comes to defining the term "commercial", the footnote of Article 1(1) of the First Schedule of the IAA mandates a wide interpretation and provides guidance as to what amounts to relationships of a commercial nature. Given the approach that has been adopted in primary legislation, is there a need for the current amendment whereby Rules of Court may be made to set out what may constitute an International Commercial Arbitration? Is there a possibility that such Rules of Court may adopt a separate definition and create difficulty with the approach taken in the IAA?”
“Clause 2 of the Bill seeks, among other things, to introduce the following sub-section to section 18D: "Without limiting subsection (1), the Singapore International Commercial Court (being a division of the High Court) has jurisdiction to hear any proceedings relating to international commercial arbitration that the High Court may hear and that satisfy such conditions as the Rules of Court may prescribe." Within the context of International Commercial Arbitrations, recourse to the High Court is available under the International Arbitration Act. Given that such recourse to the High Court is already provided for in the International Arbitration Act and section 18 of the Act already provides that the SICC has jurisdiction where the High Court has jurisdiction, why is there a need for this amendment? I note from the Explanatory Statement of the Bill that the amendments sought are to, among other things, "provide for clarity that SICC has jurisdiction to hear any proceedings relating to international commercial arbitration that the High Court may hear", but is this necessary given the current language of section 18D of the Act? My concern is that the proposed amendments may be interpreted as conferring additional jurisdiction to the SICC when this is not the intention. Can it be clarified that this amendment does not seek to confer additional jurisdiction but simply to clarify the jurisdiction that the SICC already has?”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. This Bill relates to proposed amendments to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. It deals with matters relating to the operation and jurisdiction of the SICC. The SICC was officially launched in 2015. The idea behind it was to grow the legal service sector, and to internationalise and export Singapore law. Since its launch, we have seen several cases go through the SICC, and it is important that legislation be updated to promote its efficiency. Similar to the point that Mr Murali Pillai had made, I would like to ask if the Senior Minister of State can confirm the rationale for removing the pre-action certificate and also whether there will be alternative procedures in place available to parties to now obtain early determination of these jurisdictional issues. Next, the other primary amendment that the Bill seeks to pass relates to section 18D of the Act, which deals with the jurisdiction of the SICC. It is in this context that I seek certain clarification. As currently formulated under section 18 of the Act, the SICC has jurisdiction to hear and try actions that satisfy all of the following conditions: (a) the action is international and commercial in nature; (b) the action is one that the High Court may hear and try in its original civil jurisdiction; and (c) the action satisfies such other conditions as the Rules of Court may prescribe.”
“Credit Counselling Singapore is a debt charity that has done commendable work through counselling, facilitating debt restructuring and education on credit management. I urge the Government to increase its support for and promote the work of such organisations to provide individuals with alternatives to illegal moneylending. Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“However, loan-shark advertisements through SMS messages remain common. Does the Ministry have plans to step up efforts to clamp down on such illegal advertising and to help the layperson distinguish between licensed and unlicensed moneylenders? Such efforts must be appropriately targeted, recognising that those who turn to loan sharks may have lower literacy skills. Awareness-raising must also dispel the false belief that only those who are involved in illegal activities like gambling or drugs turn to loan sharks when, in fact, "ordinary" people from all walks of life can be entangled with illegal moneylending. Further, can the Minister clarify whether platforms that are not themselves moneylenders but connect people to other moneylenders are covered under the Registrar’s direction on advertising? For instance, can a search aggregator that compares moneylenders advertise through sponsored links or online advertisements which are not permitted for licensees themselves? Allowing such advertising would seem to circumvent the objectives of regulating moneylender advertisements. On the recommendations of the ACML which formed the bases for these amendments, the Ministry had indicated that it will review the recommendations to create guidelines for acceptable debt collection practices at a later stage. Does the Ministry have a timeline for the review of these recommendations? Lastly, to complement its efforts in regulating the supply-side of borrowing, it is also important for the Government to address the demand for credit by providing support for vulnerable borrowers. There are two dimensions to this problem – preventing individuals from getting into problem debt in the first place and helping those who are in debt to regain control of their finances.”
“Would there not be similar, if not greater, need for oversight over individual licensees who may not have the same technical ability as MLCB in maintaining security arrangements? On the same note, will the Ministry be providing technical guidance to support licensees in protecting these sensitive data? Next, can the Minister also clarify what duties a public agency that obtains borrowers' information and data under section 30ZC are under to protect that information? Would the information be available to anyone within the public agency, or only the individuals or departments requiring the information for policy formulation? This is of concern, especially because public agencies which are specified in the Personal Data Protection (Statutory Bodies) Notification 2013 are excluded from data protection obligations in PDPA 2012. Instead, public agencies are subject to relevant internal Government rules and sector-specific legislation as stated in the PDPC’s website frequently asked questions (FAQ). What are these specific rules and duties public agencies are bound by when they obtain borrowers' information and data under section 30ZC, to protect that information? Given that the disclosure of information is only permissible for policy formulation or review, would it be necessary for the personal data to be in an individually identifiable form? Would it not be sufficient for the purposes of formulating broad policy for the data to be anonymised? Next, in response to a call for feedback over Facebook, Mr Kane Tan highlighted the concern of moneylender advertising. Currently, moneylender advertising is regulated under directions issued by the Registrar of Moneylenders, in addition to general requirements for all advertisements.”
“Sir, I welcome the move by this Bill to professionalise the moneylending industry. I have a few points to clarify on the wide-ranging powers and sensitive personal data that the Registrar and the Moneylenders Credit Bureau will possess, and the other methods for promoting responsible and safe lending. One basis upon which an individual would be deemed unsuitable to take part in the moneylending business is where they had carried out moneylending business in a foreign country for which the licence has been withdrawn, cancelled or revoked by an authority in the foreign country. While this is sound in principle, can I find out how enforcement of these provisions will look like in practice? How will the Ministry verify whether the individual has carried out any such moneylending businesses overseas? Does the Ministry have any plans to work with foreign authorities? Next, the Registrar will have wide discretion to refuse or cancel approval granted for various applications under the amendments. Will the Registrar be providing reasons for refusing applications? What are the channels and grounds for appeal for someone whose application has been refused or cancelled? Given that licensees and MLCB will possess sensitive borrowers' information, I am concerned about the security and confidentiality of the data. While the provisions impose duties on the use and disclosure of borrowers' information and duties to maintain confidentiality and security on licensees and MLCB, I notice that licensees are not under the same obligation as MLCB to notify the Registrar of events that compromise the confidentiality or security of its data.”
“Laypersons may not know that they have such a right and it seems only fair that they should be informed of this right if the privilege against self-incrimination is to have any substance. The right to remain silent under section 51AA(5) would be very weak in practice if there is no need to inform an individual of their right to do so. It is those who are ignorant of the law and the most vulnerable who would suffer the most. Further, section 51AA(7) sets out requirements, which are intended to be procedural safeguards for the person's whose statement is taken. Will a failure to comply with the requirements under section 51AA(7) affect the admissibility of the statement? Next, the exercise of Police powers is governed by CPC and the Police General Orders (PGO) issued by the Commissioner of Police. Will rules or guidelines similar to PGO be issued for ICA officers? Lastly, is it necessary for ICA officers to be given the power to detain a person for up to 24 hours under section 51AA(12) before handing them over to a Police Officer? As highlighted earlier, these powers are only transitory in that they are intended for ICA officers to be able to contain the situation until the Police arrive. In line with the spirit of unifying the command and control structure that underlies the ICC concept, surely closer coordination between the Police and ICA officers could be expected in responding to these incidences. Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, while I understand the overriding security necessity of responding swiftly to incidents at the checkpoints, allowing ICA officers to exercise certain Police powers are an expansion of executive powers, which should be done cautiously. We should thus closely scrutinise the powers this Bill gives to ICA officers to ensure that there are sound bases and sufficient checks for an extension of power. As was noted in the Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA's) press release on the Bill, the intention of giving ICA officers such powers is to enable them to respond to incidents and contain situations before Police Officers arrive. The powers that are granted to ICA officers should be constrained insofar as they are necessary for that purpose. The amendments will give ICA officers the power to take statements from persons who appear to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the relevant offences. The language of section 51AA(6) and (7) is similar to section 22 of the CPC which allows the Police to take long statements. Unlike section 23 of the CPC, the amendments do not expressly require persons being questioned to be given notice that choosing to remain silent may have a bad effect on their case in Court. Can I clarify whether adverse inferences can be drawn from a statement taken under section 51AA(5) should the person choose to remain silent? If so, is there a duty to inform the person being examined of their privilege against self-incrimination under section 51AA(6) and does the failure to inform the person of their right to remain silent affect the admissibility of the statement or the ability to draw adverse inferences from the statement?”