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 30 of 37.
“If so, can the Minister further clarify if this may be open to abuse in any way, such as by a company disposing of its assets even after commencement of winding up, contravening section 259 of the Companies Act by effecting transfer orders into a DS? Additionally, can the Minister provide specific examples for Members and the public to understand the practical implications of these amendments, specifically the extension of insolvency protection for transfer orders, netting and settlement in a DS amendment? For example, what transactions would not have previously fallen under FNA which will now fall under the revised FNA once the Bill is passed? I appreciate that this is a highly technical Bill, but it is precisely such Bills that require illustrations and explanations. Alternatively, will MAS be publishing guidelines to help the affected parties, such as the DS operators, settlement institutions, financial institutions and the public, better understand the revised FNA? Sir, notwithstanding the above queries, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“I understand that this insolvency carve-out is dealt with in clause 9 of the Bill, which amends section 8 of FNA. Section 8 of FNA states that transfer orders and the transactions in section 8(1) list "shall not be regarded as to any extent invalid on the ground of inconsistency with the law for distribution of the assets of a person on bankruptcy or winding up, or on the appointment of a receiver, receiver and manager or equivalent officer". I appreciate that this has the implied effect of ensuring transactions made through DSs are final, irrevocable and cannot be reversed or challenged by insolvency laws or a liquidator. MAS Consultation Paper also states in paragraph 2.2 that the proposed amendments are consistent with the laws of the EU. However, neither does the Bill expressly address the timing issue stated in Article 3(1) of the EU directive on whether such transactions have to be entered into before the commencement of the insolvency event, nor address what happens if transactions are entered into the system after the commencement of an insolvency event, regardless of whether a DS has actual or constructive knowledge of the commencement of the insolvency event. In fact, clause 12 of the Bill, which amends section 12 of FNA, makes it clear that the DS operator may effect netting of all obligations owed to or by the participant up to and including one business day after. Can the Minister clarify if it is the intention of the Ministry to not draw a distinction and provide a blanket prioritisation and finality of transfer orders and transactions in section 8(1) of FNA?”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. Given the rapid development in fintech, we need to ensure our laws and regulations keep up. I have comments and queries on one specific aspect of the Bill and, more broadly, to request for an illustration. I refer to the Consultation Paper MAS shared dated 3 August 2017 which listed the objectives of the amendments in this Bill. The objectives are to bring Singapore’s laws on this subject matter up to date with international developments to enhance Singapore’s position as a major financial centre and to incorporate global best practices from leading jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU). As such, to try and understand the Bill, I have looked into the EU Settlement Finality Directive 98/26/EC, which has been since amended by two other directives in 2009 and 2010 and two regulations in 2012 and 2014. The main rule in Article 3(1) is that transfer orders and netting shall be legally enforceable, even in the event of insolvency proceedings against a participant and shall be binding on third parties provided that transfer orders were entered into the system before the moment of opening of insolvency proceedings. In this Bill, I note that clause 9, which amends section 8 of FNA does not prescribe the same degree of certainty as to whether a transfer order or any other transactions in the section 8(1) list will be legally enforceable and binding on third parties as long as a transfer order or any other list of matters is entered before an opening of an insolvency proceeding. Can the Minister clarify why this is so? Prescription of this timing is important to my mind, as cross-border payment settlement and netting seem especially vulnerable to insolvency laws in different jurisdictions.”
“" Keeping in mind the objective of the Bill, which is to break down intra- and interagency silos to enable a consistent system of governance, can the Minister clarify specifically how different these five agencies are defined as Public Service as compared to Public Bodies such that standard governance rules as envisioned in the Bill should not apply equally across the board? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“In fact, these entities serve very important functions and impact everyday citizens. Given the objective of the Bill is to better establish a consistent system of governance and accountability, can the Minister clarify how these objectives will be fulfilled when important agencies, such as SAF, SCDF, the Singapore Civil Service, the Singapore Legal Service and SPF are excluded? I understand that all organisations, public or private, have a hierarchical structure and contain layers of structures. At times, one layer may be more deeply embedded, resulting in a silo structure. At times, such a silo structure is necessary for administrative purposes or for the very functioning of an organisation, such as the military's chain of command. Applying this line of logic, I foresee a possible rationale for the exclusion of the Public Service – on justification that these five agencies exercise very specialised powers and fulfil very specific, critical functions within our society such that their constituting Act already contains provisions allowing the Minister to directly make directions, or an informal tight governance framework may currently be in place, or that these five agencies need the flexibility and autonomy to have room to exercise discretionary powers. However, this justification would similarly apply to other Public Bodies, which similarly have constituting Acts containing internal controls. In fact, Deputy Prime Minister Teo mentioned recently at the Public Service Leadership Dinner on 8 November last year, I quote, "the challenges that confront Singapore and Singaporeans often cannot be compartmentalised.”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. Establishing a system of governance with greater accountability and transparency in our public sector is welcomed. I support the Bill’s objective, which aspires to remove independent vertical units, commonly known as silos, and create a whole-of-Government connected approach to delivering public services. I have comments and queries on one fundamental aspect of the Bill. The bulk of the clauses in the Bill apply to the "Singapore Public Sector Agency", the term excludes the "Public Service", defined to include SAF, SCDF, Singapore Civil Service, Singapore Legal Service and Singapore Police Force (SPF), effectively limiting much of the scope of the Bill to cover only "Public Bodies" and "Singapore Public Sector Agencies". As illustration, clause 4(1) confers powers on the Minister to give directions to all Singapore Public Sector Agencies. This principle behind clause 4 is to enable a whole-of-Government approach in the implementation of policy. Hence, clause 4(2)(g) specifically qualifies that such directions can only be made for purposes of supporting a whole-of-Government approach. In this case, then it seems logical and consistent to ensure clause 4(1) applies to the Public Service as well. The exclusion of the Public Service can be seen in clauses complementary to clause 4, namely, clauses 9, 10 and 11. This exclusion is also present in clause 6 on data-sharing, and clauses in Part 4 and Part 5 of the Bill on governance and financial administration of public bodies. Can the Minister clarify why the Public Service is excluded from the bulk of these clauses, especially since I understand that the aforementioned entities defined as Public Service in the Bill also delivers services to the public?”
“Such practices by manufacturers which are calculated to get infants "hooked" on their brands at an early stage and remove choices for parents to switch to cheaper alternatives seem to be contrary to the spirit of this Bill of empowering consumers in decision-making. Can Minister clarify if the proposed expanded scope of the Sale of Food Act will allow it to address marketing and distribution practices by manufacturers and sellers that are intended to limit choices for particularly vulnerable groups of consumers? I also note that section 56 has been amended to allow any food regulation to incorporate any matter contained in any code. Would the Ministry consider incorporating the Code of Ethics on the Sale of Infant Foods in Singapore as a food regulation to give it the binding force of law? In addition, can the Minister also clarify if the Act will cover the sale of food online, as many Members have raised previously? Even milk powder can be purchased online now and from outside of Singapore. I appreciate this is not an easy area to regulate but as there is a trend towards buying things online and from overseas, do we have plans to regulate this under the Sale of Food Act? Lastly, Sir, I would like to seek clarification on the new section 55. Why is there a need to grant exemptions from the operations of all or any of the provisions of this Act or the food regulations? Can the Senior Minister of State provide some scenarios as to when these exemptions are needed or necessary? If there is really a need for such exemptions, may I suggest that a Board, which includes the Director-General rather than just one person, make the decision on granting the exemption? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill. 6.15 pm”
“Given that majority of parents who use Formula Milk in hospitals do not have a preferred brand and tend not to switch brands of Formula Milk after leaving the hospital, manufacturers have invested significant efforts and resources into the marketing activities in the hospital channel to gain a ‘first-mover' advantage." Sir, I faced this problem when my babies were in hospital and, in the initial stages, Poppy had to be given some milk formula. In my case, they were in a public hospital and not a private hospital. My wife and I had a preferred brand of milk formula we wanted to give Poppy but were not allowed to. We were told that we could use the brand that we wanted only when Poppy was discharged but were told that a switch in brand might affect the baby. I do understand that the Sale of Infant Foods Ethics Committee Singapore (SIFECS) under the Health Promotion Board is looking into this. But we must bear in mind that they are looking to address this through reviewing its Code of Ethics on the Sale of Infant Foods in Singapore. While I hope the review of the Code will address sponsorships and rotation fee practices, the Code is, ultimately, soft law and does not provide for penalties or consequences where the Code is breached. As such, I would like to ask the Minister if the current proposed amendments to the Sale of Food Act could help to tackle this problem, too. While we seek to make amendments to prohibit idealised images and health claims on infant formula labels and advertisements, these amendments become redundant when parents do not have a choice of which infant formula is given to their infants in some hospitals.”
“Sir, I welcome the amendments to the Sale of Food Act, which expands its purview to preventing misleading conduct in the sale of food and ensuring the provision of information to help consumers make informed choices. On the issue of consumer empowerment, I would like to raise some concerns over business practices that affect decision-making over food for the most vulnerable consumers − infants. I understand that one of the objectives of the proposed amendments is to support initiatives of the Formula Milk Taskforce to tighten labelling requirements for infant formula. One of the most vulnerable groups of consumers are infants in hospitals and they are protected by this Act since the expanded meaning of "sell" in section 2E does include "supplying of food in the course of providing services to patients in hospitals". In hospitals, I understand that a rotation system is used to provide infants with milk formulas. Majority of parents tend to continue with the brand of formula milk that their child was given in hospitals. An inquiry report by the Competition Commission of Singapore in May found that milk formula manufacturers invest significantly into marketing activities in hospitals to try to leverage on this. The report stated, "In particular, the hospital channel receives a significantly higher share of marketing expenditure compared to its share of total revenue. Manufacturers provide sponsorship and/or payments to the private hospitals for participation in their milk rotation systems.”
“Travellers are able to purchase travel products on such platforms and, while I appreciate that such businesses have online terms of use, that is merely equivalent to the contracts that traditional travel agents have with travellers. I wish to clarify whether such businesses are caught by the definition of licensees under the Travel Agents Act. If not, what plans are there to regulate such businesses to ensure that travellers who purchase travel products via such businesses equally have consumer safeguards? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“If the travel agent could, would and wanted to fulfil its obligations, there would not have been a need for STB to step in in the first place. Can the Minister clarify how this new section will be able to help consumers in cases similar to MISA Travel? On this note, to complement this new section 28(1)(ga)(i), will the Minister consider establishing a Travel Industry Compensation Fund to provide reimbursements as a last resort to travellers in specific situations, such as insolvency of the travel agents? The Compensation Fund can be financed by all registered travel agents. While this will mean that travel agents have to pay into this fund, it is beneficial in the long term to instil consumer confidence considering that the travel industry is one of the top 10 most complained about industry, according to CASE. This may help with providing a more robust regulatory framework and, eventually, re-direct much of the travel purchases and revenue back to travel agents, benefiting the travel agents. This might also help in reversing the trend of travellers purchasing travel through direct channels. From a policy perspective, this Compensation Fund provides accountability and immediate practical recourse to travellers. I understand that this is the model already adopted in Ontario, Canada, and Hong Kong. I do hope we can implement this in Singapore as well. Secondly, a minor clarification on whether the Travel Agents Act and this Bill cover businesses which operate innovative travel models powered by technology, such as Airbnb Experiences, Tripadvisor or Wego.”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. Providing better consumer safeguards against errant travel agents, while balancing this with measures to facilitate a pro-business environment for the travel industry is welcomed. I have comments and queries on two aspects of the Bill. Clause 19 expands the regulation-making powers of STB. Amongst other things, this clause introduces a new section 28(1)(ga)(i) which confers powers on STB, such as "imposing restrictions or obligations on licensees in relation to any variation or termination of a contract for the supply by the licensee of a travel product". This is an important power which allows STB to step in and ensure consumers are well protected in the event that travel agents are unable or perhaps unwilling to fulfil their contractual obligations. However, I wonder if this broad power, as it is currently drafted, will have any practical use in a more likely situation, such as if a repeat case of MISA Travel occurs. MISA Travel closed in June 2017 and customers who had paid for travel plans and products were left in the lurch. For illustration purposes, let us assume that a travel agent is not fraudulent and has a legitimate business. However, this travel agent suddenly shuts down or is unable to fulfil its primary contractual obligation of ensuring travel products are supplied to travellers for reasons whether in its control or not. This is often the situation that consumers face. Even if STB invokes the power in the new section to vary the contract or even direct that the said travel agent has to compensate or refund the travellers, it is unlikely that the travel agent can, will and want to be able to fulfil their obligation.”
“Can the Parliamentary Secretary provide clarifications on the above points raised? Sir, raising the minimum legal age is a positive step forward and it will prevent people from starting smoking. I do hope we will also devote more resources into helping people to quit smoking and look into every available means to help them in the quitting process. Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill. 4.05 pm”
“So, I do question the argument of youths picking up the habit of smoking via e-cigarettes. If we increase the minimum legal age and if HSA follows up with enforcement efforts, our youths under the age of 21 will still be protected from access to such e-cigarettes. Hence, can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify the scientific basis of this fear of the gateway effect in our policy? And whether Singapore may be missing out on a chance to benefit from a policy which allows controlled use of alternative reduced-risk tobacco products to continue our fight against smoking? Further, I understand that Phillip Morris has a research lab facility in Singapore researching and developing such e-cigarettes. Hence, access to primary data and resources for a study partner does not appear to be a challenge. Can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether there are plans to conduct in-depth studies on potential ways to use such e-cigarettes as a means to help smokers quit? Secondly, on the similar nicotine levels, Mr Yap raised this point and I quote: "Smokers are addicted to nicotine but killed by tar and other chemicals. Shouldn't the answer be about tar and carbon monoxide instead? Or at least one of the many other chemicals in cigarettes that could harm your body? And if lower levels of other chemicals are detected in heat-not-burn products, then the same level of nicotine would be a good thing because it would be easier for addicts to switch products because they get the same high while causing less harm to themselves and others. We practise 'reduced harm' policies for other vices. If heat-not-burn products and e-cigarettes reduce harm, we should allow them, and then the health authorities should commit to this and research".”
“Quitting smoking is probably one of the most difficult things that I have accomplished in my life. The withdrawal symptoms are severe and the urge, the craving to have a puff, is extreme. Having gone through it, I know that people who want to quit need more help. Through a Facebook comment, Mr Daniel Yap shared with me that research has shown that allowing alternative reduced-risk tobacco products has been proven to be an effective means for smokers to quit smoking. I understand that the United Kingdom, New Zealand and most states in the United States have conducted studies and endorsed policy approaches which allow for alternative reduced-risk tobacco products as ways for smokers to gradually quit the habit of smoking. I do understand the Ministry's position and fear regarding, one, the gateway effect of allowing such alternative reduced-risk tobacco products; and two, that such products contain similar nicotine levels as traditional cigarettes. However, on the gateway effect fear, there are numerous studies done and publicly available results which show that this fear may be overstated. As Mr Yap pointed out, the Minister's evidence in the March 2017 reply supporting the rise in the use of e-cigarettes amongst US youths ignores the other data trend across the same period which shows a significant decline in the use of cigarettes. Most recently, a study by Prof Linda Bauld at the University of Stirling published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, showed that this fear of the gateway effect is overstated. In fact, the study involving data gathered from 2015 to 2017 of youths in the UK, shows that e-cigarette experimentation by teenagers is simply not translating into regular use.”
“Sir, as I have shared several times in this House, I was a former smoker and I smoked for 17 years. I celebrated my quitting anniversary just last month, on 12 October. I have not smoked for more than four years now. I started smoking when I was about 18 years old and it was during my National Service days between 18 and 21 years old that I smoked the most. When we debated the previous Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Amendment) Bill, I shared with this House that "research by WHO shows that people who don't pick up smoking before the age of 21 are unlikely to ever start smoking". And I asked why the proposal to raise the minimum age, 21 years old, was not included in that Bill. I am heartened to see that it is included in this Bill and that we will be increasing the minimum legal age of smoking from 18 to 21. This is a positive and huge step forward. However, I would like to seek some clarifications about other aspects of this Bill. Firstly, we are proposing to extend the prohibition on importation, distribution and sale of other tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes, to include possession, purchase and use of such tobacco products. Can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether other than the preliminary research by HSA mentioned by Senior Minister of State Amy Khor in March 2017, any detailed research or study has been done on the potential of such e-cigarettes or other reduced-risk products as a means to assist smokers to quit smoking as an alternative step-down from traditional cigarettes? If so, whether details of such cigarettes and data can be shared in this House? I can attest to the fact that quitting smoking is not easy. I can tell you that looking after twins at 3.00 am is difficult but quitting smoking is more difficult.”
“I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply and for sharing the good news that MHA is reviewing it. I know my Parliamentary Question is asking only about ambulances, but I am wondering whether the review can also cover other emergency vehicles like the Police and fire engines. The point is if a fire engine can be there early, there might not be a need for an ambulance to come in the first place.”
“Thank you, Sir, just a quick one. I would like to ask the Minister whether MHA will be studying this issue further so that we are not just tackling the supply side but also the demand and really study this holistically, so that we do not get into this cat-and-mouse game that the former Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng was talking about in Parliament almost 20 years ago.”
“Do some of these unlicensed massage establishments have links to other criminal elements and activities by organised criminal syndicates which finance the presumably high initial set-up costs of such massage establishments? Again, a detailed study will allow us to further understand the underlying complex ecosystem driving this trend of the growing number of unlicensed massage establishments. Sir, we also need to look at the supply side not just in terms of the penalties but also understanding why people become sex workers. As I mentioned earlier, I met up with the sex workers – Singaporean sex workers. I met a young Singaporean who has been a sex worker for two years and is also currently pursuing her diploma. She uses the money earned to pay for her education and is intending to pursue her degree as well and is saving up for that. I met a single lady who is a sex worker to help pay for her parents' medical fees. I went into that meeting with an open mind to listen and to try and understand their viewpoints. To listen to their concerns and the dangers they faced working as a sex worker and how they worry about their safety. I listened to how lonely they felt at times, working in this industry. At the end of the day, there is no quick fix, no easy solution. But the way forward is for us to study this issue holistically and engage all the parties concerned. Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. This is a complex issue and I hope that this Bill is a start, and we can look into this issue much further.”
“But I feel there is more we need to do and, perhaps for a start, launch a detailed study and research to understand this demand before we can come up with further legislative and policy amendments. If we do not address the root of the problem, we will always be one step behind. We are now clamping down on massage establishments. If the demand continues, which I am quite sure it will, the vice activities will just move on to the next place. We already know from media reports that sexual services are offered at some TCM clinics. The current amendments do not cover TCM clinics and perhaps this is where the vice activities at massage establishments will be heading. Of course, we can then legislate again and cover TCM clinics. But I hope Members see where I am heading. We will always be one step behind. And if there is demand for something, there will always be supply. Worse still, we might drive these activities further underground. This was the fear of former Home Affairs Minister Mr Wong Kan Seng who said this in Parliament in 1999 in relation to a question about prostitution, "And it is better that the Police know where these areas are and enforcement action can be taken, rather than to disperse these brothels to the whole of Singapore and we then have a cat-and-mouse game chasing after them or, worse still, drive them underground, and they will be operating everywhere." Minister Wong also said, “Criminalising prostitution will only drive such activities underground, resulting in crime syndicates taking control over such activities.” And I wonder whether crime syndicates have taken control of some of these unlicensed massage establishments.”
“Sir, let me start by saying that I stand in support of this Bill. With a 40% increase in the number of unlicensed massage establishments in the past three years, this is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed. These unlicensed massage establishments taint Singapore’s image. These are sentiments which are echoed by netizens who posted comments on my Facebook page. Mr Zain Kazmi said, "Singapore's reputation has been diminished by the operation of such sleazy businesses. We cannot afford to allow such vices to continue unabated, as it tarnishes the name of genuine massage parlours and the country at large". Many have argued, and I agree, that a fine of $1,000 is too low to deter the operators of these massage parlours who can simply pay the fine after they are caught and set up a new place soon after. Thus, I welcome this Bill. By increasing the penalties by at least tenfold and introducing a jail term, we are sending a very strong message that we want to clamp down on these vice activities. This was my first impression when I read this Bill and started drafting the speech. However, as I looked into it and researched further and met with the sex workers themselves and with Project X, a non-profit which provides social, emotional and legal support for sex workers in Singapore, I realised that the amendments here are just part of the equation. It is only tackling the supply side and not the demand. The other part of the equation that we are not tackling in this Bill is equally important. The 40% increase in unlicensed massage parlours must be in part due to an increasing demand. I do understand that the Ministry of Education's current Sexuality Education programme already has elements to mitigate youth paying for sexual services.”
“At the end of the day, of all the legislative changes, regulatory amendments and workplans, the goal should be to improve the outcomes for the workers on the ground. Hearing first-hand accounts from the workers is the best way of gauging the effectiveness of our policies and efforts. Sir, I stand in support of the Bill and I hope the Minister can consider the recommendations and clarifications that I have raised in the implementation of WSHA. I am encouraged by the bold plan MOM has articulated to improve WSH and look forward to the steps that can be taken to achieve our objective of becoming a centre of excellence that WSH 2018 Plus envisions.”
“Section 18(2) prevents an employer from dismissing an employee who assists authorities where there have been breaches of health and safety. Employees are required to report such instances through the Employment Act appeal mechanisms for unfair dismissal. However, there may be insufficient protection for low-wage migrant workers who can have their Work Permits cancelled and repatriated, with no opportunity to challenge their termination. Is MOM able to share the number of employees that have successfully appealed an unfair dismissal under section 18(2)? Will the Minister consider additional safeguards, such as requiring notification to MOM, where workers are dismissed within two years of providing such assistance to authorities? Providing employees with stronger whistleblower protection will encourage reporting of WSH Act violations from the stakeholders who have the best knowledge of such violations. Lastly, in the course of providing direct service to injured migrant workers, civil society organisations often hear first-hand accounts of safety-related issues on worksites that lead to workplace injuries. While MOM's inspections may find that the vast majority of employers are compliant with safety and health requirements, there may be a group of recalcitrant employers with weak safety mindsets that is tarnishing workplace safety culture as a whole. The first-hand accounts that civil society organisations have are valuable because they provide an insight into the practices of this group of employers, which will help MOM in focusing its efforts and resources in addressing the worst violations. I hope that MOM will increase its collaborations with civil society groups.”
“Such information may not be provided in a language that is understood by the foreign workers who form the bulk of the workforce most vulnerable to workplace hazards. Can the Minister confirm if it is the responsibility of employers and principals to ensure that workers understand the written safety advice and instruction provided by manufacturers and suppliers? Fifth, the WSH Guidelines note that fatigue can lead to physical and mental impairment, which increases error rates and risk of injuries. Such fatigue can accumulate as a result of workers being required to perform overtime work day after day. Civil society organisations report encountering workers who work beyond the maximum allowable overtime hours, with little or no days off. Tight schedules, budget, and man-year entitlement limitations might lead to workers being asked to work longer hours. I understand that MOM's inspections on companies’ compliance with the Employment Act found that most have complied with working hour provisions and that WSH inspectors examine plans to manage workers' fatigue. However, will WSH inspectors also include as part of their inspections the actual number of hours clocked by workers as plans may not always be complied with in the face of punishing completion deadlines and limited manpower? Furthermore, despite MOM's extensive efforts in safety inspections, many workplace violations may still go unnoticed if not reported by workers. However, if reporting safety violations means that workers are likely to lose their jobs, workers are not going to be willing to come forward regardless of MOM's best attempts at encouraging reporting of safety violations.”
“Secondly, under section 41(1)(a), safety inspectors have the power to inspect workplaces at any time. I understand that workers have reported instances of employers with advance knowledge that an inspection was going to take place. Can the Minister confirm that it is, indeed, the case that inspections are conducted without prior notice? Or is it the case that there are announced inspections and unannounced inspections? If so, what percentage of inspections is unannounced? Thirdly, it is the duty of the employer under section 12(1) of the Bill to take practicable measures to ensure the safety and health of his employees at work. While the employer is not permitted under section 18(1) to deduct any sums for anything done or provided by him as part of such measures, civil society organisations have heard accounts from workers who were injured because they were not provided with, could not afford to buy, or could not afford to replace damaged safety equipment. Further, many workers report having to pay for safety equipment through salary deductions. Can the Minister confirm that the provision of safety equipment and training is part of the measures necessary to ensure the health and safety of employees under section 12(1), and that employers cannot recover such costs from workers? Also, can the Minister clarify if it is within the scope of safety inspections to ensure that employers are not deducting costs for safety equipment from workers? It is a relevant contributing factor to workers not having the necessary equipment for their health and safety. Fourth, section 16 of the Bill requires manufacturers and suppliers of machinery, equipment or hazardous substance to provide information about precaution, hazards and safe use.”
“Sir, the WSH 2018 workplan for advancing safety and health articulates a vision of Singapore as a centre of excellence for WSH. To achieve this bold ambition, our legislative and regulatory framework must identify and address the key causes of workplace accidents. The WSH 2018 Plus workplan had highlighted improving WSH performance in the construction industry as a key priority. At the outset, it is necessary to recognise the reality that low-wage migrant workers form the bulk of the workforce in the construction industry and other sectors, such as marine and manufacturing, that are the top contributors of workplace fatalities and injuries. WSH laws can only be truly effective if they take into account the working realities of this group of workers. I have one clarification on the Bill and would like to further raise some points for consideration in the implementation of the WSH legislation and regulations. Firstly, the Bill increases the maximum fine for offences that may cause death, serious bodily injury or dangerous occurrence to $50,000. Can the Minister clarify whether the enhanced fines apply to offences that lead to or increase the risk of occupational diseases? While occupational diseases may take a longer time to manifest, may be harder to detect and link causally to the workplace, their effects on the health of workers can be just as detrimental. Part IV of the current Act on the duties of persons and Part VI on investigation powers do not distinguish between accidents and occupational diseases. If the enhanced fines do not apply to breaches of regulations that may or actually lead to occupational diseases, can the Minister clarify why the distinction was drawn?”
“Similar tax-based incentive schemes for CPF transfers may encourage those who are in a stronger financial position to top up the accounts of lower-balance or non-working family members. I have to add though that I hope they do not make transfers just for the tax reliefs. Next, this scheme is premised on older CPF members having family members who are able to top up their CPF accounts. I am concerned about older members who do not have any immediate family members or who do not have strong ties with their family members. Can the Minister share whether there are measures in place to improve retirement adequacy for this group of people who are the ones most in need of a steady income stream in their later years? Lastly, there is a general lack of understanding of the CPF system and its policies amongst the general public. While having greater flexibility is laudable, it also introduces more complexity. Can the Minister share whether they are plans to improve our communications with regard to the CPF system, especially to our seniors? Sir, this Bill creates space within the CPF framework for family members to support one another and I stand in support of it.”
“Sir, the focus of CPF is to provide for a steady income stream that can provide Singaporeans with basic support for their retirement expenses. I am heartened to note that the amendments to the CPF Act will improve the retirement adequacy of older CPF members by lowering the threshold for CPF members to make transfers to their parents and grandparents. While the amendments are very much about technical thresholds, payout benchmarks and administrative mechanisms, I would like to highlight the core value of filial piety that underlies these amendments. It strengthens the idea of the family and familial relations as a key source of financial and social support by encouraging retirement planning that is based upon the ties within the family unit. As we debate about the specifics and technicalities of legislation in Parliament, I believe it is important to highlight and reinforce the fundamental values we stand for as a community, like filial piety, and how this can be expressed through the legislation we pass. In line with the core value of filial piety, can the Minister clarify why the amendments will not be extended to parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law? I had raised a similar point when we debated the CPF (Amendment No 2) Bill and was heartened that in the reply, the Minister clarified that the CPF Retirement Sum Topping-Up Scheme included parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law. Why then are we not extending this to this group of people now? Next, to further encourage familial support within the CPF framework, will the Government consider tax reliefs for CPF transfers to parents, parents-in-law, grandparents, grandparents-in-law, siblings and spouses? Tax relief is currently provided for cash top-ups, subject to conditions and caps.”
“Minister, I just want to ask whether the results of the EIA will be made public and available online. Two, I hope that MOT will be engaging the green groups before publishing the results, so that we can consult them on their views again before the report is finalised.”
“Can the Minister clarify if the security measures will be enhanced, compared with the existing Shuttle Tebrau operated by Keretapi Tanah Melayu (KTM) linking Johor Bahru and Singapore? Would it be comparable to security measures at Changi Airport? The Minister also mentioned that LTA will be the cross-border railway security agency. Will it not be better for the Singapore Police Force (SPF) to be this agency since the public transport security command (TRANSCOM) is currently under SPF? Lastly, as its operations are cross-border, will we be working with relevant Malaysian agencies or persons to carry out its functions for this security agency? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Sir, the KL-Singapore HSR and Johor-Singapore RTS will improve connectivity for residents and strengthen bilateral ties between Malaysia and Singapore. This Bill paves the way for its construction and it is heartening to see that we are moving swiftly along to the fruition of this ambitious project. I applaud the Government and all the hard work put in to ensure that this project is on track and on schedule. I only have three quick points of clarifications to raise, based on feedback from the public, and similar to some of the points that Mr Dennis Tan had raised. Firstly, clause 8 of the Bill gives powers to LTA to enter land which is not state land or land owned by LTA for activities, such as construction, maintenance and improvements to infrastructure. I understand that it is currently unclear if the HSR line will run under any privately-held land in Singapore. Can the Minister shed light on this issue as it is on the minds of many Singaporeans? If the Minister is unable to provide further details at this point, can he at least clarify when such details will be available and whether his Ministry will be doing some form of public consultation with regard to this before any decision is being made? Secondly, can the Minister clarify whether the construction of the HSR line will affect any of our green areas? Will EIAs be conducted before the construction of the HSR line and will the results of such EIAs be made public and available online? Lastly, under clause 58, a "cross-border railway security agency" will be designated. Can the Minister clarify why there is a need for this new agency?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for saying that we are going to review this. One, what is the timeframe of this review? Second, it is not just the time you sign up for the IVF insurance, but I am also wondering whether we can get more companies to offer this neo-natal insurance because, at this point, only one company offers it. If we can get more companies, then, obviously, the pricing might improve as well.”
“I would like to ask the Second Minister on the second point of the study, because, really, during the dialogue sessions, a lot of people are raising that this form of discrimination does happen at the workplace. In fact, this Parliamentary Question is filed on behalf of one of the working mothers who was pregnant and faced this discrimination. So, I am just wondering whether we can launch a study about this, so that, again, we can find what is happening on the ground and come up with some solutions.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Second Minister for the reply. A lot of our focus is on providing support during the maternity leave period. I am just wondering whether we can provide more support before and after. Secondly, in a lot of the dialogue sessions that I have, the feedback is really about this kind of discrimination at the workplace. So, I wonder if the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) can conduct a study into this so that we can come up with some solutions and recommendations.”
“As the TPD requirement only applies to businesses with gross revenue exceeding $10 million, a fine of up to $10,000 may not represent a significant cost. How was the quantum of the fine determined, and how does it compare with similar provisions on reporting requirements? Under the same section, the company as an entity, would be guilty of the offence of failing to meet TPD requirements. Has personal liability for officers of the company been considered as a more effective method for ensuring compliance with TPD requirements? Finally, the failure to prepare contemporaneous and adequate TPD, the failure to submit TPD within 30 days' notice, and the failure to retain TPD for five years attract the same maximum fine as submitting false or misleading TPDs. However, the latter act arguably should attract higher culpability because of the element of dishonesty. For comparison, the offence of falsification of accounts under section 477A of the Penal Code may attract imprisonment for a term of up to 10 years, or a fine, or both. Would it be appropriate to impose higher penalties for providing false or misleading TPDs to reflect the higher degree of culpability? Can the Minister provide some clarification on this? Notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I stand in support of these amendments which signal Singapore's commitment as a responsible member of the international tax community and deter profit-shifting behaviour that undermines the integrity of the tax system, erodes tax revenues and distorts the incidence of tax burden.”
“Sir, I welcome the amendments introduced by this Bill and, in particular, the shift from a guidance-based approach to a formal transfer pricing regime with the introduction of a mandatory TPD requirement. This is a significant step in deterring and addressing profit-shifting behaviour, and would align our practices more closely with international tax developments under the OECD's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative. I have a number of clarifications to seek on the application and penalties of the proposed legislative regime. Section 34D has been expanded to clarify how IRAS will determine whether transactions are conducted at arm's length. In practice, such determination may be difficult as there may be different interpretations when applying the principle to specific facts and circumstances of multinational enterprises' operations. There may be legitimate commercial and risk management reasons for conducting business activities within different affiliates. In addition to the guidance provided in the TPD Guidelines, will IRAS be providing reasons where it makes the determination that a transaction was not conducted at arm's length? I understand that to assist companies in complying with the arm's length principle, IRAS has introduced an indicative margin for related party loans obtained or provided from January 2017. Would the Minister also consider prescribing a safe harbour margin for guarantees since, conceptually speaking, returns on guarantee represent the credit risk premium in a borrowing arrangement? Next, the new section 34F(8) deems the failure to meet certain TPD requirements as offences and provides for a fine of up to $10,000.”
“I also refer to the amendments of section 56 to increase penalties for hindering or obstructing the Comptroller, Chief Assessor or IRAS officers. The increase from the current maximum fine of $2,000 to $10,000, and an imprisonment term from a maximum of three months to 12 months, is a significant jump. I understand that this increased figure is benchmarked against the GST Act. I do support the increase in penalties to act as deterrence, but can the Minister clarify if these increases are due to an increase in cases of hindering and obstructing? Finally, I understand that the proposed amendments relating to the exemption of machinery from property tax was not included in the Bill following the public consultation. Can the Minister provide more details on why this was not included and whether it will be conducting further public consultation on this? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, I again support ongoing efforts to go green with the amendments for an opt-out scheme for an electronic service. This Bill also provides IRAS with further enforcement powers to do their duties, but some of which may be considered slightly intrusive. To address this issue, allow me to seek some clarifications on this Bill. This Bill makes bold amendments to provide IRAS with stronger enforcement powers. I refer particularly to the new section 64A which gives IRAS “full and free access to all houses, buildings, lands, documents, computers, computer programmes and computer software”. This gives IRAS the ability to gain access to a wide variety of resources, as it will now be able to acquire any devices and documents it requires. These are powers which some might consider to be excessive and a breach of privacy. People who are under investigation or those who have information regarding the investigation will also be obliged to be personally examined. I understand that section 64A is similar to the new section 65B in the proposed Income Tax (Amendment) Bill. However, commentators have raised the point that while authorities may need to conduct in-depth investigations on cash transactions of businesses, the case is very different for property tax investigations, where data is widely available. I would like to ask if we have seen an increase in property tax offences which warrants such an increase in powers for IRAS. Can the Minister provide some justification for the empowerment of IRAS, specifically for property tax investigations? Further, could we also then anticipate similar enforcement powers for all other forms of taxes in the future?”
“Lastly, I understand that with the rise of e-commerce, some countries, such as South Korea, Japan and Australia, have amended legislation to collect GST on goods purchased online from foreign companies. Most recently, in September 2017, Malaysia also announced plans to tax foreign digital service providers, such as online shopping sites. As we propose this round of amendments to the GST Act, I would like to ask if the Ministry is also considering making similar changes in Singapore. A report by Temasek Holdings and Google showed that e-commerce in Singapore was valued at S$1.4 billion in 2015, with a projected hike to S$7.6 billion by 2020. This means that a tax on cross-border goods could represent a sizeable revenue stream for the Government. Industry-watchers have proposed changes, such as requiring foreign e-commerce companies to register and charge GST for these cross-border transactions or reducing the current GST exemption on the import of goods worth $400 or less. Members of the public have been talking about this and imposing this tax may not sit well with consumers. However, a tax on discretionary spending may be less painful than alternative measures to collect additional tax, such as a blanket increase in GST. Sir, Singapore’s tax system has always been well-regarded. IRAS has been operating efficiently with the cost of collecting taxes remaining at a steady low, and tax compliance in our country remains high. I believe our tax regime will only be further strengthened through this variety of changes, and I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Sir, I recognise the efforts in this Bill to improve our tax system, particularly to ease burdens on all fronts – for business compliance, for administration by IRAS officers and for the experience of the taxpayers. The move towards further digitalisation is also a laudable one, in line with our Smart Nation initiative. The changes are also great examples of how the Government should take the lead in going paperless for the environment. I am in support of the "opt-out" system for the digital tax notices and the move towards electronic recording keeping. I believe and hope that we will do the same for other Government services and functions. Sir, I have a few clarifications to seek. Firstly, the Bill seeks to remove the grace period of one-month before the $200 penalty is imposed. As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has raised, this can be a hefty sum for SMEs, particularly as companies may require time to get used to digital notices reminding them to file their taxes. More importantly, I would like to ask for the reasons behind this change, given that tax compliance in Singapore remains high. According to IRAS, tax arrears in 2016 were kept at 0.68% of net tax assessed, and that this was due to a focus on maximising voluntary compliance. Secondly, on the amendment to deter GST fraud schemes involving the supply of mobile phones and other goods, while I understand the importance of deterring fraudsters, these black sheep may represent only a small percentage of the entire industry. These sweeping changes proposed by this Bill may cause disruptions to the majority of businesses, which are largely compliant. I would like to ask the Ministry if they have received suggestions about this during the public consultations and whether other alternatives were considered.”
“In this context, given that such a broad obligation exists to compel an individual to furnish explanation and information, with the relevant penalty provision in section 177 of Penal Code already in place, can the Minister clarify the intent of specifically excluding this privilege against self-incrimination in this Bill? I understand from the Explanatory Notes that this new section 6A will help ensure the efficiency of the audit process is not diminished by the AG and his officers having to engage in time-consuming negotiations about the provision of privileged documents. However, the nature of inquiries by the AG does have potentially wide and severe implications. Can the Minister clarify how this new section 6A will allow the AG to better carry out its primary work of ensuring public accountability of the Government to Parliament, in the event that an explanation, information, document, record or answer obtained under section 6A does, in fact, raise concerns which ought to, in public's interest, lead to civil or criminal prosecution? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. Enhancing the AG's powers to ensure public accountability of public monies is welcomed. I have just one clarification to seek. The new section 6A states that an individual cannot rely on the common law privilege against self-incrimination to refuse to provide an explanation, information, document, record or answer a question required under section 6. This is subject to a carve-out that any such explanation, information, document, record or answer provided cannot be used as evidence against an individual in civil or criminal proceedings and can only be used in proceedings under section 177 of the Penal Code or an offence relating to the falsity of the answer. The Audit Act, as it currently stands, includes a broad obligation in section 6(3) where an individual called upon for any explanation or information is "legally bound to furnish such explanation and information". On a literal plain reading, this suggests that section 177 of the Penal Code would already apply if this section 6(3) obligation was contravened by an individual, even without the amendments in this Bill. On a comparative note, another legislation, which confers such a broad obligation, is the Prevention of Corruption Act. Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau officers have the power to require a person to "give any information on any subject" relating to corruption cases and the person so questioned is "legally bound to give that information". In the Prevention of Corruption Act, there is no specific provision excluding the common law privilege against self-incrimination.”
“Will MHA be devoting resources into developing this industry and reviewing and improving the training provided to these officers? Secondly, I appreciate that ensuring the security of Singapore’s infrastructure should be a joint responsibility. This duty ought to be shared by all, including businesses, premises owners and developers. However, as shared by Members who have spoken before me, there have been concerns by building owners on rising operational costs when additional security measures have to be put in place. There is less concern for new buildings or those undergoing major renovations since they can factor in such costs during the initial stages, but more so when we issue directives or orders for existing buildings. I do appreciate that this is necessary. But perhaps the cost of not implementing such measures against terrorist attacks would be greater than the cost of installing CCTVs, deploying security officers and barriers. But I hope the Minister can address some of the public concerns with regard to the availability of grants in exceptional cases where the building owner is unable to afford the costs of implementing the directives or orders. Sir, I applaud the efforts of the Ministry thus far with the SGSecure movement. I also applaud their focus on the “Security-by-Design” process, and I understand we are one of the first few countries in the world to legislate the need for such a process. I believe it is important and necessary to include the entire community in efforts to keep Singapore safe. By working together, we can keep Singapore secure. Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. Enhancement of security measures to buildings and provision of powers to security personnel to better protect Singapore’s infrastructure against security risks is timely, in light of the prevalence of indiscriminate terror attacks carried out globally. Further, I applaud the initiative to rope in the business community as part of the shared effort to keep Singapore safe. There are two clarifications I seek. Firstly, clause 22 describes the circumstances which allow the authorised officers of protected areas or places to use such force as is reasonably necessary to remove any person or, without warrant, arrest a person who enters or is about to enter such protected areas or places. These circumstances include a catch-all provision prescribing if that person, in the opinion of the authorised officer, does not have a good and lawful reason to enter or to be in that protected area or place, or is acting in a suspicious manner. The presence of the global threat of terror is very real, and the need to empower our officers is much needed. However, can the Minister clarify if these powers given to the authorised officer in clause 22 are subject to guidelines? I believe there are less concerns when these powers are given to Police Officers, but there is concern that this Bill indicates that such powers can be given to security officers. The training a Police Officer receives is very different from the training a security officer receives. Can the Minister provide further clarifications on the need to provide security officers with such powers? In addition, there is now a stronger focus on the role of security officers in our fight against terrorism.”
“However, it appears that there is no requirement in the MPA Act and the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act, for the boatmaster and crew members to exercise the said care. In view of this, can the Ministry consider making such regulations or amendments in the future? I am supportive of placing such obligations on such users of the waterways who are likely sources of pollution, in order to protect our waterways for the benefit of the environment and other stakeholders. Hence, I hope that the Ministry will seriously consider making such regulations. Sir, the proposed amendments of the Act are definitely welcome. I trust that the amendments have been drafted with the best intentions to ensure that our waters will be used responsibly and safely. I hope that extensive consultations with the stakeholders will be done before any regulations take effect and that changes, again, will be gradual. With that, I stand in support of this Bill. Nr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min. 2.18 pm”
“In view of the cost concerns that operators may face in possible regulations of engines, I hope that extensive consultations will be made with Waterways Watch Society and other non-government organisations (NGOs) and companies, and that any regulations will be done gradually. If such changes are necessary, I also hope the Ministry will provide some grants to the NGOs to help offset the costs. Next, as it stands, all powered harbour craft must be installed with either a Harbour Craft Transponder System (HARTS) or Automated Identification System (AIS). I have also received some feedback from the Waterways Watch Society in relation to this. They have requested that this requirement should be reserved for vessels that are operating in the seas only. They explained that vessels are easily identified in reservoirs since these water bodies are not large. Hence, can the Ministry clarify the rationale for this requirement for vessels in reservoirs or water bodies of similar sizes? Lastly, being precious assets of Singapore, I believe that it is of paramount importance that our waterways remain free from pollution. Taking a leaf from the European Code for Inland Waterways, Chapter 10 therein provides for the prevention of water and disposal of waste generated on board vessels. The articles in Chapter 10 make explicit prohibitions on discharging and dumping, collection of waste, and places obligation on the boatmasters and crew members to exercise care to avoid polluting waterways and to restrict the amount of waste generated on board the vessels. I understand that something similar to Chapter 10 of the European Code exists in Parts 2 and 3 of the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act.”
“Sir, our waterways are our precious assets. They are our iconic tourist spots, venues for sports and our sources of drinking water. Hence, I believe any amendments to the MPA Act must augment the way the MPA governs and administers matters in relation to the responsible and safe use of our precious assets. While I congratulate the Ministry on this well-drafted Bill, I hope to obtain some clarifications. First, I agree that the expansion of the functions and duties of the Authority by including the regulation of the operation and safety of inland craft is necessary. After all, we wish to ensure that our waterways will be used responsibly. But since possible regulations have not been announced to the public, I wish to seek some clarifications. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify if any regulations on the use of engines for vessels in reservoirs are in the pipeline? According to Eugene Heng, the Founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Waterways Watch Society, “We are currently permitted to operate vessels with four-stroke engines, battery-operated electric vessels, or solar-powered vessels. We hope this will continue.” Eugene explained that a blanket change to battery-operated or solar-powered vessels would increase costs significantly for smaller operators. Further, many operators do not have access to the required charging facilities at their jetties. Any arrangement for such charging will invariably lead to higher operating costs. He added that changing nine vessels that are of four-stroke engines to battery or solar-powered ones will cost at least $300,000 to $400,000. Installation of charging facilities at jetties, after obtaining the relevant permission from the authorities would cost another $50,000.”
“For example, will there be a case of 10 Registered Foreign PEs working with just one Registered PE? Mr Yew Hang further raised, and I quote, "How do we ensure that companies and businesses do not overly favour foreign PEs over local PEs, creating too much competition and driving wages down? Will this lead to an erosion of our local engineering core, especially when we are already lacking in engineering talents and engineering is not seen as an attractive career for many youths today?" I would be grateful if the Minister can provide clarifications about this and help assure the engineers in Singapore. Sir, engineering has been described as the "backbone of the economy". We rely on engineers to design, operate, maintain and support the running of our economy in sectors ranging from manufacturing to finance and transportation. Also, developing a pool of talent in software engineering is an essential part of our push to become a Smart Nation. This Bill is a welcomed step in revitalising engineering in Singapore. In addition to this legislative amendment, I urge the Government to continue its efforts to strengthen the engineering core, such as through initiatives to deepen our public sector engineering capabilities. Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill, which will enhance the role of PEB and strengthen the engineering profession. Much has been reported about the manpower crunch in the engineering sector due to the decreased attractiveness of the profession to young people. The expanded role of PEB will help to further advance industry development and broaden its appeal as a profession to address the skills gap that currently exists. We all know that engineers are important and it has also been reported that close to half of the economy relies on inputs from engineers. Sir, I would like to seek a few clarifications on behalf of members of the profession. Firstly, it is a positive step forward for PEB to now help develop the engineering profession and promote engineering. However, the question is, why not do this for all branches of engineering since this is the PEB? Why exclude other engineering branches, such as aerospace, marine and transportation? Who then will help to regulate these branches of engineering? Secondly, there are concerns about the new section 10(c) where a foreign engineer may now be authorised by PEB to engage in professional engineering work with a registered PE. I understand that this is under the existing ASEAN MRA on Engineering Services. Mr Yew Hang, a Singaporean engineer, commented on Facebook and asked how we will ensure that PEs from different countries are of consistent quality and that they are familiar with local regulatory requirements. Can the Minister share what are the processes and criteria the Board will use for authorising foreign PEs? I do understand that the Registered Foreign PE must work with a Registered PE but will there an established ratio for this?”
“The public consultations and focus group panel dialogues since 2012 are very welcomed and this has engaged and empowered the community. Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”