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 33 of 37.
“The Second Schedule of the Legal Aid and Advice Act sets out the requirements that have to be satisfied for the grant of legal aid. There is some form of discretion given to the Director of Legal Aid but there are conditions attached to the exercise of these decisions. As a result, some truly deserving cases fall through the crack and legal aid is not granted. Will the Minister consider an amendment to the Act to allow for appeals to the Minister, for legal aid for such cases provided that the Director grants leave for such an appeal?”
“And I also saw what that one day meant for the children as, ultimately, they are the real victims. I strongly feel we should introduce this programme in our prisons. With stronger family bonds, a prisoner's rehabilitation process will be more effective. Will the Minister consider piloting this programme in our prisons? I have seen too many residents whose spouses are repeatedly incarcerated and how their families have been torn apart. A key part of the rehabilitation has to be rebuilding these bonds. Partnership with Community Organisations”
“I visited a Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) and saw first-hand the work our Captains of Life do. While the recidivism rate has remained stable at around 26%, it is worrying to me that almost 60% of drug abusers arrested were repeat offenders. Even more worrying is that statistics that the more times we incarcerate someone for drug offences, the higher the chances he or she will be incarcerated again. A significant focus of the rehabilitation process is to ensure that inmates secure a job when they are released. I feel an equally important factor is whether they have family support when they are released. Only a third of DRC inmates use their full quota of two 30-minute visits per month. This is a clear sign that inmates lack family support and this is a problem that might have existed prior to their drug problem. Strained family ties were perhaps one of the reasons they consumed drugs in the first place. We need to address the root of the problem. Can the Minister share what plans it has to strengthen family bonds during rehabilitation? Can we provide more classes on parenting, better communication with spouses and other such classes? Can we strengthen the current family programme, especially the joint session component? Strengthening Resolve for Rehabilitation Next, I recently watched a very touching video of children of prisoners reuniting with their fathers behind bars for a day in a US prison. I watched fathers in tears as they realised how much they missed their children and perhaps how their actions have hurt their children. I saw in the eyes of the fathers the resolve to be rehabilitated so that they can spend not just one day but the rest of their lives with their children.”
“Whilst customisation may happen upon request from receiving countries, how frequently do we review our programmes and ensure relevance and applicability? One more observation is that the SCP programmes may not just be executed by Singapore alone but in partnerships, for example, the Singapore-Canada Third Country Training Programme. In such cases, how big is our voice, our partnership and also contribution, and how are these decided upon in the sharing and cooperation? Cooperation on Global Issues”
“Sir, Singapore has always been ready to respond to humanitarian crises and natural disasters in the region. For refugees, Singapore recently contributed US$200,000 to the ASEAN Trust Fund. MINDEF also began humanitarian assistance disaster relief missions as far back as 1970. The Government also frequently contributes cash donations via humanitarian organisations, such as the Red Cross and Mercy Relief. As such, will the Ministry consider establishing a new department of foreign (humanitarian) aid, similar to Japan's International Coordination Agency (JICA) or the UK's Department for International Development (DfID), for example, to coordinate humanitarian aid and strengthen our response to regional humanitarian crises? We have the capability and resources to do more to help our neighbours and I would urge us to do so on the grounds of compassion to strengthen bilateral ties and to strengthen stability and prosperity in our region. Technological Cooperation in Foreign Policy Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Chairman, the Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP) is a series conducted by the Government to facilitate the sharing and empowerment with developing countries. We share technical and systems skills and also human resources development which is seen as a vital and strategic move for economic and social progress. The training covers various areas of interest, which include trade promotion, healthcare, humanitarian assistance, public administration and law, amongst others. This year marks the 25th anniversary of our SCP. How efficient and effective have our efforts been in assisting these countries over the years? How does the Ministry monitor this and what are the KPIs set?”
“The clarification is: as we cut budgets, can we consider the impact this has on the individual public servants?”
“I try to make it short, Madam. I do share the concerns. I am thankful for our public servants and I do work closely with them. As I have mentioned, they are a rare breed who devote their lives towards serving Singapore. I just want to add a point, which is, as we cut budgets, I hope we can consider the impact this has on individual public servants. I want to share a comment that was sent to me and I will read it out. Madam, it is just one minute. The quote is, "You think I do not want to go the extra mile for my country? I got heart but I got time boh? MOF every year cuts budget. We always kena headcount freeze, or worse, headcount cut. Work is ever increasing; manpower decreasing. Sustainable? Keep telling me to exercise compassion and empathy. You think I do not know? Legislate more support for public officers first then we talk."”
“Next sentence, Madam. We need to develop a culture where they are not being penalised for being different. Can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify what steps we are taking to develop this culture?”
“Thank you, Madam. Allow me to seek some clarifications about our Public Service and also make some clarifications. As I have mentioned in my speech, the issue is not only about our public servants but I think, more importantly, about the system they work in. As I have mentioned, in our pursuit to automate most things, we now have a system without a heart. So, in the example that I shared, the HDB officer had a heart and wanted to help the resident but the computer did not have a heart and the letter demanding payment was computer-generated. That is the problem we need to tackle. My speech was also drafted in consultation with the public servants who are on the ground and who are frustrated. Hence, my first suggestion, which is from them, is that we need to cut some slack for our ground officers, our frontline staff members who will be the first to detect people who have fallen through the cracks, who can alert us. Many I have spoken to feel that when they bring such cases to their superiors, they are scolded for not following the books.”
“Recently, some of our local banks were named for allegedly financing irresponsible palm oil companies linked to deforestation and the haze. In 2015, the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) released a set of industry guidelines to enhance responsible financing, but it seems that these measures have not borne fruit. International banks, such as HSBC, has started to strengthen their lending criteria, but local banks have not published environment, social and governance policies. Will MAS encourage financiers to adhere to ABS' guidelines, and what further steps will it take to prevent local financiers' involvement in environmental disruption, which could lead to haze? Banking and Finance Corporate Regulations”
“We should work together rather than go our separate journeys when the end destination might be the same. This fear of engaging them is very apparent when I speak to public servants. But I urge them to start the dialogue. There is nothing to fear. I have been and continue to be a civil society activist. I do understand that I look too fierce sometimes. So, as the Prime Minister requested when he introduced me at the last General Elections, I am smiling a lot more now. In fact, I smile so much that it hurts, it really hurts. Madam, I trust that the Public Service will continue to evolve, improve and always serve in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr: "Everybody can be great. Because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve.... You don't have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love." Sir, I hope that every public servant has a heart full of grace and a soul generated by love. Sir, I support this Budget.”
“In the past year, I have experienced what it is like to be a healthcare worker, a driver, a Town Council cleaner, a coffee shop cleaner, a Police Officer, a kindergarten teacher, a cardboard collector, a customer relations officer, a full-time father and, in December, a humanitarian worker. As I had shared on Facebook, it has been an enriching journey, to say the least. And through these experiences, I have learnt a lot, seen the struggles they face and witnessed first-hand the sacrifices they have made. And through these experiences, I have seen how we can make the lives of our workers better and where we need to make changes. I urge public servants to also embark on this journey and see how their policies affect the people on the ground. I suggest we set up more committees like the Animal Welfare Legislation Review Committee and the Active Mobility Advisory Panel. Committees made up of people who are on the ground and who perhaps might even have more experience on the issues than our public servants. These are committees which give the public servants a chance to listen and work with the community, to come up with new policies and even legislation. And as pointed out by Prof Tommy Koh last week, I quote, "When we appoint people to boards, we can also appoint challengers who are subversive and who have alternative points of view. That's the kind of cultural change we want to see. It makes Singapore stronger, not weaker". My last suggestion is for public servants to work more closely with civil society activists. Engage them, do not be afraid of them, these are people who speak up because they care. These are people who put the welfare of others before theirs and we should embrace this spirit rather than fear it, we should support rather than penalise them.”
“I suggest that all Bills that we debate in this House are put on the feedback unit Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) for extensive public consultation before the First Reading. I suggest that Members of this House are also provided with a report on the suggestions made by members of the public. We should list all suggestions provided, whether we agree with them or not. This is not new. An excellent example is the report done by the Early Childhood Development Agency published on 20 November 2015 with regard to the Public Consultation on Proposed Early Childhood Development Centres Regulatory Framework, the Bill that we debated just a few days ago. I suggest that senior public servants attend Parliament and listen to the debates so that they have a better understanding of the concerns we are raising. Like football, nothing beats watching a "live" performance than reading a report. I suggested this last year and I will suggest it again. We should release a draft Budget Statement so the public has a chance to make suggestions before we finalise the Budget. I listened to Senior Minister of State Indranee on the radio last week, and there were so many good suggestions on how we can improve the Budget. But, of course, they were made after the Budget has been cast in stone. It is a wasted opportunity not to be able to implement some of the really good suggestions to improve Budget 2017. It is a wasted opportunity to just have a one-way conversation. I suggest public servants who draft policies actually go down to the ground and experience different jobs related to their policies.”
“I have been to too many dialogue sessions where we talk so much rather than listen attentively, we defend our policies rather than listen to ideas on how we can make our policies better. We still do sessions where we explain a decision rather than get feedback to make a decision. The cross-island line saga is perhaps the best example of how we should have engaged the wider community and how we should have done sessions to get feedback to make a decision, rather than make a decision and then call for a dialogue. Is this process more tedious? The answer, without a doubt, is yes. But will people feel more engaged, more empowered? The answer, without a doubt, is also yes. Sir, it is not my intention to paint the Public Service in a bad light, but I have worked with many outstanding public servants in the last 16 years of my life as a civil society activist and the last year and a half as a Member of Parliament (MP). These are a rare breed who devote their lives towards serving Singapore, but I see issues that we need to resolve urgently so that we can continue to have an efficient, committed, yet compassionate Public Service. Moving forward, I have some suggestions to make. For a start, we need to cut some slack for our ground officers, our frontline staff members who will be the first to detect people who have fallen through the cracks, who can alert us. Many I have spoken to feel that when they bring such cases to their superiors, they are scolded for not following the books. We need to develop a culture where they are not penalised for being different and where they are giving some flexibility when processing cases.”
“We have now developed a mindset where a solution, which has been used for years, becomes the right solution. We think that if we change, it means we have been wrong all these years and we do not like to be wrong. I spoke about chickens in Parliament last week, and now I will speak about monkeys. Our response to monkey issues is as "knee jerk" as it can get. We receive a complaint, a trap is laid, a monkey is caught and killed, and we put a tick on the box that something has been done. And in a lot of the cases, that is "case closed". I was there when an Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) contractor was poaching monkeys from a protected area away from where he was supposed to be trapping monkeys. He was eventually fined. But when a trapper returns to AVA with a monkey, how can we possibly verify that he trapped the correct monkey or even a monkey from the correct location? Does the trapping even help? Professors at our local universities and non-government organisations (NGOs) have all voiced our concerns and, based on science, have concluded that the culling of monkeys actually makes the situation worse. I asked an officer on the ground why do we do this when science says it does not work. The reply is that "This is what we have always done. I do not think it works too, but my director told me to do it". There are other ways of managing this issue, we can choose to think out of the box, innovate and choose to address the root of the problem, rather than the symptoms of the problem. Perhaps the easiest way to come up with new ideas is to listen to suggestions from others, engage the wider community, create partnerships.”
“Unfortunately, many people fall through the cracks when the system is so rigid, when we view things in black and white and where compassion is not exercised regularly enough. There are the famous four words "case-by-case basis" but, in reality and based on my experience on the ground, we have to fight with all our might to get that "case-by-case basis". Not long ago, one of my residents died in very unfortunate circumstances. Her husband was remanded and she left behind two very young children. Her sister was thrown into the deep water, while grieving the loss of her only sister and, still single, she suddenly becoming a mother of two. She needed help, she needed some compassion. I spoke to HDB on her behalf urging them not to chase her for the mortgage, give her some time to grieve, compose herself for a very difficult next chapter of her life and, in any case, both owners of the flat are no longer there. HDB agreed, but later still sent a letter demanding payment. She came to see me in tears, worried that HDB will repossess the flat. I asked HDB why did they do that. The answer was that they did not know the letter was sent as it was computer-generated. Not long after, she received a letter from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore demanding tax payment for her late sister. I appreciate that, on paper, we are right to demand payment. But, on compassionate grounds, should we do so, as our fellow Singaporean is trying hard to get back on her feet? Can we not afford to show some compassion? And this is just one out of the many cases I have encountered. Sir, we have spoken a lot about how we need to adapt to a changing environment, be creative and innovate. These are the exact things our Public Service needs to do as well. We need them to think out of the box.”
“Sir, I am grateful we have a Budget which is long-term and one which is not only about the economy but also our environment, our families, about building an inclusive society and about strengthening community bonds. I have 27 specific recommendations for the Government and have filed 27 cuts, speaking about protecting the environment, curbing smoking and helping smokers quit, strengthening responsible financing, helping divorcees, single parents and their children, tackling animal cruelty and wildlife crime, improving our rehabilitation process for inmates, strengthening our humanitarian aid, helping domestic workers, helping neglected children, helping stay-at-home mothers, tackling oil spills, enhancing ElderShield, helping couples with difficulties conceiving, enhancing our ElderShield and helping our Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) which internationalise. But the key in our Budget, our policies and all the recommendations we will be making in this House will be in the implementation. Execution is crucial. A crucial player in the implementation is our Public Service. This year, I will focus my speech on how we can strengthen our Public Service. As fellow Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has mentioned, there is no doubt that we have an efficient and corrupt-free Public Service. My concern is that in the pursuit of efficiency, we have compromised a key value − compassion. In our pursuit to automate most things, we now have a system without a heart. Our aim seems to be to process each case as fast as possible and to follow the book as strictly as possible. Do not deviate, do not rock the boat and do not question.”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. Can I just check if the HDB officers actively or proactively offer this information that we do allow waivers on a case-by-case basis and assist the applicants in applying for the waivers? Secondly, I do understand there is a shortage of rental flats. So, I would like to ask the Ministry of National Development to consider pegging future supply to projections based on the demand of those on the ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance scheme, because they are the people who usually reside in the rental flats. And while there is shortage now, in future, we should project based on those numbers.”
“Mdm Speaker, can I check if there is a timeframe for implementing this ban? Secondly, if we do implement the ban, can I check with the Minister of State what will they do with the ivory that is currently on sale in our shops? Would we be requiring the shop owners to surrender them or will we allow them to keep it? My fear of allowing them to keep it is that it may enter into the black market.”
“Mdm Speaker, this Bill is an important step forward for early childhood education but we must remember that it is only a part of the equation. We must remember this quote by George Santayana, and it reads: "A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“" I have to admit that I wished I had read more bedtime stories to my daughter and, in writing this speech, it made me reflect on this and I hope that all parents think about this as well, about how important a role we play as parents and teachers. I look forward to reading this book another hundred more times to my daughter and another 200 hundred times to my twins. In fact, I read them both this story this morning and they probably heard the story many times already when they were in my wife's womb. Mdm Speaker, it seems that whenever there is a Bill by MSF, I have something to share about my parenthood journey and, this time, I am happy to share that my twins were born last week. They were so eager to come into this world that they came two months early. These two little girls gave us quite a scare last week and, to be honest, it has not been an easy week. I have actually told the twins that last year, I asked Minister Heng whether he can backdate the start of the First Step Grant which was announced during Budget 2016. I told the twins that the Minister said "no" and so, I urged them to please be born after the Committee of Supply (COS) Debates, after any new parenthood policies are announced. As always, children never listen and so I pray that for any new policies that Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo and Minister Tan Chuan-Jin will be announcing shortly, the start date will be the beginning of this year and not with immediate effect from the date of the announcement. On a positive note, I now have three daughters whose birthdays are about a week apart. So, we can have one birthday party for three kids. That is perhaps the best "budget".”
“This, we cannot legislate. We cannot legislate that parents spend time with their children nor can we legislate that parents impart the rights values to their children. This is entirely up to us parents, and the lessons we teach our children are far more important than the lessons in school. Ultimately, children copy what their parents do and it is their parents' behaviours that shape theirs the most. We cannot spend every minute with our children but perhaps an important time is bedtime. My daughter's favourite bedtime story is "The things I love about bed time". I must have read this story close to 100 times now. On Sunday night, she fell asleep after I read her this story and, for the first time, I read the notes for parents and caregivers at the end of the book. I should have read that much earlier but, at least, I am honest. It said, "spending time with your child as they prepare for bed is a wonderful opportunity to develop and maintain a close and loving bond. Playing a fun bedtime game, sharing a story, listening to them recount their favourite moments of the day, discussing dreams and future events they are looking forward to, praising them for a task well done, and telling them how much you love them − all of these things create an environment in which your child will feel happy, safe, secure, loved and valued. Ultimately, these are simple rituals that contribute to an increase in the positive emotion of your child. For you as the parent, this is precious time in which you can be consciously and constructively be involved in building a positive state of mind. Your child will hopefully internalise this optimism and it will guide them on a path to a full and happy life.”
“While ECDA has provided explanations publicly about this, I urge the Minister to reconsider as it does seems like there are double standards here. This new Act should apply to all parties, regardless of whether they are operated privately or by the Government. Lastly, Mdm Speaker, I understand that, on curriculum, we will continue to provide broad guidelines to ensure that programmes are developmentally appropriate. I urge the Minister to ensure that we do not become too focused on academics. These are children who are under seven years old. I see that there are already assessment books for kindergarten children and I see that there are already tuition classes for them as well. We must remember that for these children, play is important and perhaps should be the focus of our ECDCs. Dr David Whitebread from the University of Cambridge stated in his paper "The importance of play" that: "What is increasingly recognised within the research and policy communities, however, is that one vital ingredient in supporting healthy intellectual, emotional and social development in young children is the provision of opportunities and the support for play." His view is also supported by the European Parliament which, on 12 May 2011, adopted a resolution on "Early Years Learning" in the European Union, which notes that the early years of childhood are critical for children's development and highlights that "in addition to education, all children have the right to rest, leisure and play". I hope that this is the direction we are heading in, that we remember that they are kids after all, and kids need to play. Mdm Speaker, as we enact this piece of legislation, perhaps it is timely to remember that the best teachers are the parents and the best ECDC is really our homes.”
“Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill and I thank ECDA for the extensive public consultation it has conducted. Notwithstanding the many positives in the Bill, I would like to seek several clarifications from the Minister, many of which have actually been raised already. Firstly, the decision to include licence conditions is certainly a good move as it is testament to the effort to ensure that the quality of early childhood development centres is maintained. However, it appears that an audit of an ECDC may not be compulsory. Can the Minister clarify under what circumstances would an audit be required? I do understand that ECDA already conducts such audits and the officers generally visit centres at least once a year. Why not then codify this into the Bill? Secondly, mandating the provision of a security deposit would be helpful in incentivising a licensee to operate within the boundaries of the relevant laws and regulations. Can the Minister clarify why we are not making the provision of a security deposit compulsory for all licensees? In cases where a security deposit is required, can the Minister clarify under what circumstances will the security deposit be forfeited? In addition, can the Minister provide a range of the amounts of security deposit required? Thirdly, the requirement of a licensee to give the CLO prior notice before ceasing operations or surrendering a licence is a good mechanism in this Bill. This gives parents time to search for alternative ECDCs for their children. Can the Minister specify the minimum notice period for the licensee to issue such a notice? Fourth, I understand that MOE kindergartens are not regulated under this Bill. Many Members in this House have also shared the same concern.”
“The Minister has mentioned this earlier, but I understand that architects from APEC have to take a domain-specific test. What about architects from ASEAN? In Singapore, some submissions by architects to authorities include a self-declaration to confirm that the qualified person has duly complied with the requirements from the authorities. If something goes wrong, architects may lose their licence and be removed from the Board. If something goes wrong, for projects done by overseas architects under this "mutual recognition" scheme, what penalty would that incur? Do they lose the practice licence obtained in their country? Training and exposure for architects in less-developed countries may not be adequate to familiarise them with Singapore's building codes and standards. If there are no tight controls to limit the overseas architects to practise in Singapore, the standard of architectural practice here could be affected. Architecture is already a very competitive market with limited jobs and many firms, and some architects overseas quote cheaper fees, offering poorer quality work. As such, how can we offer mutual recognition, yet protect the profession in Singapore? Lastly, the Board can appoint a public officer, or any other person, to investigate offences against architects. Investigators have the power of search and require persons to provide information for investigations. This confers extensive powers to investigators. Can the Minister clarify who he envisages "any other persons" to be? Perhaps, investigators should only be limited to employees of the Board, who will be more familiar with the rules and regulations. Madam, these comments notwithstanding, architects have a professional responsibility towards society and I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Madam, I commend the stricter regulations brought about by this Bill. It also expands the powers given to BOA to ensure architects in Singapore stay in line thus strengthening honest work in the profession. I support the enhancements to the current Act and the new definitions introduced to offer clarity to the practice. Architects I have spoken to inform that industry practitioners have already been practising along these lines even before regulations were set in stone, but codifying these good practices into law is a progressive step forward. Madam, I have three comments to make, based on conversations I have had with architects. Firstly, can the Minister clarify why there is a need to increase the maximum penalty the Board can impose on a registered architect from the current $10,000 to $50,000? Has there been a rise in cases in recent years? Secondly, with the amendments to section 6, I assume it will now be easier for architects in Singapore to do quality work overseas, benefiting less developed countries in our region. Singapore is more advanced and sophisticated in our Building Legislation and Codes of Practice, and this Bill will now place Singapore in a better position to bring our expertise to areas which could benefit from technical support. With the amendments, foreign registered architects will also be able to work in Singapore. The APEC Architect Framework allows registered architects in each of the countries to work independently, while ASEAN architects under the ASEAN Framework Agreement have to work in collaboration with a licensed Singapore architectural firm or practice. The safeguards are different, depending on the agreements. Can the Minister clarify what is the required registration process with the Board?”
“Second, the two narrow exceptions for prior disclosure, namely, display at an international exhibition or by description in a paper read before a learned society, are unduly restrictive. It is conceivable that would-be inventors make disclosures that are entirely reasonable for their professions, especially in the scientific fields. For example, scientists often give journalistic interviews or write scientific journals on laboratory breakthroughs that they have discovered, even before commercialisation of a product from the said discovery. Such disclosures are commonplace in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) academia, where articles in prestigious journals could determine the standing of a scientist in his community. To have no invention patentable from such a disclosure would unfairly impose a period of silence on the scientist, who may only publicly disclose his breakthrough until after the date of patent filing. I wish to raise just one point for clarification. The new section 14(4)(e) refers to "disclosure of matter constituting an invention to the public" while existing sections 14(4)(a) to (d) merely refer to "disclosure". Can the Senior Minister of State clarify if there is any substantive difference in terms of what amounts to disclosure between the wording in section 14(4)(a) to (d), and that of 14(4)(e)? Do we retain the common law understanding that disclosure even to one person not under an obligation of confidence constitutes disclosure to the public? Mdm Speaker, the amendments are welcomed changes, which create a patent landscape conducive for Singapore's transformation into an innovative economy. I look forward to more local innovators taking advantage of and flourishing under our robust IP protection regime.”
“Mdm Speaker, Singapore has come a long way from being described as "the piracy capital of the world" in the 1980s, to having an IP regime that is consistently ranked in international surveys as one of the best in the world. I rise in support of these amendments which balance strengthening the IP rights regime which encourages investment in research and development and innovation, while recognising that excessive protection of products or services that are not truly novel can hinder innovation and entrepreneurship. This Bill discontinues the supplementary examination route and requires at least the examination to be done in Singapore. This creates a more rigorous check on the quality of patents and ensures that successful patents are truly deserving of legal protection. I also welcome the new section 14(4)(e) which broadens the 12-month "grace period" exception to determining whether an invention is novel, as this takes into account business needs and practical realities. First, it is entirely plausible for a would-be inventor to disclose details of his invention in reasonable circumstances outside the narrow exceptions listed in section 14(4) to (7). Previous case law has set a high standard that novelty would be ruined as long as even one member of the public has unrestricted use of the information. This is problematic, especially where would-be inventors, in their excitement or by slip of tongue, informally discuss details of the invention with family members or close friends. The heavy penalty of unpatentability and the wastage of months or years of working worth large sums of money is unfair, and the law should be flexible enough to allow for such minor disclosures to be excused.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply and I also thank him for starting the study of stray dogs in Singapore. I am looking forward to the results of that study. I have three points of clarification. One, can the Senior Minister of State clarify how much does AVA pay the contractors for each dog, cat or monkey caught? Second, the Senior Minister of State mentioned about the professional assessment. Can I check who does these assessments as well as how they are actually conducted? Thirdly, a point which is in the Parliamentary Question, can the Senior Minister of State clarify whether AVA expects an increase in expenditure for culling over the next three years?”
“I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I have two clarifications. One, from 2010 to 2011, the number of reported cases of Occupational Diseases (OD) already almost doubled from 432 to 839 cases. As MOM noted, this rise was primarily due to efforts to address potential under reporting. Specifically, MOM had been engaging medical practitioners to encourage them to report ODs. Can the Minister of State clarify whether the under reporting for OD previously, would be the same for work injuries? I asked this Parliamentary Question because the Minister of State has stated that more accurate reporting will aid better analysis of workplace health issues, so that we can better address concerns holistically. I also understand that there are concerns of administrative burden to doctors. Can the Minister of State clarify whether doctors can also use the "iReport", which they currently use to report ODs, for work injuries as well?”
“Madam, just a few more clarifications. I would really like to know how many people actually complained rather than how many complaints were received. Second, so, we have culled 24 chickens, there are 26 remaining. It is a matter of time before the 26 will become 50 again. Will AVA then proceed to cull another 24 chickens? Lastly, I just want to mention that I have seen the photographs of the chickens or some of them at Sin Ming Avenue. They are, indeed, a Red Junglefowl. There are two birds there: the domestic chickens and the Red Junglefowl. Just to clarify because AVA had mentioned earlier that the free-ranging chickens seen on mainland Singapore are not the Red Junglefowl. That statement is inaccurate.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the response. But I think he did not reply to the point about how many people complained about the Sin Ming chickens that I have posed in the Parliamentary Question. Add-on clarifications from that, can the Minister of State clarify why AVA considered relocation as an option, if the concern was bird flu rather than noise? Also, AVA cited the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) statement in 2014 about battling bird flu to justify the culling, but FAO actually stated that it does not support the culling of wild birds. I quote, "Attempts to control the spread of H5N1 by culling large numbers of wild birds are not recommended." It is not recommended as it is ineffective, according to FAO, and amongst many other reasons cited, and I quote, "because they require resources to be diverted from more effective ways of combating the virus, such as improving biosecurity and clamping down on the illegal or unregulated movement of poultry." Can the Minister of State clarify why then did AVA cull the birds which the experts advised against? Third, why did AVA not vaccinate the birds instead which is, again, what the experts recommend, rather than culling them? Lastly, there are now more chickens in Sin Ming. Can the Minister of State clarify if AVA will be culling the remaining population of chickens there?”
“GrabHitch responded to the media that Grab does not restrict its drivers from bringing their certified pets on board their vehicles, only encouraging them to inform their passengers beforehand. This would not happen in a taxi because rules prohibit drivers to bring their dogs into their taxis. Lastly, we have also heard in the news recently that it is illegal for Uber and Grab private hire cars to ferry passengers under 135 cm without a child seat. This, however, does not apply to taxis. The issue here is not whether the child is in a taxi, a Grab or Uber car. At times, it may even be the same exact car model. The issue here is safety and the same rules should apply to all. Can the Minister clarify why this is not the case for the issue of the child seat? And would the Ministry consider imposing exactly the same rules and requirements for taxi drivers to drivers of private car hires so as to achieve our intended objective of fair competition? Madam, these comments notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill. 6.27 pm”
“In comparison, the number of Grab and Uber drivers is estimated to be around 25,000. This is a sizeable number. Adding another 25,000 cars on the road presents real competition for existing taxi drivers. However, we have understood that the private hire car disruption is here to stay and that it, in fact, does provide a valuable service to the Singapore public. I have personally experienced being a Grab driver about a year ago and can see how they are a benefit to consumers. At the same time, I have met with taxi drivers and understand their concerns and know that their rice bowls are now affected by this increased competition. Ultimately, consumers benefit from the additional options. This is a public good for Singapore. As such, the only thing we should do in terms of Government intervention is to ensure fair competition. We must level the playing field as much as possible for both groups. The changes presented by this Bill are a good start by requiring Grab and Uber drivers to register with LTA, complete a vocational licensing course and undergo background screening and medical checks. However, I believe that even after these changes, the playing field is still not level. For example, taxi drivers are required by their Code of Conduct to be properly-attired ‒ shirt, dark-coloured pants, covered shoes and so on. Such requirements do not seem to be explicit for Grab or Uber drivers. A driver I met just three Sundays ago brought up this point and wanted to make sure we implement the same rules for both taxis and Uber and Grab drivers. Another example was highlighted in the media recently when a GrabHitch driver brought his dog to pick up a passenger and the passenger was bitten.”
“Madam, this Bill ensures that Singapore's road traffic laws continue to keep up with the changing times and continue to adapt alongside ongoing changes in the industry and I stand in support of it. I commend the harsher penalties for altering vehicles and reckless driving, raising the maximum fines from $5,000 to $10,000 in both cases. This is only appropriate. As Singapore continues to experience economic growth and rising levels of affluence, penalties should also rise concurrently. Only then will penalties bring about the right "pain level", have the appropriate punitive effect and continue to be an effective deterrent. But, as always, I do hope we do not just focus solely on penalties to shape our behaviours and morals. I hope all of us can realise that innocent lives may be lost as a result of our reckless actions. I also note that obstruction of driverless vehicles will, for the first time, incur a penalty. As driverless vehicles are the inevitable future for the industry and the world is moving steadily ahead with its development, it is only prudent for Singapore laws to facilitate the testing and use of this innovation. As such, this inclusion is timely and necessary for Singapore to remain at the forefront of innovation for driverless vehicles. However, I would like to raise the point that the maximum penalty of $5,000 for first-time offenders who obstruct driverless vehicles during trials is the same as the current penalty for first-time offenders of reckless driving. This seems to be rather harsh and I would like to ask the Second Minister for the rationale behind this. I also commend the timely and much-anticipated move to further regulate the private hire car industry. In 2016, LTA's statistics showed that around 27,000 regular taxis plied our roads.”
“Animals are not stationary and have the freedom to travel from unrestricted areas to nature reserves. Hence, I see little rationale in creating demarcations when prohibiting the release of animals. ACRES has seen first-hand the devastating impact invasive species can have on local ones. For example, the red-eared sliders, which are native to North America, have caused numbers of our local Asian box turtles to drop significantly. Madam, if we want to protect our local wildlife, we must put a stop to the release of animals anywhere. I had the privilege of experiencing the amazing biodiversity in Singapore and I hope my daughters will continue to have this privilege when they are older. I was in England recently and I watched a programme on TV about the challenges countries around the world faced in co-existing with their wild animals. The programme ended by showcasing Singapore and how we have succeeded in protecting our biodiversity and co-existing with our wild animals. The ball is in our court and let us make sure we do what is right. After all, "If we pollute the air, water and soil that keep us alive and well, and destroy the biodiversity that allows natural systems to function, no amount of money will save us." Madam, I stand in full support of this Bill. 4.32 pm”
“Probably because there was no actual corresponding amendments to the PTA, in practice, even after the Notices, NParks still has to send all reported misdemeanours beyond the high water mark to MPA to enforce. NParks could not enforce action on its own against blatant misbehaviour in broad daylight within the designated Chek Jawa Wetlands. These include laying fish nets These experiences underline the importance of embedding clear jurisdiction boundaries in the sea through amendments in the PTA, and not just via Notices. In this light, could the Ministry also look at amending jurisdiction for coastal parks, nature reserves and Chek Jawa, since it is now amending jurisdiction for the Sisters Islands marine park? Lastly, on the amendments to section 9, which propose to prohibit the release or abandonment of animals into any river, stream or watercourse which flows into a nature reserve. I understand that NParks will be putting up "no-release" signs to inform the public of this change. However, it might be difficult to enforce this. For example, if the public releases the animal further upstream, before the sign is sighted, how will this law still be enforced? How will we assess if the person "reasonably knows" that the body of water flows into or through the nature reserve? A person caught releasing the animal can simply say he or she does not know the river flows into the nature reserve. How will NParks be able to prove what he or she knows or does not know? I foresee some technical difficulties with enforcement and thus propose an alternative solution, which is to prohibit the release of exotic species anywhere, on land or in water, in Singapore, and not simply to restrict this to certain areas.”
“What about taking from the sea bed? Is this to be considered "land" as well? It is best if the law clearly makes it an offence to take away shellfish, shells as well as corals. All these should be protected in a marine park, along with fish and other marine creatures. It is also unclear if fishing or the taking of any marine life in a marine park is prohibited. Will there also be prohibitions on throwing down of anchors onto the seabed as these would damage the coral reefs, or throwing of garbage into the sea? I appreciate that the Minister had mentioned earlier that there would be subsidiary legislation enacted that will probably address a majority of the concerns I have raised but I hope again that as we draft those regulations, the points I raise here are taken into consideration. Next, in order for NParks to fully protect our marine biodiversity from destructive behaviours, could the Ministry look into making similar amendments to extend full jurisdiction by NParks to coastal Nature Reserves like the Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve and Labrador Nature Reserve, as well as coastal parks, such as the Changi Beach Park, Pasir Ris Park, East Coast Park and Chek Jawa? The experience with the designation of "Chek Jawa Wetlands" in 2007 suggests that amendments to the PTA are necessary to allow NParks to fully enforce the PTA beyond the high water mark. I understand from the green community that NParks Notice 5.2.180.1 dated 24 September 2007 and Port Marine Notice No 126 of 2007 attempted to designate Chek Jawa Wetlands by demarcating points in the sea and declaring via the Notices that these points were under the PTA.”
“Madam, while I stand in support of the Bill, I would like to seek some clarification and also offer some suggestions. There should be an equivalent to Part III of the PTA with regard to marine parks. There should be a section setting out the objectives of a marine park, similar to section 7 of the current Act. There should also be provisions setting out what acts are prohibited in a marine park, similar to sections 8 and 9 of the current Act. Can the Minister clarify specifically what acts are not allowed in the marine park? What is the status of the land areas of Sisters Island? It is only the marine area, defined in the Bill's Schedule Part III, that is protected as a marine park. But the amended It is noted as well that shellfish is protected, as "fish" includes shellfish in the definition. But this protection only applies to acts that are prohibited in sections 8 and 9 and these relate to National Parks and Nature Reserves, not to a marine park. Can the Minister clarify if the protection extends to the marine park as well? What about shells that no longer have shellfish living in them, the giant clam shells, for example? These are also found in our waters. Are these protected? There was a recent controversy over the giant clam shells collected by NUS students on a trip to the Riau Islands. It is also unclear if corals are protected in a marine park. It may be argued that the definition of "animal" in the PTA is wide enough to encompass corals "or any other living creature, vertebrate or invertebrate". While many are living organisms, some corals may be dead. Can these be collected? Section 14 of the State Lands Encroachment Act makes it an offence to take "corals or shells" from state land but this only applies to taking from the "land".”
“Madam, I stand in full support of this Bill. I have spent the last 16 years of my life fighting to protect our wildlife here in Singapore. With ACRES, we have rescued thousands of animals, rehabilitated them and, working with both NParks and AVA, released them back into the wild where they belong. Singaporeans continue to be amazed when I tell them that we rescued over 1,000 wild animals in Singapore each year. ACRES alone rescued more than 3,000 wild animals just last year. The most common response I get is "Singapore got wild animals, meh?" I have personally seen the amazing biodiversity we have on this island, I have seen how precious they are and, perhaps most importantly, I have seen how fragile they are. We have much to lose if our policies are not right and, for all the harm that we humans have done to the animals and the environment, it is also only us who can right this wrong; only us who can protect our ecosystem. Madam, this Bill today signals a milestone in our efforts to protect Singapore's biodiversity and is a huge step forward. A significant step forward is in the protection of our marine ecosystem. If it is hard to create awareness of and protect the biodiversity on land, protect our terrestrial ecosystem, then it is even harder when it comes to our marine ecosystem simply because what goes on there literally goes on beneath the surface and most people have never seen or heard of the amazing marine life we have in our waters. As such, I applaud the Bill for the inclusion of "marine parks" in the Parks and Trees Act (PTA), giving NParks − for the first time − jurisdiction over the seas. This will provide the Sisters' Island Marine Park with greater protection against destructive behaviour.”
“Thank you, Madam. As the Minister of State has mentioned, following the First Reading of the Bill, I did submit some of the concerns to the Minister of State. I thank him for providing some clarifications on some of the concerns I had raised. I just have two further clarifications. One, as he mentioned about the Singapore Rubber Fund, I would like to ask if there are any plans or ideas in the pipeline regarding the regulation of rubber trade and industry, bearing in mind that while rubber production in Singapore has fallen over the years, Singapore remains as a big player in this industry. In this regard, this is still an industry that the Government should remain interested in and assist as much as possible. Secondly, referring to section 5(1)K, I note that IE Singapore may advise and assist only the Government and public authorities. Would it be more helpful for businessmen and women and companies if IE Singapore could also advise and assist any persons, bodies or organisations since IE Singapore is currently already able to act as agents for them? 3.04 pm”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for sharing that they are reviewing the regulations for short-term home-sharing. But can I ask if there is a timeframe for this review?”
“I am heartened by the addition of section 24B to the Act, which adds another layer of protection to conservation areas in Singapore. I note that in discharging their duties, QPs are required to notify URA of any contravention or non-compliance with any provision, condition, requirement or plans in relation to this Act. Could the Minister consider adding a time factor into this obligation, to notify "without delay", "immediately" or "as soon as practicable"? I believe that the earlier the non-compliance is reported, the higher the chance that we could prevent or mitigate problems that may arise from that non-compliance. Sir, notwithstanding my comments, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“At last year's National Day Rally, the Prime Minister noted that there are two ways to respond to disruption: (i) to close Singapore off and try to stop people from using the new technology, or (ii) embrace change and let the disruption happen, but help the incumbents adapt. The Prime Minister said that old models are not working. New models are coming in thick and fast, and we have to adjust and keep up because of technology and globalisation, and the disruption will happen over and over again, relentlessly. I hope that we do not close Singapore off to the home-sharing economy and stop Singaporeans and tourists from using such platforms in Singapore. I believe that we should embrace this disruption and explore ways to help all stakeholders adapt to the new normal. We should regulate rather than ban. Given that home-sharing platforms have many users and customers, does URA have enough manpower to undertake full enforcement measures in the first place? How many enforcement officers does URA have to enforce this? Following the passing of this Bill, will it require all the listings ‒ all 6,000 or so, as my colleague Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has stated ‒ on these home-sharing platforms to be removed? And, lastly, has URA conducted research on how other countries have regulated the home-sharing concept? Can the Minister share if we are considering following some of these regulations? Lastly, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for introducing a custodial sentence for repeat offenders of permitting unauthorised development and subdivision. This is necessary because recalcitrance at the expense of damaging Singapore's heritage and identity should never be tolerated.”
“Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. I will focus my speech on the short-term rentals, and I note that it is already illegal to lease a home for less than six months in Singapore. However, what we are doing in this Bill is codifying this URA subletting guideline, and I have concerns about this. My concern is that this Bill might be passed too hastily. In May 2016, URA stated that the results of the public consultation on short-term rentals were "split, with no clear consensus". URA, by its own admission, added that "this issue on short-term stays is complex, multi-faceted, has wide-ranging implications and it warrants a careful and balanced review," and, therefore, it "needed more time to study the issue". I stress that these statements were published not more than a year ago. While this Bill might be passed, can the Minister clarify if his Ministry will be studying this issue further, will he be conducting more public consultations and do a further review on this? The sharing economy, while disruptive, is here to stay. We have witnessed this with Uber and Grab. Likewise, home-sharing concepts, like Airbnb and PandaBed, are here to stay. Passing the law to combat the real or perceived negativities of the home-sharing economy diverges from the approach that was taken against similarly disruptive entrants in Uber and Grab. We are also ignoring the popularity of such "disruptive" home-sharing concepts, especially with the younger generation, and how this might ultimately also affect our tourism industry. Just taking into consideration Airbnb, do we really want to ban a company which, according to some media reports, boasts more than a million listings across 190 countries in 34,000 cities with more than 25 million guests served, from operating in Singapore?”
“As a group of persons who are not democratically elected by the citizens of Singapore, it is only appropriate for the PEC to account to the electorate on the reasons that guided the PEC to limiting the nominees to such persons only. Madam, I believe that the declarant ought to know the reasons behind being rejected by the Community Committee in a system where he or she probably only has one chance and where the decision is final and not subject to any appeal or judicial review. Madam, the above comments notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Hence, it would be considerate to produce the reasons behind the rejection in order to demonstrate that the Community Committee considered the form and relevant documents or evidence rigorously and fairly in an application where the declarant has probably only one chance. Thirdly, the Community Committee, which is statutorily unencumbered by legal forms or evidence laws as per section 8G(4), appears to be able to make its decision with fewer considerations or constraints. Hence, it would be helpful for the declarant and the public to know of the reasons behind the rejection. This would surely help preserve the credibility of the Community Committee. Madam, may I also seek clarifications on section 8L of the Bill? I note that the Community Committee may regulate its own procedure. Could the use of this power be clarified and what possible regulations of procedure do we envisage? Next, I note that a defect in the appointment of any member of the Community Committee would not invalidate "any proceedings of the Community Committee". The phrase "any proceedings" appear to include decisions on accepting or rejecting a declaration form. May I know why a defect in this particular appointment should be tolerated when a strict and stringent approach has always been adopted in election matters? Madam, ancillary to this Bill is the powers of the PEC. Like how the Community Committee determines if a person is of a particular community, the PEC functions as another gatekeeper. May I propose that PEC also reveal its reasons for rejecting any candidate for not being "a person of integrity, good character and reputation" as per Article 19(2)(e) of the Constitution?”
“Madam, I stand in support this Bill. However, I would like to seek a few clarifications and also offer some suggestions. I hope that the decision-making process of the Community Committee can be transparent. I trust that the Community Committee will carry out its functions in a fair and equitable manner. Hence, there should be no issues and difficulties in allowing the decisions and processes to be transparent. In today's liberal social media where opinions and questions are openly raised and disseminated, it would be advisable for the Government to provide answers and clarity, before doubt and misinformation cloud the minds of people. To this end, the Community Committee should be transparent in its processes. May I suggest that the Community Committee inform the declarant as to why the Community Committee concluded that the declarant is not a member of the particular Community that he or she has declared to be of? I have as well additional reasons for suggesting why the Community Committee should reveal the reasons that guided it to the conclusion to reject a declaration form. First, the declarant does not appear to have any recourse if he or she believes the decision made by the Community Committee is incorrect or unjustly concluded. As per section 8J(2), the Community Committee's decision is final and not subject to any appeal or review by the Court. Further, the Community Committee is granted very comprehensive immunity as well, subject to the exception of malice, which is a high threshold to satisfy in a procedural or administrative context. Secondly, unless invited by the Community Committee, the declarant may submit his or her form only once.”
“Mdm Speaker, just one quick supplementary. Moving forward, will MOM consider requiring all companies which employ Work Permit holders to place a security bond or a deposit with MOM, which can specifically be used when companies ignore the Labour Court orders for compensation to the workers?”
“It would seem like we are creating a loophole in this piece of legislation. Lastly, I note that the Government had accepted in full the recommendations submitted by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel in March 2016. I welcome the Government's move to include stakeholders in policy-making − in this case, 14 representatives from seniors and grassroots leaders to PMD users and cyclists. This is reminiscent of the Animal Welfare Legislation Review Committee, which I was a part of. I look forward to more of such review and advisory committees being set up to ensure that the policies we enact are by the people and for the people. Madam, the above comments notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.”