Murali Pillai
Singapore
“Sir, my response will also cover matters raised in the related oral questions, as well as written questions, all filed by the hon Member, Ms Sylvia Lim1, 2, for a subsequent Sitting. The hon Member may wish to withdraw her Parliamentary Questions (PQs) if her queries are answered in today's Sitting.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to respond to the hon Member Ms Poh's third question on jet fuel. We are working with the aviation stakeholders to monitor the fuel supply for aviation hubs carefully to ensure that it remains stable.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to the hon Member Dennis Tan's question on maritime hub, I just want to say that for the now, for the current, port operations have been stable. There are no significant fuel supply shortages, and we have adequate fuel and bunker supply.”
“Sir, I would like to answer the hon Member Shawn Loh's question on the status of the aviation hub. There have been some flight disruptions. Apart from the disruptions, most of Changi Airport's flights have been operating normally. The disruptions have been limited to some Singapore-Middle East passenger and cargo services.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the hon Member Mr Chia for his kind words about the efforts we have made thus far to attract young talent. On the specific issue about the GRIT programme, that involves traineeship, the good thing about the maritime sector is that we have jobs available.”
“It was John Harrison's invention of the chronometer, highly accurate even at sea, that allowed longitudes to be plotted and journeys to be precise enough to chase a nimble whale. Likewise, Singapore must remain alive to the transformational power of new technologies, to master new tasks and chart new journeys through untested waters.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,219 lines we hold for Murali Pillai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 25.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the hon Senior Minister of State what proportion of platform workers are ex-offenders and what steps can be taken to encourage ex-offenders to look at more value-added jobs so that their long-term prospects would be protected?”
“I had argued that there should be clarity on the identity of foreign states with whom Singapore has extradition treaties, given the complexities of her constitutional history. I argued that, for Malaysia and Brunei, with whom we have special extradition arrangements, there should be better alignment with this Act. I suggested that the AG be specifically appointed to invoke all the powers under the Act from the outset and not just from the point of review of an order. Finally, I argued that, as a matter of calibration, a magistrate should not be given a discretion to issue a warrant of apprehension triggering extradition proceedings on his own accord without the Minister's prior authorisation. On the other hand, for a magistrate deciding whether or not to order extradition, I argued the reverse: that he should be given more discretion to apply Singapore's public interest. In my respectful view, the proposals I have made are in line with the aims of the Bill. Our role as legislators involves calibration of matters. Careful calibration is needed to achieve certainty, the judicious use of our state and judicial resources and ensuring that Singapore truly fulfils its role as a responsible global citizen in the arena of extradition of fugitives.”
“Article 11 of our Constitution prohibits a person from being punished for an act or omission which is not punishable by law when it was done. This protection against retrospective criminal laws, however, does not apply universally. For example, Pakistan’s Ehtesab Act 1997, which focuses on corruption by politicians and public officers, has retrospective effect. Let us consider a case of a country seeking to extradite a fugitive from Singapore for an offence of bribery which satisfies all the proposed criteria set out in the Bill. Does a Singapore Court have a discretion, nonetheless, not to order an order which goes against Singapore’s local public interest? Or is the Court supposed to ignore Singapore’s local public interest altogether? Would it be better to have reserved for the Singapore Court a residual discretion to take action that it deems fit, depending on the circumstances of the case? In this regard, I wish to point out that under section 22(4)(c) of MACMA, it is specifically provided that a Court, before it issues a production order for the benefit of foreign criminal proceedings, should satisfy itself that the issuance of the production order is not contrary to Singapore’s public interest. I am also aware that under the proposed section 10(2)(d) in the Bill, there is a discretion provided to the Minister not to order a fugitive to be arrested for “any other sufficient cause”. But based on my consideration of the proposed clause, this clause is not intended to apply to Singapore’s public interest in the matter under consideration. Even if it does, my main point is that the Court should be given the judicial discretion to consider Singapore’s public interest, just like in the case for MACMA. Sir, please allow me to conclude.”
“Drawing from my personal experience as a former Police officer, I recall in the early 1990s, I was investigating a case of a girl alleged to have been kidnapped from lawful guardianship. The father of the girl provided information that the accused and his daughter were likely to be in Ulu Tiram, Johor. Within a matter of hours, a Malaysian police officer escorted my colleagues and I to the location identified by the father to look for the accused and the victim. These special arrangements enable Police officers to pursue criminals even across borders as quickly as possible in an effort to bring them to justice. Turning to the Bill, I note that in the proposed Part 6, it deals only with the arrangement with Malaysia substantially as it is set out in the Bill. The Bill is, however, silent on the extradition arrangement with Brunei. One of the objectives of the Bill, as I understand, is to collate extradition offences stated in other pieces of legislation into the proposed Fourth Schedule of the Act. In light of that intent, may I please ask why is it not felt that there is a part under the Act to deal with the special arrangement with Brunei? May I also ask what is the legislative intent in relation to a Magistrate applying the powers under section 121 of CPC to arrest a fugitive in Singapore wanted by the Malaysian authorities? Is he also to have regard to the requirements in Part 6 of the Extradition Act? I ask this because there is no reference in the provisions set out in the Extradition Act and CPC to each other, even though the subject matter is the same. My final area deals with the applicability of Singapore’s local public interest to extradition applications here and possible clashes with the policy of other countries. I will do this through an illustration.”
“I must point out we are enabled to make this move now because there has been, in the recent past, a massive rationalisation exercise to ensure that the maximum sentences for offences have been updated. This move is also calibrated in that the double criminality principle, requiring the offences to be punishable by a maximum punishment of more than two years’ imprisonment in both the requesting and requested states, is retained. My question is: how are we able to reconcile this approach with respect to treaties which list offences, as opposed to adopting the threshold approach? Let us take the US, for example. Under the treaty between the US and Singapore, there are 27 categories of offences. Would the US be able to extradite from Singapore a fugitive wanted for an offence that is not in the list but satisfies the threshold requirements? The next area I wish to deal with concerns Singapore’s special extradition arrangements with Malaysia and Brunei. This involves a considerably simplified process when it comes to extraditing a person in Singapore accused or convicted of an offence under the laws of Malaysia and Brunei. It is laid down in just one section of the Criminal Procedure Code, section 121, which has five subsections, and all in one page. Under this arrangement, which, by the way, applies to Singapore reciprocally, too, when a warrant is issued by a Malaysian or Brunei Court, the Singapore Court may just endorse the said warrant and, thereafter, it is treated as a warrant issued by a Singapore Court. This simplified process reflects the special relationship between Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei and I fully support it.”
“MACMA deals with evidence needed for overseas criminal proceedings. The Extradition Act deals with persons accused or convicted of crime overseas. Under section 22 of MACMA, it is specifically provided that it is the Attorney-General (AG) or a person duly appointed by the AG who may apply to the Court for production orders on behalf of the foreign country. Based on my checks, there is no equivalent section in the Extradition Act. The Attorney-General’s role under the Act is specified only from the point after an order is made by the Magistrate on application for extradition. For example, he may make an application for a review of the order by the General Division of the High Court. I do accept, in practice, officers of the AGC usually make the applications under the Act. But having regard to the point I made about the general jurisdiction of the Magistrate to issue warrants of apprehension against fugitives and the fact that the definition of “Foreign States” may be more expansive than currently thought, it seems to me open for a party which has interest in a matter to apply and invoke the general jurisdiction of the Court, thereby bypassing AGC. Would it not be better to explicitly ensure that no other party other than the Attorney-General or someone appointed by him may invoke the powers of the Act to extradite a fugitive, just like in MACMA? I now move to the third area, which is the proposed implementation of the threshold approach. As the hon Minister explained, this means that the offences which are punished by a maximum of two years' imprisonment would automatically be considered extradition offences. This is a shift from the current model which maintains a list of offences which will require an update periodically. I support this move. It makes eminent sense.”
“Would it not be better to just require any state which wishes to invoke the Extradition Act to make a requisition first to the Minister or the Attorney-General’s Chambers on behalf of the Government through diplomatic channels? I would imagine this is the case for most cases, if not for all. In my respectful view, it would be preferable for the Minister, or if it is perceived that there is a need to create extra bandwidth, a person or committee appointed by the Minister, to act as a filter to determine the “bona fides” of the requesting state. This is not an easily justiciable question that a Court can decide. Also, it is specifically provided in the proposed section 12(4) of the Bill that the Minister may direct a warrant issued by the Magistrate without the authorisation of the Minister to be cancelled. Having regard to the separation of powers in our Westminster-style Government, I am concerned about arrogating to the Minister a power to cancel a warrant issued by the Court, which is an independent pillar of our Government. To be fair, this is something which is already in place under the Act now. Given that the policy intent is for the Minister to be satisfied there is ground to initiate or proceed with extradition proceedings, would it not be better to altogether remove the Magistrate’s jurisdiction to issue warrants against fugitives on his own? This leads me to the next question as to who can make applications to invoke the powers of the Court under the Extradition Act. Some provisions in the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, or MACMA, as it is often referred to, overlap in purpose with the provisions of the Extradition Act. In both cases, Singapore is being asked to assist foreign states in criminal matters.”
“In her article, Ms Brabyn listed 14 more states that can potentially fulfil the definition of “Foreign States” arising from treaties entered into between 1898 and 1960 with the UK. They include Austria, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Luxembourg and Switzerland. In my respectful view, the passage of 54 years since the enactment of the Act constitutes more than enough time for the Government to have ascertained which are the historical treaties that Singapore considers as bilaterally enforceable. This will promote certainty and remove the chance of any dispute on this issue arising in Court, something that Prof Jayakumar was concerned about in his article. He said: “The problem could arise in proceedings to extradite a fugitive to a foreign state on the basis of a pre-Independence Treaty concluded by the UK with that foreign state. The fugitive might challenge the proceedings on the ground that the extradition treaty is not one which 'extends to and is binding on Singapore'.” May I ask the hon Minister why he is proposing to still retain the original definition of “Foreign State” in these circumstances? Specifically, I wonder if the Minister would consider listing them in a schedule to the Act or by way of subsidiary legislation in the near future. Turning to the second area, in this Bill, it is proposed that two current mechanisms to commence extradition proceedings in Singapore be retained. Currently, a Magistrate may, by authorisation of the Minister through a notice, issue a warrant of apprehension of a fugitive. In addition, the Magistrate may issue a same warrant through an application made directly to him. My question is: why give the Magistrate the power to issue a warrant independently?”
“Third, I seek a short clarification on how the threshold approach to determining an extraditable offence would apply in situations where the underlying treaty between Singapore and the foreign country specifies extraditable offences based on categories of offences listed. Fourth, I seek a clarification on the issue of alignment between this Act and the existing extradition framework dealing with Malaysia and Brunei. Finally, I wish to explore whether a Singapore Court, in deciding whether or not to make the extradition order, may take into account Singapore’s public interest. On the first area, I note that it is proposed that the definition of what constitutes a “foreign state” in the current Act be retained. This includes a foreign state which had an extradition treaty with the British Empire at the time when Singapore was part of it, unless the Minister stipulates otherwise in a gazette notification. This is how the 1931 extradition treaty between the US and Singapore came into being. It was entered into between the US and UK when Singapore was a British colony. Singapore’s right to this extradition arose in her capacity as the successor by operation of law which was subsequently recognised by exchange of letters between the respective governments of the states in 1969. As a result of this definition, there remains uncertainty as to which other foreign states may be held to be able to invoke the extradition processes under the Act. This is a point that Prof S Jayakumar, as an academic, made in 1970 in his published article entitled “Singapore and State Succession”. His point was echoed by NUS law lecturer, Ms Janice Brabyn, in her 1985 published article entitled, “Extradition in Singapore and Malaysia”.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the policy objectives underpinning the proposed amendments to the Extradition Act 1968. As outlined by the Minister, the purpose of the Bill is to update and modernise our domestic extradition regime; ensure that there are mechanisms to ensure that resources of the state and judicial system are not over-used; and cement Singapore’s role as a responsible global citizen. As a result, this Bill proposes to make what I believe to be the most substantial amendments to the Act since it was enacted 54 years ago. For legal practitioners and Government officers in the know, this is not an easy task. As will be seen from my speech, Singapore’s extradition framework is shaped by Singapore’s complex constitutional history and special relationship with several of our neighbouring states. I, therefore, appreciate the difficulties our legislative drafters faced in their attempt to simplify and modernise the Act. If they were to draft this Act from a clean slate, I suspect it would have been a much easier task to do. In my speech, I will cover five areas. First, I seek clarification on the definition of “foreign state” that is proposed in the Bill. Second, I seek clarification on two procedural issues. They are the need to retain the Magistrate’s independent jurisdiction to issue warrants of apprehension against fugitives, instead of doing so only when authorised by the Minister; and the absence of a provision that specifies who can make the applications to invoke the powers of the Court under the Extradition Act to issue warrants for apprehension of fugitives and commit the fugitive to be surrendered to the authorities of the requesting state.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Minister for his Ministerial Statement, which is a response to my Parliamentary Question asking for an update on his proposal to set up the Public Defender's Office. I applaud the Government's announcement to set up this Public Defender's Office. This is a shift from the previous position of the Government not to set up the Public Defender's Office. It is a good example of how the Government continually looks at policies and makes the necessary changes to suit the circumstances. I have two supplementary questions. One is in relation to the staffing of the Public Defender's Office with legal officers. As this House will note, we had moved amendments in the Constitution to create a Legal Service Commission as well as a Judicial Service Commission. As far as the Public Defender's Office is concerned, may I ask the hon Minister which Commission would be superintending over the officers so that they can be properly developed to be capable in delivering their duties without favour, based on expectations set of them? The second question is in relation to the exclusions. The hon Minister mentioned about nine statutes which he proposes to exclude. Does he propose to also exclude private prosecution? Because as the hon Minister is aware, there is public prosecution, there is private prosecution. May I ask, as a matter of concept, the PDO is not meant to be engaged for private prosecution?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak. Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the hon Finance Minister. May I ask the hon Finance Minister why he feels that it is not appropriate to calibrate downwards the petrol tax at this point in time, given the backdrop of the following facts? First, when the hon Deputy Prime Minister announced the hike in petrol tax in February 2021, he pegged the reasons for increasing it as to promote a green environment, not revenue. Second, at the time when he announced the tax hike, the Ukraine invasion would not have been foreseeable. But at that point in time, he and the Government officers would have calibrated a certain behaviour pattern in terms of an increase in the fuel price and how much behaviour would have changed from that point onwards. In fact, since the announcement was made, the price was hiked by about 10%. Third, we all accept that the war drove up the price. In fact, since 24 February 2022, when the invasion happened, to date, the price at the pumps has increased about 5%. So, why could we not calibrate downwards the fuel tax so that we have an optimal behaviour that was planned as at February 2021? That is my first question. The second question is: if the Minister still does not intend to intervene, then when does he think is a proper time to intervene, having regard to the fact that a number of vehicles are used by fellow Singaporeans for their trades and businesses?”
“One centenarian whom I met was Mdm Ng Ah Luah who lived until 105. I asked her for advice as to how to keep a family harmonious. She told me she would organise frequent family gatherings to bond over food. She also said, family members should not bicker over little things. Simple lessons but difficult to put in practice. Families go through good times and bad. Different families have different challenges. We must provide more support for families that face challenges in keeping together. Again, easier said than done. May I ask the hon Minister for his plans to strengthen our families? Today, more than ever, it is needed as a pillar for our society facing so many challenges, for if it is eroded or weakened, society will not stand. Importance of the Extended Family”
“Sir, in 1993, this House adopted five shared values that were identified as what holds us together as Singaporeans. "Family as the basic unit of society" is one of them. The late Dr Ong Chit Chung, then Member of Parliament for Bukit Batok, argued in this House, that the family should be called the "pillar of society" instead. For "if the pillar is eroded or weakened, society will not stand". He was right. Our society's response to COVID-19 demonstrated it. As we pitched battle against COVID-19, the Singaporean family was a pillar of strength holding us together. This was no easy task. To date, we have about 850,000 infections, more than 1,000 have died. Our families, as the first line of support, lovingly cared for the sick. When any succumbed, we cried as a family and rallied around each other. When our children were not able to attend school, our families encouraged them in their remote learning from home and took care of their mental health. When in doubt or fear, we found strength in talking to each other, to get vaccinated, boosted, wear masks and commiserate about the need for safe management measures. Families helped those who have lost jobs or suffered pay cuts. The time-honoured qualities of our Singaporean families which includes resilience, self-reliance and filial piety must be preserved. I believe, ultimately, it is the strength of our families that will determine whether our nation will emerge from this pandemic stronger. A lot can be done at the community level to celebrate family milestones and share ideas as to how to keep families strong. In Bukit Batok, we regularly hold birthday celebrations for our centenarians. There is no better celebration than to see up to five generations of family members coming together.”
“Sir, hon Members on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about the high motorcycle COE prices. These prices impact persons from low-income background, especially those who use motorcycles as part of their work. For them, taking public transport is not a viable option. Even as demand for these continue to be strong, the supply has been squeezed. Last year, the Government announced a zero-growth rate for cars and motorcycles until 31 January 2025. In these current circumstances, motorcycle prices may rise even further unless something is done. I support a cap on our vehicles, as the number on our roads draw near to one million, but I wonder if the total number can be allocated differently. For example, I note from the categorisation of vehicles for COE purposes, goods vehicles are in a separate category, Category C. I further note that this category is allowed a growth rate of 0.25% of the vehicle population divided by four until 2025. I wonder if the Government is prepared to recognise a separate category of delivery motorcycles and apply a similar growth rate for this category. This may go some way to mitigate the high COE prices for motorcycles used for work. It is a practical and fair way to harness the market to work for us. 11.00 am Motorcycle Ownership”
“Sir, currently NEA is not able to conduct investigation against drivers of foreign vehicles for infringement of vehicle emission regulations if they are merely reported by members of public, unless NEA officers personally confirm the cases at the scene. This is because unlike local vehicles, NEA does not have the information on ownership of foreign registered vehicles. This gives rise to an unhappy situation as NEA officers have to catch the offenders red-handed. This gap in enforcement policy must be closed, as NEA officers cannot be everywhere. Those who violate our emission laws must face the same consequences, regardless of whether they are local or foreign drivers. I recommend that NEA work out an arrangement with ICA that will allow for measures; such as not allowing the foreign vehicles to be driven into or out of Singapore until such time the drivers' particulars are provided or the composition fine imposed for the commission of the offence is paid. Environmental Sanitation Regime”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to thank the hon Minister for his characteristic, comprehensive response to all the points raised in the hon Members' speeches. Sir, last year, MinLaw had the heaviest legislative agenda because it actually introduced the most number of Bills compared to other Ministries. So, this year, I would not be wishing him and his officers as busy a year as last year, although from the plans that he has in mind, it seems to be going to be as busy, nonetheless. I wish him and his officers well in the implementation of his plans to further the access to justice, strengthen the rule of law, grab the economic opportunities for Singapore and Singaporeans and, of course, strengthen our society. With that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $259,045,400 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $58,450,400 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Next, I propose that the Ministry review the merits of retaining the provisions of the Debtors Act 1934, which allows for judgment debtors to be committed to civil prison after an examination before a Court on the inability to pay or satisfy the judgment debt. In my respectful view, this provision is anachronistic. It has not being used, as I have been told, since 2013, pursuant to a response to my Parliamentary Question recently. In any event, there exists provisions to deal with judgment debtors who are not forthcoming with honest answers or fraudulently remove their assets to frustrate judgment creditors. Mr Chairman, Sir, I have spoken on the need to capture all possible efficiencies, including from chatbots and new technologies, to ensure that the provision of justice remains a lean and streamlined process. That is tending to the cost of supply. At the same time, we must look at demand for legal services and ensure access to justice for all. In this, I ask for us to review the means test. Last, I ask for a few smaller reviews to ensure that our laws are updated and made coherent with developments across the entire body of law. Together, they ensure that our legal system remains efficient, accessible and coherent, all of which will go a long way towards maintaining and building up that trust that Singaporeans have in our laws. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Enforcement of Civil Judgments and Orders”
“Given that there is a capacity to take on more cases, I suggest that a study be done to review the PCHI and study the feasibility of revising it upwards. I also suggest that the Ministry make it better known that there is a discretion given to the Means Test Panel to waive the means test requirements when it is found to be "just and proper" to do so. I learned from MinLaw's recent response to my Parliamentary Question that since 2019, when the amendments to the Legal Aid and Advice Act to provide for flexibility in providing legal aid was introduced, the Means Test Panel only received seven applications, of which five were approved. In the end though, two withdrew, leaving only three applicants to proceed with their applications. In my respectful view, this is too small a number, given the demand for legal aid. I also checked the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) website and noted the reference to this statutory discretion is respectfully rather cursory. I was not able to find a reference to the Means Test Panel and the fact that the decisions of the panel can be appealed to the Minister. The illustrations as to what constitutes "just and proper" circumstances are also rather limited. From time to time, our laws have to be updated in keeping with developments. I would be grateful if the Minister could please outline his plans in this area. I would also like to make two proposals for his kind consideration. First, I propose that the Ministry look at amending the Limitation Act 1959 to address a recent decision of the Court of Appeal to the effect that claims in unjust enrichment and restitution for wrongs are not covered under the Act. As a result, stale claims based on these causes of action be potentially be brought in our Court.”
“The vast majority of probate and administration cases are simple. Yet, the current system requiring executors or administrators to file applications in Court is cumbersome and costly, as it involves lawyers in a Rube Goldberg machine or process. Several years back, the Government agreed to look at my proposal to simplify the system. I would be grateful for an update, please. Next, to further strengthen access to justice for persons of limited means, I wish to propose that the current means limit of the Per Capita Gross Monthly Household Income (PCHI) of $950, which was last adjusted in October 2019, be raised. Means testing is an important part of prudence in public spending. Balanced against prudence is the assurance that cost will not be an obstacle to access to justice. I note that in the past five years, the total number of applications has dropped. Between 2017 and 2019, these applications generally numbered around the 9,000s. In 2020, the number went down to 7,722. In 2021, it went down further, to 6,651. That is not all. I also note that the number of successful applicants has also gone down. Between 2017 and 2019, the average number of successful applicants is 6,180. For 2020, it went down to 5,466; and in 2021, it went down even further to 4,928. The percentage of unsuccessful applications that did not satisfy the means test criteria is about 80%. This could mean that many well-to-do people are trying their luck. But looking at the benchmarks for income in the other parts of our policies on means-testing, I do not think so. For example, in comparison a person under the Joint Single Scheme (JSS) may apply for a public rental flat from HDB, if his gross monthly salary does not exceed $1,500.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100". Sir, I am heartened to note the significant steps that MinLaw has taken to strengthen access to justice in Singapore to the average man in the street and forging an efficient and trusted legal system over the past year. One major initiative, which has received good reviews from members of public, is the iLab, which is a free legal chatbox that provides legal information on nine modules which include COVID-19 legal issues, monetary claims in addition to the usual family law issues. There has been a good take-up rate for this service. In 2021 alone, iLab registered 47,500 queries in 3,408 sessions. The feedback on these services is also good, averaging four out of five stars in the post-usage surveys. This achievement comes on top of other initiatives such as the operationalisation of the Protection from Harassment Court with simplified processes allowing a person to navigate the system on his own without the need for a lawyer, and the Apostille Act which was put into effect on 16 September 2021 which helped Singapore travellers easily get Apostilles for their Singapore-issued vaccination records for travel to countries, if so required, as a condition of entry. These and other moves have enhanced access to justice and make our legal system more efficient and trusted. 5.45 pm I have two suggestions that I hope the Minister would consider to strengthen this even more. First, the simplification of the probate and administration process. I have been advocating for change in this process, especially for non-contentious matters, for sometime now. I suggested the Japanese Kobeki system, which does not involve the courts, to be looked at.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, with your leave, I would like to convey my appreciation to three groups of people. First, the hon Members for filing 40 cuts which led to a very involved debate on issues that affect MHA. Second, to the two hon Ministers and the two hon Ministers of State for their comprehensive responses. And I cannot remember another COS debate with slides and videos, and for hon Members who have seen the videos, it would probably forever be etched in their memories the pernicious effects of drugs, especially on those who are voiceless. So, my thanks to them. Last but not least, on behalf of Members who spoke, I would like to record our appreciation to the Home Team officers who work every day to keep Singapore safe and secure. With that, may I seek leave to withdraw the amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $6,897,464,400 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,306,450,600 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“I came across a case of an ex-inmate who, when reporting for urine test, reconnected with old friends who were also reporting for urine tests and thereafter, started committing crime together. It sounds perhaps too much like a surveillance state to require that we keep tabs on who such supervisees meet or constrain them from mixing around with more hardened offenders. I have in mind something more like using the good to crowd out the bad. Occupy their time and energies with new and interesting options. Motivating inmates, providing them with the structural and emotional support to reform from within themselves, giving them opportunities to learn new skills and acquire knowledge, emplacing them in decent jobs and helping them reintegrate into their families and societies are important steps to lower recividism amongst our inmates. I look forward to hearing from the hon Minister on his plans to further cut the recividism rate and reduce our prison population. A Holistic Criminal Justice System”
“The question arises as to what more should be done to help our inmates reform and lower recidivism even further. One in five slipping back into a life of crime is still one too many. Over time, our prison population is gradually reducing. This is a good sign. From my own calculations, I worked out the Singapore prison population rate as at 2020, to be 163 per 100,000. This compares with 212 per 100,000 across the Causeway in Malaysia. However, there are states with lower figures than ours. I cite three: Hong Kong's rate is 96 per 100,000; South Korea's is 105 per 100,000; and England's rate is 132 per 100,000. To be fair, when I looked at our prison population figures, I noted that the main driver is actually those who have committed drug offences. Almost 70% of our penal inmate population consists of drug offenders. We have an uncompromising stance on drugs that allowed us to have one of the lowest rates of drug abuse in the world – about 30 opiate abusers per 100,000, compared to 600 per 100,000 in the US. Although this tough stance means that more people will be jailed or detained in drug rehabilitation centres (DRCs), I support this as our way of dealing with this scourge. It seems to me, therefore, to lower recidivism in a more decisive way, we will have to focus even more on the rehabilitation and aftercare programmes for these drug offenders. This is, obviously, not easy, but we are fortunate that, in Singapore, SPS, CNB and its partners have been doing excellent work on this front for a long time. One suggestion I have is to carefully monitor the company that drug offenders keep during the time that they are subject to drug supervision orders.”
“Madam, a nation’s prisons are strong signals about what kinds of behaviours it feels are criminal and have harmed societies in the strongest terms. But they are also centres of hope and second chances. Over several decades, our officers of the Singapore Prison Service, known as Captains of Lives, had been working assiduously to turn our prisons into rehabilitation centres for inmates – to reform and reintegrate into society. This House has heard about the good work that the Singapore Prison Service, Yellow Ribbon Singapore and their partners do in rehabilitating prisoners in January 2022 when the hon Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim, moved amendments to the Prisons Act. As hon Members may recall, the amendments introduced the Employment Preparation Scheme. Under this scheme, inmates were allowed an opportunity to undergo skills training in the community so that they will be able to get good jobs upon their release. In his speech, the hon Minister of State recounted the important steps taken by the Singapore Prison Service over almost four decades to help inmates in their journey of rehabilitation and reintegration. 2.30 pm Currently, the number of inmates participating in community-based programmes to help their rehabilitation has increased by more than 40%. This translates into almost 3,500 inmates. An impressive 90% of these inmates successfully complete the programmes too. I believe that all these efforts have been instrumental in SPS achieving a commendable all-time two-year low recividism rate of 20% for inmates released in 2018. The five-year recividism rate remains stable. These rates are among the lowest in the world, with only a few countries such as Norway, doing better than Singapore.”
“Has there been any recent survey to measure Singaporean support? Madam, the Home Team’s mission is one that needs constant vigilance, not only in terms of policy implementation, but in its alignment with changing social norms and mores. Our officers already enjoy the trust of Singaporeans from arresting the trend of increasing white-collar crime to deterring serious crimes, such as drug trafficking. Our officers must be well-resourced, supported and adequately compensated so as to ensure that we continue to attract the best and the brightest to take on the heavy task of keeping us safe. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Death Penalty”
“The Minister had revealed earlier last month that for the period between 1 January 2013 and 11 February 2022, out of 104 accused persons who were found to be couriers and convicted as drug traffickers, 82 of them received certificates of substantial assistance and they were imposed with life imprisonment terms. Of the remaining 22, eight persons were imposed with life imprisonment on the basis that they were suffering from an abnormality of mind. The Court imposed the death penalty on 14 persons. In other words, 13% were found to be couriers and convicted of capital drug trafficking charges were imposed with mandatory death penalties. The impact of the law is clear. The number of persons subjected to the mandatory death sentence has been reduced significantly. Nonetheless, there could be a watering down of the deterrent effect of the death penalty for drug trafficking. I, therefore, ask whether there has been any deterioration on the part of the Home Team’s ability to keep our drug situation under check. If there is no deterioration, may I ask whether the Government is prepared to consider extending the issuance of certificates of substantial assistance to cover cases where drug couriers whose death penalties have been affirmed on appeal? Most essentially, Singaporeans must continue to be convinced that the retention of the death penalty is essential for the Home Team to do its job. The fact that most Singaporeans agreed in the past does not mean that their views may not change. Outside Singapore, more and more jurisdictions have abolished the death penalty. Singaporeans’ opinions can be shaped by these developments. May I ask what efforts have been made by the Government to continually make the case for the continued use of the death penalty in Singapore?”
“After all, its officers continue to be highly sought after in the private sector. We must acknowledge this and pay our CAOs as close as possible to their market value. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure adequate resourcing to deal with criminality. I have heard laments about problems in recruiting people as IOs. With respect, this is not an answer I accept. The Government must try harder. I now move on to the second point of my speech, which deals with the death penalty. The Government's position was spelt out by the hon Minister on 5 October 2020. He said that in determining whether to apply the death penalty to a particular offence, the Government takes into account three considerations in totality: seriousness of the offence; how widespread the offence is; and the need for deterrence. Applying these considerations, the main offences for which the mandatory death penalty is imposed are intentional murder, gang robbery with murder, trafficking of significant quantities of drugs, terrorist bombing and use of firearms. The Government’s approach has resulted in Singapore being one of the safest places in the world – something that is deeply valued by Singaporeans. Two significant changes to the law had happened since 2013. Drug couriers convicted of capital drug trafficking offences who have been issued with certificates of substantial assistance to curtail drug trafficking activities or found to be suffering from abnormality of mind would be imposed with life sentences instead of the mandatory death penalty. In addition, the death penalty would only be imposed as a mandatory sentence for intentional murder. For the other forms of murder, the Court has a discretion to impose either the death penalty or life imprisonment.”
“What we see in the open is not robbery but a legitimate front. The real underbelly can only be exposed through insiders. Insiders are not likely to volunteer information unless their interests are protected. I know this is a separate matter from providing incentives but, in a risk-benefit calculus, the benefit may not be just mere protection. We are incentivised by way of rewards, too. Another suggestion I have is to review the role of external auditors in order that they are in a better position to detect fraud in companies and report the matter to CAD. Hon Members may be familiar with the German Parliament’s investigation into the shortcomings of the Wirecard’s auditors. By the way, the CAD has investigated Wirecard, too, which involves alleged losses of more than €1 billion and prosecution in Singapore is currently afoot. The report concluded that the auditor did not maintain sufficient professional scepticism and this led to it accepting documents and instructions without sufficient scrutiny. There must be better alignment between the auditor’s role currently and the investing public’s expectations. Next, we need to decisively tackle the problem of resourcing. I suggest we beef up manpower internally and be more open to engaging other experts from the outside. CAD is operating in a challenging environment on a day-to-day basis. Despite that, it is doing a very good job in bringing offenders of complex white-collar crimes to book. As legislators, we need to ensure that CAD is sufficiently resourced so that investigations into complex white-collar crime are conducted fully and with due dispatch. The faster the culprits are prosecuted, the stronger the message of deterrence will be against like-minded offenders in the future. CAD faces a manpower constraint.”
“But one thing astonishes me – what makes these people think that they can get away with their offending conduct in Singapore? The scale and nature of these crimes show that this is daylight robbery, not a thief in the night. Everyone knows we have tough laws. People convicted of serious white-collar crimes are imposed deterrent sentences. But why do these crimes worth several billion dollars still happen with some regularity on our shores? It seems to me that one issue we have not yet nailed is detection. A good number of these fraudsters think that their acts will not be detected. Is there any basis for this sort of thinking? If there is, we better make sure that we address this expeditiously. We need a framework that will enable white-collar crimes to be detected as early as possible. These persons must get the message that if they do the crime, they will be detected and will have to pay a high price. How can we do this? I note that there are already established strategies, such as leveraging data analytics, to process suspicious transaction reports, cash movement reports, cash transaction reports by institutions and individuals in Singapore, as well as deepening of intelligence capability through partnerships. I support these strategies. One suggestion I wish to make is to have a whistle-blowing legislation that not only protects whistle-blowers from recrimination but also incentivises them should the information they provide lead to successful prosecution and recovery of ill-gotten assets. This is not a new idea. Other financial centres, such as the US and UK, have such legislation. I have made the same suggestion in the past. The reality is that the white-collar crime criminals obviously commit their acts in secrecy.”
“Madam, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head P of the Estimates be reduced by $100". The Singapore Home Team enjoys high levels of trust and confidence amongst Singaporeans. Why is this so? Principally, it is because our Home Team continues to deliver on the promise to make Singapore safe and secure. This is achieved despite significant operational challenges. As parliamentarians, we need to ensure that our Home Team is provided with sufficient resources and legislative levers so that they will be in a good position to deliver on their mission. In my speech, I will focus on two areas: first, providing better support to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD), our premier white-collar crime buster, in the fight against complex white-collar crime; and second, reviewing the effect of the death penalty as a deterrent against drug trafficking, murder and other serious crimes. Turning to the first topic, we have seen a significant increase in complex white-collar crime cases in Singapore which are being investigated by the CAD. Several examples, some of which I have gleaned from the CAD's Annual Report 2020/21, include the fraudulent billion-dollar investment scheme by nickel trading companies; trade financing fraud involving several oil trading companies that has left banks with a combined exposure reported to be about US$3.5 billion; and numerous cases of misconduct in the stock markets. Some of these cases have been unearthed because of the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In other words, if not for the pandemic, the fraudulent conduct could have carried on without detection. Needless to say, such cases affect the reputation of Singapore and her financial system. These perpetrators must be dealt with firmly by the law.”
“What I wish to explore is whether assistance may be provided to entrepreneurial businesses in Singapore which have promising sustainability projects but lack the scale necessary to attract carbon credit financing. One suggestion I have is for Government or Statutory Boards to partner these businesses in the provision of services such as waste to energy plants to power lamp posts in business parks. With established track records, these Singapore businesses would be able to establish good branding and reputation as leaders in this field, venture into the region or beyond, and undertake larger scale projects to reduce carbon emissions that can be financed through carbon credits. Through this we would have developed a value proposition for Singaporean businesses and allow them an opportunity to participate in the international carbon credit value-chain. Sir, that I am able to speak of carbon credits, long-term spending on climate resilience and the structure of taxation, in the middle of a global pandemic and a military invasion that has impacted the entire world, speaks to how important peace and stability are to a small state. We cannot take this for granted. It is not the natural position of price takers. But while we cannot determine our own price, we can continue to write our own destiny as long as we are a sovereign state, with the will and wherewithal to defend it. To continue to write each page, requires resources and careful husbandry of what we have. This is what our Budget does, and this is why I support it. [Applause.]”
“I suggested the Lease Buyback Scheme to them as a way to resolve their financial woes. After some thought, they came back to me and the answer was that they are not keen. The reason is because they want to pass on their homes as inheritance to their children even though their children are not paying for their upkeep. As parents, they are amazing but as claimants on taxpayers’ monies used in substitution for their upkeep, they become what economists refer to as “free riders”. Private inheritance comes at a cost of public funds. This also means that there is less money for helping a person who may have a more pressing need for assistance. Again, this may be a hard argument to make to the elderly couple, but if we do not, we will be a nation of ComCarers, with a large budget. And there is no large budget without large taxes. At some point in time, as our social spending increases, we will have to make hard decisions on whom we should support through social assistance so that we can keep public spending lean and only to be given to the truly need it, while we focus on making our safety “trampoline” – a phrase made popular by Senior Minister Tharman – springier. The final area I wish to touch on in my speech concerns the development of entrepreneurial talent undertaking sustainability initiatives that can generate carbon credits for use by businesses to offset carbon tax. I support the move to increase the carbon tax as part of Singapore’s commitment to reduce emissions and tackle climate change. I note with interest that the hon Minister intends to allow businesses to use high quality, international carbon credits to offset up to 5% of their taxable incomes in lieu of paying carbon tax.”
“It is a point that hon Members who spoke before me also raised. Already I see warning signs that this may happen. I note calls amongst persons who own private landed properties but have no steady income streams asking for Government support. Indeed, in the Assurance Package, it is provided that a person who owns a single private landed property but does not have income can get up to $1,600 over five years. This, with other measures such as CDC Vouchers and MediSave top-ups for seniors, will allow them to get more than five times the GST that they would have paid in a year. The reality, however, is that with the landed property prices as they are, these persons can well afford to fund their own expenses through readily available reverse mortgages from banks which will allow them to live comfortably in their homes until the end of their lives. Thereafter, their homes may be sold and the proceeds applied against loans extended by the bank. It is not easy to make these arguments to people who feel very strongly about their properties, but we must, on behalf of a society where more than 90% live in flats, push back against such claims. A similar example involves elderly retired couples in an HDB flat which is eligible for the Lease Buyback Scheme. They would again be entitled to Government support because they are living in an HDB flat without income. In reality though, they would be able to fund their expenses through the Lease Buyback Scheme which would again enable them to sell the tail end of their lease to HDB and live comfortably in their homes until the end of their life with the proceeds obtained. Some time back, I met an elderly couple who sought ComCare assistance because they are retired and their children are not willing to give them any allowance.”
“This also means that, on a net basis, it will be the wealthier Singaporeans, who will be bearing the brunt of the impact of the GST increase. I have carefully considered the reasons provided by the Minister for the tax increases. I support the Minister’s decision requiring those with more to contribute more tax to fund our social programmes and, in particular, help those whom the hon Member Mr Faisal Manap referred to in his speech just now as "marginalised people" and keep our social compact strong. In fact, such contributions by the wealthier amongst us will so serve as “investment” not just for the future of the less fortunate but also for their own continued economic well-being and growth. After all, the strength of our social compact provides the foundations of our economic growth. In this way, their businesses and wealth will continue to grow, in a society that is stable and fair, where each man feels he has a place. Not only that, we should also acknowledge that our tax bases are still relatively low, even with the proposed increases. One point which I wish to emphasise though is the continued need to keep our public expenditure lean. As the hon Minister mentioned, Government spending today, excluding COVID-19 related expenditure, stands at 18% of our GDP which is the lowest among developed economies but yet it has produced social and economic outcomes that have been better than most. This fiscal discipline must continue. If we do not and we just continue to fund social expenditure for the less fortunate through knee-jerk increases in tax for the wealthy, then I am afraid the social compact will, ironically, weaken. There will be a danger that our society will fracture as a result of an “us against them” mentality taking root.”
“The other option is to employ a just-in-case model which will allow the businesses to be more agile and respond to sudden demand increases quickly. It does, however, mean that business costs will be higher. This may not be the most efficient way to use resources. But it may be the better way when dealing with strategic goods. This is where we, on both sides of the House, must come together and affirm that these costs must be incurred progressively over the long term because what is ultimately at stake is Singapore’s survival and viability. My question to the hon Minister for Finance is two-fold; first, could he please let us know what are the strategic areas that the Government intends to build resilience and robustness capabilities for the immediate as well as the long term; and two, have we committed sufficient funds and resources for the building of these capabilities? My hope is that the Government will continue to eschew the natural tendency, when our country’s fiscal position is relatively weak and there is a pressure to increase social expenditure, to cut back on investments to progressively build such capabilities. We cannot be capricious. We must hold fast to our resolve to develop these strategic capabilities. I now turn to the hon Minister’s decision to increase the tax responsibility on wealthier Singaporeans through personal income tax, property tax, luxury car tax and GST increases. With respect to GST, I am glad to note the progressive way in which the GST will be implemented. The progressive nature of our policy ensures that low- and middle-income Singaporeans will, on a net basis receive significantly more benefits from tax transfers than what they would have paid. This is provided for under the Assurance Package and the permanent GST Voucher Scheme.”
“Thinking long term to secure Singapore’s future has always been the hallmark of the PAP Government. Let me provide a few examples. Hon Members will recall Prime Minister Lee’s bold plan to build polders and barrages for a period of between 50 and 100 years to save Singapore from rising sea levels costing at least $100 billion. The hon Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat spoke last year about efforts to strengthen Singapore’s capabilities in biomedical sciences and health infrastructures to be ready for Disease X. The hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim recounted some of these efforts in her speech just now and aptly described them as a "reassuring development". Also last year, the hon Education Minister Chan Chun Sing announced plans for MOE to roll out mental health education lessons to our children at Primary, Secondary and pre-university levels by next year to help them build up their resilience. These are not short-term plans, with an eye on the next electoral cycle. They are for the protection and flourishing of our children, grandchildren, and generations beyond – but already hardwired into our spending today. I applaud these moves and other Government initiatives aimed at making Singapore and Singaporeans more resilient and robust. No doubt though, there is a cost – and one we bear today – in developing these capacities. Let us take grocery supply as an example. It costs less for a supermarket to stock groceries employing a just-in-time inventory, something that hon Member Mr Seah Kian Peng knows very well. Purchase decisions can be made based on current conditions. It makes the business operations leaner but susceptible to disruptions when the suppliers cannot supply.”
“We have no choice but to take the world as it is. That is why our defence policy is based on the twin pillars of diplomacy which advocates a rule-based approach to settling international disputes in accordance with the UN Charter and international law; and deterrence, which involves a strong defence capability and ensuring that any enemy will know that there will be a big price to pay if they take us on. It is these developments that have guided me to draw hon Members’ attention to one aspect of the Budget Statement which is not specifically spelt out but is the raison d’etre for a number of initiatives stated in the Budget, that is strengthening our nation’s resilience and robustness. I am not using these terms interchangeably. I am guided by how Princeton professor Markus Brunnermeier has defined these terms in his book published last year titled “The Resilient Society”. He described “resilience” as the ability to rebound from a shock, whereas “robustness” is the ability to resist. Closer to home, at NUS, environmental scholars at the Lee Kuan Yew School have defined “resilience” as R1 and R2. The first being an ability to mitigate and resist; the second, to adapt and flourish in new circumstances. Whatever their names, the two are ways to respond to external shocks. More importantly, the Lee Kuan Yew School researchers point out that resilience is not a cost-free virtue. In fact, the price of resilience is inefficiency – a point I shall elaborate on below. Investing in both these capabilities are important to ensure Singapore’s survival in this unpredictable and volatile world. What is clear is that we cannot afford to adopt a “feast and famine” approach to building these capabilities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the world has changed since the hon Minister for Finance delivered his Budget Statement on 18 February 2022. We heard an account of this from the hon Minister for Foreign Affairs in this House yesterday. Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 in what has been described as the biggest invasion of a European country since World War II. In a flash, blood has been spilled. Families have been displaced. Worryingly, I see no end in sight in the immediate future. Financial and economic sanctions on an unprecedented scale have been imposed on Russia by the US and EU countries. Singapore decided to follow suit and impose its own sanctions on Russia based on our principled approach to diplomacy. The hon Minister was quick to point out that our decision will come at a cost. We need to be prepared for this. The consequence for the rest of the world is substantial and serious. Both Russia and Ukraine are substantial commodity producers. We have seen spikes in the prices of oil, gas and agricultural commodities. Singapore is not immune. We are already hit with the inflationary pressures arising from the pandemic and supply chain issues. These pressures are likely to worsen. I trust that both sides of the House are solidly behind the hon Minister for Foreign Affairs’ condemnation of Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and call for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine to be respected. As he eloquently highlighted, our own short history as a tiny island city-state informs us that we too will always be vulnerable to machinations of big powers and must continually be prepared to guard against any existential threat to Singapore and fellow Singaporeans. We have little influence in what happens globally. We are price takers.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Parliamentary Secretary for his detailed answer. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the board members and the management staff of the SNTC, who have been doing good work since 2008 to help families with special needs members and to give the caregivers assurance that once they pass on, their children with special needs will continue to be taken care of, if they have entered into trust arrangements. My supplementary question is in relation to quickening the pace of assistance to families from low- and middle-income backgrounds. May I ask whether the Ministry would be prepared to do a gaps analysis to see how much more demand there would be – recognising on one hand, we have SNTC since 2008, administering about 900 trusts; and on the other hand, the number of persons with disabilities in our resident population is about 650,000?”
“May I ask the hon Minister what are the circumstances in which the Court is permitted not to enforce the CFA on its plain words, even though all the technical requirements as set out in the Bill have been met and there are no vitiating factors, such as misrepresentation, duress and so on? Notwithstanding my queries, I support the Bill.”
“I understand from the hon Minister that it is proposed the overcharging regime should also apply to a CFA. Under the CFA, a lawyer may charge an uplift should there be a favourable outcome. The question arises as to what will constitute a fair amount for the lawyers to charge as an uplift that will not be viewed as a case of overcharging. Let me provide an example. Let us consider a case where a lawyer would have ordinarily charged $X for a case. Under the CFA with his client, it is provided that, if the lawyer loses, he gets zero. Should he win, how much can he charge as an uplift without being accused of overcharging? $2X? $3X? Would it make a difference if it is stated in the CFA that, if the lawyer loses, he may charge $0.5X instead of zero? And it seems to me that the hon Minister, by mentioning that the risk that the lawyer assumes, can go into the issue of the reasonableness of what he can charge, that seems to be the case. We need to guard against creating perverse incentives with price signals that do not reflect the true value of services. In these kinds of cases, it is not just a simple matter of "willing buyer, willing seller". There must be a principled approach to determining the line between the uplift being viewed as a fair reward or unbridled profiteering that brings the profession to disrepute. I also note that under the proposed section 115D(4) of the Act, the High Court is given the power to enforce a CFA in any manner that the Court thinks fit, even if the technical requirements of the CFA are met. Under the proposed section 115D(7) of the Act, the High Court has the power to reopen the CFA and even order repayment of fees within a 12-month period after payment has been made under the CFA.”
“As a result, he may decide to negotiate a settlement with a counterparty for a lower amount than what he would reasonably get for his client through a Court judgment if the matter was litigated to the end. In this case, the case would have been closed earlier, and he will get paid with an uplift under the CFA earlier too. The second concern she expressed was the prospect of increased frivolous litigation and raised litigation costs. On this point, I agree with the hon Minister Mr Edwin Tong, that the no-win-no-fee structure should already make the lawyers think twice. But I believe that there could be situations where lawyers may engage in some form of sabre-rattling to deal with acts or maybe leverage of extra legal factors, for example, the concern on the part of counterparties to stay out of courts. These factors are obviously frivolous on their own because we are talking about legal merits of the case. How do we deal with such prospects? I would be grateful if the hon Minister could please outline steps to address the concerns. Finally, I have a query in relation to what constitutes a reasonable uplift under the CFA without attracting allegations of overcharging. Currently, a lawyer owes a duty not to overcharge his client. If he does so, he would be liable for misconduct and may be hauled up for disciplinary action. This is provided specifically under Rule 17 (7) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, which the hon Minister referred to as well. Under this provision, the legal practitioner must not charge any fee or disbursements, or render a bill, for an amount, which constitutes overcharging even if there is a fee agreement that permits the charging of the fee, disbursements or the amount.”
“For a start, it is proposed that domestic and international arbitration, certain SICC proceedings as well as its related Court proceedings and mediation proceedings be prescribed. This is precisely the same grounds upon which third-party funding is available under Civil Law (Third-Party) Funding Regulations 2017. I do not have an issue with the proposed prescribed proceedings. My question relates to how the Minister intends to exercise his power in the future to extend the use of CFA in other proceedings. The hon Minister, in his speech, mentioned that he is seriously considering extending CFA to domestic litigation. My question is: what would be the principal considerations? And he mentioned access to justice is one of them. What are the other considerations? I also welcome the hon Minister's point raised in his speech just now that he would be consulting stakeholders. And if he could elaborate on exactly how he proposes to consult the stakeholders, that will be most welcome. My next question relates to how concerns expressed by the Government previously, when this issue had been mooted in the past, have been dealt with. When Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah, as she then was, was asked in 2017 about the Government's position on event-triggered fee arrangements, she stated that the Government was looking into the matter but was concerned about two specific issues. The first concern was how to deal with the potential conflict of interest that may arise on the part of the lawyer since he has a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. Take, for instance, the case of a lawyer who has cashflow issues.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice. Today, Singapore has established itself as a premier international dispute resolution hub in the region. This has a direct positive repercussion on our economy. Using the words of the hon Minister, "it drives work to Singapore and for Singaporeans". But this position is hard-won and one which we must not take for granted. Adjustments must be made regularly to ensure that our country remains a trusted dispute resolution hub of choice, business-friendly and thick with legal talent and expertise. It is in this context that I welcome and support the proposed amendments to the Bill to allow lawyers to charge their fees on the basis of whether they have secured a good outcome for their clients. These agreements, known as conditional fee agreements (CFAs) will have the effect of providing a litigation funding arrangement for businesses and individuals who may otherwise be unable to commence action owing to lack of funds. This in turn can have the effect of enhancing access to justice in Singapore and also level the playing field vis-a-vis other dispute resolution hubs, and this is also the point that the hon Minister made. It is noteworthy that MinLaw had consulted extensively with various stakeholders since 2019 before introducing this Bill in Parliament in November 2021. The effort put in by the Ministry is commendable. I have three clarifications to seek from the hon Minister. First, I seek clarification on the scope of the Minister's power in clause 6 of the Bill that introduces the proposed section 115(B)(7) of the Act. This clause gives the Minister the power to prescribe proceedings to which lawyers may charge their fees pursuant to the CFA.”
“In 2014, the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza, on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Prisons (Amendment) Bill then, recounted the lyrics of the well-known song, "Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Old Oak Tree" as being the inspiration for the Yellow Ribbon Project. His speech has inspired me to, not to sing the song, but to recount the lyrics of a local song, “I Ain’t Giving Up” written by Mr Steven Joseph and performed by Mr Zulkifli Rahman, Mr Razif Haron and Mr Affandi Meskam. They were prison inmates. Talented musicians, they took the opportunity to learn music formally when they were serving sentence and pursued their dreams upon release. The chorus goes like this: I ain't giving up up up I'm gonna find my way I ain't giving up up up No matter what they say For the love you've given Won't need another reason To ride on, fight on And lead on, hey! Their music is their story, and the stories and hopes of many more. I have a suggestion for the hon Minister for Defence. Please allow our talented ex-offenders to perform at NDP 2022. I know they will give any professional musician a run for their money. I also know that they will make Singaporeans rise to their feet. Most importantly, this will be our nation’s signal to our prison inmates who have served their time that, as a community, we will do what it takes to support them in their rehabilitation and reintegration journey. So long as they do not give up, we too, do not give up, we too, will help each other to find our way back. I support the Bill.”
“The way the Remission Orders System works, there is a legitimate expectation on the part of the inmates that they would be released so long as they do not behave badly. So, they would get a one-third remission of the sentence. Given that state of play, the concern I have is whether there could be a possible conflict of interest that may arise when a Commissioner extends the period of time to issue the remission order such that there is, in a sense, a delay. I appreciate that the reason for this is because there is a need to carry out the corporal punishment. Under the Prisons Act, SPS has the ability to actually forfeit a period of remission of up to 180 days. The Prisons Act also vests with SPS the power to restore any period of forfeited remission. We could, therefore, potentially have a situation where the Commissioner is asked to consider deferring the issuance of a remission order because there is insufficient time for the carrying out of corporal punishment on an inmate because of, amongst other reasons, SPS’ own decisions in relation to the remission period for the inmate. Let me disabuse anybody of any notion that I am concerned about any abuse of power. That is not my point. My point is, structurally, we need to ensure that the Commissioner is not unwittingly put in a position of conflict of interest. So, that is my concern. I do appreciate, in a sense, this is an inherited issue because Parliament passed the amendment giving the Commissioner the power to defer issuing the remission order by 14 days in 2014. I looked at the Hansard, I could not find the reason. Therefore, I would be indebted to the hon Minister of State if he could explain the matter. Madam, please allow me to conclude.”
“It is for the same reasons that I strongly support the Employment Preparation Scheme (EmPS) which is aimed at improving the employability of our prison inmates. I have studied the details of the scheme as set out in the Bill. They are well thought of. Collectively, the measures provide a suite of levers to our SPS officers to ensure inmates stay the course so as to obtain skills and knowledge necessary to get good jobs while they are serving their sentences. It is by no means a simple matter, but the odds are good, so long as they put in the effort. I have one question on the working of the EmPS. May I ask how the EmPS is proposed to be harmonised with existing schemes which are also targeted at inmates who are viewed to have good prospects for rehabilitation and reintegration back into our society? The schemes I have in mind are the Home Detention Scheme, Conditional Remission System and the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme. It seems likely that many inmates in these existing schemes will also want to benefit from the employability feature under EmPS. Moving on to the other aspects of the Bill, I have a short query on clause 9 of the Bill which proposes to amend the existing section 50I of the Prisons Act such that the Commissioner is given three weeks, instead of the previous two weeks, to defer the making of the remission order. The hon Minister of State took some pains to explain the reasons why this amendment is being proposed and he made it clear that it is not suggested that the Commissioner would be able to extend the imprisonment term of the inmate beyond what is ordered by the Courts. I appreciate that. The point I am concerned about is slightly different.”
“It is also the first step towards education, reconciliation and the acquisition of requisite skills and knowledge. This is to enable ex-offenders to become financially independent and confident of their abilities and then have fulfilling lives and careers. They will be able to re-assume their responsibilities for themselves and their families. They will have a chance to leave their chequered past behind, be reintegrated back with their families, society and make positive contributions to our country. With our help, they can rebuild their lives, step by courageous step. This is a mission that requires stout-hearted support from everyone. I am proud of my alma mater, NUS, whose professors interviewed a prison inmate, as part of its rigorous admission process and offered him a spot in its Law School. Today, that man is a litigation lawyer and both of us are fellow members of the same profession serving our country. Employers must be open-minded in the same way. The main reason why I suggested in Parliament in 2020 that the $1 billion Jobs Growth Initiative (JGI), which sought to expand local hiring during the pandemic by providing wage support, be also extended to ex-offenders was because I was concerned that, with the shrinking economy then, employers may not offer our ex-offenders with fair chances of getting good employment. This, in turn, would have had a major impact on the rehabilitative process for our ex-offenders. The Government adopted my suggestion and addressed the issue squarely. Between September 2020 and February 2021, a span of six months, almost 800 ex-offenders were employed through JGI. I am sure many more ex-offenders would have benefited since then from JGI, which was recently extended to March 2022.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, Singapore is well-known for its no-nonsense attitude towards crime. All Singaporeans expect that if one were to commit a crime, he or she will have to pay the price irrespective of one’s individual background. The force of deterrence is high because the application of justice is swift and sure. But the arm of the law is also one that reaches beyond the prison sentence. It aims to rehabilitate and welcome ex-prisoners back to society. It is a strong signal that we do not give up on those who have made mistakes. The excellent work that Singapore Prison Service (SPS) officers do as "Captains of Lives" is perhaps not as well-known. In collaboration with its partners, SPS works to: enforce the safe and secure custody of prisoners; deliver evidence-informed rehabilitation programmes; and carry out effective community supervision of released offenders. All these are to help prisoners find their way back to society, into families, friendship and work. A testimony to the good work that SPS does lies with the fact, as said by the hon Minister of State just now, recidivism reported in SPS’ 2020 Annual Report stands at 22.1% and he mentioned that this is half the recidivism that was the case in the early 2000s. This is an all-time low! These hard-earned results are due, in part, to a number of innovative steps that SPS has implemented over the years to help rehabilitate and reintegrate ex-offenders into our society. The hon Minister of State has outlined these steps which were taken over two decades, in particular. I will not repeat the steps that the hon Minister of State had said. But what is clear is that prison is not mere punishment for wrongdoing.”