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 16 of 25.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Senior Minister of State for her comprehensive answer. I have a supplementary question. May I please ask if her Ministry could consider extending the NEA's Toilet Improvement Programme to also include, apart from hawker centres and coffeeshops, standalone wet markets – there is one such wet market in Bukit Batok which is owned by a private owner – which would benefit from the incentives to improve the toilets and also incentivise the owners to conduct deep cleaning and daily cleaning of the toilets?”
“I had an illuminating discussion with the hon Senior Minister of State for Health, Dr Koh Poh Koon at the Members' Room yesterday where he shared instances when he was in medical practice where he had to exercise therapeutic privilege, often at the instance of the patient's relatives and not provide his patients with information that may lead to this patient becoming paraylsed with fear and becoming unsure as to what to do. That would not be a good outcome for the patients. We therefore need to continue to support doctors who in good faith and with utmost competence and due diligence – act in the interests of patients. And this, in the words of the hon Minister, would enhance decision-making and better outcomes for patients. I ask for the Minister to clarify how this is addressed by the new test, as well as to ask the hon Minister to spell out more clearly the limits of this test in matters of fact-finding vis-a-vis the patient. 4.02 pm”
“For example, whether a patient has indeed given a waiver to know information relating to a certain decision – that is, when a patient has decided not to decide. These are findings of fact and a place should be reserved for the Court to determine this matter rather than relying on the professional opinion of doctors. Here, may I seek clarification on whether there is still a role for the body of medical opinion to be the standard of care governing this area? As the Minister is aware, the evolution of peer professional advice standard in case law was due to the recognition that in the medical field, it may be impossible to identify a single professional consensus on a specific course of action. Hence, so long as it is a view of a group of competent members of a profession, it suffices. But when it comes to issues of what a reasonable patient has or has not decided, one can presumably arrive at a more specific finding. Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been speaking on the interests of doctors and those of the patients and speaking of the needle as if more for one is less for the other. But as the hon Minister said, the interests of both do coincide in very large areas. Indeed, it is never in the interest of doctors to violate their Hippocratic Oath and harm their patients. Mr Speaker, Sir, I consider decision-making between a client and a professional a collaborative process. But the relationship between a patient and a doctor is an unequal one – a point made by the hon Minister. It is unequal in terms of expertise, experience and judgement. That is why the law regards the doctor as the patient's fiduciary. The doctor, in the giving of advice, must take this asymmetry into account. At the same time, often, we need the doctor to help the patient.”
“Currently, in relation to disclosure of information that a healthcare professional knows or ought reasonably to know, the legal standard of care is measured from the perspective of a reasonable patient in the patient's situation. This is not an end by itself but to facilitate the patient to make an informed decision on the advice. The work group in its report refers to confusion and anxiety amongst many doctors arising from the application of the "reasonable patient" standard who believe that this will give rise to defensive medicine and more litigation. The hon Minister, made a similar comment today as well and he referred to this as more of perceived uncertainty. I fully agree with the honourable Minister with his views. So, if that is the case, perhaps we could deal directly with the perception of the doctors instead of introducing a new standard of care. Also, would it not be the case if a patient who is provided advice that is based on the standard of care requiring him to reasonably understand and expect it, that there should be a lesser chance of him suing his doctor? I note that the Bill itself does not make the claim of being "patient-centric". Again, I recognise the role of professional expertise in any decision-making. Being a professional myself, I hope my clients concede that I do know the law in a manner that they do not. What I am asking for is a clear-eyed recognition of the limits of the role of the patient, the role of the doctor and the role of the Court in the finding of fact. This leads me to the second point. Even with this new test, there remains instances when the body of medical opinion is irrelevant.”
“I do not find it useful to call the first "paternalistic" and the second "patient-centric" because of the negative overtones in the first and for the positive in the second. I make this clarification at the start because there is some risk of doublespeak if we were to use these words without care as to their meaning. Take for example the report from the work group to review the taking of informed consent and SMC disciplinary processes. The hon Minister referred to the stupendous work that this work group did and I join him in the laudatory remarks that he made. In Annex E of the report, dealing with legal tests for the provision of medical advice, it spells out the motivation for the new test. It claims, "This is a patient-centric test based on peer professional opinion which has regard to patient autonomy and choice and takes into account what is material to the patient." This test is called a patient-centric test but in broad strokes, it moves the needle towards the weight of doctors. I do not say whether this is right or wrong but merely to point out where the needle is moving – and we ought not try and give it a veneer of political correctness by calling it "patient-centric". A model that focuses on the patient means we regard the materiality and relevance of information from the perspective of the patient. The new test measures this by reference to opinion of a responsible body of doctors. Some critics may argue that this new test will in fact emasculate the "patient-centric" element. This is the first point on which I seek clarification. Can the hon Minister please tell how the proposed calibration for medical advice in favour of peer professional opinion represents an improvement on the status quo?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I first declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice. Before proceeding, I would like to refer to the revelation of my hon friend, Dr Tan Wu Meng, informing that his father is a cancer patient. I would like to take this opportunity to wish his father strength as he undergoes treatment and I want to wish my hon friend strength in taking care of him. Sir, I wish to address the proposed section 37 in the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill, which introduces the standard of care based on what is accepted by a respectable body of medical opinion, which is assessed to be logical in relation to the provision of medical advice. The key question is this: what is good advice from a doctor that is in keeping with the trust that the patient reposes in his or her doctor? That is advice that cannot be faulted by a patient for being incomplete, medically unsound or in any way that does not respect his autonomy and ability to make decisions for his own health. A patient decides based on two things – first, what he knows and second, what he thinks the doctor is telling him. The first is a function of metaphysics – what he feels he wants in life, his current state, his tolerance for uncertainty, suffering or more prosaic things such as personal finances, what he wants to leave behind, what he wants to use up in this life and his relationship with his family. The second is less subjective. And it is this second part which I would like to speak on. I have two specific points to make: first, let us be clear on what balance we wish to strike between the recognition of medical expertise and patient autonomy.”
“And in this regard, I would like to offer that the researchers at IMH, led by Prof Chong Siow Ann, in 2012 and 2016, opined that there is a significant treatment gap in Singapore, with more than three quarters of mentally disordered persons not seeking professional help and 24% of people who seek some form of help go to religious and spiritual healers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Parliamentary Secretary Ms Rahayu Mahzam for her comprehensive answer to my question. With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of elucidation, I wish to state that I filed this Parliamentary Question arising from my tracking of a case involving my resident and attended to by the AIC's Community Mental Health Division, Fei Yue's Community Intervention Team (COMIT), MOH's Mobile Crisis Team (MCT) and Adult Neuro-developmental Disorder Service (ANDS), MSF's Adult Protective Services (APS), HDB as well as my community leaders. The case involved a mentally disordered young man whose parents refused to allow him to be treated by IMH as they believe in religious and spiritual intervention. The final report from AIC was that if the family refuses to cooperate, there cannot be any intervention under the current legislative landscape because he is physically well taken care of and he does not pose a safety risk. I was advised to tell the neighbours to file a complaint with the Community Dispute Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) as the young man screams very loudly in the middle of the night from time to time. Respectfully, I do not think this advice, though well-meant, is useful. I am glad to note the hon Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that MOH is willing to review the legislative landscape. While waiting for the review, would MOH be prepared to direct its agencies to engage and work collaboratively with the spiritual and religious healers?”
“Yes, Sir. In relation to the issue about the disciplinary proceedings that has been commenced by Ms Parti Liyani – this was something that happened subsequent to the filing of my PQ. So, if it carries on, I wonder whether the hon Minister anticipates that he would be in a position to deal with the case and make the Statement in November 2020, if there is a prospect that leave be given for disciplinary proceedings to carry on which as the hon Minister would know, would involve the Court, and there could be a notion of sub judice in those circumstances.”
“If I may, Sir, I would like to ask the hon Minister of State, in relation to the scope of the review by the relevant agencies, what exactly is the scope of the review, and in particular, whether the subject matter of the Parliamentary Questions (PQs) in Question Nos 4 to 16 in the Order Paper, and the implications of the judgment as set out in these questions, would be covered in the review. And I have two further supplementary questions, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“There will be more muscular organisations which will not be happy with the relief measures under this Act. However, the pitching of the legislative policy must always be in favour of greater good of Singapore and Singaporeans. This amendment Bill continues to strike that appropriate balance. I support the Bill. 5.51 pm”
“I have anecdotally received feedback on potential hardship that may be visited on these landlords arising from two general situations. The first is a timing mismatch between when IRAS provides the property tax rebate and the tenant's decision in not paying the rent equivalent to the rebate as provided for under the Act. Second, the decisions on the part of tenants not to pay rent amounting to the full extent of the additional rental relief available under the Act not taking into account the landlord's status as a small landlord. I wonder if the hon Minister could please shed light on how these affected landlords may be assisted on the possibly unintended consequences of this Act. Finally, given the gloomy economic conditions that now exist, which has led to the extension of the Job Support Scheme to March 2021, I wonder whether the hon Minister would consider extending the prescribed period of relief from making payment which is due to expire in October 2020, to be extended further, and if so, how can that be balanced against the plight of counterparties who would be more impacted by any extension of time? In this regard, I note that the hon Minister, Minister Shanmugam acknowledged in the MinLaw's Addendum to the President's speech that in the coming months, some companies will face a real risk of insolvency and financial constraints may cause litigants to forgo pursuing their legal rights. He also intends to introduce in this House cost-effective measures for small businesses to restructure or wind-up. All of us in this House must recognise that these are tough times. There are no easy solutions in this area of providing rental relief to individuals and organisations impacted by the pandemic. Failing which, their businesses will cease.”
“As I understand these are tenants who have suffered at least a 35% drop in revenue over the April-May 2020 period this year compared to the corresponding period last year. Assessors appointed under this Act, in my respectful view, form the backbone of the implementation of this Act. We are fortunate that a good number of professionals drawn from law, accountancy and tax practices have stepped forward to help in this huge endeavour in the midst of the crisis that no doubt would have affected them too. They are paid a token honorarium but have and will continue to put in quite a lot of time and effort in the discharge of their important duties. Being drawn from the professions, they bring with them credibility too. To each of them, we owe a debt of gratitude in answering the call for our nation, and I join the hon Minister in thanking them too. May I please ask how many Assessors have been appointed under the Act to date, and what steps have been taken to ensure that they will be able to execute their duties? In this regard, I note with interest that the hon Minister himself has been involved in briefing sessions with them. I now move on to the impact of the Act on smaller landlords. The hon Minister Shanmugam recognised the potential plight of the smaller landlords who rely on rent for their livelihoods in his June 2020. The smaller landlords are individuals or sole proprietor landlords whose aggregate annual value of their properties are equal to or lower than $60,000 as at 13 April 2020 and the rental income form 75% of their gross income in Year of Assessment 2019. For such landlords, they can apply for an assessment to provide half of the additional relief required.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I start my speech, may I take this opportunity to congratulate your goodself as well as the hon Member Ms Jessica Tan on being elected as the Deputy Speakers of the First Session of the Fourteenth Parliament. Sir, I stand in support of this amendment Bill as I hear from the hon Minister Mr Edwin Tong, the focus of this Amendment Bill is to facilitate the better delivery of reliefs and in particular to provide the Registrars and Assessors with flexibility to arrive at just outcomes in the cases that they have been assigned. The rental relief measures introduced as an amendment to COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act in June 2020 represents one of the hallmarks of the Government's decisive response in mitigating the effects of COVID-19 pandemic on individuals and small businesses. The targeted relief has an impact of producing cost and improving cash flow, which we all know, is the lifeline of companies. It would be good for us at this point in time, in this House, to appreciate and understand the positive impact of the Act in helping these individuals and companies. I recall the hon Minister, Minister Shanmugam mentioning 260,000 SMEs employing over two million workers potentially stood to benefit directly from the rental relief measures alone. Hon Minister, Minister Edwin Tong today mentioned about 7,000 notifications for leave has been filed. May I please ask the hon Minister in dollar terms, what is the total value of rental rebate the commercial, industrial and office tenants have or will stand to receive arising from the property tax rebate offered by the Government? Similarly, in dollar terms, what is the estimated additional rental rebate that commercial, industrial and office tenants have or will receive from their landlords.”
“She paints a new vision and exhorts us to a new mission: “The new generation of leaders and Singaporeans will have to form bonds and connections afresh…They have to continue to deliver effective and sound government, while accommodating the growing diversity of views. And they have to foster a more open spirit in our society, even as we strengthen the common cause holding us together as Singaporeans.” I thank President Halimah for reminding us of who we really are and for writing the first page of our new term. The rest of the book, we must write together, all of us in this House, and everyone outside. Once again, we, a people of many races, cultures and religions, all of us Singaporeans, must come together to find strength and common purpose. I support the Motion. [Applause.]”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore today is at a place and time where there is wide agreement on many principles, but a great contestation in the application of these principles. For example, we value multiculturalism but the process of achieving it must no longer be a matter of quiet tolerance but of open debate. This is not easy. There are many among us still not used to debate, let alone robust contest. There are many in the silent majority who have views not expressed on social media, but held no less strongly for that. There are those who prefer not to have to fight for our views but to hope that these views are self-evident. But I wonder whether this hope is in vain. Often, we take to “the streets” online, by setting up petitions on causes and let brute numbers speak in place of reason with no chance of reaching consensus or – using the words of the hon Leader of the Opposition – engaging in "reasoned conversation". This is a poor shadow of democracy. I think it is time that we – just like during Pericles' time – as a nation, set a social and moral code under which we should not flinch from actively defending our views and values and also understand an opposing point of view, and debate and discuss these views. We should do so respectfully with an open mind, always with the hope that the other side has something to teach us. In the end, whether we succeed in persuading one another to a common view or not, we would have built a stronger shared understanding and promoted mutual respect. In the end, if we agree to something, it is an active, not a presumed, consent. It is a process that grants legitimacy to our actions and makes our decisions binding. The President gave some valuable advice on how to live in what can appear to be very fraught times.”
“” Voters are maturing, more demanding, and very rightly so, in terms of what they can and should expect from all of us in this House. They are also discerning, attentive, rational and fair. They hold all of us up to high standards and see beyond political colours to the real impact we make on their lives. Not only that, the proposals that I have suggested will ensure that our constituents have access to such information to make informed political choices and decisions. Pericles highlighted the importance of an informed citizenry in the same speech I quoted from. He said: “Here, each individual is interested not only in his own affairs but in the affairs of the state as well. Even those who are mostly occupied with their own business are extremely well-informed on general politics… We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say he has no business here at all”. That was 2,500 years ago and this passage has not lost its relevance. How do we know if we have succeeded as a people? The key test is this: are we proud of ourselves as a people, or do we hold what we have in contempt? Do we want to build upon what we have done, or do we want to tear down our structures and start from scratch? These are not false choices. They are hard questions which we need to ask ourselves because they will define us, not just for this political term, but for the rest of our lifetime. If we succeed, we would have built a democracy strong and imperturbable. Our politics may not be full of sound and fury. Chairs and fists may not fly in this Parliament – at least, I hope so – but our steady, even-keeled politics will ensure that we, as a nation, will be able to withstand fierce winds and firestorms and so secure our future.”
“The Hansard is replete with examples of frontbenchers providing holding replies without the ability to check whether there have been any updates. Members of the public reading the Hansard will not be able to tell whether the loop has been closed. We should also entrench a practice of expressly acknowledging MPs should their proposals be accepted by the Government. This, too, should be accessible by members of the public. Of course, it could take years for results to be seen. For example, my lobbying for a simplification of probate processes that leverage on technology, which, I am happy to note, found its way into the Addendum to the President’s Address issued by the Minister for Law, has taken three years. But I am sure I speak for many others when I say it is far better late than never! Another call I would make in relation to accountability is for the Civil Service to publish and present in Parliament a paper regularly stating the number of letters it and Statutory Boards receive from MPs petitioning on behalf of their constituents on a per constituency basis. The paper should indicate the percentage of the substantive responses to the MPs which are made within the time period stipulated in the Government Instruction Manual. I do not think this is a laborious task as there exists technology that can be harnessed to generate such reports. One may ask what has this got to do with Parliament? In response, let me highlight what the UK Cabinet said in a memo issued in March 2016: “The right of MPs to take up constituents’ cases and other issues directly with Government is an important part of the democratic process and underlines the accountability of Ministers to Parliament.”
“They have little time to react to what has been said by their fellow Parliamentarians. They obviously will not be able to consider what will be said later by other Parliamentarians. I suggest that Parliament make available the option of lodging our speeches to be taken as read and made public to all. This also puts them up to public scrutiny while, at the same time, creating a more efficient process. Having done this, time in this House should be spent on genuine debate and points of clarification or disagreement. We will be able to avoid repetition of points that waste valuable time. The Minister should feel free to berate Members who try to debate without having read his speech. Through this process, it would then be easier to assess the full diversity of views expressed by all Members, ascertain, as a matter of record, where the consensus lies and the points of disagreement, if any. This will also hold Members to account, and for our constituents to see if we do, indeed, put our time and attention to Parliamentary matters or whether we are simply going through the motion. I would like Parliament to also invest in a new information technology (IT) system to make it easier for any member of the public to hold MPs to account – to check the attendance of any Member, to find the number of Parliamentary Questions (PQs) asked, the number of times spoken on Bills, Budgets, Committee of Supply debates, Motions and so on. This information is already public and can be obtained today, but not without some effort, including manual counting. I urge such records to be made available more easily with an online search platform. There should also be a Parliamentary record of the outcome of Members’ proposals which the Minister has agreed to study.”
“" Agreement, collegiality and friendliness, all these make poor headlines. The truth is most of the time, all MPs in this House agree. This is an uncontroversial outcome. Most times, the Workers' Party (WP) agree with the Bills introduced. Such agreement is boring and almost never makes the news. Even on the relatively controversial issue of Ministerial pay, the WP agreed with the outcome although the process in arriving at the decisions – "top down" compared to "bottom up" – were different. Consensus is as boring as contestation is exciting. But I see consensus as being perhaps the most important outcome of our work here. So, I do not think we should be perturbed if anyone were to say that Singapore’s parliamentary proceedings are boring. Consensus and the negotiation of shared interests are key aspirations of our democracy. But consensus is not a matter of sweeping hard truths under the carpet but a process of contestation, persuasion and resolution. The outcome of this process – decisions and agreements – are sticky and legitimate. This would require MPs to have a deeper understanding of the policy considerations behind the Bill. To help them, the First Reading of any Bill, which is currently rather formulaic, can be put to better use by the Minister by giving Members a non-specialist understanding of the issues at play, how they impact the ordinary lives of Singaporeans and how the Bill proposes to address these concerns. This has already been done by the New Zealand Parliament and has much to commend for itself. In this way, MPs will be better prepared to debate the Bill during the Second Reading which happens on a separate occasion. Today, the Second Reading of the Bill comprises largely Members of Parliament reading out their speeches when their turn comes.”
“I, for one, have been drawn to the edge, and spoken out against what is acceptable and what is not. All of us in politics must grow the skin of a rhino as well as the heart of a lion. But no need for talons, please. These forces within Singapore are those we can influence, debate and in the end, decide upon. To help us in making this decision – on what kind of politics we want in Singapore – I thank the President for describing who we could be if we were to realise the best of ourselves. She calls us to find "common purpose" and to find strength in our diversity. This is the aspiration towards evolving our own model of democracy, where differences do not tear the social fabric or polarise and fragment. We have today before us, a chance to forge our own path but this will not be easy, as the hon Leader of the House cautioned us earlier this week, "Unity in diversity is not a given." About 2,500 years ago, in another time, another place, Pericles, a leader of Athens, a small city state, urged his people to find their own way in an uncertain world. He said, "Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are a pattern to others rather than imitators ourselves. A community of people who follow not only a written law, but a social and moral code, which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace." How profound and relevant these words are to our circumstances, even after all these years! Knowing these two truths, the large changes in the world and in Singapore, and an aspiration of what we could be, the question remains. How do we get there? Katherine Graham, the former publisher of The Washington Post, said, "News is what someone wants suppressed. Everything else is advertising.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your indulgence, I wish to make some prefatory remarks before embarking on my speech. First, I wish to thank Bukit Batok Single Member Constituency (SMC) constituents for giving me the privilege of representing them once again as their Member of Parliament (MP). I will do my best in this role. Second, I wish to place on record, my own thanks and best wishes to MPs who have served in the Thirteenth session of Parliament and have stepped down. I purposely did not use the word "retire" because I believe they will always continue to be involved in public service, in one way or another. Last, I wish to congratulate the newly elected MPs from both sides of the House, the class of 2020, who just emerged from the political baptism of fire in the form of the General Elections. I look forward to engaging them on issues that concern Singapore and Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to give two specific reasons for rising to speak in support of the Motion. First, I would like to thank the President for sharing with us some hard truths and for jolting us into a new age for policy-making. The trajectory of the world has changed. The winds are no longer in Singapore's favour. A small city-state, reliant on global trade and openness, we are now confronted with closed borders, not just due to COVID-19 but to rising nationalism and populism. These are strong external forces over which we have no control. A second change lies in our internal politics. In our country, there is a change towards a more contested and less conciliatory form of politics. And this can be to our good. As MPs, we must get used to the rough and tumble of politics, become resilient and engage in robust and searing debate.”
“Sir, just a very short response. Firstly, I am grateful to my hon friend, Mr Dennis Tan, for clarifying. I respectfully suggest that my question still remains unanswered. It is my hon friend's view that ELD has not been even-handed in its dealings during GE2020; and what is the basis of suggesting that the PAP would use the power of incumbency against opponents in an unfair way?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask a clarification from the hon Member of Hougang, Mr Dennis Tan. If I heard him correctly, he mentioned of his unhappy experience in GE2020, something to do with the height of posters and the direction by the Elections Department or ELD. He juxtaposed it with the experience in an earlier election against hon Member, Miss Cheryl Chan. May I ask him whether he would accept that ELD would really deal with all these complaints in an even-handed way? And if he accepts that, what is the basis of him suggesting that PAP would use the power of incumbency against opponents in an unfair way?”
“May I please ask the basis upon which this 3% interest rate is arrived at and also, what would be the applicable time period for this interest rate to run? Finally, a suggestion. The hon Minister mentioned that potentially 260,000 SMEs may be beneficiaries under this amendment Bill once passed. May I please ask how would they be made aware of the reliefs under this amendment Bill so that they would be able to take advantage of these measures and keep their businesses alive. With that, I support the Bill. Thank you.”
“May I ask whether there is a corollary provision to protect the landlord who may have a back-to-back arrangement with a new tenant under which he has to deliver vacant possession on the original due date? Such tenants may not be able to rely on COVID 1 if they entered into this lease after the trigger dates. For example, if they enter into the lease after 25 of March 2020. In this regard, I note that in the amendment Bill, a Part 8 is proposed to provide relief to parties to downstream contracts affected by delay in performance or breach of a construction contract, supply contract or related contract. It does not appear that Part 8 applies to leases. If my understanding is correct, may I please ask why leases, or for that matter, all the other scheduled contracts are excluded? As a matter of policy, I think it would have been better if parties in affected contracts that suffer a knock on effect arising from the application of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act on scheduled contracts should also have recourse under this Act. Third, I note that in addition to the rental relief, the Amendment Bill also provides for a statutory repayment schedule for accumulated rental arrears commencing from the month of November 2020 in equal installments. I support this additional measure. The hon Minister refers to this as the third plank. I further note that the landlords will not be able to charge contractual interest beyond the prescribed rate on the outstanding rent. This makes sense as it would otherwise whittle the effect of the rental reliefs that are being provided under this amendment Bill. The hon Minister mentioned that the prescribed rate is no more than 3% per annum.”
“Turning to the amendment Bill, I seek clarification on three areas and will end with a suggestion. First, on the benefits that the sub-tenants will get under the amendment Bill. As I recall, during the Second Reading of COVID 1, the hon Minister for National Development, Mr Lawrence Wong stated that tenants are not mandated to pass on property tax rebate to sub-tenants. He explained that the reason for not mandating this is because, in his words, “there is a whole range of commercial arrangements” and there is no contractual relationship between the property owner and sub-tenant. As I understand, the Government under this Bill is prepared to pay cash grant to sub-tenants if they are in possession of the properties. If the sub-tenants do not get the flow through of the benefit of the property tax rebate, based on my understanding, they will get a lower amount than the tenants in possession. Will this also affect the rebate that these sub-tenants get from their landlord? Because as I understand from the hon Minister's speech, the Government – for commercial tenants – will give two months' rental rebate and then the landlords will follow up with two months. There is a bit of a principle of reciprocity in action. So, will this affect what the sub-tenant will get? Next, on clause 7 of the Amendment Bill, I note that it is proposed that a tenant who is holding over a property after the expiry of a tenancy owing to a COVID-19 event will not be liable to the landlord. I welcome this amendment. It makes eminent sense to provide such relief. The control measures in place would make it difficult for the tenant to vacate premises, restore the property to its original state and yield vacant possession to the landlord.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I join the hon Members who spoke before me to support the amendment Bill. The hon Minister for Law took pains to outline the exceptional circumstances warranting intervention in the area of rent payable by SMEs as an exception against the principle of sanctity of contract. I fully agree with him. We are dealing with survival of SME tenants that employ a substantial number of Singaporeans. We cannot afford to just depend on each individual landlord to determine what concessions should be granted to the tenants’ whose businesses are massively haemorrhaging. Such actions would be too slow and uneven and livelihoods will be at stake. I must however acknowledge and commend the actions of a good number of landlords who took unilateral action to help the tenants. For these landlords, I am glad to note that the amendment Bill is worded in a way that would take into account what these landlords unilaterally have done in assessing what further relief should be given by them to these tenants. Whilst small businesses will be the immediate beneficiaries under the amendment Bill, in the long run, as hon Minister mentioned, this amendment Bill actually protects the landlord’s interest too because it will ensure that the tenant’s market will not collapse. So, just like COVID 1, this should not be seen as an anti-landlord bill. Before moving on, I would like to applaud the consultation undertaken by the officers of MinLaw and all the other Government agencies that the hon Minister mentioned in coming up with this Bill. They worked, in the words of the hon Member Mr Christoper de Souza, "triple time" in taking consultation from the ground, identifying the big bug bear that SMEs have and providing concrete solutions through this Bill.”
“For these asset-rich, cash-poor families, I wonder if the Government could consider nudging the financial institutions to provide hassle-free, low-interest home equity loan facilities secured by either (a) refinancing of the original mortgage facilities if the original mortgagee is a bank; or (b) by a second mortgage on their homes. To my understanding, such options are not currently available for HDB flats. Traditionally, financial institutions are chary about being second mortgagees as, priority-wise, they rank below CPF and the first mortgagee. Also, the processing time can be long. The administration costs in terms of getting valuation and to draw up legal paperwork can be significant too. I appreciate that this measure has to be carefully studied for its social impact because if families default on their obligations, the banks may have to foreclose on their homes. However, I think that this issue may be addressed by proper analysis and implementing safeguards on the part of banks. Sir, my comments notwithstanding, I support the Fortitude Budget.”
“Under this approach, there would be need for an analysis on the impact of the charitable programmes on the beneficiaries such that the more impactful programmes should be provided with more public funding. There should be also financial incentives for charities to collaborate, pool resources and scale up. Deputy Prime Minister Heng had noted that many individuals and organisations have stepped up to his call to help Singaporeans in need. With the increased number of charitable funds and individuals wanting to do charity work, there is an opportunity get charitable organisations with similar ideals and objectives to work together to ensure that the dollar provided by our Government is better spent. It may well be that our Government will have to deepen its capability to play the role of matchmaker in encouraging charitable organisations to work together. This will, in my view, accelerate the transformation of the charity sector so that it will emerge stronger from this crisis to serve Singaporeans in need. I now turn to my final point. Our Government has taken decisive steps to ensure that banks better support individuals and businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. What I fear though is that if the economy dwindles even further, more families, especially middle-income families who are not the primary targets of the care and support package, will find themselves more cash strapped. We all recognise that there is a limit to payments such as the Solidarity Payment or the Temporary Relief Fund that the Government may make. Such amounts may not be even sufficient. Cash strapped middle income families may be living in HDB or private properties.”
“For clarity's sake, the circumstances when Government's powers to intervene in the rental market may be triggered must also be spelt out too. The legislation may be worded broadly to provide for a wide spectrum of measures that the Government may impose to help our small businesses as we saw in the PCA example. I respectfully suggest that the Emerging Stronger Task Force of the Future Economy Council consider my proposal. My next point concerns the support under the Fortitude Budget provided to the charity sector. In my speech during the debate on the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets, I highlighted the fact that some charities, especially the smaller ones, already were facing dwindling donations. I recall the hon Member, Mr Saktiandi also made the same point. However, we differed in the approach to be taken to deal with this problem. The hon Member, Mr Saktiandi suggested that the Government support the charities; I felt chary about this suggestion because of the Budget deficit we face this year and the fact that we are drawing on past reserves. Deputy Prime Minister Heng's approach in providing dollar-for-dollar matching addresses both concerns. It incentivises donations and the same time provides much needed support to charitable organisations in the essential service or providing the vulnerable a helping hand. In principle, I support the move. In my respectful view, however, the dollar-for-dollar matching should be combined with an outcome driven approach so as to incentivise charity organisations to collaborate and delivery quality programmes for Singaporeans in need.”
“Between January and February 2020, hon Members will recall that there was a public outcry against unscrupulous sellers taking advantage of the COVID-19 outbreak to sell surgical masks, thermometers and hand sanitisers at grossly inflated prices. The Price Controller took swift action under powers vested in him under PCA by requiring the sellers to provide information on the basis for setting prices at that level and also visiting the premises. The issues were quickly resolved without the need for the Price Controller to exercise his power to fix the price of masks, thermometers and hand sanitizers. Across the Causeway, the government used powers under the equivalent of the PCA to fix the price of surgical masks. By similarly having a permanent framework to deal with rent issues faced by the small businesses, we will be in effect making Singapore's economy more resilient. This is because the Government of the day can leverage on legislation to ensure that these small businesses will not go belly up in the face of similar crises in future. Time is of essence in such situations. Significant business disruption to such small businesses can be irreversible. There will also be the salutary signalling effect within the business community, as we saw in the case of masks sellers who self-regulated after the Price Controller launched queries into their business conduct. I do appreciate that the shape, form and impact of crises in future may be different. The help measures may also differ from crisis to crisis. However, this need not mean that a permanent piece of legislation would lose relevance. However different the crises may be, the impact on small businesses in form of cashflow and cost will largely remain.”
“The hon Senior Minister of State for Law as she then was, Ms Indranee Rajah stated as follows: "In Singapore, our underlying philosophy is that, in general, free-market principles should apply and the Government should intervene only when necessary, for example, to address systemic market failure. Even when we do so, we try as far as possible to have the right regulatory touch and avoid heavy-handed interventions that could lead to distortion or unintended consequences". At this point in time, given the severe impact of COVID-19 pandemic on small businesses, especially in the F&B and retail industries, I think it is right for Government to intervene to protect them or else they will disappear and the employees will be stranded. As it is well-known, two-third of Singaporeans are employed by SMEs. The question I have is on whether we should take a temporary or permanent approach in dealing with such matters. Now that the Government has recognised that there is a need for intervention to help small businesses during crises, should there not be a permanent framework that can be applied as and when the situation calls for it in the future? To illustrate the point, let us consider the important role the Price Control Act, an act which the Deputy Speaker is very familiar with, played during the crisis. The Price Control Act or PCA was enacted in 1950 to control prices of goods and to prevent price gouging. This was engaged in 1973 to fix the price of rice when it rose as a result panic buying, in the wake of the oil crisis. It is also used in 1990 when the pork market was reportedly cornered by a few suppliers. So, this is a lever that can be used when sellers take advantage of the situation created by crises.”
“First, providing a permanent legal framework to help small businesses in crises, like the one we currently face. Second, encouraging the stakeholders in the charity sector to collaborate more so as to deliver more impactful programmes for Singaporeans who need help. And finally, providing more credit and cash flow assistance to middle income families. On the first point, I am cheered by Deputy Prime Minister Heng's announcement of the Government's decision to introduce a Bill, mandating the more muscular landlords to grant rental waivers to the SME tenants whose businesses have been severely affected because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This measure deals with a big bugbear on the ground, given that most businesses in commercial premises have been closed for two months and are likely to be closed for at least a few more weeks. Deputy Prime Minister Heng mentioned that this was not an easy decision. He said "Government does not ordinarily intervene in contracts after they have been entered into". I appreciate the point Deputy Prime Minister Heng made. This was the stance that was taken on behalf of the Government when I spoke on my Adjournment Motion "Power Imbalance in Contracts Involving Small Businesses" on the 5 February 2018. Then, I argued for Government intervention in form of legislation to protect small businesses to equalise their bargaining positions. I highlighted clauses in tenancy agreements that operate unfairly against tenants which are small businesses. I also drew examples of legislation being enacted in a number of advanced jurisdictions to help small businesses.”
“I, like a good number of hon Members have received reply emails from Government agencies on petitions written on behalf of residents promptly, despite a spike in the numbers. Many of these replies are received well after office hours. The Government agencies and partners dealing with applications to draw on the Government's COVID-19 support programmes do not have an easy task at all. They need to strike a balance between providing help to fellow Singaporeans, ensuring that the policy objectives of the programmes and legislation are achieved and satisfying themselves that the public resources are judiciously spent. At the same time, I am delighted to note that more and more, our Government agencies apply a degree of flexibility in assessing applications. As an example, I recently received a note from a Senior Director of MSF who conveyed to me that MSF would administer the COVID-19 Support Grants (CSG) flexibly and not just by closely adhering to the criteria. This will ensure the policy objective of CSG of supporting lower to middle income Singaporeans who have lost their jobs, lost a significant proportion of the income or placed under no-pay leave are better served. This is a welcome development. Our civil service is also transforming in its delivery efforts to better serve fellow Singaporeans. When we and our nation recover from this crisis, we should not forget the services of our men and women in civil service who went beyond their call of duty. In my view, it is not enough to pat them on their backs. We must follow up and provide tangible compensation to them. I made a similar call for our heroic frontline officers in my speech during the debate on the Unity Budget. I would like to make three points in my speech on the Fortitude Budget.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir I support the initiatives introduced in Deputy Prime Minister Heng's Ministerial Statement delivered in this House last week to protect Singaporeans' lives and livelihoods. He and hon Members who spoke before me, highlighted the deteriorating economic situation globally as well as in Singapore. Against this deteriorating situation, I am heartened that Deputy Prime Minister Heng made good his promise made in this House when he was delivering the Ministerial Statement on the Resilience Budget. He said, "should it become necessary, I am prepared to propose to the President further draws on past reserves to deal with the situation." Our past reserves has been characterised as our trump card to get out of this crisis. Indeed, it is fortunate that we can draw on our past reserves, thanks to the prudence of previous generations of Government Leaders and Singaporeans. But equally, it is fortunate that Singapore can count on two further trump cards. They are: our exceptional people, who are all united in the common goal of defeating this virus and its effects on our health and economy; and our excellent men and women of the civil service. By civil service, I also include our Statutory Boards and our uniformed Services. I wish to record my appreciation to the officers in these Government agencies who have been working tirelessly throughout this crisis. We all know our civil service is a lean organisation. With the formulation and implementation of numerous Government budgetary programmes and measures as well as legislation passed in this House within short periods of time, these officers had to rapidly adapt and assume even more responsibilities to support Singaporeans during this turbulent period.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Minister for Health for his detailed explanation. I have some supplementary questions. In relation to the proactive checking of the migrant workers that he mentioned, how long will it take to complete the checking of the migrant workers in the dormitories? And if the time it takes is long or goes over to the expected time of start of Phase Two or Phase Three, how would it impact the timelines for Phase Two or Phase Three of the reopening of the economy?”
“Under the Active Mobility (Footpaths) Order 2018, void decks and the frontage abutting any commercial premises are excluded as footpaths. Under the proposed Bill, is it still the intention exclude both areas? If so, may I please ask why? Void decks and frontage abutting commercial premises are sometimes connected to paths as well. We, in this House, are aware of incidents in the past involving people colliding with PMD users in void decks. This has led to 15 Town Councils to enact by-laws to ban use of PMDs at void decks. Would it not be better to harmonise the application of the laws dealing with PMD users under one Act? Next, and this is my final point, in bringing path connected open spaces under the AMA, how is it proposed that the areas are demarcated as pedestrian paths, footpaths or shared paths respectively. It seems to me better to provide clear demarcation of areas where use of vehicles are permitted. This will augment the harmonisation of usage of paths and areas amongst pedestrians and vehicle users.”
“I wonder whether it would be better to vest with the Court the jurisdiction to deal with such matters instead? Next, under clause 15(4) of SMVB and the proposed section 51(4) of the AMA, the Authority will be vested with the power to release to a third party who claims to be the owner of a non-compliant vehicle even though it was used in a commission of an offence under SMVB and AMA. From a policy view point, may I please ask, what is the purpose of providing to the Authority the power to release a non-compliant vehicle used in a commission of an offence back into public circulation? I believe the hon Member, Mr Louis Ng, made a similar point. It is noteworthy that the Authority, in the same provision, may refer the matter to the Magistrate who must order a forfeiture if he finds that the non-compliant vehicle was used in the commission of an offence. In other words, the Magistrate has no discretion and it seems to me that we may be proposing to give the Authority a wider power than the Magistrate. We need to bear in mind that the purpose behind the SMVB is to dry up the number of non-compliant vehicles in Singapore. The hon Senior Minister of State, Dr Lam had already highlighted the fire hazard as well as the big numbers of non-compliant vehicles that were forfeited just last year. Moving on to the second issue, I wish to first deal with the AMB provisions dealing with the extension of the public path system to include path connected open spaces. This makes eminent sense as it will harmonise enforcement against users who flout the rules on usage of pedestrian paths, footpaths and shared paths, thereby endangering other users; particularly pedestrians. I have two queries on this point. First, the ambit of "path connected open spaces".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support both Bills. I wish to seek clarification on two areas. First, the Authority's power of forfeiture of vehicles under both Bills; and second, the ambit of the definition of "path-connected open spaces" in the Active Mobility (Amendement No. 2) Bill or AMB, and plans under this Bill to harmonise the use of such spaces amongst pedestrians and vehicle users. On the first issue, I wish to make two points. First, it is proposed to allow the Authority to order forfeiture of non-compliant vehicles if it is of the view there is a danger in storing them. Currently, the power of forfeiture is limited to situations where a person has been convicted or compounds an offence in relation to the Active Mobility Act (AMA), or the Road Traffic Act (RTA). Otherwise, the Court retains jurisdiction on the issue of forfeiture. In a situation where the Authority orders forfeiture of a non-compliant vehicle posing a hazard, there could be a perceived conflict of interest arising. This is because the Authority enforces the AMA and will also enforce the Small Motorised Vehicles Bill (SMVB) once it is enacted. The Authority prosecutes offenders under both bills. Then, the Authority exercises a power of forfeiture of this vehicle, that is subject matter of ongoing criminal proceedings. Let us take an example of a person who was brought to book and charged in Court by the Authority for importing and using a non-compliant PMD. His PMD has been seized and stored by the Authority. He denies the charges. Criminal proceedings have commenced. Before it concludes, Authority takes the view that the continued storage of the PMD is dangerous and wants to have it forfeited. Under the provision, it can do so at once, without reference to the accused or the Court.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. My supplementary question is on the issue of leveraging technology for aggressive tracing – a topic that the hon Ministers, Mr Gan Kim Yong and Mr Lawrence Wong touched on in their Ministerial Statements. I understand that the take-up rate for the TraceTogether app is about 17%, which is relatively low. As I understand, the efficacy level is 75%. Since we are about four weeks away to the end of the circuit breaker measures, I wonder whether there is any step to mandate or at least offer this on an opt-out basis so that there will be a higher take-up rate and we will be able to leverage on technology to conduct aggressive tracing.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the hon Minister for his explanation to my Parliamentary Question. I am heartened to note the cooperation between the PEERS Network, community partners and religious organisations. I think it is very uniquely Singapore to have religious organisations coming together to provide help to rough sleepers across religions. My question is in relation to the current situation involving rough sleepers who are not yet housed. May I please ask the hon Minister's assessment of the current situation and what further steps he anticipates to take during the pendency of the COVID-19 measures?”
“Sir, I thank the hon Deputy Prime Minister for his comprehensive answer to my question, and also, his assurance given to Singaporean families with LTVP holders as well, in terms of the help that can be given to the families. My query is in relation to the policy reason for carving out LTVP holders from the LTVP+ holders who would be able to get Solidarity payments, given as I understand the rationale behind the issuing of Solidarity payments to Singapore PRs and the LTVP+ holders is really to help the family. LTVP holders who are spouses are also part of the families as well.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Minister for giving a comprehensive response to the issues I raised in my speech. I just wish to clarify that I did not raise in my speech the issue about landlords' dilemma. Neither to my recollection, did I raise the issue about trading contracts in my delivered speech so I will let the record speak for itself. I have a short clarification to ask in relation to the hon Minister's response to the reference to the Arbitration Act in clause 5(3)(b) of the Bill, Minister mentioned that this was looked at very carefully and what he does not want to do is to affect international arbitration. And he mentioned the example of two parties outside Singapore having arbitration in Singapore and I completely understand where he is coming from. The focus of my question, however, is to deal with situations where the subject matter is dealt with in Singapore. You could have, for example, an international party against a Singapore company. That is also considered an international arbitration under the definition under the IAA so I wonder why in those circumstances, perhaps, the reference to arbitration being seated in Singapore could offer some kind of some kind of practical solution to companies who would also want to seek temporary relief under this Bill.”
“In the meantime, I note that for this four-week period where generally all persons are to work from home, there is a carve-out in the Government measures that allows lawyers to provide drafting and execution of Will services as they constitute essential services. This is eminently sensible. Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill. 6.44 pm”
“In my personal view, arbitration seated in Singapore would be more consonant with the equivalent provision that deals with "Court" proceedings under clause 5(3)(a) of the Bill, which, taken together with the Interpretation Act, would mean "Courts of competent jurisdiction in Singapore". Also, we should note that categories of scheduled contracts are not closed. Should the Minister extend the schedule to cover trading contracts, for example, there could be international companies involved which means that these companies could possibly commence international arbitration which is governed by the International Arbitration Act (IAA), thereby escaping this provision. Also parties to domestic arbitration may have opted into the IAA regime, thereby, again possibly escaping this provision. My final point, Sir, is in relation to an area not specifically covered in this Bill. This Bill contains provisions for holding of general meetings of companies and Court proceedings using remote communication technology. I read a Guardian article dated 31 March 2020 in which it was stated that the UK Ministry of Justice is looking at temporarily relaxing the rules on two witnesses required under the Wills Act as UK self-isolates. I appreciate that the two-witness rule in Singapore is put in to guard against fraud. In this day and age when we have Singpass for a whole host of digital services, this fraud issue could be contained to some extent. In the event the COVID-19 event extends to a longer period of time – and, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am touching wood at this point in time – I recommend that the Minister for Law consider looking into digitising Wills. This should also apply to LPAs, too.”
“I now turn to clause 6 of the Bill. I support the intention behind the clause which is to prevent the owner or developer under a contract to call on a performance bond in relation to a “subject inability”, which is defined as the inability to a material extent caused by a COVID-19 event. What is not clear is when this obligation is triggered. Under clause 5 of the Bill, it is stated that that the temporary relief kicks in upon satisfaction of three conditions, which include a notification under clause 5(c) to the other party. This notification requirement is not specifically stated in the clause. May I please ask whether this notification requirement has to be fulfilled before the obligation under clause 6 is triggered? If so, would there not be situations where the owners or developers may act to call on bonds before being notified? Now, this is not necessarily an unusual situation because the party that is unable to perform the obligation is not the party to the performance bond because that is between the employer and the bank. It seems to me, however, if that happens, such acts may thwart the legislative intention behind the Bill. It may well be unconscionable conduct on the part of the owner or developer which ordinarily provides grounds to restrain payment under the bond. I would welcome clarification from the hon Minister on this point. Next, I go to the reference to arbitration under clause 5(3)(b) of the Bill. As mentioned by the hon Minister, as part of the temporary relief measures, it is contemplated that defaulting parties cannot be subject of Court proceedings as well as arbitration. May I please ask why is there a need to circumscribe arbitration to only that which is governed by the Arbitration Act instead of stating arbitration seated in Singapore?”
“Given the wording that is used in statute, I seek a clarification as to whether the obligation referred to in the clause is wider than the contractual obligation and should be referenced against the purpose of the contract that is objectively known to contracting parties. I also would like to ask whether the clause is intended to apply on a mutual basis. Again, to illustrate, staying on the example, say, for example, if the hotel’s workers are all serving quarantine orders and, therefore, they are unable to proceed with the wedding dinner. Can the hotel also take advantage of the clause? If I am right, based on the definition of scheduled contracts in the Schedule, any company, not just SMEs, may use the measures in this Bill in relation to scheduled contracts, save for the finance-related contracts. May I please clarify whether this is, indeed, the intention? If so, may I please ask why the hotels, which are naturally big boys, need to be protected under this Bill? Next, I turn to clause 5(1)(b) of the Bill which deals with the second condition – “inability to a material extent caused by a COVID-19 event”. I wish to clarify the meaning of this phrase. I anticipate that Assessors appointed under the Act, once passed, will spend a lot of time on the meaning of this phrase. In law, we have concepts, such as “causa causans” which is the immediate cause or the last link, or “causa sine qua non”, which is the cause that contributes to the loss even though it is not direct. I would like to ask whether these concepts are meant to be triggered here. Or is the intent to provide relief even where there are more than one reason leading to a party being unable to perform an obligation in contract so long as the COVID-19 event is an important or significant reason.”
“Hopefully, that will interest more Members. First, categorisation of scheduled contracts. I agree with the drafting approach in this Bill of providing relief to scheduled contracts described in the schedule. This promotes certainty. The other option would be to just have provisions of general application. This would cause major confusion. I am glad to note that, under clause 18 of the Bill, it is proposed that the Minister be given powers to amend or add to the schedule. Given the uncertainties we face, this makes eminent sense. I would like to ask the hon Minister what are the guiding principles upon which he would exercise this discretion that is proposed to be vested in him. Next, the wording in clause 5(1)(a) of the Bill. Clause 5, in my personal view, is the critical provision in this Bill, as it stipulates three conditions pursuant to which temporary relief from contractual consequences may be obtained. I seek clarification on the phrase “unable to perform an obligation”. This is one of the primary triggers to get temporary relief. Is the word "obligation" referring to a contractual obligation or is it in relation to an obligation in general having regard to the purpose of the contract? Let me illustrate by way of an example. Let us deal with a contract dealing with a wedding dinner in a hotel. The bride and groom’s obligation would be a payment obligation in which it may not be affected by a COVID-19 event as they would have set aside money for their wedding. Read literally, they may not get relief if the obligation that they have is only a payment obligation. But that would be onerous. I understand the intention is to give relief to the bride and groom in such a parlous situation.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I like to first declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice who has been approached to provide advice on this Bill in draft before it was introduced in this House today. I rise in support of the Bill. I join hon Members who spoke before me to commend officers from MinLaw, MND, MOH, the Attorney-General's Chambers and top practitioners from private practice for working together and coming up with this Bill so quickly in nine days. This is an excellent example of the spirit of SG United in action. As mentioned by the hon Minister for Law, the introduction of this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency is precipitated by the most serious crisis our country has faced since Independence. It is worth repeating that the focus of this Bill is to ensure the economic survival of contracting parties affected by the COVID-19 event, particularly the individuals and small-and-medium enterprises. I agree, therefore, that the current circumstances are exceptional to justify intervention into the hallowed principle of sanctity of private contracts and the rule against retrospective application of laws. The hon Minister shared a precedent in the form of the Frustrated Contracts Act which was put into effect in February 1959 but applied to all contracts, even those entered into before the commencement date of the statute. Coincidentally, the subject matter of the Frustrated Contracts Act also deals with intervening unanticipated events affecting contractual obligations. I would like to raise six points in my speech, most of which deal with statutory interpretation and, therefore, likely to be quite dry and only interest the lawyers in this House. To make up, I will end with the suggestion application on what could, perhaps, be considered in future.”