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 20 of 25.
“While this is by no means a comprehensive or exhaustive list, it is intended to highlight some of the thought processes a sentencing judge should apply when determining the appropriate custodial sentence for drug consumption offences. Given that not all offences of consumption are the same, it follows that not all acts of consumption ought to be punished identically with a rigid, immutable starting point that constitutes an end by itself." This is not to say that the Courts would treat drug possession or drug consumption lightly. In the same case, the Court expressly recognised that a fine may be imposed in very limited instances where a young offender with no antecedents is involved, and even then, this cannot be an invariable practice for all young offenders. Additionally, there need not be parity between the DRC regime and imprisonment, in terms of the length of time, given that they serve different purposes. We are not necessarily comparing apples with apples. A DRC incarceration is not a conviction, and the primary purpose of DRC is to rehabilitate, which understandably requires some time. In contrast, a person dealt with by the Courts, convicted and sentenced will have a conviction record. And the aims of imprisonment also include retribution and deterrence, rather than a pure focus on rehabilitation. My concern is that there could be situations where it does not make sense for a person to be sentenced to a DRC, and yet it may not make sense for the person to be sentenced to a one-year imprisonment term, for example, a foreign national who commits a drug offence while on a social visit pass. There is little utility in sending him to a DRC for rehabilitation, given that he is not resident in Singapore.”
“At the same time, the present regime also contemplates rehabilitation in the DRC for first-time offenders with no criminal record, and this is generally a term of approximately eight months. I understand that the proposed amendments would address the existing disparity, namely, that a first-time offender who is unsuitable for DRC, for example, if he had committed other offences, together with a drug consumption offence, and is sentenced to imprisonment, he would serve a shorter term than a first-time offender who is deemed suitable and sentenced to undergo treatment at a DRC. If the focus is to address this disparity, why not put this before the Court, rather than impose a mandatory minimum sentence? The Court will then have a discretion to impose a sentence that suits the circumstances of the case, for example, drawing a distinction in sentencing between the consumption of a Class A drug, which is more serious, versus a Class C drug. After all, the sentence should take into account the circumstances of each individual offender, to distinguish between their differing degrees of criminal culpability. The existing provisions allow the Courts this flexibility. This is encapsulated by a High Court decision, where the Court said, "Adopting this wider spectrum of sentencing options for first-time offenders will allow adequate regard to be duly given to the many imponderables involved when such offences are committed, such as: what was the amount of drug(s) consumed… what was the occasion that led to the act of consumption; was it planned or incidental to some other event… was any payment involved; is the accused a first-time drug consumer, a casual consumer or an addict?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I first declare my interest as a practising lawyer who occasionally handles criminal cases, including drug cases. Singapore has always taken a hard stance on drugs. Hon Members who spoke before me support this stance. This is a reflection of our understanding of the pernicious effects that drugs and drug addiction have on our communities, and the need to ensure that drug consumption does not become an entrenched habit in our society. There is also a recognition in recent years that whilst it remains necessary to ensure that our laws deter drug trafficking, possession and consumption, there is also a need for a broader range of measures to rehabilitate offenders to mitigate the risk of relapse. The proposed amendments to the Act serves these two purposes – enhancing our enforcement powers against drug-related activities, especially where young children are concerned and, at the same time, strengthening the drug rehabilitation regime by taking a more calibrated approach vis-a-vis drug abusers. I support the aims of the Bill. I have a few queries. First, the Bill proposes a new section 33(3A), which prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of one year for first-time offenders of a section 8 offence of drug possession or consumption. This represents quite a shift from the status quo currently where there is no prescribed minimum sentence and, therefore, a Court is entitled to impose a sentence of a fine and/or a jail term of less than one year. The present sentencing norm for first-time drug consumption is between six and eight months’ imprisonment. Taking into account remission, the length of imprisonment is approximately between four and five months.”
“Speaker, Sir, I have a question for the hon Minister for Health in relation to the relationship between IHiS and SingHealth and, for that matter, the other healthcare clusters. I note that PDPC had fined SingHealth in its capacity as a data controller. But IHiS, which is owned by MOH Holdings (MOHH), is a nominated agency to deal with IT matters for all healthcare clusters. So, how would these two entities work to strike a balance between operational needs on the one hand and to maintain cybersecurity on the other hand? Do they work as equal partners, or would there be another arbiter to deal with any differences between these agencies?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two questions for the hon Senior Minister of State. The first question is in relation to claim limits for day surgeries. As the Senior Minister of State would know, with the advancement of technology, a number of procedures would entail patients to go through day surgeries instead of being warded in hospitals. This may result in cost-savings. Could these cost-savings be taken into account in setting the claim limit for complex procedures in day surgeries? That is the first question. The second question is in relation to the information flow between the national health agencies setting their costs and MOH when assessing whether or not the claim limits would be sufficient and relevant. In the context of this case, for example, would ordinarily these healthcare agencies inform MOH, have that discussion on whether or not the price setting is appropriate before it is finalised?”
“The amendments also provide that what amounts to "prescribed infectious disease" will be set out in Regulations. Given that the Act already spells out what amounts to infectious disease in the First Schedule, and also separately spells out what is dangerous infectious disease in the Second Schedule, may I please ask what will be covered under the new defined term of "prescribed infectious disease"? How will the list of prescribed infectious disease be drawn up? Will there be any interplay between the infectious diseases set out in the First Schedule and the list of prescribed infectious diseases? Or is it contemplated that the application of the prescribed infectious diseases list is only in respect of section 6 of the Act, since no other sections of the Act refers to prescribed infectious diseases? Sir, before I sit down, I would like to make reference to a point made by the learned Senior Minister of State. He mentioned that MOH received plaudits from WHO for its ability to successfully detect and prevent the spread of infectious diseases. This is a hard-earned reputation and, frankly, whatever we pass today in the House, it is the capability of MOH and its professionals that would make a decisive difference in the fight against the spread of infectious diseases. And in that regard, we should never forget the heroes, such as Nurse Hamidah Ismail and Dr Alex Chao, who lost their lives in helping Singaporeans during the SARS incident, and they always would deserve our eternal debt of gratitude. Thank you.”
“Section 20 of the UK Act has since been repealed and replaced with regulation 8 of the UK Health Protection (Local Authority Powers) Regulations 2010 which continues to enable the local authorities to offer compensation. Apart from a written request in writing to stop work, section 45H of the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act also allows for local authorities to apply to a Justice of the Peace for an order to impose restrictions or requirements to protect human health. The order made may order the payment of compensation or expenses in connection with the taking of measures pursuant to the order. The point is that the UK provisions contemplate the authorities giving compensation where a worker's work or trade has been affected by a measure taken in protection of public health, such a stop-work order. In Singapore, we do not have that, which means that the risks may lie entirely with the trader or worker concerned. Even if we do not go so far as to compensate people in respect of stop-work directions given, perhaps we can at least consider having a statutory basis for people to be relieved or held harmless from liability for their contractual business or trade obligations for the period that they are directed by the Director to do an act which renders them unable to perform their work obligations. Next, section 6 of the Act is proposed to be amended to require certain persons who are aware or suspects that another person is suffering from, or is a carrier of, a prescribed infectious disease, to notify the Director of Medical Services of those facts. The section previously made reference to "infectious disease", which is specified in the First Schedule of the Act, instead of "prescribed infectious disease".”
“The amendments, however, do not provide direct assistance to a person who has been ordered by the Director to cease business to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. To illustrate, if a person is a carrier of an infectious disease, such as dengue or measles, is afflicted and he is asked to be quarantined, for certain occupations, such as self-employed persons like taxi drivers, they may still have to honour their contractual arrangements with their counterparties, for example, the taxi companies, for the period they should be quarantined, so that they will not infect their passengers. It is commonly provided in agreements between taxi companies and their drivers that they have to pay rent for the hire of the taxi if they have a medical certificate (MC) for longer than a defined period, for example, seven days. This creates a potential conundrum for the self-employed person who may be caught between a rock and a hard place. If they abide by the Director's orders, they may be exposed to liability vis-a-vis the counterparties. This is not a theoretical musing. I met a gentleman at a funeral wake of his relative. He related to me that he was given 14 days' MC for his infectious disease. However, he was required to pay rent after an initial seven-day period. He was unable to secure cover because of the suddenness of the situation. He had no choice but to pay rent even though he was quarantined at home on his doctor's orders. In contrast, section 20 of the UK Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, provides for local authorities to, by notice in writing, request any person to discontinue work. And, in such instances, the local authorities may have to compensate the person if he has suffered any loss in complying with such a request.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. As mentioned by the hon Members of Parliament who spoke before me, in particular, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Singapore is an international travel hub. About 7,200 flights land or depart from Changi Airport each week. As at November last year, approximately 60 million passengers passed through Changi Airport in 2018. These travellers come from all over the world. Greater travel connectivity and movement of people come with the attendant risk of the spread of diseases, something that the hon Senior Minister of State Dr Lam Pin Min highlighted. These proposed amendments to the IDA allow the Government to enhance infectious disease surveillance and equip us to better prevent the spread of infectious diseases both within Singapore and from outside Singapore into Singapore. I would like to commend the Ministry for its efforts to consult stakeholders over a six-week period before finalising the Bill which is before Parliament today. I seek two clarifications on two areas. Section 21 of the Act is proposed to be amended to allow the Government to take a more calibrated approach to address the risk of the spread of infectious diseases by persons who are carrying infectious diseases. Instead of a blanket ban against carrying on any occupation, trade or business, which is presently the case, the amendments allow the authorities to make an assessment of the extent of risk in the circumstances, and make appropriate orders as necessary to prevent the transmission of infectious diseases, which may not need to be a complete cessation of trade or business. And the learned Senior Minister of State mentioned food handlers as an example. This calibrated approach will be less disruptive to businesses and traders. I welcome it.”
“Is this amendment really necessary? In conclusion, I applaud the good and hard work of SCDF. I support the Bill. But I would welcome clarifications on the three points I raised from the hon Minister.”
“Apart from this, I wonder whether we should give the power to SCDF to instruct members of the public to provide cooperation to handle emergency situations even in peacetime. Under common law, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another and, therefore, generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril. In contrast, if a person decides to come to the rescue of another, the good Samaritan is said to have assumed a duty of care and can become liable if his action makes the situation worse, such as injuries caused by a reckless rescue attempt. I filed a Parliamentary Question last month on whether notices to guide the public on the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) could be installed in public locations to guide members of the public who have not received training on the use of AEDs. The hon Minister, in his answer, informed that a new educational sticker, with clear step-by-step instructions on how to handle suspected cardiac arrest cases, will be affixed to the bottom left of every AED cabinet installed in HDB blocks by July 2019. How do we protect such people who step in to help in good faith? By providing protection to them, we may encourage more people to use AEDs, fire extinguishers, and go some way to achieve the vision of a nation of life savers that the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned in his speech. Finally, section 115(2) of the Act is proposed to be amended to allow the Minister to make regulations to “prescribe anything which may be prescribed”. What is the thinking behind this? The amendment is so wide that it is as general as section 115(1) which already states that the Minister may make regulations for carrying out or giving effect to the provisions of this Act.”
“Whilst liability against individual SCDF officers in such circumstances is excluded, may I ask whether it is meant to exclude institutional liability of SCDF? Let me elaborate. There may be cases of institutional negligence leading to death. For example, in a 2000 English case, a pregnant woman had suffered a serious asthma attack at home, and the visiting general practitioner made an emergency call for an ambulance, which took 40 minutes to arrive. The woman suffered a miscarriage and brain damage. The ambulance service was found negligent for its unreasonable delay in arriving to the victim’s aid. Such cases, by and large, are the exception rather than the norm as, under common law, there must be clear evidence of professional negligence by the emergency services crew who need to perform sometimes in exacting conditions. In the English case, the Court focused on the fact that whilst the ambulance service accepted the call to respond, it failed to explain why it had taken 34 minutes to travel 10 kilometres (km), barely 18 km per hour, and why the ambulance log book had been deliberately falsified to show a travel time of about nine minutes. It must also be borne in mind that, in Singapore, hospitals and doctors are not immune to claims against them in respect of the medical care they provide. I understand the rationale for protecting SCDF officers from personal liability, so long as they act in good faith and act reasonably. May I please clarify whether the proposed amendment in the Bill is also meant to prevent victims from seeking redress against the SCDF as an institution? If so, may I please ask what is the rationale for this? The Act presently allows SCDF to direct any person to render assistance to save life in immediate damage, during a state of emergency.”
“SCDF plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety of Singaporeans and residents. This comes with great sacrifice for SCDF officers, who put themselves at risk constantly and they deserve our nation’s appreciation and gratitude. One only needs to recall the Pulau Busing fire which happened in March this year. The massive fire required the deployment of more than a hundred personnel. Thanks to the hard work of our SCDF officers, the fire did not spread to two nearby oil tanks, which would have made the situation far worse. What was particularly etched in the minds of many appreciative Singaporeans was the photograph published in many news portals of our fatigued firefighters, many of them NSmen, drenched in perspiration because of the extreme heat, taking rests in between their duties. The Bill makes changes to the CD Act to give explicit powers to SCDF officers for peacetime civil defence operations and, as stated by the hon Minister, to enhance the SCDF's operational response and effectiveness. These are necessary to allow the SCDF to take necessary and timely actions in day-to-day operations, in particular, to prevent the escalation of an emergency. In connection with this, the Bill proposes that the powers given to SCDF officers must be exercised in good faith and with reasonable care, and, if so, the SCDF officers will not be personally liable for any act or omission carried out in the execution of such powers. This protection from personal liability presently applies in civil defence emergency situations but will now be extended to peacetime situations. This is a recognition of the dangerous situations that SCDF officers face even in peacetime. I would like to seek a clarification.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the hon Senior Minister of State for the detailed explanation. There is an old saying, "untruths travel halfway round the world when the truth is just putting on its boots". But on the basis of what the hon Senior Minister of State had shared, it seems that untruth has picked up pace since. I have two supplementary questions. One, in relation to Facebook's action, did Facebook demote the news, the fake news, pursuant to its protocol dealing with fake news? Two, a more general question, dealing with the social media giants, does the hon Senior Minister of State think the attitude of these giants would be different if the direction were made by an independent body, for example, the judiciary, instead of a Government agency?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Second Minister for her comprehensive answer to my Parliamentary Question. I have three supplementary questions. First, would the Minister accept that in UPLIFT's review, it is likely to find fairly intractable cases, given that over the decades, generations of families have gone up the social ladder, leaving behind rather tough cases to handle? Secondly, if that observation is pertinent and correct, then would she not agree that we need to have a whole suite of options on the table to deal with the tough cases? Finally, in that context, while I accept that the way the CYPA is currently worded, it focuses on physical abuse, would it not be possible for Parliament to consider a widening of its ambit, recognising that in some situations, the reasons why children do not do well in school is multifactorial, but in some instances, it may be due to intentional acts or neglect on the part of parents? And in those circumstances, there needs to be statutory levers to invite intervention by the state.”
“Moving on, in respect of the proposed amendment to allow for exchange of information under an international arrangement, I note from the hon Minister’s speech that this would include the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units. Apart from this, what other international arrangements are contemplated, and would such international arrangements be disclosed? In conclusion, I would like to highlight that the hon Attorney-General's speech at the Cambridge Symposium where he described Singapore's approach to combating economic crime as the 3D approach – detection, deterrence and deprivation. The confiscation provisions in the Bill specifically focuses on the final "D" is deprivation. My suggestions are made in the context of focusing also on the first two Ds, that is, getting the authorities to detect the extent of a criminal’s wealth as well as providing some "teeth" to deter like-minded offenders. As criminals constantly revamp their methods to evade detection and the law, we, too, must constantly evaluate our means to guard against them or deter such behaviour. I support the Bill, which is in step with our efforts to ensure that Singapore is not seen as an easy target for criminals.”
“What we do not want is for criminals to go to jail at the expense of our people, come out and then connect with the monies that they had stolen later. Second, providing resources to our authorities to "chase" after the assets of criminals in other countries. It should not just stop at invoking Mutual Legal Aid Treaties (MLATs). If necessary, there should be civil actions taken to recover the proceeds. Third, at the point of charging a person for an economic crime, if he has unexplained wealth in his name, even though it cannot be specifically traced to the crime in question, the authorities should consider commencing money laundering prosecution in parallel so that the unexplained wealth may be frozen pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. This will allow the confiscation order that may be made subsequently in the event of a conviction to have more "bite". In my Parliamentary Question last month on economic crimes, I had asked for the total value of assets misappropriated or gained by offenders who have been convicted for economic crimes in Singapore, in contrast with the total value of assets recovered by the authorities. The response from the Ministry was that Singapore does not track such data. With respect we should. Without tracking such data, we may not be able to monitor the effectiveness of our confiscation regime to track our progress on this front. Separately, I would ask how would the confiscation orders work in the context of co-accused persons? Would they be jointly and severally liable in respect of the confiscation order?”
“The UK has additionally introduced an "unexplained wealth order" civil-based regime whereby, independent of a conviction in a criminal court, a person's assets may be seized and confiscated in favour of the government if he or she is unable to explain the disparity between his known sources of wealth and the value of his assets. The UK Law Commission has recently embarked on a two-year project to review its laws on confiscation to ensure effective recovery of proceeds of crime which is presently in the pre-consultation stage. The review will focus on whether the present conviction-based confiscation regime is sufficient and what improvements could be made. Specifically, it is consulting on a proposal whereby a person who is charged in Court for an economic crime, is also visited with a "freezing order" of his assets amounting to the same amount that he is alleged to have gained from the economic crime. It is typical, in the words of Prof Michael Levi, a very well-known criminology professor, that criminals in such situations often claim that they have spent all their ill-gotten gains on fast women and slow horses. Clearly though, they should not be taken at face value. We should ensure that we have sufficient tools to combat economic crimes, in particular, by depriving criminals of their ill-gotten gains. In this regard and in light of the global trends, I have three suggestions. First, providing for an increase in punishment or some punitive measure against the criminal if the confiscation order made against him is not satisfied. There is already a trend in the UK of unsatisfied confiscation orders. Such paper judgments cannot deter people from committing economic crimes.”
“Hence, the prosecution, much less conviction, is not contemplated. Yet, there is a compelling case to seize and confiscate such monies, too. As the hon Minister mentioned, these activities can have the impact of "destroying our reputation as a trusted global financial centre”. I would suggest that we consider having civil seizure and confiscation provisions prior to or in parallel with criminal proceedings. The Organised Crime Act has such provisions. The Act, which was introduced in 2016, allows for confiscation without the need for a criminal conviction where a person carries out a serious offence at the direction of an organised criminal group. Serious offences include the various offences under CDSA, such as assisting to retain, acquiring, possessing or transferring benefits of criminal conduct. However, the Organised Crime Act, as the name implies, requires the prosecutor to prove that the accused knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that he or she was acting in accordance with the direction of an organised criminal group. Hence, the ambit is fairly narrow. Providing for a wider civil-based freezing and confiscation regime under CDSA would give the law enforcement agencies more teeth. As a parallel, the US has a civil forfeiture regime in place, which allows law enforcement officers to take assets from persons suspected of involvement in crime, without necessarily charging them for wrongdoing. Australia also has a similar legislation which allows for civil-based recovery. Such civil-based recovery allows restraint and recovery of assets suspected of criminal origins without the necessity of securing a criminal conviction.”
“In this regard, I beg to differ with the opinion expressed by the hon Member of Parliament Ms Sylvia Lim who postulated the question as to whether this Bill throws up purported inadequacies in the current regime by reference to the 1MDB case. As a private practitioner, it seems to me that actually the 1MDB case shows the efficacy of the regime as it stands now. Singapore, ahead of other jurisdictions, has prosecuted and secured convictions of perpetrators. Not only that, two banks were closed down as the result of quick action by the relevant law enforcement authorities. Not only that, recently, FATF has given Singapore, after a mutual evaluation, a clean bill of health. So, this shows that the regime works but we are faced with a dynamic situation, not a static situation. And it is entirely appropriate for the hon Minister to highlight that, given the inventiveness of these criminals, we need to constantly check to see whether or not the measures we have are adequate. In this regard, I have a few suggestions. The Bill provides for the Public Prosecutor to apply to Court to make a confiscation order against monies that a person has moved in or out of Singapore in contravention of section 48C or 48D of CDSA. This, as well as confiscation powers under sections 4 and 5 of CDSA, only apply after the accused is convicted of the offence. By then, it may be too late as the monies may have been dissipated by the accused. These provisions will have "bite" if assets are frozen at the outset and the confiscation order is then applied against the frozen assets. There could also be situations where assets from ill-gotten gains are in Singapore, given that it is a prominent international financial centre. But the perpetrators may not be here.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer who occasionally handles criminal cases. Given Singapore’s position as a major financial hub and the greater push towards digitisation of our financial services and banking industry, Singapore is vulnerable to criminals who exploit our financial system to make illicit gains. Singapore is not unique in this regard. There has been a trend of rising economic crime worldwide. In response to a Parliamentary Question that I filed last month on economic crimes in Singapore, the hon Minister for Home Affairs stated that the number of commercial crimes reported in Singapore had remained stable over the last three years from 2015 to 2017. However, in PwC's global economic crime and fraud survey 2018, PwC noted its findings of a sharp increase and a record high of reported economic crime in Singapore, which is consistent with the global trend. In particular, according to PwC's survey, more than one-third of Singapore-based organisations experienced economic crime, up from 22% in 2016. The hon Attorney-General noted in his keynote address at the 36th Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime earlier this year that while our domestic crime rate remains low, Singapore’s exposure to transnational economic crime is on the rise. The amount of foreign illicit funds seized by CAD in 2016 amounted to around S$164.5 million. This is a nearly five-fold increase from the previous year in 2015. Given the increase in both extent and sophistication of transnational economic crime syndicates, I fully support the Bill, which seeks to enhance the law enforcement agencies' abilities to seize assets from illicit activities and deter criminals by taking the profit out of their crimes.”
“I note that the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has stated that the qualifying limit for the PCHI test will be set such that there will be no material impact on the number of households who are eligible for legal aid. However, there would presumably be some increase in eligible cases given the shift from individual-based criteria to household-based criteria. Would there not be a need for additional resources to be provided to LAB to deal with this? I would now conclude. Over 60 years, the views expressed in this House is consistently that justice must be accessible to all. The Act has been reviewed regularly over the years to ensure this goal. I support the amendment Bill for its progressive changes made in the way that we assess means eligibility for legal aid to ensure that justice remains accessible by all.”
“Apart from the new means test, the Bill now provides that the Minister may direct the Director of Legal Aid to issue a Grant of Aid even though the Director is of the opinion that the applicant does not satisfy the prescribed means criteria, if the Minister is of the opinion that it is just and proper for legal aid to be granted. May I clarify: does this operate as an appeal to the Minister by the applicant who has been refused a Grant of Aid by the Director? This is presumably so, because the Director would have already made an assessment of eligibility at the first instance. If so, would the Minister require the Director to provide grounds for his decision and would such grounds be provided to the applicant so that the applicant can comment on it in its appeal to the Minister? And what are circumstances that are contemplated where it would be "just and proper" for the Minister to grant legal aid? May I also please ask what is the outcome of the suggestion that was made in this House by the hon former Member Mr Hri Kumar when the Act was last amended in 2013 when he suggested to Minister Indranee Rajah that the Government, through this Act, introduce a Public Defender scheme, drawing from the private sector, to help indigent citizens who face criminal proceedings? At that point in time, I read the Hansard and it was indicated that the Ministry would consider the suggestion. I would be grateful for an update, please. Finally, the explanatory notes of the Bill state that the Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. I would be grateful for a clarification on the statement.”
“In my respectful view, such an approach may operate unfairly against the family as it did not adequately take into account the circumstances surrounding the mentally incapacitated son and the reason for the application in Court in the first place. I am glad to note, however, that if this Bill is passed, then this issue will be taken care of because the PCHI will be adopted as the means test, both the income of the father and his son will be taken into account to assess the father's means more holistically. LAB will also be vested with powers to exercise greater flexibility to provide targeted help to applicants in extenuating circumstances. The means test must be flexible enough to remain relevant even when there are ups and downs in Singapore's economic growth. In terms of the qualifying limit for the new PCHI means criterion, which I understand will be set later in subsidiary legislation after taking into account the latest income data, could the hon Senior Minister of State please elaborate what are the considerations that will be inputted in relation to setting the limit? For example, would it be based on the 20th percentile of the PCHI? Would the income limit exclude CPF contributions, a point that the hon Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh mentioned? This should be the case, in my respectful view, because it should take into account actual disposable income. How about circumstances where families are put into significant expense? I believe that the Senior Minister of State mentioned that this would be taken into account. What will be the principles governing such assessments?”
“The new means criterion of PCHI is commendable, as it allows more flexibility in the assessment of means, to take into account the overall income situation of the household and not the applicant's individual situation, which may not be reflective of his/her situation. Let me give Members an example. Last month, I filed a Parliamentary Question arising from a case. It concerned a legal aid application made by a father, seeking assistance to be appointed as a deputy of his mentally disabled son. I asked why is it that the father was treated as the applicant as opposed to the son. Ordinarily, his son would have been eligible for legal aid. But he cannot apply because he is not mentally capable. The application for deputyship and legal aid was made by the father. The application, after all, was for the benefit of the son and it was meant to facilitate the care and management of his son. Unfortunately, the father was deemed not eligible for legal aid, as the current means test only looks at his circumstances as an individual and not that of his son. Under the Act, the Director of Legal Aid may exercise discretion to exclude up to $30,000 to determine the disposable capital of the applicant if the applicant is suffering from mental disability, a point that the learned Senior Minister of State just made. But here, this ground cannot be raised because, as far as LAB is concerned, the applicant is the father, who is mentally sound. So, one wonders when this proviso can apply because, ordinarily, one assumes that applicants must be compos mentis. In his reply, the Minister for Law stated, "It is not possible for legal aid applications to be made for, or on behalf of, the mentally incapacitated person, and then use that person's means to support the legal aid application".”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer and an assigned solicitor with LAB. I welcome these landmark amendments proposed to the Legal Aid and Advice Act which comes 62 years after the enactment of the original Bill. The raison d’etre behind the Bill when it was moved by the then Minister for Labour, Mr Lim Yew Hock, in 1956 remains the same. This point was put across eloquently by the hon Minister Ms Indranee Rajah in this House in 2013 when she said, "Access to justice is one of the cornerstones of our society. We may have the best laws, the best Courts and the best system, but all that would be lost if they cannot be accessed by persons in need. Like all things, there is a cost to legal services and not everyone can afford such services. It was with this in mind that the Legal Aid and Advice Act was originally enacted in 1956 to ensure access to justice. That objective remains as relevant today as it was then". We have just heard the Senior Minister of State, Mr Edwin Tong, subscribing fully to this statement and the hon Member Mr Abbas Ali also echoed a similar point. When the LAB was established pursuant to the Act on 1 July 1958, Singapore became the first country in Southeast Asia to have such a legal aid scheme. Currently, LAB sees over 9,000 applications for legal aid annually. It celebrates its 60th anniversary this year. It is timely that we review our legal aid scheme to ensure that we keep abreast with changes to our society. A key reform in the Bill is the changes to the means test to be used to assess eligibility for legal aid. I recognise that it is not easy to fix a fair and equitable means test that is totally immune to criticism.”
“I note that under the proposed section 80H(6) of the Bill, the Director-General will have the power to postpone the effective date of specified amount by the Commissioner for Labour. What would be the considerations the Director-General have in mind before exercising this power? How would he strike the balance between ensuring that the cleaners benefit from these wage increases on one hand, and also deal with the predicament of cleaning contractors who are already locked in on the price of cleaning contracts, which still have a significant performance period to perform?”
“I gather from the HDB pilot that there was an MND grant provided to the Town Council to deal with extra costs associated with the implementation of the pilot. Will there be a similar situation under DPWCS? I further note that under sections 31M and N that there will be connection and tariff charges. What would be the expected costs for the residents? Will there be regulation or guidance given to licensees on how the tariffs should be implemented for residents? Next, on the issue of scale. I note that the proposed section 31F excludes premises controlled or managed by a Town Council, a point highlighted by hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim. May I please ask what is the rationale for excluding HDB estates? Should NEA not be the agency to regulate all DPWCSs in housing estates, public or private, just like the regulation of water pipes? Does NEA also contemplate having a DPWCS that serves both public and private estates, such that residents can enjoy a higher level of scale and potentially higher cost savings as well? Finally, what incentives can be provided to existing estates to convert to PWCS, recognising the environmental and hygiene benefits of the system? Can NEA consider something similar to the HDB pilots like, for example, MND grants? I move on to the introduction of the PWM Bonus. I fully support the amendments which adopt the recommendation of the TCC chaired by the hon Member Mr Zainal Sapari. This amendment directly helps these cleaners better cope with cost-of-living issues. I am concerned, however, about the impact vis-a-vis existing cleaning contracts with margins already locked in, a point that Mr Chen Show Mao highlighted just now.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome and support the primary aims of the Bill, which is to establish the establishment, operation, licensing and regulation of DPWCS, and to introduce the PWM Bonus for cleaners. On DPWCS, the benefits of it are plain to appreciate, and the hon Senior Minister of State has enumerated them in her speech. I do not propose to repeat them. But I would also add that this system would go a long way in helping our Government achieve its stated intent of reaching 70% recycling rate by 2030. As the hon Member Ms Irene Quay just mentioned, this is because the DPWCS supports separation of waste. This also follows the example in a number of other countries, as mentioned by the learned Senior Minister of State, such as Sweden, South Korea and the United Kingdom. I have four queries on the DPWCS. First, as mentioned by the learned Senior Minister of State, there was an HDB pilot run in several locations in Singapore. The feedback is generally very positive but there were two concerns raised. One is in relation to the sound of the system, the suction noise, and the other one is smell that may arise from time to time from choked pipes. Will there be standards ascribed for the licensees to follow via subsidiary legislation? Also, gleaning from the experience of other countries, a point that hon Member Mr Zainal Sapari made, will there also be quality of service standards in terms of effecting recovery? Next, on the issue of cost that was highlighted by the hon Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Sylvia Lim, what would be the expected lifecycle cost of DPWCS? Would it be lower compared to the current system?”
“The public prosecutor can intervene for each particular proceeding. But it may be useful to consider a situation where the powers contemplated under section 73A to D are extended to criminal proceedings, so that there could be a general restraint as the case may deserve. Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.”
“At first glance, in the absence of a consent order, it is rather strange for a division of the High Court to suggest to the Court of Appeal how it should conduct its proceedings in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Next, I move on to the measures for dealing with unmeritorious or vexatious proceedings. I note that the proposed sections 73A to 73D are in addition to the existing section 74. The learned Senior Minister of State mentioned about the limitation of the existing section 74. He pointed out that section 74 may only be invoked through the application of the Attorney-General. I, however, note that the Attorney-General can also be an applying party under the provisions that will be introduced. May I please ask what will then be the interplay between sections 73A to D on one hand, and section 74 on the other hand, where the Attorney-General is involved in both? The significant difference is that under section 74(2) of SCJA, the High Court has powers to assign a lawyer to the party who cannot afford to pay for a lawyer. This provision is not there in relation to the new section 73A to D. So, may I please ask why the same is not provided, given that the Attorney-General could be an applying party for either of these provisions? The equality of arms issue is a real one. Finally, on the meaning of "legal proceedings" under section 73A(10) as compared to the existing section 74(5), I note that under the proposed section 73A(10), the definition of legal proceedings excludes criminal matters. That is not the case in relation to section 74(5) of SCJA. May I please ask why criminal matters are excluded? In practice, we sometimes see vexatious litigants commencing private prosecution which are criminal in nature.”
“Next, I ask about the policy of vesting amending powers with the Minister, as compared to the President. As Members of this House will appreciate, our Government follows the Westminster model and the judiciary is a separate pillar of the Government. The proposed section 83(1) of the SCJA vests with the Minister the powers to amend the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Schedule via the Gazette after consulting the Chief Justice. This compares differently from section 34(3) where it is provided that the President may, after consulting the Chief Justice, amend the Court jurisdictional money limits, again, via the Gazette. May I please ask what is the legal policy in deciding whether the Minister or the President is involved in exercising these amendment powers via the Gazette? My respectful opinion is that the good thing about using the Minister is that the Minister is ultimately accountable to Parliament, and that I believe is a point that the hon Member Mr Louis Ng made earlier. Next, on the provisions allowing the Court of Appeal to decide via documents without the need for oral hearing. I note that section 34A(2) deals with appeals from the SICC. May I please ask for a clarification dealing with documents-only appeals also extend to other divisions of the High Court? And in relation specifically to the SICC, I note that it is provided that the documents-only appeal may be conducted when SICC issues an order for the same. May I please ask what are the circumstances in which the SICC would issue an order pertaining to whether or not an appeal should be heard by the Court of Appeal on a documents-only basis?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer whose primary practice is in litigation. I support the purpose behind the Bill, which is primarily to enhance the efficiency of the administration of justice whilst ensuring the litigants' legitimate interests are taken care of as well. I have four queries on the Bill. The first is in relation to the application to adduce fresh evidence on appeal. The proposed section 30 read with the 6th Schedule allows a Judge of Appeal sitting as the Court of Appeal to decide on an application to adduce fresh evidence in proceedings before the Court of Appeal. Now, by way of a comparison, in relation to an application for extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal, a two-judge panel will hear the matter. The proposed section 36(3) of the SCJA provides that a full Court of Appeal can discharge the order. However, the application to discharge or vary the order made by a Judge of Appeal can only be done with leave in the first place by the Judge of Appeal. An order of a Judge of Appeal sitting alone refusing leave to adduce fresh evidence is final. Given that the issue of whether or not to adduce fresh evidence can potentially have a bearing on the appeal, may I please ask what is the rationale of putting this issue before a one-judge Court of Appeal? My concern is that we may have a situation where a Judge of Appeal, at first instance, refuses to give leave, and he then entrenches his decision by refusing to give leave for an application to discharge before a full Court of Appeal. Then, we would not have the possibility, however remote it may be, that a Judge of Appeal may get it wrong, and then there is no avenue to revisit his Honour's decision.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Minister for his response. I have a supplementary question, really a broader question. How do we help seniors from families who, on one hand, do not have enough money, and on the other hand, they have assets which are of some value? These people usually tend to be in situations where they have dysfunctional family relations, especially with children who may not necessarily help them. To illustrate, I had a case where the couple did not have sufficient financial assistance from their children, but when I suggested the Lease Buyback Scheme to them, they demurred, stating that they would rather let the flat be passed on to their children.”
“Or the securitisation space, because Singapore is also seeking to promote securitisation under the approved Special Purpose Vehicle Scheme. Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.”
“At the same time, there are safeguards in that only MAS-regulated fund managers might operate the funds under the VCC corporate structure. In particular, well-established regulations dealing with prevention of money laundering and terrorism financing apply to regulated fund managers. I do note, though, that there are two exempted classes of managers, namely, managers operating family offices and managers operating real estate assets. The funds via VCCs themselves are regulated for AML via the proposed Part VII of the Bill. What steps can be taken to ensure that the level of supervision on these exempted managers is also comparable to regulated fund managers? This is because AML risks exist, vis-a-vis family office and real estate managers, too. I further seek clarification on the following. In relation to the re-domiciliation of funds, what would be the criteria to allow the migration? I gather that, for companies, it is provided that there must be more than 50 employees, profits of more than $15 million or revenue of more than $50 million. What are the corresponding criteria for VCCs? Recognising that fund vehicles have a long timespan, it is not unusual for fund vehicles to be operating for 10 years or more. So, what is the structural value proposition that Singapore can offer to fund managers to migrate their existing funds to Singapore? And I believe this is a point that was made by the hon Member Ms Foo Mee Har as well. Next, does the Government also intend to extend the corporate structure currently only usable for collective investment schemes to other spaces, for example, the insurance space, because the insurance companies also have segregated funds dealing with various insurance policies? They may find the VCC structure attractive.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice. I support the aims behind this Bill, which is really to propel Singapore as a premier international fund management centre. I fully agree with the hon Second Minister's characterisation of this Bill as a game changer. Like the hon Member Mr Louis Ng, I also applaud MAS' move in conducting public consultation on the proposed framework for the draft Bill over 18 months and incorporating feedback into the Bill where appropriate before this Bill was tabled. Singapore's ability to attract and domicile funds is significantly advanced. Hitherto, there were three vehicles for fund set-up, as the hon Second Minister mentioned: trusts, limited liability partnerships (LLPs) and companies. However, only companies, as compared to trust and LLPs, have access to Singapore's network of avoidance of double taxation agreements (DTAs). Off the top of my head, I believe about 100 countries have DTAs with Singapore. There are significant restrictions in using companies as structures for funds, however. The hon Member Mr Sakitiandi Supaat mentioned about it. There are limitations with redemption of shares without shareholders' approvals where returns are to be via shareholders and limitations with respect to redeeming shares using capital. This is because of the need to satisfy the solvency requirements which are, on the whole, entity based. Also, there is a limitation in relation to not being able to maintain the confidentiality of investments. All these problems would be addressed directly by the introduction of the VCCs. VCCs are recognised under the DTAs as corporations that can benefit from the DTA agreements. And this is a unique and significant advantage that funds domiciled in Singapore will get.”
“If it cannot enforce through exercise of the ipso facto clause to terminate facilities, there is a potential exposure to them. This may affect the bank’s practice which may become more conservative in providing margin facilities and this, in turn, may have some far reaching or unintended consequences. In an economic situation where providing liquidity becomes important to keep companies afloat, this becomes an even greater issue. There are carve-outs in other jurisdictions. For example, in the European Union, there are the financial collateral directives. The hon Senior Minister of State mentioned that there could be carve-outs in relation to eligible financial contracts. I seek clarification as to what are the exceptions that may apply in relation to section 440 and, in that regard, I note section 440(5) contemplates a carve-out for eligible financial contracts. I would also like to ask whether the industry has been consulted on this provision and, in particular, because both in the 2013 and 2016 reports referred to earlier, this provision was not specifically recommended. Another potential effect would be in relation to the private wealth management business. Would private banks rather use offshore Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), as opposed to Singapore SPVs, because of the potential for Singapore insolvency laws applying to these offshore SPVs or, alternatively, minimise the transactions such that there would not be a substantial Singapore connection between the foreign SPVs and Singapore? This substantial connection test is the basis upon which Singapore Courts can exercise jurisdiction over a foreign SPV. Notwithstanding what I have said, I support the Bill. 5.40 pm”
“This may, in turn, impact Singapore's attractiveness as a financial centre or, if the cost of lending goes up, then the cost will be passed on to the businesses. As we all appreciate, the vast majority of companies in Singapore are solvent, so we must ensure that we do not have a situation of the tail wagging the dog. We note that in 2017, a number of pieces of legislation have been passed making inroads into the rights of creditors, for example, the more extensive moratoriums, the possibility of rescue financing with the consequent super priority afforded to the rescuers. Also, in relation to judicial management, it is now easier to get judicial management orders and the rights of the secured creditors have been watered down consequently. It is in this context that I wish to seek an explanation from the learned Senior Minister of State: how do we strike a balance between the need to maintain our reputation as a financial centre and our intent to build Singapore as an international centre for debt restructuring? And it is in that context that I wish to seek a fuller explanation on the proposed section 440 of the Bill. My Parliamentary colleague, Mr Christopher de Souza, spoke eloquently about it a few minutes ago. From my sensing, there is some level of nervousness on the impact of this provision. Take, for example, a bank or securities company that provides margin financing to a company trading in listed securities. The bank or securities company is exposed to the stock exchange or clearing house when putting through trade transactions of a company that is distressed. The securities company has itself to place margins with the clearing house or stock exchange.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer practising insolvency law from time to time. Sir, I fully support the aims of the Bill. It finally introduces the omnibus legislation covering personal and corporate insolvency laws, widely awaited by practitioners in the insolvency sphere. As the learned Senior Minister of State mentioned, it follows two reports, the 2013 Report of the Insolvency Law Review Committee as well as the 2016 Report issued by the Committee to Strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Restructuring co-headed by the learned Minister Ms Indranee Rajah and the Hon Justice Kannan Ramesh. There was also an earlier report, the 2002 report by the Company Legislation and Regulatory Framework Committee, which made a clarion call at the outset for the introduction of a consolidated new insolvency Act. I applaud MinLaw for leading the consultative process over such a long period of time, getting feedback from the players in this industry and implementing the recommendations that have been made. It is a long process. But it is worth the wait because we can see the complexities involved: 70 amendments through various statutes, about 150 recommendations have been provided to the Ministries for consideration. I would, however, make a point that in providing for these provisions to basically enhance Singapore's status as a premier debt restructuring centre, we must also need to balance against the creditors' interest. Tilting against the creditors, especially banks, would result in higher business cost and it being more difficult for the banks to conduct the business, particularly given the regulatory requirements that it has under Basel III to ensure better ability on their part to liquidate collateral in a timely manner.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a point of clarification. On the response of the hon Minister in relation to the payment of deposit, Members of the House will recall that the hon Minister said that in legal tender is in addition to the other modes prescribed. I just want to point out that in relation to the amendment Bill, under the old section 28(2), it reads the deposit may be paid but "Any sum required to be deposited under subsection (1) shall be paid in legal tender or by a bank draft or a certified cheque". That has been deleted and replaced by the new proposed provision, which reads "The deposit of the sum required under sub-section (1) must be made through an electronic funds transfer system designated by the Returning Officer for that purpose, or by a bank draft or a certified cheque, or in such other form or manner as the Returning Officer allows". So, may I seek a clarification from the Minister, is the hon Minister relying on the catch-all provision at the end that the Returning Officer would allow legal tender as well? If that is so, then my concerns will be addressed.”
“This process is much better because the rationale behind the recounting is solely to ensure the accuracy of the vote count, given the close margins. So, it makes sense for the Returning Officer to be reposed with the power to initiate the process. The final point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is on Parliamentary expenses. Clause 25 proposes a different system where a candidate does not have to provide supporting documents, meaning bills and receipts. Instead, a statement would suffice. May I please ask: what is the shortcoming of the current system of requiring the candidates and the election agents to provide supporting bills and receipts to the Returning Officer? The current system, in my respectful view, has good accountability. There can be public access to the bills and receipts. They can check whether the election expenses regulations have been observed by looking at the source documents and not just the statements. If there is any discrepancy or shortcoming, then there is the ability to deal with it, then and there, close to the holding of the elections. Under the proposed system, I fear that there could be unintended consequences, for example, loss of documents during the one-year period that the candidate or the election agent is supposed to hold on to these documents. So, this perhaps may loosen the form of accountability and may impact on the integrity of the process. Save for that, I support the Bill.”
“Why is it necessary in these circumstances to remove deposits by legal tender? Would it be better not to hurry this until our society has really become cash-free, which is not the case now? With reference to the usage of certified cheques, how is this mode impacted by the Government intent that our society stops using cheques by 2025? Would the Elections Department anticipate making further changes to this payment mode then? I also note that there is no process outline on how the deposit would be returned. So, if you are pushing for cashless transactions, then perhaps we should provide for end-to-end such that the deposits may be contemplated to be returned to a specified account provided by the candidates via the electronic funds transfer system. Second, on the recounting of votes, I note that clause 14 of the Bill provides that the Returning Officer must conduct a recount where the difference between candidates with the most number of votes, and the next candidate is 2% or less. I support this amendment. In fact, in the last Elections, I had the chance to invoke the previous process as a candidate for Aljunied GRC when the candidates had to decide whether a recount was necessary. And Mr Speaker, Sir, it was almost like an episode from "The Amazing Race" because we had to make our way from the assembly area to the principal counting centre. We had to drive there and, through the process, we were not sure whether we would be too late to meet the Returning Officer. And finally, when we met the Returning Officer, we asked for a recount. Then, he took out a paper and read from the script, agreeing to our request. So, there were quite a lot of moving parts in the old process.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I start my speech, may I, with your indulgence, offer my congratulations to Assoc Prof Walter Theseira for making his maiden speech. In the same vein, and I am sure the other Members of the House would agree, we look forward to the contributions from the other Nominated Members of Parliament who have just been sworn in and will make their speeches in this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the aims of this Bill which are focused on improving the conduct of the Parliamentary Elections and to deal with contingencies that may arise during an election. The overriding aim is, of course, to uphold the integrity of the process, and make sure that public confidence in the election process is always high. And I use the word "process" in its widest sense, from the processes involving the Electoral Register to the processes involving Nomination, conduct of elections and, of course, elections expenses as well. I have three points to make. The first one, Mr Speaker, Sir, is in relation to deposits by candidates. I note that under clause 4(e) of the Bill, it is proposed that the deposit must be made through electronic funds transfer system, or bank draft, or certified cheque. Legal tender is removed. Presumably, it is part of the Government's push to make Singapore go cashless. This lies in contrast with section 10(3) of the Presidential Elections Act. Members would note that the Presidential Elections Act was revised just last year. I do appreciate the Government's push to convert our society to a cashless one. I half suspect that the hon Minister Ong Ye Kung, who is in charge of this initiative, may even advocate payment using PayNow. At this point, though, a significant part of our society still uses cash.”
“May I ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry has any intention to prevent block biddings at the last minute?”
“Finally, I suggest that provisions be introduced that make it easier to impute liability on corporate bodies for negligent and intentional acts of its employees for not maintaining the critical component parts that led to mechanical failure and contributed to the cause of the fatal accidents. Without such provisions, it will be difficult to impose criminal liability on corporations and, consequently, there may be not a sufficient motivation to change the corporate culture within the corporations to ensure strict compliance with the maintenance regimes. Apart from this, we may also wish to consider incentivising companies to leverage technology to deal with issues of maintenance, for example, the provision of a technology fund to assist in implementing fleet management systems that are able to track maintenance records and alert the owner when a vehicle is due for a periodic inspection in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation. Properly maintained heavy vehicles are more likely to work better and last longer. Hence, the interests of owners and operators of heavy vehicles should be aligned with this initiative. Sir, please allow me to conclude. Heavy vehicle owners and operators play an important role in ensuring that no other road user will be imperiled as a result of mechanical failure in critical component parts due to lack of maintenance. The legislation must be updated to reflect this plain fact. Ironically, “Selamat” means “Safe” in Malay. When Mr Slemat died, the road was not safe for him. After his death, I do hope that the measures that I have proposed, once implemented, will make the road safer for road users who may otherwise fall victim to accidents caused by mechanical failure. 6.37 pm”
“It is time for us to close these gaps, such as to mandate compliance with the manufacturer's maintenance schedule, the keeping of maintenance records and/or the conduct of daily pre-operational checks. These records will serve as a "treasure trove" for investigators of fatal accidents looking into whether or not the owners and operators have contributed to the accident by not properly maintaining their heavy vehicles. The imposition of criminal liability on owners and operators of heavy vehicles for mechanical failures of critical component parts leading to fatal accidents would serve as a deterrence against skimping on the proper checks that should be conducted on heavy vehicles and reduce the incidents of such fatal accidents. In this regard, I wish to highlight three practical points for consideration by the Government. It is important for the regulations to cover not just owners but operators. This is because it is not unusual for individuals to own heavy vehicles, such as cement mixers and tipper trucks. These individuals then support operators, which tend to be the big companies, in activities, such as construction and logistics. Practically, it is these operators who will have the greatest influence over the maintenance standards of vehicles used in their operations. From a liability viewpoint, it should suffice if the mechanical failure, as a result of lack of maintenance, played a contributory factor, as opposed to the effective factor, that led to the fatal accident. Otherwise, we may create a loophole for errant owners and operators of heavy vehicles to take advantage of.”
“Whilst the Workplace Health and Safety Act allows MOM to prosecute errant employers for safety lapses leading to injuries to workers, the Act is focused on addressing the safety, health and welfare of persons at work in workplaces. It does not go so far as to cover situations where such vehicle-related safety lapses cause injury or death to members of the public. To illustrate, the late Mr Slemat’s accident case does not constitute a workplace incident as he was not a worker. However, if the driver of the trailer truck was injured, then it would be a workplace incident. As may be evident from the above outline, there is a gap in that, practically speaking, under the current regime, there may be no further investigation if mechanical failure or malfunction had caused the accident since this would likely be beyond the ambit of the Road Traffic Act and the Workplace Health and Safety Act. In the joint MOM and Police circular I mentioned earlier, as well as in the Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines, it was recommended that, firstly, heavy vehicle owners should implement a regime for the maintenance of all vehicles in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations on the basis that a well-maintained vehicle is more likely to work better and last longer. Secondly, a daily pre-operational check is also recommended as a simple and useful way to spot potential risks or defects before the vehicles are operated. However, the limitation lies in the fact that these recommendations remain as non-mandatory guidelines, and there is presently no applicable provision that triggers an investigation and prosecution of owners and operators for not complying with the same.”
“With the exception of omni-buses, which are inspected every six months, trailers, goods vehicles and all other buses are subject to mandatory inspection only once a year if the vehicle is less than 10 years old, and once every six months if the vehicle is more than 10 years old. In the intervening period between inspections, there always remains the probability that vehicles are driven without proper maintenance as recommended by the vehicle manufacturers until just before the inspection. This is a moral hazard that must be addressed. Whilst non-compliance of these rules per se give rise to regulatory offences, there is currently no provision that pins liability for non-compliance of the rules giving rise to the fatal accidents. In other words, these rules operate independently. LTA does not routinely open an investigation to identify the responsible party behind the mechanical failure leading to the fatal accident. Finally, MOM has oversight over workplace safety, including vehicle-related accidents which lead to workplace fatalities. For example, the Workplace Health and Safety Regulations stipulate that it is the duty of the owner of any vehicle used in a worksite to ensure that the vehicle is of good construction and is roadworthy. It was recently reported in June 2018 that one out of every three deaths in the workplace last year was caused by a vehicular incident, making it the No 1 cause of workplace deaths last year. To address this issue, MOM has launched the new Drive Safe Work Safe campaign to raise awareness about good vehicular safety practices and is also trialling the use of devices that track and monitor the speed of heavy vehicles.”
“However, whilst it is an offence under the Road Traffic Act for a person who causes a heavy motor vehicle to collide with any buildings or structures, there is no specific offence under the Act which attributes responsibility of the owners and operators of heavy vehicles for road traffic accidents caused by mechanical failure that is preventable. Let me illustrate this through a recent case. Last year, a public bus driver was acquitted of the offence of rash driving. He was accused of driving above the speed limit whilst negotiating a bend along the slip road of Bukit Timah Expressway into Dairy Farm Road. The bus crashed. A passenger was killed and another was injured. The driver testified that he experienced brake problems and, in his words, "engine runaway" which caused the bus to accelerate on its own. The prosecution's expert witness testified that he found an air leak in one of the bus' air pipes which could have affected the brake efficiency, but he could not conduct a brake efficiency test due to the damage the bus sustained in the crash. The learned District Judge accepted the driver's defence and acquitted him. What is evident from the case is that there was no focus on the bus company to ascertain whether it had properly maintained the brake system of the bus. This is understandable because of the current legislation. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) enforces the periodic vehicle inspection regime as well as the requirements under the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Construction and Use) Rules which lay down the specifications for critical component parts. The objective is to minimise vehicular breakdown and road accidents.”