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 21 of 25.
“In the workplace context, the figures of fatal accidents involving heavy vehicles are also concerning. In September 2017, Minister of State for Manpower, Mr Sam Tan, highlighted that in 2016, 22 workers were involved in fatal accidents caused by moving vehicles. This was a 47% increase from 2014. He also highlighted that in the first half of 2017, there were 379 injuries and seven fatalities caused by vehicle-related incidents. This led to the implementation of new workplace vehicle safety initiatives, which is very welcomed. It appears that there are no publicly available studies which has been done to ascertain how many of these accidents involved mechanical failure. What is clear is that such accidents do happen, whether in Singapore or overseas. In the 2015 Major Accident Investigation Report conducted by the Australian National Truck Accident Research Centre, it was stated that mechanical failures accounted for 5% of crash incidents in Australia, with tyre failure accounting for 72% of losses attributable to mechanical fault. In the US, federal statistics show that mechanical failure plays a role in 12% of all motor vehicle accidents. Common types of mechanical failures include malfunctioning brakes, faulty steering systems, faulty headlights or taillights, and tyre and wheel issues, such as worn tyres and overtightened wheel bolts. Under our current system, there are three separate regimes that deal with different aspects of road safety involving heavy vehicles. On one end, the Traffic Police's focus is on the culpability of the driver, such as for reckless or negligent driving, under the Road Traffic Act or, sometimes, the Penal Code. This would cover accidents caused by the behaviour of drivers of heavy vehicles, such as speeding and red-running.”
“Regrettably, these two are not the only instances of accidents involving mechanical failure in heavy vehicles. In July last year, a private bus driver realised the brakes of the bus had failed and, to avoid a collision with the stationary cars in his path, he mounted a kerb intending to manoeuvre his vehicle into a nearby tree for a controlled crash. Unfortunately, he hit a woman cycling home from work along a footway. She died at the scene. It was determined by the Coroner after an inquiry that the brake failure was due to a missing drain valve component, which led to the bus having no braking ability whatsoever. In such fatal accidents caused by mechanical failure, as opposed to driver negligence or recklessness, these are often ruled as misadventures and there is little that the authorities can presently do to impose criminal liability for the accidents, although civil remedies, such as insurance claims, remain available. This state of affairs is, with respect, unsatisfactory because the parties responsible for maintaining the critical component parts of the heavy vehicles that failed, escape criminal liability for causing the accidents. I respectfully suggest that the Government consider imposing liability on the owners and operators of the heavy vehicles to hold them to account for accidents arising from mechanical failure that may be obviated through proper maintenance. It is well-known that a significant number of fatal accidents involve heavy vehicles. In a joint circular issued by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Singapore Police Force, it was noted that there was an increasing trend of fatal and injury accidents involving heavy vehicles, from 816 such accidents in 2013 to 877 in 2015.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Members of this House may remember an accident that happened in March last year, where a wheel that became dislodged from a trailer truck travelling along the Kranji Expressway (KJE) bounced across the road divider to the other side and struck a motorcyclist travelling in the opposite direction. He died at the scene. The runaway wheel also narrowly missed another motorcyclist as it tumbled across the road. It was sheer luck that others did not come into contact with this wheel and suffer the consequences. That motorcyclist was the late Mr Slemat Rakisan. He was 57 years old. I knew Mr Slemat. We were fellow community leaders serving together in Jurong Group Representation Constituency (GRC). He was a well-loved gentleman. The hon Minister and Grassroots Advisor of Yuhua grassroots organisations (GROs), Ms Grace Fu, in her eulogy posting, described him as a "humble and compassionate leader" who also brought much laughter with his Tom Jones and Elvis Presley impersonations. I met him just the weekend before he died at a community music event. The randomness of the accident leading to his death remains disconcerting. Just three months after the KJE accident, there was yet another instance of a loose wheel coming off a Malaysian-registered truck, this time, on the West Coast Highway. This rolled across the lanes and smashed into a car travelling in the opposite direction. Thankfully, the driver of the car only suffered a minor injury to his right ear. Wheels come off the vehicles as a result of mechanical failures. These unfortunate accidents illustrate how mechanical failure in heavy vehicles often lead to accidents that may cause serious injuries or fatalities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the hon Minister for Defence, on 18 April 2018, before the fast march started, when CFC Lee and the other platoon mates were asked whether or not they had seven hours of uninterrupted sleep, what was the response of his platoon mates and himself? And if they did not respond that they did not have seven hours of uninterrupted sleep, how do we, in future, make sure that the soldiers would state the truth of the matter?”
“Another scenario, which I think is less likely, is where Singapore residents receive CareShield payouts and then lose their residency or citizenship. A clarification on these points would be most welcome.”
“Ultimately, the mentally disabled and physically disabled residents are in the same boat as they are unemployable, need to be taken of by their caregivers and, therefore, would benefit from CareShield Life. Some mental conditions can be linked to physical conditions, for example, dementia. But some are not, for example, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). I am aware of several families in Bukit Batok who have severely autistic children and are concerned about their long-term care needs, and they may benefit from the more flexible approach. At the same time, I recognise that there is a need to deter the making of false claims because such claims would, in effect, raise premiums. So, what safeguards would be put in place to make sure that no false claims are filed and processed? My last point, Mr Speaker, Sir, what is the status of Singapore residents who subsequently lose their Singapore citizenship or residency? In this regard, I note that the system, as promulgated, is only made workable as a result of Government resources and money being spent to run the insurance system and provide premium subsidies in additional support to Singapore residents. What would be the position of Singapore residents who lose their residency or Singapore citizenship status? I see two scenarios because the coverage under CareShield Life and cash payouts are for their entire lives. One scenario is where Singapore residents who make payment of the premiums until they reach the age of 67 and they do not need to make premium payouts anymore and, subsequently, they give up their Singapore citizenship. Would they still be allowed payments under this scheme?”
“I find it comforting though that MOH has categorically stated that no one would lose their CareShield Life coverage due to financial difficulties. The set up of the ElderFund and the provision of premium subsidies are a step in the right direction. Some hon Members have asked for requirement of three ADLs to be dropped to two ADLs, justifying it on the basis of the current low claim history and the opportunity arising from risk-pooling. I understand where they are coming from. However, I read in the committee report that one in two Singaporeans may become disabled some time in their lives. I am, therefore, concerned about the impact of easing this requirement on the premiums. Would the premiums remain affordable? If not, how much more subsidies are expected from the Government, and what would be the financial impact of providing more subsidies than what is currently contemplated? A clarification on these issues will be welcomed. I have three questions: first, what is the average life expectancy of disabled residents who are able to make a claim under the current ElderShield and how is this expected life expectancy of such residents expected to increase in the coming decades? Second, how does the assessment of disability by reference to ADLs apply to mentally disabled Singapore residents? As may be recalled by Members of this House, I asked MOH and MSF in this House to reconsider the application of the ADL criterion with respect to the provision of concessionary FDW levy for mentally and intellectually disabled residents. MSF and MOH announced earlier this year that for such residents, they have introduced the Client Assessment Form (CAF) to assess such residents' cognitive disability. Can a similar approach be taken vis-a-vis CareShield Life, please?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I applaud the Government's decision to accept the recommendations of the ESRC to enhance the financial assistance rendered to disabled Singapore residents having long-term care needs through CareShield Life. I also wish to add to the messages of congratulations to the ESRC for rendering a very thoughtful report. I note from the speeches made by Members before me that these recommendations have broad support from both sides of the House. In particular, two main features are noteworthy, as stated by hon Members: the payouts for life as opposed to the current five or six years under ElderShield 300 and ElderShield 400. This is welcome because medical improvements have increased and will continue to increase the lifespan of our disabled residents. The second feature is, of course, the increased payouts over time, starting from $600. Building in a mechanism to increase the payouts over time will allow the payouts to keep up with inflationary pressures. Some hon Members have suggested that the $600 per month may not be enough. In my view, we need to look at all the other schemes that come into play, for example, the concessionary Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) levy of $60 per month, so that the full picture of support that the Government gives can be appreciated. The consequence of the enhancements has resulted in the adoption of the universal coverage so that there is risk-pooling and the premiums are kept affordable. I support this approach, subject to the case made by the hon Member and Chairman of the GPC for Health, Dr Chia Shi-Lu, on equalising premiums payable by males and females. This point was echoed by several other Members. The point was probably put across more colourfully as well.”
“In addition, leave to appeal must be granted by the District Court before an appeal may be brought. Clause 16 of the Bill proposes to amend this section to allow the District Court to, in cases where leave to appeal is refused, order that the matter be remitted back to the same tribunal for reconsideration or that the case be reheard by a different tribunal. It appears that the effect of the proposed amendments is to give the District Court supervisory jurisdiction over the Tribunals. However, this seems to be inconsistent with section 19(3) of the State Courts Act, which explicitly states that the District Court does not have any supervisory jurisdiction. May I please seek clarification on the basis of this proposed amendment, and how the proposed amendments to allow the District Court to remit the matter back to the Tribunals for rehearing may be reconciled with this point? Further, the proposed amendments would allow a case to be reheard on a ground involving issues of fact. This effectively expands the scope for an appeal, by allowing a rehearing of cases on the basis of a question of fact. This approach seems to be different from the approach taken by the Ministry in 2005, where the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law Prof S Jayakumar stated that the scope for an appeal was deliberately narrowed in order to promote finality, and to avoid the high costs in appealing that may exceed the sums in dispute. Could the hon Senior Minister of State please clarify if the approach has changed and, if so, why is there a need to expand the scope for appeal? Notwithstanding the clarificatory points I have raised, I support the Bill.”
“Notwithstanding that the Tribunals' jurisdiction is only in respect of claims relating to a contract for the short-term lease of residential property not exceeding two years, an order for possession, which may be enforced by a writ of possession, is, I would suggest, an onerous remedy against the tenant. It also, in effect, deals with a subject matter, in form of the res, that usually exceeds the Tribunals' monetary jurisdiction. In fact, as it stands, under section 52(1A) of the State Courts Act, even the Magistrate's Court, which is a forum where parties may have legal representation, does not have the civil jurisdiction to hear and try an action where there is no claim for any sum of money or the relief sought in addition to the claim amount is in respect of the subject matter which exceeds the Magistrate Court's limit. I am concerned whether the Tribunal is the best forum to determine this issue, especially since parties do not have legal representation. The hon Senior Minister of State would know that when it comes to orders of delivering vacant possession, it is associated with also the calculations of mesne profits in the situation of holding over or calculation of double rent under the Civil Law Act. So, these are issues that perhaps the Tribunal may not be able to handle. Will there be any safeguards put in place to minimise the risk of injustice in the form of allowing such orders to be appealable as a matter of right, or to provide guidance to the Tribunal on when the power to order vacant possession should be exercised? Third, section 38 of the present Act provides that there will be no appeal to the High Court against the Tribunal’s decision unless it involves a question of law or jurisdiction.”
“In particular, the proposed amendment aims to provide the Tribunals the power to order a party to pay costs where the Tribunal thinks fit to do so. In the Ministry's public consultation paper, it was explained that this was to enhance the Tribunals' case management powers since sections 31 and 32 of the Act presently provides that no costs shall be awarded, save in respect of frivolous or vexatious claims. Proceedings before the Tribunals, as pointed out by the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza, exclude representation by a lawyer. As explained by the then Minister for Labour and Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs Prof S Jayakumar to this House in 1984, to ensure that a litigant will not be at a disadvantage because he is unable to afford legal representation and to keep costs to a minimum, parties are to present their own case. This is why it is provided that, unless a claim is frivolous or vexatious, no costs, apart from disbursements, may be awarded. In these circumstances, since no legal representation is allowed before the Tribunals, how is a party's costs to be judged and quantified? Finally, how can we ensure that the practice of awarding costs under the new provision would not discourage litigants with bona fide claims from presenting their claims in the Tribunal for fear of being penalised in costs? I believe this is the same point that was raised by the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza earlier, too. The proposed new section 35 of the Act will also now empower the Tribunals to order vacant possession of the premises in cases involving unpaid rent by a tenant. This is in addition to an order for the tenant to pay outstanding rent.”
“The main rationale underlying the consolidation of proceedings is to ensure an efficient hearing of related actions under a common umbrella. This can be done through trying all the cases in one go or trying a "test case" where the Court's findings may bind the rest of the parties in the consolidated action. Where there are claims giving rise to common questions of law or fact or that arise out of the same events, there is compelling logic to have the same tribunal to have the power to order that the claims be heard together. Apart from savings of time and resources, there is also an issue of substantive fairness and justice, namely, to militate against inconsistent findings of fact by different tribunals arising from the same events. I am also concerned about the practical effect on the resources of the Tribunals which may consequently have no choice but to hear cases arising from the same subject matter separately. Given that the order of consolidation is a discretionary judicial remedy, I wonder if it would have been better to leave it to the Tribunals to decide whether or not to grant the order, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the specific kind of issues involved and whether it is equipped to deal with these issues. Another intermediate solution would be to provide for a higher limit for the aggregate value of consolidated or class action claims so that a balance can be struck between the two competing policies that I have identified. Second, clause 15 of the Bill repeals sections 35 to 37 of the Act and introduces a new section 35 that expands and improves the type of orders that the Tribunals may make.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer. The Small Claims Tribunal (Amendment) Bill introduces various amendments to the Act aimed to expand and enhance both the jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunals. The amendments reflect the rising costs of living and, therefore, the quantum of disputes, and also promotes greater access to justice through the quick and relatively inexpensive forum of the Tribunals. The Bill is introduced after public consultation on the proposed amendments. The approach taken by MinLaw in involving members of public to give feedback on the Bill before it is debated here is particularly commendable. I support the amendments and take the opportunity to make a few short points on the proposed amendments. First, sections 26 and 27 of the Act presently allows for the consolidation of claims involving a common question of fact or law, as well as representative claims or class action claims. Clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill amends these sections to clarify that the aggregate value of the class action or consolidated claims does not exceed the monetary limits prescribed by the Act. I understand that the amendments are proposed out of a recognition that the Tribunals may not be equipped to deal with a large number of consolidated claims, whose total aggregate value may exceed the Tribunals' limit by a large margin. However, there is a danger that the proposed amendments, which link the combined value of the claims to the Tribunals' monetary jurisdiction for a single case, may substantively impact on the original policy behind the statutory intent to allow consolidation of claims, as enshrined in the provisions as it stands now.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the hon Ministers whether the parents of the two deceased National Servicemen would be allowed to observe and participate in the COI or BOI proceedings, given the specific nature of the incidents – one being a physical training incident, the other being an incident that should not have happened in the first place?”
“This will be dangerous as, in the end, we will not be able to build a strong foundation for the future, which was referred to by Minister Chan Chun Sing in his speech yesterday. Our nation will then suffer consequently. So, together, in and outside this House, we need to work together to make sure that our politics remains constructive. In conclusion, our 4G leaders deserve the full support of this House in implementing the Government's agenda as outlined in the President's Address. I wish them well in forging the bonds of trust with our people. I also wish them every success in their endeavour to ensure that Singapore remains, in the words of our President, "an exceptional nation".”
“As far as communication is concerned, I dare say that the task of the 4G Government leaders is likely to be more difficult than it was for our Government leaders in previous generations. We all know about the advent of deliberate online falsehoods in social media. We also know about the heightened potential for non-Singaporean players with ulterior motives to influence the Singapore political scene through media platforms. There is now the long tail of expectations and demands which makes it more difficult for us to reach consensus on policies. This is where we need to forge a climate of constructive politics, always putting Singapore and our people first and to avoid short-term populist measures that will weaken Singapore. And I am glad to note that Mr Pritam Singh, on behalf of the Workers' Party, fully endorsed this principle in his speech and I take the opportunity to congratulate him on his election as Secretary-General of the Workers' Party. But constructive politics is not just the domain of Members of Parliament and political leaders. All Singaporeans have a part to play. We need to ensure that the environment of trust and respect that exists between our people and political leaders will continue whilst political leaders remain fully accountable to our people for their actions at all times. Everyone has a responsibility to ensure this. If the environment turns toxic, and we are seeing warning signs of this in the digital space, I fear that the repercussion will be that it will be more difficult to attract people with ability and the heart to step up, enter politics, become our 5G leaders and beyond. They, their parents, their spouses may feel it is just too much of a sacrifice for them individually and for their families.”
“Unfortunately, they were not getting sufficient support from their children. When I suggested that they participate in the Lease Buyback Scheme, they demurred, stating that they want to pass on the full value of their flat to their children upon their demise. Responsible parents to the end. So, what lessons can we draw from this? All Singaporeans must accept that the Government owes them a duty to ensure that each dollar spent for social spending is spent correctly, and does not allow the expenditure to balloon beyond what is necessary. Therefore, families must continue to remain as the first line of support. Also, the Government needs to leverage more on technology and data analytics to identify families that need Government help and advise families who do not have other options. In addition, as a country, as a community, we must always promote family values – strong family, strong society, strong country. The converse is also true. We should nip in the bud the incidents of well-to-do children passing the buck of taking care of their elderly parents to the state. This does not accord with our nation's values. I now turn to my final topic, our 4G Government leaders. I am heartened to note from the President's Address the humility of our 4G Government leaders in recognising that they need to demonstrate leadership and resolve, listen to the views and feelings of our people and earn the right to lead. This, I believe, will go some way in building the relationship of trust with the people that hon Member Ganesh Rajaram referred to in his cogent speech yesterday in this House. Mr Ganesh Rajaram also referred to the challenge of communication in today's digital world.”
“On the latter point, I do not have time to do justice to this big topic in my speech today, but I wish to share an example which shows that Singapore offers a great platform for innovation and economic opportunities for all, irrespective of their personal backgrounds. I met Mr Fock Mun Hong, aged 48, two weeks ago at his late father's funeral wake in Bukit Batok. He shared with me that his late father, who had no formal education, was his biggest mentor. His father was the sole breadwinner in a family with two children. He recounted that his father used a discarded cardboard, some aluminium foil and a vegetable steamer to create a personal sauna for just less than $50! Mr Fock was inspired by his father. He, too, became an inventor. A graduate of NTU, his Singapore company just discovered enzymes that can dissolve styrofoam. Ordinarily, it takes thousands of years to degrade styrofoam. With this discovery, he plans to take part in Temasek Foundation's Liveability Challenge to address urban waste. Hopefully, he will be able to commercialise his idea and that will, undoubtedly, be good not just for Singapore but our world. Returning to the issue of addressing the increased costs of social expenditure, there is scope to use data analytics to ensure better targeting and reduce moral hazard. I spoke about this before in the House. I asked why we are still using household income as a determinant for social assistance as opposed to family income. I do appreciate the complexity but I exhort the Government to consider utilising data analytics to get a better picture of who should be helped. I met an elderly couple. They sought financial help over and above the CPF LIFE annuity payment they were getting.”
“Yesterday, we heard the hon Member Ang Wei Neng forcefully endorsing the Government's ethnic mix policy in HDB housing estates. Hon Member Henry Kwek made a clarion call to promote social mixing among classes. Miss Cheryl Chan suggested renting older housing units to those needing interim housing. I agree with them and I would go further. I suggest that the Government consider going back to the old policy of co-locating rental flats within regular units. I do have a concern with the building of standalone rental flats. Usually, they are built at the fringes of mature housing estates. They run the danger of becoming ghettos. We miss a chance of getting family members from these rental flats to mix with members in regular units. With better interaction, we promote awareness, empathy for low-income families and, hopefully, this will spontaneously generate more help for them. We can also motivate the low-income families to better their lives through their own efforts, mirroring the efforts of their friends in regular units. I now turn to the issue of money because it is so easy to forget that whilst we want the Government to do more to increase social mobility and help with cost of living, our fiscal position, as the Minister for Finance reminds us, is getting tighter and tighter. Without economic growth – and that is the challenge of the 4G Government leaders – we will face difficulty. We are already spending close to $40 billion on social expenditure, which is a more than a 100% increase, compared to the figures a decade ago. We cannot afford these figures to go up all the time. We must focus on individual responsibility to slow down the increase in social spending and talent development to grow our economy.”
“I am heartened to note that the Government, in the President's Address, pledged to do more in terms of raising the quality of preschools and helping children at risk. I wish to once again raise for the consideration of the Government the merits of intervening where families do not ensure that their children attend school, in contravention of the Compulsory Education Act. The Government, in the Committee of Supply (COS) debates, urged caution. The hon Minister Desmond Lee stated that "use of legislative levers is insufficient on its own". My point, respectfully, is that there is no legislative lever in the first place. To prevent a permanent underclass from taking root in Singapore, there may be a need to enhance powers of intervention into dysfunctional families which do not send their children to school. This may sound controversial. But so long as the powers are well regulated, used judiciously, I do not see a significant downside. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if a child, because of the neglect of parents, does not go to school or drops out of school, what are his economic prospects? What is the likelihood of him entering the criminal justice system, compared to a person who completed school? For the Benthamites amongst us, is it not more likely that, in the end, the state will be compelled to spend more money on him to deal with the consequences of him not being in school? One connected issue to the Government's agenda in forging a cohesive, caring and inclusive society is the housing policy concerning the physical location of rental flats. This relates to the fourth dimension of income inequality that Minister Ong Ye Kung spoke about in his speech dealing with social mix. As Members know, a good number of standalone rental blocks have been built in the recent past.”
“At the same time, the beneficiaries of our system must actively contribute back to society that helped them achieve success. This is the Singapore brand of meritocracy that Minister Masagos referred to in his speech yesterday. I wish to share a good example of a product of the Singapore brand of meritocracy. Ms Chong Hui Xian is an active community leader in Bukit Batok over the past seven years. She is in her early 30s. She is an auditor with one of the top four accounting firms. How did she get there? She is from a modest family background. Her father, now retired, was a kitchen hand at a hotel. She has a younger sister. Her mother is a full-time housewife. She scored 151 in her PSLE. She could not get into an Express or Normal (Academic) stream. She went to Normal (Technical) stream at Yusof Ishak Secondary School. From there, she went to ITE West for a year and then to ITE East for two years. She did sufficiently well to get into an accounting course in Ngee Ann Polytechnic. By that time, she had gained sufficient confidence to compete, in her words, with "the single O-level pointers". At the same time, she decided that she must do something for our community. She and her friends set up an ITE chapter in Ngee Ann Polytechnic to help ITE students better cope with their studies. She also became a Bukit Batok community leader after graduating from Ngee Ann Polytechnic. She later secured entry into Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and graduated three years later with a Second Class Upper Honours degree in accountancy. She continues to help youths by sharing her story and motivating them to be the best they can be. Her focus, borrowing Minister Masagos' words, is on "building a good society, not a richer society".”
“Minister Ong Ye Kung just spoke about this when he touched on the topic of redistribution to lower-income families in Singapore in his speech just now. As low-income families do not pay much income tax, most of the tax they pay would, therefore, be GST. I respectfully suggest that in determining the impact of GST on low-income families and measuring the sufficiency of the transfer benefits to help them with their cost of living issues, we should not just use how much GST a low-income family pays as a yardstick. The assumption that low-income families use quite a bit of their disposable income in directly paying GST ought to be tested. Let me iIlustrate this by using purchase of food as an example. It is more likely that a member from a low-income family would buy food from businesses at the wet markets or from a hawker centre, which are not GST-registered, as opposed to a supermarket or restaurant in a shopping centre. Yet, hawker and market food prices will naturally be affected by GST and the low-income family will have to pay higher costs. Hence, pegging the amount of transfers just on how much GST they directly pay would not be sufficient. Ultimately, to ensure that the transfers are sufficient to offset the impact of GST on cost of living, the Government must be mindful of the inflationary pressures on the lower-income families, especially if their wages do not keep pace. One defining action to ensure social mobility is the provision of access to good quality education. This has and will continue to be a great leveller for our society. So long as the individual puts in the effort, he or she can achieve good results and enjoy the opportunities it brings.”
“Most effective levellers of economic disparities are epidemics, massive wars and state collapse". What is objectionable, therefore, is poverty and lack of mobility arising from low income. Hence, in dealing with income inequality, the primary focus is on tackling poverty, access to important services, such as education, health, social mobility and social mix. We should not conflate inequality per se with unfairness. Against this backdrop, it can be readily appreciated that our country's Gini coefficient figures, which solely measure income inequality, do not provide a full picture on the Government's effort to deal with social mobility, poverty, access to Government services among our low-income families and social mix. I believe the hon Member Mr Cedric Foo made the same point earlier. In this context, the Government's stated intent in the President's Address to open up more progression pathways, celebrate a broader range of success, giving every child a good start in life irrespective of his family circumstances and help children at-risk, deserves this House' full support. This is not to say the Government should not be mindful of income inequality. Cost of living issues have a disproportionate impact on low-income families. I note specifically that this Government has committed in the President's Address to "help families cope with the costs of living". I wish to deal with the impact of GST on lower-income families. The Government often refers to the unique structuring of the GST system with voucher schemes extended to low-income families so as to make GST implementation more "progressive" vis-a-vis them. It is mentioned that for our low-income families, for every dollar they pay in tax, they get about $4 in transfer benefits.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. I will deal with three aspects of President Halimah's Address in my speech: social inequality, cost of living and the task of the 4G Government leaders. President Halimah, as highlighted by a good number of Members before me, signaled that our Government will tackle inequality vigorously. It is important, however, to understand the Government's objectives in addressing the issue of inequality. Both within and outside Singapore, political leaders have often incorporated the phrase "income inequality" in their speeches, but do not necessarily have the same understanding of its impact on society. We just heard a masterful speech on the same topic by Minister Ong Ye Kung a few minutes ago. Some political leaders have sounded apocalyptic warnings about the effect of income inequality on society. Some have referred to income inequality as providing people the motivation to do better and improve their lives. Some other opportunistic politicians blame immigration and free trade as contributing factors to income inequality. Doubtless, such accusations can exacerbate divisions within a society. I found the chapter on inequality written by Prof Steven Pinker of Harvard University in his recent book "Enlightenment Now" instructive on this point and wish to share his insights with hon Members of this House. Prof Pinker asserted that income inequality, usually measured by the Gini coefficient, is not a fundamental component of well-being. It is not a basic right, such as the right to health, education, security and so on. He said, and I quote: "Income inequality is not itself a dimension of human well-being and it should not be confused with unfairness or with poverty nor is decrease in inequality always good.”
“I believe the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza made a similar request. In this regard, I wonder if there is any reason for the proposed amendments not to provide for the Court of Three Judges, which sits at the apex of the disciplinary process to also impose remedial measures. Would the hon Senior Minister of State accept that the absence of the empowering provision does not curtail the powers of the Court of Three Judges to impose requirements on legal practitioners, such as undertakings to the Court which may mirror obligations imposed through the remedial measures? Notwithstanding the clarifications I raised, I support the Bill.”
“Second, the Bill introduces the establishment of a new UM Fund to allow for the transfer of unclaimed client or intervention monies to be paid into the Fund and to vest in the Law Society absolutely. At the same time, it does not appear that the proposed amendments require the Law Society to take reasonable efforts to return the monies to the owners. In this regard, I note that the hon Senior Minister of State stated that the Law Society requires solicitors to expend reasonable efforts before they are being allowed to transfer those monies to the Law Society. But vis-à-vis the Law Society itself, it is not clear what steps the Law Society would have to undertake and who checks on the Society in relation to the steps the Law Society would have to undertake to locate these claimants or potential claimants. In the context of Government agencies, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) had made a statement that all Government agencies, including Statutory Boards, are required to make all reasonable efforts to return unclaimed monies to the rightful owners promptly. This being the case, what can be done to ensure that the Law Society expends sufficient efforts to contact the rightful owners of these monies before it decides to use these monies for pro bono services? Finally, the proposed amendments to the Act expand the range of measures that may be imposed by the Inquiry Committee, the Council and the Disciplinary Tribunal to include remedial measures to be taken by the legal practitioner. Given the breadth of professional conduct rules legal practitioners are bound by, could the hon Senior Minister of State please clarify what kind of remedial measures are contemplated, and in what situations would remedial measures be imposed?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer. The Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill introduces various amendments to the Legal Profession Act. The introduction of a further disciplinary option that can be imposed against an errant legal practitioner and the creation of the UM Fund are noteworthy innovations that should be welcomed by Members of this House. I wish to make three short points on the proposed amendments. First, clause 17 of the Bill proposes to amend section 50 of the Act to allow for the penalty paid by any lawyer for failing to vote in council elections to be paid to the Law Society and not the Compensation Fund. The Compensation Fund is a fund administered by the Council of the Law Society to serve a public purpose in that grants may be paid out of the Fund to mitigate loss suffered by any person due to dishonesty of a lawyer or a member of his staff. A similar amendment was made in 2001 for penalties paid as a result of disciplinary proceedings to be paid to the Society, instead of the Consolidated Fund, so that the Law Society could use the monies for worthy causes, such as providing pro bono services or creating legal awareness. In these circumstances, what is the purpose behind the change, and will the monies directed to the Society be also used for similar worthy causes to serve public interest? What would be the consequent effect on the Compensation Fund, in terms of its funding level, if the monies were to be channelled to the Society? Would the Fund have sufficient funds to meet claims from members of the public? Also, given that the Law Society has just moved to e-voting recently, what is the expected amount of revenue generated for use by the Society from penalties for failing to vote?”
“I thank the hon Senior Minister of State for his explanation. I have a supplementary question. In relation to the case of the 238 GCE "A" level Chemistry examination papers that went missing or were stolen, rather, may I ask how did the measure taken by MOE, to assess the candidates by giving them an aggregate score or to allow them to re-sit their exams, square against the need to be fair to the other candidates, and make sure that they are not disadvantaged?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek clarifications in relation to the proposed section 154 (A) of the Evidence (Amendment) Bill. I wonder whether the learned Senior Minister of State has a response to my query in relation to why we are taking the secondary legislation route as opposed to the primary legislation route, especially since the broad contours of the proposal on how to protect the victim of child abuse or sexual offence from witness' trauma and how a balance be struck in relation to ensuring the accused's right to a fair trial is not prejudiced. It is already kind of spelt out in the hon Senior Minister of State's speech. Also, would it not be better for at least broad rubrics of the policy intent to be provided in the primary legislation so that we can ensure that the rules issued thereunder would be consonant with the policy intent? Lastly, would it not be a better alternative to allow such rules to be determined by the newly proposed Criminal Procedure Rules Committee as opposed to the Minister? This will allow the judicial inputs to be obtained in the making of any such rules.”
“Yes. In our case, the proposed section 154A of the Evidence Act provides that the Minister may make rules to restrict the questions that may be asked of an alleged victim of cross-examination. I support these objectives. However, I wish to seek some clarifications, given that the Evidence Act already contains restrictions on certain kinds of questions. What is the rationale for having these restrictions dealt with in secondary legislation, instead of primary legislation? As I have pointed out, even the UK model —”
“This would repose monitors with duties owed to the Court and ensure that his or her professional fees are fair and that the work done was properly within the scope of appointment under the DPA. I now turn to the proposed amendments to the Evidence Act. The proposed amendments seek to enhance the protection for victims of sexual or child abuse, to reduce the stress they may face in the criminal justice process. Other countries have taken similar actions to protect victims of sexual offences from intrusive questioning in Court. For example, in the UK, section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act imposes a general prohibition on the admission of evidence or questions in cross-examination relating to the sexual history of a complainant, save in narrow exceptions, such as where the evidence is necessary to rebut prosecution evidence. However, even where one of the exceptions is met, the judge must be satisfied that further criteria are met, such as that the purpose of the evidence is not to impugn the complainant’s credibility and the evidence is required to ensure a fair trial. The UK process requires the defence to obtain the Court’s permission to introduce such questions or evidence about a complainant’s sexual history, by way of an application made to Court within a specific timeframe, according to requirements set out in the UK Criminal Procedure Rules.”
“Would the hon Senior Minister of State please clarify that the provisions do not preclude the Court from allowing interested stakeholders to join in the proceedings so that it is in a position to properly consider the interests of all the relevant stakeholders or parties before approving the DPA? As mentioned earlier, the DPA may provide for the appointment of an external monitor to monitor the corporation’s implementation of internal controls under the DPA or remediation, as the case may be, and to report to the prosecutor any misconduct in the implementation of internal controls. It is common in DPAs entered into with US authorities for such external monitors to be appointed at the corporation’s expense even though the monitor is, in reality, working for the prosecuting authorities. This structure has the potential of giving rise to a moral hazard, in that the external monitor may have a financial interest in having an expanded scope of work. I have seen real life examples of this. I have seen examples of monitors tying up the corporation’s business in knots, especially when the scope of monitoring has not been precisely determined and agreed to in the DPAs beforehand and submitting bills to corporations running into millions of dollars per month. While the contemplated DPA regime provides that the monitor is to report to the prosecutor any misconduct in the implementation of the corporation’s internal controls, it is not clear who has control over the monitor. I wonder if there is any intention to provide in the DPAs that the monitors be subject to oversight by the Court, akin to the position of liquidators appointed in the winding-up of companies.”
“The contemplated DPA regime requires that DPAs are approved by the High Court and allows for the prosecution and corporation that is the subject of the DPA to make submissions before the Court makes its determination. I noted earlier that the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim expressed concern that the High Court making this determination sits in-camera. I felt that sitting in-camera actually strikes a proper balance because, at that point in time, the Court would not have made a determination whether or not to sanction the DPA. There is always a possibility that the case needs to go on and the corporation be prosecuted. So, in those circumstances, to make a pronouncement on what has happened in the proceedings may be sub judice, may even affect prosecution of the offences. Therefore, I feel that the balance struck in the Bills by allowing the Public Prosecutor in a situation where the High Court gives its approval to make a public notice outlining the reasons for the High Court's decision is a good one. In this regard, the persons acting on behalf of the company in respect of the DPA would typically be the board of directors appointed by the shareholders to act on behalf of the corporation. However, given that DPAs may have an impact on shareholder interests in the corporation, there may be times when shareholders’ interests may not be aligned with the position taken by the directors on behalf of the company, especially when the company is asked to pay fines of substantial sums. The present DPA regime does not appear to allow for the intervention of such interested parties at the hearing by the Court to determine whether or not to approve the DPA.”
“I am struggling to identify a principled basis to preserve the right against self-incrimination in relation to non-corruption offences, which include serious white-collar crimes, such as criminal breach of trust as an agent while, at the same time, abrogating the right if the statement was originally given in relation to a corruption offence to a CPIB officer. In my view, the abrogation of the right against self-incrimination for PCA offences under section 27 of the PCA may be justified by reason of the nature of the corruption offences. At one level, these offences can be seen as "victimless" crimes because both the briber and the person receiving the bribes are likely to cooperate with each other and keep their conduct under wraps. This makes such offences much more difficult to investigate. Hence, the abrogation of the right against self-incrimination will allow the CPIB to be more effective in its investigation to tackle corruption. However, it is a different ballgame when the statements are used against a person for a non-PCA offence for which he would otherwise have a right against self-incrimination. Could the hon Senior Minister of State please clarify what is the policy and rationale behind this dichotomy in treatment? Third, the Criminal Justice Reform Bill introduces the deferred prosecution agreement regime, which allows the prosecution to enter into an agreement with the accused corporation to agree not to prosecute, in exchange for compliance with a series of conditions, such as payment of a financial penalty, or the appointment of a person to assess and monitor the corporation’s internal controls.”
“Apart from the psychiatrists being qualified and having relevant work experience and character references, are there any other factors that the selection committee will take into account in determining whether to admit a psychiatrist to the panel? I now move to another area of amendment to the CPC relating to the admissibility of statements taken by CPIB as evidence in non-corruption offences. Section 27 of the PCA requires a person being interviewed in relation to offences under the PCA to give all information he is asked to give. In contrast, for non-corruption offences, section 22 of the CPC preserves a person’s right against self-incrimination, by requiring a person giving a statement to the Police to state what he knows of the facts and circumstances, except that he need not say anything that might expose him to a criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture. At present, a statement given under section 27 of the PCA is inadmissible in relation to non-corruption offences. This preserves the right against self-incrimination that is provided for in the Penal Code. However, the proposed amendments to section 258 of the CPC will change that, such that statements given to the CPIB under section 27 of the PCA, may now be relied on in non-corruption offences, when, ordinarily, if the statement were made to the Police, the right against self-incrimination would be preserved. It will always be the case, for a person giving a statement to the CPIB under the PCA, to be legally obliged to say more than he would ordinarily say if interviewed by the Police in relation to a non-corruption offence.”
“As I recall, MinLaw agreed to study my proposal which, if accepted, will have the potential of extending MTOs to offenders who require more intensive treatment and rehabilitation regimes to cope with their psychiatric conditions and overcome their offending behaviour. I wonder if there is any landing reached on the study, please. Next, another area of note is the proposed regulation of the use of psychiatric evidence in criminal proceedings. The use of psychiatric evidence is an area of expert evidence that has seen some of the greatest growth in recent years. The proposed amendments will require psychiatrists to be admitted to a Court-administered panel of psychiatrists before they are allowed to give expert evidence in Court. I do not see this amendment as singling out psychiatrists for stricter regulation than other types of expert witnesses. All experts must give evidence in an objective and professional manner. On the contrary, the amendment recognises the prominent role that psychiatrists play in the criminal justice system. Because so many cases turn on psychiatric evidence, it is important to ensure that such evidence in the form of opinions presented in Court is objective, well-researched and professional. In view of the frequency with which psychiatric evidence is admitted in criminal cases, establishing a Court-administered panel is, in my view, a very good way to regulate such evidence. Could the hon Senior Minister of State please clarify whether it is contemplated that there will be a fixed quota of psychiatrists who are admitted to the panel?”
“The Minister further highlighted that the Court may, if it deems necessary, direct that the SPS psychiatrist be cross-examined, or that further expert evidence or a second opinion be obtained, including from a Court-appointed psychiatrist. This being the case for reformative training sentences, it is, with respect, incongruent that, for MTOs, the Court's determination is constrained by the sole professional judgement of the appointed psychiatrist. I personally dealt with a case where a psychiatrist issued an opinion supporting an imposition of an MTO on my client who was suffering from an anti-personality disorder, which I understand, requires intensive in-patient treatment for a significant period of time. This opinion was used to persuade the Court to call for a suitability assessment for an MTO. The same psychiatrist was then appointed by the Director and, later on, he issued a diametrically opposed opinion without providing sufficient explanation for the change in opinion. The Court was not in a position to look beyond the second opinion based on the current provisions. Second, a point that I had raised in my Adjournment Motion was the approach taken to determine if an offender is "treatable" and, therefore, suitable for an MTO. Then, I had highlighted that the UK has moved from a "treatability test" towards an "appropriate treatment test" when considering sentencing orders for offenders with mental disorders. The new test allows the UK Courts to make a detention order for treatment as long as, having regard to the nature and degree of the mental disorder and all other circumstances, the "appropriate medical treatment is available" for the offender.”
“In my Adjournment Motion, I pointed out that there is a spectrum of mental disorders, some of which are easily treated, and others, such as personality disorders, which require sustained efforts to effect improvement. However, if the appointed psychiatrist makes a guarded prognosis of the offender's susceptibility to treatment and does not recommend an MTO, the Court would have no choice but to decline to make the MTO. The effect of this is that the Court's determination of whether an MTO should be made is entirely reliant on the rigour and the professional opinion of the appointed psychiatrist. There is no mechanism for the Court to scrutinise the opinion of the appointed psychiatrist, for example, by reference to other independent psychiatric evaluation that the offender may have obtained, or through defence counsel's cross-examination of the appointed psychiatrist. This approach is divergent from the approach taken in the context of reformative training. Under the CPC, before an offender may be sentenced to reformative training, the offender would need to be assessed to be suitable for reformative training by a Singapore Prison Service psychiatrist. In a Parliamentary Question that I had filed earlier this year, I had asked the Minister for Law whether it would consider expanding this requirement to allow for an independent report from a Court-appointed psychiatrist. The Minister's response was that the Singapore Prison Service psychiatrist is a professional who is familiar with the reformative training regime and would make his or her independent assessment of the offender.”
“The Court imposed a 12-month MTO on her. As a result, the Order allowed her to continue with her treatment and the Child Protection Services allowed her to have supervised and, subsequently, unsupervised access with her children. The result of it is that she has now reconciled with the children and she is well on her way to be back on her feet. The enhanced CBS regime does not mean that we are going soft on crime. The stipulation that CBS is not available to persons who have committed serious offences for which sentences are fixed by law or prescribed by a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment or an offence for which the sentence is fixed by law still remains. It seems to me that more resources than ever before would be devoted to address the root causes of criminal conduct. The significant difference here is that, under the enhanced CBS regime, we are in a better position to target root causes of criminal conduct by persons, especially those who have psychiatric conditions. The enhanced CBS regime will allow a wider class of persons to be subscribed to sophisticated rehabilitative programmes administered by duly qualified professionals, like in the case of the mother I mentioned earlier. This will provide these persons with the best chance for rehabilitation, mend their ways and stop re-offending. This approach better serves public interest. I wholeheartedly support the proposed amendments to expand CBS and take the opportunity to make a few comments. The present amendments do not alter the present framework for assessing an offender's suitability for a mandatory treatment order. It, therefore, still remains that, under the CPC, the suitability assessment is conducted by a psychiatrist appointed by the Director of Medical Services of MOH.”
“I recall a recent appeal which I did before the High Court where parties were asked to consider if a short detention order in lieu of an imprisonment term – these are community sentences – may be imposed on a person who pleaded guilty to the offence of drink-driving causing a moderate level of harm to the person and property damage. Under the registration of Criminals Act, the record for crime for which a community sentence was imposed by the Court will be deemed spent upon completion of the sentence. As a consequence, the person may lawfully state that he has no record of conviction. This was the case for a company director who was convicted in January 2017 in the State Courts for failing to use reasonable diligence in the performance of his duties, an offence under the Companies Act. The Court imposed a short detention order of 14 days on him. Upon serving the community sentence, he was able to move on with his life more easily as his job prospects were not indelibly affected. This would not have been the case before the advent of the CBS regime. Returning to my case, as a minimum sentence of fine was specified in the drink-driving provision, this option was not open to my client. Now, depending on the circumstances of the case, the person may be imposed a short detention order. This option will enable the Court to better tailor the punishment it imposes to the culpability of the offender. It will not indelibly affect his employment prospects in the future. One further example of a CBS doing good for the person involved is a mother who was convicted for criminal intimidation against her own young children. At that point, she was suffering from clinical depression and other psychiatric conditions. She was separated from her husband.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a disputes lawyer. The Criminal Justice Reform Bill and the Evidence (Amendment) Bill, taken together, introduces significant reforms to keep up with the evolving needs of our criminal justice system and the larger community. The introduction of this Bill follows one of the most exhaustive reviews of the criminal justice system in recent history. I commend the Government for involving the public and stakeholders, such as the Law Society of Singapore, in consultations before drawing up the Bill. And we have just heard the account from the hon Nominated Member of Parliament Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan who stated his involvement as a consultant to one of the stakeholders in engaging the Government over several months. The strength of this Bill is reflected in the consultative process that it underwent before reaching this House. I take the opportunity to comment on three aspects of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill and two aspects of the Evidence (Amendment) Bill. I start with the proposed amendments in the Criminal Justice Bill to community-based sentencing. As this House may recall, I had moved an Adjournment Motion some months ago to discuss the need for greater rehabilitative options to take into account the evolving needs of our sentencing regime, particularly for offenders suffering from mental disorders. The present proposed amendments go towards this and I am glad to see that my suggestion to expand community-based sentencing (CBS) to offences with specified minimum sentences of fine has been taken up. As a result of these amendments, a whole new range of CBS options will now be open to the Court dealing with such cases.”
“May I clarify, it is not the Airocean case. The Airocean case dealt with an acquittal issue. I have here an article from Channel NewsAsia published on the —”
“I thank the hon Minister for his answer. I have two supplementary questions. First, is the approach taken in these 12 cases different from the approach taken in the well-known case issued in September 2015, when the prosecution actually appealed on the basis that a sentence was manifestly excessive? The reason for the prosecution doing so is explained as that it is a stakeholder in the criminal justice system and it must also do its part to ensure a fair and proportionate sentence. Second, may I ask whether the Home Detention Scheme and the Remission Scheme would be afforded to the persons involved in this Court of Appeal decision as well as the 12 cases that the hon Minister mentioned? If so, would the Court of Appeal decision be a factor for the Executive to consider in making an appropriate determination in these schemes?”
“The officers would have to contend with a wide spectrum of mental conditions, too. I would welcome MOH's elaboration on the system that will be implemented in three weeks' time. Without a doubt, though, we are moving in the right direction.”
“Sir, I wanted to start off my speech by stating that this is the third time I will be speaking on this topic in Parliament and I hope that I would be third time lucky. But as it turns out, I do not have to implore for a third time. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Muhd Faishal Ibrahim announced in this House just about two hours ago that from 1 April 2018 onwards, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and MOH have agreed to use an additional yardstick, in the form of MSF's Client Assessment Form, to evaluate the level of support a mentally disabled person requires to perform Activities of Daily Living (ADL). This, in turn, will determine the eligibility of caregivers of mentally disabled persons to qualify for a foreign domestic worker (FDW) levy concession of $60 per month or a grant of $120 per month. MSF estimated that about 1,000 caregivers will benefit from the enhancing of the system. I welcome the announcement. With the implementation of the new system, we would be removing an anomaly that has previously existed. Depending on circumstances, many mentally disabled persons are effectively in the same position as young children as they can only perform ADL under supervision. Yet, their caregivers did not get the levy concessions and grants that caregivers of young children did. I am sure these affected caregivers will warmly welcome this announcement. Assoc Prof Faishal announced that the evaluation of support level for mentally challenged care recipients will be done at Day Activity Centres and Therapy Hubs. It seems to me that appropriate resources and tools would have to be provided to the Day Activity Centres and Therapy Hubs so that they can better assess the mentally challenged care recipient's needs level.”
“I am not advocating that the powers be exercised in every instance that a parent does not send his or her child to school. I acknowledge that the reasons are complex. All I am asking is that the state be provided with the requisite powers so that it can intervene in an appropriate case.”
“First, I think we can all agree that it is critical for a child to attend primary school for the sake of his own development and to create the common experience necessary for the child to identify himself as part of our community and nation. This is the raison d'etre behind the enactment of the Compulsory Education Act in the first place. Second, the framework under the Compulsory Education Act does not extend to intervening in the event the parent neglects sending his or her child to primary school. What it does is to provide penal consequences. However, it does not directly address the plight of the child if the parent does not do the right thing. Also, as mentioned by the hon Minister for Education (Schools) Mr Ng Chee Meng in this House before, the approach of MOE is not to charge the parents in Court but to counsel them to comply with the requirements. Third, the future prospects of the child would be indelibly affected by reason of the parents' neglect in registering him for school and ensuring that he attends school regularly. Whilst this is not physical harm, it is harm that is still debilitating in terms of the impact on his future. In my respectful view, the Compulsory Education Act and the Children and Young Persons Act should complement each other so that the whole suite of options would be available to help the child if a parent neglects to send his or her child to school. After all, the parent would have committed a criminal offence by virtue of his conduct. I am aware that we are not dealing with big numbers. In 2003, this House was informed that there were about 10 cases of violations under the Compulsory Education Act per year. In my respectful view, though, even one case of a child being deprived of education is a case too many.”
“As a matter of fact, the boy did not go to kindergarten as well. Both parents were content for their son to be at home and schooled by his mother. However, prior approval from the Director-General of Education, as required under the Compulsory Education Act, was not sought. I must add that, from a physical perspective, the boy appears to be reasonably taken care of. Mentally, he is normal, too. My community leaders engaged the father and attempted to persuade him to register his son for school as soon as possible. Based on the last update I received, despite six months of trying, the boy has yet to be registered. He is eight years old now this year. Officers from MOE and MSF have been engaging the father and trying to persuade him to send his son to school. Under the Act, as the boy is physically well taken care of, it would not be possible to intervene under the Act on the ground that the parent neglected to ensure that he is enrolled in a primary school. In response to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I filed in November 2017 suggesting that the criteria under the Act be expanded to include situations whereby a parent neglects sending a child to primary school, the Hon Minister replied that the reasons for a child not attending school are often complex. The hon Minister opined that it was not necessary to extend the criteria under the Act on the basis that the framework provided under the Compulsory Education Act already covers this aspect. Finally, he explained that the Act is meant to be invoked where children are seriously harmed or at risk of serious harm. I respectfully seek a reconsideration of the Government's position for the following reasons.”
“Sir, it is the parents' responsibility to bring up their children well so that they have the best chance possible to succeed in life. By and large, it would be a natural instinct on the part of the parents to discharge this duty. Unfortunately, from time to time, there have been cases of parents abdicating their responsibility towards their children. Just on 2 March 2018, during the COS debate on the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), we heard the hon Minister for Home Affairs providing some examples of serious child abuse and neglect. These are heart-wrenching cases. The principal legal tool used to intervene when a child or young person is neglected by his or her parent is the Children and Young Persons Act. Under the Act, a child or young person is deemed to be in need of care or protection if his or her situation falls within the nine enumerated categories stated therein. In such an event, the Director of Social Welfare, a protector or a Police Officer is empowered to remove the child from the custody of the parent and place him or her in a place of care and protection. I recently had occasion to deal with a case which threw into focus the current requirements under the Act. Sometime in the second half of last year, I met the parents of a 7-year-old boy. The boy’s father sought my help to deal with a problem he had with a Police Officer. The mother was a young lady who was rather quiet. Whilst I was talking to the father, I noted that the boy sported long hair; it was even below his shoulders! Curious as to how he could keep such long hair in school, I asked the boy which school he was studying in. To my surprise, I learnt that he was not registered in primary school. This is a violation of the Compulsory Education Act.”
“45 pm This is done in Japan through the family registration system known as Koseki, which I referred to in last year’s COS debates. In Japan, estate administration does not involve the courts and is done expeditiously. Dealing with Residents with Mental Issues”