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 23 of 25.
“But that right carries a corresponding duty to accept that others of other races also have the same rights." This is not a theoretical musing. A good understanding of the underpinnings of multiracialism policy will help us formulate the responses we need to make as a society to issues pertaining to extremism and terrorism. I will now proceed to deal with some of these issues. On the topic of preventing radicalisation through radicalised teachings and other modes, means or methods, it may be useful to take a step back and understand what are the contributing factors that promote radicalisation. I wish to highlight three. One, socio-economic factors − not being able to improve economically and being trapped in the poverty cycle. The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew recognised this when he stated in his first National Day Rally speech on 8 August 1966. He said: "If groups are left behind either on the basis of language, race, religion or culture, and if for these groups the line of division coincides with the line of race, then we will not succeed in our long-term objective of a secure future." Hence, the importance of always ensuring social mobility and preventing a permanent underclass in appearing in our society, especially along racial lines. Two, power of radical ideology expoused by charismatic idealogues focusing on exploiting unhappiness amongst a group of people, often leveraging on social media, too. Three, presence of oppressed communities in the world, especially along racial and religious lines. The hon Members who spoke before me also highlighted this point. This provides the fuel to the ideologues.”
“The late President Yusof bin Ishak, in his first Address in this House in December 1965 upon Singapore's Independence, said as follows: "The four months since 9 August have given us time to take stock of our bearings, time in which to push emotions into the background for a calm and realistic appraisal of the new opportunities which Independence offers us, the greater authority to bring about what we have always thought necessary, a tolerant society, multiracial, multilingual, multi-religious, welded ever closer together by ties of common experience into a satisfying society, satisfying for both the indigenous peoples and those of migrant stock…Needless to say, the more extreme any community is about one race, one language and one religion, the more likely it is to arouse counter chauvinism amongst the other communities to the detriment of all." So, from the start, we see the implementation of multiracialism as a social weapon to ensure peace, prosperity and stability in our country. I heard my learned friend, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh's worry about weaponising multiracialism. I understand his concerns but I would not be too worried because, really, the reference to multiracialism as a social weapon is a call to arms on the part of the people to put in their energies to invest in multiracialism as a policy that will bring peace to our country. I also wish to highlight an excerpt of Mr George Yeo's speech at the inauguration of the Association of Muslim Professionals in 1991. He said as follows: "We use the term 'multiracialism' so often that we sometimes forget what it means. It does not mean that in becoming Singaporean, we deny our heritage…That is not acceptable. Part of the essence of being Singaporean is the right to retain our separate ethnic character.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. First, I would like to congratulate the hon Member for Holland-Bukit Timah Mr Christopher de Souza for introducing this Motion to this House. I fully agree with the points that he made in his speech and I support the Motion. The specific focus in my speech is on two overlapping areas identified in the Motion: preventing the spread of radicalised teaching that promotes exclusivity and violent extremism; and investing in multiracialism to inoculate ourselves against the ills of extremism and terrorism. One preliminary point which I want to discuss first though is: what exactly is meant by "multiracialism" as a policy? The common refrain is that we forge a common life whilst we preserve our own separate heritage and identity. How does that play out? Does that mean that we are required to put Singapore ahead of our own individual backgrounds and heritage? It may be useful to refer to the objectives of our founding fathers who embarked on this journey of multiracialism.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive answer. I have a few supplementary questions. First is whether the Ministry is contemplating any regulation to be put in place for the telecoms companies (telcos) operators and the infocomm service operators to proactively monitor the space for scammers. Secondly, in relation to the cost of compliance, whether there would be any measure to ensure that the cost of compliance is not passed on unreasonably to consumers.”
“Yes, I will finish soon. We now have an opportunity to strengthen the signal to these persons, their caregivers and families that, as a society, we remain invested in their well-being, treatment and rehabilitation. However difficult the journey may be, we must show that we are with them. They should not be left alone.”
“This continues to be celebrated in the criminal bar as a major turning point in relation to sentencing policy of especially mentally disordered offenders. Seven years later, in light of the impending revision of the CPC, we now have an opportunity —”
“In conclusion, I draw this House' attention to what the hon Minister for Law stated in his characteristically candid manner on 18 May 2010. He said, and I quote, "Each society seeks to strike a balance between the rights of society to secure conviction of a person who commits an offence and the rights of an individual… I will freely admit that there can be reasonable debate as to whether that balance has been rightly struck... The procedure to be adopted for administration of criminal justice is an area where there are diverse and often contentious viewpoints. This is an evolutionary process and we will have to continue to be open to amending our criminal procedures to meet changing norms". It is correct to take an evolutionary approach as we must be mindful of unintended consequences of effecting change in our criminal justice system. Seven years on from the introduction of community-based sentencing, we have gained more experience in this area. I suggest that it is now time to review and take the necessary steps to strengthen the system based on the evolutionary approach advocated by the hon Minister. In many other societies, mentally disordered persons continue to be stigmatised and shunned. The typical sentencing solution for mentally disordered offenders with serious conditions is to segregate and keep them away as long as possible. Even in Singapore, if we do not effect a change in legislative policy, Mr Tan and people like him will eventually run the danger of being imposed corrective training and preventive detention in prison. In layman terms, it means locking them up for long periods of time without the possibility of remission. In 2010, the Minister for Law made a laudable move in introducing MTOs under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).”
“It gives rise to anomalies, too. I offer two illustrations. First, in a Straits Times article dated 28 March 2017, a man was reported to have received a short detention order, a form of community sentence, for filming women in bathrooms, which is an offence of insulting the modesty of a woman under section 509 of the Penal Code. In contrast, a first-time offender convicted for an offence of possessing uncensored films under section 21 of the Films Act would be ineligible for community sentencing because that Act prescribes a fine of not less than $100 for each such film in the offender's possession. Second, in drink driving cases under section 67 of the Road Traffic Act where injury or damage is caused and the custody threshold is breached, community sentencing is not available because the Road Traffic Act prescribes a minimum fine. Comparatively, in a Straits Times article dated 14 July 2016, it was reported that a motorist charged with causing death by a negligent act under section 304A of the Penal code was given a community sentence, a short detention order, as that section of the Penal Code did not prescribe a mandatory sentence. These anomalies were also highlighted by a specially convened High Court Bench consisting of three judges in a 2015 case. The High Court stated that while Parliament decides on the relative gravity of offences, the policy considerations that underlie a legislative choice to impose a mandatory or specified minimum sentence may not necessarily be identical or relevant to the consideration of whether or not probation should be given or available in a particular case. For these reasons, I respectfully suggest that the Ministry enlarge the scope of its present review of the community-based sentencing to also include such offences.”
“The challenge, though, is to identify the right Government agency to lead and manage this initiative because we are looking at a broad spectrum of matters − enforcement of law, treatment, rehabilitation and drawing on VWO and community resources. In my respectful view, it may be appropriate for an inter-Ministerial panel to be set up to look into this. I strongly believe that Mr Tan's sister would have benefited from participating in such a programme. She received an unconditional warning from the Police for her participation in the theft case with her brother. Unfortunately for her, she is not put into any rehabilitative programme. The odds of her re-offending remain high. Another area of sentencing, which I respectfully suggest the Minister also review, is the applicability of community sentences for offences that stipulate mandatory or specified minimum sentences. The current regime circumscribes the Courts' power to impose community sentences or probation for adult offenders where the offence is one for which a mandatory or specified minimum sentence is prescribed by law. I filed a Parliamentary Question for oral answer asking if the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) would conduct a review of offences punishable by mandatory or specified minimum sentences to identify suitable offences for which community sentences or probation should be offered as sentencing options. The hon Minister for Law, in a reply dated 8 May 2017, stated that the Ministry does not intend to do so as these offences are seen as more serious. With respect, I do not see how it can be safely assumed that just because Parliament provides a specified minimum or mandatory sentence, it must mean that Parliament considers this offence to be so serious as to be excluded from community-based sentencing.”
“The Police agreed and administered his son with a stern warning instead. Unfortunately, the boy continued to cause disruption not just within his family but in the neighbourhood. His father tearfully recounted that his son, for the first time, started laying his hands on him. To help the boy and his family, community leaders, the family social worker, his school teachers, psychiatrist, psychologist and the Police formed a social network to support him. I met these representatives with a view to coordinate their efforts. Through this approach, this boy is now required to regularly report to officers at a Neighbourhood Police Post. Operators of the gaming arcades in the vicinity were advised not to allow him in, should he visit them. His school teachers would check periodically to see if the boy takes his medication, which, unfortunately, is not a given. His psychiatrist has made some adjustments to his medication regime so that the monitoring could be done more easily. The community leaders continue to provide support to the family and continue to keep an eye on him with a view to keep him out of harm's way. In this boy's case, the various stakeholder representatives went above their ordinary scope of duties to help him. I suggest that a legislative framework be provided to allow offenders to be put through this community-based rehabilitative programme. The current situation of enforcement authorities imposing conditions on the mentally disordered offender for not prosecuting him would not provide sufficient assurance against him re-offending. There is a need to bring in the relevant agencies, work out a programme and monitor the progress. Often, the offender's family alone is simply unable to cope, especially a broken family.”
“In short, the options that I have identified, in my view, will allow judges to have more discretion to impose bespoke sentences on offenders suffering from serious mental conditions, especially personality disorders. I also believe such an approach, in the long run, better serves the public interest. Separately, I have seen situations where conditional warnings were given in lieu of prosecution to mentally disordered offenders, especially youthful offenders. The hon Minister of Law explained in 2010 that conditional warnings are part and parcel of prosecutorial discretion and does not need to be hard coded in our laws. Whilst I agree that there is no need for hard coding, it may be good to provide a structured community-focused legal framework and budget to support the rehabilitation of such offenders with mental disorders to reduce the likelihood of them re-offending and being charged in Court. As a parallel, I wish to highlight the multidisciplinary approach taken by the Community Court, in certain cases, through the Community Court Conference (CCC) prior to sentencing. I had the privilege of personally witnessing the efficacy of this approach in one case involving a 15-year-old boy in Bukit Batok who was given a warning in lieu of prosecution. This boy was diagnosed with autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and also suffers from a gaming addiction. Despite his young age, he has gotten into trouble with the law quite a few times. Recently, he was arrested for being in possession of a dangerous weapon. Not only that, through the instigation of some negative influences, he posted a video of himself on the Internet deriding a particular gang. His father petitioned the Police not to charge him in Court.”
“Furthermore, the UK courts have the ability to make a restriction order over and above the hybrid order or the hospital order. What is also notable is that, in the UK, there were amendments made to the Mental Health Act in 2008 which abolished the "treatability test" in favour of the "appropriate treatment test" when considering sentencing orders for offenders with mental disorders. In 2008, the "appropriate treatment test" was introduced to replace the old test. "Treatment" is defined as including nursing, psychological intervention and specialist mental health rehabilitation and care. Treatment includes anything from a cure to containment. The new test allows the court to make a detention order for treatment so long as, having regard to the nature and degree of the mental disorder and all other circumstances, the "appropriate medical treatment is available to him". Arising from the above, in the UK, they have multidisciplinary teams that assess more holistic sentencing options for the courts, not just psychiatric treatment. I commend this approach to this House. If such an approach is adopted in Singapore, admittedly, there would be a need to enhance the resources committed for community-based sentencing. Hopefully, the Government will be able to rely on VWO support. Also, with respect to offenders who do have independent means of support, perhaps it may not be necessary for the psychiatric treatment component of MTOs to be administered via the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), which would involve public resources. Instead, private sector resources can be drawn in, too.”
“Also, it would be in the public interest to monitor such offenders after they have been released and, where possible, for adjustments to be made to these offenders' circumstances and environment so as to lower the chances of them re-offending. I suggest that our Courts be given more powers to put in place bespoke sentencing arrangements drawing from a multitude of disciplines for a wider spectrum of mental disorders. I understand that, in prison, only offenders with Axis 1 mental disorders are provided treatment, but not Axis 2 disorders, beyond, at times, administering some medication to calm them. Axis 1 disorders are the more familiar ones, such as depression or schizophrenia, whereas Axis 2 disorders are usually lifelong problems, such as anti-social personality disorder, paranoid personality disorder and mental retardation. The lack of treatment for or appropriate management of the psychiatric condition of such offenders would mean that they may exit prisons without the additional social and emotional skills to manage life, with the result that the risk of re-offending is not lessened. Examples of other sentencing options for such offenders may include mandatory in-patient treatment whilst serving a jail term, and mandatory regular reporting to a prescribed officer for monitoring even after the prison sentence has been served. Such options have been implemented in the UK vis-a-vis Axis 2 disorders. There, besides a hospital order, which is similar to our MTO, the courts there have the option of making a hybrid order where an offender is sentenced to a period of imprisonment and is simultaneously admitted to hospital for a period of treatment.”
“He dismantled a bicycle wheel from a bicycle and stole it, leaving the bicycle behind, as a favour to a friend. Later, he punched a person in his face for intervening in a quarrel between him and his mother at a hawker centre. In the end, the Court decided he had to be punished. He was sentenced to six months' jail for his offences. This is not the end of the matter for his family. His sister also suffers from a psychiatric condition and was a co-accused in one of the offences Mr Tan committed. She had only just started offending. She is not receptive to counselling. She needs help before her situation becomes as serious as her brother's. Whilst our current regime allows for community sentencing, such as an MTO for offenders with mental disorders, this is predicated on the offender being assessed to be suitable. When a guarded prognosis is given, it does not mean that the offender's treatment is not treatable at all. What it usually means is that the psychiatric treatment alone is unlikely to lead to the changes necessary. Currently, though, the main sentencing option for such offenders with guarded prognosis is a jail term. Sending such offenders to jail, in my respectful view, is not an ideal solution. The underlying condition has not changed. The chances of such offenders reoffending are great. Furthermore, such offenders are often victims of their circumstance, vulnerable to influence by people with bad intentions, and are often persuaded to do things which would get them into even more trouble, as was the case for Mr Tan. At the very least, it would be in the interest of the general public to manage an offender's condition through a networked approach so as to ensure that his condition that led to his offending behaviour does not worsen.”
“For example, it would be contemplated that he would have to be put in sheltered care or be enrolled in pro-social programmes like anger and stress management. To give Members of this House a sense of how such patients need to be managed, please allow me to quote the following excerpt from the United Kingdom (UK) Code of Practice for the Mental Health Act: "Generally, treatment approaches for personality disorder need to be relatively intense and long-term, structured and coherent. Sustainable long-term change is more likely to be achieved with the voluntary engagement of the patient. People with personality disorders may take time to engage and develop motivation for such longer-term treatment. But even patients who are not engaged in that kind of treatment may need other forms of treatment, including nurse and specialist care, to manage the continuing risks posed by their disorders." So, we see, they need significantly more than just psychiatric help. As the Court, under the current Criminal Procedure Code provisions, was unable to consider imposing an MTO in the event a psychiatrist does not support it, it proceeded to consider Mr Tan's suitability for conditional discharge under the Probation of Offenders Act. What we explored here was his voluntary participation in a programme that was put up with community support. This programme would have allowed him to be economically active and engaged with the community. With the assistance of Bizlink, a voluntary welfare organisation (VWO), and a counsellor with the Marine Parade Family Service Centre, Mr Tan started learning how to work for the first time in his life. He made some progress initially. Unfortunately, due to the influence of some others, he started re-offending.”
“As explained by the hon Minister of Law in this House in 2010, community-based sentencing gives more flexibility to the Courts in deciding an appropriate sentence for the offender in question. Not every offender should be put in prison. Community-based sentencing targets offenders traditionally viewed by the Courts to be on the rehabilitation end of the spectrum, such as persons with specific and relatively minor mental conditions. For such cases, it is appropriate to harness the resources of the community. I am heartened by the approach we have taken thus far to deal with such offenders. However, with the experience we have gained from the community-based sentencing regime over the past seven years, perhaps it is time we consider extending the community-based sentencing regime to offenders who suffer from more challenging mental disorders. I have come to know of one such offender professionally through a Court-assigned pro bono case. Mr Tan is a middle-aged man who has low intelligence quotient (IQ) and a gaming addiction. He comes from a poor family. His father passed away some years back. His mother, a hawker centre cleaner, looks after him and his younger sister. He was charged with the offence of stealing coins from a vending machine to feed his gaming addiction. He has similar theft convictions in the past. He underwent psychiatric evaluation to determine the suitability of a mandatory treatment order and was assessed as suffering from anti-social personality disorder. Unfortunately for him, his prognosis was guarded. Mr Tan was deemed not suitable for a mandatory treatment order (MTO), not because he is not at all treatable but because it will involve a huge multidisciplinary effort to effect a turnaround in his condition.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my honour to be the first Member to speak on an Adjournment Motion under your tenure as our Speaker. I join the hon Members who spoke before me to congratulate you on your election as Speaker and wish you well in the discharge of your solemn duties. I also have some sympathy for the hon Member for Sembawang, Mr Vikram Nair, and the hon Member for Aljunied, Ms Sylvia Lim, because they were balloted out of the right to speak on this Adjournment Motion. I know the feeling because I was balloted out of the right to speak on this topic last month. Before I go on to my speech, let me declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice. I wish to address this House today on the following matters. Firstly, to highlight the need for more community-based support for offenders charged in Court who are found to have more challenging psychiatric illnesses and are, therefore, deemed not eligible for community-based sentencing, and offenders in respect of whom decisions have been made not to prosecute on account of their psychiatric condition to ensure that they do not re-offend. Secondly, to seek a review of offences currently punishable with prescribed sentences to identify those which would be suitable for community-based sentencing. Courts have often found it challenging to impose sentences on offenders diagnosed with psychiatric conditions. Whilst, generally, the need for rehabilitation is a key consideration for mentally disordered persons, it has to be balanced against the countervailing need for retribution and deterrence at the same time. The 2010 amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code to expand the community-based sentencing regime was a milestone in strengthening rehabilitation as an option for offenders in right cases.”
“I think it trivialises what has happened today. We have heard the Ministerial Statements made by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister and robust questions have been posed to both of them and their Cabinet colleagues. I have posed some of these questions and these questions are drawn from the allegations that were made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang as well as Dr Lee Wei Ling. The fact that they are not here does not mean that the allegations they have made outside this House cannot be conveyed as well. So, we have done that. Both PAP MPs as well as Opposition MPs have done the same thing, together with my colleagues who are NMPs. It is disappointing to hear that they have already prejudged that the debate is pointless. I think we have still not heard the answers from the Ministers, and such conclusions, being prematurely drawn, undermine the confidence in this House. This House is definitely more important than the house at 38 Oxley Road.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I have several questions, all of which are focused on the Ministerial Committee set up to consider options for the house at 38 Oxley Road. They are as follows. First, why did the Committee find it necessary to seek views from the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's children to get a clearer sense of his thinking in relation to the house in 2016 when his views, as expressed in his last will, were already made public? Second, how would such subjective information on his wishes help the Committee in its deliberations to identify the options for the house? Third, noting the letter dated 27 July 2016 from Minister Lawrence Wong to the executors, in the paragraph which states, "the Committee will be listing the different options and the implications of those options and setting them out in the context of Mr Lee's wishes", my question is: was it contemplated that the children of Mr Lee would be approached to provide their own views on these options and, if so, was it conveyed to his children? Fourth, why did the Committee decide not to disclose its composition of members, save for Deputy Prime Minister Teo and Minister Lawrence Wong, to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling at the time when they were asked to provide their views about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's thinking and wishes in relation to the house? Fifth, did the Minister for Law advise the late Mr Lee or any of his family members on matters in connection with the house prior to becoming a member of the Committee? Finally, if he has, why is he of the view that he is not in a conflict of interest position in assuming a position in the Committee that is focused on looking at the options for the house? Mr Deputy Speaker, it is disappointing to hear some MPs expressing the view that today's debate is pointless.”
“Could the Parliamentary Secretary please elaborate on what type of specified establishments or class of licensees would be prescribed that would involve the PE Appeal Board? I believe a similar point was raised by the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim. In addition, what is the rationale for having an independent PE Appeal Board that deals with appeals against certain decisions involving these prescribed specified establishments or class of licensees, whilst appeals against all other decisions continue to be dealt with by the Minister? I support our efforts to promote higher standards amongst PE operators, and to safeguard against those who misuse these premises to carry out racketeering activities. I also applaud both Ministries' efforts in engaging the stakeholders before tabling this Bill. I support the Bill.”
“Yet, this may be relevant, especially if the licensee or the responsible officer is involved in operating similar businesses in other countries and foreign proceedings have been brought against him in that regard. Alternatively, would such considerations be instead taken into account in the fit and proper criteria to determine whether the licence should be suspended or cancelled under the proposed amendments to section 14(2) of the Act? If so, would there be a need to widen the language used in that provision to include responsible officers of the licensees and persons having substantial control over these licensees? Fourth, the proposed amendments to section 15A of the Act allows the Arts Entertainment Licensing Officer to impose conditions as he thinks fit. Could the hon Parliamentary Secretary please clarify what sorts of conditions are contemplated? Would the Ministry also be providing guidelines on how the discretion to impose conditions would be exercised? This would promote greater certainty for producers of the arts, who could then have these guidelines in mind at the outset when planning and producing their art exhibitions and performances. Finally, in relation to the proposed new sections 16 to 16AC of the Bill providing for a consolidated appeals framework. I note now that two relevant appeal authorities have been proposed in respect of appeals against appealable decisions of the PE Licensing Officer, namely, the newly constituted PE Appeal Board for decisions involving prescribed specified establishments or a prescribed class of licensees and, in any other cases, to the Minister responsible for PE.”
“The explanatory notes of the Bill state that this takes into account considerations of whether the responsible officer is a fit and proper person, similar to the approach taken in the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act. May I ask if the criteria and requirements that relate to the responsible officer also take into account his character, capability and reputation, similar to the guidelines on the criteria under the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act? Third, the proposed section 14(2A) of the Bill allows for immediate suspension of a licence if proceedings have commenced against the licensee for certain offences specified in the Second Schedule that relate to any activity at an approved place for the licence. Could the Parliamentary Secretary please clarify whether proceedings include investigations that have been commenced against the licensee even if the licensee has not been formally charged in Court with any offence yet? Would proceedings also include proceedings for a confiscation order, for example, under the Organised Crime Act, even if the licensee or the responsible officer has not been the subject of any criminal proceedings in respect of an offence stipulated in the proposed Second Schedule of the Bill? Additionally, how would the proposed amendment to section 14 take into account foreign proceedings commenced against the licensee or the responsible officer, say, for example, a vice-related offence which has an equivalent in the proposed Second Schedule? The proposed section 14(2A) presently does not take into account such foreign proceedings.”
“Mdm Speaker, the proposed changes to PEMA will, amongst others, introduce stricter penalties to deter PE operators from using their premises for illegal activities, and to give the authorities greater powers to control the use of such premises. These are important amendments in support of our fight against racketeering and associated criminal activities. I support this Bill. I wish to seek clarification on the following five areas of this Bill. First, the amendments to section 4 of the Act allows the appointed Licensing Officer to appoint trained individuals who need not be public servants as authorised persons under the Bill. My Parliamentary colleagues, Dr Intan and Ms Sylvia Lim, also spoke about this point. It appears that under the proposed amendments, these persons would be deemed as public servants when exercising their powers under the Act. This is in contrast to the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act 2015, which only provides for APOs or Police Officers to be an approved person under that Act to carry out licensing functions. What is the rationale for allowing private sector vendors to carry out functions of the Licensing Officer under the proposed provisions? How will these private sector vendors be selected and are there other similar uses of the private sector for licensing or other analogous matters in Singapore? Second, the proposed amendments to section 5 of the Act expands the criteria for obtaining a licence which presently only stipulates operational requirements, to include criteria and requirements relating to the responsible officer of the applicant of the licence.”
“Also, should this provision conferring extraterritorial jurisdiction be invoked, I would imagine that the Government would spare no efforts to bring the perpetrators located overseas to face justice in Singapore. May I please ask what steps will be taken to make these offences an extradition crime that would enable the Government to extradite these offenders to Singapore? Would the Government please consider updating the list of offences for which extradition may be made possible under the Extradition Act? With constant new challenges posed by evolving technologies, I support our efforts to guard against those who use technology to try and exploit our vulnerabilities. I support this Bill.”
“However, the sale or disclosure of personal data to others, while prohibited under the Personal Data Protection Act that attracts enforcement action by the Personal Data Commission, is not an offence per se. In contrast, the sale of personal data by a person who knowingly or recklessly obtained such data without the consent of the data controller has been made an offence in the UK through their Data Protection Act. If my understanding of the provision is correct, I suggest that we consider criminalising the sale of personal data obtained through unauthorised means. Without closing off this avenue, there is a danger we may be exposed to a proliferation of identity thefts. Finally, the amendments to section 11 expands the extraterritorial effect of the Bill to allow us to prosecute offences under the Act which causes or creates a significant risk of serious harm in Singapore. The definition of "serious harm in Singapore" in the section does not appear to include situations where unauthorised access to computer material causes significant disruptions to commercial businesses in Singapore which may not be regarded as "essential services" under section 15A(12) of the Bill. For example, if there were to be a simultaneous DDoS attack on all Singapore e-commerce sites over a sustained period of time, this may have a severe impact on the businesses of these Singapore companies. Yet, we may not be able to go after the persons responsible. Perhaps, we may consider expanding the definition of "serious harm" to include damage to the economy of Singapore, similar to what the UK has provided for in its Computer Misuse Act.”
“Perhaps, the Senior Minister of State could please clarify the Government's position to give some assurance to journalists and researchers that their obtaining and retention of such data for the purposes of their work would not cause them to fall foul of the law. Second, on a related point, while section 8A would go some way to deter illegitimate dealing with hacked personal data, I wonder if there may still be some unaddressed challenges in our laws. One area is the potential for sale of personal data. At a symposium I attended some years back, an enforcement officer spoke about the spiking of identity theft worldwide. One unique feature of stolen personal data, unlike chattels, such as stolen paintings, is that it can be sold again and again, therein lies the economic attraction of targeting databases containing personal data. According to a Tech In Asia article in 2014, it was reported, worryingly in my respectful view, that there exists a grey market in Singapore for sale of data. It further states that tons of customer data can be bought for a dirt cheap price of about 1.2 Singapore cents apiece. The report also contained an account of a sales pitch given by a shady data broker who goes by the name of John Lee. Mr Lee claimed to have data from Groupon and other popular shopping sites in Singapore that could be purchased from him. One possible reading of the proposed section 8A is that it would not apply to Mr Lee even if Mr Lee had, in fact, obtained knowingly the personal data from a hacker, for his onward sale of data to legitimate businesses. This is because the proposed new section 8A requires the commission of an offence.”
“I have three points to make on the proposed amendments to the Act. First, the new section 8A of the Bill makes it an offence for a person to obtain, retain, supply or make available personal information that he or she knew or had reason to believe that it was obtained through unauthorised access to a programme or computer system. However, the section provides that it is not an offence under that section if the person obtained or retained the personal information for a purpose other than for use or supply to be used in committing any offence. The section also provides that it is not an offence under that section if the person supplied the personal information for a purpose other than to be used in committing an offence and that he did not know or have reason to believe that the information would be used to commit an offence. When hacked personal data is made widely available, as in the case of Wikileaks and also in the Kbox incident in Singapore when personal data of over 300,000 customers were posted online, such data is often regarded as a treasure trove of information for certain categories of individuals, such as journalists for reporting purposes, and researchers, where such data may be useful for their research. My reading of section 8A is that dealing with hacked personal data is only an offence when it is obtained, retained or transmitted for the purpose of supplying and/or using it in the commission of offences. If my reading is correct, then it is open to journalists and researchers to deal with publicly available information obtained through computer hacking.”
“Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment Bill. As we forge ahead in becoming a Smart Nation, our increasing use of and reliance on technology and computers to solve our problems and better our lives bring about many benefits but also makes us more vulnerable to cybercriminals. Take, for example, the breach of MINDEF's Internet access system for servicemen and employees this year. This case was referred to by the Second Minister for Defence during Question Time today. The incident led to personal data, including NRIC numbers and telephone numbers, of around 850 servicemen and employees being stolen. The work appears to be targeted and not the work of a casual hacker. If not for the Government's farsighted move last year to separate computer systems having Internet access from systems containing classified information, the impact on our country may have been worse. While this breach may have been relatively contained, we should expect increasing attempts to breach our systems. Our laws need to be able to keep pace with such attempts and the increasing sophistication of hackers and other cybercriminals. The changes that the Bill seeks to make to CMCA, whilst not numerous, are significant in shoring up our ability to go after criminals who make use of technology to threaten our security. In particular, the new provisions to criminalise dealing with hacked data containing personal information for illegitimate purposes are a significant development in our fight against cybercrime. The expansion of the extraterritorial application of the CMCA offence would also allow us to address the transnational nature of cybercrimes by going after criminals who operate in the interstices of the law by disrupting our security through computers located overseas.”
“However, I note that the proposed framework expressly prohibits companies from disclosing or making available for inspection the register of controllers to the public. This restriction on access to this register is an anomaly, given that all other registers as they exist now, such as the register of shareholders and directors, are publicly available and may be inspected. In contrast, in the UK, the information in the register has to be filed at the UK Companies House and is available online. The registers are also open to public inspection. However, the residential address and date of birth of individuals concerned will not be provided except to credit reference agencies and certain public authorities. Only the individual's name, month and year of birth, nationality and service address will be publicly available, together with details of the interest concerned. Applications may be made to keep all information private where there is a risk of violence or intimidation in the event that the information is public. I recognise that the issue of whether information on the register, which contains personal information, should be published and easily accessible to the public is contentious. However, there is value in allowing certain prescribed categories of private institutions, such as financial institutions, access to the register, as this would facilitate these institutions' conduct of due diligence on their customers or in respect of the financial transactions that they may facilitate. I propose that we consider whether wider access to these registers of controllers is beneficial and should be allowed to certain specified categories of persons. Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.”
“The Ministry's reply was that the current legislative and regulatory levers that we have to take action against errant companies are adequate and there is no need at this point for a specific provision to penalise a company for failing to prevent a crime from taking place. The Minister also stated that the Companies Act imposes various obligations on company directors to ensure that companies adopt good corporate governance practices. Implementing "failure to prevent" offences is yet another way to make it easier to pin liability on companies for acts of their employees and agents. This is the route that the UK has taken in its Bribery Act, by making corporations liable for failing to prevent bribery by associated persons. The UK is now consulting on whether to expand this to other forms of financial crimes. The FATF Mutual Evaluation Report made the following findings on Singapore: "Singapore's status as both a major global financial centre and an international transport hub makes it vulnerable to becoming a transit point for illicit funds generated throughout East and Southeast Asia. Legal persons, including foreign companies registered in Singapore, are vulnerable to criminal misuse." Given the FATF's report stating that companies in Singapore are vulnerable to criminal misuse, does the introduction of section 386AD signal a shift in the standard of attributing states of mind to corporations in respect of other serious economic crimes? Finally, the register of controllers is a useful resource and tool in the arsenal to increase transparency and facilitate criminal investigations. Banks and other financial institutions also play an important role in ensuring that their institutions are not used as conduits for money laundering and terrorism financing.”
“This threshold is not easy to meet, especially where larger companies are involved, and it is often difficult for prosecutors to prove that the "directing mind and will" of the company had knowledge of the criminal conduct to pin liability on the company. I quote the then Attorney-General Mr Steven Chong, Senior Counsel, speaking at his Keynote Address at the Cambridge Symposium for Economic Crime in 2012, "In today's financial industry, most large organisations have hierarchies which are quite complicated and unavoidably so, due to the specialised nature of professional expertise. Unfortunately, this has made it easy for top executives to feign ignorance when fraudulent behaviour is uncovered, especially since they have every incentive to state that they were unaware of wrongdoings in their organisations." The Attorney-General had gone on to suggest that a measure to counter this would be to impose legal requirements to increase disclosure requirements to facilitate the identification of the executives responsible for the misdeeds. Seen in this context, the proposed amendments to stipulate a lower standard of attributing the state of mind to the corporation to pin corporate liability is understandable and justified. In these circumstances, why limit the application of the lower standard in section 386AD of the Bill only to offences under the new Part XI A? Should this lower standard be of general import and apply to other financial crimes? In my Parliamentary Question to the Minister for Home Affairs last month, I asked whether the Minister would consider introducing an offence for commercial organisations that fail to prevent the commission of economic crimes by persons who act on their behalf, such as employees and contractors.”
“Similarly, in the present context, given that the implementation of a register would increase administrative compliance costs for companies operating in Singapore, should we consider putting this provision into effect only when there is a level playing field when the major financial centres also implement their equivalent? Second, the proposed section 386AD of the Bill imputes the state of mind of the corporation's officers, employees or agents to the corporation itself in respect of offences under the proposed new Part XIA. This means that where the officer, employee or agent had a particular state of mind when engaging in conduct within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority, this would be evidence that the corporation had that state of mind for the purpose of any criminal proceedings against the company for an offence, such as the company's failure to send notices to the persons whom the company knows or has reasonable grounds to believe, knows the identity of its registrable controller, or the company's failure to send notices to a controller if it knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the particulars of the controller have changed. Such legal attribution is necessary as companies may only act through natural persons. However, the proposed amendment adopts a standard of attribution which is lower than and a departure from the existing legal standards. Under the existing standards, to establish corporate criminal liability, the mental element of an offence must be attributed to "the directing mind and will of the corporation". The "directing mind and will of the corporation" usually refers to superior officers who carry out management functions, and not any officer, employee or agent of the company.”
“First, the Bill proposes to amend the Companies Act to require non-listed locally incorporated companies and foreign companies to maintain registers of controllers and to take reasonable steps to find out and identify registrable controllers of the company. This is likely to raise corporate administrative and compliance costs for such companies. While this initiative is welcome in playing our part in the global fight against financial crime, I note that there are a number of major countries which have not at this stage implemented a register of controllers of companies. For example, the US, Canada and Australia, which have been rated by FATF between 2015 and 2016 as being partially compliant or non-compliant with the FATF recommendations of transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons and legal arrangements in their mutual evaluation reports, do not yet have an equivalent register. Australia is in the midst of consulting on this. Amongst the major financial centres, only the UK has, since last year, implemented a Register of Persons of Significant Control. Hong Kong is currently looking at requiring firms incorporated in the city to disclose their beneficial ownership by 2018. In a different but similar context in 2014 relating to Singapore's intention to adopt the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) pact to swap tax information aimed at ending offshore tax evasion, our then Finance Minister Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam highlighted that Singapore would adopt the standard as long as rival wealth management centres do the same. The Minister explained that there must be a level playing field to minimise regulatory arbitrage.”
“Mdm Speaker, I declare my interest as a disputes lawyer in private practice. The Companies (Amendment) Bill implements various changes in the Companies Act, such as providing for enhanced moratoriums against creditor action in judicial management, rescue finance and cram-down provisions. These measures, once implemented, will have the effect of strengthening Singapore's insolvency framework and enhance Singapore's standing as an international centre for debt restructuring. I welcome these timely changes to the Companies Act. Besides these amendments, other amendments address key findings in the FATF's 4th mutual evaluation of Singapore's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime. The FATF Mutual Evaluation Report highlighted that companies in Singapore, including foreign companies registered in Singapore, are vulnerable to criminal misuse. The FATF Report also noted that the Commercial Affairs Department has observed that there has been an increase in the number of money laundering cases involving shell companies established by non-residents based overseas since 2012. The new Part XIA of the Companies (Amendment) Bill requires companies to keep a register of controllers and nominee directors. The identification of controllers and nominee directors of companies increases transparency and facilitates investigation of serious economic crimes committed by the individuals associated with such companies. Greater scrutiny would have a deterrent effect on companies and their officers. In my speech, I will focus on the proposed FATF-related amendments to the Companies Act and comment on three areas.”
“As senior caregiving is of a scale larger than disability caregiving, I believe that there is a need to set up multiple support centres to provide the same level of support to senior caregivers. These centres are a natural extension to the existing SCCs. Since SCCs are specially situated in places with higher demand for eldercare services, Senior Caregiver Support Centres can be co-located with SCCs. Like the Disability Caregiver Support Centre, Senior Caregiver Support Centres can provide information, planned respite, training, peer support and offer various VWO programmes to help caregivers. There is one more important function the support centres can perform. Senior caregivers face greater risk of health and financial vulnerabilities as they get older due to lower lifetime earnings. Many are women who leave the workforce to be full-time caregivers and who find it difficult to re-enter the labour market. These support centres can also act as the main touchpoints for caregivers to receive important health and financial assistance and even advice on finding part-time work to support themselves. 12.30 pm Nursing Homes”
“This issue is even more acute where the caregiver is the primary breadwinner and has to juggle employment and worry about finances. One area identified in Enabling Masterplan 3 to enhance caregivers' well-being and their caregiving capabilities, albeit with respect to persons having physical disabilities, is the possibility of expanding the existing criteria for Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Concession and Grant. This is an eminently sensible recommendation. I also recommend that the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Concession and Grant be extended to families with persons having mental disabilities, too. Caregivers for such persons face the same, if not more, pressure as compared to caregivers of persons with physical disabilities. There should be no distinction between these groups. I made the same point during my Adjournment Motion last year. I understand that the relevant agencies are still studying this issue. I would be grateful, therefore, if the Ministry could share some of its plans for greater home-based support and to give caregivers of persons with mental disabilities more opportunities for respite. Senior Caregivers Support Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, caregivers of seniors need a lot of support. The stress of caregiving goes up exponentially when the elderly develop chronic illnesses, dementia or disabilities. This issue will deepen with the rapidly ageing population. I note that the Government will be setting up a Disability Caregiver Support Centre. I propose that the Government set up similar caregiver support centres for senior caregivers.”
“Mdm Chairman, in July last year, I spoke in this House during my Adjournment Motion speech on the need to address challenges faced by caregivers of children with mental disabilities. Since then, the Enabling Masterplan 3 was issued in December last year, with various recommendations and proposed strategies to create a more inclusive society for people with disabilities as well as to provide better support to caregivers in their roles in caring for persons with disabilities. As highlighted in the Masterplan, we, as a community, must recognise that caregivers are individuals with their own aspirations and ambitions. While family is the first and most important line of support, family caregivers can only carry out their roles effectively if they are emotionally and physically well. In this regard, I am concerned to note that the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) study in 2014 found that a good number of our caregivers experienced poor mental health. This was a point carried in the Enabling Masterplan 3 Report. This problem may be more acute for caregivers of persons with mental disabilities. While there are options of Drop-in Disability Programmes and Day Activity Centres, as acknowledged in this House by Minister Tan Chuan-Jin, there are limited spaces in such programmes and applicants are often waitlisted. Hence, we see the current focus to build capacity for home-based and community-based care services. However, this cannot happen overnight. Where caregivers of persons with mental disabilities do not have access to such services, the care responsibility falls solely and squarely on them. They, therefore, suffer tremendous stress and may even feel overwhelmed by the circumstances.”
“Madam, community hospitals play an ever-increasingly important role in our healthcare system, given our ageing population. For our elderly patients, the systemic rehabilitation programmes offered by community hospitals help to improve their functional abilities and quality of life. We should do what we can to increase accessibility to such services at community hospitals. Deputy Prime Minister Teo referred to this as "right-siting" in his speech last week in this House. Paradoxically, our healthcare financing scheme may stand in the way of such a development. Based on the current MediShield Life system, MediShield Life benefits for inpatient treatment at community hospitals are only claimable upon referral from a public hospital for further medical treatment after an inpatient admission. I propose that direct admission patients in community hospitals be allowed to utilise MediShield Life for their inpatient treatments. There is no need for acute hospitals to act as a filter. ElderShield”
“This symbolic act would be a tangible acknowledgment and appreciation of the sacrifices and contributions of our seniors and married couples within our families and community and a collective celebration of their life. This will motivate and encourage others in our communities to emulate them, leading to a stronger community and nation for all. This is by no means a novel suggestion. Heads of states in other countries, such as the UK and US are already doing this. However, we can have a unique Singapore adaptation to getting our community involved in celebrating these milestones. Quality Infant and Childcare Services”
“Our families and seniors are important anchors of our social fabric. Strong families are the building blocks for strong communities. This was recognised by this House in the debate on the Motion on Shared Values in 1991. The late Dr Ong Chit Chung, my predecessor and mentor, said as follows in Parliament 26 years ago, "You may characterise the family as the building block of society, but I would rather call it the pillar of society. If the pillar is eroded or weakened, society will not stand". I agree. The family is the first place where we learn how to care for one another, to compromise and to maintain loving and respectful channels of communication. The values that we learn within a family unit later transcends into how we interact with each other within our communities. Strong communities, in turn, cultivate a sense of belonging and support the basic framework of our resilience, competitiveness and quality of life. This is a framework that ensures a strong, caring and prosperous nation. It is in this context that I would like to highlight a suggestion that was made to me on how our community can play a signalling role to reinforce family values. I propose that our President send congratulatory messages to Singaporean centenarians on the occasion of their 100th birthday and every year thereafter, as well as married couples on the occasion of their diamond jubilee and every jubilee thereafter. There can be no higher accolade for the recipients coming from the symbol of our nation. 5.00 pm Our communities can also use the opportunity to celebrate these significant milestones with the families concerned.”
“I believe I have addressed Members' questions on the first cut and I will leave Senior Minister of State Ms Indranee Rajah to take the others.”
“But we will continue to monitor the trends and ensure that our tax system remains competitive and pro-growth. At the same time, I should add that our competitiveness is not just based on taxes alone. We compete on many other factors − our quality workforce, rule of law, good corporate governance and infrastructure. All these have helped to build Singapore's reputation of trust, integrity and reliability and given businesses the certainty to invest here for the long term. We will continue to build on these strengths and the CFE recommendations provide clear steps for us to take over the coming years. Finally, we want to maintain a progressive system of taxes and benefits. It is a system where the higher-income households contribute more of the taxes and the lower-income households receive more of the benefits. And this is also why we have designed our GST system with a permanent scheme of GST Vouchers so that the overall system is progressive, with the rich paying more. And this is how we help lower- and middle-income Singaporeans to have better lives and build a society that all Singaporeans can truly benefit from. So, we will continue to build on this progressive system of taxes and transfers, even as we consider revenue options for the future. Mdm Chairman, the Singapore economy is now more complex and diverse than it was in the past. There are more interests and stakeholders involved. So, no single command entity can drive our economy. We need to forge stronger partnerships to reinforce our mutual efforts, tackle common challenges and move forward together. MOF and the Government agencies are committed to working with our partners in this shared effort.”
“Assoc Prof Daniel Goh proposed for opt-in tax deferment for retrenched workers for six months. I believe that this is a point that Ms Foo Mee Har had also suggested in the Budget Debate and this was addressed by the Minister for Finance. I would just reiterate that we already allow taxpayers on IRAS' GIRO scheme to pay their income tax in up to 12 monthly interest-free instalments. A taxpayer who faces financial hardship may apply to IRAS for longer instalment plans. With regard to Mr Low Thia Khiang's query on the considerations for introducing new taxes, again, the Minister for Finance has spoken about them in his Budget Round-up Speech. Let me just reiterate a few points. First, we would all like the Government to do more, but we must always ensure that our fiscal system is one that secures a better future for the next generation and not leave them with a bigger debt burden. Any programme we put in place must be sustainable for the long term. And that is why we are studying all options carefully to determine the best way to raise revenues to support our future expenditure needs. Second, we must ensure that the overall fiscal system remains competitive, supports economic dynamism and reinforces individual effort. So, whatever adjustments we make, these key principles remain. Then, we can continue to keep our economy growing and create more jobs for Singaporeans. In this regard, Assoc Prof Randolph Tan is right that we also have to be mindful of income tax changes in other countries. Around the world, corporate income tax rates have been falling, and some countries have announced plans to further reduce their corporate income tax rates. At 17%, our corporate income tax rate is still competitive internationally.”
“We will continue to review and strengthen our regulatory and governance framework so that it is more robust and transparent. We will amend the Companies Act to allow companies registered in another jurisdiction to transfer their registration to Singapore, or what is also known as inward re-domiciliation. This will make it easier for foreign companies to relocate their businesses here to tap on Singapore's strengths and ease of doing business. We will also amend our laws to require companies and limited liability partnerships to maintain non-public registers containing the particulars of their beneficial owners, and by enhancing efforts to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. This will strengthen our position as a trusted financial centre. Besides updating our corporate regulations, we also want to ensure that our overall regulatory environment remains conducive to business innovation. As the Minister for Finance mentioned in his speech, we are creating more space for innovation through regulatory sandboxes where rules are suspended to allow for greater innovation and experimentation. And Miss Cheryl Chan is right that, in doing so, we also have to exercise judgement and make sure that we are fair to the different entities and, particularly, to ensure a level playing field that is applied to all entities that are being regulated. There are also ongoing efforts by the Pro-Enterprise Panel to address regulatory concerns that businesses face. The panel comprises both business leaders and senior public officers, and has received more than 1,900 suggestions, with over 1,000 of these leading to changes in rules or regulations. Finally, several MPs raised points about taxes.”
“Last year, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) had undertaken reviews in areas, such as the requirement on holding annual general meetings (AGMs) and filing annual returns. We will simplify these requirements to give greater clarity to companies. We will exempt all private companies from holding AGMs, provided they meet certain conditions, and we will also remove the requirement for companies and limited liability partnerships to use the common seals. This will help reduce business costs. Other than amending regulations directly, we are also cutting red tape and improving our systems and processes, to reduce compliance and regulatory transaction costs for businesses. For example, Trade Facilitation and Integrated Risk-based System (TradeFIRST) is an assessment framework that Singapore Customs uses to determine the type of trade facilitation that is to be provided to a company. The checklist was revised to reduce the number of criteria by about 50%. So, with the revised criteria, each trader can save around 14 man-hours of application time. Another example is the revamped electronic transaction system, BizFile+, which was launched by ACRA in January 2016. This system has streamlined processes, removed over 100 ad hoc fees and included mobile options for key transactions. The enhancements will benefit 450,000 registered business entities. The tax-filing process will also be improved for businesses this year. IRAS has extended tax filing using a simplified corporate tax return to companies with annual revenues of less than $5 million, instead of $1 million. This will help an additional 28,000 companies ease their tax filing compliance.”
“So, wherever possible, Government agencies will take into consideration the HR and tripartism records of tendering companies. In particular, we focus on the sectors that are more at risk of cheap-sourcing and suppressed wages, like in the cleaning, security and landscape sectors. For example, the Government buys only from accredited service providers that adopt the PWM for cleaners. And we also proactively encourage service providers to adopt the NWC guidelines on wage increments for their employees, and to factor in wage increments in multi-year contracts. As mentioned at MOM's COS yesterday, we will also be putting in place further measures to safeguard the basic employment rights of outsourced workers under Government contracts. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about capabilities in procurement. This is, indeed, an area of priority. We have started the work of building up capabilities to enable Government agencies to be smarter buyers and we will continue to do so. And this includes understanding the industry and technology well, so that we can stay on top of what the suppliers are doing and ensure that tender specifications are well crafted. So, these capabilities can help to minimise the likelihood of being locked-in to certain tenderers, especially to incumbent suppliers, which is a point that Ms Sun Xueling made just now as well. Let me touch next on how we can foster a corporate regulatory environment that allows us to be competitive whilst strengthening our reputation as a trusted international financial and business centre. I hear Dr Tan Wu Meng raised several points about corporate regulations. MOF continually reviews our corporate regulations to ensure that they remain robust yet business-friendly.”
“Tenderers were not confined to any particular approach, and a spiral contracting approach was used, which started with a proof of concept to test out the solution on JTC's premises. And then, after the proof of concept, an evaluation was made to see which is the best, and then a decision made to proceed with a full rollout of the solution. So, that is another useful approach which more and more Government agencies are adopting. Mr Zainal Sapari gave several suggestions on fair procurement practices. So, to respond to this point on policy changes that affect costs, the Government makes it a point to announce these in advance, as we have done with the introduction of PWM. This allows suppliers to factor in their higher wage costs when bidding for contracts. If a contract had started before the announcement and would continue beyond the effective date of the new policy, MOF has asked buyer agencies to accede to requests by suppliers for mutually agreed termination to allow a fresh tender to be called. On the issue of liquidated damages, I will confirm that these are not intended to be punitive. The Government's procurement rules clearly require agencies to ensure that any liquidated damages imposed are commensurate with the losses suffered if the supplier fails to fulfil contractual obligations. And we encourage the unions and suppliers to seek clarifications and give feedback to the agency involved if there appears to be unfair clauses in their tenders. Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Zainal Sapari also spoke about the Government's ability to shape labour market norms through responsible procurement, and I agree with them and the Government will do its part. We want to work with service providers who are responsible employers and who adopt good HR practices.”
“There is one more thing that we will do to promote best-sourcing practices and innovative solutions. Several Government agencies have already adopted outcome-based procurement where the desired outcomes are spelt out, giving tenderers the flexibility to propose the solution. MOF, for example, has been working with various Government agencies to implement outcome-based procurement in the cleaning, security and landscape sectors. The Ministry of Education (MOE) has been doing this for school cleaning since 2014. For example, its tenders for school cleaning list the sites to be cleaned, the quality standards and the KPIs, and tenderers have the flexibility to propose an operations plan. Various Ministries are also adopting outcome-based contracts for their security services. For example, MOM's tender for the provision of security services lists several desired performance outcomes and then invites tenderers to propose technology to optimise manpower resources. And the examples of technology that have been proposed include an automated self-service system for pass exchanges and a licence plate recognition system. So, through such outcome-based tenders, we can encourage more innovative solutions from the private sector. In situations where the results are uncertain and some experimentation is required, we are encouraging agencies to adopt a spiral contracting approach. This means that the agencies will award the project in phases, starting with a more experimental phase. If the initial experimental stages are successfully completed, then the subsequent phases of the projects are awarded to the same supplier to continue. One good example of this is what the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) did with a tender to remotely manage its facilities and estates.”
“SenseInfosys focuses on data fusion, analytics and fraud detection in military-grade intelligence projects in the security and maritime domains. Its product enables enterprises to analyse data to gain timely and accurate insights to improve their operational processes and make more informed decisions. The company was founded in 2013 and received accreditation in May 2016. It subsequently went on to win six Government projects when they were still a young company without a significant track record. Last year, the company raised $2 million from investors to help accelerate the company's growth. We are also introducing platforms to facilitate small players to take part in Government contracts. One such platform is the Government Electronic Business System (GeBIZ) Mall, which makes it easy for suppliers who want to sell to Government agencies. Under GeBIZ Mall, suppliers are given electronic "shelf-space" to sell their goods and services. Each supplier can list 10 items on their online "shelf" for free. So, Government agencies can then buy directly from these suppliers if the purchases are below $5,000, or they can call for quotations. Over the last five years, an average of 5,000 orders per year have been placed through GeBIZ Mall. This amounts to a value of $3.5 million per year and we intend to encourage greater participation on this platform. 3.30 pm We are also making it easier for agencies to buy from smaller players. GovTech has started an experiment. It is a website experiment called govBuy. This allows Government agencies to post small projects or tasks for IT programmers to work on, and no track record is required to participate on this platform. So, these are the various things we are doing.”
“Gov-PACT provides grants to SMEs and startups to collaborate with and undertake innovative projects initiated by Government agencies. SMEs and startups will be funded at various stages of product and solution development for these innovative projects. Under this scheme, SMEs and startups whose projects are approved are eligible for up to 70% funding support for the qualifying development costs. One example is the Smart Elderly Monitoring and Alert System (SEMAS), which is now being piloted in Yuhua. The system helps families take better care of elderly dependants by allowing them to monitor the safety of the elderly at home and sending them alerts when the mobile panic button is pressed during an emergency or when living patterns that are out of the norm are detected. This is a very useful system that is now being piloted. HDB worked with the SMEs that were involved to develop the business model, paired them up with telecommunications companies (telcos) and helped to deploy the system. Hopefully, this works well in the pilot and we can scale it up in more housing estates. Last year, we highlighted the Accreditation@IMDA scheme, which helps promising and innovative Singapore-based technology startups to establish their credentials. So far, the scheme has helped 59 companies by providing assistance to strengthen their products and advice on fundraising and business pitches. Seventeen of these companies have been accredited, out of which, 13 have won contracts. We expect more to do so over time and they will benefit from the $60 million of Government pipeline opportunities that have been generated to date. A good example of an SME that has benefited is SenseInfosys.”