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 24 of 25.
“Only about 5% of contracts are above $1 million. Several Members spoke about construction projects and, when we think about construction projects, we think about the big ones entailing hundreds or even billions of dollars. But, in fact, for construction contracts, about 80% of them have values that are less than $650,000 and can be carried out by contractors registered with BCA without a track record. Eighty percent of contracts in the construction sector are less than $650,000 and contractors without track record can carry them out. More than 90% of construction contracts are less than $10 million and are accessible to the smaller players. For some larger projects, where it is appropriate, the Government may call separate tenders for different parts of the contract or different parts of the project, giving smaller companies an opportunity to participate. We already do this. For example, the construction of a single Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) line is often carried out in many parts. Separate tenders may also be called for individual MRT stations, or MRT stations with connecting tunnels, depending on the complexity of the railway lines. Often, smaller companies will tender only for the "station" project, and then larger companies will tender for "station with tunnel" contracts. So, this is already happening for MRT projects. Some smaller companies have also formed consortiums with others to tender for larger and more complex projects. Third, we will help SMEs without track record to participate in Government procurement. Again, here, there were various suggestions made by Members, including Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Chen Show Mao, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Sun Xueling and Mr Yee Chia Hsing. Minister Iswaran had highlighted the new scheme called Gov-PACT in MTI's COS last week.”
“For example, at the recent Designathon 2017, organised by the DesignSingapore Council, there was a focus on developing solutions for persons with disabilities. The winning team comprised students from the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), and they developed a device for converting a manual wheelchair into an electric one at a fraction of the price of a regular electric wheelchair. Another example is an idea that emerged from HDB's Cool Ideas challenge. This is an idea for a safer gas hob because fires caused by unattended cooking cause a significant proportion of fires in residential buildings. So, the students from Republic Polytechnic and Anglo-Chinese Junior College proposed a gas hob with a safety device that cuts off the gas supply when the flame goes out, preventing fires. They worked with City Gas, the company, and Aerogaz, commercialised the idea and eventually brought this to market in 2015. So, crowdsourcing is a useful platform for the Government to engage the community, small players and come up with more innovative solutions. Second, Government agencies will continue to ensure that tenders are appropriately sized to give SMEs a chance to compete for them, as suggested by Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Henry Kwek. Here, a balance needs to be struck. Some contracts need to be of a large enough size for the supplier to invest in innovative solutions or technology to improve productivity. At the same time, Government agencies are interested in ensuring that tenders are not too large that only a very small number of suppliers can tender for the project. That is why, even today, a very high proportion of about 90% of contracts called by Government agencies each year are below $100,000 in value. There were more than 30,000 of such contracts in 2016.”
“In fact, it was forced to work hard to maintain a lean and efficient operation and it rose to the occasion and delivered good service to the SAF in competition with foreign suppliers. That is the approach we should take – maintain stringent standards in Government procurement. Ensure that these standards are fair, transparent and offer value for public monies. But, at the same time, as we go about this work, we also build capabilities in our businesses and SMEs and give them maximum opportunities to win Government procurement tenders on their own merit. I think this is a better approach than to artificially set aside a certain proportion of Government tenders for SMEs. If Members look at the statistics, so far, our SMEs are doing quite well. Each year, over 80% of Government contracts, comprising about half of total Government contract value, go to SMEs. So, 80% of the number of contracts and about half of contract value, go to SMEs. This is a respectable result even when compared to developed countries like the UK and the US. By the number of contracts, more than 40% were won by companies with revenues of less than $10 million. And of these contracts, almost half were won by micro-enterprises with revenues of less than $1 million. Going forward, we will continue to do more through Government procurement. So, let me elaborate on some of the measures. First, Government agencies are making use of crowdsourcing methods to look for solutions. This approach is ideal for the Government to partner businesses, the community and individuals to reach out to smaller players to provide innovative solutions, which several Members spoke about.”
“We are also very proud that AGD clinched the "best mobile Government service award" at the World Government Summit last month. Next, let me highlight how we support businesses through Government procurement. Many Members spoke on this issue and asked that the Government do more to support local companies, especially SMEs, through procurement. I understand these sentiments. Indeed, Government procurement has played a useful role over the years in spurring lead demand and building capabilities in certain industries like defence and water. But let us also remember that Government procurement must, first and foremost, abide by the key principles of fairness, transparency and value-for-money. Our procurement processes are also governed by a clear set of rules, with checks and balances, calibrated to the value and risk of the purchase. This is a point that Ms Sun Xueling made and also about the need to have safeguards against potential abuses. In our desire to help companies, we must never compromise our principles of Government procurement. I am glad, listening carefully to all the speeches made by Members, none of you has suggested doing so. Government support should not become a crutch for uncompetitive companies. I remember what the former civil servant Mr Philip Yeo used to tell us about his work at the Chartered Industries of Singapore (CIS). He was Chair of CIS for many years. CIS, Members would recall, was set up as an independent corporate entity to manufacture small arms ammunition for the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). As Mr Philip Yeo used to remind us, then Defence Minister Dr Goh Keng Swee was insistent that CIS be treated on an arms-length basis − it had to bid for MINDEF work in competition with other foreign suppliers. So, CIS was motivated.”
“The Business Grants Portal was announced last year during the Budget. It is a one-stop shop for businesses to identify and apply for the right grant. The portal now offers six grants, including SPRING's Capability Development Grant. By the end of this year, businesses can look forward to four more grants, including the Building and Construction Authority's (BCA's) Mechanisation Credits and the National Park Board's (NPark's) Landscape Productivity Grant. So, we will continue to review and streamline the grant application process. For licence applications, we have rolled out LicenceOne progressively since 2014 to provide businesses with a one-stop business licensing portal. The portal contains several pro-business features, like an integrated application for multiple licences from different agencies and an integrated dashboard to check the status of applications. Currently, there are over 80 licences from 16 agencies on LicenceOne and, by FY2017, more than 100 licences will be available. Payment is also an important transaction for businesses and we will improve the e-payment landscape to make it more convenient for businesses to transact with the Government. In June 2016, the Accountant-General's Department (AGD) launched the Vendors@Gov mobile app which caters specifically to the needs of SMEs that transact frequently with the Government. Sixty-five percent of these businesses have since downloaded the app. In addition to submitting electronic invoices to Government agencies, these businesses can also receive alerts on the status of their invoices and accounts and keep track of their projected cash flows. So, this will save businesses precious time. Indeed, within three months of the launch, we saw a 21% drop in the number of payment-related enquiries.”
“Later this year, all SingPass users will be able to make use of this MyInfo service to automatically prefill their basic details like the name, National Registration Identity Card (NRIC), address and contact number, as soon as an online form loads. So, it will be an automatic click and the information will be provided. By 2018, citizens can look forward to this convenience for more than 150 Government digital services. To extend these benefits to the commercial sector, we will embark on a pilot for citizens to use MyInfo when opening bank accounts. This will begin in the second quarter of 2017 with the Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC), United Overseas Bank (UOB), Development Bank of Singapore (DBS) and Standard Chartered Bank. We will also continue to make e-payment more convenient, seamless and user-friendly for citizens. Minister Vivian had already spoken about this earlier and our plans to enable the transferring of funds on a mobile phone. We are also exploring a one-stop platform for citizens to make payments to the Government through their mobile phones. This can potentially consolidate bills from different agencies, saving citizens the trouble of having to go through multiple channels. Third, we will continue to improve Government digital services for businesses. In the same survey that we did last year, we found that 65% of businesses were satisfied with the Government's digital services. This compares against the 77% satisfaction rate for citizens which I highlighted earlier. So, clearly there is still more work that we need to do on the business side. Many businesses need to go through the process of applying for grants and Government licences. So, we will strive to make these transactions more convenient.”
“As Minister of State Janil Puthucheary shared yesterday at MCI's COS, we also need to ensure that our digital services do not leave the elderly and the less tech-savvy behind, and extra support must always be there to help them when they need it. One example is the Silver Infocomm Initiative which helps our elderly stay connected. Our aim is to make Government digital services more pervasive, more user-friendly for both businesses and citizens, young and old. We want users to be able to transact smoothly with minimal assistance. Let me outline three broad approaches to achieve this. First, we will do more to customise digital services to the needs of different stakeholders. Several Government agencies have already been doing this. I am glad that Mr Liang mentioned just now the efforts of IRAS. Indeed, in January this year, IRAS released the first phase of its redesigned MyTax Portal, which is more intuitive and mobile-optimised so that you can file taxes on your smartphone. Of the users surveyed, 90% expressed no difficulty in accessing the services after the revamp, as compared to 40% before. So, it is a significant improvement. 3.15 pm Second, we will leverage technology to simplify and streamline online services. As Ms Foo Mee Har mentioned just now, one inconvenience and constant bugbear that Members hear from people is that they have to submit the same data repeatedly to different Government agencies. To address this, we launched MyInfo last year which allows citizens to automatically fill up digital forms with just one click. So, this will reduce the time spent filling up forms or having to submit supporting documents like the CPF statement repeatedly to different agencies.”
“And we are continuing with this effort to more proactively use technology and data to improve our service delivery. In fact, now, we are giving this a much bigger push with our Smart Nation efforts which Minister Vivian Balakrishnan highlighted and shared last Thursday. Our Digital Government efforts form an important part of the overall Smart Nation strategy. Here, MOF works closely with the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI), the Public Service Division (PSD), the Smart Nation Programme Office and GovTech to drive the Digital Government agenda by setting clear goals and maintaining central oversight. These goals include enhancing the efficiency of our services and ensuring that citizens and businesses are satisfied with them. As of 2015, nearly 90% of the most frequently used Government transactions can be conducted online. This is a significant increase from 76% in 2013. Based on a survey conducted last year, 77% of citizens said that they were very satisfied with Government digital services. Our efforts have also received international recognition. In 2016, we maintained the top position on two rankings − the World Economic Forum's Global Information Technology Report Index as well as the Waseda-International Academy of Chief Information Officer (CIO) International e-Government ranking. These are international surveys which rank countries according to their efforts, results and potential in the area of Digital Government. While we have done well, we should not be complacent. Advances in digital technologies are evolving rapidly and we have to keep up.”
“First, how the Government can help to build a stronger economy through digitalisation of Government services, procurement, corporate regulations and taxes. Second, there were queries on accountability, especially in relation to the Government's Budget and Government-linked companies. Third, areas to finetune our social schemes and programmes. I will address the cuts on the first topic and Senior Minister of State Indranee will take the other cuts. Madam, the key driver of the economy is our people and enterprises. But the Government can and will play an important enabling and facilitative role. Our efforts so far have yielded results. At the Budget Debate earlier, the Finance Minister mentioned the improvements in productivity growth over the recent years. Here, I would like to just clarify that he was, in fact, referring to the period from 2009, which was the year the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) based its recommendations, to 2016, and productivity growth in that period, as measured by value-added per worker, was 2.1% per annum. If we look at real value-added (VA) per actual hour worked, in other words, VA per hour, not VA per worker, so VA per hour, which is internationally viewed as a better measure of labour productivity growth, was 2.6% per annum over the same period. These are positive results and we must build on this momentum. Digitalisation efforts in the Public Service can play a role in our transformation efforts, and here I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Saktiandi Supaat for their suggestions. Our efforts to build a Digital Government are not new. In fact, they started in the 1980s when we first pushed for computerisation in a big way in the Public Service.”
“Between 1997 and 2007, expenditure on social transfers rose as a proportion of total expenditures from 1.4% to 2.6%. By 2016, this had risen to 8%. Madam, in 2017, we are seeing a slight pull-back. But the abovementioned total expenditures do not include special transfers. According to the detailed proposal for Budget 2017, on top of the $4 billion worth of social transfers, Special Transfers to Singaporean households will cost half a billion dollars, while Special Transfers to businesses, which include Workfare, will cost $2.1 billion. The current Budget continues with a regular practice of giving payouts which benefit very large numbers of recipients. For example, the one-off Special Payment will reach more than 1.3 million Singaporeans. Both the U-Save rebates and the S&CC rebates reach about 880,000 HDB households. Unlike targeted schemes, because of the broad coverage, such payouts are spread very thin. Regular payouts of this sort are diffused in their impact and are not directly linked to structural outcomes. There is no doubt that they play an important role in easing the transition to policy changes. But if they become more or less permanent, their value for this purpose becomes diminished. I am not asking for all forms of short-term reliefs to be curtailed. But we have to decide if it is a good idea for short-term relief to become more or less permanent entitlements. We should move away from a situation where households compete for more Government handouts towards the creation of a support structure that has forward-looking objectives. The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mdm Chairman, I thank the Members for their comments and questions for MOF. Three broad topics have been raised by Members.”
“On the other hand, richer families whose parents live apart from them will continue to benefit from the schemes since their elderly parents stand to receive subsidies. Support for such families, I respectfully submit, subverts the policy intent behind the schemes. Minister Lim Swee Say, referring to the Silver Support Scheme, candidly recognises this anomaly in Parliament on 13 September 2016. He further postulated the possibility of migrating to a per capita family income basis at some point in the future. I respectfully suggest that the faster the Government migrate to a per capita family income basis as a criterion, the better. With the migration, we will get a more accurate picture of the number of families at the relevant percentile level where the schemes are supposed to kick in and provide help. Once we get a more accurate picture, we can even provide a higher level of subsidy for low-income families from the subsidies redirected from richer families whose parents live separately without increasing the budget. In this regard, I urge the Government to leverage data analytics to build our family trees. I also further suggest that we look at the Japanese family registration system known as the "koseki". GST Vouchers and U-Save Rebates Assoc Prof Randolph Tan: Mdm Chairman, in 2007, expenditure on social transfers was 3.3 times that in 1997. In Budget 2017, expenditure on social transfers is more than six times that in 2007. On average, over the last 20 years, social transfer expenditures have been growing about three times the rate of growth in total expenditures. And this growth has accelerated, with the last 10 years seeing much faster growth than a decade before.”
“Madam, many of our social assistance schemes or initiatives look at the gross total monthly household income or monthly household income per capita as a means-test or criterion for eligibility. Some examples are eligibility for the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) or the Silver Support Scheme. While household income may generally be a good indicator of need, I am concerned that there are situations where this criterion may paradoxically penalise those who have no choice but to live together with their families because of, amongst others, their financial situation. For example, to be eligible for CHAS, an applicant's household monthly income per person must be $1,800 or below. Elderly persons without incomes who live apart from their working children would likely be able to meet this criterion and be eligible for CHAS. However, if they were to live together with their working children, the total household income per person may be beyond the $1,800 threshold. In such an event, they would not be eligible for CHAS. I recognise that family care and support should be the first and most important port of call. However, household income as a criterion may have an asymmetrical effect on particularly our sandwich middle-income families who live with and support their elderly parents and parents-in-law. In such cases, where married couples have to support two sets of elderly parents as well as their children who all live in the same household, this may create a significant financial pressure on the couple even when the combined household income or household income per capita does not fall within the threshold amount for obtaining assistance.”
“Mdm Chair, I thank the learned Senior Minister of State for her explanation. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $231,266,100 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $138,006,500 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“" The current Oaths and Declarations Act, when it was first enacted in 2000, combined what was previously the Oaths Act, the Oaths of Office and Allegiance Act and the Statutory Declarations Act. Section 4 of the Act allows persons giving evidence to take an oath. Based on current Court practice and the Act, only persons of the Christian faith are allowed to take oaths when giving evidence. All other persons must make affirmations. It is noteworthy that the original Oaths Act enacted in 1890 contained a provision which allowed a person to give evidence on oath "in any form common amongst or held binding by persons of the race or persuasion to which he belongs, and not repugnant to justice or decency". This provision was, however, repealed when the current Act was enacted in 2000 on the basis the repealed provision was largely historical and intended to cater to our largely migrant society in the past where different communities carried with them different customs on how oaths were to be made. I propose that the current practice in Courts and under the Act be updated so as to allow persons of all faiths to take oaths in accordance with their religious beliefs when giving evidence in Courts, deposing affidavits or making statutory declarations. This may be viewed as a technical point but, in my respectful view, is nonetheless an important symbolic point that is in keeping with our nation's values and better serve the objective behind the taking of the oath that I outlined earlier. This also accords with the practice in major common law jurisdictions, such as Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom (UK). For example, the UK Oaths Act 1978 expressly enables persons of all faiths to take either oaths or affirmations as they see fit. [(proc text) Question proposed.”
“Mdm Chair, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head E of the Estimates be reduced by $100." I would like to declare my interest as a litigation lawyer in private practice. The Singapore Judiciary is widely recognised as being amongst the most efficient and responsive judiciaries globally, dispensing justice with independence, integrity and impartiality. The visibility of the Singapore Judiciary has increased over the years, especially with the launch of the Singapore International Commercial Court in 2015. 4.45 pm Our Judiciary is also a progressive one which continually looks to anticipate future developments in the legal industry and profession. This is evident from the various Judiciary-led initiatives and reforms, such as collaboration between the Family Justice Courts and the Singapore Mediation Centre, to provide parties with more options to settle their family disputes amicably, the reforms to the medical litigation process, and leading the charge for the increasing use of technology in the way law is practised and justice dispensed. As we continue to strengthen our status as a regional and global legal hub, I propose we update our Court practice of taking oaths in Singapore when giving evidence, to bring this in line with the practice in other major common law jurisdictions and better reflect our nation's multi-religious values and expectations of witnesses who give evidence in our Courts. Let me start off by outlining the purpose behind taking an oath. I quote from a Canadian case: "[T]he object of the law in requiring an oath is to get at the truth relative to matters in dispute by getting a hold on the conscience of the witness.”
“Mdm Chair, may I ask the hon Senior Minister of State whether there are any steps to be taken to improve the process for the grant of non-contentious probate administrative matters? In my cut, I mentioned that the system basically has not changed and, even for non-contentious matters, the persons involved would have to make a Court application and involve lawyers as well.”
“In our push towards digitisation and the greater use of data analytics, we should think about how to best harness the benefits of the digital age to improve our community services. Perhaps, a good comparison could be the Silver Support Scheme which is automatically extended to Singaporeans aged 65 and above who meet certain criteria. Perhaps, the Ministry could consider looking into how we may similarly use available personal information to shorten or simplify the procedure of obtaining a grant in non-contentious probate and administration cases.”
“Mdm Chair, I declare my interest as a disputes lawyer in private practice. In 2016, we saw significant positive changes in Singapore's legal industry arising from moves spearheaded by MinLaw. Amongst others, we launched the SIM University (UniSIM) School of Law to train lawyers in family and criminal law. We amended our laws to allow for third-party funding framework in the realm of international arbitration and enacted the Mediation Act to improve the framework for commercial mediation. These are important steps to diversify and add depth to the legal industry and to support our push to be Asia's leading disputes resolution hub. In our push to be the leading legal commercial hub, we must continue to upgrade services to those who require bread-and-butter justice. We must continue to ensure that justice is accessible and available to individuals when they need it. One such area is in non-contentious probate and administration matters. Currently, when a loved one has passed away leaving behind a property, an administrator or executor will have to be appointed by the Court to administer the estate. The administrator or executor will usually be a family member of the deceased. However, before the family member is legally recognised as an executor or administrator, he would first have to apply to Court for a Grant of Probate or Letter of Administration. This process involves the Courts and involves engaging lawyers and may be time-consuming. Even when the grant is not contentious and straightforward, the process of making the application and finally obtaining the grant takes months. I also note that the caseload for probate matters in the Family Justice Court has increased over the years, by about 26%, between 2011 and 2015.”
“Mdm Chair, let me first congratulate the Ministry and the Home Team for their achievements last year in keeping Singapore safe and secure. Our crime rates continue to be low and responses to emergency calls remained prompt. Overall, residents feel safe in their neighbourhoods and public confidence in the Home Team continued to be high. 2.30 pm These are commendable achievements in the face of increasing threats to peace and security globally. Of course, the heavy responsibility of protecting Singapore does not and should not rest on the Ministry and the Home Team alone. We must recognise that this is a collective responsibility which requires the combined effort of all of us who call Singapore our home. The Ministry nonetheless has to take the leading role in coordinating this effort. Apart from what has already been done, how does the Ministry propose to further strengthen its partnership with the community in the combat against crime, corruption and terrorism?”
“Notwithstanding the points that I have made, I support the Budget. In my view, the hon Minister for Finance has, in his speech, properly identified the main economic challenges that we face as a country and clearly outlined a rigorous plan to strengthen our economy and allow us, as a nation, to continue to move forward together. In this regard, I respectfully disagree with the hon Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Goh's categorisation of this Budget as a minimalist Budget. A cursory review of these Budget details will reveal otherwise. Just for an example, $600 million is being set aside for the Wage Credit Scheme to allow companies to use this Scheme to pay wage rises for Singaporeans. In particular, the serious investment in relation to helping Singaporeans deepen their skills, companies to deepen their partnerships, and to basically look out for opportunities in the digitalisation space. So, this is far from being a static Budget. It is a Budget that would allow us to reposition ourselves and focus on the opportunities for the future.”
“I note that the industry consultation on the proposed carbon tax will take place from March 2017 with the final carbon tax and exact implementation schedule decided thereafter. In principle, I support the premise behind the imposition of a carbon tax; that Singapore should do her part to address climate change, to create a sustainable environmental future for our children and generations after. Indicating a carbon tax range, as opposed to a specific rate, however, may create some uncertainty as companies would not be in a position to properly make business decisions in anticipation of the precise carbon tax rate which can be anywhere between 10% and 20% per year. This may have knock-on effects, for example, companies prematurely passing costs to consumers in advance of the implementation of the tax, something we must certainly guard against, or not provisioning or investing sufficiently to mitigate the effects of the carbon tax on their businesses. As a comparison, with respect to the GST, the Government issued a White Paper on GST on 9 February 1993, in which the 3% rate was stated. Thereafter, the GST Bill was introduced later in the same month with the rate of 3% also stipulated in the Bill itself. Further, during the debate of the GST Bill in Parliament the following month, the Government gave an undertaking that the GST rate of 3% would not be changed for at least five years. For the above reasons, I respectfully suggest that the consultations be speeded up and a decision be made as soon as practicable on the precise carbon tax rate, the implementation schedule and the measures to ease the transition for affected companies. With the uncertainty removed, the companies will be able to focus on the improvements they need to make to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
“In this way, SMEs may, in appropriate situations, utilise the framework to obtain payment on overdue invoices. The next point I wish to make concerns the Wage Credit Scheme. Under this Scheme, the Government co-funds 40% of wage increases for Singaporean employees earning gross monthly salaries of $4,000, which is roughly about the 50th percentile of wages in Singapore, and below. This Scheme is extended by two years under the Government's plan to continue supporting businesses. As may be recalled, the Wage Credit Scheme was introduced in Budget 2013. The purpose behind the Scheme is to help businesses cope with rising wage costs in a tight labour market. The idea is to encourage businesses to invest in and make productivity gains. These gains are to be shared with the employees. In light of the Government's decision to extend the Scheme, may I please ask if the assessment in this economic climate is still that the businesses are continuing to face a tight labour market vis-à-vis employees at the 50th percentile of wages and below? Also, I would be grateful if the Minister could please let us know whether the effort to improve productivity amongst the businesses participating in the Scheme is paying off. I do appreciate it may be difficult to get details or data on a specific industry basis, but perhaps, at least at the general level. Without the linkage to productivity and sharing of the gains with the employees, we run the danger of providing just a wage subsidy which, given the second extension of this Scheme, may become a crutch for the Government. This is something we should avoid. Finally, I refer to the Government's plan to implement a carbon tax at a rate of between $10 and $20 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions from 2019 on upstream emitters.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I have three points to make in my speech. First, in connection with the Government's measures to support businesses, I wish to highlight the cash flow problems faced by some SMEs arising from big companies holding back on prompt settlement of their invoices. From feedback received, some big companies leverage on their economic power against SMEs by delaying payment on invoices for goods and services. If the shoe was on the other foot, these big companies may not hesitate to impose interest for late payment in addition to the principal amounts. Micro SMEs are in particular vulnerable because, on one hand, they do not want to upset the commercial relationship with the big companies. Yet, on the other hand, especially in a period of slow economic growth, the delay in payment may tip the SMEs to cash flow difficulties, higher litigation risk and even insolvency. To ameliorate the effect on these SMEs, I have two suggestions. First, I wonder if the Government could consider extending the scope of the SME Working Capital Loan, under which the Government assumes the risk for loan defaults, to allow SMEs to collateralise their receivables owed by big companies for loans at low interest rates. This would give SMEs more flexibility in managing their cash flow. Whilst factoring arrangements may be available to SMEs, this comes at a cost and means a further erosion of their profit margin. Second, I suggest that the framework in the BCA Security of Payment Act for the building and construction industry, which allows the employer to make payments directly to a subcontractor when the main contractor fails to do so, be extended to other industries where such multi-tiered relationships also exist.”
“Given the potential risks of third-party funding highlighted earlier, it may be preferable for third-party funders to be subject to some level of supervision, something that the hon Member, Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, raised in his speech. Would the Senior Minister of State consider whether there should be some form of regulation and supervision over third-party funders in Singapore, whether by the Ministry, Statutory Board, Government body, or by a self-regulatory body, to ensure and enforce compliance with statutory qualifications and regulations? As a matter of parity, I note that the local insurance broker of ATE insurance is regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. The insurers themselves are regulated at their places of business. The Hong Kong Law Reform Commission has highlighted some risks with third-party funding, including the risk of money laundering. Would it not be better for a regulator to be vested with statutory oversight, with the degree and extent of regulatory control to be adjusted accordingly? Without providing for a regulator and simultaneously providing for a light-touch approach right from the word "go" would run the risk of not providing adequate safeguards to protect the public's interest. To conclude, while further clarification and clarity on the ambit, extent of regulation and supervision of the activities of third-party funders in Singapore would be welcome, I support the Bill in principle.”
“The extent to which regulatory requirements apply may also be adjusted, depending on the value of the claims. This may incentivise third-party funders to provide funding for smaller value claims, such as District Court claims, where they may not ordinarily do so. Separately, I also note that the proposed new section 5B of the Bill provides that where a funder ceases to be a qualifying funder, the rights of the third-party funder under the funding contract are not enforceable but the Court or arbitral tribunal may grant relief if it is satisfied that the disqualification or non-compliance was accidental or due to some other sufficient cause. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State why it is being left to the Court or arbitral tribunal to "police" third-party funders in this manner, especially when the qualifying criteria are prescribed by the Minister in the proposed regulations. Would the relevant Ministry not be in a better position to determine if the qualifications and requirements have been met? In the UK, third-party funders are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority in connection with their asset management activities and supervised by the Association of Litigation Funders (ALF), which is an independent body that has been charged by the UK Ministry of Justice with delivering self-regulation of litigation funding. The Association also oversees and administers a complaints procedure in respect of third-party funders. In Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission is considering whether the development and supervision of the applicable ethical and financial standards should be conducted by a statutory body or a self-regulatory body.”
“A key group of potential beneficiaries for third-party litigation funding are small and medium enterprises facing cash flow issues but who may have legitimate claims. I accept that there could be reasons for excluding third-party litigation funding for certain types of claims where there may be greater potential for abuse, such as personal injury claims. I propose that, in lieu, we should consider providing better assistance for these "sandwich class" litigants who do not qualify for legal aid, for example, by enhancing the Litigants in Person programme or the Primary Justice Project. Thirdly and finally, I note that there has been an increasing concern over the extent of control third-party funders may exert over the dispute resolution proceedings. In the UK, litigation funding contracts may still be struck down as being contrary to public policy if it confers disproportionate control of the claim upon the funder. After all, the common law rules against champerty were developed to protect vulnerable litigants and to guard against third-party interference in legal proceedings to protect the integrity of the judicial process. In the 2011 consultation on the International Arbitration Act, the Ministry had proposed safeguards to third-party funding, to minimise potential abuse, such as restricting third-party funding by stipulating the permissible categories of practice areas, threshold claim value and minimum capital adequacy of third-party funders. May I please ask, in broad policy terms, what we can expect to be covered in the regulations that will be issued if the Bill is passed? In light of the potential risks of third-party funding, does the Ministry intend to impose further requirements so as to safeguard against the potential abuse of third-party funding?”
“Additionally, allowing third-party funding in the context of litigation and domestic arbitration would also allow litigants to pursue their legitimate claims where they may not have been able to do so. In the preliminary report on the review of civil litigation costs in the UK in 2009 commissioned by the UK judiciary, also known as the Jackson Report, it was reported that there was a range of third-party funders in the UK, which provided funding in respect of claims of minimum values ranging from £150,000 to £25 million. The same situation could also happen in Singapore where certain third-party funders may choose to cater to a target group of litigants or a portfolio of small claims for commercial considerations. The Jackson Report cited five reasons why third-party funding in civil litigation is beneficial and should be supported. I wish to highlight three of these. First, third-party funding provides an additional means of funding litigation and, for some parties, the only means of funding litigation. Thus, third-party funding promotes access to justice. Second, although a successful claimant with third-party funding forgoes a percentage of his damages, it is better for him to recover a substantial part of his damages than to recover nothing at all. Third, third-party funding tends to filter out unmeritorious cases, because funders will not take on risks of such cases. This benefits the opposing parties. Therefore, if section 5A is intended to allow third-party funding only in the context of international arbitration, I urge a reconsideration of this position and to also allow third-party funding for litigation and domestic arbitration.”
“More fundamentally, if the objective of section 5A is to allow third-party funding contracts in the context of international arbitration only, I would like to ask the hon Senior Minister of State what is the basis for permitting third-party funding in the context of international arbitration but not litigation and domestic arbitration? This is especially where After the Event (ATE) insurance is already available for both arbitration and litigation. ATE insurance provides coverage for legal costs, subject to an agreed limit of indemnity. It is essentially a risk management tool that allows parties to limit their exposure to costs if they are unsuccessful. Further, the policy considerations of third-party funding in the context of international arbitration to enhance Singapore as an international hub for commercial dispute resolution are also equally applicable to disputes litigated in the Singapore Courts, especially the Singapore International Commercial Court, which was designed to enable parties to avoid some of the problems often encountered in international arbitration and to encourage litigants to use Singapore as a hub to resolve transnational commercial disputes. In respect of domestic arbitrations, I would like to highlight that the International Arbitration Act allows parties to a non-international arbitration to agree that the provisions of the International Arbitration Act would apply to the arbitration, thereby turning it to an international arbitration. Therefore, parties to a domestic arbitration who wish to avail themselves of third-party funding may circumvent the proposed section 5B restrictions against third-party funding for domestic arbitrations in this manner.”
“However, I wish to highlight that in the UK, the UK courts have allowed third-party funding contracts for both litigation and arbitrations. In fact, the UK court in the same case that I had mentioned earlier recognised that third-party funding "is a feature of modern litigation". Yet, the proposed section 5B of the Bill, read with the proposed regulations, appears to allow only third-party funding in Singapore in the context of international arbitration, at least for now. Given that the proposed section 5A is similar to the UK provision which allows third-party funding for both litigation and arbitration, could the Senior Minister of State please clarify why it could not be left to the Singapore Courts to determine what contracts can be enforced or what contracts may be contrary to public policy? In this regard, I wish to further highlight that the Singapore High Court, in a 2015 case, has already demonstrated a willingness to uphold third-party funding arrangements for litigation in the specific area of corporate insolvency. Second, if the objective of section 5A is to specifically allow third-party funding contracts in the context of international arbitration, would it not be more appropriate for the International Arbitration Act to be amended, instead of amending the Civil Law Act, which has a far wider scope? This is, in fact, the approach being contemplated in Hong Kong, where the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission is considering amendments to the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance. I also note that in 2011, the MinLaw had, in fact, consulted the general public on whether third-party funding should be allowed in international arbitration in the context of proposed amendments to the International Arbitration Act.”
“Mdm Speaker, I wish to first declare my interest as a litigation lawyer in private practice. The Civil Law (Amendment) Bill seeks to amend the Civil Law Act to abolish the common law tort of maintenance and champerty in Singapore and to allow third-party funders to provide funding in certain categories of dispute resolution proceedings, namely, international arbitration proceedings under the International Arbitration Act and related dispute resolution proceedings arising therefrom. The amendments aim to ensure that Singapore remains a premier international commercial dispute resolution hub. I support this economic objective. There is, equally, another important objective that we should look at. Third-party funding allows commercial funders to enable a funded party to litigate what the funder perceives to be a legitimate case. In this manner, third-party funding facilitates access to justice by enabling parties who may not have sufficient financial means to prosecute their genuine dispute to do so. Whilst facilitation of access to justice may not be the main motivation of a commercial funder who is focused on making a return on his investment, as recently recognised by the UK Court of Appeal in November last year, it is nonetheless "true that the facilitation of access to justice is an incidental by-product of commercial funding". I take this opportunity to comment on and seek clarification on the following areas of the Bill. First, I note that the wording of the new section 5A appears to be adopted from the UK provisions which also abolished the tort of maintenance and champerty under English law. Also similar to the UK provision, section 5A(2) maintains the law on maintenance and champerty in the context of the enforceability of contracts as a matter of public policy.”
“While we should not go so far as to mandate mediation before litigation as this would be an unwarranted restraint on an individual's right of access to Court, we should do as much as possible to encourage pre-action mediation and incentivise parties to do so. Second, with respect to litigants who are represented by the Legal Aid Bureau in civil claims not involving family matters, I note that, pursuant to section 16(1) of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, aided persons are generally not liable to pay legal costs. There is, therefore, no structural incentive for legally aided persons to mediate their disputes that are the subject of Court proceedings. In addition, legal aid is granted only in relation to civil proceedings in the Courts under the First Schedule to the Legal Aid and Advice Act, not mediation. Since costs of legally aided persons are borne by the state and it is plainly obvious that pre-action mediation can result in significant savings of cost and time, I wonder if legal aid may be extended to cover mediation as well. I further suggest that it be provided that aided persons in pending Court proceedings be obliged to comply with advice by their assigned solicitors to submit their cases for mediation. To conclude, I believe the Mediation Bill will achieve the objectives of enhancing and strengthening the mediation framework in Singapore to facilitate the resolution of disputes by mediation. I support the Bill.”
“Could the Senior Minister of State kindly clarify if the policy intention behind the Mediation Bill vis a vis litigation in the Courts is to promote mediation as a mainstream form of dispute resolution mechanism rather than an alternative dispute resolution, that is, to encourage parties, especially commercial parties, to turn to pre-action mediation to resolve their disputes before resorting to litigation or arbitration? If so, I wonder if the Mediation Bill can be strengthened even further to encourage parties to refer their dispute to mediation before litigating by providing for a suspension or extension of the limitation period for instituting litigation or arbitration of a case that is being mediated. Currently, in Singapore, a party wishing to mediate has to either obtain the agreement of the other party to suspend the limitation period, or to first commence proceedings and seek a stay of proceedings while the mediation takes place. In contrast, pursuant to the European Union (EU) Mediation Directive applicable to cross-border disputes, EU member states are required to ensure that the limitation period shall be extended during the period of the mediation process. Some criticism may be levied that allowing the limitation period to be suspended while mediation takes place may be abused by parties as a tactical manoeuvre to buy more time to commence a claim. While this is possible, I wish to highlight that mediation is, at its core, a voluntary process. It is open to a party to withdraw from a mediation process if it is of the view that the other party is not genuinely interested in mediating to resolve the dispute amicably, or it is using the mediation process to obtain an advantage in respect of the limitation period.”
“Mdm Speaker, I first wish to declare my interest as a dispute resolution lawyer in private practice. The Mediation Bill serves to introduce a coherent mediation framework in Singapore on various aspects of mediation currently dealt with by agreement between parties to mediation, such as issues of confidentiality and enforceability of mediated settlement agreements. I support the objectives of the Bill, including the economic objectives outlined by the learned Senior Minister of State earlier in her speech. I take this opportunity to seek clarification on the policy underpinnings of the Bill in two areas. With the recent launches of SIMC and the Singapore International Mediation Institute, we have made much further inroads into encouraging mediation as a cost- effective form of dispute resolution for potential litigants and in attracting such work into Singapore. Indeed, I note that the Courts are now empowered to take the parties' conduct, including conduct in relation to whether the disputes were or were not submitted to mediation, into account when making decisions about costs at the end of proceedings. In a parallel development in the United Kingdom (UK) occurring in July last year, it was recommended by Lord Justice Briggs in his Final Report of the UK Civil Courts Structure Review that "resolution by parties [be made] a normal part of civil dispute resolution, rather than something alternative to the mainstream." In his words, the recommendation seeks to "take the 'A' out of ADR", or alternative dispute resolution.”
“Yes, Mdm Speaker. In any event, the suggestion embedded in the Parliamentary Questions prevent the tail wagging the dog because, for the vast majority of motorists, of course, they are compliant. We are only talking about a small percentage.”
“I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his comprehensive response. May I ask whether the Ministry is of the view that the current system adequately ensures road safety, given that, presently, a person who attains the age of 18 and gets a driving licence has no requirement to update on any adverse conditions until he reaches the age of 65? Secondly, the experience of countries, such as the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia, which mandate the reporting obligation, as set out in the questions, and also the experience in the UK, in terms of statistics, in 2011, it was reported that 7% of fatal accidents were caused by motorists having illnesses or disabilities. I understand that Singapore's experience is a bit different. But in Singapore, we do not have yet an obligation to self-report or for a health professional to report in relation to disabilities that their patients may have. And in relation to the possible limited effectiveness of motorists' self-reporting, by and large, Singaporeans take their social responsibilities seriously. In any event —”
“Mdm Speaker, may I just clarify. I am talking about interactions among young children. Things may happen between them, for example, while walking to canteen and then one pushes another, injuries are sustained. So, in those circumstances, would there be insurance coverage? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Like what I have said earlier, we have to look at the nature of the interaction. If it happens in school and if he is injured as a result of the interaction, we, on our part, will do our best to ensure that the students are protected. Nevertheless, we have to look at the nature, the real nature, of the incident. Because to say that everything is covered is a sweeping statement. At the end of the day, it is the nature of how it happened. Nevertheless, I want to assure the House that we try to protect our students as much as possible because we know as they grow up in school, there may be activities that they engage in which sometimes may be grey. At the end of the day, sometimes, they may not be aware of what they do. Nevertheless, this protection will provide them coverage and also give assurance to the parents that whatever the students do, the schools will really look after their welfare and also want to make sure that the students are well-protected.”
“Mdm Speaker, may I ask the hon Parliamentary Secretary whether injuries sustained by students – as a result interactions between students, as opposed to Page: 11 school activities or CCAs per se – within school premises, would they be covered by insurance, please? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: We have cases when students carry out activities together, even though it is not part of CCA but it is an activity in school and they are injured, we will have to work with the insurance companies to see the nature of the injury. Nevertheless, we will try our best to see the circumstances of how it happens and see how we can facilitate the coverage of the insurance.”
“Section 23B(4) of the Australian Privacy Act also provides for an escalation mechanism, where an individual dissatisfied with the decision may first complain to the credit reporting body or the credit provider itself and, thereafter, make a further complaint to an external dispute resolution provider, such as the credit ombudsman service or the information commissioner. While the Bill does not contain similar provisions, I note that section 22 of the PDPA provides for correction of personal data, and section 28 provides for the Personal Data Protection Commissioner to review a refusal to correct data. I further note that the provisions of the Bill are in addition to the PDPA and the definition of "personal data" in the latter Act is broad enough to include data, as defined in this Bill. In the circumstances, could the Minister please confirm that despite sections 18 and 35 of the Bill requiring the LCBs to investigate correction requests, consumers would not have access to such investigation findings and their only recourse against the LCB's refusal to correct the data is to apply to the Personal Data Protection Commissioner to review under section 28 of the PDPA. To conclude, notwithstanding my concerns in the three areas, namely, the regulatory framework vis-à-vis licensed moneylenders, treatment of confidential information at the hands of third parties and dealing with data disputes, I agree that formal supervision of credit bureaus and their members is needed to safeguard consumer credit information. I support the Bill.”
“Sections 18 and 35 of the Bill allows the customer to request that the LCB and the approved member correct an error of omission in any data that has been processed by the LCB or is in the possession and control of the approved members. The LCB or approved member has then to conduct and complete an investigation to ascertain the integrity of the data and must correct the data unless it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that a correction should not be made. MAS further highlighted in its response to feedback from public consultation that LCBs and members should institute appropriate processes to verify the disputed data against relevant documentary information. Having regard to the objectives of the Bill to protect customer interest in this area, it is noteworthy that the Bill is silent as to whether: (a) the customers have any recourse if the LCB or the approved member refuses to make a correction; and (b) the investigation findings of the LCB or approved member is available to the consumer and subject to review. In Australia, sections 20(u) and 21(w) of the Australian Privacy Act requires a credit reporting body or credit provider that refuses a credit information correction request to, within a reasonable period, give the individual written notice that the correction has not been made and set out the reasons for not correcting the information and explain how the individual may complain about that decision.”
“However, MLCB only contains customer credit information in respect of loans taken with licensed moneylenders while the LCB regime only deals with credit information from banks and other financial institutions. I am concerned that with the separate credit bureau regimes for moneylenders on one hand, and banks and other financial institutions on the other hand, there would be no overall visibility of the credit assessment of an individual. Having two separate regimes would not serve the purpose of assessing the overall credit worthiness of borrowers and to help borrowers avoid borrowing beyond their means. There is also no reason why MLCB and their members should not be subject to the same duties and responsibilities as LCBs and their members relating to customer information and maintaining the security and integrity of data, as set out in Parts 3 and 6 of the Bill. Even though as disclosed by the hon Minister in this House on 18 February 2014, bank lending accounts for about 98% of household credit granted by commercial entities, it does not make the objective of assessing credit worthiness of the remaining 2% and protecting the customer information of the same any less important, especially if you were to consider the number of the people involved. In these circumstances, may I please ask the reasons for keeping the MLCB regime separate from LCB? I stress again that the issues of protecting customer information and maintaining the security and integrity of data must surely be as important for MLCB as it is for LCB. Moving to my third point, I support the objectives of the Bill to protect customer interest by affording customers the right to access, review and rectify their credit records vis-à-vis the LCB and approved members.”
“If so, what are MAS' considerations in considering such applications and deciding whether to grant approval to be an approved member of the LCB? I further note that section 16 of the Bill contemplates that third parties may obtain credit reports with the written consent of the data subject. This will allow parties, such as prospective employers, clubs and associations and so on, to procure credit reports from applicants before considering them for admission. Indeed, I note that the Casino Regulatory Authority of Singapore (CRA) requires applicants for special employee licences under the Casino Control Act to allow the CRA access to the applicant's reports from the credit bureaus. In many of these instances, the applicant would be providing his written consent out of necessity of the situation. He or she would not have any real control over the use of the confidential information provided by the LCB to the third parties. Even though, in theory, he may have some options under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), these are not transactions between equals. For this reason, would the Minister please consider protecting the confidentiality of this information, along similar lines provided for in section 33 of the Bill dealing with the duty of the approved members protecting the confidentiality of customer information obtained from the LCB? Second, I note that the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has set up a Money Lenders Credit Bureau (MLCB) regime in March this year, involving all licensed moneylenders as contributing members of MLCB. MLCB is run by DP Information Group, which also operates one of the two LCBs.”
“Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the objectives behind the Bill. I take the opportunity to highlight and seek clarification on the following three areas of the Bill. First, the Bill draws a distinction between members and approved members of an LCB. Under section 30(2) of the Bill, an LCB is only permitted to disclose customer information received from any of its members to an approved member. Section 29(1) and the First Schedule of the Bill contemplate that the following are deemed approved members of the LCB namely, banks, merchant banks, finance companies and credit card issuers. This corresponds to the categories of persons who are authorised to receive customer credit information from credit bureaus under the Third Schedule of the Banking Act. Under section 29(3) and (4) of the Bill, LCB members who are not deemed approved members have to apply to MAS through the LCB to be approved as approved members of the LCB. Could the Minister please clarify the circumstances in which approvals will be provided? In this regard, I wish to specifically highlight that licensed moneylenders and other entities in the business of providing consumer credit, such as hire-purchase companies, pawnbrokers and other vendor credit companies, are not deemed as approved members under the Bill and, therefore, would not have access to customer credit information held by the LCBs without the customer's written consent. On the other hand, there has been at least one incident in the past where MAS has approved a licensed moneylender on an ad hoc basis to have access to customer information provided by credit bureaus. Is it therefore contemplated that such entities are at liberty to be approved members of LCB?”
“Madam, given the time, I wonder whether this question can be held over. There is only one more minute.”
“Point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I ask the hon Member for Aljunied, in respect of the speech that he made, the part of the speech where he referred to elected Senators, dealing with the custodial function, how would that concept alleviate the concern of the WP in the report to the Constitutional Commission that an Elected President in the term of the previous government would stymie the efforts of the government in the next term, perhaps, in relation to usage of the past Reserves, noting that the elected Senators would have the similar criteria as the Elected President as well?”
“I thank the Minister for the detailed explanation. Will the Minister consider encouraging, particularly, private sector companies, to give forecasts of employment, with these forecasts-giving a factor to be considered when issuing Employment Pass or other work passes? The basic point is this. If a company makes a forecast very close to the time of recruitment, then Singaporeans may not be able to benefit from it. Either they lack training or opportunities. Then, the Ministry may be presented with a fait accompli in terms of applications from foreigners for these jobs.”
“I have also viewed Article 19B as an important way to ensure that we remain as one country. With Article 19B, we ensure that we will have a member of the minority community becoming the President of Singapore, the highest office in the land, from time to time. With this, we will not lose our perspectives as we face and manage difficult and sensitive issues like the tudung. Article 19B will allow us to have the gotong-royong spirit in our Constitution. (In English): Mdm Speaker, Article 19B really strikes at what it means to be a Singaporean. It weaves into our constitutional DNA that all Singaporeans now and generations to come, regardless of race, are part of and are important to the Singapore story founded on inclusiveness. I support the Bill.”
“It is against this background that we should view the proposed Article 19B. This issue, as I see it, is much more than the narrow issue of whether a member from a minority community stands a fair chance to be elected by the Singapore electorate in an unrestricted election. This amendment represents an important signal to all communities within Singapore that she must always remain an inclusive society. This is, in my view, as important an overture as the decision on the part of the Malay community in August 1965 to be fully subscribed to the meritocratic and multiracial ideals of an emerging Singapore. This does not mean that the Singapore electorate is, therefore, being encouraged to vote on racial lines for the Elected President on the basis that there is a guarantee of a minority candidate being fielded from time to time. If that happens, that is a retrograde step. Rather, I see Article 19B as a signal and a safeguard. Singaporeans should continue to vote for the Presidency on the basis of who they feel is the best person for the job, regardless of race, language or religion. Should, however, there be a situation where 30 years have elapsed without a President drawn from the minority community, then, for the sake of ensuring we always remain an inclusive society, the inclusion provision will kick in. Mdm Speaker, I would like to continue in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In my English speech, I felt that it was important to highlight the historical context about the decision of Malay Singaporeans after Independence to remain here has a minority that believes in the ideals of meritocracy and multiracial and multi-religious harmony. This decision helped us to build a nation that is more inclusive.”
“If groups are left behind …and if with 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". These words, in my mind, continue to be the guiding principle of the People's Action Party and the successive governments it has formed. We cannot assume that we have arrived as a nation, with all intercommunal issues having been resolved forever. The pressures around us, globally, evolve yearly. There continues to be issues each community faces and we must ensure we continue, as a country, to help each family and each individual that may struggle, be it financially or socially. The recent events occurring this year alone suggest that societies are vulnerable along ethnic lines, and what we have achieved in terms of multiracial peace and harmony can be easily unwound. We have seen an increase in violent confrontations among people of different races and ethnic groups all over the world, even in our region. There is growing racial intolerance, rising religiosity and extremism. All these factors are pulling many societies apart. As a country, we are not immune to what is happening outside our borders. Deputy Prime Minister Teo, in his speech, gave an analogy about sailing in the high seas, with all its attendant perils. Even in Singapore, we still see sensitive and potentially divisive issues being raised periodically; for example, issues, such as holding religious foot processions and wearing of tudung by Muslim women who are frontline Public Service officers. Whilst, thus far, these issues have been dealt with constructively and responsibly and against the broader context of ensuring that our communities progress as a whole, we cannot take for granted that this will always be the case.”
“But the Malay community placed full trust and worked with the Government which, on its part, also ensured that the community's interests are always protected, in recognition of their commitment to the country. This may be a good time to remind ourselves that this is why Article 152 of our Constitution was enacted. It is provided in our Constitution that the Government has a responsibility to constantly care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore and, in particular, those of the Malay community as the indigenous people of Singapore. Over the past five decades, significant progress has been made by all communities in Independent Singapore, including the Malay community, not just in terms of economic wealth but with respect to integration as one nation. Minister Yaacob Ibrahim outlined the journey of the Malay community in his speech. Having learnt Malay in Singapore, having had many Malay friends and being involved in community work for a good number of years, I have seen first-hand and am very proud to note the progress my Malay friends have made in the educational, skills development and socio-economic spheres. It is this progress by all communities that addresses a potential existential issue about securing Singapore's future. The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew said as follows in his first National Day rally speech in 1966: "It is important that we should understand what is it we are after in the long run, and if we are after a permanent and secure future for ourselves, then this must be done; to build a society which, as it progresses, improves, flourishes and gives an equally satisfying life to one and all.”
“Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Government's Bill to amend the Constitution. In my speech, I will focus on the proposed Article 19B which provides for a reserved election for a community that has not held the office of the President for five or more consecutive terms. In effect, this provision, if passed, would ensure that the office of the President, from time to time, would be held by persons drawn from the minority communities. This is done without compromising the rigour of the eligibility criteria spelt out in the proposed Article 19. To me, the proposed amendments have a direct impact on what it means to be Singaporean and how we signal to all communities in Singapore the importance of ensuring we always remain an inclusive society. Let me explain. Before Independence, when Singapore was part of the Federation of Malaysia, it was the Malay/Muslim community, the indigenous people of Singapore, who were the majority community in the Federation. Independence was thrust onto Singapore as her leaders advocated for a Malaysian Malaysia which entailed equal treatment of all races in Malaysia. This was roundly rejected by the Federal Government of Malaysia. After Independence, the Malay community in Singapore found themselves a minority in Singapore. They remained, knowing Singapore's declared commitment to meritocracy, equality and multiracial and multi-religious pluralism. This was a brave move on the part of the Malay community. No one could have then foreseen how the different communities in Singapore would manage race relationships among them. Indeed, only a year before, there were race riots in Singapore, resulting in loss of lives.”