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 3 of 25.
“MPA, together with industries and unions, are doing so at two levels: first, we will groom future leaders of the industry by raising the annual intake of the Maritime Leadership Programme (MLP), from about 20 to 25 places, to admit industry leaders from adjacent trading and logistics sectors. MPA will also support the onboarding of MLP alumni to the Singapore Leaders' Network, a leadership community that prepares Singaporeans for regional and global leadership roles by providing overseas transition support and mentorship opportunities. Together, these changes will strengthen cross-sector collaboration and provide opportunities for maritime professionals to learn about adjacent sectors and vice versa. Second, we are equipping workers with new skills to better meet industry needs. MPA has established the Maritime Energy Training Facility to train the global maritime workforce in safe handling and operating of vessels using alternative fuels. MPA is also on track to launch the Maritime Testbed of Shipboard Operational Technology System (MariOT) by March 2025, which provides training in cybersecurity for operational technology systems in a realistic shipboard environment. Over the next three years, we expect more than 300 students and professionals to benefit from this simulation platform. Working with our partners, we will continue to invest in a strong pipeline of talent to the maritime industry. Sir, transport is a vital public service that moves people across our island and plugs our economy into the open seas. On both land and sea, you will see that it is our people that makes the difference and this Government will continue to invest in this critical human dimension, for now and into the future.”
“We will also develop response capabilities using drones to track and enhance safety for first responders. Next, we will position ourselves as a bunkering hub for alternative fuels. Building on our hard-earned reputation as a reliable bunkering hub, we are committed to support the industry's safe transition to alternative fuels. To answer Mr Neil Parekh's question, we are taking the lead to develop Technical References for alternative fuels, which provide shipping companies better quality and quantity assurance when bunkering alternative fuels in Singapore. We are upgrading the provisional national quality standard for marine biofuel into a Technical Reference to include biofuel blends up to 100% biofuel and non-FAME products. This complements the International Maritime Organization's recent announcement that conventional oil tankers may soon be allowed to carry biofuel blends containing up to 30% biofuel, instead of the current limit of 25% biofuel. For methanol bunkering, two sets of standards will be launched in March 2025. MPA and Enterprise Singapore will launch a standard on the requirements for methanol bunkering and MPA will launch standards on the equipment and operational efficiency for methanol bunker tankers. This marks an important step towards operationalising methanol bunkering at scale in our port. We are also targeting to launch a new standard for ammonia bunkering this year. Finally, we will press on with talent development. Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Neil Parekh and Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked how we can ensure that we have a robust pipeline of talent with the right skills and competencies to maintain the competitiveness and productivity of Maritime Singapore.”
“As Prime Minister Wong said in his Budget speech, global economic competition is intensifying and we will be left behind if we fail to stay competitive. Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked how we will ensure that we remain competitive amidst fierce competition in the region. We plan to seize opportunities amidst future growth and challenges in three areas. First, technology; second. decarbonisation; and third, talent development. On technology, we are leveraging technology to sharpen Maritime Singapore's competitive edge. To Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Poh Li San's questions, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) will use technology to streamline port and marine services to enable the industry to enjoy higher productivity and reduced costs and manpower needs. 4.45 pm One example is the use of AI to streamline the processing of Port Clearance Certificates by reducing the need to manually input information from multiple ship certificates. This system will be implemented over the next few years and enhance the accuracy of data entry and verification, and reduce the time taken to obtain the Certificate from up to three days to just a few minutes! We will facilitate the development of new solutions for the maritime ecosystem. We will be expanding our maritime innovation test-beds and regulatory sandboxes to more locations within the port for testing of new solutions, such as remote or autonomous operations. MPA is on track to complete the third and final phase of Maritime 5G coverage by this year. Stronger connectivity, more consistent data coverage and bandwidth will enable the provision of new maritime services. Together, this means that successful pilots for innovative solutions will more quickly become a part of day-to-day port operations.”
“Let me now turn to Maritime Singapore. As Minister Chee mentioned, Maritime Singapore did well last year, breaking several records. Annual vessel arrival tonnage reached 3.11 billion gross tonnage, and Singapore's container throughput crossed 40 million twenty-foot equivalent units, or TEUs, for the first time. Total bunker sales hit a new record of 54.92 million tonnes, with sales of alternative fuel crossing the one million tonne mark for the first time. The International Maritime Centre grew in scale and diversity, too, with close to 200 shipping groups with a presence in Singapore and more than 30 companies were established or expanded operations here. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how we achieved these records. These achievements did not come easy. While other ports in countries with more land and labour can compete on cost and larger consumption bases, Singapore competes on efficiency and reliability. Due to the Red Sea crisis and congestion in ports around the world, shipping lines relied on Singapore to handle increasingly complex cargo movements and demand as they unloaded cargoes bound for Asian ports beyond Singapore and used Singapore to rearrange containers on vessels to mitigate delays. Through these challenges, we remained resilient, thanks to our tripartite partners and the hard work of our maritime workers. With strong competition and an uncertain outlook ahead, we cannot rest on our laurels. Because of our stable political environment, we are able to plan and build for the future with the multi-decade development of Tuas Port. Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked for an update. Eleven berths are operational and seven more are scheduled to commence operations by 2027. When completed in the 2040s, Tuas Port will have more than 60 berths.”
“This ensures that all bus captains receive the necessary training to refresh their skills and keep up to date with best practices. On the Government's part, the Singapore Bus Academy will improve its training offerings, to better support bus operators and bus captains to achieve their training targets. We will share more details on these in due course. Besides improving the working conditions for our bus captains, Mr Saktiandi will be glad to note that the task force has also made several recommendations to improve the road environment to better support bus operations. One aspect that affects all road users is the management of road works. Bus captains told us that they encounter situations where barriers are placed improperly, resulting in difficulty faced in manoeuvring buses through affected stretches, or when inexperienced road marshals do not provide proper guidance. To address this issue, LTA will work with relevant agencies to upskill workers responsible for managing traffic during road works, to make sure that contractors are able to comply with regulations. We will also review the penalty framework, to take a tougher stance against contractors who do not comply and cause obstructions. Finally, commuters and other road users have an important role to play, too, in ensuring the safety of buses. LTA and the bus operators will continue to work with organisations, such as Traffic Police and the Singapore Road Safety Council, to carry out publicity efforts to improve commuters' awareness of safe practices onboard buses, as well as other road users' awareness of and compliance with measures to facilitate bus movement. We will provide more details on how we will be implementing these and other recommendations of the task force in due course.”
“Today, bus operators, bus captains, together with LTA, already do regular reviews of runtimes to account for changes in traffic conditions and travel patterns. They will continue to do so. But beyond having realistic runtimes, the task force felt that runtimes should not be too long. As Mr Ang Wei Neng pointed out, we have some routes with scheduled runtimes exceeding two hours, and bus captains gave feedback that such prolonged periods of continuous driving can cause discomfort for them, such as the need for toilet breaks, and could cause lapses in concentration. LTA has committed to not introducing bus routes with scheduled runtimes exceeding two hours. In addition, LTA and bus operators will review our existing bus services with long runtimes, to see how we can make them more manageable for our bus captains, such as by adjusting the routes or swapping bus captains in the middle of a long route. As any adjustments will have an impact on commuters, we will review such routes carefully and implement any changes progressively. Besides scheduling, the task force made a number of recommendations on bus captain training. In our engagements, the task force observed different models, both locally and abroad, of how a strong training regime can make a difference to driver confidence and retention. Some of the good practices we saw, such as more personalised training and peer support, can be more prevalent across the bus sector. I am glad to announce that we will be introducing an industry-wide training point system, as recommended by the task force. Under this system, bus operators will track the number of training points that their bus captains obtain per year, corresponding to a baseline level of continuing training each year.”
“The system actively prompted him when he yawned, which was useful in maintaining his alertness while driving and ensured the safety of the bus captain as well as commuters. Second, technology helps our commuters and other road users stay safe when they are on or around buses. In this regard, the task force recommended a number of safety features, such as better torque management, audio safety announcements onboard buses and an enhanced rear electronic display system. To address the feedback by bus captains on having to multi-task, LTA will also explore whether the number of display units in the driving cabin can be reduced to lessen the cognitive load on bus captains. The Government will review the various technologies recommended by the task force through pilots and study the feasibility of incorporating such technologies into existing fleets and making these technologies a requirement for upcoming bus purchases. Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked how we can further improve the working conditions of bus captains to help manage their workload. This brings us to the other major set of recommendations by the task force that deals with the human dimension of safety, focused on creating a more conducive working environment for bus captains to perform their roles effectively. We have a range of recommendations in this area, and I will focus on bus runtimes and training for bus captains, which we believe will have the broadest impact. Firstly, on the management of runtime. The runtime is the total time taken for a bus captain to complete a route. It affects safety because if runtimes are not scheduled correctly, bus captains come under pressure to stay on schedule.”
“The task force has taken a serious look at all these suggestions and consulted with both local and international safety practitioners and experts from the bus sector, before arriving at its recommendations. Mr Shawn Huang asked how we can better support bus captains in carrying out their role. Indeed, a common thread throughout the task force's discussion is that bus captains have a demanding job. In my first meeting with public transport union leaders after we formed this task force, Brother Peh Chee Kang, Vice President of the National Transport Workers' Union, pointed out that driving a public bus is like piloting an aircraft. Besides operating large vehicles through busy streets while staying on schedule, bus captains must also take care of the safety of passengers and help commuters navigate to their destination. Unlike planes, there is no autopilot available for our bus captains. They are constantly multitasking and looking out for other road users. The task force was clear that ensuring bus safety means giving our bus captains the best support to do their job well. Our recommendations were focused on two major aspects. First, equipping bus captains with the right tools; and second, providing them with a conducive working environment. Today, I will highlight a few key recommendations. The first area is technologies to improve the situational awareness of our bus captains. The task force has recommended that the Government equip our buses with 360-degree collision warning, anti-fatigue and camera mirror systems. Bus Captain Mohammed Syazwan Bin Mohammed Salim from Tower Transit Singapore is one of those who experienced first-hand how anti-fatigue systems can enhance road safety.”
“Sir, the hon Member Mr Saktiandi Supaat raised the issue of safety on our public buses in his speech. Minister Chee just announced that the Bus Safety Tripartite Taskforce which I chaired has completed its work. The Government accepted the recommendations of the task force and will work closely with our tripartite partners to implement them over the coming years. Buses are the workhorses of our roads. Every day, four million trips are made on our public buses by commuters. At the peak, about 6,000 public buses ply our roads. A system at this scale, which includes almost 10,000 bus captains, requires a sustained and unceasing effort to maintain a strong safety record. The Government, together with our tripartite partners, are fully committed to this. But to succeed, we need the public behind us. As part of this effort, the Bus Safety Tripartite Taskforce was formed in July last year. The task force approached this exercise in the spirit of ensuring that commuters, bus captains and other road users continue to have strong confidence in the safety of our public buses. We would like to thank all stakeholders who participated in this important work. We are starting from a position of strength. The annual number of serious road accidents involving public buses has been stable in the past few years. Nevertheless, there is room to improve. Members of the public gave feedback on bus captains' driving, the design of buses, as well as bus scheduling. Bus captains offered suggestions on similar issues. In addition, they shared real life challenges faced while on the road – motorists encroaching into bus priority boxes, or yellow boxes and bus lanes, as well as with cyclists who cycle close to the blind spots of the buses.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to speak. Sir, at the Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Law, I stated in my speech that since the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code was implemented in August 2024, more than 100 accused persons have been released on personal bond for non-bailable offences. Pursuant to a clarification sought by the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim, I stated that my impression was that the 100 accused persons were released by the Court, but that I will check it. I have since checked it, Sir, and I would like to clarify that the number of more than 100 persons is actually for non-bailable offences investigated by the Police. It does not include the number of persons released on personal bond for non-bailable offences by the Courts. We do not have the precise number of persons who have been released on personal bond for non-bailable offences by law enforcement agencies or by the Courts. We have been working with the relevant agencies, including the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Singapore Police Force and the Courts, to track this number. As I mentioned in my speech, the personal bond amendment is still in its infancy, having been operational for just six months or so since August 2024. It is still too early to assess the full impact of this amendment, but we will monitor this.”
“Sir, that would be something that is within the province of the MHA. Certainly, we can convey the feedback as well. 2.30 pm”
“Sir, with respect to the hon Member Ms Lim's question, my understanding is this is in relation to Court cases, but I can double check and perhaps, clarify this separately. [Please refer to "Clarification by the Minister of State for Law", Official Report, 4 March 2025, Vol 95, Issue 157, Clarification section.]”
“Sir, with respect to the hon Member, Mr Zhulkarnain's question on jurisdiction, as was mentioned in my speech, this creation of Statutory Torts is really providing civil causes of action for victims. And the jurisdiction is based on the civil jurisdiction of the Courts as it stands now, it is quite expansive. And in situations where the double actionability rule, which deals with the commission of Torts overseas, and whether or not there is a basis to pursue it here, whether it applies depends on the current rules.”
“I have covered SLA's efforts to optimise the use of state assets to meet changing needs and developments on the Digital Conveyancing Portal; our efforts to maintain a robust and balanced IP regime that supports creativity and innovation, as well as ensuring that the legal profession uses Gen AI safely and responsibly; new legislation to enhance protection for the vulnerable online; updates on the Protection from Harassment Court; implementation of reforms on personal bond; and leveraging technology for access to justice while preventing a digital divide. Together, these form the foundations of our shared public life. Laws are made together, and made legitimate, in this House, but it is only in the living and the working out of these rules, that we as a country, give them life.”
“Ms Usha Chandradas spoke about possible areas for law reform. Given the full slate of work outlined, some of these reviews will require more time for careful consideration. I understand from the Ministry of Social and Family Development that the same also applies to the 2000 Protection of Adults Convention. Prof Razwana also spoke about recidivism. This was covered by the Ministry of Home Affairs in their COS. Mr Chairman, Sir, in conclusion, Second Minister Edwin Tong spoke about the importance of the law and legal processes on achieving good outcomes for Singapore, underpinned by the rule of law. He also spoke about our efforts and approach to growing the economy, even as Singapore faces challenges in this turbulent external environment. We will strengthen our legal framework to be business-friendly and forward-looking, especially in the areas of IP, dispute resolution and debt restructuring and insolvency. Furthermore, Second Minister Tong outlined our moves to grow the capabilities of law firms and legal professionals – through adoption of LegalTech, facilitating access to overseas markets and uplifting all areas of the profession to grow new competencies. Then, he spoke on Enforcement Mechanisms in Family Justice and Civil Enforcement; as well as helping the most vulnerable in our society access the legal system. He also provided an update on the Community Disputes Management Framework. Lastly, he announced our celebrations of the 200th anniversary of the establishment of Singapore's modern legal system.”
“This reduces the disruptions to their lives and earning capacity, as mentioned by the hon Member. Since the amendment was implemented in August 2024, more than 100 accused persons have been released on personal bond for non-bailable offences. The personal bond regime is new and in its infancy. We will continue to keep our policies on remand and bail under review. Lastly, I turn to our work on ensuring access to justice. Second Minister Edwin mentioned about the good work of the Public Defender's Office and the Legal Aid Bureau. MinLaw is also working with various partners to increase access to justice, including through technology. Notably, we have collaborated with Pro Bono SG to develop LawGoWhere. Launched in March last year, this is a first-stop portal that consolidates access to legal information, legal services and law awareness resources. This year, a legal help finder will be integrated, to make it easier for users to seek legal information. Users may key in information such as their postal code and legal issue, and receive legal assistance options, such as their nearest legal clinics. Even as the use of technology increases, we are mindful of the digital divide, a point that Dr Tan Wu Meng made. On his query, measures have been taken to ensure that justice remains accessible to everyone, regardless of their level of familiarity with technology. For example, individuals who have difficulties with Court e-services, like the Community Justice and Tribunals System, can contact the State Courts by calling their hotline. They may also visit the State Courts Business Centre to access digital terminals or approach the State Courts Service Hub if they require assistance. Before I conclude, Mr Chairman, I would like to thank hon Members for their comments.”
“We will announce more details in due course. The Government is committed to ensuring that victims have accessible and effective remedies when they suffer online harms. Mr Patrick Tay asked for figures relating to the Protection from Harassment Court (PHC). The number of applications for protection orders to the PHC since it started operations on 1 June 2021 are as follows: (a) 346 PO applications were filed in 2021; (b) 520 in 2022, (c) 526 in 2023; and (d) 631 in 2024. In terms of breakdown, out of the 2,023 PO applications filed from 1 June 2021, which is when the PHC commenced operations, to 31 December 2024, there were complaints about the following kinds of harassments: (a) 760 cases involved cyberbullying; (b) 719 cases involved doxing; (c) 485 cases involved workplace harassment; (d) 253 cases involved sexual harassment; and (e) 122 cases involved harassment by debt collectors, moneylenders or creditors. The total number is 2,339, though there were 2,023 applications, because a single application can contain complaints for about more than one type of harassment. I now turn to Ms Sylvia Lim's query on the personal bond in criminal cases – an amendment in the Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2024. This allows persons accused of non-bailable offences punishable with up to seven years' imprisonment to be released on personal bond, as an alternative to bail. Previously, persons accused of such offences could only be released on bail while awaiting investigations or trial. They will be remanded if they are unable to find a bailor, even if they are offered bail. With this amendment, they may be released by putting up a bond by themselves in appropriate cases.”
“The Court process can be daunting and difficult to navigate. Uncertainty over whether existing laws can be used to address new emerging harms and the lack of accountability as perpetrators are often anonymous. To address these gaps, MinLaw and MDDI are working together on new legislation that will cover three broad buckets. First, it will establish a new agency that will act quickly on complaints of online harms. MDDI will share more details about the agency as well as some of its broader efforts to deal with online harms. Second, it will set out Statutory Torts to clarify the types of online harms covered under the law, and the rights and duties of the various parties in the online ecosystem. These Statutory Torts will provide a clear legal basis for victims to hold to account those responsible for the harm they suffer. We intend for the Statutory Torts to apply to a range of serious online harms, including online harassment, intimate image abuse and child abuse material. Third, it will introduce new mechanisms to address the misuse of anonymity by perpetrators of online harms. As Ms Nadia Samdin and others have rightly observed – there must be adequate information in the first place, if the intent is to enhance accountability. Victims may apply to find out a perpetrator's user information. The victim may need to know, so as to consider legal proceedings, better protect himself or herself from the perpetrator. The provision of such information will be subject to safeguards, to prevent abuse. The information should not be used to carry out "counter-attacks". Stakeholders, such as the tech companies, have also expressed some reservations – mainly about how such measures will impact their business. We will work closely with them to mitigate their concerns.”
“Another facet of digitalisation is the emerging threats to users and our community. Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Zhulkarnain and Ms Nadia Samdin asked about the Government's efforts to combat online harms. The Government has taken significant steps to address the prevalence of online harms. This includes, among others, enacting the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) in 2014 and strengthening it in 2019, to provide victims with legal recourse for harassment, including online harassment; and enacting the Online Safety, Miscellaneous (Amendments) Act and the Online Criminal Harms Act to allow the Government to act against harmful content. However, online harms continue to be an area of concern for many – and hon Members said that in their speeches too. A 2024 survey by MDDI found that two-thirds of respondents encountered harmful content on social media. Online harms are an especially serious problem for the young and young women in particular. In a 2023 study by SG Her Empowerment (SHE), more than half of the respondents between 15 and 24 years old reported having personally experienced online abuse. This was more than in any other age group. Within this age group, young women were nearly twice as likely as men to be victims of sexual harassment. And 40% of victims of online harassment reported suffering severe emotional and psychological distress, including depression and self-harm. MinLaw and MDDI have been studying the gaps that remain. We have consulted extensively with community groups, such as those working with youths, and women and girls; experts; technology companies; and the Judiciary. 2.15 pm The key gaps identified are the need for a simple and fast process to seek relief from online harms.”
“There is ongoing engagement with stakeholders, including those in the creative sector, such as writers, publishers, record labels and creative agencies. Some of the suggestions received include greater transparency in how copyright material is used for AI training and for rights-holders to have more control over use of their material. We are studying these suggestions. For example, we are exploring with MDDI and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), support for transparency measures and respect for copyright in our AI governance policies and tools, such as IMDA's upcoming safety guidelines for Gen AI model developers and app deployers. MinLaw and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) will continue to work with stakeholders to maintain the right balance that will support creativity and innovation. We also focus on the impact of technology in the legal sector. Legal professionals should use Gen AI tools safely and responsibly, even as we encourage its adoption. The need for guardrails is clear because: one, Gen AI may give inaccurate responses or hallucinate; two, security and privacy concerns – some Gen AI models may store user information and search history to train the model and this may then be reproduced for responses to other users; and three, ethical concerns with the rapid development of Gen AI by different programmers, it is critical that Gen AI tools are developed within a framework guided by principles, ethics and rules. Considering this context, MinLaw is working on guidelines to guide legal professionals to be smart buyers and users of Gen AI tools. We have consulted stakeholders, such as the Singapore Courts, Law Society and IMDA, and will consult the industry in due course.”
“The first phase of the DCP focuses on private residential resale transactions, which make up more than half of private real estate transactions. Beta testing of the OTP process started in November 2024 with selected stakeholders. Live OTP transactions for the private residential resale market is targeted to commence as a pilot initially in 2025. The DCP functions and types of transactions will be progressively expanded in subsequent phases. Even as technology becomes integral, we are aware that it also presents issues, particularly with copyright. Our IP regime incentivises the creation of new works by rewarding creators with a set of rights over the use of their works, at the same time, allows reasonable access to these works by third parties, including other creators and innovators, who may build on them. In this way, we maximise creative and innovative output through a balanced approach. Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms Jean See asked about the balance in the context of AI. While the IP regime enables the use of copyright materials for digital innovation, we have built in conditions to protect legitimate interests of rights-holders. In particular, if copyright materials are used to train AI models, the materials must be lawfully accessed. For example, for materials behind pay walls, through paid access. Furthermore, rights-holders can use the copyright protection regime to take action against the generation or use of content substantially similar to their own. We recognise technologies, such as Gen AI, significantly impact many stakeholders. The Government remains committed to working with the creative community to address their concerns.”
“Another example is the transformation of the former Elections Department office at 11 Prinsep Street into a social impact hub named The Foundry, which started operations last year. Further, SLA will restore and repurpose Block 1 East Coast Road (1ECR) for community and social uses. The renovated space will provide programmes and training to support youths as well as recreational activities for all ages. SLA called a tender for a multidisciplinary team of consultants in September 2024 to provide consultancy services for Additions and Alteration works, with estimated completion in 2028. SLA will continue collaborating with agencies to introduce more state properties for economic and social uses. By launching more Price-Quality tenders, SLA will be able to better curate placemaking efforts to benefit the community. Besides optimising the use of state assets, we are harnessing technology to digitalise transactions. Singapore's current conveyancing system is reliant on physical documents and processes, and requires significant manpower. SLA has therefore been developing the Digital Conveyancing Portal (DCP). It is a fully integrated digital end-to-end conveyancing process for all types of property, from the stage of Option to Purchase (OTP) to legal completion. It will also enable e-payments and digital documents. When operationalised, the DCP will provide greater convenience to all parties, including buyers and sellers, law firms, real estate professionals, financial institutions and developers. We are testing the system rigorously and seeking industry feedback, including on how the phases of the DCP should be prioritised and the continuing evolution of associated technology.”
“Sir, I would like to start off by adding my appreciation to hon Members for their cuts as well as their speeches in this debate. I would cover three broad areas: first, the prudent and imaginative use of state assets; second, safeguarding our society from concerns posed by emerging technologies; and third, access to justice. The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) ensures effective and imaginative use of land resources. To address Mr Zhulkarnain and Ms Nadia Samdin's queries, this is done by cultivating a good understanding of social and community needs through proactive engagement. For example, SLA engages the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre and community entities, such as New Hope, to understand their challenges in finding suitable spaces. Through such engagements, SLA identified emerging demands, such as silver co-living and the need for community spaces. First, to address rising demand for independent living for older Singaporeans, SLA activated state properties, such as 79 to 95 Hindoo Road, 26 Evans Road and 98 Henderson Road. Building on the response, SLA plans to launch a tender in the first quarter of this year for 20 heritage properties at Admiralty Road East for multi-generational co-living. Proposals with holistic programming and emphasis on inter-generational co-living that encourages independent senior living will be favourably considered. Second, SLA is activating state properties with potential to bring communities together. One example is the transformation of 30 Maxwell Road into a wellness and fitness hub through the joint initiative with URA, Reinventing Spaces into Vibrant Places, as noted by Mr Keith Chua.”
“Thank you. Very well, Sir. Sir, I agree with the hon Member that members of the public should be clear on when a Magistrate's Complaint can be filed and how to go about filing a Magistrate's Complaint. There are resources on the Judiciary's website that cover these. These include guides and templates. There are also resources to support persons who may need assistance in filing a Magistrate's Complaint. If there is a difficulty in filing online, the person can call the State Courts' call centre to seek guidance or go to the State Court's Service Hub, or use the terminals in the business centre to file the complaint. If the person has difficulty understanding the filing process or instructions in English, he or she can seek help from the counter staff. A student under the University Court Friends programme may also be assigned and can also help the person navigate the filing process. I would also add, Sir, that in relation to translation issues, the Court website states that when filing a Magistrate's Complaint, the person may indicate their preferred language in the Magistrate's Complaint form and arrangements will be made to assign an interpreter if required. On the issue of the filing fee, we will convey the feedback to the Judiciary. 11.32 am”
“Sir, I know the guillotine time is up. May I seek your leave to just reply to her?”
“Sir, around 1,300 Magistrate's Complaints were filed yearly from 2022 to 2024. The Courts have informed us that there are educational resources available on the Judiciary's website, which members of the public may refer to for information on, amongst other things, when and how they may file a Magistrate's Complaint. The hon Member also referred to the relationship between Magistrate's Complaints and Police investigations. I should clarify that the Magistrate's Complaint process provides a framework for private prosecutions by any person, subject to the assessment of the Magistrate of whether there is sufficient reason for the complaint to proceed. The process is distinct from criminal investigations conducted by the Police following the filing of a Police report, which do not require the filing of a Magistrate's Complaint.”
“Sir, I take the hon Member Ms Phua's point. As a matter of system, a digitally illiterate person should not be sent to digital portals. As I mentioned in my reply, we have a strategy and we, in fact, devote resources to help these digitally illiterate persons. And I will certainly bring the feedback back to my colleagues. 12.29 pm”
“The Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) provides in person services at the Ministry of Law Services Centre (MSC). The staff there can assist those who are illiterate or not digitally savvy or speak languages other than English. Applicants can take the means test at MSC and receive legal advice or legal aid if successful. Those receiving legal aid, which entails assistance with court proceedings, can be guided by MSC or LAB staff, either in person or by phone. Legal advice is also available in person at MSC, or through video conferencing at any of the nine ServiceSG centres. Clients of Family Service Centres (FSCs) or Social Service Offices (SSOs) can also receive legal advice via video conferencing at 29 FSCs and 24 SSOs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Member for his endorsement of LTA's work to serve his residents better as far as transport is concerned. In relation to Keat Hong Close, we are happy to work with him to see how we can improve connectivity. I would give him the assurance that LTA will engage community stakeholders to review the bus services under the BCEP, particularly when new precincts come up.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the context of the hon Member Mr Wee's question, as in his constituency, there are a few new Build-To-Order (BTO) developments, including Keat Hong Verge which was completed in 2023, and there is one new BTO development Keat Hong Grange that will be completed in 2026. And the raison d'etre of the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme (BCEP) is to serve precincts which are further away from town centres and Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations. Residents living along Keat Hong Close, Choa Chu Kang Avenue 7 and Keat Hong Link are currently served by eight bus services and Keat Hong Light Rail Transit (LRT) station, providing connectivity to major transport nodes and key amenities. Over the last few years, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has been increasing the bus services in tandem with the estate’s growth, with new connections to amenities and MRT stations in Choa Chu Kang and nearby towns. These include changes to bus services 301, 983 and 991. More recently, supplementary service 983M was introduced in March 2024 to provide a direct connection to the cluster of schools at Teck Whye Crescent. Brickland residents also have direct access to Jurong East Central by taking service 188. To access amenities such as Choa Chu Kang Polyclinic and Teck Whye market, they can take services 172 or 991 to Choa Chu Kang Avenue 1 and continue with a short walk or transfer to service 307. LTA will continue to engage community stakeholders as we review our bus services under the BCEP.”
“I thank the hon Members for the suggestions. We will consider if more can be done to raise public awareness in this area. However, I should add that cases involving contempt of court are already publicly reported when the Court issues its judgment. Finally, the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim asked if the Law Society has been consulted on this Bill and what its views were. As I mentioned in my opening speech, key stakeholders were consulted. These include the Judiciary and the Attorney-General’s Chambers. We also spoke with the representatives from the Law Society. These were senior members of the Bar across various practice groups with extensive experience in litigation. There was consensus on the importance of safeguarding our justice system. And as I mentioned in my speech, there were also concerns from some lawyers as to whether these amendments will hamper them from doing their best for their clients, particularly in difficult cases. I promised them I would deal with their concerns in my opening speech and that is what I did. Conversations like these help us find the appropriate balance to promote an effective justice system. That is why we have regular, ongoing, conversations with our key stakeholders, including the members of the Bar. As always, the Ministry is open to further feedback on our policies. With that, Sir, I conclude my round up speech and I once again thank the hon Members again for their support for the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. 4.02 pm”
“Thus, contempt proceedings are instituted by the state, unlike the other levers, which are sought by individuals in the case of cost orders, or professional bodies in the case of disciplinary actions. The existing levers, such as cost orders, may be appropriate for less serious cases, but may not be adequate for egregious cases of abuse of process. Proceedings for contempt of court, which carry criminal sanctions, are also meant to protect the administration of justice, which goes beyond just one case. The hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim also suggested that it should be codified in the Bill that provisions do not cover persons who act with reasonable care and good faith. It is inherent in the elements of the provisions that such persons would not be caught in line with our policy intent. Let me explain. The mental element provided for in the provisions is that the person must have known or ought to have known of the abusive nature of the application. In cases where a person acted with actual knowledge, then it is self-evident, they could not have acted in good faith. On the standard on "ought to have known", the question for the court to assess, is whether the person could have reasonably known of the abusive nature of the application. This is a contextual standard of reasonableness, which would not capture those who act with reasonable care and good faith. So, in a sense, we are ad idem on the net effect, because the point about codifying a defence is already embedded in the ingredients provided for in the amendment Bill. Mr Zhulkarnain also suggested having a database of frivolous litigants and that the public be provided with more information on the resources and costs involved in such cases. Mr Yip Hon Weng likewise suggested more detailed public reporting.”
“Mr Zhulkarnain suggested a carve-out if the lawyer advises his client that he or she has a bad case, but the client nevertheless instructs the lawyer to proceed. As Mr Zhulkarnain rightly noted in his speech, lawyers are already held to high professional standards. They owe paramount duties as officers of the Court. They are also bound by obligations under the Professional Conduct Rules. Thus, we are not changing the standards that lawyers need to uphold when dealing with clients or assessing the merits of the case. As I elaborated in some detail in my opening speech, lawyers who act with reasonable care and in good faith have nothing to fear. I should also stress that the amendments only capture egregious abuse of process. Where the client insists on proceeding with an abusive claim against the lawyer's advice, the standards and expectations are clear. As the Court of Three Judges noted in a recent disciplinary proceeding, the duty of the lawyer is, and I quote: "to dispense his professional duties with moral courage and independence in the face of pressures from his clients. It is open to the solicitor to inform his client of the conflicting duty on account of the instructions and, if necessary, to discharge himself from acting for the client." The fact that the client insists on proceeding is not, and cannot be, an excuse for the lawyer to commit an egregious abuse of process. The hon Member, Ms Sylvia Lim, asked why the existing levers available for lawyers, including disciplinary proceedings, are inadequate. Disciplinary proceedings and contempt proceedings serve different purposes. Contempt of court serves a broader purpose than other levers, as it is aimed at protecting our justice system as a whole.”
“The hon Member, Mr Zhulkarnain, observed that third parties can already be liable for contempt in certain circumstances. He asked whether the new section 3(7), which covers persons who cause or abet abusive conduct represents a change in the current position. The answer is no. As with the other new provisions, section 3(7) is clarificatory in nature. In particular, section 3(1)(e) of the Act already covers "any person" who does "any other act that interferes with, obstructs or poses a real risk of interference with or obstruction of the administration of justice in any other manner". This may include persons who cause or abet other forms of contempt of court. Hon Members Mr Louis Ng and Mr Zhulkarnain also asked about the scope of third-party liability. Mr Louis Ng asked whether the amendments may inadvertently capture well-meaning individuals. Mr Zhulkarnain also asked if the provisions would extend to those who fund frivolous actions, including members of the public who participate in crowdfunding. Under the Bill, non-parties will only be caught under the new section 3(7) if the Court finds that the non-party: one, caused or abetted the types of abuse of process set out in sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(db); and two, knew or ought to have known of the abusive nature of the court proceeding. To give an example, this would cover third parties who instigate others to commit egregious abuse of process. The Court will examine the particular facts, including what the non-party knew or ought to have known, when considering whether the non-party is liable for contempt of court. I next turn to the impact of the amendments on lawyers. Hon Member, Mr Yip Hon Weng, asked whether there could be guidelines on what lawyers ought to know when assessing the merits of a case.”
“This is the reason why I stated in my opening speech earlier that the amendments are not intended to cover the typical case that is struck out for the sole reason that it has no merit. The hon Member Mr Zhulkarnain asked about section 3(1)(db). The section covers the conduct of multiple or successive proceedings which the person knows or ought to have known is manifestly groundless or without foundation. Specifically, Mr Zhulkarnain asked why the section does not also contain the requirement that the proceedings would cause "improper vexation or oppression". As I explained in my opening speech, the provisions in the Bill are different from the categories of abuse of process at common law. We have carefully scoped our proposals to capture egregious abuses of process that would interfere with, or obstruct, our administration of justice. This is conduct that would already be captured under the current section 3(1)(e) of the AOJPA. But our amendments provide clarity on how the general standard applies to specific contexts. In particular, the purpose of the new section 3(1)(db) is to address the harm to the court system, as a whole, caused when a person files multiple or successive proceedings that are manifestly groundless. A multiplicity of such baseless proceedings diverts precious resources away from deserving cases and the harm is not limited to the vexation or oppression of the other party. In addition, there could be other culpable motivations for a person to file multiple or successive proceedings besides improper vexation or oppression. For instance, the person may file successive baseless claims to delay proceedings. Again, this is harmful to our administration of justice, which ought to be deterred. I move on to liability of non-parties.”
“However, in the case of Mohammad Farid bin Batra v Attorney-General, which the hon Member mentioned, the Court also referred to third parties who advised, assisted or egged on the offenders to commit such conduct, and these amendments are still important to deter such persons. I next turn to questions raised on the legal elements of the new provisions. Mr Louis Ng asked what constitutes deception on the court and the definition of the phrase "manifestly groundless or without foundation". These phrases are based on the current case law on abuse of process, and the leading case of Chee Siok Chin v MHA, as I mentioned earlier in my speech. It would not be possible for me to make detailed pronouncements on how these standards should be applied by the Courts. Whether these thresholds are met will depend on the particular facts. However, let me share some general points. On the ground of deception on the court, the cases that have been found to have transgressed this limb typically involve egregious conduct, such as claims which are founded on a fictitious factual premise. To put it simply, where the claim is based on a falsehood. Our intention is not to capture fair litigation strategy. This is something for the Court to assess in each case. On the phrase "manifestly groundless or without foundation", an important point for hon Members to note is that even if the case is found to be without merit, that, in itself, is insufficient to amount to contempt of court under the amendments. There must be other abusive factors present, such as the bringing of the claim for an improper purpose under the new section 3(1)(da)(ii) or the filing of multiple or successive claims under the new section 3(1)(db).”
“This includes supporting ProBono SG in setting up community law centres in the heartlands – at the Tian De Temple in Hougang last year and in the Realm of Tranquility in Woodlands earlier this year. If any member of our community has a genuine claim and requires legal assistance, there are resources available. The amendments we are introducing in the Bill will not affect such genuine claims. Rather, they are targeted at egregious abuses of the court processes, such as the filing of fictitious claims or commencing baseless proceedings motivated by an improper purpose. One does not need to be a lawyer to know that such conduct is wrong. I should add that deterring abuse of process and promoting access to justice are, in fact, complementary goals. This is because abusive claims drain the limited resources of our Judiciary, thereby reducing access to justice for genuine litigants. In other words, deterring abusive claims is necessary to maintaining access to justice and public trust in the legal system. Next, I move on to the specific issues raised by hon Members. Ms Sylvia Lim asked what kinds of cases this Bill is targeted at. As I have stated earlier, the Bill will apply to all cases before our Singapore Courts, including criminal and civil cases. So, it is of general application. The hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim also noted that there are some persons, such as offenders serving a life sentence, who would see no "downside" in making multiple court applications. We acknowledge that the deterrent effect of the amendments may be limited in such cases.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Members who spoke on the Bill for their questions, suggestions and support. I am heartened that hon Members agree on the importance of safeguarding our court system. Before I respond to the specific questions, let me reiterate a key point which I made in my opening speech. The amendments in the Bill reflect what is already the current law and are clarificatory in nature. The primary effect of the amendments is to signpost the types of abuse of process which would amount to contempt of court. Some of the questions posed by hon Members assume that the Bill makes our contempt of court laws stricter or tighter. That is not the intent. The amendments do not lower the current threshold for contempt of court. I ask hon Members to keep this broader point in mind, as I provide my responses to the specific questions raised. I start with the balance between promoting access to justice and the need to deter abuse of process. The hon Member Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how the amendments might affect those with valid grievances, including vulnerable residents and self-represented persons. He also asked whether the amendments could create a sense of reduced access to justice. The Government, as hon Members would be aware, has taken significant steps in recent years to improve access to justice. I spoke about some of these steps in my opening speech, such as the setting up of specialised Courts with simplified processes. Needy Singaporeans can also access legal aid through the Legal Aid Bureau and the Public Defender's Office. We also work closely with partners, like ProBono SG, to promote access to justice in the community.”
“All of us – the Courts, lawyers, lawmakers and members of the public – have an interest in ensuring that we have an effective justice system that is focused on enforcing our laws and resolving genuine disputes. We also have a duty to ensure that our processes are not weaponised or abused. The proposed amendments will help us deter egregious cases of abuse of process and safeguard our justice system so that it continues to benefit and serve all of us. As I have elaborated in some detail in going through the amendments, they are clarificatory and are not intended to lower the threshold for contempt. I have also taken some time to explain the rationale behind the amendments. So, while hon Members may have brought prepared speeches, I would ask that you may want to consider the explanations I have already given, so that the response I may provide later can be more efficient. Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“The accused presents new evidence that the lawyer is unsure whether is genuine. The lawyer needs more time to investigate the matter and makes an urgent court application so that the accused person does not have to immediately start serving sentence. Eventually, after due investigation, it transpires that the allegedly new evidence is not genuine and the application is duly withdrawn. In such a circumstance, if the lawyer had acted in good faith and had taken reasonable steps before filing the court application, considering the limited time available to him, the lawyer will not be caught by the elements of the proposed amendments. This is because the standard of what the lawyer knew or ought to have known is contextual and the Court will have to examine carefully the factual matrix of each case. The standard also allows the Court to take into account the practical challenges faced by the lawyers. However, in the same scenario, if the lawyer had failed to take reasonable steps – for example, by ignoring obvious red flags, or had carried on conducting the application even after discovering that the new evidence was fabricated – then, he may well be caught by the amendments. Rightly so, as we expect high standards from lawyers who owe paramount duties as officers of the Court. Again, much will depend on the particular context of each case. This is why I say that lawyers and litigants who act with reasonable care, and in good faith, have nothing to fear. On this point, as hon Members sitting in this House, we are ultimately concerned with the public good and must act in the best interest of all Singaporeans. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, our justice system is a key pillar of what has made our country successful. It is precious and must be protected.”
“There is consensus that lawyers must be held to high standards. At the same time, some members of the Bar have expressed concern whether these amendments may discourage lawyers from taking up difficult cases and arguments, where the merits of the case or the evidence may be borderline or unclear. They ask whether the amendments will prevent them from robustly representing the interests of their clients. Let me make a few points to directly address these concerns. First, I reiterate that the amendments are clarificatory in nature and do not lower the current threshold for contempt of court. The elements of the new provisions, particularly the mental element that the person must have "known or ought to have known" that the proceeding would amount to contempt, are consistent with the current section 3(1)(e) of the AOJPA. The new provisions are also consistent with the pre-AOJPA case law on other forms of contempt of court, under which it was not necessary to prove an intention to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The new provisions do not affect the procedural protections under the existing AOJPA. The standard of proof remains that of proof beyond a reasonable doubt under section 28 of the AOJPA. Consent of the Attorney-General is also required under section 30 of the AOJPA before contempt proceedings are instituted. Second, lawyers and litigants are already held to high standards. To reiterate, those who exercise reasonable care and act in good faith will not be caught and have nothing to fear. Let me illustrate this with an example. An accused person who has been convicted and had his appeal dismissed approaches a lawyer, shortly before the accused is to start serving his sentence.”
“We have also considered that there may be also persons, who are causing or abetting others, to engage in the contemptuous conduct before our courts. The usual levers of striking out and costs orders will not deter them, as they are not involved in the court proceedings. To deter such behaviour, clause 2(d) of the Bill provides that persons who cause or abet egregious abuse of our court process as provided for under the new section 3(1)(da) and (db) will also be liable for contempt. In developing these proposals, we were keenly aware of the need to strike a balance between the need to guard against abuse of process and the rights of litigants to ventilate genuine claims before the courts. Our policy intent is that litigants and lawyers who act with reasonable care and in good faith should not be penalised. We looked at past examples of conduct which amounted to abuse of process. We also examined the leading case of Chee Siok Chin v MHA, where the Court had set out the categories of abuse of process at common law. To ensure that we only capture egregious cases as contempt, the provisions in the Bill specify narrower categories than what was set out in Chee Siok Chin. The approach we have taken ensures that the amendments will not cover the typical case of a civil matter that is struck out for the sole reason that it has no merit. Such cases can continue to be adequately dealt with by striking out and cost orders. The Court will be able to examine the circumstances of the case, when considering whether the conduct constitutes contempt. In scoping the proposals, we spoke to key stakeholders, including the Judiciary, to ensure that we achieved the right balance. We also spoke to members of the Bar on these amendments.”
“Under clause 2 of the Bill, the proposed new sections 3(1)(da) and (db) of the Act clarify what kinds of conduct would amount to contempt by interference with the administration of justice. The new provisions apply to all court proceedings in Singapore, whether conducted by a self-represented person or a lawyer. Three categories of egregious abuse of process are set out: first, the conduct or commencement of a court proceeding, which the person knows, or ought to have known, involves a deception on the court, is fictitious or constitutes a mere sham. Second, the conduct or commencement of a court proceeding, which the person knows or ought to have known is manifestly groundless or without foundation and involves the process of the court being used for an ulterior or improper purpose. These requirements are cumulative. Under this category, it is not sufficient just to have a manifestly groundless claim, or to have found an improper purpose. You must have both. Third, the conducting or commencing of multiple or successive court proceedings, which the person knows or ought to have known are manifestly groundless or without foundation. Deceiving the court, abusing the court process by filing baseless claims for an improper purpose, or launching multiple baseless court proceedings – these are acts of abuse that are clearly egregious and which cannot be condoned. These are also acts which would already fall within the current section 3(1)(e) of the AOJPA, as acts which interfere with the administration of justice. Our amendments, therefore, do not change the current legal standard. Rather, they provide clearer signposting in setting out the types of conduct that would amount to contempt of court.”
“We have decided that the legal position can be made clearer on how the general standard set out in section 3(1)(e) applies to the context of abuse of process. The amendments which we are proposing are, therefore, clarificatory in nature. They do not lower the current threshold for contempt of Court. Besides providing legal clarity, our intent is also to send a clear signal to deter abuse of the court process. The amendments will make it clear to the public and potential court users that egregious cases of abuse of process will amount to contempt of court and that such conduct can attract criminal sanctions. This is also in line with the established legal position in other jurisdictions. In the UK, the Supreme Court has emphasised that serious cases of abuse of process involving false claims ought to be sanctioned as contempt of court. The Court noted that such claims undermine the system in a number of serious ways, including imposing a burden upon honest claimants and damaging the system of adversarial justice which depends upon openness, transparency and honesty. The Indian Supreme Court has also recognised that abuse of process that is calculated to hamper the due course of judicial proceedings or the orderly administration of justice amounts to contempt of court. The Court noted that such conduct extends its influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the public's interest in the administration of justice. Having set out the background and the policy rationale, I will now take hon Members through the details of the proposed amendments. The key point to note is that the provisions reflect what is already the current law.”
“The applicant had been sentenced to life imprisonment and caning for possessing drugs for the purposes of trafficking. After his appeal had been dealt with, he filed two subsequent applications to the Court of Appeal, which were dismissed. Thereafter, the applicant filed another application to the General Division of the High Court on an urgent basis. The Court dismissed the application. In doing so, the Court found that the claim was completely baseless and brought to delay, and ultimately avoid, caning. The Court also noted that it "would have to leave it to the Executive and the Legislature to consider whether and what action can be taken in future instances of abusive applications by litigants and those advising, assisting or egging them on." Having observed these trends, we have decided that it is time to proactively act to safeguard the administration of justice in Singapore. It is the Government's responsibility to act to protect the judicial system, especially when we have repeated pronouncements from our courts on the abuse of their processes. The current provisions of the AOJPA, in principle, already cover egregious abuse of process. Specifically, section 3(1)(e) of the AOJPA, which relates to contempt by interference with the administration of justice, captures: "Any person who…intentionally does any…act that interferes with, obstructs or poses a real risk of interference with or obstruction of the administration of justice …if the person knows or ought to have known that the act would interfere with, obstruct or pose a real risk of interference with or obstruction of the administration of justice." However, the language of the current provision, which I have just read, is broad.”
“Thank you, Sir. Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL App. I will proceed, Sir. In the handout, you will see that in the United States (US), lawfare has taken various forms. This includes misuse of court proceedings by individuals against their intimate partners, who may be survivors of domestic violence or sexual abuse, as a means of controlling, harassing or intimidating them long after the relationship has ended. It also includes unscrupulous lawyers and litigants commencing abusive or bogus claims with the main incentive of forcing a monetary settlement or to "make a quick buck". In Europe, the European Union parliament is studying the rising phenomenon of strategic lawsuits against public participation, also known as "SLAPPs". SLAPPs are legal actions, typically brought with the intention of harassing or intimidating opponents via improper use of the legal system for purposes other than genuinely vindicating a legal right. The United Kingdom (UK) government also proposed legislative action in this area earlier this year in March 2024. In Singapore, we have also observed notable cases of egregious abuse of process. In an extra-judicial lecture delivered in 2023, our Chief Justice spoke about the phenomenon of truth decay: the proliferation of disinformation and devaluation of truth in our societies. He observed that "a number of recent examples suggest that truth decay is spreading into court proceedings". He cited "the conduct of some advocates, who have in some cases attempted to conceal facts from the courts, or to delay proceedings on spurious grounds." One example of such conduct is the 2022 case of Mohammad Farid bin Batra v Attorney-General.”
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout with some examples?”
“Under the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill, which was passed yesterday, the Tribunal will be further empowered to issue civil restraint orders to curb claims or applications that are an abuse of process. More broadly, the AOJPA provides that interference with court proceedings, or the administration of justice may amount to contempt of court and attract criminal sanctions. This is a general protection that applies to all court proceedings in Singapore. Contempt by interference with the administration of justice may be committed in various ways, including by abusing the process of the court in an egregious manner. Examples of such egregious abuse include: (a) commencing civil proceedings to seek financial damages, despite knowing that the claim is without foundation, for the ulterior motive of oppressing the defendant; (b) filing fictitious claims for the improper purpose of delaying criminal proceedings; and (c) persistently commencing actions and making applications that are totally without merit. The impact of egregious abuse of our court system can be serious, very serious. Individuals are forced to bear the financial and psychological burden of undergoing court proceedings for matters that should not be going to court. Limited public and court resources are diverted away from other deserving, meritorious cases and our court system is strained and weakened as a result. If we do not act, over time, trust in Singapore's justice system will be eroded. We have observed notable examples of abuse of the court process in Singapore and overseas, as parties engage in what is referred to as "lawfare", commencing unmeritorious claims to oppress others or for ulterior purposes.”
“The AOJPA protects the justice system across all these spheres. The AOJPA has become even more important in recent years, as we have taken significant steps to improve access to justice. These steps include setting up the Protection from Harassment Court and the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT). These reforms provide simplified processes intended to allow Singaporeans to enforce their rights more easily. Promoting access to justice is part of the Government's mission. We need to have good laws on our statute books and the public must be able to enforce their legal rights in practice. However, improving access to justice does not mean enabling vexatious litigants to mount abusive and unmeritorious legal claims. There are existing levers to address the risk of abuse of process in specific contexts, which we regularly review. For criminal proceedings, we passed legislation in 2018 and 2022, to provide clear procedures for applications filed after a concluded criminal appeal, including post-appeal applications in capital cases. Thresholds were included to make clear that such late-stage applications must be premised on persuasive, new material to guard against persistent delays and the constant re-litigation of issues in criminal matters. There are also existing levers available in other proceedings. For instance, the Protection from Harassment Court has powers to deal with unmeritorious or frivolous cases by striking out such claims and imposing costs consequences. However, we have received feedback that there is still a risk of harassment proceedings being misused for collateral purposes. As such, this is an area we continue to monitor and review. Similarly, for community disputes, the CDRT may award costs in cases involving an abuse of process.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". This Bill is intended to safeguard the administration of justice in Singapore by clarifying that egregious abuse of the court process will amount to contempt of court. In my speech, I will, first, provide the background to the Bill. I will explain why we have assessed that it is necessary to proactively act to introduce these amendments. I will, then, take Members through the details of the proposed amendments. In doing so, I will share how we carefully scoped the proposals to achieve a balance between the public interest in guarding against abuse of process and the rights of litigants to ventilate genuine claims before the Courts. Starting with the background. In 2016, this House passed the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, or AOJPA in short. The AOJPA consolidated the law of contempt of court, which was previously set out in multiple cases, in a single piece of legislation. The fundamental aim of our contempt of court laws is to protect our Courts and our justice system. The justice system is critical to Singapore's continued success. It benefits all of us in various ways. For example, our criminal justice system ensures law and order and a safe Singapore. Our commercial law regime provides a stable platform for investment and economic growth and allows for the expedient resolution of commercial disputes. In the community sphere, we have set up specialised tribunals and introduced simplified judge-led processes, that allow for the effective resolution of community disputes. Our family justice system aims to find timely and enduring solutions to family disputes by applying therapeutic justice.”