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 4 of 25.
“Mr Speaker, in response to the hon Member Dr Tan Wu Meng's question, so far, indeed, we have engaged seniors who are commuters and also received responses from bus captains who have been engaging with the seniors as well. In particular, one area of concern is how they would be dealing with situations where the bus had to decelerate quickly as that may cause problems for our seniors. This is one area we are trying to see how best we can progress. The other area is also, sometimes, to dissuade seniors who have mobility issues from going to the upper deck in double-deck buses, but instead, to remain in the lower deck of the buses so that they do not take any chances while climbing up to the upper deck. That requires some level of education. I thank Dr Tan for his suggestion for the Taskforce to engage the healthcare professionals. This is something that we could look at to see how we can bolster the safety for seniors while they travel in our buses.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand the concern expressed by the hon Member Mr Saktiandi. May I just assure him that the number of serious collision accidents annually involving public buses has remained stable in the past few years. This remains the case since the announcement by Minister Chee Hong Tat on the formation of the Taskforce in July 2024. As to the preliminary findings, the surveys and engagements that the Taskforce had so far showed that commuters generally feel that the safety standards onboard buses are good. But of course, there are always areas that we can look at to enhance these standards. As to what further steps we will be taking to get the inputs necessary, as I mentioned in my speech, we will be engaging international experts, overseas regulators as well as operators to identify best practices that we can adopt in the local public bus sector.”
“In the coming months, the Taskforce will be engaging international experts, overseas regulators and operators to identify suitable best practices that the local public bus sector can adopt. The Taskforce aims to complete its review by the first half of 2025.”
“Sir, the Bus Safety Tripartite Taskforce was formed on 1 July 2024 to review how road safety may be enhanced for bus commuters, bus captains and other road users in their interactions with public buses. The review builds on the safety initiatives and practices that the Land Transport Authority, the public transport operators and workers have put in place over the years. It aims to identify ways to make further improvements in areas such as safety protocols and procedures, staffing levels and work conditions, design of road infrastructure and the usage of technology. Between July 2024 and October 2024, the Taskforce engaged stakeholders such as commuters, road users, bus captains and other public transport workers, to obtain their feedback on how to improve bus safety. This includes a one-month long public survey which gathered over 2,300 responses, a survey for our bus captains which garnered over 3,400 responses, as well as in-person focus group discussions with around 160 commuters and road users. The Taskforce also visited all four bus operators to understand their safety practices. During the visits, Taskforce members also had the opportunity to engage face-to-face with bus captains to understand their concerns and challenges. To learn from stakeholders outside the bus sector, the Taskforce engaged the Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF’s) Transport Command to learn about safety initiatives for transport operators in the SAF. The Taskforce conveys its thanks to all participants of its surveys, focus group discussions and visits. It is reviewing the feedback and learning points from the numerous engagements.”
“For example, if that jurisdiction is also a Party to the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, its judgments, including from its lower courts, will be eligible for enforcement in Singapore in accordance with the Choice of Court Agreements Act 2016. Such enforcement mechanisms are relevant to judgments of the International Committee, as they are not Singapore judgments. Finally, Mr Zhulkarnain asked about potential collaborations with other jurisdictions, in a similar vein to Singapore's collaboration with Bahrain. Our collaboration with Bahrain on the International Committee was entered into because of our shared commitment to advance the framework of law and to support commerce in an important region. This collaboration can serve as a model for future partnerships with other foreign jurisdictions seeking appeals to the International Committee. That said, the shape of each collaboration must be unique to the needs and interests of each collaboration arrangement. Singapore is prepared to explore similar collaborations with other states. Each request would have to be negotiated and assessed individually. Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the historical context provided by the hon Member Mr Zhulkarnain. It is a powerful reminder of how far we have come. While Singapore has made remarkable progress in facilitating cross-border legal cooperation and shaping the future of global commercial justice, we must continue to innovate to continue on this path. This Bill represents the next step in that journey. Sir, I thank Mr Zhulkarnain for his comments and suggestions; and with that, I beg to move. 1.05 pm”
“On Mr Zhulkarnain's question about resourcing for the International Committee, the creation of the International Committee will provide various benefits for Singapore as mentioned in my speech, including members of the Singapore Bar. Resourcing will be provided for the International Committee under the existing framework for the Singapore courts. The International Committee will also tap existing Supreme Court infrastructure and facilities. Mr Zhulkarnain asked if the International Committee would comprise judges from both civil and common law jurisdictions and whether Singapore members of the judiciary will feature prominently on the Committee. The answer is yes. Members of the Committee will include the Chief Justice, Supreme Court Judges, Senior Judges, Judicial Commissioners and International Judges in the SICC, with ad hoc members drawn from the court of the foreign jurisdiction that will be referring an appeal to the International Committee. Like the panels of the SICC, the International Committee panels will comprise eminent international jurists from civil and common law traditions. This diversity is crucial to the International Committee's ability to handle a wide range of international commercial disputes. With regard to Mr Zhulkarnain's suggestion regarding the expansion of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959, or REFJA, to countries signing agreements with Singapore, we will continue to consider both bilateral and multilateral options for increasing the mutual enforcement of judgments with such countries.”
“Mr Zhulkarnain also asked whether the decisions of the International Committee are binding on the lower courts in the foreign jurisdiction which the appeal arose from and on Singapore courts. As judgments and orders of the International Committee are judgments and orders from the foreign jurisdiction which the relevant appeal arises from, their precedential value and effect in that particular jurisdiction, is subject to the law of that jurisdiction. In the same vein, as an International Committee judgment is not a Singapore judgment, it will not be binding under Singapore law. But as the International Committee includes our most senior judges, its judgments and the reasoning therein are likely to be taken into account when similar issues arise in our own Courts. Mr Zhulkarnain also asked how the International Committee will handle issues of public policy or interest, given that a decision of the International Committee would impact the jurisprudence of the foreign jurisdiction from which the appeal arises. As pertinently observed by Mr Zhulkarnain, an International Committee judgment will be a judgment of the foreign court from which the appeal arose. It is intended that the International Committee approach public policy considerations from the perspective of that foreign jurisdiction. To facilitate this, the International Committee panel hearing an appeal will consist of one or more ad hoc members drawn from the court of the foreign jurisdiction referring the appeal. The particulars of the panel’s composition will be set out in regulations. Additionally, should enforcement of an International Committee judgment be sought in Singapore, the Singapore courts can, at that stage, refuse enforcement on the ground that it contradicts Singapore public policy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Member, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, for his support of the Bill and delivering a very thoughtful speech as well. Before I deal with these points, may I just say that I am heartened to note his positive experience appearing in the SICC, which he said as a result of which he felt that his experience was deepened and his skills were honed as well. I suspect this would be the experience of all Singapore counsel appearing before the SICC. This is truly one of the ideas behind the SICC and I hope that the setting up of the International Committee will give further opportunities to members of the Singapore Bar. Mr Zhulkarnain asked about the types of cases that can be appealed to the International Committee and whether this would include cases which involve non-monetary relief. As mentioned in my speech, the International Committee will hear prescribed appeals of an international and commercial nature. These cases do not have to be related to or connected to Singapore. The powers of the Committee, which include whether it has powers to hear and decide on cases which involve non-monetary relief, will be conferred by regulations. There will be specific regulations unique to the arrangements between a foreign jurisdiction and the International Committee. Broadly, the regulations may provide for powers that include: the powers of the Committee in disposing of an appeal or any related proceedings, provided for in clause 6(2)(c)) of the Bill; and the Committee to hear those appeals and any related proceedings, including proceedings for incidental directions and interim orders, as provided for in clauses 6(1)(a) and 6(2)(j)) of the Bill.”
“And the International Committee panel will consist of at least three members who include one International Judge and one ad hoc member. Ad hoc members will be Bahraini judges nominated by the Bahrain Supreme Judicial Council. Our collaboration with Bahrain on the International Committee was entered into because of our shared commitment to advance the framework of law supporting commerce in an important region. This collaboration can serve as a model for future partnerships with other international partners. The features of the Bill are designed to allow for adaptability of the mechanism of the International Committee to accommodate future collaborations with such partners. There are also opportunities for users who will benefit from having their cases heard before leading jurists in the International Committee, thus contributing to the development of jurisprudence in areas unique to the Middle East and North Africa region. We are creating a virtuous cycle as these collaborations further enhance our judiciary’s strong international standing and open doors to even more innovative partnerships. We hope that in time, this will attract more sophisticated offshore legal activity, create new and challenging work for our legal sector, foster the development of specialised expertise in transnational commercial law and position Singapore as a major contributor to shaping the future of global commercial justice. Sir, with that, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“This means the Committee’s judgments will be enforceable in accordance with the mechanisms applicable to that jurisdiction. For example, if that jurisdiction is party to the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, enforcement in accordance with the Choice of Court Agreements Act 2016 is available. To ensure finality, a decision of the International Committee may not be appealed to or reviewed by any Court in Singapore. The International Committee framework represents a significant step forward in international commercial dispute resolution, featuring a dedicated body to hear appeals from foreign courts, flexible arrangements with different jurisdictions and the development of judicial expertise across borders in a structured, collaborative manner. Please allow me to share Singapore’s first collaboration arrangement under the Bill’s framework. On 20 March 2024, Singapore and Bahrain signed a Treaty for Bahrain to establish the Bahrain International Commercial Court (BICC) and for Singapore to designate a body to hear appeals from the BICC. The International Committee will be the body to hear these appeals. As mentioned earlier, details of the collaboration, like the types of cases that would be heard on appeal by the International Committee, will be set out in the relevant regulations made by the Minister for Law. This collaboration has three main features. First, Bahrain will establish the BICC to hear international commercial matters in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Second, the International Committee will be able to hear appeals from the BICC within the categories stated in the Treaty. Broadly, depending on the nature of the BICC’s jurisdiction over the matter, parties may agree to "opt in" or "opt out" of appeals to the International Committee.”
“Singapore Judges have sat on foreign judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, for example, in Brunei, Fiji, China and Dubai. This positions our local Judges to broaden their expertise and knowledge of the commercial realities and practices in other regions of the world. Such international exposure enhances the expertise of our Judges that they bring to the International Committee. It also demonstrates the high regard in which Singapore’s judiciary is held internationally. Particulars unique to each collaboration agreement with a foreign jurisdiction will be set out in regulations made under the framework of the Bill. The Minister for Law will be empowered to make such regulations concerning the types of cases that can be appealed to the International Committee from a prescribed foreign jurisdiction, the powers of the International Committee and ancillary matters, such as the appointment of ad hoc members and the composition of the International Committee panel. The particulars set out in the regulations will be subject to inter-governmental negotiations. To ensure quality legal representation and parity with the SICC, the Bill makes related amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1966. Singapore advocates and solicitors can appear before the International Committee, and the SICC registration model for foreign lawyers and law experts will be extended to apply to the International Committee. Those who have registered to appear before the SICC are allowed to also appear before the International Committee. For enforcement purposes by the Courts of Singapore, a judgment or order of the International Committee will be treated as a judgment or order of a court of that foreign jurisdiction from which the appeal arose.”
“This innovative initiative will, in time, create opportunities for more cross-border legal work in Singapore, boosting our legal sector. I will take hon Members through key features of the Bill in turn: the structure and constitution of the International Committee; the jurisdiction of the International Committee and the transnational appeal mechanism; legal representation in the International Committee; enforcement and finality of International Committee judgments or orders; and the International Committee’s procedural rules. First, the International Committee will be a standalone body hearing prescribed civil appeals of an international and commercial nature from prescribed foreign courts. While there will be strong linkages between the International Committee and Singapore’s judiciary, the International Committee will not be a court of Singapore, nor will it exercise the judicial power of Singapore. The International Committee will leverage the close relationship with the SICC. For example, proceedings before the International Committee will take place in Singapore and the International Committee will tap existing Supreme Court resources, such as the SICC registry and its state-of-the-art courtrooms, building on our efficient and reliable Court infrastructure. The International Committee’s bench will consist of permanent members drawn from the Judges of the Supreme Court and International Judges in the SICC, and ad hoc members drawn from the foreign court of appeal origin. This ensures a deep bench of highly qualified and experienced local and foreign jurists. As it was with the establishment of the SICC, the International Committee highlights the strong commercial law experience and expertise of Singapore Judges.”
“This includes moving between the different modalities where necessary. The SICC was established in 2015 and is specifically designed to handle transnational and cross-border commercial disputes that may have little connection to the actual physical jurisdictions they may arise from. It offers a bespoke procedural regime for international commercial disputes, drawing upon international best practices and is attuned to the needs and realities of international commerce. First, the SICC panels comprise eminent international jurists from civil and common law traditions with deep expertise and experience in hearing commercial cases. Second, the SICC allows foreign lawyers and law experts a right of audience before the Court, upon successful registration. Third, there is procedural flexibility in how parties may conduct their cases before the SICC. Since its introduction, the SICC’s caseload increased by about 30% in 2023, with a substantial increase in fresh filings in the SICC over the past two years. Furthermore, the SICC was voted the most used international commercial court globally in 2024 in the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy International Dispute Resolution Survey 2024. Users who voted include users of dispute resolution mechanisms, including businesses, in-house and external counsel, from 26 countries. Through the establishment of the International Committee and the availability of a transnational appeal mechanism as set out in this Bill, we will start a new chapter in facilitating cross-border legal cooperation, enhance our offerings as a leading international centre for dispute resolution that is responsive and attuned to evolving commercial needs and strengthen opportunities for the development of jurisprudence beyond our shores.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Singapore International Commercial Court (International Committee) Bill establishes an International Committee of the Singapore International Commercial Court, or International Committee. This body will hear prescribed appeals of international commercial disputes from prescribed foreign jurisdictions. Before I delve into the specifics of the Bill, allow me to provide some context on how the proposals within this Bill are to be positioned within the present dispute resolution framework. Singapore has established itself as a leading international dispute resolution hub with a comprehensive suite of international offerings. In addition to our domestic Courts, we have an ecosystem built on three pillars. First, international arbitration. In addition to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), there are also other leading international arbitration centres that have established a presence here, including the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the ICC International Court of Arbitration, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center, and the American Arbitration Association’s International Centre for Dispute Resolution. Second, international litigation, through the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC). Third, international mediation, facilitated by our mediation centres like the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC). These three pillars work in harmony to offer a holistic, three-part approach to dispute resolution for commercial disputes. Depending on the nature and stage of the dispute, commercial parties can adopt the most suitable dispute resolution modality for their needs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to the question that Miss Cheryl Chan posed, after every oil spill, every incident, there will be a study to see what are the lessons that can be drawn and then we look to see how we can improve our plans that are in place as well and also engage the respective stakeholders. And through the cooperation of all the stakeholders, we aim to ensure that we minimise the risk of oil spills.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to the question that Miss Cheryl Chan posed, the answer is yes. After every oil spill, every incident, there will be a study to see what are the lessons that can be drawn and then we look to see how we can improve our plans that are in place as well and also engage the respective stakeholders. And through the cooperation of all the stakeholders, we aim to ensure that we minimise the risk of oil spills. [Please refer to "Adequacy and Effectiveness of Oil Sighting and Alert Mechanisms, and Maritime Incident Response and Mitigation Strategies", Official Report, 11 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 145, Oral Answers to Questions section.] [(proc text) Written statement by Mr Murali Pillai circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)] I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply given during the Sitting of 11 November 2024. My statement should read as follows:”
“Mr Yip asked about safeguards that protect residents from unjust foreign confiscation orders and proposed to implement a cap or stricter criteria for enforcing foreign confiscation orders. I would first clarify that our foreign confiscation order regime would only affect assets located in Singapore and would not apply to assets located overseas. Next, I would reiterate that the MACMA contains robust safeguards, as well as stringent criteria – and I would also highlight that these are in line with international standards. These protect our citizens and our residents from any unjust foreign confiscation orders. I do not think it would be advisable to introduce a cap on foreign confiscation orders, as this might lead to arbitrary results. Furthermore, FATF recommends that powers that are available to domestic competent authorities should also be available for use in response to requests for mutual legal assistance. In other words, parity is key and it would be difficult to justify why a cap should apply to foreign confiscation orders, especially if this could constrain international efforts against money laundering. Once again, I thank the hon Members who have spoken and supported the Bill. In summary, this Bill is about strengthening our regime for international cooperation, and our trusts framework. It ensures, in line with our consistent approach for, prevention, detection and enforcement, that Singapore's processes for international cooperation remains relevant and effective, with robust safeguards, and that the misuse of trusts will be curtailed. Mr Speaker, with that, I beg to move. 3.18 pm”
“In the same vein, our Bill will also provide that in cases where property is to be handed over to the requesting country, such persons must similarly be given a reasonable opportunity to make representations to the court. Mr Speaker, this goes towards striking the right balance between privacy, confidentiality and transparency and our ability to provide international assistance to combat crime, which I have mentioned at the beginning of my reply. Mr Yip also asked how the Government will ensure that sensitive information will be used only for its intended purpose. In a similar vein, Mr Parekh asked about the Attorney-General's powers and responsibilities in transmitting evidence to foreign authorities, along with safeguards for managing sensitive data. Under the MACMA, foreign authorities must undertake that the information or thing requested will not be used for a matter other than the criminal matter in respect of which the request was made, except with the consent of the Attorney‑General. The Attorney-General may also request that the thing requested would be returned upon completion of the criminal matter. In the course of assessing the request, the Attorney-General would ensure that the relevant undertakings are provided. If they are not provided, the request would be refused. Clause 8 of the Bill will give the Attorney-General more options to decide how a thing is to be handled or disposed of. For instance, where it pertains to digital information, the foreign authority may be required to delete the information when it is no longer required for the criminal matter. This provides Singapore with more options and greater control over the management of sensitive data, after it is handed over to the requesting authority.”
“Such international engagements and networks allow us to share with other countries our respective laws, procedures and practices, including amendments such as those being considered today. This in turn creates a better understanding of each other's requirements and facilitates assistance both ways. Mr Yip and Mr Parekh asked how we cooperate with non-prescribed foreign countries, which are countries that we do not have a mutual legal assistance treaty with. Based on section 16 of the MACMA, we will require the country to give an undertaking of reciprocity and the same safeguards in the MACMA will apply to its request. We also keep records of the foreign requests that we receive, including the undertakings that these countries provide. Thus far, we have not encountered a situation where a foreign country has refused to honour its undertakings. Mr Yip further asked about what recourse is available to persons affected by a foreign request, such as a production order or an application to enforce a foreign confiscation order. For production orders, Mr Yip may wish to note that under our laws, the person required to comply with an order may contest the order. In the case of, for example, bank records to trace the movement of funds, the person or entity would be the bank. As for confiscation orders, section 30 of MACMA provides that the Court must be satisfied that the person affected by the foreign confiscation order would at least have had the opportunity to defend himself in a foreign court. The Third Schedule of MACMA further provides that the Court is not to exercise its powers to realise property in Singapore unless a reasonable opportunity has been given to persons holding any interest in the property to make representations to the Court.”
“For instance, to obtain a production order for information in the possession of a financial institution, the court must be satisfied that: (a) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has carried on or benefited from a foreign offence; (b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the thing is likely to be of substantial value to the criminal matter, and is not subject to legal privilege; and (c) it is not contrary to public interest for the thing to be produced or that access to it be given. To summarise, Mr Speaker, Sir, MACMA contains robust safeguards, to ensure that assistance is provided only in meritorious cases, even as we seek to enhance our international criminal cooperation regime. Sir, I will now deal with the specific queries from Mr Yip and Mr Parekh. Mr Parekh's first query was how Singapore would streamline communication and operation procedures with foreign authorities. Amending our laws and regulations would only go so far when interfacing with foreign authorities. Singapore regularly engages with our foreign counterparts, not only bilaterally, but also in multilateral and regional settings such as at FATF, the United Nations and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Singapore is also a member of informal networks, such as the Southeast Asia Justice Network, or SEAJust, which is a cooperation network that provides an informal platform facilitating direct contact and communication between central authorities for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. As of 2024, there are 22 members to SEAJust, which go beyond those in Southeast Asia, such as Australia, China, France and the United States of America.”
“This reflects the requirement of dual criminality, which generally applies to forms of assistance that are coercive in nature, including those seeking to obtain information or confiscate property from persons in Singapore. In other words, if the conduct in question would not have constituted an offence, had it occurred in Singapore, then we will not assist. Other examples where we must refuse assistance include: (a) where there are substantial grounds for believing that the request was made for the purposes of investigating, prosecuting, punishing or otherwise causing prejudice to a person on account of the person's race, religion, sex, ethnic origin, nationality or political opinions; or (b) where the thing requested is of insufficient importance to the investigation or could reasonably be obtained by other means; (c) there is also a general ground for refusal where it is contrary to public interest to provide the assistance sought. These grounds for refusal, and many others that you will find in section 20 of MACMA, will ensure that we only act in meritorious cases. In addition to assessing whether any ground for refusal under section 20 may apply, under section 41 of MACMA, the Minister acts as a further check to ensure that the taking of any action is in the interests of the sovereignty, security or public order of Singapore. Our courts act as a final safeguard, including where the request pertains to the obtaining of information or confiscation of property of persons in Singapore. Under the MACMA, the court has to be satisfied that the relevant legal requirements are met.”
“But before turning to the safeguards in the MACMA and responding to the Members' queries, I would like to make a brief aside to address Mr Parekh's point about the compliance and operational costs in the trusts sector. The amendments to the Trustees Act are unlikely to raise financial and operational costs significantly. As stated earlier, the Trustees Act already imposes obligation on trustees to obtain and hold information on each "relevant trust party". Insofar as the amendments also require the trustees to collect additional information, including the basic information of the trust, this information should be readily available from the existing documentation which the trustee will already have. Sir, as mentioned in my speech earlier, we will ensure that we have robust safeguards in place to ensure that Singapore acts only in meritorious cases. Let me elaborate on the safeguards set out in the MACMA. In the first instance, section 19 of the MACMA sets out a list of requirements, such as a description of the offence and the relevant facts, that the foreign country must provide in order to make a request for assistance to Singapore. This ensures that every request will contain the relevant information that would enable the Singapore authorities to carry out a full assessment to determine if assistance can and should be granted in each case. Next, section 20 of the MACMA sets out several grounds under which assistance must or may be refused. I will highlight a few as examples. For instance, a request must be refused if it relates to the investigation, prosecution or punishment of a person in respect of any conduct which, if it had occurred in Singapore, would not have constituted a Singapore offence.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank hon Members Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Neil Parekh who spoke in support of the Bill. I commend them for their advocacy to make sure that Singapore has a high bar, preventing it to be a place for financial crime and also, in relation to providing cooperation to other foreign jurisdictions in the fight against financial crime. I will respond to address the questions that hon Members raised on the Bill, which relate to the topic of mutual legal assistance. Mr Yip has raised concerns relating to privacy, confidentiality and transparency. I note that the pith of Mr Yip's questions is whether the MACMA and the amendments to it, strike the right balance between these concerns and the need for international cooperation in order to combat crime. These are understandable concerns. Mr Parekh also raised similar queries, with specific emphasis on the processes and procedures for mutual legal assistance. These are important questions. When it comes to striking the right balance, we regularly grapple with such considerations when designing laws that confer powers over information and property belonging to private individuals and entities. In the context of mutual legal assistance, it is critical that we do not, and indeed we will not, blindly accede to every request that we receive. I propose to respond in two parts. First, to address the general point about maintaining the right balance, I will broadly explain the existing safeguards set out in the MACMA, which ensures that the right balance is struck between the interests of the private individuals and entities on the one hand, and the demands of justice on the other. Second, I will further address Mr Yip and Mr Parekh's specific queries.”
“Beyond this, the CTE will also be empowered to issue codes of practice, guidelines or standards of performance if and when required. These codes and guidelines or standards, if issued, will help to guide trustees of relevant trusts on how best to comply with their obligations. Collectively, these amendments will bolster Singapore's national strategy for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism and proliferation financing by preventing trusts from being misused by criminals. In conclusion, Sir, the Bill will strengthen Singapore's international cooperation regime, bolster its national strategy against money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing, and align itself with international standards. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“On the second point on sanctions for non-compliance, the Trustees Act currently provides that any contravention of the obligations introduced under Part 7 shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding S$1,000. However, the maximum fines that may be imposed for comparable breaches in other pieces of legislation are higher. In the Accountants Act, as well as other pieces of legislation that this House has passed – the Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act and the Business Trusts (Amendment) Act – the maximum fine for similar breaches is S$25,000. To ensure alignment with the maximum fine for other similar offences and that the sanctions for breaches of obligations introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act are dissuasive and effective, we will update the maximum fine provided for in Part 7 of the Trustees Act to S$25,000. The amendments also introduce the power of composition. Thus, in appropriate cases, a composition sum of up to one-half of the amount of the maximum fine may be levied in lieu of prosecution. The third set of amendments will grant a public officer called the Commissioner of Trust Enforcement (CTE) under the Ministry of Law the power to investigate offences under Part 7 of the Trustees Act. Previously, this power lay with the Police. With these amendments, the CTE and any authorised officers he may appoint will be empowered to investigate any breach of the trustees' obligations, introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act. This transfer of investigative functions from the Police to MinLaw will develop MinLaw's subject matter expertise and allow investigators to more effectively address any breaches of the obligations introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act.”
“I will now turn to detail each of the key amendments to the Trustees Act: first, the scope of information which the trustees will need to obtain; second, an update to the sanctions for non-compliance with the obligations introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act; and third, on the powers to investigate trustees that breach their obligations introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act. On the first point of the scope of information. Part 7 of the Trustees Act requires trustees to obtain and hold information on each person who is a "relevant trust party". This includes the settlor, the trustee, the beneficiaries and any person who has any power over the disposition of any property that is subject of the trust. The amendments to the Trustees Act will expand the scope of the information to be collected. With the amendments, the Trustee will now be required to collect the basic information of the trust. This includes the identifier of the trust, for example, the name of the trust, or its tax reference number. It also includes the trust deed and the place where the trust is administered. The term "relevant trust party" will be expanded to include the "class of beneficiaries" and "natural persons exercising ultimate effective control over the trust". A "class of beneficiaries" refers to a group of individuals who are not yet known or identified in a trust instrument. One example of a group may be the future descendants of the settlor. Trustees will likely already have such information. This information will usually be set out in the trust instrument which the trustees would likely have in their possession. The trust instrument is the document setting out the terms of the trust and how the assets of the trust are to be managed or administered for the beneficiaries.”
“Some trustees, such as trust companies that are in the business of providing trust services professionally, are licensed and regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). This is to ensure that the trust companies adhere to high standards of integrity, professionalism and business conduct, and observe anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism requirements similar to other financial institutions providing wealth management services. Trust companies may be involved in administering complex trust structures and dealing with high value assets and transactions, which exposes them to greater risk of being used for money laundering and other financial crimes. Trust companies' obligation to obtain and hold relevant information is found under the Trust Companies Act, the supporting subsidiary legislation and binding Notices issued by the MAS. The risk profiles of trustees that are not regulated by MAS are normally lower. These lower risk trusts are typically not complex, as setting up a complex structure would typically require the assistance of professionals such as a trust company. To illustrate, a trust set up by an aged parent by transferring assets to a trusted family member to provide for a disabled child would fall under this category. Such trustees' obligations are generally found in the Regulations introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act. The amendments to the Trustees Act being moved today are primarily to Part 7 of the Trustees Act.”
“Trusts can thus be used to conceal the person who is ultimately entitled to benefit from the asset, particularly when they are used as part of a complex structure. How do we combat such misuse? As part of our three-pillar framework, we have enacted laws which require gatekeepers of the financial system, such as banks and other financial institutions, to obtain information as part of customer due diligence or CDD checks, thereby detecting and preventing misuse. Where the customer is a trustee, the CDD checks should also be applied to persons with ownership or control over the trust, such as the settlor and the protector, as well as the beneficiaries, or persons who will benefit from the trust. These CDD checks would include enhanced measures, such as checking on the source of funds for the settlor, in cases of higher money laundering or terrorist financing risks. For these CDD checks to work and for the banks to be able to obtain the information needed to prevent money laundering, financing of terrorist and proliferation activities, trustees must be required to obtain and hold information about the trust that they administer. Similarly, if a law enforcement agency is conducting an investigation and wishes to find out more about the source of certain funds, and who the ultimate beneficiary is, their investigations would be facilitated if trustees are required to hold the relevant information. Thus, an obligation on trustees to hold such information complements the gatekeepers' CDD obligations and the powers of investigation of the law enforcement agencies. The obligations imposed on trustees depends on the type of trust and their risk profile.”
“For example, the Bill will allow an overseas document to be deemed, to be authenticated under the MACMA or the Extradition Act, when it is sealed with an official or public seal, or stamped with an official stamp of that country, or of a minister, a department or official of the government of that country. This is in line with our intent, as mentioned earlier, to take into account the varying practices of foreign countries, where processes for sealing or stamping may differ. Sir, we will continue to review Singapore's international cooperation regime to ensure that our processes remain relevant and effective. As we continue to do so, we will ensure that robust safeguards are in place to ensure that Singapore will only act in meritorious cases. With that, I conclude the first part of my speech on international criminal cooperation. I now turn to my next part on key changes to the trust regime. I will first explain the background of how trusts may be misused. I will then detail how our legal regime aims to combat such misuse. I will end by going through the amendments that the Bill seeks to make to bolster our legal regime. Generally, a trust is created when a person, the settlor, transfers legal title of certain identified property to another person, the trustee. The trustee is obliged to deal with that property for the benefit of another, the beneficiary. Trusts can be used for a wide variety of legitimate purposes, including succession planning, protection of vulnerable persons and charitable giving. However, trusts can also be misused by criminals. While the trustee is the legal owner of the trust assets, the trust assets are held for the benefit of the beneficiary.”
“While the MACMA already contains examples of when proceedings are considered concluded, such as discontinuance of proceedings or acquittal, the Bill will further clarify that proceedings are concluded when there is no right of appeal following the acquittal, for example, or that all rights of appeal have expired or are exhausted. This clarifies a grey area in determining when proceedings are concluded, such as where the defendant has been acquitted but the foreign state is still pursuing an appeal. Fourth, Singapore will be able to enforce foreign confiscation orders made by "a competent authority", in addition to such orders made by a Court. A foreign confiscation order is an order made in connection with the foreign offence for the recovery, forfeiture or confiscation of any payment or property. Currently, we can only enforce foreign confiscation orders made in judicial proceedings. However, not all countries follow this system. A number of jurisdictions, especially those with civil law systems, have confiscation orders which may be issued by an authority other than a Court. There is thus a need to take a broader approach. Recognising confiscation orders made by a "competent authority" will enhance Singapore's ability to deprive criminals of their illicit proceeds. Mr Speaker, in addition to amending the MACMA, the Bill also covers a couple of amendments to the Extradition Act. We have updated the amendment of "foreign state" to clarify that it is within Singapore's sovereign power to make an extradition request to any territory and not only those listed in the Third Schedule. The Bill also contains other technical amendments, all intended to improve Singapore's international cooperation regime – to make it clearer, smoother and more efficient.”
“First, the Bill will empower our law enforcement authorities to take statements from persons for the purposes of assisting foreign criminal investigations. Currently, section 21 of the MACMA requires that criminal proceedings have commenced in the foreign country before a witness may be compelled to give evidence to aid in those proceedings. This generally means that prosecution must have been initiated. As such, if the foreign country is still investigating and has yet to commence proceedings, then Singapore would be unable to assist with the taking of evidence under section 21 of the MACMA. In contrast, our domestic authorities are empowered, under our Criminal Procedure Code, to take statements from persons for the purpose of domestic investigations, before the matter reaches our courts. A new section 21A will address this issue to ensure that powers available for domestic authorities are also available for use in response to requests for mutual legal assistance. Second, with this Bill, Singapore can assist to identify, freeze, seize or confiscate property "intended to be used" in connection with the commission of a foreign offence. This will add to our current powers, which pertain to property "used" in the commission of such offence. This expands the scope of property covered under the MACMA and strengthens our ability to deprive criminals of their property. This is in line with FATF's definition of "criminal property", which covers instrumentalities used and intended for use in money laundering and other offences. Third, the Bill will clarify when foreign proceedings are deemed concluded for the purposes of enforcement of a foreign confiscation order.”
“Singapore has been assessed by the FATF to have a strong legal and institutional framework and we are determined to maintain our good standing. This Bill is in line with the Government's consistent approach, as it seeks to strengthen our international cooperation regime and framework for trusts. There are two main components to this Bill. First, Singapore's international criminal cooperation regime will be updated to ensure it remains efficient, effective and in line with international standards. This will enhance our ability to cooperate with other jurisdictions to combat crime. Second, the Trustees Act will be updated to better support Singapore's legal regime by revising the trustees' obligations and imposing effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. I will take hon Members through these two components of the Bill. First, let me begin with the changes to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, or MACMA for short. Mutual legal assistance is a process where states seek and provide assistance to one another for the purposes of criminal investigations, prosecution and other proceedings. A strong international cooperation framework is especially vital in our world today, as crime is increasingly transnational in nature. In this regard, it is in our interests to ensure that our laws are updated to allow us to cooperate effectively with other countries to prevent and punish crime. Mr Speaker, the feedback that we have received from FATF is that our quality of assistance is generally high, often supporting complex investigations and helping to secure convictions. We, however, do not rest on our laurels. The Bill will further improve our processes and capabilities to assist. I will highlight four key amendments that the Bill will make to the MACMA.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, as this House is well aware, the Government is committed to upholding Singapore's status as an international financial centre and key trading and transhipment hub, built on a clean, robust and credible system. Our system would be undermined if criminals were to abuse our system to carry out illicit activities. Singapore thus needs to be vigilant. To this end, Singapore has taken a resolute stance against money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. The measures which have been taken include: (a) adopting the three key pillars of prevention, detection and enforcement, as set out in the report by the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Anti-Money Laundering published recently in October 2024. These three strategies are also used to combat terrorism financing and proliferation financing; (b) continuously reviewing our processes and updating our laws to ensure that they remain effective and in line with international standards. For instance, the Government has passed the Anti-Money Laundering and Other Matters Act 2024, which will enhance the ability of the Government to detect and act against money laundering with enhanced data sharing and strengthened prosecutorial levers; and (c) supporting global trends to combat money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. To this end, Singapore has been an active member of the Financial Action Task Force, or FATF for short, since 1992. The FATF sets the international standards for tackling money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation financing.”
“I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his clarification. We have worked with industry players to develop a robust contingency plan, which we rehearse and refine regularly, including during our inter-agency exercises for oil spills every two years. Our standard operating procedure was tested in these incidents and was effective. It is important for us to recognise that every oil spill incident is different as there are a variety of external factors, such as tidal and current conditions, the location of the incident and the time of the incident. Some tailoring of our response to each incident will be needed. In relation to proposals to prepare more equipment in Singapore, locating equipment nearer to the port or requiring bunker vessels to carry out oil spill response equipment, these proposals are carefully being assessed to determine the impact on navigational safety, efficiency and competitiveness of our port. Singapore, as the hon Member Mr Tan knows, is an island with anchorages along the entire southern coastline. As specialised equipment is required for oil spill response, it may not be practicable to have multiple sets of equipment located close to any potential incident site along the entire coastline. Oil spills may originate from many types of vessels too. So, again, it may not be practical or feasible to require all vessels to carry their own booms as it may be costly. In addition, these vessels would likely be equipped with lightweight booms, which might not be suitable to deal with all types of oil spill incidents. Currently, the MPA Guardian is equipped with 260 metres of lightweight booms to aid in dealing quickly with small-scale and localised oil spills, such as oil spills during bunkering operations.”
“I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his two supplementary questions. In relation to the first question, I believe the hon Member may be referring to the Shell incident. So, the hon Member would know those pipelines that the Member was referring to are on land; and MPA's responsibility, of course, are in relation to maritime waters. So, in relation to the specific checks, that would be something that NEA would specifically be looking into or, rather, it is part of NEA's area and perhaps this is something that can be taken up with NEA. But what I could say is that, as far as MPA is concerned, in relation to protecting oil spills into maritime waters, whenever there are such incidents that occur, it would work with these industry players to ensure that the risks are minimised. If it is something that is land-based, they will work with the relevant Government agencies to have a system put in place that protects from land to sea as well. In relation to the second supplementary question, which Mr Dennis Tan has referred to, it is something about continuing — May I just clarify, he referred to oil response, would that be correct?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to the question that Miss Cheryl Chan posed, the answer is yes. After every oil spill, every incident, there will be a study to see what are the lessons that can be drawn and then we look to see how we can improve our plans that are in place as well and also engage the respective stakeholders. And through the cooperation of all the stakeholders, we aim to ensure that we minimise the risk of oil spills. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister of State for Transport", Official Report, 11 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 145, Correction By Written Statement section.]”
“A key pillar of our strategy is to ensure our readiness to respond through our regular exercises and a robust contingency plan, which I mentioned earlier. We have also taken steps to enhance the safety of vessels, bunkering operations and industrial facilities to minimise the risk of accidents and oil spills or leaks in Singapore. For example, we have: (a) safety guidelines and random spot checks to ensure that bunkering players follow proper procedure and reduce the risk of oil spills during bunkering operations; (b) ensured mandatory safety training and shipboard drills for vessel crew on incident response as well as inspections for vessels in our port to comply with international conventions; and (c) inspections at industrial facilities to ensure compliance with water pollution control requirements. We take every oil spill incident seriously and expect companies and individuals involved to play their part and adhere to requirements that are imposed to keep our shores and waters safe from oil spills and leaks. We will hold parties accountable for any lapses or wrongdoings which may surface during the investigations.”
“MPA has also completed its investigations and assessed that key crew members of Vox Maxima, the dredger that allided with the bunker tanker Marine Honour, failed to discharge their duties properly on the day of the incident. Four crew members have just been charged in the State Courts for contraventions under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Court proceedings are ongoing. As investigations by agencies into the incidents on 20 and 28 October are ongoing, we are unable to share more details at this juncture. Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Dennis Tan asked about the learning points from past oil spill incidents. We conduct regular oil and chemical spill exercises to test our contingency plans with industry partners and agencies and improve our plans to take into account learning points from these exercises and past incidents. This has helped us to strengthen communication and coordination among agencies and with the public. New technologies, such as drones and satellite imagery, have also been incorporated as part of MPA's response to oil spills in our waters. Separately, the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau (TSIB) is also conducting safety investigations into the incident on 14 June to identify safety lessons with the aim of preventing future transport accidents and incidents. The TSIB investigations are not meant to apportion blame or liability. Upon completion of its investigations, TSIB will publish its investigation report. Ms Poh Li San, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked about measures to prevent the occurrence of oil spills or overflow from bunkering operations into our waters. As a major hub port, it is not possible to completely eliminate the risk of oil spills or leaks and we must expect that there will be such incidents from time to time.”
“So, there is a system in place comprising a network of stakeholders and capabilities to detect, monitor and respond to oil spills or leaks into our waters. It is also important that our maritime partners and companies with assets close to shore alert the relevant agencies as quickly as possible once there is an incident so that resources can be mounted to mitigate the impact of the incident. Mr Dennis Tan and Ms Poh Li San asked about the environmental impact of these three incidents on our marine ecosystem, coastal areas and seawater quality. Thus far, NParks has not observed any immediate impact on our marine and coastal ecosystems and wildlife, and SFA has not observed any immediate impact on fisheries. No oil from the October incidents has landed on any of our recreational beaches. PUB is also monitoring the seawater intakes at its desalination plants and readings remain normal. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked for updates on our investigations into the recent incidents. Mr Yip, Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked about the responsibility for costs and losses incurred. Following every incident, agencies carry out investigations as to whether any applicable laws have been breached and legal action may be needed to be taken where appropriate. Where agencies and private parties have incurred costs in the incident response or losses from the incident, they may also have civil recourse to recover these. Processes would differ depending on the nature and circumstances of each incident. But allow me to provide some examples from the incident that occurred on 14 June. Agencies are consolidating their claims for compensation under the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund.”
“To Mr Dennis Tan's question about the timeline for the discovery of the oil leak on 20 October, the leak in Shell's pipeline reportedly occurred at about 5.30 am that day. At around 1.00 pm, Shell alerted MPA, which, in turn, alerted NEA shortly after. NEA and MPA are conducting investigations into the incident, including the time taken before Shell notified the agencies. According to the rules, Shell is supposed to inform MPA and NEA as soon as possible when they detected the leak. If there are lapses by Shell, the agencies will take the necessary enforcement actions against the company. Miss Cheryl Chan and Ms Joan Pereira asked about our alert and monitoring systems for such incidents. Once there is a discharge of oil into our waters or land, the responsible parties are required under our legislation to immediately notify MPA and NEA respectively. In our waters, MPA has a surveillance system in place to identify and monitor oil sightings, including regular patrols by MPA patrol craft and close collaboration with other Government agencies, industry partners and ships at sea. Aerial drone flights and satellite imagery may also be deployed when there are reports of oil spills. Concurrently, MPA also informs agencies to be on standby to deploy resources to prevent further pollution or facilitate clean-up operations for seaward spills. Under the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation) Regulations, oil handling facilities or offshore installations in Singapore are required to have containment booms, oil skimmers and dispersants. If necessary, MPA may ask that these resources be deployed to oil spill incidents to supplement resources from MPA and our contractors.”
“It is, therefore, not as useful to compare the response times for these incidents. Suffice it to say that in each of the three incidents, our Government agencies responded in a coordinated, swift and effective manner. Once they became aware of the incident, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) coordinated with other agencies, such as the National Environment Agency (NEA), National Parks Board (NParks), Public Utilities Board (PUB), Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC), Singapore Food Agency (SFA) and JTC to activate resources and capabilities to respond. For the oil leak and overflow incidents on 20 and 28 October respectively, agencies activated an emergency operations team which implemented precautionary measures to monitor and prevent the further spread of oil. These measures included the activation of craft to spray dispersants, the deployment of current buster systems, the installation of oil absorbent booms to protect our beaches and biodiversity sensitive areas, and the use of drones and satellite capabilities to assist with oil sightings. For the oil leak on 20 October, Shell activated resources to clean up the leaked slop in the channel between Pulau Bukom and Pulau Bukom Kechil. Clean-up operations were completed on 29 October. Thanks to the close collaboration and efforts amongst agencies and industry players, we were able to ensure smooth clean-up operations and prevent the further spread of oil in our waters. There have also been no other oil sightings at sea and ashore arising from these incidents. Agencies have since stood down seaward oil response assets and the booms that were earlier deployed.”
“My response today will also cover related questions that have been filed by Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Hany Soh, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim for subsequent Sittings, and if the hon Members are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions after this session. Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the underlying causes of the incidents. Allow me to, first, emphasise that the nature and scale of each incident were different and the cause of each incident was unrelated to the others. The 14 June incident, as the Minister for Transport explained in great detail in his Ministerial Statement on 2 July 2024, was due to an allision between a dredger and a bunker tanker at Pasir Panjang Terminal. This led to a sudden discharge of an estimated 400 tonnes of oil into the sea. The 20 October incident was the result of a leak in Shell's land-based pipeline at Pulau Bukom. This led to an estimated 30 to 40 tonnes of slop, which is a mixture of oil and water, leaking into the sea. The 28 October incident occurred due to an overflow of bunker fuel in the receiving vessel during a bunkering operation off Changi. This led to an estimated five tonnes of oil overflowing into the sea, which is a much smaller amount compared to the 14 June incident. Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Hany Soh asked how our response times to the October incidents compare with our response to the incident in June, and whether the response to the 28 October incident was more efficient than the response to past incidents. Given the very different natures, scales and locations of the three incidents, the time and resources required to monitor, clean up and mitigate the spread of oil from these three incidents were different.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 7 to 9 for oral answer and Question 35 for written answer in today's Order Paper together? These questions pertain to the recent oil spill and leak incidents that occurred on 14 June, 20 October and 28 October this year. Sorry, Question Nos 7 to 8. My apologies, Mr Speaker. Not Question Nos 7 to 9.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the hon Member Mr Lim's concern about safety arising from the Seoul incident that he mentioned. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is looking at this quite closely. From the perspective of fire incidents in Singapore, thankfully, it has remained quite low. In 2023, for a vehicle population of 16,262 EVs, there was only one fire incident. So, we will continue to look at it and then, based on the experience, we will take whatever further steps that are necessary. In relation to the coverage of the insurance policy, as I mentioned in my answer to the hon Member Mr Lim just now, it is a third-party public liability insurance policy. So, it covers not only damage to property – and the Member mentioned HDB – it also covers personal injury and damage to other third parties as well. So, that is the ambit of the policy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon Member Mr Lim Biow Chuan may be happy to note that the electric vehicle charging operators (EVCOs) are required to maintain a public liability insurance policy which covers personal injury, death or damage to property of third persons arising from EV charging operations, including from fire incidents, with a minimum coverage of $2 million per occurrence.”
“Sir, in response to the hon Member Mr Chua's questions, as far as reference to the last part of his PQ is concerned, he was asking the question as to whether LTA is conducting its own testing and inspection of the affected vehicle model. So, in context, that does not arise because the vehicles in Singapore are not subject of the recall. But to his more general question as to whether LTA conducts independent testing and inspection, I would respond as follows. All vehicles, including EVs, are required to meet internationally recognised vehicle safety standards, such as the United Nations regulations, before they can be used on our roads. All vehicles are also required to undergo periodic inspections, to ensure that they meet roadworthiness requirements. LTA does not conduct additional testing and inspection for vehicles affected in recalls, but requires motor dealers to promptly report any safety-related recalls initiated by vehicle manufacturers to LTA. Once reported, dealers are provided with the contact details of the affected vehicle owners. Motor dealers must then notify these owners and make arrangements to rectify the defects as soon as possible.”
“Mr Speaker, the Road Traffic Act stipulates that vehicle manufacturers or dealers must, upon becoming aware, notify the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and affected vehicle owners of any safety-related defects in vehicles manufactured or sold by them. BYD Singapore Private Limited has informed LTA that BYD vehicles sold in Singapore, are not affected by the recent recall affecting about 97,000 BYD vehicles manufactured in China. LTA will continue to monitor the situation and will take appropriate action if any safety concerns are identified.”
“We note the hon Member's suggestion. Perhaps this is an area that we can work on with VICPA and other businesses.”
“Sir, I am obliged to Ms See for her supplementary question. In relation to supporting creators who come from less means and how do they enforce their rights, one thing to note is that, like for all fellow Singaporeans, they are entitled to legal aid as long as the means test and the merits test are satisfied. That is something that is also available to those who own creative rights. In addition, as I mentioned in my answer to the hon Member Ms See, we have been running legal clinics for quite some time and the businesses may wish to avail themselves of these legal clinics which are run on a complimentary basis. In addition, IPOS has already commenced some of the capacity-building initiatives, for example, the MOU with VICPA and hopefully, this may be a suitable avenue as well for these creators.”
“Working with VICPA and other partners continues to be an important approach to supporting creators across the multi-faceted issues that they face.”