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 5 of 25.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) runs weekly IP legal clinics where creators can receive complimentary legal advice from practising lawyers about enforcement and infringement of IP rights. This includes understanding available options if they find that their rights have potentially been infringed. About one in four of the sessions touched on copyright infringement. Due to the confidential nature of these sessions, IPOS is not privy to the details of individual cases, including their progress and outcomes. Besides IPOS’ IP legal clinics, creators can consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR), such as mediation which is often more cost-effective and expeditious, compared to litigation. IPOS runs various mediation support programmes, including collaborating with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center to promote ADR by offering reduced rates. IPOS also provides a variety of initiatives to increase public awareness of IP rights and build up IP capabilities. For example, IPOS’ subsidiary IPOS International runs the IP Academy, which conducts courses to raise the understanding of IP amongst businesses. In addition, IPOS recently signed a three-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Visual, Audio, Creative Content Professionals Association (Singapore), or VICPA, of which I believe the hon Member Ms See is part of the leadership team, to provide support to creative freelance professionals and young creators in the areas of IP education and management, capacity building and resource sharing. The MOU builds on collaborations between IPOS and VICPA since 2021.”
“Sir, I confirm that the hon Member's understanding is correct. 3.45 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim for her support of the Bill as well as her comments. On the specific question that she raised in relation to the CYPA of 2019, she asked whether the amendments to cater for the increase in the jurisdiction of the Youth Courts to hear cases involving youth offenders between 16 and below 18 will take effect. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has been working on this with the relevant agencies and will announce the operationalisation date of the relevant amendments from the CYPA of 2019 later this year. MSF needed time to build up its capacity and capabilities to manage not only a higher number of youth offenders, but also a new profile of older youths with differing needs and risks. MSF is committed to ensuring older youth offenders receive an age-appropriate rehabilitation catered to their risks and needs. Sir, I would like to conclude by thanking Ms Lim once again for her support of the Bill, which will make the legislative provisions clearer, update legislative provisions in light of the revised terminology and definitions and, finally, streamline and improve operational effectiveness and delivery of our policies. Sir, with that, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move.”
“As a whole, the amendments in clause 12 help the LRCs' work in keeping our Statute Book coherent and comprehensible, furthering the rule of law. Finally, Sir, I come to the amendment relating to the Women's Charter 1961. Clause 13 amends the Women's Charter to make a minor drafting adjustment to the new section 126B, which was inserted by section 35 of the Women's Charter (Amendment) Act 2022 and is yet to be commenced. The amendment clarifies that the new measures to enhance the enforcement of child access orders apply to all access orders made under section 126 of the Women's Charter. In conclusion, Sir, this Bill makes miscellaneous and minor amendments in the manner that I have just described. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“The Law Revision Commissioners (LRCs) will be revising subsidiary legislation to ensure coherence and consistency between subsidiary legislation and the revised Acts. For instance, when revising the Acts, certain provisions were renumbered and the language was modernised. As at 26 June 2024, there are about 4,900 pieces of subsidiary legislation under around 349 Acts to be revised. This comes to almost 50,000 pages of subsidiary legislation. Given the sheer volume, the amendment in clause 12(e) is needed to allow subsidiary legislation to be revised in batches, rather than on a single date. This will allow batches of updated subsidiary legislation that are ready to be published earlier, compared to holding back until all the subsidiary legislation is ready at a later date. The amendments by clauses 12(e) and 12(i) also give the LRCs discretion not to revise certain types of subsidiary legislation, for instance, subsidiary legislation that applies to certain time periods. Clause 12(l) also allows subsidiary legislation to be revised on an ad hoc basis, not necessarily every year. Clause 12(h) allows a consolidated subsidiary legislation to be amended. Sometimes, when revising subsidiary legislation, the LRCs consolidate two or more pieces of subsidiary legislation. An example is the Infrastructure Protection (Protected Areas) Orders. When combined, a single subsidiary legislation will list the protected areas that were previously in separate subsidiary legislation. The amendment by clause 12(h) allows this consolidated subsidiary legislation to be amended to accommodate changes to the contents of the subsidiary legislation in the future.”
“These amendments make clear that pawnbrokers have the discretion to offer customers more competitive fees for the issuance of pawn tickets. Next, I come to amendments to the Public Defenders Act 2022. Clause 11 makes clarificatory amendments to the Public Defenders Act 2022, or PDA. Currently, section 12 of PDA requires the merits of applications involving offences that carry a maximum prescribed sentence of more than seven years' imprisonment to be assessed by a board. This board consists of the Chief Public Defender and at least two solicitors appointed to the Public Defender's Office's panel of solicitors established under section 4 of PDA. The proposed amendment to section 12(1) will clarify that such applications are determined by a majority of the board's members and this is consistent with our policy intent. Second, the Schedule under PBA on excluded offences and excluded classes of offences is reformatted for clarity and to improve readability. Clause 11 and clause 14 of this Bill contain proposed updates to include Regulatory offences under the Pawnbrokers Act 2015, the Bankruptcy Act (Chapter 20, 2009 Revised Edition) before its repeal, the Sale of Drugs Act 1914 as in force before its repeal, the Town Councils Act 1988; and to retain the existing reference to regulatory offences under the Medicines (Advertisement and Sale) Act 1955. This is consistent with the policy intent to exclude regulatory offences from criminal defence aid coverage. I now turn to clause 12, which amends the Revised Edition of the Laws Act 1983, or RELA. The last universal revision of Acts under RELA was completed on 31 December 2021 when the 2020 Revised Edition of Acts came into force.”
“Clause 10 also clarifies that other types of fees for making various applications are not refundable. These amendments align the positions under the PBA with those under the MLA. The second amendment is to section 2(1) of the PBA, to allow the use of an individual's foreign identification number, or "FIN", as an alternative to their foreign passport number, for identification purposes. As the FIN does not change over time, permitting pawnbrokers to collect the FIN as an alternative identification information will better meet their operational needs. Third, proposed amendments to sections 10 and 13 of PBA will provide that the Registrar of Pawnbrokers may refuse to grant or renew a licence, or approve substantial shareholding, on the ground that a substantial shareholder of the applicant or licensee is not of good character or is not a fit and proper person. This is in line with our intent to prevent individuals with a wider range of criminal antecedents from being involved in the business of pawnbroking. Fourth, proposed amendments to sections 38 and 39 of PBA will streamline the process for licensees to make representations and appeals, before the Registrar of Pawnbrokers takes action to vary their licence conditions, suspend or revoke their licence or impose a financial penalty. These amendments will provide clarity to pawnbrokers who wish to make representations or appeals before the above administrative sanctions are imposed. Finally, there are proposed amendments to paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule to clarify that pawnbrokers may charge fees lower than $2 for the issuance of a pawn ticket. It also clarifies that pawnbrokers may charge the fee only if they offer any mode of payment as specified.”
“Hence, the clause provides for the transition from the current Legal Aid Fund, which will no longer be needed. The Government's commitment to the provision of civil legal aid through the Legal Aid Bureau remains unchanged. Next, I will move on to clause 9, which amends the Moneylenders Act 2008, or MLA. First, it clarifies that all pawnbrokers regulated under the Pawnbrokers Act 2015, or PBA, are "excluded moneylenders" for the purposes of the MLA. As such pawnbrokers are already regulated under the PBA, this will ensure that these pawnbrokers are subject to only one regulatory framework. In addition, it amends section 66(1) of the MLA such that a licensed moneylender must obtain from a body corporate loan applicant the same information as other loan applicants that are business entities. This will ensure consistency in the information collected by licensed moneylenders from all non-personal loan applicants. Finally, proposed amendments to section 66A(2)(a) will require a licensed moneylender to inform each surety of the loan applicant in writing, when the surety's information is submitted to a designated credit bureau for the purpose of producing a credit report in relation to the surety. This amendment achieves parity in treatment between loan applicants and sureties, by notifying them when their information is submitted to a designated credit bureau. I now come to clause 10, which makes technical amendments to the PBA. First, it deals with whether fees are refundable. It introduces a new section 9A that deals specifically with fees for the grant or renewal of a pawnbroking licence. This provision prescribes when such fees are not refundable, as well as the Registrar of Pawnbrokers' discretion to deviate from this position.”
“The volunteer here refers to a person who is registered as a professional deputy under the Mental Capacity Act 2008 or a person who meets certain criteria to be prescribed in the subsidiary legislation. These criteria would be similar to those required for registration as a professional deputy under the Mental Capacity Act 2008. For example, the volunteer must be a citizen or permanent resident of Singapore, must not be a bankrupt and must be 21 years of age or older. This section applies when a volunteer applies for legal aid for a proceeding to be appointed as deputy in relation to a person who lacks capacity, or to vary an order made in relation to such a person under the Mental Capacity Act 2008. In such a situation, the means test would be applied on the person who lacks mental capacity, rather than the volunteer who is the applicant. With this amendment, the volunteer, who is stepping forward to help a mentally incapacitated person, would not need to incur costs to hire a private lawyer, if the mentally incapacitated person meets the means test criteria. Third, the proposed amendment to section 16 of the LAAA will provide that costs owed by an aided person to the Director of Legal Aid, in connection with that aided person's application for legal aid, may be waived either partially or completely. This aims to provide a more equitable outcome for aided persons, in cases where the costs owed by them are equal to or greater than the settlement or judgment sums they may receive at the completion of their legally aided matters. Finally, clause 8 effects an administrative move for the Legal Aid Bureau's financial requirements to be met directly through MinLaw's regular budget provision going forward.”
“The second amendment is to section 327(4)(a) of the IRDA, to extend the period within which a secured creditor has to notify the Official Assignee of the secured creditor's intention to claim interest on the secured debt, from 30 days after a bankruptcy order is made against the debtor to 60 days. This would give secured creditors more time to consider whether to and make a claim. Finally, the proposed amendment to section 368(4) of the IRDA will make clear that the 14-day time limit mentioned in section 368(3) only applies to serving the Sheriff with notice of a bankruptcy application made against or by the debtor and not to the making of a bankruptcy order. Turning to the next amendment, clause 6 of the Bill amends section 2(1) of the Interpretation Act 1965: to insert a definition for "His Majesty", "Her Majesty", "King", "Queen", "Sovereign", "His Britannic Majesty" and "Her Britannic Majesty", in relation to the United Kingdom, so that they can refer to the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, regardless of whether that Sovereign is a King or a Queen. Next, I will address the various amendments to the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1995, or LAAA. First, clause 7(b) introduces a new section 4A to provide protection from personal liability to individuals carrying out certain functions and duties under the LAAA. This is similar to the position in section 7 of the Public Defenders Act 2022. Second, a new section 6A ensures that when a volunteer steps forward to help a mentally incapacitated person who qualifies for legal aid and does not have suitable family members to be appointed as that person's deputy, the volunteer will not be means-tested. The volunteer would not be paid for his work as a deputy for the mentally incapacitated person.”
“First, clause 4(a) and (b) update the definition of a "juvenile" in section 2(1) of the CPC to refer to a person who is 10 years of age or older, but below 18 years of age. This is to align with other related legislation, namely: section 25 of the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019, which raised the minimum age of criminal responsibility in the Penal Code 1871 from seven years of age, to 10 years of age; and section 2 of the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 2019, which increased the maximum age of a "juvenile" under the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 from 16 years of age, to below 18 years of age. Second, there are clarificatory and technical amendments to sections 319 and 360 of the CPC, which relate to fines and compensation. These amendments provide that a person, who is serving imprisonment imposed in default of payment of a fine or compensation sum, must be released "as soon as reasonably practicable" after the unpaid fine or compensation sum is paid. This is already the practice today and the proposed amendments make this clear in statute. In addition, the proposed amendments make clear that fines must be paid using a designated mode of payment and within the time designated in a payment advice issued by the court to the offender, in line with existing practice. Next, clause 5 of the Bill makes technical amendments to the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, or IRDA. First, it amends the definition of a "relevant company" in section 250(7) of the IRDA to delete a reference to a Registered Fund Management Company. This follows MAS' recent repeal of the regulatory regime for these companies on 1 August 2024.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Sir, this Bill makes miscellaneous amendments across 12 Acts. These amendments broadly fall within the following three buckets. First, making legislative provisions clearer; second, updating legislative provisions in light of revised terminology and definitions; and third, streamlining and improving operational effectiveness and delivery of our policies. Let me now take hon Members through the amendments in this Bill. First, clause 2 of the Bill amends section 92(4)(b) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2024 to update the term "interrogatories" to "discovery of facts". The amendment updates the terminology, in line with the Rules of Court 2021. It does not change the underlying substance of the provision. Next, clause 3 makes minor and technical amendments to the Copyright Act 2021, or CA. First, it makes typographical corrections to sections 61(1)(c) and 313 of the CA. Second, it splits the offence on causing protected performances to be seen or heard in public, under the current section 450(2) of the CA, into two separate offences: one, in relation to live performances and another in relation to recordings of performances. The split is necessary to restore the original intention with respect to the offence relating to recordings, which carries a different condition from the offence relating to live performances. These offences were inadvertently conflated when the CA was revised in 2021 in plain English. I now come to the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, or CPC, under clause 4 of the Bill.”
“It is thus critical that we take advantage of new areas of opportunities to pivot and launch the profession to even greater heights and be ready for future challenges. I thank the hon Member for his questions and suggestions. Mr Speaker, Sir, with that I beg to move.”
“As I said in my speech, this initiative was really promulgated at the instance of LSB, which includes of members from the private sector. So, they are all looking forward to it and I also mentioned that allied professionals, such as professional engineers and architects, have already been subject to MRAs and they are benefiting from it as well. Singapore remains a little red dot and we can see that with the MRA, our land surveyors have the potential to practise across jurisdictions. Certainly, what we have here is the prospect of having in place an ASEAN MRA and that is something which I am sure they will look forward to. The hon Member also mentioned about the prospect of standardising the methodology standards for surveys and that is a fair point. But one would have to put in place the MRA first and then work and endeavour towards standardisation. At this point in time, one good safeguard is the fact that a registered foreign surveyor has to collaborate with a local registered surveyor so that the local standards would be observed. Sir, I believe I have answered most, if not all, of the questions raised by the hon Member. In conclusion, the proposed amendments to the Land Surveyors Act 1991 will facilitate the implementations of MRAs and, through the cross-border exchange of expertise, support our local registered surveyors in adopting new or different technologies, exploring opportunities in different fields and locations as well as upskilling themselves. This is important, given the shrinking manpower pool, the increasing use of technology in the field and the emergence of new focus areas in the industry. All of these mean that it will no longer be sufficient for our local registered surveyors to be proficient only in the traditional domains of land surveying.”
“The first point to note, as I mentioned earlier, is that the MRA would only be put into effect when other member states are ready. So, we ensure that the benefits are reciprocal. The other point to note is that registered foreign surveyors would only be allowed to practise in Singapore in collaboration with local registered surveyors. In other words, when they do the work and they sign off, it is not enough for the registered foreign surveyors to sign off. The local registered surveyors would have to sign off as well and this is a good safeguard, the reason being, with the local registered surveyors in play, we will be able to ensure that the local registered surveyor community would generally benefit because otherwise they would not employ registered foreign surveyors, and this is also to ensure the level of standard that is required in relation to any survey services that have been contracted. As far as qualifications and standards are concerned, which is the third area that the hon Member has raised, he will be happy to note that we are ad idem, we also agree that there must be a high standard of qualifications as well as experience before a registered foreign surveyor is allowed to practise in Singapore in collaboration with a local registered surveyor. So, this is where LSB has to come up with the criteria. Commonly, the ASEAN Competent Authority Committee on Surveying would stipulate the minimum qualifications and experience that a registered foreign surveyor must possess before seeking to admit itself in the jurisdiction of another member state. I now come to some of the additional points that the hon Member made in his speech. First, he asked whether there was a study on the potential economic implications.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Member Mr Yip Hon Weng for raising very thoughtful points in his speech. I would like to respond to three areas raised in his speech. First, on the timing and rationale of the Bill. The hon Member is right to observe that it has been about 17 years since the Framework Arrangement was signed in 2007. This reflects the complexity of the task at hand. We had to deal with the unique characteristics of jurisdictions across ASEAN and, of course, the domestic legislation dealing with boundary and geographical locations of the various properties as well. In addition, there is a need to strike a balance between greater ease of movement for land surveyors and also meeting local requirements. So, all these led to the time that has been taken. But the passing of this Bill is an important milestone because it is an indication that we are turning the corner and, hopefully, we will be able to get the details of the Scheme, as commonly agreed amongst the ASEAN member states. I want to also highlight one very important point. It does not mean that when we passed the Bill, the Scheme is implemented straightaway. It would not. It would only be implemented after the details of the Scheme has been ascertained and member states agree to the Scheme as well. So, this is a safeguard to make sure that at any one point in time there would be reciprocity between member states. So, that is one big safeguard which will address some of the concerns that were raised by the hon Member just now. The next area which I want to touch on is the issue of timing. As I said in my speech, LSB would be making announcements on the details of the Scheme as and when they are ready. Moving to the second area for clarification, the impact on local surveyors.”
“LSB is empowered to impose these penalties on (a) registered surveyors and (b) licensed corporations/partnerships/limited liability partnerships respectively, in cases where LSB considers that no cause of sufficient gravity for cancellation of a registration, suspension from practice or revoking a licence exists but some form of disciplinary action is appropriate. Next, clause 13 will raise the maximum fine under section 30(2) from $2,000 to $5,000. This pertains to a refusal or failure, when required to do so by LSB or an Investigation Committee convened by LSB, to give evidence, answer truthfully and fully any question or produce any book, document or paper. Finally, clause 17 makes consequential amendments to certain other Acts. These will make clear that the term "registered surveyor", when used in these other Acts, only applies to the land surveyors registered under section 12 of the Land Surveyors Act, that is, to local registered surveyors. This will avoid any confusion with the introduction of registered foreign surveyors into the local land surveying landscape. In closing, Sir, these amendments will make it easier for local registered surveyors to tap on opportunities overseas and, at the same time, allow Singapore to tap on external land surveying expertise and resources to support the built environment sector. They will also provide strong recognition for practising local registered surveyors on par with their allied counterparts, such as architects and professional engineers. Finally, the amendments will strengthen LSB’s regulatory powers. This will allow it to continue upholding the standing and integrity of the professional land survey fraternity in Singapore. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Registered foreign surveyors will be able to use a separate designation to be determined by LSB. The final proposal in the Bill is to update the fines and penalties for illegal practice and improper conduct in land surveying. The quanta of fines and penalties have remained unchanged since the Act was enacted in 1991. It is thus timely to review them to ensure they remain effective deterrents going forward. LSB carried out a holistic review, referencing similar offences in the Architects Act 1991 and the Professional Engineers Act 1991, while keeping in mind the difference in the nature of the work of land surveyors and that of these allied professionals. For specific offences, such as illegal practice, wilful falsification of register and wrongly procuring registration, stiffer fines are proposed. Clause 6 proposes to raise the maximum fine in section 10(5), which sets out the penalties for engaging in survey work in Singapore without meeting the requirements stipulated under the Act and falsely representing oneself as a person authorised to supply survey services in Singapore, from $4,000 to $10,000. Similarly, clause 15 proposes to raise the maximum fine stated in section 34, which prescribes penalties for the wilful falsification of any register kept under the Act and wrongfully procuring registration under the Act from $4,000 to $10,000, too. As for disciplinary proceedings and revocation of licences, clauses 11 and 12 provide for the raising of the maximum penalties under sections 25(2) and 27(2) to $20,000 and $50,000 respectively, from the existing maximum penalties of $10,000 and $20,000.”
“This enables LSB to ensure there are safeguards to protect the interests of the public, where required, and allows it to continue to effectively regulate the quality of land surveying services provided in Singapore. Registered foreign surveyors will support, rather than compete with, our local registered surveyors. For example, as mentioned earlier, foreign ASEAN registered surveyors will not be allowed to provide land surveying services independently in Singapore, that is, without a local partner. If they wish to practise independently in Singapore, they must go through the same process as any other individual who wishes to be a local registered surveyor today. This includes passing the examinations and professional interview conducted by LSB, being registered with LSB and having in force a practising certificate. When the Scheme is implemented, LSB also intends to impose a condition that foreign registered surveyors under the Scheme will only be able to take on one project and, thus, collaborate with only one local registered surveyor at any one point in time. LSB will continue to monitor the implementation of the Scheme in Singapore and make adjustments where necessary. I now move to the second proposal in the Bill, the introduction of official titles for local registered surveyors and registered foreign surveyors. This will grant greater recognition to local registered surveyors and help distinguish local registered surveyors from their counterparts. Under section 10(2) as amended by clause 6, local registered surveyors will be able to use the title "RS". This is similar to the use of professional titles amongst registered architects and registered professional engineers.”
“LSB will update the local registered surveyor community, when the Scheme is ready for implementation. Next, turning to page 2 of the handout, such MRAs will also introduce a new way for foreign land surveyors to contribute to land survey work in Singapore. Aside from the three existing pathways through which individuals can engage in survey work in Singapore, which I touched on earlier, foreign land surveyors will be able to apply to LSB to be registered foreign surveyors. This will allow them to engage in survey work in Singapore in a manner permitted by LSB pursuant to an MRA. For example, under the Scheme, ASEAN registered surveyors from other ASEAN member states will be able to collaborate with our local registered surveyors on surveying projects in Singapore, after they are registered with LSB. These registered foreign surveyors will not be allowed to practise independently. They can only do so in collaboration with a local registered surveyor. On the matter of safeguards in the implementation of MRAs, I wish to highlight that foreign land surveyors will need to meet certain requirements before they can provide land surveying services in Singapore in accordance with the terms of an MRA. For example, under the Scheme, there will be binding minimum requirements in terms of qualifications and work experience, which individuals must meet before they can be recognised as ASEAN registered surveyors. The new section 12A(4) inserted by clause 9 of the Bill also allows LSB to impose additional conditions on foreign land surveyors as part of their registration as registered foreign surveyors.”
“Obliged, Sir. Members may also access the handout through the MP@SGPARL App. As set out on page 1 of the handout, currently, a local registered surveyor who wishes to engage in land survey work overseas is likely to have to go through the full qualification process to be registered to practise in that jurisdiction. The surveyor will have to meet that jurisdiction's requirements, including residency or citizenship-based restrictions, if applicable. The application process may also involve steps, such as passing examinations or professional interviews conducted by the overseas Board or Authority. However, where there is an MRA in place, the local registered surveyor can apply to LSB to be recognised for the purposes of the MRA instead. One example is the ASEAN Framework Arrangement for the Mutual Recognition of Surveying Qualifications (ASEAN MRA) which was signed in 2007. After the ASEAN MRA is implemented, the ASEAN Registered Surveyor Scheme, the Scheme, will be introduced. Eligible land surveyors can apply through their local survey authorities to the ASEAN Competent Authority Committee on Surveying (ACACS) to be recognised as ASEAN registered surveyors. Local registered surveyors in Singapore who have been recognised as ASEAN registered surveyors will be able to collaborate on land surveying projects in other ASEAN member states. Such ASEAN registered surveyors will not have to go through the full qualification process in that country but will remain subject to any conditions imposed by the relevant overseas survey board or authority. This will help our local registered surveyors to tap on business opportunities in different markets and broaden their exposure and experience. The ASEAN member states have been working together to implement the Scheme.”
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Clerks to distribute handouts that illustrate how MRAs will add to our current landscape.”
“Our local registered surveyors can also benefit by collaborating with registered foreign surveyors who have access to specialised equipment, such as cameras used to conduct aerial mapping. This can help them to take on new or different types of projects, with lower upfront capital investment. For local registered surveyors intending to engage in survey work overseas under an MRA, the new section 10A, inserted by clause 7 of the Bill, will provide for them to apply to LSB to be recognised for the purposes of that MRA. Meanwhile, for foreign surveyors who wish to carry out survey work in Singapore, clauses 3 to 6 and 9 of the Bill will amend the Act to require LSB and its Registrar to administer and maintain a register of foreign surveyors who have successfully registered with LSB and allow registered foreign surveyors to carry out survey work in Singapore in a manner permitted by LSB pursuant to an MRA. These changes are supported by the members of LSB, which includes private sector representatives. They are also in line with the 2017 amendments to the Architects Act 1991 and Professional Engineers Act 1991, which facilitated the implementation of MRAs in these related professional fields. Hon Members who are familiar with the developments in the built environment sector will know that land surveyors, architects and professional engineers are often collectively referred to as allied professionals. The amendments proposed in this Bill on MRAs will have the effect of ensuring that local registered surveyors are on par with their allied counterparts. MRAs can make it easier for local registered surveyors to practise abroad in a participating jurisdiction.”
“In addition, as the last major amendments to the Act were made 20 years ago, we are also taking the opportunity to update certain aspects of the Act. There are broad proposals in this Bill. They are: facilitating the implementation of Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) between Singapore and other countries or territories and/or between LSB and its foreign counterparts in other countries or territories; granting registered surveyors greater professional recognition; and updating the penalties and fines and dealing with the consequential amendments in the Act. I will take hon Members through these areas in turn. First, the amendments to facilitate the implementation of MRAs. As defined in the Bill, MRAs are bilateral or multilateral arrangements for the mutual recognition of land surveyors who are registered in their respective countries or territories and the survey work that may be performed by these land surveyors in each such country or territory that is party to the MRA. The proposed amendments will facilitate the movement of local registered surveyors from Singapore who wish to pursue new opportunities overseas, subject to the rules in the foreign jurisdiction. It also allows Singapore to benefit from the expertise of foreign land surveyors. MRAs will also allow us to build up and strengthen new capabilities within the local surveying profession, through the mutual exchange of knowledge, expertise and best practices. For example, registered foreign surveyors may be able to share their experience or expertise with specialised equipment in emerging areas like aerial Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) scanning, underground survey and large-scale mapping.”
“The Land Surveyors Act 1991, the Act, was enacted to establish a system of registration and regulate the qualifications and practices of land surveyors who supply their services in Singapore. Under the Act, the Land Surveyors Board (LSB) oversees the registration of land surveyors, regulation of the qualifications and practice of land surveyors, as well as related matters. LSB is also empowered by the Act to establish, maintain and develop the standard of professional conduct and ethics of the surveying profession. Under our current framework, individuals, regardless of nationality, can only engage in land survey work in Singapore, if they are registered surveyors who have a valid practising certificate issued by LSB; authorised surveyors; or carrying out land survey work under the direction or supervision of such registered surveyors or authorised surveyors. Registered surveyors are individuals who are registered as land surveyors under section 12 of the Act. These individuals must meet LSB's eligibility criteria, such as passing of examinations and a professional interview conducted by LSB. Authorised surveyors refer to land surveyors employed by the Singapore Land Authority, regardless of whether they are registered under section 12 of the Act. This framework has served Singapore well over the years. It has ensured that all land surveyors providing services in Singapore are fit and qualified to do so. At the same time, land surveying is evolving, for example, to include the use of rapidly developing land surveying technologies, such as ground penetrating radar. This is creating new and exciting opportunities for cross-border exchange of expertise. Given these developments, we are introducing this Bill to help the local profession to pursue these opportunities.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Before I deal with the Bill proper, please allow me to outline the important roles and functions that land surveyors perform. Land surveyors conduct land, building or property surveys in Singapore. Such surveys are necessary to demarcate property boundaries required for the issuance of titles and land development works. They also have the expertise to conduct other types of survey work, such as as-built, topographical and setting-out surveys. Land surveyors play an important role in the built environment sector. By depicting accurate boundaries and areas in their cadastral surveys, land surveyors contribute to a stable and reliable property ownership framework, which gives certainty to individuals and businesses alike in their dealings. Land surveyors also work with other professionals within the sector, including architects and professional engineers, throughout the lifecycle of a development project. The work stretches from concept to construction and even beyond, from topographical surveys of the site to the final stage of cadastral survey when the building is completed. Conversely, any errors by land surveyors, such as in the determination of property boundaries in a cadastral survey, can have significant downstream consequences. For example, discrepancies in the surveyed land area occupied by a property could affect the property's valuation. Errors could also lead to inaccurately demarcated boundaries, resulting in encroachments onto neighbouring plots of land owned by different parties.”
“Sir, I thank the hon Member for her question. Currently, we have extradition treaties with the United States, Germany, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Indonesia. We also have extradition arrangements with about 40 declared Commonwealth territories. These include Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India and the United Kingdom. In addition, we have reciprocal arrangements with Malaysia and Brunei based on endorsement of arrest warrants. So, we have already a significant extradition network with about 44 jurisdictions. Expanding this network is not just about numbers alone. For extradition arrangements, we will have to look at it to see whether there are adequate protections, whether it carries risk to the people of Singapore, because the shoe can be on the other foot as well. We are open to more extradition arrangements, but we will continue to take a careful and considered approach.”
“If I may, Sir, the hon Member, Ms Lim may be referring to deportation in the sense of extradition. If that is the case, extradition will only take place when there is an extradition treaty in force and a valid request has been made under the treaty. There are no extradition proceedings here. In the absence of extradition, the position is that after conviction and serving of sentence, the offenders will be required to leave Singapore. As at end June 2024, eight of the 10 convicted foreigners have been deported and are barred from re-entering Singapore. This similarly applies to the remaining two after they finish serving their sentences. These foreigners can go to any country which their passports or travel documents allow them to go to, as explained by the hon Minister of State Ms Sun Xueling, just now. What happens to them in those countries or in their countries of nationality is not within our control.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend the hon Minister for articulating his tough stance against drugs. And I think one would also need to take note that, coupled with the tough stance, is a compassionate stance in helping the drug victims and the family. And the presence of the families here in the House is a clear articulation of that approach. Sir, my clarification is in relation to how do we embed this anti-drugs policy in the younger generations of Singaporeans, particularly Gen Z and Generation Alpha, against the backdrop of: one, the fact that they did not necessarily have personal experience because, as was recounted by the hon Minister, we had serious drug problems in the 1970s, they obviously would not have such personal experience; two, the narratives in the social media. I had regard to a research paper in 2022 where it was highlighted that in relation to so called "soft drugs", there were positive perceptions of these so called "soft drugs" in 75% of 16 million posts that were analysed. This paper came out of Australia. Our young consume social media for news and they are exposed to this. So, how do we deal with this? The last point is the fact that increasingly – and this, perhaps, is my personal perception – Singapore seems to be, in a sense, set aside in relation to conferences dealing with the drugs issue. I myself have had a chance to articulate Singapore's strong anti-drugs stance in a symposium in Cambridge. I was referred to as having outlier arguments and Singapore's experience cannot be replicated elsewhere. So, these are the trends. How do we make sure that our children from Gen Z and Gen Alpha would understand and internalise our strong anti-drugs policy?”
“We should call out the acts of recruiters and bring to bear the full force of the law against them either by prosecution under the Societies Act or through the exercise of the powers under this Act. It is these recruiters who seduce vulnerable and immature young people by making false promises of charmed and privileged lifestyles. Once our young get snared into the gangs, their future prospects will naturally suffer. Needless to say, their families suffer together with them. Through more resolute action against the recruiters, I believe we will have a far better chance of turning our young people away from dark alleys of crime and violence and instead focus on the flourishing of their own bright futures, for their sake, that of their families as well for Singapore.”
“Going down to some specifics, Part 3 of the Act deals with placing prohibitions and restrictions on the ability of workers to strike and employers to lock-out workmen when they are engaged in "essential services" which is defined in the Act. Such restrictions should not be controversial. The International Labour Organization, of which Singapore is a member of, expressly acknowledged that there may be a prohibition or restriction to the right to strike in essential services. I therefore suggest that the Government consider taking steps to port Part 3 of the Act over to another statute, perhaps the Industrial Relations Act 1960. Parts 2 and 4 of the Act deal with public safety and public order issues. For instance, in section 4 under Part 2 of the Act, it is provided that any person who has a "subversive document", as defined in the Act, shall be guilty of an offence. Section 13 under Part 4 of the Act provides the power to the Minister and the Police to disperse assemblies which pose an immediate threat to public peace. I suggest that the Government reviewing these Parts with a view to repeal provisions that may be seen as obsolete or otiose. In the alternative, there may also be a case to port over relevant provisions to the Public Order Act 2009 which is the primary piece of legislation that the Government relies on to regulate and control assemblies to maintain public order. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I wish to reiterate the point I make about making it difficult for secret societies to recruit young people. Young people are not just the life blood of secret societies but of our country too. It is sad that there continues to be cases of youths falling victim to the machinations of secret societies. Each case is a case too many.”
“I am aware that recruiting persons to join unlawful societies constitute an offence under the Societies Act 1966. Where the Police has secured evidence of recruitment activities, such persons should be prosecuted. In cases where the evidence on record is not forthcoming, perhaps because of intimidation, I wonder if the powers under the Act can also be invoked against these recruiters. In paragraph 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the Act, which the hon Minister of State quoted, the Minister may use his power to detain a person or subject him to supervision if the person is generally involved in a secret society or as a gangster. This should extend to recruitment activities on behalf of a secret society or gang. From my research, though, I have not been able to unearth any case where the power of the Minister was invoked to impose a DO or SO against a person for conducting recruitment activities for a secret society per se. So, I seek the hon Minister of State’s clarification and views on this matter. The final point I wish to make concerns the provisions in Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the Act. It is not well known that the Act does not just deal with detention and supervision powers which are set out in Part 5 of the Act. This is not surprising. This is because at almost every Second Reading debate of the Bill to extend the Act, the Government made its case by reference to its report card of the use of powers provided for in Part 5 of the Act; not Parts 2, 3 and 4. Respectfully, I think the time has come for the Government to consider porting over Parts 2, 3 and 4 to other pieces of legislation and then repealing these Parts in this Act. Such a move would be more in accord with Parliament’s intent when passing this Bill to extend the Act for a further five years.”
“Depending on the facts, it may be necessary to invoke the Act to issue either a DO or SO to preserve public safety, peace and good order in Singapore, something we cannot take for granted. I am aware that the Police does good work to help youths to keep away from the clutches of secret societies. The hon Minister, in his answer to my PQ in 2020 highlighted some of these steps. He said that the Police works with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), Ministry of Education (MOE) and Singapore Prison Service (SPS) to develop and implement preventive and rehabilitative initiatives. These initiatives include the Streetwise and Enhanced Streetwise Programmes aimed at providing youths associated with secret societies with counselling. The Secret Societies Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department also regularly runs Camps ACE, which means "All Can Escape" to educate youths on the perils of joining a secret society and educational talks for parents on tell-tale signs. However, the secret societies are not keeping still. Through my work in the study, I learnt that secret societies have evolved methods to specifically target and recruit youths in communities and school settings as well. These societies may well double their efforts in an environment where, generally, enrolment in secret societies is falling. The activities usually start off as being rather innocuous social gatherings but lead to initiation ceremonies after which the youths would start being at the beck and call of their respective headmen. I see such recruitment activities as "capacity building" to undertake activities of a criminal nature that are contemplated under the Act. Such acts should equally be viewed as affecting the peace and good order of Singapore too.”
“Sir, I would however like to make a case for the Police to do more to prevent youths from being recruited by secret societies. Through my pro bono criminal law practice as well as a two-year involvement in a study of youths at risk for a self-help group, I have noted the tendency for secret societies to recruit youths from a relatively young age: young people are the "oxygen" or life blood for secret societies. Once recruited, the youths become the secret societies' fighters who protect and advance their criminal objectives. As I will be alluding to shortly, if we can starve the secret societies of this "oxygen", we will be able to significantly curb the societies' influence and activities. In the study that I was involved in, it was noted that the entry age for secret society members ranged from as young as 11 to 18. Once these youths join the secret societies, a number of them would be introduced to alcohol and controlled drugs. They in turn develop violent streaks which the headmen would then use to unleash against rival gangs. In answer to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I filed in October 2020, the hon Minister for Home Affairs revealed that the median age of persons subject to DOs and SOs between 2017 and 2019 was only 22. He also stated that the youngest persons subject to these orders were 17. In fact, I was personally involved in a pro bono case where a 17-year-old boy was issued with a DO which was subsequently extended as well. On the face of it, I would imagine that for some of us, this may be seen as a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. However, the reality is that, depending on the facts of the case, young people, as part of a gang, can cause serious harm; even death. They pose a danger to themselves too as violence begets violence.”
“In addition, the hon Minister of State refers to a significant number organised criminal activities such as unlicensed moneylending and drug trafficking by secret societies again where witnesses are unwilling to come forward to testify incident in court. Without the decisive action taken under this Act to cripple the syndicates, many more Singaporeans may have fallen victim. So, hence, this Act had the effect of preventing the proliferation of such crime. Apart from what the hon Minister of State highlighted in this House, I note with concern that it is stated in the Global Organised Crime Index Report on Singapore for 2023 that foreign criminal actors continue to operate in Singapore with and, I quote, "moderate influence", and almost all of them are involved in immigration-related crimes, money laundering and scams, amongst others. I would imagine them to be fairly sophisticated in their criminal activities and it would likely not be easy to get witnesses to spill the beans on them. This brings to my mind what the then Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng said in this House in 1994, about the threat of organised crime, particularly Asian triads and gangs, which continues to be real across much of the world today too. Mr Wong stated that the Act served as a deterrence against these overseas triads and gangs from shifting operations into Singapore. To deal with these hardened criminals with sophisticated international networks, we need laws with teeth and muscle. This Act has that those prerequisites. On balance, I am convinced, based on the hard facts that have been laid out in this House by the hon Minister of State, that it is in the better interest of Singapore that the Act be extended. I therefore support the Bill.”
“Notwithstanding the safeguards, given the exceptional nature of the power, however, it is apt that there is a further mechanism built into the Act to allow Parliament to satisfy itself of the continued need to confer on the Minister these powers before deciding to extend the Act. Hence, the reference to "temporary" in the Act is really a recognition of the fact that these are extraordinary powers requiring the Minister to periodically make a case in Parliament on the reasons for extending the Act to enable him to use the powers. This constitutes responsible politics. I now turn to the hon Minister of State’s case for extending the Act. As was mentioned by the hon Minister of State, the numbers of detentions have come down. I looked at it: in 2019 it was 97 detention orders issued; 2022, 80 detention orders. For context, these detention numbers were much higher in the 1980s and up to the early 1990s, they were in the four digits and they were in the three digits up to the first decade of the new millennium. So, it is therefore good news that the numbers have reduced appreciably over the past four decades. The bad news, however, as I note from the hon Minister of State’s speech, is that there continues to be a number of serious secret society clashes that affect the peace and good order of Singapore. What is noteworthy is that prosecution in these cases, as was mentioned by the hon Minister of State, was not viable because witnesses refused to give evidence in court, for fear of reprisal. Such violent acts, should they have gone unpunished, would threaten the peace and security we are accustomed to, and some even take for granted. This, we cannot afford.”
“Mr Speaker, I wish to declare that I am a lawyer in private practice who has dealt with detention cases under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act 1955. I shall call it "Act". This Bill represents the 15th time that Parliament is being asked to extend the Act. Given the longevity of this Act, which was enacted almost 70 years ago, the skeptical amongst us may be tempted to say that there is nothing "temporary" about this Act. I would respectfully suggest, however, that that would be a case of missing the wood for the trees. This Act vests with the Minister for Home Affairs with extraordinary powers to order the detention without trial of a person accused of having association with specified activities of a criminal nature, DO, or subjecting him to a supervision order, or SO. These powers are meant to be used as a matter of last resort because of the difficulty in securing evidence against such persons, as explained by the hon Minister of State; primarily by reason of their association with secret societies. By design, these powers constitute a derogation from the usual due process accorded to persons accused of crime which will involve the court independently adjudicating on the case after reviewing the evidence. The exception has been justified on the basis of the pernicious nature of secret society operations and the need to preserve public order in Singapore. As was mentioned by the hon Minister of State, several safeguards have also been worked into the framework as well. So, I would not traverse the same ground save to add that in respect of the Advisory Committees the hon Minister of State mentioned are headed by sitting Judges of the Supreme Court. So, all of them are occupying a high constitutional office.”
“So, my second question is, what other plans does SNTC have to ensure the financial security of such persons? Finally, how does SNTC plan to equip itself with sufficient resources and bandwidth to ensure that its services can be scaled up to meet the larger demand anticipated for its services? Children with Development Needs”
“Sir, this year, it will be 15 years since the Special Needs Trust Company (SNTC) launched its trust services in October 2009 to help with the financial security of persons with special needs on a low cost basis. It has been doing very good work in plugging a gap in the local disability services landscape. To date, it has developed over 1,000 trusts and developed more than 3,000 care plans. We owe the board members of SNTC, past and present, a debt of gratitude. 2.15 pm The Government, particularly MSF, has played a crucial role in making trust services accessible by providing between 90% to 100% subsidies for the costs involved in the set-up, pre-activation, activation and post-activation of the trust accounts. Without the Government absorbing the costs, I believe the take-up rate amongst Singaporeans, particularly our lower-income families, would be much lower. As at 2022, 65% of trusts created were by families in Housing and Development Board flats. It is clear however that more Singaporean households can benefit from subscribing to such services. Our rapidly ageing population and shrinking household sizes contribute two drivers to the thinning of caregiver support within families with persons with special needs. I have three questions. First, I wish to ask what steps can be taken to increase the take-up rate of trust services amongst eligible families, especially amongst low-income families. In this context, I wish to suggest that MSF agencies, social service and grassroots organisations work together to proactively identify families that can benefit so that SNTC can educate them on the benefits of trust services. Next, I note that SNTC evolved to provide, not just trust services, but other offerings such as subsidised insurance term plans.”
“Sir, I have a question for the hon Senior Minister of State Ms Sim Ann, in relation to eating houses that are stubbornly vacant, despite the best efforts of HDB to market them, what strategies may HDB have? I have two short suggestions. One is to bundle these vacant eating houses with others, so there is economy of scale, or for HDB to rent out stalls to, for example, home-based businesses.”
“Sir, in May 2023, HDB required all its rental coffee shops to compulsorily offer budget meal and drink options. These options are featured in HDB's BudgetMealGoWhere website. I have received positive feedback on this and would like to convey my appreciation to HDB. In the older HDB estates, however, the budget meals and drinks options are still limited. This is because most of the coffee shops there are sold in the open market and not rented from HDB. In July 2023, I suggested that HDB impose the budget meal and drink requirement on such privately-owned coffee shops as a condition for the renewal of permission to use Outdoor Refreshment Areas. The Minister mentioned that HDB is studying the matter. To address current food affordability concerns, I suggest that the study be completed sooner. I also seek an update on the status of the matter. Future Land Usage”
“I welcome Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s announcement that the Government will provide one-year PPHS voucher for eligible families to rent HDB flats in the open market. In my Parliamentary Question (PQ) filed in October 2022, I suggested, given the tight supply of PPHS flats, that these couples be provided with grants to enable them to rent flats from the market directly. This is because I met several couples who were balloted out and they were also unable to afford to pay rent. MND, in its response, stated that such action will, and I quote, “likely induce demand and may drive up market rentals which would be counterproductive as it makes renting more expensive”. Given the Government’s decision, may I ask what steps are being taken to minimise the concern that MND expressed in response to my PQ? Given that the wait for BTOs is usually more than one year, how is it proposed that we deal with the “cliff” effect after the expiry of one year? Lift Access for All HDB Flats”
“Sir, in November 2023, the Singapore Management University (SMU) published a study on the cleanliness of public toilets in hawker centres and coffee shops entitled, "Public Toilets as Dirty as in 2020". The study concluded that whilst there have been improvements at the hawker centres compared to 2020, Singaporeans conveyed that more should be done to improve toilet sanitation at coffee shops. In HDB housing estates, we often see irresponsible cases of littering and dumping among residents. They expect the poor Town Council cleaners, who already have heavy workloads, to clean after them. This is unfair. For a first-world country like Singapore, we can certainly do better. How do we ingrain in Singaporeans the message that cleanliness is a joint responsibility among all of us? How can we improve the cleanliness outcomes in our estates and public toilets? Keeping Singapore Clean”
“Sir, post COVID-19, there is a much better awareness on the impact of indoor air quality on the health of occupants in a building. The National Environment Agency (NEA) currently requires building owners to comply with a set of guidelines to ensure a reasonable standard of indoor air quality and improving ventilation. The question that arises is: how will NEA be able to regulate this requirement? We should not wait until the occupants get sick before any investigation is launched on the adequacy of the measures put in place by building owners. Hence, from a regulatory perspective, how does NEA proactively monitor the owners' compliance of air quality standards in public and commercial buildings? Would the compulsory installation of monitors, such as carbon dioxide monitors, in these buildings help in the task? Finally, what has been NEA's experience in supervising the Code of Practice for the control of Legionella bacteria in cooling towers of the buildings?”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, listening to the hon political appointment holders' responses to the speeches made by the hon Members, it is evident to me that MinLaw, which is a relatively small Ministry, has and continues to make outsized contributions. It has the heaviest legislative workload. It deals with high policies, dealing with the internationalisation of Singapore, maintaining our status as a legal hub and so on, and at the same time, it focuses on the small man. The poignant example given by the hon Minister about how the PDO helped a gentleman named Mr N to get an equitable sentence is very heartwarming indeed. Also, the processes outlined by the hon Second Minister on how to maintain peace in the community – something all hon Members can ascribe to. Last but not least, the processes to allow the common man navigate the courts better, as outlined by the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary. With that, Sir, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $322,221,900 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $386,904,000 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Currently, the e-services apply to probate matters involving sole executors. May I please ask whether there are plans to extend the service to matters involving multiple executors? We also need to look at providing similar services to intestacy matters. One connected point, having regard to the fact that Singaporeans have become increasingly affluent over the years and may hold property in other jurisdictions, is the viability of Singapore acceding to the 1961 Wills Convention, which has 42 contracting parties at this point, including China, being considered. This convention assists testators to dispose of inheritance within a single will, even if the property in question may be situated in different countries. Finally, Sir, I seek an update from the hon Minister on the matters that have been identified for law reform, in particular with reference to the Debtors Act, Limitation Act and the Inheritance (Family Provisions) Act. I raise this not to trivialise the amount of work that has to be put into the review of these matters. I am also aware of the heavy legislative agenda of MinLaw. It is just that the cases have been made for law reform in these areas for some time now and are based, amongst others, on possible unfairness that will fall on individuals should the current status quo persists. Mr Chairman, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“This will strengthen the ability of Singapore judgments to be recognised and enforced in the European Union. One other suggestion I have is to consider reforms to allow for execution of electronic deeds. Deeds are the lifeblood of so many commercial transactions. Many security documents such as charges are executed as deeds. In countries with financial centres such as the United Kingdom (UK), formalities such as the need to execute in wet ink have been done away with. It is not yet the case in Singapore. This does not appear to square with Singapore's position as a leading business and financial hub. I would respectfully suggest the time has come to remove indentures from the exclusion list of documents that are not subject to the Electronic Transactions Act 2010 sooner rather than later. Singapore needs to secure its position in the global legal fraternity. At the same time, it needs to ensure that laws serve to secure justice for everyone in our community. MinLaw has made great strides over the years to improve access to justice, particularly for the vulnerable. The set up of the Public Defender's Office in 2022 was an epochal moment. There has been excellent utilisation of technology to offer laypeople with easier and cost-effective means to get advice on standard cases, commence action in tribunals and so on. I am particularly pleased with the launch of the Probate eService last year which will enable self-represented persons to apply for probate – something that I have been pushing for several years now. The process now is simpler, faster and much cheaper. I commend the team responsible for the successful launch of this e service. I wonder whether there are plans to scale up the eService offerings in the near future.”
“Mr Chairman, I beg leave to move "that the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100". Last year, for the 15th consecutive year, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) ranked Singapore as the world's leading business environment citing our technological readiness, infrastructure, connectivity and regulatory environment as reasons, amongst others. Our strong legal system and our deep commitment to the rule of law are key contributors to our country's business friendly environment and have made us a leading international legal services hub. The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) continues to be heavily involved in building up our capacity to be a global hub for intellectual property (IP) activities too. Singapore's legal industry continues to attract top notch talent. These are good signs. It is, however, getting more and more difficult to maintain our position. Over the years, competition has become stiffer. Several jurisdictions are investing significant resources to develop their own capabilities to be business friendly and to attract legal work. What are MinLaw's plans to ensure that we keep up with the competition? One area I am particularly interested is how we can deepen the bench strength of Singaporean and Singapore-based arbitrators so that they more regularly feature in high value arbitrations conducted by institutions such as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), in addition to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). We can also be more tightly woven into the global legal system. For example, I recommend that Singapore consider the merits of acceding to the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to express my appreciation to the hon Members for making 32 cuts and providing very thoughtful points in this COS debate. But we are all united on one thing: that the Home Team officers and the MHA officers are doing a good job in keeping our country safe and secure, and this duty is done without fear of favour and with integrity. It also reflects the trust and confidence that our members of the public have in the Home Team. I also would like to express my thanks to the hon Minister, hon Second Minister and two hon Ministers of State for their considered responses. With that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $7,488,779,300 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $800,560,100 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I seek clarification from the hon Minister in relation to the recruitment of volunteers for the Home Team's mission. I recall him mentioning that actually recruitment is on the up. I had actually obtained the figures through Parliamentary Questions filed in November 2023. And in respect of recruitment figures for VSC – between 2018 and 2022 – I see a drop. In 2018, it was 180 and it went down to 63 in 2022. Every succeeding year from 2018, it was actually a downward trend as well. I would suggest perhaps some effort be put in to increase the recruitment, particularly given that VSC is a venerated organisation that would celebrate its 80th anniversary in two years' time. For COP volunteers, I understand from the answer provided to me in November 2023 – that the statistics were started to be recorded from 2019 onwards. So, the numbers again were 1,086 for 2019 and – save for a spike in 2021 – it went down to 953 in 2022. Notwithstanding the figures, I think the hon Minister and I agreed on the point that these volunteers serve as a valuable multiplier effect.”