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 7 of 25.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek clarification from the Second Minister for Finance on two areas. First, in relation to her Statement regarding the anti-money laundering regime applicable to foreign companies in Singapore, may I ask if the Government is minded to review its decision to exempt foreign companies which hold only property in Singapore and not carrying other forms of business here, from the requirement to provide beneficial ownership information? This was explained by the Minister for Finance in response to the PQ I filed as striking a balance between regulatory compliance and ease of doing business. From an anti-money laundering perspective, it makes sense to directly subject such asset holding companies to such requirements instead of relying on intermediaries. Second, Sir, may I ask the hon Second Minister for Finance whether the Government would be minded to consider providing a Minister with powers to prescribe, through subsidiary legislation businesses that should be subject to CDD requirements? Prior to this Police operation, I suspect not many Members would even know the existence of Bearbrick dolls, much less the fact that these dolls were allegedly purchased for money laundering purposes. Currently, the CDD requirements are done via specific pieces of legislation. This may not be fast enough. In time to come, there could be other items which may be the money launderer's favourite. Speed would be essential to ensure our system can react to such developments. Hence giving our Minister the power to prescribe businesses that will have to conduct CDD may, therefore, help.”
“Mr Speaker, my colleagues in the Government Parliamentary Committee for Home Affairs and Law and I have been closely scrutinising this case and would like to commend the officers of the Police force, particularly the CAD for detecting this case and successfully executing an extensive operation that led to the seizure of more than $2.8 billion worth of assets to-date. Practitioners in the area often refer to assets from ill-gotten gains as "oxygen" for the criminals. Seizing and confiscating such high value assets in one fell swoop is tantamount to depriving criminals of "oxygen", thereby decisively crippling their activities constitutes, in my view, the best deterrent against anti-money laundering activities in Singapore. I invite hon Members in this House to join me to congratulate the Police force for a job well-done. [Applause.] Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a clarification for the hon Second Minister for Home Affairs. In her speech, she referred to the FATF as setting the global anti-money laundering standards and that Singapore, as a member, subscribes to these standards. I understand that the FATF has conducted mutual evaluation of Singapore's anti-money laundering standards to gauge compliance with its 40 recommendations to tackle illicit financial flaws. How have we fared in these mutual evaluations as far as the abilities and the enforcement records of our enforcement agencies are concerned, and how do we compare to the abilities of enforcement agencies in other major financial centres, such as in London or New York?”
“Sir, in conclusion, let me iterate my support once again for the provisions in this Bill aimed at equipping our men and women of the ICA with the necessary legal tools and teeth to effectively deal with the growing challenges that they face in carrying out their important task of securing our country's borders. I have carefully reviewed the proposed amendments in the Bill dealing with sentencing policy in the Immigration Act. I do not believe they represent a derogation from our uncompromising stance against immigration offenders as well as traffickers and harbourers of illegal and prohibited immigrants, that the law will deal with them firmly by imprisonment, caning or fine. It is important to maintain this tough stance so that we do not backslide to the situation several decades ago when we had a serious illegal immigrant problem that affected Singaporeans' safety and security. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my concerns that I expressed in my speech, I support the Bill.”
“First, on the proposal to allow immigration officers to collect Advance Passenger Information (API), I would like to enquire if it is proposed that public transport operators such as the operator of the Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link that is due to be commissioned in about three years’ time or SBS Transit that operates service no 170 will have the obligation to collect API or would they be exempt? The provisions in the Bill, as they stand, are to be wide enough to include public transport operators. Should they apply, however, this may create practical problems and bottlenecks having regard to the huge number of train and bus commuters that the operators will have to handle on a daily basis. Second and finally, I note that it is proposed that the Controller be vested with the power to temporarily restrain a child from leaving Singapore in compliance with the court order until the child’s parent or legal guardian collects him or her. I support the proposal. I would like to make a suggestion in this regard. I understand from my professional colleagues who practise family law that, in the usual case, the Family Court would order that a child be allowed to leave Singapore where the other parent provides his or her written consent. Such orders would then be served on ICA. ICA will then have to take on the obligation to operationalise the order by checking to see if the "suitable person" wanting to bring the child out of Singapore has the requisite written consent. I wonder if there is scope to digitalise the entire process. They should cover both the notification of Court orders as well as the lodgement of written consent with ICA. In this way, I believe we will gain more efficiency and reduce the risk of making mistakes, too.”
“Just by having an appeal process alone, we will ensure, system-wise, that the Controller will use his powers carefully and with circumspection. By having an appeal process, the Minister would be able to have access to all relevant facts of the case to make his own decision on the merits of the case. This is as opposed to a mere administrative review by the Minister on the basis that ICA comes under his charge. He is well capable of handling sensitive factors and information too. In fact, this is the rationale for providing the statutory appeal to the Minister instead of to the Court which is ordinarily be accessible by members of public and the press. Finally, I am not privy to any information that suggests that the current system is broken. I do appreciate that the Government must be pragmatic in dealing with immigration matters. However, unlike some countries which deal with immigration matters through the judicial system and have a backlog of cases to handle, I do not think a similar situation exists in Singapore. Hence, the question arises, if it ain’t broken, why fix it? I would also like to point out that, as a matter of comparative law, countries such as Malaysia and Brunei which have similar history and similar pieces of legislation as our Immigration Act, still retain the statutory appeal to the equivalent of our Minister. I would be grateful for the hon Minister’s explanation to my concerns. Finally, I turn to my last area – operational matters. For this area, I wish to raise two points.”
“First, from a values perspective, I disagree with the view that just because we are dealing with foreigners who should not expect the right of entry or stay in Singapore, we should deal with them summarily. In my respectful view, our immigration system should reflect the values we stand for as a nation. Granted, we do not owe non-Singaporeans the same duties and obligations we owe to ourselves. But foreigners should have the same recourse to justice, as a matter of principle, and in this case, we owe them two specific duties as members of a common humanity. First, a duty to treat them fairly. To mandate that they need not be told why they are labelled as prohibited immigrants, nor offer them an avenue to provide explanation does not, in my respectful view, fulfil this duty. Also, we must be mindful that a good number of foreigners who may be subject of action by the Controller have spousal or familial relations with Singaporeans. Such affected Singaporeans would certainly expect that the system operates fairly for their spouses or relatives in dealing with immigration matters. As I said on point of fairness, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I would imagine if the roles were reversed, Singaporeans who are immigrants in other countries would expect to be dealt with fairly by foreign immigration authorities too. Second, a duty of due process. The current appeal process to the Minister ensures that there will be no single point of failure; from a system perspective. We should be mindful it is proposed in this Bill that the Controller be vested with even more powers. As was explained by the hon Minister, one example is the No Boarding Directive to deny foreigners from boarding from places of embarkation, even as transit travellers.”
“But with the replacement of the caning with a fine sentence, by applying section 319, because the punishment is more than two years, the upper limit of the scale would apply; in which case the default imprisonment term can go up to two and a half years – which is more than the 12-month period for not receiving a caning sentence. In my respectful view, a simple provision in the amendment Bill would have taken care of this – spelling out that a shorter imprisonment period, or the lower limit under section 319 of the CPC may be imposed in situations where fines, imposed in lieu of caning, are not paid. May I ask the hon Minister why is it not felt necessary to make this explicit in this amendment Bill? I now turn to the next area. I would term this as an issue of fairness in dealing with foreigners. In explaining this provision, I note the hon Minister's point: entry into Singapore is really the prerogative of the government. I have no quarrel with that proposition. In addition, it is proposed that current section 8(4A), which requires the Controller to inform a person the class of prohibited immigrants of which, in the opinion of the Controller, the person is a member of, be also repealed too. For the benefit of hon Members, there are 15 classes in the Immigration Act, ranging from a person who is believed to have no means of supporting himself or herself, or believed to be a prostitute or believed to be a person who advocates the overthrow of the government by violence. Also, under the proposed section 39B of the Act, it is provided that the Controller is not required to give any person, who may be affected by his decision, an opportunity to be heard. Respectfully, I am concerned about these proposals for the following reasons.”
“In such a situation, since nothing is specifically proposed in the Bill, section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, or CPC, would apply. This provision gives the Court the power to impose an additional imprisonment term in default of payment of fine. There is a scale under section 319 of the CPC that determines the limit of the imprisonment terms. For offences punishable with a term of 24 months or more, the maximum imprisonment term cannot exceed half of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence. This is the upper limit of the scale. For offences punishable with imprisonment for a term less than 24 months, the maximum imprisonment term cannot exceed one-third of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence. This is the lower limit of the scale. There are several offences provided in the Immigration Act that are subject to caning, for which the upper limit under section 319 of the CPC applies. And to illustrate that, if you were to look at section 9 of the Act as it currently stands, which deals with an immigration offender who has already been issued with a Prohibition Order. If he were to come into Singapore again, then, he may face an imprisonment term of not less then two years or not more than five years, and shall also be liable to be fined and caned. As was mentioned by the hon Minister, if he is not medically fit to take caning, then the Court can replace the caning sentence with an imprisonment term of not more than 12 months.”
“First, the revised approached to sentencing when dealing with immigration offenders, I note that it is proposed that fines be introduced in lieu of an extended prison term for immigration offenders convicted of immigration offences and who are exempted from or found to be medically unfit for caning. On the face of it, the replacement of a prison term imposed in lieu of caning with fines instead of imprisonment alone may dilute the overall deterrent effect of the sentence. I understand that the policy reason for this is to reduce the state resources that would otherwise be committed when foreigners who cannot be caned have to serve longer imprisonment terms. In principle, I do not have an issue with the policy so long as the execution of this policy is carefully calibrated with other sentencing aims. My query is two-fold. One, why is this policy applicable to an offender convicted of the offence of employing five or more illegal immigrants under the proposed section 57(1B) of the Act? Usually, such offenders, being employers, are likely to be Singapore residents. Hence, the policy precipitating this change should not be applicable to this class of offenders. Two, why is there no provision in the Bill to deal with the probability that immigration offenders do not pay the fine? I would imagine that most foreign immigration offenders would lack the means to pay fines. This is why they left their home to come to Singapore – to make money. If fine sentences are imposed in lieu of imprisonment over the inability to carry out a caning sentence, we would have to deal with the high probability that these offenders would not be able to pay the fine.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the primary aims behind this Bill, as enunciated by the hon Second Minister for Home Affairs in her speech, especially the proposal to digitalise and automate the immigration clearance. It is well known that our ICA officers, staff and auxiliary police officers deployed at our immigration checkpoints have heavy workloads. The Woodlands Checkpoint ranks amongst the world’s busiest border crossing with more than 350,000 passing through every day. Just over the long weekend of the Presidential Election from 31 August 2023 to 4 September 2023, more than 1.7 million people crossed Woodlands and Tuas checkpoints. These officers often make personal sacrifices to discharge their duties. Owing to the lean manpower situation, they frequently forgo going on leave during school holidays which coincides with the peak travel periods. This is so that fellow Singaporeans are not inconvenienced when they travel on holidays. They deserve our salute for steadfastly securing Singapore’s borders and keeping us safe despite the significant challenges, some of which were enunciated by the hon Second Minister. With the manpower crunch that all sectors across Singapore face, it makes eminent sense to leverage on technology to ease the clearance process. The plans to implement automated and contactless clearance and the checkpoints without passport presentation are particularly welcome. Not only will these measures result in faster clearance, but they also improve the experience of travellers too. For these reasons, I fully support the provisions in the Bill to implement the automated and contactless clearance process at checkpoints. Turning to the other objectives of the Bill, I seek clarification on three broad areas.”
“Borrowing the words from Emily Dickenson's poem, "My friend Mani did not want to stop for Death, but Death, unkindly, stopped for him." There can be far fewer such hard stops if we all resolve to improve the safety requirements for all our modern-day carriages, be they bikes, cars, buses or lorries.”
“I, therefore, anticipate that a good number of these vehicles would already be installed with important safety features that l spoke about earlier as standard fare. The cost consequences should these safety features be mandated may not be as significant, as what would be more likely to happen is a standardisation of technologies amongst the cars. This may not be so for buses though. Based on my calculations, only 22% of buses are five years old or younger. Hence, I acknowledge that the cost consequence of making it mandatory for these heavy vehicles to carry mandated safety features may be higher. Having regard to the developments that I have outlined, I would like to make a case for LTA to consider mandating the incorporation and use of safety technologies that have an established record of being able to reduce collisions in all our vehicles. With respect, I think our regulations mandating safety features in vehicles are somewhat behind the curve. We have, in my opinion, only a small raft of regulations mandating use of safety technologies in our vehicles. We have regulations mandating the use of seat belts, for example. More recently, in the discussion on safety in workers' transportation, it was announced that all lorries with a maximum laden weight exceeding 3,500 kilogrammes will be required to be equipped with speed limiters. We can do more. Mr Speaker, as I have pointed out earlier, there are proven technologies that we can consider adopting as regulatory fiat in our vehicles. They will add slightly to the cost and we can take an incremental approach to their introduction. But overall, I think it is a small price to pay to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads.”
“In March 2023, the European Transport Safety Council called on EU countries to introduce ABS for all motorcycles, including those under 125 cubic centimetres (cc). Whether its recommendation will be implemented though is not certain. Calls have been made in several countries, including Malaysia, to introduce speed limiters on motorcycles. What is the downside to mandating the use of safety technology in our vehicles? Well, one significant downside is cost. I acknowledge that. We need to balance this against costs savings arising from crash prevention, as I highlighted. Also, we cannot put a price to the saving of lives and avoiding of crippling injuries. Furthermore, I had occasion to speak to several motor vehicle insurance underwriters who informed me that the presence of safety features in motor vehicles are factors that are taken into account when assessing the premiums payable even though the weight placed on such factors differ from insurer to insurer. This is not a perceived advantage. It is already happening. There are a number of insurance companies in Singapore offering to discount motorists' premiums by 4% just by installing dashcams in their cars. Also, I noted in a 2020 article issued by McKinsey & Company that when regulators make safety features mandatory, like in the case in Europe, the market will react to make these features commoditised over time. If that is indeed the case, the costs will, over time, moderate downwards. Finally, I note that, thanks to the PARF rebate and COE system, Singapore has a relatively young vehicle population. For example, 37.2% of cars on Singapore roads were registered within the past five years.”
“In a 2019 article entitled "Net-societal and net-private benefits of some existing vehicle crash avoidance technologies", it was estimated that just three technologies, namely, blind-spot monitoring, lane departure warning and forward-collision warning for all light-duty passenger vehicles in the US would have collectively prevented up to 1.6 million crashes a year, including 7,200 fatal crashes. The crash prevention costs savings, according to the same article, if the technologies were mandated throughout the light-duty vehicle fleet, based on certain assumptions, would be up to US$264 billion. The ASEAN NCAP, which stands for New Car Assessment Programme, is a body dedicated to elevate vehicle safety standards and encourage a market for safer vehicles in the region. It opined that if all cars are equipped with blind-spot detection and visualisation technologies, it is expected that 37% of collisions, especially with motorcycles, can be avoided. In Europe, they have gone one step further. From 2022, all motor vehicles, including trucks, buses, vans and cars, will have to be compulsorily equipped with safety features that include intelligent speed assistance – basically, this works as speed limiters; reversing detection system; advanced driver distraction warning system; emergency stop signals; reversing detection systems; event data recorders; and accurate tyre pressure monitoring. With respect to safety features in motorcycles, it seemed to me that, whilst there are a number of safety features that have been implemented arising from technological advances, they are not as widely adopted as compared to motor vehicles. They include ABS for motorcycles; combined braking systems to engage front and rear brakes at the same time; and traction and stability controls.”
“For instance, pursuant to a PQ that I filed in 2022, the hon Minister informed that the introduction of the non-discretionary Red Amber Green (RAG) right-turn signals at junctions where there is a higher risk of accidents has reduced instances of accidents by 40%. That is commendable. LTA also has other initiatives, such as setting up Silver Zones, appropriate road markings, lighted road studs, integrated pedestrian countdown timers and signs. All these moves, cumulatively, are in the right direction. Notwithstanding, I believe there is scope for greater room for the use of technology to compensate for human error and inattention. We need to harness safety technology to move the needle more aggressively so as to reduce death and serious injuries on our roads. Over the years, there have been great strides taken in technological developments to improve the safety features found in vehicles. Beyond the standard seatbelts, airbags and Anti-lock Braking System (ABS), we now have access to safety technology in the form of blind-spot warning systems; rear cross traffic alerts; automatic emergency braking and pedestrian detection systems; lane keep assists; and adaptive cruise controls. I would add that these technologies are not new technologies that would have to be test-bedded to check for reliability. These technologies have long reached a steady state. Do these crash avoidance technologies result in fewer collisions and save lives? Based on my research, the answer is yes.”
“There are many amongst us who are concerned about the safety of delivery motorcycle riders who have a high cognitive tax on them each day on the road, including the need to look at mobile phone apps and the stresses from wanting to make as many delivery trips as possible. The Police, in its statement, stated that the causes for the uptick include motorcyclists failing to maintain a proper control of their bikes, not keeping a proper lookout and disobeying traffic light signals. Sir, the Government needs to act decisively to arrest this worrying trend. I do appreciate that the Government has already been taking active steps to enhance road safety over the years. For instance, just within a space of three years between 2019 and 2021, the Road Traffic Act was amended twice with a suite of measures, including the enhancing of criminal sanctions, to deter irresponsible driving and improve road safety. These amendments received broad support from hon Members of this House. To my knowledge, Traffic Police has been actively enforcing these provisions against offending motorists, especially against those who are caught speeding and beating red lights. These are often cited as the top two reasons for accidents. The officers of Traffic Police deserve our full support in their enforcement efforts. The hon Minister for Home Affairs, in answer to my PQ, also highlighted that the Traffic Police, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Singapore Road Safety Council have implemented various initiatives to strengthen road safety awareness amongst road users. Indeed, the Minister's three-pronged approach of making our roads safer through education, engagement and enforcement has much to commend for itself. LTA has also taken several important steps to make our roads safer for us.”
“Sir, what precipitated my decision to file this speech is the alarming fatality figures for motorcyclists and pillion riders in the first quarter of 2023, compared to the same period in 2022 and 2021. As we all recognise, motorcyclists and pillion riders are amongst the most vulnerable road users. Between 2018 and 2022, motorcyclists and pillion riders accounted for 50.7% of road traffic fatalities. I filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) that came up for answer in May 2023 concerning fatalities amongst motorcyclists and pillion riders. The answers revealed that the fatality figure for the first quarter this year is double that of the corresponding figure in the same period for 2022 and 2021. In an article in a Straits Times dated 7 May 2023, Mr Bernard Tay, Chairman of the Singapore Road Safety Council, was reported as saying, "The figure is alarming, but it needs to be analysed further to understand the number better." I fully agree with Mr Tay's suggestion and would respectfully commend it to the Government for its consideration. Anecdotally, I have received feedback from my residents in Bukit Batok on the matter, too. Mr Hairul, aged 32, is an Auxiliary Police Officer who is deployed at Changi Prison Complex. He travels to and fro his workplace via motorcycle. He told me he has noticed an uptick of motorcyclists weaving in and out of traffic at great speed and without signalling early. He also noticed a higher number of drivers who are using their mobile phones while driving and not being conscious of blind spots when making turns.”
“Looking at its 2018-2022 figures, it has about 800,000 vehicles on its roads. That translates to roughly about 200,000 less than ours for the same period. We have slightly under one million vehicles on our roads. Hong Kong's resident population is, however, higher than ours at 7.4 million. In comparison, our resident population is about two million smaller. The average RTF rate per 100,000 population for Hong Kong for the period 2018-2022 is 1.43. In comparison, ours is 1.92 for the same period. Next, let us look at London. London has more motor vehicles and a much bigger population. In 2022, London has 2.6 million registered vehicles. Its population is about 8.8 million. In 2022, 101 people were killed on London roads. This leads to an RTF rate per 100,000 population of 1.15. Ours is 1.92 in 2022. Finally, I come to Tokyo. Tokyo's metropolitan area is amongst the most densely populated cities in the world with a population of 37 million as at 2022. However, it has only about three million vehicles comparatively. The 2022 RTF rate for Tokyo was reported as 0.94 which is much lower than ours at 1.92 in 2022. Man for man, Singapore loses more lives than Hong Kong, London and Tokyo. We, however, compare favourably with cities, such as Seoul City, which had an RTF rate of 2.18, compared to our 1.46 in 2020, and New York, which had an RTF rate of 2.87, compared to our 1.92 in 2022. I fully appreciate that the vehicle mix in each of the cities is different from Singapore's. However, the short point I am making is that, notwithstanding the limitations of my research, it is reasonable to infer that whilst we have done relatively well in terms of ensuring a high level of road safety on our roads, there remains room for improvement.”
“Based on a 2019 research paper entitled "The Global Macroeconomic Burden of Road Injuries: Estimates and Projections for 166 countries" published in The Lancet, both fatal and non-fatal injuries are estimated to cost the world US$1.6 trillion for the period 2015-2030. Lives have intrinsic and economic value, both of which are lost in accidents. But it is not realistic to think about totally eradicating road accidents. This is a point that Lord Sumption, the famous former UK Law Lord, put across pithily in his Reith Lecture in 2019. He said, "Think about road accidents. They are, by far, the largest source of accidental, physical injury in this country. We could almost completely eliminate them by reviving the Locomotive Act of 1865 which limited the speed of motorised vehicles to four miles an hour in the country and two miles per hour in towns. Today, we allow faster speeds than that, although we know for certain that it will mean many more people being killed or injured, and we do this because total safety would be too inconvenient. So, eliminating risk is not an absolute value, it is a question of degree." Sir, if it is a question of degree, then I think there is a case for Singapore to strive to achieve lower rates of fatalities and serious injuries arising from road accidents. Singapore's roads are relatively safe when a comparison is done on a country-by-country basis. Based on WHO figures, Singapore's road traffic fatality rate per 100,000 population, or RTF rate, for 2019 was reported at 2.09, which was amongst the lowest in the world. It continues to be so. But the picture becomes a little different when we compare our RTF rates with several metropolitan cities in advanced countries. Consider Hong Kong.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the 1970s, as a boy growing up at the JTC flats at 14th mile, Sembawang, my best friend then was my neighbour, Mani. He was living in the flat right above mine. He was several years older than me. To me, he was the elder brother I never had. We had always played together almost immediately after we returned from school. He taught me how to ride the bicycle and we played chess together, too. We went on many a cycling trip together, such as to the nearby beach at 15th mile, the cinema along Canberra Road or the public swimming pool at Deptford Road. Those were, indeed, carefree days. Mani passed away around the early 1990s in a road traffic accident. It happened shortly after he got married. He was riding a motorbike then. It was a double tragedy for the family as his pillion rider, his grandfather, died in the same accident, too. For the first three months of this year alone, there are 19 people like my friend Mani, and two, like his grandfather, the pillion rider. This is a much higher figure, compared to the corresponding period in the previous two years. I will discuss this worrying trend later in my speech. Families of the victims of road accidents who die or suffer crippling injuries would also have to bear the pain and consequences of road traffic accidents permanently. The unfortunate reality is that, every year, there are a significant number of road traffic fatalities and serious injuries here and elsewhere. Globally, about 1.35 million people are killed on roads across the world every year. The number of serious injuries amounts to between 20 and 50 million annually. Such incidents carry major economic impact, too.”
“Sir, I am not making any commitment, Sir. Of course, Mr Leong is entitled to his views and I hope that he respects that I am entitled to my views as well. I have already offered that whatever we have said is recorded in Hansard and we stand by what we say. And I think whatever that we do, our conduct in all these things, would have to be something that would flow from there. So, I am not going to make any commitment.”
“Well, Sir, I mean, without getting into the emotion of things, let me just assure my hon friend, Mr Leong, that I was not making any specific insinuation about rent control to him. I was just picking up a point that he made in the course of his speech, where he advocated that in light of rent-seeking behaviours of landlords, there should be efforts to make sure that tenants get low rents – I was dealing with that point. And in that context, I spoke about the mechanism in this Bill which advocates a consensual approach – the Committee itself has representatives from the landlords, tenants and also other neutral parties. So, with great respect, I fail to see how I am accused of taking his speech out of tangent. But in any event, the record would prove what I said and, therefore, apart from these comments, I do not wish to take this any further.”
“I had just now already, in my first clarification, stated that I did not say that the hon Member Mr Leong advocated rent control. I already clarified that. And against that clarification, why is the hon Member still maintaining that I said he advocated rent control?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not my intention to be confrontational with the hon Member. The point I made, which does not really need me to repeat, is that, at the end of the day, we need to have a collaborative effort between the tenant and the landlords in the context of the Committee to come up with win-win situations. So, in the context of that, it is always a give and take. And, to advocate for specific issues for one party may be good in Courts of law. But within the framework that is being proposed in this Bill, that is anathema – because the whole idea here is to have a collaborative, consensual approach; be it in relation to rent or even in relation to sharing of data.”
“I thank the hon Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Leong for seeking a clarification from me. I did not assert that the hon Member Mr Leong sought rent control. What I said in my speech was that he sought lower rents on behalf of SMEs and, as a result of that, it triggered memories of the Rent Control Act. I was in legal practice long enough to remember the Rent Control Act, which was subsequently abolished. And I recall that where Rent Control Act applies, buildings become dilapidated because landlords have no incentive to invest in these buildings and making it tenantable. And in the end, Singaporeans suffer, because there is no utility that arises from the use of land. I hope that clarifies.”
“Since what constitutes such law are matters within the province of the Courts, I would have thought that there should be recourse to the Court system as a matter of right. An alternative option is to allow for an appeal if it raises an issue of law. Mr Speaker, Sir, I conclude by offering my support for this significant piece of legislation which shows the Government's understanding of the moral limits of the market. It gives life to everything I had imagined in my Adjournment Motion five years ago. I thank the Minister for this important piece of legislation. I should also thank the Minister for Trade and Industry, who is here as well. To my colleagues in this House, may I be allowed to share that in Parliamentary life, sometimes, time is the secret ingredient. In time, we have recognised that there are power imbalances which do not work, not only because they oppress small businesses, but because they do not respect the general public good. In promoting fairness, equity and true autonomy in contracting, we achieve the rare feat of a "win-win" solution. Surely, this is a very good deal in the marketplace of ideas.”
“If, indeed, it is intended that the Court be vested with a discretion, may I ask the hon Minister of State what factors must the Court weigh in determining whether or not to grant a stay, having regard to the legislative objective of this Bill? I also seek a clarification on the ambit of clause 28 of the Bill. It allows a party to raise challenges to the lease agreement on the basis of whether or not it complies with the proposed Act in separate Court, arbitral tribunal or other dispute resolution proceeding. At first glance, it seems to be that clause 28 may not be congruent with the legislative intent to channel disputes arising from the Act to the adjudicator. Finally, I deal with appeals from the decisions of the adjudicator. I note that there is no provision specifically providing for an appeal. However, under clause 27(4) of the Bill, it is proposed that a party may commence separate proceedings in the General Division of the High Court to set aside the adjudication determination subject to the provision of security. Under sub-clause (5), a non-exclusive list of grounds is provided for the purpose of setting aside the order. In essence, the grounds are illegality and palpable injustice. I would like to seek clarification from the hon Minister of State whether the intent behind the provision is, generally, not to allow for appeals from the adjudicators’ determinations, save for narrow and extenuating circumstances. If that is the case, would the hon Minister of State please clarify the reason for doing so? I ask this also bearing in mind that the adjudicator may have to apply the law governing contracts as determined by the Courts to issues at hand, for example, compensation and dealing with the enforceability of exclusion and indemnity clauses.”
“My next question concerns the power of the adjudicator. Under clause 25 (4) of the Bill, the adjudicator must make a determination whether there has been a non-compliance with a leasing principle. In such a case, the adjudicator may vary the lease agreement to correct the non-compliance or he may order compensation. May I clarify that, notwithstanding the use of the word “or” in the clause, the adjudicator may, in suitable cases, be able to order a variation of the lease and also order compensation for the period before the order to vary is made? In addition, may I ask what are the principles upon which the adjudicator is to calculate compensation? Is it based on the law governing damages for breach of contract? Or can the adjudicator decide on compensation in accordance with his own views of what is just and equitable in the circumstances? How would he deal with clauses in the lease agreements that attempt to exclude or limit liability for compensation? Moving on, it is proposed in clause 13 of the Bill that where there are any proceedings before a Court in respect of a matter that is subject of Part 4 of this Bill, the Court may order a stay of proceedings on terms that it sees fit. If the legislative intent is to ensure that the adjudicator, and not the Court, handles all complaints of non-compliance with leasing principles, would it not be better to provide that the Court must grant a stay, say for limited circumstances, instead of making it discretionary? I would be grateful for the hon Minister’s clarification on this matter.”
“I also wish to draw attention to contracts made by small businesses with other dominant players, such as telcos and utility services providers. Thankfully, where the dominant players are regulated, I see an ability on the part of the regulators to reign in unfair practices and ensure fair dealing outcomes through the exercise of their regulatory powers. This is done, for example, by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) which issued Fair Dealing Guidelines in 2013. I suggested in my 2018 speech that other regulators follow suit. What would be useful, in particular, is to ensure that the contracts issued by dominant players, which are regulated, are reviewed for compliance with such guidelines, too. In other words, there should be no gap between regulation and contract. I now turn to the Bill. Part 4 of the Bill provides the dispute resolution mechanism that may be invoked by a landlord or a tenant should there be a complaint that there has been a non-compliance with a leasing principle set out in the Code of Conduct. This dispute is to be resolved through mediation first. If mediation does not work, then it is proposed that it be dealt with by an adjudicator who will have the power to not just determine whether there is a non-compliance with a leasing principle but also to deal with the issue of compensation. Under clause 10 of the Bill, the Minister may authorise any person to be an authorised dispute resolution body. In turn, the authorised dispute resolution body must maintain a panel of mediators and adjudicators. My first question is what are the proposed qualifications of the mediators and adjudicators? Also, why is it felt that the appointments of the mediators and adjudicators should not be done directly by the hon Minister?”
“So, when we take issues or advocate issues pertaining to the tenants, we must also consider what are the landlords’ issues and then we can come to a consensus and, hopefully, we can move forward. The hon Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Leong Mun Wai had advocated some form of low-rent control. I have been in legal practice long enough to remember the spectre of the Rent Control Act. In those days, because of the Rent Control Act, there was no real investment by the landlords on their premises, leading to dilapidated buildings. And in the end, Singapore suffers because small Singapore would require a high utility of our land. So, what is fair in the circumstances would have to be determined by the market and now, we have this framework in terms of a committee and we need to take a consensual approach to deal with all these issues. I come to the second point, fairness. A plain reading of the Code will show that the focus is really to protect the small tenant and not the big landlord. I welcome the Government’s decision to intervene for the small tenant in the retail sector. It is a matter of fairness. It also makes business sense in the long term, because otherwise, we would see a hollowing out of SMEs, which are representative of our nation’s entrepreneurial spirit, within the retail sector. There is a third principle that this Bill makes provisions for, but, in my view, it has not gone far enough. This is the true freedom to contract. I would like to invite the hon Minister of State to state the Government’s position on power imbalances in contracts involving small businesses which fall outside the purview of this Bill. This is a point that the hon Member Mr Louis Chua also made.”
“I listened to the hon Minister of State and I noted that the pandemic posed to be a catalyst for this change. And this is a great example of how one turns crisis into opportunity. It recognises that free market principles are not the holy grail of public policy, that these principles must bend to larger principles of public life. Let me point out what these are now. First, equality. This Bill recognises that landlords and tenants stand shoulder to shoulder, both with legitimate interests. The hon Minister of State referred to the relationship as a symbiotic relationship. They share a mutual goal of collaboration to ensure that Singapore continues to have vibrant and competitive retail, F&B and lifestyle sectors. In this, the Bill gives teeth to a Code of Conduct in which it is expressly stated that one key objective is to provide guidance to landlords and tenants to enable a fair and balanced position in lease negotiations. The beauty of this Code is that it is put up by a Committee representing both the interests of the landlords and tenants and consists also of neutral parties, too. The expectation is that the Committee can provide holistic guidance on what constitutes fair practices in the context of retail lease agreements. Earlier, just before the break, the hon Member Mr Louis Chua had suggested that perhaps the Government should consider more data transparency guidelines in favour of tenants. On its own, it is not a controversial point, but my suggestion is this. We have this committee that is supposed to come to a consensus, a collective action plan. In that regard, one would have to not just look at specific issues, but really the net picture. And in that regard, we must always take a give-and-take approach.”
“These tenants would have invariably incurred capital expenses to fit out the premises and they were left to bear the loss themselves. This does not appear to be a fair sharing of business risks. I also highlighted other onerous clauses imposed by landlords in my speech. This asymmetry adds insult to injury when we remember that tenants are small businesses and landlords are owners of large assets. I advocated those small businesses to be provided with statutory protection in Singapore beyond the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. I shared the examples of small business protection modes in the UK, Hong Kong, the US, Germany and Australia. In response, the hon Senior Minister of State for Law, as she then was, Ms Indranee Rajah, stated that whilst the Government was, and I quote, “empathetic to the challenges faced by SMEs”, the Government’s underlying philosophy is that, quote again, “in general, free-market principles should apply and the Government should only intervene when necessary, for example, to address systemic market failures”. She also said: “enacting such legislation in Singapore can cause market distortion and, eventually, market inefficiency, to the detriment of all”. She also said to the effect that an answer to what constitutes a fair dealing is not something that is always clear-cut because different parties may have different views. Finally, she recognised that, fundamentally, the issue is that of bargaining power and suggested that SMEs leverage the Government’s schemes to scale up their business capabilities and use business and trade networks, such as SBF. The introduction of this Bill, five years since, represents, in my respectful view, a significant shift in the Government’s position which I welcome.”
“Mr Speaker, I support the Bill, which, in my opinion, is a mountain appearing as a molehill. Its title is the Lease Agreements for Retail Premises Bill. Its spirit, though, is a deep rethinking of the moral limits of markets. Markets in Singapore, as in almost every country in the world, are created not only by supply and demand but by the laws that regulate them. Being one of the most competitive countries in the world, Singapore takes a light touch towards constraining the freedoms of markets. And most of the time, this has been the case, both because of the need for efficiency and the belief in the wise decisions of a relatively unfettered marketplace. But let us make no bones that, in Singapore, a nation founded on the back of a socialist political philosophy, the market bends for the public good. And through this Bill, the Government has demonstrated that it is not shackled by the positions it took in the past and is willing to constantly review its policies to ensure that they address the needs of our people and enterprises. Five years ago in this House, in my Adjournment Motion speech entitled “Power Imbalance in Contracts Involving Small Businesses”, I highlighted the onerous nature of contractual clauses which were, as a matter of course, imposed by the dominant players in the market against the small businesses. I specifically highlighted landlords of retail malls, particularly the REITs, as one category of dominant players. In my speech, I recounted how a “demolition clause”, which is a clause that allows a landlord to pre-terminate a lease with a tenant on the basis that it has decided to undertake renovation work without any compensation to the tenant, works unfairly against many tenants.”
“If the GRC system is abolished, we will have to contend with the scenario that good people from minority races, knowing that there is a danger of elections being politicised along racial lines, may just decide this is too much trouble and not run for elections. They will not be prepared to be made fun of along racial lines. Is that what we want? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have said that the Singaporean approach to difficult issues is to “deal with the facts as they are” and not as we wish them to be. We have made progress from the days of race riots, but we need to be honest and realistic about race relations always. I can speak simple Mandarin, I can have political experience, I can rise above racial needling, but after all this, let us be honest, I am still “too Indian” for some voters. There may be a time when race may not matter. But that is not now. Until that day, we will still need the GRC. Because in a GRC, you are not going to go up against any particular race, but a coalition of us, bound together by the collective interests of the GRC and of Singapore. Each of us is constitutive of this group, this compound that forms a protective coating against racial attacks, from wherever they come, and against any of us from any race. Only then, we can hope to succeed, regardless of race, language or religion.”
“The GRC is a compound, not a mixture that can pried away, one element from another. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the basis of my experience having fought in three elections at a GRC and SMC, I would respectfully suggest that the GRC system continues to be important to ensure that we will be able to get appropriate representation in this House from minority races. The fact that I won two elections in an SMC does not provide grounds to do away with the GRC system. I pointed out that I was not a newbie. However, even then, I faced coordinated attempts to politicise the campaign along racial lines, which were rebuffed by Bukit Batok voters. Thankfully, I had thick skin and I was able to focus on my campaign. About a week ago, I shared with my elder daughter, a teenager, that I will be speaking on race issues in connection with this Motion. In response, she told me that during the 2020 hustings – she would have been in primary school then – she came across an outright racist remark about me on Twitter. She was upset about the matter. She, however, decided not to tell me about it because she felt that I was already going through a tough election. She was protecting me at a time when actually it is the father's duty to protect the child. I looked at her carefully when she told me this. She had a habit of biting her lips when she was upset. Thankfully, she did not. She is now at peace, although she had to grow up much faster as a result. I ask hon Members from the majority race in this House. Imagine that you are from a minority race. Would you want to put your own son or daughter through an election in a situation where there is a good probability that your child may be excoriated simply on account of his or her race?”
“The LED screens show a blown-up photo of a flyer used in my campaign in GE 2020 that was defaced. I think hon Members looking at this slide will straightway appreciate the racial undertones quite quickly. The graffiti was an attempt to make me even more Indian, as if my name and skin colour were too understated. I got this photo from a resident who was upset about the matter. She pointed out to me that there was a Chinese character written over my chest which was partially hidden through colouring over the character. The character is "die". When I had occasion to review the photo whilst drafting this speech, I realised the same character was written on both hands, too. How Indian must I be to be oblivious to a Chinese calling for my death? And yet, perhaps fortunately, how Singaporean can I be to get the job done and meet my key performance indicators (KPIs)? When I saw the attempts to politicise the elections on racial lines, I made a decision not to be distracted. I focused on what I believed were the priorities of my constituents. Hon Members would recall that at the Opening of this Session of Parliament following GE 2020, I said that all of us in politics must grow the skin of a rhino and the heart of a lion. You now know what precipitated my remarks. When I stood for elections in Aljunied GRC in 2015, I certainly did not see similar attempts at racial politicisation. I personally think that the reason for this is attributable to the fact that I stood as part of a team in a GRC. It would be difficult for any person to exploit matters along racial lines during elections when the political parties in the contest fielded minority candidates in their respective teams. In a GRC fight, we are in it together.”
“They may also quote Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam who led his team to secure the highest levels of support in a GRC in GEs twice – also something raised in the debate today. They may say that voters are fair-minded, can see beyond race and we should respect this. Voters are indeed fair-minded. But having said that, Iet me show you the realpolitik on the ground – attempts to politicise race issues during both campaigns at Bukit Batok SMC which, thankfully, failed. In the first campaign in 2016, the situation was concerning enough for Prime Minister Lee, as the Secretary-General of the PAP, to speak out against online comments and whispers that went around Bukit Batok asking Chinese voters to cast their ballots along racial lines on 30 April 2016. This was widely reported in the press. Mr Lee said, "it is not unknown for racial sentiments to emerge and be exploited during election campaign." In particular, he said that he came across comments in the social media making the point about race in "quite an open way." During a press interview on the same day, I frankly acknowledged that race issues are present in our society but expressed my confidence that I can overcome these issues with my team. In the second campaign in 2020, I continued to encounter politicisation along racial lines. Let me illustrate this through a picture. As they say, a picture speaks a thousand words. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I display a photo on the LED screens?”
“So, even though I was going into the 2016 by-election as a first-time candidate at an SMC, I had some lines of experience. In the result, the people of Bukit Batok voted me in as their MP in May 2016. I would highlight that during the campaign, I had to address the very fair point as to whether, being not conversant in Mandarin, I would be able to engage Mandarin-speaking residents. I did not see this as a racial issue but a practical one. I appreciated that Mandarin-speaking residents would naturally be concerned that if I am not able to understand them, I would have difficulty in representing their interests. As it turned out, I was able to convince my constituents that I would work harder to overcome the language barrier with my team of volunteers. It also helped that I could hold a simple conversation in Mandarin. By the time of the 2020 GE, the PAP decided to field me again at Bukit Batok SMC. As an incumbent candidate, I had established a record of service which I put forth before my constituents for their consideration. I had a tough election battle in GE 2020. In the result, I was fortunate to be returned as MP for Bukit Batok once again, albeit with a reduced majority. To be elected twice as an MP from a minority race in Bukit Batok SMC is certainly one of the high points in my life. To me, I read it as the constituents of Bukit Batok acknowledging that, overall, having regard to my character, record and experience, the fact that I was from a minority race was not an issue to them. To some, this may seem to argue that we do not need the GRC system, since a minority candidate can win an SMC of majority Chinese. This was something that Ms Poa alluded to in her speech.”
“But what is noteworthy is that this Motion calls for this House to abolish the GRC system. It would be irresponsible for this House to abolish the GRC system and then consider what should be the system to replace it. The GRC system, to me, is a most underrated structure in giving Singapore politics its unique character. It is a paradox that both elevates race and takes away its sting. The first, it does by ensuring minority representation; and the second, it does by removing the leverages of communal politics. To illustrate, I now turn to my personal experience. To my knowledge, I am the second minority candidate that the PAP fielded in an SMC since the implementation of the GRC system in 1988. In fact, I was fielded twice. When I stood for elections in the 2016 by-election at Bukit Batok SMC, I was not exactly a newbie. I had the privilege of serving in Bukit Batok as a community leader and a PAP branch activist for about 16 years. My mentor was the late Dr Ong Chit Chung, then MP for Bukit Batok between 1988 and 2008 when he passed away. I was his Branch Secretary. During the three years after he passed away, between 2008 and 2011, when the next GE was held, I worked very closely with our community leaders to hold things together at our constituency. Also, by 2016, I managed to get some political experience under my belt. Between 2011 and 2015, I served as the Branch Chairman of the PAP Paya Lebar Branch. In my capacity as Branch Chairman, I gained a tremendous amount of experience in leading both political and community outreach programmes for the benefit of residents there. I also stood for elections as part of a team of five in Aljunied GRC in GE 2015. We lost the elections but gained much in terms of practical experience and insights.”
“Third and finally, I accept that the GRC system has its shortcomings. In fact, in my research, I noted that the Government, when it introduced the GRC system in this House, also candidly acknowledged that it is not a perfect system. One shortcoming perceived among political observers and academics is that the GRC system requires minority representation at the point of elections but not during the subsistence or the tenure of MPs. This is a point that has been settled by the highest Court of our land in interpreting the legal provisions setting up the GRC system in 1988. The explanation of the Government that was expressly noted by the Court is that the system must ensure that the candidates from the minority race should not be able to hold the other candidates in the team to ransom to force a re-election. This is a point that the hon NCMP, Ms Poa, raised in her speech. Whilst there is logic in the reasoning, I do accept, as she did, that not all fellow Singaporeans feel comfortable with it. At the end of the day, though, whilst the system is not perfect, the GRC system does reflect the single most important priority for Singaporeans – that the highest law-making power of our land rests in the hands of representatives from all races in order that the way we order our society reflects the interests of all. Singapore cannot and will not be fractured along racial lines, not just because we ensure that there is an adequate number of elected representatives from minority races but also because the way we do so refuses to allow politics to be conducted on racial lines. Ms Poa came up with two ideas – the equivalent of the NCMP system as well as a Parliament based on proportional system. She suggested that there is no need to rush with the consideration of these ideas.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not the first time that this House heard the debate in relation to the merits of having a GRC system which was implemented in 1988. I do recognise though that there will always be a group of young Singaporeans who will be reaching the age of majority to vote in the next GE. Naturally, they would not have had the chance to follow the debate that led to the implementation of this GRC system some 35 years ago. Hence, I do see some utility in having this topic raised here, once again, in this House to provide our younger voters an opportunity to appreciate the reasons for the system and the arguments presented on both sides of the aisle as to whether the system continues to be fit for purpose. For that reason, I thank the hon NCMPs, Ms Poa and Mr Leong, for providing me with the chance to speak on this Motion standing in their names. Sir, I would like to make a case for the GRC system to be retained. I will draw from my own experience in standing for elections as a PAP candidate in an SMC as well as in a GRC. Before I do so, I would like to make three preliminary points. First, based on the speeches that I have heard thus far, I assume that all in this House are united in the wish to see adequate representation of minority races in this House. Second, on the quintessential matter of managing race relations, the preferred approach of the Government must be to deal with the facts as they are. Where the assessment is that race continues to matter in our society, the approach of the Government cannot be to blithely ignore it but to address the issue head on. This is a point that the then hon MP, Mr Chiam See Tong, who was often referred to as a doyen amongst Opposition MPs, agreed to in the Select Committee hearing on the GRC system in 1988.”
“As the said clause provides for a maximum punishment of two years, which is the minimum threshold as provided for in the Extradition Act 1968 for an offence to be an extradition offence, under the current legislative scheme, so long as the Second Schedule of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act is subsequently updated to include this specific offence as a “serious offence”, this offence becomes extraditable. This is not the case for clause 52 of the Bill which creates the offence for breaching a Part 6 Order. This is because the maximum punishment for a breach of clause 52 is one year, which is below the minimum threshold provided for in the Extradition Act. Since these provisions are meant to complement each other, may I ask the hon Minister why is there a difference? I would have thought that, having provided these offences to be extraterritorial, it would be important to ensure that the more serious offences in this Bill should be made extradition offences. Otherwise, the fear is that the punishment provisions, insofar as they apply to individuals based outside Singapore, will become toothless. To harmonise the two would allow this instrument a greater, and to my mind, a proper reach. Mr Deputy Speaker, the arm of the law, when dealing with scams, must not only be long, it must also be powerful and precise. It is with these considerations in mind that I have raised some concerns about the Bill in its current form, with attention to its governance structures, the standing of codes of practices issued and its punitive reach. With these issues properly addressed, we will have a stronger legislative instrument suited to fight the rising public menace of online criminal harms. Sir, notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.”
“I have a query as to why the provision for punishment for the offence created under clause 52, which deals with persons who do not obey a Part 6 Order issued by the competent authority as a result of a failure to comply with a Part 2 Direction, falls below the threshold for making it an extradition offence. As I understand, clause 6 and clause 28 of the Bill complement each other. Clause 6 contemplates a designated officer to issue a Part 2 Direction to any person even if he may be located outside Singapore. The focus here is to proactively deal with situations where certain specified criminal offences are suspected to be committed so as to prevent even more people in Singapore from becoming victims of scams. Where any person does not comply with the Part 2 Direction, the competent authority may give a Part 6 Order under clause 28. This involves, amongst others, the issuance of an Order to the provider of an app distribution service to stop distributing the relevant app to Singapore persons or an Order to a provider of non-compliant online service to suspend or stop the provision of such service to Singapore persons. It is important to note that it is specifically provided in clause 28 that the recipient of a Part 6 Order may not necessarily be the same as the recipient of the original Part 2 Direction. For a person who fails to comply with a Part 2 Direction, he would have committed an offence under clause 50 of the Bill.”
“Appeals may be made to the Minister in relation to decisions made by the competent authority under Part 4 of the Bill. Appeals against actions in relation to Government directives under Part 2 of the Bill and Orders under Part 6 of the Bill may be appealed to the Reviewing Tribunal. It is provided under the respective clauses of the Bill that the decisions of the Minister and the Reviewing Tribunal are final. My question is what is intended by the word “final”. The lawyers in this House would know that Courts do not always interpret “final” as “final”, as if nothing further can be said or challenged. In a good number of cases, the Courts have decided that usage of such words do not oust the jurisdiction of the Courts to judicially review the decisions made on appeal. May I clarify that the intent in this Bill is not to oust the power of the Court to revisit decisions of the Minister or the Reviewing Tribunal on appeal based on the traditional grounds of judicial review? If so, is it contemplated that the Minister and the Reviewing Tribunal will have to provide written grounds of decisions when deciding on appeals so that the Court will be able to properly scrutinise the matter should its jurisdiction to review Government action be invoked? The “final” here therefore is not incompatible with “still open for challenge”. Finally, I turn to Part 11 of the Bill that deals with, amongst others, offences for breaches of Directions and Orders issued under the Bill. I am glad to note that the offences provided for in this part have extraterritorial reach, having regard to the transnational nature of the scams today.”
“It could be as simple as requiring the designated officer to notify the competent authority at the point when he or she exercises the powers under this Act once it comes into force. These three points on governance may appear to be quite technical but they go towards sharpening this powerful law against scams. I now turn to processes stipulated in the Bill which speaks to the power of this instrument. The first has to do with the status of codes of practice issued by the competent authority. I note that it is proposed that the competent authority be vested with, amongst others, the following powers: (a) to stipulate an online service of an online service provider as a designated online service and online service providers as designated providers; and (b) to issue codes of practice that designated providers will have to comply with. As the hon Minister mentioned, non-compliance may trigger the issuance of rectification notice and failure to comply with this notice may even be a criminal offence. Clause 19(4) also provides that the requirement of a code of practice has an effect despite any duty of confidentiality, privacy or arising from contract or any rule of professional conduct. Against this backdrop, may I please ask why it is then stipulated in clause 21(4) of the Bill that the code of practice issued under the said clause does not have legislative effect? Would it not be better to provide that the code of Practice constitutes subsidiary legislation under the Act once it comes into force? I seek the hon Minister’s clarification on this point. I now move on to the provisions in the Bill dealing with appeals. I note that a dual track of appeals is being proposed in this Bill.”
“It may also issue Directions of a general character to them and they must give effect to the Directions. May I ask what will be the hon Minister’s considerations when exercising this power that is proposed to be vested in her? Apart from the issue of independence that I already raised, it seems to me, given the specialist nature of the duties that will be vested in the competent authority, would it not be better to create a department which can be more focused on developing the expertise and the relations necessary to achieve the legislative objectives of this Bill as opposed to allowing authorised persons to be appointed across the Civil Service? Finally, for my last point on the governance structure, I turn to the definition of designated officer. Under the Bill, it is the designated officers who will be vested with the power to issue Government Directions in respect of online activity so as to be able to proactively manage suspected crime cases and prevent more people from falling victims to scams. However, I am not able to find any direct statutory lever that the competent authority may exercise over the designated officer. What is specifically provided though, is that under clause 4(5) of the Bill, a designated officer must act in accordance with his departmental head. Given that the competent authority has the responsibility to administer the Act once it comes into force and the interplay between the designated officer’s and competent authority’s roles, may I ask why is it felt that it is not necessary to allow the competent authority to issue Directions that the designated officer should heed?”
“Second, it is vested with the responsibility to develop a framework in the form of codes of practice that designated online service providers will have to comply with a view to, amongst others, facilitate information sharing on suspicious online activities and design of features to make online platforms more scam-proof. To achieve the legislative objective, I foresee the need to foster a relationship of candour, the hon Minister mentioned "partnership" between the online service providers and the competent authority. The online service providers will need some assurance that if they were to provide inputs in good faith, there will be no serious repercussions against them. The hon Second Minister mentioned that the competent authority will be a unit within the Singapore Police Force (SPF). I wonder whether this unit within the SPF, will be structurally separated from the investigative arm. This will prevent any conflict in the dual roles contemplated for the authority. One possible example to follow could be the Suspicious Transactions Reports Office (STRO) of the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD). The STRO has a responsibility in dealing with information- sharing concerning anti-money laundering activities and others with financial institutions. The STRO is sited within the CAD’s intel and admin group, which is separate from CAD’s investigative arm, its financial investigation group. I also note that it is proposed that the Minister may appoint any public officer from any Ministry, department or an employee from a Statutory Board as an authorised person. Potentially, this is quite wide. Under Clause 5 of the Bill, it is proposed that the competent authority may delegate the exercise of its powers to authorised persons.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this eagerly awaited Bill, and I am glad to note from the speech of the hon Leader of the Opposition that it also enjoys the support of my hon friends across the aisle. This Bill, if passed, will provide the legislative levers that will enable our enforcement officers to take proactive measures to protect Singapore residents from falling victim to scams. This Bill creates a potentially powerful instrument that can be used to great effect. In my speech, I shall point out three ways to make this instrument more precise, more powerful and longer in reach. I will also focus on the organisational structure as well as the processes that are being contemplated to be put into place to administer and enforce the powers and the responsibilities spelt out in this Bill once it comes into effect. Let me start off with a point on governance, which is embedded in the definitions of “competent authority”, “designated persons” and “authorised persons” as stated in clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. May I please ask the hon Second Minister for Home Affairs whether she intends that a separate independent body be created as a competent authority to administer the Act once it comes into being? In this regard, I note that the competent authority has a dual role. First, it facilitates enforcement work. In this role, it is intended that the “competent authority” be vested with the power to issue Orders for non-compliance of Government Directions to specific entities aimed at proactively dealing with cases where specified criminal offences are suspected to be committed.”
“The Tribunal will be able to accord appropriate weight to such evidence and decide in accordance with what is just and equitable in the circumstances. That is all, Mdm Deputy Speaker. And I apologise if I almost outstayed your welcome.”
“Yes. Where the Tribunal grants permission, or where there is no official record of parents' ANA, then the process that will follow is, in essence, equivalent of the current system. I would, therefore, not characterise the proposal in the Bill to provide for a sieving mechanism that I described as making it more traumatising for the child as suggested by the hon Member. It is noteworthy that, by this point, the parents with official records of ANA would have been excluded unless they obtain permission from the Tribunal. We would have succeeded in protecting the children of these parents from being re-traumatised. The hon Member asked if the child may challenge the Tribunal's decision to grant the parent permission to proceed with the application to apply for maintenance. The short answer is no. By the time the permission is granted to the parent to bring a maintenance application against his child, the sieving process would have ended. The child's rights as they exist under the Act today are preserved. As is provided for in the current system, he or she will be able to adduce evidence of the parents’ ANA of him or her in opposition to the parent's application for maintenance. The Tribunal's decision to grant the parent permission to apply for maintenance does not impact on the ability of the child to oppose the maintenance application. Finally, the hon Member raised issues pertaining to a possible underreporting of abuse cases in around 2015. He asked what recourse does a child who is affected by this have. Mdm Deputy Speaker, as I had mentioned earlier, the proposed amendments do not take away from the child the ability to lead evidence on the parents' ANA independent of any records of ANA that the parent may have.”