Ong Chin Guan Noris
Singapore
“After all, a typical agreement for consumer transaction, such as property and cars, is usually very lengthy and couched in terms that would test one's patience in trying to understand it fully. It is possible for these property buyers to miss the fine print in the agreement that expressly takes away third party rights.”
“To this end, I wish to seek the Minister's assurance that there are measures taken to ensure that the CONNECT Plan does not breed a pension mentality among our teachers. After all, the principal aim of this plan is not merely to attract and retain more teachers but to enlarge the pool of dedicated and experienced teachers.”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether the proposals his Ministry is working on would incorporate the speeding up of infrastructural projects. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Yes, that is the natural course of action to take. But we have speeded up infrastructure projects as a result of the last Asian financial crisis.”
“Sir, as Singapore is an air transit point for many global travellers, could I ask the Minister whether his Ministry is looking at the ban and confiscation of food and produce brought in by travellers for their personal consumption, eg, meats and dairy products? This is a likely loophole to be plugged.”
“Sir, I hope that the Energy Market Authority of Singapore will adopt a pro-active watchdog role to ensure that the interests of consumers, especially those from the lower income group, continue to be protected in terms of pricing and service quality.”
“What is the average waiting time for taxis in Singapore and how do they fare as compared to other cities? I understand that the supply of taxis is a fine balancing act and that an increase in the number of taxis to cater for the peak hours may result in excess capacity during the off-peak hours and therefore lower income for taxi drivers.…”
The complete record
Every one of 118 lines we hold for Ong Chin Guan Noris, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 3.
“I have said earlier on that the Business Times have reported that the UK Legalese Limited Report says that we have done very well. And indeed, over the last three to five years, many Singapore firms have already entered into informal alliances with foreign partners. So that is not a new game for them. They are already into this process. What we are doing now is giving them a choice of a more formal structure. This is related to a point that Prof. Chin asks: why are there two types of collaboration? I think the approach is to give law firms a choice. Do they want to go in with a tighter fit, like a joint venture, or a looser fit, sort of engagement before a marriage? I think Mr Shanmugam talked about that process. You may not want to straightaway rush into it. Enter into a formal alliance, not a single entity, where instead of a distinct entity, one can have all the benefits - one marketing centre, one billing centre and, of course, sharing some expertise, foreign lawyers can draft documents on cross-border transactions, even including those relating to Singapore law, but they cannot advise on Singapore law. So you see the nice balance that the Committee must have thought through, how to ensure that there is a gradation for law firms which may not want to jump straight into the fray. Then when they are prepared, they go ahead. Of course, there may be some Singapore firms, the bigger ones, who are confident enough and having considered the pros and the cons, because there will be pros and cons, if you enter into a joint venture with one particular firm, you may stop other referrals from coming to you, they proceed.”
“He knows what Singapore needs from all his consultations. Members have pointed out that AG, in fact, is the key player in the entire exercise. But he will not be alone. Because, for example, in considering whether or not an application for a joint venture or formal alliance should be approved, he will consult other relevant agencies and authorities, including the Monetary Authority of Singapore. He will consult them and take their inputs. I believe that this will be published in the rules which Mrs Lim Hwee Hua has asked. As to whether or not the scheme will allow also the influx of expertise in non-banking and non-financial related areas, the answer is yes. But again a cautious start through formal law alliances, and only in those areas where AG, in the context of Singapore's strategic needs, thinks will benefit Singapore. In any case, I understand that for joint law ventures, they may still bring in expertise in some areas, for example, IT and telecommunication laws, as transactions that require knowledge of IT and telecommunications constitute part of the larger project financing deals. There will not be a conscious effort, but it will be one of the side-effects of having these foreign lawyers come in and do the work in Singapore. So that is the first point. The second point is a good point that Members have made, which is, we should ensure that firms that come in are not firms that ride on a "Ali Baba" arrangement. I think Mr Shanmugam made this point. In other words, we should not be taken for a ride. Some Members have asked if Singapore firms have that strength, that depth of expertise to really be full-fledged partners with these foreign firms.”
“We are doing a very selective process, opening up a certain sector of the legal services market to a certain select group of lawyers who can fill that need. And even when they are registered or approved, they can only do certain designated things, and certainly not practise in court. This is very clear from the Committee's report even though it may not be expressed in the Bill. Certainly, this is not a back door way for foreign lawyers to come and appear in our courts. I can give this assurance to Mr Jeyaretnam. Let me deal with one primary concern which Members have raised. This has appeared through different threads. But the point really is: how do we ensure that Singapore will benefit, that the regime that is set in place will achieve its intended effect of absorbing legal services that will fill up the recognised gaps? Prof. Chin puts it this way - whether or not the joint law ventures and formal alliances will also facilitate the entry of critical non-banking and non-financial areas of law, such as information technology. He sees that need. And indeed there is a need. But the question, of course, is the pace and how we do it. Mr Shanmugam has cautioned that we should not open up the doors for all and sundry. So what the Committee intends to do, I understand, is to again take a balanced approach. There is a distinction between formal law alliances and joint ventures. Insofar as formal law alliances are concerned, I understand that AG will exercise his flexibility vis-a-vis foreign firms which may have expertise in, for example, information technology, with a clear understanding and proper analysis of Singapore's needs. I think that is a point I must continually emphasise. AG, as Chairman of the Committee, was on the job for two years.”
“The second point is that while we make a start, we will continue to monitor these amendments. This is a point which a few speakers have made, including Mr Ravindran. It is important because, for a start, the Attorney-General with inputs, will have to make a decision as to who to admit and approve as joint venture partners and to form formal law alliances. He will assess how these foreign firms which are registered or approved will perform and whether the needs are met by their inputs. These will have to be assessed. They are not cast in stone. But certainly we will take this approach and we will continue to monitor. The third point is that the Committee's recommendations have been approved by Government and adopted. This Bill provides the framework on which these recommendations are mounted. But there is also in place an Implementation Committee headed by the Attorney-General with representatives from the various involved players, including, I believe, the Dean of the Law Faculty, Law Society and so forth, which will continue to make the rules so that the scheme will work. These are the few general comments that I want to make. This is not a sudden change. I think Mr Jeyaretnam would want to paint the picture that Government is flip-flopping. But we are talking about different things altogether - the restriction on the number of lawyers, the aim was to boost the quality of lawyers who are practising here, especially Singaporean students who are trained overseas, and that is why there is a requirement for them to come only from 15 scheduled foreign universities. All those issues have been largely and widely debated. Their aims are quite different. So now we are not just opening up to all and sundry.”
“It is of crucial importance to the commercial life of Singapore that our professionals should feel free to give advice in clear and forthright terms. Sir, the claims sought and awarded against solicitors should bear some relationship to the quantum of fees charged which is based on the complexity and time spent on each assignment, and not on the level of risks and likelihood of claims. I would like to ask the Minister to clarify whether he will consider a capping on the liability of the law corporations, including the solicitor concerned, to a maximum multiple of the assignment fee. Sir, with these few points which I hope the Minister can clarify, I support the Bill. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first, let me thank all the speakers who have spoken up. I think all of them are in support of the Bill, except perhaps for Mr Jeyaretnam. The speakers have expressed some concerns. Some of these concerns are valid, which I would deal with. But it is heartening to note that all of them see the need for these changes. As I have said in my speech which Members have appreciated, this is a cautious, balanced start. These are not sweeping changes. These are carefully thought through changes of the Legal Services Review Committee headed by the Attorney-General which consulted many players on the ground, balancing what is needed for Singapore. I think Mr Shanmugam makes the point. It is not for the benefit of Singapore lawyers or for the benefit of foreign lawyers, but a scheme which will fill up a gap which exists in the current legal sector and also to ensure that Singapore's financial centre drive continues to receive the support of the legal services. I think that is important. That is the first point.”
“Ownership of law corporation therefore should be extended to other than practising solicitors and a fixed percentage specified. Thirdly, like what my learned colleague had earlier said, I am concerned about the provision of clause 81D which states that the personal liability of the solicitor is not affected by the mere fact that a solicitor provides legal service as a director or an employee of a law corporation. Sir, we need to make a distinction as the claims against professionals are grossly disproportionate to the fees that they earn. The tendency for such claims is due to the deep pocket syndrome, as professionals such as lawyers and accountants usually take up indemnity insurance, which makes them prone to law suits and claims. Such disproportionate claims are neither fair nor equitable, given that a single successful claim can wipe out the entire reserves of a law corporation and, if the latter is insufficient, the personal assets of the solicitor providing the legal service. In the event that a successful claim brings down a law corporation, the repercussions will be felt beyond the profession concerned. The employees of the corporation will be affected and so would the immediate family of the solicitor. For a professional, the ultimate punishment for an unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct is to be struck off the roll or to be suspended from practice. This recourse is generally available. Where a claim is made on the assets of the solicitor, it may tantamount to double punishment or jeopardy. Due to the fear of litigation, a solicitor may also so qualifies his advice as to significantly reduce his effectiveness.”
“The flip side to this restriction is that it does not encourage the development of multi-disciplinary professional corporations, which is the growing trend overseas. Sir, the business environment is getting more complex and multi-disciplinary. News about mega mergers confronts us almost every other day. Ironically, the demand for immediate, simple and integrated solutions has become the norm of the day. This phenomenon has led to the propensity of forming strategic alliances across professions, often involving lawyers, auditors, tax advisors and IT consultants. Going forward, I can envisage one-stop multi-disciplinary consultancy centres sprouting out in Singapore. In the light of this trend, may I ask the Minister to clarify if a capping of the percentage of non-solicitor shareholders to a fixed appropriate percentage has been considered. The injection of a multi-disciplinary shareholder interest would better equip our law corporations to meet with the demand of the business environment with its increasingly regional and international aspects. At the same time, the capping can ensure that the legal profession standards and ethics are not diluted. In a similar way, the Bill also seems to rule out the possibility of share option schemes for employees. Whilst there are other compensation schemes, many corporations have come to realise the benefits of rewarding their loyal and quality employees by way of share options. Incorporating a law firm opens up the possibility of extending compensation schemes to match the trend in the market place which competes for the same human talent. It will also promote job loyalty and permanence beyond merely direct monetary attractions.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of this Bill. The introduction of this Bill is timely. It will enable the profession to move forward with the times to keep pace with the worldwide development in the profession and to meet the growing needs of the business community. I would like, however, to raise three points for the Acting Minister's clarification. The name of the law corporation. Clause 81C of the Bill proposes that every law corporation shall have either the words "law corporation" or the acronym "LLC" as part of its name and that no person, firm or group practice other than an approved law corporation shall have such words as part of its name. I have received feedback from some quarters of the business community that the use of the acronym "LLC" may not be appropriate. This is because the acronym may be easily confused with the foreign equivalent of "Limited Liability Corporation", which is widely adopted in countries such as the United States and certain tax haven locations. Secondly, I would like to comment on the shares of the law corporation. Although the Minister mentioned the possibility of multi-disciplinary firms emerging from the proposed corporatisation scheme, the Bill appears to restrict the ownership of law corporation basically to practising solicitors. There are definite merits in restricting the shares of law corporations to within the legal profession. An obvious advantage is that the profession's standards and ethics are best maintained by solicitor shareholders. In this way, legal standards and ethics will not be easily overlooked or inadvertently diluted by shareholders who are outside the profession and who will be excessively driven by commercial interests and gains.”
“So it was inappropriate for the students to be drawn into a matter which relates to the management of the school under the influence of the board of directors. When I knew more about the details, that there was in fact a press conference called by the Chairman of the board of directors and the students were present, my reaction was very different. I said that this was wrong. The students should not have allowed themselves to be drawn into a dispute that involved a board of directors that had already gone into dispute with the school. My worry at that time was: are the students sure what they are doing? Do they really know the complexities of the situation and whether all the factors have been made clear to them? In fact, I also felt that it was inappropriate for the board of directors to draw in the students. Things could have been resolved within the school. If the principal and vice-principals of the school had explained clearly to the students their decision to resign - and in fact it was known that the principal had wanted to retire and he had handed in his letter in August, and the Committee of Management of MOE had asked him to stay on until the end of the year, but he said no and that he had decided to retire early - he could have managed the situation better and the whole thing could be resolved. So the Chinese High School incident should not be made into such a big thing to become an illustration of how civil society should be like. That is really stretching the matter a bit too much.”
“Wong): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to just take a short while to respond to Mdm Claire Chiang's points about Chinese High School. While I was a little aware of her thinking on the matter, I was taken by surprise by the strong stand and the emphatic way in which she described the matter, especially in the context of civil society. In the case of the students who are in their teen years, they still need strong guidance. It is not exactly a very good example to use, just from this issue alone, and say that we should be sympathetic to the students because we are talking about civil society and this is the kind of emotions that we want people to express. In the case of the Chinese High School, I also felt, at the beginning, that there was nothing wrong with the students expressing their sentiments towards their school and the principal, who has done a marvellous job for the school. As Mdm Claire Chiang said, the students themselves also think that they have done nothing wrong. They have only expressed their tremendous attachment to the school and the principal. But Mdm Claire Chaing also said that, as a parent herself, she may be worried that these young people may get themselves into a situation where they could easily be misled and perhaps even made use of. Actually this is the way that MOE has looked at it. MOE's view is that there is nothing wrong with the students expressing their sentiments towards the school and the principal. But it was inappropriate for the students to be drawn into management matters where already, at that point of time, the board of directors of the company that owns the school was no longer in control of the management of the school. The management of the school was already in the hands of the Committee of Management of MOE.”
“However, I am not entirely convinced that fostering IT savvy young people is synonymous with breeding a creative and thinking young people. Sir, computer literacy is very important but it must never supplant books as a child's best friend. I believe that in our quest to create an IT savvy next generation, we must not lose sight of the truth that true creativity comes not from five hours of surfing on the Internet but from reading and appreciating the classics of the past. Reading good books forces the mind to visualise and to imagine the basic skills of creative thinking. I thus would argue that in tandem with the effort to promote computer literacy, MOE should also promote a basic reading programme to encourage the habit of reading amongst our young people. A list of good books can be drawn which would comprise the classics, which every young person should read as part of his intellectual, aesthetic and cultural education and stimulation. Sir, starting this reading programme at a late primary school level would ensure that by the time our young reach university and branch out into the hard sciences and engineering disciplines, in particular, they would at least have had some exposure to good literature. Hence, the opportunity to enhance their imaginative and creative skills. This policy would ensure that it is not only students in the arts and humanities who benefit from world literature. In short, what we need to foster creativity amongst our young is not so much computer literacy, but a true literacy in every sense of the word. In other words, the habit and even love of reading must be inculcated in our students. Sir, I support the motion. The Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Aline K.”
“I was also appalled to hear how a 90-year old lady in a wheelchair had problems getting to a hospital and clinic appointment, as very few taxi drivers are keen to ferry the wheel-chair bound. I am aware that these are issues which have come up time and again, but unless we consciously change these attitudes they will not go away, and even the best infrastructure will not make us the gracious society we want to be. Finally, I would like to make a few comments on education. I believe that the MOE's emphasis on ability-driven education is the right one. It is important to ensure that the innate talents and abilities of each particular child are identified, honed and harnessed not only for his own optimal personal development but also for higher ends. In this respect, I commend MOE's focus on the five areas of the school environment - the curriculum development system, teacher development, pre- and post-school development, and developing Singapore as an education hub. I would like to focus particularly on curriculum and assessment. I note with approval that MOE intends to teach our young to think creatively and apply knowledge innovatively. I also note that to this end, MOE intends to revise the curriculum to infuse thinking skills and incorporate the use of IT in the design and delivery of syllabuses. I understand that every child would learn in an IT-enriched school environment over the next several years. I fully understand the rationale for integrating IT into the very fabric of our curriculum. Information technology is transforming the world we live in, and to be computer literate is today a basic prerequisite for success in the global economy.”
“Sir, I do hope that the Ministry will give sufficient thought to these issues, especially if the elderly proportion of the commuting public increases and in the light of vehicle ownership policy. I note that the Ministry of Manpower is looking into fine-tuning the CPF system to ensure members have adequate savings to meet old age needs and medical care. I agree wholeheartedly with this review, as CPF funds should be invested wisely and not whittled away through speculative trades on the stock market. Our elderly should be encouraged to retire with savings and dignity. In this respect, I would like the Government to consider reinstating the tax exemption for retirement gratuities, as was the case pre-1993. This once-a-lifetime tax exemption would further provide for adequate financial security on retirement. For the self-employed, I would also like to see compulsory tax free CPF contributions beyond Medisave, which would equate at least to the gross percentage which salaried employees are accumulating in their CPF accounts. In connection with the issue of catering to the needs of the elderly, I would like to stress the importance of the people factor, part of the heartware we want to build in ensuring that the various schemes succeed in bringing about a population which ages graciously. By the people factor, I am referring to the attitudes of service providers like, for example, bus and taxi drivers. How many bus drivers actually wait for the elderly to see them safely before moving off? And very few taxi drivers actually help passengers to load and unload their shopping or luggage. Will they constantly go the extra mile as a rule of thumb for the elderly?”
“I also applaud the Ministry of Health for recognising the increasingly urgent need for step-down care, and especially its intention to work with voluntary welfare organisations and the private sector to build community hospitals and nursing homes. I fully agree with the future policy to introduce an insurance scheme to defray the high cost of long-term step-down care for the elderly who suffer from disabilities. And I think the idea of a means test for all step-down care services to allocate Government subsidies for deserving cases is a sound one. I am also pleased with the recent report that existing MRT stations will be retrofitted with lifts and ramps, and the North East Line and the Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit System will also incorporate these elderly friendly features, and that the Government will pay for this to be done. But I believe that more can be done to meet the specific needs of the elderly, eg, will SMRT be willing, for instance, to designate one carriage as an elderly only carriage? The MRT aside, how will public buses be configured to facilitate usage by elderly folk, especially those who are disabled? The Minister for National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan, has said that bus operators will be left to decide how to make their buses more accessible to the old. But bearing in mind that they are, in essence, profit driven organisations, how likely are they to put the convenience and welfare of the elderly as a major concern? Moreover, is it possible to introduce a system as in the UK where elderly people travel on public buses for free, rather than the partial subsidy and limited travel arrangement?”
“Sir, in an open global economy, talent migrates to where it can earn the greatest returns. Singapore, which has always believed in the logic of free and unfettered competition, recognises this. Thus, the Singapore way has never been to brow beat our people into engaging in certain behaviour by loading them with guilt, but rather to convince them that it is in their interest that it makes perfect sense for them to adopt that particular pattern of behaviour. This hard edge realism is precisely why we pay our civil servants good and competitive salaries, and why our civil service is consequently world famous for its proficiency and incorruptibility. In this respect, if Singapore can provide these quasi foreign talents sufficient incentives, whether material or otherwise, and support and encouragement, we will indeed be hard to beat and will become an intellectual focal point which will be irresistible to our sons and daughters who are now overseas. I wonder whether the Government, through its contacts with Singapore offices world-wide, has any plans to try to attract this particular pool of talent home where they belong. Moving on, I note that the Ministry of Community Development has projected that the ageing population will triple by 2030 when one in four citizens will be aged above 65. In this connection, I am happy with the several Government initiatives to cope with this development. I note with approval that MCD is to strengthen public education programmes on ageing and, in particular, will encourage Singaporeans to value their elderly as a resource and actively harness their contributions. I look forward to the MCD's masterplan for services to the elderly which will be ready next year.”
“Singaporeans must thus accept that we are increasingly global citizens, and that to succeed in an increasingly sophisticated and competitive world, we need to be open to the idea that our friends from overseas can and must play a role in the process. In short, we should see them not as foreigners but rather as fellow global citizens who have joined us in helping us keep an international edge. In fact, to further enhance our competitive edge, I would like to suggest that we also try to tap into the other rather neglected talent pool, the Singaporean professionals who have emigrated overseas. Sir, there is a large community of what I would like to call quasi foreign talent available whose resources and skills would be invaluable to our economy. The Prime Minister has alluded to this group of Singaporeans and given us some statistics. From experience, I know that many of these expatriate Singaporeans and former Singaporeans would like to return home but they are dissuaded by the fact that they would have to give up their present overseas standard of living and cope with the Singapore reality of high property and car prices, as well as in their perception, whether true or not is an entirely separate matter, the more regulated social and political environment. However, if these former Singaporeans could be persuaded to return, their impact would be considerable. For, let us face the facts, unlike foreigners who would probably work for, say, five years before returning home, these former Singaporeans, after all, grew up here and their roots are here. Their loyalty would be to Singapore. Of course, there will be those who argue that the very fact that they left Singapore in the first place is proof of disloyalty, but that is a very parochial point of view.”
“I understand that the qualifying rules are stringent to attract the appropriate players in the high growth and high value added areas, which will enhance Singapore's competitive edge. However, the local SMEs should be identified as a group on its own with an appropriate development programme. I am totally in support of the Ministry of Trade and Industry's intention to nurture a hundred promising local enterprises to become world-class companies by 2005. Sir, on the issue of foreign talent, let me say that I am in broad agreement with the argument that in order to keep our competitive edge, Singapore has to supplement our limited talent pool by attracting suitably skilled and qualified foreign talent. In this respect, I commend the Ministry of Manpower's plans to make Singapore an international talent city and intellectual focal point where diverse talents from all over the world congregate and supplement our own talent. I believe that this policy is very much in keeping with the process of globalisation sweeping the world. The communications and information technology revolution in tandem with the emergence of a single global economy has produced a new cosmopolitanism which is impossible to ignore. Today, it is not unusual to find a Taiwanese, for instance, studying in the United States, then find a job in Hong Kong where he meets and marries a Canadian Chinese partner. Even closer to home, when you watch CNN, it is impossible not to be struck by the fact that the Asian presenters are speaking in American accented English. In other words, the concept of a pure unadulterated national identity is becoming increasingly untenable, given the impact of global economic and perhaps even cultural integration.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate. I rise to support the motion put forth by Mr Davinder Singh. Sir, the regional crisis has demonstrated yet again how precarious Singapore, the island state, is in this developing region. Yes, we are an independent nation, but totally dependent on the health and the well-being of the region and the international community for us to continue to be a significant global player. Singapore has always demonstrated its wits and tenacity in building up its attractiveness as a premier business centre in Asia with a global orientation. Rapid globalisation, advancement in technology and communications now mean that we have to adapt our strategies to fit into the new world order or be left out. I support the various Ministries' recognition of meeting the global challenge by taking the bull by the horns. However, in the quest to achieve and maintain Singapore's edge as a premier Asian global city, we must ensure that the Singaporean entrepreneurs and businessmen are not left behind. Just as Singapore has grown from strength to strength, the small and medium local enterprises of today could be the multi-nationals of tomorrow. As global companies locating in Singapore compete for the limited resources we have, in particular the people resource, we must ensure that Singapore deliberately supports such local enterprises and ventures through more liberal programmes like, for instance, funding assistance, start-up and R&D grants, training grants and maybe even a lower corporate tax rate for such subsidies to be reinvested in the business. Singapore has a host of fiscal and non-fiscal incentives for multi-nationals to avail themselves.”