Patrick Tay Teck Guan
Singapore
“Will CPF Board also notify SDS holders with clear anti-scam advisories, whether via SMS or any other means, especially with emerging modus operandi by scammers? This is so that the message reaches them properly and reduces confusion. Mr Speaker, Sir, with these questions, I support the Bill.”
“We are not asking to oppose change but for clarity, contemporaneous communication, equitability and assurance so that impacted workers will not be left behind. In short, a fair and just transition. I hope today's debate helps move us in that right direction. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“I thank the Minister for sharing the response to the Parliamentary Question by the fellow Member of the House. I was wondering, and I think I have brought this up before on previous occasions, whether we can consider stricter penalties against those who do not comply, with this requirement.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two questions for the Minister for Health. Firstly, the rise in energy and related costs will impact our public healthcare clusters.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. I have just one supplementary question for the Ministry of Manpower that in the light of these wage levels of our PMEs, in the course of reviewing some of our existing employment labour laws as well as regulations to factor this in, so that such PMEs are adequately represented,…”
“Stable psychiatric patients often remain at IMH simply because there are no community facilities to receive them. My third question is whether there are plans to develop more custodial care and step-down facilities – sheltered homes, supported living – so that IMH’s beds are reserved for those who need its full clinical expertise?”
The complete record
Every one of 915 lines we hold for Patrick Tay Teck Guan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 19.
“The parties involved and their family and children bear the emotional cost of the dragging out of a failing relationship. The ability to seek legal recourse, especially in cases where violence is perpetuated, must be available in the legal system and accessible. There must also be urgency in helping lower-income claimants recover monies owing to them, and assistance for lower-income families who have lost a loved one to unlock assets of the deceased, especially where the deceased was the breadwinner. While the Public Trustee administers estates of deceased persons where the value of the estate does not exceed $50,000, the Public Trustee is unable to administer the estate where the deceased was the sole lessee of an HDB flat and a child is eligible to inherit the whole or part of the flat. The mission of LAB is about "Advancing access to justice, the rule of law, the economy and society through policy, law and services." The amendments proposed under this Bill, indeed, further this mission. It is also timely at this juncture to consider a more integrated approach to provide more holistic support to families which are in need. Legal issues are not merely disputes between litigant and defendant; they can have extenuating and longer-term impact on the family. To help families to manage stress arising from the legal dispute and any potential fallout, they can be directed to counselling support. Households in need can be directed to social assistance schemes and employment facilitation services. At the close of the claim, a review should also be conducted to educate vulnerable claimants on how to better protect their legal rights in future. With this, I support the Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The update and simplification of the means criteria for legal aid to align them with means criteria used in current social support schemes have been long-awaited. The current means test criteria, which take into account the applicant’s disposable income and disposable capital, have been in place since 1958. To apply for legal aid today, applicants have to furnish documentary proof of their disposable income and disposable capital as part of the legal aid application. Even with such stringent means test criteria, there has consistently been a high percentage of applications, at around 90%, which passed the preliminary means test for legal aid over the past five years. The incidence of abuse is low and the large majority of applicants meet the qualifying criteria. In 2016, 57% of the legal aid applicants had only secondary educational qualifications or lower. The challenges that this group face in accessing justice are multifold. First, with lower educational levels, they will meet with more challenges in understanding their legal rights, seeking available recourse and comprehending legal processes. Second, with limited financial means, there are significant financial challenges in seeking legal recourse. Third, the inability or difficulty faced in seeking legal recourse can exacerbate existing challenges in their lives due to higher levels of stress arising from the inability to resolve the legal issue at hand. Over the past five years, about 50% of applicants sought legal aid for matrimonial cases, 10% for monetary claims and 7% for probate matters. When divorce is on the cards, there would inevitably be strain in the household.”
“To conclude, much as we now have consolidated and promulgated a mammoth and laudable piece of insolvency legislation which I support, I submit that a worker's basic rights to his day's wage should not be diluted nor denigrated. Workers should not be bearing the manpower cost of rehabilitation efforts of the company. A better insolvency regime is one that facilitates the rehabilitation of distressed companies while providing sufficient safeguards for workers. In short, I hope this Bill will not just be an omnibus Bill, but also omnipotent to ensure both businesses and workers survive.”
“For workers claiming for unpaid wages against companies under judicial management or insolvent companies, TADM should share with these workers information about the implication of judicial management and insolvency on their claim for unpaid wages against the company and connect them to employment facilitation support and resources. Second, the short-term relief fund targeted at the bottom 20th percentile of the workforce funded by MOM and operated by TADM for workers who have successfully made ECT claims against their company but fail to recover payment, can also be expanded to assist all worker groups, including professionals, managers, executives (PMEs) who have not been paid wages by insolvent companies and the amount of help increased to commensurate with the salaries of those affected. Third, MOM can also advance money to pay part of the workers' unpaid wages and stand in place of the workers as a preferred creditor of the same level of priority the workers would have had for a claim of unpaid wages to recover the advanced monies upon distribution of the insolvent company's assets. This will reduce the waiting time for workers to be paid and eliminate the hassle and stress of having to take additional administrative steps within the insolvency framework to recover their unpaid wages. Finally, there should also be exceptions to the statutory moratorium. MOM could be allowed to investigate and take action against unlawful labour practices under the Employment Act without having to seek the consent of the judicial manager or obtain leave of Court. Unions should also be allowed to refer cases to the Industrial Arbitration Court for arbitration and not having to resort to industrial action.”
“Given that the Committee had found that there were already insufficient funds to pay the Official Receiver, at the top of the list of preferential debts under section 328(1) of the Companies Act, the implication will be that workers who have not been paid their wages, have even smaller chances at recovering any monies owed to them. I would like to ask the Minister if there are any statistics available on the incidence of claims for unpaid wages in insolvent companies and the amount of wages claimed by workers. In cases where workers had received some payment toward their unpaid wages, how long did it generally take for these workers to be paid? How many workers were paid up to the monetary limit imposed under section 328(2) of the Companies Act for wage and retrenchment benefit claims pursuant to sections 328(1)(b) and (c)? Under the Bill, the same monetary limit now applies to claims for wages, retrenchment benefits and remuneration in respect of vacation leave or employee's death pursuant to clauses 203(1)(d), (e) and (h). We must ensure that there are avenues available for workers to seek help when they are claiming for unpaid wages when the company is under judicial management or insolvent. I have four possible interventions and suggestions. First, currently, workers with claims for unpaid wages can make a claim at the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) by first submitting a mediation request at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM).”
“In conducting their review of the insolvency regime in Singapore, the Insolvency Law Review Committee received feedback that in many cases where the Official Receiver was appointed as liquidator, typically of a company with no or little assets, the Official Receiver received almost no remuneration for the fees incurred in conducting the liquidation and the costs of such liquidations were borne by public funds. The Committee also found that a sizeable number of companies wound up by the Court had insufficient or no assets to fund the administration of the liquidation. As at 31 December 2012, the number of cases with estimated realisable assets of less than $1,000 administered by the Official Receiver stood at 320, constituting 42% of the 768 live cases administered that year. Under section 328(1)(a) of the Companies Act, the fees of the liquidator enjoy priority over all other preferential creditors but share that priority with two other categories of debts within the same "class" ranking pari passu, that is, the taxed costs of the applicant for the winding up order and the costs of an audit carried out pursuant to section 317 of the Companies Act. This is followed by wages and salaries owed to workers. The Committee recommended that section 328(1)(a) of the Companies Act be amended to confer priority on the Official Receiver's fees vis-a-vis the other debts identified in that section. This recommendation has been accepted and reflected in clause 203(1) of the Bill and unpaid wages of workers are now ranked fourth amongst the preferential debts.”
“8%, and this was reviewed by the Insolvency Law Review Committee in 2013. In unsuccessful cases, workers would be left with little or no recourse for outstanding wages, except to await distribution of assets upon the winding up of the company in accordance with the priorities of debts in insolvency. Depending on the assets available for distribution, they may receive a few cents for each dollar owed, or nothing at all. With the introduction of rescue financing in 2017, the company may apply to Court for an order that debt arising from any rescue financing obtained or to be obtained by the company to have priority over some or all of the preferential debts or to be secured by a security interest, pushing unpaid wages further down the priority of debts. In the case of Re Attilan Group Limited [2017] SGHC 283, the High Court rejected the company’s application for super priority for rescue financing, finding that the company had failed to show that it had expended reasonable efforts to secure other types of financing. The judge also added that the grant of super priority should not be ordinarily resorted to and the Courts would be slow to do so, unless it is strictly necessary, given that it reorders the priorities on winding up and allows the rescue financier to get ahead of the queue for assets. It remains to be seen how the case law on super priority rescue financing will be further developed. While rescue financing can certainly give the distressed company a timely boost toward rehabilitation, I urge companies and rescue creditors to give considerable thought to the interests of worker-creditors when mounting this application.”
“Thus, the worker is placed in a position of self-insurance, but without adequate power or compensation to absorb the loss of unpaid wages when the employer becomes unable to pay them. I have come across various cases where workers continue to work without pay while the company is in judicial management, in the desperate hope that the company will turn around and they can keep their employment with the company. For example, in February 2015, Vela Diagnostics came under judicial management in Singapore. Staff were informed that they could not be paid until new funding from investors was secured. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) had stated that they were unable to assist employees for a firm under judicial management as the Assistant Commissioner for Labour at MOM was not able to inquire into salary claims of employees covered under the Employment Act while the statutory moratorium was in force, except with the consent of the judicial manager or with leave from the High Court. One former employee, owed about $13,000, quit in April 2015 to start a new job because he could not afford to keep waiting for his salary to come in. Others struggled with their financial commitments while staying with the company in the hope that investors could be secured. Vela Diagnostics was eventually brought out of judicial management in September 2015, and thereafter, settled all salary claims. By this time, the workers who had stayed on with the company would have worked for almost six months without pay. Unfortunately, not all workers in such situations get paid their outstanding salaries or at all. From 1996 to 2000, and 2001 to 2010, there were only 52 successful judicial management cases, where all the debts were paid, out of 194 cases in total. That is something like 26.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. This Bill seeks to facilitate the restructuring of distressed companies and benefit local businesses experiencing financial difficulties. Indeed, companies are under pressure from rising costs, a shrinking workforce and rapid disruption in an increasingly protectionist global environment. Many of our businesses are also restructuring their operations in a bid to stay ahead of the game. As restructuring intensifies, it is inevitable that some businesses in Singapore may end up distressed or in financial difficulties. While this Bill seeks to strengthen the regimes in place to facilitate the rehabilitation of distressed companies, we must not forget to ensure that the interests of workers are taken care of as well. Without a doubt, workers are the lifeblood of the company. In times of difficulty, the company stands little chance of rehabilitation without its workers. Yet, workers often have little bargaining power vis-a-vis the company and stand to lose the most when the company is unable to pay their wages. Wages, generally, form a sizeable portion of workers' wealth and means to sustain their dependants. When the employer defaults, workers are left with limited options to fall back on. Unlike other creditors that the business deals with, the majority of workers would not have factored in the risk of entering into an employment relationship by looking at the financial health of the employer before they accept employment or minimise their exposure by taking a security. Workers would also not have negotiated into the price of their labour any compensation for the risk of non-payment.”
“It is good news to hear that from the Minister. I would also like to put in a suggestion, as part of the review, to look at registered traditional Chinese medicine practitioners by MOH.”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. I just want to ask the Minister since the update during the Committee of Supply (COS) on the number of companies that are on the FCF Watchlist, which is 350, has there been an increase or a decrease? Likewise, because of the new broadened coverage of the FCF with effect from 1 July this year, what is the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) seeing? Has there been an increase or a decrease in the number of Watchlist companies?”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Small Claims Tribunal (Amendment) Bill has two advantages. First, from the workers’ point of view, freelancers and the self-employed people will be able to claim a higher amount, hence, there is better protection for them. Second, from the consumers’ point of view, their interests will also be better protected. However, for workers and consumers, the claim process is too complicated. Hence, I have two suggestions. First, simplify the claim process to give people easy access to the Tribunals. Second, improve the efficiency of the enforcement process. (In English): With that, I support the Bill.”
“Take, for example, a case where the claimant has taken time and effort to seek recourse at the tribunal and he has successfully completed the process of pursuing his claim and obtained an order for the counterparty to pay him the sum of monies claimed but the counterparty refuses to pay up. Those who are unfamiliar with the legal system would be surprised or dismayed to find out that they would have to take additional steps and expend more time and costs to enforce the order with no guaranteed outcomes. In a survey conducted in the UK in 2010, it was found that one in four small claims court users who won their case only received part of the payment they were awarded, while 6% end up receiving nothing. According to the State Courts Annual Report 2017, 9,700 cases came before the Tribunals in 2017. Of these cases, how many orders were fully satisfied? For those which were not satisfied, how many of the orders were enforced? Does the success rate of enforcement of tribunal orders differ from that of judgments made by the Courts? In the same way that processes to access the Tribunals have to be simplified so that end users are able to obtain the best substantive as well as procedural justice available, the process to seek enforcement of tribunal judgments should also be simplified and made more accessible so that enforcement arrangements do not impact the efficiency of the small claims procedure. To mitigate this issue, the Tribunals can do more by better informing claimants of the potential problems of enforcement, incorporate processes to filter out claims which should not be pursued because of the poor chance of collection and explore ways to better ensure efficient enforcement of its orders, given the nature of the Tribunals. To conclude, in Mandarin.”
“Has the date for service to be rendered lapsed? Are you seeking a Money Order or a Work Order? I would imagine that an average layperson would find some of these questions challenging to provide a "Yes" or "No" answer to. There is a need to simplify the language further or to provide a glossary for users’ easy reference. After completing the pre-filing assessment, I was given a list of notifications with instructions to read them before I proceed to file my claim. The instructions were: please consider how you are going to support your case at the tribunal, by showing evidence or supporting documents. You should engage the other party to discuss remedial works or other acceptable solutions before filing your claim at the tribunal. You must show evidence or supporting documents to show the breach by the other party. You should wait till the contracted service performance date is due before filing your claim. You cannot bring a claim against a person or entity who is out of jurisdiction, that is, outside of Singapore. The tribunal cannot hear the matter if service has not been performed, that is, you have not brought the claim to the attention of the other party personally. The question is: would these notifications deter the ordinary man on the street from filing his claim in the Tribunals? While we want to expedite the claim processes, we must be careful to ensure that the Tribunals do not become too intimidating for claimants to access. One other area of concern which I hear from the ground is the issue of enforcement of orders.”
“As articulated by Mr Ong Chin Heng in his paper on "Rethinking Tribunals Justice – Serving the Community” in 2011, then a Senior Referee of the Tribunals, the raison d'etre of the Tribunals must be to serve the community and “the processes, programmes and procedures must be user-friendly and community-oriented so that end users are able to obtain the best substantive as well as procedural justice available". I believe that the Tribunals' raison d'etre must remain the same today. The cornerstone of the Tribunals is that the proceedings before the Tribunals are to be conducted in an informal manner. Whilst the adoption of judge-led proceedings through this Bill would help parties to focus on key issues arising from the claim, thereby saving them time and costs, there is a need to ensure that the Tribunals' proceedings are conducted in a manner which still retains its informal nature. Care must be taken to reduce the use of jargon and legalese and maintain the use of simplified procedures so that laypersons are not intimidated when presenting their cases at the Tribunals. In 2017, the Tribunals adopted an electronic case filing and management system called CJTS, in place of the manual filing system. To assist claimants in preparing to file their tribunal claim, there is a pre-filing assessment tool available on the State Courts' website for their use. I tried completing the pre-filing assessment form and I was asked these questions to which a "Yes" or "No" response was required. The questions were: are you claiming against the correct party with whom you have a contractual obligation? Does your claim relate to a contract for services received/rendered? Was the claim filed more than one year after the due date of performance? Is contract evidenced in writing?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. I have been calling for a review of the jurisdiction of the Tribunals since 2013 so that more people can have access to economical and expedient orders and judgment in their contractual claims. Raising of the monetary limits of the Tribunals’ jurisdiction will be a boon for claimants and freelance workers alike as I know of professional freelancers who take their clients to task at the Tribunals for non-payment of work done under their contracts for service. The revision is also due as the last review of the Tribunals’ jurisdiction was conducted in 1997 and adjustments ought to be made to factor in inflation and rising costs of living. I am also supportive of the extension of the limitation period for cases to be brought to the Tribunals as members of the public who are not familiar with legal processes may not consider legal recourse until the dispute has remained unresolved for some time. It is thus reasonable to extend the limitation period from one year to two years for the claimants to avail themselves of the opportunity to bring their small claims to the Tribunals. At the inception of the Tribunals in 1984, the then Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs Prof S Jayakumar said that the objective of the Tribunals was to provide "a speedy and inexpensive machinery to handle small claims arising from disputes between consumers and suppliers".”
“I wish to thank the Minister for his reply. Recently, I spoke to a professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) who work in a US multinational corporation (MNC) situated in China, and she has expressed concerns over the uncertainties of what is happening. So, they are watching that space closely. It is not just the US tariffs. There are a few things that are happening. They are looking at a potential review of the US interest rates, they are also looking at Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) coming up and, of course, at the same time, in the US, corporate taxes have gone down as well. So, there are quite a few measures which have caused a bit of uncertainty among workers, particularly so because there are quite a number of our PMEs and workers as well working in US MNCs or even Chinese MNCs in Singapore as well as their respective countries. So, I would urge the Government, especially the economic agencies, to pay a close watch and to stand prepared, particularly with measures, to help these workers.”
“Just a follow-up supplementary question to the Senior Minister of State. Regarding usage of PMDs, increasingly, we are seeing them being used in private premises, such as shopping malls. Some of these malls and private places are quite porous, and they allow PMDs to move from public to private spaces. Many of these mall owners are at a loss. We have seen situations where there is confrontation when some of these PMD users say, "This is private premises; it is my freedom to use the PMD. Why are you telling me not to?" So, are there measures taken to work with mall owners and perhaps even give more powers to them to help them in that journey to enforce, minimise or eradicate some of these very dangerous, negligent and careless PMD uses?”
“I urge our 4G leaders to not only meet the material needs of Singaporeans, but also their hopes and aspirations. The Government must make our society more inclusive and increase social mobility. I hope people from all walks of life can do their part, move with the times and build a better future together. (In English): To conclude, against a rapidly changing landscape, evolving needs and limited resources, we must ask ourselves what guides and orientates us in a spinning world – what is Singapore's True North? What core values do we hold steadfast to in this new era? What makes Singapore our home in a highly-globalised and migratory world? What ignites the fire in our people's bellies to take Singapore to greater heights? In spite of all the uncertainties, I am optimistic about Singapore's future and I believe we can stand strong together against adversity and find the answers to these questions together. Through the sharing of the Government's agenda in the President’s Address, I am heartened that this Government is committed to refining our vision for the future and in leading us to build Our Singapore, Our Future as one united people. I support the Motion.”
“Leveraging the findings from the foregoing, NTUC is working on the identification of jobs at risk of displacement in identified sectors and stands ready to co-create relevant programmes and interventions with our tripartite partners and partners in our expanded Labour Movement network for the progression of our workforce. Besides ensuring that our people have the means to fill their bellies, we must not forget about our people's desire to fill their hearts and pursue their aspirations. This is the additional challenge in nation-building that our Government faces today. While our Pioneer Generation leaders were focused on ensuring Singapore's survival, today, it is also about the flourishing and continued sustainable growth of Singapore. Concerted efforts need to be taken to integrate diversity, encourage inclusiveness, mitigate the effects of social stratification and improve social mobility and "liveability" for our people. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: The 23 ITMs have already mapped out the future economy. We must work hard and build a better future together. I am most concerned with whether businesses and workers can cope with the challenges of the future economy. I have three suggestions. First, in order to deal with the challenges brought about by the digital economy, various industries need to conduct job-risk assessment. Second, employers must share with union leaders and workers promptly the latest development, so that they can come up with solutions together to deal with the rapidly changing market and workplace situation. Third, when dealing with complicated working environment, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. We have to customise our solutions to meet the different needs.”
“There is no one-size-fit-all solution and nuanced collective action has to be designed thoughtfully for the intended audience. The Future Jobs, Skills and Training capability at NTUC has developed a framework for collaborative action to change mindsets towards future-skilling. Stakeholders can work together at each stage of the framework to leverage their respective strengths for greater reach and effectiveness. These include efforts to address information asymmetry, raise awareness, inspire action, provide holistic support, create positive feedback loops and encourage the flourishing of change-agent mentality. In 2017, the Labour Movement shared infographics highlighting the in-demand jobs and skills in the Financial Services, Infocomm and Technology, Healthcare, Engineering in manufacturing and Wholesale Trade sectors with the working people, with a call to action to take up available upskilling programmes to enable them to be equipped with the skills for these in-demand jobs. The Labour Movement also held the inaugural Future Jobs, Skills and Training Forum earlier this year in January to envision the future and inspire action among stakeholders through the sharing of opportunities on the horizon for Singapore’s economy, identification of driving forces impacting jobs, uncovering of specific action plans to transit workers from current at-risk jobs to future in-demand jobs and exploring issues concerning skills acquisition and how our learning models have to evolve so that we are able to prepare our workforce for jobs which do not yet exist. Participants at the Forum also participated in a dialogue with our NTUC Secretary-General on topics concerning future jobs, skills and training.”
“We also need to assure the working people that there are jobs which they can prepare themselves for and that the Government and Labour Movement will walk with them through this journey of transformation. This has been the central tenet behind the work undertaken by the Future Jobs, Skills and Training capability at NTUC which was set up last year in January 2017. In order to raise awareness and urge people to take action, our leaders must have the moral courage to talk about such issues and be open to sharing information and co-creating solutions with partners to ensure speed to market. With the advent of the use of AI and autonomous machines, I have previously asked the Government whether new laws and regulations should be promulgated to ensure that we address the issues arising from the development and use of these technologies. I have also asked if the Government would consider conducting a national study on the potential impact of AI and technology on jobs and on our people to get conversations going and pave the way for ethical development of technology against growing concerns on issues, such as liability, privacy, consent, safety, security, diversity and transparency. I believe that there is value in providing such frameworks of understanding for our people and to strengthen Singapore's brand as a trusted economy and I continue to call on this Government to look into these suggestions. While inertia has oftentimes been attributed to the mindset of employers and employees in preparing for change, in the design of our policies and interventions, we must be cognisant of underlying concerns and address them in a targeted manner to move the needle in transformation.”
“Today, we are facing the headwinds of a rapidly changing economy and changing global order. While we are no longer a nation in our infancy, our Government of today must possess the same pioneering spirit of those who have come before to enable Singapore to advance to the next plane of growth, break through new ground and conquer new frontiers. As a nation, Singaporeans must also draw on the pioneering spirit in their blood to chart new courses and embark on new opportunities in this Brave New World. With all ITMs of 23 industries launched, the collective vision of transformation for our economy has been drawn up. We, as stakeholders of our future, now need to take collective action to co-create our future economy together. Of pressing concern to me is the need to raise the urgency to future-proof our business and our workforce. As stakeholders, the Government, employers and workers need to talk about how job roles will be transforming and raise awareness of the job roles and skills which are likely to be at risk of displacement due to technological advancements and global competition. This is not about scaring the people. These potentially at-risk jobs will not be gone tomorrow just because of these conversations. As stakeholders, we need to use this time, while our workers are still employed, to upskill and prepare our workforce for the higher value jobs of the future so that when their current jobs are eliminated, they can still remain employed and employable. We can use this time to discuss and influence the adoption of progressive employment practices in times of change. While no one can definitively predict the future, we can and should do what we can today to prepare ourselves for what is foreseeable on the horizon.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. Last two weeks, our Labour Movement celebrated Labour Day 2018 with the annual May Day Rally and May Day Awards, paying tribute to those who have worked hard to make Singapore a successful nation. It is poignant that 58 years ago, in his inaugural May Day Rally speech in 1960, the same year that Labour Day was gazetted as a public holiday, the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew announced that the Government was committed to the welfare of the workers in forging ahead on industrial expansion and nation-building. I am heartened that the Government of today is committed to doing the same for Singapore and our working people. In the 1960s, Singapore was a young nation facing mounting internal and external challenges on various fronts while trying to find our footing to be economically viable and provide for our people. The immediate economic tasks facing the Government then were to restructure the economy and to alleviate the unemployment problem. The industrialisation programme was put in place to create employment opportunities and to provide a new diversified economic base to replace our entrepot trade. NTUC also undertook efforts to modernise the Labour Movement and build strong tripartite ties to arrive at win-win outcomes for employers and workers. The hard work of our Pioneer leaders and Pioneer Generation has paid off and has brought Singapore to where we are today. As the generations who have come after and have had the good fortune of sitting under the peaceful shade of our Pioneer Generation’s tree of labour and enjoying the fruits born of their grit and determination, we must be prepared to do the same for the next generations of Singaporeans to come.”
“Lastly, what safeguards are in place to ensure that the statements made by the person being examined are properly recorded, given that the Commission will rely on these recorded statements in deciding whether the Act has been infringed?”
“The pursuit of higher efficiency in investigations has to be balanced against safeguards to ensure that due process is carried out. I have some areas of concern which I would like to raise in relation to the proposed amendment. First, given that the proposed changes have been introduced, taking into account the Commission's practical experience in enforcing the Act, would the Minister be able to share examples of how the need for service of the section 63 notice on the person to be examined at the premises entered into pursuant to section 64 or 65 of the Act has caused inefficiency in the investigation process or caused disruption to the businesses being investigated? Second, with the doing away of the requirement to serve the section 63 notice on the person to be examined, what safeguards are in place to ensure that the person being examined is sufficiently informed of the subject matter and purposes of the investigation? Third, under Regulation 20(3) of the Competition Regulations 2007, a person required by the Commission under section 63 of the Act to provide specified information or an explanation of a specified document in person may be accompanied by a professional legal adviser. Would a person being examined at the premises by the Commission's officers under the proposed amendment be allowed to request to be accompanied by a professional legal adviser? Fourth, under the proposed amendment, the investigating officers may require the individual being examined to answer any question relating to the investigation. What safeguards are in place to ensure that the officers do not go beyond the allowed scope of examination?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Under the current Act, the Competition Commission of Singapore may, upon entering premises in pursuance to section 64 or 65 of the Act, require any person on the premises to produce documents relating to the investigation and provide an explanation of the said documents. Beyond the ambit of sections 64 and 65 of the Act, where other information relating to the investigation is required, section 63 of the Act provides that the Commission may, by notice in writing to any person, require that person to produce to the Commission specified information relating to the investigation. Section 63(2) of the Act further provides that such notice shall indicate the subject matter and purposes of the investigation and the nature of offences under sections 75 to 78 of the Act in the event where the person served with the section 63 notice fails to comply with the notice. This Bill proposes to amend this position by allowing the Commission's officers to orally examine any person on the premises which they have entered pursuant to section 64 or 65 of the Act, so long as the person appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances relevant to the investigation being carried out and require the person to answer any question relating to the investigation, essentially doing away with the need to serve the section 63 notice on the person examined. According to the Commission, the aim of the proposed amendment is not to expand the investigative powers of the Commission but to streamline the process of service of the documents during inspections and searches under section 64 and 65 of the Act to allow the Commission to conduct its inspections in a more efficient manner, thereby minimising potential disruption to the business.”
“" Again, I go back to Mohamed Ariffan’s case where that became almost a question that was raised; in this 2018 case. It went on the level of questions that were asked at the trial below and whether a particular point remained a "live issue", or whether that particular point actually was concluded substantively such that the prosecution did not have the basis to raise it on appeal or if it was unavailable. All these are technical points but, again, I say it was a sexual offence case. It was a rape case. Questions never went or strayed beyond a particular line; never were inappropriate. But do we want to have a chilling effect on responsible defence lawyers, Mr Speaker to tell them to not just be careful but, maybe, do not ask a particular question? Since you have made your case, do not ask that question? I do not think that should ever be the case, Mr Speaker. With that, and notwithstanding those points, I support the Bill. 1.11 pm”
“And the issues were argued extensively and, ultimately, the Court of Appeal said the legal tests will not be changed, but, having said that, there would be some evidence which would be useful in their determination of that case on appeal and admitted some parts of the evidence. If that is the approach that we are taking, Mr Speaker, that the Court should be free, not handcuffed, by the words in the statute, will there be any change in this current position? I ask this of the Senior Minister of State through you, Mr Speaker. Finally, Mr Speaker, may I conclude with this. In that case, while it is important, the Court of Appeal reminded us there is dire anxiety on the part of the Court not to convict an innocent person or to impose a sentence that is out of proportion to the criminality of the offenders, they tread very carefully to avoid any prejudice that could be suffered by an accused person who is wrongly convicted or who receives a manifestly disproportionate sentence relevant to their culpability. Criminal defence lawyers have a difficult but important role, Mr Speaker. That role is not popular, that role is often criticised, this happens even in this House. Perhaps it is right sometimes. The criticism that came from my fellow colleagues was about cross-examination that oversteps the bounds. And certainly, that must be struck down. That as cross-examination is thought of and presented, the point is, people will ask, "If I do not ask a particular question, which is within the bounds, which is not insulting or outraging the modesty of a complainant or witness on the stand; if a particular question is not asked, will that somehow prejudice my client's case?”
“So, if that is the test that is going to be applied, there are a couple of questions that arise. Are there going to be certain terms that are going to be questioned again and again when we have a possibility of a miscarriage of justice? My hon colleague, Mr Kok Heng Leun, asked earlier whether if there is one try for a review, should that really prejudice or stop you from trying again. And I think the main idea is: will there be unfairness to the accused at any point? My hope is that the Court will be able to intervene at that point and say no. If we think we want to hear it, we will hear it. But the question here is: are we tying the hands of the Court? I understand that we do not want to be inundated by unmeritorious claims. But what if one of these claims turns out to undo or reverse an injustice? Surely, there must be a possibility to bring that before the Court. I compare this, therefore, to a particular recent case that I mentioned earlier. The 2018 case of Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Ariffan, which was a Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) case ‒ that was argued before the High Court. And at the High Court, the defendant was acquitted of charges, including rape and sexual violence. The prosecution is currently appealing, so I will not go into the facts of this case since it is pending. But what is concluded is a criminal motion that was put forward as to whether fresh evidence could be introduced. It was a very tough case for the prosecution to argue. The prosecution was trying to adduce fresh psychiatric evidence of a psychiatrist who had not actually examined the alleged victim. So, the natural question is why should such evidence be relevant or even necessary?”
“They do not have the same number of people, they do not have the same investigation team. In the Singapore High Court case, this is what the Court observed. The High Court said: "In an adversarial system of criminal justice, it is not the prosecution’s duty to assist the defence in making out a case nor is it appropriate to allow the defence to trawl through lists of unused material in the speculative hope of finding a defence, while placing the burden on the Court to decide on the relevance or credibility of those materials. The prosecution’s overriding duty is to act fairly in the public interest and to assist the Court. Surely, this does not mean it must be placed in the invidious position of having to assist the defence to this extent as well." That was the position that was taken in that case. The reverse applies, too. Allow me to conclude, perhaps, Mr Speaker, with a couple of points based on a recent case where I had the opportunity of seeing play out in Court. I was not involved in this case but I attended the Court of Appeal hearings and I noticed an interesting point, and I say this in relation to perhaps section 394K that is being proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill. This particular section has already been raised by speakers before me and my hon colleagues rightly asked one question: does it go too far? The Senior Minister of State said earlier that it is codified, the current law, and she is correct because it codifies the position that was taken in Kho Jiabing by the Court of Appeal. But in doing so actually looking at the test in statute, hard coded in statute and noting that she mentioned earlier that it is that test in Kho Jiabing-plus, which is how I refer to this test, Kho Jiabing-plus.”
“Moving on, Mr Speaker, I am looking at clause 42, which proposes section 166 amendments. At present, Mr Speaker, there is no further obligation on the defence to disclose the Supplementary Bundle of further information beyond what the prosecution gives. Let me give an example: the CCD regime, which is the present situation, operates on a quid pro quo basis. The initial disclosure is by the prosecution and is to be reciprocated by the defence. I understand that this is the basis and thrust of a lot of the amendments on discovery that are being put forward by this Bill. But I have a few questions. If there is a requirement for the defence to disclose a Supplementary Bundle that arises from the premise that both the prosecution and the defence have the same starting point, that wish is for them to have a level playing field. But the truth, Mr Speaker, is that resources are considerably different. The prosecution has the resources of the state; the defence often has a team of very few lawyers. I say this keeping in mind that the current practitioners of the Criminal Bar often are not pure practitioners of criminal justice. Those practitioners have probably a considerable practice in civil litigation and arbitration, and, often, the criminal practice is done by the more senior practitioners of the Criminal Bar and is done pro bono or through Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS). So, how would we even out then the playing field? I ask this also because the prior assumption which was expressed by the Singapore High Court was to assume this natural imbalance, to know that the prosecution has the resources at its disposal, the defence definitely does not have the same resources, but may be inadvertently or by practice, prejudiced.”
“Separately, looking at section 264A that is being proposed and here I am looking at statements recorded through video as well, at the suggestion that, in certain situations, video-recordings may even be used as a substitute or as a complement to evidence that is given in-chief in Court – the Criminal Bar, during consultations, has expressed legitimate concerns about the implications on the trial process if video-recordings are used, even partially, to substitute evidence-in-chief in Court. When evidence is led, Mr Speaker, leading questions are not permitted and can be subjected to "on the spot" objections. But this rule may not be practically enforceable in a video-recorded interview. The potential of an interviewer inadvertently prejudicing the evidence cannot be ruled out, especially if the interviewer is not a trained advocate. Many technical questions also arise. Will the video be shown in its entirety to a vulnerable complainant? Where there are breaks in the interview, will these be recorded and shown? Will the video that is shown in its entirety, if it is, show all the individuals who are present in the room at that time? These are nagging questions, Mr Speaker, especially because these are often the questions that are raised by defence counsel. Now, at the point if there was no video-recording, these are the questions that you will ask of your client, an accused person, to answer: "How did your interview process go?" And after the questions are asked of the accused person, you prepare your case. Whether there is an advantage of actually having a video-recording, there will be questions that are asked if that recording of complainants of sexual offences, for example,is going to be substituted for the actual evidence in Court.”
“First, I ask a very technical and procedural point: even though there is going to be video-recording, is there a significant, principled reason as to why this particular copy of the video will not be furnished to defence counsel and the accused person himself or herself? Is there a reason why a lawyer who has a professional responsibility as an advocate and solicitor not to disclose that recording in public should be not provided this copy? If the fear is that a foolish or crooked defence lawyer may disclose the footage, then perhaps could the Ministry require defence counsel to sign an undertaking that they shall not disclose the footage? Would that not be sufficient? A breach of such an undertaking of course would be on pain of disciplinary penalties and, perhaps, even prosecution. So, is there a reason why we would not disclose a video-recording to the defence counsel themselves? I say this with full knowledge that the defence counsel would have an opportunity to look at the video-recording at the Police station or at a particular place that the Minister so prescribes. Putting aside the additional resource burden that this will place on the Police to make such arrangements for defence lawyers to view the video footage, could the Minister confirm, for the record, that defence counsel will be able to review the footage as many times that they may want to and at a time of mutual convenience to the Police and to them? I ask this because, in preparation for the defence's case, viewing footage as to how the long statement and short statement are made, they are the first statements that are given to the Police, are crucial for the preparation of the defence's case, and preparation often cannot be done by just looking at a video-recording once.”
“That was the approach then and I am very happy to say that, from what I have heard and from this particular Bill that is before us, that is not the current mindset of the Ministry. The Ministry has proposed significant contemporary changes of the criminal justice system. It marks, in their words, a "major step in the long-term move towards a more progressive, balanced and modern criminal justice system." I celebrate that move, welcome it, and I declare at this point that I am a consultant to the Criminal Practice Committee of the Law Society. Over the past several months, we have had an opportunity to meet with the Ministry at all levels several times and we have done what lawyers do best – after these consultations, argue. We followed up with copious notes and extensive submissions. So, I will not go through every point that was raised. I am just happy to note that quite a few of these points were incorporated in the refinements to the draft Bill at that time. I will focus on a few points that I think we would like some clarification on, Mr Speaker. Let me begin with video-recording of interviews (VRIs), please. Video-recording or the new section 225B is welcomed because – it begins with certain categories of offences – the hope is that, in time, video-recording may become a norm as it is in other jurisdictions, including the UK. What that does is that it removes the possibility that evidence was tampered with at an early stage, the statements were coerced through threat, inducement and promise – that is the hope, in time. But it is good that we at least have the possibility for video-recording now. I do raise a few points in relation to video-recording in two separate respects.”
“Defence counsel should be sensitive to this general rule of practice and the particular circumstances of the witness and calibrate their cross-examination questions accordingly so that they do not inadvertently badger the witness and subject the witness to undue stress in addressing these inconsistencies. The guidelines should also include best practices on how the defence counsel should put their case to victims in child abuse and sexual offences. It should be explained to the victims that, in the course of cross-examination, defence counsel will put their case to them and the questions posed may be upsetting to them as they seek to make out the elements of the accused's case. On the defence counsel’s part, care should be taken to formulate questions to suit the witness’ level of understanding, such as through the use of short and simple questions, given that the language used conventionally by counsel in putting their cases tends to be complex and certain classes of vulnerable witnesses may be highly susceptible to suggestion. The aim of the defence counsel should be to elicit the most accurate evidence that the vulnerable witness is able to give rather than to confuse or confound the witness to give an impression of a lack of credibility. I support the Bill. 12.54 pm Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, 15 years ago when I first started being interested in criminal litigation, there was a speech that was made by a senior member of the Attorney-General's Chambers. The gist of that speech was that there is no such thing as an unmeritorious prosecution, only an unsuccessful one.”
“The prosecutor submitted that this line of argument was premised on the antediluvian notion that a woman could resist a rapist if she really wanted to and there was no room for such statements in the 21st century, both in the Court and outside of it. While the prosecutors and judges had intervened in the aforementioned cases, the complainants had already been unduly subjected to unnecessary lines of questioning and assertions while being put on the stand. The set of guidelines should draw reference from these cases and set out best practices for defence counsel to adopt in formulating their case theory, to refrain from subjecting the victims to such unnecessary lines of questioning and assertions where such assertions do not mitigate or justify the accused's conduct or diminish the complainant's credibility. In respect of cross-examining child witnesses, the Law Society has come up with some draft guidelines on the approach that defence counsel should take when doing so. Some of these guidelines include adjusting the pace of questioning to the child’s needs, making sure that the child understands the questions posed and ensuring that the defence counsel’s tone of voice and body language are neutral. Besides these guidelines, the set of guidelines should also include best practices on how defence counsel should shape their cross-examination strategy in respect of child witnesses or witnesses of lower intellectual abilities, bearing in mind the general rule of practice which has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal in BMD v Public Prosecutor, that the evidence of such a witness is generally not taken at face value as such witnesses may find it difficult to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and between results of observation and results of imagination.”
“These myths and stereotypes had been relied on by some defence counsel in representing accused persons in sexual offences before the Singapore Courts. In defending his client accused of outrage of modesty, defence counsel in Public Prosecutor v Xu Jiadong asked the complainant to stand up in Court to assess her "attractiveness" and suggested to the Court that he would have to know the complainant’s breast size and whether she had been wearing low cut attire on the day of the incident. The judge found that the defence counsel’s line of questioning was indecent, scandalous and intended to insult or annoy the victim. Not only were the questions offensive, I find it regrettable that the defence’s case was premised on misogynistic stereotypes that the complainant’s looks and dressing had, in some manner, induced the accused to outrage her modesty. This is an example of the type of myths and stereotypes which should not be perpetuated. In the case of Public Prosecutor v BLV, the defence counsel sought to rely on the complainant’s ability to keep her composure at the time of interviews by the medical assessors and the complainant’s good performance in school to indicate her lack of credibility as regards the occurrence of the alleged sexual abuse by her father. In Ng Jun Xian v Public Prosecutor, the High Court found that it was wholly unnecessary for defence counsel to specifically highlight that the victim was older, was sexually experienced or that she was calm when she was examined by the doctor. More recently, in defending the accused who was charged with the rape of his biological mother, defence counsel made the argument that the complainant could have "shut the gates" by crossing her legs.”
“Besides child abuse and sexual offences, should certain criminal intimidation offences under section 506 of the Penal Code or harassment offences under the Protection from Harassment Act also be treated in the same manner, in particular, where the criminal intimidation imputes unchastity to a woman or where harassment is sexual in nature? Could the presiding judge be given flexibility to decide to apply similar restrictions on cross-examination to those cases, even though they are not offences listed in the First Schedule? Second, a set of practice directions or guidelines should be formulated to set out the approach prosecutors and defence counsel should take in handling child abuse and sexual offences. The guidelines would serve as a guide to help prosecutors and defence counsel put the amendment into practice without diminishing the right of the accused to a fair trial. I understand that the Law Society is working on a set of guidelines of best practices for examination of children and victims of sexual offences and is aiming to issue the guidelines this year. In particular, I hope that this set of guidelines would instruct defence counsel to refrain from making baseless submissions that disparage the character, integrity or morality of the victim or premise their case theory on unsubstantiated myths and stereotypes to attempt to shift the blame to the victim. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the principal public prosecuting agency for conducting criminal prosecutions in England and Wales, has developed a set of Guidelines on Prosecuting Cases of Child Sexual Abuse and have identified a list of myths and stereotypes which should be challenged in Court.”
“Child abuse and sexual offences are particularly traumatic offences and victims are often afraid to come forward to report the offences due to a variety of reasons, ranging from being unable to make sense of what has happened to them, fear of the perpetrator, fear of judgement and being subjected to further humiliation and shame, fear that they would be blamed for their predicament, fear that they would not be believed and the fear of having to recount and relive the experience repeatedly in the course of investigation and in the adjudication process. In adversarial proceedings, we can and must ensure that the victim of the offence is, as far as possible, protected from being re-victimised in the cross-examination process. MinLaw has shared that the amendment to the Act seeks to restrict the defence from asking complainants questions or adduce evidence concerning their sexual history or activities, including their appearance or behaviour, other than those to which the charge related, without the leave of the Court. Such leave will only be granted if it would be in the interests of justice to allow the question to be asked or the evidence to be adduced. I am supportive of this move and would like to suggest some ways in which the scope of the amendment could be expanded. Offences listed in First Schedule. First, the Bill defines "child abuse offence" and "sexual offence" to mean any offence specified in the First Schedule. In addition to the sections of the Children and Young Persons Act, Penal Code and the Women’s Charter listed in the First Schedule, should sections 366 and 367 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) be included in the First Schedule as well, given that these sections also deal with offences of a sexual nature?”
“With regard to the introduction of DPAs, certainty and transparency must be ensured so that DPAs are not perceived as a way for corporations to game the system. In the United Kingdom, DPAs were introduced in 2014 and, prior to that, the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service had published a code of practice for the use of DPAs. The code provides guidance on factors that the prosecutor may take into account when deciding whether to enter into a DPA. I would like to ask the Minister if a similar code will be published in Singapore. Under the Bill, a DPA only comes into force when the High Court approves the DPA by making the relevant declaration. Upon the High Court making a relevant declaration, the Public Prosecutor must give public notice of the following: (a) the DPA to which the relevant declaration relates; (b) the relevant declaration; (c) the reasons given by the High Court for its decision to make the relevant declaration, if any. Would the Minister consider making public the reasons given by the High Court in cases where the High Court does not make a relevant declaration? This will help to ensure consistent and transparent application of the DPA tool. This will also afford guidance on what cases are best suited for DPA and to provide corporations with more certainty in the management of their affairs. Mr Speaker, I support the Evidence (Amendment) Bill.”
“The Bill seeks to expand the eligibility for Mandatory Treatment Orders (MTO) to include offenders who commit certain prescribed offences carrying up to seven years' imprisonment from the current three years and the maximum duration of the MTO sentences increased from 24 to 36 months. The amendments will also allow the Court to order the offender to reside at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for a specified duration of in-patient treatment as a condition of the MTO. I would like to ask the Minister to share statistics of the number of MTO sentences meted out since its introduction in 2010 and the types of offences to which the MTO has been applied. How many offenders have failed to comply with the conditions of their MTO sentences? How many offenders re-offend or cause harm to themselves or others during their MTO sentence due to their mental condition? I would also like to ask the Minister what community-based support does the offender receive during the course of the MTO and what safeguards are put in place to ensure that the victims of these offenders are protected while the offender is allowed to remain in the community to seek treatment. For example, in a recent case where a woman was given a two-year MTO for harassing her neighbour, the offender continued to harass her neighbours on a daily basis by verbally abusing them and throwing urine and rubbish at her neighbours' premises. It was reported that such harassment has gone on for years. In such cases, what can be done to ensure that the victims do not continue to be harassed by the offender as the offender seeks treatment? There is a need to provide a support system to ensure that the victims of these offenders are not overlooked as well. Eighth, DPAs.”
“I also note that under the Bill, the Court will now be allowed to grant bail in extradition cases if special circumstances apply. Under the current bail regime, bail cannot be granted at all for extradition cases. I would like to ask the Minister for the rationale behind this change and to seek clarification on what special circumstances are required for bail to be granted in such cases? Fifth, establishing a Criminal Procedure Rules Committee. I am supportive of the establishment of the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee which is conferred the power to prescribe Court-related procedural rules to keep the Court process nimble and up-to-date. Besides the 13 members identified in the Bill, I would like to propose that the Committee should also regularly seek inputs from the social science and technology experts to review the criminal procedural rules and identify ways to enhance the robustness and fairness of our criminal justice system. Sixth, regulating psychiatric expert evidence. In respect of having a Court-administered panel of psychiatrists to ensure that evidence given by psychiatrists in Court is competently arrived at and objective, I would like to ask the Minister what selection criteria will be applied to assess if a psychiatrist should be appointed to the panel. What safeguards are in place to ensure that the selection criteria do not inadvertently cause the composition of the panel to lack diversity of views which are within the limits of objective opinion? Are there plans to provide this panel of psychiatrists with training to enable them to better understand Court processes and the role they play in adversarial proceedings, to enable them to be able to perform their role more competently? Seventh, expanding the community sentencing regime.”
“The Australian Royal Commission, in their 2016 study, gathered feedback on the use of screens in the Courtroom and found that some defence counsel and judges were of the view that the use of screens was unfair to the accused as he was not able to see the witness who was giving evidence against him. Some stakeholders also found the use of screens to be ineffective in reducing the witness' stress as the witness was still aware of the proximity of the accused and, in some instances, the accused could still be seen by the witness when the accused moved. Also, due to the layout of the Courtroom, the witness would often still be seen by the accused as they had to walk past the accused to get to the witness box. Some Courtrooms also did not utilise well-designed and purpose-built screens, as a result, the use of a screen was viewed as a negative experience for the witness, making the Court process more complex and, at times, unintentionally blocking the view of other members of the Court. It would be useful if a set of guidelines or practice directions could be put together on the use of screens in the Courtroom to ensure that it is able to achieve its intended purpose. Fourth, strengthening the bail regime. The amendments to strengthen the bail regime are welcomed. This is especially in light of the recent case of Chew Eng Han who attempted to flee Singapore while he was out on bail. I would like to ask the Ministry for statistics on the frequency of bail granted in the past five years and the incidence of absconding over the same period. For those who had absconded, were they later apprehended and what happened to these accused persons or convicted persons?”
“In the same vein, we can do more to prepare our officers to enhance the quality of Police interviews. I would also like to seek clarification on the experience of Police officers who take statements which can be used as evidence. For example, under the current CPC, statements taken pursuant to section 258(1) of the CPC shall be used in evidence if it is made to a Police officer below the rank of Sergeant. This has been the rule for some time where, in the past, Sergeants were less likely to be fresh hires and would have had accumulated more experience in the force before rising to the rank of Sergeant. Today, most of the new hires enter the force as Sergeants or at a higher rank. Would it be timely to review this rule to ensure that the officers who are taking statements possess adequate experience in the taking of statements for use as evidence? Second, safeguards to ensure security of video-recorded statements. The Ministry has also shared that copies of the video-recorded statements will not be made available to the defence due to the risk of recordings being posted online or sold on the black market. What safeguards are being put in place to ensure that the security of these video-recorded statements is not compromised, such as through hacking or illicit recording of the video-recorded statements? Third, use of screens in Courtrooms. The Bill allows vulnerable witnesses to use a screen in Court while giving evidence on the stand to prevent him from being seen by the accused. Once again, we can take a leaf from other jurisdictions' experience in the use of screens in the Courtroom.”
“Would a set of guidelines or practice directions be put together to assist the Police officers in achieving the intended outcomes of video-recorded statements? In putting this set of guidelines together, reference can be made to other jurisdictions' experience in the taking of video-recorded statements. In 2016, the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse conducted an evaluation of alternative measures used in eliciting evidence from complainants of child sexual abuse, such as through pre-recorded Police interviews. It was found that technological problems associated with the use of pre-recorded interviews could impact the trial, delay proceedings, extend trial times and, at times, cause distress to complainants. These technological problems include low audio clarity and image clarity and the failure to capture images of the complainant that allowed for an adequate assessment of demeanour, such as by omitting an image of more than just the complainant's face, or by placing the camera at such great distance from the complainant that facial expressions were not adequately displayed. We can then take reference from these findings and implement measures to ensure such technological issues are mitigated or, where possible, overcomed. The Australian Royal Commission also found that one of the concerns among the legal practitioners who were interviewed in the study was the quality of Police interviews, which were described as suggestive at times, cluttered with irrelevant details and prone to omitting important evidential details. It was recommended that there was a need to adopt better guidance and address issues in skills development and quality assurance, to improve Police interview practices.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill. I am supportive of the proposed revamp of the criminal procedural rules. It is laudable that efforts are undertaken to move our criminal justice system toward a more progressive and balanced one. I have some queries which I would like to raise in relation to some of the changes proposed under the Bill. First, video-recorded statements. The move to allow video-recorded statements heeds the longstanding calls from the legal fraternity and fellow colleagues for the use of video-recording by law enforcement officers when taking statements from accused persons and witnesses. The use of video-recorded statements aims to better safeguard the rights of accused persons in the process of taking their statements, go some way towards protecting the officers who are taking the statements against baseless accusations that they had coerced or threatened the witness and help to reduce the Court time spent on unmeritorious challenges as to the voluntariness of the statements given in the Police interviews. Video-recorded statements can also help to reduce the trauma faced by vulnerable victims of crime in having to recount their ordeal repeatedly through the investigation process by using the video-recorded statements as their oral evidence-in-chief in Court. With the introduction of this new mode of taking of statements, how are our Police officers being equipped to take video-recorded statements? What training is in place to prepare our Police officers and other support persons involved in the interview process, such as forensic specialists and interpreters, for this new mode of taking statements?”
“I have three supplementary questions for the Second Minister. Firstly, whether constructive dismissals, forced resignations, non-renewal of contracts and non-confirmation during probation are covered under section 14 – wrongful or unfair dismissals. Second question: whether employers should be required to give reasons when terminating the contract with notice and salary in lieu of notice. Third, whether MOM will consider coming up with a set of FAQs or guidelines publicly to provide more clarity and certainty as to what amounts to an unfair dismissal.”
“How does MOM ensure FDWs are free from medical conditions?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I just want to ask two supplementary questions. Firstly, will MOM be reviewing the insurance coverage, as 3% of employers, which is about 6,000 to 7,000 people, still face huge medical bills beyond the current coverage of $15,000? And there is little or no help for those FDWs who get inflicted with critical illnesses, chronic conditions, mental conditions and other conditions requiring long-term or critical intensive care. And, sometimes, the bills balloon to the hundreds of thousands. The second question is: how will MOM ensure that FDWs employed by employers are free of major medical conditions, such as mental illnesses, including depression and those physically undetectable at point of hiring?”