Pritam Singh
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, I hear what the Minister has said. I am also sure the Minister has understood where the Workers' Party Members of Parliament are coming from. And I also would like to add that as the Opposition, we come to this House to scrutinise Bills and it is our duty to ask those questions.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I am empathetic to the arguments of efficiency and ensuring that patients can see a polyclinic doctor or consultation as quickly as possible. I understand the Senior Minister of State mentioned it is important to try and make a make an appointment so that your waiting time is within a certain period.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just a question for the Minister of State. Does the Ministry capture the total amount of monies recovered from Singaporeans who are victims of scams?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a point of order. I believe the Senior Minister of State, in his wrapping-up speech, referred to a speech made by a Member who did not deliver a speech in Parliament on the Bill, that is, hon Member Ms Mariam Jaafar. I would just like to confirm whether that is as per the Standing Orders of Parliament.”
“Much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the Sitting on 7 April 2026, I rose to seek a clarification on the joint Ministerial Statement on the situation in the Middle East.”
“Thank you, Speaker. The Minister of State mentioned meaningful impact a few times, so I will give an example. The KPI in the Budget Book, "the percentage of patients who waited less than or at least 100 minutes for consultations at polyclinics", for example, for each fiscal year, 2023, 2024, 2025 – the number is 99%.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,762 lines we hold for Pritam Singh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 19 of 36.
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the update. Two questions. The first, pertaining to the certification of the Moderna and Sinovac vaccines, does the Senior Minister of State have any update on those timelines? The second question is picking up from Mr Alex Yam's first supplementary question: is the Government still on track for vaccination of the entire population by the third quarter of this year?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I did not expect Minister to issue this statement at this current point in time, but I think it behoves me to ask some questions. I thank Minister for acknowledging that the CPC was not really in his contemplation when that statement was made. I think Minister has made that remark in good faith and we will take it as it is. But Minister made another comment about the Police judiciously using the information that is collected by TraceTogether. Can the Minister further explain under what circumstances the Police would be calling on that information because Police investigations would, by nature of our legislation, comprise of a wide spectrum of offences. So, the expectation cannot be that this information could be used at first instance whenever a Police investigation commences. I am also mindful as to whether this question should be put to the Minister for Home Affairs or the Minister-in-charge of Smart Nation. So, I think some clarification of this would be quite important for members of the public because everybody wants TraceTogether to succeed, in view of the public health considerations. But this particular point has done has caused consternation and that also probably explains why the Minister has decided to make this clarification.”
“I thank the Minister. Let me just parse my second and third supplementary questions a bit more finely. I apologise if I did not make it clear. In her reply, Minister spoke of erroneous declarations, the suggestion being that it was the applicant who made the erroneous declaration. And the third supplementary question really was looking at the number of cases where NTUC or MOM acknowledged that a person fell outside the qualifying criteria and then decided actually, no, this should not have been approved in the first place and hence is now clawing the SIRS payout back. How many cases are we referring to in that regard?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I am following up on the answer by the Minister for Manpower. Minister for Manpower alluded earlier in her reply to cases that have been referred to the Police. Can the Minister share how many cases, in absolute number, have been referred to the Police? Secondly, the Minister spoke of erroneous declarations – 0.5% were erroneous. Again, the absolute number would be appreciated. To that end, I had a resident who approached me at my MPS who declared openly that he earned $10,000 a month but he had certain circumstances which he reported accordingly, and he was given the SIRS payout. Now, it is being clawed back. My point is not so much about this case but how many cases were there where it was NTUC or MOM which actually approved a SIRS payout, even though it was well outside the qualifying criteria, and now, it is calling for a clawback? How many cases involved, I would not call it a mistake but actions that were taken by NTUC or SIRS, resulting in a clawback?”
“Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party Members of Parliament would like to have our dissent recorded. Thank you.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. On the first point, this is just as a matter of clarification with the Leader. I do not mean to be argumentative, but I am not referring to the latest Keppel infraction. In 1997, there was another case where Keppel Corp, I do not know the formal legal entity that was involved in this, it does not say Keppel O&M, so I am just reading off what it is. It says, "Keppel Corp faced 17 charges of bribery, a total of $8.3 million was paid to the Repair and Technical Manager of a British subsidiary of Exxon" and Keppel got contracts to repair 17 of their tankers. "The statement of facts extended to the court revealed that this had been done with the knowledge and approval of senior Keppel executives and some directors", "the prosecution chose to proceed only with three of the charges. Keppel pleaded guilty, which meant that it admitted to the statement of facts without qualification", "the district judge fined Keppel the maximum $100,000 on each of the charges and a total of $300,000, and that was the end of the matter". So, I think the point that is being made in this particular case is, the question on the minds of the public in the context of a public prosecutor that also performs the role of the Government legal advisor is, was that discretion, the prosecutorial discretion exercised appropriately? And I think this is where as the Leader suggests, she understands where the thrust of some of our concerns are coming from. These are the sort of situations which we feel may compromise in the public eye, rightly or wrongly, the independence of the AG.”
“But again, I think the bigger question is whether the public see it that way. And I would forward that while reasonable people can have different views about this, it is probably more propitious to have that individual not be associated with a political party. And that is a view that reasonable people can have a different view about. To that end, I did consider whether this position is supposed to be for all time. Let us say, if an MP steps down in 2020, does it mean that he cannot take on the appointment as AG forever and ever? Could there be some scope to consider at least a moratorium period or a garden leave period? I did consider that. So, if there is a question of some concession or some coming together as the Leader suggested in her wrapping-up paragraph and that the positions between the Government and Opposition are not so far apart, perhaps the Government can consider some of the proposals in that light to see how we can end up with a better legal system.”
“Yes, I am. Not the deferred prosecution agreement between Brazil, the US and Singapore, but a similar scandal that occurred previously. And there, what Mr Woon really says is the Attorney-General decides to go after the company, but then does not prosecute the individuals. And so, the situation is the company can accept the fine, but the individuals who later may benefit because of these bribes that were given – they benefit through the fact that the company will give out more bonuses to them, for example. So, the question, of course, is do we have a situation where we can tell ourselves, "Look, there is no prospect, no implicit bias here". Is there a system we can consider of conceive of, which can reduce that prospect in the public perception? And this is where I feel a division of the roles actually may be more helpful to the Government. That is the first point. The second point is with regard to security of tenure. I hear what the Leader is saying. I take the point. Even in our own experience in Singapore, we have had Attorney-Generals who have served for a long period of time, and others just two years. And my point really is, it would serve the Government well, if the term was at least, for example, five years. I can agree with the suggestion that Mr Walter Woon made because it heightens the prospect of independence in the eyes of the public that this individual was not removed for reasons which the public may start imagining – which may or may not be true. So, a longer term for the Attorney-General I think would be good for the system. The third point is about a Member of Parliament who takes on the role of AG. Of course, I can agree with the Leader about integrity, meritocracy and so forth.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The first, with regard to a general point that the Leader makes about conflict. I will make the point that I do not believe the Leader's answers have squarely addressed the reality of possible conflict between the Attorney-General in his role as Government legal adviser on the one hand and public prosecutor on the other. I still take the view that the conflict is possible and that is the basis of the suggestion that I put in my speech. I will give an example. I gave two examples: one was with regard to that Government-linked company, which I hypothesised. Now, let me try and take it to some specifics. There is an old article, 23 December 1997. It is an opinion piece by an individual who would later become the Attorney-General in Singapore, Mr Walter Woon. And he talked about malfeasance, a corruption scandal involving Keppel again, but not the latest deferred prosecution agreement that was entered into by —”
“While the Deputy Solicitor-General heads the Legislation Division, there is also a Chief Counsel who leads the Civil Division and the Director-General who heads the International Affairs Division. Mr Speaker, those are my three points for this topic of splitting the role of the AG. There is weakness in the current structure and improvements should be made to strengthen the system. There are also no robust reasons for all the AGs' roles to be held by one person and to that end, I support Ms Sylvia Lim's call for this issue of the splitting of the Attorney General's roles to be reviewed by a Constitutional Commission. Mr Speaker, let me conclude this way. Let us think of our justice system as a house which has served as a family home. The house may have stood firm for decades and the occupants may have lived safely, but there is a flaw in the foundations. If a future occupant of that house uses it in a way that it was not meant to be used, for example, like for commercial storage or is a restaurant, the foundations may give way, harming all the occupants of the house. There is no reason why we cannot fix the foundations or at the very least strengthen it now. In doing so, we can move the needle on justice and independence in our legal system and in doing so leave a more secure justice system that reinforces the rule of law in Singapore for our next generation. I support the Motion in the name of Ms Sylvia Lim.”
“Let me now move on to my third point which is that there are simply no robust reasons for not splitting the roles of the Attorney-General in two. Ms Sylvia Lim raised the splitting of the roles of the Attorney-General at the Committee of Supply Debate for the Attorney-General's Chambers in February 2020. Senior Minister of State for Law, as he was at that time, Minister Edwin Tong responded. Essentially, his reply was that a large proportion of the public has confidence in our justice system; our system is working well, and it has sufficient safeguards. The implied conclusion was that it is not necessary to split the roles. At no point did Minister Tong say either why it is a bad idea to split the AG's roles or why it is preferable for the roles of the AG to be held by the same person. The Workers' Party understands that policy-making and in this case, amending the Constitution often involves trade-offs and crucially an eye into the future about how a law or policy will serve situations that had not been originally envisaged and can last the test of time. However, I would argue that there are no negative trade-offs in splitting the roles of the Attorney-General into the public prosecutor and the Government's legal advisor. From the perspective of justice and independence, there is only upside. The only reason I can think of for the roles of the AG to be held by one person is that somehow, we lack sufficient legal talent in Singapore to find two people to fill the roles of the Government's legal advisor and public prosecutor. However, that is unlikely to be the case. Right now, in the Attorney-General's Chambers, there is an Attorney-General, two Deputy Attorney Generals, the Solicitor-General and a Deputy Solicitor-General.”
“On the matter of the political affiliation of the AG, the Government's position was that in many first-world countries, the AG was a political appointee and that these countries had deemed such a system to be perfectly proper. However, there are many things that Singapore does differently to deliver effective and robust outcomes in light of unique local circumstances. The political dynamics, competitive political systems, and the limits to political terms, in many first-world countries also operate to represent a check on political appointees. Ours has been a one-party dominant state for more than half a century. So, the point of an independent public prosecutor free from political links would in fact buttress the rule of law and remain in step with the continued development of an autochthonous legal system. Of course, Mr Speaker, no matter what is done to entrench independence, there will always be someone who is dissatisfied or will imagine conspiracies. But in law, we invoke a reasonable person who in more misogynistic times, was the reasonable man. What level of independence would satisfy a reasonable person? To this, what I would forward, Mr Speaker, is that the current system can be reviewed and improved against the prospects and perceptions of non-independence. My final suggestion is a short one. To strengthen the system, the public prosecutor should have criminal justice experience, whether as a prosecutor, defence counsel or judicial officer. Again, public perception that the public prosecutor is qualified for the job is critical. While this may not always be possible in all cases, a commitment to criminal law and a deep desire to understand and master it is critical.”
“A public prosecutor who was a Member of Parliament of a political party and steeped in the party's ideology for years, is likely to hold certain beliefs and approach things in certain ways. Second, if there is no connection between the public prosecutor and the Government in power, this engenders greater faith among the public that the prosecutorial system is fair and conducted without fear or favour. Another aspect to this is that even if a public prosecutor is completely objective and able to divorce himself from his previous political loyalties and beliefs, it is possible that the public may not believe it. This is especially so in light of the internet and the easy accessibility of the Member of Parliament's political views when in party politics. Sir, public confidence in the independence of the system is critical. Even if there is objective independence, is their perceived independence? And insofar, as public confidence and trust is concerned, perception is highly significant. It is noteworthy that the Attorney-General's Chambers made it a point to release a statement that the Attorney-General, Mr Lucien Wong was not involved in any prosecutorial decisions regarding Ms Parti Liyani, and that he would recuse himself from the review of the case. This is a clear indicator that the Attorney-General's Chambers and the current Attorney-General himself recognised that the public cares about independence and that public perception matters in reinforcing the rule of law. Sir, the Government made its position known on this matter at the Committee of Supply Debate in 2017 when the then Senior Minister of State for Law, Ms Indranee Rajah responded to a cut on the Attorney-General Chambers by Ms Sylvia Lim.”
“Even if no other change is made, this single change removes the possibility of a conflict of interest when one person performs both roles. Prof Woon says that the prosecutorial function must be held by the Attorney-General as the AG has the necessary stature being second only to the Chief Justice in the hierarchy. He says that the role of being Government legal advisor which involves handling civil matters, international matters and legislation, could be given to the Solicitor-General, for example. The Workers' Party is open to these views. However, while the splitting of roles takes away conflict of interest, it may not be enough to entrench the independence of the public prosecutor. The second suggestion is for the public prosecutor to be appointed for a fixed term of a relatively significant length. Prof Woon suggests a term of five years. His reason is that this promotes stability in office. The Workers' Party is open to this idea of a five-year term as we believe it not only promotes stability, but also independence. The third suggestion is for the system to eschew to the appointment of an ex-Member of Parliament as public prosecutor. Such an individual can of course be considered for the role of Government legal advisor. And there are two reasons for this. First, it would be natural for a former elected Member of Parliament to have imbibed the political views of the party he or she used to represent. Even if a public prosecutor who was previously a Member of Parliament does his or her sincere best to be objective, they cannot but help be a product of their previous beliefs, which they perhaps still hold.”
“Then, the Prime Minister commits serious offences, perhaps acts of corruption. Despite clear evidence, the AG decides not to prosecute the Prime Minister. This could be due to pressure of desire to keep his job, for favours or simply because the Prime Minister and the AG are cronies. Potential abuse and the pressure on prosecutors is not the stuff of fiction, but a real prospect. Prof Woon in his opinion piece, says that a look at the state of the world shows that the pressure on prosecutors is common. There are too easily available examples or perhaps I should call them cautionary tales. I will not say more except to say that one is a close neighbour and the other is a major country that regularly makes the news because of its President. Both these countries have had prominent cases of their Attorney-Generals being subject to political pressure. They are both instances of how the system can become compromised rapidly even in countries that pride themselves on the rule of law. Let Singapore not be one such country in future. I now move to my second point on this subject. What improvements should be implemented to strengthen the independence of the public prosecutor, both in reality and in the perception of the public? I mentioned two characteristics in our system that contribute to the problem – the dual role of the AG, as Government lawyer and public prosecutor, and his absolute discretion in prosecutions. As it is the combination of these two characteristics that contribute to potential conflict, a number of changes can possibly ameliorate the prospects of abuse. The first and most obvious change is to split the role of Government legal advisor from the role of public prosecutor. Neither role should be subordinate to the other and different offices should be formed.”
“However, prosecuting these employees which has to be in open court is likely to bring with it negative publicity against the Government of the day in the local and international news media, simply by virtue of the company being Government-linked. And AG might believe in all sincerity that the interests of the Government are better served by not prosecuting the employees, and as public prosecutor, then decides not to prosecute. Clearly, the roles of the Government's legal advisor and the public prosecutor are in conflict. Another example – say a suspect has been arrested for an offence while in custody. He suffers a serious injury either through a assault or negligence that puts him in hospital. If this suspect is eventually charged in open court, this is likely to bring with it negative publicity against the government of the day in the local and international media. And AG might believe, again in also all sincerity, that the interests of the Government are better protected and better served by making a deal not to prosecute the suspect in return for the suspect not suing the Government in Civil Court. Even if an AG can mentally separate the roles and prosecute regardless of the negative consequences to his client, the Government, the fact is that a conflict exists. We should have a system where the basis of such conflict should as far as possible not even arise. Mr Speaker, the elephant in the room is that this conflict of interest could go even further and facilitate abuse by a future government. Again, some scenarios are not hard to imagine. Say in the future, a Prime Minister installs an AG who is friendly to him. At the time of the appointment by the President, there is no reason to suspect anything untoward about the AG.”
“My first point is that there is a weakness in our prosecutorial structure. Our current structure has two key characteristics that taken together, represent an area where the system can be strengthened. One, the AG is entrusted with two roles. The first is that of being the Government's legal advisor and the second is that of public prosecutor. As the Government's lawyer, the AG takes charge of three areas: legislation, international affairs and civil matters involving the Government, including lawsuits. As public prosecutor, the AG is to prosecute without fear or favour. Two, the AG has absolute discretion as to whether and who to prosecute. Each of these characteristics may or may not be a weakness in itself. But it is the combination of both these two characteristics that can compromise the systems foundation in some cases. As the Government's legal advisor, the AG's duty is to protect the interests of the Government. As the public prosecutor, the AG represents the public and must prosecute without fear or favour, even if it means damaging the reputation of the government of the day, or prosecuting Ministers or even the Prime Minister. This duality of roles in one person brings with it a potential conflict of interest for the AG which can create potential for abuse. It is not difficult to imagine cases where the role of the Government's legal advisor conflicts with the role of the public prosecutor. Say the employees of a Government-linked company pay bribes in order to secure contracts overseas. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, extraterritorial corruption is punishable in Singapore.”
“As reforms to the criminal justice system are an on-going process, I hope the Government can look into the matter of codifying the prosecution's disclosure requirements and the extent to which what further disclosure requirements are to be made in the name of fairness and to achieve the ends of justice. Sir, I move on now to my second topic which is on the role of the Attorney-General. In order that there be greater independence in the criminal justice system that can be readily seen by the public, the Workers' Party calls upon the Government to split the office of the Attorney-General or AG into two roles of the public prosecutor and the Government's legal advisor. What we are proposing is not new. The Workers' Party called for the splitting of roles of the AG in our 2020 election Manifesto. This was also raised by Ms Sylvia Lim at the Committee of Supply Debate this year on the Attorney-General's Chambers. Additionally, this was proposed by no less than a former nominated Member of this House, Prof Walter Woon, who served as the fifth Attorney-General of Singapore. He persuasively argued for such a separation in an opinion piece published in The Straits Times in September 2017. But we raise this matter again for the Government to reconsider its position and consider how the current system can be improved, and it is timely to raise this again in light of this Motion. In support of my call, I will make three points. First, there are gaps and blind spots in the current prosecutorial structure; second, improvements should be made to strengthen the system both in reality, as well as in public perception; and third, there are no robust reasons, I would offer, for all the roles of the Attorney-General to be held in one person.”
“As it stands today, even with a favourable witness statement in hand, the defence is effectively playing Russian roulette should it choose to subpoena a witness without being fully apprised of the facts and circumstances that led to the making of what the prosecution regards as a favourable statement. In extremis, an unwilling witness may turn hostile on the stand. To achieve greater fairness before trial, my suggestion is that arrangements should be made for defence counsel to be given the option to interview witnesses, whose statements are helpful to the defence, in a police station. This ought to be considered, so as to reassure witnesses, and for the defence to clarify their statements before trial. Thereafter, the defence can decide whether to call the witness to Court. The counter-argument against allowing the defence to interview witnesses is that the authorities and the prosecution should not be burdened with such a request. After all, in civil cases, the same considerations come into play for counsel. The difference, Sir, is precisely that. The difference is that we are not speaking of civil cases here. In criminal matters, the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the demands of natural justice and the importance of getting at the truth of a matter in Court, notwithstanding the adversarial system, requires higher thresholds of fairness than in civil cases. A system that contributes to a thorough evaluation of the evidence, not just for the prosecution but the defence as well, would strengthen the rule of law.”
“More disclosure could also lower the prospect of cracked trials where the accused pleads guilty shortly after trial begins, but after significant time and resources have already been spent by the prosecution in trial preparation. My second suggestion goes to levelling the playing field for the defence, not for its own sake but to further the interests of justice. The fact today is that even if the prosecution discloses to the defence witnesses statements that could help the accused person's case, the defence still has a problem. Under section 259 of the CPC, statements of witnesses are not admissible in Court unless specific conditions have been met. I have been reliably informed that in cases where the prosecution adheres to its disclosure obligations, it objects to the admission of a disclosed witness statement favourable to the defence during trial, as it is entitled to do under section 259. Simply put, the prosecution's position is that if the defence wants to use the contents of a favourable statement, it should get the witness to give evidence in Court, so that the evidence can be tested. From a legal point of view, this is a sound argument. In practice though, it is not as simple as it sounds for the defence. Before calling a witness, defence counsel would, understandably, want to interview that witness. But what if the witness refuses to cooperate with the defence? The option is open to subpoena the witness but the defence may not want to subpoena a witness if it has not had a chance to interview the witness, to assess the probative value of putatively favourable evidence against its prejudicial effect.”
“At minimum, an amendment to the CPC to codify the prosecution's disclosure requirements, as established in Kadar and Nabill, would send a powerful signal that prioritises proactive and early disclosure by the prosecution at the pre-trial stage when the case for the prosecution is filed. This would imbibe greater confidence into the criminal justice system by virtue of far fewer miscarriages of justice arising from non-disclosure. Mr Speaker, I would like to advance this matter further with two suggestions. First, if the Ministry is minded to consider a legislative amendment to the CPC, it would be worthwhile to seek the inputs of the Criminal Bar and the Attorney-General's Chambers on the ambit of documents and other material that should be made available to the defence, in the interest of justice. In 2010, the Minister argued against criminal disclosure by stating that disclosure of witness statements went against public policy considerations. Kadar and Nabill have changed this position. It would be worthwhile to review the extent of disclosure that would serve the ends of justice. In my opinion, Sir, more disclosure in criminal matters cannot be a bad thing. It would allow the Court to have a fuller picture of the circumstances of an alleged crime, with all the relevant evidence marshalled and admitted before the Court from both sides before deciding whether to convict or acquit an accused. Such a regime could also contribute to a more efficient justice system with defence lawyers in a better position to advise on the prospects of success at trial. A decision by the defence to plead guilty early, for example, would save the prosecution time.”
“The Court of Appeal considered this position as, I quote, "an intolerable outcome". Sir, I believe the prosecution made its point in earnest and the status quo is something for this House to contemplate upon deeply. In my view, Mr Speaker, it is precisely because of the very prospect of inadvertent non-disclosure that Parliament has to legislate forthwith to prevent possible future miscarriages of justice because of non-disclosure. The inadvertent failure, and I stress, not failure, but inadvertent failure to disclose by the prosecution may be better appreciated if we remember the adversarial nature of our criminal justice system. Some defence counsel and deputy public prosecutors can be far more adversarial than others, and this structure reality and such human factors are potentially a barrier against more consistent standards of the prosecution's disclosure obligations. Separately, the judgments in Kadar and Nabil require that the prosecution actively considers, on an on-going basis, its disclosure requirements. In view of the human factors alluded to earlier, can consistent standards of disclosure represent a reasonable expectation of the prosecution's obligations, as it would naturally be more substantively focused on its own case, especially during a trial? I make this point not to run down the prosecution or imply that they are likely to fall short in their disclosure obligations more often than not. But even so, Mr Speaker, a perhaps overly sanguine expectation of consistent disclosure standards combined with the reality of inadvertent non-disclosure, as admitted by prosecutors today, make it entirely plausible that we could see more future cases of non-disclosure that prejudice the defence, if a decisive legislative move is not made.”
“For example, Kadar did not require the release of statements that were neutral or adverse to the defence, but the Court in Nabill ruled that as the statements of material witnesses would in most cases be limited, and that all statements including those neutral or adverse to the defence should be released to the defence as a matter of routine. Nabill points to a clear recognition by the Court of Appeal of the central role of disclosure by the prosecution in a fair and just criminal justice system. Yet another case was reported in the mainstream media only last week. In this on-going case, a defence lawyer argued that the conviction of an accused person ought to be ruled unsafe because the prosecution did not disclose material evidence. The Defence in this particular case had earlier filed a criminal motion in the High Court. At this hearing, the prosecution also accepted there had been a breach of its disclosure obligations under Kadar and Nabill, and that the trial judge had erred in concluding that a statement in question was not liable to be disclosed. These cases bring me to my suggestion to this House that the prosecution's disclosure obligations should be codified in the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr Speaker, a question that stands out is that since there is case law, why would Parliament need to legislate the prosecution's disclosure obligations? The prosecution in its submissions in Nabill paradoxically makes the argument for legislation. Tellingly, in that case, the prosecution submitted that it may not, despite acting in good faith, fully appreciate the defence that the accused intends to run and, as such, the prosecution admitted that it might, and I quote, "inadvertently fail to disclose statements which might tend to support the defence".”
“In its judgment released in June this year, the Court of Appeal ruled that the prosecution did not make available to the defence documents that would have established clear and material inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence. The Court of Appeal decided that the delay in disclosing one document in particular, prejudiced Dr Wee, even as the prosecution ran the argument that that document was actually irrelevant to the case. In Wee Teong Boo, the Court of Appeal restated the prosecution's obligation to disclose material, as this can assist the Court in determining the truth. The Court reminded the prosecution of its overarching duty of fairness, in addition to a duty to the Court and the public, to ensure that only the guilty are convicted. The Court referred to a 1916 English judgment, which referred to public prosecutors as "ministers of justice", even as the Court of Appeal confirmed that it is neither the prosecutor's duty to secure a conviction at all costs nor, quoting Kadar's case, to timorously discontinue proceedings the instance some weakness is found in the case. Sir, I wish to stress that non-disclosure by the prosecution is not synonymous – it is not synonymous with suppression of evidence. But non-disclosure revelations in cases like Wee Teong Boo risk crystallising such a public perception. Furthermore, judicial decisions on failures of the prosecution to meet disclosure requirements can easily cause the public to lose trust in the Attorney-General's Chambers and by extension, the criminal justice system. To that end, the Court of Appeal's decision in Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad versus Public Prosecutor, also released this year, has expanded the Kadar disclosure obligations even further.”
“In that case, the then-Chief Justice Yong Pung How ruled that it was not for the Court but for Parliament to impose disclosure requirements on the prosecution. Mr Speaker, I have mentioned these arguments of the prosecution, so that this House and members of the public can appreciate one aspect of the evolution of Singapore's adversarial criminal justice system in the recent past. Even so, the starting point is one of tremendous asymmetries of information between the prosecution and the defence, with the system structurally weighted in favour of the former. Almost 10 years after Kadar, it is apposite to ask how deeply the prosecution's common law disclosure obligations have been internalised in our criminal justice system. In Ms Parti Liyani's case, the lack of forthrightness of the DPPs in informing the trial court about the serviceability of the DVD player makes a similar point about fairness in our adversarial system. Crucially, however, it raises the public's eyebrows about our prosecutorial culture. That is all I will say about Ms Parti Liyani's case as her application against the DPPs and, specifically, their conduct in this matter, is pending. With that background, let me move on to this year's cases on the prosecution's disclosure obligations. Tellingly, the year thus far has seen a number of judgments that, at first blush, reveal troubling aspects to the prosecution's approach to disclosing statements to the defence in spite of the almost decade-old Kadar judgment. One significant case was Public Prosecutor versus Wee Teong Boo, hereinafter referred as Wee Teong Boo. In that case, the accused, a doctor, was convicted of outrage of modesty and sexual assault. He faced a total of 10 years' imprisonment. On appeal, he was acquitted.”
“For example, on many occasions, a previously withheld statement of the accused would be sprung on the defence during trial to impeach the accused's credibility, forcing the defence to throw its litigation strategy out of the window. After the framework for criminal discovery was enshrined into law, one Member of Parliament in this House said that this was akin to the criminal justice system "moving out of the dark ages". But I would say that we were still in some shadows as the CPC amendments did not require the prosecution to disclose material such as witnesses' statements that might help the defence. This changed in 2011 with the Court of Appeal's judgment in Muhammad bin Kadar and another versus Public Prosecutor – hereinafter, referred to as Kadar – where the Court ruled that the prosecution must disclose to the defence any credible and relevant unused material that would be favourable to the defence's case. This was an excellent development making serious inroads into rebalancing the asymmetries of evidence between the prosecution and the defence. However, what I wish to highlight from Kadar is this. In Court, the prosecution ran the argument that it should have an exclusive and unquestionable right to access evidence and unilaterally decide whether the material was credible and relevant based on its own bona fide exercise of subjective discretion. The Court rejected this argument, saying that such a procedure would provide an unacceptably low level of accountability. In addition, the prosecution conceded that while it had an ethical duty to produce any witness before the Court including evidence inconsistent to its case, it argued that it had no legal duty to do so, citing a judicial precedent in Selvarajan James versus Public Prosecutor.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. Sir, Singaporeans pledge to build a democratic society based on justice and equality. I believe Ms Parti Liyani's case has evoked such strong and widespread reactions because justice and equality are instinctive values that all Singaporeans believe in and cherish deeply. Ms Sylvia Lim's Motion identifies fairness and independence as cornerstones of our criminal justice system. Where prosecutorial decisions and processes are concerned, justice demands fairness and independence both in reality and in perception. It is a trite saying in law that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. I will speak on two topics today. One focuses on fairness and the other focuses on independence. I will first speak on the Prosecution's duty of disclosure and propose that its common law disclosure obligations be codified in the Criminal Procedure Code or CPC. Thereafter, I will speak on the bifurcation of the Attorney-General's roles, so that they are held by two persons and not one. First, the prosecution's duty of disclosure. Sir, the matter of non-disclosure by the prosecution of evidence that is favourable to the defence has been the subject of much judicial attention this year. Before getting to this year's cases, let me give some background. This House passed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code in 2010, which included formalisation of the criminal case disclosure conference procedure. Before that, there was no statutory framework for discovery in criminal matters in the State Courts. Prosecutors had overwhelming evidence in their hands compared to the defence.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the extended remarks on this matter. I have two questions. One pertains to the comments made by Minister on the lapse vis-a-vis investigations from the 30 October to 3 December. This was in Part 1 of Minister's Statement. I think from the public perspective, there is a concern when investigations for whatever purposes are somewhat not conducted properly or what the Minister said, "in breach of Police's requirements". So, my question really is what is the extent of this issue? The Minister alluded to manpower problems. I think the concern is, moving forward, how significant does the Minister assess this matter to be? Can it be a matter that can be resolved by directives or circulars from the Commanding Officers of various Divisions? That is the first inquiry. The second is pertaining to a statement that I believe that was made today by the NGO HOME about a complaint that Ms Parti Liyani lodged against the Police concerning the way the IO conducted himself at trial. I would like to inquiry whether those investigations have been completed, and if they have been completed, can the Minister share what have been the Police's findings? My last issue – actually, it is not a question. The Minister spoke earlier of sharing some Annexes with Members of this House. If I heard him right, he said the Annexes would be outside the Chamber. I do not believe there are any Annexes outside. We just have Annex 3. Are those other Annexes going to be shared now or will we receive them later? That is just a question of order, Mr Speaker.”
“No, no. I want to pursue a different line of inquiry! [Laughter.]”
“Minister, have you wrapped up your reply?”
“I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for sharing that information. Can I request the Senior Minister of State to share what are the issues that come under the social disamenity criteria that was just mentioned because she did say that she does not have specific numbers of neighbourhood disputes, but that they generally come under this category of social disamenity? So, what are the other issues under this category that HDB tracks? And if the Senior Minister of State does not have an answer to that, what would be some of those instances which qualify as a social disamenity? My second supplementary question is, in view of the fact that neighbour disputes do come up every now and then in the public housing setting, would HDB actually track this issue going forward so that we can understand what mechanisms can be introduced, such as the CDRT or amendments to the CDRT format, to lower this prospect of disputes and also to measure the success of measures like the cooperation with the Kindness Movement, for example, the "Then How?" series that the Senior Minister of State also spoke about?”
“I thank the Minister for that broad-ranging explanation as to what occurred. Just one supplementary question specific to the faulty cable. The Minister mentioned that the cable is now being forensically examined as to the reason its failure. For the earlier episodes of cable failure, was it a consistent reason as in there were not two or three different reasons so that the OEM could not identify why the cable is failing in the same way, or could this have been pre-empted to an extent if the earlier cable failures were all down to the same reason or same cause?”
“I would like to clarify with the Member. I do not believe any of us made that specific remark. But I would like to ask the Member in return: is he agreeable to pay the 100,000 workers, specifically narrowed down now to 32,000 workers, $1,300 as a business employer? Is he prepared to do that? I hope he is.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. But I am more referring to a case where like the Labour Annual this year in May, talked about extending the PWM to the lift and escalator sector and I believe there is one more sector, I am not sure whether it was waste management, but one of them. My point is, this is in the future, but some of these companies are already pricing it in today and is that legitimately correct for them to do so? Apart from that, if there is a reason for a vendor to assert that actually the cost is being overstated here and PWM is being used as an excuse to increase costs, what recourse would the Government consider? Will there be a committee that we can potentially go to to address some of these matters?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I believe Senior Minister of State has not answered my question with regard to how the tripartite partners assess in a particular sector whether profiteering is taking place on the back of what ought to be wage increases for our Singaporean workers.”
“Workforce – I beg your pardon. 1.7% of the workforce. Thank you. I am sure Senior Minister of State agrees with me that we can do and we can move quite fast for this people. I will be prepared to work with Senior Minister of State to ensure that we can actually reach out to these Singaporeans as quickly as the Government can. Because, I do not think it is acceptable that any one, any Singaporean is earning below this number. It is simply not acceptable. And if we can do something about it in double quick time, let us do it.”
“It does not include foreign manpower at this point because there are other regulatory levers, especially for foreign workers – quotas, levies. I know they serve specific purposes, but I think you will have to implement this and see how best to work the overall manpower situation that SMEs demand and what the economy demands. Coming back to the important number, it was, I think Senior Minister of State said 1.7% of the population. I am sure Senior Minister of State agrees with me that –”
“And there are also some useful statistics we can use, like the average household expenditure on basic necessities; how much really does it cost for the Singaporean family who is at that end of the spectrum. And the Minimum Wage or the floor can be set at a number which is realistic and correspondent to that. Actually, the bigger concern I have with the PWM and some of the sectors that the Senior Minister of State has been referring to, is potential profiteering on the back of raising wages for Singaporeans. My question to the Senior Minister of State is what mechanisms are available in NTUC, with MOM, to ensure that companies do not do that. Now, I say this because earlier this week, I just sat in our usual weekly Town Council meeting and I am aware that certain lift maintenance contracts are coming up for renewal. I have some numbers from the lift companies. For one lift company, costs are going up by 47%. Another lift company, 5%, 10%, 5%, 10%, something of that nature, over a few years. So, because we have different contractors, they have different proposals. Now, if all this increase is going to the Singaporean worker, then I am prepared to take on that burden to persuade our Town Council residents that we need to raise S&CC. I am prepared to take it on because Singaporeans are going to benefit from it. But my question is, is that a realistic hike in costs? So, I would like the Senior Minister of State to share how can we be sure that as the PWM moves forward and particularly for raising of salaries, those costs will go to our workers and will not be translated into profits. I think the Senior Minister of State had a question on the ambit of our Minimum Wage proposal. The Minimum Wage we are proposing does not include foreign domestic workers at this point.”
“And my question quite simply is, do we need to wait so long to cover these Singaporeans? Can we not consider how we can cover them immediately because it is not a small number. It is a large number. If you think of 60,000 rental units available from HDB and you compare that with this number, it is significant – it is quite a lot of Singaporeans who need some help. So, my Facebook posts really was not to diss or dismiss the PWM. It was to nudge the Government, to tell the Government, "Hey, wait a minute. Can we move faster on people who are really, really at one end of the spectrum?" So, I think the Senior Minister of State understands that context, so that is not so much the issue. So, that was the first question, whether we can reach out more quickly to these individuals. And I do not believe SMEs would be significantly impacted, with all respect to SMEs, employers and businesses who have also made their views known also in the mainstream media over the last one, one and a half months, perhaps. This number of Singaporeans, we can look after them, we can take care of them, and we can do it quite fast. If there is anybody who can do it for the people who I know as my friends in NTUC, I am pretty sure they are going to work hard with the Government to make that happen. So, I hope the Government takes them up. My second point is about politicisation, which was what the Minister feared. Are we going to get into an auction when one party says $1,300 and another one says $1,500? This is where we probably have to defer to the experts. The National Wages Council is potentially one forum.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his extensive comments on this matter. I was not intending to speak in this debate but in view of the questions that he has put to me arising from a Facebook post, which was a response to another Facebook post or two Facebook posts by the Minister for Manpower and the NTUC Secretary-General, I will put the position out. Because when we campaigned in the last election, a Minimum Wage was one of the central pillars of our ambit of the proposals that we had put to Singaporeans. So, I would like to start with, actually, what I felt was a very powerful line from the Senior Minister of State, which was he is not so much concerned at our proposal of a Minimum Wage. And indeed, there is no reason to be very concerned about it because what we are talking about is those Singaporeans who earn below the $1,300 mark. It is not a number that has come out of the sky. I will explain shortly. The Senior Minister of State has been helpful in providing some data. I believe a newspaper article, just a few days ago, from a former parliamentarian, someone who I think many of us parliamentarians enjoyed listening to, the economist Walter Theseira, asked some important questions. He asked what are the sectors where Singaporeans are earning less than $1,300? How many workers are impacted? And for those who are significantly below the $1,300 floor, what will happen to them? And that is precisely my question for the numbers that the Senior Minister of State had shared – about the 100,000, a quarter of them self-employed; 56,000 not full-time workers, if I remember correctly, and 32,000 are full-time. Very important figures. I think this is the first time the Government has shared these figures.”
“Thank you, Speaker. To Minister Indranee Rajah, thank you so much for that response to some of the questions the Workers' Party Members of Parliament had on the Baby Support Grant. I fully recognise the trouble and the issue about settling on a start date for a grant like this which was unexpected by many members of the public. Having said that, would the Government consider extending the Baby Support Grant to Singaporeans who have received some of these COVID-19-related subsidies, such as SIRS and the COVID-19 Support Grant, because they have already exhibited particular difficulty arising out of their circumstances once COVID-19 started? So, they are already pre-qualified in that sense to be in need and, hence, they have received Government subsidies. These are mainly Singaporeans at the lower to lower middle income group. So, the extension is not really about a date that will reach back for all Singaporean parents, but specifically for lower to middle income Singaporeans. Would that be something the Government could consider? Thank you.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Just a brief question with regard to attracting Singaporeans to some of these jobs at CSA and more broadly the wider subset of the IT industry in Singapore. We have heard in the debate yesterday about ensuring that Singapore remains cosmopolitan. And so, in brief, the question is, has it been difficult for the Government to attract Singaporeans to some of the jobs that are being offered by CSA in the past and what are the prospects going forward?”
“Mr Speaker, my short third point is that we need to keep an eye on the future. In line with this, I would also make another suggestion which was given to me in feedback by a doctor and that is to have a mandatory review perhaps in two or three years' time on how the section 37 test and the new disciplinary process have worked in practice. I would suggest that the Government review the issue of informed consent more frequently in light of the rapid changes in medicine, including the use of telemedicine and artificial intelligence-assisted medicine. More fundamentally, regular reviews would be consistent with the evolution of medical care in Singapore, where individual rights and patient autonomy continue to move centre stage and reflect the current and future realities of medical practice. The prospect of the doubling of the elderly population by 2030 and by extension more complicated or multiple medical conditions from a patient requiring overlapping advice and consultation may well be a harbinger for increased misunderstanding between patients and doctors. In our multicultural local setting, added complications could arise in view of potential language barriers in some cases. Mr Speaker, those are my three points for today. First, the positives surrounding the work group Report and proposed Bill; second, the residual concerns about the section 37 test; and third, the need to keep an eye on the future. I support the Bill.”
“The patient may have many concerns documented by different doctors of varied specialties over a period of time. If a doctor who finally takes the consent inadvertently does not address one of the possible risks, especially one that is outside his or her speciality, would it be fair to hold this against him or her? This is similar to one of the points raised by doctors to the work group and I quote, "Practitioners face an inordinate number of challenges in getting proper informed consent in team settings. This is partly due to restrictions of time, exigencies of service, operational efficiency and the lack of familiarity with patients". Although this concern was raised to the work group, there are no illustrations in section 37 to guide doctors in team settings. May I ask the Minister for his response to these concerns. Also, may I request that the Minister consider more illustrations to interpret section 37 for better guidance, especially for doctors in polyclinic settings with limited consultation time and for doctors who work in team settings. Alternatively, or preferably in addition, could clear guidelines be issued by MOH as to how exactly doctors should practise in light of these constraints? The section 37 test carries potentially serious consequences for doctors who are found not to be in compliance. It would not be ideal or helpful if the application of section 37 test raises doubts that can only be properly clarified in test cases. Because it is not only doctors who will suffer the consequences. All of us tend to lose if defensive medicine is practised due to uncertainty, whether in terms of over-treatment and the associated higher costs, longer waiting times, higher taxes or poorer healthcare outcomes.”
“In that time, the doctor has to gather the patient's history, examine him or her, discuss treatment options and refer the matter to a specialist or as appropriate. In addition, the doctor has to comply with the section 37 test when it comes into force. Not only does the doctor have to answer queries from the patient, as provided in sub-section 3(a) which can already take up time, sub-section 3(b) requires that even if the patient does not ask, the doctor must assess whether any information is material to the patient when reviewing the patient's medical records. And it is unclear from section 37 how far back the doctor should look, after all the records of an elderly patients can go back decades – although I note Minister's point about reasonableness in his Second Reading speech. The only statutory illustration provided for in sub-section 3(b) concerns knee replacement surgery which is a major procedure done by orthopaedic specialists and for which a doctor will certainly have more time for consultation. But based on this sole illustration, a doctor working in a polyclinic and even a general practitioner in private practice may be hard pressed to know what is practically expected of them in dealing with large number of patients with short consultation times. Increasing the consultation time is not a practical solution because it comes with costs too, in terms of higher waiting times, higher consultation fees in proportion to the times spent and even stress on doctors. Another concern that some doctors raised over the section 37 test to me is the difficulties that may arise when multiple doctors are involved in the patient's care, also known as team management, especially in large public hospitals.”
“Prima facie, it ought to follow that the section 37 test would apply. To this end, and in view of the High Court’s judgment in Lim Lian Arn on the correct understanding of the ECEG with respect to professional misconduct, clarification by the Minister on this point would be helpful. Mr Speaker, a few doctors have shared the following concerns about their professional experience should the amendments come into force. One is the difficulties faced by doctors who have a limited time with patients. The work group report in Annex C sets out the feedback received from doctors on informed consent. Among other points, doctors gave feedback that, and I quote: “Thorough consent-taking is not possible in every setting, especially in the polyclinics. Doctors may be burdened with other onerous administrative duties and have heavy caseloads. They are simply not afforded enough time to build a relationship with the patient.” This feedback was given in relation to the perceived impracticality of satisfying all the requirements of the Modified Montgomery test. The concern with the section 37 test is that it does not seem to solve this issue raised in the feedback. As the section 37 test still requires the idiosyncrasies of patients to be taken into account, it may still remain very difficult to take consent thoroughly in a polyclinic setting. Even as the Government is ramping up the building of new polyclinics in anticipation of higher caseloads and a growing population of seniors, my understanding is that there are potentially a large number of patients, and each outpatient consultation is ordinarily scheduled for around roughly 10 minutes.”
“The section 37 test, which is the subject of the Bill, appears to be a deliberate clarification of the common law modified Montgomery test that it manifestly takes into account peer professional opinion. In that way, the section 37 test combines the previous Bolam-Bolitho test with the modified Montgomery test. Some doctors have said that the amendment is well thought out and would be welcomed by the medical community. It would go some way towards mitigating defensive medicine which, as we know, increases healthcare costs without necessarily improving medical outcomes. Overall, the work group report and the section 37 test are significant steps in the right direction. The work group itself recommends further steps, including Recommendation 3, the development of nationally agreed speciality specific and situational guidelines to deal with standard commonplace procedures in each speciality. I am sure this House and the public look forward to the speedy publication of those guidelines as well. Mr Speaker, this brings me to my second point, which is the concerns that yet persist in view of the proposed section 37 test. The first query concerns how the proposed section 37 will be applied in Singapore Medical Council or SMC disciplinary cases going forward. Its application to future civil proceedings covering medical negligence is not in doubt. However, in light of the work group report’s recommendations to amend the SMC Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines or ECEG on informed consent, as detailed in Annex F of the work group’s report, how will the proposed section 37 interface with SMC disciplinary proceedings where a doctor is deemed to meet the threshold of the “serious negligence” limb of professional misconduct?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Workers' Party supports both Bills. I will speak on the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill and my colleague, Mr Leon Perera, will speak on the amendments to the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill. For my speech, I will focus on the promulgation of the standard of care for medical advice in the proposed section 37, which I will refer to as the section 37 test, and the work group report on which the section 37 test is based. I will speak on three points. First, there are many positives about the Bill and the work group report. Second, there remains some residual concerns about the section 37 test, which I will go into. Thirdly, I will make a point about the importance of an eye needing to be kept on the future. Mr Speaker, first, the positives about the Bill and the work group report. I wish to thank the work group for its fine work and well-written report. The work group was set up in March 2019, as the Minister shared, and, by November, it had submitted its comprehensive report which contained 29 recommendations. I have sought feedback from some doctors on the Bill. One consistent feedback that was shared almost unanimously was that the feedback from doctors on the systemic issues surrounding both informed consent and the SMC disciplinary process was taken very seriously by the work group and the Ministry respectively. As one doctor put it, and I quote: "The work group report succinctly captures the sentiment of doctors." When I read the feedback given by doctors in the report, it was refreshing to read what came across in an unvarnished yet professional way. To this end, the doctors and others who came forward to give feedback are also to be acknowledged and thanked.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for that reply. I would assume, having read the AGO Report that there would have been some time for WSG to respond, as the Minister has in Parliament, in the AGO Report as to that particular matter of documentation – that, really, it is not that the outcome was not achieved but the documentation was not done properly. I understand that. My query is, was there enough time for WSG to inform the AGO that it is looking into these findings of the AGO and, thereafter, the reply could have been in the AGO Report? Or whether there was not enough time? So, that is the first question. The second question was, as part of my original Supplementary Question, was about the identities of the three programme partners.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the reply to my Parliamentary Question. The PCP programme, as carried out under WSG, is a critical one to ensure that Singaporeans, especially PMETs, get into good jobs, and to that end, I think all of us have a deep interest in the programmes' success. I would like to focus on one of the observations of the AGO which is at page 63 of the Report. I believe Minister covered it in her reply, where a test check – and AGO cannot check every case; they do test checks – and the test check revealed that 11 out of 56 cases found that there was inadequate verification of career conversion for trainees. The AGO also noted cases "where the trainees' previous and current job scope appeared to be similar". Those are the exact words. My specific questions are which were the three programme partners identified in the AGO Report? Minister, I believe, in her reply mentioned that there is an on-going review of all PCP matters. I think this number is 15,000 placements. How prevalent is the problem of a similar job scope, after a PMET worker has undertaken a PCP programme?”