Rahayu Mahzam
Singapore
“We engage the insurance providers quite regularly, but we are very mindful about where we intervene, especially because they need to be competitive and there is a commercial dimension to it, which we feel that we should respect. So, how we intervene is via the conditions that are put in place vis-a-vis the consumers.”
“So, that is not something they can worry about. There is already the S+3M framework that is already in place, so we know that MediShield Life is one, they have their MediSave and if all else fails, there is MediFund.”
“Should there be disputes over specific claims, policyholders can take it to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC), an independent and impartial institution that assists with insurance-related disputes.”
“It is just a symptom, so the underlying cost pressures still need to be addressed. The description that we had put earlier in the past is that it is a knot that we need to untangle; and that is something we are doing with a multi-pronged, with engagements with different parties and stakeholders.”
“I appreciate the Member's feedback. As I said earlier, this is something that we will continue to consider. But we do also have to appreciate that the information that we get is live, in terms of waiting times and all that.”
“But I do take the point and we are actually reviewing to see what is a meaningful way to put out this information so that the public can understand, so that we can all track properly whether the good health outcomes are a result of the efforts that we are making. I will take the feedback back and we will continue to review this.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,289 lines we hold for Rahayu Mahzam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 26.
“Second, under the Additional Disclosure Obligations (ADO), the Prosecution must disclose statements of material witnesses who are not called as Prosecution witnesses. A "material witness" is one who can be expected to confirm or contradict the accused's defence in material respects. The ADO does not involve an assessment of the substance of the material witness's statement. It covers statements which may be adverse, neutral or helpful to the Defence. There are overlaps between the KDO and the ADO. Where an unused material witness's statement is helpful to the Defence, it would have to be disclosed under the KDO. In 2020, MinLaw commenced a comprehensive review of the criminal disclosure regime. One thing was clear to us – it is desirable to place the common law disclosure rules on a statutory footing, for greater clarity, certainty and coherence. It was necessary for us to study how the existing common law regime interfaced with the CCD regime, as well as the overall aims of disclosure. We also considered how some areas of the common law regime, which had been left open by the Courts, should be addressed. Even though it was working well, we also considered improvements to the statutory disclosure framework, after having observed it in practice for several years. Disclosure is an important aspect of the criminal trial process and has significant implications on the pre-trial and trial process. It was especially important for us to study the practical aspects, including the possible implications on Prosecutors, Defence counsel, the Courts and law enforcement agencies.”
“For greater efficiency, the relevant LEA, which is more familiar with the details of the case, will have the powers to investigate the bail and absconding offences committed by the same accused person and arising from the case which they are investigating. Moving on to the amendments on criminal disclosure, let me begin by providing an overview of our criminal disclosure laws. In 2010, we introduced a framework for pre-trial disclosure in the CPC, namely the Criminal Case Disclosure Regime, which is commonly referred to as the "CCD regime". The CCD regime formalised a framework for the Prosecution and Defence to sequentially disclose and exchange relevant information about their respective cases before trial. This has led to greater transparency and consistency, and has been welcomed by all sides – the Judiciary, the Defence and the Prosecution. Since 2011, a common law disclosure regime has developed in parallel through case law. The Courts have held that the Prosecution is also obliged to disclose certain additional material on top of what the CCD regime requires. I will briefly explain these: first, under the Kadar disclosure obligations (KDO), the Prosecution must disclose unused material that tends to undermine the Prosecution's case or strengthen the Defence's case, and is likely to be either admissible and that might reasonably be regarded as credible and relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused; or inadmissible, but would provide a real, not fanciful chance of pursuing a line of inquiry that leads to material that is likely to be admissible, and that might reasonably be regarded as credible and relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused. Put simply, the Prosecution must disclose to the Defence unused material that may be helpful to the accused.”
“I would like to highlight that several pre-requisites must be fulfilled before the Police can exercise this power. First, they must be investigating an arrestable offence. Second, the Police must have reason to believe that the document or thing is in the possession or control of a person, reasonably suspected of having committed the offence. This clause does not give the Police carte blanche powers to search anyone or anything. It also does not give the Police powers to frisk or search individuals walking along the streets just because the Police find them suspicious. The second category of the amendments will expand the powers of certain non-police law enforcement agencies (LEAs). Clause 11 empowers the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officers, immigration officers and prison officers to pursue and arrest a person who has escaped from the lawful custody of their respective agency, another specified LEA, or a prescribed LEA. Currently, only the Police and the officer from whose custody a person has escaped are empowered to pursue and arrest him. However, officers from CNB, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and Prisons can also play significant roles in arrest operations. For instance, ICA officers may come across the person at the checkpoint and can arrest him. This amendment will enhance the joint Home Team operations and allow the Home Team departments to operate more effectively together. To give another example, clause 7 empowers non-Police LEAs to investigate bail and absconding offences arising from the predicate offences under their purview. Currently, such officers have to seek the Police's assistance to investigate such offences.”
“The first category of the amendments will update, enhance and clarify Police powers. Clause 10 empowers the Police to search suspects at the point of arrest, to detect and remove dangerous items from them. This is to prevent arrested persons from possibly using these items to harm themselves or others, such as the arresting officers and passers-by. Clause 3 removes the requirement for the Police to physically proceed to the crime scene when investigating arrestable offences, which, with advancements in technology and changes in the profile of crimes, is no longer always necessary or relevant. To be clear, the CPC currently already provides for circumstances where the Police need not investigate into arrestable offences and there is no change to this with the proposed amendments. Clause 5 allows the Police to conduct a search without warrant at a place when they have reason to believe that the relevant evidence is in the possession or power of a suspect of an arrestable offence. Currently, the Police can already perform a search without warrant for arrestable offences in certain circumstances. For example, if the Police have reason to believe that a suspect would be uncooperative or is likely to destroy the evidence before a search can be conducted. The difficulty is that it is not always straightforward for the Police to make such a determination at the onset. Often, Police can only reasonably assess the cooperativeness of a suspect after having engaged him or her or sent the production order. Requiring that the Police do so in all cases is not practicable, as that would put the suspects on notice and allow them to tamper or destroy evidence. The amendment is a practical one that allows for more effective Police investigations.”
“If the Minister finds the offender suitable for release, the offender will be released on licence and subject to conditions. This could include mandatory counselling, electronic monitoring or curfews. This period of release on licence balances the need to allow such offenders to return to live in the community, with the need to reduce threats to the public. We will help offenders who are released on licence to return to society. However, if an offender breaches the conditions of his licence or re-offends, he may be re-imprisoned and the Minister may revoke his release order. Once released with a licence, the offender will be reviewed at least once every two years, to monitor his progress. If found suitable, the offender can be released unconditionally and the sentence ends. Speaker sir, SEPP has many advantages, including enhancing protection for society against harm, promoting rehabilitation because offenders have strong incentives to improve themselves and fair punishment rules based on risk. We introduced this regime after studying the issue carefully and concluding that it is necessary to better protect the public. We have also discussed these amendments extensively, including conducting a public consultation in 2021, and have taken in the suggestions that were submitted. (In English): Mr Speaker, I will now speak about the amendments to law enforcement powers, the proposed provisions on criminal disclosure regime and other amendments to improve our Court processes. These proposed amendments aim to strengthen our levers to tackle crime and enhance transparency, fairness and coherence in our criminal procedure laws. Let me begin with law enforcement powers. Broadly, these amendments are intended to strengthen operational efficiency and investigative capabilities.”
“This is a matter of public protection and safety which is best decided by the Minister, and not the judge. The Minister’s power under SEPP is also in line with existing regimes such as Corrective Training (CT) and Preventive Detention (PD), and for life imprisonment. The power of the Minister is subject to safeguards. If the Minister decides not to release the offender, the Minister must review the decision within a year. In effect, the Minister's power is only to detain someone for one more year before the status is reviewed again. Furthermore, the decision of the Minister is subject to judicial review. The review process will also be fair. There will be a Detention Review Board that will assess each offender under SEPP. The Review Board will be made up of those with experience in forensic psychiatry or psychology, or experience with the criminal justice system. It may include retired judges and Judicial Commissioners, senior lawyers or psychologists and psychiatrists. Offenders or their representatives, including family members or legal counsel, will be allowed to make a representation. All relevant information will be provided to the Review Board, and in turn, to the Minister, including on the conduct and progress of the offender, and the risk assessment by a psychiatrist that will be done independently. A key safeguard, both at the sentencing and review levels, is an independent expert assessment. Such assessment will be done by psychiatrists using evidence-based scientific tools, which are internationally recognised. They will carefully evaluate various risk factors, including past violence; the level of understanding by the offender about his conduct and response to his treatment; and the support available to the offender upon release.”
“Arising from such cases, the Government has been looking at ways to better protect the public from such dangerous offenders. SEPP is our response. There are stringent requirements that must be fulfilled before the court can impose SEPP. First, SEPP can only be imposed for very serious offences, which will be set out in the legislation. These offences include homicide or murder, attempted murder, rape and sexual penetration of a minor. Second, there are strict prerequisites that must be fulfilled before SEPP can be imposed. Third, SEPP only applies to adult offenders aged 21 years and above at the time of the offence. This is in line with our general approach to sentencing young offenders, where the main focus is on rehabilitation. Since SEPP is a sentence, the Courts will decide whether SEPP should be imposed. This is usually done after considering the risk assessment report by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) which is done independently. The Defence can also submit its own expert report. Court procedures will be applied at this stage. An appeal can also be filed if the Prosecution or Defence is not satisfied with the Court's decision. The Court will retain the discretion not to impose SEPP, for example, if a less severe sentence can still achieve the goal of public protection. When imposing SEPP, the Court will specify a minimum period of custody between 5 and 20 years. Offenders will remain in prison for the duration of this minimum period, which cannot be shortened. At the end of the minimum period, the offender will be re-evaluated and only released if assessed to be suitable for release by the Minister for Home Affairs, on the advice of a Detention Review Board.”
“However, there are several exceptions, for example, if the victim has fallen into a coma after being sexually assaulted and DNA evidence will degrade if it is not collected as soon as possible. The scope of exceptions to consent is stringent and the Police will implement such exclusions judiciously. The Police will also wait, as far as possible, for the victim to recover before obtaining consent. Moving on to the SEPP. SEPP represents a significant change to our sentencing landscape. Currently, an offender who receives a prison sentence, will be incarcerated for a fixed term as determined by the Court, and must be released unconditionally after that period. However, there is a small group of high-risk offenders who still pose a danger to the public at the time of release, such as serial sexual offenders. The law currently does not allow us to stop such offenders from being released from jail or impose any conditions for their release, even if they are likely to re-offend. Just now, Minister Shanmugam cited several tragic and egregious cases where the offender commits serious crimes shortly after being released from prison and also referred to a list of such cases. Let me share another example. In 2020, an offender was convicted of committing sexual abuse on his girlfriend's eight year old daughter and nine year old son; both of whom had low IQs. The offender had sexually assaulted them, forced them to watch videos displaying sexual behaviour, and to commit indecent acts while recording them. The children obeyed him because they were helpless and afraid of the offender. The offender began committing this serious offence just two years after his release from prison. He was previously imprisoned for sexually abusing his own four-year-old daughter.”
“Forensic evidence is key in the investigation of major crimes. Therefore, there should be an effective legal framework for FMEs. The key features of the framework are as follows. First, we will establish safeguards to ensure that FMEs are conducted safely and sensitively. This includes ensuring that only qualified medical professionals conduct examinations and procedures; the person conducting the FME must be satisfied that it will not endanger the subject; the order to perform FME is given by police officers with the rank of Inspector and above; and measures to protect privacy are taken for FMEs involving intimate parts, for example, ensuring that such FMEs that need to be conducted on a female is carried out by a female police officer or a female forensic expert. Second, we take a differentiated approach towards accused persons and victims. For accused persons, the police will have powers to require them to undergo FMEs, even if they do not consent. This is because if a person is guilty, the person will most likely refuse to be examined, if given a choice. Reasonable force can be used to conduct the FME, as long as it does not involve intimate body parts or invasive procedures. It will be an offence to refuse to undergo an FME without a reasonable excuse, and the accused can be imprisoned or fined, or both. The court can also draw adverse inferences from the accused person's refusal to undergo FMEs. In the case of victims, consent is generally required. It is important to ensure that victims, especially those who were sexually assaulted, are handled sensitively, to prevent them from being traumatised again. If there is no consent, the police generally will not proceed with the FME.”
“Thank you, Speaker. In Malay. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Please allow me to recap what Minister Shanmugam spoke about earlier and outline the key principles that underpins Singapore's criminal justice system. The Government's objective for our criminal justice system is to ensure the safety of our people so that they can live their lives without worrying about their own safety. Singapore is one of the safest countries in the world, with a low crime rate, a fair and effective legal system, and a trustworthy police force. This is important for the well-being of our society and our economy. We have always been ranked highly in terms of law and order and safety in international studies and surveys. We achieved this through laws that are tough on crime, effective enforcement of laws by the police and other law enforcement agencies, and fair and effective criminal procedures. We need to strike a balance between the desire to protect individual rights and safeguarding the interests of society. We also need to continually review and update our laws. There are about 20 sets of amendments under this Bill, covering various aspects of the criminal justice process. Three major changes have been proposed. First, we will establish a legal framework for conducting Forensic Medical Examinations (FMEs); second, we will introduce a new Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection (SEPP); and third, we will make amendments to the disclosure regime for our criminal cases. I will give a brief explanation on the FME framework. FMEs generally consists of physical medical examinations, collection of body samples, and taking photographs of body parts. Through such a process, the police can gather forensic evidence for investigation.”
“Licensees found to have committed this offence can be fined up to $20,000 or imprisoned up to six months, or both. Finally, Ms Pereira asked about the AML/CFT measures for the licensed moneylending sector. The AML/CFT measures for licensed moneylenders are mainly set out in the Moneylenders (Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism) Rules. These rules are aligned with the international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force. In the conduct of its business, a licensed moneylender must have measures in place to assess the risk of, detect and prevent money laundering and terrorism financing. Measures include the screening of persons and the conduct of customer due diligence. I would like to conclude by thanking the Members once again for their support of the Bill and for their invaluable comments and suggestions. The proposed amendments to the Act will allow data to be used in meaningful ways that are aligned with the whole-of-Government standards and will facilitate better business practices by licensed moneylenders. MinLaw will continue to monitor and improve the standards of the licensed moneylending industry while ensuring that borrowers are adequately protected.”
“It is a risk management call and a business decision for a licensee whether it requires a surety's credit report for its creditworthiness assessment. The Registry of Moneylenders conducts regular inspections and investigates breaches of the Moneylenders Act. This will help ensure that credit reports are only obtained for proper purposes. Members of the public can also lodge a report on potential infringements with the Registry of Moneylenders. Additionally, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Joan Pereira asked about the notice provided to a surety that his or her information will be submitted for the purpose of obtaining the credit report. Ms Pereira also asked whether a surety may object to a licensed moneylender retrieving his or her credit report. As I mentioned earlier, the credit report can only be obtained when a loan application is made. In other words, the applicant and surety would be fully aware that the licensed moneylender would conduct due diligence to assess the creditworthiness of both the applicant and the surety. In the event a surety objects to the retrieval of his or her credit report, the licensed moneylender may make an alternate lending decision to manage its risk accordingly. I thank Ms Pereira for her suggestion for sureties to be given a free copy of their credit report. We will consider this. Next, in terms of a new offence being introduced, Mr Parekh sought clarification on what constitutes a licensee making "wrongful demand of payment" from a borrower. This amendment clarifies that it is an offence if a licensed moneylender, without reasonable excuse, demands payment from a borrower of a sum that is either not permitted or which exceeds the permitted amounts.”
“For example, they must protect the data in their possession by making reasonable security arrangements to prevent unauthorised access, use or disclosure. Their ability to do so is something we will consider carefully when deciding whether to prescribe particular credit bureaus to be able to receive borrower information. On a related matter, Mr Louis Ng referred to the proposed amendments for licensees to disclose information to any prescribed person for purposes related to the welfare and protection of applicants, and sought clarification on what these purposes are and who the prescribed persons are intended to be. For a start, we intend to prescribe social service agencies (SSAs) which have been assisting borrowers in negotiating debt consolidation loans or restructuring plans with licensed moneylenders. The disclosure of loan information to such SSAs is essential for effective negotiation and should ultimately benefit the borrower. More broadly, in deciding whether any person, organisation or otherwise should be permitted access to the confidential information, MinLaw will, among other matters, assess and consider the need for the possible disclosure and consequential benefits. Next, I turn to the obtaining of credit reports on sureties. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Neil Parekh sought clarification regarding situations where a licensee is recommended to obtain a credit report on a surety. Mr Louis Ng also asked how MinLaw will detect and ensure that licensees do not request credit reports for purposes other than to assess the creditworthiness of a surety. Licensed moneylenders can only obtain a credit report of a loan applicant or a surety when a loan application is received.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their support of the Bill. Members also made comments and suggestions on: (a) usage and protection of borrowers' confidential data; (b) obtaining credit reports in respect of sureties; (c) the offence of a wrongful demand of payment; and (d) Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) measures for the licensed moneylending sector. Let me address each group of issues in turn. First, I deal with the usage and protection of borrowers' confidential data. Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Neil Parekh asked about the circumstances under which borrowers' information would be shared with other public agencies and the safeguards in place to protect such information. Whilst I mentioned the circumstances and safeguards in my opening speech, I would like to highlight that the proposed amendments are aligned with what is practised across the Government as set out in the Public Sector (Governance) Act. The Public Service has in place a data-sharing framework and is governed by Instruction Manuals, which amongst other things, oblige public agencies to safeguard data against security threat, protect personal data and access information only on a need-to-know basis. These data sharing provisions will enable better policy analysis, planning and formulation and better delivery of services. Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Louis Ng asked about the safeguards to ensure that the prescribed credit bureaus and other third parties will keep borrowers' information secure and confidential. The prescribed credit bureaus and other third parties are subject to the obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act.”
“The Bill also imposes record-keeping obligations on licensed moneylenders to start keeping loan application forms and copies of supporting documents from the date the loan application form or supporting document is received. Similarly, licensed moneylenders must start keeping the note of contract from the date they issue it. Mdm Deputy Speaker, over the past decade, the Government’s regulatory reforms have raised industry standards and provided better protection for borrowers. The amendments proposed in this Bill seek to do the same. In summary, this Bill will allow data to be used in meaningful ways that are aligned with the whole-of-Government standards and will facilitate better business practices by licensed moneylenders. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“These business reports will assist licensed moneylenders in the development and improvement of their business strategies or practices, thereby raising industry standards. If a credit report, business report or loan information report is delivered in error, clause 23 gives the Registrar the ability to direct these recipients to dispose of these reports within a specified time frame. Failure to comply would be an offence. Third, the Bill facilitates digitalisation in the industry. Clause 8 of the Bill allows licensed moneylenders to provide borrowers with statements of account through modes of communication other than mail and email. Licensed moneylenders can instead, for example, use their own app, website or business WhatsApp accounts, thereby increasing business efficiency. As a safeguard, both the licensed moneylender and the borrower must agree in writing on these new modes of communication. The last area of the Bill deals with miscellaneous amendments that update and standardise provisions in the MLA. To prevent miscommunication between the borrower and the licensed moneylender, clause 7 mandates that the rate of interest charged stated in any advertising or marketing material, be stated as a percentage per annum, month or other period that the licensed moneylender charges for offering loans. The Bill also makes it an offence for licensed moneylenders to demand payment from borrowers of sums other than the fees permitted or sums exceeding such fees. To ensure consistency in business practices, the Bill extends the deadlines for licensed moneylenders and the MLCB to notify the Registrar of certain events from seven days to seven business days.”
“To ensure the security and integrity of borrower information, clause 17 introduces amendments to enhance security arrangements that licensed moneylenders must undertake to safeguard information in their possession or under their control which they have obtained or received under or for the purposes of the MLA, such as preventing unauthorised access to or use of the information. Second, the Bill enhances the MLCB’s functions beyond just producing credit information reports and serving as a repository of data. While the MLCB was originally launched to facilitate better tracking and monitoring of unsecured loans issued by licensed moneylenders, data held by the MLCB can be better utilised to benefit both borrowers and licensed moneylenders. For example, the Bill will allow the MLCB to provide credit reports of loan sureties to licensed moneylenders during loan applications. To illustrate, consider a case where a loan applicant applies for a loan from a licensed moneylender and where the surety has outstanding loans with other licensed moneylenders. Currently, the MLCB is unable to provide the surety’s credit report for the licensed moneylender to independently verify the surety’s debt obligations with other licensed moneylenders. The licensed moneylender would thus be unable to make a complete assessment of the surety’s credit worthiness. With this amendment, licensed moneylenders will be able to conduct more comprehensive credit checks before granting a loan, thereby helping them manage their credit risk. Next, clause 20 introduces a new section 74A in the MLA to allow the MLCB to produce business reports for licensed moneylenders.”
“This may enable over-borrowing by individuals who choose to withhold or inaccurately declare their credit information. Hence, clause 16 introduces amendments to allow licensed moneylenders to disclose borrower information to more third parties, such as a prescribed list of credit bureaux. These credit bureaux will then be able to provide additional information on the borrower’s credit worthiness and indebtedness, leading to more informed and responsible lending practices. In addition, licensed moneylenders will be able to share borrower information with any prescribed person for purposes related to the welfare and protection of applicants, borrowers and sureties. Licensed moneylenders will also be allowed to share borrower information with third parties engaged to provide IT support or to recover debts. This ensures the smooth delivery of business operations. To safeguard information of loan applicants and borrowers, MinLaw will exercise prudence when prescribing the list of organisations that licensed moneylenders can share borrower information with, by taking into consideration whether the organisation has the necessary data protection and security measures that safeguard borrowers’ information. The extent of the borrower information that can be shared will be limited to what is necessary. For example, in the case of purchasing a credit report from a prescribed credit bureau, the disclosure of the identification number of the loan applicant will be necessary. The Bill will also enable licensed moneylenders to obtain records from public agencies to verify the accuracy of information submitted by loan applicants.”
“For example, the Registrar is only able to share data with other public agencies for policy formulation or review and not for other purposes, such as improving operational processes. [Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair] Clause 26 of the Bill introduces new provisions to align the licensed moneylending data sharing framework with the whole-of-Government data sharing approach. Moving forward, the Registrar will be able to share data in accordance with and to the extent permitted by a data sharing direction given to the Registrar under the Public Sector (Governance) Act (PSGA). The PSGA contains the necessary safeguards to protect information that is shared. These safeguards include provisions that prevent unauthorised disclosure or improper use of the information shared and unauthorised re-identification of anonymised information. The MLA also limits whom licensed moneylenders can share data with. For example, other than the MLCB, licensed moneylenders are currently unable to share their borrowers’ credit application and repayment information with other credit bureaux offering credit-related information. This has hampered comprehensive credit checks on borrowers. To illustrate this point, let us consider the situation when a borrower approaches a licensed moneylender for a loan. The latter would want to check on the borrower’s credit worthiness including his credit history. To do so, the licensed moneylender’s only recourse now is to purchase credit reports from the MLCB, which do not provide a complete picture of a borrower’s credit history. The licensed moneylender is also unable to approach other non-designated credit bureaux to purchase credit reports on the borrower, as he is not allowed to disclose the borrower’s ID number.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Moneylenders Act (MLA) regulates the licensed moneylending industry to ensure that a balance is struck between protecting borrowers and facilitating efficient and effective business processes. The MLA was last amended in 2018, in part to introduce a designated credit bureau known as the Moneylenders Credit Bureau (MLCB). With this, we made it mandatory for licensed moneylenders to submit borrower information to the MLCB and to obtain a credit report of the loan applicant before granting a loan. Licensed moneylenders must also update the MLCB whenever borrowers repay their loans. The 2018 amendments have helped to professionalise the moneylending industry. To ensure we keep up with changes in our operating environment, the Registry of Moneylenders continues to engage the industry regularly to obtain feedback and identify areas for improvement. Today’s Bill proposes amendments that arose from these engagements and are part of the Ministry of Law's (MinLaw) ongoing efforts to enhance the licensed moneylending industry. This Bill seeks to do three main things: first, improve data sharing and usage policies; second, enhance MLCB’s functions through the sharing and use of data maintained by the MLCB; and third, facilitate digitalisation in the licensed moneylending industry. The Bill also contains technical amendments to reduce ambiguity and increase operational efficiency for licensed moneylenders. Let me now elaborate on the key amendments in this Bill. First, the Bill introduces amendments to improve data sharing and usage policies. Currently, the MLA restricts the purposes for which data can be shared.”
“I am glad the Member asked that question. As I have mentioned, this is something that we continually review. But, as it stands, currently, there are no evidence-based population level fertility screening tests because it makes more sense for the test to be ordered and recommended when they are medically indicated, rather than to give a screening to the whole group. So, in that sense, there is no cost-effectiveness to roll it out at that level. I think it is something we will continue to monitor and when the evidence changes or if there is some data to the contrary, these are the things that we can look at.”
“And as we are also rolling out our Marriage and Parenthood packages, these also opportunities for us to encourage couples to take note of these things. I am also thinking that with Healthier SG, especially if it continues to be rolled out to the younger groups, you have opportunity for more individualised healthcare plan. Through these channels, we hope to see better awareness and people are more encouraged to then check on their fertility status.”
“I thank the Member for his question and his consistent and persistent advocacy on this issue. I note the concerns. I will answer his second question first in respect of the funds and subsidies. As I have mentioned, these tests are medically indicated. It means that, if the patient or the couple goes to the doctor, they will then recommend the specific test that the patient requires, based on their conditions. It is very couple-centric. I think that is important because then, you are sizing the subsidy and support for that. And when they are medically indicated and refer to the specialists outpatient clinics in our public healthcare institutions, they get subsidies and it is up to 70%. So, in that sense, there are already sufficient subsidies that ensure that if they need the support, they need the help, they will get the subsidies needed. There is a problem then. The issue is they are not going to get the help needed and I think that is an important point you raised. It is something that we need to continue looking at. Already, as it stands, we have the guideline for couples, especially for women, who are below 35 years old, if they are below 35 years old and they have been trying to conceive for a year and have not been able to conceive, they are encouraged to go to see a doctor. If they are above 35 years old and they have been trying to conceive for six months, they are asked to already go. I believe that with various efforts by different partners who are also supporting this message, hopefully, there will be greater awareness. I think there are a few things that we can perhaps leverage on. We have organisations, like "I Love Children", which also encourages checking for fertility treatments.”
“Mr Speaker, the Government provides means-tested subsidies of up to 70% for fertility tests that are medically indicated. This helps to keep fertility tests affordable for all patients. There are many requests for tests and treatments to be eligible for MediSave deduction. They need to be prioritised and carefully considered, to strike a balance between improving healthcare affordability, ensuring MediSave adequacy and keeping CPF contribution rates reasonable for all. The Ministry of Health (MOH) will continue to review our financing schemes including MediSave to ensure fertility healthcare services remain affordable.”
“I thank the Member for the question. I appreciate his concern. The RDF is actually set up and gets advice from an expert panel of senior doctors with experience in rare disease management and decides on a list of medicines and conditions covered under the RDF. So, actually, there is expertise in that space and many of them would be able to guide as to what would then be included in that list. Medicines, as explained, can only be listed if there is sufficient investment income to support all known patients for that same medicine. So, these are some of the limitations of the RDF.”
“Mr Speaker, my answer will also address Question Nos 24 and 25 for written answer in today's Order Paper. The Rare Disease Fund (RDF) is a charity fund for which the Government matches donations three-to-one, and it is managed by the RDF Committee (RDFC) comprising community representatives under the advice of a panel of medical experts. The RDFC oversees the RDF's fundraising efforts and donor engagement. The expansion of RDF to cover Cell, Tissue and Gene Therapy Products (CTGTPs) and the ability to draw on the principal donation to spend on CTGTPs are fairly recent arrangements, and the RDFC will communicate with new donors. On Mr Ong's suggestion to publish an annual report, the Ministry of Health (MOH) will relay this to the RDFC for its consideration. Currently, the RDF has listed seven treatments for five conditions. This is based on the clinical effectiveness of these treatments and if the RDF is adequate to support all known patients requiring the same treatment. Since November 2022, the RDF has received and supported applications from eight patients. We hope that donors will consider supporting the RDF so that more treatments and conditions can be listed, and more patients can be supported. Separate from the RDF, MOH will review the clinical and cost-effectiveness of spinal muscular atrophy treatments for subsidies and mainstream financing. In the interim, subsidised patients who face concerns affording these treatments may approach Medical Social Workers to apply for MediFund.”
“MinLaw will work with the relevant stakeholders and working groups to review the feedback received. Mr Speaker, I believe that I have addressed all the questions posed by Members on the Bill. Sir, with that, I beg to move.”
“Some Members asked about how the new framework for provisional PCs will be operationalised, such as the professional indemnity insurance requirements, what happens if a provisional PC is suspended or revoked and how a lawyer (NP)'s fitness to hold a provisional PC will be determined. I had mentioned in my opening speech that the framework for provisional PCs in the Bill is substantively similar to that concerning PCs for advocates and solicitors. It is, therefore, open to the relevant stakeholders to take guidance from existing practices and case law concerning PCs, such as a solicitor's fitness to hold a PC when applying the new provisional PC framework. Further operational details are being worked on by the multi-stakeholder working groups and will be released in due course. Next, several Members have sought clarification on how the moratorium period will be implemented and operationalised, including how breaches will be detected and possible consequences. The multi-stakeholder working group has been discussing these details. As mentioned earlier, this Bill amends the Act to provide flexibility for implementing such details in the future. Before introducing the measures to strictly enforce the moratorium period, the relevant agencies will engage law students and law practices to socialise the change. Several Members have also raised issues not directly covered in the Bill. These touch on implementation and operational details of the Committee's recommendations. For example, the relationship between trainees and supervising solicitors, suggestions for Continuing Professional Development activities and the extension of the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy to support trainees during the lengthened PTP. I thank Members for their comments and suggestions.”
“Support has been offered to the current candidates, including more on-demand video lectures and contact hours, live Q&A segments during Contact Sessions and recordings for candidates to review. MinLaw will continue working with SILE to engage current candidates to understand where the gaps are and what further refinements can be introduced. Next, on allowing up to three months of PTP to be completed at the in-house legal departments of approved non-law practice entities. Members had asked for more details about the application process, the qualifying criteria for these entities and had proposed entities for consideration. This is optional for practice trainees. Further details, including the formal application process and finalised criteria for qualifying entities, will be announced in due course. To provide insight, MinLaw had, in 2019, publicly consulted on the qualifying criteria proposed by the working group. They included suggestions that the entity should: have a minimum of three lawyers doing legal work; have at least one Singapore-qualified lawyer with at least five years of legal experience, either in-house or in active practice, within the last seven years, who will act as supervising counsel to the trainee; and handle a sufficient amount of Singapore law-related work for the trainee to receive meaningful training in Singapore law. The majority of the respondents supported the criteria proposed in the public consultation. The working group will refer to these proposed criteria and Members' suggestions when preparing the subsidiary legislation on the qualifying criteria. Non-law practice entities that wish to offer training opportunities may write to SILE and MinLaw to register their interest in being considered.”
“Today, LSOs and JSOs who wish to be admitted to the Bar can do so after completing their PTP, which is currently 36 months. However, unlike their peers in private practice, LSOs and JSOs are not required to be admitted to the Bar to perform their job functions in the Public Service. Their progression is also not prejudiced or affected by admission to the Bar. Under the new framework, the PTP will be 12 months for all trainees across the industry. Trainees may continue to complete their PTP by working as an LSO or a JSO, or under the supervision of a Qualifying Relevant Legal Officer in the public sector. A review was undertaken of the training programme for LSOs and JSOs. The Committee's report noted that there is little substantive difference in the content or quality of training provided in the public and private sectors. In both cases, the training covers legal skills, professional responsibilities and ethics, etiquette and conduct. This was a key rationale for the change in the PTP period for LSOs and JSOs. Next, several Members raised questions and concerns about implementing the CPTL's recommendation to raise the standards and stringency of the Part B Bar exams. This topic falls outside the scope of the Bill. However, I will comment briefly. This was one of the Committee's key structural recommendations. It was intended to ensure that the quality of the Singapore Bar remains consistently high and to better equip our law graduates. SILE has revamped the Part B Course to include topics that are gaining importance, focus on core principles and mirror the realities of practice. The new Part B Course was introduced in the 2023 session. SILE has received constructive feedback from the industry and current candidates.”
“That said, training SLPs will have to be mindful that charging clients for work done by practice trainees may change the nature of their relationship with the trainee to that of an employment relationship, with attendant CPF and employment tax obligations. Some Members have suggested mandating a minimum honorarium quantum. While MinLaw has considered this, such a measure is prescriptive, introduces rigidity and would need to be constantly reviewed to account for prevailing conditions. The quantum also risks being set above what some small SLPs can afford and may also have the inadvertent effect of reducing the number of training places offered. MinLaw and the Law Society will continue to monitor the industry trends. Further guidance will be released as needed. Next, I will address the issue of leave benefits. MinLaw, SILE and the Law Society are already looking into granting practice trainees leave days and medical leave to support them through their PTP, as part of the overall implementation of the lengthened PTP. More details will be announced in due course. Beyond pay and leave, we also recognise that there are other important factors in ensuring a trainee's mental well-being. The Law Society has led by example by establishing the Law Society Mentorship Scheme and the Young Lawyers Law Mentor Scheme. These schemes provide platforms for law graduates and young lawyers to discuss issues on mental well-being, career development and ethics in full confidentiality with more experienced mentors. Next, Mr Murali Pillai sought clarification on the length of PTP that legal and judicial service officers, or LSOs and JSOs, will be required to complete under the new framework. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum had also asked about completing PTP within the Public Service.”
“It is a symbiotic relationship, where both trainees and supervising solicitors come together to contribute to the continued development of Singapore's legal industry. Through the mentorship and experience gained from being attached to a supervising solicitor, a practice trainee is better equipped to operate independently as a lawyer. On this basis, practice trainees today typically receive honoraria, but do not receive employee benefits, like paid leave or Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions. Training SLPs are often a practice trainee's first taste of legal practice and its accompanying realities and rigours. As ambassadors of the legal industry, it is important for training SLPs and supervising solicitors to support trainees, through the transition from school to legal practice with understanding, patience and fairness. This also sets the tone for a potentially longer-term employment relationship in the foreseeable future. We encourage training SLPs to provide fair and reasonable honoraria that recognises trainees' contributions and allows them to meet their financial obligations. Under the new framework, training SLPs could also choose to grant larger honoraria to trainees with provisional PCs, recognising that they undertake a broader scope of responsibilities. At the same time, we recognise that this needs to be balanced against the potential increased costs to law practices, particularly the smaller SLPs. At present, there is no legislation prohibiting training SLPs from charging out for trainees' work. The Law Society has released guidance on such charging, which could help defray some costs of a longer PTP. Charging out for trainees' work would also recognise trainees' contributions and engender a greater sense of belonging within the profession.”
“This includes the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011, or the Admission Rules, which already provide for the responsibilities of supervising solicitors and training SLPs under practice training contracts; how a practice trainee may serve his or her PTP, including in certain law offices in the Public Service, such as the Public Defender's Office; and flexibility for practice trainees to undertake their practice training with more than one SLP. This recognises that training SLPs may not have the expertise or resources to provide exposure to all the required practice areas. The door is also open for trainees to provide feedback on their training. The Law Society has a dedicated email address and the Members' Assistance and Care Helpline through which it offers career counselling, mentorship, guidance and practical tips to members and law graduates who are seeking to practise law. Several Members have raised the issue of honoraria and leave benefits for practice trainees during the lengthened PTP. Concerns include whether practice trainees are being treated as "cheap" labour; whether during the lengthened PTP, practice trainees from lower-income families or who have additional responsibilities, will face a disproportionate or undue financial burden; and whether practice trainees will "burn out" if they are not given leave benefits. MinLaw understands these concerns. As part of the plan to implement the Committee's recommendations, we have been discussing measures to address them with the working groups. I will, first, cover the issue of honoraria. Practice training is, at its core, an apprenticeship, where aspiring legal practitioners seek out mentors to guide them in the industry and provide opportunities for practical exposure.”
“Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about the need for the new nomenclature of lawyer (NP) and their role in the legal landscape vis-à-vis other legal professionals. Both he and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked if, going forward, in-house legal counsel will need to, first, be admitted as lawyers (NP). The nomenclature of "lawyer (non-practitioner)" was determined after public consultation. It was not intended to replace the term "legal counsel", nor was it intended to introduce new qualification requirements for in-house counsel. Rather, it is to distinguish lawyers (NP) from advocates and solicitors and other individuals, while still recognising them as crucial stakeholders in the legal industry. The nomenclature does not reflect any professional hierarchy; it differentiates who is able to practise in the public's and industry's minds. For existing in-house legal counsel who wish to be admitted as lawyers (NP), this would depend on whether they fall within the transitional arrangements in the Bill. Next, several Members, including Mr Louis Ng and Ms Nadia Samdin raised questions relating to the content and quality of the practice training during the lengthened Practice Training Period, or PTP. On this, I earlier mentioned that the SILE has published a detailed notice on its website outlining the new training requirements. Some of these requirements are already found in subsidiary legislation. MinLaw is working with the multiple stakeholders to amend the subsidiary legislation to include further operational details before the new framework comes into force by July 2024.”
“As I mentioned earlier, this Bill is part of overall efforts to uplift the quality of law students and better prepare a future-ready legal workforce. Whether lawyers practise in a big or small Singapore law practice, or SLP, or in an international firm, their employer, clients and the broader industry will benefit from them having a better-grounded foundation. The first batch of law graduates under the new admission framework will commence their practice training period, or PTP, in January 2025. Upon completing their PTP, they will be better equipped to hit the ground running. Next, I will address questions from Mr Yip and Mr Patrick Tay on whether the recommendations will impact the supply of lawyers in Singapore, including whether there will be adequate practice training places and on retention of aspiring young lawyers in the industry. Uncoupling admission from practice training will allow those who do not intend to practise to pursue other legal roles without investing additional time to complete the PTP. This will, in turn, reduce the competition for practice training positions. The attrition of lawyers is not a new phenomenon. Lawyers have many different options, aside from private practice. These include becoming in-house counsel, joining the Government or legal tech companies or entering academia. We should embrace this. Legal talent is required to support all aspects of Singapore's economy and society. Through this Bill, we hope to better equip future law graduates to seize the myriad of opportunities available. At the same time, for those who choose to, the changes will better prepare and sustain them through the rigours of legal practice.”
“Sir, I thank Members who spoke in support of the Bill. Let me now address the questions that were raised. First, Mr Yip Hon Weng has queried about the relevance of the Bill in our current legal landscape. While the Committee's recommendations were made in 2018, they were based on a longer-term, market-neutral perspective. Earlier, I referred to the recently released Forward SG Report, which stated that Singapore, as a society, wants to recognise and embrace multiple career pathways. The Committee's report in 2018 recognised that the legal profession is a diverse and multi-faceted community with space for persons to contribute in many ways, and that it was important to cater to this. The Committee's recommendations also aimed to ensure overall standards for the professional training of lawyers were lifted. This continues to be relevant today. The existing framework has served Singapore well, training generations of Singapore lawyers who have shaped Singapore's legal industry into the leading legal services hub it is today. But with the operating environment becoming more complex and competitive, it is even more pressing to adequately prepare our legal workforce for the multitude of roles that they may be expected to play in the future. Our world is getting smaller yet increasingly polarised, and the lawyers of tomorrow will need to work collaboratively while embracing diversity, as they engage in more cross-border work. Technology has changed how lawyers work. Legal tech is increasingly used by law firms, in-house legal departments, the Courts and dispute resolution institutions. As consumers become more sophisticated, there is also growing demand for higher-value advice from lawyers.”
“The Court may, considering the applicant’s conduct, character and other relevant circumstances: (a) adjourn the application for a specified period; (b) allow it to be withdrawn; or (c) make any other appropriate order. The second clarifies that a Court of 3 Supreme Court Judges constituted under the Act may conduct or hear a matter through electronic means, unless otherwise prescribed. Similar amendments pertaining to the Supreme Court, State Courts, and Family Justice Courts were made via the Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Act 2021. This amendment is clarificatory in nature and does not introduce new powers. Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the amendments that I have mentioned are part of our efforts to lift the overall standards of the professional training regime for lawyers to develop a future-ready legal workforce. Our operating environment has become more complex and competitive. It remains a top priority to empower our law graduates to build themselves a sustainable and fulfilling career, by offering a breadth of opportunities to them in the legal services sector. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“In the meantime, clauses 26 to 31 of the Bill insert interim provisions for the discipline of lawyers (NP). These interim provisions are based on today’s existing provisions for the discipline of non-practising A&Ses, practice trainees and “part-called” individuals, with adjustments where appropriate. The substance of these interim provisions are subject to change, pending the completion of the review. The amendment at clause 48 of the Bill contains transitional arrangements to implement the changes. As announced by my Ministry earlier in February this year, the new admission framework will take effect from the 2024 session of the Part B Bar Examinations onwards. Individuals who became qualified persons before 1 November 2023 may apply for admission to the Singapore Bar under the current admission framework, if they meet the current requirements and apply for admission as an A&S before the 2024 session of the Part B Examinations. We recognise, however, that some individuals may become qualified persons between 1 November 2023 and 31 January 2024, and are able to complete six months of practice training before the new admission framework is implemented in 2024. They will be able to apply for admission as an A&S under the current admission framework if they pass the Part B examinations by a date prescribed in subsidiary legislation. This prescribed date will be in the second half of 2025. This Bill also makes miscellaneous and technical amendments to the Act and clarifies certain provisions based on stakeholders’ feedback. I will highlight two such amendments. The first clarifies the Court’s powers in an application to be admitted to the Singapore Bar, after the recent incidents of individuals cheating during the Part B examinations.”
“MinLaw has received feedback that law students feel pressured to start competing with their peers for practice training contracts from as early as their first year in law school. The Committee recommended a moratorium period, before which law students cannot apply for practice training contracts and law practices cannot offer them. This would alleviate the law students’ anxieties in the practice training contract application process. Further details on the moratorium’s implementation will be announced in due course. This includes when the moratorium will be introduced, its duration, the relevant criteria for compliance, and the consequences of any breach. The Bill amends the Act to provide flexibility to implement these details in the future. The next set of amendments relate to interim disciplinary provisions. Clauses 25 provides that lawyers (NP) are officers of the Supreme Court. Just like A&Ses, lawyers (NP) will be subject to the disciplinary proceedings framework in Part 7 of the Act. In this regard, MinLaw is currently conducting a broader review of the Act’s disciplinary proceedings framework as a whole, with a view towards further legislative amendments in the future. This review takes into account recent developments in the case law, as well as feedback from various stakeholders on the Act’s existing provisions. In doing so, MinLaw aims to ensure that the law is clear, that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are conducted expeditiously and fairly, and that the Act continues to engender public trust in the legal profession. This review is complex. Members who are lawyers will appreciate how the Act’s various discipline-related provisions are inter-connected. MinLaw will require more time to complete the review, including consulting relevant stakeholders.”
“Clause 12 also sets out the power of the Attorney-General, the Registrar of the Supreme Court, and the Council of the Law Society of Singapore in respect of the issue of provisional PCs and the imposition of any further conditions thereof. It also sets out when an application for a provisional PC may be refused, and when a provisional PC may be suspended or cancelled. Provision is also made for appeals against the Registrar’s decisions in provisional PC applications, and to introduce measures concerning a lawyer (NP)’s fitness to practise provisionally and when a lawyer (NP) is disqualified from applying for a provisional PC. These are substantively similar to the corresponding provisions in the LPA concerning PCs and A&Ses. The next amendment in the Bill provides flexibility for practice trainees to complete up to three months of their practice training at approved in-house legal departments of approved non-law practice entities. This expands the training options for practice trainees and can add to their breadth of practical and commercial experience, so that they are better able to meet the needs of the businesses. To ensure that these practice trainees receive proper supervision and training within the in-house legal department, an approved non-law practice entity must be of a minimum size and handle a reasonable amount of Singapore law-related work. The SILE, in consultation with the working group, is working through the applicable criteria. These criteria will be prescribed in the subsidiary legislation. A further amendment relates to the moratorium for practice training contract applications. At present, the search for practice training contracts is highly competitive.”
“It outlines the new training requirements and options available to law graduates seeking to complete their practice training period. MinLaw is aware of industry concerns surrounding the lengthened practice training period, including the additional strain this may place on both future practice trainees and law practices seeking to offer practice training contracts. MinLaw is working closely with the SILE and the Law Society on these concerns. Areas that we are looking into include arrangements for leave days and medical leave, and renumeration for practice trainees commensurate with their contributions during their training period. Another amendment relates to providing trainees the option to practise provisionally under supervision. Clause 12 introduces a framework for “Provisional Practising Certificates”, or provisional PC. A lawyer (NP) who is a practice trainee may apply for a provisional PC after completing at least six months of practice training. This will replace the existing “part-call” regime, which only permits practice trainees to have restricted rights of audience to appear and plead before the Courts. The provisional PC provides exposure to a broader variety of experiences that more closely reflect the realities and rigours of private practice. A practice trainee who has a provisional PC will be able to undertake work that a practising A&S may do – for example, appear and plead in Court, and render legal advice to clients – provided this is done under the supervision of his or her supervising solicitor. This will contribute to building a stronger foundation for young lawyers who are starting their legal careers and can provide a smoother transition to independent practice.”
“While this change will be given effect to via upcoming amendments to the subsidiary legislation, I would like to mention this briefly, so that Members have an overall picture of the changes. This change is only one example of consistent efforts to holistically lift the standards of the legal industry. My Ministry is also involved in ongoing reviews in other aspects covering areas such as legal education, and ethics and professional standards of lawyers. These reviews aim to enhance the quality of the legal workforce and complement the Committee’s recommendations. In an increasingly complex and competitive operating environment, there is a greater demand for legal professionals that provide high-quality advice and solutions to clients with multi-faceted problems. One key objective is to produce law graduates who will be equipped with the necessary skill sets and be better prepared to enter into the legal workforce. In conjunction with these efforts, the lengthened practice training period will: give practice trainees a longer period of direct mentorship to develop a strong foundation for a sustainable and fulfilling career in legal practice; better equip practice trainees for entry into private practice through greater exposure to a range of practice areas; and allow law practices to make a more holistic assessment of trainees’ performance. In other jurisdictions like France, Germany and Hong Kong, there is also emphasis on the practice training to complement formal education where solicitors are required to undergo two years of training. The SILE has published a detailed Notice on New Admission Regime on their website. The Notice captures the proposals from the multi-stakeholder working groups.”
“We are committed to recognising that there are diverse pathways that are available for our lawyers to develop their full potential. Hence, this change will allow law graduates who do not wish to practise to embark on their chosen career pathways sooner. A lawyer (NP)’s rights and obligations will be similar to a non-practising A&S who does not have in force a Practising Certificate (PC). For example, lawyers (NP) may work as in-house counsel and may provide pro bono or free legal advice. They will also be members of the Singapore Academy of Law and be members of the Law Society of Singapore. Lawyers (NP) will also be officers of the court, like A&Ses today, and subject to the disciplinary oversight of the Courts. Furthermore, under Clause 16 of the Bill, a lawyer (NP) who is employed by a law practice, but is not a practice trainee and who does not have a provisional PC, may be registered as a regulated non-practitioner under section 36G of the Act. Such registration will be subject to the prevailing framework for regulated non-practitioners, including being entitled to be a director, partner or shareholder of a law firm or similar entity. I will elaborate on provisional PCs later on. Similarly, the Bill will also permit non-practising A&Ses to be registered as regulated non-practitioners, subject to the prevailing requirements. This acknowledges that an individual who is admitted to the Singapore Bar, can contribute to a law practice even if he or she does not practise. Moving on, I also wish to highlight that the Committee also recommended lengthening the practice training period, which is currently a minimum of six months, to one year.”
“Law graduates who pass the Part B examinations can now be admitted to the Singapore Bar as a lawyer (non-practitioner), or lawyer (NP), without needing to complete the prescribed practice training period. A lawyer (NP) does not have the right to practise in law firms and similar entities; instead a lawyer (NP) can adopt alternative pathways such as becoming in-house counsel or in academia. The prescribed practice training period remains compulsory for a lawyer (NP) who wishes to practise law in a law firm or similar entity. Such a lawyer (NP) may be admitted as an A&S and will have the rights and obligations of one after the completion of the prescribed practice training period. This enhancement to the admission framework recognises that a legal education can lead to different legal career pathways. MinLaw remains focused on developing a strong core of practising lawyers to serve Singapore's society and to provide high quality legal services to enhance our business environment. However, our reality is one of a fast-changing operating environment and we need legal talent to support all aspects of our economy and society. Law graduates can join in-house counsel teams, legal tech companies or enter academia. They can contribute to the legal services sector and in other sectors which may benefit from legal expertise in a variety of roles and functions. For those who do not intend to practise, this change allows them to be admitted to the Singapore Bar earlier, since they do not need to complete practice training. This also frees up more practice training contracts for those who intend to practise law. As highlighted in the Forward SG report, one of our shared visions is to embrace a wider variety of career pathways.”
“The respondents comprised a good mix of practitioners, in-house counsel, law students, young lawyers and members of the public. The majority supported the working group's proposals. This Bill contains amendments to implement these recommendations by the Committee: (a) decouple admission to the Singapore Bar from the completion of practice training contracts; (b) lengthen the practice training period from six months to one year; (c) confer on practice trainees limited rights to practise after six months of training; (d) permit up to three months of the practice training period to be completed at approved in-house legal departments of approved corporations; and (e) introduce a moratorium for practice training contract applications. I will now cover each of the key amendments in turn. The rest of the Committee's recommendations will be implemented progressively via guidance notes and industry announcements, in consultation with the relevant stakeholders from the working group. I will start with the amendment in relation to decoupling admission to the Singapore Bar from the completion of practice training contracts. The existing framework for admission to the Singapore Bar as an Advocate and Solicitor (A&S) requires law graduates to, amongst other requirements, pass Part B of the Singapore Bar Examinations (the Part B examinations) and complete a prescribed practice training period. During the practice training period, the law graduate receives supervised training in relation to the practice of Singapore law under a formal training arrangement. This formal training arrangement between a law graduate and a Singapore law practice is known as a "practice training contract". Clause 6 of the Bill introduces a new category of individuals.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill contains amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1966 to lift the overall standards of the professional training regime for lawyers, following the work of the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers (the Committee) and to make other miscellaneous and technical amendments. The Committee was set up by the honourable Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon in August 2016 to conduct a root-and-branch review of the professional training regime for lawyers. This review was aimed at raising the quality and consistency of training standards across the industry. The Committee was chaired by Justice Quentin Loh and comprised 14 other members including representatives from the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General's Chambers, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw), the Law Society of Singapore, the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association and various Singapore law practices. A working group comprising representatives from MinLaw, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE), the Supreme Court and the Law Society of Singapore was subsequently set up to implement and operationalise the Committee's recommendations, which my Ministry had accepted in-principle. A separate working group was established by the SILE to implement the Committee's recommendations on Part B and practice training. This working group comprises representatives from the SILE's Board, Singapore law practices, the three local law schools, the Law Society, the Singapore Academy of Law, the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association, the Attorney-General's Chambers and MinLaw. In 2019, MinLaw conducted a public consultation on the working group's proposals for implementing the Committee's recommendations.”
“Thank you for the question. As I explained to Dr Lim earlier, I do not have the specific numbers and data here and I will be happy to answer the question if the Member files an additional question. But earlier, I also alluded to the different numbers and the different parties that we have been working with and the uptake on that front. We are continuing in these efforts. I think this is all hands on deck and a multi-pronged approach, upstream approach on this. If we do work with the suppliers, the costs then need not be transferred to the hawkers, to the restaurants, all consumers will also not be affected. So, I hope that something is that we can get Members to also continue to share and encourage – these are different groups that we are talking about. We are working upstream, but at the same time, we also need the community to avail themselves to some of these products. Because as you know, when there is a higher demand for healthier food, for low-sodium options, this will also encourage the food service providers to move towards this direction. So, I hope that there will be a whole-of-community support in this effort.”
“As how we had approached it with the lower sugar effort, I think we are going to look at the market and see how we can do this better. It will probably come in phases because, as the Member knows, we need to prepare the operators and the providers as well. So, this is something that we will announce as we roll it out and hopefully, we bring the whole community with us on this.”
“So, if there is anything to go by, these are healthy numbers which show growing appreciation and support for these efforts, and HPB has also garnered the commitment of major manufacturers and leaders in the food service sector to reduce sodium in their products and their food. So, this I think is something that we are going to continue to build on. The third prong of this effort is, of course, our public education and that is important because it is not just the upstream and the supply but also public. So, there is going to be efforts that we are going to be complementing. As I mentioned earlier, there are going to be campaigns. There has been actually a campaign, and this is a multi-year public education campaign to raise awareness of the effects of high sodium intake, educate public on the available lower-sodium alternatives and ways to actually replace salt totally without compromising on taste. So, we are looking at a multi-pronged upstream effort, which we hope will then change the ecosystem and have everybody on board in this effort.”
“I thank the Member for the questions. I do not have the specific numbers and the data that the Member has requested. But if he so wishes, he can file another Parliamentary Question and I can provide information. I want to explain that we are cognisant of the concerns of consumers, especially in relation to the cost, as we move to the lower -sodium products. And we actually take a multi-pronged approach and an upstream approach in this to ensure that various stakeholders are with us and therefore will help alleviate the issues of cost. Firstly, as I mentioned, the HPB has been offering grant support to suppliers to reformulate their products through the HIDS and this includes salt and sauce suppliers. With this grant, the wholesale prices of low-sodium salt, low-sodium sauces have actually reduced. Actually, all of the low-sodium salt is comparable now with the regular salt and half of the low-sodium sauces supplied in the market are comparable to the prices of the regular products. And now, we are still working on how we can enhance existing schemes further so that we can narrow this price differential even further especially for the low-sodium sauces as compared to the regular sauces. Secondly, we are also now involving the different suppliers on board to supply the lower-sodium salt to the food sectors and actually, in total, these three suppliers supply close to half of the food service salt market share. That includes 250 hawkers, coffeeshops and food courts island-wide, as well as about 150 caterers that are already using the lower-sodium products.”