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 14 of 26.
“For civil legal aid, since 1958, the Government has been delivering aid to deserving cases. For criminal legal aid, the broad principle, for a long time, was that the Government should not pay to defend accused persons, except in capital cases. Over the years, we have moved to fund a part of the costs. In 2015, the Government started funding the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) directly. Last year, the Government decided to do more, establishing the PDO. The PDO, set up in December 2022, increases access to justice. The coverage of criminal defence aid has been expanded to the bottom 35% of resident households and covers offences in all but 10 Acts. Responding to Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Thomas, I am glad to share that the PDO has started off smoothly. Thirteen public defenders have been hired. As of 31 January 2023, more than 250 applications have been received. Of about 130 applications which have completed assessment, about 60 applications have been assessed to be eligible for criminal defence aid. The PDO also collaborates closely with Pro Bono SG to co-deliver criminal defence aid, ensuring it is administered efficiently and that we minimise duplication. For example, all applications for criminal defence aid by Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) are assessed by PDO. Then, there is a two-step process that determines which cases go to PDO or CLAS. Urgent cases are assigned to PDO. This ensures timely legal representation is provided. The remaining bulk of cases are shared between PDO and CLAS. The actual cases will be assigned based on the relative workload and capacity of PDO and CLAS, to ensure resources of both are used efficiently.”
“Mdm Chairperson, I will focus on two of MinLaw's themes: enhancing the trust, relevance and accessibility of the legal system; and optimising land use through greater collaboration and the use of technology. Our legal system is a cornerstone of society that allows us to thrive economically and maintain order and justice. MinLaw is, therefore, committed to bringing a better quality of life for our people through enhancements to the legal system. Today, I will elaborate on efforts to increase access to justice, support individuals navigating family justice processes, make enforcement of judgments cheaper and easier, and utilise technology to enhance legal processes. Being able to access the legal system is a pillar of the rule of law. Our efforts are channelled towards two areas. First, supporting vulnerable groups that require legal assistance. Besides the Community Law Centre that Minister Tong shared, there are other forms of legal aid and assistance provided by non-Government partners, some of which are available to foreigners. There are about 70 legal clinics run by various community, religious and voluntary welfare organisations. For instance, the Migrant Worker Legal Clinics was launched by Pro Bono SG, in partnership with other members of the Migrant Workers' Group. MinLaw is also working with Pro Bono SG and others to develop a one-stop portal to provide legal information and connect users to additional resources and assistance. It will also enable better coordination of legal clinics, such that legal advice will be more accessible. We welcome Mr Raj Joshua Thomas' comments and will continue to strengthen the network of support. Second, we continually review Singaporeans' level of access to legal help and representation in Court.”
“I thank the Member for raising this issue. I note the concern, but there was a Parliamentary Question that had been raised previously. And insofar as to those who are 65 years old and above, the amount left in their MediSave is also not that high. So, although we do see some with large amounts left, in general, we believe a larger number do not have excessively high amounts, of more than $10,000. That is one point. The second thing is that we allow MediSave to be withdrawn in a lump sum for those who are terminally ill, up to a minimum balance of $5,000, under the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board's Reduced Life Expectancy Terminally Ill scheme. So, this is something that they could avail themselves to, if there are situations where there are members who have terminal illnesses. And also, over the years, MOH has expanded MediSave, to allow for more flexibility for the elderly to use for their healthcare needs. For example, we have lowered the age for Flexi-MediSave from 65 to 60 in 2018, and we also increase the withdrawal limit from $200 to $300 per year in 2021, so that more can use Flexi-MediSave for outpatient treatments. This is all the top of the MediSave 500/700 that was also enhanced for chronic treatments, specifically. But I note the concerns and we will continue to review the use of MediSave to strike the balance between affordability and ensuring that Singaporeans have sufficient savings for healthcare needs in old age.”
“Mr Speaker, MediSave helps Singaporeans set aside part of their income over their working years, to save up for healthcare expenses in their old age. It is, therefore, more instructive to look at MediSave balances at the point of death for Singaporeans who lived till an advanced age. For Singaporeans who passed away aged 85 or older, between 2017 and 2021, about two in 10 had $1,000 or less; five in 10 had between $1,000 and $10,000; about one in 10 had between $10,000 and $20,000, $20,000 and $30,000, and more than $30,000 left in their MediSave accounts, at the point of death respectively.”
“I thank the Member for the question. I want to reiterate the point that I made earlier which is: as a function of endemicity, we have to go back to status quo. That means that there is no special treatment given for COVID-19 as an illness. We will continue as per normal in providing the services and all these, any changes or any developments, we will continue to provide advisory to the residents and to people at large. Generally, what we hope to see, is basically people taking care of their own health, their responsibility for that and continue to follow the advisory. For example, we have issued an advisory for the vulnerable group, recently, in February, encouraging them to take the booster and for those who are immunocompromised to do so as well. The issue about the concerns with regards to costs, same thing, we always had a framework of subsidy and support, as I mentioned earlier, S+3M and this will continue. Those who are concerned about that, I think they do not have to be concerned because whenever you have difficulties making payment for your bills, there is always that support that is available and we want to assure that that remains true.”
“We are able to transit to DORSCON Green because of the strong resilience built up through hybrid immunity of vaccinations and safe recovery from COVID-19. This means we are no longer treating COVID-19 as a special category of disease, with special clinical protocols and subsidies. Hence, like all diseases, doctors will treat COVID-19 patients based on their clinical assessment and severity of illness. This means they will also charge treatment fees similar to other acute respiratory diseases, which is currently about $20 to $35 for subsidised patients at the polyclinics. Patients with lasting symptoms – that is, long COVID-19 – will be cared for and supported in the same way as patients experiencing lingering effects of other respiratory diseases. All patients with infectious diseases, COVID-19 or otherwise, will be encouraged to seek treatment promptly and exercise social responsibility. It is noteworthy that after three years of the pandemic, the vast majority of COVID-19 patients experience mild symptoms and are not expected to require a hospital admission. For the minority that require an inpatient admission, they will be supported by our S+3M framework, that is, subsidies, MediShield Life, MediSave and MediFund. The Member asked what other assistance are available that is beyond S+3M. The fact is S+3M is already designed to fully cover the bills for patients with financial difficulties. To illustrate, for a patient who is admitted to a C class ward for COVID-19, the median co-payment after subsidies and MediShield Life is about $700, which patients can pay for using their MediSave. For those who are unable to use MediSave and have difficulty with cash payment, there is MediFund to help. The same applies to ICU stay, which is very rare for COVID-19 patients now.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 4 to 6 in today's Order Paper together?”
“I thank the Member for raising this issue which I think is important to the workers. I appreciate the point raised and perhaps what may be useful is to also understand the specific case in concern. There is that approval process and if it does appear that there is likelihood of success, it is something for the agency to think about. But I do appreciate the point made that this may be a bit challenging. We will take this back to see how we can facilitate the process even better.”
“Mr Speaker, an undischarged bankrupt is not required to seek the approval of the Official Assignee (OA) or a private trustee in bankruptcy, as the case may be, before he can file an employment claim at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM). If the mediation at the TADM is unsuccessful, the claimant will be issued with a claim referral certificate with which he may then file a claim at the Employment Claims Tribunals. If he chooses to do so, under the Bankruptcy Act or the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, whichever is applicable, the bankrupt needs to apply to the OA or a private trustee in bankruptcy for a sanction. This requirement exists to protect the bankruptcy estate and hence, the interests of the bankrupt’s creditors, from costs that may be incurred by the bankrupt bringing or defending actions that are frivolous or legally unmeritorious.”
“A compliance bond may contain conditions, such as requiring the person who put up the bond – for example, a family member of the respondent – to ensure that the respondent undergoes medical assessment and treatment. If the respondent continues to engage in acts of unreasonable interference and breaches the Special Direction, then this is an offence. If convicted, the sentencing Court may, if appropriate, issue a Mandatory Treatment Order (MTO) to the respondent. An inter-agency committee is currently reviewing the Community Dispute Management Framework. As part of this review, the Committee is studying how to better address neighbour disputes that may be due, at least in some part, to the mental health condition of a resident, including whether the CDRT should be empowered to make MTOs. The Committee will provide more details of the review in due course.”
“Mr Speaker, the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) takes a multifaceted approach to managing cases where there is reason to believe that a party may be suffering from a medical condition, that may have contributed to a neighbour dispute. In appropriate cases, the CDRT may require court psychologists and counsellors from the State Courts' Centre for Specialist Services (CSS) to make a preliminary assessment of an individual's mental health, if there are signs to suggest that the individual may have an underlying mental health condition. If the individual refuses to attend the counselling session, the CDRT may require the individual to attend counselling. The CSS can then provide input to the Judge on whether the individual would benefit from a referral to a psychiatrist from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). In appropriate cases, CSS may also encourage the individual to approach one of the Family Service Centres or the Agency for Integrated Care to seek referrals for medical care or social services. Depending on the nature of the case, the CDRT can require the attendance of a party's family member during the court proceedings and encourage the relevant party to seek treatment for the medical condition. In cases that proceed to trial, the CDRT may issue an order requiring a respondent to cease his or her acts of unreasonable interference. If this order is not complied with, the CDRT may then also issue a Special Direction to the respondent requiring compliance. In addition to issuing a Special Direction, the CDRT can also require a third party to enter into a compliance bond, which may be forfeited if the respondent breaches the Special Direction.”
“I thank the Member for the query. We can address some of these issues as they come along. And when we are ready, we can and will make the appropriate announcements of the changes that will impact these residents.”
“Mr Speaker. Healthier SG is the correct policy to focus on to reduce the prevalence of diseases as our population ages. It is too early to give a robust budgetary estimate. The work has just begun, and the focus now is to get everyone on board and making sure everyone understands and buys into the mission objective.”
“I thank Member for his question. Indeed, it is a problem that we are also very concerned about, which is why we are working very closely with the different partners at different parts of the equation. Upstream, HSA is looking at enforcement, looking at the online social media spaces, we are looking also – sorry, at the social media platforms. We are working with ICA to stop the illegal imports and with schools, HPB is also working in educating students about the harms of vaping. So, this is an ongoing review that we are looking at. There is a larger effort in looking at the tobacco control measures. This is something that we probably have to take multi-faceted approach and also to walk together with the public. This awareness is something that we have to push through a lot more. There is a lot of misconceptions about the vaping being, perhaps, less harmful. It is actually a starter product that actually opens up doors to tobacco consumption and smoking and we need to have a harder push but we need efforts from all fronts – from parents, from teachers, from schools, from the community to encourage this effort. We are also rolling out a digital vape-free campaign and we are also hoping to get support from the community on this. Hopefully, with all these efforts, we will be able to build greater awareness and create better enforcement so that we can reduce the incidence of vaping amongst our young.”
“The harms relating to e-vaporisers are clear and Ministry of Health (MOH) takes a multi-pronged approach to curb the illicit sales and use. The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) oversees enforcements and works closely with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) in relation to illegal imports of e-vaporisers. In schools, MOH and the Health Promotion Board (HPB) work with the Ministry of Education to raise awareness about the harms of vaping and encourage children and youths to lead a nicotine-free lifestyle. Schools take a serious view of vaping. However, we have seen a worrying trend in the increasing use of e-vaporisers both locally and globally which could be attributed to the packaging and the variety of attractive flavours and scents and the easy access to e-vaporisers through e-commerce. There are also common misconceptions regarding the harm of e-vaporisers. MOH is closely monitoring the use of e-vaporisers and reviewing the strategy against vaping. We will work with our partners to strengthen both enforcement and education measures to curb e-vaporiser use.”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 16 and 17 in today's Order Paper together?”
“Mr Speaker, in respect of other areas with higher footfall, it is something that we can certainly take into account and encourage them to install. However, in relation to the mandatory installation which is being proposed, mandatory installation entails regulation, enforcement and other resources that has to be put in place. At this juncture, drinking water is potable and it is something that is available largely from taps and that might not be the direction that we are heading to at this juncture. Having said that I do see the importance of actually encouraging hydration, but our healthy lifestyle strategies are quite multi-faceted, and we are looking at various dimensions to increase awareness and also implementation of nudges for healthy lifestyle behaviours to the public.”
“The Ministry of Health (MOH) has worked with the National Environment Agency (NEA), Housing and Development Board (HDB), Land Transport Authority (LTA) and National Parks Board (NParks) to increase the availability of water dispensers. They are now installed at all hawker centres, and are also available at parks, bus interchanges and terminals. Owners of other premises are also encouraged to install water dispensers and water coolers.”
“We are not closed to the different modalities of engagements, so we will consider this as part of our efforts in getting and gathering feedback from the public.”
“The Ministry of Health (MOH) is reviewing the feasibility of a generational ban on tobacco, also known as Tobacco-Free Generation policy, as part of our tobacco control strategy. We thank Mr Louis Ng for his suggestion. As part of the review, we will consider public consultation or other engagement to gather feedback from the population on potential new tobacco control policies, which may be implemented.”
“Specifically, the Member may be aware of the Appropriate Adult Scheme for Persons with Mental Disabilities (AAPMD) which was introduced in 2015 to support persons with mental or intellectual disabilities during law enforcement interviews. AAPMD is administered by the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore (MINDS). Under this scheme, an Appropriate Adult who is a trained volunteer is present during interviews to facilitate communications between the IO and the person with mental or intellectual disability. The Appropriate Adult watches for signs of distress, supports the emotional well-being of the person and assists in communication. These are some of the areas that we can continue to highlight to the parents who are involved. They are understandably anxious when these things happen and typically all rationality goes out the window because you are very worried. So, this is something we can look into. I will take this back as feedback and see what avenues we can continue to enhance the understanding of this. If there are specific cases, please feel free to refer them to us and we will see how we can assist.”
“I thank the Member for the feedback and I am sure the Member is familiar with some of the efforts that we have put in place. But maybe for the assurance of the Members of this House as well as to the public, perhaps, I could repeat some of the efforts that have been put in place in attending to these matters. Firstly, the training of frontline officers. Police officers who deal with persons with disabilities during investigations are trained to identify to deal emphatically. They are also trained to spot the behavioural indicators associated with mental disabilities and to engage them sensitively. They undergo a mental health awareness course developed by the Agency for Integrated Care for Government agencies to train their staff in managing persons with mental health conditions, including persons with dementia. This helps the officers become more aware of the signs and symptoms, and guides them in communicating with persons of these conditions. As part of their core skills training, the investigation officers (IOs) learn the protocols to handle persons with mental disabilities. All these officers also undergo training to continuously shore up their skills. These programmes ensure the IOs are proficient in required investigation procedures and protocols, including those relating to the handling of persons with mental disabilities. So, firstly, there is training. But apart from training, there is also a set of internal standard operating procedures when dealing with persons with mental disabilities. The focus is to accord additional protection to such persons and ensure that they are supported throughout the investigation process.”
“However, taking into account his mental condition, the Prosecution submitted for a mandatory treatment order to be imposed against the offender, which required the offender to undergo psychiatric treatment in lieu of imprisonment or a fine. Ultimately, the Public Prosecutor’s exercise of discretion as to whether to charge a person, including a person with a mental condition or disability, is a fact-dependent exercise.”
“Mr Speaker, the responsibility for deciding whether to charge a person is vested in the Public Prosecutor, who exercises prosecutorial discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence. In deciding whether to charge a person, the Public Prosecutor will consider the facts, the sufficiency of evidence and the public interest. This will involve a careful weighing of a wide range of factors, including the circumstances of the alleged offence and the person. Where the person has a mental condition or disability, the Public Prosecutor will consider the nature of the mental condition or disability, its severity and the connection, if any, between the mental condition or disability and the alleged offence. Where appropriate, for example, where the person has no criminal history, the alleged offence is not serious and the person's culpability is lowered as a result of his mental condition or disability, the Public Prosecutor may decide to issue a warning, instead of charging the person. This may, in some cases, also involve a referral for treatment at facilities such as the Institute of Mental Health. If the Public Prosecutor decides to charge the person, the Public Prosecutor’s charging and sentencing position may be calibrated to take into account the person’s mental condition or disability. To illustrate, in a 2020 case, a 21-year-old offender committed offences of theft of an SCDF vehicle, cheating and causing hurt to another person by performing a rash act. He was diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder, a serious form of long-term major mental illness, which contributed to his offending. The Prosecution decided to charge him, considering that the offences were not minor.”
“To answer the question, yes, we are aware that this is an important concern of the foreign nurses, and yes, this is something that we are looking into specifically as well.”
“Mr Speaker, MOH and MOM recognise that the healthcare sector needs foreign nurses and support care staff to augment the nursing workforce, to meet our growing healthcare needs. Hence, additional work pass quotas and greater flexibility to recruit foreign nurses and support care staff from non-traditional sources, have been allocated to the healthcare sector. These measures have been used very judiciously by the sector.”
“I can assure the Member that these issues are alive. We constantly look into it. As Mr Liang alluded to, we are rolling out Healthier SG and different components of Healthier SG are things we are constantly looking at. These are things that are currently being reviewed, as we speak. We have already announced that there is going to be a campaign against vaping, coming up in the first part of this year. Everything is running according to timeline. We do need to see, insofar as what happens in other countries, what the outcomes there are. As it stands, we are already constantly reviewing, constantly taking in feedback from partners that we are working with to see how best we can implement this.”
“I thank the Member for the question. As mentioned, we are not closing our minds to this. In fact, we are reviewing it but we are also learning to see how it is going to be effective in our context. For a ban to be completely effective at curbing access to tobacco products for the affected cohorts, we need to introduce laws to penalise older persons who are not subject to the ban but they may abetting or supplying the products. At this juncture, if we are looking New Zealand, they are actually not banning vaping and we have a certain strong position on vaping because we know that that is the start to a lot of the addiction to tobacco. We are not closing to door to this. We already have many measures in place. As with everything, we want to make sure that it is effective because it is also the implementation, the resources that we have to put in. We must make that whatever, we do generates the outcome that we desire and we are not just paying lip service to it. That is where the effort is being put; to see, in conjunction with all the things that are already in place, how effective can this be and how can we tweak it to suit the purposes that we need at this juncture.”
“Besides New Zealand, I believe Denmark, Malaysia and the UK have also announced their intent to introduce and implement this policy, but there are no details yet on these countries' legislation or timeline for implementation. As Dr Lim Wee Kiak rightly pointed out, it is not that we are not doing anything. There are a lot of other things, including legislation and all that. We have to look at all these concurrently and see what is the impact it has made over the past few years. In respect of that particular issue, it is something that we will constantly review to see what is the effectiveness of doing so, in light of all the different measures that we have already in place.”
“MOH is continually reviewing and enhancing our anti-smoking measures. This includes studying international practices and ideas on how to further reduce smoking prevalence. New Zealand has introduced legislation to implement a tobacco cohort ban. It has, however, not banned vaping, unlike Singapore. We will study further on whether New Zealand’s implementation approach is feasible in Singapore, as the implementation of the ban in New Zealand will be limited to retail sale to affected cohorts. Therefore, affected cohorts will still be able to smoke cigarettes that are supplied by their peers or others who are not from the affected cohorts. The tobacco-free generation policy in New Zealand will have a longer-term goal of denormalising smoking rather than completely curbing access to tobacco products in the short term. Nevertheless, it is an interesting policy move that is worth studying further to see if it is appropriate and effective in Singapore’s context.”
“Mr Speaker, before I begin, may I wish you a "Happy Birthday", as it is your birthday today? [Applause.] Speaker, may I answer Question Nos 1 and 2 together?”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Rahayu Mahzam]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Our concern with unauthorised cultivation and plantings on state land is that these can create potential health hazards, such as mosquito breeding hotspots, and impede the maintenance of state land. Unauthorised use of state land for activities can also affect public safety and, potentially, damage the land. Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe I have addressed the salient issues raised by Members relating to provisions within the scope of the Bill. Separately, there were a number of comments relating to matters outside the ambit of this Bill. First, I thank Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin for her suggestion on the vesting of land to facilitate maintenance. Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin may wish to file a separate Parliamentary Question on this matter. We will help provide her feedback to the relevant agencies. Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin also spoke about increasing protection for Singapore’s marine spaces, in particular, for the Southern Islands. While the question of marine spaces is not within the scope of this Bill, I agree that this is an important issue which should be further studied and we will convey her feedback to the relevant agencies. SLA will also consider her suggestions in its management of the Southern Islands. Generally, the enhanced enforcement framework under the Bill will also better support SLA in protecting state land in the Southern Islands from unauthorised use and damage. I thank the Members who spoke in support of the Bill, and I believe I have addressed their questions and suggestions. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with that, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.”
“This is similar to the current process under the State Lands Encroachments Act. In addition, as mentioned in my opening speech, SLA will also now publish the notice in the four official languages in major local newspapers, including the digital versions. This improves upon the current process, where SLA affixes the physical notice on the land, as greater publicity can be secured through publishing the notice in the local media. This includes cases where the potential claimants are not physically in Singapore. Even after the land is forfeited, any person who can establish a claim to the satisfaction of SLA, within six years from the date of forfeiture, can still be entitled to receive compensation for the value of the land. Taking this into consideration, potential claimants should have sufficient time within which they can claim compensation for their interest in the land. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how we will strike a balance between protecting state land from unauthorised use and facilitating community use of state land. As Members would be well aware, Singapore has limited land resources. As custodian of our state land and properties, SLA is also continually looking for innovative ways in which our state land can be used to benefit the community. Where there are suitable vacant state lands which are not required for immediate development, SLA will also work with other agencies to put out these sites for public recreational activities. The current list of these Community Use Sites can be found on SLA’s website. The Member has also mentioned NParks’ Community in Bloom initiative. We encourage members of the public to take advantage of these initiatives.”
“In such cases, SLA will coordinate with the relevant agencies to consider the options available to address these concerns, even before the forfeiture process is completed. The cases of abandoned land that we have encountered thus far involve mainly isolated strips of land like back or side lanes. These are, typically, incapable of independent redevelopment. On Mr Yip Hon Weng’s query on the type of land that qualifies for forfeiture under the Bill, land is deemed to be abandoned and forfeited when no claims are established to it within the stipulated claim period. In other words, the lack of development of a piece of land does not, in itself, allow the state to forfeit the land. Also, for cases involving land owned by deceased individuals without beneficiaries, such as the Upper Thomson Road case cited by the Member, the Government becomes entitled to the land, pursuant to the Intestate Succession Act 1967. The Public Trustee's Office has separate existing procedures to dispose of the land that has so accrued to the Government, in accordance with the Civil Law Act 1909 and the Probate and Administration Act 1934. As for Mr Louis Ng and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin’s queries on the process for determining if land is abandoned, SLA will carry out checks with agencies, such as the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, to trace the whereabouts of the owners. SLA will only commence the forfeiture process if it appears that the land has been abandoned for three years or more and the owners cannot be traced from SLA’s checks. To Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin’s question on the resumption notice, as mentioned in my speech earlier, a declaration will be made in the Government Gazette.”
“We have taken efforts to streamline our touchpoints with the public and to address their feedback effectively and efficiently. For instance, members of public can report or clarify state land issues using the OneService app, which is a one-stop platform where residents can provide feedback on municipal issues, without having to figure out which Government agency to contact. SLA will then follow up on any feedback or clarifications relating to state land issues. In addition, members of the public can also contact SLA’s hotline to report any unauthorised use of state land. SLA will assist to direct feedback to the relevant agency if it is not within SLA’s purview. Mr Louis Ng, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the process of forfeiture. Forfeiture of land is uncommon. We have encountered about five cases in the past 10 years. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we recognise that the issue of forfeiture should not be taken lightly as it involves private owners' rights. To address Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng’s questions, in general, we do not actively identify abandoned land to pursue resumption. We, typically, take action when alerted to pieces of abandoned land that could pose a hazard to public safety or health. This could arise from public feedback on maintenance and safety issues, as pointed out by Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin. The reduced claim period will help to expedite the forfeiture process, so that agencies can commence any necessary works to address safety and health issues on the abandoned land. Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin also highlighted situations where there are pressing concerns, such as dengue, which might require a quicker response.”
“As stated in clause 26, subsection (3), if officers do not declare their office or produce their identification card when asked, it is not an offence for any person to refuse to comply with their orders. These provisions are directed at preventing illegal trespassing and scams, such as what Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin had described. On the issue of public awareness and feedback, I thank Mr Yip Hong Weng for his suggestion to leverage the use of technology in interfacing with the public on state land issues. Indeed, OneMap is an example of our multi-agency effort to provide reliable, timely and accurate location-based information and services to the public. While SLA does not have data specifically on how often the public uses information from OneMap to provide feedback on state land, SLA does track the usage of OneMap. SLA regularly promotes OneMap through various social media channels. It has also broadened its efforts to raise awareness of the services on OneMap to industry and members of the public. For example, SLA has signed collaborative Memoranda of Understanding with industry players, such as real estate agencies, developers and business chambers, to promote the use of geospatial solutions. SLA will continue to review ways to raise awareness of OneMap. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin also raised important considerations about coordination between agencies and adopting a resident-centric approach in resolving land-related issues. When the maintenance of land straddles the purview of multiple agencies, we will ensure that agencies coordinate our responses such that the issues relating to state land are resolved promptly. We recognise that it can sometimes be confusing for members of the public to identify the agency-in-charge.”
“Apart from the process for objection, the Member's concern may also relate more broadly to whether there is sufficient notice given before matters are escalated to the point of legal action. As I have mentioned earlier, SLA, typically, engages those encroaching on state land before commencing any enforcement action. Most encroachment cases are resolved amicably. However, if there is a need to issue an encroachment notice, reasonable time will also be given to comply with the notice or to raise objections. This will be proportionate to the facts of each case. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about encroachments involving religious artefacts or buildings. Mr Yip rightly pointed out that our laws should be applied consistently and fairly when it comes to encroachments which could cause public obstruction or damage to state land. First and foremost, the setting up of any structures or the leaving of any objects on state land without lawful authority would constitute an encroachment. That being said, similar to the approach for other types of encroachments, agencies, typically, engage owners of any religious items placed on state land. Agencies will explain that these are unauthorised encroachments, before taking enforcement action, if needed. Where appropriate, SLA also works with the relevant religious organisations to ensure that the matter is handled sensitively and with respect. Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked about safeguards to prevent trespassing under the pretext of a legitimate inspection under the Bill. Authorised officers and enforcement officers must declare their office and produce their identification card when asked. The owner of the private land can demand to see their credentials and when the officers seek entry for inspection or other purposes provided for in the Bill.”
“Let me, first, address the issue of the objection and compliance period. The removal of the fixed 28-day notice period is intended to provide SLA with greater flexibility to deal with encroachments more expeditiously, if appropriate or necessary, based on the circumstances of the case. To provide some context, this draws on SLA's experience with past encroachment cases, where members of the public had requested that SLA take action against the reported encroachments quickly. This is often because the encroachments might have posed disamenities and obstruction to the public. In addition, there might be cases where SLA needs to take action more quickly, for example, where there is ongoing harm being done to the state land. Nevertheless, SLA will strike a balance between giving individuals time to rectify their encroachments and stopping the harm done by these encroachments. In general, SLA will provide a reasonable timeframe for owners to comply with encroachment notices, taking into consideration the nature and scale of the encroachments. On whether the Authority will notify potential offenders of the results of the objection, I would like to, first, clarify that once an objection is filed, clause 16 of the Bill allows the Authority to refer the matter to the Courts. The usual Court processes, after making a complaint to a Magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code, will then apply. That said, generally, SLA will respond to the potential offender on SLA's position on the basis of his or her objection, before filing a complaint to the Court. Alternatively, the encroachment notice may be cancelled if there is merit in the case contained in the objection.”
“Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked, in relation to the same clause, how individuals who encroach on state land can prove that they did not know and could not have reasonably been expected to know, that the land concerned was state land. The scenarios under which a defence may be constituted are varied and will depend on the particular circumstances of the case. Nonetheless, the Members' underlying concern appears to be situations where an individual does not know that they are encroaching on state land. Let me first draw Members' attention to clause 5 of the Bill. The elements of the offence in this clause are engaging in the listed activities on state land without lawful authority and intentionally. Wholly accidental incursions would not be an offence. Also, as I mentioned earlier, SLA, typically, engages those encroaching on state land, before taking enforcement action. On the specific example raised by the two Members on private home owners, the property owner should also take responsibility to ensure that there is no encroachment onto adjoining state land. This includes engaging a registered surveyor to carry out surveys to confirm if there are encroachments. If encroachments are found from the surveys, owners should check with SLA on whether the encroachment must be removed. SLA will also be embarking on public education efforts after the Bill is passed, to raise public awareness of the new Bill and also address any misconceptions. Moving on to the process for abating encroachments. Mr Louis Ng asked about the timeline to comply with or raise objections to the encroachment notice. Mr Ng also asked if the Authority would notify the result of the objection and provide time for individuals to comply with the notice before Court proceedings are initiated.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who spoke in support of the Bill. Let me now address the questions raised. Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked whether the increased maximum fine for offences under clause 5 is a useful and proportional deterrent. In particular, she cited cases involving individuals who are sleeping rough on state land, or retired seniors who engage in unauthorised cultivation on state land. The enforcement framework set out in this Bill covers all manner of encroachment offences, taking into account the different circumstances of trespass. The Bill, therefore, sets out a maximum penalty since some forms of trespass can cause severe damage. Not all cases are, eventually, prosecuted in Court. Furthermore, for those prosecuted, the penalties imposed by the Court upon conviction will, ultimately, depend on the surrounding facts and circumstances. There is no minimum punishment for any of the offences in the Bill. Also, in practice, SLA, generally, does engage and will continue to engage those encroaching on state land. There would be an opportunity to rectify the encroachments first, absent irreparable damage or danger due to the encroachment. In cases involving rough sleepers on state land, SLA works very closely with MSF who will engage and provide support to these individuals. This could include referring them to suitable shelters or accommodation, in the interest of their safety and well-being. With regard to cases where enforcement action is taken, Mr Louis Ng asked about the defences available to those prosecuted under the Bill. This includes whether reliance on the due diligence of third parties would constitute a defence under clause 7 of the Bill.”
“Part 6 of the Bill provides for the appointment of officers for the administration of the Bill. In particular, SLA may appoint enforcement officers from among public officers, employees of any public authority except a Town Council and any auxiliary police officer appointed under the Police Force Act. The enforcement officer's role is to assist SLA in the administration of the Bill in any particular area in Singapore. Finally, Sir, the Bill also includes consequential amendments to (a) the Parks and Trees Act under NParks; (b) the Sewerage and Drainage Act under PUB; and (c) the Street Works Act under LTA. As I mentioned earlier, the Bill defines "state land" in a way that avoids the overlapping of jurisdiction between the public sector agencies. These amendments will ensure that PUB, NParks and LTA will have sufficient powers to take enforcement action on state land under their respective legislation, as SLA does under this Bill. Sir, to conclude, the new Bill replaces the State Lands Encroachments Act 1883 with an up-to-date and comprehensive enforcement framework that will better protect state land against improper use and damage, so as to enable public use and enjoyment of appropriate state land and facilitate multiple uses of state land where practicable. This is necessary as land is one of our most valuable resources for the future. These changes will allow SLA and the agencies overseeing the management of state land to take effective measures to protect our state land from damage and misuse. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Claimants will also now have three months after the notice is published to make a claim to the land in question, instead of the six months under SLEA. Otherwise, the land will be deemed forfeited to the state. Sir, this will expedite the process and align the claim period to comparable legislation in other countries. Part 5 of the Bill provides for the various powers of enforcement that can be exercised in the administration of the Bill, provided that the relevant statutory thresholds are met. To aid investigation, the Bill empowers authorised officers to: (a) Enter either state land, or any other land, in or from which the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect an offence under the Bill may be committed, and inspect, make documentation of, and take extracts from the land or anything on that land; (b) Request documents and information from any person reasonably believed to be acquainted with the circumstances relevant to the suspected commission of an offence under the Bill; and (c) Request an individual found in, on or near any state land to disclose his or her identity and place of residence if the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual has committed or is attempting to commit an offence under this Bill in relation to that state land. As in many other laws, the obstruction of an authorised officer in the discharge of his or her duties under this Bill, as well as the intentional tampering with any encroachment notice or summons, will be offences under the Bill. Authorised officers can also compound minor offences by collecting a sum not exceeding the lower of $5,000 or half the maximum fine prescribed for the offence. Sir, on the whole, these new powers will allow SLA to carry out its duties more expediently and effectively.”
“Specifically, the Bill enables an authorised officer to serve an encroachment notice to any person whom the officer has reasonable cause to believe is engaged in the improper use of state land. The encroachment notice will require the person to abate the encroachment by a specified date. It will also include an objection period, during which the person can give an objection if he or she does not wish to comply with the notice. If there is non-compliance with the notice and no objection is received, the authorised officer can proceed to seize and remove any movable property involved. If an objection is received, the authorised officer may then file a complaint to the Magistrate's Court on the unauthorised activity committed on the state land. Part 4 of the Bill sets out the circumstances under which abandoned private land may be resumed to become state land. Sir, this is not new. The current SLEA already sets out the mechanism by which alienated land, which has been abandoned for three years or more, may be forfeited to the state. The Bill retains this three-year threshold but makes some changes to update the resumption process. The process begins when the Minister for Law grants approval for a particular piece of land to be declared liable for forfeiture to the state. Following this, a notice of the declaration must be made in the Government Gazette. This is similar to the current process under SLEA. However, under the Bill, there will no longer be a requirement for a physical notice of the declaration to be posted on the land in the English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil languages. Instead, SLA will publish the notice in the four official languages in the major local newspapers. This ensures that there will still be adequate publicity of the fact.”
“Where there is imminent harm or danger that is unlikely to be effectively addressed by the issuance of an encroachment notice, the Bill empowers the Commissioner of Lands to apply to a Court for an interim injunction against a person suspected of an offence under the Bill, before the person is convicted. This includes situations where there is irreparable damage or harm caused to state land, or where state land may collapse, or cause the collapse of adjacent land, or pose a danger to the public. Sir, Part 3 of the Bill sets out the powers that may be exercised by SLA to stop improper use of or unauthorised activities on state land. Today, under current law, SLA must serve a notice giving 28 days for the unlawful occupants to vacate the state land and remove their movable property. If they do not vacate and remove their movable property by the notice timeframe, SLA must obtain a warrant for dispossession from the Court to remove unlawful occupants on state land and seize and forfeit any movable property. SLA must also obtain a Court order for the demolition of unlawful buildings and structures. Under the existing process, the time taken for the removal of encroachments can be lengthy, during which the offender can continue his or her offence on the state land. In addition, the existing process does not allow for much flexibility to adopt a differentiated approach taking into consideration the complexity and seriousness of each case. The Bill will introduce a streamlined process to enable SLA to deal with encroachments more expediently, especially those that may pose a public safety concern or delay redevelopment works on state land.”
“Under the new Bill, the penalties have been raised to align with penalties for comparable offences in newer legislation, such as the Parks and Trees Act and the Environmental Public Health Act. These present penalties in section 7 of SLEA are no longer deterrent vis-a-vis a fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both. The Bill raises the fine. Clause 5 prescribes a penalty comprising a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for a term of up to six months, or both, for the offence of carrying out unauthorised activities on or damaging state land. In the case of a continuing offence, a further fine of up to $500 will be imposed for each day during which the offence continues after conviction. Higher penalties may be imposed for a repeat offence of disposing rubbish or waste on state land using a vehicle. The Bill also provides that the Court may order a convicted offender to pay monetary compensation to the Government, on top of any fine imposed, for any loss or damage suffered by the Government due to the offence, such as de-contaminating polluted soil; the value of any forest products or other substances removed from state land; and the costs and expenses incurred by SLA in abating the encroachment. In addition, a new provision in the Bill now provides that the Court may order a convicted offender to compensate the Government for the costs and expenses incurred by an electricity or gas licensee or the PUB in complying with a Court order to discontinue the supply of electricity, gas or water. The Bill thus provides for a wider scope of compensation than what is available under the current SLEA.”
“Outdated provisions, such as the appointment of forest rangers and penghulus to carry out duties, which are no longer relevant to modern Singapore, will also be removed. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair] I will now take the House through the key features of this Bill. Part 1 of the Bill introduces the fundamental concepts used in the Bill. The Bill defines state land to include lands that are unalienated, vested, surrendered or acquired by the Government. The Bill does not deal exhaustively with all state land. Excluded are unalienated lands managed by PUB, NParks and LTA under their respective legislation. This is to avoid the overlapping of laws and criminalising of activities on state lands that are already under the management of these public sector agencies. The Bill also includes updated definitions to better reflect and capture present-day activities which constitute unauthorised use of state land. The Bill clarifies the definition of a "structure" which, when erected on, under or over state land, may constitute an encroachment. This includes land reclamation works and external features which protrude outwards from buildings. Sir, Part 2 of the Bill sets out the offences and makes important updates to the penalties for unauthorised use of state land. Part 2 also sets out the proceedings in Court that may be taken to recover state land from improper use and unauthorised activities on state land. A non-exhaustive list of unauthorised activities deemed to be offences under the Bill includes unauthorised clearance and digging of state land; unauthorised enclosure of state land; unauthorised dumping and leaving of waste on state land; and unauthorised works for the reclamation of land.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, state land is, currently, put to various uses for the benefit of Singaporeans. These include residential, commercial, institutional and utility uses, amongst others. It is important that state land is protected from unauthorised use and damage, as such acts can impede Singapore's development, create public safety issues and affect public enjoyment of our scarce resources. However, there have been individuals in the past who encroached significantly on state land and refused to remove their encroachments, even after the impact of their actions was explained to them. One such case, which was reported in the news some time back, involves private landowners who extended their property on to adjoining state land by building structures on it. This act disrupted and delayed PUB's drainage improvement works in the area. The landowners refused to remove the encroachments, despite extensive engagement and multiple deadline extensions granted by the authorities. The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) eventually filed charges against the landowners for trespassing on state land under the State Lands Encroachment Act 1883 (SLEA). However, in the intervening period, PUB incurred additional costs coming up with temporary flooding measures, as the encroachments impeded its drainage improvement works. Sir, this example illustrates that the improper use of state land can have very serious environmental and economic consequences. This Bill, if passed, will put in place an up-to-date and comprehensive enforcement framework, to better support SLA in protecting state land from misuse and damage. The SLEA, which contains the current enforcement framework, will be repealed.”
“I thank Mr Louis Ng for the questions. I understand the issues that he has raised and, in fact, these are some common concerns we have heard. We are definitely looking into them. As I mentioned earlier, MOH is working very closely with MOM on this and we will look at how we can work on the appropriate flexibility arrangements so that we can manage the numbers that we are looking at. All these issues are, indeed, the matters that we are currently working on and I hope that the Member can share with the nurses who have given him this feedback that this is something that we take seriously and that we will be working on these matters. 1.30 pm”
“The healthcare sector, currently, brings in foreign nurses using the Employment Pass or S Pass. MOH has already been working with MOM to exercise appropriate flexibility under the work pass framework to meet the sector's manpower needs. We also work closely with our public healthcare institutions to shore up recruitment for both local and foreign staff to augment the healthcare workforce, as well as to ensure that salaries remain competitive.”