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 15 of 26.
“And in different institutions, there may be some things that they can do first, there may be somethings that they can do faster and we are letting that happen. But, in general, this is a work-in-progress and we will make the appropriate announcements when it is ready.”
“I thank the Member for the question. I just want to, firstly, mention that the nurses are in the business of patient care. So, it is about making sure that they are taking care of the patients well. And if there is feedback from the patients and family members, we do have to consider this. It is an integral part of the quality and care improvement for public health institutions (PHIs). But this is something we look at in general. Holistically, when we talk about bonuses, when we talk about their promotion, a lot of other aspects come into play and this something that all nurses would know and that has been practised by the PHIs. We do take the concerns of patients and family members and, if it impacts their work and their performance, we then need to take action. In some ways, it does have some relevance, if it is investigated and if there are some areas where the nurses can improve, this needs to be taken into account. Training may be provided, some support may be provided. So, in some ways, it does impact on their performance and appraisal, but this is not the only factor. Promotion and bonus are things which will come after looking at the whole performance holistically. On the second issue about Care Ambassadors, I note that the Member has been concerned about the workload and having to balance some of the issues that the nurses have raised. We have been working on this, as the Member is aware. There have been various efforts. The public healthcare institutions, especially different clusters, all have different efforts that they are putting in place. Some of these things we are harmonising to see how we can make sure that all the clusters can also step up and have similar practices amongst them. This is something that is a work-in-progress.”
“Nurses’ performance appraisal is holistic and includes various key areas, such as the provision of timely and quality patient care, display of leadership capabilities and professional and personal development. While institutions take feedback from patients and their family members seriously, this is not used to directly determine the performance grade that a nurse receives. In general, feedback from patients and their family members is considered an integral part of quality and care improvement for our public healthcare institutions. Positive feedback is conveyed to the nurses and care team to recognise their efforts as well as to encourage and motivate them to keep up the good work. On the other hand, negative feedback is looked into in case there is a need to address any gaps in quality of care in the spirit of continuous improvement. As for abuse and harassment, our public healthcare institutions take a serious stance against these and staff are encouraged to report such instances to their supervisor or appropriate whistle-blowing channels if necessary. These will be looked into fairly, as it is crucial to protect and support staff against abusive patients or family members accompanying patients. When necessary, Police reports have been lodged before, for the Police to conduct further investigations and actions to be taken.”
“Any consequential matters raised will be dealt with by the CA. Ms Soh had also asked about whether LASCO will be extended to cover PACC applications. Any such extension will have to be carefully studied in consultation with the relevant stakeholders before a decision is taken. Mr Zhulkarnain asked about costs orders against lawyers. All lawyers have a duty to conscientiously assess the merits of a case before engaging in court proceedings. If the lawyer thinks there is no merit but the PACP insists on making the application, the lawyer should decline to act. The Courts have observed that the filing of ill-considered and baseless applications by lawyers cannot be justified on the basis that the PACP faces a capital sentence. There are well-established principles on when a personal costs order can be made against a lawyer. It is for the Courts, in the exercise of judicial discretion, to determine whether to make a personal costs order against a lawyer. In such cases, the lawyer will have the opportunity to be heard. Mr Zhulkarnain has highlighted the importance of raising international awareness and understanding of Singapore's approach to capital offences. We agree that this is important. Criticisms of Singapore's approach are often based on misconceptions and inaccurate facts. Singapore actively engages in international fora such as the UN, as well as bilaterally to address misconceptions and explain our approach. We will continue to engage and raise awareness and I thank Mr Zhulkarnain for his suggestions on how we can do so. I believe I have answered the questions raised by the Members. With that, Madam, I beg to move. 7.03 pm”
“In a related vein, under the existing section 394H of the CPC, an application for permission to make a review application in respect of a decision of the CA is to be heard by a single judge sitting in the Court of Appeal. Further, even in the case of an application for permission to make a PACC application, the CA has discretion in each matter whether to convene a coram of three Judges or a greater uneven number of Judges. Depending on the facts, a possible matter that the Court may take into account could be an issue raised in the application. And ultimately, this is a matter of judicial discretion. Mr Zhulkarnain offered some suggestions to ensure the efficient use of judicial time for PACC applications. In line with Mr Zhulkarnain's suggestions, the Bill expressly allows the Court to make any incidental directions or give any interim orders as considered necessary for the management of the case, including a stay of execution of the capital sentence. And as to Mr Zhulkarnain's point about the time-sensitive nature of such applications, the cases have shown that the Courts hear them urgently. For example, when a criminal motion was filed on 25 April 2022, two days before the PACP's scheduled execution, the Court heard the matter the very next day, on 26 April 2022. Ms Hany Soh asked about the written grounds of decision and whether the applicant can seek clarifications and make further submissions after applications are summarily dismissed. The Bill requires the CA to consider the applicant's written submissions, if any, before summarily refusing an application. The CA has discretion to decide whether it will issue a judgment or grounds of decision together with or following the issuance of the written order.”
“Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, the CA has the discretion to grant permission to make a PACC application even if the CA is not satisfied that the intended PACC application has a reasonable prospect of success. Mr Ng had also asked for clarification on the factors that the Court should consider when determining whether an application is an abuse of process. Under the new sections 60G(15)(c) and (d) of the SCJA, even when there was a prior abuse of process finding, as I mentioned earlier, the CA may grant an application for PACC permission if: one, the PACP adduces material that was not adduced in court before the date of the most recent finding of abuse of process; and two, the material could not, even with reasonable diligence, have been adduced in court before that date. The new section 60M(2) of the SCJA sets out, non-exhaustively, some matters that the Court may take into account in deciding whether to make a finding of abuse. For example, the Court may consider whether the application is based on material that could not have been adduced before the relevant date, even with reasonable diligence. Ms Hany Soh and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim raised questions about the coram for applications for PACC permission. A PACC application cannot be heard and determined by a single Judge. Only an application for permission to make a PACC application can be heard and determined by a single Judge. Having a single Judge hear the application for permission to make a PACC application reflects the fact that, at this stage, the Court is only deciding whether permission to make the PACC application should be granted, and the Court is not required to conduct a full determination of the merits of the PACC application.”
“On the third point about reasonable diligence, this is a factor for the Courts to consider when deciding whether the evidence and arguments in the application could have been brought earlier. And this is not a new requirement – it is already in Division 1B of the CPC. Mr Louis Ng had asked whether the Court's power to take additional evidence can only be exercised on its own motion and about the grounds on which the Court would exercise this power. The Court's power to take additional evidence is exercisable on the Court's own motion, or upon a party's application. The Court has discretion to decide whether to take additional evidence. Depending on the facts, possible matters that the Court may take into account could include the nature of the additional evidence and its relevance to the issues before the Court. Ultimately, this is a matter of judicial discretion. Mr Ng had also asked for more clarity on the meaning of the "reasonable prospect of success", which Mr Pritam Singh also touched on. The phrase "reasonable prospect of success" is meant to clarify that in deciding whether to grant permission to make a PACC application, the CA is to consider the merits of the intended PACC application. However, as the phrase makes clear, the CA is not required to conduct a full determination of the merits when deciding whether to grant permission to make a PACC application. Ultimately, the CA will be guided by the language of the provision, which is whether the intended PACC application has a reasonable prospect of success. To this end, it may not be helpful to focus on the standards mentioned by Mr Ng because these have been developed in different contexts and it may not be applicable to the PACC application.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who spoke in support of the Bill. I would like to address the questions that had been raised earlier. Firstly, on Mr Pritam Singh's questions on the threshold. With regards to the first clarification that he raised, what was meant is that the Bill merely provides that the Court must consider the matters in section, 60G(7). The Court retains discretion to grant permission even if any or all the matters are not met. The Bill sets out the conditions to be satisfied and the procedures to be followed and is enabling in nature. This is to advance the interests of justice. The statement by the spokesman referred to by Mr Singh, made the point that ultimately the Court will retain some discretion because the Bill does not absolutely rule out the exercise of such discretion. Parliament's intention is that such applications where the conditions in this Bill have not been satisfied should generally not succeed given the legislative intent expressed through the Bill to set up a process to be followed. The Court will exercise considerable care because there is finality, because we do not want to rule out the possibility. The framework sets out what the Court will consider and it is likely to be extremely rare for the Court to go beyond this. So, the intention is for the framework to be followed. Mr Singh had a second question on the point of "must not" in section 60G(15). The provision on abuse is about abuse by the applicant, not by the lawyer. When they have previously abused the process, we think that section 60G(15) is a fair requirement because the Court can still grant permission if the requirements in section 60G(15)(c) and (d) are met, which are reasonable requirements.”
“It also provides statutory protection to PACPs by prohibiting the carrying out of the capital sentence – even without a stay of execution – where there is a pending application for permission to apply for a stay of execution, or an application for a stay of execution that meets the specified criteria. The amendments will provide greater clarity and guidance on the process and considerations which PACPs and their counsel should have regard to when making post-appeal applications. The amendments also do not affect access to justice. PACPs are not prevented from filing their applications and ventilating their arguments in Court. Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“In line with the procedure for PACC applications, which must be made to the CA, the new section 60L of the SCJA provides that a stay of execution of a capital sentence may only be granted by the CA. The new section 60M of the SCJA provides that the CA may decide whether to make a finding that there has been an abuse of process in (a) a relevant application or (b) any other application or action in order to delay or frustrate the carrying out of the capital sentence. The finding may be made on the CA’s own motion or upon the application of the Attorney-General or Public Prosecutor. This is in line with the CA’s current powers to make findings of abuse of process. In deciding whether to make a finding of an abuse of process, the CA may take additional evidence, and may inquire into and take into account whether the prescribed matters for the making of a PACC application or a review application have been satisfied. Lastly, clause 3 provides for amendments to the CPC. These are primarily consequential amendments to align certain aspects of the procedure for review applications with the new procedure for PACC applications in clause 2. Clause 3(a) also provides that a capital sentence may be carried out, unless (a) the President has ordered a respite; (b) the CA has granted a stay of execution; or (c) there is a pending application for permission to apply for a stay of execution, or an application for a stay of execution, that meets the specified criteria. This amendment will provide clarity for all parties on when the sentence may be carried out.”
“These will include supporting affidavit(s) by the PACP’s counsel, or by the PACP, if he is unrepresented. The affidavit is to state, among others, the grounds for the application and the reasons for not filing the application earlier. Fourth, whether the intended PACC application has a reasonable prospect of success. Even if these four matters are not satisfied, the CA will have the discretion to grant permission for the application if it thinks fit. If permission is granted, the PACC application must then be made to the CA, and fixed for hearing, within the prescribed periods. The applicable procedure at this stage is set out under the new section 60H of the SCJA. Having the CA directly hear PACC applications provides a streamlined procedure for such applications, while still allowing these applications to be ventilated before the apex court. If there is already an application for PACC permission, or a PACC application, pending determination, the PACP cannot make a subsequent application for PACC permission or PACC application unless the PACP has obtained the permission of the coram dealing with the pending application. This is provided for under the new section 60I of the SCJA. This ensures that the coram hearing the pending application is fully apprised of all the relevant circumstances or issues that the PACP wishes to raise and is able to deal with the matter holistically. When a PACP files any application or action in a Court other than the CA, the new section 60J of the SCJA allows the CA to determine whether the application is, or the action contains, an application for PACC permission or a PACC application. If it so determines, the CA can deal with the application or action accordingly. This reduces any potential delay to proceedings.”
“First, the application was made by a PACP after the relevant date, which is either (a) the date when the capital sentence was imposed, upheld or confirmed by the CA, or (b) if there was an earlier application for permission to make a PACC application, or an earlier PACC application, by the PACP that has been decided, the date of the most recent decision. This makes clear that the new procedure applies to applications filed by a PACP after the appeal in the capital case has concluded or the capital sentence has been confirmed. Second, either (a) the application is for a stay of execution of the capital sentence, or (b) the determination of the application calls into question, or may call into question, the propriety of the conviction of, the imposition of the capital sentence on, or the carrying out of the capital sentence on, the PACP. PACC applications do not include review applications under the CPC. Review applications are applications to review an earlier decision of an appellate court and will continue to be governed by a separate procedure under the CPC. A PACP must obtain the CA’s permission before he may file a PACC application. The procedure to apply for the CA’s permission is set out under the new section 60G of the SCJA. In deciding whether to grant permission, the CA is to consider four matters. First, whether the intended PACC application is based on material that could not have been adduced in Court before the relevant date, even with reasonable diligence. Second, whether there was any delay in applying for permission after the material was obtained, and the reasons for the delay. Third, whether the prescribed supporting documents have been filed within the prescribed time.”
“Fourth, even after the CA has confirmed the conviction and sentence, the PACP may apply for the case to be reviewed under Division 1B of Part 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, or the CPC, if the strict criteria for reviewing a concluded case are met. Under our justice system, a person facing a capital charge has ample opportunity to raise any issues in relation to the charge and the sentence, and to have those issues considered by the Courts at the appropriate time. Our system allows justice to be done, where there are genuine issues to be dealt with. After the CA confirms the conviction and sentence, the PACP may also submit a petition to the President for clemency. Finally, where the avenues of appeal have been exhausted, the lawfully imposed sentence will be carried out. In recent years, there have been several instances where PACPs filed last-minute applications in capital cases, after all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. We are introducing this Bill to set out a process for such post-appeal applications in capital cases, to provide more clarity on the applicable court procedure for all parties involved. In the course of finalising the Bill, we consulted the Bar extensively, and took into consideration their feedback, in arriving at the final version of the Bill. I will now go through the key amendments in the Bill. Clause 2 introduces a new procedure in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969, or SCJA, for post-appeal applications in capital cases, or PACC applications. A PACC application is an application that meets two criteria.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time”. The Government has made important changes to the criminal justice system in recent years, towards a more progressive, balanced and modern criminal justice system that delivers just outcomes and protects society from crime. What we are putting forward before you today are measures to provide a process for post-appeal applications in capital cases. Post-appeal applications in capital cases are applications that are filed by a prisoner awaiting capital punishment, or PACP, after all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Normally, given that all appeals have been exhausted, there will be no further applications possible. These amendments provide a process for making such applications. Let me first explain the context of such post-appeal applications. Today, capital cases are governed by a rigorous process with multiple safeguards. First, all persons facing capital charges are offered free legal representation under the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences, at trial and on appeal. Second, capital trials can only be heard in the General Division of the High Court, or HC. The accused can only be found guilty of a capital charge if the Prosecution leads evidence and proves its case at trial, even if the accused does not contest the charge. Third, where the HC imposes capital punishment, the accused is entitled to appeal to the Court of Appeal, or CA, against both the conviction and sentence. Even if the accused does not appeal or withdraws his appeal, the CA must still review the case and satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.”
“The approach taken by the Government combines religious beliefs, family values and traditional communities with the needs of Singapore’s multi-religious and multicultural society. I am confident that if we can learn to navigate sensitive and crucial issues constructively, we can form a clearer vision for ourselves and future generations. May this lead us to a brighter future for all of us as a nation.”
“Some see the repeal as an overdue issue and question the need to amend the Constitution. Others, whether religious or non-religious, worry about the impact of this repeal on our cherished social norms and traditional family structure. This is not a black-and-white issue. There is no single narrative or perspective that can fully reflect the reality that we live in. And only by acknowledging these complexities, we can finally begin to move forward together as a community. We want a community that shows kindness and compassion to all, regardless of their background or circumstance. This includes even those who do not adhere to religious teachings on homosexuality. Because that is what Islam teaches us. To quote the Mufti in his religious guidance that provided wise counsel to us on this matter, “There are many factors that define a person as a human being, not just sexual orientation alone. There are individual Muslims that face struggles as they seek to reconcile their sexuality with religious guidance and obligations. As long as one proclaims and practices the basic tenets of the religion, that person is still a member of the Muslim community. Every Muslim deserve to have their dignity and respect preserved. We must ensure that every Muslim does not feel that they are turned away from their faith due to our attitude towards them.” We must be prepared to face future challenges together as one people: difficult economic conditions; societal norms that continue to evolve; new issues that will challenge our traditional values; and many more. The nature and integrity of our society will be tested. This is our chance to set the norms for our society. We may have differing views, but we must find a way to resolve the differences and find the best way forward for our country.”
“I would like to thank them for their candour and courage to join these dialogues. I would like to share some of the views conveyed for the benefit of Members of the House. Some from the gay community shared with me their stories of being discriminated, ostracised and even threatened by those closest to them, including family and friends. No one should be treated this way, especially in a society such as ours, where family and community play such pivotal roles in our daily lives. That is why some individuals, even though they do not practice the homosexual lifestyle, feel that we should not ostracise this group of people. They feel that we need to be open, despite having different views, so that the gay community can lead their own lives in a safe manner. At the same time, there are others who do not accept the homosexual lifestyle but want to have a discussion on the basis of compassion for their fellow Muslims who are struggling with difficulties. Yet often, they find it difficult to speak up, because they are concerned about the repercussions. They worry about the criticisms and negative and extreme responses that could arise. They are worried that they will be accused of being too conservative if they were to share their views or too liberal for wanting to engage the gay community. They also fear being shunned or threatened. We have seen for ourselves some of the online reactions that are very harsh and unpleasant. I have also spoken to our youths on this issue. Many are sympathetic of the difficulties that their gay friends and family members face. They care deeply about their mental well-being and their access to social support. Yet, there are still differences of opinion among these youths regarding the repeal to section 377A and the constitutional amendment.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The decision to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code and amend the Constitution to protect the definition of marriage and the laws and policies that are based on it from legal challenges was not made overnight. It is the result of extensive engagements with stakeholders and careful consideration of the feedback received both before Prime Minister's announcement at this year's National Day Rally and in the ensuing months. Singaporeans have diverse views on this issue. Each group has its own unique perspective. Most prefer to preserve the existing social norms on marriage and family that have served us well as a stable and prosperous society. However, there is a small yet increasingly expanding segment, that feels differently. Many of them are youths, who had a different kind of exposure and experience. They have their own views on this matter. Ever since this issue was last debated in Parliament in 2007, society's mindset and attitudes have evolved, and we can expect it to continue evolving in the coming decades. On the part of the Government, we have sought to take a calibrated position and try to balance various aspects in this sensitive and difficult issue. It is a position that most in society can accept, even if it does not fulfil all their wishes. So, it is important for us to hear different voices from all segments of Singaporeans, including the Malay/Muslim community. I have been involved in several dialogue sessions involving the Malay/Muslim organisations on this issue. I understand their concerns and worries. Personally, I have also engaged a wide range of groups and many individuals from the Malay/Muslim community on this issue in small and informal discussions.”
“To facilitate access to Government payouts by caregivers in the event of unforeseen mental incapacity, members of the public are strongly encouraged to make an LPA. They will soon be able to do so faster and more easily through the Office of the Public Guardian online portal from 14 November 2022, and Singaporeans making an LPA using LPA Form 1 can benefit from the fee waiver that has been extended till 31 March 2023.”
“Deputy Speaker, a number of Government payouts, such as the Assurance Package for GST and the GST-Voucher Scheme (GSTV), are disbursed directly to the bank accounts of individuals via PayNow-NRIC or direct bank transfers. Where individuals have lost mental capacity, but do not have a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), they require protection against unauthorised withdrawals from their bank accounts. Deputyship offers such protection by ensuring that the deputy is only granted powers in the specific decisions where the individual lacks capacity, for example, by allowing a deputy to withdraw the Government payouts credited to the mentally incapacitated individual's bank account for the benefit of the said individual. As shared with the Member during the Sitting last month, the Family Justice Courts (FJC) have introduced a Simplified Track, which makes deputyship applications easier, faster and more affordable. FJC has also worked with DBS to create a further expedited track for caregivers who require emergency funding. Under this process, caregivers can apply at one of four POSB branches for a Court order to make a one-time withdrawal of up to $5,000 in emergency funds, without having to attend Court. The above notwithstanding, the Government is aware that some caregivers may face difficulties in accessing bank accounts of persons who have lost mental capacity in the absence of an LPA or deputyship. We will consider how to streamline the processes for caregivers to access such grants at the scheme level where possible, without compromising the protection of the individuals. If necessary, we will study the possibility of the Public Trustee playing a role in this regard.”
“Because each IP provider would have their own dispute resolution process. If there is, indeed, some difficulty and unfairness, they can go through these two dispute resolution processes. Alternatively, if Dr Tan is aware of any specific cases, please refer them to us. On his point about whether we will be looking into this, if there are specific cases that can be referred to MOH, we will definitely take a look and see how we can improve the processes to facilitate the claims made by policyholders.”
“I thank the Member for the question. I think these are legitimate concerns, especially if it involves laypersons who may not have access to legal advice on the matter. MOH and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) work very closely in exercising regulatory oversight over the IP insurers. And MOH and MAS expect IP insurers to treat the policyholders fairly. So, when MAS is alerted of any unfair claims or mishandling of practices through its own ongoing supervision of insurers or through complaints received, it will investigate and take the necessary action to pursue this matter with the insurers. And part of it is to also ask the insurers to review past cases and compensate the policyholder when necessary. Dr Tan also asked about the recourse that is available to the policyholders in such situations when there is difficulty in processing their claims. I have explained earlier the two platforms for the recourse that the policyholders have. One, it is the Clinical Claims Resolution Process (CCRP) if the IP claim disputes are clinical in nature. The other one is through FIDReC, where it includes other types of disputes. FIDReC is an independent institution and it is set up specifically to handle disputes involving all types of retail, financial products and services. So, they are best-placed to deal with these situations. They also provide mediation and adjudication services. This is something very helpful to the policyholders. There is also CCRP, as I mentioned earlier, which is administered by the Academy of Medicine Singapore. It helps to deal specifically when there are issues relating to clinical matters pursuant to the IP plans. At the end of the day, I think the first step is to go back to the insurers and see how it can be resolved.”
“Deputy Speaker, MOH does not track the number of appeals made by Integrated Shield Plan (IP) policyholders against an insurer’s interpretation of definition of medical terminologies. Policyholders who feel that their claims have been unfairly rejected and are unable to reach a satisfactory resolution with their insurer may seek recourse from the Clinical Claims Resolution Process (CCRP) if the IP claim disputes are clinical in nature. Policyholders may also approach the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC) for assistance with other types of disputes.”
“Deputy Speaker, I think I am repeating myself ad nauseum. I think Mr Leong Mun Wai was also present at the discussion of the Healthier SG White Paper, at the debate. And Mr Louis Ng has also filed several PQs on this. You may want to check our responses in response to those PQs. As I have explained, we have a target of 82,000 of all workers – nurses, allied health as well as all the other necessary workers in the healthcare sector. We have already set the target by 2030 because we are working towards Healthier SG. This number is in different categories and what is important for us is that we address the demands, the needs of the sector as well as the needs of the community. We have already explained in many of those questions that were put earlier, the different ways in which we are doing this. We are recruiting from overseas, we are improving the well-being of the nurses here, we are improving the career pathways, we are supporting them with the different job redesigns to facilitate their workflow. These are the various efforts. I hope that Members can also support us by assuring the healthcare workers that this is a matter that is very close to the heart of the Ministry. We have been engaging extensively with the clusters, we have been engaging extensively with the healthcare workers and trying to give them some respite. This is a multi-pronged approach. Everyone has a role to play in this – MOH, the public – in helping to alleviate the concerns and the challenges that our healthcare workers are currently facing.”
“I understand the concerns. We have had a lot of extensive debates. The Member has filed a lot of questions on this matter. I have also repeatedly explained what our approach is. We are taking a multi-pronged approach. We are clearly speeding up our efforts. We have given an indication of timing, which is by 2030, to have 82,000 in total. We are looking at the specific avenues and different avenues. I also hope that the Member could assist to explain to some of the nurses whom he is in touch with, who are concerned about this situation, that we are doing whatever is necessary to retain the nurses who are within our healthcare system right now; we are doing what we can to increase the numbers. That is the more important focus, rather than talk about just the shortfall. Because we are talking about different avenues and different things have to change over time. We need to adjust because what is important to us is that we meet the demands, we address the current concerns that the healthcare sector is facing right now. So, we will do whatever it takes in the different aspects – increasing the intake from the local workforce, as well as to increase our recruitment. That is something the Member is quite familiar with.”
“As I mentioned earlier, we do not only just look at shortfall and work towards just filling up the shortfall. We are also having to look at the demands of the public and what are the needs. We do not necessarily find it valuable to make that distinction. As much as possible, we try and see what are the different avenues and channels for us to increase this intake and we are making efforts on that front. We have explained how we have worked with the clusters to see how we can see to the well-being of the nurses and improve the stature of their career, career paths as well as increasing the intake from the different schools. This is an aspect that we are doing and that will never be enough – to reach the 82,000 that we are looking for. Hence, we have to complement that with the efforts we are doing in recruitment of overseas nurses. This is the multi-pronged approach that we are taking and this is something that will, hopefully, increase and improve the situation in time to come.”
“Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for the questions. I wanted to go back to the points that had been raised in the discussion during the Healthier SG White Paper debate and the further Parliamentary Questions (PQs) that had been raised in the past. Minister Ong Ye Kung had also given an indication of these numbers, extensively, during the debate on the White Paper. We are looking at, by 2030, to have 82,000 nurses, allied health and support care staff, up from the 58,000 that we have today. A large portion of these numbers would be for nurses. This is something that we have already been working on and the target is by 2030 to up these numbers. The clusters are doing their best to step up recruitment efforts. Minister Ong had earlier indicated that even in as far as our local intake is concerned, we have looked at the intakes at the schools, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), Polytechnics and Universities. This is also going to be increased over time. We have about 2,100 from them and we are looking at increasing to 2,300. These are the different efforts that are being put in place. We have discussed this extensively at the White Paper debate. With all the efforts in place, we are hoping to see a better number. We are not just looking at the shortfall. It is also important for us to also see what other needs there may be. So, these are the aspects we look at for the efforts we are doing.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the length of service of foreign nurses in restructured hospitals has increased over the years. Between 2014 and 2021, the median increased from five to eight years, whilst the average increased from seven to 10 years. The actual median and average figures should be higher as the existing data does not take into account nurses who switched hospitals but remained in the public healthcare sector.”
“This complements communications and engagement efforts, such as the annual ACP week campaign led by AIC, and involving our health and community care partners. Planning for dementia is a continuous effort. We have made good progress and will continue to study further strategies to enhance dementia care. Let us work together to build a dementia-inclusive Singapore and support persons with dementia to lead purposeful and dignified lives.”
“Creating a dementia-friendly physical environment is important for persons with dementia to move around safely and participate in social activities. For instance, Nee Soon Town Council worked with stakeholders to paint HDB blocks with large block numbers and contrasting colours to help residents with wayfinding. AIC is also working with Centre of Liveable Cities (CLC) and Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) to study dementia-friendly neighbourhoods. The learnings gathered will be developed into a set of design guidelines to make the built environment safer and easier to navigate. HDB will continue to explore incorporating such dementia-friendly features into new developments and in existing estates through upgrading programmes. The Member also asked about micro-jobs for persons with dementia. MOH and MOM will work with tripartite partners like Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) and NTUC to enhance the understanding of dementia at the workplace through educational materials and encourage employers to hire such persons where they are able to meet the operational needs of businesses. Persons with dementia may find it increasingly difficult to make decisions independently. Seniors with mild dementia or even those who are well should plan ahead when they still have mental capacity, to give themselves and their loved ones peace of mind. MOH, MSF and PSD are working to increase awareness and adoption of instruments, such as the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) and Advance Care Planning (ACP). We launched the My Legacy portal in 2020 to raise awareness on planning ahead and serve as a one-stop portal for end-of-life related matters. It contains an LPA-ACP tool which allows users to make both documents at one go.”
“A new set of Tripartite Guidelines on FWAs will be further introduced by 2024 that will require employers to put in place a proper process to fairly consider and respond to employees' request for FWAs. Caregivers can also tap on various community care options for their loved ones. These include DDCs and the Night Respite Care pilot for those experiencing sun-downing. As the Member pointed out, persons with dementia face complex challenges, such as safety and mental capacity. We must take a whole-of-society approach to address these issues. In 2016, AIC launched the Dementia-Friendly Singapore (DFSG) initiative to establish more dementia-friendly communities (DFCs). Within a DFC, networks are created where residents, businesses and grassroots leaders are trained to look out for persons with dementia. Go-to-Points (GTPs) are also created to serve as "safe return" points for those who might be lost. The initiative was well-received and we have since established 15 DFCs across Singapore. AIC will be launching a dementia campaign next month to rally more community and corporate partners to join us in making Singapore more dementia-friendly. We will expand our efforts to five sectors that regularly serve seniors, namely: transport, building, arts and leisure, banking and retail. The Member highlighted our collaboration with SMRT. Besides transport, venues for the arts have also started catering programmes for persons with dementia. In 2016, Esplanade launched the "Sing Out Loud!" programme to help persons with dementia deepen engagements with their caregivers through singing. Last year, Esplanade also became the first arts venue to become a dementia Go-To-Point (GTP) and their staff also received basic training to assist visitors with dementia.”
“Secondly, if dementia has impacted an individual's ability to perform activities of daily living, grants like Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme and CareShield Life insurance payouts would further help to defray the cost of care. Lastly, MediFund will provide support for those who need further help. As announced earlier this year, we will also enhance the Home Caregiving Grant to defray caregiving costs. Social Services Agencies (SSAs) play a key role in providing long-term care services and support for caregivers. Besides direct funding for programmes and services, the Government also provides dollar-for-dollar matching grants for donations to SSAs through the Community Silver Trust. Caregiving is an important responsibility. The Member asked about support for: (a) caregivers of newly-diagnosed individuals; (b) caregiver training; and (c) working caregivers. Let me address these questions. Upon diagnosis, the caregiver may not fully understand the condition or know where to seek help. We have, therefore, started the CREST-Post Diagnostic Support (PDS) pilot to proactively reach out to families upon diagnosis, link them up with resources and equip caregivers with coping strategies. As of December 2021, there are two CREST-PDS teams and we plan to expand the number in 2023. The Caregivers Training Grant (CTG) provides a $200 annual subsidy for attending courses, including on dementia care, where caregivers can learn to better manage their own stress and well-being. We will continue to review how to better support caregiver training. For working caregivers, MOM has worked with the tripartite partners to encourage the adoption of flexible work arrangements (FWAs). Today, a vast majority of employees have access to FWAs.”
“The majority of nursing homes can care for persons with dementia. From end-2015, we have added 4,000 nursing home beds to reach a total of over 16,000 beds in end-2020. Upcoming nursing homes developed by MOH are also built with dementia-friendly provisions like therapeutic gardens and closed-loop wandering paths. The Member stated that the current wait time for a nursing home bed is nine months to a year. To clarify, the median wait time is currently around one month, although this may take longer for some seniors who have specialised care needs or specific preferences. The Member asked about our pipeline of clinical manpower. Today, all doctors are trained to provide basic management of dementia conditions. Specialists like geriatricians and psychiatrists are equipped to manage more severe conditions associated with dementia. As at December 2021, there are 152 geriatricians and 277 psychiatrists registered with the Singapore Medical Council (SMC). This represents a 50% and 15% increase respectively from 2017. This translates to 2.8 geriatricians and 5.1 psychiatrists per 100,000 population. There is no international consensus on the optimal ratio of geriatricians and psychiatrists to population. MOH has also been increasing the number of residency training positions for geriatric medicine and psychiatrists. We will continue to review and adjust the pipeline of medical specialists to support ageing population needs. We provide multiple layers of financial support to ensure that long-term care costs remain affordable. Firstly, we provide means-tested subsidies of up to 80% for services like DDC.”
“Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence internationally that general dementia screening in persons without recognised signs or symptoms of cognitive impairment is an effective public health intervention. Hence, our current efforts in early detection continue to be targeted at those at risk. Within the community, we have outreach teams known as CREST that proactively identify seniors at risk of dementia and refer them for assessment. As of December 2021, we have 68 CREST Teams. They have reached out to over 510,000 participants through outreach events and provided assistance to more than 32,000 persons. Active ageing centres (AACs), polyclinics and trained general practitioners (GPs) also help to identify seniors with suspected dementia and refer them for assessment. These cases will be referred to memory clinics in polyclinics and hospitals to confirm the diagnosis and cause of dementia. More than half of our polyclinics currently provide these services and we are in discussions to bring more polyclinics on board. Various care services support persons at different stages of dementia. The majority of dementia cases have mild to moderate needs and can be supported in the community. Dementia Day Care (DDC) services provide custodial care, cognitive stimulating activities and reminiscence therapy to improve or maintain the seniors' well-being. We have more than tripled the capacity of DDCs from 1,000 places in 2015 to 4,200 places in 2021. We also have Community Intervention Teams (COMIT) that provide psychosocial interventions like counselling and case management. In FY2021, COMIT teams supported a total of 11,100 clients. A small group of dementia cases may require inpatient care as their condition deteriorates.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Poh Li San for her suggestions to prepare Singapore for dementia. This is an important topic, given our ageing population and the rising number of persons with dementia. MOH adopts a three-pronged approach to address dementia: first, strengthening prevention and early detection; second, building capacity of care services; and third, enhancing support for caregivers. Beyond healthcare, I will also share how MOH has collaborated with different agencies, community groups and businesses to build more caring and dementia-inclusive communities. Adopting a healthy lifestyle can reduce the risk of dementia. A 2020 report by the Lancet Commission estimated that 40% of dementia cases can be prevented or delayed by addressing 12 modifiable risk factors, including diabetes, obesity and hearing loss. Through Healthier SG, we will empower our population to improve their health, such as through regular exercise and healthy eating. In addition, programmes like functional screening also allow us to identify seniors with hearing impairment and fit them with hearing aids. This enables seniors to maintain social engagement with others which helps to lower the risk of dementia. Health Promotion Board (HPB) and Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) conduct campaigns and provide resources through portals like HealthHub and DementiaHub.SG to educate the public on common risk factors and signs of dementia. Through education, we hope to destigmatise dementia and encourage early help-seeking. Early detection of dementia is important so that individuals receive timely treatment.”
“With these features in place, you will be able to easily access and select suitable programmes that support your health and lifestyle goals. Next is "A" for active collaboration with community partners. Over the years, we have worked closely with the community to extend our preventive health efforts. One example is the formation of the Malay Community Outreach Workgroup (MCO), which comprises of Malay community leaders with wide ranging experience, including PA MESRA, MUIS, Mendaki under the M3@Towns committees, and Muslim Health Professionals Association (MHPA). At this point, please allow me to say a few words in Malay.”
“We do want a vibrant and robust slate of programmes but not all programmes need to be HPB- or MOH-driven programmes. To optimise resources, we will have to channel resources towards programmes that are well-received and impactful. However, we encourage community partners to play a part in this. It is heartening therefore, to hear Ms Hany Soh share about the ground-up initiatives in her constituency. Ground partners can supplement existing health promotion efforts and programmes, and I would like to thank Ms Hany Soh for her ideas in this area. To encourage more residents to champion their interest groups and support Healthier SG, HPB provides our Healthy Singapore Fund for individuals or organisations to self-organise activities that meet their communities' needs. We hope these efforts will continue to bloom and add to the existing suite of offerings that residents can tap on to sustain healthy lifestyles. I would like to assure Mr Edward Chia that we will continually explore ways in which private sector partners can play a role under Healthier SG. For example, we will explore how a more comprehensive range of physical activities may be made available to residents across the island through collaborations with private partners such as physical activity providers. HPB's Healthy 365 app will be the lifestyle application that you can use to easily access lifestyle programmes offered by community partners near you. I agree with Dr Tan Wu Meng's and Ms Denise Phua's comment on the need to assist seniors or those who are not digitally savvy. For those who need help navigating the programmes, there will be support provided, such as through the Eldercare Centres and Community Centres.”
“In her cooking, she uses healthier oil and includes more vegetables, as well as using healthier cooking methods such as grilling and stir-frying instead of deep frying. Besides eating healthily, Madam Rahimah also incorporates physical activity in her daily routine to stay active. Madam Rahimah has noticed a big difference in herself ever since she started to lead a healthier lifestyle. She is more energetic and does not feel tired easily. Mr Loh and Madam Rahimah took ownership of their health and harnessed existing health initiatives to improve their lifestyle. Through Healthier SG, your family doctor will support you in this journey, managing your health holistically and guiding you to develop a personal Health Plan. This includes not only recommended health screening and vaccinations, but also lifestyle adjustments. Your doctor can also recommend existing health-related activities and services in your community that will be suitable for you. Second, "E" refers to enhancing our existing suite of health programmes. Under Healthier SG, you will be able to easily identify programmes suitable for your health status and sign up for these programmes more conveniently through one app, Healthy 365. We will collate community partners' programmes and house these on the Healthy 365 app over time to cover the range from self-directed programmes to targeted weight management interventions for residents with well-controlled chronic disease and practical nutrition workshops on preparing a well-balanced healthy meal. Mr Xie Yao Quan called for a wider variety of community programmes so that every local community is abuzz with exercise groups and health-promoting activities, catering to different needs.”
“These efforts will be complemented by the roll out of a vape-free campaign in 2023 targeted at youths and younger adults through popular digital platforms, to communicate that vaping is harmful and illegal. These are just some of the many initiatives we have and I am happy to note that they have impacted the lives of our residents. One such resident is 84-year-old Mr Louis Loh. Diagnosed with diabetes 10 years ago, Mr Loh remained largely sedentary. He only grew more motivated and began exercising regularly after joining National Steps Challenge Season 4 in 2018. Brisk-walking became his everyday routine and this enabled him to accumulate a daily average of 60 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity. Keeping active has helped Mr Loh achieve a healthier body mass index (BMI) after losing about 10 kg in the last three years and his health conditions are now better managed and controlled. Mr Loh's improved health outcomes have encouraged him to keep to his walking regime even outside the Challenge. Today, he continues to track his daily physical activity for the benefit of his health. Another example is 63-year-old Madam Rahimah. When her family members were diagnosed with diabetes and hypertension, she realised the importance of having good health and decided to take steps towards a healthier lifestyle. To encourage healthier eating habits, Madam Rahimah cooks healthy meals at home and packs them for her children to bring to work. The HPB's Healthier Choice Symbol made it easier for her to choose healthier ingredients and the information on how to cook healthier meals have also been useful. She opts for wholegrains such as brown rice and brown rice bee hoon. When making desserts like "bubur kacang" for the family, she uses low fat milk instead of coconut milk.”
“Mr Xie Yao Quan had sought clarification from her yesterday during his speech so the specifics of her proposals are not clear. In any case, let me share about our ongoing initiatives. To reduce the intake of sugar, beverages sold in Singapore in prepacked form and from automatic beverage dispensers will be subject to new Nutri-Grade labelling requirements and advertising prohibitions from 30 December 2022. Similar measures for freshly prepared beverages will come into effect by end of 2023. Some of you may also have heard that we are working with retailers to introduce lower-sodium alternatives which are healthier than regular salt. In fact, supermarket chains FairPrice and Sheng Siong will start selling lower-sodium salt products starting from this week. In addition, HPB supports food manufacturers and suppliers to develop healthier products through the Healthier Ingredient Development Scheme (HIDS), and partners food and beverage establishments, including hawker centres and coffeeshops, to offer healthier meal options. HPB also works actively with supermarket chains to introduce more Healthier Choice Symbol (HCS) products to increase the variety of HCS house brand products which are typically more affordable than branded alternatives. MOH also has a multi-pronged strategy to reduce the prevalence of use of tobacco products. In his speech, Mr Sharael Taha highlighted the issue of vaping. To address the use of vaporisers, we are working with various partners to strengthen enforcement measures and public education efforts. We will step up enforcement at borders, social media platforms such as Telegram and public areas. MOH and MOE are also working together to address vaping in schools.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we all want to be healthy, but with many competing demands in our hectic lives, it can be challenging for us to do so. This is why, as part of the Healthier SG strategy, it is important to build an ecosystem and rally the community as part of that ecosystem to facilitate healthy living, making it easier for us to make better, healthier choices. Today, I would like to address various Members' questions related to preventive health and encouraging healthy lifestyles in the community. Our efforts can be summarised with the acronym "HEALTH". "H" for harnessing existing health initiatives, "E" for enhanced suite of health programmes, "A" for active collaboration with community partners, "L" for looking out for caregivers, "T" for tracking health activities via technology, and the last "H" for health-related lifestyle nudges. Let me elaborate on each of these in turn. The first "H" is for harnessing existing health initiatives. Currently, there are a wide range of national initiatives to support us in adopting and prioritising healthy living. To promote physical activity, there are self-directed programmes such as the National Steps Challenge – where you can participate at your own pace anytime and anywhere – to virtual or on-ground MOVE IT leisure-time physical activity programmes for those who prefer guided exercise sessions. Good nutrition is also a key component of living healthily and we actively encourage Singaporeans to adopt a healthier diet, particularly by reducing sugar and salt consumption. Ms Hazel Poa and Ms Sylvia Lim had spoken about this earlier, in particular about improving affordability of healthier food choices. Ms Hazel Poa had gone so far as to suggest taxes on unhealthy food.”
“I note the underlying concerns in relation to the Member's suggestion. Let us take this back and consider whether this is something feasible in our context.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member has asked if there should be a requirement for overseas entities to register with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) before they can transact in property in Singapore. I understand that ACRA has implemented a register of registrable controllers for companies, foreign companies and limited liability partnerships (LLPs). Such entities are required to file information on their registrable controllers, that is, beneficial owners, centrally with ACRA. This serves to make the ownership and control of such entities more transparent and thus reduce opportunities for the misuse of such entities for illicit purposes. Foreign entities that carry on or intend to carry on business in Singapore are already required to be registered with ACRA and would be subject to existing requirements to file information on their beneficial owner with ACRA. Currently, in line with the anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism standards set by the Financial Action Task Force, professionals involved in the buying, selling and transfer of real estate, such as real estate agents and lawyers, are required to address the money laundering and terrorism financing risks. They have to assess their money laundering and terrorism financing risks, conduct customer due diligence including the identification of their customers’ beneficial owners, and where the risks of a customer are high, take enhanced measures such as source of funds checks. Agencies are assessing whether a measure like the UK’s Register of Overseas Entities would be useful in our context.”
“For example, references to "plaintiff" in existing legislation are now replaced with "claimant" as per the terminology in the Rules of Court 2021 and so on. The changes in terminology do not change the meaning of the amended provisions. Clause 23 deletes obsolete transitional provisions in four Acts. These provisions were only intended to operate for a transitional period and are no longer necessary today. To give an example, section 38 of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Act 2001 (IPOS Act) empowers the Minister to repeal or amend any written law that is inconsistent with any provision of the IPOS Act. The intention of section 38 was to bridge any gap between existing laws and the newly enacted IPOS Act at that point in time. Hence, section 38 of the IPOS Act is no longer relevant today and can be repealed. Finally, clause 24 of the Bill repeals provisions in five Acts that were never commenced and have since been superseded by other legislative provisions. For good order, these obsolete provisions will be deleted as they will no longer have to be brought into force. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, this Bill makes miscellaneous and minor amendments in the manner that I have just described. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] [(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. (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)]”
“Currently, where an accused person fails to attend Court on the date stated in a Notice to Attend Court, there are 15 Acts that require an accused person to show cause as to why he or she should not be punished with a fine or imprisonment. However, other statutes, notably the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, do not have a similar show cause procedure. This means that no additional penalty is imposed on the accused person for the failure to attend Court pursuant to a Notice to Attend Court, even without cause. To ensure a consistent approach across all criminal proceedings regarding a failure to attend Court, clause 20 of the Bill abolishes the show cause proceedings in the 15 Acts. The Court will continue to be able to issue a warrant of arrest to secure the accused person's attendance in Court. Further, failure to attend Court will ordinarily be taken into account by the Court as an aggravating factor which may justify an increase in the sentence for the underlying offence. Next, the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA). When it was introduced, it consolidated corporate and personal insolvency laws found in the Bankruptcy Act and Companies Act in one place. The IRDA made consequential amendments to several Acts to replace references to the Bankruptcy Act and Companies Act with references to the IRDA. We have since identified some inadvertent omissions in these references, which relate to the creation of an entirely new part in the IRDA. Clause 21 of the Bill corrects the references. I turn now to clause 22. This clause mainly updates references in primary legislation for consistency with the provisions and terminology in the new Rules of Court 2021.”
“Disclaimers are indications or statements that limit the rights conferred by registration under section 30 of the RDA. However, section 30A only applies prospectively. This means that section 30A only confers express legal effect to disclaimers filed on or after 26 May 2022, the commencement date of section 30A of the RDA. Clause 18 of the Bill therefore introduces a new subsection 2A to provide express legal effect to disclaimers made before 26 May 2022, if it was filed in a manner that was compliant with the RDA and the prevailing rules. Next, clause 19 of the Bill makes two amendments to the Sentosa Development Corporation Act 1972 (SDCA). First, it will be explicitly clarified that the definition of "Sentosa" in section 2 includes islands that become contiguous with the island of Sentosa because of land reclamation. This, in turn, clarifies that Sentosa Cove falls within the definition of "Sentosa" as part of the land now known as Sentosa Cove used to be a separate island from Sentosa until the narrow channel that ran between the two islands was reclaimed. Second, section 6(2) of the SDCA will be amended to provide that any person acting under the direction of the Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC) will be repaid out of the SDC's funds for any expense incurred. This is for consistency with section 6(1) of the SDCA where any member, employee or any other person acting under the direction of SDC is protected from personal liability while acting under the direction. I now come to clause 20. A Notice to Attend Court is one of the modes of initiating criminal proceedings. It is a notice requiring a person to attend Court at a specified time and date.”
“Sections 6(5) and 6(6) of POHA will be amended to allow such volunteers to be prescribed as "public service workers", which will accord such volunteers the same enhanced protection against harassment. The Government is working to identify the classes of volunteers who qualify as public service workers and target to bring this amendment into force in 2023. Third, section 13(5) of POHA currently provides that there shall be no appeal against a decision relating to Expedited Protection Orders made by the District Court under section 13. As decisions relating to an Expedited Protection Order may also be made by other Courts such as the Family Court or High Court, clause 16 amends section 13(5) to replace "District Court" with "court" to make it clear that all such decisions made under section 13 are not appealable, no matter which Court makes the decision. Lastly, clause 16 makes clarificatory amendments to section 16I of POHA. Section 16I(4) provides that other civil proceedings may be commenced in the Protection from Harassment Court only if "related to" Part 3 proceedings under POHA in the PHC. Clause 16 of the Bill amends section 16I to define when civil proceedings are related to Part 3 proceedings. Next, clause 17 of the Bill amends the Public Utilities Act 2001 to increase the maximum number of Board members from 10 to 13, excluding the Chairperson. This will enable PUB to benefit from the contributions of a more diverse Board. I now come to the amendments of the Registered Designs Act 2000 (RDA). Section 30A of the RDA, introduced by the Intellectual Property (Amendment) Act 2022, provides express legal effect to disclaimers filed with the Registrar.”
“To explain, in previous years, the promotions of special Police Officers from the rank of Inspector to Assistant Superintendent were approved pursuant to the Minister's powers under section 69(1) delegated to the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs. These promotions should have been approved by the Commissioner or Deputy of Commissioner for Police instead. Clause 15 validates these promotions. I now come to the amendments to the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 (POHA). Clause 16 of the Bill makes four amendments to POHA. Let me elaborate. First, the definition of "court" in section 2(1) currently states that "court" for the purposes of sections 12 and 13 and Division 2 of Part 3 means "a District Court (including the Protection from Harassment Court) or a Family Court". These provisions provide for Protection Orders, Expedited Protection Orders and orders relating to false statements to be granted. Aside from the District Court and the Family Court, other Courts such as the General Division of the High Court can make orders under these provisions. The definition of "court" will hence be amended to "a court of competent jurisdiction". This will ensure that all Courts which may grant Protection Orders, Expedited Protection Orders and orders relating to false statements are included within the definition of "court". Second, under section 6 of POHA, public service workers are accorded enhanced protection against harassment. Some volunteers provide services similar to public service workers and also frequently interact with the public in the course of providing such services.”
“Next, I will touch on the amendment to the Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation Funds Act 2014 (PMGFA). Section 16(1)(a) of the PMGFA provides that a Pioneer or Merdeka Generation Senior is eligible for a cash grant to be credited to his or her MediSave or other CPF account during a prescribed period. However, there are situations where an individual is determined to be a Pioneer or Merdeka Generation Senior after the prescribed period, after verification by the Appeals Panel. Clause 14 of the Bill amends section 16(1)(a) of the PMGFA to enable such individuals to receive the cash grant in respect of the prescribed period, whether the crediting is made during or after that period. Clause 14 also validates the cash grants that have already been credited in such situations. I now come to the Police Force Act 2004. First, under section 69 of the Police Force Act, the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Police is responsible for the promotion of a special Police Officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent to the rank of Superintendent. However, the Minister for Home Affairs is responsible for the appointment, reduction in rank, dismissal or discharge of a superintendent. Clause 15 of the Bill amends section 69 such that the Minister for Home Affairs is the approving authority for the promotion of a special Police Officer to the rank of Superintendent. This ensures that the approving authority for the appointment of, promotion to, reduction of rank, discharge and dismissal of special Police Officers of the same rank is the same person. Second, clause 15 validates certain previous promotions that have been made by the Minister for Home Affairs or the Permanent Secretary of MHA.”
“Clauses 12(2) and (3) of this Bill provides for the repeal of the MASA and SDA in separate sub-sections so that they can be repealed separately. I will now turn to the next amendment, which is to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2000 (MACMA). Under section 41(1) of MACMA, when Singapore makes a request for mutual assistance or receives a request for assistance in criminal matters, the Attorney-General must notify the Minister. Upon receipt of the notice, the Minister may instruct the Attorney-General to take or not to take action that the Minister thinks is in or against the interests of the sovereignty, security or public order of Singapore. As part of Singapore's commitment to work with our international partners to combat crime, it is important to ensure Singapore's compliance with international law standards for the timely prioritisation and execution of mutual legal assistance requests. In this regard, the Minister authorises public officers of appropriate seniority and experience to review such notices from the Attorney-General, in accordance with common law principles. Under these common law principles, which have been upheld by our Courts, a Minister may authorise the exercise of such functions by his or her officers. Nevertheless, as the Minister is responsible to Parliament, the Minister must ensure that such functions are carried out by duly experienced and qualified officers. This has been the case in the context of section 41 notices under MACMA. Clause 13 of the Bill amends section 41(5) of MACMA to make clear that the Minister's functions under that section may be exercised by a public officer authorised by the Minister. The Minister will nonetheless continue to personally exercise his power for notices as the circumstances require.”