S Jayakumar
Singapore
“It is well and good for countries to announce various targets and emissions. But one vexing issue ultimately is: what will be the method for verifying compliance with each country's announced measures? Another vexing issue, of course, is the issue of financing.”
“I would appreciate it if she were to give me some specifics of the negative feedback. But the general feedback I have had about our judiciary, both of the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts, has been nothing but positive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the information that I have is that there is always medical advice present when caning is administered and that if the medical opinion is that caning cannot proceed beyond a certain point, that medical opinion will be observed and the caning will not proceed.”
“Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent announcement to make immediate improvements to the public transport system (a) whether the Ministry has set a timeline for the increase in frequency of feeder bus services; and (b) whether the Ministry can immediately target such services that are currently running at…”
“SCDF will continue to work with HDB and other relevant agencies to ensure that such older buildings with one exit staircase meet the prevailing fire safety requirements when they undergo major renovation or upgrading works. CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS 3.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Teo Ser Luck) (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Mrs Jessie Phua's and Dr Lim Wee Kiak's questions together as they both relate to the same issues.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,291 lines we hold for S Jayakumar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 66.
“Let me respond to that point by saying that clause 7(1) of the Bill makes it clear that the total sum ordered by the Board for all the objectives shall be paid from the proceeds of sale of all the subsidiary proprietors and shall not exceed the aggregate sum of 0.25% of the proceeds of sale or $2,000 for each lot, whichever is the higher. So, what we have done is to provide for the formula to be based on percentage of sale proceeds. I think it is difficult to go beyond that and to provide for a specific quantum, the actual amount, in the law to be set aside upfront before the sale proceeds have been settled. It is a question of practicality and I think it is easier to set out the formula. Dr Teo Ho Pin also asked about the workload of the STB, whether it can delay collective sales and asked for the number of panel members to be increased. I think it is a good point. But let me say that the workload, although it has increased, has not really impaired the process of the STB deciding on these cases and there have not been undue delays. In fact, in a response to a parliamentary question earlier this week, my colleague, the Minister for National Development, said that a total of 60 en bloc applications were received by STB in the first eight months of this year. STB concluded 32 of them within six months. Only one exceptional case had to be extended, as an earlier date for hearing could not be scheduled as counsel for both applicants and respondents were involved in other matters. So it is really matters beyond the control of the STB. Having said that, I agree with the Member that we could divide the heavy workload amongst more members of the Strata Titles Board.”
“Dr Teo Ho Pin asked about the new additional consent requirement that we have introduced in this Bill and he asked how it can facilitate en bloc sales. I should explain that actually the aim of this amendment is really to have an additional safeguard and not so much, to use his word, "facilitate" en bloc sales. Because the viability and timing of en bloc sale, we have to leave it to the owners in the estate and the market to determine. This additional requirement was put into this Bill for the purpose of addressing a specific problem, and that is in terms of fairness in mixed developments where residential unit owners hold lesser share values despite owning a substantial floor area and a substantial number of units. So this is to deal with a special problem in mixed developments. As I said, we had originally proposed an additional consent requirement based on the number of units. But after considering the feedback, we have decided to revise this additional requirement to that based on area of the lots. And the reason is that the consent by number of units could result in owners of large commercial units sub-dividing their properties into many strata lots, so as to create additional lots, and that would actually defeat the intention of the process. Secondly, the consent by number of units means that the commercial units will have exactly the same voting rights as the residential units, notwithstanding that the commercial units may be many more times bigger in size. That also would not be fair to owners with large units. Dr Teo Ho Pin also talked about the provision for STB to increase the sale proceeds for minority owners. I think his point was that it was not clear what this limit was and perhaps a lump sum should be set aside.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I wish to thank all the Members who have spoken on the Bill. Basically, they have expressed support for the Bill, but if I could generalise, many of them wanted more safeguards, more provisions and more controls. I think this also reflected the feedback during the consultations. I would not dismiss the various suggestions that they have made as being without merit but, as I explained in my Second Reading speech, we have to craft the amendments in a way that strikes a balance between trying to make the process more transparent, fairer and with suitable safeguards while, at the same time, not making it unduly unmanageable or too onerous to bring about an en bloc sale. Basically, the challenge is how to make these amendments or other amendments without micro-managing the process because, ultimately, we have to leave the substantive agreements to negotiations between the subsidiary proprietors in an en bloc development. But let me make this other general point. The fact that we are today about to enact these amendments does not mean that once they come into effect, the Ministry of Law will close shop and forget about the process of en bloc sales. Let me assure the House that this review by my Ministry, the Strata Titles Board and the Singapore Land Authority will be an on-going one. So we will see how these amendments operate in practice and see how the new legal regime works. And if it is felt that further changes are needed, in the light of subsequent experience, then indeed where it merits further refinements and changes, we will do so. At that stage, some of the changes and suggestions proposed by Members will also be taken into account. From that general observation, I now turn to some of the specific points made by Members who spoke.”
“These proposed changes will not apply to developments where the required 80% or 90% majority of owners, based on share value, have signed the CSA as at the date of commencement of this amendment Act. These developments will not need to comply with the new requirements set out in the amending Act. Sir, the public response to the proposed changes has been largely positive; although, of course, some have expressed concerns that the changes are too onerous while others are of the view that there should be even more safeguards. I think this range of reactions is to be expected. Let me reiterate that the amendments to the en bloc sale legislation maintain a careful balance. They provide additional safeguards and ensure greater transparency for all owners but, at the same time, they have been drafted in such a way as not to make it unduly onerous to bring about an en bloc sale. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 1.46 pm”
“Following a tender or auction, especially one which fails to achieve the price acceptable to the sale committee, the sale committee can engage in follow-up negotiations for sale by private treaty with any bidder to get the best deal for the owners. But any sale by private treaty must be concluded within 10 weeks from the close of the tender or auction. Secondly, the sale committee must obtain from an independent valuer a valuation report on the value of the en bloc sale site as at the date of the close of the tender or auction on the same date. Thirdly, the sale committee will be required to provide the owners with information on the bids received as soon as practicable after the close of the tender or auction or, where applicable, after the sale committee has entered into a sale by private treaty. Return of moneys in management fund and sinking fund Sir, I will now talk about the return of moneys in management fund and the sinking fund. Under the current law, the buyer-developer is entitled to the moneys remaining in the management fund and sinking fund upon the termination of the strata scheme following a successful en bloc sale. We have taken into account, Sir, feedback received and, therefore, the Bill makes a related amendment to the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA) to provide that upon the legal completion of an en bloc sale, the moneys in the management fund and sinking fund of a management corporation shall be returned as soon as practicable to the owners of the lots in the development, in shares proportional to the contributions levied on the owners by the management corporation. Conclusion Sir, in conclusion, let me say that the changes that I have highlighted are but the more major proposed changes in the Amendment Bill.”
“These changes, Sir, will ensure that owners will have the opportunity to discuss such key issues before consenting to them; and (2) The sale committee is also asked to keep minutes of the proceedings and must, within seven days after each meeting, either display the minutes on the management corporation's notice board or pass the minutes to all owners. Collective sale agreement Currently, the law does not regulate the drafting and signing of the CSA. The Bill now contains new provisions to address the issue of owners not knowing what is contained in the CSA, in particular, the important information, before they sign it or being pressed to sign the CSA under duress or misrepresentation. First, the en bloc sale committee must provide a preface to the CSA, listing the clause numbers and page numbers where important information, such as reserve price, apportionment method, etc, can be found. Secondly, when an owner signs the CSA in Singapore, the lawyer appointed for the en bloc sale committee will have to be present to explain the legal terms and liabilities and address any doubts that the owner may have. Third, an owner can rescind his agreement to be a party to the CSA within a five-day cooling-off period after signing the CSA for the first time. The Bill also requires the sale committee to provide updates of the consent level every four weeks instead of the current eight weeks. The updates on the consent level must also be certified by a lawyer. Mode of sale: by public tender or public auction The amendments also seek to enhance the transparency of the mode of sale which, at present, is not regulated. Firstly, at every launch of an en bloc sale, it must be by public tender or auction.”
“These rules have been adapted from the provisions in the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA) 2004 in respect of the council of the management corporation. On the formation of a sale committee, the Bill sets out, for example: (1) A decision to form an en bloc sale committee will have to be made by ordinary resolution passed at a general meeting. The intention is that there can only be one sale committee per development at any time; (2) Members of the sale committee will have to be elected at the meeting. Similarly, a sale committee may be dissolved by ordinary resolution at a general meeting; (3) A person standing for election to the sale committee must meet certain eligibility criteria. For example, such a person has to be an owner of a unit in the development; or be nominated by an owner which is a company; or be a member of the immediate family of the owner nominating him; and (4) A person standing for election to the sale committee must declare his interest or relationship, if any, with a property developer, property consultant, marketing agent or a law firm. Turning to proceedings of a sale committee, the Bill sets out, amongst others, the following requirements: (1) The sale committee shall convene general meetings to consider key issues, such as the appointment of any lawyer, property consultant or marketing agent; the apportionment of sale proceeds; the terms and conditions of the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA); and the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase agreement.”
“However, after considering feedback which we received, we are now revising this further requirement so that it will be based on the area of lots as shown in the subsidiary strata certificates of title instead of the number of units. There are two reasons for this change. Firstly, consent by number of units could result in owners of large commercial units subdividing their property into many strata lots so as to "create", as it were, additional votes for themselves. We think this will defeat the intention of adding the second consent requirement, which is really to mitigate the current bias against residential owners in a mixed development. Secondly, consent by the number of units means that a commercial unit will have exactly the same voting rights as a residential unit, notwithstanding that the commercial unit may be many times larger in size. That may not be fair to owners of large units. Using the area of lots as a basis for the second condition of consent, we believe, will mitigate the current bias against residential owners in a mixed development. At the same time, it will not be to the extent of causing bias against the commercial owners of units with much larger areas. Formation and proceedings of an en bloc sale committee Next, let me turn to the changes concerning the formation and proceedings of an en bloc sale committee. Currently, the law does not contain rules to govern the function and proceedings of an en bloc sale committee. In the light of experience and complaints which we have received, we believe there is clearly a need to enhance procedural clarity in this regard. The Bill now has two schedules - the Second Schedule and the Third Schedule - which provide for rules to regulate the formation of the sale committee and the sale committee's proceedings.”
“In these consultations, we received over 400 suggestions from more than 100 respondents. The vast majority of the suggestions were about making the en bloc sale process clearer, fairer and more transparent. We also had discussions with about 40 industry players experienced in handling en bloc sales. They include lawyers, property consultants, developers, academics and representatives of the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers (SISV). We also obtained further inputs from the STB. The amendments in this Bill have taken into consideration the feedback and suggestions we received. Basically, Sir, the Bill includes the changes which I mentioned in the House during the Committee of Supply, except for one revision which I shall shortly mention. In addition, we have also included additional changes based on some useful suggestions received during the public consultations. Let me now outline some of these changes. Additional consent requirement The first concerns additional consent requirement. Currently, an application for an en bloc sale can be made if there is consent from the owners holding at least 80% of the share values if the development is more than 10 years old, and 90% if the development is less than 10 years old. We had originally proposed to add a further requirement of consent from the owners forming at least 80% of the units if the development is more than 10 years old, and 90% of the units if the development is less than 10 years old. I explained that this was to address a problem, especially felt in mixed developments, where residential unit owners hold lesser share values despite owning a substantial floor area and a substantial number of units.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the main purpose of this Bill, which amends the Land Titles (Strata) Act, is to provide additional safeguards and greater transparency for all owners involved in en bloc sales, ie, both majority and minority owners. The proposed amendments address the concerns of owners over the lack of clarity, transparency and safeguards in the current process of en bloc sales. They also ensure that the interests of all owners are taken into consideration more adequately. While the amendments are intended to achieve those objectives, we have also borne in mind that the amended law does not make it unduly onerous to bring about an en bloc sale. Members will recall that during the Committee of Supply debate in March, I had informed the House of the changes we intended to make to the en bloc sale legislation following a review by a Study Team as well as consultations which we had with the President and Deputy Presidents of the Strata Titles Board (STB). Those proposed changes which I mentioned included: (1) Including an additional consent requirement by number of units; (2) Giving STB the power to increase the sale proceeds in cases where the STB is satisfied that it would be just and equitable to do so; (3) Empowering the STB to issue guidelines on the allowable expenditures that will be taken into account in the evaluation of financial loss claims; (4) Empowering the STB to disregard any technical or procedural irregularity if it will not prejudice any owner's interest; and (5) Various improvements to the en bloc sale procedures to further enhance transparency and certainty of the en bloc sale process. After I announced those changes, my Ministry conducted public consultations on those proposed changes.”
“CORRUPTION, DRUG TRAFFICKING AND OTHER SERIOUS CRIMES (CONFISCATION OF BENEFITS) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“These amendments, inter alia, increase the maximum fine for money laundering offences from $200,000 to a maximum of $500,000 for individuals, and a maximum of $1 million for such offences committed by institutions or corporations. MAS supports these strong measures to deter those who would seek to abuse Singapore's financial system. In alignment with the increase in CDSA penalties, the MAS Amendment Bill will increase the maximum penalty provided for in the MAS Act for breaches of directions or regulations giving effect to Singapore's United Nations obligations and for the prevention of money laundering or terrorist financing, from $100,000 to $1 million. (B) Derivative liability The amendments also clarify that sanctions for breach of the AML/CFT requirements apply not only to the legal persons that are financial institutions or businesses, but also to their directors and senior management. The Bill, therefore, introduces a new section 28B into the MAS Act to impose liability on directors and officers where non-compliance by the financial institution is attributable to their consent, connivance or neglect. This is also in alignment with the CDSA, which contains a similar derivative liability provision. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill will further deter money laundering and terrorist financing. It signals our commitment to maintain the high standards of integrity and trust in Singapore's financial system. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.”
“MONETARY AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 5.22 pm The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Senior Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Earlier this year, Parliament approved an amendment to the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act to consolidate the MAS' powers, under the various Acts it administers, to issue Notices on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) in a single Act (ie, section 27B of the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act). MAS has since re-issued the AML/CFT Notices under this section to the financial institutions and persons it regulates. The current amendments to the MAS Act seek to enhance the deterrents against money laundering and terrorist financing in the financial sector. Sir, I will now touch on the key amendments proposed in this Bill. (A) Increase in maximum penalty Money laundering is an ever-present danger in global markets. Left unhindered, it can injure the reputations of financial institutions, erode the integrity of financial markets, and weaken the resilience of the global economy. All governments have to play their part in the fight against money laundering, and more so those in global financial centres such as Singapore. The rise in terrorism activity around the world makes it even more imperative that governments take effort to suppress terrorism financing. I understand that later in today's session, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs will be moving amendments to the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA).”
“Paragraph 8 of the Schedule allows the commissioners of a Commission of Inquiry to sentence an offender for an act of contempt committed in the presence of the commissioners sitting in the Commission. This power is not given to members of a Committee of Inquiry, because the Committee of Inquiry is a body which is of a "lower level" than a Commission of Inquiry. Paragraph 12 of the First Schedule provides protection and immunities to the members of the inquiry bodies, witnesses, assessors and advocates appearing on behalf of witnesses. Paragraph 10 provides that any person, whose conduct is the subject of inquiry or is in any way implicated or concerned in the matter under inquiry, shall be entitled to be represented by an advocate and solicitor at the whole of the inquiry. As provided for in the First Schedule, any statement made before an inquiry body and reports of the inquiry are privileged for the purposes of the law of defamation. Paragraph 15 of the First Schedule expressly requires an inquiry body to deliver a report to the appointing authority setting out the facts determined by the inquiry body and the recommendations of the inquiry body. The report must be signed by each member of the inquiry body. The report must reflect points of disagreement if the inquiry body is unable to produce a unanimous report. As I said, Sir, this legislation can be regarded as a law reform Bill to update and modernise our laws concerning Commissions of Inquiry. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.”
“The First Schedule provides that inquiry bodies have the power to procure and receive evidence, to examine persons on oath, to summon persons to give evidence and to issue warrants of arrest to compel attendance of witnesses. Evidence may be admitted which may be inadmissible in civil or criminal proceedings. These powers are similar to the powers enjoyed by Commissions of Inquiry under the current Commissions of Inquiry Act. Paragraph 2 of the First Schedule allows the chairman of an inquiry body to suspend an inquiry, but with the consent of the appointing authority, ie, the President or the Minister, as the case may be, to allow the completion of any other investigation or the determination of any civil or criminal proceedings. Paragraph 5 of the First Schedule expressly creates offences for the giving of false evidence, the distortion or altering of evidence, the intentional suppression or concealment of documents, and the intentional alteration or destruction of documents. The punishment on conviction is either a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or both. The same punishment is prescribed in paragraph 6 of the First Schedule for any person who, for example, hinders a witness from giving evidence before an inquiry body or deters any person from giving such evidence by threats or coercion. Paragraph 7 of the First Schedule criminalises acts of contempt, such as wilfully interrupting the proceedings of an inquiry body or refusing to take the oath. The penalty is either a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment not exceeding two years or both.”
“These four grounds are narrower than the grounds for the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. At least one of the members of the Committee must be qualified to be a District Judge. The powers of both Commissions of Inquiry and Committees of Inquiry, referred to in the Bill as "inquiry bodies", are set out in the First Schedule. It is made clear that an inquiry body shall not rule on and has no power to determine the civil or criminal liability of any person. However, an inquiry body is not to be inhibited in the discharge of its functions by any likelihood of liability being inferred from facts that it determines or recommendations that it makes. The reason for this provision is that the primary role of an inquiry body is to investigate the facts and help prevent a recurrence, for example, of the accident which it may be inquiring into. It is not to determine guilt or legal liability of any party. To that end, an inquiry body is empowered to admit evidence that may be inadmissible in a criminal or civil trial. Therefore, because of this flexibility accorded to an inquiry body as compared to a Court of law, it would not be appropriate for such a body to be allowed to determine a person's legal liability. But this does not mean that an inquiry body cannot make a finding, as a matter of fact, that a person's carelessness or negligence, in terms of action or omission, caused a particular outcome. Such a finding can be distinguished from the power to decide as a matter of law that there was negligence at common law or within the meaning of any statute.”
“Part IV of the Bill and the First Schedule set out certain provisions which will be common to both the Commissions and Committees. Part II of the Bill sets out the updated provisions for Commissions of Inquiry. Although clause 3(1) largely reproduces the grounds for convening a Commission of Inquiry currently found in section 2 of the present Commissions of Inquiry Act, clause 3(1)(c) adds a new ground "or in the public interest". Sir, this is for the avoidance of any doubt, as it can be said that the term "public welfare", which is the existing term, could be interpreted narrowly. There may be situations where the convening of a Commission of Inquiry is clearly in the public interest, but may not, strictly speaking, be for public welfare. Clause 3(2) now expressly provides that the commission issued by the President may direct whether the commissioners are to make recommendations and how the inquiry is to be conducted. Clause 3(3) allows the President to modify the terms of reference on the recommendation of the commissioners. Clause 7 empowers the President to appoint assessors, before the appointment of the chairman of the Commission. Once the chairman has been appointed, the power to appoint assessors will rest with the chairman. Part III of the Bill deals with a Committee of Inquiry which can be appointed by a Minister to inquire into any accident or occurrence resulting in or involving death, serious personal injury or serious property damage; any occurrence that may endanger public safety or public health; the conduct or management of a Ministry, department or statutory board falling under the responsibility of that Minister; or the conduct of any officer employed by or seconded to any such Ministry, department or statutory board.”
“Sir, the new Act also introduces provisions for the appointment of Committees of Inquiry, for which the modern framework similarly will apply. Sir, there can be certain accidents or incidents that may require an investigation or inquiry but may not warrant a Commission of Inquiry. For situations that do not raise major issues of public policy, it may be more appropriate for the relevant Minister to convene a Committee of Inquiry to investigate. In fact, at present, some of our laws, such as the Workplace Safety and Health Act 2006, have provisions empowering the relevant Minister or another official to initiate inquiries into matters falling under the purview of those Acts. But not all Acts have such provisions and not all Ministries have legislative provisions for setting up inquiries. This new Act will, therefore, enable Ministers to convene a Committee of Inquiry in various situations, for example, wherever there is an occurrence that may endanger public safety or public health. In cases where existing legislation already empower the relevant Minister or another official to initiate inquiries into certain matters, the relevant Minister may decide whether to initiate an inquiry pursuant to the specific provisions of that particular Act, or to proceed under this new Act. Where a matter involves major issues of public policy, multi-agency issues or issues of grave public concern, such as the Hotel New World collapse or the Sentosa cable car incident in the past, a Commission of Inquiry will continue to be appointed. Key provisions of the Bill Let me now touch on the key provisions of this Bill. Part II of the Bill deals with Commissions of Inquiry appointed by the President and Part III of the Bill deals with Committees of Inquiry appointed by any Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair] 5.04 pm Sir, I would describe this Bill as a law reform Bill. It has two main purposes. First, to update the existing legislation on Commissions of Inquiry and, secondly, to enable Committees of Inquiry to be established where necessary. The Bill repeals the present Commissions of Inquiry Act and replaces it with a new Act covering both Commissions of Inquiry appointed by the President and Committees of Inquiry appointed by a Minister. Sir, at present, a Commission of Inquiry may be appointed by the President under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, for example, to inquire into any matter in which an inquiry would be for the public welfare. Since Independence, seven Commissions of Inquiry have been constituted. The existing Commissions of Inquiry Act is essentially based on the original framework created in 1941. It is, therefore, in need of updating, in light of more recent legislative developments in other Commonwealth countries. The new Act therefore introduces a modern framework for Commissions of Inquiry. For example, it allows the appointment of assessors to assist the commissioners. It also expressly states that a Commission is not to determine a person's criminal or civil liability, allowing the Commission, therefore, to concentrate on fact finding, thus overcoming the reluctance of witnesses to testify. It also creates offences for certain acts such as the distortion of evidence or documents given to the Commission or the suppression of documents. The amendments also protect the assessors or counsel appearing on behalf of the parties from civil suit, and provide that commission reports are privileged under the law of defamation.”
“For collective sale applications made between 1st January 2005 and 31st August 2007 and which were approved, the average age of all the developments at the time of application was 25.9 years. The average age of the developments in the Core Central Region (CCR), Rest of Central Region (RCR) and Outside Central Region (OCR) was 25.3, 28.4 and 23.9 years respectively. The average percentage of owners of units in these developments who had signed the collective sales agreement as at the time of application was 89.2%. About half of these developments attained a consent level of 90% and above. The common reasons for objections raised by minority owners to the Strata Titles Boards were that owners would suffer financial loss; and that the transaction was not done in good faith in view of factors such as sale price of the lots and common property, the method of distributing the sale proceeds and the relationship of the purchaser to any of the subsidiary proprietors. PENAL INSTITUTIONS (Profile of inmate population) 2. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs if he can provide a comparison of the profile of the current inmate population in our penal institutions including juvenile homes and the profile of the general population, distributed by (i) household income (ii) highest education qualification obtained (iii) gender; and (iv) ethnic group.”
“I would ask her to be patient as it is just a matter of time before she reads the provisions of the Bill. I hope she will understand that I would like to avoid commenting on specific cases of en bloc sales because I do not have the details and it may not be proper as some of these cases may end up in court. The general rule in legislation is prospective application. The Bill has certain provisions for transitional and savings provisions. Later, if she has a look at these provisions, they provide that the amendments will apply to all developments, except those where 80% or 90% majority, based on share values, have already signed the collective and sale agreements at the time the amendments come into effect. And there are also provisions in the Bill concerning applications made to or pending before a Board at that time the amendments come into effect. So I think she has to study these proposals and I hope she will speak her mind when the Bill is read a Second time. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE AND PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT (Review) 15. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law (a) whether steps will be taken to review the Criminal Procedure Code and Probation of Offenders Act such that the newly established Community Court can better achieve its task of rehabilitating young offenders; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider widening the Community Court's sentencing powers to allow for more suitable sentences for young offenders and those suffering from mental disorders.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, currently, the law allows an owner who does not agree to an en bloc sale to file an objection with the Strata Titles Board. There is no fee for filing an objection; and the owner is not required to be represented by a lawyer and he may appear before the Board himself. Besides this, any owner who at any time feels that he is being harassed or intimidated to consent to an en bloc sale may lodge a Police report. Let me add, Sir, that my Ministry has completed our review of the en bloc sale legislation and I shall today, after the conclusion of Question Time, introduce the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill. The changes to the legislation will be explained in detail by myself during the Second Reading of the Bill at the next sitting of the House. For now, I will just say that in addition to the proposals that we had set out in the public consultation paper and which I mentioned during the Committee of Supply, the Government has also accepted a number of additional changes that will further enhance transparency and procedural clarity, as well as offer better protection to the owners of affected developments. Sir, I believe these changes will go a considerable way to address the unscrupulous and intimidating practices that Ms Ng referred to in her Question.”
“Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs of the four convictions under section 377A of the Penal Code in 2005 and the seven convictions in 2006, how many involved a victim who was below 18 years of age.”
“The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) does have a regular maintenance programme for all State lands. Such maintenance is done more frequently for State lands within built-up areas, such as residential estates. Generally, for open space in residential estates that are used for community gathering and recreation, cleaning is done daily to remove litter and the grass is cut on a monthly basis. The Member has suggested that the name of the agency in charge of the upkeep of the State lands be stated on the signboards erected at the sites. SLA and its agent, HDB, have put up 900 signboards at various State land sites. The signboards are placed mainly on sites designated for casual and recreational uses in residential estates, eg, Tanjong Rhu and Stadium Link and at locations where there have been past cases of illegal dumping, eg, Lim Chu Kang and Ponggol. As there are about 3,700 State land sites island-wide with an aggregate land area of 14,000 ha, it would not be practical to place such signs on every piece of State land. SLA has, therefore, concentrated its efforts in putting up signboards in residential estates as these are frequently used by the public. The signboards show the agency responsible for the maintenance of the land and the agency's contact number. SLA also has an up-to-date, one-stop online portal called LandQuery, from which the public can check the agencies responsible for the maintenance of all Government-owned land, including those owned by statutory boards. Launched in November last year, LandQuery allows a member of the public to contact the Government agency through an online feedback form or by telephone at the contact number listed in the portal. The public service is free. CONVICTIONS UNDER PENAL CODE (Section 377A) 3.”
“Sir, I would like to make a clarification. During the Parliamentary sitting yesterday, after my main answer to Question Nos. 3 and 4, I responded to a supplementary question from Ms Sylvia Lim when she asked about the timing of the compensation offer to Mr Dickson Tan and whether the urgency was brought about by a threat of lawsuit against the Government. When I answered her, I said I did not have the detailed choronology on that aspect. [Please see report on 16th July 2007.** ] Yesterday evening, I checked with officials from the Attorney-General's Chambers. The facts are that a letter was received by the Prisons from Mr Dickson Tan's mother on 30th May asking for compensation and an apology, and containing a threat of legal proceedings. However, I am informed that well before the receipt of the letter, in mid-April, the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Subordinate Courts had already been in discussion on what could be a fair settlement sum after the Attorney-General had ascertained that an error was made. At the end of April, the Attorney-General's Chambers liaised with the Prisons and Subordinate Courts to meet up with Mr Dickson Tan to discuss a settlement offer. As he would be released on Home Detention Scheme on 17th May, the Attorney-General's Chambers felt that it would be better to meet him after he was placed on Home Detention Scheme. Prisons then sought to arrange a meeting for the parties to meet. The Attorney-General's Chambers confirmed the date of the meeting to be on 5th June and the meeting took place then. This confirmation, Sir, was given before the Attorney-General's Chambers received the letter from Mr Dickson Tan's mother. **Col. 1005, 16th July 2007. COMMODITY TRADING (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.07 pm”
“There were reports that some members of the public had reacted quickly and helped to apprehend the perpetrators including the suspect, who was fleeing from the car in flames. The British people also displayed resilience in their determination not to be cowed or intimidated by these terrorists. I think these are aspects that we in Singapore must emulate. I would also like to encourage all Singaporeans to be more involved in the nation's security efforts. For instance, by participating in exercises like Northstar V, members of the public can learn about what they need to do in the event of a crisis. These Exercises also help foster a sense of shared responsibility and togetherness that will help our nation stay strong. We have plans to conduct more of such exercises and to involve more members of the public. FOREIGN SPOUSES MARRIED TO SINGAPOREANS (Granting of permanent residency status) 42. Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs in the last five years, how many foreign spouses married to Singaporeans were not granted permission to reside here permanently.”
“Our security agencies remain prepared and vigilant in the face of the ever present terrorism threat. Comprehensive plans to deter and counter a terrorist attack have been put in place since 2001 and our agencies are working closely together to constantly update and improve these plans. Since the Member asked about recent incidents in UK, let me say that we have increased the frequency and coverage of airport patrols and enhanced the traffic roadblocks at the terminals. Our airport security personnel are paying special attention to vehicular access areas and driveways. The recent terrorist events in Glasgow and London reminds us that the threat of terrorism is real. We are in for the long haul and we cannot afford to let our guard down, whether it is security of airports, ports, transport system, key installations or other potential targets. The terrorists are highly adaptive and capable of finding new followers, even among the well-educated. Therefore, we must constantly refine our contingency plans, remain vigilant and stand prepared to deal with this threat. The Government has undertaken necessary measures to protect Singapore and Singaporeans against the threat of terrorist attack. And it will continue to do so. Nevertheless, the Government's efforts to deal with the threat of terrorism can only be effective with the full participation of all Singaporeans. Our people must also play their part. Everyone has a responsibility to be "the eyes and ears" against potential threats, and also to react quickly and effectively in the aftermath of a terrorist incident. The response of the British people to the attacks also serve as a model of public involvement.”
“Secondly, the OA will give early notification to potential bankrupts on travel restrictions that apply to bankrupts and the penalties for failing to comply with these restrictions. And thirdly, the OA will work with relevant agencies like the Courts to streamline current processes to expedite the transmission of information. I believe that these additional measures will strengthen the current system. RE-EMPLOYMENT OF WORKERS BEYOND 62 YEARS OF AGE 24. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what plan will the Ministry put in place to track the re-employment of workers beyond 62 years of age; and (b) what is the Ministry’s ultimate target for successful accomplishment of this plan.”
“As the OA's role is to ensure a fair and efficient administration of the bankrupt's affairs, he will not hesitate to take action against an errant bankrupt who frustrates this purpose. With more than 24,000 bankrupts, the OA must take a targeted approach. In monitoring the conduct of bankrupts, he works closely with creditors and their lawyers, who have the greatest interest to monitor the bankrupt's conduct and who can provide him with the relevant information. He can detain a bankrupt's passport or ask the Commissioner, ICA to do so if the bankrupt, despite repeated attempts to contact him, refuses to respond to the OA; is uncooperative or is suspected of having committed an offence; or if the OA receives information that the bankrupt may attempt to travel without prior permission. In appropriate cases, the OA may also apply to the High Court for a warrant of arrest against a bankrupt or potential bankrupt if there are credible grounds for believing that he is a flight risk. Overall, the current system has worked well. The vast majority of bankrupts seek the OA's permission before they travel. Last year, the OA received some 34,000 applications for permission to travel, inclusive of repeat applications of which some 30,500 applications, which is about 90%, were approved. And while there are currently more than 24,000 bankrupts, only about 100 or 0.4% are taken to task annually for unauthorised travel. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement. We will therefore implement the following measures. Firstly, the OA will help creditors and their lawyers to be more aware of the legal provisions in dealing with bankrupts and would-be bankrupts who are potential flight risks.”
“A bankrupt who travels or remains outside Singapore without the Official Assignee (OA)'s permission commits an offence under section 131(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act. In 2006, 77 bankrupts were prosecuted for unauthorised travel. The corresponding figures for 2005 and 2004 were 68 and 40. Not all cases of unauthorised travel will result in prosecution. The OA considers relevant factors such as whether the bankrupt has travelled without permission before, the length of stay overseas, whether he has been generally cooperative with the OA, whether he has committed other offences, and so on, in deciding whether or not to prosecute the errant bankrupt. In appropriate cases, the OA may issue a warning in lieu of prosecution. Last year, 22 bankrupts were issued warnings. For 2005 and 2004, 21 and 6 warnings were issued respectively. The main purpose of requiring a bankrupt to seek the OA's permission for overseas travel is to help the OA in the administration of the bankruptcy estate, and to prevent the bankrupt from hiding income earned or disposing his assets overseas. To check whether a bankrupt may have travelled without authorisation, the OA follows up on information received and routinely checks the passports of bankrupts. The OA takes every case of unauthorised travel seriously. The OA has powers under section 116 of the Bankruptcy Act to detain the passport of a bankrupt or issue a direction to the Commissioner of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority to prevent the bankrupt from going overseas. The OA can also take the errant bankrupt to task if he had concealed or improperly put his assets out of the OA's reach.”
“I think it is suffice for me to thank Mr Alvin Yeo for his support. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [ Prof. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. PASSPORTS BILL Order for Second Reading read. 5.25 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill is consequential to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill 2007 which the House has just approved. The composition of the Legal Service Commission will be changed and there will be separately constituted Personnel Board(s) for the Legal Service officers. Therefore, we have to amend the Public Service Commission (PSC) Act. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair] 5.15 pm There are certain provisions in the PSC Act which should similarly apply to the LSC and its Personnel Boards. For example, the PSC Act provides for rules for the punishment of those who commit offences in connection with the exercise of their functions as well as the protection of members of the Commission. It is an offence to give false information to the Commission and communications of the Commission are privileged. The PSC Act is therefore being amended to extend the scope and operation of these provisions to the LSC, its members and the Personnel Boards for the Legal Service officers. The meaning of "the Commission" in the Act will be expanded to include the LSC, so that all the existing rules in the Act will apply equally to the LSC, its members and its Personnel Boards. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 5.18 pm”
“Now, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."”
“But, at the end of the day, Sir, I come back to this point. As Law Minister, I have been to many Commonwealth Law Ministers' meetings and other Law Ministers' meetings where I have seen seemingly impressive papers presented by other delegations on their systems. Just as you can have any number of constitutions in the world, so too you can have any number of structures that you can think of for the Judiciary and the Legal Service. But the test is the integrity of the system of any model depends on the people who are operating the system and, most importantly, on the leadership in the Government and whether the Government respects the integrity and independence of the Judiciary. If that was not so, how would Singapore, year after year, have rankings from so many different surveying organisations which ranked our legal system and our system for administration of justice as amongst the top in the world? Not just in Asia, but in the world! So, to Ms Sylvia Lim and others who are ready to raise the spectre of lack of judicial independence, let me say that our system works, and it has gained for us a very valuable reputation. That reputation can be maintained for so long as we get good people in the Legal Service and in the Judiciary and, I say, as important, good people in Government and in Cabinet who will ensure that this system of integrity and incorruptibility is maintained. That is the test, not whether you can create any number of structures. We have the system, it works, and we are now finetuning it to work even better, so we can retain good talent in the Legal Service. I say, let us keep what it works and let us not besmirch the reputation we have so carefully built up over the years.”
“So, I am really surprised that Ms Sylvia Lim resurrects this spectre of possible Executive interference in the Judiciary. I had thought that was an old issue and am surprised that the leader of the party, Mr Low Thia Khiang, has not spoken on such an important issue. If Ms Sylvia Lim really feels that this is going to undermine the independence of the Judiciary, she has to tell us in what ways it is going to undermine the independence of the Judiciary, bearing in mind all the points that have been mentioned by me, Ms Indranee Rajah and Prof. Thio Li-ann. I think it does a disservice to our system. It does a disservice to our Legal Service Commission, and it does a disservice to our reputation. Mr Speaker, Sir, at the end of the day, we can have any number of systems and any number of models. I know that the Workers' Party in its manifesto wants to scrap the present provisions for appointments of High Court Judges and Judicial Commissioners. They want to scrap the existing system to create a judicial service separate from the Legal Service. They do not want a transfer of members of the Subordinate Courts. In a small place like Singapore, how would it work? I have discussed with the Chief Justice and he is convinced, so is the Attorney-General, that, in Singapore, it is in the interest of the Service and the interest of Singapore to have Legal Service officers exposed to and trained in different fields of legal work. It must be so. How can you have somebody appointed as a Judge who has not had experience in prosecution? It is in the interest of our Legal Service, particularly when we have a small Legal Service, to ensure that over a period of time, there is sufficient exposure to different key branches of legal work that Legal Service officers have to handle.”
“And that oath of office would have him solemnly swear or affirm that he will, freely and without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, give his counsel and advice in connection with any matter referred to the Commission, and that he will not directly or indirectly reveal any such matters to any unauthorised person. And there is a prohibition in the Public Service Commission Act, which is now going to be suitably amended to include the LSC, which also makes it an offence for any LSC member or PSC member to disclose information of proceedings of the Commission. In other words, Ms Sylvia Lim builds this spectre or prospect of Executive interference. But I have pointed out in my Second Reading speech that we have to do this - the enlargement of the LSC - so that the LSC, which has remained unchanged from the days of our independence, can be geared to deal with modern-day challenges, to bring in people who may have expertise and knowledge about how things work out in the private sector, about human resource management and development. They can bring this expertise and I think the LSC will be that much better and richer in handling personnel management relations. And, as I have explained, the Prime Minister retains overall charge of the civil service, of which the Legal Service is a part. And it is only logical and necessary that the Prime Minister has a role in nominating two members. But once he has nominated two members and they are appointed, his role ends there. Neither he nor the other nominating members - the Chairman of PSC or the Chief Justice - can in any way direct the nominees to act or to decide in any particular manner. Once appointed, because of the oath and the functioning of the LSC, they take decisions in concert together with the other LSC members.”
“Indeed, as she was speaking, I was reminded of a previous Workers' Party Member of Parliament, Mr Jeyaretnam, who made all sorts of allegations about our existing system and raised the spectre of Executive interference in the Subordinate Courts judiciary. And that led to not only a Commission of Inquiry into allegations of Executive interference in the Judiciary, it also led to a Committee of Privileges being constituted by Parliament, both of which found Mr Jeyaretnam was wrong and unjustified in making those allegations. The difference, it would seem, is that, there, Mr Jeyaretnam made specific allegations of actual interference in the Judiciary but, in the process, he also cast doubt over the entire system. Ms Sylvia Lim, through her speech, is, in fact, resurrecting what, if I may borrow a term from Prof. Thio Li-ann, a conspiracy theory. But is this supported? Both Ms Indranee Rajah and Prof. Thio Li-ann have, in fact, in their speeches, provided the persuasive and convincing arguments which I would have used to rebut Ms Sylvia Lim; firstly, the Prime Minister, in nominating two Members of a nine-member enlarged LSC, is not doing something different from his many roles which Ms Indranee Rajah outlined - appointing Judges, the Chairman of PSC, members of PSC, the Chief Justice, all subject to the veto of the President, which is exercised in his discretion. Secondly, the qualifications and disqualifications for his appointment or nomination are spelt out in the Constitution, and they are spelt out precisely in order to ensure that there are no formal political links. I may add that not only the nominees of the Prime Minister but every Legal Service Commission member will have to take an oath of office.”
“I should explain and elaborate, if I may, that the oaths are not like a contract where there must be specific itemisation of legal rights and liabilities in order to operate as oaths. An oath actually is a solemn undertaking to conduct oneself and to perform his duties in accordance with whatever instrument that spells out his rights and obligations. The oath itself does not set out the substantive law of what are the Prime Minister, Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries' duties and responsibilities. They are set out in the provisions of the Constitution - the duties, powers and responsibilities of the Prime Minister, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and their relationship with the Legislature and with the Elected President. I would also add that Cabinet is, by Article 24(2) of the Constitution, collectively responsible to Parliament. I mention this because if she is concerned about the provision of secrecy, the secrecy of Cabinet discussions is actually the foundation of collective responsibility, and the secrecy of Cabinet deliberations and decision-making is recognised at law, because confidentiality is essential. It is not only in common law; it is so in other Commonwealth Constitutions. Let me say that we have looked at the Constitutions of many countries in the world, and ours is one of the few which have such lengthy and outdated structure. On confidentiality, of course, I should add that there is also the Official Secrets Act. If I may now turn to the points made by Ms Sylvia Lim. In her second intervention in response to Ms Indranee Rajah, she asked the House, especially those who have long memories, to recall that this issue had been debated in this House.”
“But after recruitment, the career advancement must and will be based on the performance and the merits of the officer's performance. Of course, in the Legal Service, as many of you know, many of the top legal graduates would prefer to work as Justice Law Clerks and they will be given the choice. This is not different from any other much sought after jobs in other parts of the civil service, or even the private sector. The important thing is that, after the initial deployment, the rate of progression will be determined and assessed on the actual performance of the individual officers. If I may turn to the comments made by Mdm Ho Geok Choo, she referred to the comments of Ms Sylvia Lim on the appointment of LSC members. I will deal with that later. Another point she made was about LSC membership - why do we not include members of the academia? I am a former academic myself! Let me say that if she looks at the provision as it is drafted, it does not exclude consideration of members of the academia. It is not one of the disqualifications. I guess if we have a really outstanding member of the academia who is regarded as one who will bring a certain amount of expertise and experience to the Legal Service Commission, I am sure he will be considered. But the actual composition of the LSC will have to be worked out and made known when ready. Then, she has a point about oaths of office. She said, I believe, that she had some disquiet over the shortening of the oaths because some phrases and wordings seem to have been omitted. Let me assure her of what I said in my Second Reading speech, that the substance and the essence of the oath is really not affected.”
“This is the point I made in the Ministerial Statement last year, and this is one of the reasons why the panel and the study by Justice Lee Seiu Kin's committee was important to put in place a personnel management system. I am very aware of the tremendous demands and challenges posed to the Legal Service as a result of these changes. For the past 19 years, I have seen how demanding these changes have evolved, whether it is in the drafting of Bills which come up to the House, whether it is the giving of legal advice on increasingly complex matters to different Ministries and to Cabinet, or in representing the Government, not just on domestic matters but, in recent times, on increasingly complex and important international law issues. The case we had with Malaysia on the reclamation issue is one and, later in the year, in November, the International Court of Justice will be finally hearing the arguments on the case concerning Malaysia's claim to Pedra Branca. For this, I have had discussions with the Attorney-General's Chambers for many years in developing the arguments. This is just one example of the kinds of changing demands and challenges which require the Legal Service to have very bright, competent and able people, leaving aside, of course, the need for the judiciary also to have bright and able people. Ms Indranee Rajah asked about performance-based advancement. I think her point was that it should not be based on the type of Honours or class of Honours. I guess, like many other establishments which recruit fresh graduates, the results achieved in the university examination - class of Honours - often make a difference in the recruitment process.”
“Mr Christopher de Souza also asked about a larger financial budget so as to meet new demands. The changes, of course, will bring about a more robust personnel management framework, but I do not expect this to result in any significant increase in the budget. The amendments actually seek to institutionalise Personnel Boards which already exist today. But if additional resources are needed, I am confident that we should be able to make out a case for higher budgetary allocation to the Ministry of Finance. I agree with what Mr Christopher de Souza said about monopoly of talent. It is not the intention of the Legal Service to monopolise all the legal talent for itself. I refer to what Ms Indranee Rajah has said and I hope it is not the intention of the big law firms and the profession to monopolise all the legal talent for the profession. There has to be a fair spread. Like the rest of the civil service, the Legal Service must also have its fair share of legal talent if we are going to maintain a first-rate, top-class Legal Service. Sir, I am afraid I have not followed in great detail the workings and recent events in the Competition Commission. I note the feedback of Mr Christopher de Souza on competition law and IP law, and on the specific issue concerning the Competition Commission. I will refer it to the Ministry of Trade and Industry. But I can agree with the general point that Mr de Souza made about the legal landscape changing, and changing very fast, and, therefore, a consequential need to invest in talent and to ensure that we retain the brightest in the Legal Service. I agree with him fully.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken and I wish to respond to some of the comments and questions which they have posed. Let me touch on points raised by Mr Christopher de Souza and also by Ms Indranee Rajah and then on points which were raised by other speakers. Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the separate Personnel Boards, whether there can be more than one Personnel Board. Of course, there can be more than one personnel board but, due to the small size and relative homogeneous nature of the Legal Service, I think it is unlikely to exceed two Personnel Boards. But the precise details of how many will have to be decided later. I also cannot give precise answers as to how they will be organised. But I think they are likely to be organised more by grade of the officers, that is, whether they are on the timescale or superscale grade, and not by departments that he seems to suggest. This is to ensure greater consistency and fairness in assessment. This would also, I guess, to some extent, address the silo effect which Ms Indranee Rajah talked about. In any event, the LSC will continue to serve as a check against silos being built up. It has the power to hear appeals from the legal service officers who may not be satisfied with the decision of any Personnel Board and to substitute its decisions for the board's. Following recommendations made by the Legal Service Personnel Management Review Panel which I mentioned, chaired by Justice Lee Seiu Kin, the LSC has also put in place now a Talent Management Scheme, a succession planning framework and other measures to address improvements, not just for the entire Legal Service as a whole, but also the needs of the individual arms of the Service.”
“The existing oaths of office are too lengthy and may be shortened without affecting the substance of the oaths. The present oaths of office for the Prime Minister, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries in the First Schedule of the Constitution will be replaced with shorter oaths. Let me stress, Sir, that while the new oaths are more succinct and concise, their essence remains unaffected. The oaths have been significantly shortened by leaving out two existing paragraphs on confidentiality of Cabinet discussions and maintenance of secrecy. Let me assure the House that, in substance, there is no change, as the Cabinet is bound by Article 24(2) of the Constitution and is collectively responsible to Parliament. Secrecy of Cabinet discussions is the foundation of collective responsibility. Repeated Oath-taking by Judicial Commissioners Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, the remaining amendment deals with oath-taking by Judicial Commissioners appointed to hear specific cases. Currently, Article 94 of the Constitution allows for the appointment of Judicial Commissioners for a period of time and also to hear specific cases. Article 97 requires a Judicial Commissioner to take an Oath of Office on each appointment. This means that a Judicial Commissioner who is appointed to hear two specific cases within a relatively short period of time will have to take the oath twice. The Chief Justice suggested, and the Government agreed, that we can dispense with oath-taking if the interval between cases is short. The Constitution will be amended such that Judicial Commissioners who are appointed to hear specific cases need not take the oath again if the interval between the cases heard is less than 12 months. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.25 pm”
“In the event a Council member is temporarily unable to attend at any Council proceedings, whether by illness, absence or any other reason, one of the two alternate members appointed can then be selected to act in place of that member. Where a Council member is appointed to act as Chairman of the Council, such as whenever the Chairman of the Council himself is Acting President, an alternate member may also be selected to act in that member's place. The selection as to which alternate member will actually serve at any instance will be made either by the President, the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice or the Chairman of the PSC, depending on whose nominee on the Council is temporarily unable to attend Council proceedings. The President will make the selection solely at his discretion if the Council member who is temporarily unable to attend is the President's nominee. Where, however, if the Council member who is temporarily unable to attend is the nominee of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice or the Chairman of the PSC, the selection will be made by the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice or the Chairman of the PSC, respectively. Sir, the alternate members are like full Council members. Each alternate member has to take an oath of office and allegiance before assuming his duties as an alternate member. However, to avoid repeated oath-taking, the alternate member need not be required to take such an oath more than once during his term of office as an alternate member. Oaths of Office for the Prime Minister, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now turn to the amendments to shorten the oaths of office for the Prime Minister, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries.”
“This is in Article 37C. The President can appoint a temporary member on the advice of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice or the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC), as the case may be. Sir, however, this provision to appoint temporary members has practical limitations. It does not apply to periods of absence or illness shorter than three months. It also does not address the situation where a Council member cannot participate in Council proceedings in order to avoid any perception of conflict of interest. To address these issues, the President has requested for changes to the Constitution to provide for the appointment of alternate members in place of temporary members. The President was consulted on the changes and he supports these amendments in clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill. Article 37C, which today provides for the appointment of temporary members, will be repealed. It will be replaced with a new Article allowing the President to appoint two alternate members to act in place of any of the Council members, other than the Chairman, who is temporarily prevented from taking part in any proceedings of the Council. The requirement that the temporary disability should be for more than three months will be omitted. One alternate member will be appointed by the President in his discretion. The other alternate members will be appointed by the President on the nomination of the Prime Minister, after the Prime Minister has consulted with the Chief Justice and the Chairman of the PSC, the latter being the two other nominating authorities for the other Council members. The two alternate members will each be appointed for a term of four years, and each will be subject to the same disqualifications as for Council members.”
“The members of a Personnel Board for Legal Service officers may or may not be members of the LSC. LSC Personnel Board members will be appointed by the President where he agrees with the advice of the LSC. Like the Personnel Boards for other civil servants, the appointment of members of the LSC Personnel Board is also subject to the President's veto. Moreover, political office- holders, Members of Parliament and trade unionists will likewise be disqualified from sitting on the LSC Personnel Boards. Sir, with the changes to the composition of the LSC, and the separately constituted Personnel Boards for Legal Service officers, the Secretary to the PSC will also cease to be concurrently the Secretary to the LSC. The LSC can have its own Secretary, who must be a public officer appointed by the President, on the advice of the LSC. Arising from these Constitutional amendments, related consequential amendments to the Public Service Commission Act will also be necessary to extend its scope and protection to the LSC and its members and to the Personnel Boards for the Legal Service. I will explain those amendments in greater detail during the Second Reading of the Public Service Commission (Amendment) Bill, which is the next item on the Order Paper. Council of Presidential Advisers Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now deal with the amendments to allow for the appointment of alternate members to act in place of members of the Council of Presidential Advisers ("the Council") who are temporarily unable to take part in any proceedings of the Council. The Constitution now provides for the appointment of temporary members where a Council member, for a period of three months or more, is unable to take part in the proceedings of the Council for reasons of illness, absence or other reason.”
“It is also consistent with the role of the Prime Minister in recommending appointments to the PSC and his retaining responsibility for the civil service of which the Legal Service is a part. The Prime Minister will be nominating only two out of the six nominated LSC members, and his nominations will have to be approved by the President acting in his discretion. The Constitution will also be amended to allow Personnel Boards to be established for the Singapore Legal Service, and for these Boards to operate autonomously from the LSC. Under the present personnel management system of the Singapore Legal Service, Personnel Boards have been established by the LSC, but these Personnel Boards are delegates of the LSC, deriving all powers and functions from the LSC and discharging those powers and functions under LSC's direction and control. The amendments in the Bill will allow the Personnel Boards of the Legal Service to evolve to become like the Personnel Boards for the rest of the civil service, with adaptations, of course, because of the smaller number of officers in the Singapore Legal Service. A new Article 111AA will allow the President, on the advice of the Prime Minister, to establish one or more Personnel Boards having charge over different classes of Legal Service officers. The powers of the LSC will be devolved to the Personnel Boards for Legal Service officers, except the power of dismissal and disciplinary control, and all powers of recruitment and promotion of Legal Service officers of and above a certain threshold grade. Once a Personnel Board is established for a specific class of Legal Service officers, the powers of the LSC will cease to be exercisable with respect to that class of officers, except in an appellate capacity.”
“The membership of the LSC will now be widened to provide for the appointment of more members with experience that is relevant to the Singapore Legal Service of today. The LSC will be restructured to include members with a wider range of experience, for example, people who have worked in personnel management or who have knowledge of the legal service or the legal profession. They can be from the private sector, and can include retired judges or retired senior counsel. The Chief Justice will continue to be President of the LSC, and the Attorney-General and the Chairman of the PSC will also continue as members of the Committee. Article 111 of the Constitution will be amended to provide up to six more LSC members, who need not necessarily be Supreme Court Judges or PSC members. The additional members will be nominated by the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice and Chairman PSC, respectively. The Prime Minister, the Chief Justice and Chairman PSC can each nominate one but not more than two additional members for appointment by the President. The President, however, is not bound by these nominations. His power to veto appointments under Article 22 is expanded to these additional LSC members. In doing so, we preserve the President's safeguard role as regards the integrity of the Singapore public service. A significant change is that the Prime Minister will now nominate up to two LSC members. Currently, the Prime Minister has no role in the appointment of LSC members. This change is consistent with the role of the Prime Minister in recommending appointments of judges after consulting the Chief Justice.”
“We need to strengthen the personnel management system to make it more robust as well as more responsive to the new challenges in managing talent and personnel in the expanded Legal Service. As I said in my Ministerial Statement last year: "... The Government has discussed with the outgoing Chief Justice Yong Pung How, the incoming Chief Justice as well as the next Attorney-General, on how we can build on this hard-won reputation. They are all agreed that the key is to have the right people in our judiciary and legal service. It is vital that we maintain a continuing inflow of talent and attract the best and promising law graduates to the Legal Service. They are also unanimous that, to achieve this, we need to restructure the Legal Service Commission (LSC) and update our personnel management system. We also need a more systematic talent management system." As a follow-up, the LSC appointed the Legal Service Personnel Management Review Panel on 20th April 2006, chaired by Justice Lee Seiu Kin, to conduct a comprehensive review. The Panel made several recommendations on the management and development of talent in the Singapore Legal Service. And these recommendations are now being implemented. The LSC sits at the apex of the personnel management system for the Singapore Legal Service. It is vested with the Constitutional authority to recruit, promote and discipline all legal service officers. Currently, the LSC comprises the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, the Chairman of the PSC, a Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the Chief Justice, and two members of the PSC as nominated by the Chairman of the PSC. In other words, they are all members by virtue of the offices that they hold. This composition has remained unchanged since independence.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill makes several amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. The main amendment is to make changes to the composition of the Legal Service Commission (LSC) as well as to enhance and institutionalise the personnel management system of the Singapore Legal Service. There are three other amendments: (1) to make provision for alternate members on the Council of Presidential Advisers to act in place of members who are temporarily unable to take part in Council proceedings; (2) to shorten the oaths of office for the Prime Minister, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries; and (3) to provide that Judicial Commissioners who are appointed to hear specific cases need not be subjected to repeated oath-taking. Some of these amendments, Sir, affect the President's discretionary powers, though not adversely. The President has been consulted on them, and he supports them. The Legal Service Commission and personnel management system of the Singapore Legal Service Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first deal with the amendments pertaining to the changes to the Legal Service Commission and to the personnel management system of the Singapore Legal Service. These amendments are a follow-up to my Statement to this House on 3rd April last year, when I announced a review of the personnel management framework for the Singapore Legal Service. As I then explained, our Legal Service personnel management system was inherited from the British. The Constitutional framework for the Legal Service has remained largely unchanged since Singapore's independence, even though the demands on legal services have changed radically.”