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 3 of 66.
“Sir, I have inquired from the authorities - the Ministry of Home Affairs - and it is very clear that there is no truth in this allegation. No letters were prevented from reaching the recipient intended by Mr Dickson Tan.”
“Sir, I believe the Subordinate Courts have acted very promptly and some of the measures I have already mentioned in my answer to his question. They have already been instituted. Some checks will have to be done in consultation with other agencies, which are involved in investigations, in prosecution, and I know that the Senior District Judge has, in fact, met with the key agencies. I think I can confidently tell the House that these measures will be done expeditiously. As to the settlement talks or the progress of the mediation, there was a mediation hearing last week and I understand that it has been adjourned to enable both sides to consider and reflect on the positions taken by each side. I also understand that the nature of these mediation proceedings is that they are confidential. And if they succeed and a settlement is reached, that is one scenario. If they do not succeed, there is a possibility that they might go to the courts. So, either way, I think it is best that I do not go into details of what actually is offered and what was said by each side in the negotiations.”
“Let me explain, Sir, that the position of the Government is not that the prisoner had any contributory negligence. If she read the statement clearly, it was upfront that the error was the error of the official of the court. Now, why did we put in those points in the press statement? The reason is because that press statement was in response to press queries on that day concerning allegations by members of the family that prior to the carrying out of the sentence, either the prisoner, Mr Dickson Tan, or members of his family, had actually objected to the imposition of the sentence. And the reason why the press statement had to set out the sequence of events is to show that, from the viewpoint of the Prisons, this was not true. In fact, we had to explain that the Prisons has a sequence of steps. From the moment the prisoner is admitted up to the carrying out of the sentence - in fact, I have gone through with the officials the sequence of steps - there are many stages where the prisoner is interviewed. He is asked to confirm that he does not wish to appeal, the sentence is read out to him, he is asked to affirm whether he understands and so on. In fact, I have seen some of the documents where in fact his confirmation is there, that he understood, that he did not object. So, it was in response to allegations that he had objected, and that is the reason why we had to bring out those paragraphs in the statement.”
“I understand that the Subordinate Courts have already taken additional steps and refined their checklists. For example, Warrants of Commitment will now be checked twice at both levels by another Court Clerk not involved in the preparation of the Warrant and by a second District Judge. The Courts are also considering automating the process of preparation of Warrants of Commitment with built-in system checks so that such errors do not recur. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me end by putting his matter in perspective. The Subordinate Courts deal with some 200,000 criminal cases every year, some involving sentences of imprisonment, some involving fines, some involving caning, and some involving a combination of these sentences. So, bearing in mind 200,000 cases a year, this kind of clerical mistake is an extremely rare occurrence. But as I have said publicly, even if these mistakes are rare, even if there is only one case, it is one case too many. We have to put it right and ensure that it does not recur. I think that is the way to uphold and strengthen the hard won reputation of our legal system for integrity and justice which we have built up over many years. I know that this is also the attitude of the Chief Justice, the Senior District Judge and other members of the Judiciary. Measures have been put in place to strengthen the system and to ensure that this sort of mistake does not recur.”
“The Subordinate Courts considered instituting disciplinary proceedings against the Court Clerk but after considering his overall performance record in the Court, which was good, and that this was his first mistake which was not wilful, allowed him to resign. Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand from the Courts that the primary responsibility for preparing a Warrant of Commitment lies with the Court Clerk. Unfortunately, the District Judge who signed off on the Warrant did not detect the error. The Chief Justice has directed that the District Judge be formally cautioned and that after he has cleared his outstanding criminal cases, he would be taken off judicial work which involves the signing of Warrants of Commitment. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me inform the House that the Chief Justice has himself looked into this matter. He has written to the Senior District Judge to express "deep concern" about what happened in this case and to impress upon the Subordinate Courts' Judges and Court Officers the seriousness with which he views avoidable mistakes of this nature. Moreover, notwithstanding that this kind of mistake was a rare occurrence, the Chief Justice has said that he takes this seriously as it may affect the excellent reputation and standing of our legal and judicial systems which have taken many years to build up. The Chief Justice has directed a review of all administrative procedures within the Courts so as to put in place a system to avoid mistakes of this nature in the future. The Chief Justice has also directed that the Courts work with the relevant agencies - Prisons, Police and the Attorney-General's Chambers to ensure that a comprehensive system of checks by all agencies is put in place to prevent mistakes of this nature. All these are now being done.”
“The error occurred at the stage when transcribing the sentence from the case file onto the Warrant of Commitment. The Warrant of Commitment notifies the Prisons Department the sentence that was passed on the offender. When preparing the Warrant, the Court Clerk erroneously entered the sentence for the second charge as six months' imprisonment and six strokes of caning instead of three strokes, thereby giving rise to eight strokes of the cane, instead of a total of five strokes. Unfortunately, the sentencing District Judge also did not spot the error when he signed off on the Warrant. The caning sentence was administered to Mr Dickson Tan on 29th March. The Court Clerk who prepared the Warrant became aware of the error on 2nd April following an enquiry from a member of Mr Tan's family. The Court Clerk then alerted the District Judge, who in turn reported the matter to the Senior District Judge. The second part of Mr Hri Kumar's question asks what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of the same or similar errors. Before answering that, let me add that when the matter was brought to the attention of the Senior District Judge, he took the matter seriously and immediately directed investigations to be carried out. Those investigations revealed how the error had arisen which I have explained. In the course of the investigations, statements were obtained from the Court Clerk as well as the District Judge. The Court Clerk, in his statement, admitted his mistake and apologised. The Court Clerk expressed his remorse over the incident and asked to resign on 12th April.”
“Thank you. I will first answer Ms Sylvia Lim's question which is a general question, ie, what is the Government's approach in taking responsibility for clerical and administrative mistakes made in the administration of justice that result in unnecessary or excessive punishment? Sir, in answer to that question, let me say that it is clear that there can only be one approach to that situation. When such a mistake has indeed occurred, the Government must, of course, accept responsibility. Each and every mistake must be taken seriously - we cause an investigation, identify the causes and take remedial actions to ensure that it does not recur. Indeed, this has been the approach which we have taken. And where compensation is due, the Government will be prepared to offer reasonable compensation. In short, we take responsibility, and put it right. Let me now turn to Mr Hri Kumar's question. His specific question is about the case involving Mr Dickson Tan, which has been the subject of some media publicity. The first part of his question is how did the error occur? Sir, Mr Dickson Tan was charged with four counts of abetting an unlicensed moneylender to harass a debtor. He pleaded guilty to two of the charges, was convicted and sentenced on 28th February 2007 to three months' imprisonment and two strokes caning (for one charge) and six months' imprisonment and three strokes caning (for the second charge), that is, a total of nine months' imprisonment and five strokes of the cane, as the sentences are to run consecutively. (The two remaining charges were taken into consideration). There is no dispute that the sentence was legally correct. It was pronounced in open court and recorded accurately in the case file and notes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, can I take Question Nos. 3 and 4 together as they are related?”
“The Law Society which is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of lawyers will therefore be making rules really intended to help prevent lawyers from unwittingly becoming involved in criminal money laundering. That is the objective. The Law Society's controls and monitoring will provide a first line of preventative measures against money laundering by promoting good governance in law firms. The Law Society's rules will prohibit lawyers from holding anonymous accounts because, just like banks, they have to report suspicious transactions. Lawyers will also be required to take reasonable efforts to establish the identity of their clients and the nature of the business relationship when acting for clients in certain transactions and to retain records of such efforts. The Law Society already has powers under the existing provisions of the Legal Profession Act to enact such rules. The amendment in clause 15 is therefore to enable rules to be made to confer on the Council of the Law Society powers of inspection to ensure that such rules are complied with. Sir, I hope I have explained the ambit of this new proposal. Finally, let me thank her again for her support of the Bill. 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. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes past Five o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. APPENDICES”
“Next, Ms Lee would also like the Government to include the significant good work of our own Judiciary, our legal fraternity and academia from Singapore from the early years of our nation building till today, and she would like it to be included in the former Supreme Court and City Hall Buildings as part of our heritage. The person in charge of that is my colleague, the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts. I am sure he is going to consider that. I agree with the Member that our rich legal history should be preserved in some form, but I would not want to pre-empt the plans that MICA may have for the National Art Gallery for the two historic buildings. But I would like to encourage her to vigorously raise this point at the dialogue organised by the Steering Committee of the National Art Gallery, which I assume she will attend if she is free. In any case, the new Supreme Court, as she knows, indeed has a gallery that chronicles significant milestones and developments in Singapore's legal history as well as the major legal milestones since the founding of Singapore in 1819. Lastly, she asked why the Law Society should be making rules relating to money-laundering and not the CAD. I am sorry that I did not touch on this because I did not take that to be a controversial provision. But since she has raised this, I think I should clarify that it is not as if we are passing the buck to the Law Society to do the work of other agencies. The criminal law enforcement agencies will, of course, be very much involved in investigating money-laundering offences. However, lawyers, like banks, are at the frontline of the fight against money-laundering, as they receive and hold moneys on behalf of their clients.”
“Some lawyers who stop practising law in a law firm or corporation have taken up positions as inhouse counsels. Others have moved to places, like in London and Hong Kong, to practise law. Sir, these are forces at work which we cannot fight against. But in planning for the supply of lawyers, we need to take these realities into account, and not assume that every single lawyer whom we train will end up practising law. The Committee's mandate was therefore on whether the supply of lawyers should be increased rather than how to stem the outflow of lawyers, although I want to add that I do not disregard the importance of the factor and it is something that my colleagues and I have been discussing. I agree with the general thrust of her speech, that it is important for our law schools to provide a balanced and rounded legal education. From my own experience as a former law teacher, I would say that this is not something that we can easily achieve through specific course content or specially devised courses or appropriate teaching methodology or getting the right academic staff. The Member's specific suggestion that the Law School curriculum should include a module on distinguished legal luminaries and their contributions to society to inspire young law students follow in their footsteps, I think I will have to leave this suggestion with the two law schools to consider. My own view is that it may not be necessary to be so prescriptive. I am confident that our law schools will develop their own approaches to train lawyers in a way that it can inspire the next and future generations of lawyers.”
“Sir, I thank Ms Ellen Lee for her support of the Bill. She has raised several interesting and important points. First, I wish to commend her for her passion for the practice of law which I hope will inspire younger entrants to the legal profession. Let me deal with some of the points that she has raised. First, about the setting up of the new Law School. She is concerned whether there would be enough suitably qualified professors to cater for both the NUS and SMU Law Schools. As our legal sector grows, additional professors will be required for the increase in the number of law students, whether they are educated in one or two law schools. After the numerous discussions I have had, I am confident that the law schools will be able to recruit suitably qualified numbers of faculty staff, both locally as well as from overseas. Sir, when the university legal education was first introduced in Singapore, there were very few lawyers and no legal academics to begin with. And we all know that we succeeded in building a Law School that has trained lawyers who are able to work around the world and cities in London, New York, Hong Kong and Shanghai. I think we are in a much stronger position to develop faculty staff for a second Law School now. She has also expressed opinion that the Third Committee on the Supply of Lawyers had focused on tapping talent, and not so much addressing the issue of why there is a shortage of lawyers. Sir, lawyers may leave the legal profession for a variety of reasons. Some may discover other passions, some may want to do something else with their life, to do non-legal work and so on. Actually, these factors are not peculiar to the legal profession. I think it reflects modern-day realities and circumstances.”
“If the proposed measures can enhance the competitiveness of our legal services sector, contribute to our economic growth, and serve the wider national interest, then we will consider adopting them. And this may entail further amendments to the Legal Profession Act. In the meantime, however, we have proceeded with the proposed amendments so as not to hold up the changes which have been decided earlier on. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The AG and the SGs are the most senior law officers and, by law, they rank in precedence in court before all other Senior Counsel. Moreover, the Attorney-General is a member of the Selection Committee for appointment of Senior Counsel. It is only logical that they should be deemed to be appointed as Senior Counsel. Conclusion To conclude, Sir, let me say that the changes to be made through this Bill will further develop and grow the legal services sector. But I want to add that these will not be the only measures that we will need to take. Sir, in this globalised world, the scene, as regards the legal landscape, is fast changing. We must be prepared to make further changes to keep up with the developments and ensure that our legal services sector remains vibrant and competitive. Other countries are also considering making adjustments to their legal sectors to make them more competitive. For example, according to a recent Bernama report, Malaysia is considering further liberalisation of its legal services in view of the increased economic activity in mergers and acquisitions where international legal expertise was sought. We too cannot stand still. Currently, a committee headed by Justice V K Rajah is undertaking a comprehensive review of the entire legal services sector. I understand that the committee will make recommendations to enhance Singapore's position as an international centre for the provision of legal services. The committee is expected to submit its Report in the next few months. The committee may make further refinements to existing schemes or the introduction of new schemes.”
“The Bill also provides a fast-track procedure for disciplinary proceedings against such errant lawyers, without the need to go through the Review Committee, Inquiry Committee and Disciplinary Committee hearings. The increased penalties are consistent with the punishments for offences of a similar nature in respect of other professions, such as those related to the practice of medicine. In addition to the enhanced penalties, clause 9 will allow the court to order the person convicted of practising without a valid practising certificate to return to his clients or other persons all remuneration earned while practising without the certificate. Mandatory Legal Practice Management Course Let me turn to mandatory Legal Practice Management Course. Currently, lawyers who have been admitted as solicitors after 1st March 1997 are required to attend the Law Society’s Legal Practice Management Course if they wish to manage a law practice as a partner, director or sole proprietor. To ensure that lawyers are equipped with the proper skills to manage a law practice, regardless of when they were admitted as solicitors, the Law Society has proposed that all lawyers be required to undergo the Legal Practice Management Course before they are allowed to manage a law practice as a partner, director or sole proprietor. My Ministry fully supports the proposal. This is provided for in clause 18. Appointment of AG and SG as Senior Counsel Let me turn to the provisions on appointment of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General as Senior Counsel. Clause 7(b) provides for a holder of the office of Attorney-General or Solicitor-General, if he is not already a Senior Counsel, to be deemed appointed as Senior Counsel.”
“By giving regional lawyers working in the regional branches of a Singapore law firm a stake in the firm, I think this will also help local law firms to grow their practices in the region. Sir, although the Bill prescribes an upper limit of 25%, there is provision for this limit to be revised by subsidiary legislation. Any revision will be carried out only after consultation with the Attorney-General and the Law Society and after a thorough review of how this new scheme works in actual practice. Other amendments Sir, let me touch on some of the other proposed amendments. Enhanced penalty for unauthorised practice First, enhanced penalty for unauthorised practice. Currently, any person practising law without a valid practising certificate may be fined only up to $1,000, or sentenced to imprisonment of up to six months, or both. This penalty was prescribed way back in 1966 and has never been updated since. In the past two years, a few lawyers have been convicted of practising without a valid practising certificate. Sir, a maximum penalty of $1,000 is inadequate in today’s context. This is a serious offence. Clause 8 of the Bill increases the maximum fine for a first offence to $25,000, and the penalty for a second offence to a maximum fine of $50,000, or imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both. A higher maximum fine will give the court the discretion to impose a deterrent fine proportionate to the seriousness of the offence without having to sentence the errant lawyer to imprisonment. Similar increases in penalty are also made for the offence where a body corporate holds itself out to have the capacity or powers of a law corporation or limited liability law partnership when in actual fact it does not.”
“These foreign practitioners may then be registered to practise Singapore law by the Attorney-General pursuant to the new section 130J and the rules which provide the details made under section 130K. Once registered, they will automatically also become foreign practitioner members of the Law Society by virtue of the new section 40A. Foreign practitioners will also be subject to the safeguards instituted for the protection of members of the public, such as the requirement of professional indemnity insurance. Sir, another recommendation of the Third Committee is to allow a foreign lawyer to own up to 25% of the equity shares in or share of the profits of a Singapore law firm. This is provided for in the new section 130L. Allowing foreign lawyers to have a stake in a Singapore law firm will help Singapore law firms to possess in-house foreign law expertise and grow their practices abroad. Whilst it may be relatively easy for a Singapore law firm to employ, say, lawyers from China to help them in their China practice, it is difficult for the firms to retain these lawyers and secure their commitment unless they are given a direct stake in the performance and growth of the law firm. Moreover, some foreign lawyers with the requisite skills and experience may not find a consultancy relationship with a local law firm to be satisfactory, even if the compensation package is high. Hence, to ensure that Singapore law firms can continue attracting and retaining experienced and talented foreign lawyers, they will be permitted to own equity shares in and share profits of a local law firm, subject to an aggregate limit of 25% of the total equity shares in or profits of the local law firm. This will help Singapore law firms to expand their capabilities and reach out to the region.”
“Those recommendations that do not require amendments to the Legal Profession Act have been implemented. For example, the Rules were amended last year to allow, on a discretionary basis, second class lower honours graduates from foreign law schools to qualify for the Singapore Bar. The SMU School of Law has been established as a second law faculty in Singapore, although some amendments to the Legal Profession Act are now required as a consequence of the establishment of the new law school. Major changes Let me explain some of the more important amendments in this Bill. Sir, one major recommendation of the Third Committee which this Bill gives effect to is allowing Singapore law firms to hire outstanding foreign lawyers to practise Singapore law in certain prescribed areas like banking, finance and corporate law. This will allow the blending of the experience and expertise of overseas legal talent and the skills of our local lawyers to ensure that Singapore law firms are better able to compete in the global marketplace. New section 130J in clause 23 provides for the registration of foreign lawyers to practise Singapore law in Singapore law firms under a newly established Special Scheme, which will be administered by the Attorney-General. This Special Scheme will enable local law firms to selectively tap on good foreign legal talent, without opening the floodgates suddenly to foreign lawyers in the practice of Singapore law. These foreign lawyers must be of good standing in their home countries, and have high academic qualifications from reputable law schools or relevant work experience in areas like banking and finance. They must have at least one year’s offshore legal work experience in Singapore, and thereafter they must pass a stringent Qualifying Examination.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill is really an implementing Bill in that it amends the Legal Profession Act primarily to implement the recommendations of the Review Committee formed to evaluate the Joint Law Venture and Formal Law Alliance schemes, and the recommendations of the Third Committee on the Supply of Lawyers. The Review Committee on the JLV and FLA schemes was chaired by former AG Mr Chan Sek Keong and included Justice V K Rajah, Senior Counsel Philip Jeyaretnam, President of the Law Society, and Senior Counsel Michael Hwang. The Committee’s main terms of reference were to review the JLV and FLA schemes, and to consider modifications to the schemes to ensure the required legal support for the strategic service sectors of the economy. As recommended when the JLV and FLA schemes were set up in 2000, the review was carried out five years thereafter. Formed in July 2005, the Review Committee presented its report in January 2006. The Third Committee on the Supply of Lawyers was also chaired by former AG Mr Chan Sek Keong (who had headed the previous two committees). Other members included Senior Counsel Philip Jeyaretnam, Professor Tan Cheng Han, Dean of the NUS Law Faculty, and law practitioners, Senior Counsel K Shanmugam and Dr Philip Pillai. The Committee was tasked to review the supply of lawyers (practising Singapore law) to meet the legal and business needs of Singapore. The Committee presented its report in July 2006. The recommendations of both committees were accepted by the Government and publicly announced last year. The implementation of some of the recommendations requires amendments to the Legal Profession Act.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I take note that the Member has, as I expected, declared that she would not give up. She knows that, previously, she made suggestions which have borne some fruits. I do not promise her anything. The specific point that she made about the strip of road and "before" and "after" value, I will have a look at it and see what the position is in discussion with my Ministry. 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. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes to Eight o'clock pm. APPENDICES Section Name: MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Title: CIVIL SERVICE SALARY REVISIONS Filename : Performance Bonus Distribution for Political Office-Holders MP Name: Mr Lee Hsien Loong”
“So in the event the fire were to seriously damage a conservation building, the owner is required to rebuild the building in accordance with the con servation guidelines and the building will remain a gazetted conservation building. As regards the Member's specific points about No. 23 Amber Road, I think it may be more appropriate if she were to file a Question for Oral Answer. But I do know that the other property which she mentioned, ie, No. 3, Allenby Road, is actually not a gazetted conservation building. But, having been badly damaged by fire in January 2006, it was considered unsafe and had since been demolished. Hence, its owner was not required to reconstruct it on its original site because it was not a gazetted conservation building. I hope I have touched on the main points. If not, I hope Members will jog my memory.”
“Because they were required for the development of public projects like new towns and housing. The legislative intent behind the fire site provisions, which we are now removing, was clearly explained in Parliament before. Should the land be required, it was to prevent landlords from enjoying the benefit of increased land value caused by the devastating fires that cleared their land of squatters and tenants, especially those protected by the Rent Control Act, as Mdm Cynthia Phua mentioned. That was so when Singapore was rapidly undergoing urban renewal in the 1970s and 1980s and, with the abolition of rent control, the justification for the provision is no longer valid. That is the background. But for the Member's point as to whether we should retain this because of conservation, I think that would not be really proper because it would be retaining that provision now to serve an objective that is outside the scope of this Act. In any event, those who commit arson would already be facing heavy sanctions under the Penal Code, because it is a criminal offence. And with the move to pay market value for acquisition of properties, properties which are affected by fire should be assessed no differently from other acquired land. I hope my colleague does not disagree with me later on. As to what the Member said about conservation efforts and incentives in relation to land acquisition, as far as I understand, since the 1980s, the Government, through the URA, has made concerted attempts to progressively identify, evaluate and designate heritage buildings in Singapore for conservation and adaptive reuse. Government assistance, eg, waivers of development charge, carpark provision, carpark deficiency charges, and so on, are given to owners to encourage them to restore their buildings.”
“Society needs will change over time and it is impossible to enumerate all the situations that would fall within the terms of "public use", "public benefit" and "public utility". But one thing I want to make clear is that the term "public purpose", "public utility", and so on, cannot be allowed to be used for compulsory acquisition for the personal interest of a particular person. Mdm Cynthia Phua also commented whether it would be controversial and whether urban conservation can come under public use or public benefit. I would argue and persuade her, if I can, that urban conservation must clearly be considered a facet of urban renewal. In fact, that has been the hallmark of Singapore's development. Urban renewal is not just about conserving individual shophouses, but also upgrading of public facilities and infrastructure in a precinct. Urban renewal, in fact, has been the major hallmark of Singapore's urban planning. Finally, she touched on the fire site provisions. Some points she made in connection with that, I will have to defer detailed consideration to my colleague, the Minister for National Development, at a later date. But in so far as the Member's points touch on the fire site provisions and why we cannot use it for the purposes of conservation she mentioned, let me explain first why we deleted the fire site provisions. Sir, the Government does not acquire private land because it is gutted by fire per se. This is so, regardless whether the fire is due to an act of God or deliberate arson. The Government will consider acquisition only if there is a public purpose for which the State needs that land. In the past, large tracts of squatter private land which were devastated by fire were acquired. Why?”
“Where a strip of land is acquired from a larger parcel for road widening, the statutory compensation will take into account the severance damage from the part-lot acquisition if the damage can be substantiated. The Land Acquisition Appeals Board, as I understand, has used the before-and-after method to determine severance damage, in other words, the compensation is derived from the difference between the market value of the entire lot before acquisition and the market value of the remaining land after acquisition. Hence, the final compensation amount may not be nominal. But where there are cases of hardship caused by the acquisition, then let me say that the Government will pay ex gratia on a case-by-case method. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked about the definition of "public purpose" and whether urban conservation can be considered as for "public use, public benefit, public utility". I think she was concerned about what she calls "controversial phrases" like these and whether we could be more specific in defining them. I think it is generally accepted by the courts that such expressions are not capable of precise definition. So the courts have largely approached the matter in a common sense way, based on the context and circumstances relevant at that time of the cases concerned. Even countries with large areas of land, such as the United States, the courts there would define such concepts very broadly. If that is so, then what more in land scarce Singapore? I think this is a very sensible approach as I believe it is self-evident as to what can be public use, public benefit and public utility. It can never really be cast rigidly in stone.”
“Let me explain. Firstly, we are moving to pay market value compensation. Therefore, even if land is not acquired, all these factors would have been taken into account in the private transaction by the willing buyer. So if there is depressant effect on the basis of the road line, or whatever, then that would have been what the willing buyer and willing seller would have transacted in the open market, and we are moving to that basis of compensation. Secondly, it can result in other landowners claiming for compensation even if the land is not acquired, if we amended the law to require the Government to make up for the loss of value under negative Pointe Gourde. Thirdly, I want to make this point. As far as I know, and I stand corrected if I am not, in other countries that recognise the negative Pointe Gourde, their Masterplan basically reflects the existing use of the site. In Singapore, on the other hand, we have adopted a forward-looking Masterplan regime where the Masterplan reflects the long-term planning intention for the land. Hence, the Masterplan shows both the upzoned and downzoned land use. Moving on, the primary objective of the Masterplan is to guide the development of land by showing the land use intention for all lands in Singapore. Hence, if the land is required for an approved road scheme, it will be zoned as such in the Masterplan. The zoning of land for a particular use is guided by this objective, and not by valuation considerations. So if a land site that is zoned "road" is acquired, it does not necessarily result in a nil or nominal compensation being awarded. The compensation amount payable for each property will vary according to the physical attributes of the property and the specific facts of each case.”
“If the zoning or other planning requirements in the Masterplan are such as to allow for higher or more intensive land use, compared to the existing use of the land, at that time of the Gazette of acquisition, then, yes, the higher or more intensive land use is taken into account when valuing the land under the revised Land Acquisition Act. But any uses beyond the Masterplan zoning or other planning requirements would not be considered. And this is because that would be speculative and conjectural as to what could be permitted on the site in future, and that would not be in line with the payment of compensation based on market value which a bona fide buyer would reasonably be willing to pay for the land. Also, I should say that it is not the policy or intention to compensate for business loss or loss of goodwill, because loss of goodwill of a business is usually due to a combination of many factors. It could be due to a downturn of the economy, business management strategies, and not solely due to the relocation caused by the acquisition. So it is a very difficult set of factors to assess business loss and loss of goodwill. Let me turn to the points raised by Ms Indranee Rajah on road lines and also points about negative Pointe Gourde. She raised this point in 2005 which my colleague Prof. Ho Peng Kee answered. I would ask her not to give up, even though my answer may not be satisfactory for her. As she pointed out, there is a positive Pointe Gourde principle and negative Pointe Gourde principle. The Land Acquisition Act gives effect to the positive Pointe Gourde, why not to the negative Pointe Gourde principle? We have not included this change in this set of amendments because, after review, I feel that there is good reason for maintaining this position.”
“Owners are generally given six to 12 months to relocate for infrastructure development cases and even a longer duration of three to five years where the land is required for comprehensive pre-development. Owners can, of course, in some cases, offer to surrender the properties any time before the deadline and full compensation will be paid. Where the construction schedule permits, the developing agency will also accommodate requests for a slightly longer time for relocation. So we will consider the case and try to accommodate. Mr Alvin Yeo and Ms Ellen Lee have also emphasised that the acquired land should be developed quickly for the stated purposes and not left vacant for several years so that the acquisition process is indeed fair and transparent. I think Mr Alvin Yeo mentioned the Teng Fuh's case, and Mdm Cynthia Phua also did. Perhaps, they were not here during Question Time when I had to answer two Questions from Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Siew Kum Hong, which touched on this matter, and I gave the explanation as to why, in some instances, it will not be possible to synchronise the acquisition of land with the redevelopment of the land, although that is ideal. But sometimes, this ideal is not always achievable for the many factors which I spelt out during Question Time, and I hope that Members will, in the interest of time, not require me to restate those points. But let me assure them that my Ministry will liaise with the other agencies to better coordinate the timing of acquisition and redevelopment of the acquired land. Ms Ellen Lee cited other countries' practices, with respect to compensation payments. She has highlighted that some of the countries pay beyond market value, such as paying compensation based on future loss and paying for business loss.”
“Can we reduce the hardships and rigours of the land acquisition? Yes. And we will continue to see how we can do that. That is in fact one of the purposes of this amendment which we are bringing to Parliament. With that backdrop, let me try to deal with the specific issues which have been raised. Mr Alvin Yeo and some of the other Members expressed the view that we should try to explore all possible options before acquisition, that the Government should also be more transparent in its study for land acquisition and development. Other Members also echoed the same point. While we will see how we can be more transparent, I think I have to stress that for obvious reasons, we will not be able to make known acquisition plans in advance of the actual acquisition. If we do that, it may either lead to a depressant effect on the value of the property and the owner will not be able to transact or, worse, it may lead to wild speculation which may destabilise the property market. Therefore, our practice has been to serve notice when the land is acquired. This will enable the decision on compensation to be based on the market value of the land at the time of the acquisition. And as I mentioned during Question Time, as far as checks and balances are concerned, in my reply to Mr Siew Kum Hong, all proposals for land acquisition are carefully considered and, in fact, every proposal for acquisition of land has to be submitted to the Cabinet and has to be approved. Ms Ellen Lee and Mr Alvin Yeo also asked for more time to be given to affected owners for them to relocate before they surrender the affected land to the Government. I think it is a valid point. Where acquisition is needed, sufficient time is given to the landowners to relocate.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their comments and for their support of the amendments in this Bill. They have also raised certain concerns and questions. Sir, the hour is late but, since some of the points that they have raised are important, I think it is only right and proper that I address them. But let me admit, at the outset, that land acquisition is unpleasant. No one would like his property acquired, whatever explanation you give and whatever compensation is awarded. We can look at the practices in other countries such as Australia, UK, India but, at the end of the day, I think we have to remind ourselves of our own context and the realities in Singapore and that context is that we are not talking about a large country like the US, Australia, where you have large tracts of land where the approach to acquisition could perhaps be different. We are one of the smallest countries in the world - we have 704 square kilometres - and we will continue to be so. Therefore, land in Singapore is, and always has been, a special case and very few countries faced with such land scarcity and with such high density of population have within four decades had such success in developing such a small country successfully for industrialisation, public housing for the majority of our population, facilities for schools, parks and other recreational amenities, First World class quality of airport, port, and so on. All these would not have been possible without the Land Acquisition Act and policy and without far-sighted planning policies. This is why I said, in my speech, that the laws and policies behind the land acquisition have been pivotal in our development. Can we do without the Land Acquisition Act? No.”
“Thirdly, the so-called two-year and the seven-year rules that limited the payment of compensation will be removed as they are no longer applicable. The two-year rule disregards the value of the improvements made by the owner of land within two years in contemplation of the acquisition. The seven-year rule disregards any increase in value that is attributable to infrastructural works done by the Government within seven years prior to the acquisition. So we think that is no longer meaningful or significant to isolate and quantify the increase in value due to such works as improvements made by the land owners are generally bona fide and Singapore is now well developed. Finally, clause 10 also abolishes the special compensation for acquired land which is used as a burial ground and acquired land that is devastated or affected, directly or indirectly, by fire, explosion, thunderbolt, earthquake, storm, tempest, flood or any act of God. Such land, if acquired, will be assessed no differently from other acquired land, in line with the move towards market value compensation. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 6.52 pm”
“Furthermore, the market value cannot exceed a value based on the land’s existing use or the development baseline for the land, whichever is the lower. The "whichever is lower" provisions in the Land Acquisition Act to cap the statutory compensation have been a source of contention. Over the years, we have sought to cushion the impact of this approach by periodically updating the statutory date and also through ex-gratia payments. However, after reviewing the Act, we have decided that these provisions are no longer appropriate in the current context. We are therefore amending the Act to provide for compensation at the prevailing market value. Amendments relating to compensation Let me now explain how the amendments relating to statutory compensation are being effected. This is provided for in clause 10. Firstly, we will remove the alternative dates for determining the statutory compensation and move away from using a past statutory date of 1st January 1995. Instead, compensation will be based on the market value as at the date of the acquisition of the land. Secondly, the statutory compensation will not be limited to the existing use or development baseline of the land, whichever is the lower. Instead, the compensation will be based on the market value which a bona fide purchaser would reasonably be willing to pay for the land. This means the compensation can take into account, inter alia, the land’s permitted use and the potential value that is realisable under the Master Plan, subject to the prevailing planning requirements, and other factors such as location, tenure, restrictive covenants in the title and site conditions. In other words, this will be no different from how land would have been valued had it been sold in the open market.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the main purpose of this amendment Bill is to revise the basis of statutory compensation for acquisition of lands under the Land Acquisition Act. Overview of land acquisition legislation The Land Acquisition Act has played a pivotal role in the development of Singapore. It paved the way for numerous major developments in Singapore, including HDB's new towns to house the majority of our population, the Jurong Industrial Estate which provided jobs for many, key infrastructure, such as the Changi International Airport and, more recently, the various MRT projects. These projects, which brought much benefit in the public interest, were made possible because they were developed at a cost which was affordable to the State then, through the limiting compensation provisions under the Land Acquisition Act. Singapore today has become more developed and urbanised. Land acquisitions now affect far more people than those carried out in the 1970s or 1980s. Today, many more Singaporeans own private properties. It is often that Singaporeans sink a major portion of their life savings and future earnings into their property. Sir, we have not made major amendments to the Land Acquisition Act from the time it was enacted in 1966, except for the periodic updating of the statutory date to bring compensation value nearer to the current date of acquisition. The current approach on payment of compensation is based on the market value of the land as at one of the two dates: the date of acquisition or the statutory date (which is a date in the past), whichever is the lower. There are also restrictions in arriving at that market value.”
“Sir, I stand to be corrected but the briefings that I have received on the RAHS system are that it does not collect specific information about individuals. But if it were to do that, then, of course, we will be mindful about the need to protect the privacy of the particular individual. INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (Fourth Assessment Report) 6. Mr Edwin Khew Teck Fook asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the Ministry's response to the recent 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the possibility of global average temperatures and sea levels rising and an increasing number of heat waves as well as severe tropical storms bringing about more floods; and (b) whether the Ministry is taking measures against such possibilities.”
“Sir, the Member mentioned the whole-of-Government approach, which is important for major crises that we want to anticipate, whether it is in the area of terrorism or other crisis, such as disease pandemic. The RAHS is a tool and it is not the entirety of the system. It is a tool which involves specialists working with the various concepts that I mentioned. It is one of the tools which we are going to develop in collaboration with other Ministries and, in fact, the two agencies that I mentioned. The whole-of-Government approach involves more than this tool. It involves a collaborative approach where agencies do not view their role as purely compartmentalised. We must have a perspective that requires sharing of intelligence and information, and pooling of the resources. Take terrorism, for example. 911 has shown to all countries that we cannot have what is referred to as a "stove pipe" approach, where each organisation deals as if it was a silo. It is impossible. Those who have followed hurricane Katrina also know that that demonstrated and underlined the importance of agencies working closely. If that were so for larger countries, what more for smaller countries. I am glad that the Member has reminded us of the whole-of-Government approach. RAHS is a tool that will aid the whole-of-Government approach. With respect to collaborating with regional countries, yes. To deal with issues like terrorism and pandemics, it goes without saying that we have to obtain the cooperation and intelligence sharing of countries in the region. RAHS, however, is in its early stages of development. And, as we progress, we will consider how we can involve more countries in the region, because it requires considerable infrastructure and investment in such a project in other countries.”
“At present, the RAHS system is a research and development programme, and we expect to evolve the system further in the years ahead. To succeed, RAHS would need to work off a collaborative approach linking Ministries and agencies across Government. The system will be useful not just in the traditional security domain, but also to monitor emerging social and economic trends. To improve on the RAHS tools and concepts, and to try out new applications, an Experimentation Centre will be set up in the second half of the year. Institutions, like the Swedish Defence Research Agency and the United States Joint Forces Command (US JFCOM), will be collaborating with the Experimentation Centre, and we intend to involve our own Ministries in Singapore and agencies in some projects. Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast): Sir, some time ago, the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned putting in place a whole-of-Government framework to think about a complex and uncertain future. I would just like to ask how will the RAHS Centre actually work with the various Government agencies and the public at large, especially the community, to embrace this whole-of-Government approach to horizon scanning. My second question is that while this may be in place in Singapore, how do we actually work with our neighbouring countries? Considering the fact that we are so small, anything that happens nearby could actually affect us as well.”
“Sir, the Risk Assessment and Horizon Scanning (RAHS) system is meant to help analysts, for example, those involved in strategic planning, to discern weak signals of potential major events on the horizon that can have an impact on Singapore. This will enable policy choices to be made, and pre-emptive and preventive steps to be taken where necessary. The system, however, is still in the development stage which we hope to have operational by the end of this year. Developing such a capability is important in today’s complex, inter-connected and uncertain world. Asymmetric threats, like global terrorism and disease pandemics, are challenges for countries around the world, Singapore included. For such complex and non-traditional threats, models and approaches that are not purely based on recent history or past observations are needed to help analysts discern emerging patterns of potential and novel threats. It is with that aim that we initiated this Risk Assessment and Horizon Scanning framework. In practice, the RAHS system is a suite of software tools revolving around several key processes: building models; collecting data and organising information; detecting emerging trends and discovering anomalous patterns by matching data against models; as well as collaborating with other analysts across the world. RAHS, let me stress, however, is not about predicting the future or specific events. Furthermore, while it is a highly sophisticated tool, it can never replace the well-trained and experienced analyst. It is meant to augment the analyst by helping automate some of the more tedious aspects of research work, so that the analyst can focus on the more important analytical tasks.”
“Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs whether there is a centralised system in place to warn the public to evacuate from buildings because of severe earth tremors and which central agency is responsible for raising the alarm if there is a need to take precautionary measures to evacuate from buildings or the underground train system. 4. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what measures are taken to educate Singaporeans on proper evacuation from high-rise buildings during emergencies such as earthquakes or fires; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider conducting emergency evacuation audits to test the effectiveness of measures undertaken by building owners. The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, may I take Question Nos. 3 and 4 together as they are related?”
“And based on the Singapore Land Authority’s records, we are able to state, Sir, that about 12% of the acquired lands, in terms of land area, have not yet been redeveloped. The rest of the acquired lands, if not already fully redeveloped, are in various stages of redevelopment. Sir, the Government acquires land for a variety of uses, such as for the development of new towns and industrial estates, for road and MRT construction and for comprehensive redevelopment. As I have explained to Mr Hri Kumar just now, it is often not possible to synchronise precisely the acquisition of land with the development of land. Especially for a large area or precinct earmarked for comprehensive redevelopment, sometimes a longer gestation period is almost unavoidable. I would like to assure the Member that all proposals for land acquisition are carefully considered. Government agencies that initiate acquisition must provide full justifications on why the acquisition is necessary. They would also have to ensure that prior approval is obtained for the intended use before requests for acquisition can be considered. For major acquisitions, the proposals will also have to be presented to a Ministerial Committee comprising the Minister for Law, Minister for National Development and which sometimes can include other Ministers like the Minister for Transport if it concerns land acquisition related to MRT or major expressway development. Finally, every proposal for land acquisition must be submitted to Cabinet for approval. EVACUATION FROM BUILDINGS DURING EMERGENCIES (Centralised warning system) 3.”
“Especially for a large area or precinct, a longer gestation period sometimes is almost unavoidable. This is usually because the developing agencies need to carry out site works and divert infrastructure, sometimes in several phases, to minimise disruption to the public and to prepare the land for redevelopment. So, on occasions, all these factors can contribute to a delay in the redevelopment of certain acquired sites. As for the case of the land formerly belonging to Teng Fuh Holdings, as I have said, the changes in the development plans and the time taken to carry out public enhancement works for the entire Kallang Basin area had contributed to the delay in redeveloping the land. Let me turn to the question by Mr Siew Kum Hong. Sir, the Land Acquisition Act was enacted in 1966. From available records, more than 15,000 land parcels have been acquired. In view of these acquisitions stretching over a long period of 40 years, I hope the Member will understand that it is extremely difficult and not practical for me to give a precise answer to his question. We would have to mount a massive search to go back and examine each and every acquired parcel to verify the development date and see if the time from which the date of acquisition had been more than five years. Moreover, the acquired parcels could have been further subdivided or amalgamated with other lands for redevelopment and the original land parcel might have been expunged. It is therefore very difficult to say now exactly how many cases there were of acquired lands that were subsequently not used for five years or more. However, I asked the Singapore Land Authority to see what information they could obtain for me.”
“May I answer Mr Hri Kumar's question first? Sir, the land in question belonged to Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd and was the subject of litigation in the courts recently. The land was in the immediate vicinity of the Kallang MRT station. When it was acquired in 1983 for the purpose of comprehensive redevelopment, the plans for the area included a commercial-cum-transportation centre. Subsequently, the clean-up of the Kallang/Rochor River was successfully completed and the land use plans for the entire Kallang Basin waterfront were extensively reviewed. Accordingly, the subject land was rezoned as part residential, part open space and part beach in the Master Plan 1998, to optimise the development and recreational potential of the area. In line with this, the Government also carried out other public enhancement works, such as the development of the Kallang Riverside Park, and the phasing out of the Kallang Gasworks. All these took many years. The vision for Kallang Basin, including the Teng Fuh site, continues to be one where there will be good quality housing and other waterfront developments. Let me reiterate, Sir, that Singapore is land scarce. In our special context, optimising the use of our land is a definite necessity. Sometimes, due to new factors which arise after the acquisition, it is no longer optimal to put the land to the original planned use. This is a fact of life due to changes in demographics and land use needs which evolve over time. It would be very detrimental to Singapore to ignore such changes that affect land use planning. Sir, where land is acquired for comprehensive redevelopment, it is also often not possible to synchronise precisely the acquisition of land with the redevelopment of the land.”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take the first two Questions together as they are related?”
“As I understand it, the question which Ms Ellen Lee posed is if a lawyer cannot show that he has done 25 hours of pro bono work, will he not get a practising certificate? I have to check what the intention of the President of the Law Society is because this is their proposal which I am trying to facilitate through the various ways. I think that the question will only arise if and when pro bono work is made compulsory. Then we have to think through what are the consequences of someone who does not follow the compulsory provision. So my understanding, as of now, is that it is not compulsory. Because if it is compulsory, then we may have to amend the Legal Profession Act about the practising certificate.”
“I thank her for giving me an opportunity to clarify. First of all, the Ministry of Law is not going to prescribe whether or not lawyers must do it compulsorily. That is up to the Law Society. My understanding is that the Law Society is going to exhort its members to give 25 hours of pro bono work annually. My understanding also is that these 25 hours of pro bono work can manifest itself in different ways, not necessarily only in the clinics that we have in mind, but can be in different outfits, whether it is the Family Service Centres or legal clinics attached to meet-the-people sessions. I think wherever the lawyer is offering his services, it is to be welcomed. The arrangement or understanding we have, which we hope to implement with the Law Society, is when we have the legal clinics, the lawyers will come forward to assist in those two legal clinics. I think there are several thousand lawyers in Singapore. So I do not see that this pro bono work and the clinics are going to siphon off lawyers doing good work elsewhere.”
“I hope Members will bear with me if I do not go into details on this because I learn today that there is an appeal which has been lodged in the case of the Waterfront case. So it is really a matter before the court. But I think it will not be out of place for me to say that my understanding of the position is that monies drawn out of the CPF account to pay for the principal sum of the purchase price has always been included. The issue, I believe, is whether the interest payments on the bank account, or the interest foregone, should also be calculated when we compute financial loss. But I think it is better that I do not pronounce on this while the appeal is on.”
“But his point is that all those in the development, which is subject to en bloc, ought to be made aware, I think that is a very important point, and that is why I mentioned that guidelines will be issued. The En-bloc Sales Organising Committee, which I mentioned, from our viewpoint, must not just include those who are pushing or in favour of the en bloc, it must also include those who have a different view on the en-bloc sale proposals. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: The seminars that IPTO conducts are public seminars. These are seminars open to Singaporeans. I take Dr Teo's point that perhaps more Singaporeans should be made aware that they exist. But I have said it, if Members here want to help publicise the seminars, they are welcomed to do so. And on their own, of course, the grassroots advisers can organise seminars for the constituents. Because I know that IPTO, for example, taps the professionals out there, including lecturers from polytechnics, to do these talks.”
“Sir, let me answer the two points on legal clinics and en-bloc sales. On funding, I guess the Chairman of the GPC is wondering whether there will be an imposition on the CDC if the CDC partners with the legal clinics. Let me assure him that we want to partner the CDC but we will endeavour to have as little financial imposition on the CDC as possible. What we will be grateful for is if we can use part of the CDC premises for the legal clinic. Other detailed aspects of funding will be worked out later. I think the Ministry of Law will be able to give some funding for this and the Academy of Law is also willing to assist. Basically, the collaboration with the Mayors and the CDCs, if the CDCs are used, will be in the use of a convenient location, and I think it will be helpful because many people go to the CDC for assistance which may have financial and legal implications. On en-bloc sale, I am unable to give the Member a clear date as of now because we plan to go for public consultations. It is only after the public consultations when we evaluate the responses and the feedback, then we will finalise. But we are thinking of having a timeframe whereby the consultation process and evaluation will not go beyond May or June of this year. 4.30 pm SOP, yes, I will certainly look into this and how the Strata Titles Board, together with the Ministry of Law, can work on this. I do not think it is a lack of knowledge of the procedures which is a problem because both the committees which are spearheading any en-bloc sales and the lawyers, as well as the developers, are fully au fait.”
“On voting age, we do not intend to change that. Sir, voting in parliamentary elections or voting in election for the Presidency is a very serious matter. It is a decision where voters choose their MP and choose, in turn, which political party or parties form the government to look after and run the country. In the case of elections for the elected President, voters will be deciding on which individual they will entrust to hold the office of President to exercise the custodial and veto powers set out in the Constitution. Sir, if we set the age below 21, many would still be studying and, in the case of males, would still be doing National Service, or they would have just started work. The current age of 21 means that the voter would have finished National Service and many others would have had some working experience. I think they would then be in a better position to make careful assessments, considered judgments about the quality of the candidates and of other many national issues involved when it comes to forming a judgment and choice involved in casting votes. Sir, I think our model of elections and government has worked well, and I see no pressing reason to change it, including the age of voting. Yes, I note the experience in other countries, as pointed out by Ms Sylvia Lim. The practice varies and there are also examples of other countries which have kept to a higher age. Malaysia retains the age of 21. Japan has the age at 20. Sir, I will ask my colleague, Assoc. Prof. Ho, to deal with the rest of the cuts.”
“We have, in our body of laws, different laws to prescribe different ages for qualifications, requirements, disqualifications for a whole host of different contexts, purposes, status or objectives, whether it is for driving licence or for voting in elections. This is because each activity calls for different considerations. For example, the law provides the age of 21 for qualification for membership of Parliament, for entering certain professions, like lawyers, public accountants, engineers, or to be eligible to be a guarantor, or to marry without parents' consent, or to make a valid will. These are some examples for the age of 21. Then we have laws that prescribe the age of 18 to get a driving licence, to buy cigarettes or alcohol, and so on. The point I want to make is that there is no single threshold age for all purposes. I guess it is because we cannot say adulthood is gained overnight on a fixed birthday, whether it is 21 or earlier. Rather it is attained through a gradual process. The approach that our laws have is a pragmatic one where there is a gradual increase in rights and responsibilities leading up to the age of 21, at which stage nearly all the limitations linked to age are removed. But this does not mean that everything is cast in stone and no aspect of this variegated approach will be ever reviewed. Whilst we have no immediate plans to reduce the age of majority, we are currently reviewing the matter for some specific areas impacting on our drive, for example, to create greater entrepreneurial skills and a risk taking approach, especially for our young. For example, the Government is looking into whether those who are at least 18 years of age can more freely enter into contracts, but this is just an example.”
“Next, if an en bloc process is initiated and if an en bloc committee is to be formed, we will provide that it should be done at an extraordinary general meeting convened by the management corporation. I think this will make for better accountability. It will provide for more certainty to both majority and minority owners. I take the point of many Members, including Ms Ellen Lee, who said there may be people in the minority who, for various reasons, do not want to sell. We considered all this at the time when we drafted the legislation. It is not an easy issue because there may be some who want to stay there for sentimental reasons; some who have sworn to their forefathers that they would live there forever; some like the feng shui, and a lot of other reasons. But it is not possible to craft legislation to accommodate all these views, because the only perfect solution is to go back to the old system which required unanimous agreement, but we decided to move away from that when Parliament decided to have the en bloc legislation so that there will not be unanimous requirement and a majority vote. Because, otherwise, we will not be able to either maximise land usage or to rejuvenate our buildings. Sir, these are the changes we have in mind. I hope they addressed some of the points raised by Members. We will do a public consultation on the proposed changes. We will get feedback and suggestions which we shall take into account before we finalise the amendments on en bloc sale legislation. Let me touch on the points raised by Ms Sylvia Lim on the age of majority. Sir, the age of majority in Singapore is actually not defined by statute. It is defined by common law which sets it at 21 years. Let me explain what is the legislative approach that we have taken in Singapore.”
“The reason why we want to give this power to the Strata Titles Board is to address situations where the Strata Titles Board considers that a minority owner may not have been treated fairly or equitably in the distribution of the proceeds, although it may not be able to find any aspect of bad faith in the process. Let me give Members an example. It is just an example. Say, a minority owner does $200,000 worth of renovation when there was no en bloc proposal in the air. And six months later, there is an en bloc proposal which becomes successful. In fact, it means that he has enjoyed his renovated unit only for about two years before having to move out. He really does not suffer a financial loss under the terms of the Act but the Strata Titles Board may, if they have this discretion, increase his sale proceeds by an amount which it considers fair if it considers it fair and equitable to do so in the circumstances. But there will be a cap on the amount that is available to the STB to award such extra amount, and the proposed cap will be an aggregate sum of $2,000 or 0.25% of the sale proceeds from each unit or whichever is higher. So there will be a certain sum with which they can exercise the discretion. The third change we intend to do is for the Strata Titles Board to issue guidelines on the allowable expenditures; in other words, guidelines to improve the transparency of the process and for there to be greater openness by those who are spearheading the process. For example, the Strata Titles Board can issue guidelines on the allowable expenditure that will be taken into account in the evaluation of financial loss claims. This will provide more certainty to both majority and minority owners. I think this is a point raised by Mr Hri Kumar.”