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 32 of 66.
“Existing law permits severance of a joint tenancy only in very limited circumstances, for example, by mutual agreement or conduct of the parties; by one co-owner selling and transferring his share to a third party; by an order of court; or where there is a bankruptcy. But a co-owner may wish to sever the joint tenancy in a simpler way, without having to transfer away his or her share of the property and without having to obtain the consent of the other party, which sometimes may not be feasible, especially in certain domestic situations. Because of these existing legal limitations, injustices can occur. Take the simple example of a father and son who are joint tenants of a house. The son subsequently marries. Unfortunately, later on, let us assume the son dies and the father becomes the sole owner, because of the nature of the joint tenancy; father is unable to get along with the daughter-in-law and her children, and the father ejects her and family from the house which can be done, because the daughter-in-law does not inherit the share of her husband. Therefore, the proposed amendment will enable a son/daughter or wife to secure his or her interest in the property for himself or herself or her immediate family in a situation where he or she may need to do so. The Bill provides for severance of a joint tenancy in respect of both registered and unregistered land. A joint tenant may sever a joint tenancy in respect of registered land by an instrument of declaration and by serving a copy of the instrument on the other joint tenants. In respect of unregistered land, a joint tenant may sever a joint tenancy by a deed of declaration and by serving a copy on the other joint tenant/s.”
“In such situations, even if the parent or husband provides the entire purchase price, the law presumes (unless it is proved to the contrary) that a gift of the property is in favour of the child or the wife in recognition of the father's or husband's legal obligation to provide for the child or the wife. This form of co-ownership, called a joint tenancy, is very common in Singapore, especially among newly married couples who pool their financial resources together to buy their homes. In law, each co-owner owns or co-owns the whole of the property. When one dies, his or her undivided share is extinguished and the survivor becomes the sole owner. This is known as the rule of survivorship in joint tenancy. A joint tenancy has certain advantages as a means of owning land. For example, for probate purposes, no further vesting of title in the other co-owner is required. For sale or mortgage purposes, only one title needs to be investigated. For succession purposes, it is unnecessary for one co-owner to make any testamentary gift of his or her share to the other. Those are the advantages. However, a joint tenancy, by its very nature, also has some serious disadvantages in cases where one co-owner, for good reasons, does not wish the survivor to take the whole of the property. To achieve that, he has to destroy the right of survivorship by severing the joint tenancy. The effect of the severance is to create a tenancy in common under which each co-owner holds a distinct share in the property. In cases where the joint tenants are father/child or husband/wife, the law will presume that each owns a 50% share.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill repeals and re-enacts the Land Titles Act to provide for changes in land development and practices. In drafting this Bill, we have consulted the relevant Government departments dealing with land, the Law Society of Singapore, the Real Estate Developers Association of Singapore and the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers. However, in view of the technical nature of the Bill, I intend to submit it to a Select Committee so that all those interested can submit their views. I intend to speak only on the main changes to the Act. First, let me deal with the question of title by adverse possession. The Bill will do away with acquiring of title to registered land through adverse possession. Adverse possession is occupation of land inconsistent with the rights of the owner. There are good reasons why we should do away with the concept of adverse possession because not only does it cause disputes between neighbours, but it is also not right to acquire title to other people's property in this way. In West Malaysia, the law does not permit adverse possession to registered land. There is a savings provision to allow claims by adverse possession to be lodged within three months of the date of coming into operation of the Act. Next, unilateral severance of a joint tenancy. The Bill allows a person owning land jointly with another person to unilaterally sever a joint tenancy. Let me explain, Sir. Many people in Singapore buy property and register it in joint names, eg, parent and child, husband and wife, and so on. There are situations where one party, for example, the parent/husband is under a legal obligation to provide for the child or the wife.”
“In 1991, there were no children below 8 years of age who were killed in such situations. However, 52 children in this age group were injured, 42 while travelling in cars and 10 in buses.”
“Sir, I thank Dr Arthur Beng. On his first question whether there will still be a financial investigation unit in the CNB, as I have mentioned, the CAD will be involved in handling cases of drug money laundering involving financial institutions. But the CNB will still have a role in investigating cases not involving money laundering, eg, they will have to be involved in tracing of assets of drug traffickers. And under the law, it is still necessary for the CNB to trace and freeze assets. Therefore, I still see there is a need for CNB to have a special unit set up within its organisation to conduct such investigations. Indeed, there will be additional manpower deployed for this purpose and I can assure him that my Ministry will take up with the other Ministries involved the question of ensuring that there is enough manpower. Initially, of course, the unit, I expect, will be a small one. Depending on the workload envisaged, my Ministry will review the manpower needs as we go along. As regards training, yes, this is an area where specialised training is necessary. Even before the Bill has received its final approval, CNB officers have undergone relevant training in financial investigations and other related matters, both in Singapore as well as in workshops, seminars and training courses held outside Singapore. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.”
“But at the same time, there are adequate safeguards in the Bill to ensure the confidentiality of asset information, to ensure that there will be no fishing expeditions and that the Bill will only be directed against drug assets. Third party interests in assets will also be protected. Finally, let me say that this Bill, as amended, provides us with an additional weapon to deter drug traffickers. Money laundering has also been made an offence to deter those who make it a point of not coming into physical contact with the drugs and benefits so derived will also be confiscated. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“In particular, we would like to tap the experience of the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) officers, especially since they have considerable experience in handling complex financial investigations involving financial institutions. CAD officers, at the moment, already have police investigation powers conferred on them in relation to offences under the Companies Act and the Securities Industry Act. However, to achieve our purpose, the amendment to clause 51 will give us the flexibility to appoint CAD officers, who are not police officers, to assist CNB in the effective implementation of the Act. The second amendment, Sir, as a result of the ABS representation is a minor one. It allows banks to keep copies of their financial transaction documents instead of originals. With the advent of microfilm technology, this is a measure that will make storage of records more convenient for the banks. If I may recapitulate, Sir, the aim of this Bill is to deny drug traffickers the enjoyment of the benefits of their crime by confiscating their assets which are derived from drug trafficking. As I have said before, the provisions of this Bill are based largely on the United Kingdom Drug Trafficking Offences Act but with modifications to suit our circumstances. Members will also recall that our Corruption (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, 1989, was also modelled on this United Kingdom precedent. The Bill contains provisions which will enable the tracing, freezing and confiscation of assets obtained from drug trafficking activities. There will be sufficient investigative powers like production orders, restraint and charging orders given to the enforcement officers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Sir, the Bill had its Second Reading in this House on 20th March 1992. At that time, I had explained at length the objectives of the Bill, the effect of its various provisions and, in particular, I explained the safeguards contained in the Bill. I said that we were especially concerned that the Bill should not undermine the confidence of depositors, investors and property owners over the confidentiality of records of their assets. Therefore, I do not propose to go over the same grounds again today. I will confine myself to mentioning the amendments to the Bill made in the Select Committee. Sir, the Select Committee received only two representations. 0ne representation was from the Association of Banks in Singapore through the MAS and the other representation was from the Singapore National Front. I think it is a fair inference from this that the Bill is generally acceptable. The Select Committee has made two amendments. First, on investigation powers. The Bill is quite a complicated and technical Bill. It is also not easy to uncover money laundering offences because the culprits use rather sophisticated techniques to avoid leaving a financial trail. Considerable expertise and skill is therefore required for these investigations, especially when the assets move quickly across borders and from one offender to another. Therefore, it is my view that we must utilise all available skilled and experienced investigators and resources, whether they reside in the CNB, the Police or other enforcement agencies.”
“And consultations are going to be held with some of these bodies to work out the procedures where the pressure on the tribunals could be reduced. I understand from the Registrar of the Subordinate Courts that these consultations are well in hand. I would like to know, as Minister, first, how the Registrar of the Subordinate Courts and the persons in-charge of this tribunal see the future years of operation of Small Claims Tribunals. If they feel that the matters are under control, I think we can then consider some of the points raised by Mr Ho Peng Kee. His final point was, although he agrees with the need to have proceedings where individuals appear in person and not represented by lawyers, whether we could have lay representation. He cited, particularly, the situation of this old lady who might have a claim but who might not be able to sufficiently articulate before the tribunal. I would consider this point, Sir, in any future amendments to the Small Claims Tribunals Act. We may not want to have representation by agents or lay representation for each and every case. But in a difficult situation which he gave as a hypothetical example, perhaps, there may be good grounds for conferring some discretion with the Registrar to allow representation by either relatives or some immediate members of the family in this kind of situation, and I am prepared to consider that for the future. 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. INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the two Members who have spoken on the Bill. Mr Ho Peng Kee has raised some points. He has quite correctly observed that, over the years, the Small Claims Tribunal is now being increasingly used by corporate bodies as distinguished from individuals. But if that has been so because of the trend, I would like to emphasise that it is not because individuals are prevented from access to the tribunals. There could be many reasons why individual consumers who have complaints have not resorted to the Small Claims Tribunals in large numbers. But whatever the reasons, I would like to assure him that the Small Claims Tribunal is still open to individual claimants who have complaints or claims which come within the province of the Small Claims Tribunal. Of course, there can always be a debate on any Small Claims Tribunal's structure as to whether it should be limited only to individuals. We debated this when the tribunal was established in 1984 and I did inform the House then that we considered the different options but decided that it is not a tribunal only for individual consumers but it is a tribunal for small claims, whether from shops or consumers. Secondly, Mr Ho Peng Kee asked whether, in the light of the experience gained, we are prepared to extend the jurisdiction. I would proceed very cautiously at this stage because what has happened in the past eight years is that the volume of work faced by the tribunals has shot up tremendously. And this problem was alluded to by the Chief Justice in his speech at the opening of the Legal Year where he commented on the usage of the tribunals by bodies like the Telecom, PUB, Town Councils, and so on.”
“Because the Act at present does not allow for representation of parties by agents, this has caused considerable difficulties for Town Councils which often operate with skeletal staff and rely on managing agents to attend proceedings before a tribunal. Fifth amendment, Sir, is to increase the time limit for the filing of application to set aside any order made in default of appearance from seven days to one month. The reason for this amendment is that it is necessary because the time required for the tribunal order to be prepared and despatched through the post takes more than seven days due to various administrative constraints. Sir, these amendments recommended by the Chief Justice upon the report of the Subordinate Courts Rules Committee, I believe, will certainly help to improve the functioning of these tribunals. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Second amendment, Sir, is to allow the Registrar at the consultation stage to do the following things: Firstly, to discontinue any claim outside the jurisdiction of the tribunals; Secondly, to dismiss any claim lodged if a claimant fails to appear; or Thirdly, to enter judgment in default of a respondent's appearance. The reason for these amendments is that at present the definition of "tribunal" does not include the Registrar. As a result, at the consultation stage, the Registrar is unable to make a decision on straightforward matters, for example, dismissing a claim which is clearly outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal or to enter a default judgment when one party fails to appear. Instead, he has to fix the matter for a hearing before a tribunal (presided by a referee who is usually a magistrate in the Subordinate Courts) to make such an order. This is quite unproductive and it delays the disposal of cases. Third amendment, Sir, is to allow a tribunal to set aside any order made by the Registrar. The reason for this amendment is that we want to provide a mechanism to check on the exercise of powers of the Registrar to ensure that there is no abuse of power or miscarriage of justice. The amendment will allow an aggrieved party to make the relevant application and provide a tribunal with powers to set aside the Registrar's order. Fourth amendment, Sir, is to enable Town Councils to be represented before a tribunal by its full-time employee or a full-time employee of its management agent. I think Members of this House who have to deal with Town Councils must be familiar with the reason.”
“Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill amends the Small Claims Tribunals Act (Chapter 308). Sir, the Subordinate Courts Rules Committee, which is chaired by the Senior District Judge, was asked by the Chief Justice last year to review the Small Claims Tribunals Act and the Rules thereunder and to recommend any necessary changes which are necessary in the light of working experience gained. The amendments in this Bill are the result of the work of this Committee and have been recommended by the Chief Justice. Some of the proposed amendments have become necessary as a result of the change in the character and volume of claims which have come before the tribunals. Basically, these amendments have the following objectives: Firstly, to improve the statutory provisions regulating the manner in which the claims are dealt with; Secondly, to remove shortcomings in the Act which are the source of administrative strain on the limited resources of the tribunals; and Thirdly, generally, to improve the efficacy of the tribunals as a machinery for the settlement of any dispute arising from a contract for the sale of goods or provision of services. If I may turn to the specific amendments, Sir. First, the Bill allows destruction of records of completed cases of a tribunal after a period of at least one year from the date of the tribunal's order or after the conclusion of an appeal to the High Court. The reason for this amendment is to alleviate the storage problem of such records posed in the light of the ever increasing number of cases. But the claim form and the order of the tribunal will be retained for a period of 12 years through administrative arrangement in the light of the Limitation Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1991, 4,676 female spouses of Singapore citizens applied for permanent residence (PR). The approval rate was 68%. In the same year, 1,284 male spouses of Singapore citizens applied for permanent residence. The approval rate was 57%. As for the second part of the Member's question, Immigration Department does take into account the qualifications and skills of the Singaporean spouse in assessing such PR applications, regardless of whether the spouse is the husband or wife. The only distinction is that where the foreign spouse is the husband he should be gainfully employed and has the means to look after his family. INVESTMENT IN MOUNT CHARLOTTE GROUP 5. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Finance if he will say how much was invested in the Mount Charlotte group and whether the investment has suffered any loss and, if so, what is the extent of the loss so far.”
“Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will state the number of applications by male and female spouses of Singapore citizens for permanent residence in 1991; what was the success rate; and if his Ministry is willing to allow the economic and financial status of the Singaporean spouse to be the determining factor in such applications, regardless of sex.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when the regulation on the use of child restraints in the front seat came into effect on 1st July this year, Traffic Police were aware that this new requirement needed explanation. It was necessary for motorists to know that the rule was in the interests of the safety of their children. Therefore, the Traffic Police gave a grace period during which the offenders were not booked but instead given written advisory notices and cautioned that they would be booked if they were caught again. As a result of this, there has been a high level of compliance with the front seat belt rules. Dr Arthur Beng as well as Dr Ow Chin Hock, Chairman of the Feedback Unit, have both informed me that the requirement of seat belts for rear seats is more complicated and therefore requires further public education so as to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. For example, some people still have the misperception that the rear seats are safer than the front seats and that therefore there is no real need for this requirement. Traffic Police will next week launch a comprehensive public education programme on the need to use seat belts and child restraints in the rear seats. It will be a major education programme, with television commercials, advertisements in the press, posters and leaflets. As was done for the front seat requirements, Traffic Police will also give a grace period for the rear belt rules. During this period, which will be for three months, Traffic Police will exercise flexibility on first time offenders, who will be cautioned and advised of the need to belt up. APPLICATIONS FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE (By male and female spouses of Singapore citizens) 4.”
“The total composition fines collected by Traffic Police during the periods were: Year Total Amount 1990 $30,430,233.61 1991 $36,146,220.36 1992 (up to June) $14,291,087.60 FINES COLLECTED BY THE INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND REGISTRY OF COMPANIES AND BUSINESSES 5. Mr Ling How Doong asked the Minister for Finance what was the total amount of fines and composition fines collected by the Inland Revenue Department and the Registry of Companies and Businesses for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 (up to June).”
“There are no plans now to set up a Neighbourhood Police Post in Bishan North Estate. Police's assessment is that there is adequate Police coverage by two NPPs which are within reasonably close proximity, namely Bishan NPP and Thomson NPP. ADDITIONAL SECONDARY SCHOOL IN CHANGI 25. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for Education whether there is any plan to build a secondary school in Changi and, if so, when the school will be completed.”
“(i) The amounts collected by the Courts for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 (up to June) are $32,585,010.49, $32,541,050.51 and $15,422,780.86 respectively. (ii) The total amount collected by departments under my Ministry by way of composition offered for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 (up to June) are $10,000, $90,525 and $4,350 respectively. AMOUNT COLLECTED FROM CERTIFICATES OF ENTITLEMENT 21. Mr Cheo Chai Chen asked the Minister for Communications how much has been collected from Certificates of Entitlement since its inception and to what purpose has this collection been put.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with Section 4 of the Foreshore Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation by Government of the foreshore and seabed at Tuas containing an area of about 20 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 3/92", which is deposited at the Land Office, Singapore. The Government has agreed with the Malaysian Government to jointly develop a new bridge across the Johor Straits, linking Tanjung Kupang, on the Johor side, to the end of Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim at Tuas, on the Singapore side. This proposed second crossing of the Johor Straits will provide an alternative route for travel between Singapore and Peninsular Malaysia. It will relieve the traffic congestion at the present Causeway at Woodlands. This project will require reclamation of approximately 20 hectares of the foreshore and seabed at Tuas as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 3/92', a copy of which is displayed in the Library of the House for the information of hon. Members. The proposed reclamation is necessary to accommodate the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine facilities for the proposed second crossing. The vacant land near the site of the proposed second crossing at Tuas has been earmarked for future development. The Housing and Development Board, as agent to the Government, will undertake the reclamation works which are expected to commence in the middle of next year and completed in a period of two years at an estimated cost of $169 million. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Sir, may I raise a point of order because there are so many other Questions and, in the interest of the despatch of parliamentary business, we should conduct our proceedings orderly. The question really is whether the supplementary questions by Mr Chiam are properly put. Standing Orders No. 18 says: '(1) Questions may be put to Ministers relating to - (a) affairs within their official functions; or (b) Bills, motion or other public matters connected with the business of Parliament for which such Ministers are responsible.' Mr Chiam maintains that the PCF kindergartens are under the charge of the Minister for Education solely by reason of the fact that the Ministry approves and registers them. Supposing there is a kindergarten run by the YMCA in Potong Pasir. It is approved by the Ministry of Education. But because of some difference of opinion with Mr Chiam, the YMCA decides to pull off, does it mean the Minister for Education must answer why the YMCA has pulled it off? Obviously, no. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---”
“2/92, a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with Section 4 of the Foreshore Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation by Government of the foreshore and seabed at Pasir Panjang containing an area of approximately 122 hectares as shown coloured yellow on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 2/92", which is deposited at the Land Office, Singapore. NOMINATED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (Motion)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That this parliament, in accordance with Section 4 of the Foreshore Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation by Government of the foreshore and seabed at Pasir Panjang containing an area of approximately 122 hectares as shown coloured yellow on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 2/92", which is deposited at the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) plays a vital role in maintaining Singapore's economic health. Since 1985, Singapore's container traffic has grown at a compound rate of 25% a year. This growth is expected to continue, although at a lower compound rate of 12% a year for the rest of this decade. The basis for this high increase in container throughput is the continued buoyant economic growth in Singapore and in the region. PSA's existing terminals at Tanjong Pagar and Pulau Brani are designed for a combined annual handling capacity of 10 million twenty-foot equivalent units (MTEUs). However, by 1996, PSA will require a new container terminal at Pasir Panjang to cope with the growing volume of containerised cargo. Reclamation of land will be required for this new terminal. Implementation of the new container port will be done in four main phases, spanning a period of some 30 years. The first phase will involve reclamation of 122 hectares starting in early 1993. The reclamation for this first phase will take three years to complete at an estimated cost of $393 million. This will enable PSA to build eight main container berths at Pasir Panjang. The area to be reclaimed is shown coloured yellow on the Land Office Reclamation Plan No.”
“(3) Trustees must obtain proper advice from an investment adviser licensed under the Securities Industry Act or a bank licensed under the Banking Act or a merchant bank approved under the Monetary Authority of Singapore in relation to investments in an authorised unit trust scheme, company securities or bank bills or trade bills. Sir, this Bill is a timely and useful measure of law reform which I commend to this House. 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. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. RECLAMATION (PASIR PANJANG)”
“It is necessary to require foreign companies which are trustee stocks to have a higher paid-up capital because the Stock Exchange of Singapore has no powers to regulate foreign companies and cannot compel them to disclose material information promptly to Singapore investors. (b) The company must have paid a dividend in each of the three financial years immediately preceding the financial year in which the investment is made. In other words, the amendment here has reduced the dividend payment period from five years to three years, as the previous requirement was found to be too stringent. Furthermore, there are other factors determining a company's financial viability. (c) The company must have a minimum shareholders equity (ie, its total assets less its total liabilities in its last audited accounts) of $30 million; and (d) The company must have reported a profit (excluding any extraordinary item) in its profit and loss account in its annual accounts in the financial year immediately preceding the financial year in which the investment is made. Sir, a grace period of three years will be given to those existing trustee stocks which, I understand, are very few in number which are unable to meet the revised requirement on minimum paid-up capital and shareholders equity, after which time they will lose their trustee status if they still fail to meet the new requirements. As for the other amendments, Sir, I might mention a few. (1) Trustees have the discretion now, under the amendment, to purchase a dwelling house in Singapore for any beneficiary of the trust. (2) Interest-bearing deposits may be held in Singapore currency in the Post Office Savings Bank or a bank or finance company in Singapore.”
“This limit is necessary as the trust funds in Singapore are mainly denominated in Singapore dollars and investments in foreign government securities pose significant risks in view of the exchange rate volatility. As for the existing provision in the current Act for investments in leases (other than mining leases), which have an unexpired term of 60 years or more, the amendments change this to an unexpired term requirement of 30 years because the trend in Singapore is to grant shorter leases. The Bill also revises the present qualifying criteria governing trustee stocks in view of major changes which have taken place in the Singapore stock market. The criteria laid down many years ago are now inadequate. At the same time, some safeguards are incorporated. Safeguards are necessary to protect the interests of beneficiaries of trust funds. Hence, the following will be the minimum criteria for trustee stocks: (a) The minimum total issued and paid-up capital of a company incorporated in Singapore shall be $15 million or more, while the minimum total issued and paid-up capital of a company incorporated elsewhere (foreign company) shall be $30 million or more. This two-tier system seeks to confine the status of trustee stocks to established and reputable foreign companies. I would add that this upward revision of paid-up capital from $5 million under the present law to $15 million for Singapore companies is in line with the Stock Exchange paid-up capital requirement of $15 million which took effect in 1988.”
“Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a third area where amendments are proposed on the basis of recommendations of the Law Reform Committee of the Academy of Law. In finalising the amendments, my Ministry has also taken into consideration the views of the Ministry of Finance and the Monetary Authority of Singapore. The most significant amendment concerns the manner in which trustee investments authorised by the Act may be modified or updated. Trustee investments authorised by the Act will now be listed in the First Schedule and any amendment to the Schedule can in future be made by the Minister by order published in the Gazette. This is a more flexible arrangement than the present position when an amendment by Parliament is needed each time trustee investments are to be updated. This amendment would enable the Minister, after consulting relevant bodies like the Ministry of Finance, Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Public Trustee, to maintain an up-to-date list of trustee investments. The Bill will amend the trustees' powers of investment to enable them to invest in the following: (a) bank bills and trade bills denominated in Singapore currency which are endorsed by a bank in Singapore and which will mature not later than three months after the date of investment; (b) fixed income securities of foreign governments having a Triple A credit rating or equivalent given by specified credit rating agencies, such as Moody's Investor's Service, Inc., or Standard and Poor's Corporation in the United States, well-known agencies. A maximum of 30% of the funds belonging to the trust may be invested in such investments.”
“In England, an amendment as regards personal injuries cases had already been made in 1975. Subsequently, the United Kingdom Latent Damage Act 1986 was passed to remove the problem relating to other negligence cases. Sir, the Bill before us amends the Limitation Act along the lines of the United Kingdom Limitation Act 1980 and the United Kingdom Latent Damage Act 1986. What it does is to extend the limitation periods for personal and non-personal injury claims by providing an alternative starting date for the limitation period, ie, the date the aggrieved person has knowledge of the damage. The limitation period would be computed from the date that expires later. It also seeks to balance the interest of potential defendants by providing that no action may be brought after 15 years from the date of the breach of duty even though the damage or injury has not and could not be discovered. 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. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. TRUSTEES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As I have explained earlier, this is a second area where we have received amendments proposed by the Academy of Law's Law Reform Committee, and also on a rather technical and complex area of the law. Sir, under the existing law, the limitation periods are as follows: (1) In the case of personal injury, it is three years from the date the damage occurred; and (2) In non-personal injury cases, it is six years from the date the damage occurred. This amendment is necessary because under the present law, the limitation period for legal actions runs from the time the damage actually occurred even if the plaintiff did not know or could not reasonably have known about the damage. This can, of course, cause injustice and problems, especially in building construction cases where latent defects may not be discoverable until after the limitation period has expired. In such cases, the plaintiff, or the aggrieved party, is then left without any legal recourse. This was highlighted in an English case in 1983 where the United Kingdom House of Lords held that the equivalent law was "harsh and absurd" and "unjustified in principle that a cause of action should be held to accrue before it was possible to discover the damage". However, the House of Lords felt constrained by the law to apply that principle to an action. Prior to this case, it was generally thought that in negligence cases other than personal injuries, the cause of action would accrue only when damage was discoverable. The House of Lords, aware of the difficulties created by the judgment, recommended that legislation be passed to overcome the undesirable effects of its judgment.”
“The amendments alleviate the harshness of this provision by amending the law to provide that an attesting witness or his spouse can take the gift so long as the will is duly executed in the presence of two other witnesses, which is the minimum statutory requirement, and who are not beneficiaries. In other words, the attestation of the beneficiary and his spouse will, for this purpose, be ignored. Sir, these amendments, as I said, are technical but they bring our law into line with current practice in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. 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. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. LIMITATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Sub-section (1) provides that a will shall be treated as properly executed if its execution conforms to the internal law in force in any one of seven situations. They are: (a) in the territory where the will was executed; (b) in the territory where the testator was domiciled at the time of its execution of the will; (c) in the territory where the testator was domiciled at the time of his death; (d) in the territory where the testator had his habitual residence at the time of the execution of the will; (e) in the territory where the testator had his habitual residence at the time of his death; (f) in a state/country of which the testator was a national at the time of the execution of the will; and (g) in a country of which the testator was a national at the time of his death. In the case of immovable property, a will shall, in addition, be formally valid if it is executed in compliance with the law of the territory where the immovable property is situated. Where a will is executed on board a vessel or aircraft, it has to comply with the internal law of the country with which the vessel or aircraft is closely associated, for example, its place of registration. To simplify the procedure, a new section 4A will provide specifically for the law applicable when a will is executed on board a vessel or aircraft. This will also be the case where a will revokes another will or a provision of a will, and exercises a power of appointment. Finally, Sir, under section 9 of the existing Wills Act, no witness should be a beneficiary or the spouse of the beneficiary. A gift under the will to such a witness, or spouse, will fail.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." If I may just make a preliminary comment on this and the other two Bills which will also come up for Second Reading, these three Bills are Bills to reform three areas of the law and are basically amendments which have been proposed by the Law Reform Committee of the Academy of Law. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Academy of Law's Law Reform Committee for their contribution in this area. The amendments are rather technical but, nevertheless, are important in updating and bringing our laws up to date. As for the Wills (Amendment) Bill, the Bill before us clarifies some of the provisions in the Wills Act (Cap. 352). First, amendments are made to the provisions concerning formal validity of wills. At present, if a person who is not domiciled in Singapore, for example, a foreigner, and he wishes to dispose of his movable property after his death, he has to ensure that his will complies with the law of his domicile. This has caused difficulties to lawyers, executors, trustees and the court because they have to determine three different issues, namely: (a) the testator's domicile which is a rather complex legal concept; (b) the formalities required by the law of the testator's domicile; and (c) whether these have been complied with. This information is often not easily ascertainable or accessible. The amendments before us alleviate these difficulties by increasing the number of situations where wills may be treated by Singapore law as having been validly executed. The approach is similar to that in the United Kingdom Wills Act 1963. Clause 3 of the Bill introduces a new section 4A.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have made it clear that the tenants, whether they are locals or foreigners, knew that they were there on a very short-term basis, on a month-to-month basis, or on a very short lease, precisely because the Government would need the area when plans arise; and plans have arisen, and that is exactly why they have been asked to move. SINGAPORE TECHNOLOGIES VENTURES (Losses) 9. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Finance if it has now been determined how much loss was incurred by Singapore Technologies Ventures, the period over which the losses were incurred and how these losses came to be incurred.”
“I take it that what he is saying is: why is MINDEF going to house the Logistics staff in this locality instead of somewhere else? That is the thrust of his question. But, surely, Sir, this is not the place to decide or debate whether MINDEF is wise, or right, in deciding whether to house them in these premises or some other premises. That is for MINDEF to decide. The question is: in asking these people to leave, has there been any breach of any law or any agreement by the UDMC? The answer is "no".”
“Sir, I do not understand the thrust of Mr Chiam's question. This is a straightforward landlord-tenant relationship. The occupants were given short-term leases on a month-to-month tenancy previously, precisely because the premises might be needed again and the tenants knew about this. In fact, more than ample notice had been given. This is a case of a very sympathetic landlord who has gone out of his way to help, firstly, by giving a very long period of notice, more than that required in the contract, and secondly, I understand that, as far as Singaporeans are concerned, the UDMC even offered alternative accommodation which they are not obliged to do.”
“A number of Government properties managed by Urban Development and Management Company Pte Ltd (UDMC) in the vicinity of Admiralty Road/Auckland Road/Falkland Road are required by MINDEF to house the staff of the US Logistics element who will be transferred from the Philippines to Singapore. These properties were formerly used by the New Zealand Defence Force personnel. They were rented out on short-term leases or month-to-month tenancy, pending new plans for the area. The majority of the premises were rented out to foreigners. Out of 104 units affected, only 21 of them were occupied by Singaporeans on month-to-month terms. They were fully aware that their stay was only temporary until such time when the buildings were needed again by Government. While only one month's notice was required, UDMC in fact gave these tenants 2 1/2 months to 4 1/2 months' notice, in order to give them ample time to look for alternative accommodation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, that is a suggestion which I think may be more workable and I am prepared to consider whether the solicitors' scale fees for conveyancing should be re-examined with a view to either modification or whether it should be retained in today's circumstances. Members will recall that when we made the amendments to the Surveyors Act, we did away with the scale fees for surveyors on the grounds that we should leave it to market forces. We should examine whether it is not time for us to have a serious look at the solicitors' scale fees. PERMANENT RESIDENTS (Waiving of work permit requirement) 4. Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked the Minister for Labour whether he will waive the requirement for permanent residents to obtain work permits since the criteria for granting permanent residence will have included an applicant's economic contribution, including his contribution as a worker.”
“Given our scarce resources in Singapore, the question that arises for us is whether it is in the public's interest to expend the money and resources to set up an entirely new and parallel system for the establishment of such a new profession. As it is, for the training of our new Advocates and Solicitors, considerable difficulties are encountered in providing for the practical post-graduate law course for law graduates every year. Many of the lecturers are practising lawyers who have volunteered to teach in this Course. If the need arises, we will consider the possibility of allowing some types of conveyancing to be handled by non- lawyers. However, because of the difficulties I have mentioned, we intend to proceed rather cautiously in this area.”
“Sir, the Member will recall that when this matter was raised in this House last year, I said that I will examine the feasibility of following the practice in the United Kingdom of allowing non-lawyers to do certain kinds of conveyancing. I stated then that the primary consideration must be public interest, in particular those members of the public who will be the clients of such a new category of professionals. Both the previous Attorney-General and the new Attorney-General have given me their views. Both of them have advised that, while it is possible to follow the British practice of allowing non-lawyers to do conveyancing work, there are some important implications which must be carefully considered. The most serious implication is that it will require the Government to set up an entirely new system of education and training and to provide the infrastructure to allow non-lawyers to engage in conveyancing work. Indeed, new provisions will have to be enacted by Parliament for the creation of an entirely new and separate profession which, in effect, would call for the duplication of the same type of machinery and combined resources that now exist in the Law Faculty, Board of Legal Education, the Law Society and the Academy of Law. This is exactly what has happened in England with their system of licensed conveyancers. They have had to establish a separate Council for Licensed Conveyancers to ensure standards of competence and professional conduct. The Council is also responsible for the registration of students and for their practical training and examinations. They have to establish the machinery for disciplining those who are guilty of misconduct. They also had to set up a Conveyancing Ombudsman Scheme to investigate complaints against licensed conveyancers.”
“I am glad to know that the public is concerned about this because that was one of the objectives of the Police in prosecuting and publicising these cases. As I mentioned in the closing part of my answer, we will indeed consider further measures if the trend of cases warrants it. For example, I am prepared to consider proposing an amendment to the law where the offending driver, for instance, could be disqualified from having his driving licence. That is one of the possible penalties. PARA-LEGAL PROFESSIONALS (Role in conveyancing) 3. Dr Wang Kai Yuen asked the Minister for Law what is the outcome of the review of the role which para-legal professionals can play in conveyancing.”
“My Ministry and the Police will monitor the trend of such cases to assess if any further measures or other penalties need to be introduced.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry and the Police have indeed looked into this problem. In June 1990, I announced that the Police intended to be firm against people who take the law into their own hands and resort to violence, whether on the roads, in shopping centres or elsewhere. In fact, it is in pursuance of that policy that the Police decided to prosecute the more serious cases of road bullies, instead of the victims having to take out private summonses. The cases which have come up in the courts recently and which have received extensive publicity are the result of such Police action. The action taken against road bullies and the extensive publicity has encouraged more members of the public to come forward to report such cases. Correspondingly, more offenders are now being prosecuted. In 1991, 35 persons were charged which is almost double the figure for 1989. Depending on the facts of the case, offenders can be charged for different offences under the law. The penalties provided by law range from a maximum fine of $1,000 and imprisonment not exceeding one year for voluntarily causing hurt and a maximum fine of $10,000 and imprisonment not exceeding seven years for the offence of causing grievous hurt. These maximum penalties give sufficient leeway to the courts to impose deterrent sentences. Indeed, in quite a number of cases, the courts have meted out custodial sentences. The Police will continue their enforcement policy and they will press for deterrent sentences in all such cases. Where they consider the sentence given by the court to be inadequate, they will approach the Attorney-General's Chambers to appeal against the decision.”
“And the burden is on the prosecution to adduce all these to the Court and to urge the Court that the amounts standing in his name are so disproportionate that the presumption ought to be invoked. But then these are matters within the knowledge of the accused person. And he could say, well, how did it come by such large amounts of money? I think it is reasonable. But more important, or equally important, if we do not have this presumption, it will be just impossible to get at the ill-gotten gains of drug traffickers. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [Prof. Jayakumar]. NANYANG POLYTECHNIC BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“The third point the Member raised was concerning the burden of proof, whether is it unusual, and how do I justify. I would justify it, first, on public policy and, second, that if we do not have that presumption, this law is unworkable. Let us take a situation where a drug trafficker is convicted. And investigations then show that he may have a monthly income, all his known sources of income of himself, his wife and the entire family, shall we say, for the past six years have never exceeded, say, $10,000 a month. But he has a million dollars in various bank accounts, he owns a condominium and houses in his name here, and he owns property abroad. Then he has bank accounts abroad, total sum of which, shall we say, is $5 million. I think it is very reasonable to conclude that since the total sum of his assets is so disproportionate to his known sources of income these cannot be derived from his legitimate income or legitimate work. And since he has been convicted of drug trafficking, who can best explain this? It is well-nigh impossible for the prosecution to prove to the Court that these are derived from drug trafficking. It is just impossible because these are matters within the special knowledge of the drug trafficker. That is why in many countries, including United Kingdom, whose model we are following really, the burden is placed on the accused person. But in the first place, let me emphasise, there is a preliminary burden on the prosecution. The prosecution must first prove that he ought to be convicted for that particular drug trafficking offence which may trigger off his investigations. After he has been convicted, the burden is on the prosecution to launch investigations for the tracing and recovering of his assets.”
“And if it was true that the wife in that particular case had no knowledge or was innocent, then her rights would be protected under clause 9. But I want to make a broader point for Members to understand the approach in this Bill. When we examine the models and approaches adopted by different countries, basically there were two different approaches. In one approach, the authority will actually confiscate the physical assets of drug traffickers, sell them off, manage them, and so on. The other approach, which is the United Kingdom approach which we are following, is, in the first place, to avoid physical attachment of all the assets, but to apply to the Court for an order for a confiscation of the benefits. In other words, the Court will make an order that the accused person must pay a confiscation of the benefits or the total sum which the Court assesses to have been derived from drug trafficking. This approach is favoured by us because in some other countries, the authorities have landed themselves in quite big problems, because they have to manage supermarkets, they have got to handle yachts and various other assets. We want to avoid that. So the approach is the Court will assess the value of the assets and the order will be to the accused person to pay that amount. And if he does not pay, he goes to jail. But, of course, in the ultimate analysis, there are provisions for the realising of these profits. But the initial approach is to try to avoid managing these complicated and various assets, some of which may even be located abroad. So that is an approach which I would like to point out, which is similar to the approach we took for the confiscation of benefits in respect of corruption. I think it is a more practical approach.”
“Sir, I wish to thank Dr Arthur Beng for his support for the Bill. May I just comment on the points that he made. First, his comment on the Financial Investigation Unit. I wish to assure him that this is indeed one aspect of the implementation which we are very mindful of, because the investigation into matters which would lead up to the confiscation of assets and the investigation of money laundering is not going to be easy. Because our discussion with other drug enforcement agencies elsewhere who have had experience in this area is that the drug traffickers are quite skilful and cunning, and have a very complicated mechanism and the network they set up of different financial bodies and companies and branches, in order to achieve money laundering. It is very complicated and it requires quite skilful tracing and investigation in order to uncover this money laundering. Therefore, we will have to set up, and it is our intention to set up, a special financial investigation unit that must include people who have the competence and ability to go into these areas, which must mean that you have people who have accountancy training and sufficient knowledge about financial affairs to be able to do the necessary investigations. So I wish to assure him that we have this in mind, and this will be done, and the officers will be trained. This is already under-way. The second point was his concern of seizure of assets like houses. He mentioned HDB flats where the wife may be the co-owner and she may be completely innocent. I would like to assure him, first, that if you examine the provisions in detail, there is a very elaborate provision (I think it is clause 9) which protects the interest of innocent third parties.”
“Financial investigations into drug assets and drug money laundering, I would say, are inseparable from investigation into the drug trafficking offences or activities. This is because information gathered in one investigation is often essential to the other investigation. Because of this, the new provisions will provide an additional weapon to detect and curb drug trafficking activities. Sir, this new law, by confiscating benefits of drug trafficking, would render drug trafficking an unprofitable venture. It will be an additional weapon in the package of deterrents we would have in Singapore to deal with drug traffickers. I think it is timely to enact this law because there are drug syndicate chiefs who often handle the money only and are very careful in avoiding handling the drugs, the substance itself, because of our very stringent penalties in the Misuse of Drugs Act for those handling the drugs. Now with this law which will make money laundering an offence and provide for the confiscation of benefits from drug trafficking, these people who thought that they can put themselves outside the legal framework by just handling the money, cannot escape the arm of the law. Not only can they be convicted for the offence of money laundering, but they can also have their ill-gotten gains confiscated. As I mentioned earlier, Mr Speaker, I intend to refer this Bill to a Select Committee so that individuals, organisations, financial institutions and others who have views on the details of its provisions can make representations and for us to take into account these representations before we finally enact the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The Singapore company regularly paid large sums of money to a third company in Malaysia belonging to a business associate of the heroin trafficker for the purchase of electronic components. The Malaysian company in turn remitted money to the Hong Kong company for the purchase of the same electronic components. In actual fact, the business associate of the heroin trafficker was a key member of a drug syndicate and whose role was to launder the drug moneys of the heroin trafficker. The drug moneys would be delivered to this business associate and the same amount remitted to the heroin trafficker through his Hong Kong company. The drug moneys would be used, either for the enjoyment of the heroin trafficker and his family or for further investment in his drug trafficking syndicate. This, compared to many other complicated situations, is actually a relatively straightforward case of money laundering, which simply means to conceal the origin of moneys derived from drug trafficking activities and to pass it off as legitimate proceeds of lawful activities. Under the new Bill, this business associate would be guilty of assisting the heroin trafficker to launder drug money. Any payments which the business associate receives from the heroin trafficker for assisting him to launder his drug moneys would also be subject to confiscation upon the conviction of the business associate for assisting in this money laundering. Let me say a few words about the implementation of this new law. A special Financial Investigation Division will be set up within CNB to deal with all such financial investigations into drug trafficking cases.”
“Through such Production Order, valuable information would also be obtained on the value of these assets and the location of the assets. An application would then be made by the Public Prosecutor to the High Court for a Restraint Order to freeze the cash of $5,000 and $200,000 and also to restrain the car to prevent it from being sold. The Public Prosecutor would also apply to the High Court for a charging order to stop the sale of the two bungalow houses. After his conviction and on the application of the Public Prosecutor, the Court would require the drug trafficker to show proof of his sources of income leading to the accumulation of these assets which have been uncovered. Prosecution would bring evidence to show that both the drug trafficker and his family members had no regular income or other sources of income and that there was also no evidence of any inheritance from relatives. The Court would therefore assess the trafficker's assets and include $5,000 cash in his possession, the two bungalow houses, the son's car and the $200,000 in the son's bank account. In the absence of contrary evidence, the Court would presume that these assets were the benefits of his drug trafficking activities and issue a Confiscation Order for these assets to be confiscated in the form of a fine equivalent to the value of these assets. If he is unable to pay the fine, the Court would appoint a receiver to take possession of the assets and realise their values. The second example to demonstrate how this Act could work. I would refer to another CNB case to show how the new offence of money laundering would be investigated. Three years ago, a heroin trafficker was arrested. He was a Director of two companies, one in Singapore and the other in Hong Kong.”
“Furthermore, there is a prerequisite that a mutual legal assistance treaty must exist in the first place with that country and that the Attorney-General must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case of drug trafficking against the person in question. The proposed legislation will be restricted to confiscation of assets derived only from drug trafficking and that there will be no unrestricted access to financial records. Sir, the provisions themselves are quite complicated and technical. It is my intention to submit this Bill to a Select Committee. Instead of taking Members through the individual provisions, what I propose to do is to explain how this new law will actually operate and I intend to do this by referring to two past cases which occurred in Singapore. The first example. The Central Narcotics Bureau last year arrested an opium trafficker. He was found in possession of $5,000 in cash. CNB's investigations under the Misuse of Drugs Act revealed that he had little or no money to his name. From documents seized at his residence, it was found that his wife, who was not employed, owned two bungalow houses and his 17-year-old son owned a new luxury car and had $200,000 in his bank account. Supposing this law had already been in force then. The prosecution would apply to Court for a search warrant to search the residence and workplace of the arrested drug trafficker. The search might have yielded information on bank accounts, property and other information relating to his assets. With this information, a Production Order would also be obtained from the Court, ordering any financial institution or other Government agencies to produce details of all assets in the name of the drug trafficker or his family members.”