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 6 of 66.
“So I would like to close by saying that it is important that the dialogue continues and DPM has said that extensive consultation has been done because this is important to move the industry forward and openness of ideas and input from those who are responsible for the development of this industry would send a strong signal to the international fiduciary community that we want a respectable and reputable centre for wealth management. I support the Bill. Prof. Jayakumar: I would like to thank the Member, Mrs Fang Ai Lian, for her strong support of the Bill. I agree with her that this is an area that is constantly changing and evolving and would like to assure her that we would continue to monitor and, wherever necessary, come to Parliament with further changes and modifications to our laws. She touched on some specific issues. First was her point about exemption of income tax on foreign trusts. She felt there was some bias which works to the disadvantage of Singapore citizens. Of course, this is really outside the scope of the Bill that I took through just now, but I have taken note of it and I will discuss it with my colleague, the Minister for Finance, so that he can consider it. But, having said that, let me also say that from what I understand, the objective of the tax exemption scheme for foreign trusts was to encourage the trust companies and banks to offer international trust administration services from Singapore. My understanding is that the foreign trust probably would not have been administered from Singapore if not for the tax exemption. The scheme was, therefore, focused on the administration of foreign trusts rather than administration of trusts set up by Singapore citizens or resident individuals.”
“But I think there is still work-in-progress in terms of the Trust Companies Act. Here again, the financial services industry is waiting for that to be reviewed too. As I said earlier on, this industry is fast evolving and there remain quite a few issues which need to be addressed. Firstly, it is the area of the single purpose trust. This is a new innovation and could be very useful in terms of asset securitisation, in terms of company ownership. I think this would partially address the whole issue of trustee liability and also in terms of non-charitable trust relating to sports and also employees. But, having said that, there are limits and also risks associated with this purpose trust which are now not fully understood and really my comment here is for the Ministry to continue to monitor the utility of these concepts and have these quickly implemented when they are more fully understood. Another area which is receiving the attention internationally is that this whole area of reservation of powers of settlors pertaining to investments has been addressed, but there are other powers of settlors, such as the validity of trusts when you have a structure which might be construed as a nominee arrangement, that need also to be addressed. My comment here is that the dialogue with trustees and practitioners should be continued so that they could be fully reviewed and implemented at a suitable time.”
“But, here I would like to say there is a certain bias against trusts which are set up for Singapore citizens and residents because the favourable tax exemption is not accorded to these trusts and I wonder whether this bias could be removed because it does not make sense that we should be taking charge of other people's assets when we are not doing so for our own. Another important consideration for settlors of trust is that of the quality of legislation and DPM has touched on it. This has got to be constantly updated so that it is in sync with the best practices in terms of asset management, and indeed the Trustees (Amendment) Bill has removed all the constraints relating to investments, except that there is no longer a list of the sort of investments you ought to make and this really frees up the trustees in terms of creativity and professionalism. Now they could fully follow the best practices in terms of portfolio management. I would like to commend this special new section, which is about the duty of care on the part of trustee, because now "professionalism" is mandated. I also like to commend all these changes made, the clarifications made in terms of custodians, agents and so on and also remunerations of trustees and reimbursements of expenses. The rule change in terms of accumulations is also welcomed. The trustees could now either fully accumulate or partially accumulate over the life of the asset of the trust. The perpetuity period is great in terms of modernising our language. Very few people understand what is life in existence plus 21 years and also the removal of reference to King George V and VI. The bottom-line is that it has removed a lot of uncertainties and I think it is very welcomed.”
“Mrs Fang Ai Lian (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to support the Trustees (Amendment) Bill. I would just like to make a few comments. About three years ago, the Economic Review Committee identified wealth management as an area of potential growth for Singapore in terms of our financial services industry. And it also recommended that the legislation be updated because it is really quite old, going back to the 1920s, and it has not been significantly revised since that time. So the Trustees (Amendment) Bill is quite welcome by the financial services industry. It is a very important industry, it is vibrant. It is constantly innovating and evolving and also it is getting more complex by the day. So the law is always having to catch up with it, so to speak. But that said, we cannot avoid the pace of change and, indeed, we got to respond with changes because it will send a very important signal to the financial services community that we are serious to develop Singapore as an important centre for wealth management and other services. More importantly, as DPM has said, we are serious about our efforts in developing a modern trust jurisdiction. But messages do take time to filter through and we have just got to constantly keep at it, and indeed the Trustees (Amendment) Bill is just the second in a series of measures taken to develop Singapore as a jurisdiction for asset management. In the 1990s, we introduced tax exemption for foreign trust on approved basis, and in 2002 we improved this tax treatment by taking away the pre-approval requirement. This is a very important policy shift and it shows that a favourable tax treatment is a very important consideration for settlors of trust in deciding where to locate their trust management.”
“Sir, with expanded investment powers for trustees, and the repeal of the authorised investment list, there is no longer a need for unit trust schemes to be authorised under the Trustees Act. The Bill therefore abolishes the existing authorised unit trust scheme and any order that was made declaring a scheme to be an authorised unit trust scheme shall cease to have any effect. But let me stress and clarify that the revocation of the "authorised" status under the Act does not in any way diminish the investment value of these unit trusts. Let me now touch on clause 25 which will make related and consequential amendments to the investment powers of more than 50 statutory bodies. Currently, Sir, the investment powers of statutory bodies may vary, depending on when they were established. Older provisions are more conservative, and tend to be linked to the Trustees Act, which means that the statutory bodies have to invest according to the list of authorised investments under the Act. With the expansion of the trustee's investment powers, and the abolition of such a list, we have reviewed the position. The Bill now generally seeks to align the investment powers of statutory bodies with a standard provision that gives them sufficient flexibility and autonomy to make their own investment decisions under the oversight of their supervising Ministers. In conclusion, Sir, let me say that my Ministry was greatly assisted by the very constructive and useful comments given by those who responded to the consultation exercises that we conducted. These changes through this Bill will strengthen our legal framework for trusts, and help to further enhance our attractiveness as a financial centre for wealth management. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“These amendments will simplify the law in this area and, at the same time, bring certainty to the periods of time within which income from trusts may be accumulated and future trusts may be validated. Let me say that in the context of the Trustees Act, trustees of new trusts will be able to accumulate trust income for the duration of the trust. This is currently not allowed and trust income may only be accumulated for prescribed periods. Sir, the principle against the excessive accumulation of income dates back to the 1800 UK Accumulations Act and it has been heavily criticised as having no relevance today. Many states in Australia, Canada and the United States have abolished this archaic rule. In the UK, the Law Commission has also recommended the abolition of this rule. Next, the Bill will reform a complicated common law rule that requires future interests in property to vest within a "perpetuity period", if they vest at all. The period is measured by reference to "lives in being" plus 21 years at the relevant time. There are complicated rules for determining the relevant lives. Sir, not only is this rule complicated for lawyers and judges, it can frustrate the intention of the person creating the trust. For example, a gift is void if it might vest outside the relevant period of time, and a party other than the intended beneficiary may then become entitled to the property. In our consultations, there was overwhelming support for the replacement of the common law perpetuity period with a fixed period. This Bill therefore will replace the common law way of determining perpetuity period with a maximum fixed perpetuity period of 100 years for new trusts.”
“Clause 21 inserts a new section 90 which seeks to provide certainty on the validity of dispositions of movable property by a foreign person into a Singapore trust, ie, a trust subject to Singapore law. This is a desirable feature to give certainty to the settlor's intentions as the validity of such dispositions by a foreign settlor may otherwise be governed by the law of his domicile which may have given a different outcome to that he had intended when setting up the Singapore trust. This section will provide certainty by specifying statutory rules to determine the capacity of the foreign person to create the trust or transfer the property to be held on trust. For example, some civil law countries have rules that restrict an individual's freedom to dispose of his assets during his lifetime. In pursuing their own policies, these countries may apply these rules even when the assets in question are validly transferred under the law of the country that the assets are situated. Section 90 will provide certainty as to the validity of such transfers into Singapore trusts. This is achieved by recognising the individual as having the required capacity to transfer the property if the transfer is valid under Singapore law, his own personal law, or the law governing the transfer. Sir, this is not an unusual provision for even non-civil law jurisdictions have a similar provision such as that found in the Labuan Offshore Trusts Act of 1996, a Malaysian legislation. Next, on accumulation of income and fixed perpetuity period, clause 24 will make significant changes to our laws on the accumulation of trust income and the perpetuity period. These changes are effected under the Civil Law Act as the rules are not confined to trusts.”
“One major change that this Bill seeks to introduce is the expansion of the discretionary powers of trustees, to enable them to manage trust assets in the most effective way, for the benefit of the trust. This will be achieved through various reforms, including the conferment of a general power of investment, and the power to appoint agents, nominees and custodians. Sir, under the current Trustees Act, a trustee can only invest in accordance with a list of authorised investments set out in the Act, unless the trust instrument expressly provides otherwise. While this approach may have assisted trustees in the past, it unduly restricts them from optimising investment opportunities, especially in today's financial market where conditions change rapidly. It could also result in a false sense of security and lower the standard of care in the determination of suitable investments for the purposes of the trust. We should leave investment decisions to suitably advised trustees. This Bill therefore repeals the list of authorised investments and a trustee can now invest as he would his own funds. At the same time, there will be safeguards to ensure that trustees adhere to certain minimum prudential standards when they exercise their trustee powers. A duty of care will be defined for trustees when they carry out specified duties or acts. In certain circumstances, for example, in making investment decisions, they will be required to obtain proper advice. On other changes, most of the amendments sought to be made by the Bill are highly technical in nature and I do not intend to dwell on each of them at length. But let me highlight some of the other more significant changes to the Act. First, the validity of certain trusts.”
“Trusts are able to separate ownership from management and create different levels of beneficial ownership of assets that provide the desired flexibility in the management, control and ultimate distribution of private wealth. They can also provide a degree of confidentiality that is desirable for the preservation and protection of private wealth. High net worth individuals favour private trusts for a variety of uses, for example, to provide for incapacitated persons, to protect family and property from spendthrifts, and to manage the centralisation and coordination of worldwide assets. Indeed, a recent Business Times' article reported that more Singaporeans, and not just high net worth individuals, are considering putting their assets into trusts. Our legislation on the law of trusts has not kept pace with the developments in other countries that have seen an increasing use of the trust institution to manage private wealth, especially in the area of trustees' powers and duties. Trustees' powers are normally provided for in the trust instrument, but equally important are the default powers provided by statute. Under the present law, these default powers are geared to the management of traditional domestic trusts rather than "international trusts" that deal with worldwide assets. They are too conservative and do not provide for the sophistication and flexibility that are required for modern and international trusts. This is especially so in the global investment and financial markets of today, where conditions change rapidly, and it is not possible for a trustee to possess all the required expertise and experience to effectively perform all the functions personally. Sir, let me explain some of the main changes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the present Bill is the result of an extensive review to update and modernise our Trustees Act. The review is part of our broader objective to enhance Singapore's position as a leading financial and wealth management centre. The present Trustees Act, when first enacted, was to provide essentially a legislative framework for domestic trusts. However, if we are to succeed in enhancing Singapore's position as a leading financial and wealth management centre, it is essential that we modernise our Trustees Act to be in tune with current developments in trust law and the application of trusts in financial and business transactions in the commercial world. It will enable our banks to provide a full range of banking products and services using trust concepts to sophisticated high net worth individuals from around the world. A vibrant onshore private banking market will enhance Singapore's reputation as a wealth management centre, anchor foreign private banking operations here, and broaden and deepen our financial and capital markets. In the review leading to this Bill, the Ministry of Law and the Monetary Authority of Singapore conducted extensive consultations. We received feedback and suggestions from investment advisers and managers in the trust industry, the Law Reform Committee of the Academy of Law, the Law Society of Singapore, experts from the NUS Law Faculty, and relevant Government agencies. Sir, trust law can have wider application and be more versatile than commonly appreciated. Trusts are not confined just to wills and family settlements. They also have considerable and increasing relevance to global investments and to the management of private capital and savings.”
“If Mr Chiam says, in his own words, it is intended to discourage frivolous appeals, I say, indeed, the Court is right to try to discourage frivolous appeals. 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. LAND SURVEYORS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, all I need to say is that he has to read that provision in the context of the totality of the Bill and also with regard to the intent of the Bill, as I have explained in my Second Reading speech. If the Member thinks that this provision entitles the Chief Justice to completely prevent a litigant from making any appeal, that is obviously not a correct reading of the provision and that is certainly not the intent of the Bill.”
“And the statistics in the Supreme Court show that in most cases where it involves questions of law or allegations that an error of law has occurred, the court does grant leave. So there is no injustice and there is no suppression of the inherent right of appeal. It is to bring this system in line with the prevailing system for all other civil cases. So all the spectre of injustice that he raised here, including analogy with Anwar's case, is totally misconceived. It was a fairly good speech but for a wrong occasion! Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I am sorry that my reading of the Explanatory Statement seems to differ from the Minister's reading of it. To clarify my point, I just read this statement and see whether the House thinks I am right or the Minister is right: "Clause 2 amends section 28A(2) to empower the Chief Justice, when making any order for the allocation of proceedings to the District Court under the section, to also make such provision governing appeals relating to such proceedings as he thinks fit, including provisions restricting the right of appeal." As I understand it - if I can still remember my procedure - some cases can be tried in the High Court but they are transferred to the Subordinate Courts. Under these circumstances, we are giving the Chief Justice legislative power to make certain provisions limiting probably the number of witnesses or the time, but including in that provision is the stoppage of the right of appeal. That is my understanding of this section, unless I am wrong. So the right of appeal, under these circumstances, is that the litigant is denied of the right of appeal.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Chiam has come here with a prepared speech which he had to deliver. But had he listened to what I said in my Second Reading speech, he would have realised that the thrust of his points is misconceived and totally unwarranted. The thrust of his complaint about clause 2 and about the Bill is that somehow the inherent right of appeal has been dismembered or suppressed. But that is not the case. As I took pains to explain, this situation covers a category of family law cases which, at one time, was heard in the High Court, but they are now heard in the Subordinate Courts because they were transferred by order of the Chief Justice. Had they not been transferred to the Subordinate Courts, the parties, in these cases, would have one tier of appeal - from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. They have now been transferred to the Subordinate Courts. And in all civil cases heard in the Subordinate Courts, in the first instance, there is a right of appeal only to the High Court, and there is no further automatic appeal as a matter of right to the Court of Appeal. It is by leave of the court. Therein lies the anomaly. As I said, for this category of cases which originally the court of first instance was the High Court, now, because they are transferred to the Subordinate Courts, the Subordinate Courts hear them in the first instance. The anomaly was not rectified. They have a right of appeal to the High Court and right of appeal to the Court of Appeal without leave. So there is an anomaly. But let me add that there is no curtailment of the right because he has the recourse of appeal to the Court of Appeal, but with leave.”
“Leave is usually granted where there is a prima facie case of error of law, a question of general principle to be decided for the first time or a question of importance upon which further argument and a decision of a higher tribunal would be to public advantage. With the passing of this Bill, similar principles will apply to appeals to the Court of Appeal in family proceedings. Proposed amendments The Bill will insert a new provision, in section 34(2), to require leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal where the High Court makes an order in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction with respect to any proceedings under the Adoption of Children Act or under Part VII, VIII or IX of the Women's Charter. Divorce proceedings, including division of matrimonial assets, summary applications to resolve disputes between husband and wife as to possession of property and proceedings under the Guardianship of Infants Act were originally heard by the High Court. These proceedings were transferred to the Subordinate Courts by a 1996 Order of the Chief Justice, made under section 28A. A new complementary provision will be inserted in section 28A of the Act to allow the Chief Justice to make such provision governing appeals relating to proceedings transferred to the District Court, including provisions to restrict the right of appeal. The Chief Justice intends to specify by Order that leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is required in family proceedings transferred to the District Court for hearing in the first instance. Lastly, a new provision will be inserted under section 34 to clarify that where family law proceedings are heard by the High Court in the first instance, the monetary limit in section 34(2)(a) does not apply to an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Sir, I beg to move.”
“With respect to civil proceedings (other than family law matters), which are heard in the Subordinate Courts, a party has, subject to certain statutory conditions, the right to appeal to the High Court. Leave is needed for a further appeal to the Court of Appeal. However, in family law cases, parties currently have the right to appeal from the Subordinate Courts to the High Court and then make a further appeal to the Court of Appeal, without having to seek leave. This is an anomaly which needs correction. In the interests of finality, there should be only one tier of appeal as a matter of right for family cases, with a second appeal only with the leave of court. The general position in Singapore for civil cases, other than family cases, is only one tier of appeal as a matter of right. This is because having an automatic second tier of appeal delays a final decision on the matter and increases costs for litigants. Family cases do not generally involve complex issues of law or matters of public interest. Most of the appeals in family proceedings before the Court of Appeal deal with disputes over the facts of the case. Such cases that involve disputes on factual matters, there is no need for more than one tier of appeal. As a matter of principle, the Court of Appeal's resources would be better utilised to deal with questions of law. Where civil judgments of the Subordinate Courts are appealed to the High Court, leave is granted for a further appeal to the Court of Appeal if certain established principles are satisfied.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to provide that in all family law cases heard in the Subordinate Courts, there will be an automatic right of appeal to the High Court, with a further appeal to the Court of Appeal only with the leave of court. Present position with respect to appeals in family cases Sir, at present, most family law cases such as divorce cases, applications for maintenance orders and adoption petitions, are heard in the Subordinate Courts. The High Court only hears contested applications for the division of matrimonial assets under Part X of the Women's Charter, where the assets are worth $1.5 million or more. The parties in family law proceedings can currently appeal against an order made by the Subordinate Courts to the High Court and lodge further appeals against the decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal. Sir, in civil cases, there are some qualifications on the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Section 34(2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act provides that the leave of court must be obtained, for example, where the subject matter at the trial is $250,000 or less. In family law cases, it is not possible to quantify a divorce or custody matter in monetary terms in most cases. Hence, in practice, family law proceedings heard by the Subordinate Courts have two tiers of appeal as a matter of right. Why there should be only one tier of appeal as a matter of right These amendments were proposed by the Supreme Court to address an anomaly.”
“Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how does his Ministry assist workers, local or migrant, in their claims for unpaid wages, and resolve salary disputes with their respective employers; (b) whether the current arrangements are effective; and (c) whether his Ministry will introduce new measures to ensure workers' interests are better protected or to enhance penalties against errant employers. 11. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) if he will give an update on the assistance that has been rendered to the foreign workers who were not paid salaries by their employer, Wan Soon Construction; (b) what measures his Ministry is looking at to prevent the problem of firms defaulting on their foreign workers' pay; and (c) whether measures can be put in place to give his Ministry early warning that foreign workers have not been paid their wages and to take prompt action to help them. 12. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what measures will be put in place to better secure and protect wages of foreign workers when businesses fail; (b) will the Ministry consider making it mandatory for companies employing foreign workers in sectors where problems of non-payment of wages are more recurrent to set aside some funds to offset the workers' claims; (c) will the Ministry consider putting in place an expedited system for processing claims of foreign workers; and (d) what more can be done to educate foreign workers on their rights and to seek help early before the situation worsens. The Acting Minister for Manpower (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Sir, can I take Question Nos. 10 to 12 together, as they are related?”
“But I would add that what is important is that bilateral relations have indeed improved and there is a warmer tone when Ministers and officials meet. And recently, on 13th July, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi said that "relations between the two neighbours are good, and (we) have an understanding that (we) will resolve (our) bilateral difficulties." And he said that "the feeling is good" and that he had not seen any public statement or indication in recent months that suggested any bilateral problems. He said he was optimistic that progress would be made and that "it would be in the interest of both Singapore and Malaysia to resolve these issues". I would say that I share the optimism of Prime Minister Abdullah. We do want to get on with our bilateral relations with Malaysia. We are prepared to consider the proposals when we receive them. But I think we have to be patient. And we must not underestimate the difficulties in unravelling these left-over dead knots. We also understand therefore that they need some time and, as stated in their Parliament recently on 7th July, their Malaysian Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs said, and I quote, "the Malaysian government needs time to make detailed preparations to give appropriate consideration over any decision to be made before these [outstanding bilateral] issues are ready to be brought up again to the negotiating table with Singapore", and he added that "negotiations between both countries about these matters will be held as soon as both sides are ready and we agree to start them". So let us wait for their proposals. ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN WORKERS (Claims for unpaid wages) 10.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will respond by saying that we should not speculate. As I have always said in this House, we should not be distracted by media reports, and we will respond to the proposals made officially by their government. I think the Malaysians know our position on the bridge issue and that position is quite simple. As I said at our sittings here on 5th January and again on 6th February, when we reluctantly agreed to the demolition of the Causeway and to build our part of the bridge, it was as part of a package deal that covered several bilateral issues. Malaysia, however, called off the package in October 2002. To build our part of a full bridge along with CIQ-related revisions would cost us over $500 million and will also sterilise the use of land under the bridge. With the package off, we really need to know what is being proposed by Malaysia that would justify our agreeing to build our side of the bridge at such a considerable cost. So therefore, Sir, we have to first receive the specific proposals from Malaysia. Once we get them, we will study them in good faith and we will come up with our response. But as I have said before also, we can reach agreement only if the proposal is fair and there is a balance of benefits on both sides. Dr Ong asked what will happen if there is no agreement reached at the end of the day. Well, as both Prime Ministers had agreed - and their Foreign Minister also said so in their Parliament on 25th January - "if no agreement is reached", he said, "we will seek third party help". But I come back to this point. Let us not speculate. The position is that there have been no talks at the moment between the two Ministries, and we have not received any proposals. Meanwhile, we should not prejudge anything.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in reply to the Member's question, the answer is that there have been no such negotiations or discussions between the Foreign Ministries of Singapore and Malaysia on the bridge since I last spoke on this subject in this House on 6th February 2004. Members will recall that the bridge is just one of a number of outstanding bilateral issues where we are waiting for Malaysia to reply with its proposals. And if I may recapitulate, when Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi visited Singapore on 12th January 2004, Prime Minister Goh explained that our preference was for these "dead knot" issues to be referred to third parties for arbitration or adjudication so that both sides could move forward with bilateral relations and not be bogged down by these outstanding issues. However, Prime Minister Abdullah wanted to give talks another try, and Prime Minister Goh agreed. The understanding reached was that Prime Minister Abdullah would reply to Prime Minister Goh with specific proposals on how to resolve the various bilateral issues. It was also agreed that these proposals would be first discussed at the Prime Ministers' level. Prime Minister Abdullah has yet to respond with these specific proposals. And, Sir, that is where matters still stand.”
“Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments, read a Third time and passed. PLANT VARIETIES PROTECTION BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Madam, I beg to move, (1) In page 3, line 2, to leave out, "SAVINGS AND"; (2) In page 5, line 6, after "day.", to insert " "."; and (3) In page 5, to leave out line 7 to line 21 in page 6. Basically, Madam, the amendments are to delete section 268 from the Bill. We drafted the new section 268 as a savings provision, to cater for the possibility that an investor may have invested resources in a certain work, expecting the copyright term to remain 50 years. We did not want to inadvertently penalise this investor because of the extension of the copyright term to the new 70-year term. Hence, section 268 would have enabled such an investor to retain his ability to continue with his plans, as long as he pays an equitable remuneration to the right owner. We have received further feedback that this provision creates some uncertainty for businesses, and that we should avoid creating such uncertainties. After all, the group of investors section 268 addresses is likely to be very small, if it exists at all. Madam, this is an issue of extending an existing right, which investors would be familiar with. We are not dealing with the creation of a new right, which had not existed previously. Furthermore, the extension of the copyright term of protection is covered under the US- Singapore Free Trade Agreement, the text of which was made public more than a year ago, in March last year. Since then, IPOS and MTI have held many public consultation seminars to discuss the changes to our copyright regime. Any businessman, who had plans to invest in copyright works, would have taken an active interest in these discussions, and adjusted his plans accordingly. Madam, I beg to move. Amendments agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“Could I have your permission to take my three amendments together?”
“For copyright, the idea has to be fixed in a tangible form, and only the expression is protected. As far as I can remember, in the URA case that he refers to, the idea of food vans in URA-managed car parks was not a new one. I believe that several other companies had approached the URA with a similar proposal. But I take his point, which is a more general point, about entrepreneurship. But it is not really directly related to the provisions in the Bill. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I believe I have touched on most of the points. 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. [Mdm Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -”
“I would not go into the details, but there are several programmes - Surf IP, Scope IP, IP 101 Clinics, Working with Multipliers, IP Taskforce, and so on. And the statistics show that over the last eight years or so, there has been a steady rise in the total number of patents filed by Singapore residents. For example, patent filing by Singapore residents has grown by four times since 1995. And for trade mark applications, the numbers grew by 30% over the last three years, which I think is not insignificant a figure. He also raised the point about costs. We are conscious about the need to keep costs down and filing fees are benchmarked against other patent and trade mark offices. I would say that the patent and trade mark filing fees here are quite comparable or even less than those charged in other countries. But, in any case, these fees should be seen as a business investment since the fees enable the companies to get protection of their R&D outcome and to market exclusivity. He mentioned a point about the URA. I believe he was referring to the mobile food vendor service which was initially proposed by entrepreneurs. He felt it was not fair that the idea was taken away. I am not sure how that is germane to this Bill. The Government will actively play its part in developing a conducive environment for IP creation. I am not familiar with all the details of that case. But let me say, by way of clarification, that idea per se does not fall under the protection of IP laws. This is an international practice, and it is to ensure that IP laws do not constrain the development of new ideas. For patent protection, for example, an idea has to be translated into a product or process before it can be protected.”
“I think it is good for local authors, local artists, musicians, producers who have achieved, and some who are achieving, international recognition and whose works have been performed in the region and worldwide. Examples you are familiar with are the late theatre doyen Kuo Pao Kun's plays and Ong Keng Seng's pan-Asian theatre productions, to name just two examples. On the question of balancing the needs of creator, industry and consumer, let me say that the extension of the copyright term of production does give a greater incentive for more local works to be produced and exported. I would say that this can only be beneficial also for consumers in the longer time. There will be more works produced and over time, these works will enter the public domain. Copyright fair dealing provisions present in the Copyright Act will continue to operate to ensure a balance between creators, industry and consumers. Let me say that there are exceptions such as for the purpose of research, private study, criticism or review, for reporting current events and for libraries and educational institutions. Let me assure the Member that we will continue to monitor international and domestic trends to ensure that the right balance is struck. He asked how can IPOS help so that the smaller players will not be disadvantaged or will be made familiar with the new laws. I think it is an important point that he has made. It is important to help our local businesses take advantage of the IP regime. IPOS has done its part and will continue to do so. It has launched a nation-wide IP awareness programme with public and private sector partners. IPOS has also developed various free tools to help companies become more savvy about managing IPs.”
“I thank Dr Magad for his comments and strong support of the Bill, and for his feedback that those whom he spoke to gave a thumbs up for the Bill. But he has raised a few observations which I will deal with. First, he was concerned with the increase of the copyright term of protection from 50 to 70 years. I believe he was concerned whether this was timely, whether we were balancing the needs of the creator, the industry and the consumer. And he was also concerned whether at the end of the day, the consumers will end up paying more and how we are going to strike a balance. Indeed, he is right. As with so many other things in legislation, we have to balance different interests. We have been mindful of this balance. First, let me say that on the increase of the term of protection from 50 to 70 years, we have to recognise that internationally, if the copyright term for a local work has expired in Singapore, then other countries with a longer term of protection are not obliged to protect the Singapore work. So, are we worse off or better off? As we answer the question, we should not just take Singapore as it was in the past, or as it is now with a nascent creative industry, but we have to look ahead in relation to our objective of enlarging this area of industry. Our main export markets already provide for a longer term of protection. As I said, some 33 countries, including US, EU, already provide for a longer term of protection. So when we make this amendment, Singapore creators can enjoy longer terms of protection, not just in Singapore, but also in those countries.”
“Repeal of Provisions on Compulsory Licence The third amendment repeals Part Six (VI) of the Copyright Act. This Part allows a user, under specific circumstances, to apply to the Copyright Tribunal for a compulsory licence to translate copyright works into our official languages. Internationally, we need to recognise that a compulsory licence that compels the copyright owner to make his work available should be used only in extreme circumstances. Furthermore, we have not received any requests for the operation of this section since its enactment in 1998. Therefore, to provide greater assurance to copyright holders, subclause 2(b) will repeal Part Six (VI) of the Copyright Act. Registered Designs Act and Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits Act Finally, I turn to the amendments in the Registered Designs Act and Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits Act which will let exclusive licensees proceed with legal action without having to involve the owners. May I say that these are similar to the amendments in the Trade Marks and Patents (Amendment) Bills. To conclude, Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill will be an additional step to enhance our copyright regime, to give an extra boost to Singapore's nascent creative industries, as well as to provide exclusive licensees with greater flexibility to exploit and enforce their IP. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“They will now get to enjoy longer protection in countries which have a similar term of protection. This includes 33 other countries like the United States and European Union members, with more, I believe, following suit. This is a timely move. Already, we are seeing bustling activity in industries like media design, film and TV production, and the arts and entertainment industries. With this extension of copyright term, we will be able to give our industry players a playing field that is levelled up to their overseas counterparts. Provisions relating to copyright licences acquired by the Government and Government bodies This amendment is related to an earlier announcement of a new Government policy where contractors will be able to own the IP generated from Government procurement contracts. As a general rule, from 1st July 2004 onwards, the Government will procure a licence to use the IP for its own purposes. The contractor will be able to own the IP, which means he can improve on it and build new products and services to generate more value-added activities for Singapore. As we implement this policy, we must make sure that the public interest is protected. The ability of Government agencies and statutory boards to deliver public services must not be affected, which means that we must ensure that Government and statutory board licences must continue to operate. Hence, subclauses 2(d) and (f) amend sections 194(4) and 195(3) so that these Government licences will still be binding on bona fide purchasers of the copyright. This win-win arrangement is a result of extensive consultation with Government agencies and vendors, and was also a recommendation by the Economic Review Committee last year.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." This Bill seeks to amend the Copyright Act, the Registered Designs Act and the Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits Act. The amendments are: Firstly, to update Singapore's IPR infrastructure related to these Acts, and to implement our commitments under the USSFTA; and Secondly, to provide greater certainty relating to copyright licences acquired by the Government. Copyright Act First, the Copyright Act. The Copyright Act was amended in 1999 to implement Singapore's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. When we amended the legislation at that time, I assured the House that the Government would keep our copyright legislation abreast with technological changes as well as in the light of our economic development. The present amendments are one of two sets of amendments to the Copyright Act which we will move this year. A second Bill will be introduced in the later part of the year. Extension of term of protection for copyright works Currently, the Copyright Act provides for a protection period which covers the life of the author and another 50 years after his death. This applies to literary, musical, dramatic and artistic works. Sound recordings, films and performances are protected for 50 years after the first publication. With clause 2(a) of the Bill, we will extend the term of protection by an additional 20 years for both categories of works. This will provide more benefits to our local creators and give a greater push for the development of Singapore's creative industries. Because international copyright protection works on the principle of reciprocity, a longer copyright term of protection will also provide benefits to local creators who export their works.”
“But if we want to do more, to encourage more companies to invest and create new products, then I think it is timely to have a regime that will give greater recognition to these brands and to future brands. 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. PATENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“But let me assure him that we are mindful of this and that we will continue to be involved in this process of consultation and dissemination, particularly as I have indicated that there are other Bills and, as I will mention later in moving another Bill, that these Bills are not the sum total of all the amendments that we are going to make. Later on, in the course of the year, we may have other amendments. The second point that he has asked is whether the changes that we are introducing would really be for the benefit of the bigger companies. I do not think so, and my response to that is that all companies, whether big or small, should pay attention to how they brand themselves, and trade marks are an essential component of any branding strategy. The amendments in this Bill, in my view, should benefit all companies, whether they are SMEs or big MNCs. Protection of well-known marks is an existing concept in Singapore and, with these amendments, what is it really we are trying to do? I believe what we are trying to do is to give enhanced protection for well-known marks. And it is not just enhancing the protection to marks from a foreign company. Enhanced protection is given to a mark that is a well-known mark in Singapore. So a Singapore mark that meets the relevant criteria will qualify as a well-known mark and benefit from enhanced protection. And let me say in this connection that there are Singapore companies which are putting in substantial investments to develop their brands. Well-known examples, of course, are Singapore Airlines, Tiger Beer and Tiger Balm, which are household names in Singapore and many other countries.”
“I thank Prof. Chin for his support of the Bill. He has raised two main points. One is a general point, applicable to all these Bills, whether the average consumer or small company would be familiar with the rationale for these Bills and what more could be done to make them understand the concept as well as the need for such laws. I take the Member's point. This is something that both my Ministry and IPOS are mindful of. But as I have said in my main speech, we have taken care over a period of two years or so to have a fairly comprehensive consultation process with the industry, and it was not just with the big players, we also had discussions with the relevant people in the market. But the education process has to go on. It is a task which both the industry as well as IPOS and other authorities have to be engaged in continuously. People need to understand why a breach of intellectual property has to be treated in the same way as theft of physical property. It may not be immediately grasped by all, but the consequences are similar. Apart from individual victims, the broader consequence is that we will not be able to compete with countries in attracting the kind of new businesses and investments we need if we do not have the kind of intellectual property legislative framework which is essential to attract the investors. And investors, especially those involved in the knowledge industry, will not go readily to a place which does not have the necessary legal norms and legislative framework as well as the necessary enforcement mechanisms.”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether the concept of well-known marks is really relevant to Singapore or will it result in giving more protection to foreign marks, making it more difficult for our own businessmen, as it were, to build new products based on well-known marks. Are these amendments more relevant to the big MNCs I have referred to just now rather than our smaller local businesses? On that note, I support the Bill.”
“Chin Tet Yung: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this Bill. As the Minister has explained, this Bill, together with the next three Bills, is intended partly to implement the obligations undertaken by Singapore in the USSFTA. The US has always been crying out for more intellectual property protection and enforcement in Southeast Asia, which is perceived to be a region rife with pirates not just of the maritime kind but also of the digital kind. So, it is no surprise today to see that several Bills are introduced to shore up the laws protecting intellectual property rights. It brings us closer to the international conventions on intellectual property as well as the US on intellectual property. Since the Minister has discussed the general concept of intellectual protection in Singapore, I would just like to direct a question to him. Will the new laws be readily understood not just by MNCs and foreign investors but rather by our local companies and individuals? Will they work for our local companies and individuals' interests rather than MNCs' interests? Do our own consumers know why we are implementing such strict laws on intellectual property protection while Singaporeans can actually obtain pirated software at a fraction of the cost from shops just across the shores of Singapore? The need for respecting intellectual property rights is not so instinctively felt as, say, the right of an individual to be protected from physical harm or theft. What can be done to increase the awareness of Singaporeans to respect intellectual property rights even when it hurts their pockets? Mdm Deputy Speaker, these Bills are very technical in nature, so I shall restrict myself to a very simple point on the Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill.”
“For example, clause 30 amends section 82 to make it easier for the owner of a registered trade mark to rely on the enforcement mechanism under section 82. The new section 93A will confer additional powers on enforcement officers. Customs officers will be empowered to take immediate action if they detect any counterfeit goods in the course of their duties. These powers will be exercised judiciously by our enforcement authorities and they will continue to work in close partnership with the rights holders. Revised "Fair Dealing" provisions As we strengthen the trade marks regime to provide greater protection for trade mark owners, we must also maintain the balance between trade mark owners and users. We have taken the opportunity, therefore, to review and clarify that certain uses of a registered trade mark will not amount to infringement. As stated in clause 12, fair use in comparative commercial advertising or promotion, use for a non-commercial purpose, or use for news reporting or news commentary will not constitute an infringement of a trade mark. Streamlining administrative procedures Let me add, Madam, that we are also taking steps to refine some administrative procedures to improve the overall operational efficiency of the Trade Marks Registry. Some measures are geared towards harmonising administrative procedures to be in line with international standards, such as the Trademark Law Treaty. In addition, the Registrar of Trade Marks is authorised to prescribe forms and issue practice directions on certain administrative matters. To sum up, Madam, while many of the amendments are technical in nature, this Bill will further strengthen Singapore's intellectual property regime in the area of trade marks. Madam, I beg to move. Question proposed. Assoc. Prof.”
“Clause 20 of the Bill amends section 45 so that an exclusive licensee no longer has to involve the trade mark owner before proceeding with legal action to enforce his rights. Of course, Sir, the courts will still have the discretion to involve the owner if appropriate. Improved remedies in civil actions Turning to improved remedies in civil actions, the Bill refines the remedies available to trade mark owners when instituting civil actions. Currently, in an infringement suit, a trade mark owner can either obtain damages or he can obtain an account of profits from the infringing party. Clause 14 will amend section 31 so that, where the court awards damages, the court is also empowered to make an order for an account of any profits attributable to the infringement that have not been taken into account in computing damages. We have also proposed, for infringement cases that involve the use of a counterfeit trade mark, a new remedy of statutory damages that will complement the current process of assessing damages. This is because, in certain cases, it may be difficult to prove actual losses or obtain an account of profits. For example, some infringers may not keep clear records of their sales. Hence, a new section 31(5) provides that the trade mark owner can seek statutory damages. In such a situation, the court will assess the quantum of statutory damages on compensatory principles, taking into account the guidelines in section 31(6). Border enforcement measures The Bill also deals with border enforcement measures. Madam, it is not enough just to put in place good legislation. There must also be a suitable enforcement environment. We will be making several amendments to enhance our border enforcement measures.”
“For example, an owner of a well-known mark can stop another party from registering or using an identical or similar mark, if the use is likely to cause confusion with a well-known mark. Madam, unfortunately, there can be situations where the reputation and value of the well-known mark is diluted by blurring or tarnishment, even though there may not be consumer confusion, for example, if someone uses a well-known mark on inferior quality goods or on goods, say, of an obscene nature. Therefore, clauses 5, 9 and 26 amend sections 8, 23 and 55 so that the owner of a well-known mark can stop a party from registering or using an identical or similar mark which dilutes or takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character of the well-known mark. In addition, clause 26 allows the well-known mark owner to stop a third party from using a business identifier, such as a company name, that is identical or similar to the mark in certain circumstances. With these amendments, we will also give effect to the Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well Known Marks (1999), which is an international standard adopted by the Assembly of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property, and the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organisation, on the level of protection for well-known marks. Improved protection for trade mark licensees I turn now to the improved protection for trade mark licensees. The Bill will give trade mark licensees more flexibility to enforce their rights. This can save time and costs, especially where the trade mark owners are overseas. Clause 17 amends section 39 so that a licensee no longer needs to register his licence with IPOS before suing an infringer for damages or an account of profits.”
“Trade marks and branding now are recognised as key components in a company's business strategy. The present amendments will further keep pace with international developments, and ensure that trade mark owners will continue to enjoy a high standard of protection here. Key features of the amendments The key amendments in the Bill are to improve the trade mark regime to (a) the definition of trade marks; (b) well-known marks; (c) trade mark licensees; (d) civil remedies; and (e) border enforcement measures. If I may take these in turn. [Mdm Deputy Speaker (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua) in the Chair] .25 pm Expansion of trade mark definition Today, Singapore trade marks are commonly associated with signs that we all can see. But there are also marks that cannot be seen, but can be just as important in marketing and distinguishing products, for example, the Intel chime and the MGM lion roar. Several countries, such as the US, UK and Sweden, already recognise non-visual marks. Singapore too must keep up with these new techniques in marketing and branding. Hence, clause 2(e) will remove the requirement that a trade mark be visually perceptible. Of course, non-visual marks must still satisfy the same registration criteria as more traditional trade marks. Expansion of rights for well-known marks Madam, the Bill will give better protection for well-known marks. These are marks which are famous and known to many people. Their owners would have invested substantial amounts of time and money, to generate the high levels of recognition and goodwill associated with these marks. Well-known marks are already recognised in our laws.”
“When we started FTA talks with the United States in late 2000, we decided to carry out an extensive review of our IP legislation in conjunction with those talks. It gave us an opportunity to study the key features of the US IP framework, and to examine which are the ones relevant to us. But while we aspire to higher standards, we also need to be mindful that Singapore companies are at different stages of development. The concerns of our companies will be different, depending on whether they are or are not predominantly owners, or users, of IP. We have given special consideration to this. Therefore, let me assure the House that as we provide greater incentives for innovation by strengthening the rights of IP creators and holders, we will also consciously provide safeguards to balance the needs of IP users. Let me also stress that the proposed amendments were finalised after extensive discussions with numerous industry constituents, IP professional groups, and relevant Government Ministries. These discussions lasted almost two years. In addition, the IP Office of Singapore (IPOS) made available the draft Bills on its website for consultation and conducted a public engagement seminar for interested parties. All these have generated useful feedback, which we have incorporated some of the suggestions. Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill: overview I now turn to the specific provisions of the Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill. This Bill will improve and provide more clarity on certain aspects of trade mark law, to enable the Registry of Trade Marks to be more efficient. The Bill also implements certain commitments of Singapore under the USSFTA. In 1998, we took a significant step to amend our Trade Mark regime, to modernise it in accordance with international standards.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." If I may give an overview, Sir, of this Bill and three other Bills in this House today which relate to the protection of intellectual property (IP) rights which my colleague, Senior Minister of State Ho Peng Kee, and I will take through. Let me first make some general observations on these four Bills, before I go into the specific provisions of the Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill. These four Bills are to support Singapore's ongoing transition into a knowledge-intensive and IP-rich economy. In recent years, there has been a tremendous growth of IP-rich activities in Singapore: Private and public sector R&D activities continue to bear fruit; the biomedical industry is making commendable strides; our companies are investing in branding and going international; and the Government has committed further funds to grow our media industry. As Singapore moves forward towards an IP-rich economy, our IP legislation must likewise move in tandem. At the same time, the global IP landscape is changing. The standards set by the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS agreement, have become a minimum standard which businesses and investors expect. We reached the TRIPS standard in 1999. Five years on, it is timely to update our IP legislative framework, to ensure that we meet the needs of the new industries we are grooming, as well as remain competitive in this fast changing IP landscape. Several amendments in the Bills are also connected with our obligations under the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (USSFTA).”
“I do not want to appear to prejudge the details of whatever rules are going to be drawn up by the Law Society. I must leave it to the Law Society. They already have rules in the legal profession applicable to practitioners, generally speaking, on conflict of interest. All those rules will apply to locum practitioners. But there may be situations peculiar to locum practitioners where the Law Society will have to devise additional rules. The example that he gave where, in one case, one firm is representing the plaintiff and another firm representing the defendant and the locum - because I have said that a locum can be a locum for more than one firm - I should think, subject to being corrected later, if he is working for the two law firms in the same subject matter, then obviously a question of potential conflict or real conflict of interest will arise. I am sure the Law Society's rules will take care of that. But it does not mean that a locum cannot work in the two firms on other matters. So I believe that the Law Society will have the good sense and judgement to take care of these issues. 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. TRADE MARKS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“If his point is that the Government, when it makes any provision for foreign lawyer, as a general principle, should seek reciprocity, it is very difficult to disagree with him, and we always try to ensure that our firms and our lawyers get maximum access elsewhere. This particular amendment that I am proposing for arbitration to do away with the restriction, in fact, we have imposed restrictions that many other countries do not have it. So we are in fact bringing ourselves in line with many of the other leading jurisdictions.”
“I believe Members will recall that I have mentioned in Parliament several times on the reasons why we introduced this requirement sometime ago, as a result of the Committee on the Legal Profession, chaired by the Attorney-General. It was a two-fold objective to relate to the number of graduates as well as to maintain certain standards. In other words, when a student intends to embark on law studies, he knows at the very outset that, if he intends to practise law, then this is the standard that he ought to obtain when he graduates, ie, Second Upper or Second Lower, as the case may be. In the many years in which the system has been in operation, I believe it has worked well. Both students and parents have a clear indication, before they start the law studies, that this is the benchmark if they want to practise law. During these years when we revamped the system, we have also increased the number of overseas institutions which are recognised for this purpose. The question he has posed is: because there may be a certain number who did not reach this benchmark it is unfair to them to be deprived of an opportunity to practise law. But if we were to easily change the system and to enable those who did not obtain the required benchmark or the standard to practise, then you will have a system made inoperable and the system will not be meaningful. He asked me to relook at it and my approach is we are always prepared to relook at any issue, or any institution, or any process that we have. But I do not want to raise false hopes because we have a system that is working and to allow those who do not have it to nevertheless practise, it means that the system will be rendered quite meaningless. He has asked about the amendment concerning arbitration.”
“Both Mr Chiam and Mr Chandra Mohan talked about the need to ensure that there is avoidance of conflict of interest. Mr Chandra Mohan also said that we must ensure that public interests must be safeguarded. I completely agree, including areas of handling of clients' money, continuing legal education, and so on. I referred to these points in my speech and I believe the Law Society is mindful of these considerations and they will be taken care of in the rules. And I would add that the Ministry of Law will pass on the suggestions to the Law Society. So as we monitor this new system and see how it operates in practice, I am sure that they will have to make modifications and adjustments to the rules as we go along. Mr Chiam also mentioned some suggestions as to the length of the tenure of the practising certificate, whether it can be half a year, reduced fees, and so on. Let me say that my purpose here in coming to Parliament is to make an amendment which will enable the introduction of the locum practice. The details of the administering of the scheme, I must, of course, leave it to the Law Society, and trust that they will have sufficient oversight of the actual operation of the new system and ensure that, while it meets the objectives, at the same time, public interest is protected and the requirements are not so burdensome that it puts off the very people that we want to bring back into association with legal practice. Mr Chandra Mohan raised two other points. The first point is not very germane to this Bill. But he asked whether I can have a look again at the requirement for graduates who want to practise law to possess a Second Class (Upper) Honours degree or a Second Class (Lower) Honours degree depending on whether he graduated abroad or from here.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Chiam and Mr Chandra Mohan for their comments and support of the Bill. If I may turn to some of the specific points raised by them. First of all, I am sure I speak for all Members in wishing Mr Chiam many happy years of lucrative locum practice! First, he commented on the three out of five years' requirement. And, here, there seems to be a difference of views between Mr Chandra Mohan and himself. Mr Chiam felt that the three out of five years' restriction seems not to be in tandem with one of the Law Society's objectives of locums being possibly a means of tapping specialists. In three out of five years, one may not be able to say he is a specialist. On the other hand, Mr Chandra Mohan thought that was a bit too rigorous. So, there you are, you can have many different approaches. But I believe the answer to Mr Chiam's question is that this locum practitioner is not being proposed only for one objective. There are several objectives. Of course, it could lead to a specialist who is a locum and whose knowledge can be tapped. But it also serves several other objectives, like people who have to leave the profession on a temporary basis but yet their services are not entirely lost to the profession. While we are on this point, in answer to Mr Chandra Mohan, let me say that three out of five years is a balance because it is intended to signify that the person has not been completely out of touch with practising or with the law. I think if it is three out of 10 years, one could say that it is a risk that he has been completely out of touch with the law. So we can have a debate on that, but I think three out of five years is not an unreasonable requirement.”
“I believe it might also reduce the number of young lawyers leaving practice. It is envisaged that like doctors, the locums will also be useful for general practitioner's work, particularly in areas like conveyancing, family law, personal injury and debt recovery. Sir, there will be safeguards in place. Locum lawyers will be covered by insurance taken out by the law firms or corporations engaging them. A locum lawyer will not be allowed to deal with client's moneys and must have at least three years' legal experience. He may be required to complete a professional development course prescribed by the Council of the Law Society if his experience is not within three years of the application for a PC. He must also be a permanent resident or citizen of Singapore, and must practise under the supervision of a lawyer in the Singapore law firm or law corporation that engages him. In addition, holders of de-linked practice certificates will continue to be practitioner members of the Law Society, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Society and the Supreme Court in ethical and disciplinary matters. In closing, Sir, let me say that we are confident that this new scheme will strengthen our legal industry, and I believe it will ultimately be for the benefit of those who require legal services. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Foreign counsel may still choose to appear with a Singapore lawyer, for example, where there are complex issues of Singapore law. If they choose to appear on their own, it would be prudent for them to engage a Singapore lawyer for advice on Singapore law. Legal Profession Let me move on to another key amendment. Under our current system, Singapore lawyers who are admitted to practise in Singapore are required to apply for a practising certificate (PC) from the Supreme Court on an annual basis. The current PC regime requires practising lawyers to practise in a law firm or law corporation. The Law Society has proposed a new class of conditional de-linked practising certificates for "locum lawyers". It is a common practice in the United Kingdom for solicitors to be employed as locums, who may have associations with more than one firm. Barristers in the UK work on their own account, and they are not restricted to taking work from a single firm of solicitors. Under the UK system, specialists may offer their skills to multiple firms. Such specialists are able to develop and strengthen their expertise through a broader range of work than may be available in a single firm. Law firms have more flexibility to build expertise in specialist areas, especially when the current volume of work may not justify a full set of specialist lawyers. The UK system also allows firms to fill casual vacancies with freelance solicitors, eg, arising from maternity leave or when the sole practitioners are on leave or if they are ill. Such a scheme will promote specialisation, minimise the loss of talent and improve manpower allocation. It will also allow the market to tap the large pool of solicitors who have left active practice for one reason or another, for example, to start a family.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill amends the Legal Profession Act to promote Singapore as an arbitration venue and to allow lawyers to practise on a freelance basis, similar to a locum practice which is well known in the medical profession. Foreign Counsel in Arbitration Sir, in 1992, we amended the Legal Profession Act to allow foreign counsel to argue arbitration cases involving Singapore law. When we did that, we also provided at that time that they should appear jointly with a Singapore lawyer. Arbitration has since then grown into a major form of dispute settlement, and is increasingly becoming an attractive alternative mechanism to resolve large commercial disputes. We have made good progress in promoting Singapore as an arbitration centre. We are already a major arbitration centre, but our aim is to make Singapore the location of choice for arbitration in the Asia-Pacific region. To further promote this objective, we have reviewed the requirement for foreign counsel to appear jointly with a Singapore lawyer. There is no similar restriction in the laws of the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Australia. It is a requirement which has put us at a disadvantage with jurisdictions that do not have it, and it may be a factor against the use of Singapore as an arbitration venue. Foreign parties are more likely to recommend or choose a place with less restrictions. To be competitive in this field, we need to remove this requirement, and allow foreign counsel the choice of appearing without local counsel. Let me stress that this amendment does not mean that local lawyers will be excluded altogether.”