Sylvia Lim
Singapore
“Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question for Senior Minister of State on PF. It was pointed out in the FATF report that representatives of foreign flag states have a very low understanding of their PF obligations.”
“Thank you Speaker. I have noted what the Minister is proposing that the House do. I am not standing up to object to it. But I think it is important for me to also state that my response on some of the issues that she mentioned, I have made them on 14 January during the debate on the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not thi…”
“Thank you, Speaker. A clarification for the Minister. I think it is quite clear that we are not denying that services were provided and residents had benefited from the services. I also would say that we do appreciate that MND did this internal review to undercover this problem, if I can say that.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, and that is on the necessity for the retrospective legislation.”
“Sir, regardless of which country may have primary jurisdiction over a particular case, both governments may feel pressured to retain cases involving their own nationals. This could be for various reasons, such as the differences in law and punishments or to give their nationals better access to justice in their home countries.”
“One clarification for the Minister. This is in relation to when Singapore may have to give up its primary jurisdiction to Malaysia to investigate incidents and particularly on clause 39(2).”
The complete record
Every one of 1,794 lines we hold for Sylvia Lim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 36.
“Although powers of search already exist in the Road Traffic Act and Rapid Transit Systems Act, these powers covered only passengers’ belongings but not searches of the passengers themselves. This Bill will expand these powers to cover frisk searches of passengers. Given the evolving security situation, including the threat from self-radicalisation, I do appreciate the rationale for this expanded power. Sir, I do not expect the power to do frisk searches to be widely used and I hope I am not wrong. Nevertheless, I have a particular concern about these provisions. The term “frisk search” is defined in the Bill as “a search of an individual by quickly running the hands over the individual’s outer clothing”. Frisk searches thus involve physical contact with the person being searched. My main concern revolves around the persons empowered to conduct frisk searches. To explain the basis of my concern, allow me to briefly describe the various actors in our security landscape. In our security eco-system, we have SPF officers, Auxiliary Police, unarmed security and other lay enforcement personnel. The levels of training of these groups are vastly different. Compulsory training of SPF officers requires six to nine months of residential training, while Auxiliary Police do residential training of eight to nine weeks or less than three months. Unarmed security training can be completed in about a week or two. I assume outsourced enforcement officers also undergo less intensive training. Sir, the nature of deployments for these different actors has typically been deliberately calibrated with these differences in mind. Those with less training typically handle more routine tasks, such as controlling entry to premises, guarding installations or manning security equipment.”
“Earlier, the Minister of State mentioned that there are currently about 300 cameras nationwide to detect such offences. To this end, could the Ministry confirm if law enforcement is stepping up further its capacity and operations to increase the likelihood of detecting illegal racing on our roads? Next, giving of false information. Clause 20 of the Bill proposes to change the law regarding the offence of giving false information to Police about the identity of the driver who committed an offence. We are aware of such cases where a vehicle owner falsely tells Police that another person was driving the vehicle in order that the owner escape punishment for a traffic offence. I agree with the proposed section 81(3A) which will make it an explicit offence for that other person to pretend or falsely represent that he was the driver. He, too, will be liable for possible imprisonment. Hopefully, this will make it more difficult for vehicle owners to find fall guys to take the rap and thereby pervert the course of justice. Clause 20 also proposes to increase the punishment for this offence, in particular, the maximum fine. It is now proposed to raise the maximum fine to $10,000. I note that just four years ago, the maximum fine had been raised from $1,000 to $5,000, a five-fold increase. Now, it is being doubled. Could the Ministry clarify why there is a need to do so? And, in particular, is there any indication that drivers are not deterred by the current levels of fines? Finally, searches of bus and train passengers. Clauses 24 and 31 of the Bill provide for security screening of passengers upon entry into buses, bus interchanges, and trains and premises of the MRT and LRT.”
“Mr Speaker, in recent months, several of my residents have been killed or maimed as a result of irresponsible driving by others. These tragic accidents could have been easily avoided. I thus agree with the overall rationale underlying this Bill to enhance safety on our roads, as well as to strengthen security on our public transport. That said, I have some queries and concerns about the provisions relating to illegal car racing, giving of false information to Police and the expanded powers of search on bus and train commuters. First, illegal car racing. Clause 22 of this Bill will increase the penalties for the offence of conducting illegal competitions or trials of speed involving vehicles, in short, racing. Earlier, the Minister of State for Home Affairs highlighted that there has been an increased incidence of such offences. In recent months, the public focus has been on the fatal crash at Tanjong Pagar that claimed five young lives. Based on questions from other Members of this House, illegal car races may be taking place in our neighbourhoods. Anecdotally, I have also received significant feedback from residents about vehicles racing at high speeds within Aljunied GRC – such as along Tampines Road, the Upper Serangoon Road Viaduct and Lorong Ah Soo – several times a week. I have been liaising with TP and LTA for several months over such threats to public safety. This Bill proposes to significantly increase the punishment for the offence of illegal racing, by doubling the maximum imprisonment and more than doubling the maximum fines. While such an enhanced punishment will send a stronger deterrent signal to would-be offenders, I believe that those seeking such thrills will still try their luck, unless there is greater certainty of being caught.”
“But I understand that this has been accompanied by a requirement that the patrons have to bring their own equipment to the fitness studios or the gyms, which, to most people, would be a disincentive to go to the place in the first place because these are things you go to the studio for because you cannot do them at home. So, I would like to ask him whether the Government will review this requirement because it is already setting capacity limits, it is saying that the activities have to be low intensity, masks have to be on at all times. If there can be some additional measures, such as requirement to wear gloves and so on, would the Government re-look at this requirement for customers to bring their own equipment to the fitness studio?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have a clarification for the Minister for Health and one for the Minister for Education. First, to the Minister for Health. Before I do that, I would just like to assure him that I, too, feel nostalgic that this may be the last time that I would have the chance to pose health-related questions to him after the last 10 years. So, the feeling is mutual in that sense. On to my question, it is about the Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme which he gave some figures on just now. Earlier, he said that there were 104 applications received and about 30 applications were adjudged to have met the qualifying criteria. So, does that mean that these 30 claims are going to be allowed and some payment is going to be made on these 30 claims? Then, he also mentioned that there were 75 that were rejected. I would like him to clarify the reasons for rejection because, from the portal for submission of the application, it appears that every application has to be accompanied by a doctor's certification that the side effect is related to the vaccination. So, for these 75 rejected cases, was there actually an accompanying medical certification that the side effect is related to the vaccination? And could he clarify why those applications were rejected? For the Minister for Education, the recent round of tightening measures included some that affected the fitness industry. I think he is aware that this has caused a lot of unhappiness and anxiety, as it affects the livelihoods of trainers and also the customers. Subsequently, there was a slight adjustment to this announcement to say that low-intensity activities would be allowed to carry on indoors.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I would like to say that I welcome the Minister's statement in his speech that the Government and SPH Media will not see eye-to-eye on matters and it is as it should be if the newspapers are to be credible to readers. I welcome that statement strongly. At the same time, he has acknowledged that due to the proposed change in the funding, there are some concerns about the implications of Government funding on the editorial direction of the newspaper. And in the same breath, he just announced to us today that the Government and the management shareholders of SPH have agreed on the choice of the Chairman of the CLG to be Mr Khaw Boon Wan. I have some clarifications on this choice. First, let me clarify that I am not questioning the personal integrity of Mr Khaw but the fact is that he is the former chairman of the People's Action Party and former Coordinating Minister for Infrastructure. So, I would like to ask Minister: first of all, the choice of Mr Khaw, although he said it was by agreement between the Government and the management shareholders, am I to assume that it was the Government's suggestion that Mr Khaw takes on this role and the management shareholders agreed to that suggestion? The second question, does Minister not see this as a missed opportunity in the light of the major restructure that is coming up and some concerns about what this will mean for newspaper content? Is this not a missed opportunity where someone else who is not so closely linked to the Government could have been chosen to be the Chairman? Were any other candidates considered?”
“Clause 8 also introduces a new section 39 OB which provides that parties coming for an assessment cannot be represented an advocate and solicitor unless special permission is given. Such a "no-lawyers-allowed" clause is not novel and is present in other legislation that aimed to provide low cost and less formal dispute resolution mechanisms. Despite the good intention behind this no-lawyers-allowed rule, I wish to point out that experience has shown that this can inadvertently lead to unfairness. Residents who have gone through such hearings have highlighted to me that parties who are corporations have the advantage of sending their legally trained employees to represent the corporate entity, thus somewhat circumventing the no-lawyers-allowed rule. This has happened in the Employment Claims Tribunal and before the Financial Industry Dispute Resolution Centre or FIDReC. Corporate employers and financial institutions send their in-house counsel, who are not considered advocates and solicitors, while the employee or bank customer has to appear in his own capacity. This imbalance of knowledge and power has the potential to lead to an unjust outcome. For this Bill, it is foreseeable that developers, HDB and JTC will send legally trained employees to present their cases in front of assessors, while the purchaser has to prepare his own case. I would like to ask if the assessors are alive to this risk of unfairness and how to address it.”
“Next, I move to the amendments to Part 8C of the Act. Part 8C deals with the extension of the delivery date of property under sale and purchase agreements. The rationale for Part 8C remains sound. It enables developers, HDB and JTC to have more time to complete construction projects delayed by the pandemic. It also enables purchasers of units to claim additional costs incurred by the delays such as the cost of alternative accommodation. Part 8C was enacted into law by Parliament in November last year under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill. From what I understand, Part C has not come into operation yet and I believe earlier the Minister of State did say it would be operational in a few months' time. I wonder why this is so since the amendments in November last year were brought to the House on a Certificate of Urgency. In comparison, the amendments relating to TraceTogether were brought to Parliament only in February this year and are already in force. In addition, could the Minister explain why the amendments to Part 8C are being made even before the provisions become operational? I recall that at the November sitting, the Minister had assured Members that those provisions were drafted after wide consultations with the industry and were supported by the industry associations. Next, I wish to make two observations about clause 8 of the Bill. I particularly welcome the new Section 39 OA, which provides for subsequent determination by an assessor based on new information. This is an important avenue to correct any injustice caused by an original determination, which was later proved to be unwise.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to seek some clarifications on this urgent Bill, particularly on Clause 2 and to the amendments to Part 8C of the Act. First on Clause 2. Clause 2 extends the validity of Parts 1 and 2 of the Act for another year to 19 April next year. These parts were enacted to enable parties to apply for temporary relief from fulfilling contractual obligations affected by the pandemic. The proposed extension is a recognition of the ground reality that there are still many businesses and individuals which continue to suffer adverse impacts from COVID-19. I note that the Government has decided, however, not to extend Part 3, which provides for temporary relief for financially distressed individuals and entities. To recap, Part 3 had among other things, raised the threshold for individual bankruptcy and corporate winding up from a debt of $15,000, to $60,000 and $100,000 respectively. It had also increased the time period to pay from three weeks from demand to six months. This Bill confirms that the provisions of Part 3 will end on 19 April this year as scheduled. Yet today, we still see individuals and businesses who are drastically affected by the COVID-19 restrictions from earning income to pay their bills. These include our residents who used to run excursion and catering businesses, who have so far been unable to pivot to other business models. As we inch towards economic recovery, COVID-19 support programmes are being scaled down or stopped. However, economic recovery has been uneven across sectors. On this note, it will be most useful for the Government to explain why it decided that there was no need to extend Part 3 of the Act to give individuals and businesses continued breathing space from insolvency proceedings.”
“Mr Speaker, I have two sets of clarification for the Senior Minister of State. First of all, could he confirm that there has actually been a change in the advice given to certain groups of people who initially were considered to be ineligible or asked to defer their vaccinations. By that, I mean in the initial stages of the online screening, people were asked whether they had allergies and whether they suffered from certain conditions, but I think there is now new advice given that these people who were originally considered not eligible, actually can take the vaccination. So, I would like him to confirm that there has been an update or a change in those instructions. And in that light, first, has the online screening been modified so that we do not exclude people who can actually take the vaccination; and secondly, are we catching up on those who were deemed to have failed the online screening initially but now with further scientific evidence they are actually eligible to take the vaccination? How are we catching up with those people?”
“So, I would like to ask whether the Government would look into assessing whether the current dialogue formats can be improved, so as to convince, I suppose, the Arts community that their concerns are being taken seriously, and that the Government is coming with an open mind to these discussions.”
“Chairman, I have clarifications for Minister of State Low Yen Ling who responded to my cut on the art spacers. The first clarification is whether the Government actually agrees that there is value in art centres being managed by artists rather than all being Government-run as these would add to the richness of the eco-system and also make the arts authentic and sustainable. That is the first question, whether Government sees value in centres being managed by artists rather than the Government all the time. Second clarification is, she mentioned that there were many dialogues between the arts community and the National Arts Council (NAC), and the principle that arts venues needed to be as accessible to as many practitioners as possible. I think everyone agrees about that. My question is, does she not agree that there is actually no reason why a centre managed by artists cannot also accommodate many users in that sense? It does not have to be something managed by the NAC. In fact, the current concern and dismay about the status of The Substation is a case in point, because many budding artists actually got their first breaks or were incubated in this artist-managed space called The Substation. My final clarification is regarding the consultation between the Government and the arts community. Some of us have received feedback, that although there were sessions indeed, but the feeling was that decisions had already been made regarding certain spaces; there was no advanced information about what would happen.”
“Venues like the Substation have long been associated with the pursuit of Art for its own sake, understanding that incubation takes time and artists need autonomy and flexibility. Having spaces managed by independent arts groups gives artists the comfort that those in charge understand the nature of art-making and will accommodate creative spirits as they undertake pioneering endeavours. I note that there has been some unease recently about several arts organisations losing their venues for various reasons or being asked to relinquish autonomy over buildings they have long managed. Some of these buildings will be upgraded by the National Arts Council (NAC) and thereafter, be leased by the NAC to multiple users as part of a national plan. There have been concerns raised about how such a move would undermine independence in arts creation. Key concerns cited were the uncertainty of lease renewals, costs and bureaucracy. Some practitioners have also expressed dissatisfaction with the perceived lack of proper communication about physical spaces before momentous announcements are made. How successful has the Government been in getting buy-in from the arts industry regarding their urban governance plans? And finally, could the MCCY elaborate on its COVID-19 recovery plan for the Arts?”
“Chairman, COVID-19 has impacted the art sector profoundly. Many organisations and artists saw their income plummet due to the restrictions around live performances. Arts practitioners have felt the brunt of the pandemic and many have turned to other sources of income. Today, I shall touch on the uncertainty felt in the industry, about whether it can emerge stronger through COVID-19. First, artists amidst COVID-19. To copy with COVID-19, the Government has provided initiatives like the Arts and Culture Resilience Package, the Jobs Support Scheme for employees and for freelancers, the Self-employed Persons Income Relief Scheme. These are certainly welcome measures. Nevertheless, the curbs on earning income have led to arts practitioners taking on other gigs such as becoming Grab drivers in order to pay bills. I wonder if the Ministry has an idea of the number of arts practitioners, technicians and other freelancers who have moved on to other industries, perhaps, never to return. Related to earning income, there is also been feedback that the restrictions on live performances appear relatively harsh when compared to other activities. For instance, restaurants have customers at the same table at close proximity, chatting and laughing for hours without masks on. Restaurants can also move their tables or chairs around to maximise their capacity. In contrast, theatres and concert halls have fixed seats. When social distancing measures are applied, some are down to 25% capacity. But the audiences are required to sit silently, with masks on during the entire performance. Given the arguably lower risks, is there room for a review of the rules around live performances? Next, physical spaces.”
“In 2019, the Ministry introduced four significant updates to the Children and Young Persons Act. First, changes were made to enhance the safeguarding of abuse on neglected children; second, the rehabilitation and re-integration of youth offenders was strengthened; third, parents with difficulties managing their children were to apply for family guidance orders replacing the formal BPC or Beyond Parental Control orders; and fourth, community resources to support vulnerable children were increased. These amendments are very significant. One of the key changes was to amend the definition of "child" to include youths, not exceeding 18 years of age in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which Singapore has signed. This increase by just two years would require real adjustments by the various agencies involved to cater to the older youths between 16 and 18 years of age. Another significant change is the new FGO regime which provides for compulsory attendance at family programmes even before parents can file a court application. The amendments were effective in July 2020 and I appreciate that only half a year has passed. Nevertheless, what is MSF's interim assessment of the impact? For instance, how have the juvenile rehabilitation centres cope with increase and different caseload? Have children been better served under the FGO regime compared to the BPC regime? Supporting Youths at Risk”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Minister on what he said earlier regarding the policy that the AG in general will object to a rehabilitative sentence for certain kinds of offences. So, my first clarification on this is: is there going to be a change in the law to specifically provide that rehabilitative sentences will not be available to certain categories of offences? My second clarification is: I think it is important also for the Minister to confirm that these moves in no way undermine prosecutorial discretion which is provided for under the Constitution. So, I would like him to confirm that, so that there is no misunderstanding on this point.”
“Sir, additional processes have been put in place for employers of foreign workers seeking entry or re-entry into Singapore. After getting MOM approval for the workers, there is now an additional requirement for employers to apply for slots for their entry into Singapore on specific dates. It was explained that there is a need to stagger the entry of foreign workers to reduce the risk of imported COVID-19 cases. I believe employers understand the rationale, especially since Singapore has had a major headache dealing with outbreaks of COVID-19 in foreign worker dormitories. The issue with the implementation is the uncertainty it creates for employers. Employers are advised by MOM to apply for workers to endorse a specific date, only to receive replies that the slots are full and to re-apply on a specific later date, with the cycle repeating itself. For employers working on construction projects, not knowing when approved workers can enter Singapore, renders them unable to plan when work can resume. Some are working on key infrastructural projects which promise enormous social benefits, such as new MRT lines. Other employers might be waiting for new domestic workers to assist in desperate family circumstances. Can the Ministry clarify how many daily slots are available for entry of foreign workers into Singapore and how these are allocated? Expansion of the Progressive Wage Model”
“Seniors Go Digital was launched in May last year to help our seniors build digital capabilities. At the parliamentary debate last June, I stated my support for it, but was concerned about seniors who might not be able to make the digital leap. The Minister clarified that the idea was to encourage the adoption of digital solutions, but to keep open the option of using non-digital solutions because there would be some who would still prefer them, or are uncomfortable with the digital part. He also highlighted that cybersecurity was something that would continue to be emphasised in the training programmes with seniors. Since then, this programme has gained momentum. It was reported that the programme aimed to reach out to 100,000 seniors by this month. There had been roll-outs of low cost mobile phone plans for seniors through a scheme called Mobile Access for Seniors, aimed at the low-income. To understand the impact of these schemes, could the Ministry clarify the following three aspects? First, what is the kind of reach that IMDA wants to achieve with the targeted 100,000 seniors? Is the KPI geared at the numbers who attend the courses? Or must a certain level of competency be demonstrated? Second, what is the expected number to benefit from the Mobile Access for Seniors scheme? And third, given the escalation of online scams, will the crime prevention aspects of the training be amplified? Digital Inclusion”
“Mr Chairman, it is good to hear the Courts' continuing commitment to justice for all, especially litigants-in-person, and I would highly urge that the Courts continue in this direction to address any gaps. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $308,728,600 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $92,444,700 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Thank you, Sir. One clarification for the Minister concerning my suggestion on the translation of court orders into other languages. In his response, he mentioned that there were avenues available through staff or perhaps through the CDC network to explain verbally to the resident the contents of the orders. But I wonder if he will agree with me that having a written translation is certainly something that is a better and stronger reference point for the resident, because sometimes when people talk to you, you cannot retain the information or you remember inaccurately, whereas if you have a translated document, you can refer to it and it is, in a sense, a more reliable source. I would like to ask again that the Courts, through the CDC network or through themselves, do consider this avenue of providing a translation of court orders if such is sought by the resident and at a nominal fee, or if not, free.”
“The courts had to close for several weeks during the circuit breaker and continues to restrict physical hearings and counter services. There must now be a significant backlog of cases due to COVID-19. While some hearings took place via remote means such as Zoom, I wonder how many litigants in person had the resources and the wherewithal to avail themselves of that option. I would like to illustrate the point using an elderly resident's case. He was conducting a civil claim for damages after a road accident which left him partially disabled. After obtaining interlocutory judgment, his next step to quantify his damages was delayed due to court closures. An application by him was dismissed by the court remotely and he did not understand why. In the meantime, he suffered a stroke and is much weaker now. Time is of the essence to him. So, my final point is, how have litigants in person been supported during COVID-19, and how can urgent cases be flagged out for expedited handling? [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“I am aware that court interpreters can be applied for in advance of court hearings, and are available for Mandarin, Malay and Tamil, and other specific languages and dialects. However, this has to be applied for through e-litigation in advance, otherwise, deployment will be subject to availability. I wonder if many litigants in person have used e-litigation to apply for such interpretation services. As for court documents, they are issued in English. Residents sometimes tell me that they do not understand the contents of Orders made by the courts. As the national language policy recognises Chinese, Malay and Tamil as official languages, I wonder if the courts could consider providing translations of court issued documents to litigants in these languages, either for free or for a nominal fee. If this is not possible for all documents, then is it possible at least for court orders, so that litigants are clear what is required of them? My second point is the need for public buy in of Court procedures. To illustrate the point, I note some unhappiness from residents who had their neighbour disputes adjudicated by the CDRT which was discussed in the earlier Committee of Supply debate. The unhappiness was both about the hearing and the outcome. To this end, I would hope that CDRT judges are specially selected with empathy and patience as key traits, and also have the ability to explain issues to litigants in simple and vernacular language. As for the Orders made by the CDRT, some residents are shocked to be ordered to stay out of their homes for a few weeks. After all, this is a most drastic order that undermines their property rights. Finally, additional difficulties caused during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
“Chairman, I beg to move. "That the total sum to be allocated for Head E of the Estimates be reduced by $100". Our Constitution provides at Article 12 that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. Today, I wish to focus on the challenges of litigants who do not have lawyers. I will highlight cases from the ground to illustrate difficulties they face in normal times and in COVID-19 times. At the onset, I wish to acknowledge the attention that the Courts have been paying to the litigants in person. There are training programmes at the Singapore Judicial College to sensitise judges on how to handle such litigants in Court. Lawyers also see judges going the extra mile to explain to unrepresented persons, the requirements of the law and legal procedure. There are also inquiry counters at the Courts and education brochures in the four official languages. My purpose is not to criticise current efforts but to highlight some observations from the ground for the Courts' consideration for possible further enhancements. There are three main challenges I wish to highlight. First non-English-speaking litigants. Second, the need for public buy in of Court procedures. And third, particular challenges caused by COVID-19. First, non-English-speaking litigants. It is common at my Meet-the-People sessions to encounter Chinese-speaking residents showing me court documents and saying that they are unable to read them and do not know what they should do next. Indeed, according to the General Household Survey 2015, there remains nearly 20% of the population above 15 years old who are not literate in English.”
“Thank you, Chairman. One clarification for Minister. On community outreach efforts, earlier he mentioned iLAB and the chatbot that are available for the public to use remotely to find out about legal processes and so on. I like to ask him whether that chatbot is able to handle members of the public who need to use other languages such as Chinese, Malay and Tamil.”
“The COVID-19 pandemic has seen the closure of borders and limited travel between countries. This situation has disrupted the usual movement of foreigners into and out of Singapore. As far as entry is concerned, new requirements for quarantine, purpose of entry and staggering the daily numbers allowed in have been imposed. As for exit, limited modes of travel mean that short term visits may need to be extended repeatedly. Even for those who have violated the law, or completed serving prison sentences, repatriation will be delayed. We see our residents facing such issues which require interfacing with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) more intensively than before. For Singaporeans with foreign family members already in Singapore, repeated applications to ICA may have to be made for extension of visit passes due to lack of flights out. Others who want their family members to come in, face additional paperwork with the safe travel office. In the case of foreigners who are suspected to have broken the law or who have been convicted and sentenced, their continued presence in Singapore is not ideal and may pose additional risk. To this end, I would like to find out how the Ministry and in particular, the ICA, has managed the unusual manpower requirements in the current COVID-19 situation. On the one hand, borders are mostly closed. But on the other hand, additional controls and paperwork mean officers may need to be redeployed or additional manpower may be engaged. For foreigners who are awaiting repatriation, have additional holding areas been needed to detain ex-prisoners who are awaiting return to their home countries? Finally, given the stresses caused by such work disruptions and upheavals, how are the officers coping? E-services and Access”
“Thank you, Chairman. I have two clarifications to the Minister for Foreign Affairs about COVAX. The first question is, he earlier said that Singapore is a net donor to the COVAX programme and I wonder whether he could tell us whether we have actually made a request to the WHO to earmark our net donation to ASEAN countries, or have we made a decision to leave it open for general distribution by WHO? That is the first clarification. The second clarification is, earlier during the MINDEF Committee of Supply, we were actually distributed a map showing vaccines approved around the world for use. And I think the Minister for Defence's point was that these distribution relationships do reflect a certain power play in some traditional alliances. So, I would like to ask the Minister to confirm that countries joining COVAX actually, they do not have any prohibition on continuing to reach such bilateral arrangements for COVID-19 vaccine purchases, and whether he sees that these bilateral arrangements outside of COVAX will be one of the biggest challenges for the COVAX programme to succeed?”
“Despite the devastation from COVID-19 last year, ASEAN was able to adapt. For instance, at the ASEAN held on 15 November, the landmark Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership or RCEP was signed. The signing of the RCEP serves to broaden and deepen ASEAN's engagement with Australia, China, Japan, Korea and New Zealand. At the same time, there are also fault lines which could unravel and undo all the progress ASEAN has achieved to date. These fault lines play on the differences between ASEAN member states. A recent survey entitled State of Southeast Asia 2021, was conducted by the Yusof Ishak Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, among more than 1,000 academics, policy-makers, business people, civil society leaders, media and other organisations, from the 10 ASEAN member states. The survey results showed that overall, six in 10 respondents in ASEAN would choose the US over China, if forced. When broken down by country, survey respondents from three countries should greater support for China, than the US, namely Myanmar, Brunei and Laos, while the respondents from the other seven countries showed stronger support for the US than China. Sir, the territorial disputes in South China Sea, still remain thorny issues. Recent happenings in Myanmar are highly regressive from a human rights perspective. ASEAN's operating principle of working through consensus, may be seen as a stumbling block at such times. Given the above, I would like to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs on how Singapore will seek to strengthen ASEAN's centrality and coordination? How will we work further through the ASEAN economic community and the ASEAN political security community? What about the potential of NGOs and the people to strengthen ASEAN? Singapore as a Global-Asia Node”
“Most specifically, how can the friends of COVAX Facility help discourage vaccine hoarding, especially by the richer developed countries? Vaccine for International Community”
“Sir, the competition to fight for precious vaccine supplies has already given rise to vaccine nationalism. In contrast, Singapore has endorsed the elevated stance that advocates for fair and equitable access for vaccines, or one of vaccine multilateralism. Vaccine multilateralism is simply pragmatically necessary if international borders are to reopen. To this end, Singapore has been an active participant in various global initiatives. I have some questions on our contributions to these efforts. One of the key initiatives is the COVAX Facility, a global risk sharing mechanism aimed at equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines. More than 190 countries are now involved in COVAX. In December last year, Singapore announced a contribution of US$5 million to the COVAX Advanced Market Commitment or AMC financing instrument. How was this contribution sum of US$5 million determined and how does it compare with the contributions of other nations? 1.45 pm The current US administration is committing up to US$4 billion to the facility and G7 leaders have just issued statement calling for all partners to increase support for COVAX. Will Singapore be heeding this call? On the conditions of our donation, World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted recently that the WHO could accommodate requests from governments that wish to earmark some of their donations to specific countries. With ASEAN centrality in mind, has Singapore avail itself of this option so that it can channel parts of this donation to ASEAN countries? Singapore is also serving as a co-chair of the friends of COVAX Facility alongside Switzerland. Could the Minister elaborate on what Singapore's role is as the co-chair and the actions plan by the grouping to assist the COVAX Facility?”
“Chairman, the need for both diplomacy and deterrence is well understood by Singaporeans. The Workers' Party believes in a strong defence. I have also personally served on MINDEF's ACCORD Committee for seven years and found it very meaningful. Nonetheless, I believe Members of Parliament from both sides of the House have received increased residents' feedback about noise and vibrations from RSAF aircraft. This can be seen from Parliamentary Questions filed by various Members of Parliament who represent constituents living proximate to air bases. Residents from Aljunied GRC are in this group, living close to Paya Lebar Air Base. Feedback from residents include early morning and night flight times and how the more powerful planes at low altitudes leave homes vibrating in their wake. 11.15 am I have tried to explain that the RSAF needs to train in the darkness as well, but some insist that the current levels are excessive. To be fair, there have also been studies about aircraft noise being associated with detrimental effects on health. Sir, I foresee that MINDEF's response will be what it has maintained all along, that Singapore faces real threats, that we cannot allow our capabilities to degrade and that RSAF has already reduced its local training as far as possible. While we agree on the first two principles, could the Minister elaborate on the extent of local training today? For instance, has the COVID-19 pandemic required SAF to do more training locally? MINDEF and SAF COVID-19 Safety Measures”
“In response to my Parliamentary Question in January 2021, the Minister for Home Affairs said that where the suspect was not arrested, a Court order was needed to return the money to victims, which process might take at least a year. As such a delay could cause serious hardships, could the agencies and banks work on a more expedited process? Strengthening Anti-Money Laundering Efforts in Singapore”
“Chairman, Sir, it has been heart-wrenching for us in this House to see our residents being scammed of their hard-earned monies. Many are elderly and have little avenue to earn money lost. As Singapore moves towards widespread adoption of digital payments, the risks are heightened. As the money scammed are usually transferred from bank accounts, what role should banks play in trying to minimise the risks for vulnerable customers? It does seem that different banks may have varying requirements when it comes to transactional security. Therefore, I welcome the recent consultation paper by the MAS on a proposed notice on identity verification. This will mandate the types of information financial institutions must use to verify the identity of an individual for non face-to-face contact. I wish to follow up on a suggestion made by the former Member of Parliament for Hougang, Mr Png Eng Huat, during last year's Committee of Supply of offering an option of a cooling-off period for inter-bank transfers. Has the MAS considered this and could it be implemented? On vulnerable customers, there was a Business Times article last weekend by David Hardoon, a former special adviser to the MAS. He noted that some financial institutions were using AI and psychometrics to help predict which customers might be more susceptible to scam attacks. This would assist in developing bespoke advisories and training programmes to help inoculate such customers from falling prey to scams. To what extent is the MAS working with banks on this? Finally, I would like to make an observation regarding the freezing of scammed monies in bank accounts in Singapore.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I would like to thank Mr Murali also for clarifying in effect that it is not the Bill itself that states so. He said that he obtained the information from a Government statement.”
“I think, Sir, I just have one clarification for Member Mr Murali. If I heard him correctly, during his speech, he said he is comforted by the fact that the Bill states that the TraceTogether data would only be accessed when there is clear and pressing need. I would like to ask him whether he means that it is stated explicitly in the provisions or that it is implied by the provisions.”
“As for suspects, Minister of State Tan had said that TraceTogether data would not be extracted from suspects for the purpose of security. What are these security concerns? Finally, in the light of the revelation that Police will use TraceTogether data, several defence counsel have asked me whether suspects too will be able to access TraceTogether data in any given case as it could be exculpatory, that is, it would delink the suspect from the crime. If the Police will be able to use TraceTogether data to incriminate the suspect, then in all fairness, the TraceTogether data should be available to the defence as well. To this end, we understand that TraceTogether data on devices is transient as it is encrypted and stored for only 25 days, after which it is automatically deleted. Defence counsel often come onto the case some weeks after the arrest. How does the Government intend to handle this issue of justice and fairness? Sir, as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition earlier, the Workers' Party is prepared to support the Bill. However, we need answers to the questions we have posed.”
“The use of the phrase "such as" means that rape and sexual assault by penetration are mere examples and not exhaustive of the category of serious sexual assault. Would this category include scenarios where the sexual assault did not involve penetration but involved, say, sexual assault of a mentally disabled victim? Many would regard sexual assault of a mentally disabled victim as serious and, in fact, TraceTogether data might be pivotal in such cases due to the victim's reduced ability to assist in Police investigations. Another example of potential ambiguity is the offence of rioting. Rioting is defined under the Penal Code as a situation where there is an unlawful assembly of five or more persons and one member uses force or violence to pursue a common object of the assembly. If one looks at Seventh Schedule, Category 3, it seems to me that some cases of rioting may be included but not others, as it all depends on whether the injuries to the victim are of a life-threatening nature or not. Given the importance of proper classification, who will be the gatekeeper to certify whether or not a crime incident falls within the Seventh Schedule? It should not be left to the investigator alone. My fourth point relates to from whom the Police will extract the TraceTogether data. The Bill makes clear that the Police will order the production of the data, so there is no need to seek consent from the person having the data. Referring to the parliamentary answer given by MHA to Member of Parliament Christopher de Souza on 4 January, Minister of State Desmond Tan had said that TraceTogether data would not be extracted from suspects but only from witnesses. Could the Minister clarify the precise basis for distinguishing the two?”
“Even speaking as someone who is generally supportive of law enforcement, I believe it is important for the Government to make a convincing case for TraceTogether data use by elaborating on possible scenarios so that we can understand why TraceTogether may be pivotal to solving certain crimes. Earlier in his speech, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan gave one scenario of a child being kidnapped. I wonder if he has other scenarios to share. Third, the Bill limits Police's use of TraceTogether data to seven categories of serious crimes. When the seven categories were announced last month, it was clear to me, at least, that the Government was making serious efforts to scope down its powers. On the face of offence categories, most can agree that they are grave offences which the public would want the Police to solve. The seven categories of offences are now listed in the Seventh Schedule of the Bill. The Bill makes clear that the Seventh Schedule cannot be amended by Subsidiary Legislation but only through amending the main Act in Parliament. This will ensure that Members of Parliament and the public can scrutinise any change before it is law. However, how water-tight are the seven categories? I was expecting to see in the Seventh Schedule a listing of the exact Penal provisions being contemplated such as precisely which sections of which laws are included. However, the Seventh Schedule describes the offence categories in less precise terms. This may lead to some ambiguity and uncertainty in application. For instance, Category 7 is listed as, and I quote, "Any offence involving serious sexual assault such as rape or sexual assault by penetration".”
“Mr Speaker, I have some queries and concerns on the Bill as regards Part 3 on personal contact tracing data. First, it seems to me that the furore about the use of TraceTogether data could have been avoided if the Government had been clear from the start that the Police would be using its powers to access the data. Instead, blanket assurances were given by several Ministers that the TraceTogether (TT) data would only be used for contact tracing in COVID-19 cases. These blanket assurances were given from at least the middle of 2020. Minister Vivian Balakrishnan told the House last month that he had forgotten about the Criminal Procedure Code when he gave his assurances and had sleepless nights thereafter. But the bigger question is: for all these months, why did no one in the Government step forward to correct the misrepresentation that TraceTogether was fully ringfenced for COVID-19 tracing? Second, on why Police would need TraceTogether data for criminal investigations, I have some scepticism. First, the TraceTogether data is likely to be incomplete and patchy. As pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, people can and do turn off the Bluetooth functions on their phones. Those using TraceTogether tokens may also not carry them around all the time. The TraceTogether system's proximity data may also have some technical limitations as to distance and time which may make records incomplete. Second, it should be pointed out that some countries, like Australia, have chosen not to allow their law enforcement agencies to access information from COVID-19 contact tracing schemes for other investigations.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. First, in his earlier reply, he mentioned that the Ministry has facilitated successfully about 250 appeals for travel by Singaporeans and PRs across the Causeway. I have some residents who were obviously not successful in their attempts to get across and this was despite MFA Consular officers coming in to try to assist, but there was just no response from the Malaysian side. So, I would like to ask how can the Ministry take this forward to ensure that there is a broader baseline or more objectivity to facilitate such travel, such that it is not just hit-and-miss where some appeals are allowed and some are not, and I do not know the circumstances of the 250 successful appeals. The second question, perhaps more broadly, is that we are all aware of the dynamic political situation in Malaysia and also the state of emergency currently. So, I wonder if the Minister could share with us his observations about how functional currently are the diplomatic channels to resolve bilateral issues.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for the Senior Minister of State. I am not sure if I heard him correctly in his initial reply regarding by when the Government plans to vaccinate Singaporeans and long-term residents. In his original reply, did he actually say "end of this year" because I thought I heard him say that, and I think this is slightly different from the previous announcements that it will be done by the third quarter of the year. So, I would like a clarification on that. Thank you.”
“In this regard, I believe the Ministry expects to receive applications from foreigners, such as those who need short-term licences for trade fairs. How will be Licensing Officer verify the background information of foreign applicants? I hope there will be no compromise in ensuring that foreign persons are subject to the same standard of checks as resident applicants. Finally, I have one clarification on the appointment of Compliance Officers. Clause 80 of the Bill provides that the Licensing Officer can appoint an individual who is not a public officer to be a compliance officer. According to the Ministry’s press release of 3 November, the investigation and enforcement of breaches will still be handled by Police officers. I also note some restrictions on the powers of a Compliance Officer under clause 80(7). Nevertheless, under Part 6 of the Bill, compliance officers will be empowered to check licensees for compliance including inspection of premises, asking for information and explanations, stopping vehicles in transit and so on. These are potentially confrontational situations at locations where guns and weapons are kept. Failure to comply with a Compliance Officer’s directions is also an offence punishable with a fine of up to $10,000. As the powers and responsibilities of Compliance Officers are thus not trivial, could the Ministry explain why it decided to set the minimum age for Compliance Officers at only 18 years? 1.46 pm”
“A close associate of an entity is defined as a person who either holds 5% of equity or voting rights or is a person who will be managing the business. Why is it necessary to have security clearance for a 5% shareholder who may not be participating in managing the business? And, if it deemed relevant to clear shareholders, why is the bar set at only 5%, meaning that the remaining 95% of shareholders do not need security clearance? Is this meant to cater for companies whose shareholders are mainly corporations? Next, I move on to the factors considered by the Licensing Officer in deciding on security clearances. It is stated in clause 45 that the Licensing Officer must consider various factors, including whether the applicant has participated in any criminal activity, has a history of violence or threat of violence and whether clearing the applicant is contrary to the public interest or national security. The explicit listing of the factors is welcome for transparency. At this juncture, it would be useful for the Ministry to clarify whether the Licensing Officer still has discretion to grant the security clearance to an applicant who fails on one or some criteria, say, the applicant has an old conviction in the Youth Court when he was a teenager. Another question on security clearances is how the Licensing Officer would access information submitted to him in such applications. Clause 45(2) provides that to assist the Licensing Officer, the Commissioner of Police or a law enforcement agency may provide a report to him to help assess applications for security clearances. Thus, the Licensing Officer can verify whether the applicant is known to have participated in criminal or violent acts and so on.”
“Mr Speaker, it is sensible to consolidate the Arms and the Explosives Act, Dangerous Fireworks Act and the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act into a single piece of legislation. I also agree that there is a need to update the legislation to keep up with new technology and threats. The Workers' Party endorses the strict stance of weapons control and I am in general support of the Bill. Nevertheless, I would like to seek some clarifications on the provisions relating to security clearances and licensing and on the appointment of Compliance Officers. First, on the issuing of licences. Clause 43 of the Bill provides that licences may be issued to individuals as well as non-individuals, such as corporate entities. For individuals' licence to possess firearms, I believe there was a historical practice where wealthy individuals and/or their security personnel were permitted to carry firearms for protection. This was because they were considered to be at risk of being kidnapped for ransom. Could the Ministry clarify whether such considerations still apply today and, if so, how many licences have been issued to individuals for this purpose of private defence? As for licences issued to organisations, clause 43 states that security clearances must first be obtained for all individuals who are responsible executives as well as at least one close associate of the entity. While it is quite logical that responsible executives, such as the CEO, president or general manager, would need security clearances, the additional requirement for the close associates to also have security clearance needs further explanation.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Minister for Health. The first is whether the Health Sciences Authority or HSA works with any threshold for efficacy before it approves any vaccine. I read, for example, that in the US, the regulators need a minimum efficacy threshold of about 50%. Does HSA have some minimum threshold that it works with before considering approving any vaccine? So, that is the first question. The second clarification concerns HSA's approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. HSA has announced that it is actually an interim authorisation and that further data – probably longer term data – will need to be submitted by the manufacturer before the vaccine can be given full registration. So, I would like the Minister for Health – for public consumption – to explain what additional information the manufacturer needs to submit in order to get full registration for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Thank you.”
“Sir, by filing this Motion, the Workers' Party is not motivated by a desire for heads to roll in the Parti Liyani case. What we hope to achieve is a strengthening of the system so that it is built to last for the future. To conclude, I would just like to summarise that we cannot accept the amendments proposed because they imply that there are no shortcomings in the system and that there will be no review of the system. As these are key aspects of our original Motion, we are unable to support the amended Motion.”
“For instance, he said that as far as recording of statements is concerned, audio-visual recordings are the gold standard but resource issues were a bottleneck. On compensation for miscarriages of justice, the Minister felt that only vexatious cases deserved compensation. We ask the Government keep an open mind on this, as there could be other cases deserving of compensation. Minister Edwin Tong talked about the ombudsman and rejected our suggestion. He pointed out that the Government was more concerned with overall outcomes. Minister of State Gan Siow Huang highlighted the efforts made by the Government to support migrant workers in Singapore. Mr Speaker, since we filed the Motion, many members of the public have reached out to us. They have shared with us their own experiences of being crime victims or suspects or having family members being subject to such experiences. Questions raised by the public include the following: where is the justice when someone is wrongly accused and had to endure humiliation in investigations, only to be acquitted? Does the prosecution aim to win cases at all costs? Do we treat migrant workers fairly or as modern-day slaves? How is it that the weaknesses in Parti Liyani's case were not picked up by law enforcement, the Prosecution and the trial Judge? How neutral are these agencies, they asked. Mr Speaker, even if the Government and the ruling Party are not convinced that the system has shortcomings, the fact that the public is asking such questions should not be ignored. It is sad that after all the points made today on where improvements can be made or, in fact, are due, the Government does not even accept that the system has any shortcomings. I believe this is an opportunity to review the justice system with an open mind.”
“If not, we were planting the seeds of doubt and eroding trust in the system. I thank her for saying those things. Mr Louis Ng raised concerns about the timeline to implement video recording and on translation of statements. Mr Murali Pillai gave us a lecture on the separation of government powers. He also shared his experiences working within the system. As for government responses, I am glad that Minister Shanmugam has recognised several issues that we have raised. He said that on many issues, we were on the same page, pushing at an open door. He said we were setting out positions of principle and he did not object to them, but that the front bench needed to think about the implementation. He said that on a few points, things are already moving. On other things, he said the Government would not be implementing them. He agreed that the poor do face bigger challenges in paying fines for regulatory offences and the potential snow-balling effect. He felt this was a complex issue that required the involvement of many agencies. He agreed that instalment payments could be allowed and that he has given directions to look into this. The Minister for the said that the Government is at ad idem with MP Pritam Singh and that the Government is consulting stakeholders on the codifying of common law case disclosure requirements. On legal aid for the poor, the Minister agreed with the principle, but felt that we should proceed cautiously in view of the experience in other countries. Nevertheless, he said that the Government was not fully satisfied with the current system and was looking into the feasibility of setting up a public defender's office. We welcome that action is being taken on the above matters. For some issues, he cited resource constraints.”
“I have also suggested that it is prudent to do a review on whether there is any institutional sub-culture that inadvertently results in discriminatory outcomes between the rich and poor. If such a sub-culture exists, steps should be taken to eradicate it. Finally, Sengkang MP Assoc Prof Jamus Lim reminded us that strengthening the rule of law carries an economic imperative and is in the national interest. Several Members gave different perspectives. Mr Xie Yao Quan praised our criminal justice system and said we should not tar everyone with the same brush. His point was that we should not be critical of all who work in the criminal justice system. And, of course, that was not my intention, as I pointed out that there are many public-spirited professionals in law enforcement, prosecution and the Courts, who take their mission seriously. Mr Vikram Nair supported the spirit behind my Motion. He agreed with the principle of criminal law reform and spoke of the reforms legislated in the CPC in 2010. He also said that there could be greater access to counsel by accused persons at an earlier stage and he agreed with the idea of a public defender's office. He said that my points on the plight of the poor, improvement of processes of law enforcement agencies and support of crime victims were things that could be looked into. I thank him for that. I also think Mr Leong Mun Wai for supporting the original Motion. Ms Rahayu Mahzam reiterated points made by Minister Shanmugam in his Statement on Ms Parti Liyani's case. She said that unfairness is not pervasive and that processes and channels for help exist in our system. However, she agreed that our systems are not perfect and that we should work on our shortcomings and remedy them.”
“For instance, criminal legal aid provided in non-capital cases should be entrenched in statute and not left as a Law Society initiative albeit co-funded by the Government. Mr Giam has particularly highlighted the disadvantages faced by migrant workers, whether it is crime victims or accused persons. On the right to consult a lawyer when arrested, Ms He pointed out that this was a constitutional right and a review is needed to ascertain if it is functioning optimally, balancing the interests of law enforcement and the accused. As regard to the third cornerstone of independence, several of my Party colleagues touched on this. MP for Hougang Mr Dennis Tan was concerned about judicial officers at the State Courts and how their independence could be enhanced. He suggested the State Court Judges should not be subject to rotation in and out of the Executive Government, and this could be assured by setting up a separate judicial service. He also asked if the criteria for the appointment of State Court Judges should be raised to a higher threshold of seniority. The Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh proposed that the Attorney-General's office be subject to structural change to enhance its independence by decoupling the rules of public prosecutor and the Government legal advisor, so that they are held by different people. He also proposed a longer contractual period of five years for appointees to the post of AG and that any future nominee should have experience in criminal practice either as a judge, prosecutor or defence counsel. Another Aljuined MP Mr Leon Perera raised the need for additional independent checks on the actions of public bodies through the office of an ombudsman.”
“Mr Speaker, first, let me thank all Members who spoke on the Motion. Everyone who has spoken accepts that fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of our justice system. Let me summarise the Workers' Party's position first. In respect of fairness, the Leader of the Opposition has highlighted shortcomings in relation to the prosecution's duty of disclosure to the defence and how prosecutors have fallen short of these duties, as flagged by recent judgments from the Court of Appeal. The unfairness faced by the poor was highlighted by MP for Sengkang Ms He Ting Ru and myself. We have described how a lack of resources can unfairly impact households who are faced with charges for offences, even minor ones. This is a major societal issue that if unaddressed could worsen the class divide and entrench inter-generational poverty. We have made suggestions on how the unfairness may be mitigated such as re-looking at composition fines and bail. Fairness is also an issue for those not comfortable in the English language, when it comes to statement recording by law enforcement. For this, I have suggested recording statements documented in other languages. Ms He raised the unfairness faced by those who are wrongly accused and suffered damage and harm. She argued that there should be recourse to compensation, balanced with the need for effective law enforcement in prosecutions. As for crime victims, I have highlighted that their role and rights need strengthening, if the system is to be fairer to them. As far as access to justice is concerned, Ms He and Mr Gerald Giam, MP for Aljunied, have acknowledged the existence of legal aid schemes but pointed out that enhancements are due.”