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 13 of 36.
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, I note that MOH has proceeded cautiously in presenting this Bill. According to the MOH website, it started consulting on this matter in 2016 and published a draft Bill two years ago for scrutiny and feedback. The Bill today is quite different from the draft Bill in some respects, which the Senior Minister of State explained briefly earlier. While I agree that Government oversight of healthcare services is necessary to protect patient welfare, I have some queries and concerns about the Bill. These concerns relate to the Bill's phased coverage, price transparency, quality assurance and the NEHR system. First, the Bill's phased coverage. Clause 5 states that the Bill does not apply to any healthcare service provided by the Government. And earlier, the Senior Minister of State did explain that Government-provided services included those under the Singapore Armed Forces and the Singapore Civil Defence Force. So, I take it that restructured hospitals, polyclinics and also primary care providers will be covered under the Bill. It is a question of at which phase they are included. Again, related to the issue of coverage, I was originally a little puzzled by the First Schedule because it stated only certain specific types of healthcare services which will be required to licensable, particularly clinical support services and some specialised laboratory-type services. I was puzzled because I had previously raised concerns about the private ambulance services used by consumers and also the feedback from residents about poor quality service and also hidden charges not being feasible at the time of booking. But I believe that, if I heard the Senior Minister of State correctly, he mentioned that this would come under phase 2 of the implementation.”
“Okay, one. I would like to ask the Minister despite his allusion to the fact that the POFMA Office will only go back if there is a suspected falsehood in the advertisement, the fact is that there is nothing in the Code that stops the POFMA Office from going back at any time to look at their record, even if the advertisement has no problems. And in that sense, it is a good way to discover the election strategy of the political opponents of the ruling party.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, a few supplementary questions for the Minister. First, let me clarify that I have no issue with public disclosure of the originator of any online advertisements and so I agree totally that the public deserves to know who is behind the advertisement. My concerns are a few. One, the Code of Practice is issued under POFMA which presumably means that the concern is fake news. But would the Minister confirm really that this Code of Practice will apply to all online advertisements, whether or not the contents contain any news alleged to be fake or not? That is the first question. The second question, if you look at the Code of Practice at 6(c), this is the part where the companies have to maintain records for viewing by the POFMA Office. That means not for public viewing but by the POFMA Office and the details of the information include copy of the advertisement, name of the originator, the amount paid for the advertisement, description of the advertisements' intended target audience or viewers reached, number of views and so on. So, my question is: if the advertisement has nothing fake or alleged to be fake in it, what is the interest of the POFMA Office to know these things?”
“The Minister has still not answered my question whether he actually agrees that even in this High Court judgment, the Court has not found any breach, independent or continuing breach in the award of the second MA and EMSU contract.”
“Thank you, Sir. Sorry, Deputy Prime Minister. Sir, I would just like to seek two clarifications from Minister Desmond Lee. I do not know if I have heard him correctly, but in his speech, he was asserting that the Workers' Party Members of Parliament had allowed FMSS to charge very high rates throughout their entire incumbency as the MA. I think the import is that. But would he not agree that, actually, even in this High Court judgment, the trial Judge did not find any breach in the award of the second MA and EMSU contract? So, I would like him to confirm that and summarised at paragraph 12 of the Annex that the Deputy Prime Minister gave out earlier. The second clarification is that he said he was surprised we would take the position that town councillors – arguing that town councillors owed fiduciary duties as a novel point. But does he not agree that there is actually no case law on this point and this is the first case where a Judge has actually applied his mind to this issue of whether Town Councils, in fact, owe fiduciary duties? So, in that sense, it is a novel point of law that is being argued in fact with rigour in the Court.”
“So, I would refute any suggestion that we tried to hide things from the auditors.”
“Yes, Mr Speaker, if I may address Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong's intervention earlier on three points. The first is, of course, he re-narrates the findings made by the trial Judge on certain matters in the aftermath of the 2011 General Elections on the circumstances of the departure of the former MA, on the impact of AIM and so on and so forth. Again, our position is that some of these key findings, we are going to take it on appeal. And he rightly points out, we have consistently maintained these circumstances were the circumstances that we had to deal with in the aftermath of the 2011 General Elections. So, this is something that we are going to appeal on and we will also highlight to the Judge certain evidences that may not have been given proper weight, including, for example, the termination notice issued to us by AIM. So, that is just to round off that first point. On the second point on whether the Town Council had been forthcoming with information for its own auditors, I recalled at that point in time a conversation which I had with our General Manager, who told me that, actually, the auditors were given full access to our information technology (IT) system to search for any information that they wanted. So, I think it is important that I put on record that that was what I recalled when I asked her about the auditors' comment, that was what she told me. Last of all, regarding the AGO audit, he did cite that the AGO had said that they had asked for certain documents which should exist. I would like to also point out to him that, in light of the AGO's request at that time, I personally headed a physical search of the Town Council offices with the AGO team to try to search for some of these documents.”
“Mr Speaker, I thought I made myself quite clear in my speech, which was focused on the fact that because the High Court judgment is going to be appealed and the findings in that sense have not been finally decided, it is premature to call upon the House in the terms of the Motion. So, the operative clause, of course, is the last one, where it calls upon AHTC to take certain actions. That is the operative clause and I am just saying it is premature.”
“Sir, my objection is based on the procedures that are available for parties to appeal. I have not taken a position on sub judice. It all depends on how the debate turns.”
“Sir, I did not use the word "sub judice". That was not my principal objection. My objection is that the judgment is being appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal may reverse the findings or review and vary the findings of the High Court. So, it is premature for the Deputy Prime Minister to file this Motion to call upon the House to do anything when the findings are subject to review. That is my objection.”
“Two clarifications on what Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong had just said. In relation to my query on whether we have ever been accused of hiding things from our own auditors, if I heard correctly, he basically was saying that the auditors had said that they had requested for certain documents which were not produced. That is not the same as hiding. Yes, we had poor record keeping. I accept that. I accept that we had poor record keeping. But that is not the same thing. And I think the difference would be clear to most reasonable people. The second point is, if I heard him correctly, he was talking about the work done by PwC in 2017. He would recall, because I think he was the lawyer acting for them at the time, if I remember correctly, that they were actually appointed by PRPTC. They were not our own auditors. There was a question as to their Terms of Reference. They were told not to duplicate the work of KPMG and what they were asking was in relation to things that had happened before Punggol East even came under our charge. So, that is my clarification.”
“Whatever the trial judge has decided is subject to review by the Court of Appeal. This is a civil proceeding and involves novel points of law. And contrary to what I think the Deputy Prime Minister had suggested, it has not been decided as to whether any loss has been caused to the Town Council. And on this point, I should put this in perspective by referring to the summary which Deputy Prime Minister Heng distributed earlier – Annex 1, paragraph 27 – where the Judge states or it is summarised quite clearly that the legal burden of proving this falls upon the plaintiff. So, this point has not been decided as to whether loss has been proven. Mr Speaker, as Members of Parliament, Mr Low Thia Khiang and I have duties to discharge, and this Motion appears to be aimed at curtailing us from discharging our duties while the case is still pending for final adjudication. We are still pursuing the matter through the Courts and we thank everyone who has stood by us and helped us in our quest for justice. 4.20 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Deputy Prime Minister Mr Heng Swee Keat's filing of this Motion at this point in time is telling but premature. Let me explain why. The PAP Government is clearly excited about certain findings and comments contained in the High Court judgment issued on 11 October 2019. These are findings in relation to certain actions taken by some of us in the aftermath of the 2011 General Election. However, as the Deputy Prime Minister himself pointed out, Singapore has a Court structure that subjects High Court judgments to possible appeal to the Court of Appeal. This avenue of appeal enables parties who are aggrieved by judgments of the High Court to seek review of the findings by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, consisting of at least three Judges of Appeal, will review the findings at the trial and may affirm, revise or vary the findings. If I might quote from the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, it is stated that "the Court of Appeal may draw inferences of facts and give any judgment and make any order which ought to have been given or made, and make such further or other orders as the case requires". Sir, the judgment referred to in this Motion was delivered on 11 October. Under the applicable procedures, any party who is dissatisfied with the judgment can file a notice of appeal within one month. In this case, the deadline for filing the appeal is 11 November, which is next Monday. We have been studying the judgment with our lawyers since it was released. And I can inform the House today that we have decided to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal. We are still within the timeframe to do so and it will be filed by 11 November. Accordingly, the Deputy Prime Minister acted prematurely in his decision to file the Motion and I ask the House to reject it.”
“Yes, Mr Speaker, what I had asked was, I think Deputy Prime Minister Mr Heng mentioned repeatedly that we had apparently hidden documents from auditors which, if produced, would have revealed the truth. I believed this phrase came out more than once. So, may I ask what he is referring to?”
“You mentioned that millions have been lost.”
“Mr Speaker, clarifications for Deputy Prime Minister Mr Heng. The first clarification is: in his speech, he mentioned that millions have been lost, if I heard him correctly. My question to him is: is this a finding of the Court? Or does this remain an allegation? That is the first clarification. Secondly, he suggested or asserted that in the conduct of proceedings, not just this judgment that is being mentioned, but prior to that, the Workers' Party had taken the position that we do not owe any explanations to anyone and that we are not accountable. Does he not know that our consistent position has been that we owe statutory duties under the Town Councils Act? Related to that, is he aware that this judgment of the High Court actually makes new law? If he looks at the summary from paragraph 6 onwards that he handed out to the House just now, the Court actually goes into explaining why it is actually making a finding that fiduciary duties apply in the context of Town Councils which has never been the settled law. The third clarification is, he seemed to suggest that we had obstructed the AGO in its work. I hope that he can clarify that because I do not think that the AGO actually said anything of that nature. Fourth, he kept repeating that we had hidden documents from auditors which, if produced, would have revealed the truth. Can he explain what exactly he is talking about? Finally, I think towards the end, he mentioned that we had argued against the Town Council system. I do not know what he was referring to. So, could he please clarify? 4.07 pm”
“In making this suggestion, it is not my intention to cast doubt on the integrity of those appointed as Judicial Commissioners or Senior Judges. Neither are my observations directed at international judges, who may hold concurrent appointments in other jurisdictions and whose caseload revolves around international commercial disputes.”
“In 2014, when the post of senior judges was created, it was mentioned that retaining judges past their retirement age would enable tapping on their expertise. To serve these purposes, we would like to repeat our call for the Government to review the retirement age of Supreme Court Judges, to retire later, say, at 70 instead. In past debates, I do not recall the Government rejecting outright such a move and, today, I would like to give further grounds for this from a manpower utilisation perspective. This suggestion for the retirement age of a Supreme Court Judge to be later than 65 is not radical. At the US Supreme Court, judges are appointed for life. The current composition of the US Supreme Court includes two judges in their 80s, and the average age of the bench is about 67. In Singapore, what is age 65 in today's context? Singaporeans today have better health and longer lives. Just looking around this House, there are several Members over 65, whom I need not name. Nobody thinks they are incapable of rational thought or are losing their marbles. At the national level, data from the Ministry of Manpower shows that for 2018, the labour force participation rate of those aged between 65 and 69 is 45.3%, close to one in two persons. We see over 70s being cleaners and company directors. Being a Judge requires brain work but is not physically demanding. We believe extending the retirement age of Judges to 70 is entirely feasible, to let our Judges work longer with security of tenure, which will be superior to having short-term Judges. Sir, we hope the Government will continue its reviews to improve justice, including reviewing the security and retirement age of Judges.”
“The Constitution (Amendment) Bill provides at clause 2 that there are various categories of persons holding "high judicial office", which is the position today. Such persons are the Chief Justice, a Justice of the Court of Appeal, a Judge of the Appellate Division, a Judge of the High Court, a Judicial Commissioner, a Senior Judge or an International Judge. For some of these categories of judicial officeholders, they are protected under Article 98(1) of the Constitution with security of tenure until age 65. Other categories, however, like Judicial Commissioners and Senior Judges, are appointed for short terms of one to three years. As we have said in the past, in our view, having short-term judicial officeholders is not ideal. Since we have debated this matter in the past, I shall keep my remarks on the principle short. The judicial branch of the Government plays a vital role in the country's system of checks and balances between the Executive Government, the Legislature or Parliament, and the Judiciary. The Courts are called upon to adjudicate disputes and must decide without fear or favour, regardless of who the parties are. To give assurance that the judicial branch is robust, security of tenure for judges is fundamental. Just as Members of Parliament are accorded with Parliamentary Privilege to ensure free debate in this House, Judges are accorded the security of tenure till retirement age; it is further provided by the Constitution that the office of a Supreme Court Judge must not be abolished during the continuance in office of the Judge. Sir, in 1979 when the post of Judicial Commissioners was created, one of the reasons given in this House was that they would help clear case backlogs.”
“Mr Speaker, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill and the two related Bills are aimed at restructuring the Supreme Court for better efficiency in the light of caseload demands. In summary, I understand the key proposed changes to be as follows. First, there will be a new Appellate Division of the High Court, which will hear most appeals from judgments in civil cases originally heard by the High Court. Second, the channelling of cases to the new Appellate Division will free up the Court of Appeal to concentrate on appeals which are generally of wider public interest. Under the proposed changes, all appeals from criminal cases originally heard by the High Court, will continue to go on appeal to the apex Court. This is rightly so, as criminal cases heard by the High Court may involve sentences of life imprisonment or the death penalty and thus deserve scrutiny by the highest appellate Court. As for civil cases, there is also a list of certain types of civil cases that may still be appealed to the Court of Appeal from the High Court. While we have some queries on the details of the proposed changes, the Workers' Party is supportive of the rationale for the restructure of the Supreme Court. If the caseload is efficiently distributed, parties will have less waiting time for appeals, which must be a good thing. Nevertheless, I wonder whether the Government has considered how the change might impact legal costs payable by parties. In other words, will the introduction of a middle tier Appellate Division lead to cost escalation for appeals to the Court of Appeal, up from present levels? If so, this would be an unwelcome side-effect of the changes. Sir, I would also like to take this opportunity to revisit one important issue on the staffing of the Supreme Court judiciary.”
“Okay. One question. I would like the Senior Minister of State to clarify that he is not actually saying that currently, the courses that are offered by other universities, such as reputable foreign universities that are available to students in Singapore, he is not saying that all of them lack quality or relevance. And I would like to ask whether in this sense, the Ministry would be open, at least, to looking at case-by-case appeals for the use of PSEA.”
“I will try, Speaker. Three questions. The first question is —”
“Finally, perhaps the Senior Minister of State could elaborate a bit on the purpose of PEIs in Singapore having the EduTrust mark because I believe some of these private institutions are collaborating with foreign universities to offer degree programmes. So, what is the relevance of the EduTrust mark? Is it not also a sign of quality assurance?”
“Speaker, four supplementary questions for Senior Minister of State. First, as the Senior Minister of State mentioned in his reply, any unused balance in the PSEA account will be transferred to the holder's CPF OA by the time he reaches 31. I would like to ask if the Senior Minister of State knows of the percentage or numbers of such students or young persons who have balances that are left and are transferred in this way. That is the first question. The second question is, in his reply, I think he repeated the Ministry's stand that the restrictions on PSEA's use are due to concerns about quality as well as relevance. We have come across some residents who had appealed to use PSEA for degree programmes offered by foreign universities that have good international reputation and, in fact, who have collaborations within Singapore with polytechnics and, in one case, an aeronautical university that has a collaboration with the Air Force. So, would the Senior Minister of State agree that such collaborations are signs that there is an acceptance of the quality of the university offering those degrees and, in a sense, also of the relevance of studies in such fields, that is why there are collaborations in Singapore? The third question is, the Senior Minister of State mentioned also that PSEA is only allowed for Government-subsidised programmes as a natural consequence. Would he not agree that in the sense there is a certain perversion in that logic because a person with less resources would need a support if there is a lack of subsidies in that sense? So, I think that reason is not that convincing.”
“Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister for Manpower that is about the trigger point for distribution of CPF monies, meaning the death of the member. We do understand, of course, if the member died in Singapore, there is a death certificate issued and CPF Board is quite efficient actually in notifying the beneficiaries. But is there any inter-governmental procedure if the person were to die overseas? Do governments frequently exchange information about deaths of nationals that have occurred overseas that may be relevant to Singaporeans dying, say, in Cambodia or Thailand, for example?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, if I may make two points. First, I would like to thank the Minister for answering the questions which I posed which I find quite helpful. And I think I should also clarify why I asked the question about Article 15. Of course, I did not overlook Article 15(4) and what it provides and, in a sense, the Minister’s answer was predictable. But I felt it was important to put it on record, as a point of reference later on, to make it clear that Parliament did consider this point and it was debated.”
“It is already brewing on the ground that some religious institutions are developing reputations for being supportive of certain political parties. Any decision by religious leaders to take an openly partisan stance bears the risk of causing tension between followers who ascribe to their leaders’ political allegiances and those who do not. If unchecked, there is a possibility that, over time, there would be a polarisation of society along political lines, caused not by foreign influences, but by Singapore’s own religious leaders. Such a prospect could fracture social cohesion and divide society. Sir, before I end, I would like to ask for a clarification on the Bill regarding the proposed section 16F. This section states that an RO issued by the Minister has effect “despite the provisions of any other written law in force.” The explanatory note to the Bill touches on section 16F but is not clear as to how an RO could be contrary to a written law. Without clarification, the section reads as if an RO may breach other laws or be illegal in some manner. Could the Ministry explain what this is all about, please? Finally, Sir, let me conclude. The MRHA was controversial at the time it was passed. The then First Deputy Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong told the House that the Cabinet had not been unanimous in deciding whether to legislate and decided to mull over it and consult widely for several years. When the Bill was presented, he said, “In a sense, this Bill is a recognition of a retrogression, or potential deterioration, in religious harmony.” Sir, the Workers’ Party shares this concern of the Government and is prepared to work with the Government on this aspect.”
“In the Biblical book of the prophet Isaiah, it is written: “Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the case of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow”. Advocacy for the voiceless is every Christian’s calling. This is a force for good in Singapore as we address concerns about class divides and move to foster an inclusive society. However, while individuals may order their actions based on their faiths, the picture takes on a more sensitive hue when religious leaders openly champion social or political causes. The Government has previously voiced its concern about the possible misuse of religious authority. While the focus of today’s Bill is on foreign interference, we should be vigilant that Singapore’s own religious leaders do not polarise their congregations along party political lines. On this, I wish to share some observations. In the run-up to the debate on this Bill, there has been open support for the Bill expressed by religious leaders. Religious authority is being thrown behind the Government’s legislation, both publicly and also to specific congregations. Is that mixing religious authority with politics? As far as I know, the Government has welcomed this open support. But if the religious leaders had instead gone the other way, that is, express concern or opposition to the Bill, would the Government have put its foot down and issued an order requiring them to stop? Let us look at other examples. Is it appropriate for a religious leader to exhort his congregation during a General Election to “Vote for Stability”? Or is it right for a religious leader to be publicly seen walking into a Nomination Centre in party uniform with a political party’s candidates on Nomination Day?”
“We do not dismiss this risk. The Bill imposes reporting requirements on religious groups regarding their foreign affiliations and donations and may require certain donations from foreign principals to be returned or surrendered. The Bill also empowers the Minister to require the removal of foreigners from the governing bodies of religious institutions if such persons are deemed by the Government to have priorities that are inappropriate. There have been news reports that the major religious groups in Singapore support these amendments. Nevertheless, Article 15(3) of the Constitution provides that every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs. It could be argued by some that the powers in the Bill constitute an erosion of the autonomy of religious groups. Earlier in his Second Reading speech, the Minister did say that it was not the intention of the Government to constrain the practice of religion. That is a welcomed statement. To this end, it is important for the Ministry to further elaborate on why the Government believes that the Bill is fully consistent with Article 15. Next, separation of religion and politics. Although this Bill does not specifically deal with the separation of religion and politics, it is useful to remind ourselves of what the separation of religion and politics entails. This is especially timely, in view of the impending General Election. During the debate on the Act 30 years ago, it was acknowledged that it is not possible to strictly divorce religion from politics. This impossibility is true today and probably for all ages. Like Mr Alex Yam before me, I am a Catholic myself and I am to be guided by the Church’s teachings. The tenets of Christianity exhort Christians to promote social justice.”
“Mr Speaker, in the Ministry's press release on this Bill on 2 September, the Government restated the two principles underpinning the MRHA passed nearly 30 years ago. The two principles stated were: first, that followers of different religions should exercise moderation and tolerance towards each other and their beliefs, and not instigate religious enmity and hatred; and secondly, that religion and politics should be kept separate. I would like to touch on both aspects in my speech and also seek a clarification on a specific clause of the Bill. First, moderation and tolerance. The debate on any curtailment of religious freedom is difficult because our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion as a fundamental liberty. Article 15(1) provides that every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it. Thus, it is a fundamental right of a person not only to believe in the god he chooses, but to manifest that belief in action, and to spread the belief to non-believers. Today's debate is really one about the extent of this right. Singaporeans value the peaceful co-existence of multiple religions in Singapore, and the Workers' Party values this as well. Over the weekend, I visited the home of a resident who was obviously a devout follower of his faith. When I asked him about his views on other faiths, he said, "I believe what I believe, not because you are wrong, but because my god is the right god for me." Singaporeans, on the whole, embody a spirit of moderation. To that end, we agree that the agenda setting in religious matters should be done by Singaporeans. The Government has expressed concern that some foreign brands of religiosity, if imported, may not be appropriate and may cause tensions on religious grounds to arise.”
“Mr Speaker, I have one clarification for the Minister. Earlier in his answer, he mentioned that for this particular incident when the project was pulled, Yale had its own independent report after it reviewed the incident. At the same time, the Minister also articulated the Ministry's position on the matter. So, I just need to clarify whether the review of this particular project was initiated by the Ministry or was it YNC's own introspection that led them to review the matter.”
“Deputy Speaker, one clarification for the Minister. I wonder if he could comment on whether the Ministry observes that cases where the authorities have had to intervene with alternative care arrangements, is this a phenomenon that is predominantly found in those with lower income? And related to that, is there any indication that it is actually a resource issue that has led to these problems and, in that sense, support of the family may have to be on a wider basis and perhaps even earlier before these problems arise?”
“Sir, I believe he has applied for leave of absence. He is away.”
“As a second alternative, can there be a simple process of, say, a form being given out to these persons ahead of their hearing, so that they have time to formulate their thoughts and write them out for the Court to follow more easily? Finally, Sir, let me conclude. The changes in this Bill are, overall, steps in the right direction and bring our law in line with international norms. I support the Bill and look forward to the Ministry's responses to my queries.”
“As such programmes involve interfacing with professionals, could the Minister clarify who will pay the costs of complying with these requirements? Will parents be penalised if they are unable to pay the fees required to comply or will financial support be provided? Finally, the right to be heard. I wish to raise a concern regarding the right to be heard before the Youth Court. There are various provisions in this Bill and in the Act itself that provide that before the Court makes an order, the child, young person or parent has the right to be heard. For example, there is a right to be heard before care arrangements for a child are changed. There is also a right to be heard when young offenders are about to be sentenced. In theory, these persons have a right to engage a lawyer, but only a minority can afford one. To represent oneself before a Court is unfamiliar to most people and I have observed that unrepresented persons tend to either not speak up or do the opposite by being argumentative and casting aspersions on Government officials, which will be most unhelpful to their causes. Another typical problem is that what is said is not logically arranged and is difficult for the Court to follow. I recently encountered a family who expressed frustration at their perception that the Court was not listening to them on the care arrangements for their son. Upon probing further, I realised that the Court was not to be blamed but it was simply a matter of the parents organising their thoughts on paper and being respectful to the Court. How can we facilitate the right to be heard, especially by the lower income? Can there be more pro bono services available for family and youth matters?”
“For instance, a group of secondary school students who decide to steal motorcycles for a joy ride could end up getting different sentences. One could be ordered to undergo probation, where he continues his normal schooling and resides at home, subject to curfew hours; his accomplice, on the other hand, could be ordered to be detained in a JRC like the Singapore Boys Home, separated from his home environment, with normal schooling disrupted. Such disparate treatment needs to be rigorously justified. I remember years ago when I was representing a youth before the former Juvenile Courts. His mother asked me point blank whether her son was ordered to be incarcerated because she was a divorcee, while his accomplice got a probation because he came from a two-parent household. While certainly the Youth Court has to assess risk factors, I would caution that the system must never become so rigid as to underestimate the effort and resilience of persons facing challenges in life. Next, FGOs. Under the existing Act, parents who believe they are not able to manage their children can apply to Court to place them in the care of an institution or other person, under what is currently known as the BPC regime. Children under BPC are effectively labelled as "bad" children and will undergo psychological damage. I thus welcome clause 43 of the Bill, which replaces the existing BPC orders with FGO, a more nurturing term that does not blame the child. I note that under clause 43, a Court making an GO may attach further orders for parents or the child to comply with. Such orders include attending mediation, counselling, psychotherapy, assessments or other programmes or treatment.”
“Under the existing Act, section 44 provides that RT can only be imposed upon a young person below the usual age of RT under two situations: the first is that he had been sent to a JRC, that is, he has been sent to a JRC for an earlier offence and is now before the Court again, indicating that he might need a tougher Court order. The second situation is that while the youth is serving detention in a JRC, the person in charge of the centre finds him so unruly that continued detention there is not feasible and RT may be needed. Under this Bill, clause 32 introduces a new category where a Youth Court could order RT for a youth who is being sentenced for the first time. The wording of the proposed section 44(1)(k)(iii) is that an offender aged between 14 and 18 could be sent to RT if the Youth Court "is of the opinion that the offender is of so unruly a character that the offender cannot be safely detained in a JRC or a place of detention". The Minister earlier clarified in his speech that this will enable the Youth Court to send a youth to reformative training at the first instance even if he has never stayed at a JRC. On what basis then will the Youth Court conclude that he would be a failure at the JRC if he has never been sent there? Is there a danger of overreach here? Finally, on the issue of juvenile justice, I would like to share an observation. One of the advantages of the Youth Court is its focus on formulating orders that are appropriate to each youth, depending on the Court's assessment of what is required in individual circumstances. This advantage can also become a bone of contention, as several youths involved in the same incident may end up being treated differently by the Youth Court.”
“On a related note, I would like to know if there is any special training being given to the law enforcement officers in handling suspects who are children or young persons. Secondly, the Bill enlarges the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to deal with cases of youths between 16 and 18. This is a welcome move but, at the same time, significant limits have been placed. Under clause 27, such youths can be tried in an adult Court if the offence involved is listed in the new Second Schedule, or if the accused has been found guilty of a similar offence previously. At first glance, I do appreciate that the offences listed at the new Second Schedule appear to be more serious, such as drug trafficking, robbery and certain moneylending-related offences. It would appear, however, that a youth who has a prior conviction of any offence, however minor, may also be tried in an adult Court. How will this work in practice? Clause 27 provides that in such situations, the Youth Court or the Public Prosecutor can initiate the transfer of the case from the Youth Court to the adult Court. Earlier, I believe the Minister did touch on this point. Can the Minister reconfirm that the power in the Youth Court and the Public Prosecutor is discretionary, that is to say, such a case may still remain in the Youth Court? Further, if the case gets transferred to an adult Court, which sits in public, how will the protection from publicising the youth's identity be enforced? Thirdly, I would like to ask about clause 32 which touches on Reformative Training (RT). RT is a tough regime that emphasises military-style discipline and involves participants who are older. With these amendments, RT will usually be ordered for offenders between 18 and 21 years of age.”
“Once this amendment is made and under the ECPO, which the Minister just described, the child will no longer have to be left behind while his foster family went on holidays. Next, youth offenders. I now come to a few issues concerning young persons who get into trouble with the criminal law. First, I am quite concerned about clause 25 of the Bill which will amend section 30 of the Act. Section 30 currently provides that youths who are arrested and not released should be brought before the Youth Court or, if not possible, before a Magistrate without unnecessary delay. This is an important safeguard to ensure that any further detention of young persons should be approved by a Court, and that the youth or his parents will have the opportunity to be heard before a Court before further detention is permitted. Clause 25 proposes to amend section 30(2) to add that the youth should be produced before the Magistrate "within 48 hours". I do not know why there is a need to add in the words "within 48 hours", as this time limit is already provided under Article 9 of the Constitution and applies to all arrested persons, adult and young alike. What concerns me is not the redundancy of the addition, but that law enforcement officers may take the addition of the 48-hour limit in the CYPA to wrongly assume that there is no additional urgency when dealing with young suspects. A child or young person in a Police lock-up, away from familiar surroundings, is vulnerable and needs to be processed fast. To this end, I would like to ask whether our law enforcement officers have protocols that require them to process cases involving youth offenders at a faster pace, what shorter time limits are set out in these protocols and how these protocols are enforced.”
“This may be done with the consent of the parents under a voluntary care arrangement, or by an order of Court applied for by the Child Protective Service. Volunteering to be a foster parent is an onerous responsibility, involving providing a home and caring for children whose backgrounds are difficult and who may exhibit challenging behaviours. Sometimes, foster parents also face pressure from the child's natural parents. We must, indeed, thank the 500-over fostered parents who have signed up for this mission. This Bill strengthens the framework for fostering in a few ways. First, voluntary care arrangements are given statutory recognition in the proposed section 11A, which clarifies how these voluntary arrangements will be managed. Secondly, the Bill introduces a new Part IIA on fostering. Under the proposed section 27B, a Committee on Fostering will be set up to periodically review cases of children fostered out, to ascertain if the foster parent is implementing a proper care plan for the child. At the same time, the Bill also gives more recognition to foster parents. For example, clause 63 will amend the Employment Act to enable the foster parent to take childcare leave. I also note that under clause 69, an amendment is being made to the Passports Act to enable the Director-General, a protector or a foster parent to give consent for a child to be issued with a passport for international travel. In my opinion, this is a useful amendment. I am aware of a case where the child's parent refused to give permission for the child to go to Malaysia with his foster family, as the parent was highly critical of the care given by the foster parent. This was despite evidence that the child was happy and doing well in his foster home.”
“Mr Speaker, in the Ministry's press release of 5 August, it is stated that the purpose of the Bill is to "strengthen Government and community support for abused and neglected children and improve the rehabilitation and reintegration of children with offending behaviour." This enhanced support is much needed. All children have great potential. Unfortunately, some are beset with difficult circumstances which plague their early lives. I am in support of this Bill. Specifically, I would like to restate my support for the amendment which will raise the maximum age for protection under the CYPA to 18, up from the current age of 16. I have been tracking this issue for some time. I am glad to note that when the Bill comes into force, youths aged between 16 and 18 who face criminal charges will, in general, be tried in the Youth Court, which sits in private and in an atmosphere of greater understanding, compared to the open adult Courts. Such youths will also be entitled to have their identities protected from publication throughout the proceedings and their lifetimes, to reduce the harm of stigmatisation and labelling which would jeopardise their futures. These changes will bring our laws in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Singapore Government ratified more than 20 years ago in 1995. That said, I have some specific observations and questions on the Bill. These are mainly about the fostering scheme, youth offenders, the new FGOs, and the right to be heard. First, fostering scheme. Where a child's parents are deemed incapable of caring for the child, the child may be placed in the care of a foster parent.”
“Speaker, supplementary question for the Minister. Earlier, he talked about lower herd immunity and attributed it to the fact that the dengue prevention efforts of the past years have shown some effectiveness. I would like to ask the Minister whether there has been observed to be a change in the serotypes, the strain of dengue that is now predominant in Singapore, and whether that contributes to the higher incidence of cases?”
“These third-party officers would be deemed public servants under the Penal Code and receive the protections under the Penal Code. According to the proposed section 8F, such persons are to be individually appointed and could include employees of a public authority. Would these third-party officers be restricted to Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, or would foreigners also be eligible for these deployments? At the steady state, how large a force of third-party officers does SCDF expect to maintain? Earlier, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explained how these outsourced inspectors would take over visits to premises. Is there any concern that SCDF may lose valuable ground knowledge by outsourcing routine inspections? Finally, Sir, let me conclude. I am supportive of the Bill and would also like to take this opportunity to thank SCDF for its important and life-saving work. Nevertheless, for a better understanding of how the regime would work, it would be most helpful if my queries could be addressed.”
“There were instances of materials of different gradings being mixed and stored in the same place without proper distinguishing marks. To address this, the Bill introduces the new Part V on regulated fire safety products to tighten those weaknesses in the supply chain. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair] Regarding SCDF’s investigations into the cladding cases, I note that for the Toh Guan incident, the cladding supplier and its marketing manager have been charged in Court with several counts of cheating and the case is pending before the Courts. Are SCDF investigations still ongoing into other cases of non-compliant cladding being supplied and used, and whether other offences were disclosed? Sir, whatever happened upstream, the downstream purchasers of these materials may well have been unaware and acted innocently to complete the projects with the non-compliant materials. In cases where Fire Safety Certificates were issued by SCDF before occupation, these parties would also have relied on the certificates to assume they were compliant. SCDF subsequently cited these buildings for having non-compliant cladding, requiring replacement with compliant materials. Could the Ministry explain what role SCDF played in assisting or supporting these innocent parties during the rectification works? Finally, third-party officers. I have a query about third-party officers to be appointed. Under the proposed section 8F, the Commissioner SCDF can appoint third-party enforcement officers to do routine fire safety enforcement checks and building inspections. MHA has stated that the rationale for this supplementary resource is to allow SCDF officers to focus on more complex enforcement inspections.”
“Can MHA elaborate on the judicious risk-based approach that SCDF will undertake in deciding whether certain upgrades are critical? Next, the recent cases of non-compliant cladding. The fatal fires at Toh Guan Road and London’s Grenfell Tower were a wake-up call. After the Grenfell Tower tragedy, I filed a Parliamentary Question asking what preliminary lessons could be learnt. The Minister’s reply then was that SCDF would study the investigation report of the London Fire Brigade when it was released, to see if changes to our fire regulations were needed. In addition, he touched on the existing regulatory regime for construction projects, where the registered Qualified Person (QP) was responsible for ensuring that building materials conformed to the prevailing Fire Code. Among the requirements were that all claddings used in buildings had to meet the stringent Class Zero industry standard. It was further stated that after the QP signed off, a Registered Inspector would have to inspect the building to ensure that all fire safety requirements had been met. It was only thereafter that SCDF would issue a Fire Safety Certificate, allowing the premises to be occupied. It was thus surprising that in the months thereafter, SCDF issued notices to owners of more than 40 buildings that their claddings were non-compliant with the Fire Code. I assume that many of these buildings would have been issued with Fire Safety Certificates by SCDF, indicating that they were compliant with requirements. Be that as it may, SCDF has since reviewed the regulatory regime and identified points of weakness that led to non-compliant materials being used. These gaps involved the upstream supply chain, from manufacture and storage to testing and supply.”
“Sir, I appreciate the need to have robust fire safety requirements to prevent loss of life and limb and why this additional power given to the Commissioner of SCDF is critical. I also understand the sentiments of Er Dr Lee Bee Wah on this matter, just expressed. At the same time, I note that SCDF has mentioned that it would be judicious in its approach. There is, indeed, a need to assess each older building to determine whether the upgrades are critical for safety, or are good-to-haves which may be costly and have limited utility. Let me illustrate the point generally. About six years ago, a cluster of seven Housing and Urban Development Company (HUDC) blocks in my ward at Serangoon North built in the 1980s underwent privatisation. In connection with this exercise, the residents were advised that they needed to do A&A works to bring the cluster up to the current requirements of the Fire Code. The residents then undertook the works, such as installing fire doors at every staircase landing and making enhancements to their lifts. These works caused ground frustration as they affected residents’ daily lives in terms of inconvenience, dust and lift shutdowns, and also involved expenditure. After the estate was privatised in 2014, discussions resumed to obtain approval for an en bloc sale of the estate. Within three years, the estate was sold en bloc to a developer. If you were to visit the site today, you will see that all the former blocks have been demolished. That leads to a reasonable question: to what end then were the fire safety enhancements made to the old blocks? Moving forward, while the HUDC privatisation is over, there may be older buildings that are expected to be sold to developers or be otherwise redeveloped.”
“Mr Speaker, the fire safety culture in Singapore needs to be improved. There is a common occurrence of HDB bin chute fires, and electrical fires caused by overloading and charging e-scooters and batteries. The density of our high-rise environment makes fire safety critical. As such, I am supportive of the rationale of this Bill to give further authority to SCDF to require fire safety enhancements to buildings, to regulate fire safety products and to enhance SCDF investigation powers. Nevertheless, I wish to make some observations and seek clarification on three issues: first, imposing fire safety upgrades on existing buildings; second, the handling of the recent cases concerning non-compliant claddings; and third, the proposed use of third-party officers as routine inspectors. First, fire safety upgrades on existing buildings. Under the proposed section 20A of the Act, the Commissioner of SCDF will be empowered to mandate building owners to install critical fire safety upgrades. This will effectively mean that buildings that were compliant with fire safety requirements at the time they were constructed, may have additional requirements imposed on them. In the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) press release of 8 July, it was stated that in imposing these additional requirements on existing buildings, SCDF would adopt a judicious, risk-based approach in identifying buildings for fire safety upgrades. It was further stated that in deciding whether to impose such requirements, SCDF would consider the buildings’ fire risk profile and factors, such as building age, purpose and the profile of its occupants. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary also mentioned earlier that about 500 such buildings have been identified.”
“Speaker, I have a clarification for the Senior Minister of State regarding retailers. I think earlier in his speech, he mentioned that action had been taken against a number of retailers for selling non-compliant devices. I think the number was around 12, if I heard him correctly. Could the Senior Minister of State clarify whether any of these retailers were actually online retailers? Related to that, I have come across a few people who have bought e-scooters from Taobao and so on. I wonder how the Government is going to work with these online retailers that are headquartered overseas where they may have an international market where being non-compliant with UL2272 is legal in those jurisdictions.”
“He mentioned in his round-up that during an appeal under POFMA, proportionality would have to be shown. I believe he did say something like this. So, I would like him to clarify that because looking at the grounds of appeal, it does not look as if the High Court can look into proportionality. So, is it actually under judicial review and not at the appeal?”