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 15 of 36.
“I have four supplementary questions for the Minister. The first question is, I acknowledge that the various statutes and the IMs, as the Minister mentioned, do set out standards for the Public Service to comply with. Does the Minister agree, however, that these instruments, legislation or IMs are usually silent or weak on the recourse that citizens may have if there is a data breach? They may be strong on penalties for errant officers but, generally, we get silences on the rights of citizens. Secondly, does the Minister also agree that for the PDPA itself, I suppose one of the advantages or assets of the PDPA is its approach to try to balance the need of organisations to collect data and, at the same time, if we look at section 3, it also recognises that personal data belongs to individuals, and individuals have a right to protect that data? The third question is, we talked recently about the SingHealth incident. Does the Minister agree, because SingHealth is a body that comes within the purview of PDPA, it is not a Public Agency as defined in the Act, and the SingHealth cyberattack case has shown that the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) can actually play a very useful role as far as the public is concerned? The PDPC's judgement in the cyberattack case mentioned that members of the public complained to it that their data had not been adequately protected by SingHealth. PDPC actually made some findings which will likely lead to improvements on the part of SingHealth and the Integrated Healthcare Information Systems (IHiS) as well.”
“IBNS technology has been in use for more than three decades in Europe and found in automated teller machines, vending machines and also containers for CIT movements. If IBNS is successful in deterring CIT robberies, there will be potential spillover cost-efficiencies. CIT, which is enhanced with IBNS, may no longer require armed guards and armoured vehicles. This may allow redeployment of such guards and vehicles to other areas, which will alleviate the current manpower shortages in the Auxiliary Police. There are also potential savings for organisations which need CIT security, such as Town Councils, since they can save on the service fees of armed Auxiliary Police, which are relatively high. That said, IBNS is just one part of the security ecosystem for CIT. What is critical is that IBNS is accompanied by equally secure pre- and post-handling, so as not to create vulnerabilities before the cash enters an IBNS environment and after it leaves. Overall, Sir, I am in support of the Bill.”
“I am also concerned as to whether certain groups of persons who tend to transact in coins will be adversely affected by the new limit. For instance, persons in certain occupations tend to earn their income from customers in coins, for example, hawkers of cooked food and buskers who sing for change. Once the Bill is passed, they can no longer insist on tendering $1 coins to pay for any item over $20. Would the change cause hardship to such persons? Some might say that these persons could always use the coin machines at banks to deposit their coins into their bank accounts and withdraw currency notes thereafter to use. However, there are Singaporeans today who do not have a bank account or are not approved by banks to have one. How will they be impacted? The second change brought by this Bill is to prepare for IBNS. The Bill introduces provisions to legalise the use of IBNS as part of security systems to protect the movement of cash in transit (CIT). IBNS would operate to damage or deface currency notes when it is detected that a CIT robbery is imminent, thus rendering the notes indelibly marked or altered. The Bill contains provisions to state that such notes cannot be legally used. The Bill also carries amendments to the PSIA to require those who intend to sell IBNS to obtain a licence to do so. IBNS is an application of primary crime prevention, by reducing the rewards of crime, or increasing the chances of detection. The theory is that an intended CIT robbery would lose its appeal if the perpetrator knew that the loot would be rendered worthless, or that their hands or bodies would be stained with a substance that could provide forensic evidence to link them to the crime scene.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are two changes brought about by this Bill, first, relating to the legal tender of coins and, secondly, to prepare for the introduction of IBNS. On the first change regarding the legal tender of coins, section 13 of the Currency Act is being amended to introduce a uniform limit on the use of every coin. Under the amendment, a person making payment can only insist on using a maximum of 20 coins of the same denomination. What is probably most significant about the change is that it introduces a limit on the use of one-dollar coins, which did not exist before. Under the Bill, the limit of 20 coins will also apply to $1 coins. In the Explanatory Brief to this Bill, MAS has stated that the rationale is to have a standardised limit on all coin denominations to make it simple to remember and easier to implement. It was further stated that the Government wishes to encourage persons to use less cash for greater convenience of payments. Sir, while I accept the rationale for the change, I would like to understand if, indeed, the introduction of the limit on $1 coins is really necessary. Is there a widespread situation of persons over-using such coins for payment? According to media reports last year, MAS decided to review the existing legal tender limits after two cases were reported in 2014, which the Minister also mentioned earlier. One case involved a mobile shop in Sim Lim Square trying to refund a customer about $1,000 entirely in coins, while the other case involved a man who left $19,000 in coins at a car dealer's showroom. While these cases may cross the line and be considered unreasonable conduct, are such cases very common?”
“Speaker, just to follow up with two other questions. First is whether the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can specifically confirm or otherwise about whether there is a move to move to shorter shift hours for security officers. That means, currently, it is quite common to have 12-hour shifts, and whether there is actually a move to try to go into eight-hour shifts. Last of all, related to the issue of the requirement to respond promptly to request for assistance, I just like to highlight that you do have deployment situations where a security officer may be quite alone in the guard post. He is supposed to be there to man and record entrance and so on. And if somebody runs to him to say that he needs help and so on, what is expected of that person? Is the person expected to leave the post to attend to the situation or is it all right for him to just try to call for help? Maybe the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can elaborate on that.”
“Are they required to intervene, prevent injury and so on? Some elaboration on that would be useful.”
“Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. The first is, in her answer, she mentioned – and I think it is welcomed – that the exemption given to private security companies are not to pay overtime or, rather, to require the officers to work overtime is going to be removed progressively in the coming years. But my question is whether there is also a move towards better working conditions in terms of shorter shifts, for example, instead of the 12-hour shift, to move to an eight-hour shift, because that would be important for the quality of the service provided. The second question is comparison of the regime now for the private security versus the Police. We do know that for the Police, for similar conduct breaches, such as sleeping or being absent without official leave, there is the option of departmental action, meaning that there could be a reprimand or a reduction in rank, and the person would still continue in service. So, I would like to ask for the private security industry, maybe the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can elaborate on the middle-road approaches before we actually go to prosecuting or citing the person for an offence under the regulations, which are effective this month. My final question is that, under the new conduct regulations, there is one sub-paragraph which says that it would be an offence for a private security officer not to respond promptly to any request for assistance by a person who has been injured or suffered loss on the premises. Now, given that, in that sense, the baseline for entry and the training level for private security officers on the whole is not very rigorous, what is expected of the officer to comply with this section of responding promptly to a request for assistance?”
“The ACIP would specifically work with eight banks and the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS). One year on, how has it enhanced the likelihood of detection of such crimes? Besides domestic agencies, the sharing of financial intelligence across borders is vital. To this end, I note that clause 6 of the Bill is amending section 41 to enable the Ministry to share financial intelligence not just with jurisdictions with which it has bilateral arrangements, but with other jurisdictions which have endorsed the Egmont Charter and Principles for Information Exchange. It would be useful for the Minister to give her assessment on how well the current bilateral arrangements are working, and to elaborate further on the potential of working with countries who have subscribed to the Egmont Documents. In summary, Sir, I believe the Bill brings about important changes which are necessary to meet the challenge of tackling money laundering and terrorism financing. Nevertheless, the Government's clarifications on improving detection and the effectiveness of financial intelligence sharing will be most relevant to the Bill's efficacy.”
“For instance, under clause 5, the maximum fine for not reporting knowledge or suspicion of property suspected to be linked to drug dealing or criminal conduct has gone up from $20,000 to $250,000, an increase of 12.5 times. For offenders who are not individuals, being entities, such as banks and corporations, the fine has gone up to $500,000, an increase of 25 times. Clauses 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, 22 and 23 will also impose on entities an additional monetary exposure of being fined an amount of up to two times the value of the benefits of crime. Sir, having penalties that sting is certainly necessary, but not a sufficient deterrent by themselves. Such illicit activities will go on unless the chance of being caught is high. Here, the law enforcement agencies face a monumental task. Besides their transnational nature, laundering criminal proceeds and financing terrorism usually involve layers of intermediaries, including seemingly innocuous ones like legitimate businesses and charities, making detection especially challenging. Earlier, the Minister also mentioned anonymous digital transfers as yet another obstacle for investigators to overcome today. In this vein, I would like to seek some clarification as to how the Government as a whole is going about improving the likelihood of detection of such activities. Such an endeavour will involve other authorities and agencies besides the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Last year, it was announced that the Government was going on the offensive against money laundering and terrorism financing by setting up the Anti-Money laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Industry Partnership (ACIP), under the auspices of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD).”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, in its press release on the Bill on 1 October, the Ministry explained that this Bill seeks to strengthen Singapore's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing frameworks. It was stated that the Bill would enable Singapore to more effectively tackle money laundering and terrorism financing, which are usually more complex and transnational in nature. The Ministry emphasised that there was a need to ensure that our laws remained relevant to the current operating landscape. One gets the sense that this Bill is being tabled because the current laws are deemed somewhat inadequate to deal with the problem of money laundering and terrorism financing. Indeed, the ongoing investigations into the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal and the alleged transfers of hundreds of millions of dollars to and from the Singapore bank accounts of Mr Low Taek Jho, or Jho Low, make uneasy reading. An online financial news portal finews.asia has even described Singapore as, and I quote, "the banking centre at the heart of the scandal". While the facts are yet to be fully established, this is a reputation we do not want. I thus support moves to strengthen the legal and enforcement machinery to tackle this challenging task. To have a further understanding of the need to amend our laws, could the Government share its assessment of the current efficacy of the two Acts in question, namely, CDSA and TSOFA? What has been the rate of reporting, detection and prosecution, and how satisfactory is it? Coming back to the Bill now before the House, I note that the Bill focuses much attention on enhancing the penalties for offences.”
“Deputy Speaker, I have one clarification for the Minister concerning our relationship with Indonesia, particularly on the issue of extradition. I believe about a decade ago, the Singapore and Indonesian governments agreed to tie extradition together with some defence cooperation agreements, and, we have noted the Minister's update that we have concluded an ASEAN model Extradition Treaty. So, my question is: how will this model treaty affect our position with Indonesia as far as extradition is concerned? Does it mean that the Singapore Government is prepared to proceed on extradition without it being tied to defence cooperation?”
“Finally, I would like to refer to the diagramme helpfully distributed by the Senior Minister of State earlier, and I would like her to confirm that landed properties will not be required to be retrofitted for PWCS.”
“Is there a difference in the treatment of new blocks? And is it the case that old blocks will not be required to be retrofitted for PWCS? My second query is how DPWCS areas will be designated. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to clarify how section 31G will operate. Earlier, she mentioned Kampong Bugis as the first district that has been chosen for the implementation of the DPWCS. I would like the Senior Minister of State to clarify whether the selection of the district is on an ad hoc basis. Are there any criteria used to select the areas for DPWCS and is there a systematic plan to cover all areas in Singapore eventually? Lastly, I am concerned about the cost implication of DPWCS for home owners. It is quite clear that owners of premises will have to incur significant costs to make their properties PWCS-ready. The proposed section 31L will empower the Director-General of Public Health to impose requirements on home owners to retrofit existing building infrastructure, maintain and operate certain internal assets, to connect these up to refuse pipeline networks and so on. The proposed sections 31M and 31N refer to new connection charges and tariff charges. Can the Government give any indication as to the expected cost of the mandatory DPCWS to existing homes? How much of a burden will this impose on smaller condominiums which do not enjoy economies of scale? In the case of condominiums, there may be particular difficulties if strata-titled owners do not agree to contribute more monies to fund the retrofitting and other costs required, for example, if there is an impending en bloc sale. How will the Government handle such a situation?”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, clause 5 of this Bill proposes to add a new Part IIIA to the EPHA, to make it mandatory for designated areas to install and use PWCS. PWCS has the potential of improving the efficiency and standard of waste disposal. For instance, if successful, this would reduce the need for manpower in waste management and provide a cleaner living environment for all. The new Part IIIA will enable the Government to designate areas for the implementation of DPWCS. The proposed section 31G provides that when these areas are designated, owners and occupiers of every premises within the DPWCS area must use the PWCS for that area on pain of punishment. I have three queries to raise about this. First, the status of DPWCS vis-à-vis HDB blocks. Currently, Town Councils manage the common areas in HDB estates, which would include bin chutes and parts of the waste disposal system serving HDB blocks. According to a Parliamentary answer given in September 2016, HDB has implemented the PWCS in selected new HDB developments where feasible, including Tampines North, Punggol, Bidadari and Sengkang. The Ministry of National Development (MND) also said that HDB was studying the feasibility of implementing PWCS in other new housing estates. It was further stated that for existing estates, HDB would have to assess the outcome of a pilot run in HDB blocks in Yuhua, before deciding whether to roll out the PWCS in other existing estates. Yet in this Bill, section 31F provides that the DPWCS will not apply to premises controlled or managed by the Town Council. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to please elaborate further on the implications of this exclusion under 31F. On a related note, is it the case that PWCS will not be made mandatory for HDB estates?”
“Meaning that actually the failure of the electronic transfers is not a prerequisite, that means to say, there could be other circumstances why they could not do the electronic transfer?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Actually, my clarification is on the similar point that Mr Murali Pillai raised. Because I think earlier, the Minister in his round-up speech, said that the Returning Officer could allow the election deposit to be paid in cash if, for example, the electronic transfer failed. So, is that the only circumstance when cash would be accepted, meaning that there were some problems with the Internet or electronic transfer? Because it does seem to set another barrier for candidates who may be raising money up to the very last minute and may not be able to do the funds electronically. So, I would ask the Minister to give some indication that the Returning Officer should accept cash, unless there is a very good reason why – and I cannot think of any – why cash should not be accepted.”
“However, if the US NTSB finding had been accepted, Silkair would not have been covered by the applicable Warsaw Conventions to limit payout to each victim to US$75,000 each. Sir, I understand that under this Bill, a TSIB report would be inadmissible in such a Court proceeding. However, the Silkair incident illustrates that the enormous pressure that may confront the TSIB Director and investigation team when probing such high-stakes incidents. It seems to me that if we want TSIB to succeed as a credible agency, TSIB must be absolutely fearless in its investigations and not be seen to cower to transport regulators or big business. To this end, I have two concerns. First, how senior in the Public Service will the Director of TSIB be to have the independence and clout needed? Secondly, clause 19 provides that the Director may provide a draft report to any person he considers appropriate, to allow the person to make submissions to the Director about the draft report before it is finalised. This is potentially worrying. In the normal course of events, TSIB would have interviewed the relevant parties in the incident before coming to conclusions in any draft report. By allowing parties to make representations about the draft report, could this be a window for parties to lobby TSIB to change its findings? I would ask the Minister to clarify the purpose of allowing a person to make representations at this late stage. Sir, in conclusion, I have stated my general support for the TSIB's proposed expanded role and work. However, I have raised several queries and concerns for the Ministry's response. I certainly hope that the enhanced TSIB will grow into an agency with a solid reputation for independent investigations that will enhance transport safety.”
“Further, according to clause 21 of the Bill, the TSIB report will be admissible before a Coroner's Inquiry. Does this mean that the Coroner will wait for TSIB to finalise its report before the Coroner reaches his verdict on the likely cause of death? My second point concerns how TSIB will preserve its independence. According to clauses 8 and 11 of the Bill, TSIB is to be headed by a Director who will be a public officer. As for the investigators, clause 23 provides that where an investigation is needed, the Director will appoint either TSIB staff members or consultants as investigators. Sir, investigating transport occurrences are major investigations with grave implications. For instance, a finding of the factors that contributed to deaths or injuries may encourage lawsuits from victims and lead to reputational and economic damage to big players in the transport industry. Such findings thus carry high stakes. To illustrate, we can recall the tragic crash 20 years ago of Silkair flight MI 185 over Palembang. In that incident, there was controversy around whether the crash had been caused by deliberate pilot action, or by mechanical or other causes. A lawsuit was brought in Singapore by the families of six victims who refused to reach settlements with Silkair. The Court had to consider two conflicting findings from transportation investigation agencies – the Indonesian National Safety Transportation Committee and the United States (US) National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The Indonesian agency concluded that the cause of death was unascertainable while the US NTSB found that the crash was likely caused by intentional pilot action. Eventually, the Court found that the cause was unascertainable and the families lost their cases.”
“This Bill tasks TSIB with the mission of investigating incidents relating to aviation, marine, rail and public transport with a view to enhancing transport safety and preventing accidents or the recurrence of accidents. This mission will improve public safety and should be supported. Nevertheless, I have two queries on the enhanced TSIB and how it will operate. First, TSIB investigations and other investigations or proceedings. My first query relates to how TSIB investigations will proceed if there are other agencies or bodies investigating the same incident. According to clause 9 of the Bill, TSIB's role is to independently investigate occurrences, identify factors that have contributed to the occurrence and report publicly on those investigations. As I understand it, TSIB's primary concern is safety and recommendations to improve safety. To this end, clause 9(3) makes it clear that assigning blame and liability is not the function of TSIB. However, the same clause rightly recognises that blame or liability may be inferred from its report. How will TSIB's work relate to the work of other investigative agencies? Let us take a scenario of two marine vessels colliding within Singapore port limits, resulting in deaths. A Coroner's inquiry or other Inquiry will usually be conducted, which means the Police will likely commence investigations. Under this Bill, TSIB will also be activated to conduct its own investigations into what caused the accident. Will TSIB and the Police share their findings with each other, or will they work independently? Is there a possibility of conflicting findings being reached by TSIB and other agencies, for example, TSIB may find that there was a mechanical problem in one of the vessels, while the Police may find that the crew was reckless?”
“Speaker, I have two clarifications. I have actually filed a question to the Minister for Health to ask if the Government could elaborate on the reasons for the several days of delay between the time that the attack was confirmed and the time that the public was made aware of it. According to the timeline released by the Government, it was confirmed on 10 July that a cyberattack had indeed taken place and, two days later, in fact, a Police report was lodged. But the public only got to know about this attack on 20 July. I would like to ask the Minister to elaborate on the reasons why the public was not made aware earlier because they could have taken some steps, for example, to change their passwords or protect their information. Second question is also for the Minister for Health. During the first press conference on 20 July, we noted that the Minister apologised for the incident. But we are hearing today, really, that the CIIs are responsible for safeguarding the data on the systems. So, is there any significance as to why it was not SingHealth that apologised but rather the Minister who apologised?”
“It was kind of connected actually. The first question was about whether the scheme could have been designed on a unisex basis. That means there is no impediment really; it is a policy decision. That is the first question. And the second question is: while MOH justifies that as being fair actuarially, it has also missed the opportunity to show mutual support and solidarity.”
“Yes, thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a clarification for Mr Gan Kim Yong and also for Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor. For Minister Gan, I think in his opening speech, he mentioned that the Government had set aside $2 billion for CareShield Life. I wonder if he could elaborate on what this $2 billion is set aside for. Is it premium subsidies or does it also include the administrative cost of running the scheme or some other expenses? For Senior Minister of State Amy Khor, my clarifications relate to the decision to have gender-differentiated premiums for the scheme. She mentioned earlier that it was a difficult decision for MOH to make. So, I would like to clarify, first of all, that actually, there is no impediment to designing on a unisex basis. In other words, it is a policy decision. It could have been designed to have unisex premiums, but the Government has decided to take this gender-differentiated approach. The second clarification is that Dr Amy Khor said earlier that MOH felt that to have gender differentiation was fairer on an actuarial basis. But does Dr Amy Khor also not agree that this is actually a missed opportunity for policy to demonstrate important values, such as mutual support and solidarity?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a clarification for Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor.”
“Married women often provide care for their husbands, delaying or even preventing the men’s progression to becoming disabled. When husbands need long-term care, wives are there. Daughters, and daughters-in-law, too, often step up to the plate. By so doing, many women have lower CPF balances than men. What signal do we send to our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters by requiring them to pay higher premiums, while expecting them to do more caregiving for free? It seems that the opportunity costs to women are being repaid by higher premiums for CareShield! If we talk about risk-pooling within each generation, with each generation paying for itself, is it too much to ask to risk-pool between the genders and use unisex tables for premiums? Sir, let me conclude. I have stated my general support for the principle underlying universal and compulsory long-term care insurance that the CareShield Life scheme represents. I have, however, raised two issues which I believe are critical to the Scheme’s success, namely, whether the qualifying “three ADLs test” is too rigid and onerous, and asking for the premiums to be set on a unisex basis if the scheme is truly to be universal and inclusive. The CareShield Life proposal has much potential to be a strong social safety net for our people. This is a great opportunity which should not be squandered.”
“But for a compulsory scheme, where every birth cohort will be included, does this argument, of not knowing the mix of men and women who will join, hold water? I refer to a 2010 article by Nicholas Barr, Professor at the London School of Economics, entitled “Long-Term Care: A Suitable Case for Social Insurance”. Prof Barr agrees that to finance long-term care needs, using compulsory social insurance rather than optional private insurance will better cushion citizens from risk and uncertainty. On the issue of women living longer, however, Prof Barr argues that social insurance schemes for long-term care should not take this into account. He offers several reasons for this: “First, if the insurance is mandatory, there is little or no distortionary effect from charging men and women a premium based on joint probabilities; second, there are obvious political difficulties from imposing on women a significantly higher contribution rate than men; and finally, the use of unisex tables can be defended as a simple value judgement”. So, what are our judgements and values? In addition, we must also recognise the fact that many women give up their careers and personal ambitions to do unpaid caregiving for their families, services which the families would otherwise have to pay for. A 2017 report by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) found that women are much more likely than men to remain outside the labour force for family-related responsibilities. The younger women between 30 and 39 years old cited childcare as the main reason for not working, while females aged 60 and above cited housework and caregiving responsibilities as the main reason for not working.”
“Mr Speaker, earlier, the Minister, in moving the Motion, said that the Government will encourage those born before 1980 to opt in to CareShield Life. In this regard, if a two-ADL test or some more flexible disability test is adopted for CareShield Life payouts, then more of the older cohorts currently on ElderShield may also be incentivised to join CareShield. I would like to emphasise the point that CareShield Life will be a compulsory scheme, and young Singaporeans will have to pay 37 years of premiums. With this looming fact in mind, CareShield must have meaningful coverage, and my view is that the “three ADLs test” needs to be reviewed and readjusted to serve this end. Second, why is CareShield making women pay more? It has been proposed that premiums for CareShield Life be differentiated by gender. Women will be asked to pay higher premiums, because, as the Committee says at Chapter 8, women have a longer life expectancy and have higher risk of severe disability. Yet, the Committee insists that CareShield Life’s features are “universality” and “risk-pooling”. Could the Government clarify whether there is any other country with compulsory long-term care insurance that discriminates premiums by gender? In any case, Mr Speaker, it is up to the Government to decide whether this recommendation of the Committee should be adopted. After all, deciding whether to set premiums as gender-differentiated or on a unisex basis is taking a stand on our society’s values. The Committee writes that having gender-differentiated premiums is needed to ensure that CareShield Life “remains sustainable regardless of the mix of men and women who join”.”
“When I saw him there, he requested me to write to the insurer to say that he would not be filling up the form as he was in the hospice. Eventually, his daughter filled up the form, and I understand that the hospice doctors assisted to get his ElderShield benefits restored. But within a month, he was dead. Mr Speaker, I do not know what rigorous standard is applied to determine if a potential ElderShield claimant is disabled enough. When I read about the ElderShield premiums in the billions that have been collected over the years, it struck me how Mr K and his family have apparently been abandoned in their time of need. Is the experience of Mr K an aberration? If this is going to be the experience that will be carried over to CareShield Life, it would be unacceptable. Sir, I am concerned that the “three ADLs test”, which will exclude disabled persons facing high medical and care costs, would leave them in the lurch. By the time a person is unable to do three ADLs, one is in dire straits. One is either headed towards a nursing home or needs someone to provide care full-time. Before one reaches this stage, if CareShield can give some payouts, then it is likely that the disabled person can continue to be looked after at home with some part-time help. The payouts will fulfil a very important gap to enable the disabled person to age in place and not tie up another nursing home bed. Is CareShield not a good time to review the three-ADL test? Why not use a test of inability to perform two ADLs instead? I note from Annex B of the Committee’s Report that under the long-term care scheme in Germany, persons can claim if they are assessed to have at least some impairment to independence on physical and mental conditions, with payouts which are tiered.”
“To ensure greater confidence and buy-in to the scheme, how transparent will the process of setting premiums and payouts be? These and other issues will be covered by my other colleagues. For my part, I shall focus on two aspects of particular concern: first, the eligibility criteria for claims, that is, how disabled must a person be before being able to make a claim? Secondly, the premiums being differentiated by gender, that is, why should women be asked to pay higher premiums? First, how disabled must a person be to make a claim? Since CareShield is going to be a compulsory disability scheme, all Singaporeans born in 1980 or later will be making mandatory contributions for 37 years, from age 30 to 67. To justify such a national draw of MediSave savings, CareShield Life must be meaningful. CareShield Life must kick in to provide financial support to our citizens in times of disability. Under the current proposal, CareShield will adopt the same eligibility criteria used in ElderShield. This worries me. The assessors will have to determine whether a potential claimant is disabled enough as to not be able to do at least three of the six ADLs. How strict is the assessment? Here I wish to share the experience of one of my residents, who has since passed away. This resident, Mr K, was suffering from an advanced stage of kidney failure and already had his leg amputated earlier due to diabetes. The insurer later decided to discontinue Mr K’s ElderShield benefits as the insurer’s panel doctor had assessed that he could perform all of the six ADLs “although partially”. When I appealed on his behalf for a re-assessment, the insurer wrote back to him to fill up another claim form. Meanwhile, he was admitted to a hospice.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as many Singaporean families can attest to, financing of long-term care is costly. This is unlike hospitalisation for emergencies or acute conditions requiring a person to be in the hospital for a relatively short period of time. Once the acute stage has passed, a person usually requires some step-down care for a number of years. This can be unaffordable to families, necessitating a broad-based financial support scheme. To this end, I agree that ElderShield, in its current form, is not adequate. ElderShield was designed to cover “severely disabled” persons, defined as persons unable to do at least three of the six activities of daily living (ADLs), that is, washing, dressing, feeding, toileting, walking and transferring. With this strict qualification criteria, the persons eligible to make ElderShield claims are those who face significant costs of treatment, care and medications. The current payouts of $300 to $400 per month are too small to give families the peace of mind they need. Today’s debate is important, as CareShield Life is an opportunity to demonstrate our values. As we battle inequality and disturbing signs of an economic class divide, new policies for risk-pooling and mutual support will be increasingly necessary. In this regard, it is comforting to read in the ElderShield Review Committee’s Report that a respondent told the Committee that he did not mind paying more premiums as “we are all a society”. Mr Speaker, we in the Workers’ Party, support in general the rationale for CareShield Life. Nevertheless, there are certain aspects of the proposed scheme that appear to us to be more controversial. For instance, for a compulsory scheme, have the premiums been set too high, based on assumptions that are debatable?”
“Sir, I have a clarification for the Minister about his earlier explanation about why the cut-off age for the purposes of this Bill is set at 18. I think he mentioned that the Government is reviewing raising the age in the Children and Young Persons' Act from 16 to 18. I would like to have his confirmation as to whether this decision, in principle, has already been decided that it will be done, that the age will be raised from 16 to 18, or is the Government still thinking about whether this should be done.”
“[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair] Sir, in summary, I am in support of the Government's efforts in this Bill to plug a gap in protecting vulnerable adults. As mentioned earlier, the powers given in the Bill need to be judiciously used, so as not to result in Government overreach and unnecessary separation of vulnerable adults from their family and home settings. There is also room for improvement to give vulnerable adults the assurance that society as a whole understands their plight and sees them as integral members.”
“Can the Government look into how the process of deputyship in such cases can also be streamlined and made cost-effective? My next point is about increasing the social space for vulnerable adults to engage in public activities. Sir, we have made concrete efforts to introduce barrier-free access for those who have physical disabilities. In the case of mental impairment, however, there is less public understanding of the condition. Families with dementia sufferers tend to limit their social lives, due to the discomfort caused in public by the odd behaviour of their family members. Families often reduce or even avoid outings. This is an area that we can all continue to work on. With greater public understanding of dementia and its manifestations, society can show kindness and support towards families and individuals stricken with mental illness and be more welcoming and understanding towards such families. Public education efforts can be stepped up to increase awareness of conditions like dementia, and I agree with the Minister that all of us can play a part in this. Finally, if institutionalising a vulnerable adult is unavoidable, how can we cushion the transition to institutional life? The institutions involved could make life more bearable by little gestures to preserve the person's individual identity and autonomy. For instance, instead of requiring residents to wear a uniform, could they be allowed to don their own clothing? Could residents be encouraged to have a space to place family photographs and other effects from home? These seemingly small gestures will go a long way to reassure the individual in an unfamiliar institutional environment.”
“How will the definitions of "abuse", "neglect" and "self-neglect" impact poor families or individuals? For instance, we sometimes see multigeneration families living in small rental flats. Will a vulnerable adult sleeping on a mattress without a proper bed be considered "neglected"? What if the vulnerable adult would benefit from certain treatment which requires payment, but he does not have the means to pay for it? For instance, there are psychiatric drugs to treat aggression, but some of these drugs are not subsidised and are costly, especially when prescribed long term. Will the vulnerable adult be considered neglected if the family cannot afford such treatment? How will the Government approach such cases? I am not saying that the Bill intends to discriminate against the poor, but could this be an inadvertent result? Finally, Sir, some areas for review. The Government has been increasingly active in addressing issues, such as ageing and mental health. For instance, the Government has enabled parents of disabled children to access a simplified, low-cost procedure to be appointed as deputies when their children reach adulthood. Another scenario I have come across is that of adults who lose their mental capacity later in life and have modest bank balances. From time to time, they also receive some top-ups from the Government, which go into their bank accounts. Because of their lack of capacity, they are unable to sign documents and family members are unable to access those monies for their medical treatment or upkeep. With small balances like, say, $5,000 or $10,000, it does not make sense for family members to fork out, say, $6,000 in legal fees to apply to Court to be appointed deputies, especially when the money has to be paid upfront by them.”
“According to clause 2, a vulnerable adult may be considered to be abused if he is subject to physical, emotional or psychological abuse, is subject to domination or has been unreasonably deprived of liberty of movement or well-being. This raises some pertinent questions. For instance, if a caregiver decides not to bring the person out because she cannot manage him in public, is that an unreasonable deprivation of liberty? As for being unreasonably deprived of well-being, the illustrations in clause 2 also need closer scrutiny. Let us take illustration (b). It states that if a caregiver does not dress the adult after bathing her and leaves her unclothed in a room with windows open that can be seen by neighbours, that amounts to depriving a person of her personal dignity. While the modesty of the individual certainly needs respect, there could be valid reasons why the caregiver left the adult as such after a bath. For instance, it could be that the caregiver needed some time to prepare medicines that need to be applied on the person's body. Perhaps, the caregiver needed to attend to an urgent phone call or other task. Illustration (c), too, is worth noting. It speaks of a caregiver who refuses to allow a vulnerable adult to receive visitors. But what if the caregiver did so because the adult had reacted badly to visitors in the past, shouting at them and even pushing them away? What if the visitors are young children, who might be traumatised to witness such behaviour? Before the state exercises its drastic powers of intervention, I would expect that a case-by-case and subjective assessment would have to be made. Next, does the Bill risk inadvertent discrimination against the poor?”
“There are good days and bad days, with moments of lucidity when the person seems to think normally. Dementia patients may speak clearly at times, but do they always understand the implications of the wishes they are expressing? Sir, I would be slow to support the institutionalisation of dementia patients even if things are not ideal at home. Being institutionalised generally comes with a loss of pride and a loss of autonomy, having to live by an institution's rules. Dementia patients can be very agitated and difficult to handle in unfamiliar environments or when surrounded by strangers. Moving such a person from his home to an institution would likely be very damaging to the person's psychological and emotional well-being. What rigour of assessment will be used before such drastic intervention will be triggered? What standard of care do we expect from caregivers when they care for vulnerable adults? We usually see caregivers being spouses or children, who love their family members deeply. However, caring for dementia sufferers is onerous, exhausting and physically risky. Spouses are often elderly and frail themselves. Caregivers may also have other obligations, such as work or caring for other family members. And earlier, I think the Minister gave an example of a Mdm Chua and I think her family fits this description which I have just made. Such caregivers are often not medical or healthcare professionals. By what yardstick will they be assessed if a complaint is made? In this regard, there are somewhat wide definitions in the Bill about what amounts to abuse, neglect and self-neglect.”
“While the criminal justice system is geared towards punishment, how does one undo or reverse financial transactions, so as to restore monies or properties to the vulnerable adult? One can always apply to Court if one has the means. But what if a person does not have the means or does not have any family member to do so? How would this be resolved? My second point is about the rigour of assessment and the risk of Government overreach. In discussing this area, my concern is about mentally impaired persons and the state's power to remove a vulnerable adult from his current residence. The state can do this if the person is assessed to be suffering from abuse, neglect or self-neglect. I believe that the Government would not wish to be over-zealous in exercising such powers. Earlier, in the Second Reading speech, the Minister did reaffirm that social work interventions would basically need to be exhausted first before the Bill will be triggered. Indeed, excessive intervention will harm the vulnerable adults and also be an unreasonable burden on public resources. To this end, the state's power under the Bill is correctly limited. According to clause 4, a vulnerable adult's views must be respected if he is able to make his views known. Clause 4(b) states that where he has mental capacity, he is generally best placed to decide how he or she wishes to live and whether or not to accept any assistance. Even where he lacks mental capacity, clause 4(c) makes it clear that his views, whether past or present, wishes, feelings, values and beliefs, where reasonable ascertainable, must be considered. Sir, ascertaining the wishes of a person with dementia can be tricky. From my personal experience with family members and constituents with dementia, dementia is not a static condition.”
“I raise these issues so that the Ministry can clarify, in order to have greater public understanding of how the Bill will operate. In addition, I will touch on some areas that need further attention to enable vulnerable adults to live fuller lives. First, division of work under the Bill and the Office of Public Guardian. Under the Mental Capacity Act, the Public Guardian's Office was set up to perform certain functions vis-à-vis mentally impaired persons. These functions include supervising the way donees and deputies perform their duties under Lasting Powers of Attorney and Court Orders. The Public Guardian is tasked with looking into complaints about donees or deputies who do not act in the person's best interest, either in managing his personal welfare or his property and affairs. When this Bill is in place, there will be some overlap when it comes to a vulnerable adult's personal welfare. I assume that this Bill will tackle the cases where there is no donee or deputy appointed. But the Bill also covers cases where there are donees and deputies, as seen, for example, in clause 6. The question then arises: should there be a case involving donees or deputies that requires state intervention, to whom should a complaint be made? Is it to the Director of Social Welfare under this Bill, or to the Public Guardian under the Mental Capacity Act, or can both be pursued concurrently? Additionally, the Bill does not cover abuse of a vulnerable adult's financial assets. Where there are donees or deputies appointed, a complaint can be made to the Public Guardian that the donee or deputy has acted in bad faith. But if there is no donee or deputy, the Ministry has stated that the Police would investigate any criminal offences reported.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to give the state certain powers to protect adults from abuse, neglect and self-neglect, and focuses on adults who are not able to protect themselves. Nobody can quarrel with such an aim. Even as our intentions are noble, our perception of what is in the vulnerable adult's best interest may not accord with theirs. There is a Bible passage that literally captures the powerlessness that older people feel as they become more dependent on others. In the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus is recorded as saying to his disciple Peter: "When you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted, but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go". In this regard, I endorse the fundamental principles set out in clause 4 of the Bill. Clause 4 provides that in exercising any of the powers under the Bill, a vulnerable adult must be respected and have the right of self-determination and not be subject to any unnecessary restrictions on his rights and freedom of action. While I support the rationale for the Bill, there are a few aspects of the Bill that concern me, which I shall summarise as follows. First, what will be the division of work between the Ministry under this Bill and the Office of the Public Guardian? Second, what is the rigour of assessment to be applied before the state decides to intervene to change a person's living arrangements? I am worried about possible Government overreach, causing unnecessary institutionalisation of vulnerable adults, which, itself, would have harmful effects. Third, would the definitions of "abuse", "neglect" and "self-neglect" in the Bill inadvertently discriminate against the poor?”
“I note what the Second Minister had said earlier in her Second Reading speech about the operational difficulties that the Police may face on the ground to distinguish between who is simply just making a film for record, or who is contemporaneously transmitting the films. As a former Police Officer, I understand that difficulty fully. Nevertheless, even if the offence of making films needs to be on the books in the Government's assessment, I would hope that the Government would be slow to prosecute if the film or picture adds value to post-review investigations. So, Sir, in summary, I still have my concerns about the compromise we are making in the CSOs and I would ask the Government to adopt a more constructive approach towards unofficial recordings of major incidents.”
“However, on the other hand, it has also been proven in past incidents that footage or photographs taken at the scene of major incidents prevented fake news and enabled the truth to emerge, after the incidents were over. For instance, in 2009, a Group of Twenty (G20) summit meeting was held in London and a police operation codenamed "Operation Glencoe" was mounted to manage protestors. While the operation was on, a man named Ian Tomlinson suddenly fell and died while in the vicinity. Police initially denied that they had any altercation with him, until a video taken by an American there on business, showed Mr Tomlinson being pushed to the ground by police. This led to inquiries that uncovered the truth, which would not have happened had contemporaneous videos not been recorded. Sir, while I can accept that the transmission of relevant films, pictures, texts and audio messages during a tactical operation may jeopardise the effectiveness of the operations, I do not accept that the making and the storing of such films and pictures for later viewing will undermine such operations. Sir, as regards how such films and pictures can guard against Police abuse, MHA stated on 15 March that this was not required, as the Police would always look into any feedback or complaint about misconduct of its officers seriously. However, the reality is that in any investigation, evidence talks. If it is a case of "he-says-she-says", the burden will fall on the complainant to prove the complaint. A ban on making relevant films and pictures does not promote fact-finding and accountability.”
“Sir, notwithstanding what the Second Minister has said about the CSO, I am still most concerned about clauses 30 and 31. It is stated that the Commissioner of Police can issue a CSO to ban the making of relevant films or pictures, and to ban exhibiting or communicating any relevant film or picture, or a relevant text or audio message. The Commissioner can issue a CSO if he is of the view that exhibiting or communicating such relevant pictures, films, texts or audio messages would prejudice ongoing law enforcement operations relating to serious incidents or endanger the safety of the public or law enforcement officers during the law enforcement activity. The terms "relevant picture or film", and "relevant text or audio message", are defined in clause 2 broadly to mean those made while the Special Powers are activated and which are related to the target area or law enforcement activities in the target area. Under clause 31, a Police Officer can direct persons to stop making, exhibiting or communicating such relevant films, pictures, texts or audio messages. The Police can also compel the deletion and the surrender of such material, and require persons to provide information on the recipients of any communications. Sir, I appreciate fully that when a tactical security operation is ongoing, the details of a target area and the deployment of law enforcement require secrecy for maximum efficacy. Past incidents, such as the Mumbai attack in 2008, have shown that TV footage of ongoing operations had given perpetrators live information on the presence and tactics of law enforcement, enabling them to anticipate the actions of law enforcement forces.”
“Earlier during the Second Minister's Second Reading speech, she confirmed that, for each incident, the Commissioner of Police would consider the need for each Special Power as commensurate with the nature of the incident. What should also concern us today is whether any of the provisions in the Bill seem to be too wide or involve too much of a compromise on competing public interests, such as public accountability. In this regard, I have two concerns to raise. First, the definition of "serious incident" under clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3 defines "serious incident" to include not only terrorism-related offences and acts of serious violence, but also acts "causing large-scale public disorder". There are five factual illustrations for the scope of clause 3. The first three scenarios concern the use of explosives and firearms, and the forcible taking over of public transport, which, to most of us, warrant an exceptional response from the authorities. However, the last two illustrations which concern public disorder are more controversial. Illustration (d) covers a sit-down peaceful protest that grows in size such that there is impediment to paths, roads and normal business. Illustration (e) is about a group protesting in the street that grows in size and then starts to commit violent acts, which sounds to me like rioting, which is an arrestable offence under the Penal Code. I would like the Minister to explain why the existing laws are not adequate to deal with such scenarios as in illustrations (d) and (e). In addition, it seems to me that in these scenarios, any law enforcement operation would not be tactically sensitive to warrant the use of Special Powers, such as the Communications Stop Order (CSO), a topic I shall deal with next.”
“To this end, the Bill provides some new powers not contained in POPA, such as the ability of the Police to direct owners of buildings within incident areas to take actions like closing the building for a specified time, and for the Police to question individuals within a target area when conducting a manhunt. Sir, I accept that the nature of the threats that Singapore faces today, especially from terrorism, is different from the problems that POPA was supposed to address when it was enacted in 1958. The Government would need muscle as well as flexibility to respond quickly and effectively to those threats. I believe Singaporeans want this. Under the Bill, the Minister can issue an Activation Order under clause 8 if he is of the opinion that a serious incident has occurred, is occurring or is threatened, and that the use of the Special Powers under the Bill would be necessary to achieve the objectives of preventing the occurrence, reducing its impact, or controlling and restoring public order. According to clause 9, the Minister's Activation Order must specify the nature of the serious incident, the duration of the Activation Order, and authorise the Commissioner of Police to exercise all or any of the Special Powers under the Bill. It seems to me that the principle of proportionality should be a cardinal principle in exercising all the powers under the Bill. Not only must the Minister’s threshold for issuing an Activation Order be high, the decision of which Special Powers are really needed to deal with a particular scenario should be deliberately considered case by case.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in its media release of 27 February 2018, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) stated categorically that the Special Powers under this Bill would not be available for routine operations. Two weeks later, on 15 March, MHA repeated that the Bill would not apply to day-to-day policing. This second statement was made in response to concerns from civil society groups about the wide wording of the Bill. Today, the Second Minister has just repeated the assurance in her Second Reading speech when she said she hoped that the Special Powers would never need to be used. Sir, the understanding that the Bill should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances is a critical underlying assumption for the debate on this Bill. Parliament is being asked to approve very draconian powers to be given to law enforcement and supporting forces, but only in situations where there is an imminent and grave danger to the safety and security of the people in Singapore. As MHA has stated, the threshold for special powers to be activated in the Bill is "high". The powers under this Bill must never be misused for situations that can be adequately dealt with under other laws. This Bill serves to repeal the POPA enacted in 1958, but its aims are wider. While the long title of POPA states that the Act relates to the maintenance and restoration of public order, this Bill states that its aim is to "extend Police powers to better prevent and respond to any incident or likely incident involving serious violence or large-scale public disorder in Singapore". Thus, this Bill envisages prevention and response, not just to public disorder, but serious violence as well.”
“Nevertheless, there are some aspects, such as those I have highlighted, that required further attention. 12.19 pm”
“If passed, this will mean that there will be no need for the Prisons to arrange to bring an accused out of prison to Court in order that his plea, conviction and sentence be dealt with face-to-face between the Court and the accused. While there is greater security and logistical convenience in using video link in place of physical conveyance of prisoners to Court, I am concerned whether this amendment will compromise justice. From the Court's point of view, at the time of conviction and sentence, we often see judges admonishing accused persons or warning them not to repeat their behaviour or face more serious consequence in future. Will the effect of such warnings be diminished if seen through a TV screen? As for the defence, the stage of the accused pleading guilty and being sentenced is a critical one where counsel will usually need to confer with his accused in detail. Such communications would include checking with the accused person on the correctness of the statement of facts prepared by the prosecution, which would, in turn, have a direct impact on the sentence imposed. Counsel may also need to take his client's instructions if the prosecution objects to any part of the defence's mitigation plea and also seek client's instructions on the prosecution's sentencing positions, which may only be communicated on the day of the hearing to take a guilty plea. Where video link is used, the defence counsel will be in Court while his client is in prison. The communication process between the two will be affected as it will need to be done via a telephone or other link where confidentiality is likely to be an issue as well. Is this too much to risk? Sir, in conclusion, this Bill, overall, makes important reforms that will enhance the criminal justice system.”
“After all, entering a DPA is a big deal in the sense that the state is agreeing to let a corporation avoid prosecution for a serious offence that it admits to committing. This option of entering a DPA is not available to all offenders but is selectively applied and not applicable to individual offenders. So, how corporations are chosen, the considerations for imposing certain conditions on the corporations and the approved methods of monitoring the corporations for compliance will be of public interest. In my view, making it mandatory for the High Court to publicly justify why it approved a DPA can only help to instill confidence in the system. Secondly, Sir, I move on to video-link communication. I am concerned about clause 80 on the use of video-link for Court proceedings. I do not have any issue with the changes allowing vulnerable victims to testify in Court via video link in certain types of cases as this will likely reduce the victim's trauma in Court. However, I am concerned about the further extension of video-link communications with accused persons who are remanded in prison while their cases are pending. Under the current section 281(3) of the CPC, an accused may appear via video link if the Court is considering applications for release on bail or bond after the first mention and in proceedings for extension of remand and in such other matters that may be prescribed. I am not aware of any other matters currently being prescribed. The Bill today seeks to extend video link to proceedings where an accused person pleads guilty and is convicted by a Court and also to proceedings for sentencing after conviction.”
“The offending corporation may be required to compensate victims, donate monies to a charity, implement compliance and training programmes and appoint auditors to monitor progress of remedial measures. Notwithstanding the virtues of DPAs, the fact remains that the DPA is an avenue by which a corporation which has committed a serious offence can avoid prosecution and conviction. This is a consequence that is of tremendous benefit to a corporation in that it will not have a conviction recorded against it, which will, in turn, allow it to continue business and not face consequences, such as being blacklisted or debarred from projects. Thus, the circumstances under which DPAs are offered and entered are of immense public interest. To this end, it is comforting that the Bill will require all DPAs to be approved by the High Court under the new section 149F of the CPC. It is stated that the High Court must find that the DPA is in the interest of justice and that the terms of the DPA are fair, reasonable and proportionate. However, what needs closer scrutiny is that the Bill seems to require less disclosure of the Court's considerations than, say, the scheme in the UK. In the UK, DPAs are regulated under Schedule 17 of the UK's Crime and Courts Act which stipulates that the Crown Court must give reasons in open Court for why it has approved a DPA in the interests of justice and why it considers the terms of the DPA to be fair, reasonable and proportionate. By contrast, the Bill before the House today requires DPA proceedings to be held in camera and does not require the High Court to give any reasons as to why it is approving a DPA. Sir, I believe this aspect of the proposed DPA scheme should be reviewed.”
“In the last CPC review, our Parliament legislated that judges who convict offenders should also consider whether to make a Compensation Order for the victim's injuries. However, based on the Parliamentary answer in 2016 to a question I filed, the incidences of such Compensation Orders appeared very low, being made in only 48 cases in the year 2014 and 34 cases in 2015. In this Bill, clause 98 will further amend section 359 of the CPC significantly, by requiring judges who do not make Compensation Orders for victim injuries to record the reasons why they did not do so. This is a strong signal from Parliament, which I expect to greatly increase the numbers of Compensation Orders made. This is progressive. Sir, while the Bill makes critical positive changes in the main, I have some concerns about specific amendments. After listening to the long and detailed Second Reading speech from the Senior Minister of State, I would like, today, to just focus on two of these changes. First, the introduction of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPA) and secondly, the extension of video-link usage under clause 80. First, DPAs. DPAs have been in use in other jurisdictions, such as the USA and the UK. I agree that DPAs are important tools to address corporate crime as they enable the state to incentivise corporations to fully investigate and cooperate with the authorities. Such cooperation would also save time and resources for the state as it facilitates the state having access to information from within the corporations more efficiently. The DPA scheme introduced by this Bill enables flexible and customised resolutions.”
“I presume that, in future, other offences will be added to the Third Schedule for compulsory video-recording. Clauses 6 and 7 also provide for video-recording of accused statements as an option in other cases besides rape if the Police officer or forensic specialist so decides. The Bill, however, is silent on what circumstances the Police officer or forensic specialist is to take into account before deciding that a video-recorded statement should be taken. I would like some clarification from the Ministry on this. Secondly, the Bill increases the coverage of the CCD regime to more offences. In the last major CPC review, a Statutory Framework was introduced for the prosecution and the defence to disclose to each other the key details, witnesses and exhibits long before trial. I believe the CCD regime has worked well over the last few years to promote fair trials and also to build trust between the prosecution and defence. The Bill now extends this regime to cover offences under several additional laws, including the PCA, something I had asked about previously. The move to include more legislation under the Disclosure regime will build more confidence in the system. Thirdly, the rights of crime victims are being further enshrined in the Bill. Traditional criminal justice systems do not focus on the victim as the parties to a criminal case are the state and the accused person, with the crime victim reduced to being a prosecution witness, with no redress for harm suffered. Across the world, developed countries recognised this gap and promoted studies and victimology, putting in place reforms on matters, such as reducing victim trauma during investigations and in Court, and providing victim support.”