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 20 of 36.
“Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party joins the Minister and all Members in congratulating our Paralympians on their inspiring achievements at Rio. Indeed, there is much for Singaporeans to celebrate this year in international sporting competitions, with Team Singapore's successes at the most prestigious international competitions – the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Truth be told, most of us do not know much about the Paralympic Games. We muddle over how para-athletes are classified by disability and find it puzzling that there are so many similar events. Indeed, it is impossible for able-bodied persons to get into the mind of a disabled person, let alone one who dares to put himself or herself out there in the arena in front of the whole world. From the para-athletes' perspective, Ms Yip Pin Xiu was most generous when she said, "We put in the same amount of effort to get to where we are and it is not easier being in Para-sports." Despite what life has dealt them, para-athletes are experts at turning adversity into strength. As Ms Theresa Goh once said, "I wouldn't be swimming or where I am today if I weren't disabled." Madam, there are many inspiring stories all over the world about how individuals overcame disability through sports. A few days ago, I heard over the radio about a Canadian teenager named Trent Seymour, a very promising softball pitcher and catcher, who was paralysed in a hunting accident two years ago at age 16. After weeks in the intensive care unit and months of rehabilitation, he decided that he wanted to return to the game he loved, even though he was now a paraplegic. He signed up for umpire training and passed the required tests and soon, he was the first ever Umpire on Wheels.”
“Mdm Speaker, just to follow up, I think the Acting Minister did not touch on my question about Singapore companies that choose not to list locally, whether SGX or the Government has monitored the reasons why. Secondly, just to understand a little bit more again about MAS' role, especially in terms of IT resilience. In the past, when the first two glitches happened in 2014, there were very strong statements made by Government leaders, in fact, saying that this is unacceptable coming from SGX. When this recent incident happened in July 2016, there were observers expecting that MAS might consider the option of imposing a fine on SGX. I would like to understand whether those are options that MAS is looking at or has it ruled these out? Or what are the levers available to MAS?”
“Mdm Speaker, I have three questions for the Acting Minister. Earlier in his answer, he mentioned that MAS is closely supervising SGX's efforts to build information technology (IT) resilience. I would like to ask him a little bit more about what MAS is doing in that respect, and what are the options or levers open to MAS in its dealings with SGX, to either incentivise or to give some pressure to SGX to resolve this IT problem. My second question is, notwithstanding what the Acting Minister said about falling trading volumes worldwide, it was reported that from 2011 to 2015, the value of shares traded per day on SGX had fallen by a third over these last four years. I would like to ask the Acting Minister whether he thinks that is a cause for concern. My third question is that I understand that some Singapore companies are choosing not to list themselves locally but are going to regional bourses to list. Has SGX or even the Government looked into the reasons why they do not find listing in Singapore attractive?”
“President Nathan was an integral part of the Pioneer Generation. I shall miss his grace.”
“On one such occasion, one in the lunch group was sharing some observations he had made about political leaders in another country he had just visited. This person had concluded that one of the ministers there was not up to the mark, as the minister had remained silent throughout an official meeting with Singapore's high-level delegation. This drew a swift rebuttal from President Nathan, who proceeded to give all of us a primer into the way governmental power was organised in that particular country and why a minister there would deliberately remain silent in certain contexts. By the time lunch was over, President Nathan had not only shown his depth of world view but had simultaneously put some of us in our places, diplomatically, of course. President Nathan's knack for remembering the personal details of others shone even in death. When his body was lying in state at Parliament House on 25 August, the Workers' Party Members of Parliament queued to pay our respects. We were then kindly marshalled to meet Mrs Nathan who was sitting behind the screen. When Mrs Nathan saw Mr Low Thia Khiang, she queried, "Can I ask you a question? Were you a teacher?" Apparently, she had been having arguments with her husband over this and wanted to clarify the matter once and for all. When she saw Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, Mrs Nathan remarked, "You are the newest one". Madam, when I first learnt of Mr Nathan's death, I uploaded on Facebook a photograph taken at the Istana of President Nathan looking me in the eye and shaking my hand. A member of the public later posted a caption of the photograph which read: "All citizens are equal; respect each other". While few of us would consider ourselves equal to a President, Mr Nathan made us feel that way.”
“I understood recently from a mutual friend of theirs that, while Mr Nathan and my father were quite different in temperament, they, nevertheless, enjoyed very cordial relations founded on mutual respect. Unfortunately, my father is today unable to help me prepare more adequately for this Tribute as he is advanced in years and weakened by illness, as are many in that generation. When I became a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament in 2006, Mr Nathan was in office as President. Although he never explicitly said so, I believe he took a special interest in me because of his friendship with my father. When I would encounter President Nathan at various events, he consistently made the effort to seek me out to have a word with him, sending his aides scurrying to locate me in the crowd. I remember one occasion when he was guest-of-honour at Temasek Polytechnic where I used to work. That day, I was not involved in the programme the President was officiating at, as it was, as one would say, "above my pay grade". Out of nowhere, one of the senior management called me on the phone frantically and asked, "Where are you now? The President has requested to talk to you." I went over and met President Nathan, much to the relief of the event organisers who generally do not like surprises. And what did the President want? Nothing more than to say "hello" and to spend a few moments together shooting the breeze. Despite his tight schedule entertaining monarchs, presidents and prime ministers, President Nathan made much effort to reach out to the rest of us. Once in a while, he would invite me to the Istana for small group lunches. At such times, the depth of his diplomatic experience and his understanding of the world shone through.”
“Mdm Speaker, on Monday, 22 August 2016, I was at the Seventh Month dinner at Serangoon Gardens. At just after 10.00 pm, someone at a neighbouring table showed me her phone, carrying the news that President SR Nathan had passed away. My immediate thoughts were: how typical of him. August had been an extremely busy month for national events, what with the National Day Parade and celebrating our athletes' achievements at the Rio Olympics. It may have been a sheer coincidence, but he passed away just after the National Day Rally, as if to ensure that his death would not disrupt the national calendar nor pose an inconvenience to the country's leaders. Much has already been said about President Nathan's career in public service. When Singapore was forced out of Malaysia in 1965, the survival and future of Singapore was by no means assured. During Mr Nathan's time in the Ministry of the Interior and Defence (MID), he and my father got to know each other, as my father was in the first batch of officers in a very young army. They and their colleagues worked voraciously alongside the late Dr Goh Keng Swee to build our defences and lay the foundation for Singapore to stand tall in the world. I was a young child then. I would occasionally go with my father to army camps and wait for him while he worked on such matters. Although my personal recollection of Mr Nathan from those days is very hazy, I distinctly recall my father describing him as a person with "absolute loyalty" to our then Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Working together in those testing times must have built lasting bonds among the Pioneer Generation.”
“So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether this email was actually prompted by the KPMG report and a concern by the Ministry that perhaps other Town Councils also need to get themselves better organised.”
“Yes. Two more questions, Madam. Secondly, would MND be prepared to share the findings regarding the other Town Councils with us or with the public so that we can better benchmark ourselves and perhaps adopt some of the best practices that may be available in the other Town Councils? Last of all, Madam, it was interesting to me that when KPMG issued their first report in April 2016, and shortly after that in May, the Senior Minister of State himself actually sent a circular to all Town Council Chairmen attaching some slides and saying that Town Councils might want to use these slides to brief their Town Councillors on their roles and responsibilities, especially the key committees involved in finance and governance. This email came out of the blue. I have not seen such an email for the years that I had been —”
“But in order for us to get a proper perspective, is MND saying that the auditors of the other Town Councils have not picked up control failures in the other Town Councils since MND is receiving these annual management letters as the regulatory Ministry? Certainly, would —”
“Madam, if I could make some clarifications on what the Senior Minister of State has just said and also ask him a few supplementary questions. The first clarification to make is that the Senior Minister of State mentioned in his answer earlier that AHTC had been reluctant to appoint a Big Four firm but, based on his answer, I think he will confirm that the requirement to appoint a Big Four firm was only clarified in January this year when the Court of Appeal subsequently explained further its view on the matter, on which accounting firm it felt was suitable. Secondly, the issue of whether PRPTC is required to comply with the judgment, I think the Senior Minister of State would be aware that at the recent hearing, the Court of Appeal declined to answer that question and, in fact, we are going to Court again this Thursday for some further clarification. So, that matter is really in one sense, in a way, sub judice as well. And at the last hearing, PRPTC did not attend, so we were not able to move further on that matter. Next, I would just like to clarify also Mr Charles Chong's question to the Senior Minister of State. I am not sure whether Mr Charles Chong is accusing AHTC of wilful concealment of any documents. If he is, we utterly reject that. A further supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State: I understand that the Ministry annually requires Town Councils to submit not just their financial statements but also their Page: 11 management letters issued by the auditors to each Town Council. We appreciate all this attention on us and how bad we are.”
“Yes. The only thing I want to ask the Minister is he said that there was a survey done and the majority of the people support it. Can he confirm whether the draft Bill was actually shown to these people and were they just asked some general questions about protecting the integrity of our Courts?”
“Mdm Speaker, the Minister has not answered my points about Police investigations.”
“Okay, Madam. The Minister was earlier saying that in the Lau Swee Soong judgment, the Court recognised that the Government has a duty to act in the public interest, otherwise people might die and so on. But at the same time, does he not agree that in the judgment itself, the Court also expressly said that Dr Goh Keng Swee's statements in those cases were still within the Government's duty because they were referring to the general circumstances of the riot and did not touch on the individuals' actions in the riot. So, Mr Lau did not have a cause to complain because there was no statement made about what Mr Lau did or did not do. This is in sharp contrast with some of the statements that the Minister himself has made. For example, in the Thaipusam matter in 2015, where he actually referred to the three accused and said that they did various things before the Court came to a conclusion. Madam, the next set of clarifications concerns the Police. The Minister said that the Police have always had the power to investigate contempt on a complaint of the AG. I would like his clarification on which law he is referring to say that the Police can be mobilised to investigate complaints by the AG of contempt of Court and is there actually any current law which states that contempt is to be treated as an arrestable case under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) because I have not seen this myself?”
“Madam, this is very important because I do not agree with the Minister's analysis of the case and I —”
“And as far as I understand the word "calculated", it does not need the Minister to intend the outcome. But so long as the statement is likely in the circumstances to prejudice a fair trial, then it already will become a potential contentious statement. So, we have a conflict here between, on the one hand, the new clause which says that the Government's belief is what counts and, on the other hand, Lau Swee Soong does not really say that bad faith is the only way in which the Court can supervise the Minister's assessment. Next, the Minister, on a connected note, keeps saying that, the Lau Swee Soong case made reference to the fact that —”
“Madam, I have some clarifications for the Minister concerning clause 3(4) and the Lau Swee Soong case, as well as on the aspect of the Police. First of all, on clause 3(4) itself, I do think the Minister is wrong in that my reading of the clause is that it actually increases the power of the Government vis-a-vis public interest, and if I may clarify why I say so. The Minister keeps saying that the Court is still the final arbiter of whether the Government has exercised its powers within the clause. But really, when you look at the phrasing of the clause, the operative words are "the Government believes it is necessary". Would the Minister agree with me that that introduces a subjective element to the test, that it is the Government's opinion that counts and the Court cannot substitute its own opinion as to whether it is necessary? That is the first point. Secondly, I believe the Minister has actually touched on what is now the actual effect of the clause, and, that is, that the only way that a Minister or a Government's decision can be challenged is if bad faith is shown. And we all know that this is very difficult to prove. So, I would like the Minister to confirm that this is actually a significant scoping down of the Courts' power to review the Government's assessment of what is necessary. Next, on a related point, Madam, on the Lau Swee Soong case, I do not think it is anywhere stated in the judgment that bad faith is the only reason for the Court to intervene to curtail Ministers from speaking too much and to be in contempt. We quoted from the judgment of Justice Choor Singh. It is true that Justice Choor Singh mentioned that if a Minister's statement is calculated to prejudice a fair trial, then he would not escape being punished for contempt.”
“Are we an exceptional nation by making Government officials exempt from contempt laws? To me, these are matters we should be ashamed of. By all means, uphold respect for the administration of justice, but laws which protect the ruling elites at the expense of ordinary Singaporeans have no place in this House.”
“Clauses 22 to 24 enable the Police to arrest suspects, take statements and use all powers available to it as it would when investigating an arrestable case under the Criminal Procedure Code. In recent years, we have been talking so much about the heavy workload and manpower shortages faced by the Police. Why are we getting them involved in yet another non-core function when they should be focusing on keeping us safe from rockets from Batam? More fundamentally, what are Singaporeans supposed to expect? Will the Police knock on your door for a critical comment that you have just posted on Facebook? This is not a fanciful scenario. Recently, seven to eight Police Officers turned up at a house of an activist being investigated for breaches of the Parliamentary Elections Act for postings on a personal Facebook page. Such a spectacle, if applied to this Bill, will clearly have a chilling effect on public discourse. If this law had been in place when the Law Society President had spoken about the Benjamin Lim case, we might have seen a spectacle of the Police raiding his home for possible offences relating to sub judice contempt. Are we not using a sledgehammer to kill an ant? It would be intimidating not just to persons on the receiving end of such investigations but to society at large. The upshot of reducing the role of the Courts and vesting draconian powers in the Executive is to leave Singaporeans at the mercy of administration discretion. We would be one step closer to being a Police state. Madam, we should reflect on the President's Address in 2016 setting out the Government's aim of Singapore being an exceptional nation. Are we an exceptional nation when we say that our professionally trained judges need to be protected from public opinion?”
“This is a change in the law which will give the Government practical immunity. I come now to my next point – the increased powers given to the AG under the Bill. Under clause 13, a new power is given to the AG to issue a non-publication direction to the publisher of any matter to refrain from publishing it if the AG is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. Disobedience to such a direction carries a fine of up $20,000 or imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both. On the face of it, the AG can only issue the non-publication direction with the leave of the High Court. But disturbingly, the High Court's hands have been tied in this matter. According to clause 13(7), once the AG shows that the case satisfies certain conditions, the High Court must grant leave to the AG to issue the non-publication direction. This lack of discretion given to the Court is in sharp contrast with the discretion given to the AG under clause 13(1) to commence proceedings. The Ministry said that there was active consultation on the Bill with stakeholders including the Judiciary. Did the Judiciary concur with the wording of clause 13(7)? Madam, the AG does not always get it right in deciding whether or not to commence proceedings for contempt of Court. For instance, in the case of Public Prosecutor vs Au Wai Pang or Alex Au, Mr Au was cleared of contempt for one of the two statements which the AG began contempt proceedings against him for. Finally, Madam, I am most worried about how Part V of the Bill brings the Police into the picture. The Bill provides that the Police may now investigate potential offences under the Bill.”
“Has he been facing accusations that he has acted in contempt of Court and wants blanket licence to say what he likes? Madam, the other disturbing aspect is that under this clause, the Government can make statements on pending cases so long as the Government believes that such statements are necessary in the public interest. This means that the Government will be sole judge of what is necessary; the test is subjective and the Government's assessment is not open to challenge. But the existing law is clear that the Government is subject to the contempt of Court laws. One of the only reported cases of sub judice contempt was in 1967. That case was brought by a student activist Mr Lau Swee Soong against the then Minister of the Interior and Defence Dr Goh Keng Swee. Dr Goh had issued a press release after a student demonstration on 4 November 1966 and Mr Lau unsuccessfully brought an application for contempt of Court against Dr Goh. Even though Mr Lau's application was dismissed by the Court, Justice Choor Singh was careful to state in his judgment that: "It does not follow that a statement made or issued by a Government Minister can never constitute contempt of Court or that the Government Minister should never be punished for contempt of Court. A Minister of the Government is not above the law and if a statement made by him is calculated to prejudice the fair trial of an accused person and if the risk of interference with the proper administration of justice is a real and grave one, such a contempt will be met with the necessary punishment in order to restrain such conduct." Madam, the present Bill replaces the oversight of the Courts with a subjective test of what the Government believes is necessary in the public interest.”
“Madam, there are several disturbing aspects of this Bill that consolidate the powers of the Executive Government, the AG and the Minister that are simply not acceptable, if we want to call ourselves a democratic society. First, clause 3(4) introduces a new exception to sub judice contempt which can only be used by the Government, and I would like to quote the phrasing, "A statement by a person on behalf of the Government about an aspect of a pending Court proceeding is not contempt if the Government believes that such statement is necessary in the public interest." What is this exception for? Who is this exception for? Earlier, the Minister gave examples of infectious disease outbreaks and bank runs. But when one looks at the illustrations in the Bill, two recent incidents spring to mind. Illustration 1 covers a Government statement about the circumstances leading to the death of a person when the Coroner's inquiry into the death is pending. To my mind, this is a striking reference to the Minister's utterances on the Benjamin Lim case. The Minister had strongly criticised the President of the Law Society for speaking out, but said that public officials like himself, on the other hand, could make statements. Illustration 2 may refer to the Thaipusam riots in 2015 where three men were charged with disruptive behaviour. The Minister again made comments on what the three accused persons had allegedly done while their criminal cases were still pending. He told the media that one of the men had assaulted the Police and all three had used vulgarities, matters which were then yet to be decided by the Courts. Therefore, would the Minister confirm the exception in clause 3(4) is really meant to benefit himself?”
“Madam, another significant change is the draconian enforcement muscle being given to the Government. A new power is given to the AG to issue a non-publication direction. Under this new power, the AG may issue such a direction to a person to stop publishing something if the AG is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. Disturbingly, the Police are also being brought in to investigate contempt allegations. I will speak more about this later. Madam, the Government had earlier said that this Bill does not change the law, but this is clearly not so. The Ministry has also been insisting that stakeholders were actively consulted on the Bill. How far is this true? What does active consultation mean and who are these stakeholders? This Bill will impact not just selected stakeholders like judges, lawyers or bloggers, but society at large. As pointed out by the Court of Appeal in the Alan Shadrake case, the law of contempt operates against a broader legal canvas that touches on freedom of speech which is enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution as a Fundamental Liberty. Given how the Bill will impact society as a whole, there should at least have been a proper public consultation before the Bill was tabled in Parliament. Was there? What I know is that the Bill came up for First Reading on 11 July. It was only the next day, 12 July, that the Bill was put up on the Government feedback portal REACH. It was also only on 12 July that the Law Society sent out an email asking Council and all Standing Committees of the Law Society for feedback by 18 July to enable the Minister to prepare his Second Reading speech. Is this what is meant by active consultation, to ask people for their feedback after the Bill has already been tabled in Parliament?”
“According to the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) press release on 11 July, "The Bill will consolidate the key elements of the law of contempt into statute. The boundaries of contempt, what is permissible or not permissible to do or say, will not change". According to the Minister for Law before the Sitting, he has said that the law on contempt will remain broadly the same. Is this true? I am glad that today the Minister has acknowledged that at least one clear change is being made under the Bill in relation to clause 3(1)(a), where it is stated that a person scandalises the Court if he publishes any matter or does any act that imputes improper motives or alleges impropriety of any Court and that publication or act poses a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined. This is a clear change from the existing case law, which is that, it is only contempt if such statement or act poses a real risk that the administration of justice will be undermined. The test of real risk has been explained by the Court of Appeal in the Alan Shadrake case to mean that the risk must not be remote or fanciful. By changing the test to requiring the offending statement or act to carry just a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined, the Bill has lowered the bar for contempt of Court. I have not read anything that says that the Court of Appeal or any Court has recommended that it needs more protection in this regard. Thus, I am wondering whether the Minister in his own words is "chasing shadows". After all, scandalising contempt is still being retained in our laws so long as there is a real risk that public confidence in the Judiciary will be undermined.”
“Mdm Speaker, I rise to register the Workers' Party's (WP's) objection to this Bill. As acknowledged by the Ministry, our existing law on contempt of Court already protects the due administration of Justice. The law is to be found in case law and it has worked thus far. I have seen no evidence of the law's inadequacy. While codification of the contempt laws is not of itself objectionable, there are several things abhorrent about this Bill and the way it is being bulldozed through Parliament. The WP rejects the Bill as we reject several of its key effects, such as: (a) unnecessarily lowering the threshold for what amounts to scandalising the Courts; (b) muzzling discussion on pending Court cases while giving the Government immunity to say what it deems fit, however prejudicial; and (c) the potential utilisation of the state machinery to intimidate Singaporeans who, in good faith, wish to discuss current affairs. Madam, in our view, and contrary to what the Minister asserts about protecting the common man, this Bill will protect the ruling classes at the expense of ordinary citizens. My party colleagues will elaborate further on our objections. For my part, I will focus on two aspects: (a) the Government's inaccurate characterisation of the Bill as largely business as usual; and (b) the self-serving nature of the Bill for the Government and, in particular, how the Bill is designed to protect and empower the Minister himself. Madam, first, let me talk about the Government's characterisation of the Bill. In my view, the Government had not been frank in its characterisation of the Bill as nothing more than a consolidation of the existing law and a crystallisation of processes.”
“Madam, as we celebrate Joseph's success, we should also honour and celebrate all Singaporeans who devote their hearts to represent Singapore in sport. Many have slogged to be selected to don the national colours, simply for the love of the sport and the privilege of representing Singapore. We well up with pride watching our compatriots representing little Singapore compete with the world's best. We know you have put in so much just to get there. Whether you win or lose, we salute you. [Applause.]”
“Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party joins the Minster and all Members in congratulating Joseph Schooling and his family on a most remarkable achievement at the Rio Olympics. Behind what seemed to us as an effortless 50.39 seconds must have been a lifetime of discipline, training and sacrifice. Joseph's parents have given him the security to enable him to pursue his dreams, supported his passion for the sport, and tirelessly fought for his cause. They did not take the easy course of asking him to abandon his passion and buckle down to the more conventional paths of success. Without them, Joseph becoming an Olympic champion would not have been possible. Despite their son making history by becoming the first Southeast Asian to ever win an Olympic swimming gold, Joseph's parents did not gloat in his victory, but were fully grounded in what his victory meant. I was personally disarmed by the reaction of his father, Mr Colin Schooling, who said, and I quote: "The most important thing is to be an ambassador for all our children in Singapore that gives them hope that they also can do it. There's nothing special about him, just a boy who is interested in the sport." Indeed, sport has always had magical powers to inspire generations and galvanise nations. Singapore has experienced the unifying nature of sports in the early years of nation building and was again reminded of what it meant to support our sporting heroes flying our flag. Singaporeans from all walks of life, of all ages, tuned in to watch the 100-metre butterfly final. Even my neighbour, who hardly talks to me, asked me in the lift whether I caught the event on TV. The imagination of Singaporeans was captured by the exploits of a third-generation Singaporean about to be a world-beater.”
“Madam, I do not want to belabour the point, but I would just like to record my reservation about clause 9. Notwithstanding what the Senior Minister of State has said about the Courts being a safeguard, I do feel that the Government could have taken a different view to make it clear that it would not want to be seen to be, in a sense, using legal cost as a deterrent or prohibitive factor when it comes to litigation with the Government. So, I want to record my reservation about that clause. I note that the Bill is very broad-ranging, and I will not oppose the Bill, but I have grave reservations about that clause.”
“Madam, I need to clarify further with the Senior Minister of State on the issue of cost. The point here, of course, is that when you have the Government on one side of a legal proceeding and perhaps a private individual or private entity on the other side, you are dealing with an inequality of resources in most cases. The Government, with its Legal Officers, having the whole Civil Service there, the prospect of a litigant going into litigation with the Government and sustaining that litigation, I think it is already prohibitive to most people. So, my question is, why is the Government not able to take a broader view, you may want to say, even a magnanimous view or perhaps a view from the accountability standpoint that, look, we are not going to allow cost to be an inhibition or prohibitive factor when the litigant decides whether to continue with litigation or to commence litigation with the Government or not. I am sure the Government does not need the money. So, the question is, why do you need to change that position to allow for more than two lawyers' costs to be claimed? Why can the Government not limit its position to two?”
“Madam, I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. First, she did not touch on my query on the Legal Profession Act amendments, clause 16(t) and (u). What are the circumstances contemplated under which the Minister would prescribe rules to exempt lawyers who had, on the face of it, committed some misconduct, according to what is raised in the Bill? The second clarification concerns the Wills Act. The Senior Minister of State mentioned that it was spurred on by the recent Court of Appeal's case. But I would like her to confirm whether the inspiration for the wording came from the UK and whether she is aware of the case which I cited, Marley vs Rawlings, which interpreted that provision very widely and whether it is the intention of the Government to give the Court this kind of width of rectification power. My third clarification concerns the cost of Government proceedings. The Senior Minister of State mentioned that this does not give the Government additional powers, but the fact is that under the existing section 29 of the Government Proceedings Act (GPA), the cost claimable is limited to two. So, this amendment would actually give an allowance for the Court to certify more than two lawyers' costs being payable. It is a change to the legal position, as far as GPA is concerned. I have my grave reservations about this clause for the reasons I stated earlier.”
“Under clauses 16(t) and (u), the Minister may make rules to exempt lawyers from disciplinary action if they had given gratifications or remuneration to those who procure business for themselves or other lawyers under circumstances to be prescribed in the rules. The act of giving gratifications for procuring legal services is generally abhorrent to the profession. What sorts of exemptions are being contemplated and under what circumstances?”
“Madam, I have concerns about the Government taking such a position as the prospect of a very heavy legal burden in legal costs could have a dampening or even crushing effect on persons involved in suits against the Government. As it currently stands, anyone who is thinking of suing the Government or defending a legal action by the Government is aware that if the action is lost, he would likely have to pay legal costs to the Government. This is on top of funding his own lawyers to meet the fierce challenges thrown by the Government's legal team, whose limitless resources include having the entire Legal Service and Civil Service at its disposal. Not many individuals or entities have the financial resources needed to take the Government to Court or to defend a suit by the Government. I believe the Government should consider taking a broader view on this matter and keep the current provision of capping its claim for legal costs to no more than two legal officers. After all, the purpose of the Government Proceedings Act is to enable the Government to sue and to be sued. If the costs of suing or being sued by the Government are too high, people will surrender. There must not be a signal sent that the Government is trying to use the prospect of crushing legal costs to deter or wear down those who may wish to sue the Government or to defend Government lawsuits vigorously. Lastly, Madam, the Legal Profession Act. Clause 16 of the Bill makes various amendments to the Legal Profession Act. My query relates to clauses 16(t) and (u) which deal with the disciplinary proceedings against lawyers who have misconducted themselves.”
“What the court did in that case was to exercise the statutory power under the Administration of Justice Act to rectify the wills by replacing wholesale the words of each will with the text of the other spouse's will. This is way beyond the usual understanding of rectification being the adding or omitting of certain words only. Is the Ministry intending the Court to have such a wide rectification power? I would also like a confirmation about the implication of such a provision on lawyers who have been negligent in drafting wills or in will execution. How will this provision save them from being liable for negligence? Will clients be expected to go to Court first to try to rectify the will before suing lawyers for negligence? This would put a heavy burden on clients. Next, the Government Proceedings Act. The Government Proceedings Act enables the Government to sue and to be sued. Clause 9 of the Bill amends section 29 of the Act to provide that, in such lawsuits, it is possible that the Court can certify that legal costs for more than two Government lawyers may be payable. This is a change from the current position where the maximum number of Government lawyers a litigant may have to pay for is two. According to the explanatory note, the change is to bring the position in line with that in other civil suits and family matters. The current position in other civil suits and family matters is that the Court may order a litigant who loses to pay legal costs for more than two solicitors on the winning side. In order for such a Court order to be obtained, the Court must find that more than two lawyers were reasonably required to handle the case due to factors, such as the complexity of the case or novel points of law being raised.”
“Mdm Speaker, I would like to seek some clarifications on the amendments being made to the Wills Act, the Government Proceedings Act and the Legal Profession Act. I declare that I am a lawyer with a Practising Certificate in force. First, the Wills Act. Clause 50 of the Bill will introduce a new provision to the Wills Act. The new section 28 will allow a Court to order that a will be rectified if the Court is satisfied that the will is expressed in such a way that it fails to carry out the testator's intention due to a clerical error or a failure to understand the testator's instructions, or both. This provision seems to be influenced by legislation in other countries, such as the United Kingdom (UK) Administration of Justice Act 1982, which contains a section 20 similar in wording to the Bill. I have noted that an NUS law academic, Assoc Prof Barry Crown, had recommended that our Wills Act be amended to include such a statutory right to rectify a will to bring more certainty to this area of the law. This is because a 2014 case decided by the UK Supreme Court had suggested that the courts had a common law right to rectify wills even if there is no statutory right, and it is probably more prudent to legislate the right to make clear what powers the court should have. Nevertheless, the UK case in question, Marley vs Rawlings, also raises questions about how wide the power under the new provision should be. In that case, a husband and wife made mirror wills to leave their entire estate to a non-family member. But each spouse signed the other spouse's will by mistake. Clearly, the lawyer's office was at fault in not checking that the wills were executed by the proper party.”
“Madam, I have a clarification for Minister Chan on PA. First, I welcome this unequivocal public statement that the PA should never be politicised. It is a timely reminder to those who may think otherwise. My clarification concerns his confirmation that PA is a Statutory Board. I would like to ask whether as a Government agency, PA also adopts the Government standard operating procedure that it will reply to MPs' letters written on behalf of their constituents.”
“As Opposition Members, when we try to advance our residents' welfare through infrastructure projects, we learn that Government agencies like the Ministry of National Development (MND) and the Housing and Development Board will only recognise PA organisations, such as Citizens Consultative Committees (CCCs) and Residents' Committees (RCs) as "the proper channels". When I tried to simply get information from MND on the plans for private estate upgrading projects within Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), the Ministry referred me to the CCC. I then wrote several times to the CCC, but it seems that my letters do not even merit a reply.”
“Sir, the People's Association (PA) has evolved since its inception in 1960. Its original role was countering communist activities and fostering social stability and national security. PA has gone from community centres to community clubs, from providing television sets and simple sports facilities to holding courses and large-scale activities. I am concerned with two aspects: the PA's ever-increasing budget and whether PA has, in some respects, deviated from its mandate. First, the budget. While we understand that the financial year (FY) 2015 Budget was much larger than usual due to the SG50 activities and building residents' facilities, the FY 2016 budget is still very high, at nearly $900 million. This is a significant 34% increase from FY2014. How is the high expenditure justified? Second, it seems to me that some PA activities have exceeded its mandate. To recap, the People's Association Act states that PA is incorporated for the purpose of promoting community recreation and incidental matters. Its objects are stated to relate to fostering cohesion and bonding and to promoting group participation that transcends sectional loyalties. The PA's role then is to unite, receiving heavy taxpayer funding for such. An unhealthy culture seems to have developed within some quarters of PA who sees its role to include advancing the Ruling Party politically and undermining the work of Opposition Members of Parliament. PA activists being mobilised to campaign for People's Action Party (PAP) candidates at elections is just one aspect.”
“Sir, I have a clarification for Minister Chan Chun Sing concerning the anti-corruption cut which I filed. Earlier, the Minister mentioned that the Government has a robust framework in place to detect money laundering, including offences related to corruption. He also mentioned STRO, which I think has been in place for quite a number of years. Despite that, in February this year, our Commercial Affairs Department and the Monetary Authority of Singapore announced that they froze a large number of bank accounts for suspected money laundering and other offences connected with 1MDB. From what I know from investigations, you would only seize accounts if you have some prima facie grounds to suspect that there have been offences committed. So, I would like to ask the Minister whether this may suggest that the framework in place may need a review because it may not really be robust enough for its purpose.”
“Concerns have also been raised about locally-based firms, such as Portcullis Trustnet, which purportedly specialise in setting up offshore companies and trusts and hard-to-trace bank accounts in Singapore and other offshore financial centres. Another weakness in Singapore's fight against corruption from abroad seems to be our lack of extradition treaties with other countries. Is the Government concerned that Singapore's anti-corruption reputation has thus been eroded?”
“Madam, according to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), Singapore is one of the least corrupt countries in the world. The number of corruption cases registered for CPIB investigations is at 30-year lows. This, the CPIB says, is testament to Singapore's continued vigilance, commitment and zero-tolerance approach in our fight against corruption. While CPIB's low caseload is one thing, it seems that, internationally, there are some doubts as to whether we have been as vigilant and intolerant towards corruption as claimed. In particular, it has been suggested that we have a certain double standard – intolerance towards corruption within Singapore, but permissiveness towards corruption committed abroad. One of the main factors is Singapore's position as a global financial centre and its reputation for having strong banking secrecy laws that could shield those who have broken laws overseas. Articles have been written, mostly abroad, accusing Singapore of "asking no questions" or "turning a blind eye" to sources of funds being managed from here. Since about 2009, the Government has progressively implemented regulations requiring more vigilance, increased reporting and exchange of information with other countries. These are guided by international standards set by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). For instance, Singapore now has in place some anti-money laundering measures. But how effective are they to prevent the inflow of corrupt monies? The 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) is a case in point. It was reported that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is currently probing into 40 banks operating here for possible money laundering offences linked to 1MDB.”
“Mdm Chair, MediShield Life provides Singaporeans and Permanent Residents some coverage for hospitalisation bills and certain outpatient treatments, without age limit and for life. While the scheme benefits those of us based here, requiring all overseas Singaporeans to pay for compulsory coverage does not seem fair to some of them and merits a review. The Ministry of Health (MOH) has stated that overseas Singaporeans should contribute to the national risk pool as "part of collective responsibility". The Ministry says this will also enable them to benefit from MediShield Life protection anytime they choose to return to Singapore. This stand makes sense for those overseas Singaporeans who know that they expect to return to Singapore to live. However, there are Singaporeans who have made their home in other countries for decades. These include Singaporeans married to foreigners and raising children overseas, sometimes because the foreign spouses are not able to find suitable work in Singapore. They enjoy high standards of healthcare in these countries, which they pay taxes for. Others have emigrated as families and now have access to healthcare at prices more affordable to them. Some chose to live abroad because they could only obtain adequate coverage for their serious health conditions there. These Singaporeans are better covered overseas and will probably never tap on MediShield Life. Will the Government review how it could allow such overseas Singaporeans to opt out of the scheme? Is there a compelling case that no opt-out should be allowed at all? Integrated Shield Premiums”
“Madam, I have three clarifications for Minister Masagos – one concerning the haze and two on dengue. First, concerning the haze, the Minister mentioned that we had this earlier collaboration with Jambi province which has ended and we are waiting, I think, for the last four or five years for it to be renewed. Could the Minister share what is holding this up? Next, regarding dengue, he touched on Radio-controlled Aerial Inspection Craft (RAIC). Yes, we are aware that the trials are going to end soon. My question is whether there is an intention to deploy this on a wider scale and if he can give some information on that. Lastly, I do not think the Minister touched on the issue of the dengue vaccine in his speech earlier. This Dengvaxia vaccine, I think, has already been registered in a few countries. Experts deem it as 60% effective. I am not sure what is holding the Government up in clearing this vaccine for use in Singapore. Is it because it is considered, in a sense, a lower priority strategy when compared to vector control?”
“The vaccine apparently works against all four serotypes, though its efficacy rate is not uniform. Is the Government in a better position now to comment or commit to a dengue vaccine? Dengue/Zika”
“Mdm Chair, I am filing my annual cut on dengue as it continues to plague Singaporeans and my residents in the Serangoon ward of Aljunied GRC. In February, the Government reported that the number of dengue cases in 2016 may exceed 30,000, higher than the record of 22,170 cases in 2013. The main reasons are the warmer conditions due to El Nino and a change of the main virus serotype from DEN 1 to DEN 2. History has shown that a change in the predominant dengue virus will cause a spike of cases during the earlier periods. The Aedes mosquito population in our community has also increased since November with NEA's gravitraps and inspection checks showing a 50% increase in Aedes mosquitoes and breeding. The Ministry's top priority is source eradication and I must convey my residents' gratitude for the tireless NEA officers and contractors who visited estates and homes to do inspections and misting and to provide advice. At last year's Committee of Supply, we were told that NEA had 850 staff in the regular vector control workforce. To what extent have additional resources been needed this year? Some locations are not accessible for inspection. And since 2014, NEA has been trying out radio-controlled aerial inspection crafts (RAIC) for the surveillance of roof gutter conditions. RAIC is able to deposit Bti larvicides to kill larvae in roof gutters. Has the trial been successful and will it be fully implemented? The Minister has also said that $3 million is being put aside to develop the Wolbachia bacteria to fight dengue over the next three years. When are we likely to see the results of this? Finally, concerning the dengue vaccine, several countries, including the Philippines, have registered the use of the Dengvaxia vaccine developed by Sanofi.”
“Thank you, Chairman. I have clarifications for the Minister concerning the response to workers who have been retrenched or made redundant. The Government is saying that the main strategy will be, of course, to match jobs to skills. We hope all the three will come together quickly for people who are retrenched. But, of course, that is always the case. It may take time for the correct match to happen. At the same time also, some of these workers who may lose their jobs may actually have other possible options which are better. For example, he may have his own contacts to explore, or he may want to become an entrepreneur and so on. I wonder if the Minister could give his views on whether there is still a place for some safety nets for these workers who may not fit so quickly into your schemes, such as PCP and CSP. In fact, these may not be the best thing for them. That there is actually a place, perhaps, for some safety nets for such workers, in the form of some sort of redundancy or unemployment insurance. Page: 126”
“Can we expect such alternative work arrangements to increase, given the uncertain economy, the need for employers to manage costs and the automation of jobs? If so, there will be more Singaporeans facing issues, such as poor job security, intermittent Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions and little or no medical benefits. Are we adequately measuring the number of Singaporeans who are underemployed in this way? Loss-of-income Shield Insurance”
“Chairman, as mentioned in my Budget Debate speech, I believe the Government should put in more effort to track under-employment. Let me highlight three areas. First, the Government could put into its headline numbers not just the employment and unemployment rates but two other indicators it is already gathering. For some years, the Government has been publishing some statistics on "time-related underemployment", showing the hours worked versus the hours that the employees are available and willing to work. The Government also gathers data on "discouraged workers", namely, those who have given up the job search. Headlining time-related underemployment and the number of discouraged workers will focus public attention on these two important statistics that are not captured in the employment and unemployment headlines. Secondly, while I accept that measuring underemployment by time is probably the only internationally accepted measure, we know that working fewer hours is just one aspect of underemployment. How can we measure underemployment where a person is being underutilised in terms of his earning capacity? Could we consider collecting data on income earned versus median income for that qualification and age, or perhaps compared with previous income? Thirdly, it has been noted in the US that in the last decade, the growth of temporary and contract jobs has surged, with the proportion of Americans working as independent contractors soaring. In Singapore, according to the Ministry's report on the Labour Force 2015, there were 202,000 contract workers. Does this figure capture all those who are on contract, freelance or ad-hoc work arrangements?”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, I have a few clarifications for the Minister about work programmes for inmates while they are still incarcerated. During the Minister's reply earlier, he did say that work while in prison prepares the inmate, in one sense, for employment post-release. But does he also agree that work has some other benefits as it enables the prisoner to come out of the cell and, in many cases, enables him to earn some money, sometimes to send it back to his family, which is very good for self-esteem? The second clarification is: the Minister mentioned that out of the prisoners who qualify for work, 85% of them are actually already deployed to work and 15% are awaiting work. I would like to ask why this 15% are waiting for work. Is it because there are insufficient work places available to cater for all who qualify? And, third, I wonder if the Minister is able to share whether he knows how long the average waiting time is for those who are waiting for work.”
“And are there patients with pre-existing mental conditions or mental needs that developed during incarceration? Second, inmates' use of time. According to statistics from the Singapore Prison Service, the number of inmates engaged in training programmes dropped by 345 from 2014 to 2015. Similarly, the number of inmates engaged in work programmes also dropped by 180 from 2014 to 2015. Is there a reason for the drop? The SCORE annual report notes that of the inmates deemed Page: 55 employable in 2014, only 81% were engaged in work programmes. I have a few questions here. First, what is the status of the other 19% of inmates? Second, how were inmates selected for training and work programmes? Third, how is the employability of inmates determined? Fourth, what other programmes are in place for inmates who are considered unemployable, to keep them meaningfully occupied? Tackling Recidivism”
“Madam, prisoners pay for their crimes by spending time behind bars, sometimes many years, and even a life time. Prisoners, first, have to adapt themselves to prison life. This involves stressful and difficult adjustments to a strict institutional routine, deprivation of privacy and living in sparse conditions. After the initial phase, prisoners often undergo a personal transformation to adapt to prison life which carries traits, such as hyper-vigilance, over-controlling one's emotions to avoid showing vulnerability, such as social withdrawal and isolation. These are well researched. On a personal level, prisoners may feel guilt and helplessness towards their families and it is not uncommon to see divorce papers being served on inmates. The Singapore Prison Service has committed itself to being captains of lives. They are doing an admirable and difficult job and should be well supported. As prisoners are incarcerated as punishment and not for punishment, their stay in jail should, as far as possible, be spent constructively for rehabilitation and eventual release and reintegration into society. I have two concerns. The first, on psychological support for inmates, and, second, on inmates' use of time. First, psychological support. What is the policy or approach towards the mental health needs of inmates, whether dealing with pre-existing conditions or issues developed during incarceration? What sort of mental health professionals work full time in our prisons? Is there a ratio of mental health professionals to inmates? Do the prison officers who manage inmates have compulsory training in mental health issues? 3.15 pm There has been an IMH Singapore Prison Service Psychiatric Housing Unit set up since 2011. How many inmates have sought treatment there?”