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 3 of 36.
“However, most of the Bills passed by Parliament are proposed by the Government, and yet the Bills are being sent for scrutiny by a PCMR consisting of life members of incumbent and former Cabinet Ministers. Is there not a conflict of interest here? I must confess to be perplexed as to why Cabinet Ministers need to be appointed to the PCMR. If it is the case that the PCMR would benefit from hearing from the Government, the Prime Minister is already empowered to authorise any member of the Cabinet to participate in PCMR meetings, albeit without a vote. Even so, it does not explain why they have to be appointed for life. Indeed, the PCMR is the only institution I am aware of where some members serve for life. Would it thus not be far superior to keep the PCMR as a council of distinguished citizens who are non-political individuals, on fixed terms, as recommended by the Wee Chong Jin Commission? Sir, we should aim to build institutions that will see Singapore through over a long period of time. Whether or not it works today will not be indicative of whether it works tomorrow. And a system which entrenches the influence of members of former administrations, until quite literally, the day they die, in my opinion, is not a viable one.”
“For example, the urgent Bill could have been avoided had the lacuna in MCCY’s regulatory ambit been identified in 2022, when Income’s corporatisation exercise was approved. Sir, this episode is a salient reminder of what is at stake – our reputation as a legislative body that respects the fundamental rights of the rule of law in the discharge of our responsibilities. Finally, Sir, on the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR). In 1966, a Constitutional Commission was chaired by then Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin and it recommended the formation of the PCMR, which was established in 1970. Its role is to scrutinise Bills passed by Parliament for any differentiating measures that discriminate against any racial or religious community, and if so found, to refer the Bill back to Parliament for reconsideration. The PCMR was later entrusted with other functions as well. The Wee Chong Jin Commission had recommended that the PCMR members be chosen from distinguished individuals who did not hold any political affiliation. It also recommended that members serve for fixed terms that could be renewed. However, these recommendations were not adopted and today, the PCMR is comprised of 18 members, five of whom are appointed permanently and for life. I am very disturbed, Sir, that all five permanent members in the PCMR have been or still are Cabinet Ministers, including currently, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong and the incumbent Minister for Home Affairs and Law. Of the five, only Mr Abdullah Tarmugi and Mr S Dhanabalan received their permanent appointments after they left the Cabinet. Sir, the WP values the check that the PCMR could provide against inadvertently discriminatory legislation.”
“When a question is redirected to a Ministry that cannot address the MP’s concerns, the MP may face procedural objections to refiling it. Moving forward, could MPs be consulted on any intended redirection of questions, so that our input can be taken into account? Next, on the reputation of Parliament as an institution that makes laws prospectively and with advanced notice to the public before implementation. Sir, to this end, I believe the recent episode of the urgent Insurance (Amendment) Bill targeting the Income-Allianz deal may have dented Parliament’s reputation. The Workers’ Party (WP) expressed serious misgivings about the proposed acquisition of Income Insurance by Allianz, but we did not support the Bill. As my party colleague, Ms He Ting Ru, had argued then, the legislation affected a live transaction and would undermine legal and business certainty that was critical to a business hub such as Singapore. In that debate, Deputy Speaker Christopher de Souza opined that the Bill was a hybrid Bill. He explained that although the provisions of the Bill were drafted in general terms, it was clear that the Bill was, in substance, aimed at the proposed acquisition of Income by Allianz. Ordinarily, the Standing Orders would require that such a Bill be referred to a Select Committee for close scrutiny, since it affected prejudicially the rights of particular parties. But because a Certificate of Urgency was obtained, the Select Committee procedure was done away with. This deprived Parliament of the opportunity to hear from the affected parties themselves before passing the Bill. Sir, while the circumstances may have required it, such Certificates of Urgency should be deployed as a last resort.”
“Of course, sometimes the redirection is justified, such as when the MP may have inadvertently asked the question to the wrong Ministry, for example, questions about banks may be mistakenly filed with the Ministry of Finance (MOF) when the bank regulator, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), comes within the province of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). However, it seems to me that questions may also be redirected simply because the Government finds it expedient to do so. This may undermine the main purpose of Question Time – Government accountability. To take a recent example, the Leader of Opposition (LO) had in August last year filed a PQ to the Ministry of Transport (MOT) asking for the Land Transport Authority’s (LTA) assessment on the demand for bus services on the routes being plied by the special shuttle bus services at Marine Parade Group Representation Constituency. Even though his question asked for LTA’s assessment of transport needs, his question was redirected to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) without his input. When he rose to ask supplementary questions which were transport-related, the Minister of State for MCCY was unable to answer them and instead invited the LO to file a question with LTA instead, notwithstanding the fact that the LO had initially done so. While the Minister for Transport did step in shortly at that session to address the LO’s queries, the question still remains as to why a question posed to LTA was redirected to MCCY in the first place. Sir, Question Time is precious. Limited to usually 90 minutes per Sitting. MPs compete to have their questions chosen for priority listing, failing which they either let it lapse for written answer or hope to have priority listing on another day.”
“Chairman, I seek to move, “That the total sum to be allocated for Head F of the Estimates be reduced by $100”. Sir, law students learn early that the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary is the foundation of the rule of law. As such, I hope the House will agree with me that Parliament, as the primary organ of the Legislative Branch, must not only be able to discharge its law-making responsibilities, but also to ensure that the Government remains faithful to its duty to all Singaporeans. Sir, to this end, I wish to reflect on my nearly 20 years in this House and highlight three areas where I believe we need to do better: first, on the way Parliamentary Questions are managed; second, on Parliament’s reputation as a law-making institution; and lastly, on the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR), which is a vital safeguard on Parliament. First on Parliamentary Questions (PQs). PQs are a critical aspect of Government accountability, as they are the primary means by which Members of Parliament (MPs) can scrutinise the Government’s performance, as well as to reflect the concerns that are brought to us by our constituents. To that end, it is notable that questions posed by MPs to one Ministry may be redirected to be answered by another Ministry, without prior reference to the MP. From my understanding, such redirection is done by the Government Ministries and not the Parliamentary staff.”
“In cases where consent is not obtained, a default provision could allocate 50% of the CPF balances to the spouse, with the member's nomination applying to the remaining half. Sir, I intend to raise this issue during the COS debates for the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). I hope the Ministry will give this proposal some consideration during that debate. Sir, to conclude, this Budget, being a prelude to the General Election, offers benefits across the spectrum, ensuring that both affluent and less-privileged Singaporeans receive some support. These measures will help households for now, but the issue is how sustainable such an approach is. I believe it is vital to seriously look at the three areas I have highlighted: doing better at Budget marksmanship; managing the cost of living other than through handouts; and providing vulnerable segments of society who risk being overlooked in our nation's progress.”
“This poses a potential risk to non-working spouses, typically wives, who have dedicated themselves to managing the household and consequently have limited CPF savings of their own. For families with fewer resources, CPF savings constitute a significant portion of liquid assets upon a member's death. According to a DBS Bank study released this month on two million of its customers, retirees aged 65 and above were found to rely on CPF funds to cover 55% of their median expenses. This highlights the importance of CPF savings in retirement planning. In situations where a CPF member nominates non-family beneficiaries, a surviving spouse and any children could be left without a financial safety net. Notably, during divorce proceedings, CPF monies accumulated during the marriage are considered matrimonial assets and are subject to division. Courts are empowered to award a non-working spouse a significant share of the working spouse's CPF balances. The principle here is that the working spouse was only able to concentrate on work because the other spouse focused on attending to the family at home. Therefore, if a spouse's position is recognised in a divorce, it is all the more justified to consider protections for the non-working spouses who remain in the marriage until their partner's death. Sir, to safeguard these vulnerable spouses, I propose a policy change to require spousal consent for any CPF nomination that excludes them. This could be implemented by mandating the spouse as a necessary witness to such a nomination. Such a measure would acknowledge CPF funds as shared assets within a marriage and ensure that both parties are aware of and agree to the distribution plans.”
“Specifically, the growing dependence on housing grants prompts questions about future affordability. Parents today are understandably anxious about the housing prospects for their children. Such reliance on Government transfers raises concerns about the sustainability of such support. In a Straits Times opinion piece on 24 February, Professors Linda Lim and Pang Eng Fong queried this approach for the long term. They observed that, "The persistent need for subsidies for basic goods and services like food, accommodation and utilities in one of the world's richest countries, indicates that prices are too high and wages too low to enable a substantial segment of Singaporeans to make ends meet." Sir, such a concern is not confined to this House, nor to economists. Earlier this week, a member of the public named Joe called into a CNA TV programme to pose a most pertinent question to the Government, "Can the Minister reassure us that the Government is looking into the rising cost of living and not just providing handouts?" Sir, looking ahead, I also wonder how much more the Government will collect from Singaporeans every year in taxes to fund these handouts. Will there be an endless upwards spiral in prices and increased handouts, in the name of affordability? Sir, finally, I wish to talk about supporting vulnerable segments of society. As we commemorate 60 years of Singapore's Independence, it is timely to reflect on the challenges faced by certain groups, particularly homemakers, whose financial security requires attention. Currently, CPF members have the autonomy to nominate beneficiaries for their CPF savings upon death, even to the exclusion of immediate family members.”
“Escalating cost of essential items, such as food, are particularly concerning. The Prime Minister aptly noted, "Singaporeans are still adjusting to these new price realities. Some have had to tighten their belts, rethink spending habits or make difficult trade-offs to manage their expenses." While external factors contribute to inflation, it is important to recognise that COE and GST are outcomes of domestic policies. Offering ad hoc vouchers and handouts in response to the cost of living, may come across as missing the wood for the trees. Sir, next on defining affordability. The Government's approach to easing cost of living pressures and ensuring public housing affordability warrant scrutiny. Current measures suggest that Singaporeans can only manage expenses with the aid of vouchers, subsidies and grants. For instance, on utilities and household essentials. Reliance on rebates and vouchers indicates that, without such assistance, basic necessities may be out of reach for many. On public housing, the necessity of substantial housing grants, which were further increased in 2023 and again in 2024. This implies that, without them, most citizens would struggle to afford HDB flats. On childcare and education, the dependence on subsidies and fee caps suggested that, without these interventions, these services might be unaffordable for the average family. In 2023, then-Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong noted that the Singapore dream was no longer about the five Cs – cash, car, credit card, condominium and country club; but it was about fulfilment, meaning and purpose in life. Could it be that the five Cs simply hold no relevance today as they are no longer attainable to many?”
“Mr Speaker, I wish to focus on managing costs and resources for all. I will address three critical areas: one, budget marksmanship; two, the concept of affordability; and finally, the challenges faced by some vulnerable Singaporeans. First, on budget marksmanship. As highlighted by fellow Members, the Ministry of Finance's (MOF's) budget forecasting this year has been notably inaccurate. In the previous Budget Statement, the Government projected a modest surplus of $0.78 billion for FY2024. However, revised figures revealed an $8 billion increase in total operating revenues, rising from the estimated $108.6 billion to $116.6 billion. To put this in perspective, $8 billion equates to $8,000 million, a substantial underestimation. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong attributed this unexpected revenue surge primarily to a higher corporate income tax collection, which only accounts for less than $3 billion of the increase. The remaining $5 billion plus over collections include significant rises in vehicle quota premiums or COEs at nearly $1.9 billion more, and GST at $1.2 billion more. Additional increased contributions came from Statutory Boards, stamp duties and personal income taxes. In September last year, midway through the fiscal year, Prime Minister Wong responded to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) from Workers' Party (WP) MP Louis Chua, reiterating the projected surplus of $0.78 billion. This raises some questions. Was there an awareness at that point of the significant deviations from projections? If so, should an updated estimate have been provided? If not, why was this discrepancy not identified earlier? Sir, the higher than expected COE and GST collections reflect the financial pressures Singaporean families have endured recently.”
“But today, we are faced with an additional dimension and that is that you are envisaging that the EP may have to confront the Government on an issue about race, which goes to the fundamentals of every Singaporean's identity and to social cohesion as well. So, is he not concerned that this scheme here will risk the EP being polarised along racial lines and it is actually really not a road we want to go down?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Minister. One is on my own speech and the second is a clarification on the Government's position. First of all, earlier in the Minister's round-up, he quoted me saying, because I mentioned that the Government is accountable for decisions on Restraining Orders through Parliament and in that way, accountable to Singaporeans through this forum that these are adequate. Actually, the point I was making was that the Government is accountable to Singaporeans through Parliament whereas the Elected President (EP) is not. So, I was making that as a comparison in questioning the wisdom of making the EP the final arbiter of whether Restraining Orders are appropriate under the Bill. So, that is my clarification. The second clarification I have is for the Minister. Again, it relates to the EP being designated as the final arbiter in such matters. He earlier mentioned that the Government never takes it for granted that the EP will agree with the Government. So, we have to imagine a situation where the EP will disagree because the Presidential Council has disagreed with the Minister and therefore, the EP is entitled to also take the point that he will not follow the Cabinet's decision and could cancel the Restraining Order issued by the Minister. If that were to happen, does the Minister not agree that such a confrontation with the Government, by the EP, really detracts from his role? Of course, under the scheme, there are other decisions, if we look at the decisions that the EP has been emplaced with. Decisions like whether to allow drawdown of past Reserves, decisions like whether to concur with Public Service appointments. That already involves confrontation and we have always been very uncomfortable with this problem.”
“For the purposes of today's debate, we are further concerned about the implications of bringing the President into decisions involving race-based matters, for the reasons I have given. Sir, as such, the Workers' Party cannot support the Constitution (Amendment) Bill and will vote to oppose it. As for the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, my party colleagues, Gerald Giam and Dennis Tan, have raised questions and concerns. On my part, I would emphasise that we are not supportive of the provisions dealing with the EP's discretion. Nevertheless, as stated by my colleagues earlier, we support the wider objectives of managing race relations and will vote in support of the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill.”
“On a separate note, I am also concerned about the grave implications of bringing the President into such decisions involving ethnicity. As our founding Prime Minister has said, the President is a symbol of unity and the personification of the state. Indeed, that is the President's central and defining role. To require him to make hard decisions on matters involving ethnicity will detract from his role as a unifying figure above politics. This Bill envisages the President possibly confronting the Cabinet on decisions that that affect influential race-based organisations. For the President to enter the fray and to take a position on racial affairs could quite possibly lead to the presidency being polarised along racial lines. This should be avoided at all costs. Further complicating the matter is that the presidency already has a defined racial dimension due to the reserve presidency. Imagine a scenario if a President were to cancel a Minister's Restraining Order relating to an organisation of the President's own ethnic roots. Even if the President were to do so for objective reasons, would it be perceived as objective? Such a scenario could be divisive and highly damaging, not just for the presidency as an institution, but for race relations in general. Looking ahead, will the presidency then become an arena in which racial issues are fought over? Sir, since 1988, when the proposal for the EP was first mooted, the Workers' Party has been consistent in opposing the institution. This is mainly due to the potential gridlock it may cause to a newly elected Government if it should require to use past reserves, or when it needs to make key appointments in the public service.”
“This discretionary power sought to be given to the EP goes to the fundamentals of governance. I am sure the Government will agree with me that the responsibility of maintaining racial harmony and law and order lies with the Government. While all of us have a part to play, the Government is responsible for this outcome. It is publicly accountable for this key performance indicator to Singaporeans through Parliament. It is not the EP's responsibility to maintain public peace and public order. He is not answerable to Parliament in any way. In my view, the proposed mechanism for the President to review the Minister's Orders carries several significant risks. Imagine a scenario where the Minister issues a Restraining Order which the Presidential Council disagrees with, following which the EP then decides to also disagree with the Minister and cancels the Restraining Order. I pause here to point out that although some of us may think that such a scenario of both the Presidential Council and the President breaking ranks with the Cabinet is unlikely, this is exactly what the Bills today permit to happen. Returning to the scenario of the President cancelling the Restraining Order, let us say it subsequently turns out that the organisation concerned had truly become a proxy for a hostile foreign actor, or race relations deteriorate sharply, proving that the Minister was justified in issuing the Restraining Order in the first place. When Singaporeans question the decision-making process, the Government can justifiably say that it correctly issued the Restraining Order but since the EP decided to cancel it, the Government is not to be blamed for the bad outcomes. Is this acceptable?”
“Such relationships enrich the breadth of engagement on shared interests and increase access to resources for charitable activities. Such connections also enhance people-to-people ties across national borders, which is to be encouraged from a foreign affairs perspective. In the implementation of this Bill, such benign foreign relationships should be allowed to continue and flourish. Sir, let me articulate this in Chinese. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] On this matter, I would like to share some observations about foreign connections. Not all foreign connections are malign. On the ground, it is quite common to see race-based organisations having reciprocal relationships with race-based organisations in other countries. For Chinese-based organisations, they may reside in Malaysia, Brunei and China. Such relationships enrich the breadth of engagement on shared interests and increase access to resources for charitable activities. From a foreign affairs perspective, such connections also enhance people-to-people ties across national borders. We should allow such benign foreign relationships to continue and flourish. (In English): I now move to the roles to be played by the President. These provisions are covered in both the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. Sir, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill gives the Elected President (EP) a new power. If passed, the EP will have discretion to decide whether to confirm, cancel or vary any Restraining Order made by the Minister. Such discretion will be available if the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony disagrees with the Minister's decision to issue a Restraining Order.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall speak briefly on both Bills. First, on the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill. The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill has several aims. Besides porting over and modernising existing offences, it also gives new powers to the Minister for Home Affairs to issue Restraining Orders to prevent the communication of content considered to be prejudicial to racial harmony in Singapore. The Bill further seeks to curtail foreign influence in race-based organisations, such as clans, through requirements such as reporting foreign donations and foreign participation in these organisations. Sir, before I proceed, I declare that I am an Honorary Adviser of two organisations: Sai Ho Piat Su and Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan. That said, the views expressed in my speech today are my own. Sir, we can all agree that the management of race relations and indeed, the management of Singapore society as a whole, should be decided by Singaporeans and Singaporeans alone. There is a risk that foreign entities may attempt or may already have attempted to channel their race-based agenda through Singapore-based entities. The Ministry has informed this House that in the run-up to this Bill, it has consulted race-based organisations that it intends to designate for the new transparency requirements and that they understood the need for these new obligations. Sir, on this matter, I would like to share a general observation about foreign connections. As mentioned by others before me, not all foreign connections are malign. On the ground, it is quite common to see race-based organisations having reciprocal relationships with like-minded organisations in other countries. For Chinese-based organisations, these like-minded organisations may reside in Malaysia, Brunei and China.”
“Will there be, for instance, subsidiary legislation covering prohibited questions and what the consequences will be if they are asked? For questions that are to be discouraged, this change itself will involve overhauling long-standing hiring norms. How will MOM work with employers to adjust their hiring practices and to monitor whether these practices have indeed changed? Sir, for protected characteristics to be meaningfully protected, a strong framework needs to be in place. If questions about the protected characteristics continue to be asked, it opens the door for employers to make decisions based on those characteristics, but to disguise the real reason in more kosher language to avoid complaints and investigations. Such a loophole should be avoided where possible, as this would render the protection toothless. Sir, to conclude, this Bill has an important signalling effect that discrimination in the workplace will attract consequences for employers. The WP supports the Bill. I look forward to the Ministry’s clarifications on the three points I have raised concerning timing of implementation, employers who disguise employment as contracts for service and on what is permissible during the hiring process.”
“My query relates to the pre-employment stage, that is, when the employer is deciding whether or not to hire an individual. Fundamentally, my question is this: what exactly are the restrictions on what the employer can or cannot do? While the Bill states that the employer should not make an adverse employment decision based on any of the protected characteristics, it is silent on how the employment processes need to change. For instance, is the employer permitted to ask any questions about the protected characteristics? For instance, it is common in Singapore to see pre-employment forms asking potential hires for their marital status, race and whether they have been ever treated for any mental health condition. During hiring interviews, women especially are often asked about their caregiving responsibilities or potential parenthood plans. Regarding what sorts of questions cannot or should not be asked during hiring interviews, a brief look at some other jurisdictions is useful. At one end of the spectrum, some jurisdictions, such as South Korea and Denmark, legally prohibit employers from asking for information on marital status and race. Mid-way in the spectrum would be other jurisdictions, such as the United States (US) and the UK, where questions about some characteristics are not permitted at all, for example, on disability and health. However, for other characteristics, such as pregnancy or parenthood plans, employers are merely advised not to ask those questions, as such questions could be considered to be evidence of discrimination. Is the Ministry’s intention to prohibit certain lines of questioning or is the intention merely to discourage such questions?”
“Could the Ministry be more specific as to the various milestones and approximate target dates, so that we can better understand why it will take so much time? My second question arises from the scope of the Act, that is, what situations are covered or not covered. I note from clause 4(3) that the Act does not cover contracts for service, that is, those who are engaged under arrangements that make them independent contractors. While I do not disagree with this, I wish to highlight ground feedback I have received about some unscrupulous employment practices. A resident told me that he had worked for his employer for years and when he was nearing retirement age, his work arrangement with the employer was converted from the status of employee to a contract for service, that is, he was re-hired as an independent contractor. This was despite the fact he was working at the same tasks. Such a change in status from employee to independent contractor would deprive the worker of significant protections, such as CPF contributions, work injury compensation insurance and soon, from the provisions of the Workforce Fairness Act as well. This is not acceptable as such a practice is tantamount to discrimination on the grounds of age. Is the Ministry tracking such situations of potential bullying of older workers, and if so, what is being done? My last question relates to what the Bill calls “protected characteristics”. The Bill lists 11 protected characteristics, meaning that employers should not use those characteristics to discriminate against jobseekers or employees. These 11 protected characteristics range from age, sex and nationality to marital status, race and mental health condition.”
“Speaker, this Bill has been a long time in the making. After hesitation for several years, the Government has heeded calls from several quarters, including from the Workers’ Party (WP), to go beyond Tripartite Guidelines and to legislate against discrimination in the workplace. Since the former Prime Minister announced the Government decision to proceed with such legislation at the National Day Rally in 2021, more than three years ago, the day has finally come, at least for the first part of the legislation. Sir, the Bill has several positive aspects, and two aspects should be mentioned. First, it covers all stages of employment from pre-employment hiring, in-employment decisions to end-employment decisions. Second, when employers are assessed to have breached their obligations, there is a range of responses from financial penalties and corrective directions to state prosecution, with employers having recourse to the courts if necessary. In my speech today, I would like to raise three questions related to the Bill. First, on the timing of implementation. We first understood that the anti-discrimination law was expected to be passed by the end of last year. When there was no indication by October last year that the law was being tabled, I was puzzled and filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) about this for the November Sitting. The Minister replied then that the Workforce Fairness Bill would be tabled in Parliament that month. We understand that the legislation is being tabled in two parts, the first part now and with a second part on employment claims, to be tabled later this year. Thus, the earlier-indicated timelines have been missed. The Government has announced that the provisions of both parts would be effective in 2026 or 2027, that is, possibly two years from now.”
“Speaker, I have a clarification for Minister Josephine Teo and one for Minister Indranee. Minister Teo earlier talked about the use of NRIC numbers or information as authentication, and she drew the distinction between the use of the number itself versus, say, the production of the NRIC card, which she said could be used for authentication because it contains more information. I would like her view on how this would apply to the digital NRIC that is in our Singpass, because most people do not carry the physical card around anymore. I found from personal experience that going to the bank, they still want me to produce the physical card. So, I would like her opinion on whether she thinks this distinction between the physical card and the digital IC in Singpass is a logical and well-founded distinction. So, should actually the digital IC be taken as acceptable for authentication purposes? I would like her view on that. For Minister Indranee, earlier she touched on the MDDI circular minute that we all hear has been misunderstood by ACRA. She mentioned that ACRA actually sought a clarification from MDDI. What was the nature of the clarification and was there any reply from MDDI to ACRA's clarification? Related to that, there is intense interest in the public on the circular. I am just wondering whether she would agree that for the review panel, at least, when they put up their report, that this minute could be made public so that people can form their own judgement on how this misunderstanding could have occurred?”
“But it is not clear from the extract that the Chief Justice was actually calling for additional measures against lawyers. So, I would like the Minister of State to clarify this point. MinLaw has stated in its October press release that key stakeholders had been consulted on the Bill, including the Judiciary. Earlier, the Minister of State mentioned that he spoke to several members of the Bar as well. But I would like to ask whether the Law Society was specifically consulted and, if so, what were its views? Could the Ministry further clarify why the existing framework for disciplining lawyers is not adequate to handle the scenarios emphasised by the Bill? Sir, in summary, I do not oppose this Bill, but the clarifications I have sought would be useful and necessary.”
“MinLaw has stated that the contempt law will not cover cases where litigants and lawyers have acted with reasonable care and good faith. Neither should the contempt laws be invoked in cases where existing procedures to deal with the situation are adequate. Would it not be preferable to codify these carve-outs so as to give further confidence to those acting in good faith? Sir, my fourth and final query relates to why lawyers are being specifically included in the provisions. Here, I declare that I am an advocate and solicitor. As we know, lawyers are officers of the Court and already subject to the control of the Supreme Court through the Legal Profession Act. We see this disciplinary aspect exercised every day in various ways. For instance, whenever lawyers are assessed by the Court to have conducted a case in a way that amounts to an abuse of the court process, the Court may order them to pay costs personally, that is, out of their own pockets. Alternatively, lawyers are periodically referred by the Courts or the Attorney-General to face disciplinary proceedings for any misconduct. The outcome of such proceedings could be a striking of the role, suspension, financial penalties and so on. These are hardly trivial. In the case of Farid Batra, who had no lawyer representing him in the latest case, the Judge observed that if he were represented by a lawyer and I quote the Judge here, "The lawyer could expect substantial severe consequences." This appears to be an acknowledgement by the Court that there are already sufficient disciplinary and deterrent measures against lawyers. Earlier in the handout, the Minister of State highlighted an extrajudicial lecture by the Chief Justice where he spoke about truth decay and how lawyers might be complicit in that process.”
“Under PACC, strict conditions have been imposed on when additional applications can be made to the Court in capital cases where the usual avenues of appeal have been exhausted. As this Act has just been operationalised, it is only fair to wait and see whether it is adequate to manage court proceedings in capital cases. This Bill provides a factual scenario in Illustration 4 where the offender is convicted of rape, which is a non-capital offence. Is this an indication that the provisions are really targeted at non-capital cases? Secondly, on how the Bill will solve the problem in cases like Farid Batra's. As mentioned earlier, Farid Batra was sentenced to jail for life. Even if he were to be convicted for contempt of court, an additional jail term imposed may not have any deterrent effect. How will the new contempt provisions discourage the filing of meritless applications in such situations? Third, the impact on civil cases. No doubt, the use of lawfare to oppress defendants is a concern. At the same time, MinLaw recognises that there are existing court procedures that enable typical civil cases to be struck out for lacking merit and for the losing party to be ordered to pay legal costs. So, where do we draw the line as to which cases are tantamount to a contempt of court and which are better off being dealt with by the usual rules of civil procedure? One must remember that contempt of court is a very serious matter which carries a heavy punishment. For example, a contempt of the High Court carries a potential fine of up to $100,000 and a jail term of up to three years. Therefore, these provisions must not be triggered lightly and the bar must be set very high.”
“The Judge there expressed frustration that he did not have any options to punish Farid Batra for his abuse of court process, as he was a prisoner already serving life imprisonment, for whom there was no downside in mounting meritless applications. The Court further stated that he "would leave it to the Executive and Legislature to consider whether and what action can be taken in future instances of abusive applications by litigants and those advising, assisting or egging them on". So, there appears to be a gap that needs to be addressed. What does this Bill provide then? Clause 2 of the Bill introduces a new section 3(da), which will make it a contempt of court for any person to conduct or commence a court proceeding when he knows or ought to know that the proceeding involves a deception of the court, is fictitious or constitutes a mere sham. It would also be a contempt if the proceeding is manifestly groundless and involves the process of the court being employed for an ulterior or improper purpose. The spurned boyfriend comes to mind here. The Bill also introduced a proposed section 3D(b), where it will also amount to contempt if a person conducts or commences multiple or successive court proceedings when he knows all to know that such proceedings are manifestly groundless and without foundation. Farid Batra's case appears to possibly fall within this provision. Sir, in assessing whether this Bill is needed, it is useful to take stock of the tools already available to handle court applications that amount to an abuse of process. In this light, I have four queries on the Bill. First, on capital cases. Two years ago, Parliament passed the Post-Appeal Applications and Capital Cases Act, or PACC, which came into effect in June this year.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, my understanding is that this Bill was motivated by certain matters that came before our Courts. Two matters come to mind. First, there were the two claims filed by a spurned boyfriend, which a Court found were commenced with the ulterior motive of pressuring a girlfriend not to terminate the relationship. Second, there was a criminal case where a convicted drug trafficker was found to have filed a meritless court application for the purpose of delaying his sentence of caning till he reached 50 years of age when he could not be legally caned, the Farid Batra case. This case was referred to by the Minister of State earlier and is also listed in the handout that he distributed. In Farid Batra's case, he was initially sentenced to death for drug trafficking but was later certified by the Prosecution to be a courier who had rendered substantive assistance, which led to the Court re-sentencing him to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. Since then, he has filed several applications for review of his conviction, as well as to bring a prisoner to Court, which were dismissed by the Court of Appeal either as speculative or an abuse of process. In the latest application in 2022, he applied for permission to commence a judicial review on the basis that a co-accused person should have faced an additional charge and received a heavier punishment. The Court found that Mr Farid Batra did not have sufficient interest to start that action and that his real purpose was to delay his sentence of caning till he passed his 50th birthday and could not be caned.”
“This is a drastic measure, as the Senior Minister of State acknowledged earlier. Given that compulsory acquisition will result in a below-market compensation being paid to the owners, how will the family move on from here? If their flat is still not fully paid up, the situation will be compounded. Will HDB assist them to find and afford their next home? Sir, clarity on the questions I have raised would be necessary. That said, I support the Bill.”
“There is a significant change to the CDRT regime in clause 21 of the Bill, regarding the award of costs in CDRT cases. Earlier, Minister Edwin Tong touched on this point. The current position is that costs will generally not be awarded to parties in CDRT cases. This non-award of costs makes sense, as parties generally present their own cases at the CDRT where lawyers are not allowed. Under clause 21, this is being amended to generally permit the award of costs and disbursements in accordance with the Rules of Court. Could the Minister further elaborate on the rationale for this change? Will this change somehow allow, for example, a clawback of the costs incurred by the CRU to manage a case? More generally, I wonder what range of costs is being envisaged to be awarded and whether this will be punitive to the losing party. Finally, Sir, my third query is about HDB’s powers to compulsorily acquire a flat. Clause 36 of the Bill proposes to enable HDB to compulsorily acquire a flat if the owner or an authorised occupier related to the owner is convicted of an abatement offence and has a prior record of another abatement or exclusion offence. I am quite worried about the scenarios that could play out under this new power of HDB. Suppose, for instance, an adult child of a family has mental illness, and shouts and bangs doors at odd hours, thereby interfering with the neighbours’ peaceful enjoyment of their homes. It is foreseeable that the neighbours may take action and complain to the CRU, which then issues abatement orders to the household. If the required history of non-compliance is chalked up, HDB may be empowered to act under the new section 63(o) of the Housing and Development Act to compulsorily acquire the flat.”
“Senior Minister of State Sim Ann touched on this point earlier as well. Several of my residents will be vindicated to hear this official acknowledgment that it was not their fault that they could not come up with the necessary evidence to prove their cases at the CDRT. Thirdly, greater responsibility will be placed on landlords to manage noisy tenants in the proposed section 10A. Landlords may be required by the Court to put up compliance bonds, where up to $20,000 may be forfeited if their tenants fail to comply with orders of the CDRT. Indeed, it is quite common to receive complaints of noise nuisance from units which are sublet. It seems fair to place more responsibility on landlords who are earning rental income when their neighbours suffer. That said, I would like to raise three queries about the Bill and its implementation. These relate to the CRU, the CDRT processes and HDB’s increased powers. First, on the CRU. It is somewhat disappointing that the CRU, which will have powers of intervention on the ground, will only be activated in Tampines Town on a one-year pilot. Likewise, I have the same question as the others. Is there a timeline for the CRU to be rolled out nationwide? I can think of a few chronic cases in my ward where the CRU could potentially make a big difference and a wait of several years will be hard to explain. A sub-question relating to the CRU is about its officers, from Director to the ground. Will these persons be full-time and focused only on CRU work, or will they be double hatting with other duties? Whether they are full-time, or double hatting will affect their capacity to work on dispute cases. Second, regarding the CDRT processes.”
“Mr Speaker, those of our residents who have long-standing neighbour disputes have been looking forward to this Bill for a few years. In HDB estates, the usual route for dispute management has been to activate HDB or the Town Council, thereafter to recommend mediation. If mediation is not possible or does not succeed, then parties end up in Court namely the CDRT, where some residents end up frustrated and distressed when their cases were dismissed because they did not have the “solid evidence” that the Court required. It is clear that the existing procedures are inadequate. Sir, the Bill is the culmination of the multi-year effort of several Ministries and agencies, which must be duly acknowledged. It is also clear that the enhanced CDMF will be a resource-intensive exercise, requiring standby teams after office hours and active management of difficult cases by the new DG of community relations. The work will not be easy. As there are many MPs speaking on this Bill, I will be succinct. But there are three particular features of the Bill which I find useful. First, there are avenues for quicker intervention on the ground. These avenues include measures such as the DG of community relations issuing abatement orders, and the CDRT being empowered to issue interim orders. These can be very useful when urgent action is needed to manage the ground situation. Secondly, noise sensors may be deployed at the complainant’s premises or common areas to help determine the intensity and the source of a noise disturbance. On this, the MCCY acknowledged in its August statement that “sound recordings made by complainants are often not useful for the purposes of determining the volume (as playback can be distorted) or source of noise”.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, again, the Members of the WP would like our abstention recorded.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Members from the WP would like our abstention recorded.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I have two clarifications. First, I do not seem to recall either of the Ministers clarifying the questions raised by Ms He Ting Ru and Ms Hazel Poa about whether MAS needs this Bill. In other words, does MAS not have sufficient power within its current jurisdiction to take into account the public interest in having affordable financial products and, therefore, is this Bill really necessary? I do not recall either Minister touching on this point. [Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair] Second, as a clarification for Minister Chee Hong Tat, would he at least acknowledge that what Parliament is being asked to do today is to pass this legislation that is targeted at a live transaction, a particular one, to introduce a legislative change that would affect that live transaction? And does he not acknowledge that this sends a very bad signal to the business community about business certainty?”
“Thank you, Speaker. As I mentioned earlier, I do acknowledge the rationale for HDB's policy, but since the Senior Minister of State has asked, we have come across constituents, our appeals have failed and so, we have to bring it up in Parliament to try to understand the issue further. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether, in the fact that the numbers are very small and the fact that these are not the irresponsible applicants that HDB is concerned about. In fact, these are people who legitimately received two letters of offer and the second one that resurrected the first project came months after the second offer. So, I would like to ask HDB to please be open-minded about this issue, because there is a legitimate expectation set there and it would be good if HDB can cater to do that.”
“Secondly, I understood from the earlier response to the Leader of the Opposition that the number of applicants in this situation is very small. It is only 2% of the total number of applicants, 116 people since October. That was what was mentioned. I am just wondering, since the number is small, could HDB give some special consideration to these people and perhaps let them choose which project they want, maybe on the same day, to recognise the fact that it is not their fault and they have been given these two letters of offer by HDB?”
“Speaker, I have two supplementary questions, also taking reference to the answer that the Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How referred to. In the earlier response to the Leader of the Opposition's question in August, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has explained that it needs to manage supply and demand. I think that was the gist of it. And it wanted to also disincentivise applicants who behave irresponsibly by not taking up the bookings that they were offered. I would like to ask whether HDB has actually considered the effect of this policy on the applicants themselves and, if I may explain, the scenario we are talking about is where the applicant has applied in a Build-To-Order (BTO) exercise, received a queue number that is beyond the supply of the first project. Then, they are permitted to apply for a second project because they were exceeding the supply of the first and they were fortunate in the second application to receive a queue number within the supply given. This expectation of them being able to select a flat in the second project is left undisturbed for months until HDB comes back to them to inform them that the first project is actually undersubscribed and now they have to stick to the first project, otherwise they would risk being counted as a non-selection and so on. So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether he recognises that this has resulted in frustration and great disappointment in these applicants, because a legitimate expectation was given based on this second letter of offer and, only months later, to be sort of pulled from under the applicant's feet because the first project has turned out to be undersubscribed. Does the Senior Minister of State recognise that there is frustration and disappointment?”
“Speaker, just a clarification on what the Minister of State just said. He mentioned that MSF would announce later this year when the provisions will be effective, and not that the provisions will be effective by this year, right? I mean, that is what I heard him to have said.”
“In 2019, Parliament passed amendments to the CYPA to raise the jurisdiction of the Youth Courts to hear cases involving youth offenders to include those aged 16 and 17. However, it appears that five years on, the Youth Courts are still hearing cases involving youths aged up to 16 only. Could the Ministry of Law confirm when the Youth Courts will start hearing cases involving youth offenders between 16 and 18 years old? Sir, over the years, I have witnessed young residents getting into trouble with the law. Some simply fell into bad company and succumbed to peer pressure, while others lacked proper adult guidance. After their first brush with the law, some are saved while others sink deeper into more offending, snuffing out the great potential their lives had. Not everyone has parents to advocate for them. It is thus vital that the agencies and the criminal justice system and we, in Parliament, do what we can to give these young citizens a leg up.”
“Children under 18 have yet to be fully developed and, when they do wrong, they should be guided rather than shamed and punished. While the changes in the definitions regarding age are necessary, they will only be meaningful if the entire ecosystem of criminal justice adopts the same approach. To this end, there are significant measures already in place, such as prohibiting publishing the identifying particulars of crime victims or suspects under 18 years old. Another area where progress has been made over the years is in the Appropriate Adult Scheme (AAS) where an appropriate adult accompanies a young offender during law enforcement investigations. Three years ago, during Parliamentary Questions, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) affirmed that the cut-off age for suspects under the AAS remained at 16 years. When I enquired then about whether the scheme would be extended to suspects below 18, MHA pointed to a manpower challenge. It was pointed out that the AAS relied on volunteers and if the scheme were to be expanded to youths above 16 but below 18, it was necessary to double the number of volunteers. I am happy to note that the Ministry has since confirmed that the AAS would, indeed, be expanded to include 16- and 17-year-olds. It was announced that this would be done in phases from 1 April last year with the target completion date of October last year. It is commendable that the manpower challenge has been overcome. Another important area is the Youth Courts, which are an integral part of the ecosystem for the support of our children. Compared to conventional Courts, the Youth Courts adopt more therapeutic practices, such as having closed-door hearings and a range of Court orders for the reintegration of young offenders.”
“Mr Speaker, I have no objections to the Bill and wish to speak briefly on the issue of young offenders who are the subject of the amendment under clause 4 of the Bill. Clause 4 will amend the CPC concerning the age of criminal responsibility of young offenders. The definition of "juvenile" has been amended from referring to someone between the ages of seven and 16 to refer to a person who is between the ages of 10 and 18. This change is in line with the amendments that this House made five years ago to the Penal Code and the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA), which had hitherto defined "child" to be someone under 16 years old. This amendment to the CPC, when effective, will mean that youths between 16 and 17 will now be included in some of the CPC provisions meant to protect juveniles. Some examples include the power of a sentencing judge not to impose the usual punishment for an offence but to make orders to rehabilitate and reintegrate the young offender under CYPA. Another example would be the opportunity for the young offender to be released on bail, even if charged with an offence attracting the death penalty or life imprisonment. Sir, the general policy of recognising childhood as lasting till 18 years of age is well accepted internationally and, in Singapore, it has been a long time coming. Nearly 30 years ago in 1995, Singapore ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which defines "childhood" as that period of life of up to 18 years. The Convention recognises that a person's life till 18 years is: "a special protected time in which children must be allowed to grow, learn, play, develop and flourish with dignity".”
“Yes, Speaker. On the point of section 165, I believe it is the law that no corrupt element needs to be proved. That is why it is easier to get a conviction on section 165. Minister may want to clarify that.”
“Speaker, two further supplementary questions for the Minister. As he speaks on behalf of the Prime Minister, so these questions are actually directed at certain things the Prime Minister has said about the case. When the former Minister was charged in January this year, Prime Minister Wong said, and I quote, "CPIB has done a thorough investigation. They have left no stone unturned. They have dug deep and wide and they have presented their full investigations to the AGC. The AGC has decided to press charges against Mr Iswaran." So, nine months on, with the subsequent developments, I would like to ask whether it is still the Prime Minister's position that the CPIB and AGC did a thorough job in this case. The second question, again, after the sentencing of the former Minister, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying that we need to act against corruption. But noting that the former Minister was not actually convicted of corruption, is the Prime Minister actually saying that regardless of the charges that were preferred and, finally, the former Minister was convicted on, he thinks that the former Minister acted corruptly?”
“On Question No 33, part (b), on the PCA review, I do agree with the Minister that we should not have knee-jerk reactions. That I agree. In fact, I was prompted to ask this question because it was the AGC's response when asked by the media on why the charges were reduced against the Minister, where they mentioned that there were litigation risks involved in proceeding against PCA. To quote them, what they said was, both the giver and the receiver of the gratification have a common interest to deny the corrupt element and, hence, it was risky to proceed. But does the Minister agree that actually this has not prevented prosecutions under the PCA in such scenarios, where both parties actually deny corruption? Prosecutions in other cases have proceeded. And based on what the AGC has indicated, is this a reason for the Government to look again into PCA?”
“Thank you, Speaker. On my Question No 33 on the case itself, I have three questions for the Minister. Broadly, these questions surround my observation that the handling of this case has actually raised more questions than it has answered. And I would like to ask three specific questions to see if Minister will agree with me on this. The first question is, we all remember the damaging headlines in the middle of last year and how the former Minister was subsequently barred from Government buildings and charged under the PCA. But on the first day of the trial in September, the charges were suddenly reduced to non-corruption cases. So, would the public be justified to conclude that the corruption case against the former Minister was weak, hence, resulting in the reduction of charges, away from PCA? The second question is, because of the former Minister pleading guilty, there was no trial. So, the evidence was not tested as such in the Court, but there was a plea bargain behind closed doors. Does the Minister agree that such a way of handling the case under a plea bargain has now given rise to a lot of speculation in the public sphere as to what precisely happened on the facts and also between the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) and the Defence? I am just asking a factual question. Third, at the sentencing stage of the case, the Judge decided to impose a sentence of imprisonment that was double what the Prosecution had asked for. He, in fact, noted that what the Prosecution asked for was manifestly inadequate. I have had residents come to me on this point to express their doubts as to whether the Public Prosecutor had defended the public interest adequately in this case. So, these are my three questions.”
“That said, I look forward to the Government's clarifications on my queries regarding the swap in the approving authorities for ownership changes and the introduction of harsher punishments.”
“Of course, the effectiveness of these enhanced anti-money laundering measures lies not just in the design but in the implementation. Much work will be needed by casino operators to review standard operating procedures and systems and to train staff to understand their roles. The GRA's role as regulator is critical, as it works with the casino operators to literally raise their game. Madam, finally, I would like to ask about clause 91 on the increase in punishments for certain offences. The increases in punishments are very significant and it is necessary to understand the rationale behind these changes. For instance, some offences that are currently fine-only offences are being converted to offences which are punishable by significant jail time. These offences include, violating business stakeholding requirements, ignoring directions of the GRA, failing to give information to the GRA or failing to provide certain information to the police within a specified time frame. The existing law already provides for heavy fines for these offences, ranging from $50,000 to over $100,000 in many cases. The Bill introduces jail as an option, with a maximum jail term of either three years or seven years. What is the mischief the Government wishes to address with these enhanced punishments? Has there been evidence that hefty fines alone are insufficient to deter these offences and that imprisonment needs to be included? Have casino operators or other persons not been cooperative with the Ministry or the GRA, such as to warrant these changes? Madam, in conclusion, I support the efforts to enhance our anti-money laundering regime relating to casinos. It is no mean task and I hope we will succeed.”
“This requirement will be triggered when casino operators do not proceed with the transaction with the patron, whether it is because they are unable to complete the customer due diligence measures satisfactorily or because the patron refuses to provide the necessary information. Under clause 47, there will be a new electronic information-sharing scheme for casino operators. This scheme will provide for information sharing of the contents of a suspicious transaction report to prescribed persons once the filer is notified by the GRA to do so. In the media release on the Bill, MHA explained that this scheme will enable casino operators to share information directly with each other so that those in the industry can act more quickly to prevent money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. Madam, I see these measures as particularly prudent. Already under the current obligations, our casino operators have occasionally fallen short. For instance, it was reported in December last year that one of the casino operators was fined a total of $2.25 million for failing to perform due diligence checks on deposits into patrons' accounts in prior years. Another operator was investigated in Singapore and the United States four years ago into whether it had fully complied with anti-money laundering measures when allowing patrons to transfer monies amongst themselves, known as "third party transfers". The risks are further amplified in Singapore due to the high percentage of casino patrons from overseas. According to Singapore's Money Laundering Risk Assessment Report released in June this year, the majority of casino patrons are foreigners, which would mean, that in most cases, our agencies may have little or no background information about these individuals.”
“Under the existing CCA, approval of changes in the main shareholders of casinos needs approval from the GRA. Under the Bill, it is proposed that approval of changes in the main shareholder be transferred from the GRA to the Minister for Home Affairs. On the other hand, the opposite is being done for changes in ownership that do not involve the main shareholder. For those who are controllers and substantial shareholders, the Bill removes certain powers from the Minister and transfers them to the GRA. The Ministry has sought to explain the rationale for these changes. As regards the main shareholders, the Ministry has argued that considerations about the main shareholder should rightly be with the Minister, who can take into account whole-of-Government considerations. As for controllers and substantial shareholders, it is said that the decisions involved are regulatory decisions with operational implications, which are more appropriately undertaken by the GRA rather than the Minister. Madam, even accepting the Ministry's reasoning, one needs to ask why, in the original Act, the approving authorities were structured the other way round. Could the Ministry please elaborate on this and what has changed? Next, I move to the specific changes to enhance anti-money laundering measures in casinos. These are seen in clauses 46 and 47 of the Bill. Under clause 46, the threshold amounts of money which would trigger customer due diligence obligations have been lowered. For both payments out and receipts of money in, the threshold amount will be lowered to $4,000, which is down from the current $10,000 for payments out and $5,000 for payments in. In addition, there will be a new requirement for the casino operator to expressly consider making a suspicious transaction report.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, in the money laundering space, the casino industry is considered one of the non-financial sectors that poses significant risk. This is to be expected, in view of the high volumes of cash transactions that casinos undertake, whether in payments out to patrons or receiving cash in exchange for chips or other goods and services. Among the 40 recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on anti-money laundering measures, casinos are singled out for special mention. At Recommendation 28, FATF advises that casinos should be subject to a comprehensive regulatory and supervisory regime that ensures that they have effectively implemented the necessary anti-money laundering and terrorist financing measures. To that end, I see the Bill as another step towards this recommendation. On the provisions of the Bill, I wish to raise three points: first, on ownership of casino businesses; second, anti-money laundering measures; and third, the drastic increase in punishment for certain offences. Later in this debate, my party colleague Sengkang Member of Parliament Louis Chua will raise questions regarding gambling duties and casino tax rates, the challenge of technology and the retrospective amendment regarding casino entry levies. First, on approval of ownership changes. FATF's Recommendation 28 on casinos advises that competent authorities should take the necessary legal or regulatory measures to prevent criminals or their associates from holding or being the beneficial owner of a significant or controlling interest, holding a management function in, or being an operator of a casino. Put simply, we need to prevent organised criminal syndicates from profiting from casino businesses and laundering illegal funds through them.”