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 8 of 36.
“Mr Speaker, according to the Ministry's media release of 1 August, the rationale for this Bill is to enable law enforcement agencies to more effectively carry out their duties while safeguarding personal data. The Bill enables more DNA to be collected from suspects, offenders, volunteers and others in order to have a larger DNA database for comparison with evidence obtained from crime scenes. There may be discomfort in some quarters due to the expansion of the net for collection of DNA. From the existing pool of registrable crimes, this Bill widens the net by enabling DNA collection for a new class of eligible crimes, which will include all offences punishable by imprisonment which are not compoundable by a public officer under the law. It can be argued that actually, the current legislation already enables DNA to be collected for many offences which the average person may not consider serious, such as infringement of copyright and possession of uncustomed cigarettes. Now, the Bill proposes to include less serious offences such as voluntarily causing hurt. This raises the question of what the appropriate threshold should be to justify the collection of DNA from individuals simply for the database. In other jurisdictions, this has sparked discussion about the balance between the public interest in securing evidence to prove or disprove guilt versus the public interest in ensuring that private individuals are protected from unwarranted interference. These questions should not be dismissed as unimportant. At such times, it is appropriate to step back and ask what Singaporeans should expect out of the criminal justice system.”
“This will be where the Minister considers it in the interests of justice that aid be given or where the applicant does not satisfy the means test, that it is still just and proper to grant aid. Is the intention to use this provision only in exceptional situations? Could the Ministry confirm that the Minister's residual power under clause 12(7) does not extend to providing aid for excluded offences? Sir, before I conclude, I would just like to seek two broader clarifications, please. First, in April, I had asked the Minister whether the Legal Aid Scheme in Capital Cases (LASCO) administered by the Supreme Court would be brought within the PDO scheme. The Minister had then replied that it would be considered. But clearly today, the answer is no. Could the Ministry inform the House whether this matter was broached with the Supreme Court and why the decision was taken not to include capital cases under the PDO? Secondly, would MinLaw be able to explain when a person needing legal aid should go to CLAS run by the Law Society and went to the PDO, since there will be overlapping coverage? Sir, in conclusion, this Bill represents an important milestone for Singapore's criminal justice system. The PD scheme has the potential to go some way towards addressing the imbalance of power and resources between the state prosecution and an accused person. For that alone, I welcome this development.”
“Earlier, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary touched on this matter and if I heard her correctly, she said that more serious offences needed more consideration. May I ask what is the intention and rationale behind this differentiation such that more serious offences need to pass a more rigorous test? Next, on the issue of merits for aid, clause 12(2) provides that the Chief PD could consider factors such as whether the proceedings might involve the tracing, interviewing or cross-examination of witnesses on behalf of the applicant. This raises an important issue regarding the power of Public Defenders. Could I ask what powers the Chief PD or other officers of the PDO would have to access Government information, to locate witnesses or to compel their attendance for interviews? It is further provided in clause 3(7) that every Public Defender who is not a public officer is deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of the Penal Code when carrying out his PD functions. What is the implication of this provision? Does it mean that offences such as furnishing false information to public servants will apply, such that witnesses who lie to the Public Defenders may be prosecuted under the Penal Code? It would seem to be somewhat anomalous if that were the case since private defence counsel have no such powers when people lie to them. Some clarifications on this would be necessary. Next, on the Minister's residual power to order aid. Despite the requirements to qualify for aid set out in the Bill, clause 12(7) enables the Minister to direct that aid be given even in cases where the applicant does not satisfy the requirements.”
“There is also a partial exclusion under 36 Acts if the accused is brought to Court by way of a notice to attend Court or a summons. For these partially excluded Acts, this will mean that the more serious offences where the accused is brought to Court upon arrest or bail will still fall within the PDO's coverage for aid. I think this is a sensible compromise to strike. Going forward, this will mean, for instance, that persons facing more serious charges under the Road Traffic Act may be able to obtain criminal legal aid, which is currently totally excluded under the CLAS scheme. Second, the means test. The Minister for Law had informed the House in April this year that while the current CLAS scheme was able to cover applicants up to the 25th income percentile, the PDO scheme would cover up to the 35th income percentile of resident households. It is good to note the move to cover about 10% more of the population. The Minister stated then that the per capita household income cut-off would be raised from $950 to $1,500. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary confirmed this earlier and this is a significant inclusive change. Third, the merits test. According to clause 12 of the Bill, there will be two different baskets of cases to be assessed. The first basket are offences which are prescribed where the Chief Public Defender can decide whether the case has merits. The second basket involves offences which are not prescribed, in which case, the decision on whether the case has merit will not be made by the Chief PD alone but will be made by a board consisting of the Chief PD and at least two lawyers. It would appear that cases involving prescribed offence would be approved on a faster track while those involving non-prescribed offences needed more consideration.”
“It was the Law Society who stepped up to offer pro bono representation in non-capital cases around 30 years ago through the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, or CLAS, on limited resources. CLAS was in my view the most morally uplifting project embarked on by the Law Society at the time. Those of us involved in the early days of it in one way or another, look back with pride to see how far CLAS has come from its humble beginnings. Over the years, the Government also evolved its position and from around 2015, started providing funding to CLAS. This Government support has been critical to the sustainability and enhancement of CLAS. Today, there are many lawyers, providing pro bono services under CLAS, conscious of their public duty and committed to obtaining the best outcome for their clients. That said, it is quite clear to me that the current CLAS scheme for criminal legal aid does not adequately cover cases of need. In my view, there are three main limiting factors, whether a case is: which is covered by the scheme or not; how poor one must be to qualify for aid, also known as the means test; and how strong one's case needs to be, also known as the merits test. It would be important to understand how the PD scheme will widen the net to provide legal aid to more people. First on the coverage of the PD scheme. It should be noted that only citizens and permanent residents will be covered. Although foreigners could well need legal aid, I accept this scoping due to the need to watch the budget, especially at this initial stage. The scheme also does not cover a list of offences in the Schedule to the Bill. Ten statutes are totally excluded as they relate to behaviours that should be deterred, for example, terrorist activities and gambling.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, in November 2020, the Workers' Party moved a Motion in this House to call for a review of some aspects of the criminal justice system. This Motion was filed in the wake of the case involving, Ms Parti Liyani, a domestic worker, whose theft convictions had been overturned on appeal in the High Court. Though that case was the trigger for the debate, the Motion was filed on a wider basis, extending to how the criminal justice system operated against those who could not afford legal representation. It was notable that there was substantial agreement between the Government and the Workers' Party on the need for some enhancements. However, the Government emphasised that it needed to decide on what specific changes to implement and how to pay for them. The fact that the Government is tabling this Bill today shows that it has squared that circle, as far as enhancing of criminal legal aid is concerned. This is a progressive move. My party colleague, Ms He Ting Ru will speak more about this later. This Bill is in my view overdue, but as they say, better late than never. In putting forward this Bill, the Government is recognising that fair play is fundamental to justice; so fundamental, that part of the annual national Budget should rightly be set aside for this purpose. Nobody should question the principle behind this Bill. The Workers' Party has over the years spoken about the importance of justice for all and legal aid in criminal cases. We strongly support this Bill. Sir, I recall that in the past, the Government did not want to fund criminal legal aid in non-capital cases. It was said that there was a contradiction in it funding both the prosecution and the defence.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Sorry, I should have asked earlier also. I do not know whether part (b) and (c) of my filed Parliamentary Questions were answered. So, is the Minister of State able to tell us how much has been defrauded or overpaid since inception and how much has been recovered? I am sorry if I missed your answer, but I do not recall hearing that the answer to (b) and (c).”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I have four supplementary questions for the Minister of State. The first is, AGO cited that there were $4.22 million of overpayment. I would like clarification as to whether this is based on a 100% check by AGO or this is just what was found based on test checks, meaning there could be others that have not been detected so far. So, that is the first question: whether $4.22 million is based on a test check or a 100% check. The second question: one of the lapses found was that there were payments made for courses that were actually not approved by SSG. The remedial action cited in the report was that retrospective approval would be obtained for these courses to be approved. My question is: is this the correct approach to take? Meaning that funding was paid out for unapproved courses, but now retrospective approval is being sought to approve those courses retrospectively. The third question: whether the Ministry is considering taking any action against the outsourced service provider? The fourth question: earlier, the Minister of State mentioned that if there was negligence found in these lapses, then actions will be taken. AGO actually mentioned that the business rules of SSG were not well-defined. So, the question is: how far up should this accountability go?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Two clarifications for the Minister. The first concerns rehabilitation and this is in relation to those who are serving long jail terms – let us say 20 years or more. Can he confirm whether there is any guideline that the rehabilitation programmes or the reskilling programmes will only be available to these long-term prisoners, perhaps, much closer to their release date, maybe in the one or two years before release, or would they be available to these long-term prisoners even earlier than that? My second question is, earlier on, the Minister showed a picture of some cells for assisted living, which I believe are for prisoners who are ageing. May I ask if him if he is able to tell us what is the age of the oldest person currently in our prisons?”
“Mr Speaker, we want elections to be contested and to be contested, by competent people who are committed and passionate to serve. As an educated electorate, I believe Singaporeans are discerning and will continue to make rational decisions about who should represent them in this august Chamber.”
“The Court held that matters considered quasi-criminal, such as the contempt of Court, would suffice for disqualification. On the other hand, imperfect though it is, the advantage of having a cut-off simply based on the punishment quantum is that it is easy to apply and it is clear to everyone. With the raising of the disqualification fine to $10,000 applied to today's circumstances, there will be a better calibration to target offences of greater seriousness. Sir, while today's amendment is a step in the right direction, I understand and I stand corrected that, in notable jurisdictions, such as Australia and the United Kingdom, candidates at the national election are, generally, not disqualified if they are merely fined in Court, whatever the amount. Instead, disqualification kicks in only when one is sentenced to imprisonment of a certain duration. Sir, given the multitude of regulatory laws in today's modern society, there is always a risk that persons engaged in business or certain industries or professions may be fined for some non-compliance. We may wish to consider in future how relevant the issue of fines is to our disqualification criteria for Parliament and, should we embark on such a further review in the future, careful consideration should be paid to how to balance upholding respect for Parliament as a national institution with having a set of eligibility criteria that are relevant to modern Singapore. To summarise then, the Workers' Party supports the Bill to raise the threshold fines for disqualification from Parliament to $10,000. I have also raised the suggestion of a possible future review on the issue of disqualifications based on fines to further examine if it is appropriate to either remove fines altogether or to look at further refinements.”
“This affects the fundamental right of citizens to participate in public life and also the right to continue in office after being duly elected by the people. Some may wonder why we need to be so concerned since the disqualification based on a Court sentence lasts for only five years, after which, the person can stand for election again. While five years is no doubt just one election cycle, five years in a person's life is not a short time. Nor should we discount how society could lose from the contributions of an otherwise capable citizen banished to the political wilderness, even if temporarily. Thus, debates concerning the right of individuals to stand for election or to continue in service merit serious consideration. On the one hand, the current approach of setting the cut-off based on the quantum of punishment via the Courts is imperfect. If one is targeting fitness for office, the current method makes no distinction about the types of offence involved. A fine and/or a short imprisonment term may be imposed by the Courts for many offences with varied moral culpability, ranging from traffic offences to theft. Fines may also be imposed for infractions under some laws which many do not consider criminal in nature. Take, for instance, the recent Court case involving a member of an Opposition party. Shortly before the General Election in 2020, he was fined $5,000 for contempt of Court. This placed him over the $2,000 disqualification threshold for standing for election. When he applied to the High Court for clarification on his status, the judge ruled that so long as the Court fine was of the required amount, it did not matter what the underlying charge was.”
“Mr Speaker, the crux of this Bill is to change one of the threshold criteria for the disqualification of MPs, the elected President and Members of the CPA and PCMR. In essence, the current law of disqualifying a person once he has received a Court fine of at least $2,000 is being amended. The threshold for a disqualifying Court fine is proposed to be raised to $10,000. Sir, our view is that the increase to $10,000 moves us in the right direction. The Workers' Party supports this Bill. The focus of my speech today will be on the impact of this change on qualifying for Parliamentary office – what Minister Chan Chun Sing earlier referred to as the first part of this Bill. In its media release on 4 April 2022, the Elections Department highlighted that the disqualification fine amounts had not been revised since Singapore's Independence some 57 years ago. Sir, given the forces of inflation and also how fines have been raised by Parliament over the decades, it is undeniable that a fine of $2,000 in 1965 would be a much more significant punishment compared to a $2,000 fine today. Based on a rough calculation of the impact of inflation on prices from 1965 to the present, the figure of $10,000 is within reason. Sir, I should emphasise that, going by this logic, the change brought about by this Bill does not represent a lowering of standards for eligibility for Parliament. Instead, it is an attempt to retain the same standards of eligibility that existed when the law was originally enacted. Sir, the task of setting disqualifications for Parliamentary office raises questions of national significance. After all, we are dealing with the issue of which Singapore Citizens should be considered unfit for elected public office.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister for Health. He mentioned earlier that vaccination-differentiated safe management measures (VDS) will still be needed for events of more than 500 participants. Can he clarify that this also applies to the community dinners that I asked for, meaning that, if the number of participants is expected to be more than 500, then the organisers would have to check that the participants are vaccinated? Second, the Minister mentioned that these dinners can proceed. What about events or activities that are associated with the dinners, like auctions and stage performances like "getai"? Are all these also allowed?”
“It was stated that Enterprise Singapore and the Singapore Standards Council will develop a new gender strategy in 2022. In order to track whether such initiatives are effective, I will make the general point on the need to continually collate and publish data on a gender-aggregated basis. This is essential for meaningful analysis in gender-sensitive policymaking. Related to standard setting, there is mention in the White Paper of the importance of having more women in leadership roles as CEOs and directors of companies. That said, it is also vital to have more women in political leadership, which I consider to be standard setting at the national level. I was glad to hear Minister Josephine Teo earlier highlight the increased presence of women in this House and that society was better off for it. I had spoken on this topic in August last year on the Workers' Party's Motion on gender equality. I do not intend to repeat myself here, save to say that this is a critical peg that we all need to work on. Sir, in summary, I have spoken on family violence and shared my observations on some areas that we should consider or at least be mindful of, especially regarding the response of law enforcement. I have also touched on workplace culture and the impact on the experiences of female employees. Finally, I had reiterated that standard setting in public policy also requires gender-aggregated data and significant women participation in political leadership.”
“In his defence, he said that he was unaware that his behaviour of touching female employees was offensive and attributed it to his Italian heritage. Do we have similar challenges here, too? How many women bear with unwarranted contact from male superiors because they want to keep their jobs? A fleeting touch may seem harmless to some. However, it bears remembering that physical touching without consent could well amount to the offence of outrage of modesty. What about something less than touching, such as making loaded comments? To cite a personal experience: decades ago, when I was a law enforcement officer, it was suggested to me by a male superior that I should put on make-up when I came to work. I did not take offence at that time, as I simply dismissed the comment as crazy since we were not running a modelling agency. But thinking back about it today, the comment was probably made innocently, but was it appropriate? Would such comments impact other women much more deeply? Sir, we do not want to go to the extreme of resorting to litigation for such matters. But to avoid undue pressure on females in the workplace, employers and society as a whole would need to step up and educate themselves, too. Finally, public policymaking. Sir, the White Paper recognises that female participation is necessary for standard setting. This is seen under the section on mindset shifts at Action 24: "Develop gender-responsive standards under the Singapore Standardisation Programme". There is express recognition that there is a need to improve gender diversity in the standards community so as to develop gender-responsive standards. Examples cited were minimising workplace accidents with health and safety standards and ensuring food in Singapore was safe for consumption.”
“Sir, before I leave this topic on family violence, I would like to comment on possible mindset issues to be overcomed within law enforcement itself. The need to strengthen societal attitudes against family violence applies to frontline officers, too. This is not a new issue; neither is it confined to Singapore alone. Being a Police officer carries a certain, almost romanticised, notion of going after bad guys and girls. While there may be other motivations, there are many officers I know personally who enjoy the adrenaline rush of handling murder cases and going after organised crimes syndicates. Some officers may not find handling family violence cases quite their cup of tea. If they bring reluctance or disinterest to such cases, the public will feel it. It is thus important for the official HR policy for career progression not to relegate such duties as unimportant and thereby affect that officer's career prospects. Beyond official HR policy, there is also the issue of the unofficial culture, that is, what officers talk about in the canteens, which may be much harder to overcome. Sir, next, I move on to workplace culture. We deserve gender-neutral workplaces. What does this mean in practice? Hiring and promotion of employees on equal footing, male or female, are fundamental. To this end, like Ms He Ting Ru, I welcome the pending anti-discrimination legislation and stronger fair employment guidelines as steps in the right direction. There is a further aspect that is more insidious and, that is, again, culture. There was an example of this that made international headlines last year. Then-New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, faced allegations that he had sexually harassed female employees.”
“However, it has been done to some extent, and successfully, elsewhere. To illustrate my point, I will take an example from the UK. In the 1990s, police in Merseyside innovated with a rapid response initiative to address cases of repeated violence identified as particularly high-risk. As research had shown that a repeat incident was most likely to occur within days of the first incident, victims were issued with neck pendant alarms for a short period of time. When they sensed that a violent attack was imminent, they could activate the alarm so as to open a voice channel to law enforcement officers. The officers would then be able to hear what was going on in the home, talk to the victim if needed, and decide if a rapid response to the premises should be dispatched. This initiative was, indeed, resource-intensive, but it reaped significantly positive results for victims not only in reducing repeat incidents but in reducing fear of crime, immensely improving the quality of life for themselves and, often, their children, too. I cite this example to illustrate what a strong commitment to bringing down family violence might entail. Will our agencies be innovating their own preventive strategies in particularly serious cases? Sir, I know that family violence is not an easy matter as it is often multifaceted and related to social factors, such as alcohol consumption, anger management issues and the like. Victims are usually in a difficult position as sending their spouses to jail often impacts the family economically and, in that sense, can be "unaffordable". This, in turn, may lead agencies to face ambivalence from victims who report for protection and then withdraw when it comes to prosecution.”
“I do agree that tackling family violence benefits from a comprehensive approach. At the same time, I am concerned that the proposed multidisciplinary first response may, inadvertently, result in a Police mindset that the social services will take the lead from the start. If the first response is, for want of a better word, "a softer one", there may be a perception among perpetrators that they can try to explain their actions away. As for victims, it is vital that they do not encounter responses that appear to decriminalise their experiences or, worse, attribute blame to them for precipitating the violence by the own behaviour. If they do encounter such dismissive attitudes, they are unlikely to report again. On this note, I should mention the special vulnerability of persons with disabilities. There is evidence from other countries that women with disabilities disproportionately experienced domestic violence and sexual violence. Given that disabled persons may be less able to defend themselves, we must be mindful of our special duty of care towards them. It was mentioned in the White Paper that frontline officers currently already undergo sensitivity training. I wonder if there is any component or other training to equip officers to respond to victims of violence who are disabled. I next move on to discuss cases of repeat violence. Repeat violence is not uncommon in family cases. Besides investigating cases after they have occurred, are the agencies looking into strategies to prevent the incidents in the first place? In particularly high-risk cases, how much resources are agencies willing to put in? At first blush, it might sound impossible for external persons to prevent incidents that happen within the house.”
“Mr Speaker, my focus today will be on Area 3, "Taking a strong stance against violence and harm". I will, thereafter, make two observations about workplace culture and public policymaking. First, violence, family violence. I welcome the Government's recognition that there is a need to enhance protection for victim-survivors of family violence. The extent of family violence tends to be significantly under-reported worldwide. We can understand why this is so for reasons ranging from emotional attachment to the perpetrator, to not wishing to incarcerate a breadwinner. To that end, I was glad to see the footnote on page 49 of the White Paper, which recognises the need to look at self-reported data to supplement official data if we are to have a clearer picture of the prevalence of domestic violence. The White Paper affirms, among other things, that there is a need to strengthen societal attitudes against family violence and enhance preventive efforts for persons at risk. It was also stated that, for victims, reporting of family violence should be made easier and that immediate help should be available to reduce the risk of repeat violence. As for perpetrators, the White Paper affirmed the need to increase perpetrators' accountability and rehabilitation. I would like to add my perspective on some areas that I believe will be critical in making a difference on the ground. This is in particular reference to Action 13 on enhancing protection for victim-survivors of family violence. Sir, the response and attitude of law enforcement to reports of family violence are critical. It was stated at page 54 that, moving forward, the team responding to cases of family violence will include social service professionals.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Clarification for the Minister on his response regarding the extradition treaty with Indonesia. Basically, can I confirm that he is saying that as far as that is concerned, the terms of the bilateral treaty prevail over the Bill, in that sense? I mean, it is between the two countries to agree. The second clarification is, as I mentioned in the past, the interest was always to pursue fugitives that fled Indonesia after the Asian Financial Crisis (AFC), which took place about 24 years ago. So, is he saying that the Indonesians are now happy with just going back 18 years and they will just sort out whatever they need to do? Can the Minister clarify that?”
“Mr Speaker, I just have a clarification, please.”
“Sir, it is not wrong for members of the public to expect that anyone who commits an offence in Singapore faces the punishments prescribed by Singapore law even if he has absconded abroad. Nevertheless, a fundamental principle of sovereignty is that countries need not concern themselves with offences committed in other countries. After all, going after criminals on behalf of another country requires time and expense and burdens the country's legal system. If a country has entered an agreement for mutual extradition, it is entitled to set qualifications to its obligations. This reality is, no doubt, a compromise on certain principles, but it is, certainly, better than letting offenders escape justice altogether.”
“Could the Minister explain how this year's treaty would facilitate the extradition of fugitives who fled here after the Asian Financial Crisis after a passage of 24 years? I am not knowledgeable about the requirements of Indonesian law and the Government's clarification of this will be useful for public understanding. Earlier, the Minister mentioned in the Second Reading speech that when this year's bilateral treaty with Indonesia is in force, Indonesia and Singapore can extradite fugitives based on the terms of that treaty. Can the Minister confirm whether this Bill will affect those arrangements and, if so, how? Sir, before I end, I wish to comment on a matter that has arisen in recent public discussions on extradition. In the case of Mr Roach mentioned earlier, the Singapore Government has secured his extradition from the UK after giving an assurance to the UK government that he would not undergo the punishment of caning. After Mr Roach was duly convicted of robbery in Singapore and sentenced to the mandatory six strokes of the cane, the Government advised the President to exercise her constitutional powers to remit the sentence of caning so as to honour its assurance to the UK government. Some members of the public did not find this to be a fair outcome as Mr Roach did not suffer the full punishment ordered by the Court. A similar situation had arisen in the earlier case of Mr Michael McCrae, who was extradited from Australia in 2005, to face trial here for murder, which carried the death penalty. In that case, the Singapore Government also had to assure the Australian government that the fugitive would not face the death penalty in order to secure his extradition to Singapore.”
“There will also now be a specific prohibition in the proposed section 8 against the extradition of a person if his alleged offence is time-barred based on the law of the foreign state – a point which the Minister touched on earlier. Sir, the issue of the passage of time or time bar appeared to be a live issue in the negotiations of the recently concluded extradition treaty between Singapore and Indonesia. Historically, we know that there has been strong interest from Indonesia to conclude a treaty with Singapore after the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 to 1998. Shortly thereafter, in 1999, then Law Minister, Prof S Jayakumar, told Parliament that the Indonesians had made a request for such a treaty which Singapore was considering. It is widely known that the Indonesian government wishes to prosecute Indonesians who may have embezzled millions of dollars during the crisis and fled here thereafter. I can only assume that some of those who came to Singapore may have acquired Singapore citizenship by now. A prior bilateral extradition treaty was signed around 2007, but it was not implemented due to hurdles in the domestic approval process in Indonesia. Sir, I recall reading in media reports that there was an 18-year time bar for criminal prosecutions under Indonesian law. In February this year, Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean told the House that the new extradition treaty contained a provision to allow for retrospective application to extradite fugitives for crimes committed 18 years ago. I am still unclear about how this would operate. Eighteen years prior to this year would bring us back to the year 2004.”
“May I ask if the Government has evolved its thinking such that Singapore sees an interest in concluding more extradition treaties, including with non-Commonwealth countries? Next, safeguards for persons in Singapore, including citizens. In terms of safeguards against unjustified extradition requests, the Bill provides more protections by enhancing the restrictions on the surrender of persons. Under clause 6 of the Bill, the new sections 8 to 10 set out the restrictions on the surrender of persons in Singapore to other countries, as well as restrictions on the Minister's powers to authorise the apprehension of fugitives in Singapore. There are, overall, more safeguards in this Bill than currently, such as not extraditing someone if he was convicted in a foreign state in his absence, or if the offence alleged is one which, under Singapore law, would only be an offence under military law. I agree that enhancing safeguards is prudent. Sir, I have a specific query regarding the protections against extradition for offences that may have taken place many years prior to the request. For extradition from Malaysia and Brunei, my understanding is that there is no time bar. Hence, we read of persons wanted in Singapore who are apprehended in Malaysia three or four decades after the incident. As for countries other than Malaysia and Brunei, some protections already exist in the current Act for the Minister to refuse extradition to Commonwealth countries if there has been a passage of time. These protections are re-enacted and expanded in the Bill to apply to all treaty countries.”
“My speech today will cover whether the Government's general approach to extradition has changed; clarifications on safeguards for persons in Singapore against unjustifiable extradition requests; and, finally, an observation about why compromises to secure extradition are justifiable. First, whether there has been any change in the Government's general approach to extradition. At a general level, I would like to clarify whether this Bill is a signal that the Government is changing its traditional somewhat guarded approach towards entering extradition treaties. Four years ago, during MinLaw's Committee of Supply (COS) debate, I had raised the COS cut on extradition. The specific case used for discussion was that of Mr David Roach who had committed robbery at a bank at Holland Village. Members may recall that Mr Roach could not be extradited to Singapore when he was in nearby Thailand, but only when he travelled through London on the way back to his home country, Canada. The then-Senior Minister of State for Law, Ms Indranee Rajah, explained at the COS the Government's general approach to extradition. She said that while the Government was open to entering new extradition treaties, such negotiations were complex. Relevant considerations included whether such an arrangement would be mutually beneficial and whether any divergence in legal systems could be rationalised. She also highlighted that if there were inadequate protections, there would be risks to people in Singapore, including our citizens. Sir, in this Bill, the provisions relating to extradition from non-Commonwealth countries are being brought closer to those available to Commonwealth countries.”
“Mr Speaker, according to MinLaw's press release on 7 March, this Bill seeks to amend the Extradition Act to update and modernise Singapore's statutory regime. It was further stated then that the amendments would "Cement Singapore's role as a responsible global citizen". Sir, at the outset, it should be noted that the Bill preserves the simplified regime between Singapore and Malaysia for extradition based on mutual recognition of arrest warrants. Similar arrangements exist with Brunei as well, and I understand that these have worked well overall. However, apart from Malaysia and Brunei, the Bill is proposing notable changes to the existing framework for extradition to and from declared Commonwealth countries and foreign states. Overall, I find the changes in the Bill to be an improvement, being rational and less technical than the current scheme. In particular, I agree with the removal of the distinct parts of the Act covering declared Commonwealth countries and other foreign states in favour of many common provisions that will apply to all treaty countries. The other change I support is the threshold approach to determine what offences are extraditable instead of the current scheme of looking at a positive list of extraditable crimes. Once the Bill is effective, the threshold for an extraditable offence will be simply set at offences attracting a maximum imprisonment of two years or more, subject to the list of exclusions. There is also a new provision to enable the fugitive to consent to extradition, saving time and cost. I am overall supportive of the Bill. That said, I have some queries and an observation to make.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have four clarifications for the Minister for Law. First, I would like his confirmation that the setting up of PDO in no way affects the current High Court scheme for the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO). Meaning that the scheme for legal representation of capital cases still remains within the province of the Supreme Court and this scheme in no way changes that. That is the first question. The second question, the Minister mentioned earlier that the demarcation of work between PDO and CLAS would be worked out. I wonder whether he could comment on whether certain statutes are currently not covered by CLAS – for example, road traffic offences – whether there has been discussion that PDO could accept some of these cases, which tend to affect the people of lower-income. I mean, it stretches the strata of society, so there will be a significant section of the public who would benefit from coverage under the Road Traffic Act. The third question, on excluded offences again, the Minister mentioned that there might be certain offences not covered because there is some moral reprehensibility about them. I wonder whether it might also include, for example, drink driving cases. Would the Minister be able to comment on that specifically? And last of all, my question is whether the PDO scheme would also handle appeals.”
“As at 9 March, the MOH reports that 91% has been fully vaccinated, with about 69% having received booster jabs. Further, there are more prevention and treatment options, including a wider range of vaccines, including non-mRNA ones, as well as anti-viral oral drugs to treat COVID-19 patients. That said, the fact that COVID-19 is spreading widely through our population, even with such high vaccination rates, should lead us to continue to review whether the control measures we currently have in place remain fit for purpose. They also add significant cost to businesses and entities which need to implement them and inconvenience members of the public. Sir, all in all, we are in a much better position to deal with the health impacts of COVID-19 than at the start of the pandemic. As such, while I support the Bill as prudent, the next one year should ideally see Singapore continue to move significantly towards normalcy. There are promising signs here and elsewhere, with the reopening of international borders, and I note that the Minister for Transport announced this week that Singapore is aiming to restore international air travel through Changi Airport to at least 50% of pre-pandemic levels this year. Indeed, regular reviews on the efficacy and necessity for any control measures are warranted, so that our people and businesses can return to vibrant economic and social lives as soon as practicable.”
“Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to extend the operation of Part 7 of the COVID-19 Temporary Measures Act for a year, from 8 April this year to the same date next year. Part 7 of the Act concerns the making of control orders by the Minister for Health for the purpose of preventing, protecting against, delaying or otherwise controlling the incidence of transmission of COVID-19 in Singapore. Sir, the Act was first enacted in April two years ago, at the start of the pandemic. Two years on, some other parts of the Act are no longer in force or will expire soon. This is a welcome indication that the general direction is to move towards normalcy in our lives and interactions. On Part 7, the proposal in the Bill to extend its operation by another year appears to be prudent, since COVID-19 is still spreading widely in Singapore. Furthermore, in the months ahead, we do not know whether any variant of concern may emerge. It is, therefore, sensible to empower the Minister for Health to issue control measures, if assessed to be necessary to protect public health, including not overwhelming healthcare services. Nevertheless, looking at where Singapore stands today, it is a matter of time before control measures should be further rolled back or discontinued altogether. Two years on into the pandemic, we are in a much stronger position on health impacts. Firstly, COVID-19 is probably endemic now. Our official case numbers, as of today, stand at more than 885,000, or 16% of the Singapore population. Taking into account cases not officially reported, the percentage of the population who have contracted COVID-19 is probably significantly more. Secondly, there is wide vaccine coverage of our population today.”
“Singapore would do well if it finds a balance between tightness and looseness. I have also made an observation about the household illustrations used in the Budget, which in my view could be more inclusive.”
“It will be noted that all the households comprise of a wedded couple living in an HDB flat, mostly with children; if the couple is of working age, the husband is always older and always earns more than the wife. There is a further assumption that all household members are Singapore Citizens. To be fair, the Ministry may have used them because the scenarios are typical. However, these illustrations may inadvertently alienate Singaporeans whose households do not fit into the traditional structure. They also reinforce the stereotype of the man being the major breadwinner. In addition, these households may experience less severe impacts from the GST increase than other types of households, due to more offsets. I wonder if the Ministry could, in future, be broader in its illustrations to capture some other types of households. Such other types of households, which are not uncommon, include divorced families, families with a foreign spouse and adult singles living with elderly parents. In addition, from a gender perspective, I feel that there is no need for the illustrations to stipulate the amounts earned by husbands and wives separately. Instead, the indication of the combined household income would suffice. By including some other types of households, we can have a fuller picture of the impact of tax changes on different segments of society. More importantly, I believe including them would have an important signalling effect that every household, whatever its composition, is part and parcel of the Singapore compact. Sir, to conclude, I have spoken today on how the COVID-19 pandemic has tested countries not just in terms of how to contain the virus, but also pointed to the environments which appear to promote the finding of inventive solutions.”
“For a high income country, we were ranked especially weak in the areas of Knowledge Creation and the Registration of Trademarks and Industrial Designs. For the 2021 ranking, it is notable that South Korea shot to fifth position and overtook Singapore. The report highlighted that countries like South Korea were particularly active in commercialising and patenting inventions in health-related technologies during the pandemic. South Korea was especially strong in registering patents, trademarks and industrial designs. Sir, we should do some introspection on why we seem to be somewhat lagging in the area of Creative Outputs and Knowledge and Technology Outputs. As a high-income country, we can contribute more to improve the quality of life for humankind. Do we need to do more to nurture creativity and risk-taking? Are there other inhibitors in Singapore’s ecosystem that need to be addressed? These need constant review. Sir, the other point I wish to make today concerns inclusivity of the Budget Statement. Budget 2022 is entitled “Charting Our New Way Forward Together”. If one looks at its coverage, it does indeed provide measures that support a broad church – from business to households and workers. It also imposes increased obligations on the more able to contribute more to the public purse, while accelerating salary increases for many low-wage workers. On GST, my Workers’ Party colleagues have explained why we do not think the GST hike is necessary. For my part, I will just make an observation on the household illustrations used in the Budget Statement on the expected impact of the GST increase. From paragraphs 286 to 287 of the Budget Statement, and also Annex F-3, there are four household scenarios highlighted.”
“Another example is the COVID-19 PCR test kit developed by DSO National Laboratories, that did not require reagents to process samples. On the other hand, despite some initial hype, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has yet to approve for public use any Singapore manufactured vaccine or Antigen Rapid Test kit for home use, arguably two of the most critical resources needed in the pandemic. Speaker, a lack of locally manufactured solutions is not just a matter of national pride. We have experienced first-hand how, in a global pandemic, needing to procure supplies from abroad subjects us to market forces and has resulted in supply shortages. On a related note, the Budget Statement highlighted that the mRNA vaccine manufacturer, BioNTech, will establish a manufacturing facility here. I also note the recent announcement that work has started on a new vaccine manufacturing facility at Depot Road by Hilleman Laboratories. This facility is part of efforts by the Economic Development Board to strengthen capabilities across the biopharmaceutical manufacturing value chain. These are reassuring developments. Nevertheless, we should strive to move up the value chain, to be the owners of such intellectual property. This raises the more general question: what is the state of Singapore’s capacity to innovate? According to the Global Innovation Index 2021 published by the World Intellectual Property Office, Singapore ranked overall eighth globally, and has been in the top 10 list for more than a decade. When one drills down further to why Singapore is ranked highly, we see that this is mainly due to its institutions and market and business sophistication. We did not fare so well in the area of Creative Outputs and Knowledge and Technology Outputs.”
“To be clear, these findings were more about the culture of the people rather than what the state did. For us here, classified as a tight culture, Singaporeans have fared well to comply with rules and guidance; this has contributed to keeping the overall health impacts of COVID in Singapore at a relatively manageable level. In talking about Prof Gelfand’s study some months later, CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria went further. He noted that as the COVID-19 pandemic raged on, the development of vaccines shed another dimension on tight and loose cultures. He observed that some of the loosest countries, which fared poorly in managing the pandemic through social distancing measures, were the most innovative and dynamic at developing, procuring and distributing the vaccine. These loose countries included the United States, Britain, Israel and Chile. Mr Zakaria posited that the very traits that made it hard to follow social distancing rules, were the ones that helped generate the solution to the problem. He concluded that these loose countries benefitted from the creativity, risk-taking and rule-breaking that was endemic in their people. Today, it is clear how these solutions have benefited humankind across the globe. While Singapore has done relatively well in the pandemic for health outcomes, it would be opportune to do a stock-take of how we did to invent or create solutions for COVID-19. On the one hand, there are some indications of significant breakthroughs. For instance, it was reported that a Singapore team from Duke-NUS had developed a COVID-19 neutralising antibody test kit, which was the first of its kind to get approval from the American Food and Drug Administration.”
“In the concluding paragraphs of the Budget Statement, the Finance Minister highlighted how various sectors of Singapore society rose to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. He applauded the Singapore spirit, as seen from frontline workers to those who set up community care facilities to the footballers and fans at the AFF Suzuki Cup semi-final. He was emphatic that Singapore would always prevail so long as we stood side by side in solidarity with one another. There is nothing to disagree with this. That said, two years on into the pandemic, it is appropriate to start evaluating how governments and people across the world responded to the pandemic, not just in terms of the health and economic impacts, but also what lessons or hints can be drawn about a nation’s culture and innovative potential. One analysis early on into the pandemic studied how 57 countries around the world responded to the pandemic. This study was published early last year in The Lancet by Prof Michele Gelfand, a cultural psychologist at the University of Maryland, USA and several colleagues. Prof Gelfand divided the countries based on whether they had “tight” or “loose” cultures. Thus, for instance, countries like China and Singapore were classified as having tight cultures, in that our societies tended to be highly respectful of rules and norms; contrast this with a country like the United States, where people tended to defy them. She observed, unsurprisingly, that loose countries had more difficulties enforcing social distancing measures due to the attitude of the people to rules; this in turn was associated with more COVID-19 deaths and serious illness in loose countries compared to tight countries.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am asking this question with a totally open mind. I do not know the answer and I am not accusing the Government. It is a purely open-ended question. If Minister of State says he cannot answer it, so be it.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Sir, not long ago, I received a threat warning from Apple, informing me that it could be that my iPhone is being the subject of hacking by state-sponsored attackers. They also said that it is likely to be so because of who I am individually or what I do. So, based on what the Minister of State said just now that reliance on technologies is required for national security reasons, can I get his confirmation that I should have absolutely no concerns that the Singapore Government agencies are trying to hack into my phone?”
“It would enable the Committee to sit back and concentrate on evaluating the evidence dispassionately, rather than have Committee Members actively positing a certain case theory and trying to break witnesses down. If legal representation is allowed, there may be less need for Parliament to make referrals of cases to the PP. May I ask on what basis did the Committee decide to do the questioning itself and not allow lawyers in? Secondly, I believe guidelines are needed to safeguard the dignity of such parliamentary hearings. Members of the public have noted the strenuous questioning of Mr Faisal Manap and Mr Singh. Mr Faisal Manap was questioned for about six hours in a single day. In Mr Singh’s case, the questioning was done for nine hours in a single day, which, including waiting time, took 12 hours. While my own questioning was less than three hours, I waited for two days in a guarded room and was denied the use of any communication devices. When I needed to visit the bathroom, I was accompanied by security. When I requested to use the disabled toilet to have more space, permission was sought. Does all this not border on oppressive? Our Courts of law do not subject witnesses to such treatment. Sir, to summarise, I have clarified the effect of my handwritten notes in detail. I have also commented briefly on the referral to the PP that Parliament will be voting on. And I have also made my own observations about COP processes and why I think reform is needed.”
“Contrast this with fines meted out by Parliament itself under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, which can go up to $50,000 but will not disqualify an MP from continuing to serve this House. Sir, before I end, I would like to make some observations about the COP composition and processes. Sir, the COP has disciplinary functions and recommends punishments for MPs. There has been public discussion of the composition of the COP, as it is overwhelmingly dominated by ruling party Members. I find the state of affairs unsatisfactory as well. As it currently stands, the Committee only has one out of its eight Members from the opposition Workers’ Party. This does not bode well for a fair hearing in Parliament, where the ruling party has a super majority of 90%. There is public interest to ensure that elected MPs are subject to fair parliamentary hearings. One way towards this is to have a more balanced composition. My suggestion is that Parliament consider amending the Standing Orders on the composition of the Committee of Privileges. If the Committee’s total strength is to remain at eight Members in all, then, three Members should be from opposition parties. This is likely to result in a less one-sided hearing and fuller consideration of relevant evidence. I now move on to some observations of the COP process. First, on representation before the COP, I would like to ask how the Committee decided on conducting the questioning of witnesses by itself? In a past COP in 1986, Parliament resolved to have questioning conducted by a law officer of the Legal Service. It was further resolved then that lawyers be allowed to represent the MP and other persons as well. It seems to me that such a process is better.”
“And my response was: "I think it also has to be looked at in the whole context, because what we recorded here was that: 'I told you it was your call, did the need to tell the truth in Parliament occur to you?' Then she says: 'Yes, but I was consumed with guilt in my own experience and I thought it wouldn't come up.' Of course, she’s not saying here: 'You gave me a choice, so I made that choice'. She says: 'I was consumed with guilt in my own experience and I thought it wouldn't come up.' And he says, 'But you can't lie, right?' And she says: 'Yes'. So, it has to be taken, I think, in totality to understand it. Like I said, I wasn't there but this is what I recorded." So, Mr Speaker, these last four paragraphs were curiously excluded from the COP's footnote 422, even though it was part and parcel of the Chairman's clarifications on the same topic. If included and properly understood, I submit that my evidence does not support the COP's conclusions. Next, Sir, I will touch briefly on the referral to the Public Prosecutor (PP) or the intended referral to the PP of Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Faisal Manap. Sir, if Parliament so resolves to refer both of them to the PP, it is only right to expect that the PP, law enforcement and the Courts will handle this matter impartially. How they approach this matter has serious ramifications. A Court conviction may prematurely terminate the service of an MP who has been duly elected by the people. It is provided in Article 45 of the Constitution that convictions in a Court of law can disqualify an elected Member of Parliament from Parliament if the fine is $2,000 or more.”
“Would that be a fair interpretation, as you see it? I know you were not there —" And I said, "I wasn't there." Then the Chairman continued, "I'm saying that as from what he has recounted here, as you have recorded, and what we know now of what would had been said specifically, this would be a reasonable interpretation of it?... That line came from Mr Pritam Singh himself who said: ‘to take ownership and responsibility, I will not judge you’." "So, I’m just asking", that was the Chairman asking me, "based on what Mr Pritam Singh has shared, and given what he said now here, would that be a reasonable interpretation, that it was really left for her to decide?" And my answer, "Well, I mean, I don't know what he said because I've put myself on a news block-out for the last few days. But in any case, it is recorded as it is recorded, yes." The COP then cut off its reference abruptly here. Now, up to this point, I was, at best, telling the COP that I was not there at the meeting on 3 October. Where was there any recognition by me that Mr Pritam Singh had done something contrary to the duty of an MP to tell the truth? Crucially, the COP ignored the next four paragraphs which show that the Chairman was still continuing his clarifications with me, which I shall now read out. Paragraph 12946, "Chairman: Just to remind you, the specific line he said was: 'to take ownership and responsibility and I will not judge you'. So, these few lines came out across clearly as what he conveyed." And I said, "Okay". And the Chairman said, "And I'm just asking you, that based on what you've recounted here, it would suggest that the option was left to Ms Khan to decide what to do".”
“" Sir, the COP did not quote this paragraph accurately when it stated that I was clear that a choice to tell the truth cannot be given to MPs. I had also stated at the same time that I could not imagine Mr Pritam Singh giving Ms Khan a choice, and I did not believe it. That puts a totally different complexion on the paragraph cited by the COP. Later in my testimony, I was asked by the Chairman about the notes I recorded. I was questioned repeatedly about whether I agreed that the phrase "it is your call" could be interpreted as giving her a free choice to decide whether to tell the truth or not. When I referred back to the evidence that the COP relied on, I find that four vital paragraphs that immediately followed were not included, which are critical to properly understand my evidence. The COP finds that I recognised that Mr Pritam Singh had acted contrary to a Member of Parliament's duty to tell the truth. For this, it quoted my evidence from transcripts at paragraphs 12936 to 12945. Please let me spend a little time on this. Here are the paragraphs that the COP relied on. At paragraph 12936, the Chairman said: "In that last page, you mentioned regarding the conversation on 3 October. At the top of the page where Mr Pritam Singh said: “Before the October session, I met you and told you it was your call.” So, meaning that it was really up to her to decide what to do." And my answer was, "I don’t know the context but he phrased it in this way." Then the Chairman asked, "From this, it would seem to be that it’s really for her to decide, which is, I guess —", and I said, "She has to decide, yes." And the Chairman said, " —I guess, if you follow from this, when he said that: 'I will not judge you', is that 'You decide what you want to do, I will not judge you for that'.”
“First, let me quote the extract from my handwritten notes which were recorded in the form of question and answer. "Question by PS (Mr Pritam Singh): Before October session, I met you and told you it was your call. Did need to tell the truth in Parl (Parliament) occur to you?" "RK (Raeesah Khan): Yes, but consumed with guilt and own experience. Thought it wouldn't come up." "PS: Can't lie, right?" "RK: Yes." Sir, just looking at this extract, we see that when Mr Pritam Singh said to her: "Can't lie, right?", Ms Khan did not contradict him. She said: "Yes", which is an acceptance that you cannot lie. Does this not mean that she understood what he meant all along that she had to tell the truth? When he put to her that she could not lie, she did not say that she was given a choice. Secondly, Sir, I am baffled by the COP's conclusion that I had somehow recognised that Mr Pritam Singh had acted contrary to an MP's duty to tell the truth. As I was puzzled as to why the COP stated that, I examined the footnotes used by the COP for this conclusion. I submit that the evidence I gave does not support this finding. For this, please allow me to refer to the transcripts of evidence. The COP cited footnote 421 as the basis for saying that I was clear in my testimony that a choice to tell the truth cannot be given to Workers' Party MPs. But if one looks at footnote 421, it refers to a particular paragraph of my evidence, which is as follows, paragraph 12554, where I said: "You see, it never crossed my mind and I cannot fathom this possibility that Pritam would have given her the option to choose between telling the truth or continuing the lie. That never crossed my mind and I do not believe it to be true.”
“Mr Speaker, in my speech, I wish to make a critical clarification on a specific finding by the COP. I will touch on the referral, or intended referral, of Mr Faisal Manap and Mr Pritam Singh to the Public Prosecutor, and I will also argue why some reforms to the COP and its processes are much needed. Sir, during the COP deliberations, a matter has risen about the handwritten notes tendered voluntarily by me to the Committee. These notes were used as evidence against Mr Pritam Singh to support the finding that he had given Ms Raeesah Khan a free choice to continue the lie she had told in August. It is necessary for me to correct misconceptions that have arisen from the COP's findings here. At paragraph 237 of the Main Report, the COP finds that my handwritten notes were useful to the Committee in its deliberations. The COP further notes, among other things, the following: Paragraph 237(3): "Ms Lim, a lawyer and Chair of the Workers' Party, would have appreciated the effect of such evidence. It would be, and was, extremely damaging to the testimony given by Mr Pritam Singh. It directly contradicted Mr Pritam Singh's evidence that he did not give Ms Khan a choice." Paragraph 237(4): "Ms Lim was clear in her testimony that a choice to tell the truth cannot be given to the Workers' Party Members of Parliament, an obvious point. That was also directly contrary to what Mr Singh had done and Ms Lim recognised that." Speaker, I take a different view. If read in the proper context, my evidence is not inconsistent and not damaging to Mr Pritam Singh. In fact, it is consistent with his evidence that he was telling her she had to tell the truth. Let me explain why. I had testified that the extracts from my notes had to be seen in totality to understand it.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister on what he just told the House. First, he mentioned that the punishment that was recommended for the two officers, meaning the IO and his supervisor, was a fine which was equivalent to a stoppage of pay, or something along those lines. So, I would like to ask him whether he means that the officers concerned will not receive their pay for a few months. That is the first question. The second question is, were the IO and the supervisor punished similarly? In other words, was one assigned more responsibility than the other and will one have stoppage of more months of pay compared to the other?”
“It is absolutely necessary to reduce the burden on the parent who is simply seeking to obtain for themselves and their children what is due from an ex-spouse. I look forward to studying the upcoming changes, which, hopefully, will strengthen support for single parents and secure children's rights.”
“But specifically, regarding DMA, I have this clarification: if the Court comes across an agreement that is clearly one-sided or detrimental to the children, am I right to assume that the Court may still endorse DMA, but rewrite the arrangements regarding finances and children? In my view, it is critical for the Court to play a watchdog role for any vulnerable parties. Finally, before I end, I would like to speak briefly on the issue of enforcement of Court Orders for maintenance payments. As Members of Parliament, we do come across single parents who are frustrated and demoralised by having to file repeated applications to Court to get ex-spouses to pay up. These efforts incur legal costs and may require multiple Court attendances without any tangible outcome. I also understand that when there are arrears in maintenance payments, it is not uncommon that the defaulting parent will be allowed to pay the arrears in instalments, placing further hardship on the other parent to find ways to pay bills and feed the children. If the defaulting parent defaults again, the onus is on the innocent parent once again to take out further enforcement proceedings. Although not covered in this Bill, I note that there are plans by the Government to provide a more efficient and effective means to enforce maintenance orders and to minimise the need for repeat enforcement. It was stated in the Ministry's press release of 1 November on this Bill that the Government is looking into making enhancements to the enforcement of maintenance orders under another law, the Family Justice Act, which will be tabled some time this year. And earlier, the Minister of State confirmed this as well. This is a welcome announcement.”
“To this end, I wonder if retaining the provision for divorce on three years' separation with consent makes sense, as it may be redundant to insist on three years once the parties have agreed to divorce. Since the purpose of allowing mutual agreement is to do away with onerous requirements of the traditional grounds, the parties can override what was required previously and set their own personal threshold for concluding that their marriage has failed. Some will have lower thresholds. Is there a risk then that divorce would become too easy? On this question, I do note that there is no change to the requirement that one cannot, generally, file for divorce until after three years of marriage. I agree that this requirement should be preserved. Nevertheless, with the introduction of DMA, the requirements for divorce have arguably been relaxed. Should we then expect an increase in divorce rates? My second clarification on DMA is how the rights of the spouses and children will be safeguarded. The proposed section 95(6) provides that the spouses must enter any agreement with certain requirements which include spelling out what considerations they have given to sorting out their financial affairs and any child of the marriage. I am concerned about the risk that the parties may enter into an agreement which is unfair to one spouse or not in the best interest of the children. This could well happen when the spouses have unequal bargaining power or when one spouse has legal representation and the other does not. In this regard, I do acknowledge the point made by the Minister of State earlier that this can also happen in other types of divorce, not just DMA.”