Tharman Shanmugaratnam
Singapore
“EDB conducts regular reviews to GIP to ensure its effectiveness in attracting only top-tier business leaders who are interested to drive the growth of their businesses and investments from Singapore.”
“MAS may vary the size of the additional capital requirement imposed on the bank and take other regulatory actions depending on the outcome of ongoing reviews. MAS requires all retail banks in Singapore to ensure that their mission critical systems supporting digital banking are resilient.”
“This question will be answered in the reply to Dr Tan Wu Meng's Parliamentary Question filed for tomorrow's Sitting. [Please refer to "Probe into Recent Disruptions of DBS' Digital Bank and Physical ATM Services and Preventive Measures Implemented", Official Report, 5 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 107, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Ans…”
“Borrowing from the banks is one of the ways in which MAS carries out MMOs to soak up such excess liquidity. Like other central banks, MAS does this daily through an auction system, enabling MAS to withdraw liquidity through the Primary Dealers that submit the most competitive prices.”
“To mitigate consumer over-indebtedness, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires financial institutions (FIs) to implement a range of safeguards when extending mortgage loans and unsecured credit.”
“The Monetary Authority of Singapore imposes on external asset managers the same stringent regulatory standards for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism that it imposes on banks.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,416 lines we hold for Tharman Shanmugaratnam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 49.
“As Minister of State Josephine Teo mentioned during this year's Committee of Supply debate, we are developing a Procurement Specialist Track to build up a strong pool of officers with the skills needed, and with good career progression pathways. The new specialist track will be launched next year. Details will be announced in March. However, in a system with 80,000 procurements each year, we cannot realistically expect to eliminate all lapses or human error. To seek to do so would be too costly and time-consuming, not just to Government but also to businesses and the public. Our approach, therefore, is to make every reasonable effort to minimise lapses, while undertaking regular audits to check for any that do occur and keeping open channels for suspected irregularities to be reported. Where any lapse is detected, we take actions to minimise recurrence. MOF has required all Government agencies to ensure that they have an effective system of internal audit and control. It is crucial that the top management sets the right tone. MOF has reminded the Permanent Secretaries and other Heads of Government agencies to maintain active oversight of Internal Audit. They will also henceforth be required to report to MOF with an assessment of findings on procurement audits and follow-up actions in their agencies each year, as well as pre-emptive plans to avoid future weaknesses. This is a new reporting system which the Permanent Secretaries and Heads of agencies will have to comply with. This would include follow-up actions on audit observations by both their internal auditors and the Auditor-General. We will also keep up with the latest knowledge and techniques in supervision and audit of procurement, including good practices developed in the private sector.”
“We also extended the minimum opening period for suppliers to submit bids for quotations from four to seven working days. These are examples of how we review the rules when we see weaknesses and, where it is necessary to tighten, we tighten up. This year, the AGO Report highlighted that a Statutory Board had procured a service from a related party in a manner that did not comply with our rules. The procurement rules require that any bid by a related party be treated on a strictly arms-length basis, and that a successful bid has to comply with the tender specifications regardless of ownership. The rules are clear. We are nevertheless reviewing if there is a need to further tighten approval processes for transactions involving related parties. The procurement lapses cited in this year's AGO Report are, in fact, all due to non-compliance with established rules, rather than gaps in the rules. It should also be noted that the majority of the findings concern lapses committed before 2012. This partly reflects AGO's recent focus on Government procurement in its audits, which have included looking at procurements in previous years. Government agencies have since last year made special efforts to improve procurement processes. MOF has also strengthened training programmes for procurement, and developed and disseminated checklists to guide supervisors and officers on what to look out for at the various stages of the procurement process. Page: 20 We are doing more to build up capabilities, to help officers and supervisors implement the rules well. That includes having the skills and knowledge to seek value for money, and not just accept the cheapest tender bid.”
“Members are rightly concerned about the lapses highlighted in this year's Report of the Auditor-General (the AGO Report). As Deputy Prime Minister Teo as Minister in charge of the Civil Service has just stated, the Government is determined to uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism in the Public Service. This resolve certainly applies to the question of public sector procurements. Before I get into the specific improvements being made, I want to emphasise that the system of checks and balances in procurement operates as a whole. It is not just about rules to ensure fair competition and value for money in public tenders, but also regular audits to detect lapses, and where Page: 19 appropriate, disciplinary actions against those responsible, including supervisors. And where there is any suggestion of corruption or fraud, it is investigated promptly and thoroughly, and the officer faces the full measure of the law, regardless of who he is. So, it is a whole system, and it is working, which is why Singapore is widely recognised internationally as having one of the cleanest and most efficient systems of government anywhere. Nevertheless, we take each finding of a procurement lapse seriously and take action to minimise recurrence. Our rules and procedures for procurement are comparable with those in most other reputable jurisdictions, and in line with World Trade Organization standards on open and fair competition. We review the rules regularly, and especially when we observe weaknesses. Members may recall that in 2010 and 2011, we took major steps to reduce opportunities for procurement fraud. In 2012, we introduced further checks to ensure that single bids offered competitive terms.”
“Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 5 to 11 together, please?”
“Based on annual reporting, the majority of Court-appointed decision-makers are discharging their responsibilities. Only a very small number needs closer monitoring.”
“The last national-scale financial literacy survey was conducted in 2005. Retirees and Page: 69 those soon to retire, or pre-retirees, were found to have some good basic money management habits and had taken some basic steps in retirement planning. However, as with the working population, they were not very knowledgeable about features of common financial products. Pre-retirees, generally, had not planned how to use their CPF savings during retirement but were keen to learn more about retirement planning. In response to the findings, MoneySENSE has worked with partners, such as CPF, Council for Third Age (C3A) and industry associations, to make available educational guides and talks for seniors on investing, retirement planning, stretching the dollar during retirement and estate planning. We will continue to do so. A National Financial Literacy Survey will be conducted shortly which will provide an updated picture of the financial education needs of different population segments, including the elderly. The findings should be ready in Q4 of this year. Ms Tan also asked about the Mental Capacity Act and how successful it has been in protecting the elderly who are unable to make their own financial decisions. Since the Act's provisions came into force in 2010, more than 4,000 applications have been made to appoint a Lasting Power of Attorney, in other words, a decision-maker on financial matters for persons who no longer have mental capacity. About 70% of these Lasting Powers of Attorney were made by persons older than 55 years. Under the Act, the Public Guardian also has powers to supervise the Court-appointed decision-makers, and deal with any complaints on how the nominated and Court-appointed decision-makers are exercising their powers.”
“The land and space that is created forms part of our land holdings and, hence, part of the Past Reserves. Page: 67 Past Reserves have also been used to fund the land acquisition costs of projects like SERS which seek to enhance the value of the existing land. To reiterate, the acquired land forms part of Past Reserves and the land value is enhanced with the more intensive redevelopment. Since 2002, the Past Reserves have funded 32 such projects. There is a third use of Past Reserves, reserved for exceptional circumstances. With the approval of Parliament and the President, Past Reserves may be drawn down to deal with extraordinary crises. Members would recall that the Government had obtained the President's approval to draw up to S$4.9 billion from Past Reserves to fund the Jobs Credit Scheme and the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative in January 2009, at a critical time in the global economic crisis. The use of Past Reserves for spending in such exceptional circumstances may result in an actual drawdown of Past Reserves, unlike its use for land projects as I have described. However, Members would also recall that in this recent episode, the Government decided in February 2011 to put back the full amount that it had drawn down from the Past Reserves, after the economy had recovered from the recession. In conclusion, our Past Reserves form a critical part of our nation's resources. Any usage of Past Reserves is done in a disciplined and sustainable manner. An actual draw on Past Reserves, as was done in 2009, can only be contemplated in extraordinary circumstances and with the approval of Parliament and the President.”
“I thank Mrs Lina Chiam for her question in which she referred to a Straits Times interview with former President S R Nathan in August 2011. The article mentioned that Past Reserves had been used to fund land reclamation projects and land acquisition for the Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) since 2001 and 2002 respectively. She has asked how many times the Past Reserves have been used for all purposes since 2002. Past Reserves refer to the reserves accumulated during previous terms of Government. There are several ways that Past Reserves are used. First, the Constitution provides for the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) spending framework. This enables the Government to tap the investment returns on Past Reserves in a disciplined and sustainable manner. The NIRC benefits Singaporeans substantially each year. It contributes almost $8 billion to the FY2013 Budget. Second, Past Reserves have been used to fund land-related projects, such as reclamation, the creation of underground space and land acquisition projects like SERS. This is, in essence, a conversion of Past Reserves from one form (financial assets) to another (state land), rather than a drawdown of Past Reserves. The land and space that is created or acquired forms part of our state land holdings and is, hence, protected as Past Reserves. The use of Past Reserves to fund these land-related projects follows principles agreed to between the Government and the President. Further, when such land or space is subsequently sold, the proceeds accrue fully to Past Reserves. Since 2002, Past Reserves have funded 23 projects that create new land by reclamation from the sea or new usable space underground like the Jurong Rock cavern.”
“Section 328(2) of the Companies Act sets out the cap on the amount an employee may receive in priority over the claims of other creditors, when a company becomes insolvent. The current cap is five months’ salary or $7,500, whichever is lower. We are reviewing the cap on such priority payments, and whether the cap should be updated more regularly. The review seeks to strike a balance between the rights of employees and creditors of the company, and takes into account the laws in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, Australia and Hong Page: 126 Kong. MOF will be consulting the tripartite partners soon. We will also seek public feedback on the proposed changes to section 328, together with other proposed changes to the Companies Act, by September this year.”
“The Central Depository (CDP) is required to maintain records for six years. Based on CDP's records, the average stock holding period for individual investors in SGX-listed stocks over the period from 2007 to 2011 was around 10 months. The holding period had increased from an average of around six months in 2007 to around Page: 124 17 months in 2011. The data for 2012 is currently being processed by CDP. From 2007 to 2011, individual investors accounted for approximately 25% of stock holdings. Assoc Prof Tan also inquired about the holding period for institutional investors in SGX-listed stocks. This information is not available as most institutional investors hold shares in custody or omnibus accounts through financial institutions, rather than through direct accounts with CDP.”
“Between FY07 and FY11, Tote Board's surpluses, in other words revenues that are available for donations, totalled $3.4 billion. That makes an average of $680 million per year. The Board had approved a yearly average of $572 million in donations from FY07 to FY11, or about 84% of its annual revenue available for donations. The annual breakdown is presented in its annual reports which are tabled in Parliament. The data is also now presented for convenience on Tote Board's website. The amount that Tote Board donates varies significantly from year to year, as Tote Board evaluates every project to ensure that its support is merited. Tote Board donations are, ultimately, dependent on the number and quality of the projects and programmes that seek funding. Tote Board has about $3.6 billion available funds as at 31 March 2013 (this latest position has yet to be audited). This sum will enable Tote Board to meet its outstanding funding commitments of $2.3 billion. The Tote Board continues to look out for meritorious projects, and we welcome the community to come forward with proposals. Page: 107”
“Of the 42 companies which have benefited from the Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) scheme over the last two Years of Assessment (YAs), 31 are smaller companies with annual revenue of up to $50 million. Such companies are the main target of the scheme. Moreover, the number of companies which utilised the M&A scheme in YA 2012 had more than doubled, compared to YA 2011. This shows that more companies are tapping on the scheme. MOF regularly reviews all our schemes in consultation with the industry. In response to earlier feedback, MOF enhanced the M&A scheme in Budget 2012 to provide double tax deduction on transaction costs and allowed companies to use more flexible structures to acquire target companies. We will continue to monitor the relevance and effectiveness of the M&A scheme.”
“We also assess the potential impact on Singapore's financial stability. The most recent stress test conducted last year showed that all major FIs would continue to maintain adequate capital buffers above MAS' regulatory requirements under the prescribed stress scenarios. With a prolonged low interest rate environment globally and continued income growth in Singapore, there is persistent pressure for property prices to run ahead of economic fundamentals. If unchecked, this raises the risk of a sharp decline in the property market later on. While the quality of banks' housing loan portfolios remains strong, this could potentially deteriorate. We will continue to watch the property market closely, and take steps when necessary to avoid a bubble that could hurt borrowers and destabilise our financial system.”
“As of March 2013, property-related exposures accounted for 28% of banks' total outstanding non-bank loans. These exposures comprised housing loans at 17%, and loans to property developers and construction companies, at 11%. Of the housing loans granted, more than 70% were for owner-occupied residential properties. The series of measures taken by the Government over the last three years have sought to have a cooling effect on the market. The measures, including especially the more stringent caps on loan-to-value (LTV) ratios, have also provided a buffer for banks should property prices decline. The average LTV ratio for outstanding housing loans stood at a reasonable 48% as of first quarter of 201310. Mr Gan also asked about the impact of an increase in interest costs on financial institutions (FIs). An FI could be affected in two ways. First, its net interest margins may rise or fall, depending on whether interest income from its assets increases by more or less than the interest expense on its liabilities11. While the impact on the FIs' net interest income may therefore be either positive or negative, there is a second important way in which banks may be adversely impacted. The overall loan quality of an FI could be impacted if borrowers facing higher interest costs encounter difficulty servicing their loans, or default on their loans. The default rate currently remains very low, at well below 1% for housing loans. However, a low default rate is to be expected during years when property prices are on the upswing. I can assure Mr Gan that MAS conducts regular stress tests on banks and insurance companies in Singapore. The aim is to assess their ability to withstand adverse financial and economic shocks, including a sharp correction to property prices.”
“Second, the Public Service is driving productivity gains through organisational efficiency. For example, the newly formed Department of Public Cleanliness at NEA has consolidated public cleanliness responsibilities for the entire Public Service. This initiative will enable the Government to reap economies of scale in the procurement and administration of cleaning services, and achieve better productivity in public cleanliness. Third, we invest in the training and upgrading of public sector officers. All civil servants are required to take part in regular training to sharpen their skills and to expose them to better ways of working. The Civil Service College, which is the training arm of the Civil Service, constantly reviews its curriculum and training programmes to ensure relevance, and seeks to bring in good trainers and course providers, to help our officers improve. Finally, in addition to these initiatives, MOF has in place a Manpower Management Framework to constrain the growth of manpower in the Public Sector. This framework provides Ministries with the incentive to moderate headcount growth, except where necessary to deliver better value. Taken in totality, these four thrusts will continue to increase productivity in the Public Sector, and aligns the Public Service to our national objective of improving productivity.”
“Productivity is an important objective in public services. However, most governments find it difficult to measure productivity accurately in public services, as the value created from such services is often intangible and not easily quantified. For example, putting additional teachers in a school to provide a well-rounded education may be desirable, but the value imparted to the students is not easily measured. It would clearly be wrong to conclude that having more teachers for the same number of students graduating means a reduction in productivity. It is, therefore, a challenge to define or measure public sector productivity in the same way as the private sector. Nevertheless, the Public Service has always been committed to the efficient delivery of better services to our citizens. One indication of this is the fact that the public sector's share of the total labour force in Singapore is one of the lowest internationally. Its 3.6% share in Singapore is close to that in Hong Kong (4%) and lower than in countries like New Zealand (7%) and the UK (12%) – in all these cases, the numbers exclude teachers and defence personnel. We are, however, continually seeking improvements in efficiency in the Public Service. I will highlight four key areas to illustrate how this is being done. First, through the use of IT and automation. We are seen internationally as amongst the leaders in the use of IT to improve delivery of public services. As a recent example, with effect from 1 April 2013, Singaporeans who have successfully applied for passports may now collect them from ICA's self-service machine, iCollect. This initiative not only makes it easier for customers to collect their passports, but also enables ICA to expand its service capacity without additional manpower.”
“The Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review (SPOR) reports several quantitative measures of outcomes that are of national interest, such as real median monthly household incomes, fertility rates and crime rates. However, not every desired outcome can be measured with quantitative indicators. An example is "community bonding", where an indicator like the volunteerism rate provides a useful reference point but not the complete picture. SPOR supplements quantitative measures with qualitative assessments aimed at a more holistic perspective of an issue. Nevertheless, we will certainly consider further quantitative measures of outcomes where appropriate in future editions of SPOR. In addition to SPOR, the Government releases other reports, such as MTI's Economic Survey of Singapore and MOM's Labour Market Report, which provide a wider range of quantitative indicators in their respective domains. Page: 143”
“The Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) scheme was introduced in Budget 2010. It supports businesses that restructure and grow through mergers and acquisitions by defraying the costs of such transactions. Under the scheme, the acquiring company in qualifying deals may claim a tax allowance of 5% of the deal value, up to a maximum allowance of $5 million. The cap on allowance helps focus the benefits of the M&A scheme on SMEs. We also remit stamp duties on the transfer of unlisted shares for such deals. Based on the tax returns for the Years of Assessment 2011 and 2012, there are 42 companies which have benefited from the scheme. Of these, 34 or 81% are SMEs (companies with annual revenue of up to $100 million). The average and median size of deals supported by the scheme is $25 million and $3 million Page: 130 respectively. The total allowance granted is $40 million.”
“We have also offered to Malaysia and Indonesia to update our tax agreements with the internationally agreed Standard for exchange of information for tax purposes. The Standard provides for the exchange of bank information. Once our tax agreements with Malaysia and Indonesia are updated with the Standard, just as for our tax agreements with other countries, we can build further on our good working relations with Malaysia and Indonesia and enhance tax cooperation further.”
“Singapore cooperates readily with foreign jurisdictions to fight financial crime. The channels of cooperation for tax and investigation purposes include Mutual Legal Assistance under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and Exchange of Information provided for under our bilateral tax agreements. Our cooperation under each channel is guided by international standards and norms. Furthermore, under our anti-money laundering regime, financial institutions in Singapore are required to be vigilant against suspected illicit monies. They have to know their customers, and to report any suspicious transactions in customers' accounts. Under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, Singapore stands ready to assist foreign authorities investigating possible criminal activity, including the exchange of bank account information. We can provide mutual legal assistance for investigations into money laundering as well as a wide range of serious crimes – including corruption, bribery and fraud. This is in line with the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. Through our bilateral tax agreements, we also exchange information actively with Malaysia and Page: 129 Indonesia for tax investigations. It is, generally, not the international practice among authorities to reveal the number of legal assistance and information requests from specific countries. However, I can assure Members that we have helped fully on all requests from Malaysia and Indonesia in accordance with our current tax agreements. This includes information on details of transactions and companies.”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)] Page: 64”
“In practice, the financial groups in Singapore are either predominantly banking or insurance. However, this could evolve over time and there could be hybrid groups where there may be more of a balance between banking and insurance. It is entirely possible. In all instances, MAS will assess the group in totality to obtain a holistic picture of its risks and determine the appropriate regulatory or supervisory treatment. So, it is not a binary treatment where it is either banking regulation or insurance regulation. There will be hybrids and we will have to look at the group in totality. In summary, MAS has proposed a single piece of legislation, in the form of this FHC Bill, to strengthen MAS' prudential oversight of financial groups in Singapore. A single Bill to regulate all FHC group structures offers clarity and consistency, as far as is appropriate, in our regulatory approach to bank groups, insurance groups and mixed financial groups held under an FHC. Going forward, MAS will formulate the detailed regulations to bring into operation the FHC Bill. And we will, as Ms Tan suggested, continue to, first, consult widely; and second, to ensure that we apply a risk-appropriate approach. Over the course of the past year, as I mentioned, we have consulted the industry on both the broad policy proposals as well as the draft Bill. And when it comes down to the detailed regulations, we will engage in more specific discussions with the lawyers, the individual institutions and all other stakeholders. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam].”
“I should add that MAS will also apply similar regulatory standards to solo entities in Singapore, regardless of whether the bank or insurance company is held by a holding company based in Singapore or overseas. Next, Asst Prof Tan also asked about how the proposed FHC Bill would deal with various organisational forms of financial groups. Related to this, Ms Tan had also commented on the need for a level playing field. The FHC Bill sets out MAS' regulatory approach and powers for financial groups that are organised under a non-operating FHC. As Asst Prof Tan mentioned, financial groups or downstream financial subsidiaries could also be held under a Singapore-regulated operating entity such as a bank or insurance company. Regardless of organisational forms, MAS, as the financial regulator, seeks to ensure a consistent regulatory approach. For example, a banking group organised under a non-operating FHC will be subject to rules at the group level that are consistent with rules that apply to a bank-held financial group regulated under the Banking Act. That is the basic principle. To achieve this, the regulatory requirements for a bank under the Banking Act are mirrored in the FHC Bill, where appropriate. Finally, Asst Prof Tan asked about the regulatory approach for FHCs of mixed groups; in other words, groups which operate businesses in more than Page: 63 one regulated sector, in particular in both banking and insurance. That is a good question. We will use a predominance test to assess whether at the group level, the FHC is principally engaged in banking or insurance business. An FHC group that is assessed to be predominately banking, for example, will be required to adhere to potential rules governing the banking sector at the group level, such as large exposure limits.”
“The foreign regulatory authority in Country A, the home jurisdiction, will exercise regulatory oversight over the FHC, including the regulated entity in Singapore, at the group consolidation level. So, there is a division of responsibilities in the regulation of the solo entity and the regulation of the group. There could indeed be overlapping regulation with regard to the regulated entity in Singapore due to MAS and the foreign regulatory authority addressing risks at different levels, namely the solo and the group levels. Page: 62 However, in respect of the regulated entity in Singapore, MAS as host regulator would not defer to the foreign regulator with regard to the solo regulation of the bank or insurance company. The entity is subject to MAS' minimum regulatory standards. MAS' FHC regulations will nevertheless not apply to the FHC itself in this instance, as it is not incorporated in Singapore. Further, amongst banking and insurance regulators – and Asst Prof Tan rightly points to the potential for overlapping regulation or regulatory gaps − there are well-established principles for cross-border collaboration and cooperation, not perfect, but they are working principles, including information sharing, to facilitate effective group supervision of cross-border financial groups. In fact, this has been a very important emphasis, post-financial crisis – getting more effective, international collaboration for the supervision of cross-border and cross-sectoral financial groups. So, MAS will collaborate actively with its regulatory counterparts to ensure adequate supervision of the bank or insurance subsidiaries in Singapore.”
“The second situation is where the bank or insurance subsidiary is significant to a subgroup of related companies, in other words, to an intermediate FHC group based in Singapore. MAS will designate such a foreign-owned FHC for regulation if doing so can enhance prudential oversight of the financial group and provide assurance to Singapore depositors or policy holders that potential intra-group risks posed to the Singapore bank or insurance company are adequately supervised. With regard to Asst Prof Tan's question of how many FHCs we envisage being subject to regulation under the Bill, at this point in time, there are five FHCs that meet the criteria to be designated for regulation under the Bill. All five are FHCs of banking and insurance groups that are headquartered here. Ms Tan also commented on the need for consistency with international regulatory norms. That is key to MAS' approach. The FHC Bill is consistent with international regulatory developments on and standards for group supervision. Let me now address the specific areas raised by Asst Prof Tan and Ms Tan. Asst Prof Tan spoke about the possibility of "overlapping regulation" or "regulatory gaps" arising from differences in regulatory regimes in different jurisdictions. He gave the illustration of an overseas financial holding company in Country A, subject to Country A's regulation, which acquires a regulated entity in Singapore, subject to MAS' regulation. Let me explain how the regulatory regimes across jurisdictions interact. MAS will impose regulatory standards on the solo regulated entity in Singapore, which may be a bank or insurance company licensed under the Banking Act or Insurance Act.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank Ms Tan Su Shan and Asst Prof Tan for their comments on the FHC Bill. Ms Tan referred to "smart regulation", or regulation that is no more burdensome than is necessary to achieve our regulatory objectives. That is indeed, as she mentioned, the MAS' approach and we will continue to take that approach. In other words, maintain high standards of regulation while ensuring that the application of regulation, be it liquidity requirements or leverage caps as she mentioned, is risk-appropriate, that is appropriate to the risks posed by the institution or the group and proportionate to those risks. The FHC framework was therefore designed such that FHCs in Singapore are not automatically subject to regulation. MAS will designate an FHC for regulation only where doing so can enhance the effectiveness of prudential oversight of the financial group. Let me explain further. Under international supervisory standards, the supervisor in the jurisdiction where the ultimate parent FHC is based is expected to carry out consolidated supervision of the financial group. MAS will therefore designate for regulation FHC of a financial group that is headquartered in Singapore. An example would be DBS Holdings Ltd. By this same principle, the home supervisor of a parent group to which a foreign-owned FHC belongs is also expected to carry out consolidated supervision of its financial group, including the group's entities operating in Page: 61 Singapore. However, MAS may also designate a foreign-owned FHC in Singapore for regulation in two situations. The first situation is where the foreign bank or insurance company in Singapore is significant to our financial system.”
“The FHC Bill empowers MAS to prescribe rules to support the safety and soundness of the FHC group. Several of these rules are also present in the Banking Act and Insurance Act and will be extended to designated FHCs. The Bill also provides for MAS to conduct on-site inspections and investigations of the FHC and its subsidiaries. Further, to support MAS' administration of the FHC regulatory and supervisory framework, the FHC Bill contains administrative provisions, including powers to make regulations and issue directions and notices to designated FHCs, to require the submission of annual audited accounts of the FHC and FHC group, and impose penalties on the FHC and individuals for the contravention of FHC regulations. Mdm Speaker, let me conclude. Singapore's financial system has held up well amid the turbulence of the global financial crisis of the past few years. It is important that MAS continues to have the appropriate and necessary regulatory tools to discharge its responsibilities as the financial landscape evolves. The introduction of the FHC Bill represents the continuous efforts by MAS to ensure its regulations stay relevant to developments and challenges in the financial system. Madam, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 3.43 pm”
“While FHCs that are not designated will not be regulated under the FHC Bill, MAS may require these FHCs to provide information necessary for MAS' surveillance and supervision functions. Major shareholders of an FHC may be in a position to exercise indirect influence or control over its bank or insurance subsidiaries through their shareholding interest in the FHC. Hence, it is necessary to require shareholders with substantial or controlling interest in designated FHCs to obtain approval for their shareholding interest, just as the Banking Act and Insurance Act currently require for significant stakes in Singapore-incorporated banks or insurance companies. The shareholding and control thresholds at which approval will be required will be consistent with existing thresholds under the Banking Act and the Insurance Act. MAS will consider whether the shareholders are fit and proper and the nature of their likely influence over the conduct of the FHC when assessing applications for approval. Page: 55 It is also vital that the directors and senior management of the designated FHC carry out their functions in a responsible and prudent manner. The FHC Bill provides for the application of corporate governance regulations on the FHC. Besides regulatory requirements on the designated FHC itself, the FHC Bill sets out requirements at the FHC group level. To achieve alignment in the regulatory approach towards financial groups, whether they are held under a bank, an insurance company or a designated FHC, regulatory requirements under the Banking Act and the Insurance Act will be mirrored in the FHC Bill where appropriate. The FHC's bank and insurance subsidiaries in Singapore will continue to be regulated under the Banking Act or the Insurance Act as the case may be.”
“These tools will include requiring regulatory approval for acquiring or holding of major shareholdings in an FHC, putting in place limits on an FHC's credit and investment exposures, and giving MAS powers relating Page: 54 to key appointments, supervision, and inspection. The Bill does not require every FHC in Singapore to be regulated by MAS. Unlike banks and insurance companies, an FHC is a non-operating holding company and will not engage in financial transactions directly with the public. It may also not be exposed to the same risks that a bank or insurance company may encounter in the course of business. In deciding which FHC to regulate, MAS will consider how the regulation of the FHC and its financial group can enhance the effectiveness of prudential oversight of the financial group. The Bill sets out the following criteria by which MAS will assess whether an FHC should be designated for regulation. First, MAS will regulate an FHC if it is the ultimate parent of a financial group with a bank or insurance subsidiary in Singapore. In such cases, MAS is the home supervisor of the financial group and has responsibility for group-wide supervision of the financial group. Second, there are FHCs that are themselves subsidiaries of a parent FHC or financial institution. For these intermediate FHCs, MAS will assess the importance of the FHC's bank or insurance subsidiary to Singapore's financial system or to the intermediate FHC group when deciding whether to regulate the FHC. For foreign-owned FHCs, an additional consideration would be the extent to which the parent holding company, incorporated overseas, is subject to effective group-wide supervision by its home supervisor. MAS will list the names of FHCs designated for regulation in an order published in the Gazette.”
“Key international supervisory committees such as the Joint Forum have called for greater oversight of unregulated entities in financial groups, in particular the parent FHC. The IMF has also cited the limited legal authority over FHCs of cross sector financial groups as a weakness in some financial systems. Many regulators are therefore widening their scope of group-wide supervision to include FHCs, either directly through an FHC regulatory framework or indirectly through a regulated entity like a bank or insurance subsidiary. Australia, Canada and the US are among the countries that have established legal frameworks for FHCs. The EU is moving in the same direction of strengthening regulatory authority over their FHCs. However, the introduction of this Bill does not mean that MAS is advocating a holding company structure for financial institutions in Singapore. Whether a financial group organises itself under an FHC or is held directly by a bank or insurance company is a business decision. MAS, as the financial regulator, needs to ensure that all financial groups in Singapore, regardless of their holding structure, can be effectively regulated and supervised under an appropriate regulatory framework. MAS has consulted the industry on the FHC regulatory framework. The first consultation in February 2012 sought views on the broad policy and regulatory principles underpinning the framework. The second consultation in October 2012 invited comments on the draft FHC Bill. MAS has considered the views and feedback received and taken them into account in refining the FHC Bill, where appropriate. Mdm Speaker, let me expand on the key provisions of the Bill. The FHC Bill draws upon the same regulatory toolkit as the Banking Act and Insurance Act.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Financial Holding Companies Bill introduces a regulatory framework for the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to regulate financial holding companies (FHCs) and their financial groups. For the purpose of the Bill, an FHC is a non-operating holding company which is incorporated in Singapore and holds a Singapore bank or insurance subsidiary, or both. The FHC Bill will provide greater clarity to the industry and other stakeholders on the rules and standards applicable to financial groups organised under FHCs in Singapore. It is common for internationally active financial groups to be organised under holding companies. As Singapore develops as an international financial centre, more global banks and insurance companies are locating parts of their global operations in Singapore. At the same time, our domestic financial institutions are growing regionally and some may find a holding company structure more suited to their purpose. The Bill will clarify and ensure appropriate MAS prudential oversight of financial groups in Singapore. Group-wide supervision allows MAS to assess the impact that a financial institution's relationships with other entities in the group may have on its safety Page: 53 and soundness. The concept of group supervision is of course not new. Financial groups in Singapore are mostly headed by banks and are already subject to group-wide supervision by the MAS. The Bill extends group-wide supervision by MAS to an FHC and its financial group. It is aimed at mitigating intra-group contagion risks, preventing the multiple use of capital within the group and limiting concentration risks at the group level. The FHC Bill is in line with international regulatory developments.”
“Madam, I beg to move, [(proc text) (1) In page 106, lines 4 and 5, to leave out the words "or co-operative society"; and (proc text)] [(proc text) (2) In page 106, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words "or co-operative society". (proc text)] Madam, the Insurance Amendment Bill makes consequential amendments to other Acts which refer to certain sections in the Insurance Act. The majority of these amendments relate to the change in terminology of "registered insurer" to "licensed insurer". With the change in terminology in the Insurance Act, it is necessary to also change the terminology in those other Acts. The consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act had replaced the words "company registered" under the Insurance Act with "company or co-operative society licensed under the Insurance Act". I am moving the amendments to these sections of the Income Tax Act as they apply only to companies. Co-operative societies are dealt with in a different section of the Income Tax Act. [(proc text) Amendments agreed to. (proc text)] Page: 130 [(proc text) The Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Madam, as both amendments are related, may I seek your leave to move both amendments together?”
“The amendments in this Bill will enhance our current insurance regulatory regime, allowing us to keep pace with regulatory developments internationally and market developments in the insurance industry. MAS will continue to review its regulations and policies to ensure adequate protection of insurance policy owners and to ensure broader financial stability. Madam, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. − [Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam]. (proc text)] Page: 129 [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)] [Mdm Speaker in the Chair] [(proc text) Clauses 1 to 69 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) The Schedule – (proc text)]”
“In addition, a licensed insurer is not allowed to co-brand its insurance products and services in Singapore with an insurer that is not Page: 128 licensed by MAS. Third, the Bill will align some provisions in the Insurance Act with other Acts administered by the MAS to ensure consistency, where appropriate, in its regulation of the financial sector in Singapore. For example, the Bill will introduce an appeal process for applicants whose application for licensing, registration or authorisation has been rejected by MAS. The Bill will also align a number of penalty provisions for offences in the Insurance Act with those of equivalent offences in the Banking Act. This will increase the penalties for many of the offences in the Insurance Act. Another alignment to the Banking Act relates to the ownership and control of Singapore-incorporated insurers. The Bill will allow MAS to apply its "fit and proper" criteria in approving substantial shareholders and controllers of a Singapore-incorporated insurer. It will also allow MAS to attach conditions to such approvals and to remove existing substantial shareholders and controllers when they are no longer deemed fit and proper. Last, the Bill will remove or refine certain provisions of the Insurance Act. For instance, the Bill reflects that it is not the policy intent to require all life insurance policies that have been in force for three years or more to have a cash surrender value. This is because insurers can offer low-cost insurance products which provide only protection coverage, with no savings element. Such products, like term life insurance products, do not have cash surrender values. Mdm Speaker, let me conclude.”
“In addition, the Bill will provide for MAS to direct an insurer to remove key persons, including the Chairman and Chief Executive, from office or from employment in certain circumstances, for example, where the management or governance of an insurer is being carried out in a way that is detrimental to policy owners. The global financial crisis highlighted the importance of effective supervision of insurers with cross-border operations, and for supervisory cooperation amongst insurance regulators. The Bill will equip MAS with powers to inspect the overseas branches and subsidiaries of Singapore-incorporated insurers. The Bill will also permit MAS to furnish supervisory information, such as inspection reports, to foreign regulators and insurers' head offices, subject to confidentiality requirements, and allow foreign regulators to inspect their insurers operating in Singapore with the MAS' approval. Second, the Bill will clarify MAS' policy intent on various issues. For example, with changes in insurance business models, the existing definition of "carrying on insurance business" in the Insurance Act potentially captures administrative operations outsourced by insurers to third parties which MAS does not need to regulate. These third parties include service providers which collect insurance premiums on behalf of an insurer. The revised definition will provide clarity on the entities and activities that are meant to be regulated. The Bill also proposes to introduce a definition for "solicitation" of insurance business to give clarity on what is prohibited. It makes clear that solicitation of insurance business by unlicensed insurers, including the overseas head office or branches of an insurer that is licensed in Singapore, is prohibited.”
“I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill amends the Insurance Act (Cap 142) to enhance MAS' powers to better achieve its supervisory objectives, improve the clarity of its policy intent, align the provisions with other Acts administered by MAS, and update some provisions that are outdated. MAS has conducted several public consultations on the policy positions implied by the amendments, as well as on the draft Bill. As with the other two Bills that Parliament has just considered, MAS has studied all the feedback received and taken them into account in the Bill where appropriate. Mdm Speaker, I will now go through the main amendments in the Bill. First, the Bill will enhance MAS' supervisory powers in a number of areas. For example, the Insurance Act currently empowers MAS to issue directions to an insurer to maintain assets in Singapore only when there are grounds for Page: 127 MAS to cancel the licence of the insurer, such as when the insurer is insolvent or has ceased to carry on business. There may, however, be situations where MAS will need to take pre-emptive action to direct an insurer to maintain assets in Singapore to safeguard the interests of policy owners. The Bill, therefore, empowers MAS to impose asset maintenance requirements on an insurer without requiring grounds for MAS to cancel its licence. The Bill will also provide MAS with the power to impose conditions on an insurer before cancelling the insurer's licence. For example, an insurer may be required to submit proof that its insurance liabilities have been fully discharged, to ensure that the rights of policy owners are not adversely affected.”
“However, due to the unique nature of the insurance industry, the provisions in the Insurance Act on the resolution regime for insurance companies continue to apply to insurance companies. This will enable all resolution powers relating to insurance companies to be in the Insurance Act, such as the power to resolve insurance companies, including those organised as co-operative societies registered under the Co-operatives Societies Act, and the power to run-off insurance companies. The Bill also amends the various Acts mentioned earlier for better administration. These include: First, clarifying that it will not be necessary for any notice in writing or direction issued by MAS, under the various Acts, to be published in the Gazette to have legal effect. Second, providing that any composition fine or financial penalty collected by the Authority is paid to the Consolidated Fund. Third, updating the provisions for the composition of offences in the various Acts, in particular, to enable MAS to compound offences under provisions which have been repealed. Fourth, prohibiting certain financial institutions from permitting a person to act as its director or its executive officer without the prior consent of MAS in Page: 126 certain circumstances. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Arising from the amendments to the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act (MAS Act) to extend the resolution regime for banks and insurance companies to certain other financial institutions, consequential amendments have to be made to other Acts under MAS' purview as well as the Companies Act. MAS has also taken the opportunity to make amendments to enable better administration of certain Acts under its purview. The Bill proposes amendments to the following Acts under MAS' purview: (a) Banking Act; (b) Business Trusts Act; (c) Finance Companies Act; (d) Government Securities Act; (e) Money-changing and Remittance Businesses Act; (f) Payment Systems (Oversight) Act; (g) Securities and Futures Act; and (h) Trust Companies Act. Page: 125 MAS has consulted the industry and the public on these changes. The feedback received was carefully considered and incorporated into the Bill where practicable and appropriate. Mdm Speaker, I will now go through the key amendments in the Bill. Provisions are being introduced in the Finance Companies Act, Payments Systems (Oversight) Act, Securities and Futures Act and Trust Companies Act to allow for the voluntary transfer of the business of certain financial institutions and to empower MAS to take over the management of such institutions in distress or to appoint a statutory manager to do so. Provisions in the Banking Act relating to the resolution regime for banks will be repealed when broader provisions which deal with the resolution of financial institutions in the new Part VB of the MAS Act come into effect.”
“MAS' whole approach is, in fact, to minimise such trade-offs. How do we do it? By ensuring that financial regulation is risk-based, rather than applied automatically across-the-board to all activities or to all institutions. Financial regulation has to be risk-based. We also regularly review our rules to make sure that they are not more burdensome than necessary to meet the ultimate objectives of financial regulation. Finally, let me just say that cross-border issues remain a challenge for regulators around the globe. We engage and cooperate actively with other foreign regulatory authorities on this challenge, both through bilateral and multilateral fora, such as the Financial Stability Board. MAS is, in fact, playing an active role in the ongoing global work on cross-border resolution. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam]. (proc text)] Page: 124 [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)] 4.23 pm”
“She suggested an enhanced resolution regime for central clearing houses but one that takes into account the loss mechanisms that apply under the clearing house's rules in the event of a member company defaulting. As part of prudent risk management, clearing houses are expected by the MAS to put in place loss allocation mechanisms to manage a member's default. How do they fund it? First, they have margins that are collected from members. And, second, they should have a default fund, which is comprised of funds that Page: 123 are contributed by members. There are other measures under the Securities and Futures Act that will require clearing houses to safeguard client monies, including their segregation from the monies of both the clearing house and clearing house members, and placing such client monies in trust. MAS will certainly take into account these loss allocation mechanisms and their impact on members and their clients in determining an appropriate resolution strategy for a failing clearing house. We will be guided by the need to minimise costs to taxpayers and to consumers of financial services, as well as the need to avoid major disruption to financial markets. We will also, in any resolution exercise to do with a financial institution or clearing house, bear in mind the need to avoid opening up future moral hazards. A third point which Ms Tan raised concerned the challenges faced by still nascent Asian markets. I note her comment about the need to "build before we legislate". MAS is keenly aware of the need for balance – the balance between allowing the development of a financial market and regulating it. There need not, however, be a significant trade-off between the two – between allowing for development and regulating.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank Ms Tan Su Shan for speaking in support of the Bill, and for her constructive views. First, let me say that I certainly share her hope that MAS will not need to use these enhanced resolution powers anytime soon. Let me now respond to a few of the specific points which Ms Tan has raised. First, Ms Tan has expressed a valid concern over the impact of the proposed resolution powers of the Bill on bilateral netting arrangements. This is an important point. I can assure Members that the carve-outs through subsidiary legislation that we will make, as provided for in the Bill, will include specific provisions for bilateral netting arrangements. I can also confirm that the carve-outs for bilateral netting arrangements will apply across all financial institutions, including banks and insurance companies. The approach we are taking is essentially similar to that being taken in the United Kingdom where they have adopted a Special Resolution Regime, and the carve-outs that the European Union has now directed its members to put in place when designing their resolution frameworks. It is a system where you put in place the basic provisions and the powers that a regulator needs, but you have carve-outs to ensure that contractual obligations and, specifically, bilateral netting arrangements, are not defeated. The second point that Ms Tan raised concerned the central clearing houses. This is an important point because, clearly, a failure of a clearing house can be of major systemic consequence. So, she has quite rightly highlighted the systemic risks that are inherent in central clearing houses.”
“(b) Clause 8 of the Bill amends section 23 of the MAS Act to provide that an MAS officer who is designated under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A) as a Suspicious Transaction Reporting Officer (STRO) and has received information pursuant to his role of a STRO, is able to disclose such information to other MAS officers for the purpose of discharging MAS' supervisory and regulatory functions. This will enable MAS to have a holistic assessment of money laundering risks posed by persons or institutions who wish to conduct financial activities under MAS' purview. Mdm Speaker, a stable and sound financial sector is an integral part of ensuring the success and resilience of the Singapore economy. These amendments to the MAS Act are part of the on-going process to enhance the robustness of our regulatory framework and ensure that it keeps up with global developments, including powers to enable swift and effective resolution of a financial institution in distress. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 4.10 pm”
“MAS will continue to monitor the global implementation of the FSB's Key Attributes, before making any further changes to the resolution regime for financial institutions in Singapore. Let me move on now to the issuance of securities by MAS. Primary dealers play a critical role in underwriting primary auctions, serving as counterparty to monetary policy transactions and providing liquidity to Singapore dollar markets. MAS currently issues MAS book-entry securities pursuant to section 23(1)(k) of the MAS Act. However, the Act does not provide for a primary dealer framework for MAS book-entry securities. This is unlike the Government Securities Act which explicitly empowers the Government to regulate primary dealers and the Government securities market. To address this gap, clause 11 introduces new Parts VA and VB to the MAS Act to give MAS similar powers over primary dealers and the MAS book-entry securities market. The proposed amendment will provide greater clarity to the legal and regulatory frameworks for MAS book-entry securities and the conduct of monetary policy operations by MAS. Let me, finally, turn to two operational aspects of the Bill. (a) Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 7 of the MAS Act by expanding the maximum number of directors on the MAS Board from 10 to 14. This will enable MAS to benefit from the experience and perspectives of a wider group of individuals, and further strengthen the Board in dealing with future challenges Page: 119 in the financial and economic landscape, both globally and in Singapore.”
“One area of feedback during the public consultation was that the resolution powers to be exercised under the Bill may affect the contractual rights of parties under set-off and collateral arrangements in industry master agreements, such as the ISDA Master Agreement. The Bill addresses this concern. It introduces the power to prescribe safeguards from the exercise of resolution power, in the form of carve-outs that preserve such contractual rights. Like the Banking Act and the Insurance Act which empower MAS to take over the management of a bank or an insurance company in distress, or to appoint a statutory manager to do so, similar powers are proposed in respect of the other financial institutions. This will be effected through the Financial Institutions (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, which will be read for a Second time after this Bill. The Bill also seeks to enhance the MAS' resolution tool-kit by adopting those recommendations set out in the FSB's Key Attributes which are relevant Page: 118 to Singapore. The enhancements to MAS' powers are as follows: (a) MAS will be vested with the power to issue directions to a non-regulated entity that is incorporated or established in Singapore. This power will apply where the entity belongs to a group of companies of which a financial institution regulated by MAS is part of and where the entity is significant to the business of such a group; (b) MAS may apply to the Court to claw back the salary, remuneration or benefits given to a director or executive officer under certain circumstances, for example, when the director or executive officer has failed to discharge his or her duties; (c) MAS may share information with a foreign resolution authority if the information is necessary in the resolution of a financial institution.”
“To minimise the chance of such behaviour, a regulator would have to impose a heavy regulatory burden on financial institutions, which will inevitably increase costs for Page: 117 consumers or borrowers. The alternative and better approach is to accept that failure cannot be avoided even in a well-regulated financial system, and ensure that the regulator is able to deal effectively with a financial institution in distress in order to minimise losses to depositors and other creditors, and to maintain stability in the financial system. The Banking Act and the Insurance Act were amended in 2007 and 2011, respectively, to empower MAS, with the approval of the Minister-in-charge of MAS, to (a) direct the sale of the business of a bank or insurance company, and (b) where such an institution is incorporated in Singapore, to require the issuance of new shares, to restructure the share capital or to sell existing shares to other investors. I shall refer to these collectively as "resolution powers". The Bill extends these resolution powers – which already exist for banks and insurance companies – over a wider range of financial institutions, and also enhances MAS' resolution options. These financial institutions include finance companies, merchant banks, operators and settlement institutions of designated payment systems, approved exchanges, approved clearing houses, licensed trade repositories, as well as designated financial holding companies. As far as designated financial holding companies are concerned, these will be regulated under a new Financial Holding Companies Act. I shall refer to this group as "other financial institutions".”
“This Bill, therefore, proposes changes to the MAS Act in four key areas: (a) to extend the principal objects of MAS and to amplify its functions; (b) to expand the range of tools available to MAS for the resolution of distressed or insolvent financial institutions; (c) to update the regulatory framework for the issuance of securities by MAS, including the regulation of primary dealers of these securities; and (d) housekeeping changes to enable better administration of the MAS Act. MAS has consulted the industry and the public on these changes. The feedback received has been carefully considered and incorporated into the Bill where practicable and appropriate. MAS has published on its website its responses to feedback on the Bill which were of wider interest. Mdm Speaker, I will now go through the key amendments in the Bill. First, the objectives and functions of MAS. As a central bank and integrated financial supervisor, MAS safeguards and seeks to maintain a high level of public confidence in the stability of Singapore's financial system. Therefore, to strengthen and clarify MAS' powers to act in relation to maintaining financial stability, clause 4 of the Bill amends section 4 of the MAS Act to provide expressly that MAS has the objective of promoting financial stability. The second set of changes concerns MAS' powers of resolution with regard to institutions in distress. While MAS seeks to promote financial stability through high standards of licensing, regulation and supervision, it does not aim to prevent the failure of financial institutions in all circumstances. A "zero-failure" regime is neither feasible nor desirable. It will lead to considerable moral hazard and financial institutions taking excessive risks.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The principal impetus for this Bill comes from international developments in financial regulation following the recent global financial crisis. An important dimension of this, as advanced by the Financial Stability Board (FSB), involves enhancing the powers of regulators and widening their options in dealing with domestic and international financial institutions in distress. Singapore is a member of the FSB and has contributed actively to its deliberations. The FSB has issued a set of principles in this regard, which are called "Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions". In keeping with these principles, member countries are expected to equip their national authorities with the capacity to respond effectively and swiftly when a financial institution is in distress. Page: 116 The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) had itself embarked on a review of its regulatory framework for financial institutions, with a view to strengthening our framework for financial stability and ensuring robust protection of depositors, insurance policy holders and consumers of financial services. As part of the review, MAS took into account the FSB's Key Attributes where they are relevant to Singapore. In addition, MAS has relooked its own objects and functions, to ensure they are up-to-date and well aligned with global standards. Further, MAS has reviewed the framework for the issuance of securities by MAS.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)] Page: 112”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to make provision in accordance with Articles 148(2) and 148C(2) of the Constitution for additional expenditure in excess of the provisions authorised by the Supply Act 2012. The additional sums have been presented as Supplementary Estimates, which have been considered and approved by the House as Command Paper No 4 of 2013. Madam, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time. (proc text)] Third Reading”