Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim
Singapore
“As a society, we need to ensure that no family is trapped by their circumstances, no child is defined by their starting point, no potential goes unrealised and no hope beyond reach. This is not just a social policy; it is a moral responsibility.”
“Will the Ministry set up clear timelines, audit and review mechanisms and public reporting expectations for these enhancements, so that agencies are held to consistent standards across, and families can have this confidence and trust, especially in suspected child abuse cases, so that they are not missed or delayed in reporting?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I thank the Minister. I had a supplementary question on humanitarian aid assistance and I am heartened to hear that Singapore will continue to work with the international bodies, and at the same time maintain the safety of our humanitarian workers there.”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister for the Statement. I do agree that identity politics would be disastrous for Singapore, especially minorities. And I thank him for the Statement.”
“Sir, I thank Minister Josephine Teo, Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim and Minister of State Sun Xueling for laying out the clear and comprehensive plans and priorities for MHA.”
“Sir, I thank Minister Edwin Tong and Minister of State Murali Pillai for their clear clarifications and plans for MinLaw and for our fellow Singaporeans. Sir, the law is the tool, but justice is the ideal. I thank the staff and officers of MinLaw for making access to justice the ideal for our Singaporeans.”
The complete record
Every one of 418 lines we hold for Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 9.
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim for the clarification and answer. As a lawyer, I fully appreciate and understand the sentencing precedents and principles. Every case depends on its specific facts and extenuating circumstance, and not all of these facts may be readily available or obviously apparent to members of the public or the media. So, I have one supplementary question for the Minister of State, if I may. There has been some public discussion on the sentences handed out in the Orchard Towers case. Can I ask the Minister of State's view on the sentences meted out and whether this is in accordance with the precedents and sentencing principles that have been clarified earlier? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, we are aware of the public discussions on the Orchard Towers case. I think the common feedback that we received is that some of the sentences given look light, considering that someone has been killed. As I have explained earlier in my reply, for cases like that where it involves multiple offenders, the eventual charges and also the resultant sentences have to take into account of the culpability and the involvement of each of the accused persons. Sir, if I may, since the Member asked about the Orchard Towers case, I would like to share some insights of the case and see how we can share and really see that the sentences that had been rolled out, had been looking at the culpability and the involvement of each of the accused persons, and so that it gives a clarity to the public as well. In the Orchard Towers case, there are seven accused persons. Four have pleaded guilty to the respective charges.”
“I thank the Minister for the clarifications. I would like to ask about the adjacent sectors for madrasah students, in particular, in my speech for the Motion of Thanks to the President, I did propose the expanded capability of the Syariah Court, in view of the increasingly complex Muslim inheritance and estate planning matters. Is MUIS exploring any collaborations with MinLaw, Law Society or even the Syariah Court to expand the capability and experience of the madrasah students in this regard?”
“I am heartened that a legal advisory unit will be set up to support and advise the Inquiry Committee. With greater medical knowledge and public awareness and increasingly complex medical situations, there would be more cases in which doctors may be faced with complaints. Perhaps legal aid access can also be extended and provided to laypersons who have legitimate complaints and require assistance to file complaints. I am very grateful to Minister Edwin Tong for his clarifications and I seek the Ministry's assurance that adequate resources and manpower be provided upfront to the Inquiry Committee to cater and address these complaints filed by complainants or their families and their next-of-kin quickly, efficiently, satisfactorily, because although they are looking for a lifeline, they cannot be made to wait a lifetime. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments to these Bills.”
“But if they do, then this system of regulating the complaints against doctors and the medical profession must not only be efficient but it also must be humane in the way it explains the true situation and circumstances to the families in grief. This Bill thus must be seen in the light of its true intentions. It is not intended to shield doctors against complaints but it is to balance all interests and ensure protection and adequate recourse for patients and families. I say all this from personal experience. In 2011, a close relative suffered complications after surgery and passed away in the hospital. She was young. Her parents had not seen her graduate yet. She had a full life ahead of her. Naturally, in a time of tragedy and loss, the parents sought answers to explain their loss by questioning the system and the treating doctors and hospital. That process took more than two years, which ultimately found that there was no wrongdoing or negligence by the treating doctors. Although there was finality to the process, the sheer duration did not give the family any closure nor heal any wounds. Nothing can beguile parents from a loss of a child so overwhelming or assuage the anguish of their bereavement. It is thus important to quicken the complaint process and disciplinary procedure, which is what this Bill aims to do so as well. In this regard, I note that the first stage of the initial review and triage by the Inquiry Committee is envisaged to be completed within a general timeline of about five weeks. The second stage of the inquiry by the Complaints Committee would take another three to four months to ascertain if the complaint proceeds on to the Disciplinary Tribunal, which is the third stage.”
“The complainant challenged the decision of the Review Committee, saying that it had made its decision in just seven days, provided only a brief statement of its decision and did not even call the complainant or the lawyers that was the subject of his complaint to provide any further information or clarification. Although the judicial review challenge ultimately failed before the Court, the case highlighted the risk of protracted litigation if the first stage of the Review Committee and, in this case, the Inquiry Committee does not sufficiently manage or meet with the complaint's expectations, especially in those cases involving lay persons and grieving families. It will help to conclude the matter efficiently, but for complainants, especially the families, they need closure sooner rather than later. A couple of weeks ago, a resident informed me that her pregnant sister-in-law suffered severe bleeding while under the care of a hospital. She delivered her baby prematurely and because of some complications, the baby now suffers from permanent brain damage. They are a young working couple and that was their firstborn. They are now questioning the standard of care that they were given. In the past month, I attended a wake of a deceased elderly parent of a long-time resident of mine and volunteer. The daughter questioned whether early detection and intervention by a particular doctor would have saved her mother’s life. These are questions that families in grief are grappling with. These families may or may not probe further or proceed on in their actions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of these amendment Bills. I thank the Second Minister for Law for the explanations to the amendment Bills. I note with interest in the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill, the introduction of an Inquiry Committee in the proposed framework for the Singapore Medical Council’s Disciplinary Process as envisaged in the Bill. This new committee would sift through at first level, those frivolous and vexatious complaints before they even reach the Complaints Committee. The Inquiry Committee would thus be able to either dismiss a complaint, issue a letter of advice or refer the matter to the Complaints Committee and also to refer for mediation. The Inquiry Committee would also be able to refer the matter to mediation before making these orders. To prevent the filing of frivolous and vexatious complaints, the Inquiry Committee and the Complaints Committee also have power to order costs against the complainant. All of these measures are necessary and welcomed. They balance both the interests of the patient or the family, usually the complainant, and that of the doctor being complained of. I draw parallels between this Inquiry Committee and that of the Review Committee of the Law Society of Singapore. We can draw lessons from similar amendments to the Legal Profession Act or LPA. Those amendments were back in 2001 which had introduced a Review Committee. The function of the Review Committee in the LPA is also to review each complaint and dismiss those that are "frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance". In a 2018 Court of Appeal case Re Nalpon, Zero Geraldo [2018] SGCA 71, the decision of a Review Committee in the LPA was challenged by way of a judicial review. The case involved a complaint against lawyers by another lawyer.”
“This would hopefully then attract more cross-border transactions and international disputes to be heard before the Singapore Courts and SIAC. Consequently, it would only mean more exposure and training for our local lawyers from a professional development standpoint. As an international disputes lawyer, I have handled disputes in various jurisdictions and arbitration centres, SIAC here, London Court of International Arbitration and International Court of Arbitration in London and Paris. However, looking at the current climate, local younger lawyers, may not get much exposure and opportunity to experience handling international arbitration disputes. As such, we need to consider tabling these other proposals soon for the benefit of our future generations of talent. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not a glass-half-empty kind of guy – looking at what is not there instead of what is. But I fear that if we do not fill the glass up now, we may be too late to do so in the future. Necessity is the mother of all inventions. There is an opportunity for us to reinvent and leapfrog the competition now. I therefore seek an indication from the Minister on whether the other proposals in the consultation paper, particularly the two I mentioned, are being tabled and if so, when. Clarifications notwithstanding, Mr Speaker, I support the amendments to the Bill. 3.21 pm”
“They require more flexibility; some may prefer greater court supervision on matters of law in arbitral proceedings. Others, as so, and prefer to waive appeals to the High Court on arbitral awards in the interests of having finality in the arbitral process. Corporations are also rethinking their agreements to prepare for a post-COVID world and considering the best dispute resolution mechanism that would offer them the best flexibility or option. Hence, while I applaud the efforts made to further ensure that Singapore’s arbitration regime remains responsive and relevant to evolving needs, I would urge MinLaw to consider expediting the tabling of the other proposals in the consultation paper as this will be key to cementing Singapore’s status as the preferred seat for arbitration disputes and leapfrog us over other competitive jurisdictions. My focus is on two separate proposals raised in the consultation paper which are not tabled here in this Bill. The first of which would allow parties which seek greater curial intervention, to appeal to the High Court on a question of law in an award based on an opt-in mechanism. The second would allow parties who on the other hand prefer minimal curial intervention, to agree to waive or limit the annulment grounds under the relevant sections of the IAA and the Model Law. I believe that these proposals would be beneficial to Singapore. Firstly, they would sharpen our edge as a preferred seat of arbitration as they would cement parties’ autonomy, front and centre, in our arbitration legislative framework. Parties would have more options and flexibility to tailor an international agreement to suit their unique purposes, especially in preparation for a post-COVID world.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this amendment Bill. I thank the Second Minister for Law for the explanations to the amendment Bill. I declare my interest as a legal practitioner in international arbitration disputes. The two broad areas of amendments that the Bill proposes in relation to multi-party arbitration and powers of arbitral tribunals and the High Court are important are important and very much welcome. These amendments are also timely since the last amendments came in 2012. I have no doubt that with these amendments, more parties will benefit by bringing their disputes seated in Singapore or before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre or SIAC. I thank MinLaw which had proactively consulted various stakeholders in the international arbitration eco-system in Singapore. There were various proposals stated in the public consultation paper. It has to be noted, though, that since the conclusion of the public consultation in 2019, admittedly we are now facing a much-changed global legal landscape ravaged by the current COVID-19 pandemic. Since the pandemic, there has been an uptick in terms of brewing cross-border disputes arising out of force majeure, impossibility of performance and other contractual breaches. However, even with our Singapore law firms’ increasing global presence, connections and international expertise, we continually face stiff competition to attract these disputes to our shores. This is because clients and litigants are not only more sophisticated, but they are more sensitive to disputes, especially during this time. They are craving for certainty both in terms of costs and outcome of arbitration proceedings especially in the midst of this economic outlook.”
“] In my experience as a former Director of the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DPPMS), an alternative platform for holding meetings was a most welcomed one. This is because most of the DPPMS members are businessmen or micro-SMEs and, by allowing AGMs to be held through alternative platforms, such as online communications, this can help lower their costs because many of our enterprises have spread their wings to either regional or international markets. In addition, when I was a Director at AMP, we have studied how digital transformation can be implemented in our Malay/Muslim welfare organisations. Through COVID-19 and the amendments to the Act, many more organisations can make use of this opportunity to undergo digital transformation. Therefore, I welcome this amendment. (In English) Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I support the amendments. I would like to ask the Minister whether alternative meeting arrangements can be considered in the long-term as part of our public and private companies' and charities' legislative and regulatory framework, just like Member Vikram Nair said earlier. This will be the start of our digitalisation movement towards alternative meeting arrangements as our organisations become more global in nature and members are situated anywhere around the world. Further, this will stand us in good stead to be prepared for future crises. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments in the Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of this amendment Bill. I thank the Second Minister for Law for the explanations to the amendment Bill. I declare my interest as a corporate dispute lawyer and sitting on boards of several charities and companies. Members of my firm are also volunteers of the assessor team. The amendments, as proposed in the Bill, are timely and, in particular, the amendments to section 27 of the Act in relation to the alternative meeting arrangements for organisations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Current alternative meeting arrangements expire on 30 September. With the extension to June 2021, this is greatly welcomed as it avoids several difficulties. The present amendment, which will pave the way forward for an extension of timeline, is also welcomed by organisations and charities as well. However, I am proposing whether the Government can look into how we can incorporate such alternative meeting arrangements on a long-term basis, embedded as part of our companies' and charities' legislative and regulatory framework beyond this COVID-19 period, beyond a temporary basis. The feedback I have received and my own experience are that these alternative meeting arrangements have proven to be not only cost-efficient but effective as it compels meetings to prioritise and focus on the business at hand. Indeed, COVID-19 has precipitated and necessitated the digital adoption and transformation of our organisations. But having taken the first steps of the digitalisation journey, we should adopt a framework that would encourage organisations to continue to forge ahead with the digitalisation journey for our organisations. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.”
“What makes Singapore special is that we embrace and celebrate diversity, including the political diversity that makes up this current Parliament. Political diversity is not the monopoly of any party. We have seen from the speeches made this week of the diverse views held among all of us. Yet, we still respect and must hold on to our common values that make us uniquely Singaporean. I reflected upon what Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in his speech yesterday, about our future and our political discourse. In Parliament, every word we say here is recorded forever. I urge and have full confidence that Members of this House will prioritise people over polarising politics. It must be for the cause, not the applause; the intention and not attention. We have to set the tone in this House for the discourse of our politics. It will ring loud here and outside, in our constituencies, in our communities, in our homes. We have to set the example, history will judge us, our children and their children will judge us as well. They will either look up to us or look away. The crisis we face will not define us. It is our responses as a people that would shape our collective future. Let us continue to play our part to rebuild a more resilient, more inclusive, more vibrant society and economy than ever before. Together we are greater than the sum of our parts. But if one part is not connected, then everything else may fall apart. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]”
“Our Malay/Muslim community's sacrifices during the past Ramadan amidst the COVID-19 pandemic gives me hope that we can weather this economic crisis and address the problems faced by our community. Issues such as drug abuse, divorce and domestic violence are affecting all levels of society and do not differentiate between race or religion. Therefore, our approach to these issues has changed and should continue to change. For example, by fully leveraging on Government resources and relooking issues from the national lens, the M3 approach has enabled professionals and volunteers, regardless of race, to work together, combine their efforts and generate new constructive ideas. M3 strategies and approaches should be looked into, not only for our Malay/Muslim community, but also because it can potentially be harnessed by all the communities in our country. We now face an unparalleled economic crisis and face a single enemy in dealing with COVID-19. As we embrace the diversity of recommendations and opinions, we must uphold the core values that were championed by our nation’s pioneers, that is, to place importance on unity in society and diversity. When the storm hits the wharf, The anchor is dropped by the seasoned captain, When a crisis hits our shores, Prioritise unity in our nation. (In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, none of us knows for sure how Singapore will look like after this crisis right now. But storms draw something out of us that calm seas do not. If we take care of the building blocks of our society, strengthen the connections and co-create and build together, I believe we can ride through this storm not just surviving but thriving.”
“As Henry Ford said, "Coming together is the beginning, staying together is progress and working together is success". At this inflection point for our country, we must embark on our journey together – one of reflection and rebuilding. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Malay please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The process of self-reflection and co-creating solutions is nothing new to the Malay/Muslim community. I think we should be bold enough to evaluate what is available, revamp what is obvious to us and proceed to build it. Here I would like to suggest that the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) can be amended to widen the Syariah Court's jurisdiction limits to not only handle divorce cases but also disputes involving faraid, wakaf and inheritance issues. Now, although the faraid Certificate of Inheritance is issued by the Syariah Court and wakaf administration is under Muis' purview, any dispute related to it should be tried by the Civil Court. I am proposing for a dispute resolution framework in faraidh and wakaf cases, which can include mediation or arbitration at the Syariah Court. At the same time, this can help build expertise in the Syariah Court and sensitive issues related to wakaf can be looked into from the lens of the community. With the existence of the Committee on Future Asatizah (COFA) and the Singapore Community Wakaf initiative, we can build a legal framework that can develop the expertise of religious teachers and meet the needs of the community in the future. My hope is that we can make this a success together. The oft-mentioned spirit of mutual cooperation can change a person's life and unite the community.”
“I hope the Task Force can look at how we can make it easier for the discrete reporting of domestic violence in the case of elderly abuse and immigrant wives. In Australia, the Department of Home Affairs provide information to immigrant wives on domestic abuse and how to get help upon their entry into the country. Perhaps we can adopt a similar approach for immigrant wives, so that they too, can understand their rights and protection afforded to them under our laws. Even after working closely together, we need to ensure that we stay together as one. One of my residents in Keat Hong, has been running a foster home in her jumbo flat for the past 15 years. Currently, she has eight children under her care. Most of the children have incarcerated parents. People like her create a more stable and supportive environment for these children. How do we attract and retain more such partners? Some jurisdictions have built up a pool of licensed, temporary foster care-givers who can step in and offer relief for current foster parents so that they can recharge and not now, but in the long-term, the flexibility and short-term nature may even attract more to be temporary foster care-givers before they decide to be full-time. We need to find ways to not only incentivise but to also take care of our community partners and volunteers, so that more will be encouraged to step forward. The broader point I am making is this – we need to see beyond the lens of the beneficiary or recipient. We need to look at it from the perspective of the provider also. This is in line with the spirit of togetherness that Mr Yip Hon Weng stated in his speech yesterday as well. With all of these ingredients, we can make it work.”
“In this respect, I submit that we have to do two things. First, we have to work together and then we have to stay together. To illustrate this, I will refer to the work in ending domestic violence and working with families. Since the circuit breaker, there is a concern in the rise of domestic violence cases. The police reported an increase of 22% reports of family violence since the beginning of the circuit breaker period. According to MSF, adult and child protection services saw a 14% increase in inquiries related to domestic conflicts and violence in the first two weeks of the circuit breaker period alone. However, I would caution that these are only the reported cases. The tip of the iceberg. According to an Ipsos study in 2019, a third of Singaporeans said that they or someone close to them had experienced domestic violence. Another survey by the International Violence against Women in Singapore found that less than a quarter of victims actually report domestic violence cases to the police. I am using the term "domestic violence" because it encompasses more than just violence between family members. Under the current legislation, only family violence is specifically defined. Perhaps it is time to broaden the definition beyond family to domestic violence or revisit the approach in the Family Violence Bill previously proposed in 1995. Having said that, I am also heartened that the Inter-Agency Task Force on Domestic Violence has been formed, headed by Minister of State Sun Xueling and Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim. It has connected Government agencies, the judiciary and strategic community partners to address domestic violence issue. This is an ongoing process. This consultative method is the way forward. Not everything has to be legislated.”
“But we must do this in a fiscally responsible manner. How do we review and increase the limits from MediSave and MediShield Life to help the financial burden now; perhaps we can increase the limit on an interim basis at least during this pandemic period. Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How has also mentioned such review in his speech. I have filed a Parliamentary Question related to this. Next, on housing. According to HDB, from April to June this year, there has been a threefold increase of households facing financial difficulty to make their monthly mortgage payments, compared to the same period last year. To address this, besides various repayment solutions offered by HDB, late payment charges have been suspended until the end of this month. I would suggest that HDB consider extending this until the end of this year. This will be consistent with the intent behind MAS' relief package initiative which allows residential owners to defer repayment of commercial bank loans up to 31 December 2020. Besides financial help, we need to explore other ways and frameworks to ease the mental and emotional strains on families to make it easier for family members to share the load and ensure the family stays strong through this crisis. Especially for those who may need more help. However, the family or the building block is very different now than what it was 30 years ago. Blended families, unwed mothers, single working adults, taking care of their elderly parents, all make up our building blocks of society. We must not leave anyone behind especially the vulnerable or what Ms Carrie Tan referenced in her speech yesterday as the "challenged families". A chain is no stronger than its weakest link. We need an ecosystem of stronger connections within our community.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support for the Motion of Thanks to the President for her Address. Before I begin, I would like to declare that I am a practising lawyer and a member of the board of an Institute of Public Character providing crisis shelter for domestic violence survivors. President Halimah Yacob highlighted that we will have to strengthen our safety nets and support every Singaporean. I fully agree. Like many other Singaporean parents, I dream of building a stronger and more cohesive society for our children. My speech is inspired by my six-year old son and his love for Lego blocks. Each block is important. But, if you do not connect them properly, then the entire structure may be unstable. To me, each Singaporean family represents that building block of our society. These blocks may come in different shapes or colours but when connected together they are stronger and more beautiful. In order for us to build a more cohesive society, I submit that we will have to continue doing three things. Firstly, support each building block; secondly, strengthen the connections and thirdly, provide the space for continuous rebuilding. Supporting families is crucial given the financial and emotional stresses that they now face. The economic crisis of today may give rise to the social crisis of tomorrow. I propose two specific areas of support in healthcare and housing. For many families I have met in Keat Hong, their common fear is to lose a job or worse, suffer a major illness. One of my residents, Mr Tan, suffers from kidney failure and now, a drop in income. He is concerned that if the costs of dialysis treatment keep on going up, he would have to dip further into his life savings. For families like Mr Tan's, we must continue to review how our healthcare safety nets work.”