1 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the plans to provide student care centres (SCC) in Yishun South including pre-school centres; (b) what are the minimum criteria for private SCCs' operations to ensure that they provide acceptable standards of service; and (c) how often does the Ministry visit these centres to ensure compliance.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, childcare centres provide full-day and half-day care programmes to children below the age of seven, while student care centres (SCCs) provide care and supervision to school-going children from seven to 14 years old.
At the pre-school level, there are 67 childcare centres in the Yishun planning area. About a third are within the existing Nee Soon South ward at Yishun South. To ensure continued access to quality, affordable preschools, the Government will provide about 2,000 more Government-supported places in Yishun planning area over the next few years.
For student care, there are four SCCs registered with MSF to administer the Student Care Fee Assistance (SCFA) scheme in Nee Soon South ward. Two of them are located in Primary schools and the other two in the community. Together, these four centres have enrolled about 400 students, with sufficient capacity to meet demand. In recent years, MOE has steadily increased the number of school-based SCCs. In particular, for Nee Soon South, Naval Base Primary School has had an SCC since 2007 and Peiying Primary School’s SCC was set up in 2019 to improve accessibility of SCCs. Both centres still have vacancies. MSF and MOE will continue to monitor the demand for SCC places and expand capacity where there is demand.
SCCs that wish to administer SCFA are required to register with MSF. MSF requires registered SCCs, including centres operated by private entities, to meet stipulated standards. These include standards on, among other things, providing a clean and safe physical environment with appropriately sized activity areas, observing good safety, health and hygiene practices, proper supervision of students, and a structured daily programme that supports learning and development. For example, SCC premises should have at least three square metres of space per student, and at least one SCC staff who is trained in first aid should be present at all times during opening hours.
MSF conducts audits on registered SCCs, which may include surprise checks, at least once every two years to ensure compliance with the above requirements. More frequent checks may be conducted as needed, for example to look into feedback and complaints received and where the SCC has weaknesses identified in previous audits. SCCs that do not meet requirements and fail to rectify the areas of improvement within the stipulated timeline can have their SCFA administrator status revoked.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his comprehensive reply. I have four supplementary questions.
First, from the feedback from my residents is that for the school-based SCCs, most of the time, my residents are told that the places are reserved for children from lower income families. Is this true? Many of those from middle income families find that they have problems getting into school-based SCCs.
The second question is, I am glad to hear that there is such a requirement of three square metres per student. I would like to ask if there are audit checks to make sure that the SCCs adhere to such a requirement. The feedback is that it is always very cramped. They have visited the private ones and they say these are always very cramped, and the children, some lie on the floor, some lie on the table; and they look like they are not very well run.
The third question is, the feedback received from private operators is that HDB releases void deck space more for childcare centres, not so much for student care operators. Is there a plan for HDB to release void deck space to private operators for SCCs?
The last question is, I understand that MOE has plans for after-school care in every Primary school. I would like to ask if there is any timeline and whether we are on schedule?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions and all the suggestions. Let me answer the fourth question first. I am happy to share with the Member that we are on track to have SCCs in all 185 Primary schools by 2020. So, this is good news.
As it is today, the capacity in the Nee Soon South area, in particular, exceeds utilisation. If the Member has any requests or demands from any resident from her constituency, she may like to work with us to see how we can help.
As for the question about three square metres, we do have audit checks. We have a framework where we work not only with operators, but also with parents and whenever we know there are some inconsistencies in the practices, we will be more than happy to look at it. We want to make sure that the child's time in the SCC is meaningful and has value-add, and that helps in the educational journey.
For the question about the private sector, we take note of this feedback. At the end of the day, we work with the local community and the agencies to see how we are able to meet the demand. At this point in time, in Nee Soon South, the demand is less than the capacity that we have. We will continue to see how we can facilitate this whole process of providing every child a good start in life.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Rehabilitate and Protect At-risk Individuals and Offenders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether he can provide an update on measures taken to rehabilitate and protect at-risk individuals and offenders to transform their lives and the results to date.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, the Government adopts a range of measures to support at-risk youths and youth offenders.
First, we intervene upstream to address risk factors before offences are committed.
In 2012, MSF appointed two Social Service Agencies to run \"Youth GO!\". Under Youth GO!, youth workers would conduct street outreach to engage at-risk youths and sometimes, it could be even late at night. Youth GO! workers reach out to around 300 youths each month and engage them in structured activities, which reduces risky behaviours and improves their relationships and life skills.
MSF works closely with MOE to provide the Enhanced STEP-UP (ESU) programme, benefiting more than 600 youths each year. This programme supports youths who are at risk of dropping out and those who have left school, so that they can continue their education or acquire vocational skills for employment.
MSF is also working with our partners to pilot a Localised Community Network (LCN) in Jurong West, to improve the coordination between various partners and provide more seamless support to the youths and their families. If this pilot works out, we can look to expand it. So, that is first – upstream.
Second, we divert youth offenders away from the criminal justice system as far as possible.
MSF appointed nine social service agencies to be what we call \"Integrated Service Providers\" or ISPs, which support youth offenders diverted away from the criminal justice system. ISPs run programmes to address offending behaviours and have worked with around 900 youths and families so far. On average, more than 80% of the youths satisfactorily complete their programmes. Arrests of youths aged between seven and 19 years old have fallen from around 3,100 in 2014 to 2,700 in 2018, a decrease of 13%.
Third, we prioritise community-based interventions to involve families and minimise disruption to the youth's development.
Such interventions include probation and rehabilitation outside of residential facilities. MSF employs a family-focused approach to address the root causes of youth offending, such as weak family support. The average three-year recidivism rate of probationers aged below 16 years old has fallen. A 19.5% recidivism rate for cases closed from 2007 to 2009, improved to 12.5% for cases closed from 2010 to 2014.
MSF's Youth Homes run programmes to build our youths’ character and life-skills. Formal education is a key component as well, and the majority of those who sit for national examinations such as the GCE \"N\" and \"O\" Levels, attain passes above the national average.
Fourth, we sustain rehabilitative outcomes to better re-integrate children with their families and society.
We announced during the Committee of Supply this year that we are extending the period of post-care support in Youth Homes from two months to one year. The longer duration helps youths to sustain good habits and skills acquired during their residence and encourages them to continue their academic or vocational training. The Singapore Prison Service adopts a similar approach for youth offenders in prison, by staging support from the point of imprisonment, to their release and reintegration back into the community.
In addition, labelling someone as an ex-offender makes reintegration more difficult for him or her. Hence, our recent amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act or CYPA have also included enhancing the protection of youth offenders' identity and privacy.
The Government is committed to protecting and supporting youth-at-risk and youth offenders. This is a continuous work-in-progress. MSF will continue to work closely with other Ministries and our community partners to steer at-risk youths away from negative behaviours and provide rehabilitative and post-care initiatives to break the cycle of offending.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): I thank the Minister for the comprehensive answer. Indeed, I am very encouraged by the good progress that he has reported. I would like to ask one supplementary question, which is beyond all the efforts taken – both upstream and downstream – and attempts to re-integrate these at-risk individuals with their families and into society, I would like to ask what efforts are being made, in particular, for them once they are able to get into the job market. What efforts are there that are made to help them find suitable jobs? At the same time, are there any schemes which would allow employers to also be encouraged or incentivised to take on-board these individuals?
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his interest in ensuring that beyond the formal framework of supporting youth offenders in the institutions and in the one-year period immediately post discharge, what more are we doing. Sometime ago, we ran a pilot, working with the employment agencies in Government to provide a framework to help at-risk youths and youth offenders re-integrate into the workforce, and to help address any concerns that they may have in doing so. At the conclusion of the pilot, that effort was merged into the mainstream WSG framework so that employment agencies working with WSG are empowered to provide better support to at-risk youths and youth offenders.
We continue to keep a close eye on that front. With the support of the various social service agencies in the community, we will partner and look out for youths who start to struggle, even as they attempt to re-integrate back into society and back into the workforce. We would, of course, be very happy if the Member representing the enterprises that he does, is prepared to partner us in some future point in time, to continue this work of partnership to better enable youth offenders to find their place back in society.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outlook for Net Formation of Businesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the expected outlook for the net formation (formation minus cessation) of businesses by sector in 2019; (b) which sectors are seeing declining net formation trends and what are the likely causes for the declines; (c) what efforts are being introduced to ensure net formation remains healthy over the coming years; and (d) whether there will be a continued level of \"healthy\" cessation of businesses.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Sir, in the first nine months of 2019, the total net formation of business entities in the economy was around 9,900. This is about a quarter lower than the average of around 13,800 recorded over the same period between 2014 and 2018.
Most sectors saw a fall in the net formation of business entities during this period, including the transportation and storage, business services and construction sectors. Heightened economic uncertainties in the global economy and the resulting slowdown in the Singapore economy are likely to be factors contributing to this trend. MTI expects the net formation of businesses to remain subdued for the rest of 2019.
MTI has several strategies to develop a vibrant eco-system for business. First, we are looking at ways to grow our economy and enable companies to seize new opportunities, both locally and overseas. This includes transforming our industries, developing new sectors such as agri-tech and precision medicine, and supporting our companies to tap on external growth opportunities.
\t
Second, we are fostering a pro-enterprise environment by lowering the barriers of entry and exit for businesses. For instance, MTI launched the GoBusiness Licensing portal for food services on 31 October, which reduces the number of regulatory touch-points for businesses from 14 to one and the number of data fields required from more than 800 to below 100. Businesses can also benefit from lower licence fees and quicker processing time. We will extend this to other sectors, such as retail and environmental services, so that more businesses can benefit from the rules review and process re-engineering.
Third, we will continue to develop a vibrant startup eco-system. We established Startup SG in 2017 to provide start-ups with access to a wide range of local financial and non-financial support. These include Startup SG Founder, which provides mentorship and start-up capital grants to first-time entrepreneurs with innovative business ideas and Startup SG Network, which connects startup eco-system players.
Sir, Government measures are important, but they are not sufficient. To succeed in our goal of building a vibrant business eco-system, we need a collective effort from business owners, workers and Government to work in partnership to transform our economy and enterprises together.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive answers to my question. I only have one supplementary question. In relation to the continued level of \"healthy\" cessation of businesses, as stated in the last part of my original question, can the Senior Minister of State share whether MTI has any specific level of target in terms of the definition of \"healthy\" cessation of businesses? In relation to the economic cycle we are facing now, whether there is any good feel of \"healthy\" cessation of businesses going forward, in taking into particular consideration, the outlook of the economy.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Sir, I think in any economy, whether in good times or in challenging times, we will see firms entering and firms exiting. This is part and parcel of a well functioning economy. What we want is to ensure that, in the end, resources are being channelled into the more productive, more competitive firms. Firms that are able to offer better services, better products, better able to meet customers' needs. So, we do not have targets in terms of what are the levels of firms exiting the economy. But certainly, I think this process of allowing the churn – firms that are not doing well, exiting; firms that are more competitive, more productive, doing better, coming in – so that the resources – land, labour – these resources are then better able to be channelled to the more competitive and more productive companies.
Over time, if we do this well, then the economy will get stronger and stronger, the capabilities in our enterprises will get stronger and our workers will be able to get better jobs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of British Inventor’s Announcement to Drop Electric Car Project in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what is the impact of Dyson's cancellation of plans to build electric vehicles (EV) in Singapore and whether there are value propositions and opportunities to develop the EV business.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, the question on electric vehicles and Dyson's decision was also raised by Mr Seah Kian Peng yesterday and the reply had been converted into a written answer. But, let me address Mr Liang Eng Hwa's question on a very similar topic.
Sir, Dyson's decision to wind down its electric vehicles business will not impact its presence and operations in Singapore. Out of Dyson's 1,200-strong workforce in Singapore, 20 employees are from their electric vehicles business. Dyson will redeploy the affected employees within the organisation.
Although Dyson will no longer pursue its electric vehicles business, it will continue to grow its core business in Singapore, develop battery technology for consumer products and expand research and development in areas such as sensors, robotics and artificial intelligence, which will also support the development of a smart mobility eco-system.
Other companies have also expressed interest in developing smart mobility solutions in Singapore. They value our highly skilled workforce, our strengths in advanced technologies such as robotics and automation and our strong intellectual property protection regime; and if I may add, our strong tripartite partnership. We will continue to work with these companies to harness the new opportunities for Singapore, for our companies, for our workers.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether there were any issues of the lack of any specific capabilities or advantages on our part that contributed to Dyson's cancellation of the plans to build electric vehicles here in Singapore? Whether the electric vehicles industry is one that we want to grow or pursue; whether we do have plans to attract other electric vehicles industry players here; and also, whether do we have the necessary capabilities to support such an industry?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Sir, I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his supplementary question. Is it due to a lack of capabilities? No. Dyson decided not to continue with its electric vehicles manufacturing, this is a business that they were thinking of going into and later they decided that it would not be viable, commercially, for the company to continue. So, they have stopped their plans to go into this area.
Singapore, we do have strengths, as I explained in my answer, in advanced manufacturing, in automation. Because people see Singapore as a place where you can do research and development, you have a skilled workforce, you have good intellectual property protection. This eco-system is what we are trying to grow, whether it is for manufacturing of electric vehicles, high-end equipment for precision engineering, for bio and medical technology equipment, things which require high skill and can produce high value, things which require a lot of intellectual property and knowledge-based, things which Singapore, with our trusted brand name, skilled workforce, we are well-equipped to play it.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): I just want to ask the Senior Minister of State, Dyson in its earlier investment commitments that it had made, notwithstanding the change in plans for electric vehicles, would these continued to be honoured?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: The plans for the electric vehicles and any associated incentives that are tied to the electric vehicles project, if the electrical vehicles project is not going to continue, the incentives would not be given. I want to be clear that because the project has not taken place and the investments have not been made, the incentives have not been given. So, with the decision by Dyson not to continue with this electrical vehicles business, the incentives would therefore not be given for this project.
For other projects that Dyson has already started or it is planning to expand some of its activities in Singapore, that is something we will look at separately.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Public Transport Vouchers Not Redeemed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the reasons leading to only 192,000 out of the projected 300,000 Public Transport Vouchers (PTVs) being redeemed in the 2018 exercise; (b) what are the administrative costs and challenges faced by the People's Association and grassroots organisations in their PTV outreach programmes; and (c) whether the Ministry will explore the possibility of automatic distribution for PTVs 2019 for individuals who fulfil certain criteria, such as those under ComCare, Silver Support Scheme, or HDB Public Rental Scheme.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Transport): Speaker, the Government is committed to helping needy commuters cope with public transport fare increases through providing them with Public Transport Vouchers (PTVs). We regularly review the PTV process to set appropriate eligibility criteria and the quantum for each exercise. This year, we have expanded the criteria so that one in five resident households are eligible, doubling the proportion for the 2018 PTV exercise.
In addition, we will continue to make available more PTVs, over and above the number of eligible households. This is so that local Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) can have the flexibility to provide additional assistance to needy households with special circumstances or those that marginally miss the eligibility criteria.
We actively reach out to eligible households to encourage them to apply for the vouchers. In addition to media announcements, we work with the People's Association to raise awareness, including distributing publicity collaterals in four languages at all Community Clubs, as well as through house visits and events.
The PTV application process allows us to directly engage and better understand each household's needs, which may go beyond transport costs. Through this process, the CCCs have been able to provide tailored support through other Government assistance schemes. We will continue to explore ways to streamline the process for future exercises.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. My first supplementary question is really a clarification, which is, whether there is any insight or reason for the quite large shortfall in the number of PTVs issued compared to the projected number initially. I am not sure that there was much insight into that at the moment.
The second supplementary question is, whether the various PT assistance schemes could be consolidated to support low-income individuals better to ensure no gaps in coverage. The reason is, as we have seen, the evidence suggests that right now, there may be gaps in coverage because there could be eligible families who are not coming forward for whatever reason; and it would be better to automatically give them some grants.
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: Sir, PTVs have been in existence since 2007, so, more than 10 years. The number of vouchers made available has increased over the years. For the latest exercise, in 2018, the number of vouchers made available was the highest amount at that point. The quantum and the numbers benefiting from the PTV exercise have also increased, although given that the fare increase typically follows a certain timeframe – for example, end of the year – therefore, the PTV take-up rate may not be reflective of the economic climate or the needs of low-income households.
We respect the decision of each household to apply for the PTVs. When we look at the proportion, there is no discernible trend of whether it is decreasing or increasing, I think this depends on the individuals or the households' decision whether to apply or not. In fact, there are times when we advise residents to apply for certain social assistance schemes; the response is that they can cope and they do not see the need to go forth and apply for these schemes.
Having said that, we are committed to raise awareness of PTV exercise so that those who are in need are not deprived of it because of ignorance. Given this time, for the 2019 PTVs, we have raised the household income eligibility criterion. So, we expect more households to benefit and hopefully they can come forward to apply for the PTVs.
As to the Member's second question about the consolidation of different assistance schemes, our fare structure does take care of different vulnerable groups. For example, low-income workers who are already on the WIS scheme can already qualify for the concessionary fare. Students, senior citizens and people with disabilities also enjoy concessionary fares. In fact, more than half of Singaporeans do not pay the adult fare, the full adult fare, so they are already taken care of under the concessionary fares schemes. But the needs of every individual or household could differ. It could go beyond public transport. That is why there are various other schemes available, some are automatic, some are upon application, so that tailored assistance could be made available to help these residents. We look forward to the local CCCs' support to help us reach out to these households so that help can be rendered to them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Final Environmental Impact Assessment before Decision on Alignment Option for Cross Island MRT Line","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport whether the Government will undertake a final environmental impact assessment study to consider the holistic impact of the Cross Island MRT Line before making a decision on which of the two existing alignment options to choose from.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, in 2013, LTA engaged a global specialist consultant to embark on a comprehensive and extensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for a segment of the Cross Island Line (CRL) near the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR). The study was divided into two phases with the first phase focusing on the environmental impact of undertaking site investigation works on the CCNR. The second phase of the study focused on the potential environmental impact of the construction and operational phases of the CRL. Together, they would provide a complete assessment of the environmental impact of the project.
Findings from Phase 1 of the EIA concluded that the site investigations works, with the implementation of mitigating measures and controlled access, could be carried out with moderate impact on the few parts of the nature reserve where these works were to take place. They were gazetted in February 2016 and were widely reported in the media. The Nature Groups were also invited to observe the actual conduct of the site investigation works in the CCNR.
\t
Phase 2 of the EIA took a further three years and the findings were gazetted in September 2019. Phase 2 of the study was conducted based on a robust set of engineering schemes, which were independently reviewed by an International Panel of Advisors. The report concluded that both underground alignment options are feasible with appropriate mitigating measures. LTA has posted a copy of the report on its website for public viewing and feedback.
In undertaking the EIA, LTA engaged with stakeholders for both alignments. These included discussions and site visits with the Nature Groups as well as local grassroots leaders and residents who may be affected. Their feedback has helped LTA develop a comprehensive set of measures to mitigate the potential impact during the construction and operation of the CRL. There are no plans for a further EIA.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I have two supplementary questions.
My first supplementary question is this: in assessing the impact of the Cross Island Line, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Government has evaluated, one, the animal population projections and two, the future impact of climate change for the critically endangered and endangered species in the CCNR and its adjacent forest, and whether this information will be made available to the public. The basis of my supplementary question is as follows.
It has been reported in the EIA report, I believe, that various critically endangered species as well as endangered species of animals tend to be affected as a result. However, it is unclear whether the Government, whether by EIA or other studies, has tracked the population sizes of these species and, more crucially, whether there have been quantitative projections made to gauge how these population sizes may shift due to the construction. It is also unclear whether fairly established matrix used in conservation such as species richness or species evenness have been considered.
For the long-term impact of climate change, factoring in this aspect will allow for better understanding of the true resilience of the eco-system in this area, which is important given that the effects of habitat fragmentation and loss will have long-term impacts on the eco-system in the area.
My second supplementary question is this: even with mitigation, habitat loss and fragmentation at the worksite may result in the loss of eco-system services, such as carbon sequestration and natural heritage, currently provided by these areas.
Will the Ministry conduct a study to holistically evaluate, if it has not, the economic, cultural and environmental value of these eco-system services provided at these sites before making a decision on the Cross Island Line?
The rationale for me asking this supplementary question is simply this: the idea is that when environmental degradation involving habitat loss and habitat fragmentation occurs, even if trees are replanted, the eco-system services provided by the original forest may either be lost or will take decades or more to be re-established to its prior magnitude and scale.
The important principle here is that degraded eco-system cannot be regenerated wholesale, they can only be rehabilitated.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, the Member Mr Dennis Tan's Parliamentary Question was about the EIA but his supplementary question, if I understand correctly, is about the larger question about how a decision is arrived for the CRL alignment, and whether the EIA done thus far is sufficient.
He has not provided a criticism of either the methodology or the process, or the experts, or the people that have been involved in the EIA. So, as far as the EIA is concerned, it is limited to the projected plans and designs of the CRL and its interaction with the Central Catchment Area. It is not designed to take a whole-of-economy or whole-of-biome approach. Those are things that having had the EIA, the stakeholders, the Ministry, the various agencies involved have to take into consideration including, for example, the economic impact.
I just want to have some clarity. Is he suggesting that we redo the EIA because he fundamentally disagrees with the methodology and the findings? Secondly, is he advocating for a specific choice in the alignment of the CRL? Thirdly, I would just make the point that if the question is how might climate change or change in biodiversity interact with any given technical study limited to one specific part of our biome, that is a moving target. That would be something that you can never be satisfied you have done enough because the next study, say, two or three years henceforth, the climate will have changed. Factors affecting our biodiversity will have changed. These are things that academics have to continue to study even as we make our decisions about how to build our public transport system. So, perhaps, the Member might clarify what exactly he is criticising on the EIA and is he advocating for a specific choice for the CRL.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. My answer in short is no. I am not criticising but I have highlighted, firstly, in my Parliamentary Question to ask the Minister whether the Government undertake a final EIA study to consider the holistic impact. I have sought to explain \"holistic impact\". Perhaps, let me explain further about my second supplementary question in terms of what I mean by \"holistic impact\". I am asking if we have done, and if not, are we prepared to do a more holistic valuation of the worksite environment through eco-system service valuation techniques which assess the economic, cultural and environmental value of our natural capital.
I believe I also have touched on and explained, for my first supplementary question, about the animal population projection and the future impact of climate change. If this has been done, and if the Senior Minister of State, the Ministry, is satisfied, so be it. But I am just asking for clarification whether they are prepared to consider these, if these have not been done.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I am glad the Member has made it clear that he is not criticising the EIA that has already been done because it was indeed holistic and comprehensive, involving a robust panel of advisors as well as a wide variety of stakeholders. It is a useful set of information for us to then consider how best to align the CRL. It is not the only factor that is taken into account. Indeed, in making the decision, economic and many other factors will have to be taken into account.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, may I just ask, specifically, when will we be making this decision on which alignment we will be using?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I do not have a date to announce at this point in time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Vape Sellers and Buyers Caught in Recent Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the number of illegal vape sellers and buyers apprehended in the last three years; (b) how many of these purchases were made online and through physical stores; (c) what have been the actions taken against these offenders; and (d) what more can the Ministry do to deter the purchase and sale of illegal vapes in Singapore.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Health): MOH banned vaporisers to protect the public from health risks associated with such products.
It is an offence under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act to sell, possess for sale, import or distribute vaporisers. Any person who is convicted is liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment of up to six months or to both for the first offence, and to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment of up to 12 months or to both, for the second or subsequent offence. With effect from 1 February 2018, the use, purchase or possession of vaporisers is also an offence and is punishable with a fine of up to $2,000.
From 1 January 2017 to 30 September 2019, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) handled 219 cases involving the sale of vaporisers, all of which were sold online. From 1 February 2018 to 30 September 2019, 465 people were caught for the possession of vaporisers. The enforcement actions taken against these offenders depended on the merits of each case and included prosecution, composition fines or a warning. The stiffest penalty imposed was $99,000, for a peddler who was charged on 9 September 2019 for importing and peddling e-cigarettes.
HSA will continue to work with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and the Singapore Police Force to deter the illegal import, sale and purchase of vaporisers. Besides enforcement, the Health Promotion Board will continue to educate Singaporeans regarding the harmful effects of vaporisers and correct any misconception that vaporisers conclusively help with smoking cessation. At the same time, we will strengthen smoking cessation programmes so that smokers can access proven therapies and methods to help them quit smoking.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I have two supplementary questions. My first supplementary question relates to these illegal vapes also being sold in our neighbourhoods. Besides online sales, according to news reports last month, illegal vaporisers are also being sold in our neighbourhoods including busy shopping districts such as Orchard Road. Buyers and sellers, according to the news report, used code words such as \"cartridges\" or \"juices\" to facilitate all these under-the-table illegal sales. My first question is: can I ask that we also step up our enforcement in these areas especially in the neighbourhoods.
My second question relates to a recent study done in the United Kingdom on adults attending the UK National Health Service's Stop Smoking Programme. I would like to ask what are the Ministry's views on this randomised controlled trial that compared e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking cessation.
\tMr Amrin Amin: On the first point, to step up enforcement, we will do so. We have been working closely with online platforms such as Carousell and Instagram to stamp out online sale of vaporisers. With regard to physical sales, we have conducted intelligence, surprise raids, but we will take into consideration the Member's suggestions. If the Member has specific leads, please do share with us.
On the second question, I believe the Member is referring to the study done in UK on adults attending National Health Service's Stop Smoking Services. That study involved 900 smokers with good motivation to quit. When combined with counselling, 18% of smokers in the e-cigarette group quit smoking at 12 months post-intervention. This is compared with 10% of smokers from the NRT group.
However, in the e-cigarette group, 80% of those who quit smoking continued to use e-cigarettes 12 months later. This means that, overall, less than 4% of those in the e-cigarette group quit tobacco product use and their nicotine addiction totally.
As there are concerns about the potential harmful effects of the long-term use of e-cigarettes – the Member may know about the debate in the US where e-cigarettes have been linked to lung injury – this raises the question on whether they would have been better off quitting using other more proven established methods.
In addition, more than 30% of those in the e-cigarette group who failed to quit ended up using both e-cigarettes and cigarettes. This actually leaves them worse off than before, as a recent large study had shown that dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes are actually exposed to more toxins than persons who only smoke cigarettes.
The Ministry's position is that there is currently limited evidence on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation product but we will continue to monitor emerging evidence and studies like the ones mentioned by Mr Melvin Yong. Our regulation and public health policies are evidence-based and if there is robust evidence that any particular product can safely help smokers completely stop using tobacco or nicotine, we will be happy to consider these options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"CPF Members Using Up Annual Limit of Flexi-MediSave Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Health (a) how many eligible CPF members used up the annual limit of the Flexi-MediSave scheme in the past year; and (b) whether this limit can be reviewed and increased in light of the older members who require frequent outpatient treatments.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, the Flexi-MediSave scheme allows Singaporeans aged 60 and above to withdraw up to $200 of MediSave each year to pay for their outpatient medical treatments at public sector Specialist Outpatient Clinics, Polyclinics, and General Practitioner clinics under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS). Around 136,000, or 16% of eligible Singaporeans fully utilised their Flexi-MediSave limit in 2018.
MOH regularly reviews our healthcare financing schemes, including Flexi-Medisave. Last year, MOH lowered the minimum age criteria for Flexi-MediSave from 65 to 60. The annual MediSave withdrawal limit for outpatient vaccinations, health screenings and chronic disease management was raised from $400 to $500. This year, MOH enhanced the CHAS scheme, including introducing a new CHAS green tier to cover all Singaporeans with selected chronic conditions, regardless of income. We also introduced the Merdeka Generation (MG) package which provides additional subsidies for MG seniors' outpatient treatments at CHAS clinics, polyclinics and public specialist outpatient clinics.
We will continue to conduct regular reviews of our healthcare financing schemes to ensure affordability and also long-term sustainability.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. Let me share with the Senior Minister of State one of the reasons why I am asking this question. A few residents have approached me. I would like to say in this Chamber that residents were very thankful for the Flexi-MediSave scheme as it has helped them to allay some of their cost concerns. However, a few of them have highlighted to me their concerns regarding medical costs and have requested me to ask for a review of the $200. Because they tend to finish up the $200 for the year within just one or two visits. Some of these senior residents who are 60 and above would really appreciate if the figures could be reviewed. Can the Senior Minister of State share the timeline and how the review process would be? If there any plans to increase the $200 to slightly above, the residents would be very appreciative to MOH on that front.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I understand the point that is being made. But as I have mentioned right at the end of my response, we not just have to look at affordability but also at the longer term sustainability in the use of MediSave. So, we are guided by how residents use the amounts as offered. At this point in time, as I have mentioned earlier, more than eight in 10 of Singapore residents who are eligible to use the Flexi-MediSave do not use the full $200. So, that gives us an indication as to where we have scoped it and the right sizing of that amount at this juncture.
But as the Member has pointed out, we recognise that there are people who rely on this and we will take this into account as we continue to review and update the amounts and the thresholds.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer and particularly the answer to the supplementary question about the scoping of Flexi-MediSave and MOH's position on reviewing the absolute amount. I am just wondering if MOH can look at increasing the ability to withdraw a higher amount through the Flexi-MediSave scheme for people who have sufficient balances in their basic healthcare sum. For example, if you are in the upper tiers, let us say, you have from $40,000 to $50,000 in your MediSave account. I think the pain point is the fact that you have this sum in your MediSave account post the age of 60 and you need perhaps an additional $100 or $200 but the scheme has that ceiling. So, would MOH be able to look at it from a different perspective and to parse the problem a little differently.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Again, I understand the Member's concern and I appreciate the point he is making and we will look at that. But the Member will also appreciate that what he is suggesting will require a differentiated ceiling for each person as to what the Flexi-MediSave limits might be. And that might, itself, present other challenges.
That said, I think, overall, the objective is to ensure that the amounts are correctly sized and I would also suggest that those who may have exhausted the Flexi-MediSave amounts, might also consider that there are other schemes in tandem with it. Just because you have the Flexi-MediSave withdrawal limits reached or maxed out does not mean you cannot also deploy other schemes. But that said, we will look at the suggestion, especially the one that has the basic healthcare sum as a relevant factor to consider in the context of the limits.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiver of Foreign Domestic Worker Levy for Families with Three or More Children Aged Under 16 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for Manpower whether the foreign domestic worker levy can be waived for families with three or more young children who are below 16 years of age.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, the number of foreign domestic workers (FDWs) in Singapore has increased substantially by about 40% in the last 10 years. In 2018, there were over 250,000 FDWs in Singapore. It is not sustainable for the population of FDWs to grow unchecked.
To moderate the demand for FDWs in Singapore, a levy has been payable by employers since April 1982. The levy is regularly reviewed and was last adjusted in April 2019 to $300 a month for employers without care-giving needs. However, families with care-giving needs continue to enjoy the FDW concessionary levy rate of $60 a month. This measure strikes a good balance between managing FDW demand and the need for continuing support for Singaporean households with children, seniors and persons with disabilities. Currently, there are no plans to further reduce the FDW concessionary levy.
The Government also provides other forms of support for families with children, some of which offer even more assistance to larger families. For example, the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, Child Development Account (CDA) and MediSave Grant for Newborns provide parents with up to $18,000 per child for their first and second child and up to $26,000 per child for their third and fourth child and up to $32,000 per child for their fifth and subsequent child. Parents with more children are also eligible for higher tax rebates and reliefs. As was announced recently during the National Day Rally, pre-school subsidies will also be substantially enhanced.
\tMr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary a supplementary question. Our latest TFR for 2018 shows a number of 1.14. This is the second lowest TFR in the past decade. And given the heavy demands of work, many parents have found it to be a necessity to employ an FDW to help them to do household chores and look after their kids. I believe The Straits Times ran an article over the weekend on this particular subject.
So, will the Ministry consider waiving FDW levies for families with more than three children in order to help them lower their financial demands and to encourage them to have more than three children?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Mr Ong Teng Koon for his supplementary question and to assure him that families with care-giving needs, including parents of young children, will continue to enjoy the FDW concessionary levy. Some of these parents with young children are also staying with their grandparents – so, inter-generational households. In fact, inter-generational households may hire more than two FDWs with levy concessions. Just to give an example.
For example, a couple with two young children under the age of 16 years old can hire two FDWs at the concessionary levy. And if their parents are staying with them and the parents are above 67 years old, because that sometimes is the preferred arrangement – extended family – they will be entitled to hire an FDW at the concessionary levy. So, in this example, the household would be able to hire three FDWs to help the parents, especially when they have young children, whether two, three or more. Allow me to share a number. Over the last three years, in fact, the majority of our FDW employers, that is, about 80% of our FDW employers enjoy the concessionary levy of $60 a month, which translates into a saving of $240 a month per FDW.
If Mr Ong would allow me to elaborate, the Government has committed additional resources and investments in pre-school education to give our young the best start in life. If you remember, a few months ago, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, during the National Day Rally, announced a series of measures to further boost pre-school education, for example, to increase the total number of Government-supported pre-schools from the current 50% to 80% over time. At the same time, he also announced that more middle income families will benefit from additional pre-school subsidies with the increase of the income ceiling from $7,500 to $12,000. I am saying that when young couples consider having children or more children, an FDW could be one of the considerations. But more often than not, a pre-school is also a key consideration.
And to help families with young children financially, the Government provides many forms of support. I mentioned them earlier. In addition to those that I have mentioned, the Government also provides support, such as Primary and Secondary school subsidies as well as parental tax rebates and reliefs. A child entering Primary school in 2018 would have received more than $130,000 in education subsidies by the time he or she finishes Secondary school. And bigger families with more children will also receive more help from the Baby Bonus scheme as well as higher tax rebates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Good Jobs for ITE and Polytechnic Graduates in Light of Economic Slowdown","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Desmond Choo –
10 To ask the Minister for Manpower how is the Ministry working with the Ministry of Education to ensure that ITE and Polytechnic graduates can continue to get good jobs in light of the economic slowdown.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Question No 10.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, most ITE and Polytechnic graduates continue to do well when they enter the labour market. In 2018, around nine in 10 graduates who entered the labour market were employed within six months after their final examinations. This figure has remained stable for the past 10 years. Notwithstanding economic headwinds, overall employment has continued to grow and job vacancies remain available for ITE and Polytechnic graduates.
MOM and MOE have various ways to help our students prepare for and find employment. ITE and the Polytechnics run structured and comprehensive career guidance programmes to help graduating students make informed employment choices. In addition, we offer SkillsFuture Work-Study programmes for Diplomas and Post-Diplomas. These allow ITE and Polytechnic graduates to deepen their industry-relevant skills even as they pursue further academic education.
In January this year, Workforce Singapore rolled out the Career Starter Programme, comprising workshops and personalised coaching to help both graduating ITE and Polytechnic students and fresh graduates boost their job search skills and be more employable. The Career Starter Programme complements existing Education and Career guidance efforts in schools by targeting final-year graduating students who may require additional support when seeking employment.
After leaving ITE or the Polytechnics, graduates can also find assistance at WSG's Careers Connect or NTUC's e2i career centres. They may also tap on online resources, such as MySkillsFuture portal and the MyCareersFuture digital service. For example, they can access information on industries and occupations as well as other resources on MySkillsFuture to chart their career development. They can also search for jobs best suited to their skills on MyCareersFuture.
Although businesses are facing greater uncertainty, the advance third quarter labour market data indicates that employment continued to grow in sectors, such as Professional Services and Community, Social and Personal Services. MOM and MOE are monitoring the labour market closely and will ensure ITE and Polytechnic graduates are well supported in their job search.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Application Rate for 2-room Flexi Flats by Singles and General Public","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current application rate for 2-room Flexi flats in general and by singles in particular; and (b) whether HDB will consider making 3-room BTO units available to singles who wish to accommodate their parents.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, the overall BTO application rate for 2-room Flexi flats was 1.6 times in the first half of 2019, while that for singles was three times in the same period.
On the second question that the Member raised, singles who wish to live with their parents can, indeed, form a family nucleus with their parents and jointly purchase a BTO flat of any type together.
As for the request for singles to buy a larger 3-room flat, that is something we will have to consider very carefully, bearing in mind the impact it will have on the longer term overall demand-supply balance of the public housing market. I would remind Members that we only opened up the BTO market for singles to purchase 2-room units not that long ago. I remember when I started in MND in 2015, application rates were in the double digits. Now, we have managed to bring it down but it is still slightly on the high side and I think we will need time to ensure that the situation is stabilised before we consider any further moves.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for the answer. But I think for singles, three times is still high. Consistently, I hear from my residents who are singles; they told me that they have tried applying several times but were still not successful. I would like to suggest: if, let us say, they have tried applying in non-mature estates for three times or more, can HDB look into their cases specifically and help them?
The next question is: recently, during the Meet-the-People Sessions, I have more and more cases of young couples applying for flats for more than three times and not being successful. Similarly, I would like to request HDB to look into those cases of young couples who applied in non-mature estates for new BTO flat; if they are not successful for more than three times, I hope that we can help them.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, let me take the second question first. I think there was a similar question that Mr Gan had asked, in fact, that is related, which is for young couples buying their first BTO flat in non-mature estates – whether we will give an additional chance, which we do, and whether that gives them assurance that within three times, they will be able to purchase a flat in a non-mature estate. The answer to that is indeed, through that additional chance, we are able to assure first-timers buying a flat in a non-mature estate, virtually all of them are able to do so within three tries today. That commitment continues. We will continue to ensure that for first-timers buying a flat in a non-mature estate, within three tries, through the processes that we have, they should be able to get an HDB flat.
If the Member knows of any applicant or if Members know of any applicants who are unable to do so, please let us know because based on our data, based on our checks, virtually everyone can do so already today. Many times, they will tell you they cannot, but when you check through their applications, very often they have tried for a mature estate or they have tried for a balance flat. Those do not count. If you look at BTO applications in non-mature estates, within three tries, virtually all of them get it.
The first question that the Member raised: can this apply to singles too? This goes back to my earlier point that we have just opened up the market to singles. We are still dealing with a backlog. We have brought the application rate down to three, and I acknowledge it is still on the high side. So, we still fundamentally have to build more flats and stabilise the situation before we can consider any priority for that matter, for first-timer applicants who are singles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Screening of Flatowners who Approach HDB for Mortgage Assistance for Visits to Casinos","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB flat owners who approach HDB for financial assistance on their mortgage loans will be screened for visits to casinos and, if not, why.
\tThe Second Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, HDB has a range of measures to assist flat owners with HDB loans who are in mortgage arrears. These include short-term measures such as the temporary reduction or deferment of mortgage payments and longer term measures such as extending their loan tenure if possible.
HDB also provides one-to-one financial counselling for mortgagors in arrears to tailor HDB's advice and assistance based on the household's circumstances.
As HDB does not withhold assistance from flat owners on the basis of casino visits, HDB does not screen for this when mortgagors approach them for assistance on their HDB loans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Performance of Singapore Sports School","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Ms Yip Pin Xiu –
13 To ask the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the sporting targets that are set out for the Singapore Sports School to achieve in the next three years; (b) whether the Singapore Sports School has reached their annual targets in the past three years; (c) which are the top three schools that will have the most athletes representing Singapore in the 2019 SEA Games; (d) how many athletes are from these respective schools; and (e) how many athletes are from the Singapore Sports School.
\t
\tMs Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Question No 13, please.
The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, the Singapore Sports School is a specialised independent school under MCCY which offers students with sporting talent an avenue to reach their sporting potential whilst developing them holistically and preparing them for life. To this end, the school provides a strong academic and sport development programme that meets the needs of its students, develops their character and enables them to excel in their sport.
The Sports School is measured by a set of 14 sporting, academic and student well-being targets. These targets include the percentage of student-athletes selected to represent Singapore in international open competitions annually and the percentage of the school's graduating cohort eligible to advance to higher education. In 2016, the school did not meet three of the 14 targets. In 2017, the school did not meet one of the 14 targets. And in 2018, the school met all 14 targets.
In the 2017 Southeast Asian (SEA) Games, 104 athletes and alumni from the Sports School made up 19% of the 560-strong Team Singapore contingent and contributed to 31% of the medals that marked our nation’s best ever away SEA Games performance. For the upcoming 2019 Southeast Asian Games in the Philippines starting 30 November, 101 athletes from the Sports School have to date been selected to compete across 21 sports. MCCY, Sport Singapore and MOE do not track the originating schools of all Team Singapore athletes and neither is this a requirement by the Singapore National Olympic Council.
The Sports School has consistently done better than national average in terms of the percentage of students who passed five or more subjects at the GCE \"O\" level examinations and better than the global average in the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme score.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress on Disability Sports Master Plan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Ms Yip Pin Xiu –
14 To ask Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether there has been a review of progress on the recommendations and investments put forth in the Disability Sports Master Plan (DSMP); (b) if so, whether the review has shown any gaps where the implementation of the DSMP needs to be relooked at to deliver the DSMP recommendations; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider forming a dedicated committee beyond ActiveSG to coordinate the delivery of the DSMP recommendations and develop future blueprints to cover aspects beyond mass participation.
\t
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Question No 14.
The Senior Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Sim Ann) (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): Sport Singapore or SportSG's Disability Sport Master Plan, or DSMP, was launched in May 2016 to improve access and opportunities for persons with disabilities to discover the value of sport and lead an active lifestyle, develop Singapore's capabilities in para sports as well as raise the profile of Team Singapore para athletes with Singaporeans. I chair the Disability Sports Implementation Committee to guide the implementation of the DSMP.
Since 2016, SportSG has been working with stakeholders to implement DSMP. SportSG has set up four Centres of Expertise in Bedok, Jurong West, Sengkang and Toa Payoh, opened seven inclusive gyms and introduced a range of disability sport programmes. The Inclusive Sports Festival, or ISF, has been organised for three successive years. It is a key platform for persons with disabilities to try out sports and an opportunity for the public to learn about disability sport.
Altogether, the ISF and other awareness and outreach events have engaged more than 11,000 participants with disabilities and close to 90,000 others in the last three years. The 2019 edition of the Singapore National Games, or Pesta Sukan, featured nine para and inclusive sports. In sports such as archery and canoe sprint, participants competed in inclusive teams comprising persons with and without disabilities.
We are encouraged by the growth in sports participation amongst persons with disabilities from 28% in 2015 to 51% in 2018, based on SportSG's annual National Sports Participation Survey.
Beyond mass participation, SportSG works with key stakeholders, such as the Singapore Disability Sports Council, or SDSC, National Disability Sports Associations, Special Olympics Singapore and MOE to enable talent development in disability sports and strengthen capabilities in the eco-system. SportSG provides SDSC with financial resources and facilities to support the training of athletes in various para sports. Amongst our current crop of 72 spexScholars, ten are para athletes. Team Singapore para athletes received campaign funding in their preparations for the upcoming ASEAN Para Games in January next year. SportSG has also partnered the International Paralympic Committee to grow the pool of disability sports coaches in Singapore. To date, close to 500 coaches, 300 SportSG staff and 1,600 volunteers have completed relevant courses to support disability sport programmes.
While we have made good progress, we are continually exploring how to augment the impact. In August this year, SportSG reviewed its progress in DSMP and published this as part of its Vision 2030 mid-term report. SportSG stated in its report that it will broaden its range of partnerships to include corporations and organisations to form \"Communities of Care\" that can serve the community in impactful ways, such as by supporting the DSMP and promoting social inclusion through sport.
We welcome ideas and suggestions from the Member and others in the sport and special needs communities to improve the implementation of the DSMP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Stance on Participation of LGBTQ+ Speakers, Artists and Performers in Events at Institutes of Higher Learning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked Minister for Education (a) what is the Ministry's policy on the participation of LGBTQ+ speakers, artists and performers in events at our higher educational institutions; and (b) whether the Ministry monitors decisions taken by educational institutions to bar, censor, or otherwise regulate such LGBTQ+ speakers and performers.
\tThe Second Minister for Education (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) have wide-reaching impact on students and the broader Singapore society. They should provide a common space and neutral ground for open discussions and civil discourse. They need to be respectful of Singapore's wider social norms and laws, and exercise appropriate judgement and sensitivity when dealing with potentially socially divisive issues. Within the bounds of these principles, our IHLs have the autonomy to manage the activities on campus, such as deciding which artists, speakers and performers to invite, including those who may identify with LGBTQ+ causes.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for that reply. Just one supplementary question: I wish to ask if the Minister would agree that institutions should make these decisions on LGBTQ+ persons based on established policy and bearing the national interest in mind, rather than, for example, on personal views about such persons.
This concern arises because in a number of recent cases, speakers and performers were asked to censor content at SIM Global Education and Singapore Polytechnic. They withdrew their participation as a result of the request. It is not clear whether these decisions were motivated by these broader national policy concerns rather than any personal views. That is the concern here.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I think the point is that such decisions should not be made on the basis of personal views because different individuals may have very different personal views.
IHLs and other like institutions provide public spaces. When you have public spaces, you must ensure that your spaces are safe spaces for your audience, and your audience and the people attending those spaces will have many different views, be of many different persuasions – whether it is race, religion, sexual orientation and so on. So, the key thing is to work within the parameters that I have outlined, which is that they have to be respectful of our social norms and laws and they do have to exercise appropriate judgement and sensitivity, which means that there is an element of discretion. That element of discretion should not be decided based on just your own personal belief but from the view point of, \"This is common space\", you want people coming into the common space to be comfortable, and to take the decision appropriately. So, it depends on your audience. Some audiences may well be able to be much more accommodating, others may feel a little uncomfortable. The institutions will have to take that call.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) Monies for Studies at Private Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Education whether the Government will review the policy regarding usage of the Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) to permit withdrawals for tertiary studies at private universities.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Education (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Sir, various Members, including Mr Zainal Sapari, had previously raised similar questions in this House. The Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) scheme was introduced in 2008 to provide additional financial support for post-Secondary education. Before 2016, we had restricted the use of PSEA to publicly-funded institutions, namely ITE, Polytechnics, Autonomous Universities and the Arts Institutions, NAFA and LaSalle, and also Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) courses. This is because being part of the publicly-funded system, we are assured of the quality of the courses. Further, the programmes are already significantly subsidised and extending PSEA support is a natural thing to do.
The usage of PSEA was broadened in 2016. We included other approved skills development programmes and modular courses that are subsidised by our continuing education and training policy, and delivered by Government agencies and private training providers. Examples include the training programmes offered at BCA Academy and Digital Marketing in Hospitality offered at SHATEC Institutes.
If there is any unused amount in the PSEA when the account holder turns 30, this will be transferred to his or her CPF Ordinary Account in the following year.
Quality and relevance remain the key considerations in deciding whether an education and training programme can qualify for PSEA usage. We need to protect the interests of account holders by ensuring that all courses eligible for PSEA support will meet quality standards and the needs of industries.
Sir, there is a wide range of courses offered by Private Education Institutions (PEIs), with varying quality and learning outcomes. While SkillsFuture Singapore regulates these private commercial players, they are not part of the public education system and we do not extend public subsidy to them. Likewise, we do not have a blanket policy to allow the usage of PSEA for their courses.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. Four supplementary questions for Senior Minister of State.
First, as he mentioned in his reply, any unused balance in the PSEA account will be transferred to the holder's CPF Ordinary Account (OA) by the time he reaches 31. I would like to ask he knows of the percentage or numbers of such students or young persons who have balances that are left and are transferred in this way. That is the first question.
The second question is, in his reply, I think he repeated the Ministry's stand that the restrictions on PSEA's use are due to concerns about quality as well as relevance. We have come across some residents who had appealed to use PSEA for degree programmes offered by foreign universities that have good international reputation and, in fact, who have collaborations within Singapore with Polytechnics and, in one case, an aeronautical university that has a collaboration with the Air Force. So, would the Senior Minister of State agree that such collaborations are signs that there is an acceptance of the quality of the university offering those degrees and, in a sense, also of the relevance of studies in such fields. That is why there are collaborations in Singapore.
The third question is, he mentioned also that PSEA is only allowed for Government-subsidised programmes as a natural consequence. Would he not agree that in the sense there is a certain perversion in that logic because a person with less resources would need a support if there is a lack of subsidies in that sense. So, I think that reason is not that convincing.
And finally, perhaps he could elaborate a bit on the purpose of Private Educational Institutions (PEIs) in Singapore having the EduTrust mark because I believe some of these private institutions are collaborating with foreign universities to offer degree programmes. So, what is the relevance of the EduTrust mark? Is it not also a sign of quality assurance?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Sir, I do not have the data on the CPF Ordinary Account transfer but if the Member could file a separate Question, we would provide the information to her separately.
As for the other questions from Ms Sylvia Lim, she first asked about the collaborations of different programmes. I think I have explained this in my answer which is that we look at both the quality and also the relevance. Some of these programmes that she mentioned are offered by foreign universities. We understand there is a range of courses offered globally. But it would not be possible for MOE to maintain a comprehensive list of approved overseas programmes because we do need to safeguard the usage of PSEA monies. For practical reasons, it is limited to local institutions. So, if you have a foreign university but they have a local institution and they run some programmes here, as I explained in my answer, some of them do qualify for CET funding. We are looking at the range of possible courses but based on the criteria of quality and also industry relevance.
Ms Lim also said that she has some disagreement with the explanation about quality because these courses are not given subsidy, therefore, we should be allowing the students to use PSEA. I think we have to look at what is the objective that we are trying to achieve in the first place. If you look at the quality of the programme, there is a reason why they are not receiving public subsidy. The quality is uneven amongst the PEIs. For example, we have the Graduate Employment Survey that is done and if you look at the full-time permanent employment rate of their graduates, it ranged from 17% to 60%. There is also a spread in the median gross monthly salary from $2,300, to the highest of $3,200.
So, because of this, it is not possible to use this approach to say that just because a programme is not subsidised, therefore, you should allow students to use their PSEA. In fact, if you agree that quality of a course and the relevance of the course and the outcomes that the graduates are able to achieve are important considerations, then we should first and foremost, be looking at what is the quality of this course and does it offer students good employment outcomes. In the end, we should not forget that the student has to put in considerable amounts of resources, both time and money to be able to attend and complete the course. So, if the outcomes are not good, I do not think we should be sending mixed signals to confuse people that they are encouraged to sign up for this course when the outcomes are actually not very desirable. I think we do have an obligation and duty to signal clearly to students who are looking at options to consider what are the outcomes and therefore, please think carefully before you decide.
Sir, I think the more important point I want to highlight is this: that there are alternative pathways available to students who wish to pursue further studies and to be able to upgrade their skills along the way. Going to a PEI is not the only option for someone who has completed \"A\" Level or Polytechnic. It is not the only means for young Singaporeans to be work-ready. We have very good employment outcomes for Polytechnic Diploma graduates and for many of them, after they join the workforce, there are still opportunities available for them to do their degrees on a part-time basis or on a full-time basis subsequently after they have started working.
We have also introduced new pathways, including the post-Diploma Advanced or Specialist Diploma for Polytechnic students and the Work-Study Diploma and Post-Diploma pathways that are now available to our students in ITE or Polytechnics. These are applied programmes that combine structured on-the-job training and institution-based courses. The good thing is that when they are under this programme, the Earn-and-Learn programme or the Work-Study Programme, they can earn a salary while they are working and also go back to school. For the students who are doing the Advanced or Specialist Diploma, it takes up to 18 months. For the new pathway that we introduced, where students would pursue a Work-Study programme leading to a Degree, it will take about three years for Polytechnic students.
So, I think it is important that we provide our students with a good understanding of what are the options, what are the pathways and what are the outcomes of the different pathways so that parents and students are better able to make good decisions on how they want to commit their time and resources.
Sir, I think Ms Lim had one last question on EduTrust. EduTrust is something which the Committee for Private Education (CPE) awards, looking at the standards on corporate governance, administration and fee protection but this does not directly relate to the content of the individual programmes and the quality of the academic programmmes or their industry relevance. It is about whether the governance, administration and the fee protection, whether these elements are adequately provided. More to protect students from cases where, like in the past, some of the PEIs folded halfway through the course and the students were then left in the lurch because the money that they had paid, they could not get it back.
So, EduTrust is meant more for that purpose. It does not say anything about the quality of the course or the industry relevance or even the outcomes for the graduate.
I think we should separate the two and not mix it up. Getting EduTrust does not mean that you have good outcomes for your students. So, I will still go back to what I said earlier about the importance of looking at the quality of the course, the relevance and the outcomes in deciding where we should be encouraging people to pursue the different skills upgrading and training options.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim, keep it short.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: I will try, Speaker. Three questions. The first question is —
\tMr Speaker: Maybe time for one. Choose one.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: Okay. One question. I would like the Senior Minister of State to clarify that he is not actually saying that currently, the courses that are offered by other universities such as reputable foreign universities that are available to students in Singapore, he is not saying that all of them lack quality or relevance. And I would like to ask whether in this sense, the Ministry would be open, at least, to looking at case-by-case appeals for the use of PSEA.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Sir, I think if Ms Lim listened to my main reply carefully, I ended by saying we do not have a blanket policy to allow the usage of PSEA for PEI courses. But I also mentioned in my reply that we do have private providers that we have allowed to qualify for subsidies. Let us not make classifications based on what type of entity you are as the main focus of our efforts. Let us look at the quality of the courses, the relevance to the industry and the outcomes to the graduates. If there are suitable courses that are offered by private training providers that can achieve those outcomes, I think it is certainly something that we can take a look at.
\t
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 17-28, 30 and 32-33 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 29 and 31 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Sir, this Bill is linked to the next two Bills on the Order Paper, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill and the Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill.
Sir, may I therefore propose, with your permission, that the substantive debate on all three Bills takes place now. Members will be welcome to raise questions or express their views on the three Bills during the debate. And we will still have the formal Second Readings of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill and also the Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill to ensure that the procedural requirements are dealt with.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, our judicial system is well-known not only for its commitment to upholding the rule of law, but also for its efficiency, competence and integrity.
In a survey conducted by my Ministry in late 2015 on how Singaporeans view the Courts, 92% said they trust and had confidence in our legal system. In the Worldwide Governance Indicators by World Bank in 2018, Singapore ranked in the 97th percentile for Rule of Law. In the Global Competitiveness Index published by the World Economic Forum in 2019, Singapore maintained the top position for the efficiency of its legal framework in dispute resolution. In fact, Singapore has been ranked first, out of more than 140 countries, in this component of the index, every year for the past 10 years. Singapore has also scored highly for judicial effectiveness in the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom in 2019.
MinLaw has been working with the Courts to ensure that Court proceedings are efficient and that the quality of justice remains high. To this end, for instance, we established the new Family Justice Courts in 2014, with the aim of taking a more multi-disciplinary and collaborative approach to family disputes. We established the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) in 2015, as part of our drive to bolster our status as a hub for resolving commercial disputes.
The Office of Transformation and Innovation was also set up under the auspices of the Supreme Court in 2018. As part of the overarching Courts of the Future blueprint, it has commenced work on various projects and technological enhancements, with a view to enhancing access to justice, improving processes and also embracing innovative ideas for change. One upcoming initiative is the use of video-conferencing for a variety of non-trial hearings.
The current Bills continue in this spirit by facilitating a better use of judicial resources and also introducing procedural amendments to enhance the flexibility and also the efficiency of Court processes. This will also translate to real and practical benefits for Court users both in terms of time and also costs.
A key change is the restructuring of the Supreme Court to establish a new Appellate Division of the High Court. The Court of Appeal is the highest Court of the land. It hears both civil and criminal matters arising from decisions of the lower Courts and tribunals. The decisions of the Court of Appeal form a body of authoritative law that has shaped our local jurisprudence. The Court of Appeal has experienced a growing caseload for both criminal and civil matters. In 2013, there were 314 civil and criminal matters filed to the Court of Appeal. In 2018, the number of matters filed to the Court of Appeal increased to 490. Overall, the Court of Appeal heard 56% more matters in 2018 as compared to 2013.
In addition to the growing caseload, the Court of Appeal has also observed that the cases it is hearing are becoming increasingly complex. The Court of Appeal generally sits with no more than three judges to hear each case. In some of the complex appeals, the Chief Justice may convene an enlarged panel of appeal judges to hear the appeal. This is to allow difficult or novel issues to be considered with the benefit of the collective wisdom and insight of a larger pool of judges. There has been a growing number of written decisions issued by a five-judge bench of the Court of Appeal, which is itself indicative of the jurisprudential significance and difficulty of such cases. In 2015, by contrast, 4.3% of all reported decisions were issued by a five-judge quorum. By 2018, this number had increased to about 11.5%.
The increased caseload and complexity of matters have stretched the resources of the Court of Appeal. Thus far, the Supreme Court has taken interim measures to manage the increasing caseload and also the complexity in the Court of Appeal's docket. Some of these measures, Members would know, include having more High Court judges sit on Court of Appeal hearings and also increasing the sitting days for the Court of Appeal. However, we feel that these are just stop gap measures and a more long-lasting sustainable change would be useful.
This Bill, together with the Constitution Amendment Bill and the Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill, will establish an Appellate Division of the High Court. This will allow civil appeals arising from decisions of the existing High Court to be distributed between two appellate courts, namely, the Appellate Division of the High Court – the new Court that is being set up – and the existing Court of Appeal, which will remain. These targeted structural reforms to the Supreme Court create a more permanent solution to the issues facing the Court of Appeal. The reforms will help to address the growing caseload and also allow the Court of Appeal to focus its resources as appropriate.
Let me now highlight the key features of this Bill for Members. First, in terms of the restructuring of the Supreme Court. Under the structural reforms introduced by the Bills, the Supreme Court will continue to comprise the Court of Appeal, which will remain as the apex court in Singapore and the High Court. The High Court will in turn be restructured to consist of the General Division of the High Court as well as the Appellate Division of the High Court.
I shall first touch on the General Division, before elaborating on the interaction between the Appellate Division and the existing Court of Appeal. In essence, the General Division will be the present-day High Court. As is the case today, it will include the SICC and also the Family Division of the High Court. The General Division will have all the jurisdiction and powers of the existing High Court and will hear all cases that fall within the original and appellate jurisdiction of the existing High Court.
Any originating case, appeal, stated case, or other recourse which presently lies to the existing High Court will continue to lie to the General Division. There will generally be no change to the current position on whether there is further recourse to an Appellate Court. Hence, if certain decisions of the existing High Court are currently final, then in most of these cases, those decisions of the General Division will likewise be final. Similarly, if decisions of the existing High Court are appealable with leave, or appealable as of right, then those decisions of the General Division will likewise be appealable as of right or with leave as appropriate. The original intention overall is to preserve the status quo with regard to the finality of decisions of the General Division.
Appeals arising from a decision of the General Division will be allocated between the Appellate Division and the existing Court of Appeal. Let me explain that. In general, the Court of Appeal will hear all criminal matters. It will also hear appeals or processes that are to be heard by the Court of Appeal under written law and prescribed categories of civil appeals. So, under written law, that is set out in legislation and in prescribed categories of civil appeals.
These prescribed categories will be set out in a new Sixth Schedule to the amended Supreme Court of Judicature Act (SCJA). Where the appeal falls within the categories of appeals prescribed in the Sixth Schedule, then a party should file the appeal or leave application pertaining to that appeal to the Court of Appeal. Where the appeal is not prescribed in the Sixth Schedule, a party should file the appeal or leave application to the Appellate Division, or otherwise in accordance with written law.
The appeals that have been prescribed are generally those that:
(a)\tare likely to have substantial consequences for individuals or society;
(b) may involve questions of law of public interest which would benefit from guidance of the apex court in Singapore;
(c)\tconcern the general administration of justice;
(d)\tmay involve novel questions of law, or new areas of law which would benefit from guidance from the Court of Appeal;
(e)\tmay involve issues that are likely to be important and require earlier clarification from the Court of Appeal; or
(f)\trelate to strategic areas that would benefit from the stature of the apex court, such as the areas of laws which seek to bolster Singapore's status as a dispute resolution hub or debt restructuring hub.
Based on these principles, appeals arising from cases relating to constitutional or administrative law, appeals arising from decisions of the SICC and appeals arising from cases relating to the law of arbitration will ordinarily be allocated to the Court of Appeal. Those are examples; the list is not exhaustive.
Where a single appeal contains multiple issues, which I think Members would have their own experience with, some issues may fall within the prescribed categories, others may fall outside. In those situations, the appeal should be filed to the Court of Appeal. For example, if an appeal arises from a case relating to constitutional law, but also, as part of the case, raises issues touching issues on contract or tort law, that appeal should be filed to the Court of Appeal.
All criminal appeals currently heard by the Court of Appeal, will continue to be heard by the Court of Appeal. The Appellate Division will hear all other civil appeals that are not allocated to the Court of Appeal.
The prescribed categories may be amended by the Minister, after consultation with the Chief Justice, by order published in the Gazette. This will allow for the allocation of appeals between the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeal to be refined and also evolved, taking into account operational experience as well as evolving policy considerations. And obviously, as I explained earlier, on novel areas, which are currently prescribed, they may over time, not become novel anymore or it may well become settled with the passage of time. In those cases, there would be flexibility in moving cases or types of cases in and out of the Sixth Schedule.
The Appellate Division will ordinarily sit as a panel of three Judges. This reflects its stature and significance as an Appellate Court.
Let me now touch on some of the transfer provisions and explain that to Members. To provide for flexibility in the arrangements, the Court of Appeal will have the power to transfer to itself any appeal that has been made to the Appellate Division and vice versa. The Court of Appeal has that power, not the Appellate Division, to transfer cases from the Appellate Division to itself or cases from the Court of Appeal to the Appellate Division. This can happen, notwithstanding the Sixth Schedule allocation of appeals.
To give an example, the Court of Appeal may transfer to itself, an appeal which is ordinarily allocated to the Appellate Division, if the appeal concerns a dispute involving complex and novel points of law, and the Court of Appeal is satisfied that it will be more appropriate for the matter to be resolved by an earlier decision of the apex court, in other words, giving guidance at an earlier stage so that the law becomes settled on a key and important issue. The Court of Appeal may also consider factors such as whether there are conflicting judicial decisions on the point of law in question which merits clarification.
Conversely, the Court of Appeal may also decide to transfer to the Appellate Division, an appeal which is ordinarily allocated to the Court of Appeal. For instance, an appeal arising from a case relating to constitutional law is ordinarily allocated to the Court of Appeal. However, if the General Division has already rendered its decision on the case and the only issue on the appeal is one of costs, for example, then the Court of Appeal may well decide to transfer the appeal to the Appellate Division. So, the overall subject matter may fall within, but the issue at stake between the parties, might well relate to something straightforward. In that scenario, the Court of Appeal can exercise its discretion to transfer it to the Appellate Division.
As another example, an appeal arising from a case relating to contempt of court is ordinarily allocated to the Court of Appeal. However, if all issues on appeal relate to uncontroversial points of law, then the Court of Appeal may transfer the appeal to the Appellate Division. The same principles as I have explained will apply. Parties themselves may also apply to the Court of Appeal for the appeal to be transferred to the Appellate Division, if the appeal has not been filed to the correct Appellate Court. To be clear, after the Appellate Division has issued its decision on an appeal that has been transferred for its determination, it remains possible – although not the usual course – but possible for a party to bring a further appeal to the Court of Appeal. This will however be subject to the fulfilment of stringent criteria that I will come to in a while.
The transfer powers help to ensure that the Court of Appeal's resources are focused on the matters that necessitate a decision from the apex court. The matters that the Court of Appeal will have regard to, when deciding whether to exercise its powers of transfer, will be set out in the Rules of Court.
Where an appeal has been heard and decided by the Appellate Division, any further appeal against the decision of the Appellate Division may only be brought with the leave of the Court of Appeal. This is consistent with the practice in other jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, where there is no automatic right of appeal to the apex court.
All such applications for leave will be assessed based on criteria that is more stringent than the usual common law principles that govern applications for leave to appeal against a decision of the General Division. To be clear, if you need to seek leave to appeal from the first instance, High Court currently, or the General Division, those principles are fairly settled, I think Members know. But, the principles on which leave will be accessed to be granted for appeals from the Appellate Division up to the apex court, those would be applied in a far more stringent manner. Because in those situations, the parties would already have had one round of appeal.
The Court of Appeal will consider granting leave only if the appeal raises a point of law of public importance. The Court of Appeal may also take into consideration other factors, such as whether a decision of the Court of Appeal, as the apex Ccourt, is required to resolve the point of law and whether the interests of the administration of justice require the Court of Appeal's consideration of that point of law.
To be clear, so that I do not come across as suggesting that there are automatically three stages, three tiers of Courts, the Appellate Division should not be seen as a further tier of appeal that must be crossed before a matter can reach the Court of Appeal. Where an appeal lies from a decision of the General Division, then the appeal will lie either to the Appellate Division or to the Court of Appeal. It will not be commonplace for appeals to be brought to the Appellate Division first and then further brought on to the Court of Appeal. I hope I have explained that clearly enough.
The Bills also make a number of other amendments to help ensure the timely disposal of appeals, ensure better use of limited judicial resources and bring the overall cost of litigation down. Let me touch on four such initiatives.
First, under existing Court processes, the Court of Appeal will ordinarily sit in a panel of three Judges to hear an appeal or application. However, certain applications can be dealt with by one Judge or, in some cases, two Judges. Certain appeals can also be heard by a panel of two Judges. We will apply a similar approach to the Appellate Division. So, what I have outlined is the current position. We will apply that similar approach to the Appellate Division.
For the Appellate Division, parties will also have an option of consenting to a two-Judge coram to hear the appeal but that is subject to the approval of the Appellate Division. So, if both parties or all parties to an appeal consent, it can be heard by a two-Judge coram.
Second, the Bills expand the situations under which a civil appeal or application can be decided without hearing oral arguments. This is known as a paper hearing. To be clear, the language that I have used – appeals refer to the substantive appeals itself, the applications are applications within the appeals that will arise but are not dispositive of the substantive merits of the appeal.
Presently, a civil appeal or application may be decided on paper in a number of limited situations. These situations are, first, an appeal against the decision of the SICC where all parties to the appeal consent; and second, any application to the Court of Appeal.
The Bills expand the categories of cases that can be decided on paper in three ways.
First, the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeal will have the powers to decide specified categories of appeals without hearing oral arguments, if all parties to the appeal consent. So, again, party autonomy based on whether parties consent, then the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeal will have the ability to hear that on paper. These include appeals against interlocutory judgments, and appeals against judgments relating to the assessment of damages.
Second, the Appellate Division will be able to decide any appeal without hearing oral arguments if all parties to the appeal consent to a two-Judge coram and to a paper hearing. So, if all the parties agree, consent, it will be a two-Judge coram and to a paper hearing, then subject to the Appellate Division themselves considering that it is appropriate, then that can be a way in which that appeal can be resolved.
Third, the Appellate Division would also be able to decide any application brought before it without hearing oral arguments. This will not require the consent of parties and is in line with the current practice of the Court of Appeal.
The possibility of paper hearings provides parties with an option, subject to the Court's approval, of having their matters resolved faster and at a lower cost.
Next, let me touch on leave applications. This Bill simplifies the process for leave applications. Currently, when leave is required to appeal against a decision, the leave application is usually heard by the Court that has made the decision being appealed against. If that Court declines to grant leave, a further application for leave can be made to the Appellate Court. We will simplify this process such as where leave is required to appeal against a decision of the General Division, the relevant Appellate Court will hear the application for leave. The decision of the Appellate Court on the leave application will be final.
Fourth, the Bill makes five interlocutory orders at paragraphs 1(c) to (g) of the existing Fourth Schedule of the SCJA appealable with the leave of the Appellate Court. These five orders are currently non-appealable. So, what this amendment does is seek to increase the prospects of those types of cases being appealed, but with leave. This amendment seeks to refine the balance between procedural efficiency and also fairness to the parties.
There is also one amendment that we are considering in relation to the timing of when an application for further arguments will be taken. Members will know that if you look at the proposed provision 29B(2a), the word that is being used here is \"date\". The old provision uses the word \"time\". So, the date by which one has to make the further arguments, versus the time by which one has to make the further arguments. And we propose, at Committee stage, with Mr Speaker and Chairman's leave, to seek to make that amendment. It is a change that was not intended, an error carried through from the drafting. So, we propose to make that to reflect the position better. And I think the lawyers in this House will appreciate that the use of the word \"time\" will give a greater degree of flexibility in terms of when one starts the computation of time for filing the further arguments. So, I will seek to make that amendment at the Committee stage.
Sir, in summary, these Bills establish the new Appellate Division of the High Court and set out its jurisdiction and powers; and also introduce procedural amendments to enhance the flexibility and efficiency of court processes. Together, these amendments further enhance our judicial system, one that is already robust, flexible but now also allow for greater and more effective administration of justice. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the three Bills propose amendments to restructure the Supreme Court by introducing a new Appellate Division of the High Court. My speech addresses the restructuring collectively proposed by all three Bills.
I support these amendments which will allow the Supreme Court to better manage its caseload in light of the increase in the number and complexity of cases. I have just three clarifications on how the Court of Appeal will exercise its jurisdiction and how the restructuring will affect the application of existing case precedents.
First, the new section 29E(1) proposed by the SCJA Bill allows the Court of Appeal to transfer to the Appellate Division any civil appeal made to the Court of Appeal. The proposed section 29E(5) clarifies that the transfer may be made even if it is a case that is ordinarily allocated to the Court of Appeal. Can the Minister clarify under what situations might the Court of Appeal make such a transfer?
Appendix B of the Ministry's press release on the restructuring of the Supreme Court suggests that the Court of Appeal may do so if the issues on appeal relate to settled law. However, what is settled law may not always be so clear cut.
For instance, the High Court in Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and others and the Court of Appeal in Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung, more commonly known as the City Harvest cases, held that the directors did not fall within the definition of \"agents\" under section 409 of the Penal Code on criminal breach of trust by an agent. In doing so, the Court of Appeal and the High Court overturned what had then seemed to be settled law for four decades that directors will be liable for the offence of criminal breach of trust by way of their businesses as agents in respect of property entrusted to them in the course of their duties as directors.
Admittedly, the City Harvest cases were criminal proceedings. Nonetheless, the point stands that what appears to be settled law in civil proceedings may subsequently be contested.
The prescribed categories of civil appeals to be heard by the Court of Appeal are to be set out in a schedule, as the Minister mentioned, to the amended SCJA and may be amended by the Minister after consulting the Chief Justice.
While some flexibility is required, it would undermine the purpose of this categorisation and certainty for litigants if the Court of Appeal has unfettered discretion in determining which Court should hear the appeal. Can the Minister provide some guidance on how the Court of Appeal should exercise its discretion under section 29E(1) in transferring a case ordinarily allocated to its jurisdiction to the Appellate Division?
Next, under the new section 47(2) in the SCJA Bill, the Court of Appeal may grant leave for an appeal against a decision of the Appellate Division in a civil case if the appeal will raise a point of law of public importance. However, section 47(4) clarifies that the Court of Appeal is not required to grant leave even if the appeal will raise a point of law of public importance. Can the Minister share what policy considerations override the benefit of having the Court of Appeal rule on a point of law of public importance? In what categories of cases that raise a point of law of public importance should the Court of Appeal nonetheless decline to grant leave to appeal?
Next, can the Minister also clarify how the existing case precedents will apply in the restructured Supreme Court under the principle of stare decisis? The doctrine of judicial precedent means that the finding of a higher Court which forms the basis of its decision is binding on a Court lower in the hierarchy. Currently, the Court of Appeal is at the top of the hierarchy followed by the Singapore High Court, the District Court and the Magistrate's Court.
The Appellate Division will effectively be the final appeal Court for many categories of civil matters and litigants may not have recourse to the Court of Appeal. How persuasive will the findings of the Appellate Division of the High Court be compared against the findings of the current Court of Appeal before the restructuring takes place?
Sir, in conclusion, I hope the Minister can provide guidance on how the Court of Appeal is to exercise its powers and how existing case law is to be interpreted in light of the restructured Supreme Court. These clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of all three Bills.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the Constitution Amendment Bill and the two related Bills are aimed at restructuring the Supreme Court for better efficiency in the light of caseload demands. In summary, I understand the key proposed changes to be as follows.
First, there will be a new Appellate Division of the High Court, which will hear most appeals from judgments in civil cases originally heard by the High Court.
Second, the channelling of cases to the new Appellate Division will free up the Court of Appeal to concentrate on appeals which are generally of wider public interest. Under the proposed changes, all appeals from criminal cases originally heard by the High Court, will continue to go on appeal to the apex Court. This is rightly so, as criminal cases heard by the High Court may involve sentences of life imprisonment or the death penalty, and thus deserve scrutiny by the highest appellate Court. As for civil cases, there is also a list of certain types of civil cases that may still be appealed to the Court of Appeal from the High Court.
While we have some queries on the details of the proposed changes, the Workers' Party is supportive of the rationale for the restructure of the Supreme Court. If the caseload is efficiently distributed, parties will have less waiting time for appeals, which must be a good thing. Nevertheless, I wonder whether the Government has considered how the change might impact legal costs payable by parties? In other words, will the introduction of a middle tier Appellate Division lead to cost escalation for appeals to the Court of Appeal, up from present levels? If so, this would be an unwelcome side-effect of the changes.
Sir, I would also like to take this opportunity to revisit one important issue on the staffing of the Supreme Court judiciary. The Constitution (Amendment) Bill provides at clause 2 that there are various categories of persons holding \"high judicial office\", which is the position today. Such persons are the Chief Justice, a Justice of the Court of Appeal, a Judge of the Appellate Division, a Judge of the High Court, a Judicial Commissioner, a Senior Judge or an International Judge. For some of these categories of judicial office holders, they are protected under Article 98(1) of the Constitution with security of tenure until age 65. Other categories, however, like Judicial Commissioners and Senior Judges, are appointed for short terms of one to three years. As we have said in the past, in our view, having short-term judicial office holders is not ideal.
Since we have debated this matter in the past, I shall keep my remarks on the principle short. The judicial branch of the Government plays a vital role in the country's system of checks and balances between the Executive Government, the Legislature or Parliament, and the Judiciary. The courts are called upon to adjudicate disputes and must decide without fear or favour, regardless of who the parties are. To give assurance that the judicial branch is robust, security of tenure for judges is fundamental. Just as Members of Parliament are accorded with Parliamentary Privilege to ensure free debate in this House, Judges are accorded the security of tenure till retirement age; it is further provided by the Constitution that the office of a Supreme Court Judge must not be abolished during the continuance in office of the Judge.
Sir, in 1979 when the post of Judicial Commissioners was created, one of the reasons given in this House was that they would help clear case backlogs. In 2014, when the post of senior judges was created, it was mentioned that retaining judges past their retirement age would enable tapping on their expertise. To serve these purposes, we would like to repeat our call for the Government to review the retirement age of Supreme Court Judges, to retire later, say at 70 years old instead. In past debates, I do not recall the Government rejecting outright such a move and today, I would like to give further grounds for this from a manpower utilisation perspective.
This suggestion for the retirement age of a Supreme Court Judge to be later than 65 is not radical. At US Supreme Court, judges are appointed for life. The current composition of the US Supreme Court includes two judges in their 80s, and the average age of the bench is about 67 years.
In Singapore, what is age 65 in today's context? Singaporeans today have better health and longer lives. Just looking around this House, there are several Members over 65, whom I need not name. Nobody thinks they are incapable of rational thought or are losing their marbles. At the national level, data from MOM shows that for 2018, the labour force participation rate of those aged between 65 and 69 is 45.3% – close to one in two persons. We see over 70s being cleaners and company directors. Being a Judge requires brain work but is not physically demanding. We believe extending the retirement age of Judges to 70 is entirely feasible, to let our Judges work longer with security of tenure, which will be superior to having short-term Judges.
Sir, we hope the Government will continue its reviews to improve justice, including reviewing the security and retirement age of Judges. In making this suggestion, it is not my intention to cast doubt on the integrity of those appointed as Judicial Commissioners or Senior Judges. Neither are my observations directed at international judges, who may hold concurrent appointments in other jurisdictions and whose caseload revolves around international commercial disputes. Thank you, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate.
Sir, this Bill will strengthen the capability and flexibility of our high judicial system. I wish to speak on the tenure of Supreme Court Judges. Sir, the Constitution provides special protection for the tenure and terms of employment for Supreme Court Judges. Article 98 provides that they may not be removed from office except with cause, and even then, the recommendation of a tribunal of their peers is required. Their terms of office including remuneration must not be altered to their disadvantage after appointment.
Such protections are vital to safeguard the separation of powers and the independence of the Judiciary. Our Supreme Court Judges must decide cases that may adversely affect a sitting Government or the Legislature. Their judgments may have great public and political impact. In essence, they must be protected from political pressures from the hon Members of this House so that the quality and integrity of their judgments is unimpeachable. However, unlike all other appointments in Singapore, save the Attorney-General, a Supreme Court Judge has a mandatory retirement age of 65, or at most six months after then, specified in the Constitution itself.
I wondered whether the retirement age of Supreme Court Judges in Singapore had been designed with an express parliamentary intent. It seems that the retirement age Article originates in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill No 5 of 1969. The Bill inserted after Article 52 of the Constitution, 52F on the tenure of office of Supreme Court Judges. The original Article, and I quote, is: \"Subject to the provisions of this Article, a judge of the Supreme Court shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years or such later time not being later than six months after he attains that age, as the President may approve.\" The text has remained substantively the same since then.
The Explanatory Notes to the 1969 Bill state that this Article largely re-enacted the constitution of Malaysia's provisions on the Supreme Court, which were not present in the Constitution of Singapore. Our Constitution, of course, was originally designed for Singapore as part of the Federation. This was Minister for Law, Mr EW Barker's explanation to Parliament in the second reading debate on 12 June 1969. It seems that we have not then explicitly considered why the retirement age of Supreme Court judges is specified to be so. I note that the hon Member, Ms Sylvia Lim, has brought up this issue previously. I note also that the Malaysian constitution was amended in 2005 to raise the maximum age for a Supreme Court judge to 66 years.
Today's Constitution (Amendment) Bill deletes and substitutes the retirement age provision in essentially the same terms.
The necessity to provide Supreme Court Judges with tenure and guaranteed terms of employment is not disputed. What is an issue is the basis for why the retirement age should be specified in the Constitution and is different from that applying to the rest of society. This may be viewed as inequitable anytime the age applying to the rest of society is lower or higher than that applying to Supreme Court Judges. For many decades the retirement age of 65 for Supreme Court Judges was considerably older than the norm in Singapore and is still higher than the general retirement age of 62 today. Of course, one key difference is that Supreme Court Judges are required to retire at that age, whereas workers outside are not.
I think more generally, there are at least two main purposes of having such an age limit.
One is simply biological. While our wisdom might increase in years, unfortunately, our cognitive functions do not. The demands of high judicial office are exacting. It is obviously more graceful for a Supreme Court Judge to step down at the due time, than to be asked to retire on grounds of their loss of ability, or worse still, removed by a tribunal of their peers. It also assures us that no party has any reason to complain on the basis of age affecting the quality of jurisprudence, which is specifically prohibited by Article 98 of the Constitution. In this regard, Supreme Court judges are not too different from citizens in other jobs, except for the lack of discretion in when to retire.
The other factor which may be qualitatively important or different is the risk of ossification of ideas or principles in jurisprudence that fail to reflect contemporary values. We are all creatures of our time. Our formative years, our personal and professional experiences, contribute to the decisions that we make. It is no different for Judges. The central difficulty with those judicial systems that grant lifetime tenure, such as the Supreme Court of the United States, is that the composition of the court becomes determined by the longevity of the individual Judges. This is not logical unless longevity itself is a judicial virtue.
It is an issue even in a system with a set retirement age such as ours because the age of first appointment can vary both across individual Judges and across time. This means that the average tenure of a Supreme Court Judge can change even if the retirement age does not. If Judges are appointed early in their career, the end result can be a more ossified judicial system without any intent that this be so.
Therefore, it seems useful to consider: what are the aims of tenure of Supreme Court Judges? Why should the retirement age treat Supreme Court Judges different from the rest of society? What is a desirable length of tenure that protects Judges against political or public interference and yet mitigates the risk of ossification in jurisprudence? If there is such a thing as an ideal tenure length, would it be better to appoint Supreme Court Judges for suitably long, fixed terms, rather than until a set retirement age?
I do not of course expect that these issues can be addressed directly in today's debate. They are much more complex matters. Perhaps a commission of suitable experts could consider these, amongst other issues, for the future. But by drawing attention to this, I hope that future legislatures will consider the issue. Historically, we have not considered it so much.
We are not the only country to have to deal with this issue. In the United Kingdom today, there is an on-going debate about whether to raise the mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court judges above 70. That debate is an urgent one, created by the difficulty of finding suitable candidates for office who are both distinguished in the law and yet not too long in years. We do not want to leave it too late to have that discussion.
Mr Speaker, I support the Bill, but of course I shall not vote on this constitutional matter.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek a few clarifications from the Senior Minister of State on the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill. Section 29C(2) provides for an appeal from the General Division of the High Court to the Court of Appeal if the Sixth Schedule or any other written law so provides. Section 1 of the Sixth Schedule provides that for the purposes of section 29C(2), an appeal against the decision of the General Division in the exercise of its original or appellate civil jurisdiction is to be made to the Court of Appeal in the list of cases provided under A to J.
I would like to know how does the Government decide in such cases under the Sixth Schedule should be allowed a direct path to the Court of Appeal and it would not be appropriate for the Appellate Division to be the final arbiter body. I am saying this bearing in mind that for any existing legislation hitherto requiring the Court of Appeal as the final court hearing any appeal, it may still be possible to amend the relevant law, making the new Appellate Division as the final arbiter.
Yes, I am aware that the Senior Minister of State has provided some explanation in his opening speech and I thank him for that. I do wonder whether the Senior Minister of State can elaborate a little further on this. I would like to know what were the considerations behind the decision leading to the list of cases under the Sixth Schedule. For example, how does the Government arrive at the conclusion that it would suitable to have the Court of Appeal to hear cases under section 18(5) of the Maintenance of Parents Act and that it is not appropriate for such appeals to be now changed to, say, the Appellate Division instead.
Next, on section 29D, the Bill provides that under section 29D, the Court of Appeal may transfer two specific types of appeal to itself: (a) an appeal against any decision of the General Division that has been made to the Appellate Division and (b) when an order under section 39A of the Land Acquisition Act is in force, any appeal made to the Appellate Division under section 29(2) or 38(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
The power to do so can be exercised inter alia on the Court of Appeal's own motion or on a reference by the Appellate Division. Section 29(3) states that making a decision under section 29D(1) to so transfer the case to itself, the Court of Appeal must have regards to matters prescribed by the rules of the Court. In addition to what the Senior Minister of State has shared with us earlier, I would like to ask him whether he is able to share a little bit more as to what would be these matters of considerations which the Ministry has in mind.
Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, it appears that with the new Appellate Division, an increased in the number of Judges in the High Court is inevitable. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State: one, what is the projected number of judges that would sit at the Appellate Division of the High Court at the inception of the division after the passing of this Bill and two, whether the Senior Minister of State has any estimation or projection as to the number of additional judges which the High Court is expected to have in the next five years after setting up the Appellate Division.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill and the proposed legislative changes for the restructuring of the Supreme Court.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill which introduces an Appellate Division of the High Court with the intent of refining our judicial system to enhance the efficiency and flexibility of court processes.
Sir, since we are examining changes to the judicial system with this Bill, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister and this House to consider security of tenure to ensure full independence of our Judges. Currently, our Judicial Commissioners and older High Court Judges are contractually renewed and do not have tenure under Articles 95 clauses (2) and (5) of the Constitution, meaning that they do not have the certainty of staying on in the judiciary. They are instead appointed by the President with the concurring advice of the Prime Minister.
A 2015 study by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law on the appointment, tenure and removal of judges in the Commonwealth found that such renewable appointments \"place the career interest of a judge in conflict with the judicial responsibility for upholding the rule of law in cases involving the government or other powerful persons who may have influence over the renewal decision. Such conflicts of interest may pose a risk to both the actual and perceived independence of the judiciary.\"
Moreover, the reasons for offering contractual renewal to Judges no longer exist. I believe in the late 1960s, there was a serious shortage of High Court Judges, resulting in a backlog of court cases. Parliament allowed Judges beyond the retirement age of 65 to stay on as \"contract Judges\", enabling the judiciary to hold on to experienced and able Judges. This Senior Judge scheme is still in place today.
The Judicial Commissioner scheme was introduced in 1979 to attract top practitioners to be judges for a period between six months and three years, then go back to their practice. The income disparity earned by judges and top practitioners was at that time very significant, so practitioners had to be financially attracted to become Judges. However, this changed in the mid-1990s when the salaries of Judges were raised by pegging them to top earners in Singapore.
In addition to security of tenure for Judicial Commissioners and Senior Judges to safeguard their judicial independence, I urge the Minister to consider extending the retirement age of Judges to 70, with optional retirement at 65 years old, instead of having renewal of appointments so that we can still retain the services of older yet experienced and able Judges. As a comparison to other jurisdictions – the tenure for judges in the US is for life, while the retirement age of judges in England and Australia is 70 years old.
These changes will enable the Judiciary to exercise the judicial power vested in them under Article 93 of our Constitution, free from encumbrances and worries that they may not be contractually renewed and therefore provide effective check and balance on the powers of the Executive and the Legislature.
Mr Speaker, it was only with this Bill and studying the underlying Constitution that I fully recognise and appreciate the significance of our Constitution as the supreme law of the land as stated in Article 4, and our duty as Parliamentarians to uphold the constitutionality of the laws that we make in this House for the Judiciary and other branches to fulfill their respective roles independently for an effective democracy.
Yet, the Parliamentary debates in this House rarely make reference to this supreme law. Our Constitution delineates functions and powers of key public institutions including the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary, and our Civil Service. Amendments to the Constitution have also enabled significant tweaks to our political system, including the introduction of the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system, Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) system and the Elected Presidency, to operationalise.
Article 38 of our Constitution vests legislative power in the Legislature, which consists of the President and Parliament. This power enables us to shape our country's progress and our people's behaviours. How should we then exercise this power properly? What are the constitutional ideals that we must uphold? Please allow me to outline three key roles.
First, our Constitution provides for the existence of different branches of Government that serve as a check and balance on one another. While Parliament has legislative power, the Judiciary has judicial power and the Cabinet has executive functions. The Parliament vests powers of the Executive on persons other than the Cabinet, such as civil servants of high authority. The Judiciary can make judgments on the constitutionality of legislation passed by Parliament. The Judiciary can also make judgments on the failure of the Cabinet to properly exercise executive functions. The Cabinet implements regulations and policies based on the legislation enacted by Parliament. It is therefore important for us to ensure that each branch has autonomy, so that they can fulfill these functions in the best possible way. This is the basis for my recommendation for security with tenure to ensure full judicial independence.
Second, we should strive to ensure the constitutionality of legislation for future judicial references. As the supreme law, all other laws passed must not contravene the Constitution. This is called constitutional supremacy. Therefore, Article 4 provides that any law enacted by the Legislature which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. That would mean that in debating Bills, we should consider their consistency with our Constitution. Such constitutionally-informed debates can protect the electorate's rights and allow public institutions like the judiciary to fulfill their roles, in full view of the electorate. I think we will all agree that this will help us build a more informed and engaged citizenry.
Finally, Part IV of our Constitution protects fundamental liberties, including the life and liberty of a person, freedom of speech, assembly and association, freedom of religion, and equal protection, among others. Termed fundamental liberties, they are meant to be zealously safeguarded, with Parliament only being able to restrict these liberties in very limited circumstances. Hence, the legislation we enact must serve to protect these constitutionally-enshrined fundamental liberties, the courts must also be enabled to protect these liberties by being duly kept independent.
As we discuss the changes and significance of our judiciary system with this Bill and the importance of judicial independence with my earlier recommendation of tenure, I would like to seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to discuss a couple of policy examples where we could argue that judicial independence could guard against breaches on the constitutionality of legislation made, for example, to the equality provision.
With other Members of this House, I had raised in the debate on the CareShield Life Bill that the differentiated premiums for men and women goes against the right to equality.
Mr Speaker: Order. I think what is at stake is really discussing the amendments of the Bill, amendments that are relevant to the Bill.
Ms Anthea Ong: That is right. I am demonstrating with the policy examples why the judicial independence is important, with my recommendation —
Mr Speaker: We recognise that but I do not think we need to drag in other issues —
Ms Anthea Ong: The other example I wanted to share is the debate on section 377A also —
Mr Speaker: If I can repeat myself, that we should keep to the amendments that are being discussed today.
Ms Anthea Ong: Okay. The main point here is that I would like to say that legislative policies must also be aligned to the right to equality in our Constitution.
Let me end, Mr Speaker. Our Constitution represented the dreams of a young democracy when it was first created with our sudden Independence and now bears the marks of the growth of a determined and thriving nation. We have come this far and won much praise for our world class model of governance because of the strength of our Constitution in the separation of powers between the Judiciary, the Parliament and the Executive as well as the protection of the fundamental liberties of all Singaporeans including the right to equality.
The security of tenure for our Judges enables full judicial independence, and therefore further upholds our Constitution ideal by providing effective check and balance on the powers of the Executive and the Legislature.
We are in a stronger position than ever to keep fighting for these ideals so as to become the kind of society we want to be. Someone once said, \"The strength of the Constitution lies in the determination of each citizen to defend it.\" And therefore, together with our colleagues in the Judiciary, our duty as Parliamentarians must be to defend the constitutionality of the laws that we make in this House for Singaporeans. For I do believe that the greatest threat to our Constitution would be our ignorance of it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I start my speech, I would like to wish the hon Senior Minister of State Mr Edwin Tong – who persevered with his duty to deliver his speeches despite being clearly under the weather – a speedy recovery.
In my speech, I will focus on two areas: first, how the policy objective behind the creation of the new Appellate Division of the High Court is sought to be achieved; and second, the practical workings of some of the proposed new procedures set out in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (SCJA).
Turning to the first point, I note that the reason for the proposal to create the new Court is to share the burgeoning appeals caseload between the existing Court of Appeal and the new Appellate Division of the High Court. This is expected to ensure that the Court processes remain efficient.
The hon Senior Minister of State had shared some statistics in relation to the heavy workload of the Court of Appeal in dealing with the appeals. I do not wish to dwell at length about the reasons contributing to the increase – save as to point out that we all can agree that, as lawmakers, we have been passing quite a number of Bills both in the First and Second Sessions of the 13th Parliament and it does appear that our Ministers and their respective Ministries are not letting up and this rate of law-making may be likely to be maintained, if not go higher. So, eventually, all this would have an impact on the workload of the Judiciary which applies the law in accordance with the manifested intent of Parliament.
This phenomenon is not unique to Singapore. A retired UK law lord, Lord Sumption, referred to this as \"Law’s Expanding Empire\".
The proposed restructuring of the Judiciary to deal with the increase in the Appellate Court’s workload comes a right time. We need to ensure that the Judiciary, in its appellate jurisdiction, is provided with adequate resources so that the clearance rate is kept high, there is no significant backlog and litigants get to receive their results of the cases within reasonable time. At the same time, the quality of the judgments must be kept consistently high and in keeping with the hard-earned reputation for Singapore as a world class, independent court with exceptionally competent and committed Judges of the highest integrity; and in that regard I noted Senior Minister of State highlighting how well our Courts are rated in published rankings across the world.
My learned friend Ms Sylvia Lim had highlighted a possibility of increased costs arising from the establishment of the Appellate Division of the High Court. But as I understand the workings of the system, for at least the overwhelming majority of the cases, it is not to have a two-tier appeal. For the overwhelming majority of cases, you only have a one-tier appeal. Only in cases where there are novel points of law of public importance will there be a second set of appeal to the Court of Appeal. And that is rightly so because the Court of Appeal is the apex Court. So, in that regard, I think the impact of cost should not be very significant.
My query is in relation to how and how many Appellate Division Judges are to be chosen. If we were to just draw just from existing cohort of High Court Judges, I am concerned that there could be a \"cannibalisation\" effect. The High Court workload is not insignificant. It is also expected to become heavier for the reasons I just mentioned. How can we ensure that the workload of the High Court is dealt with by an adequate number of Judges?
I acknowledge that it is also not easy to appoint Judges given that Singapore is small country with a limited pool of legal talent. It is not easy to find top talent with the right aptitude for public service to agree to be appointed as Supreme Court Judges.
I would welcome the Senior Minister of State's response on my query.
Several Members, including Ms Anthea Ong and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, talked about increasing the retirement age of Judges. I am not sure whether that is an appropriate suggestion because there is a linkage between increasing retirement age and independence of the Judiciary. But I see this as two separate things. Based on how the Judges have been appointed, the appointment of Senior Judges as well as Judicial Commissioners are done on an ad hoc basis to clear workload as and when workload increases. And I think that flexibility must still be retained. But I think we should be careful about drawing an analogy between these Judges who are there for specific reasons to clear workload and then an inference that somehow the independence of the Judiciary is affected by their appointments.
I now turn to the other proposed amendments in the Bills. I beg the indulgence of hon Members because these are rather technical areas.
First, the configuration of the High Court hearing a civil case in the proposed General Division. The proposed section 10(1) of the SCJA stipulates that proceedings in the General Division of the High Court dealing with civil cases should be before a single Judge. This is the same requirement that exists now. I note, however, section 18G of the SCJA allows the SICC, which is another division of the High Court dealing with international commercial cases, allowing for proceedings to be heard before a single or three Judges. The reason for having three Judges, amongst others, is a recognition of the complexity of the cases that SICC would have to deal with.
With the increasing complexity of cases and voluminous documents involved in local civil cases, I would respectfully suggest that, as a matter of policy, there should be no distinction drawn between the General Division and the SICC. It may be good to give the Court the discretion to decide which number is more appropriate having regard to all the facts and circumstances. I would be grateful for the Senior Minister of State’s views on this matter.
Second, I note that there is a list of situations set out in the proposed Sixth Schedule where appeals are brought directly to the Court of Appeal, instead of the Appellate Division. I reviewed the list and I note that under paragraph 1(i) of the Sixth Schedule, there is a raft of legislation, from the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act to the Competition Act to Maintenance of Parents Act dealing with a diverse range of topics in respect of which it is stipulated that appeals are to be brought to the Court of Appeal. May I ask what is the policy ground for shortlisting these pieces of legislation?
I note from sub-paragraph (j), it is stated that there would be a direct appeal to the Court of Appeal if it is so provided under a specific piece of legislation. May I also please ask what would be the policy governing the provision for such a direct appeal to the CA in future pieces of legislation that this House may pass?
Third, further arguments. I note with the pleasure that the hon Senior Minister of State has clarified that he will be moving an amendment in the Committee stage of this Bill in respect of the proposed section 29B(2) of the SCJA which would clarify that the operative word there should be \"time\" and not \"date\". This would prevent controversy from arising once this Bill is passed and put into effect.
Next, I note that the proposed section 29D of the SCJA provides that the Court of Appeal may transfer a right of appeal against an order made under a provision in the Land Acquisition Act. May I please ask what is the rationale for this reservation of right instead of providing for a direct appeal to the Court of Appeal?
In this regard, I note that section 29(2) of the Land Acquisition Act provides for an appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the Board on questions of law. What is the special characteristic of this provision, section 39(A) in the Land Acquisition Act which for some reason, I am unable to find in the statute book?
Under the proposed section 29E of the SCJA, the Court of Appeal may transfer an appeal made under the Land Acquisition Act to the Appellate Division.
Given that the legislative intent under the Land Acquisition Act is for the Court of Appeal to hear these cases, may I know what are the circumstances in which such remission is proposed so that it is made in a way that coheres with parliamentary intent?
I believe the learned Senior Minister of State mentioned something about the situation where all the substantive issues are dealt with, dealing only with ancillary matters. Perhaps that could be a situation that is being contemplated.
Next, it is proposed under Schedule 7 of the SCJA that there are certain categories of cases which may be heard by a Judge or two Judges of the Appellate Division. This arrangement is different from the current Sixth Schedule which specifically states the circumstances in which the Court of Appeal will have a single Judge or when it will have two Judges. May I know why is there a necessity to reverse the policy? Also, who will decide how many Judges would sit in these circumstances? The learned Senior Minister of State mentioned about a configuration of Judges based on consent of parties. Is that what is being suggested in these provisions?
My questions will also apply to similar provisions that are proposed to be applicable to the Court of Appeal.
Next, Civil Jurisdiction of the Appellate Division is specifically provided under the proposed section 31 and 35 of the SCJA that the Appellate Division only has civil jurisdiction. May I please ask whether it is contemplated that the Appellate Division has jurisdiction to hear disciplinary cases involving professionals such as lawyers, doctors and so on which do not involve judicial review. Disciplinary cases brought in the Supreme Court are quasi-criminal in nature but generally invoke civil procedure. I welcome a clarification on this.
Next, dealing with appeals from the Appellate Division to the Court of Appeal, I note that leave is required; and it makes eminent sense for leave to be required, otherwise the whole rationale of dividing the workload would be thwarted.
I note that the test is whether or not an appeal would raise an issue or point of law of public importance. However, my concern lies with the proposed section 47(4)(a) of the SCJA because it is stated there that leave may not be granted even if the appeal would raise a point of law of public importance. Sir, I would like to ask what are the specific circumstances in which the Court of Appeal may decline exercising jurisdiction in such situations?
Notwithstanding my comments, I support the amendments Bills to the SCJA, JRA and the Constitution.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira?
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Speaker, I am sorry, I just wish to make a clarification which is that the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai earlier suggested that I and Ms Ong had said that we had debated on the connection between fixed-term Judges and the independence of the Judiciary, but I think I want to clarify that I actually did not make those remarks. I think that there might have been some confusion there. I did not speak on fixed-term Judges in Singapore and independence. I believe Ms Ong did.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai: I thank the hon Member, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, for clarifying. I apologise to him for remembering the speech wrongly. I think it was Ms Anthea Ong who made the point.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I thank the Members for speaking. I am also grateful to Mr Pillai for his well wishes and also for his wide-ranging speech where he answered not just some other Members' questions, but also some of his own.
Let me address the other questions now.
Ms Lim asked whether the cost of appeal to the Court of Appeal would escalate given the introduction of the Appellate Division as a middle tier. I go back to my earlier point that the Appellate Division is not to be seen as a middle tier. In general, it will not add a further level of appeal in the vast majority of cases and it is not a level of appeal that has to be crossed before one gets to the Court of Appeal.
The appeals from the General Division will be allocated in the first instance. So, you heard me say earlier that there will be two tracks, one of which goes direct to the Court of Appeal and the rest goes to the Appellate Division.
Any further appeal from the Appellate Division will require leave. Mr Pillai, I think, answered that question, and leave will only be granted in very limited situations. In most cases, parties will not go through an additional tier of appeal after a decision from the General Division. As is the case today, there will generally be only one tier of appeal, therefore.
The amendments before the House today also contain initiatives to lower costs of litigation for parties, to address Ms Lim's point directly. So, either by way of paper hearing, which will be quicker and also less expensive in the context of some cases. But all that is of course subject to the overriding discretion of the Court's assessment that it is appropriate for the administration of justice in a case for parties to proceed on a paper hearing.
Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Murali Pillai asked about the expected increase in the number of Judges. We expect at least three Judges from the current High Court to be appointed to the Appellate Division, and additional appointments to the General Division may be made as may be necessary once the Appellate Division has been set up.
Mr Louis Ng asked how the restructuring of the Supreme Court would affect the doctrine of judicial precedent, or stare decisis. He also asked how persuasive a decision of the Appellate Division will be compared to that of the Court of Appeal.
It is quite clear, and the order of precedence as set out in the Bill, is as follows, from the highest to the lowest: first, decisions of the Court of Appeal, which remains the apex court of the land; next, the Appellate Division of the High Court; and then the decisions of the General Division of the High Court.
In line with the usual principles of stare decisis, decisions of the higher Court are binding on the lower Court. Decisions of the Court of Appeal will therefore have precedence over decisions of the Appellate Division. This is regardless of whether the decision in question has been issued before or after the establishment of the Appellate Division.
The decision of the Appellate Division will be binding on the General Division and the lower Courts. And the existing High Court decisions will not bind the new Appellate Division. They will have instead the same weight as a decision from the General Division after it is set up.
Mr Tan and Mr Pillai asked about the categories of appeals in the Sixth Schedule – how they are chosen, what was the thought process going into it. Mr Pillai also asked about the Land Acquisition Act. These will also be ordinarily allocated to the Court of Appeal.
In my opening speech, I outlined the key considerations for allocating the categories of cases to the Court of Appeal directly. Just to quickly recap, these include cases which will have a likely substantial consequence for the individual or society, have involved significant public interest questions which will benefit from the guidance of the Court of Appeal, possibly also novel questions of law, complex cases and so on.
I think it was Mr Dennis Tan, I believe, who raised the questions specifically on section 18(5) of the Maintenance of Parents Act. If Mr Tan looks at that section, it specifically provides for an appeal on the basis of public interest. I think one can understand why an issue which the Maintenance of Parents Act covers might be something that one channels directly to the Court of Appeal.
Importantly, however, for Members to note, the ordinary allocation of appeals, whilst there is a default, is not rigid. Even if a case is ordinarily allocated to the Appellate Division, there is flexibility for it to be transferred to the Court of Appeal, if it requires a decision that the apex court of the land can usefully provide.
The categories allocated to the Court of Appeal are also not cast in stone. For example, as I said in my opening speech, should there be novel questions that we put into the categories today, they may be resolved or settled with the passage of time. Those cases can eventually come off that list if it can be dealt with by the Appellate Division. If an initial area of law is more established or there is a new area of law, that can also be added to the categories.
Next, let me touch the transfer powers of the Court of Appeal. Mr Louis Ng, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Murali Pillai touched on them and raised some questions. As a starting point, the allocation of matters in the two tracks that I mentioned will apply generally, as a starting position. However, it is useful beyond the default allocation to allow the Court of Appeal themselves looking at the specific case and understanding the issues that are raised beyond just the label that is put on it, a discretion to transfer to itself or to the Appellate Division depending on its assessment of complexity, novelty and so on. The basis on which it seeks to do so – novelty, complexity, cases of general public importance and so on – would be amongst the factors that will guide the exercise of discretion in any such transfer exercise.
At the same time, the powers of the Court of Appeal in doing so are not unfettered, and Members will note clauses 29D(3), 29E(3) and 47(3) of the amended SCJA which expressly require that the Court of Appeal have regard to the matters prescribed in the Rues of Court when exercising these powers. As I had mentioned, the relevant matters will be prescribed in the Rules of Court.
Mr Pillai asked specifically about the Land Acquisition Act. The transfer power in clause 12 which will introduce sections 29B and 29E of the SCJA refer to the Land Acquisition Act so that appeals under sections 29(2) and 38(2) of the Land Acquisition Act can be transferred in a manner similar to all the civil appeals.
The land acquisition appeals currently lie from the Land Appeals Board. They do not lie from the General Division up to either Appellate Division or the Court of Appeal, but lie from the Appeals Board. So for that reason, they are set out separately from the Sixth Schedule which applies only to civil appeals from the General Division.
Finally, clause 27(f) of the SCJA introduces a new section 39A of the Land Acquisition Act and that permits the Minister to allocate land acquisition appeals in the same way as all the other categories of appeals in the Sixth Schedule. So, I think Mr Pillai also asked what are the principles of that remission, and I think that is one of the questions that you answered yourself. So, thank you very much.
On a related note, Mr Louis Ng, I think, asked about the transfer to the Appellate Division, should the case raise a matter of settled law. Mr Ng's point seems to be that where a case might appear settled or uncontroversial, the law may subsequently nonetheless be overturned. So, I think the question is how then do we determine that upfront.
The reality is that in most cases, it will be clear if there are controversial points of law that ought to be decided by the Court of Appeal, and that would be flagged earlier rather than later. For example, when settled law is challenged by a party on appeal, the party first has to give notice of its position, file its case, outline its arguments, and the Court would be able to appreciate those arguments upfront.
Further, in deciding whether to transfer an appeal, the Court of Appeal, of course, will also have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the party's case which I have set out earlier, raised earlier on, and of course, understand the nature of the case. As Members who practise in the Courts know, the Courts very actively conduct pre-trial conferences to understand the nature of the parties’ dispute, understand the ambit of the disagreement, and to understand whether this would involve novel questions of law, or whether the parties are seeking a question to be overturned on a settled point of law.
Nonetheless, despite all that, where the appeal has been transferred to the Appellate Division and in the course of that hearing, an unanticipated issue of law of public importance, novelty, complexity arises, the matter can still go on appeal to the Court of Appeal with leave.
Mr Ng and Mr Pillai raised questions about the power of the Court of Appeal to decline to grant leave for a further appeal from the Appellate Division to the Court of Appeal, even if a point of law of public importance is raised.
Let me explain that. Under our proposed amendments, it is a requirement that the appeal ought to raise a point of law of public importance for leave to be considered. However, as Members would appreciate, this alone would not be sufficient as a criterion to grant leave of appeal.
Other matters in the interest of the administration of justice were also considered. That in fact is the position today.
Whether or not there should be further appeal should take into account the fact that the parties had had already a chance to raise their arguments, and nothing new is coming through in the application for leave to appeal. They raised the arguments before the Appellate Division, and the Appellate Division has reviewed them and decided on that point of law.
In other jurisdictions, it is not always sufficient as well just to rely on a point of law of public importance to seek and obtain permission for leave to appeal and I will just cite one example. In Australia, section 35A of Australia's Judiciary Act provides that the High Court of Australia may, when determining whether to grant special leave to appeal, \"have regard to any matters that it considers relevant\" and that this shall include not only whether the appeal involves a question of law of public importance, but also other factors, such as whether the interests of justice require it. So, there is a degree of flexibility in the discretion given to the judge to assess a particular case and to assess whether, on top of the question of public importance, there are other reasons in the dispensation of justice for this to be heard on appeal.
Mr Murali Pillai asked whether the Appellate Division has jurisdiction to hear professional disciplinary cases. I think judicial precedent has clarified that the Court of Appeal has no civil appellate jurisdiction in disciplinary proceedings for lawyers. Rather, this is heard by the Court of Three Judges; I think doctors as well. This remains unchanged by the introduction of the Appellate Division.
Mr Murali Pillai touched on the minimum composition of the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeal in cases that may be heard by fewer than three Judges. Specifically, he raised the difference in the arrangement of the Sixth Schedule in the existing SCJA – I think the Member said – and the corresponding Seventh Schedule of this Bill. The change in the arrangement is one of drafting – trying to neaten up the provisions – and does not effect any change to the minimum number of Judges required to hear the categories of cases set out in the existing Sixth Schedule. For example, if there is a matter that is currently only heard by a minimum of two Judges, that will remain the case in the Bill. So, the Bill does not seek to change those arrangements.
On SICC, Mr Murali Pillai asked about the difference in the number of Judges. This Bill retains the existing position, where a single Judge shall hear proceedings in the High Court, except as provided for in written law. And that one exception is the SICC, where proceedings might be heard by a single Judge or three Judges. Why? Because there are unique considerations behind the SICC. Although it is a Division of the current High Court and will be a Division as well like the General Division after the amendments, they apply to cases of international commercial considerations and they also have a panel of specialist commercial judges comprising not only Singapore Supreme Court Judges but also International Judges from a myriad of different landscapes, backgrounds and also legal systems. The strength and diversity of the panel are key advantages to attract parties to submit international disputes before the SICC, especially where the issues in dispute relate to foreign law or commercial practices in key jurisdictions overseas.
On section 29B(2), again, we will be taking up the amendment. We wish to correct the word \"date\" to \"time\" and I wish to also clarify with Mr Murali Pillai that there is no missing word in between the two sub-provisions. It is a disjunctive provision.
Let me now touch on the tenure of Judges. I think, to be very careful, in different shades, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms Anthea Ong have raised the point. Let me just try to address them as a whole.
There are a couple of questions: first, on the retirement age; second, on the tenure of Judges being extended to the age of 70; and finally – I think that is Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's point – on what is the desired tenure. I think that was the point he made and whether there should be a fixed period.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Yes.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I am glad I got it correct.
In essence, these questions – save for Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's which I will address – relate to that of the independence of our Judiciary: one of tenure and one of retirement age. So, let me address the point.
First, by borrowing from Mr Murali Pillai's own speech where he answered the point by explaining that these are effectively two different things – to look at tenure and to look at the retirement ages of the Judges are two different things when you look at the issue of independence. Let me explain why.
The Government regards a strong and trusted Judiciary as the bedrock of the rule of law. I think that really brooks no dissent. This is the point that has been made by the Minister for Law previously and it is a point that is worth reiterating in the context of the points raised in this debate. The question then is, what does success look like for our Judiciary? Because, ultimately – whatever you might say about the retirement ages, the tenure – the key question is, how successful? What role have our Judges played? What benefits do we have from a strong, trusted Judiciary, an effective trusted Judiciary which is able to attract and retain the best legal talent that we have and which operates in a climate where there are no extraneous factors, no influences interfering with the ability of the Judges to perform their jobs? The question is: have we achieved that outcome?
I think I have answered this earlier when I outlined some statistics, but I would say quite clearly so. I mentioned the World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators ranking Singapore in the 97th percentile worldwide in terms of rule of law. It is a number but what does that mean? One integral aspect of the rule of law is an independent Judiciary which makes decisions based on facts and law and without regard to extraneous factors. So, clearly, we can see from the rankings that judicial independence in Singapore is strong and consistently so. Trust in our Judiciary is high. In a survey conducted by my Ministry – I cited this earlier – showed that 92% of Singaporeans have trust and confidence in our legal system.
Let me look at some other legal systems, I think one that Ms Anthea Ong also raised. You look at the UK, where judges there have tenure until the age of 70. As you know, in 2016, there was this UK Attitude Survey. It was a stark reminder of how things could quickly go wrong if we are not careful. Let me just cite a few findings from the survey of UK judges. Forty-three percent of judges felt valued by the public. Seventy-four percent of judges felt that the remuneration does not adequately reflect the work they do. Sixty-one percent said opportunities for career progression was important but support for this was either non-existent or poor. Forty-seven percent of high court judges and forty-one percent of court of appeal judges – and these are judges in the UK system – said they intended to leave the Judiciary in the next five years. Two percent of judges felt valued by the government.
We could go on. And as I have said, these are survey numbers. But they, overall, give you a sense and picture and they show that there is a system that is facing a serious problem of morale, recruitment and retention. So, is this a system which has tenure till 70 a better system? That is why I go back to Mr Murali Pillai's point. It is not about what age we ask the Judges to retire at and what tenure we give the Judges, but it is in the quality of the output and the quality of the performance that we measure our success.
So, whilst I do not disagree with Members that the broader philosophical issues on security of tenure, of course, the linkage to independence and so on are important, we must never lose sight of the practical factors that have allowed us to build a first-class Judiciary that we now have. We want to always ensure that the morale of the Judiciary remains high, that it continues to attract and retain persons of the highest calibre, legal talent of the highest scruples, so that the highest levels of public trust can be maintained.
To this end, the Government ensures that remuneration for judicial appointment holders remains competitive so that we are able to attract and retain persons of high quality, ability, integrity and, certainly, of an incorruptible character. We are also firm about protecting our Judiciary from baseless attacks against their reputation, as reflected by the adoption of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act in 2016. Trust and respect in the Judiciary has been carefully and closely built up over the generations – and I think Members will agree – it has to be zealously guarded, for it can be easily lost if we are not careful.
Let me now turn to Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's question on the differences in the age of retirement for Singaporeans in general and the tenure of office for a Supreme Court Judge.
In Singapore, when we first introduced retirement age laws in 1993, employers were not allowed to ask employees to retire before 60. In 1999, we raised the retirement age to 62 and this is where it stands now. There were many considerations, such as the need to maintain a competitive economy in the face of an ageing population, providing an opportunity for older workers to earn a regular income and allowing employers to gain from the retention of experienced workers. I think Ms Sylvia Lim herself cited some studies – healthcare is better; life expectancy is better and so on. But I would respectfully suggest that the tenure for a Supreme Court Judge engages very different considerations – a very different set of parameters and issues to consider.
Here, we are not so much concerned with economic competitiveness. Rather, the security of tenure for a Supreme Court Judge seeks to secure the independence of the Judge in judicial proceedings. So, retirement age laws in the context of the Employment Act, for instance, are not immediately comparable to the tenure of office of a Supreme Court Judge. I would not say they are irrelevant but they are not immediately comparable on a same set of paradigm factors.
In fact, if we look at other jurisdictions, we will also find that there is also little relation between the statutory retirement ages for the general population and the security of tenure for a Judge. Ms Anthea Ong – or was that Ms Sylvia Lim, I could not quite recall – cited the example of the US. In the US, the Supreme Court Justices have tenure for life. In India and Malaysia, the retirement ages for workers, generally, is 60, while judges of the apex court in those countries all have tenure until 65. So, there is no direct correlation. I venture to suggest that it is for the reasons I have outlined. In Hong Kong, judges of the apex court have tenure until 65 as well, but there is no statutory retirement age.
Next, on the desirable length of tenure and also extending tenure to Judicial Commissioners and Senior Judges. Again, we need to look at it in the context of our system – what we need to achieve in our system, what has worked for us and what we want to see happening.
First, it bears noting that there is no correlation between age per se and the Judge to make an independent and effective judicial decision. Neither is there any linkage between the age and ability to make a decision free from political or public interest. Rather, it is crucial that the system enables Judges to exercise powers free from encumbrances. So, systemically, structurally, how do we build a system that has that?
What we need to do, then, is to look at our unique circumstance and find our own balance. In this respect, we have achieved a balance between various factors: ensuring a good mix of tenured and non-tenured Judges, rejuvenating the Bench while leveraging on the wisdom and experience of the existing Bench, protecting the Judiciary from baseless allegations and assaults to their reputation.
I do not think that there is much value in pointing to other jurisdictions which provide for tenure of up to 70 years or more, 65 or beyond, the whole variety of different systems and then for us to slavishly adopt those numbers as our own. Going back to the US, for example, the US Supreme Court Judges have tenure for life. Yet, there is a constant debate about the ideological leanings of the Court, whether they have taken into account extraneous considerations and whether it has been politicised. It also appears to be the norm now for the US Supreme Court nominations to attract significant controversy, with all kinds of allegations made. Is that the way we want to go about our Judges that we put on the Bench? Again, I think our answer is very clear.
Then, we look at the other end of the spectrum. We have been talking about Supreme Court Judges and High Court Judges. Let us look at the Judicial Officers of the State Courts. Members who practise in the State Courts will know they deal with and dispose of 95% of all judicial matters in Singapore, but have no security of tenure. Yet, the 2018 Court Users Survey shows that 99% of respondents agree that the Courts independently carry out justice according to the law. And 100% of respondents agree that the Courts administer justice fairly to all in Singapore, regardless of race, language or religion. So, going back to my original point, while I do not disagree that, as a matter of principle, security of tenure is an important aspect of judicial independence, we do not have to be overly theoretical or dogmatic about it. We look at what works for our system and we attract and retain the best and finetune it in a manner that works for our system.
For Judicial Commissioners, the scheme is an integral part of our system of appointments. It helps to manage temporary surges in caseload and enables both the prospective appointee and also the Chief Justice to assess suitability for permanent appointment.
It has been explained in this House before that not all lawyers will want an immediate appointment as a Supreme Court Judge. Some would rather come in first as a Judicial Commissioner for a short-term appointment. This provides the opportunity to ascertain whether the nature of the office of a Judge suits them, before the appointment is made on a permanent basis.
This has little to do with judicial independence or security of tenure. Being part of the Supreme Court Bench is a calling that not everyone will say or can say that they are certain about from the start. The Judicial Commissioner scheme therefore allows outstanding members of the Bar who are at the peak of their profession to contribute to the dispensation of justice and the development of local jurisprudence. If they decide that this is something they are called to do and they also have the suitable judicial temperament, then there is the long-term appointment that is possible with security of tenure.
One prominent example, of course, is our current Chief Justice who was first appointed as a Judicial Commissioner from 2006 to 2007 and returned to private practice thereafter. Five years later, he returned to the Judiciary and was made Chief Justice.
This brings me to my next point, which is that an immediate and permanent appointment as a Supreme Court Judge may not also suit all possible appointees, not only for the reasons of temperament, lifestyle and calling but also because under the Legal Profession Act, an individual who has held office as a Supreme Court Judge for more than three years, cannot then apply for a practising certificate. So, it is a career change altogether. In other words, an individual who trades a successful career as a lawyer to serve as a Supreme Court Judge cannot return to his former career after serving as a Supreme Court Judge for three years or more.
If we look at the practices of other jurisdictions, the appointment of Judicial Commissioners for fixed terms to the Bench is also not new. Similar arrangements exist in many other countries, particularly the Commonwealth countries, such as the UK, where the Lord Chief Justice may after consulting the Lord Chancellor, appoint a Deputy Judge of the High Court for a specified period.
Let me now come to the Senior Judges. Senior Judges who sit in the existing High Court are scheduled to hear trials and applications, and they contribute to the disposal of cases by the High Court. Senior Judges may also deal with urgent applications such as Mareva applications and injunctions, and can also be assigned to hear appeals in the Court of Appeal.
In terms of the issue of security of tenure, the Senior Judges we are talking about here, would have already been previously selected and appointed, and had a full career as a Supreme Court Judge. They would have served a long and distinguished career and from the perspective of the issue of independence and what they are influenced by, it is difficult to see why such Judges, who are re-appointed as Senior Judges, will suddenly start making decisions based on extraneous considerations simply because they are now appointed for a fixed period.
While we want to utilise the wealth of expertise and experience that these Judges carry with them, at the same time, there is also a practical need to allow a younger generation of Judges to have the opportunity to advance. This is also a point I think very graphically recognised by Assoc Prof Theseira when he talked about ossification. So, the system we have put in place strikes that balance – works for us, strikes that balance, allows for the appropriate renewal of the Supreme Court Bench in a fair and systematic manner, but also gives us the ability to tap on Judicial Commissioners and also to retain the wide ranging experience of the Senior Judges.
The Government has made it clear before that it does not disagree with the fundamental point that security of tenure is important. But there is a need to take into account the unique circumstances that we operate in and in the manner in which we look after the success of the Judiciary. What is clear is that we are a small country, with a limited talent pool. When we find suitable talent, we have to ensure that first, this is a calling that they are certain about, and next, that there is room for advancement. Will this undermine judicial independence or will our Judges start making decisions that are affected by political bias? I believe the answer to this is eminently clear. The decisions of the Court are published and the public can judge for themselves.
Sir, I believe that brings me to the end of my responses to the questions raised. I believe I have touched on almost every question that has been surfaced.
Let me just end by saying that the establishment of the new Appellate Division is a milestone in the development of our Court system. Together with the other proposed enhancements to the Court processes, it is designed to sustain, in the long term, the high standards of excellence and access to justice that Singapore’s Courts are known for in and outside Singapore. Sir, with that, 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 Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 12 – (proc text)]
The Chairman: Clause 12. Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong, I understand you have an amendment to propose.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Yes, Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That in page 7, line 26, to leave out the word 'date' and insert the word 'time'\".
This applies in the context of section 29B(2) of the underlying legislation. I had addressed this point earlier in my speech. I believe this clarifies the position and makes it clear that it is the time that is applicable and not the date from which the Order is made, that the requirement for leave for further arguments to be filed runs.
The Chairman: I am of the view that the amendment, though proposed without sufficient notice, is of a purely drafting character, as explained by the Senior Minister of State Tong. I give my consent for the amendment to be moved. May I have the assent of Members for the amendment to be moved?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The amendment read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) In page 7, line 26: to leave out \"date\" and insert \"time\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clauses 13 to 32 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported with amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
This Bill amends the Judges' Remuneration Act consequent to the introduction of the Judges of the Appellate Division who will form a new class of judges that sit in the Appellate Division of the High Court.
This Bill is linked to the previous Bill on our Order Paper, the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill. In that debate, I had explained the amendments proposed in both Bills. Members have already raised their questions and expressed their views on both Bills during the earlier debate, although they are still welcome to do so now if there are any. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Would anyone like to contribute at this stage? Okay.
[(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 Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
This Bill amends the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore to create the Appellate Division of the High Court, renames the existing High Court as the General Division of the High Court and creates a new class of judges who will be designated as \"Judges of the Appellate Division\".
This Bill is linked to the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill, which we had debated earlier. In that debate, I have already explained the amendments proposed in both Bills. Members have raised their questions and expressed their views on both Bills during the earlier debate, although they are still welcome to do so now if there are any other. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Would anyone like to contribute at this stage? If not, the Question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 61 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.
[(proc text) After two minutes – (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Serjeant‐at‐Arms, lock the doors.
Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, may I remind Members that they are to be seated at their designated seats and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on their armrests start to blink.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. May I remind Members to depress their vote button firmly so that you can register your vote in the system.
Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.
Mr Speaker: Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or displayed incorrectly on the screens? No.
I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 72 \"Ayes\"; 0 \"Noes\"; 0 \"Abstentions\". The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-constituency Members of Parliament. Serjeant-at-Arms, unlock the doors.
[(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 Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment. (proc text)]
Third Reading
Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Now, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\"
Mr Speaker: The Question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\" Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected and non-constituency Members of Parliament, which is 61 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.
[(proc text) After one minute – (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. As before, do press your vote button firmly in order to register your vote in the system.
Mr Speaker: Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or displayed incorrectly on the screens? No.
I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 72 \"Ayes\"; 0 \"Noes\"; 0 \"Abstentions\". The third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-constituency Members of Parliament.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subscription to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That this Parliament, in accordance with section 7(3) of the Bretton Woods Agreement Act (Chapter 27 of the 2012 Revised Edition), resolves that the total subscription of Singapore to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development be increased to a sum not exceeding Eight Hundred and Fifty-Eight Million United States Dollars (US$858 million).\"
I will also be moving a second related motion on Singapore's subscription to the International Development Association. The background and rationale for both motions are addressed in this speech.
The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, or IBRD, is the main institution of the World Bank Group that lends to developing countries. In October 2018, the Board of Governors of the IBRD adopted resolutions to increase the capital of the IBRD by about US$60 billion. The IBRD intends to use the capital to support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, more commonly known as the Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs. It does this, for instance, by supporting inclusive and sustainable economic growth through investments in infrastructure; as well as delivering higher climate co-benefits and focusing on crisis prevention.
As a member of the World Bank Group, Singapore subscribes to capital of the IBRD. The Bretton Woods Agreement Act, or the BWAA, governs Singapore's subscription. In 2014, Parliament raised the threshold for our cumulative subscription to the IBRD for the first time since 1966 to US$672 million. Today, our subscription stands at US$671.82 million.
We now propose to fully subscribe to the 1,540 shares allotted to Singapore in the 2018 IBRD capital increase exercise. This amounts to close to US$186 million, which will bring our cumulative subscription since 1966 to about US$858 million. We are therefore seeking Parliament's approval to again raise Singapore's subscription threshold to the IBRD.
I should explain that not all the amount subscribed to needs to be disbursed. The capital subscription comprises two categories:
(a) Paid-in capital; and
(b) Callable capital
Paid-in capital is the amount that is actually disbursed. In this case, out of the US$186 million, Singapore is only required to disburse about US$21 million to the IBRD as paid-in capital. The remaining US$165 million of callable capital will not be drawn upon unless in extreme circumstances such as when the IBRD cannot meet its obligations on borrowings or guarantees. Historically, this has not happened. The IBRD is a triple A-rated institution with a long history of sound balance sheets. Nevertheless, the full increase in Singapore's subscription to the IBRD’s capital will be charged to the Consolidated Fund, as the callable capital represents an increase in the Government's financial liabilities.
Mr Speaker, the World Bank Group also offers concessional loans and grants through the International Development Association or IDA to its least developed member countries to reduce poverty as well as promote economic and social development. IDA was started in 1960 and is replenished every three years. Governments are due to pledge their contributions for the next three-year tranche from FY 2021 to FY 2023 this December under the 19th IDA Replenishment exercise (IDA19). IDA has been playing a leading role in helping the world's poorest countries by providing loans and grants for programmes that boost economic growth, reduce inequalities and improve living conditions.
To support the IDA, Singapore contributed US$46 million during the 18th Replenishment exercise in 2016. Structurally, IDA's replenishments comprise subscription and non-subscription components. Today, Singapore's cumulative subscription to IDA since 2002 stands at US$1.09 million.
For IDA19, we believe that the majority of IDA donors are likely to support a total replenishment size of about US$82 billion over the period of FY 2021 to FY 2023.
This will enable IDA to channel more resources to countries in fragile and conflict-affected situations; support programmes that prioritise capability building and economic transformation; as well as enhance crisis response and pandemic preparedness.
The IDA Act guides our subscription to the IDA. In 2016, Parliament raised the threshold for Singapore's IDA subscription to US$1.1 million to enable our IDA18 contributions, up from the earlier US$1 million stipulated by section 4(2) of the IDA Act. We now propose to contribute up to US$70 million over three years for IDA19, which will bring our subscription component to up to US$1.3 million. As a result, we are also seeking Parliament's approval to raise the subscription threshold to the IDA from US$1.1 million to US$1.3 million.
In addition to the foregoing, I would like to update and inform Parliament that Singapore has voted in support of the resolutions to increase the capital of the International Finance Corporation, or IFC, by US$5.5 billion. The IFC is the private sector arm of the World Bank Group. It will leverage the additional capital to mobilise private sector investments in developing countries, creating markets to advance sustainable development.
Singapore's present cumulative subscription to the capital of the IFC stands at less than US$0.2 million. We will be fully subscribing to the 8,612 shares allotted to Singapore in this IFC capital increase exercise. This amounts to US$8.61 million and will bring our total subscription close to US$9 million. The actual disbursement will be less than that, at US$7.44 million as US$1.17 million worth of shares will be allotted through the conversion of retained earnings. This subscription, however, is contingent on the passage of the Board of Governors' resolutions to increase the capital of the IFC. Voting for these resolutions is open until 18 March 2020.
In total, therefore, our fiscal outlay to the World Bank Group's capital raising exercises will amount to about US$92 million for the IBRD and IDA, and an additional about US$7.5 million for the IFC subscription. These amounts will be spread over the next three years or more and will be met from the Government Budget.
We are participating in the IBRD and IFC capital increase exercises as well as the IDA 19th Replenishment for the following reasons. First, it is important that we do our part as a responsible member of the international community by contributing to the efforts of the development institutions to alleviate poverty and boost shared prosperity. In 1966, Singapore joined the IBRD and subsequently received 12 loans from the bank for a variety of infrastructure projects – from port expansion and telecommunications to the capitalisation of then-Development Bank of Singapore and the construction of the National University of Singapore campus. Our final loan with the Bank was signed in 1975.
Having seen and experienced first-hand how timely financial support could accelerate development efforts, we moved from being a borrower to a donor and partner of the World Bank Group in the early 2000s. We are supportive of the World Bank Group's strategic directions for achieving the 2030 SDGs and are keen to join the international effort to supplement its resources to generate more targeted assistance to those in the region and beyond.
Second, the presence of the World Bank Group in Singapore benefits Singapore and contributes to our growth. As Members may know, the World Bank Group has an Infrastructure and Urban Development Hub in Singapore. In FY18, the IFC mobilised more than US$1.5 billion in private capital for the Asia Pacific region, three-quarters of which was done with the participation of Singapore-based banks and financial institutions. This has strengthened Singapore's status as a regional financial hub. Singapore companies and services have also benefited from the World Bank Group's advisory, project preparation, structuring and financing activities in the region. These activities add to the vibrancy of Singapore's infrastructure ecosystem and reinforce our position as a major infrastructure hub for Asia, creating opportunities for our businesses and our people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That this Parliament, in accordance with section 7(3) of the Bretton Woods Agreement Act (Chapter 27 of the 2012 Revised Edition), resolves that the total subscription of Singapore to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development be increased to a sum not exceeding Eight Hundred and Fifty-Eight Million United States Dollars (US$858 million).\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subscription to the International Development Association","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That this Parliament, in accordance with Section 4(2) of the International Development Association Act (Chapter 144A of the 2003 Revised Edition), resolves that the total subscription of Singapore to the International Development Association be increased to a sum not exceeding One Million and Three Hundred Thousand United States Dollars (US$1.3 million).\"
Mr Speaker, I have addressed the reasons for this Motion in the earlier speech, so, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4(2) of the International Development Association Act (Chapter 144A of the 2003 Revised Edition), resolves that the total subscription of Singapore to the International Development Association be increased to a sum not exceeding One Million and Three Hundred Thousand United States Dollars (US$1.3 million).\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.00 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 2.39 pm until 3.00 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Deputy Prime Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister's speech?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister's speech. – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Governance of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That this Parliament:
(i)\taffirms the vital importance of Members of Parliament maintaining high standards of integrity and accountability;
(ii)\tnotes the Judgment in Aljunied-Hougang Town Council & anor v Lim Swee Lian Sylvia and ors and anor suit [2019] SGHC 241, where, amongst other things, the Court held that:
(a)\tMs Sylvia Lim (\"Ms Lim\") and Mr Low Thia Khiang (\"Mr Low\") had acted dishonestly and in breach of their fiduciary duties, and their conduct lacked integrity and candour; and
(b)\tMs Lim and Mr Low were fully aware that their conduct was of questionable legality;
(iii)\tnotes that Ms Lim remains Vice-Chairman of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, and Mr Low remains an elected member of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council; and
(iv)\tcalls on Aljunied-Hougang Town Council to discharge their responsibilities to their residents by requiring Ms Lim and Mr Low to recuse themselves from all matters relating to, and oversight over, financial matters.
I have moved this Motion because of the High Court's findings. Mr Speaker, may I distribute the Supreme Court's summary of the Judgment as Annex 1 to my speech? The full Judgment was released to the public on 11 October 2019.
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Heng Swee Keat: If there is an appeal against the judgment, the Court of Appeal will decide on the merits of the appeal in due course.
The appeal may take months to conclude. Given the very serious findings about: (a) the dishonesty of particular Members of this House, and (b) the misuse and loss of public funds, the question is what is going to be done in the interim, pending the appeal, if there is one. Will the Workers' Party provide the House with any guarantees to uphold accountability and transparency between now and the appeal?
This Motion is also about the integrity and character expected of public officials and Members of Parliament. It pains me to move this Motion, in particular, because one of the two Members named in it is Mr Low Thia Khiang, if I may be permitted a personal note at the outset, he is someone for whom I have always had a high regard. I think many on both sides of the House share my sentiment.
But there are important questions of public interest to consider. I will mention just a few at the outset.
Millions of dollars of public funds are involved. The High Court has found Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang to be dishonest and deceptive, and to have failed in their duty to the Town Council. Indeed, Ms Sylvia Lim has admitted under oath that she had lied to the public. Pending the appeal, if there is one, this House is entitled to ask: are Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang going to continue to have oversight and decision-making power over public funds in the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC)? And, what do those in charge of AHTC intend to do about the findings in the judgment? I should add that from February 2013 to September 2015, the Town Council included Punggol East and was known AHPETC. For simplicity, I will refer to the Town Council consistently as AHTC so as not to confuse listeners.
I will deal with the judgment and the questions raised following the judgment.
The judgment is the latest chapter in a saga that has been eight years in the making. Throughout this long time, the Workers' Party has consistently and repeatedly refused to take responsibility for the problems in its Town Council. This is lamentable. The Workers' Party town councillors have persistently resisted disclosure, offered countless excuses and made a litany of misleading statements – to the public, in Parliament and before the Courts. They have not been transparent in their dealings.
In essence, what happened is simple.
The Workers' Party wanted their friends to manage their Town Council. The honest and honourable thing to do, if one wants to appoint one's friends is: be transparent and open about it. Disclose all the facts, so that a fair decision can be made. And call an open tender, so that your friends compete with the market. And this is important – you cannot allow your friends to overcharge.
What the Workers' Party did was the opposite. They told untruths and manipulated the circumstances, so that FMSS would be appointed, whatever the case. They did not care whether FMSS was the best candidate to serve residents. Indeed, Mr Low said that he would have appointed FMSS, even if a cheaper, more experienced contractor had put in a bid.
To guarantee FMSS' appointment, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang waived the tender, even though the law required it. They misled their own town councillors, including their own fellow Members in the GRC and gave a false reason to them for not calling a tender. And they removed the existing Managing Agent (MA) and appointed their friends in FMSS, though FMSS had less experience and charged more. This overcharging, abuse of public funds, was inexcusable. What they did was in breach of their fiduciary duties, at every turn. They told untruths and distorted the facts, and knowingly sacrificed their residents' interests in favour of their friends.
After having misled their own town councillors to get FMSS appointed without a tender, they then repeatedly misled the public and Parliament on why they had hired their friends in this manner. They misled their own auditors too, and refused to give them documents which would have revealed the truth.
Mr Speaker, they did all this to cover up their wrongdoing. It is a tale of deception, spun out over eight years, which finally unravelled in Court – and not just in one Court. It unravelled in three different Courts, including the Court of Appeal.
The residents have suffered. Under the management of the Workers' Party's friends, the Town Council ran up deficits. A surplus of $3.3 million under the previous management, became a deficit of $2 million by the third year of the new regime. And meanwhile, their friends made big profits running into millions of dollars. Allowing your friends to help themselves to public funds – that is a tale that belongs to the Third World, not Singapore.
In two different trials, the Courts reached judgments that showed that the Workers' Party's Members of Parliament had misled Parliament – first in 2015, and now, in the latest judgment.
Even so, the Workers' Party maintains that they are not answerable either to the Courts or to Parliament. Indeed, they have taken the position in Court that as elected Members of Parliament, they are not answerable to the Courts for any serious mismanagement or mis-spending of public funds. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal disagreed with this submission, which sought to place the Workers' Party Members above the law.
It was a remarkable position for the Workers' Party to take. They are saying that no matter what wrongs they commit and no matter how much public funds are misused, they are not answerable and nothing can be done to them in Court. This was said in the hope that the electorate would not pay attention to their wrongdoings. Therefore, everything could be covered up and forgotten.
How did we get to this state? Many in the House will remember that it was AHTC's own auditors who first issued a disclaimer of opinion on its accounts back in 2013. The auditors raised serious questions about the adequacy of the Town Council's financial and accounting systems. The responsible thing for Ms Sylvia Lim, the Workers' Party Town Council Chairman then, to have done at that moment, was to come clean, accept that there were issues, and fix them. But she did not.
In the next audit in 2014, they hid details of the transactions with their friends, and refused to give the documents and information to their own auditors. The auditors were alarmed and again issued a disclaimer of opinion on the Accounts. But the issues they highlighted were not rectified.
And so, in 2014, the Auditor-General carried out an audit, but like AHTC's own auditors, Auditor-General's Office (AGO) was obstructed by the Town Council. The AGO report stated that despite repeated requests for critical documents, the Town Council did not produce them. Still, the 2015 AGO report uncovered serious shortcomings, which cast doubt on whether the Town Council was properly managing public funds.
Parliament debated the AGO report in February 2015. Even at that point, instead of taking ownership and rectifying the problems uncovered by the AGO, the Workers' Party Members – and Ms Sylvia Lim in particular – made excuses. They repeated in this House their objections to the AGO report, objections which the AGO had already addressed. Instead of dealing with the issues, they sought to obfuscate, throw doubt on AGO, pretend that everything was fine.
The Law Minister said in this House that the conduct of Ms Sylvia Lim and her fellow town councillors was unlawful and that they were in breach of their fiduciary duties. Ms Sylvia Lim's response was to shout \"Rubbish\", brazenly denying their unacceptable actions using unparliamentary language.
Despite their refusal to acknowledge the issues, then Minister of National Development, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, patiently advised the Workers' Party to take immediate steps to resolve the problems. He urged them to take concrete steps to recover the losses and make restitution to their residents. And he suggested commissioning a forensic audit.
Sadly, the Workers' Party did not do anything. I do not know what they were expecting. Perhaps, they felt that somehow the public would forget and give them a free pass since they were an Opposition party. They were not used to running a GRC, so the public would \"give chance\". Indeed, shortcomings resulting from inexperience can be forgotten. But dishonesty, deliberate and repeated deception, to profit one's friends, cannot be forgiven, or swept under the carpet.
We would not be here today speaking about these judgments, if the Workers' Party, and Ms Sylvia Lim in particular, had even at this late stage in 2015, been serious about setting things straight. If they had corrected the problems, got their friends to make good the losses, it could all have been very different. But the Workers' Party refused to acknowledge the issues and flatly refused to deal with them.
In view of the Workers' Party's inaction, despite the debate in Parliament, MND and then HDB, applied to the High Court to deal with the matter. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal took a serious view of the matter. Tellingly, both had sharp remarks about the Workers' Party's conduct.
To help Members follow the Courts' findings, I wish to distribute Annex 2 – Quotes from the Judgments – to my speech. Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to distribute the Annex?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The High Court observed that Ms Sylvia Lim's statement in Parliament in 2015 that the Town Council had done due transfers to the sinking fund was curious because of what she had failed to mention. The Court described Ms Sylvia Lim's behaviour with the Latin phrase \"suppressio veri, suggestio falsi\" – suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of what is false.
The Court of Appeal said that it was clear that there had been breaches of the statutory requirements. It found lapses in internal controls, which exposed the Town Council to risk of loss of money or valuables; inadequate oversight of related party transactions, where key officers acted despite conflicts of interest; and that the Town Council had not seriously considered whether, and how, to recover possible sums due from wrong payments.
Thus, the Court had already taken a view on this matter as early as 2015, after the AGO report was debated in Parliament.
The Court of Appeal ordered the Town Council to appoint independent accountants, despite the Workers' Party's resistance. AHTC then responded to the Court of Appeal's order cynically, nominating accountants to do the forensic audit, but failing to provide enough information on their proposed accountants’ experience and expertise. When HDB asked for additional information, AHTC did not respond.
The Court of Appeal noted the Town Council's lack of rigour and basic due diligence in how it nominated accountants. On the Court of Appeal’s direction, AHTC eventually appointed KPMG LLP (KPMG). KPMG too uncovered serious shortcomings. Among them:
One, that the Town Council had not been justified to waive tender before appointing FMSS as its Managing Agent. There were conflicts of interest in the Town Council's appointment of FMSS and FMSI. FMSI, which was engaged by the Town Council to provide essential maintenance and lift rescue services, was a sole proprietorship owned by the Secretary of the Town Council, who was also part-owner of FMSS. The people that formed FMSS and FMSI were the Workers' Party’s friends – trusted, loyal supporters. FMSS' directors and shareholders were the Secretary, General Manager and Deputy General Manager of AHTC, respectively.
Two, there were pervasive control failures cutting across the key areas of governance, financial control, financial reporting, procurement and records management. I will mention three of these.
The Town Councillors relinquished an unacceptably high degree of financial responsibility to conflicted persons.
All of the payments to FMSS/FMSI were co-signed by the conflicted persons.
There were overpayments to FMSS, and payments to FMSS without certification of work performed or without the requisite co-signature of members of the Town Council.
There were also numerous breaches of the Town Councils Act and Town Council Financial Rules.
In the meantime, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) – retained by Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council (PRPTC) after Punggol East became part of PRPTC after the 2015 General Election – submitted its own report. It too raised questions similar to KPMG. Again, it found that AHTC had not been transparent, and had delayed granting PwC access to all necessary documents and information.
In view of these serious flaws, the Court of Appeal then directed the Town Council to appoint an independent panel (IP) to take such action as may be appropriate to safeguard residents' interests.
The Workers’ Party chose the Members of the Independent PaneI. It appointed the Independent Panel. HDB was consulted and had no objections. Mr Pritam Singh, on behalf of AHTC, welcomed the appointments and called the independent members \"eminent\", as indeed they were. Chaired by Mr Philip Jeyaretnam Senior Counsel, the other two members of the Independent Panel were Mr N Sreenivasan Senior Counsel and Mr Ong Pang Thye, Managing Partner of KPMG.
The Independent Panel went through the facts and concluded that Town Council’s monies had been wrongly spent. On behalf of the Town Council, it decided to sue the key persons involved – including Mr Low Thia Khiang, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Pritam Singh – for losses arising from wrongful payments by the Town Council.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I must emphasise: it was not MND or HDB that sued Mr Low Thia Khiang, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Pritam Singh. It was the Independent Panel that did so. The Independent Panel appointed by AHTC, acting on behalf of AHTC, sued AHTC's councillors.
This is how we got here today. The Workers' Party has persistently refused over eight years to be transparent about what it had done. At numerous points over the last eight years, they could have acted.
In 2013, they could have acted after their own auditors issued reports, before the AGO stepped in. In 2015, they could have acted when AGO made its report and Parliament debated the matter. In 2016 and 2017, they could have acted when KPMG and PwC issued their reports.
But, at every turn, at every turn of the way, there was obfuscation instead of transparency; resistance instead of accountability; denial instead of honesty.
Hence, the matter came before the Courts to decide. Following a 17-day trial, the Court issued a 329-page judgment, which established the following important facts and conclusions:
One, contrary to the Workers' Party's claims, including claims made in Parliament, there was no urgency that warranted the waiver of the tenders for the Managing Agent and services under the Essential Maintenance Service Unit (EMSU).
The Court found that Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim had deliberately delayed calling a tender in order to provide themselves with a convenient, but false, excuse to waive the tender.
In the trial, the Workers' Party accepted that they only needed two months to call a tender. They could have asked CPG, the previous Managing Agent, to continue providing Managing Agent services for far longer than that.
They had ample time to call for a tender, but deliberately delayed doing so, in order to create an excuse not to call a tender. This conduct is inexcusable.
In fact, the Court found that here had never been any intention to call a tender in the first place.The two Workers' Party Members of Parliament had already decided on FMSS within days of the 2011 General Election, and had hid that fact from other councillors.
They were determined to appoint their friends. They admitted in Court that they had decided to engage FMSS. They also admitted that they had rejected other parties who were interested in providing Managing Agent services.
As I said earlier, if one wants to appoint one's friends, there is a proper, transparent process to do so.
The Workers' Party deliberately chose the wrong way – and the two hid the truth from their own town councillors and the public.
Among the Workers' Party Town Councillors, they had one experienced town councillor who had been Chairman of another Town Council for 20 years and they had three lawyers. They should have known that a tender could only be waived under very special circumstances – and they should also have known that these special circumstances did not exist when they waived tender in this case.
If they had called a tender and their trusted friends had been the only bidders, they could then have appointed their friends. Even if there had been several bids, they could have still chosen to appoint their friends, provided they acted honestly and properly: explain why they were appointing their friends, record the reasons in the Minutes and be prepared to defend the reasons in public.
But they admitted in Court that if a tender had been called, there was a risk that someone else might have put in a bid. Indeed, there were other parties that had expressed an interest to provide Managing Agent services to AHTC. They admitted that if someone had put in a bid better than FMSS', they would have been duty-bound to consider the bid. And they knew that FMSS would not have got the job if they had said they would only accept the better bid.
So, they were not prepared to take the risk that would have come from being honest: appoint their friends despite receiving better bids from others; and explain to the public why they have done so. But they were prepared to run the risk that came from being dishonest: And so they claimed they had no time to call a tender, so that they could appoint FMSS without a tender.
As I said, the right way was to go before the tender and contracts committee to justify the decision to appoint their friends, and have their reasons documented.
Furthermore – and this is extremely important – if they want to appoint their friends then they should have made sure that their friends charged less – and not more – than their previous Managing Agent. The previous Managing Agent was an established institution, while their friends had set up a fledgling company, which, as they admitted in Court, had no experience in managing a town the size of AHTC.
The Court found that Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim had been fully aware that their conduct regarding the waiver of the tender was of \"questionable integrity”. And to cover up their wrongdoing, they consciously and deliberately misled their own fellow town councillors, their own auditors, their constituents, and Parliament. As the High Court put it, there was a \"deliberate and calculated\" plan to – I quote – \"cloak\" and \"camouflage\" their wrongdoing.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a most serious finding. It means they knew that what they were doing was wrong, but nevertheless persisted in the wrong. And they deliberately set out to mislead everyone – including their own colleagues in the Town Council – so as to hide their wrongdoing.
Mr Speaker, I would now like to distribute Annex 3 to my speech. May I have your approval?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Annex 3 is a compilation of the Workers' Party's misleading statements. The Workers' Party misled their own Town Councillors.
They deliberately kept the decision to appoint FMSS away from a Town Council meeting. Instead they delegated authority to Ms Sylvia Lim, so as to keep the other Town Councillors in the dark. They concealed their true motives from the rest of the Town Councillors.
The Workers' Party misled their own auditors. Most disturbingly, Ms Sylvia Lim asked Ms How Weng Fan and Mr Danny Loh to sanitise the report on FMSS' appointment as Managing Agent so it could, I quote, \"pass the auditors' eyes\". And she is a lawyer.
Mr Danny Loh was asked to draft the report. Ms How Weng Fan and Mr Danny Loh were the very officers and shareholders whose appointment was to be approved without tender. And here were Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim asking them to draft the comment on a report concerning their own appointment.
The Judge considered this to be extraordinary and stated these actions cast serious doubt on their honesty and integrity.
The Workers' Party misled the public. In the Town Council's press release on 5 August 2011 concerning the appointment of FMSS, they falsely asserted that there was no time to call a tender. The judge found that this misled the public and the very constituents the Members of Parliament were elected to serve. As the Judge put it, and I quote, \"There was a concerted attempt to cloak the appointment of FMSS with a veneer of propriety\", \"in order to camouflage its true motive\".
The press release also falsely asserted that AHTC did not incur additional Managing Agent fees from appointing FMSS. Under cross-examination, Ms Sylvia Lim admitted that this was \"not accurate\", before finally admitting \"it is not true\", and that she knew it was not true. She then had to agree that she had lied in the press release, which was disseminated to all Singaporeans, including the residents of AHTC.
The Workers' Party misled Parliament. The Judge found that it was not sufficiently urgent to justify waiver of tender. This means that when the Workers' Party told Parliament in 2015 that they waived tender because of urgency, they were misleading Parliament. Ms Sylvia Lim said in Parliament in 2015, I quote, \"For the first contract in 2011 for managing agent services, it was triggered as the incumbent Managing Agent, CPG Facilities Management, asked to be released from the contract with the Town Council for business reasons. There was an urgent need to put in place a computer system due to the termination of the former system in use.\"
The judgment was crystal clear on this, and I quote, \"There was no urgency or public interest that warranted the waiver of tender. It was neither CPG's announcement on 30 May 2011 nor AIM's withdrawal of the Town Council Management System (TCMS) that resulted in tender being waived.\" In waiving tender, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang's, and I quote, \"conduct was improper and the attempt to cloak the same with a veneer of truth and credibility collectively leads to the conclusion that they had not acted honestly\".
Mr Speaker, Sir, why were there so many false and misleading statements? When one reads the record – the AGO report, the KPMG report, the PwC reports, three Court judgments – you will find misleading statements made by the Workers' Party Members of Parliament piling up.
In sum, waiver of tender was not justified but they did this to appoint their friends. They knew that this was wrong and thus misled their own town councillors, misled their own auditors, misled the public and misled Parliament to hide their wrongdoing.
Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang not only misled Parliament. They also knowingly allowed Mr Pritam Singh to mislead Parliament. Mr Pritam Singh said in 2015, and I quote, \"Where FMSS is a tenderer in a tender called by the Town Council, as was the case in 2011 for the Managing Agent contract, FMSS is kept at an arm's length and a China wall is built between FMSS and the Town Council\". We now know this to be false. The Court found How Weng Fan had been heavily involved since early May 2011, soon after the General Election, in setting up FMSS and in the plot to keep CPG Facilities Management in the dark.
She was even involved in the preparation of the FMSS letter of intent and, as I noted earlier, in sanitising the report on FMSS' appointment as Managing Agent, for the auditors. Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang knew very well they had not kept How at arm’s length. Yet, they let Mr Pritam Singh mislead this House without correcting him. When the Workers' Party leaders let their own Members of Parliament mislead Parliament on their behalf, what does this say about the Workers' Party's integrity and values?
The Workers’ Party also misled Parliament that their safeguards for transactions with their friends were adequate. Ms Sylvia Lim told this House in 2015, and I quote, \"It was the policy that no cheque to FMSS of whatever amount could be issued unless either the Town Council Chairman or one of the Vice Chairmen co-signed the cheque. Thus, it was not possible for FMSS to pay itself unless it was authorised by the Town Council Chair or Vice Chair who have no interest in FMSS whatsoever.\"
Mr Png Eng Huat said, and I quote, \"Our Managing Agent cannot make payments to themselves for the above services without the Chairman or one of the Vice Chairmen to co-sign the cheque.\"
These are half-truths at best because in reality, there was no standing instruction that co-signatures were required on cheques for payments to FMSI, the EMSU provider. In fact, these claims are entirely untrue. Ms Sylvia Lim admitted to the Court that she did not personally check that each payment was justified. Despite all the reassurances they gave, there were payments to FMSS without the requisite co-signature of members of the Town Council.
Mr Speaker, Sir, everything I have presented is based on objective facts, as established in Court, after having heard the defendants under oath. The Court found that Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim had breached their fiduciary duties, had not been honest and questioned their integrity and lack of candour and transparency. Ms Sylvia Lim remains a Vice Chairman of AHTC while Mr Low Thia Khiang is a member of AHTC.
More than three weeks have passed since the Court judgment. The Workers' Party has been totally silent on this matter. So has AHTC. This is why I have to ask in Parliament, what does the current Chairman of AHTC Mr Faisal Manap intend to do? At the minimum, will he apologise to residents of Aljunied and Hougang for letting them down? An apology would be the first step, a belated recognition that they had let residents down and an intention to put things right. Is he going to require the Members of Parliament so severely judged and found wanting by the Court to recuse themselves from the Town Council’s affairs, pending the disposal of any appeal they may file?
Very serious adverse findings were made against them – findings that go to the heart of the integrity of these Members of Parliament and the deceptive manner in which they conducted the Town Council’s affairs. How can they remain in charge of the Town Council's affairs as if it is business as usual? At the very least, should not the Chairman and other town councillors require them to recuse themselves from handling the Town Council’s financial matters, as called for in this Motion?
Until the appeal, if any, is over, will Mr Faisal Manap remove Ms Sylvia Lim as a Vice Chairman? Or will he allow her to continue to be in a position where she can co-sign cheques on behalf of AHTC? If AHTC were a company, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang would, at the very least, have been interdicted – prohibited or restrained from acting – pending their appeal. Most likely, they would have been forced to leave the company a long time ago – when AGO and then KPMG made their findings – instead of being allowed to carry on, in the same roles and enjoying the same degree of financial oversight over public funds. If they were members of a professional body – and many Members of this House are members of professional bodies – their acts of dishonesty would have brought them before a disciplinary tribunal. As the earlier judgment of the High Court noted, they might have been exposed to civil liability or, in an extreme scenario, to criminal liability.
In light of how they have misled this House and the absence of a response by the Town Council, I would like to know what, if anything, the Workers' Party's remaining Members of Parliament and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament propose to do about these findings pending any appeal. Will they at long last be conducting their own investigations or will they continue to duck, dodge and deny?
As Secretary-General and Chairman, respectively, of the Workers' Party, Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim are responsible for party standards and discipline. Both are themselves involved in the AHTC problem. But it is still their duty to act for the Workers' Party. Will they apologise on behalf of the Workers' Party? Will they direct Mr Faisal Manap to do the right thing to protect AHTC's governance? Will they temporarily stand aside themselves and allow some other Workers' Party's Central Executive Committee (CEC) member to take charge of this matter – again a standard practice in the corporate world.
If nothing is done from now till the appeal is concluded, we will be forced to conclude that the Workers' Party by its inaction, in fact, endorses the dishonest conduct and the breach of the fiduciary duties that has already occurred and is complicit in the wrongdoing.
I hope that the Workers' Party will take action. There were other financial and governance lapses which occurred in AHTC. The Workers' Party has put them right, albeit after a very long delay and after denying and resisting for many years. In doing so, the Workers' Party has shown that they are, in fact, capable of taking steps to put their house in order when further obfuscation and delay at last becomes untenable. Last year, KPMG found that AHTC had finally resolved all the lapses flagged in past audits since 2013. I have detailed earlier how the Workers' Party initially resisted the appointment of any independent auditor, then resisted the appointment of a Big Four accounting firm. Finally, with the Court intervening and with the Government’s offering to pay for the accountant, KPMG was appointed.
Almost two years after KMPG was appointed, AHTC finally cleared the audit. I am sure that the town councillors will agree that they are the better for the audit and that their controls and processes are now much safer. Sometimes, a bitter pill has to be taken so a sick system can be returned to health.
Similarly, now that honesty, integrity, candour and transparency of some of the most senior Workers' Party members have been called into serious question – by the High Court no less – will the Workers' Party be willing to swallow another bitter pill and take action? If the Workers' Party wants the privilege of representing Singaporeans in Parliament, they cannot be silent on this.
Beyond the specific facts of this case, this episode reminds us of the need for integrity and probity. We hope that the Workers' Party Members of Parliament, and all Non-Constituency Members of Parliament and Nominated Members of Parliament, will agree that Members of Parliament should be held to the following standards in Singapore.
Members of Parliament should not mislead their fellow town councillors, or hide things from them;
Members of Parliament should not mislead the public;
Members of Parliament should not mislead Parliament;
Members of Parliament should not mislead the Court;
Members of Parliament should not let their friends make money at the public's expense; and
Members of Parliament should always act with integrity; and with candour and transparency.
I am moving this Motion because integrity is of the utmost importance in elected officials. Singapore has succeeded only because we have maintained a culture of honesty and integrity in the public service. Those who participate in politics must be honest, upright people who can be trusted to uphold the public interest, speak the truth even at a cost to themselves and admit their mistakes when they have done wrong. They have to uphold these principles even when it is politically inconvenient to do so. And we need to do this, whether you are a Government or opposition Member of Parliament, whether you represent a constituency in Parliament, or are a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament or Nominated Member of Parliament.
Because if we cannot trust a politician to tell the truth, we cannot trust him to safeguard public funds, to put the public interest ahead of personal gain, or to make decisions in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans.
For this reason, we have always taken any accusations of dishonesty against political leaders very seriously. Certainly, the 4G PAP leaders intend to continue maintaining the high standards which we have achieved and upheld for so many years, since the PAP first formed the Government in 1959. For we must ensure that Members of Parliament, both Government and Opposition, are men and women of integrity. It is in the vital interest of Singapore and Singaporeans for Members of the Opposition also to be persons of integrity, and not people who cannot be trusted with public funds, much less national responsibilities.
I might add, Mr Speaker, that we have had such upright, honourable men among the Opposition. I might mention Mr David Marshall, Mr AP Rajah and Mr Chiam See Tong. If I might be permitted another personal note, Mr Low Thia Khiang ran his own Town Council well when he was Member of Parliament for Hougang.
Each of our Prime Ministers – Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Goh Chok Tong and our current Prime Minister – has espoused and upheld the values of honesty, transparency and integrity. Each made integrity, honesty and incorruptibility fundamental values in Government. And they walked the talk. If any PAP Minister or Member of Parliament is accused of lying, the Prime Minister would do a thorough investigation. And if they were found dishonest, serious consequences would inevitably follow.
The Court has made very serious and severe statements about Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim. It concluded that their conduct of Town Council matters lacked candour and transparency and that they had not acted honestly and with integrity.
Imagine if a Court had made such findings against PAP town councillors. Is it even conceivable that a PAP Member of Parliament whom the Court has described in these terms, can remain in the Town Council and continue handling public funds, as if nothing had happened? At the very least, he would have been asked to go on leave, pending any effort to clear his name through an Appeal.
What sort of questions would the Workers Party be asking the PAP? What sort of demands would they be making of the Government? The Opposition must hold themselves to the same standards that they rightly apply to the Government.
This is, in fact, precisely why we have our system of Town Councils. It is an important way Singaporeans can judge for themselves who deserves to be given the responsibility to run the country, whether it is a Government Member of Parliament or an Opposition Member of Parliament. It allows them to identify which Members of Parliament and which political parties, can walk the talk, manage public monies and show that they can actually get things done.
Town Councils allow political parties to prove their mettle even if they are not the Government. If a party can manage a Town Council well, it proves its competence to conduct good, clean, administration. And their leaders can show that they are credible and deserve to be entrusted with broader responsibilities. If not, it is just as well that everybody finds out early, before too much damage is done. Indeed, as I just noted, Mr Low Thia Khiang himself won his spurs when he was Member of Parliament for Hougang and ran its Town Council. Similarly, Mr Chiam See Tong in running Potong Pasir's Town Council.
So, when the Workers' Party argues against the Town Council system instead of putting right their lapses, what does it mean? Do they think the Opposition only exists to poke holes in Government policy, bandy around the slogan of \"First World Parliament\" but shoulder no other responsibility for residents? Do they think Opposition Members of Parliament should not be held to the same standard as Government Members of Parliament, even though at each election, we are asking the same thing of voters – their trust? Surely, this is not the sort of Opposition that Singaporeans need.
The Workers' Party cannot stay silent on this. Almost four weeks have passed since the judgment was published. In all that time, the Workers' Party have said nothing. They have not apologised for the shortcomings that the Courts – and before the Courts, AGO and KPMG – have established. They have not accounted for their dishonesties and untruths. Nor have they have said whether they intend to put right the many wrongs that the Court has uncovered, and if so how.
This is not the way to conduct yourself in politics. Trust between the electorate and elected officials is vital in democratic societies. When trust breaks down, the people will feel that their leaders are disconnected and only seem to be looking after themselves and their friends. We see this happening in many countries. We must never let this happen in Singapore.
This is a long account. I thank Members of this House for your patience. Mr Speaker, please allow me to say a few points in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I move this Motion today because for elected officials, integrity is of the utmost importance. The High Court has found Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang to be dishonest and intransparent, and to have failed in their fiduciary duties to the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC). Whether or not they will eventually appeal, they should recuse themselves from dealing with all financial matters in AHTC.
This saga has been going on for eight years, involving millions of dollars in public funds. Audit reports from AGO, KPMG and PwC, the suit brought to the Court by the independent panel appointed by AHTC itself, and the Court hearings, have all shown that these two Members of Parliament have committed wrongdoings.
At numerous points over the last eight years, they could have admitted their wrongdoings and acted. However, they did not do so. On the contrary, they either repeatedly camouflaged their wrongdoings, misled the public, or remained silent, hoping that everyone will forget their wrongdoings over time.
The Workers' Party won the Aljunied GRC at the 2011 General Election. It is understandable that they wanted to appoint a company that they can trust to manage the Town Council. However, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang did not follow the proper procedures. For example, they should have called an open tender, assessed all the bids and recorded the reasons for appointing FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) in the minutes of the Town Council meetings. Instead, they appointed their friends to run the Town Council without calling for an open tender, and deliberately hid this plan from their own town councillors. In the process, FMSS had made huge profits.
What is even more worrying is that, when they were exposed, they were not willing to bear the responsibility for their actions. Instead, they continued to confuse people, made things difficult for the auditors, and misled the Courts, Parliament, residents and even the public.
Nearly four weeks have passed since the Court’s judgment. The Workers' Party has remained silent. They have let their residents of Aljunied and Hougang down. They have not apologised to them. They have not asked Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang to recuse themselves from dealing with financial matters of the Town Council. If the Workers' Party continues to remain silent and do nothing, we will be forced to conclude that the Workers' Party endorses the dishonest conduct and the breach of the fiduciary duties that has already occurred.
I hope that the Workers' Party will do the right thing and correct the financial and governance lapses. Sometimes, a bitter pill has to be taken to solve the root of the problems. If the Workers' Party wants the privilege of representing Singaporeans, they cannot remain silent now.
The integrity of elected officials is of the utmost important to Singaporeans. Singapore's system of governance is based on integrity and accountability. We must uphold it. Let me repeat that Singapore’s system of governance is based on integrity and accountability. We must uphold it.
Those who participate in politics must be honest and upright in order to win the trust of the people and serve them. They should admit their mistakes when they have done wrong and correct them, even at a cost to themselves. In many countries, the lack of integrity in politicians has become a norm. If the politician cannot be trusted, it will be difficult for him to build a relationship of mutual trust with hte public. If the public do not trust him, they will not believe that he can put public interest ahead of personal gains and make the best decisions in the interest of the people.
Since independence, our political and public service leaders have always upheld the fundamental value and princple of integrity. As a result, Singapore is able to make continuous progress and succeed. This will continue to be important for Singapore’s future. Whether you are a Government Member of Parliament, an Opposition Member of Parliament, a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament or Nominated Member of Parliament, you must agree that integrity is our core value.
We have to ensure that the fourth generation leaders uphold a system of incorruptibility and integrity, and to maintain high standards which we have achieved since the People’s Action Party formed the government. If a People’s Action Party Member of Parliament makes a mistake, the Prime Minister would do a thorough investigation.
Ms Sylvia Lim is a lawyer, but she has committed these wrongdoings knowingly. Mr Low is a seasoned politician. He has managed the Hougang Town Council well for over 20 years. I always had a high regard of him. So, it pains me when I saw the Court's Judgment on Mr Low Thia Khiang.
Finally, let me stress that integrity and character are very important to Members of Parliament and public officers. We must set ourselves as good examples, and uphold integrity, honesty, incorruptibility as our fundamental values.
I call on AHTC to discharge their responsibilities to their residents by requiring Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang to recuse themselves from all matters relating to financial matters.
(In English): Mr Speaker, to sum up what this Motion is about, it is about integrity and character expected of public officials and Members of Parliament. In politics, we must uphold the fundamental values of integrity, honesty and incorruptibility. Not by words, but by deeds.
We know the words of the Workers' Party. They claim to stand for transparency and accountability. But now, after eight long years, we know that their deeds show the contrary. They appointed their friends to manage the Town Council at the higher cost than the previous Managing Agent. They concealed the real facts and manipulated the circumstances of this appointment, even to the extent of misleading their fellow town councillors.
They then told the public, their auditors and Parliament untruths about these circumstances. They refused to give auditors documents, documents that might have shed light on their wrongdoing. Even after these facts were uncovered by independent auditors, they took no action. It took the Independent Panel that they appointed to finally bring them to Court to set things straight. And even before the Court, they continued to perpetuate untruths.
The consequences of what the Workers' Party councillors have done, have fallen on the residents. Under the management of FMSS, the Town Council ran up deficits of up to $2 million by the third year. Meanwhile, their friends, FMSS, made a profit of $3.2 million in their second year.
Even after all this has been made public, the Workers' Party has stayed silent. Maybe they hope that Singaporeans will forget or forgive them. Playing the victim or the underdog may be par for the course in politics, but there are important matters at stake – public funds, residents’ monies, the estates that Singaporeans come home to. We cannot sweep things under the carpet.
All that this House is asking, is for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang to recuse themselves from dealing with or having oversight over financial matters, until the Court case is concluded. Given the Court’s findings, this is the least that they can do.
So, it falls on all Members of this House to ask the Workers' Party what it intends to do, to put its own house in order. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clarifications for Deputy Prime Minister Mr Heng. The first clarification is: in his speech, he mentioned that millions have been lost, if I heard him correctly. My question to him is: is this a finding of the Court? Or does this remain an allegation? That is the first clarification.
Secondly, he suggested or asserted that in the conduct of proceedings, not just this judgment that is being mentioned, but prior to that, the Workers' Party had taken the position that we do not owe any explanations to anyone and that we are not accountable. Does he not know that our consistent position has been that we owe statutory duties under the Town Councils Act? Related to that, is he aware that this judgment of the High Court actually makes new law? If he looks at the summary from paragraph 6 onwards that he handed out to the House just now, the Court actually goes into explaining why it is actually making a finding that fiduciary duties apply in the context of Town Councils which has never been the settled law.
The third clarification is, he seemed to suggest that we had obstructed the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) in its work. I hope that he can clarify that because I do not think that the AGO actually said anything of that nature.
Fourth, he kept repeating that we had hidden documents from auditors which, if produced, would have revealed the truth. Can he explain what exactly he is talking about?
Finally, I think towards the end, he mentioned that we had argued against the Town Council’s system. I do not know what he was referring to. So, could he please clarify?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Ms Sylvia Lim asked the point about the money has been lost. I have mentioned in my speech that the Court's findings have been very clear that you have contracts worth millions of dollars which have been awarded under circumstances for which it was not quite justified. The findings have been very clear in two auditors' reports and in the Court findings.
Ms Sylvia Lim: You mentioned that millions have been lost.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: No, I did not say that millions had been lost. Let me check that point.
Let me go on to your second point that the High Court made new laws. No, in fact, the High Court judgment, and you are a lawyer; you have read the High Court judgment carefully. The High Court spent a lot of time looking at the question of what duties you owed – fiduciary duties that the town councillors owed to the Town Council, and the judgment was very clear on this point. The Court did not make new law; the law has been there.
On the AGO's nature, you said well, in what way did you not reveal documents to the AGO. The fact is that there were many documents that were asked for, but the Town Council did not provide. Despite that, the AGO had important findings that merited actions. So, there were documents which were asked for which you did not provide.
Fourth and finally, you asked about the auditors. Can I clarify what you asked about the auditors again? Your fourth point?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, Mr Speaker, what I had asked was. I think Deputy Prime Minister Mr Heng mentioned repeatedly that we had apparently hidden documents from auditors which, if produced, would have revealed the truth. I believed this phrase came out more than once. So, may I ask what he is referring to?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Many documents were produced during the Court of Appeal hearing and also during the various Court procedures. It was only when the emails were produced that was revealed the truth on how FMSS was appointed. Do you not recall emails for which you had said that you had asked Ms How to hide the truth on their appointment? Those are important documents. At the end of it, while you argued about the Town Council system, you have earlier on in Parliament said that, in electioneering, you have talked about how the Town Council system disadvantaged opposition parties.
Mr Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): I would like to seek clarification from Deputy Prime Minister. Just now he said that when we co-sign cheques, he seemed to imply that one can encash a cheque with just one signatory under AHTC. You said that what we said that cheques had to be co-signed either by the Chairman or either one of the Vice Chair is not the truth. So, is the Deputy Prime Minister implying that cheques can be encashed with just one signature even though we set it up as two signatures must be there before we can encash the cheque under AHTC?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Well, the Workers' Party Members have asked a whole series of questions on details. But, let me get back to why I moved this Motion.
I moved this Motion because this is a question integrity. This is a question of the way that we deal honestly in Parliament, with our residents, with the public and with our fellow town councillors.
I have asked very serious questions about how the transactions were done. I have pointed out very serious findings in all the audit reports, in all the High Court findings, in the Court of Appeal findings, but both of you have just stood up to ask me a series of little details.
I would like to ask you to answer this question. I have asked that all this House is asking is for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang to recuse themselves from dealing with or having oversight over financial matters until the Court case is ended.
I have asked questions of Mr Faisal Manap as to what you as chairman of the Town Council would do. I have asked Mr Pritam Singh, as secretary-general of the party and Ms Lim as Chairman of the party what you intend to do given these serious findings.
You have an interest to ensure that our system of governance in Singapore remains upright, that we have integrity in system that elected Members of Parliament must be honest and upright in their dealings. But instead, you have asked me a whole range of other questions – about whether it is one signature or two signatures. My goodness.
Mr Png Eng Huat: Mr Speaker, Sir, if you say that someone can encash a cheque with one signature instead of two, as what we have said, it is a question of integrity.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Yes, but you see, the main question that I have asked is: the findings are that even on the question of signature of cheques, Ms Lim has admitted that you have not gone through every transaction. So, I am just asking you to stick to the main point and not detract. I do not think that this is what we should be debating in this House – whether it is this path or that path – when the main issue that you ought to answer has not been answered. I would like an answer.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, Deputy Prime Minister Mr Heng Swee Keat's filing of this Motion at this point in time is telling but premature.
Let me explain why. The PAP Government is clearly excited about certain findings and comments contained in the High Court judgment issued on 11 October 2019. These are findings in relation to certain actions taken by some of us in the aftermath of the 2011 General Election.
However, as the Deputy Prime Minister himself pointed out, Singapore has a Court structure that subjects High Court judgments to possible appeal to the Court of Appeal. This avenue of appeal enables parties who are aggrieved by judgments of the High Court to seek review of the findings by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, consisting of at least three Judges of Appeal, will review the findings at the trial and may affirm, revise or vary the findings. If I might quote from the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, it is stated that \"the Court of Appeal may draw inferences of facts and give any judgment and make any order which ought to have been given or made, and make such further or other orders as the case requires\".
Sir, the judgment referred to in this Motion was delivered on 11 October. Under the applicable procedures, any party who is dissatisfied with the judgment can file a notice of appeal within one month. In this case, the deadline for filing the appeal is 11 November, which is next Monday.
We have been studying the judgment with our lawyers since it was released. And I can inform the House today that we have decided to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal. We are still within the timeframe to do so and it will be filed by 11 November.
Accordingly, the Deputy Prime Minister acted prematurely in his decision to file the Motion and I ask the House to reject it. Whatever the trial judge has decided is subject to review by the Court of Appeal. This is a civil proceeding and involves novel points of law. In contrary to what I think the Deputy Prime Minister had suggested, it has not been decided as to whether any loss has been caused to the Town Council. And on this point, I should this in perspective by referring to the summary which Deputy Prime Minister Heng distributed earlier – Annex 1, paragraph 27 – where the Judge states or it is summarised quite clearly that the legal burden of proving list falls upon the plaintiff. So, this point has not been decided as to whether loss has been proven.
Mr Speaker, as Members of Parliament, Mr Low Thia Khiang and I have duties to discharge, and this Motion appears to be aimed at curtailing us from discharging our duties while the case is still pending for final adjudication. We are still pursuing the matter through the Courts and we thank everyone who has stood by us and helped us in our quest for justice.
The Senior Minister of State for Health and Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has explained to this House why this Motion —
Mr Speaker: The Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Mr Speaker, Sir, Ms Lim has raised issues and I would like to call for an adjournment.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, there is no need for an adjournment. We are proceeding with the Motion as planned. We had a break at 3.00 pm. We can continue.
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister, what would you like the adjournment for?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: That is because the Member Ms Sylvia Lim has made the point that it was not proper for me to raise this. And I would like an adjournment for us to consider the matter and respond to her.
Mr Speaker: I will suspend the Sitting for 10 minutes. You can do your consultations as you need to and then, we will return. Order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.22 pm until 4.32 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.32 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Sun Xueling, would you like to speak? Or is it Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong? Okay. Deputy Prime Minister Heng.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Mr Speaker, may I first respond to a point which Ms Sylvia Lim asked if I said that millions of dollars had been lost. So, I checked my file. The exact words that I have used is, \"There are important questions of public interest to consider. I would just mention a few at the outset. Millions of dollars in public funds are involved.\" That is the exact word that I have used.
I would also like to have two technical clarifications which were raised by Mr Png Eng Huat. I will ask the Member Mr Edwin Tong to take the two questions.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.
The Senior Minister of State for Health and Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, on the first point raised by Ms Lim, on the documents available to your own auditors. You would know that from the very first year that you had auditors audit your Town Council's accounts, Foo Kon Tan, and that is in 2011, 2012, four disclaimers were issued by Foo Kon Tan. The four disclaimers arose on the basis of incomplete documentation. They sought documents in relation to transactions that were entered int after the Workers' Party took over the Town Council. They were not made available.
In the following year, in 2012/2013, the same qualifiers were made; in fact, by that time, 13 disclaimers had been made. And the basis of the majority of those 13 disclaimers rested on the basis that incomplete documentation, absence of information, and they were unable, as a result, to verify the accounts.
When the AGO took over the matter, they also came across difficulties. PwC, in particular, Ms Lim will remember, were appointed to audit the accounts on behalf of the AGO. Let me read to you PwC's report, just one paragraph from the report, and this is April 2017, some six years after FMSS had been appointed. PwC says, and I quote, \"No single email on matters in relation to the takeover of the MA and EMSU contract services by FMSS, including the termination of CPG, the award of contracts to FMSS and all FMSS' performance of works, were given to us for our review, though in our view, such emails ought to exist.\" This is six years after FMSS was appointed.
Yes, I am reminded that those documents were eventually produced and in Court. And I would like to draw your attention to the Court's judgment, which I am no doubt you are familiar with, where the Court said it was substantially assisted by the voluminous amount of internal emails and correspondence, which he used to reach findings which we have heard the Deputy Prime Minister articulate.
On Mr Png's comment on the cheques, I think the position is very clear. It is not about one signatory or two signatories. It is about the entire system that you have set up as a result of what you have done – by putting FMSS as your Managing Agent, the General Manager and the Secretary in the Town Council being owners of FMSS, that entire system has been completely subverted. A proper system has been subverted by the way in which you have done this.
You just have to look at the summary of the judgment to know that we are not talking about one cheque here or two signatories there. Do not penny-pinch your dime with us. Paragraph 13 of the summary, it says, \"The involvement of conflicted persons in the approval process for payments to FMSS and FMSI created an inherent risk of overpayment in the absence of safeguards.
Mr Png would know this very well. The Standing Instruction for payments to FMSS to be co-signed by the AHTC Chairman or Vice Chairman was not a sufficient safeguard because there was no system, no system, to ensure that each cheque presented was fully verified by the independent parties. In some instances, there was no proper verification even by the conflicting parties. So, Mr Png well knows that we are not talking about one cheque here or two cheques there. We are talking about the entire system. The entire system on which you have sought to make payments to FMSS. This is what the judge has said.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Two clarifications on what Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong had just said. In relation to my query on whether we have ever been accused of hiding things from our own auditors, if I heard correctly, he basically was saying that the auditors had said that they had requested for certain documents which were not produced. That is not the same as hiding. Yes, we had poor record keeping. I accept that. I accept that we had poor record keeping. But that is not the same thing. And I think the difference would be clear to most reasonable people.
The second point is, if I heard him correctly, he was talking about the work done by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2017. He would recall, because I think he was the lawyer acting for them at the time, if I remember correctly, that they were actually appointed by Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council. They were not our own auditors.
There was a question as to their Terms of Reference. They were told not to duplicate the work of KPMG and what they were asking was in relation to things that had happened before Punggol East even came under our charge. So, that is my clarification.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: If Ms Lim wants to go into KPMG, then, let us go into KPMG. When KPMG was appointed, I think Ms Lim will remember that there was a media release that was given. Let me just find the media release. Yes, when KPMG was appointed, there was a media release dated 1 June 2016, where it said, \"AHTC's town councillors had decided that AHTC would focus its fullest attention on KPMG.\" I think that is what Ms Lim had referred to, in terms of the duplication of work.
But in a report dated 31 October 2016 by KPMG, KPMG itself noted difficulties in getting information and documents out of AHTC. Let me just cite two examples.
When KPMG examined the electronic devices of Town Council staff and FMSS employees, they found that documents and archives had been deleted. Not just one or two, but several documents and several email archives of persons belonging to AHTC and FMSS were removed.
Second, KPMG sought the cooperation of town councillors when they came in to do the audit. They wanted to have oral interviews so that they can ask questions and you answer. But Ms Lim will remember that she and Mr Low, and in fact, every single elected councillor of AHTC, refused to take part in the interview, refused to cooperate with KPMG.
So, when we say information and documents are missing and the auditors are unable to verify information, that is what we refer to. A litany of these excuses, documents are missing, cannot find the documents. Or as you say, not providing documents to an auditor when they ask for it, is not the same thing as hiding it, then I do not know what is. Because they asked once in 2011; second time in 2012. Your own auditors Foo Kon Tan, AGO, PwC – PwC was appointed on behalf of AGO as well, initially – and then, now, KPMG. So, that is what we refer to, Ms Lim.
And finally, when you had to produce it in Court, we know what the Court has made of those emails and internal correspondence.
Let me remind you that, in fact, those were the very same emails and internal correspondence that the auditors, right through, were asking for.
Mr Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
Mr Png Eng Huat: Thank you, Sir. I just want to clarify that when the Senior Minister of State said about accounts being deleted from our computers, I think —
Mr Edwin Tong: Emails.
Mr Png Eng Huat: Yes, okay. And archives. KPMG did the forensics; they actually did a deep-dive and a lot of undeleting. We explained everything. We helped them to uncover some of the lost emails as well. If there is anything wrong with the email, we were very transparent. We did not hide. In fact, they showed us the email. We explained why some of the hard disk were recycled. And some of the things were tagged wrongly as well, and we had to explain to them, if you go into the report, you can refer to KPMG. That part, I am very clear. We did not delete accounts on purpose.
One other thing is that the Senior Minister of State kept referring to our auditors finding four points. I hope the Senior Minister of State is aware that Foo Kon Tan was caught lying in the two reports about the opening balance. That was reported in the AGO report.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The October 2016 report by KPMG records very clearly and I just gave two examples. I invite Mr Png to look at it carefully. It sets out the different employees whose emails had been missing, the archives are missing and it goes on to say that when they requested for the email profiles of certain persons, and when they received it, it goes on to say that they found out that those email profiles had just been accessed; and then, they said these were missing. Yes, they do not say you took it, but I think there is an inference in there.
I invite you to look at it carefully. It certainly does not say anything about AHTC assisting to replicate this file or that file, as you have explained.
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Mr Speaker, this has been such a long series of events that there are lots of documents. Mr Png asked about details of how you have resisted disclosures. Let me just read a number of reports to you. First, your own auditor Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton in their FY2012/2013 report, at page 4, says, \"The Town Council had not made available to us details of the project management service fees paid to a related party.\" In the 2015 AGO report, it says, \"We note that AHPETC has entered into a number of related party transactions whereby substantial sums were paid to related parties in FY2012/2013. The Town Council, despite repeated requests, did not provide us with all the critical documents relating to these transactions\" and \"the AHPETC did not provide us with all the necessary and relevant accounting documents and information which are essential and critical for our work.\"
These came fro your own auditors and the 2015 AGO report. The Auditor-General went to say, \"Since the commencement of our review in April 2014, we have made various requests for documents from AHPETC as part of our review of selected transactions. In our view, these documents such as documents which record the proper disclosure and consideration of related party transactions, RPTs, ought to exist as a matter of record. Notwithstanding numerous requests and reminders, AHPETC did not provide a number of the requested documents.\"
In the 2017 PwC report, and I quote, \"Despite repeated requests, no correspondence and/or written correspondence, including, importantly, emails in relation to amongst others, the takeover of the MA\", the Managing Agent, \"and the EMSU services by FMSS including the termination of CPG, the award of contracts to FMSS and all FMSS performance of works, were given to us. No single email was given to us for our review, although in our view, such emails ought to exist.\"
So, Mr Png, I hope that you as one of the town councillors, take your duties seriously and you have gone through all these.
Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may revert to our discussions earlier on. I am a little confused because Mr Pritam Singh says, \"Let us continue the debate.\" Ms Sylvia Lim pointed out that it was premature. I would like to clarify with Ms Sylvia Lim whether she meant that this matter is sub judice and, therefore, we should not be discussing this.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I did not use the word \"sub judice\". That was not my principal objection. My objection is that the judgment is being appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal may reverse the findings or review and vary the findings of the High Court. So, it is premature for the Deputy Prime Minister to file this Motion to call upon the House to do anything when the findings are subject to review. That is my objection.
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for her clarification. You confirm that this matter is not sub judice, right, in your view? Do you confirm that this matter is not sub judice, in your view?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, my objection is based on the procedures that are available for parties to appeal. I have not taken a position on sub judice. It all depends on how the debate turns.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: I want to remind the Members of this House, when I spoke about the Motion, I said that this Motion is about what is to be expected of Members of Parliament: integrity, honesty and being truthful in Parliament. So, can I ask Ms Lim: is this a proper subject for debate in this House?
Mr Speaker: If you wish to reply, Ms Lim?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, I thought I made myself quite clear in my speech, which was focused on the fact that because the High Court judgment is going to be appealed and the findings in that sense have not been finally decided, it is premature to call upon the House in the terms of the Motion. So, the operative clause, of course, is the last one, where it calls upon AHTC to take certain actions. That is the operative clause and I am just saying it is premature.
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: You mentioned about what is interim. So, let me repeat myself. I said this Motion is about what is expected of Members of Parliament: integrity, honesty and being truthful in Parliament. This House needs to agree on the principles that all Members of Parliament must adhere to and the standards of probity required of all Members of Parliament in dealing with public funds. There are serious issues of probity, accountability and the handling of public funds that must be addressed now even while the appeal is being dealt with.
There is a judgment of the High Court, which stands until the appeal is heard. The question is: what should be done, what should happen between now and the time when the appeal is decided? And that could be some time yet. So, in the interim, my question is: should the Workers' Party town councillors who have been found to have acted dishonestly and have been found to be in breach of their duties, whose conduct was found to be egregious, should they continue to have access to and control of public funds?
Members will know that when there are similar findings made in any corporate setting, it is only right and proper that those whose integrity has been impugned to step aside and recuse themselves until they clear their names.
So, I welcome the efforts of the Workers' Party Members of Parliament to clear their names but, until they do so, they have to be accountable to this House for the findings that the High Court has made. That must be doubly so when you are dealing with millions of dollars of public funds. So, I would like to ask the Town Council Chairman: what is your view on this matter? You are the Chairman of your Town Council. You have to decide.
Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, I would like to seek your permission to speak on this Motion.
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, I will be speaking in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, I do not support this motion to ask Aljunied-Hougang Town Council to recuse Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim from the position or role of the town council which covers financial issues.
Sir, I have known them both since 2006 and have been their teammates in the administration of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council since 2011. I have full confidence and trust in the integrity of Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim. I believe and trust that the actions and decisions taken previously when Ms Sylvia Lim led AHTC as its chairman and Mr Low Thia Khiang as its vice chairman when running AHTC, were made with the sincere intent to do their best for the residents of Aljunied-Hougang town.
I also reject this motion as it is not appropriate for it to be moved. This is because the case involving Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang is still within the period allowed for appeal. The Court’s decision was released on 11 October 2019 and the appeal period will only end on 11 November. As Ms Sylvia Lim said earlier, she will be filing an appeal. Hence, it is not appropriate to table and discuss this motion.
Sir, as Chairman of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, I have also not received any advice from the Independent Panel appointed by the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council on any matter relating to the Court’s judgment. So far, the Independent Panel has only issued a statement dated 11 October 2019, in which they acknowledged the judgment issued by the Court. Nonetheless, I will present the Court’s judgment at the next town council meeting.
Sir, I would like to say once again that I reject this motion.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, Deputy Prime Minister has explained to this House why the Motion is of critical importance. But I am not sure Members of the Workers' Party appreciate it to the same extent. So, let me try.
The first limb, which affirms the vital importance of Members of Parliament maintaining high standards of integrity and accountability, can brook no dissent. Deputy Prime Minister has also outlined the Court's findings. These are serious and grave findings, by any measure. And Members of the Workers' Party who are lawyers and appear in Court will know that this is an exceptional judgment. It is a serious and grave indictment of proper conduct and against various elected officials of the Workers' Party. They may say they disagree with the judgment – as I heard Ms Lim said earlier – or that they wish to appeal, as I heard Mr Faisal Manap said a moment ago which, of course, you are entitled to do. But the question is: what should happen in the interim? And I think that is the measure of proper governance and probity that we are speaking about.
Should those found to have engaged in egregious conduct recuse themselves from financial oversight and control? To answer that question, we should consider what the Court found. These are the findings, until and unless they are set aside, and they are relevant for the interim period pending any appeal. It is a Court of law that has made a pronouncement after having heard Mr Low and Ms Lim give evidence.
This was not a one-off or an occasional lapse or one that was caused by lack of experience or by some careless oversight. The judgment of the High Court shows not only that Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang knew that appointing FMSS without a tender would be wrong, but that they went ahead anyway in a considered, calculated manner to accomplish it. And on Mr Faisal Manap's point, that is not good faith.
Ms Lim and Mr Low engineered a series of steps to ensure the appointment of FMSS as managing agent of AHTC without tender. \"They made it a fait accompli\" – those are the words of the Judge – which allowed FMSS to charge higher rates to the Town Council. They took steps to carefully conceal the true reason of the appointment and this included concealing it even from their own town councillors. They put their interests in wanting FMSS appointed ahead of the residents' interests.
When questions were first asked, starting from simple questions from the Town Council's own auditors – these are your own auditors looking at your accounts to try and understand if they are true and fair – came up with roadblocks, unable to obtain the documents; not once, not twice, but repeatedly. When questions arose as to why there was even a need to waive tender, they proceeded to offer a litany of false excuses to justify why FMSS had to be appointed without a tender. None of these excuses, which really kept shifting and changing, can stand up to scrutiny. I will come back to this. But let me go back to the Town Council's accounts.
First year, after the Workers' Party had taken over the Town Council in 2011/2012 and the accounts were being audited, your own town councillors, Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton asked the Workers' Party in 2012 for financial information in respect of the period immediately following their takeover so that they could perform a proper audit on the Town Council’s accounts. Mr Png would appreciate that that is usual, par for the course – they check, you answer, they verify and then, if it is true and fair, they sign off.
The simple and honest way of dealing with queries from your own auditor is to address them squarely, directly and fully and to provide the relevant documentation so that the appropriate review can be undertaken. There is not much complexity in that. The Town Council, at that time under Ms Lim's chairmanship, however, refused. The auditors had to make disclaimers, as I have said earlier, and that, we all know, is a very serious, adverse outcome.
At the same time, these were not complicated requests. They were requests for the Town Council’s own documents – your own documents – concerning transactions that you entered into after taking over the Town Council.
Subsequently, as you know, the AGO came in to audit and, in its report dated 6 February 2015, when they looked back, they said, \"Town Council could not provide some documents required during the current audit that concerned transactions taking place after AHPETC had taken over from the previous Town Council. In response to reminders, AHPETC indicated that it could not locate some of the documents and was still looking for others, three months after the request for documents.\"
In the first year of audit, it was not even a full year. The transactions that they were talking about in respect of which documents were sought could not be found at that stage, but suddenly surfaced when the Court looked at it? So, I ask Ms Lim to reconsider not providing the documents to Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton when they asked – is it not the same as suppressing, prevaricating, not cooperating with the auditors? And it would not be lost on this House that the apparently missing documents are in respect of the period of time in which FMSS was appointed without a tender – the same relevant period.
It gets worse because this same charade was repeated the following year. At that time, Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton were performing an audit for the Financial Year 2012/2013, the first full financial year under the management of the Workers' Party. As in the previous year, Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton were stone-walled. They reported that, \"The Town Council had not made available to us details of the project management service fee paid to a related party. Accordingly, we are unable to determine the completeness of the related party transactions.\" This is found in your own annual report, Financial Year 2012/2013, page 14. Have a look.
Foo Kon Tan were very specific and zeroed in on the appointment, and the payment terms, of FMSS which by that time they knew was a related party. Why was this not made available to Foo Kon Tan? Why did you not make it available to Foo Kon Tan?
Later on, when AGO and PwC were appointed to audit the Town Council's same accounts, 2012/2013 and look into the financial affairs of the Town Council, they had similar difficulties.
In its report to AGO which formed part of the AGO report, PwC noted, and I quote, \"In particular, we would point out that the TC did not provide us with internal notes and correspondence, including emails, which may shed light on: the process leading to the award of tenders/contracts; and evidencing the deliberation/evaluation of the award of tender/contracts…disclosure of interest or are otherwise related to approval for transactions chosen.\" Very clear statement.
And I would have thought that if one was trying to audit the propriety of payments to FMSS to check if its transactions and the approval of FMSS contract was proper, those were the first place you would look and, indeed, Ms Lim will remember that in Court, what was then produced was an email of 3 August, where just prior to the approval at the Town Council's meeting on 4 August there was an email from you asking for Ms How and the late Mr Loh to sanitise the auditors' report, sanitise the very report that was meant to recommend the appointment of FMSS and those were the documents that were sought by the auditors, right from the beginning.
So, why did you not produce those to the auditors, twice, to AGO, to PwC? What is there to hide? Because, as I said, we knew from the Court judgment that the Court looked at voluminous contemporaneous documents in that critical period of time. Those were the same documents requested by PwC in assessing the reasons for the transactions and, of course, their propriety.
We then get to the stage where KPMG gets appointed and you heard what I said earlier. KPMG came on board. AHTC took the position, \"Let's not duplicate work, let's focus on cooperating only with KPMG\", issued a media release – I read it out earlier – but then had a series of problems with KPMG, all documented in the report that I referred Mr Png to earlier.
So, what we see, Mr Speaker, is a clear, consistent pattern of behaviour. It is not \"I took over and maybe I was disorganised at the start.\" But it started 2011 and right through to 2017. PwC is saying not a single email, internal correspondence was produced. So, it is a clear, consistent pattern of behaviour designed to block disclosure of the relevant documents and information, information which would allow a forensic inquiry into what had happened and what you had done. And you clearly did not want to do that. So, you carefully suppressed them, held them back from disclosure, fobbed off the request until you could no longer do so and it came out in a wash in the Court proceedings.
Throughout the whole inquiry into this issue, for years, Workers' Party said they provided all the information. And I think that is being consistent pattern in the media statements, in the letters written to the auditors and also in Parliament. For example, in February 2017, in a response to PwC, the Town Council said, and I quote, “we have provided all information relating to [PwC's] request”. But I think the facts speak for themselves and PwC's subsequent report makes it quite clear.
I read a paragraph earlier from the April 2017 Report, six years after FMSS appointment. Let me give you two other requests that they made in April 2017. They asked for documents in relation to the premature release of CPG, \"This must have been the subject of correspondence between CPG and the Town Council and/or email discussions amongst or involving the town councillors\" – not produced.
And again, on FMSS, PwC stated and asked, \"Town Council met on 4 August 2011 to decide on the waiver of tender and FMSS appointment as MA. Prior to this meeting, there must have been correspondence and/or email discussions amongst and/or involving Town Councillors concerning such waiver of tender and/or award of the first MA Contract to FMSS. These would shed light on the circumstances surrounding the waiver of tender and the award of the Contract\". Why were they not produced?
Ms Lim's email to Ms How and Mr Loh is dated 3 August 2011.
And so eventually, after an unnecessarily protracted process, the Independent Panel, chosen and appointed by AHTC and which Mr Singh quite rightly says comprised \"eminent\" persons, decided to sue Ms Lim, Mr Low and others, on behalf of AHTC and we now know the outcome of that.
So, let me shift now to what these documents, in fact, show, when they were produced in Court, against the different versions, shifting versions proffered by Workers' Party to cover up the true picture.
First on CPG. Workers' Party first sought to justify the appointment of FMSS without tender as being critical and urgent because CPG, the then MA, wanted out, and this left AHPETC at that time exposed.
This was a narrative that was repeated and played out consistently over several years. There was no mistaking the picture that Workers' Party wanted people to believe. It was CPG's fault, they left Workers' Party in a lurch, without any MA, something which the Workers' Party only knew at short notice, and therefore the appointment of FMSS was urgent, pressing and we had to waive tender.
These reasons were used to justify not calling a tender which you know, clearly, you are required to do by law.
And then, they put out this same picture in different fora as well. In a press release to the public dated 5 August 2011, the very next day after the fateful Town Council's meeting; in Parliament during the 2013 debate on the Ministerial Statement on Town Councils; again, in Parliament in February 2015 during a debate on the AGO report; and in an open letter to residents in June 2015 prior to the last General Election.
But such a narrative was entirely false, one that was designed to give cover to the advancement of their own collateral motives, whilst at the same time sacrificing the interests of residents.
Ms Lim and Mr Low knew there was no urgency. The Court heard from both of you, Mr Low and Ms Lim, and came to this conclusion, after having heard you. CPG was required in law to continue as the MA. They could not walk away as the MA even if they wanted to. Neither could they not offer you the prevailing rates that they had been using and charging the previous Town Council. They were committed to it but you were not.
CPG's position was inconvenient to both Ms Lim and Mr Low, since you wanted FMSS appointed, whatever the case. And to get FMSS in, you had to make it look as if CPG wanted out. And it is very apparent from the evidence you gave in Court.
Ms Lim's evidence in court under oath was that she did not even ask to see the CPG’s contract. She did not know what the terms were, did not know the termination mechanisms were, did not know what the contractual rights might have been.
The Workers' Party had also already written to Ms How as early as 19 May – 19 May; that is barely a week after General Election 2011 – wrote to her to say that her company would be appointed as MA of the Town Council and this is well before the Workers' Party even had any conversation with CPG.
So, far from seeking to protect their resident's interests in the face of sudden unanticipated circumstances – a narrative which Workers' Party had very painstakingly spun, the Judge found that they had, in fact, painted a misleading picture to the world, leading everyone to believe that they were compelled to appoint FMSS without any tender and masking the fact that they did not act in the best interests of the Town Council and of the residents it serves.
The Judge did not mince his words on this sorry episode. He called it, at various occasions, \"misleading\", \"not honest\", the picture was \"not a truthful one\", \"camouflaged\" and \"not the true picture\". Take your pick. They all mean the same thing.
But he was particularly galled by how such a misleading narrative was conveyed to the public, and specifically to the very constituents which the elected Members of Parliament were elected to serve in the first place.
So, a misleading narrative, repeatedly put out over several years, to the public, in Parliament, in Court, by Members of Parliament who knew perfectly well this narrative was not true. How is this being accountable or transparent?
Another contrived excuse for the set up of FMSS was that it was only a contingency, just in case. On 13 May 2013, Ms Lim told this House, and I quote, \"The set-up of FMSS was because of this very real possibility that we will be faced with nobody else to do it for us.\"
This, again, is a wholly untenable position to take. Workers' Party was clear and deliberate in themselves not wanting CPG to carry on – so what contingency are we even talking about.
The Judge's finding that I have outlined above completely demolishes any notion that FMSS was meant as a contingency. It was in fact premeditated and a fait accompli.
Not surprisingly, the Judge had strong words about the Workers' Party seeking to present FMSS as a contingency, as a reason both to the public as well as in justification for not having a tender and he said, and I quote, \"this was nothing more than an attempt to varnish the plan with a veneer of credibility in order to camouflage its true motive\".
Let me turn now to AIM. Another excuse that has been constantly trotted out by the Workers' Party, in an attempt to justify the waiver of tender you use the fact that AIM had terminated the TCMS.
This House will know, Mr Speaker, that this has been used before, to give off the impression that, this time, it is AIM, a PAP vehicle, which had forced AHTC to hurriedly appoint FMSS without a tender. Ms Lim will also recall that in an election rally on 2 September 2015, the blame was put squarely on this termination as being the reason for the Town Council not having called a tender for the appointment.
It might well have been a convenient election rhetoric, but as her own evidence in court has revealed, it was also an entirely false excuse.
The truth is there was no question of the termination having played any part in necessitating a waiver of tender. The Town Council had sufficient time to call a tender; it just did not want to do so.
Indeed, Ms Lim will recall that when you were shown contemporaneous documents in Court, you accepted to the Court that AIM had in fact had been helpful to your Town Council – helpful – that AIM was assisting in circumstances beyond what they were required to do; and that AIM gave more time to AHTC than it was required to do. Ms Lim will remember this very clearly. In addition, at trial, Ms How Weng Fan also disclosed a conversation, where she said it was actually Ms Lim, and I quote, who \"doesn't want to extend\" AIM.
So, what we see with the disclosure of documents and when matters had gone to Court is a very different picture from what we have heard, a very different picture from what Ms Lim has sought to be put out in the press, in Parliament and, of course, at election rallies.
The Judge, having heard from Ms Lim in court on this issue, concluded, and I quote, \"AIM's withdrawal in no way precipitated the defendants' course of conduct leading to the waiver of the tender...[and] that [they] had sufficient time to call for a tender notwithstanding AIM's withdrawal\".
So, Mr Speaker, what we see, looking back over the years at this long and very sorry saga, is the Workers' Party shifting from one untenable excuse to another, in order to justify appointing FMSS without calling a tender. And this itself is set against a backdrop of constantly refusing to disclose to auditors, your own as well as those from the AGO and KPMG, fobbing off inquiry at every turn, refusing to do interviews so that the real reason could remain suppressed until, as we see, their own Independent Panel decided to bring this action. And it unravelled in Court.
So, let me round up by going back on what this Motion calls on Workers' Party to do. Ms Lim and Mr Low continue today as elected councillors, including having financial oversight over the affairs of the Town Council. Surely, this status quo cannot continue, given what the Court has found.
As I said at the start, the conduct in respect of which the Court has found was not caused by a one-off occasional or even careless error. It was calculated, careful, deliberate, an outcome that was obtained by much planning, design and engineering.
The elected councillors continue today to be in AHTC, to continue today to run the Town Council and that includes having control and oversight over financial matters.
So on this, two points stand out for me.
First, the Court found that, in ensuring that the appointment of FMSS would pass muster, Ms Lim asked for Ms How and Mr Loh to \"sanitise\" the draft report – I mentioned that earlier, let me come back to it. Why? So that, in your own words, Ms Lim, it will \"pass the auditors' eyes\"; your email of 3 August 2011.
It is already astonishing enough for an elected official to ask for a report to be sanitised, so that it passes the auditors' eyes. We all know what \"sanitise\" means. We all know what \"pass the auditors' eyes\" means. If it was a truthful report, and you knew it to be truthful, there should be nothing that needs to be done. But, clearly, this was not the case here. And do not take my word for it, look at what the Judge had found about that report. It said, \"It was not truthful and painted a wholly inaccurate picture\" and it \"sought to cloak the appointment of FMSS with a veneer of propriety”.
But to add insult to injury, this sanitising was to be done by the very persons whose appointment without tender the report itself was meant to recommend – How and Loh. This is wrong at so many levels. Even a child knows that you do not ask the fox to guard the chicken coop, or a wolf to watch the sheep.
But this little episode provides an insight into the way in which affairs are being conducted at AHTC. And Ms Lim continues in a position of having financial oversight over matters today. How can this status quo be allowed to continue? Whatever your views are on the judgment, today, this judgment represents the position in law. Until it is set aside, this judgment is valid.
The second point which stood out for me was the way in which the councillors, your councillors, who are supposed to be the check, and the approving authority with independent judgment, were instead completely side-lined, misled and effectively made use of.
Town Council meetings are very serious affairs. Councillors are charged with the responsibility to make decisions about the town they manage, and often, there are significant financial repercussions.
In this case, at crucial Town Council meetings, the Court found – and, again, let me quote – that there had been \"a palpable economy of truth in the way things were disclosed\" at Town Council meetings. In particular, the decision to delegate authority to Ms Lim to undertake matters on behalf of the Town Council was also obtained without proper disclosure of facts. The Court found that there was, and I quote again, \"a deliberate and calculated move\" to keep CPG and the rest of the Town Council in the dark about the plan to appoint FMSS without a tender being called.
To give this House a sense of what happened – two Town Council meetings concerning FMSS at the relevant time were called, one in June and another in August 2011. Councillors were not told at the June 2011 meeting that a letter of intent, there was intent to be signed with FMSS in July 2011, even though by that time, Workers' Party had already decided to appoint FMSS.
At the second Town Council meeting in August 2011, the councilors thought that they were going to a meeting to approve a waiver of tender in order to appoint FMSS, not knowing that FMSS had actually already been appointed, or that FMSS themselves had helped to sanitise the very report that made the recommendation about the waiver of tender over their appointment.
How is that good governance? In fact, your councillors were given a very misleading picture. But what is even more stark about this episode is that not only did Workers' Party subvert the entire system of accountability within the Town Council and made use of the councillors to suit their own personal and political agenda, but also that Ms Lim kept the truth from her fellow town councillors. That, I find, a lot more egregious.
They might well have had their own concerns about the political allegiances of CPG or AIM, but the town councilors are Workers' Party members from their own party or supporters, and they include fellow Members of Parliament in this House. That they felt they had to mislead their own colleagues to get FMSS appointed without tender, I think, speaks volumes.
As I said at the start, it is your right to appeal and seek to overturn the findings. But until then, in the interim, common decency and practice requires that they recuse yourselves from having oversight of financial matters. So, we call on the Workers' Party to abide by their own single thread – and Mr Singh knows this well – of transparency and accountability, and to put residents’ interests first.
On the speech that Mr Faisal Manap made, let me ask a few questions.
First, you said it is not appropriate to consider the Motion at this time. Then, what does this mean? At what stage should we consider it? You agree it is not sub judice, so why is it not appropriate? Can we hear from you? We are talking about what is to happen in the interim, in the Town Council, over which you are the Chairman, until you get the reversal from the Court of Appeal, if that happens.
So, can Mr Faisal Manap explain in the interim why is it not appropriate to be talking about actions that you should take now to safeguard, to ensure that your residents' interests come first?
Let me give you an example of what this recusal means. If, for example, a teacher was found to have done something wrong – a teacher who interacts with students every day – then he cannot teach until he clears his name on an appeal.
It is similar in this case. The Motion does not require anyone to resign, to step down, not even to refrain from all functions of a town councillor, but only that which relates to financial oversight and control. Can Mr Manap explain why that is not in the best interest of the Town Council and the residents, why that is not the proper and decent thing to do, so that you have assurance that whatever is the outcome on the appeal, your interest and those of your residents are safeguarded?
Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: I would like to respond to the Senior Minister of State's question. Sir, as AHTC Chair, it is my responsibility to weigh and evaluate what is the best action, moving forward, for the residents of Aljunied-Hougang Town. I have to take into consideration the mandate given by Aljunied residents at GE2015, amidst the AHTC saga, where the residents of Aljunied had decided to still give mandate to Mr Low Thia Khiang, Ms Sylvia and the other three of us, to manage their Town.
Personally, it will be improper for me to cancel this mandate. I take mandate given to us, Workers' Party's Members of Parliament, seriously.
Secondly, I have said earlier, I have also not received any advice from the Independent Panel on the Court findings.
Additionally, I believe everyone in this Chamber understands that the Court of Appeal can overturn the current findings. Hence, being a responsible Chair of AHTC, based on the reasonings I have stated above, my call is to wait until the result of the appeal is out before deciding on any actions to be taken. Thank you, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: First of all, Mr Manap, there is no suggestion that you reverse the mandate that has been given. You heard me very clearly. We are asking for a narrow recusal over financial oversight. Why financial oversight? Because these are the very same issues that the Court in this case has made very serious and egregious pronouncements.
Second, in relation to the suggestion that the mandate was given in 2015, but today we are in 2019, and the judgment has been released after having heard all parties, and certain findings have been made. I would like to ask Mr Manap, does he not recognise that those findings are very serious, egregious, grave findings?
Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, the judgment is a judgment, I have to respect the Court judgment. But it is subject to an appeal, as mentioned earlier. The finding can be overturned by the Court of Appeal. So, I stand firm on my call to wait for the Court of Appeal, before I decide to take any actions.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: So, is Mr Manap saying that absolutely nothing at all will be done by AHTC, notwithstanding the grave and serious judgment that has been released by the High Court, which AHTC, and I hear the Workers' Party, recognised and accepted, that nothing will be done in the interim?
Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: I have stated clearly that I do not support this Motion. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
The Minister of State for Manpower and National Development (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to speak in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tMr Speaker, the Motion moved by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat in Parliament just now is an important one because it involves the conduct and actions by Members of Parliament who are also Workers' Party leaders. This Motion draws our attention to the key issue, that is, the question of integrity and honesty.
By doing nothing and letting the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council case be left at that, we, as Members of this Chamber, will be seen as neglecting our duty. Is it appropriate for us to stay silent?
In the AHTC case, High Court Judge Kannan Ramesh gave a judgment on 11 October, which found that two Workers' Party Members of Parliament, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang were in breach of their fiduciary duties, and due to that, they are responsible for the losses incurred by AHTC.
The Judge said that their actions of awarding a contract without calling a tender and painting a misleading picture about the appointment of FMSS, showed that they did not act in the interest of AHTC.
In fact, the High Court found that they misled their colleagues and found that they had acted dishonestly. Their conduct also lacked integrity. The Court also said that, as experienced town councillors, Mr Low should have known that a tender is required for that appointment.
The AHTC case has gone on for so long until it has reached the Courts, and those involved were given the room and opportunity to defend their actions. The Court has given its ruling. Therefore, what is the right thing that they should do, and what should be the right action taken by the Workers' Party leadership? And what should all of us in this Chamber do as our responsibility to the people and our residents?
The key point that we need to know is what kind of appropriate action that should be taken if there is a lack of integrity, because without integrity, our institutions will weaken. Every individual, whether they are leaders, representatives of the people, or organization and corporate heads, must display integrity, because it is an important characteristic.
Integrity is an important pillar of good governance. The management of the town council, in providing services to its residents, must surely place importance on integrity and transparency.
AHTC must not neglect this obligation, what more by acting dishonestly towards the residents of Aljunied and Hougang. Those responsible must be taken to task and take responsibility when there is any wrongdoing.
The town councils were formed in 1989 with the function and responsibility of managing and maintaining public housing estates. However, it is unavoidable for town councils to have a political element because there is a political competition for the right to administer a town council.
In this context, the residents of Aljunied and Hougang should rightly feel disappointed when High Court Judge Kannan Ramesh said that it was unsatisfactory that the narrative conveyed by those involved in the case was misleading the public, especially the residents.
It is clear that their action of not calling a tender appears to be due to other intents and considerations, including political considerations, said the Judge.
Therefore, it is the Government’s responsibility to correct this situation in order to protect the interest of the people.
Today, we are faced with this important Motion that aims to safeguard our high standards of integrity and commitment as Members of this Chamber. Protecting this integrity will enable us to perform our duties responsibly to our residents whom we represent. Otherwise, it will weaken our institutions to the point that we will lose the people's trust.
Our integrity is one of the key reasons that help us get elected and is one of the main factors that differentiates our public office from other countries’s systems. Although we want the justice system to proceed smoothly, unfortunately, many facts revealed in the Court's judgment raised a lot of concern.
The people's interest supersedes other interests, including political interests. Although the management of town councils has a political element, this does not mean that political interests should be prioritized over administrative and financial responsibilities and obligations, as well as the people's interest.
We debate this Motion today with no intention to point out mistakes. What is important is the restoration of integrity and trust towards an organisation, and how AHTC can recover from this incident.
At this point of time, and after the High Court gave its ruling, we are still unclear whether AHTC has taken the appropriate actions by asking both Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low to recuse themselves until the outcome of the case is clear. However, for the sake of the residents, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low should do the right thing by recusing themselves. Not for them to resign, but to recuse themselves.
Mr Low and Ms Lim, as people in a position of power and influence, are not the first ones to step out of line and conducted themselves badly. Others have done so. What is important is how they will be dealt with and how they will take responsibility for conduct that broke the rules. If the same thing happens anywhere else, including in the PAP town councils, community organizations or corporate sector, those responsible will surely recuse themselves from their duties until the process is complete. It shows their level of integrity and sense of responsibility.
I hope that AHTC will practice a high standard of governance in its service to the residents. Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap, as the Chairman of AHTC, should be concerned over this issue. So, what are the steps that he will take to safeguard the integrity of AHTC’s management for the sake of their residents’ interests?
Does Mr Faisal, as the Chairman of AHTC, agree with the facts contained in the High Court's judgment? I used the word \"facts\" and not \"judgment\" because I understand that the Workers' Party will make an appeal on the High Court's judgment. So, the Judge has found that, based on facts, the actions of Members of Parliament, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low, who awarded a contract without calling a tender, gave a misleading picture about the appointment of FMSS. So, does Mr Faisal, as the Chairman of AHTC, agree or disagree with the facts presented in the Court's judgment on 11 October 2019, which found that both of them have acted in breach of their fiduciary duties towards AHTC?
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs and National Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Speaker, Sir, kindly allow me to speak in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tOn 11 October, the High Court delivered a verdict on the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) case. In its judgment, the High Court stated that the AHTC had decided not to call an open tender without justifiable reasons, and appointed FMSS as the management company. This was a disregard of the Town Council's interest, and a clear violation of its financial rules.
The High Court has found that Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim had breached their fiduciary duties, and Mr Pritam Singh has breached his duties of skill and care to AHTC.
The Court has also found that Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang had deliberately kept the matter of appointing a new managing agent in the dark, and made misleading statements. Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang even asked Ms How Weng Fan and Danny Loh to sanitise the reports to pass the audit. Other Town Councillors were also kept in the dark. The judge pointed out that these behaviours were \"not transparent\", \"dishonest\", \"egregious\" and \"unacceptable\".
The AHTC saga has been going on for eight years. The problems were discovered together by various parties in the community. The financial issues of the Town Council were first discovered by auditors appointed by the Town Coucil itself.
In 2015, AGO assessed that AHTC's governance did not pass the bar. The Town Council later appointed KPMG as an independent auditor who has found many improper payments. After that, the Town Council appointed an Independent Panel to followed up on KPMG's report, and the independent panel advised that the Town Council sue three Members of Parliament of the Workers' Party. In October this year, the High Court passed a verdict that the three Worker's Party Members of Parliament must bear legal responsibility for the loss suffered by the Town Council.
If Ms Lim and Mr Low are still trying to find excuses at this juncture, I feel that it will make people more confused, and is truly regrettable.
The residents trust us and give us their votes. We have a duty to take care of their needs, treat them with honesty and make sure that their interests are protected. We must ensure the proper use of the residents' money and public funds.
In order to protect the residents' interest, the most important thing is to rely on an open and transparent system, such as an open tender, audit, legal processes, and parliamentary debate. When things are in the dark, they get mouldy easily. When things are open and transparent, mistakes will be easily discovered and corrected. That is why everyone must follow the rules and due processes. They should not try to make short cuts and evade oversight.
The Workers' Party often talked about transparency, oversight and accountability in the past. Yet, based on the evidence brought forth by various parties and the Court’s verdict, we see that some Members of Parliament of the Workers' Party are not at all open and transparent in handling their own Town Council affairs. What is worse, they have even tried to cover up the truth, deceive other Town Councillors, and ask other people to sanitise the report so that they can have a veneer of truth and integrity. This has severely violated what they themselves have once espoused. How should we look at what they have said before? How can we trust their promises in future?
Residents not only judge a Member of Parliament by his words, but also his actions. They not only look at the surface of things, but also the inside. On the surface, AHTC does not seem to have any problems. Yes, there are still people doing maintenance on the properties, elevators are still running, and the landscaping is still being done. However, the Members of Parliament have actually breached their fiduciary duties, caused conflict of interest, resulting in the mismanagement of the Town Council. Time reveals a person's true colour. Residents will eventually see the matter clearly.
Integrity is at the centre of all values and the foundation of Singapore's society and politics. Integrity is manifested through good governance, and is what differentiates Singapore from many other parts of the world in terms of public service and the parliamentary system. Only with integrity can we accomplish the task of serving the people and each constituency. If Members of Parliament lack integrity, the very foundation of Singapore’s politics will be undermined, so will the confidence of people in our governance.
When a Member of Parliament has done something illegal, whether he is not afraid to bear the responsibility or looking for excuses, will be watched by everyone, including young Singaporeans. When a Member of Parliament lacks integrity and that affects residents’ interest, how should the Parliament react? Should we just keep quiet on this matter, or look at it seriously and try to rectify? Our choice will also affect the political climate in Singapore and people’s trust in the Government. It will also have a profound impact on young Singaporeans' thinking.
Integrity and a healthy political climate is worth all of us to defend, because we care about Singapore's future.
Earlier, I listened to Mr Faisal Manap and what he has said. The right choice is often a very difficult one. The right choice now is to recuse from all financial matters in the Town Council. For Singapore's future, I hope that we can make the right choice.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak.
Sir, I rise to share my personal experiences in Potong Pasir. As Members of this House may be aware, I was elected Member of Parliament for Potong Pasir in 2011. As a result, I took over the management of the Potong Pasir Town Council from Mr Chiam See Tong of the Singapore People's Party (SPP) after 27 years.
A transition was the first order of business. This was quite similar to what transpired at Aljunied GRC in 2011 at about the same time.
Sir, I am a private sector commercial person and I draw the analogy of such a transition as being akin to a takeover of a company in the commercial world. It will be fraught with difficulties and problems.
I started serving in Potong Pasir in the year 2000, about 20 years ago. For 11 years, from 2000 to 2011, we fought a good, clean fight between Mr Chiam's team and ours. It was a hard fight nevertheless and we worked very hard to win the hearts and minds of our residents.
In the 2011 General Elections, we regained Potong Pasir by the slimmest of margins – 114 votes. We were happy but immediately understood the heavy responsibility and daunting task that lay before us. I knew that for every two residents I met, one voted for us and one did not. We are now in charge, but we are cognisant that we owe a duty of care and service to all Potong Pasir residents.
Our mindset changed immediately. We switched from being \"fighters\" to \"builders\". Why? Because we understood, fundamentally, that we are in charge, our ultimate responsibility must be towards the well-being of all our residents. The General Election was over; politics must now take a back seat.
I have great personal respect for Mr Chiam. He was a formidable opponent but I knew he always puts our residents' interests first in whatever decision he makes.
However, the transition then remained a difficult one when we took over the Town Council in 2011. I remember a particular SPP member who frequented the Town Council office almost every day then to advise the staff to claim one month of compensation for every year of service if they were to lose their jobs. I was informed some of the staff at the Town Council then had worked there for almost 27 years!
The easy way out then would be for me to pay them the compensation they asked for. But how could I? These are residents' monies. We are only the custodians of the monies. In addition, at that time, we also inherited a Town Council that already had severe financial challenges. There was no way we could pay anyone any financial compensation.
We did not make wholesale mistakes. Certainly not immediately. We were well aware that most, if not all of the staff then were supporters of the Singapore People's Party. After all, Town Councils are political organisations. We re-deployed some of the staff to other Town Councils and retained some. Today, two of these staff are still with us. We were very clear in our minds we cannot let our residents down. We had to get on with our task of building a better home and, really, there was no time for politics.
One week after the 2011 General Elections, rubbish was piling up all over the estate. We were told that the maintenance contractors appointed by the previous Town Council had stopped work for no good reason. A huge problem was on hand. We had many problems to fix and we did. This is a true story. We convinced our residents to help. They patrolled our estate daily to ensure cleanliness and that essential services were functioning normally.
At the same time, we also had to deal with situations, such as fairly large groups of petitioners seeking signatures to request for a by-election after the General Election. There were scenes of great disappointment of Singapore People's Party supporters at our coffee shops, post the General Election. We had to level up and reunite the community. It was a tough and stressful time for all of us then. I pay tribute to our team in Potong Pasir. They were stoic and unwavering in the heat. We came together with whatever we had to deliver our promise to the residents of Potong Pasir.
Sir, after nine years, I am glad to share that we have, by and large, turned things around. This even includes the financial situation of the Town Council. In 2011, we had more than 400 households in arrears of Service & Conservancy charges for more than three months. Some were in arrears for years. The total amount then was approximately $350,000. What did we do? We visited these households, assisted them where required and put in place plans that were acceptable to their financial situation. Today, we have less than 100 such families in Potong Pasir Division in similar arrears and the total amount is below $100,000.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my experiences in Potong Pasir showed me that it is, indeed, a difficult ordeal when Town Councils switch political parties. It is the same in most corporate takeovers. But the stakes in Town Councils are much higher because we are dealing with the lives and well-being of thousands of families. We were clear in our minds that we had a heavy duty to discharge.
There were no celebration or sweeping changes made in Potong Pasir post-General Election 2011. There was no time. Teething issues abound and serving our residents and ensuring that their lives are not disrupted unnecessarily were at the top of our minds. And more importantly, we must do it right and ensure accountability in our duties in the Town Council. It is in this context, Mr Speaker, that I fully support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh, would you like to respond to any of the previous speakers?
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I am awaiting for more speakers to speak first.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, Mr Speaker, if I may address Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong's intervention earlier on three points.
The first is, of course, he re-narrates the findings made by the trial Judge on certain matters in the aftermath of the 2011 General Elections on the circumstances of the departure of the former managing agent, on the impact of AIM and so on and so forth. Again, our position is that some of these key findings, we are going to take it on appeal. And he rightly points out, we have consistently maintained these circumstances were the circumstances that we had to deal with in the aftermath of the 2011 General Elections. So, this is something that we are going to appeal on and we will also highlight to the Judge certain evidences that may not have been given proper weight, including, for example, the termination notice issued to us by AIM. So, that is just to round off that first point.
On the second point on whether the Town Council had been forthcoming with information for its own auditors, I recalled at that point in time a conversation which I had with our General Manager, who told me that, actually, the auditors were given full access to our IT system to search for any information that they wanted. So, I think it is important that I put on record that that was what I recalled when I asked her about the auditors' comment, that was what she told me.
Last of all, regarding the AGO audit, he did cite that the AGO had said that they had asked for certain documents which should exist. I would like to also point out to him that, in the light of the AGO's request at that time, I personally headed a physical search of the Town Council offices with the AGO team to try to search for some of these documents. So, I would refute any suggestion that we tried to hide things from the auditors.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Motion. I must admit that I feel a little bit like an interstitial break right now.
First, I acknowledge the judgment delivered by the High Court on 11 October 2019. This Motion is in four parts. Part (i) of the Motion which affirms the vital importance of Members of Parliament maintaining high standards of integrity and accountability is indisputable. I clearly support this first part of the Motion.
I wish to speak on this Motion because I am unsure of the need for this Motion, which has no legal force when passed, given the powers already vested in the Minister through the Town Councils Act to order AHTC to take necessary and swift actions. At the same time, I am also concerned that the Motion relates to matters which have not fully concluded in Court.
Mr Speaker, I understand that this substantive Motion, when passed by the House, becomes a resolution of Parliament. A resolution of the House is not legislation, nor does it have any legal force. Given this, should the call for AHTC to discharge their responsibilities as proposed in part (iv) of the Motion – asking for this House to call for and influence AHTC to recuse the said Members of Parliament \"from all matters relating to, and oversight over, financial matters\" – be made by the Minister through the powers granted by the Town Councils Act instead of this House?
Under section 43(d) of the Act, it is expressively provided that if the Minister is of the opinion that there are deficiencies identified in the conduct of the affairs of the Town Council and/or an irregularity has occurred or is occurring in the financial affairs of the Town Council, the Minister may, by order, in writing, require the Town Council to \"take specified remedial action to address the deficiencies and take specified action to correct the irregularity or to guard against the recurrence of irregularities or both.\"
This entire section was an amendment added to the Act and passed by this House only two years back in 2017. In addition, Mr Speaker, I am also uncomfortable with judgment being discussed in this House. A Court proceeding, as I understand accordingly to the Administration of Justice Protection Act, only concludes when all issues relating to the assessment of damages and Court proceedings are heard and finally decided. Therefore, it is clear that if a legal proceeding of this case is still afoot, the defendants are also entitled to launch an appeal, which we have just heard from Ms Sylvia Lim that they will be doing so. Given this, Mr Speaker, I am concerned that any comments that we make now, while possibly protected under certain parliamentary privileges, could still potentially fall under contempt of Court. Also, our debates are published in Hansard and the media. I worry that commenting on and acting from the judgment when the case is not concluded with finality, especially if this matter is brought to the Court of Appeal, may be perceived to be interfering with the due judicial process in the administration of justice.
Sir, I have outlined my concerns and clarifications for parts(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Motion and am of the view that the matters raised in these three parts may compromise the integrity and enforceability of the Town Councils Act as well as the judiciary process relating to the on-going Court proceedings. Given that this Motion shall be voted in its entirety and not in parts, I wish to state for the record that I clearly support the ideals of integrity and accountability expected of Members of this House in part (i).
Mr Speaker, I continue to be thankful every day for the privilege to be here in this House as a Nominated Member of Parliament. This privilege to serve comes with the commensurate responsibility that I take dutifully and seriously to add value to the discourse in this House as a non-partisan voice, hopefully in a considered manner and hopefully most of the time, to the best of my ability.
It is with this same consideration that my abstention to this Motion today, when called for a vote, is premised on:
(a) my inability to understand the call for action through this Motion with no legal force when they exist in an enforceable pathway in accordance with the rule of law under the Town Councils Act, which I believe already grants the Minister powers to do the same as proposed in part (iv) of the Motion; and
(b) my inability to raise a concern that the debate in the House from the judgment of a Court proceeding that has yet to be fully concluded, as indicated in parts (ii) and (iii) of the Motion, may be perceived as interference of due process in the administration of justice.
This abstention does not in any way signal any disagreement on my part with the principles of integrity and accountability that we must uphold as Members of Parliament, elected or not.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this debate. There are two principles I am concerned with. The first is affirming the high standard of behaviour expected of a Member of Parliament. I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that Members must maintain high standards of integrity and accountability.
I have read the judgment in this case. The judgment does find a serious breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the hon Members Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang. The breach is because they had planned to appoint FMSS as managing agent without calling a tender. The learned Judge finds that the circumstances, including the argued difficulty of working with the previous \"PAP-affiliated managing agent\", were an excuse and not a justification for waiver of tender.
The breach is found to have harmed the interest of AHTC and, by extension, residents. These are very serious findings. But that said, I will stand corrected, but I have not seen evidence in the judgment that this breach was motivated by personal self-enrichment on the part of the hon Members. This is not to excuse the breach of fiduciary duty. It is serious. But I have heard the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim and noted their intention to appeal and I respect that.
The second principle concerns Parliament's role in effectively addressing this serious breach of fiduciary duty for the benefit of residents and Singaporeans. Part (iv) of this Motion calls on the Town Council to recuse Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang for financial matters. Sir, the Town Council is a political entity. It is led by the elected Members of that Constituency. This Motion essentially calls on the Workers' Party to undertake a certain course of action. The Motion is not binding on the Town Council. So, I am personally concerned that this part of the Motion has the effect of a political resolution. I would have hoped that there were other means of addressing the serious concerns raised in this judgment.
Therefore, while I agree with the principle that Parliament must hold all Members to a high standard of integrity and must examine Members who fall short, I am uncomfortable as a non-elected Member in participating in what may be a political resolution. Hence, I will abstain from the Motion, if there is Division. Of course, I recognise that other Nominated Members are entitled to hold a different view. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for raising this issue of national importance and putting the evidence before the House and the public. I know that integrity and good governance are paramount to this Government.
Mr Speaker: Minister Desmond Lee.
The Minister for Social and Family Development and Second Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, please allow me at the beginning to address two points raised by our hon Nominated Members of Parliament.
First, Ms Anthea Ong makes good points about the importance of integrity and about the privilege placed being in this House. And I thank her for that.
In effect, Ms Ong is suggesting that this matter is sub judice, a point which the Members of the Workers' Party have indicated, is not their position. And I wonder why is it sub judice in effect, in her words when we are talking really about what ought to happen in the interim between findings of a High Court and such point in time when the appeal is heard and disposed off. I think that really is the crux of the matter and that really is why we are here today.
So, we have a case, say, in a company. Let us say directors of a company are sued by the company and found on similar terms, as the High Court has found in this case, to have been dishonest to have hidden facts. And the directors say, \"Well, I will appeal. I will appeal the findings.\" Resolutely, want to appeal the findings. But what happens in the interim, as a matter of proper corporate governance?
Quite apart from whether regulators come in or the company comes in and say we better go on garden leave or the rules require you to recuse yourself, quite apart from external regulatory action, what is that a fiduciary, a director ought to do when there are findings of fact and law by Supreme Court, pending an appeal by the director?
So, I think that really is the narrow issue we are talking about but it is an issue of great importance.
Say a person is again, a fiduciary, head of a charitable organisation, say, a charitable foundation or one of our social service agencies or a VWO. The person again custodian of public funds, donors' funds, philanthropists' funds. And there is an allegation that this individual in charge of the charity, say a director or a trustee has mismanaged the funds. And a suit has been taken by the charity or by the charity regulator against this trustee or fiduciary. And a Court finding, no less a finding of the High Court, has been found that this trustee or fiduciary had indeed mismanaged – not just mismanaged by negligence or by carelessness but because of dishonesty. Very strong findings.
Is the trustee and fiduciary going to carry on and say, \"Carry on the new months or years until the findings are confirmed by the Appellate Court\"? What is the expectation of the organisation? What is the expectation of the public? What should fiduciaries or people in that position do in the interim when findings have been found?
We are not talking about before a suit is filed. We are not talking about when allegations are made, no matter how strongly proven those allegations may be before the suit. We are talking about when a judgment has been made, what should the person in the shoes of a director of a company, as the head of a charitable institution, as a trustee, as a town councillor elected by the public holding statutory responsibilities, having fiduciary duties, sitting in this very House, what is the right and proper thing to do?
And Ms Ong makes a point about section 43(d) of the Town Councils Act. I am familiar with that provision because I had to move those amendments in this very House to make sure that the regulators have the levers to act if we have to.
And section 43(d) comes after this saga has taken place in 2011. More importantly, the provision gives powers to the Minister after a report or compliance review has been undertaken under the Act as amended or after an investigation.
Be that as it may, ultimately, you have a judgment of the High Court by a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Quite apart from what regulatory powers there may be in this case or in future cases, we are really asking here in his House, not asking what directors outside this House should be doing; not asking what trustees outside should be doing, but what Members of this House reposed with the duties under the Town Councils Act to safeguard public monies. What is the right thing to do?
And I come to the last point that Ms Ong makes which is, that she feels uncomfortable discussing this. And, in a way, also Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's point about political resolution. I do not blame the two Nominated Members of Parliament or members of public if they perceive this to have partisanship colours. But actually, if you stripe it down to its very core, what should fiduciaries do? And, in this case, not any fiduciary – one sitting amongst us held to certain standards by members of the public. What do we have to do?
And just flip it over. What would the public expect? What would our friends from the Workers' Party expect if there were such a finding, if it ever were to reach such a stage that the High Court finding were to be made of one of my colleagues or one of the Members of the ruling party in this House? What would they be expecting? What would they be calling for? What would they require us to do? In fact, what would we expect of ourselves, no less?
So, I think we should be very clear that this is not about partisanship. In fact, for the last almost four weeks, all of us and members of the public and commentators, will be watching and listening and looking out what action town councillors, subject to such findings by the High Court would take at the very minimum, at the very minimum, to safeguard public funds, to assure the people from their responsible fall, that pending the appeal which they will, no doubt, fight, as Ms Lim has indicated. What are you going to do in that interim period to assure the public that you are doing the right thing?
Mr Speaker, it is very clear from the discussion over the last two hours that Members of the Workers' Party do not think there is any need whatsoever when the High Court has made findings of dishonesty and such, that anything needs to be done, just appeal, sit tight, wait for the appeal.
For the reasons I have articulated earlier, I do not think that is the right thing to do. At the very least, recuse yourself, not from all Town Council's duties but from financial duties for which the Judges' findings focused on. I do not think that is considered political. That, I think, is something that anyone in a company, anyone in an institution, anyone in the society, anyone in an organisation will do. And if they see us in this House not even doing that, then what do you think members of the public would think of the standards that we uphold here in this very House? Is it lower than in a company? Is it lower than in a charity? Is it lower than in society? Is it lower than in some other organisation in Singapore but outside this House? I think we must all do the right thing.
And I also found it concerning that when asked directly, the Chairman of the Town Council says, \"Well, I will not do anything in the mean time, because one, I have known the two members against whom the Judge had made findings of dishonesty since 2006. Because I know them, I trust them. So, never mind what the High Court Judge says. I will trust them. I will not act.\" Second, he says, \"Well, I am the Chairman of Town Council but the Independent Panel did not give me any advice, did not tell me what to do.\" No less the Chairman of the Town Council – waiting for the Independent Panel to tell the Chairman what is the right thing to do. And then, thirdly, after some time, he says, \"Well, it is because the case is being appealed on\". Three reasons for that. I think it is very clear what the position of the Workers' Party is on what they plan to do or not do in the interim.
Sir, Town Councils are set up to give Members of Parliament direct responsibility for managing and running the Town Councils. How well we manage and run our Town Councils will reflect to the public, not just on our abilities but on what we stand for. But MND recognises the political nature of Town Councils and accept that political considerations can indeed go into the appointment of contractors for Town Councils. But such latitude must be exercised by town councillors within the boundaries of our laws. And public funds and residents' interests must at all times be properly safeguarded. So, yes, Town Councils are creatures of politics. It allows Members of Parliament to show politically to the public what they are able to achieve but certainly, at the very least, there are some boundaries and those boundaries are laws and also boundaries of ethics and of integrity.
The High Court judgment has found, in this case, that the appointment of FMSS as Managing Agent was clearly motivated by political consideration, including a misguided sense of loyalty to trust the supporters. In other words, the Workers' Party wanted to appoint their friends. They wanted to reward them for their loyalty over the years. But as I said earlier, there is a proper process and there are rules that govern even a creature of politics.
In particular, the Town Council rules provide for an open tender process and Deputy Prime Minister has articulated very clearly how that comes into play. But in this case, the Court found that the entire process had been deliberately subverted. Right from the start, the Workers' Party Members of Parliament were clear that they did not want to work with the incumbent Managing Agent, CPG or any other Managing Agent in the industry. And, so, they devised a plan to ensure that they will get what they want.
This involved getting their friends to incorporate and set up a company FMSS just days after the results of GE 2011 with a substantial paid-up capital of $450,000. The late Mr Loh could confidently put up the capital as the MA contract was assured. But to ensure that FMSS was appointed, the Workers' Party knew that CPG had to be removed from the picture and they did not want to call a tender. And they wanted to hide this plan with the smoke screen.
The High Court found that \"steps had to be taken to ensure that this did happen without the true motivations being unfounded.\" These steps include the following.
First, as early as 13 May 2011, the elected Members instructed Ms How Weng Fan to write to CPG to arrange for the taking over of the management of the Town Council. This was before the elected Members of Parliament met with CPG on 30 May 2011 and before CPG expressed any intention to be released from its contract. In fact, the High Court did not accept the point that any of this had to do with CPG's intention. And the fact of the matter was that the Workers' Party Members of Parliament had proceeded after the 2011 GE on \"an independent and simple-minded course of action\" to replace CPG. They did not review the CPG contract to satisfy themselves whether CPG was entitled to prematurely terminate the contract before meeting with CPG on 30 May 2011. That is first.
Second, CPG was kept completely in the dark about FMSS. The Workers' Party Members of Parliament were concerned that if CPG was aware the details behind the formation of FMSS, they would whistle-blow and sound the alarm. The High Court found that there was a consistent and concerted effort to keep the true facts away from CPG's eyes which included postponing their second Town Council meeting to discuss the waiver of tender until after CPG's departure.
And third, an excuse had to be given to the other town councillors to justify the waiver of tender. A story was thus spun about the alleged urgency to appoint the new MA caused apparently by CPG's sudden announcement on 30 May that it intended to depart, the abrupt termination of the Town Council's system, the TCMS by AIM, and the lack of contractors who wanted to work for the Workers' Party.
But the fanning of this smoke screen was egregious because the case for urgency was completely manufactured. So, you see this is a deliberate matter. The Court found not negligence, carelessness or breach of contract but dishonesty and fanning of smoke screens. The public, our Parliament were all misled deliberately. The High Court found that the report prepared on the appointment of FMSS as Managing Agent for the Town Council, setting out the reasons for waiver of tender, under the instructions of Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang, was, I quote, \"not truthful and painted a wholly inaccurate picture\". Instead, the report sought to \"cloak the appointment of FMSS with a veneer of propriety\" and to paper over the cracks.
In fact, as Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat and Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong had pointed out, it is deeply troubling that Ms\tSylvia Lim had asked Ms How Weng Fan and Mr Danny Loh, whose conflict of interest was crystal clear, to examine such report to see if it would \"pass the auditor's eyes\". This serves to illustrate the lengths that the Workers' Party went to pull wool over the eyes of the other town councillors.
I say this to illustrate the key point that yes, there are civil cases and there are civil cases. But look at what the Judge found in this particular civil case and ask ourselves whether as fiduciaries or as town councillors, what is the right thing to do pending an appeal.
Sir, as I have said, in this particular case, the Workers' Party not only appointed their friends by circumventing the proper process, a lot of which had been gone into detail by both Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat and Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong, but they also allowed their friends and supporters to reap a handsome profit at the expense of the Town Council. It is one thing to award contracts to friends for political reasons but another to allow them to reap a profit or to pay them more. The auditors, PwC and KPMG, have all previously found FMSS to have charged more than CPG. There appears to have been substantial double counting in the charging of fees and then when it came to the second Managing Agent contract, having only gained barely a year's experience in managing a GRC, it is astonishing that FMSS sought to put in even higher rates. The Workers' Party allowed them to do that.
The issue of damages, what needs to be recovered, is subject to further proceedings before the Court. The extent of such overcharging by FMSS remains to be determined by that process. I will make the point but not comment further about the details.
But it is clear that residents' interests, public funds were abused as a result of the Managing Agent contracts with FMSS while FMSS in turn had profited handsomely. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute an Annex to Members for reference.
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Desmond Lee: Thank you, Sir. Sir, prior to the Workers' Party taking over, Aljunied Town Council, in fact, enjoyed a surplus. Within the first full year of Workers' Party's management, AHPETC, as it then was, ran an operating deficit of $1.5 million, which widened to a deficit of $2 million in the second year. In a short span of two years, the Town Council was run to the ground. In stark contrast, Workers' Party's friends in FMSS made $1.5 million in profits in the first full year, which shot up to some $3.2 million in the second year. It bears noting that FMSS had one and only one client, which is the AHTC.
In other words, all profit came from the Town Council. How is it fair to the residents? How is this protecting the interests of residents and safeguarding public funds? It therefore comes as no surprise that the High Court had found the defendants to be in breach of legal duties, including their fiduciary duties of loyalty owed to the Town Council.
On that point, I was also surprised when Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned earlier in this debate that this case involved a novel point of law, of fiduciary duty. A town councillor elected by members, by electors, running a Town Council, a statutory entity, looking after public funds, has duties. She says statutory duties but in fact in Court, their lawyers argued that there is nothing that anyone can do if monies were lost except through the ballot box.
It would have been a different story, Sir, if they had ensured that their friends had charged fairly. Given the lack of track record and experience, there was simply no basis for FMSS to charge the same rates as CPG or more. Workers' Party should have ensured that they charged less, especially in circumstances where no tender was called. As I said earlier, this is to illustrate the seriousness of the findings and therefore why action should be taken in the interim to safeguard public resources until the appeal is heard.
The findings in the High Court judgment have now answered some of the key questions concerning FMSS that were raised by various accountants previously. We now know the true story behind the FMSS saga, as clearly articulated by the High Court.
I come back to the core of today's Motion, which is: what is the Workers' Party going to do about this in the meantime? If the same had happened in the corporate context, the management would recuse themselves from running the company. In other Town Councils, errant officers step down. The general manager of Ang Mo Kio Town Council had to step down and face the music. He was charged and pleaded guilty eventually to corruption charges.
The right and proper thing to do is for the Members of Parliament implicated in this matter to recuse themselves from all financial transactions of the Town Council pending any appeal. Let professionals or other Workers' Party Members of Parliament who are not implicated to manage the financial affairs and transactions of the Town Council until the appeal is disposed.
Mr Speaker: Ms Indranee Rajah.
The Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, Second Minister for Education and Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. Before I go into my speech proper, I just wanted to clarify a few things with Ms Anthea Ong. I was just trying to understand her position and hopefully be able to assist in clarifying some things. Can I first check, does the hon Nominated Member of Parliament think that an appeal precludes discussion of this Motion?
Mr Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.
Ms Anthea Ong: Thank you. No, and actually I was about to clarify to Minister Desmond Lee's point in response. When I say I felt uncomfortable, I am talking about the fact that clearly as a non-legal trained person, I just feel uncomfortable that all these are being discussed so openly. And I am totally with Minister Desmond Lee's point. I am not disputing there is a need for action, which is why I brought up another pathway for that action to be taken instead of this Motion in the House. My discomfort comes from us discussing so many details about the judgment. Given that I am not a lawyer, I was just uncomfortable. That could be potential interference or perceived to be interference, given that. I am not concluding anything, Minister.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I understand. As I understand the position, Ms Anthea Ong is not saying that an appeal precludes a discussion of this. It is just that feeling of discomfort with all the discussions going on. Okay.
That really brings me to what is this Motion about? Is it about the facts and the Court judgment, or is it about something else? Well, this Motion is about the standards of integrity and accountability to which Singaporean Members of Parliament are held, and that applies to all Members of Parliament.
It is about what do we regard as the appropriate standards for accountability, transparency and good governance.
So, what has happened is this. You have a High Court judgment. The High Court judgment has found that Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang acted dishonestly, in breach of fiduciary duty, that their conduct lacked integrity and candour, and that they were fully aware that their conduct was of questionable legality. That is the High Court finding. That is not the finding of any of the Members here. That is a conclusion that the Court reached after looking into the matter in detail and seeing all the documents.
So, you have a High Court judgment with these findings and the question now is this: what do you do in the interim period? I appreciate that Ms Sylvia Lim has said that they will be filing an appeal, as indeed that is their right to do so. That is not disputed. But the question is, between now and the time that the appeal is heard, what is the appropriate thing for a Member of Parliament to do? What is the appropriate thing for a town councillor to do?
As all the lawyers in this room know, that a judgment, once given, until and unless overturned, the findings stand. So, in response to Ms Anthea Ong, this is not sub judice because we are not making any suggestion that the findings were right or wrong. In fact, what this Motion does is accepts the findings as they are and it asks, between now and the time where it may or may not be reversed or upheld, what do you do?
What is the standard of conduct? Do you simply disregard what the judgment says or do you say, that pending the appeal, and whilst there is a cloud hanging over the heads of these town councillors, do they stand down? Do they wait, and then see what the Court of Appeal says? Or do they say, \"Well, in the mean time, it does not really matter if there is a judgment, I carry on as usual\". That is the issue.
Why is this important? It is important because the Workers' Party's response to this important issue will tell you what are their values and what do they regard as good governance.
Supposing you were to apply this attitude to this Government. Supposing a Government official was found to have acted dishonestly and in breach of duty. Would we say, \"It is fine. Let him or her remain in place, because he is appealing. It is okay. It does not matter if it is a civil servant, if it is the Head of Civil Service, if it is the Commissioner of SCDF\". It is a finding of dishonesty, of lack of candour, lack of integrity. Do we say, \"Yes, it is okay, you can keep that person in place\"?
Under our rules of governance, it is equally important to ask what you do in the mean time even if there is an appeal. And very often, even before you get the first judgment, we will interdict. You do not allow the person to stay in place whilst there are issues hanging over that person. That is not what we are even asking here.
How many times in this Parliament, when an incident has happened, have Members of Parliament stood up, calling for action against public officials? Calling for action to be taken even before inquiries have been completed, even before judgment has been given? Very often, interim measures are taken to make sure that not only is something properly done, but it is also seen to be done.
Members of Parliament are elected public figures, and so are Opposition Members of Parliament. So, the question is: what sort of governance do you hold to? What makes you different? Why do the same standards of conduct not apply to you, as to others? If the position that Workers' Party has advocated is the standard of governance, then, what it would mean is this. Imagine if you had a Workers' Party government, if there were to be a government official that has been found liable for something, does that person stand aside when there is an appeal pending? The answer would be no – you just carry on, business as usual.
What kind of tone does that set for the government? What sort of signal of governance does that convey? What sort of Parliament endorses that? Because it also says something about us.
What it also means is that the next time there is any incident and there is an inquiry pending, the Workers’ Party has no moral authority to ask for any official to stand down or stand aside whilst the case is being heard, or whilst the matter goes for appeal. No moral authority at all.
Mr Faisal Manap says, when asked what he would do with respect to the Court judgment, that he has belief in his colleagues. I understand that. I appreciate that he has belief in his colleagues. But that is not the point. The point is that when you have a Court judgment with these findings, what do you, as the head or the Chairman of the Town Council do?
He also referred to the 2015 Election and he talked about the fact that the residents have given a mandate to Mr Low and to Ms Lim in 2015. That is true. The residents of Aljunied did give them a mandate to be their Members of Parliament. They gave them a mandate to run the Town Council. They did not give them a mandate to breach their fiduciary duties. They did not give them a mandate to act dishonestly and they did not give them a mandate to act with a lack of integrity and candor.
So, what you have is that in 2019, you have a Court judgment which has made these findings and the issue is, as my colleague Mr Desmond Lee has highlighted, what do you do between now and the time of the appeal? What is the correct thing to do? So, no one is suggesting that they should stand down as town councillors. All that this Motion asks is that they do the appropriate thing, which is to recuse themselves from all matters relating to and oversight of financial matters in the Town Council pending the appeal. This goes to transparency, accountability and good governance. So, if, as the Workers’ Party says, they stand for transparency, accountability and good governance, then there should be no objection to this Motion. But likewise, objecting to this Motion also speaks volumes.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the timing of this Motion by Deputy Prime Minister Heng is highly unusual for a legal system that places an exacting premium on the rule of law as a defining characteristic of the country.
As intimated by Workers' Party's Chair, Ms Sylvia Lim, insofar as the judgment referred to in the Motion is concerned, the window for appeal remains open and the PAP must explain truthfully what is its motive in hurriedly filing this Motion before the case is concluded.
At the outset, I have heard it from a few speakers, and I think it is important to put the position on record – the Workers' Party does not disagree with the first limb of the Motion which calls on the House to affirm the vital importance of Members of Parliament maintaining high standards of integrity and accountability. On that note, for the record, in 2015, I did not knowingly and deliberately mislead this House.
On the second limb, I will not repeat the points made by Ms Sylvia Lim on the appeal process, but I will restate that grounds of appeal can cover both issues of fact and issues of law. However, I do wish to add that the judgment also raises the real prospect of the plaintiffs, namely Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council or AHTC's Independent Panel, filing an appeal against the judgment identified in the Deputy Prime Minister's Motion. This is because the plaintiffs did not succeed in many causes of action, some of which were either rejected or dismissed by the Judge. One important example with significant repercussions for their case at the second trial on quantum being the plaintiffs' attempt to reverse the burden of proof and to put onus on the defendants to disprove loss.
Sir, I believe there is a real likelihood for the plaintiffs to vigorously challenge the findings of the judgment that are not in their favour at the Court of Appeal as the plaintiffs, too, are within the one-month window to file an appeal.
Sir, that the judgment referred to in the Motion is evidently a very live issue is stating the obvious. To that end, there is no reason for Parliament to be prematurely hijacked as a substitute for the judicial process when the window for appeal on the judgment has not closed. I hope all Members, not just Nominated Members of Parliament, consider this when they decide on the Motion later.
Next, I wish to consider limbs (iii) and (iv) of the Motion. Natural justice dictates that any question of a recusal for Ms Lim and Mr Low from their roles at the Town Council must surely be considered after the case is concluded. However, if Parliament passes the Motion, the councillors of AHTC, not the Workers' Party, will discuss the matter and vote on it, if that is the collective decision of the Council. In any such decision, Mr Low and Ms Lim will excuse themselves from voting on the issue and will not participate in any discussion of the matter.
On my part, I have absolute trust and confidence in both Ms Lim and Mr Low’s leadership and their continued participation on the Town Council. I speak for myself when I say that I will not be voting for them to be recused from financial matters should it be determined so by Council even if this Motion passes. Why?
Let me first start with Ms Lim, who also chairs the finance and investment committee of the Town Council. All of you know that. Let us not fake ignorance and say, \"Wow\". It is in the judgment that has been read. She is still in charge, yes.
As Chairman of the Town Council between 2011 and 2015, despite challenging circumstances and under tremendous pressure, Ms Lim led the Town Council to manage the estate without major disruption of service affecting the lives of residents. Ms Lim, as Vice Chair, has contributed much over the years to the positive transformation of the Town Council today. For the information of the House, for the latest annual report, AHTC's auditors have submitted an unqualified audited report to the Council which has been forwarded to MND for onward tabling to the Parliament. The accumulated surplus position and all other matters will be in that report.
That said, any decision to consider a recusal for Ms Lim and Mr Low is for the individual town councillors to make and AHTC will act in accordance with their decisions.
For Mr Low, he is a member of the estate and community liaison committee (ECLC) and does not chair any finance-related committee. The ECLC does, however, approve expenditure for estate-related work. Mr Low’s depth of Town Council experience and perspective as a long-standing opposition town councillor on estate matters is very useful for the ECLC. Once again, it is only appropriate for the Town Council to take a collective decision on any recusal if it decides to do so and AHTC will act according to the Council's decisions.
To conclude, Mr Speaker, the two words that have defined this Motion are \"hurried\" and \"premature\". The Workers' Party has read the Motion carefully and all the Workers’ Party Members of Parliament will unanimously vote against it.
I would just like to follow up on a point made by Minister Indranee Rajah on what happens when such an event occurs to a Government official in future. Well, it depends. Is it a criminal matter? Is it a civil matter? What is the dispute? What is the substantive issue here? Those will be the considerations that will be relevant. So, I reject any suggestion that the Workers' Party will not have any moral authority to question an issue like that when it comes up. And we know one issue, for example, that came up, it was December 2016, if my memory serves me right, just a few days before Christmas, knowledge of a tri-factor prosecution involving Keppel Corporation, Brazil, the US and Singapore comes to light. Members of Parliament had slightly less than 48 hours to file a Parliamentary Question about this issue – slightly less than 48 hours. Not a single PAP Member of Parliament filed a question on the matter, probably one of the most serious corporate issues – corporate scandals – that had affected Singapore’s Government-linked company.
So, if Workers' Party Members of Parliament will have no moral authority to file any Question on a matter like that, how sure are we that a PAP Member of Parliament will file a Question?
Mr Speaker: Ms Indranee.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, that is just such a classic sort of, you know, when there is something happening here, \"Oh quick, I point you, look there, look there\" because that is a distraction. Let us just have a look at something else and not pay attention to this.
We are talking about something else which is simply this: when you have somebody in a public position, if a Court has found that they have done something wrong, there has been a breach of fiduciary duty, lack of integrity, that they have not acted with appropriate candor, should that person remain in position whilst those findings are there whilst they still stand and whether or not an appeal is pending. It is a question of what is the standard of governance and what is the appropriate conduct? What is very clear is that the Workers' Party's standard of governance and conduct is very different from that of this Government's. That much is clear.
Mr Speaker: Minister Desmond Lee.
Mr Desmond Lee: I just wanted to get some clarification whether I misheard the leader of the Opposition that after this matter is disposed of on appeal and that the findings stand, the leader of the Opposition, the Town Council, will not vote for the two Members against whom findings of dishonesty stand to recuse themselves from even financial decisions. Am I right?
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister Desmond Lee, I think you may have misheard me. That is not my position. The position has been, as I had made in my speech. Any question of a recusal could actually come up any time. If a town councillor at the next quarterly meeting in November brings this issue up and the Council determines that, yes, it is a recusal that is in order, then Ms Lim and Mr Low they will have to recuse themselves because that is what the Council decides. That must be how the system works.
Mr Speaker: Minister Indranee.
Ms Indranee Rajah: One further clarification because I think I recall hearing a statement that the Town Council would do what it needs to do. The Motion calls on the Town Council to do certain things. So, the Motion, if passed, this Parliament is not forcing the Town Council to do anything, but it is calling upon it to do something. The response of the Town Council will, of course, be its own responsibility. But let us all be clear what we are asking in this Motion, which is calling upon the Town Council to do what we think is right. The Workers' Party's Members of Parliament, of course, may have a different view.
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister. Before that, Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. Sorry, Deputy Prime Minister. Sir, I would just like to seek two clarifications from Minister Mr Desmond Lee. I do not know if I have heard him correctly, but in his speech, he was asserting that the Workers' Party Members of Parliament had allowed FMSS to charge very high rates throughout their entire incumbency as a Managing Agent. I think the import is that. But would he not agree that, actually, even in this High Court judgment, the trial Judge did not find any breach in the award of the second MA and EMSU contract. So, I would like him to confirm that and summarised at paragraph 12 of the Annex that the Deputy Prime Minister gave out earlier.
The second clarification is that he said he was surprised we would take the position that town councillors – arguing that town councillors owed fiduciary duties as a novel point. But does he not agree that there is actually no case law on this point and this is the first case where a Judge has actually applied his mind to this issue of whether Town Councils in fact owe fiduciary duties. So, in that sense it is a novel point of law that is being argued in fact with rigour in the Court.
Mr Speaker: Minister Desmond Lee.
Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for those clarifications. I had said in my speech that the auditors, PwC and KPMG, had all previously found those points about charging. All right. So, they are in the audit report. I would not gone into the details on them. They are in the report. I am sure that Member would have read them through and through.
As I said earlier, these are examples of why I think based on the nature of this civil suit finding, there is a need for the affected town councillors to take the necessary action and that in respect of the extent of damages, if any, it is to be determined in the hearing thereafter. And I have said that clearly.
As for case law, I think the Member is really, playing lawyer. Certainly, case law on the legal duties of town councillors are few and far between. This case has generated jurisprudence on the front, but I think the key point is this. The findings of what had happened, being as they are, findings of fact, these findings will stand until they are reversed by the Appeals Court. Given the kind of findings of dishonesty, of subterfuge, of misleading town councillors, misleading the public and so on, found by the Court, what are the duties expected of a person in the shoes of a town councillor?
No doubt, this may be novel from a jurisprudential point of view. But I think let us put ourselves in the shoes of Members of this House and members of the public. What do you expect of a town councillor against whom such findings have been made? What kinds of responsibilities and standards do we have to hold ourselves to?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, final clarification, please.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Minister has still not answered my question, whether he actually agrees that even in this High Court judgment, the Court has not found any breach, independent or continuing breach in the award of the second MA and EMSU contract.
Mr Speaker: Minister Desmond Lee.
Mr Desmond Lee: Except, Sir, that the issue of findings of overcharging in terms of amount will be determined by the subsequent hearing but what I was highlighting is the auditors' reports. I did not mention the Court judgment.
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister Heng.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Pritam Singh earlier mentioned that it is highly unusual for me to raise the Motion at this time.
I have raised this Motion because it concerns the integrity of Members of this House. And I have asked Ms Sylvia Lim earlier, \"Is this sub judice?\" And she said, \"No\". Affirms that it is not.
We cannot stay silent when a court finds severe lapses among Members of this House. To be characterised as \"dishonest\", \"lacking integrity\", \"lacking in candour\". These are very serious. Parliament is a key foundation of our political system. Its Members set the tone – Members in this House – set the tone for politics that we have in Singapore. Singaporeans expect more from their Members of Parliament. If we let things go unanswered, Singaporeans will be right to ask what kind of a system we have today. Whether it is a clean and incorruptible Singapore that we have worked hard to maintain all these years, whether they can trust the people who they have elected to represent and serve them, whether the political leaders, whether from the Ruling Party or the Opposition deserve to be trusted.
Throughout this entire saga, the Workers' Party has avoided giving any straight answers. They have not explained why they went out of their way to advocate the waiver of tender and the appointment of FMSS, despite claiming that there was nothing wrong with what they did. They have not explained why FMSS was allowed to charge higher MA rates than CPG even though FMSS was run by their friends and was close to the Workers' Party. They have not shown responsibility towards ensuring that payments to FMSS were properly made and that they had done the necessary to protect residents' money.
Let me remind Members of this House and, in particular, Members of the Workers' Party, what Mr Low Thia Khiang said in Parliament in 2015, I quote, \"We are for transparency and accountability. We are not shy to support the Motion that it is critical of us but will address and remedy the issues raised by the AGO report.\"
So, Mr Low made it very clear that you are for transparency, the Workers' Party is for transparency and accountability. You are not shy to support the Motion as critical of the Workers' Party and that you will address and remedy the issues raised by the AGO report. But we just heard something else from Mr Pritam Singh. So, I ask the Workers' Party of today, \"Do you stand, still stand for transparency and accountability?\"
In fact, I was very disappointed that earlier Ms Sylvia Lim at the initial stage of our Motion earlier today chose to hide behind the on-going appeal, despite serious concerns that the judgment has raised. I was even more surprised that Mr Pritam Singh repeated the same point.
Now, I want to remind this House that I am asking, all that I am asking this House to do is to ask Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang two very simple questions. Given the severity of the judgment, is the Workers' Party prepared to have Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang recuse themselves from all financial decisions of the AHTC? This is the least that they can do, right? There is no admission of guilt involved, simply whether are you prepared to give your residents some reassurance.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and Ms Anthea Ong earlier on mentioned about your concern of whether this is a partisan debate. Let me remind Members of this House that it was not MND, it was not the HDB that sued the Workers' Party. It was the Independent Panel appointed by the Workers' Party and, about which Mr Pritam Singh said they were eminent, consisting of Senior Counsels – two Senior Counsels – and one head of an audit firm.
It was also the High Court that characterised their behaviour as dishonest, lacking in integrity, candour and transparency. And it was the Court of Appeal that raised the question of their behaviour was of questionable legality.
So, like Mr Desmond Lee, I am very troubled that Mr Faisal Manap – Mr Faisal Manap is back with us – that essentially the position that you are going to take was that you would ask your Independent Panel, that you are not prepared to take a decision now. You are not prepared to take a decision. Sadly, Mr Pritam Singh reinforced that and said that you have refused to give your residents the assurance that Ms Lim and Mr Low will no longer be involved in financial matters for AHTC.
As I said in my speech earlier, this is a basic step that any company whose officers are embroiled in such a case, more so after a strongly-worded judgment has been passed, would have asked their officers to do, even a company would have done that. They need only to look at the example of Ang Mo Kio Town Council which my colleagues have explained earlier. And that the Government has shown that we will act against any wrongdoing no matter the party. It does not sweep things under the carpet.
Mr Faisal Manap also indicated and refused to take steps to protect public funds and to protect their residents' money. You are the Chairman of the Town Council now. Given this position, the Government will be forced to express its concerns to AHTC's own Independent Panel.
On the second part, the second key question which I have raised, which is to ask the Workers' Party Members whether they would join with the Government Members of Parliament to set out some basic principles for the conduct of Members of Parliament, both inside and outside the House – to be honest in our dealings with our fellow town councillors, to be honest in our statements in Parliament or, indeed, in any forum, including the Courts, to put the interests of the residents we represent above that of ourselves and our friends.
None of the Workers' Party Members, unfortunately, raised any point about the basic principles that we have set out. We may differ on where we stand on many issues but we always assume that we have at least agreed on the nature of politics we should have in Singapore. After all, would the Workers' Party not agree that maintaining high standards of integrity and accountability are at the core of a First World Parliament or have you forgotten about First World Parliament?
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":"Business motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order No 2(5)(d), I proposed to extend the time of this day's sitting beyond the moment of interruption for a period of up to 30 minutes. Deputy Prime Minister.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Governance of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The integrity of Workers' Party Members, the integrity of Members of Parliament, has been called into question and not addressed.
In any reputable organisation, as I have said earlier, individuals who have fallen short would themselves feel a sense of shame and regret, and would themselves do the right thing, unbidden, failing which other town councillors who have done the duty and acted to cleanse their own house, failing which the political party which controls the Town Council would step in to put things right.
In the case of AHTC and the Workers' Party, all these multiple levels of personal and Party responsibilities have failed. So, my question is a very simple on. What is the right thing to do? What is the right thing to do for Members of the Workers' Party? I think Members of this House know the answer. Members of the Workers' Party know in their hearts the answers. So, I urge the Workers' Party Members that, despite your recalcitrant stand today, after this debate, the Workers' Party and AHTC will reflect very carefully on what has happened in the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council and what the House have been discussing. I hope that you will conclude that you should carry out your duty and do what the Motion recommends.
I urge Members of this House to take a stand on this Motion in the interest of preserving clean politics in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh?
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to call for a Division, please.
Mr Speaker: Will hon Members who support the Division please rise in their places?
[(proc text) More than five hon Members rose. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Clerk, ring the Division bells.
[(proc text) After two minutes – (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors. The Question is, \"That this Parliament:
(i) affirms the vital importance of Members of Parliament maintaining high standards of integrity and accountability;
(ii) notes the Judgment in Aljunied-Hougang Town Council & anor v Lim Swee Lian Sylvia and ors and anor suit [2019] SGHC 241, where, amongst other things, the Court held that:
(a) Ms Sylvia Lim (\"Ms Lim\") and Mr Low Thia Khiang (\"Mr Low\") had acted dishonestly and in breach of their fiduciary duties, and their conduct lacked integrity and candour; and
(b) Ms Lim and Mr Low were fully aware that their conduct was of questionable legality;
(iii) notes that Ms Lim remains Vice-Chairman of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, and Mr Low remains an elected member of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council; and
(iv) calls on Aljunied-Hougang Town Council to discharge their responsibilities to their residents by requiring Ms Lim and Mr Low to recuse themselves from all matters relating to, and oversight over, financial matters.\"
Mr Pritam Singh, you have claimed a Division, would you like to proceed with the Division?
Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Clerk, proceed with the Division. Members are reminded that they are to be seated at their designated seats and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on their armrests start to blink. Members may now begin to vote.
Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screen.
Mr Speaker: Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or displayed incorrectly on the screen? No.
I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 52 \"Ayes\", 9 \"Noes\", and two \"Abstentions\". The \"Ayes\" have it. Order.
[(proc text) Resolved, That this Parliament: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (i) affirms the vital importance of Members of Parliament maintaining high standards of integrity and accountability; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (ii) notes the Judgment in Aljunied-Hougang Town Council & anor v Lim Swee Lian Sylvia and ors and anor suit [2019] SGHC 241, where, amongst other things, the Court held that: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (a) Ms Sylvia Lim (\"Ms Lim\") and Mr Low Thia Khiang (\"Mr Low\") had acted dishonestly and in breach of their fiduciary duties, and their conduct lacked integrity and candour; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) (b) Ms Lim and Mr Low were fully aware that their conduct was of questionable legality; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (iii) notes that Ms Lim remains Vice-Chairman of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, and Mr Low remains an elected member of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) (iv) calls on Aljunied-Hougang Town Council to discharge their responsibilities to their residents by requiring Ms Lim and Mr Low to recuse themselves from all matters relating to, and oversight over, financial matters.\" (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.10 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increase in Cost of Medicine","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the cost of medicines in Singapore has increased over the last three years and, if so, what are the reasons; and (b) whether the Government will consider improving the affordability of medicines in Singapore by closing the gap between the prices of medicines here and those in neighbouring countries.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Changes in the pricing of medications depend on several factors, such as whether they are patent protected, whether there are comparable alternatives, as well as the cost of development, production and distribution. Between countries, the prices of drugs may also differ significantly as suppliers take into account differences in market size, ability to pay, supply chain structure, competition and currency differences.
We are taking various steps to manage drug costs. First, we are aggregating drug demand and integrating supply chain management across the public healthcare sector through the Agency for Logistics Procurement and Supply (ALPS) to achieve better economies of scale and create greater negotiating leverage. ALPS is consolidating functions, such as purchasing, storage, packaging and dispensing, so as to lower the cost of managing our drug supply chain. ALPS will also progressively streamline their system and deploy technology to improve supply chain efficiencies.
Second, we are adopting value-based pricing approaches for drug purchases, especially for patented drugs. The Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE) performs health technology assessment to evaluate the benefits of a drug. It then negotiates drug prices to levels commensurate with the benefits.
Third, we are making efforts to ensure the appropriate use of drugs. We encourage doctors to recommend or prescribe drugs where there is evidence that it is effective for the patients’ specific conditions, and to avoid prescribing drugs where benefits are unproven or unclear. Where a less costly generic alternative is just as effective, we encourage the use of the generic version. ACE publishes guidances to help doctor keep abreast of the latest clinical evidence. MOH also tracks generic vs branded drug utilisation patterns in our public healthcare institutions to encourage the use of generics where appropriate.
In addition, MOH regularly reviews the drugs we subsidise in the public healthcare sector to add those assessed to be clinically effective and cost effective. Over the last three years, about 40 additional drugs were listed for subsidy. Where they apply, MediSave and MediShield Life also help patients pay for their drug bill. For those who are unable to afford, there is MediFund and the Medication Assistance Fund that can be tapped on to help the patient pay for their drugs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Review of Pilot Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) when will the review of the pilot Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening programme be completed; and (b) how will the Ministry determine whether the pilot has been successful.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MOH started a three-year pilot on Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening (PGS) in 2017, to test for chromosomal abnormalities in pre-implanted embryos created through in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Under this pilot, women who are 35 years and above, or any woman with two or more recurrent implantation failures, or two or more pregnancy losses were recruited.
Thus far, 298 patients have been enrolled under the pilot study. The pilot is scheduled to end in December 2019. MOH will evaluate the clinical outcomes from the pilot in consultation with experts before deciding if PGS should be a routine clinical service.
The pilot study outcomes include comparing the embryo implantation success rates, pregnancy rates and live birth rates between women on IVF programmes who had received PGS with those who had not received any PGS. The review will take into consideration the available international evidence concerning PGS testing, the ethical challenges associated with PGS and the regulatory framework that needs to be established for governing PGS.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requests for Use of CPF Retirement Account Funds to Service HDB Housing Loans or Purchase HDB flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) for each of the past five years, how many appeals have been received to request use of monies in the CPF Retirement Account to service HDB housing loans or purchase HDB flats; (b) how many of these appeals have been approved; and (c) whether CPF and HDB will work together to provide assistance to those whose appeals are rejected.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Our CPF system aims to help members meet three basic needs in retirement – housing, medical care and day-to-day spending. The bulk of members' CPF contributions goes into the Ordinary Account (OA), which may be used to buy a home. MediSave helps them pay for MediShield Life premiums and major medical expenses not covered by insurance.
The primary purpose of Special and Retirement Accounts (RA) savings is to ensure that members have a stream of retirement payouts to fund basic day-to-day spending. Generally, members can only use their RA savings for housing after setting aside their Basic Retirement Sum (BRS).
However, the CPF Board does exercise flexibility on a case-by-case basis. Over the last five years, CPF Board approved around 80% of such appeals per year on average. These are mostly cases where some of members' OA savings had been transferred into the RA when they turned 55.
To help members whose appeals were rejected, CPF Board works with HDB to assess if other more appropriate forms of assistance can be provided. For example, HDB may consider reducing or deferring the housing instalments to help flat owners who have difficulty repaying their HDB loan.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Reduce Unemployment Among PMETs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Government is reviewing the causes for the rising unemployment rate among PMETs and what measures are being considered to reduce it.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The unemployment rate of resident PMETs, which is released annually, fell from 3.1% in 2016 to 2.9% in 2018. The 2019 PMET unemployment rate is not yet available.
However, latest available data suggest that there are still job opportunities for PMETs. As at June 2019, there were over 28,000 PMET job vacancies. Total employment grew by 22,400 in the third quarter of 2019, largely in Community, Social & Personal Services, Professional Services and Information & Communications, sectors where PMETs make up the majority of their workforce. From January to August 2019, Workforce Singapore (WSG) and its partners placed 11,700 PMETs through the Adapt & Grow (A&G) initiative.
Nonetheless, there are PMET segments we are monitoring closely, such as mature PMET jobseekers, and those who are long-term unemployed. These groups may face greater challenges entering new jobs due to more cautious hiring and mismatches in wage expectations or skills.
Under the A&G initiative, WSG provides a range of programmes to address such mismatches. For example, the Career Support Programme (CSP) provides salary support to employers who hire long-term unemployed or mature retrenched PMETs. There are currently over 100 Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) which provide employers with training and salary support to re-skill and hire mid-career local jobseekers. These programmes provide higher support to mature or long-term unemployed jobseekers.
WSG is working closely with economic agencies and companies to increase capacity for PCPs as well as to pre-emptively retrain workers at risk of retrenchment so that they can take on new jobs within their companies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for HDB Rental Flats by Distressed Individuals and Assistance for Them to Buy Flexi Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) in each of the last five years, how many applications have been received for HDB rental flats by (i) divorcees (ii) bankrupts (iii) those who run into financial difficulty due to repayment of debt arising from business failures (iv) those facing debt repayment due to gambling and (v) those facing family disputes and refusal of help by family members; and (b) whether help has been and can be given to them to buy one- or two-room flexi flats with shorter tenures on an exceptional basis.
Mr Lawrence Wong: From 2015 to September 2019, HDB received about 10,300 requests from divorcees seeking to rent a flat from HDB. HDB does not specifically track whether rental applicants are bankrupt, in financial difficulties due to business failure or gambling, or facing family disputes.
HDB has helped rental applicants with sufficient budget to buy short-lease 2-room Flexi flats on an exceptional basis, for example by exercising flexibility on the age requirement.
HDB will continue to offer public rental flats for households who have no other housing options and no family support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Programmes to Promote Neighbourliness and Tolerance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development whether the HDB will review and enhance the programmes to promote neighbourliness and tolerances among neighbours and whether more can be done to reduce the disputes among neighbours.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Encouraging good neighbourliness is not something that HDB, as a housing authority, can do on its own. That is why the Government has a multi-pronged effort to promote neighbourliness, including through the People’s Association, grassroots leaders and community partners.
For its part, HDB actively promotes neighbourly behaviour through various initiatives. These include public education exhibitions at community and school events, as well as outreach by volunteers who share tips on gracious living during door-to-door visits. HDB’s Good Neighbour Award also recognises individuals who have gone the extra mile with their acts of neighbourliness.
HDB recognises that the design of housing estates and flats can help shape and promote social interactions between neighbours. Hence, it has also paid more attention to such design details, including setting aside more community spaces like playgrounds and gardens, which have been effective in bringing neighbours together. HDB introduced the Lively Places Programme to facilitate and support ground-up community projects. Through the Programme, HDB hopes to encourage more residents to take greater ownership of place-making initiatives within the estate. These will promote greater collaboration amongst residents, and help in building closer neighbourly ties.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Beneficiaries of Long-term Care Schemes May Jeopardise Their Eligibility for Other Social and Healthcare Assistance Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether financial benefits from the Home Care-giving Grant, MediSave withdrawal for Long-Term Care, Elder Fund and CareShield Life will result in (i) a change of monthly household income for one's national means-testing status assessment and (ii) a change in eligibility for ComCare assistance and MediFund; (b) how does the Government ensure that residents who benefit from the long-term care schemes are aware about how they may jeopardise their eligibility for other social and healthcare assistance schemes; and (c) how are policies designed to minimise this negative effect of opportunity costs in terms of benefits received.
Mr Desmond Lee: Financial assistance from help schemes such as the Home Care-giving Grant, MediSave withdrawal for Long-Term Care, ElderFund and CareShield Life, will not affect the computation of household monthly income used in means testing. Household monthly income per person refers to one’s basic employment income, trade or self-employed income, overtime pay, allowances, cash awards, commissions, and bonuses.
However, we will take into consideration various financial assistance schemes when determining eligibility for ComCare assistance and MediFund. ComCare assistance is for those who need it the most. ComCare assistance covers basic living expenses when other forms of financial assistance cannot sufficiently cover these. Where clients are still unable to meet their basic living expenses, which may include medical consumables, we will provide ComCare assistance. We will also refer them to agencies that provide subsidised or free day-care or home-care services if needed.
Similarly, MediFund is a safety net for needy patients who are unable to afford their healthcare bills after exhausting other support means. Independent MediFund committees assess each applicant holistically. For disabled persons, the committees take into account their higher healthcare expenses and sources of support, including financial assistance from various schemes. This will help the committees provide more support to those who may not have access to these schemes, and ensure that no Singaporean will be denied appropriate healthcare.
Each family that applies for financial assistance is considered on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that they receive the assistance that they need for their basic living expenses and healthcare bills.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Financial Assistance for Families with Special Needs Adult Members","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what financial avenues of help are there for families with adult members who have special needs such as dyslexia, autism and Down's Syndrome and who wish to enrol them into programmes to make them employable or socially engaged.
Mr Desmond Lee: We support adult persons with disabilities (whether medically diagnosed with intellectual disability, physical disability, sensory impairments or Autism Spectrum Disorder) through a range of services in employment, independent living and care. Adults with dyslexia receive the same support if they have the same medical diagnosis.
For job-ready persons with disabilities looking for employment, they can approach SG Enable for employment assistance. SG Enable runs career fairs, internship and mentorship programmes, and works with partner agencies on job placement and support. These are funded by the Government. SG Enable also administers the Open Door Programme Training Grant, which subsidises up to 90% of course fees to support the employability of persons with disabilities.
Those who are unable to work in an open employment setting can enrol in Sheltered Workshops, which are also funded by the Government. These workshops collaborate with industry partners to offer job training and enrichment programmes.
Those who require long-term care support can enrol in Day Activity Centres (DACs). These centres aim to equip persons with disabilities with community and daily living skills to enable them to live as independently as possible at home and within the community. DAC fees vary depending on the programme that the client is enrolled in, with low-income families receiving more fee subsidies.
SG Enable also administers various schemes that support persons with disabilities to live independently in their homes and the community. The Assistive Technology Fund subsidises up to 90% of the cost of buying, replacing and repairing assistive technology devices that help in independent living. To facilitate mobility, SG Enable provides transport subsidies to persons with disabilities, through the Public Transport Concession Scheme, Voluntary Welfare Organisation (VWO) Transport Subsidies, Taxi Subsidy Scheme, and the Disabled Persons Scheme. All these schemes aim to help persons with disabilities to enhance their employability, their ability to live independently and be socially engaged.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Raise Awareness for New Safety Requirements Under Work Injury Compensation Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the training and communication plan to employers for the new safety requirements under the Work Injury Compensation Act; (b) how does the Ministry ensure that workers know who to approach when they encounter work injuries; (c) what is the number of times that errant doctors have been reported over migrant work injuries in the last three years; (d) what is the number of civil claims for such work injuries that have been won in the last three years; and (e) how does the Ministry ensure that the Singapore Medical Council and Law Society of Singapore support efforts to protect migrant workers in work injury cases.
Mrs Josephine Teo: MOM has been actively engaging employers to inform them about the new requirements under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA). We have advertised the new requirements on mainstream newspapers and social media platforms, and provided resources on MOM website to guide employers.
Together with the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) U SME and Singapore Institution of Safety Officers (SISO), we have briefed close to 2,000 employers, HR practitioners and safety officers in the past two months following the passing of the WICA amendments. We have also worked with them to disseminate information regarding the new requirements to their broader membership base. We will be briefing more employers in the coming months.
Through the mandatory Settling-in Programme (SIP) for foreign workers, we have been educating workers that they should approach their immediate supervisors if they sustain work injuries. We have published guides in the workers’ native languages and have been working with partners such as the unions to raise awareness.
On the question of errant doctors, we received seven complaints in the last three years, of which four were referred to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC). They are pending SMC’s investigation.
We do not track the outcome of civil claims, although the Commissioner of Labour awarded compensation to about 45,000 WICA claims in the last three years.
We will continue to refer cases of suspected professional misconduct by doctors and lawyers to SMC and Law Society of Singapore, respectively, for investigation and disciplinary action. We support their investigations by performing our own enquiry into workers’ complaints, and sharing our findings and assessments with the professional bodies. For instance, in cases of insufficient medical leave, we would advise the worker to get treatment at another clinic if they have not already done so. We would then share the first and second doctor’s prescription of medical leave with SMC, and provide them the assessment of whether the first doctor’s prescription seemed insufficient for the injury.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Obligation of Employment Agencies to Refund 50% of Service Fee for Premature Termination of Contracts with Foreign Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will consider extending from six months to one year the obligation on employment agencies to provide a 50% refund of the service fee for any premature termination of contracts with foreign domestic workers; and (b) whether there are other measures to ensure that families are less dependent on luck to find suitable matches and are not subject to repeated service fees.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Foreign domestic workers (FDWs) play an important role in supporting families in their care-giving duties and domestic work. As it is costly and disruptive to families when they hire an FDW who is not able to meet their household needs, MOM recently announced a series of measures to better support employers in the hiring of FDWs.
Firstly, to improve the chances of employers being matched with FDWs who can meet their household needs, employers and employment agencies (EAs) will be able to obtain more information on the work experience of prospective FDWs from October 2020. This includes information on the FDW’s previous job scope, her former employer’s residence type and household size, and the reasons for the termination of her past employment contracts. In addition, EAs will also be able to have access to the profiles of FDWs hired by employers who had changed five or more FDWs within a span of 12 months. This will allow the EAs to better customise their services for these employers who may need more help in selecting FDWs, such as making house visits to find out more about the unique household needs of the employers and training the FDWs based on these needs.
Secondly, from October 2021, all EAs will be required to provide an option to refund at least 50% of the service fee charged to employers when the FDW’s contract ends prematurely within the first six months. This will encourage the EAs to improve their matching processes and take greater ownership in finding better matches for employers.
In general, six months is a sufficient period for an employer to determine if his/her FDW meets the household’s needs. MOM’s records show that the large majority of FDWs who worked for at least six months continued to stay with their employers beyond one year. Hence, beyond the initial six months of employment, it would not be fair to attribute the subsequent breakdown of the relationship to a poor match by the EA and could result in higher service fees for employers.
Lastly, despite best efforts to ensure a good match, there could invariably still be disputes between employers and their FDWs. Employers can now tap on the free dispute resolution services offered by the Centre for Domestic Employees (CDE) and Foreign Worker Association for Social Support and Training (FAST) to resolve their FDW issues.
The new measures will be rolled out progressively over the next two years to allow time for employers, EAs and FDWs to adjust to the changes. MOM will continue to work with the EA industry to facilitate improved matching outcomes for employers and FDWs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations in Selecting Gibraltar Crescent Site as Singapore's First Dementia Care Village","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health what are the considerations behind selecting the Gibraltar Crescent site as Singapore's first dementia care village given that the state bungalows on the site are required to remain intact and given the cost of retrofitting those bungalows to make them elder-friendly residences.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The dementia care village at the Gibraltar Crescent site is intended to be a pilot to experiment with new community and housing models for seniors with dementia to age in place, supported by a model of care that is less medicalised and promotes independence and autonomy.
In land scarce Singapore, suitable sites to test such pilots are not always readily available. The Gibraltar site was shortlisted by agencies as a suitable site as it allows a home-like environment that offers opportunities to innovate care for seniors with dementia. The learnings from the pilot could then be applied to existing as well as future facilities to improve dementia care for our seniors.
State-owned bungalows have been retained to preserve the heritage of the area and are leased for a variety of uses, including social use. The use of bungalows at the Gibraltar site for dementia care is in line with this approach. Retrofitting is allowed based on guidelines of Additions & Alterations and prospective tenderers will bear the cost of retrofits and take that into account in bidding for the site.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures at Public Hospitals to Guard against Haze and Heat","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Ms Yip Pin Xiu asked the Minister for Health (a) how are public hospitals prepared to guard against both haze and heat; (b) whether there is a recommended temperature/humidity threshold for certain procedures to kick in at public hospitals and other providers of social services to the elderly; and (c) whether statistics on hospitalisation rates from heat stroke or dehydration are collected.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MOH works with public hospitals to ensure the welfare of patients and staff during periods of haze or heat. They may deploy portable air purifiers and coolers in wards where needed. Newer hospitals such as Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Jurong Community Hospital and Sengkang General and Community Hospitals also have built in air filtration systems to supply filtered air to naturally ventilated wards.
While MOH does not stipulate temperature and humidity thresholds at public hospitals or eldercare facilities, newer institutions are designed to ensure adequate air flow through the naturally ventilated areas. Older hospitals have progressively implemented mitigating measures such as spot-cooling to lower the ambient temperatures when they are re-modelled or renovated. Drinking water is readily available within the institutions for staff and patients or clients, including the elderly to stay hydrated.
On heat stroke and heat exhaustion, there are approximately 100 hospital admissions annually over the past five years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Ban Practices of Declawing Cats and Debarking Dogs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider banning the practices of declawing cats and debarking dogs in the upcoming review of standards in the pet sector.
Mr Lawrence Wong: NParks does not encourage the practices of declawing cats and debarking dogs. Such procedures should only be performed as an absolute last resort, or as an alternative to euthanasia.
NParks has a framework in place to regulate these practices. The Code of Ethics for Veterinarians requires veterinarians to advise their clients of non-surgical alternatives and to ensure that all reasonable efforts have been made to manage the problem prior to performing such surgeries. Failure to do so can result in written warnings, composition fines, or even suspension or revocation of veterinary licences. This regulatory approach remains relevant.
NParks will continue to educate pet owners and raise awareness on alternatives to declawing and debarking.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reduction in Sulphur Dioxide Emissions from Vessels at Singapore Port after Enforcement of IMO 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for Transport what is the expected reduction in the amount of sulphur oxide emissions from vessels operating in the Port of Singapore after the International Maritime Organisation's 2020 sulphur emissions cap on marine fuels (IMO 2020) is enforced.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: When the International Maritime Organization's 2020 global sulphur limit (IMO 2020) comes into effect on 1 January 2020, the permitted limit of sulphur content in marine fuel used on board ships internationally and calling at the Port of Singapore, will be reduced from 3.5% currently, to 0.5%. Based on estimates by the IMO, the expected reduction of sulphur oxide emissions globally will be more than 80%, when IMO 2020 enters into force. We expect the reduction of sulphur oxide emissions from vessels operating in the Port of Singapore to be similar in proportion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Purchase of Car Seats with Child Development Account Savings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister whether he will allow parents to use the savings in the Child Development Account (CDA) to purchase child car seats.
Mrs Josephine Teo (for the Prime Minister): The Child Development Account (CDA) is meant to support the developmental needs of children, such as education and healthcare. Parents can use the CDA to pay for expenses at Approved Institutions such as child care centres, kindergartens, hospitals, clinics and pharmacies.
In addition to the CDA, the Government provides a Baby Bonus Cash Gift of $8,000 to $10,000 per child, which parents can use to pay for other items such as child car seats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Injuries Treated at Public Hospitals Resulting from PMD Accidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Transport (a) since 2018, how many persons have been treated at accident and emergency departments of public hospitals for injuries resulting from PMD accidents, broken down by (i) riders (ii) pedestrians and (iii) the severity of injuries sustained; and (b) how does this accident and injury rate compare with (i) international experience with PMDs and (ii) other forms of transport in Singapore such as bicycling, motorcycles, cars and public transport.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Based on data from the National Trauma Registry, 299 people were treated at hospitals for personal mobility device-related incidents in 2018. These included 259 riders and eight pedestrians. About 63% of the injuries were classified as minor, 21% moderate and 16% severe.
In the same time period, 1,836 people were treated at hospitals for injuries from bicycle-related incidents, 5,700 for motorcycle-related incidents, and 6,743 for car-related incidents. Across all these categories, about 89% of the injuries were minor, 7% moderate and 4% severe.
We are unable to make an international comparison of PMD-related injuries due to a lack of such published data.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Role of Gurkha Contingent of Singapore Police Force","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there have been changes to the role of the Gurkha Contingent (GC) of the Singapore Police Force since its establishment and, if so, what are these changes; and (b) whether there is more that the GC can do for our national security.
Mr K Shanmugam: The role of the Gurkha Contingent has remained unchanged. It is tasked with guarding selected installations, providing security coverage at major security events, and augmenting Police response to public order and public security incidents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguards to Ensure Singaporean Youths are Protected Against Vice Activities Peddled Online","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the safeguards put in place to ensure that Singaporeans, especially youths, are protected against vice activities being peddled online in Internet forums; (b) whether there are efforts to educate the public on such activities and on reporting communication channels that promote vice activities to the authorities; and (c) whether there are measures to limit access to known sites that are peddling vice activities.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Government adopts a multi-pronged approach against online vice.
The Police and the Infocomm Media Development Authority regularly block vice websites targeting Singaporeans, as and when they are discovered. To date, 202 such websites have been blocked.
The Police also conduct regular enforcement operations to disrupt and deter vice activities, including those perpetuated through online platforms. For example, in November 2018, Police conducted a joint operation with China's Ministry of Public Security against a transnational online vice syndicate. This led to the arrest of 201 persons in Singapore and China and the shutting down of a website which advertised sexual services in Singapore. MHA takes a tough stance against vice, and in fact is proposing amendments to the Women's Charter this month to further strengthen our levers against online vice syndicates.
The Police conduct extensive public communication efforts on vice activities and related arrests. Members of the public are encouraged to report any criminal or suspicious activities they see, such as the operation of online platforms that promote vice activities. They can call 1800-255-0000, submit the information via Police's i-Witness, or lodge a report in person at a Police station.
More broadly, the Government has introduced a number of programmes to raise awareness of online harms and promote safe and responsible use of the Internet. For example, MOE's Cyber Wellness Education Programme educates students on appropriate online behavior. These lessons sensitise students to potential negative influences they may encounter online, and teach students how to protect themselves. MCI has also been putting in efforts to strengthen digital literacy among Singaporeans. It launched the Digital Media and Information Literacy Framework in July 2019 to develop in Singaporeans a fundamental appreciation of the risks and benefits of technology, and cultivate a basic understanding of how to use technology safely and responsibly.
The community and parents also play a critical role. We are glad to see organisations, such as the Media Literacy Council (MLC), engaging in outreach efforts on safer Internet use. MLC has provided information for youths and parents on how to deal with inappropriate online content, such as pornography and sexting, and produced resources to teach youths ways to safeguard themselves against sexual grooming and sexual predators.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Capacity and Utilisation Rates of Long-Term Care Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current capacity and utilisation rates of long-term care services such as nursing homes, centre-based care and home-based care, broken down by type of service as classified by the Agency for Integrated Care; (b) whether these utilisation rates indicate unmet demand or under-utilisation; and (c) if so, what are the reasons for such unmet demand or under-utilisation.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The capacity of long term care services as at June 2019 was approximately 15,800 nursing home beds, 7,100 day care places, 9,500 home care places, and 6,100 home palliative care places. The utilisation rates were about 85%, 52%, 54%, and 45% respectively. These included all subsidised clients and private clients who were reported by providers.
The utilisation rates across the services show that there is sufficient long-term care capacity nationally. We have expanded capacity over the years to ensure that the care needs of an ageing population across different settings are met. We monitor capacity and take-up rate regularly and adjust our development plan accordingly to respond to changing care needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Roll-out of 5G Telecommunication Services from 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Communications and Information with regard to the impending roll-out of 5G telecommunication services from 2020 (a) what are the measures put in place to ensure that 5G equipment manufacturers have met security requirements; and (b) whether there are plans to speed up the rollout of islandwide 5G networks by implementing more smaller, millimetre airwave networks in tandem with the two islandwide networks.
Mr S Iswaran: Our vision is for Singapore to be a global front-runner for innovation in secure 5G applications and services. On 17 October 2019, IMDA announced its decision to allocate 5G spectrum via a Call for Proposal (CFP). A key criterion is for applicants to demonstrate how their proposed 5G networks will be resilient and secure by design. This includes meeting key resilience and security requirements stipulated by IMDA and subjecting their 5G equipment to independent security testing in accordance with international standards.
Under the CFP process, IMDA will facilitate the deployment of two nationwide 5G networks, which will provide 5G coverage to at least half of Singapore by end-2022. To complement this, IMDA is also allocating millimetre wave spectrum for the deployment of two additional localised 5G networks to compete for early business use cases and trial new service innovations. This will allow consumers and businesses to benefit from 5G from as early as mid-2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Disbursements of Public Monies to Citizens’ Consultative Committee and Community Development and Welfare Funds in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) in each of the last three years, what is the breakdown of public monies disbursed to (i) Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCCs) and (ii) Community Development and Welfare Funds (CDWFs) respectively; (b) what is the criterion used by CCCs and CDWFs to (i) assess eligibility for financial assistance to needy residents and (ii) Citizens' Consultative Committee ComCare Fund (CCF); (c) what is the amount of assistance, broken down by types of assistance, rendered by CCF; (d) what is the mean and median duration of assistance provided to residents through the CCF; and (e) how should residents apply for assistance from CCC, CDWF and CCF respectively.
7 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the respective roles of grassroots advisors (GAs) and elected Members of Parliament (MPs) in deciding (i) leadership and (ii) membership of grassroots leaders appointed by People's Association (PA); (b) how are GAs and MPs respectively empowered to influence the operations and decisions of (i) Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) and (ii) Community Development and Welfare Fund (CDWFs); and (c) whether the Citizens' Consultative Committee ComCare Fund (CCF) applications and CDWF disbursements are decided by GAs or MPs.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected to represent their constituents in Parliament, to debate and make laws. They conduct Meet-the-People sessions and lead their town councils in managing the municipal operations and issues of the estates.
The role of Grassroots Advisors (GRAs) is different from that of MPs. GRAs are appointed by the People’s Association (PA), a statutory board under the MCCY. The PA's role is to promote social cohesion, and to act as a bridge between the Government and the people. The PA appoints GRAs to guide its grassroots organisations (GROs) in communicating and implementing the policies and programmes of the Government of the day. These include difficult and unpopular policies which are necessary for the good of Singapore, such as CPF cuts during the 1986 recession, the increase in retirement age and the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). In appointing GRAs, the PA therefore looks to those whom can be entrusted to carry out this role faithfully.
Similarly, the PA appoints grassroots leaders, including volunteers who serve on the Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCC). Among other things, the CCCs help the PA to administer Government and local schemes such as the Community Development and Welfare Fund (CDWF) and CCC ComCare Fund (CCF), based on established criteria.
The CDWF supports community bonding programmes and welfare assistance for needy residents. The CDWF Committee, appointed by the CCC, manages and oversees the disbursement of funds. Those applying for welfare assistance under CDWF should minimally fulfil the following criteria:
(a)\tResidents of the constituency or Division of Group Representation Constituency (GRC) where the CCC serves; and
(b)\tSingapore Citizens or Permanent Residents (PRs) or their children must be Singapore Citizen or PR.
Established under the ComCare Endowment Fund (ComCare), the CCF offers interim assistance to needy residents who require urgent and temporary financial relief. The CCC helps to administer the scheme based on the eligibility criteria set by MSF. For the amount and duration of assistance rendered by CCF, the CCCs can grant up to three months of financial assistance per application, capped at $200 per month. Residents with longer term financial needs will be referred to the MSF's Social Service Offices.
Residents can apply for both the CDWF and CCF at the Community Centres/Clubs. In instances where applications for the CCF or CDWF do not meet the eligibility criteria, the CCC and CDWF committee may seek the help of the GRA to identify and connect residents with other sources of government and community support.
Based on an average of Financial Year (FY) 2016 to FY2018, the amount of direct grant given by PA to the CCCs and CDWFs is about $290,000 per CCC and $9,000 per CDWF per FY. These grants are used towards welfare assistance and community bonding programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Comparative Study on Carbon Impact of Tetra Paks and Disposable Plastic Bottles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what respective percentages of (i) tetra paks and (ii) disposable plastic water bottles disposed of in a recycling bin in Singapore gets recycled; (b) whether the Ministry has conducted or knows of a life-cycle assessment that compares the carbon impact of a tetra pak to that of a disposable plastic water bottle of similar capacity; and (c) if so, what are the results of such studies.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Used beverage cartons, such as tetra pak cartons and disposable plastic water bottles, that have been deposited in the blue commingled recycling bins provided under the National Recycling Programme are sorted by the Public Waste Collectors at material recovery facilities. About 60% of all materials collected from the blue commingled recycling bins are recycled. NEA does not track the specific recycling percentages for disposable plastic water bottles or used tetra pak cartons.
We have not conducted any life-cycle assessment that specifically compares the carbon impact of a tetra pak carton with that of a disposable plastic water bottle of similar capacity; nor are we aware of any authoritative studies on this. NEA's focus is to reduce the excessive consumption of all types of packaging, not just plastic bottles or tetra pak cartons, and to work with stakeholders to promote recycling.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Encourage Innovative Solutions to Climate Change in Entrepreneurship, Engineering and Sciences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what is being done to encourage innovative solutions to climate change in the fields of entrepreneurship, engineering and the sciences.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Climate change brings new existential threats. Singapore is already experiencing warmer temperatures, more intense rainfall and prolonged dry spells. Being an island state, we are also vulnerable to sea level rise. Just like how we have tackled other existential challenges in the past, we will plan ahead and invest in innovative solutions to reduce emissions as well as protect Singapore against the impacts of climate change.
We are making hefty investments in research and development (R&D) to develop solutions to decarbonise our grid, industries, and even our buildings. Nine hundred million dollars has been set aside for the Urban Solutions and Sustainability domain under our national Research, Innovation and Enterprise plan. We are working closely with industry and academic partners to develop as well as deploy innovative technologies and resource-efficient solutions that not only address our local challenges, but can also be applicable to other urban centres. For example, we are driving the adoption of super-low energy and zero-energy buildings and working closely with industry to implement more carbon-efficient processes.
Singapore is alternative energy-disadvantaged. Nevertheless, we are working to maximise the deployment of solar energy, our most feasible source of renewal energy. To overcome our land constraints, PUB has conducted floating solar photovoltaic (PV) cell test-bed in Tengeh Reservoir to study the performance and cost-effectiveness of 10 different PV systems. Following the study, PUB has sought proposals from companies to build a large-scale floating solar PV system in Tengeh Reservoir (of at least 50 megawatt-peak), and deploy two smaller systems in Bedok and Lower Seletar Reservoirs. We are also studying and developing technologies in other areas, including studying the potential of \"clean fuels\", such as hydrogen, and carbon capture, utilisation and storage.
Mitigation and adaptation must go hand-in-hand as we are mindful that we are unable to reverse climate change completely. We have placed equally strong emphasis on the sciences in our adaptation plans because Singapore’s climate change policies must be based on robust climate science.
We established the Centre for Climate Research Singapore (CCRS) in 2013 and today, CCRS is one of the few dedicated centres in the region that focuses on research in tropical weather and climate. CCRS will set up a new Programme Office next year to drive the formulation and implementation of our national climate science research masterplan and systematically build up climate science capabilities across our research institutes and universities.
To deepen our knowledge in a complex and multi-disciplinary issue like sea level rise, CCRS recently launched a call for research proposals for the National Sea Level Programme (NSLP) grant. The NSLP brings together both local and international experts to integrate and analyse various domain areas in sea level rise, and customise it to our local context.
To protect our coasts, low-lying areas and communities from sea level rise, we are exploring various coastal protection technologies and solutions, including learning from the experience of other countries. For example, we are building a small polder at Pulau Tekong to gain experience in operating one. Our agencies will also undertake R&D to enhance the cost-effectiveness of coastal protection solutions.
Even as we pursue innovative solutions, we will need to harness the collective efforts of the Government, businesses, civil society and Singaporeans to fight climate change.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study on Special Education Policy Framework in British Columbia and Plans to Review Career Paths of Educators in Special Needs Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there have been efforts to study the Special Education Policy Framework in British Columbia or other similar policy framework elsewhere; (b) if so, what are the key findings for such studies; (c) whether the Ministry is reviewing career paths of allied educators and educators in the special needs sector; and (d) what are the efforts to recruit more educators in the sector.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOE has studied a number of international models for supporting students with Special Educational Needs (SEN). The models differ, reflecting the specific context of each jurisdiction. British Columbia, for example, places great emphasis on the mainstreaming of students with SEN. However, other education authorities such as that in the UK recognise that the educational needs of children with higher needs are better met in more specialised settings, and are setting up more specialised schools and units for children with SEN.
In Singapore, we have adopted a multi-pronged approach, so as to cater to the diverse range of educational needs of students with SEN. Hence, around 80% of students with SEN, including many with dyslexia, Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), as well as the majority of students with sensory and physical impairment, are in mainstream schools. The rest who have moderate-to-severe SEN, are in Special Education (SPED) schools. That way, students with moderate-to-severe SEN can benefit from a highly customised curriculum and pedagogy, delivered by specially-trained SPED teachers, and supported by a range of allied professionals such as psychologists and therapists.
Having well-trained staff is key to the quality of support for students with SEN. In mainstream schools, all Allied Educators (Learning and Behavioural Support) [AED(LBS)] undergo the Diploma in Special Education (DISE) programme at the National Institute of Education (NIE). In 2016, MOE enhanced the career structure, progression and development of AED(LBS), including creating higher appointments, such as Lead AED(LBS), Master AED(LBS) and Chief AED(LBS) to lead the fraternity at the school cluster, zonal and national levels. MOE enhanced professional development opportunities for AED(LBS) through modular training, conferences and milestone programmes, and offer scholarships and awards to AED(LBS) for further studies.
The number of SPED teachers has increased by about 40% since 2014, to meet the needs of the growing enrolment of students with SEN. MOE and NCSS will continue to support mainstream and SPED schools in the recruitment of educators with appropriate skill-sets and aptitude to teach students with moderate-to-severe SEN.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Top Three Reasons Employers Deny Employees Access to Childcare Leave","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower based on cases brought to the Ministry or Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) (a) what are the top three reasons that employers give for denying employees access to childcare leave; (b) how many cases have been brought to TAFEP in each of the past five years for denial of childcare leave; and (c) in how many of these cases have the employees obtained the childcare leave sought or employers changed their childcare leave policies following TAFEP's intervention.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The vast majority of employers and employees have been able to work out mutually agreeable arrangements for the taking of childcare leave.
In the past five years, MOM and TAFEP did not receive any case where an employee had applied for childcare leave and the employer had unreasonably rejected the application. During this period, MOM handled 15 cases where childcare leave was either not provided or under-provided in an employee’s contract. The main reason for employers not having fulfilled their statutory obligations was a lack of awareness of employees’ entitlements. In all 15 cases, MOM required the employers to rectify their childcare leave policies to comply with the law, and took enforcement action against them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Support Mothers Re-entering Workforce with Difficulty Matching Employment Hours with Opening Hours of Childcare Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower what is being done to support mothers re-entering the workforce who may experience difficulty matching their employment hours with the opening hours of childcare services.
Mrs Josephine Teo: To cater to the needs of working parents, including mothers re-entering the workforce, childcare centres are required to operate from 7 am to 7 pm on weekdays, and from 7 am to 2 pm on Saturdays. This arrangement meets the needs of most parents, without extending the working hours of childcare centre workers.
For families working shifts or on weekends, many of them arrange for other care-givers, such as grandparents and relatives, to help out. Some centres may extend their services, taking into consideration demand and resources. Currently, around 55 centres operate beyond 7 pm on weekdays.
Mothers, including those re-entering the workforce, may prefer some flexibility in their work hours to meet their care-giving needs. Through the Work-Life Grant and Tripartite Standard (TS) on Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs), the Government encourages employers to provide FWAs such as flexible start and end times or telecommuting to help employees better manage work and family responsibilities. As at end-September, around 1,900 employers, covering around 450,000 employees, have adopted the Tripartite Standard on FWAs. Jobseekers who require FWAs may find a better job fit with an employer that has adopted the TS on FWAs.
Mothers looking for employment can also tap on Workforce Singapore (WSG)’s Adapt and Grow initiative, which offers a suite of employment services and programmes to help jobseekers to enter into new jobs. For more information, jobseekers can visit WSG’s Careers Connect and NTUC-e2i's career centres to find out more.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Heat Stroke and Dehydration Cases in Last Three Years and Measures to Protect Workers Against Excessive Heat","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how does heat stress arising from climate change impact upon work productivity; (b) what is the number of heat stroke and dehydration cases in the last three years; (c) how does the Ministry ensure that employers in construction, marine and public works protect workers against excessive heat; (d) whether the Ministry will consider requiring employers to record incidents of heat stroke and dehydration; and (e) whether the Ministry will develop workplace guidelines on heat stress, including that requiring of higher water intake and longer rest periods for affected employees.
Mrs Josephine Teo: In the last three years, 10 workers suffered injuries caused by heat stress or work-related heat disorders, of which one was fatal. They comprised less than 0.03% of all workplace injuries and occupational diseases in the same period.
MOM together with the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council, has developed the WSH Guidelines on Managing Heat Stress in the Workplace. The guidelines inform employers to conduct risk assessments associated with heat stress and the precautionary actions they should take to prevent heat stress at work. These include acclimatising newly arrived workers who come from colder climates, providing regular rest breaks at shaded areas, making cool drinking water accessible, and educating workers on the symptoms and seriousness of heat-related disorders.
The WSH Council has also been disseminating information on heat-related safety and health risks through its website, the WSH bulletin1, as well as collaterals such as the Heat Stroke Card. Heat stress is also included in the WSH Council's Total WSH Programme. Total WSH consultants are expected to advise companies on what they can do to protect workers from heat stress.
Heat stroke and dehydration are already included in the types of work incidents that are reportable. From 1 September 2020, the reporting requirement will be extended to incidents that result in any instance of MC or light duty.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : There are about 70,000 subscribers to the bulletin. "],"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics of Balance Sums in MediSave Accounts Returned to Family Members Upon Death of Account Holders in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in each of the last five years, how many balance sums in MediSave accounts have been returned to the family members of the account holders upon their death, with and without nominations respectively; (b) how many balance sums are left unclaimed; and (c) what has been the average amount per deceased member for each of these unclaimed sums.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Over the past five years, close to 80% of unused CPF monies were distributed by CPF Board to beneficiaries according to deceased members’ nominations. The monies include balances in their Ordinary, MediSave, Special and Retirement Accounts.
The unused monies of members who did not make nominations are transferred to the Public Trustee's Office (PTO) for distribution to the deceased’s next-of-kin in accordance with intestacy and Muslim inheritance laws. This was explained in MinLaw’s oral response on 4 November 2019 to Assoc Prof Daniel Goh. PTO reported that 88% of un-nominated CPF monies were distributed to next-of-kin in the last five years.
In other words, about 98% of all unused CPF monies belonging to deceased members were eventually distributed by CPF Board and PTO in the last five years. Next-of-kin can approach PTO at any time to submit their claims on the unclaimed monies. There is no time limit for the application.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Available Support for Young Persons with Acute Mental Health Episode in a Residential Home","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what support is available where a young person who stays in a residential home experiences an acute mental health episode that is beyond the residential home's capabilities but is not so serious as to meet a hospital's admission criteria.
Mr Desmond Lee: Children and Young Persons (CYPs) may be referred by MSF or ordered by the Youth Court to reside in licensed Homes operated by social service agencies (SSAs). Such CYPs generally continue to attend school and participate in activities in the community.
Where there are mental health concerns, these CYPs are supported by school counsellors and/or MSF psychologists, together with the care team of the Homes. There are also multidisciplinary Response, Early Intervention, Assessment in Community Mental Health teams to strengthen the ability of schools and SSAs to identify and support CYPs with mental health concerns and to make appropriate referrals.
Where the mental health concerns are more severe, the CYPs may be referred to medical institutions such as the Child Guidance Clinic run by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), where they may receive outpatient treatment, such as psychotherapy, or be admitted for inpatient treatment. Before the CYPs are discharged, caseworkers in the Homes engage the relevant medical professionals to formulate post-discharge care plans such as follow-up treatment and safety planning.
MSF will continue to work closely with other Government agencies, SSAs, schools and the community to ensure that CYPs in residential Homes are appropriately supported for their mental well-being.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Kindergartens Operated by Private Providers and Autonomous Operators Offering Before and After-school Care","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the proportion of kindergartens operated by private providers and autonomous operators offering before and after-school care; and (b) whether there are any regulatory impediments for private kindergarten operators offering before and after-school care programmes.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the Early Childhood Development Centres Act, kindergartens are licensed to provide half-day education programmes of six hours or less per session. As the provision requirements for kindergartens are for half-day education services only, kindergartens cannot provide care services for pre-school-aged children. Nevertheless, centres that wish to provide such before or after preschool care services can do so if they are licensed as childcare centres instead.
Subject to the Early Childhood Development Agency’s (ECDA) approval, pre-schools may provide before and after school care (BASC) services during their operating hours for older children aged seven to below 14 years. This is mainly to cater to working parents who require after-school care support for their Primary-school going children, including those who may have siblings attending the pre-school where the BASC services are provided. The BASC programme must be run in a separate space from the preschool programme, and centres can enrol children only up to 10% of the centre’s accommodation capacity. The centre must adhere to stipulated safety, health, hygiene and supervision standards, to ensure the well-being of the children. To date, ECDA has not received any applications from kindergartens to run BASC services during their operating hours.
Kindergarten operators may also offer BASC services for older children after the kindergarten's operating hours or outside the kindergarten premises. There are currently three private kindergarten operators which provide such services and are registered with MSF to also administer the Student Care Fee Assistance Scheme. Such registered student care centres are required to meet stipulated standards in areas of supervision, physical environment, operating hours, safety, health and hygiene, and provide a structured daily programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":3522,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Mr Heng Swee Keat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20191105/vernacular-Heng Swee Keat Motion AHTC 5Nov 2019-Chinese (003)v2.pdf","fileName":"Heng Swee Keat Motion AHTC 5Nov 2019-Chinese (003)v2.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3523,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20191105/vernacular-5 Nov 2019 - Mr Md Faisal A Manap - Motion by DPM.pdf","fileName":"5 Nov 2019 - Mr Md Faisal A Manap - Motion by DPM.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3524,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Mr Zaqy Mohamad","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20191105/vernacular-5 Nov 2019 - MOS Zaqy Mohd - Motion by DPM _AR(ccd)_cleaned.pdf","fileName":"5 Nov 2019 - MOS Zaqy Mohd - Motion by DPM _AR(ccd)_cleaned.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3525,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20191105/vernacular-Sun Xueling AHTC 5 Nov 2019 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling AHTC 5 Nov 2019 -Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}