Hansard, 2012-02-14

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission by the Speaker to be absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:

Order. Pursuant to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Special Select Committee nominated the following nine persons to the President for appointment as Nominated Members of Parliament:

Mdm Faizah bte Haji Ahmad Jamal;

Mr Nicholas Fang Kuo Wei;

Ms Janice Koh Yu-Mei;

Mr Laurence Lien Tsung Chern;

Ms Mary Liew Kiah Eng;

Mr Ramasamy Dhinakaran;

Asst Prof Eugene Tan Kheng Boon;

Ms Tan Su Shan; and

Mr Teo Siong Seng.

On 9 February 2012, President Tony Tan, by Instruments of Appointment dated the same day, appointed the nine Members as Nominated Members of Parliament for a term of two-and-a-half years with effect from 9 February 2012.

The Nominated Members are present today to take their seats. They will now take their oath or affirmation of allegiance.

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance, or made Affirmation of Allegiance, in the order below:

Group 1

Mdm Faizah bte Haji Ahmad Jamal (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Mr Nicholas Fang Kuo Wei (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Ms Janice Koh Yu-Mei (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Mr Laurence Lien Tsung Chern (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Ms Mary Liew Kiah Eng (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Mr Ramasamy Dhinakaran (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Asst Prof Eugene Tan Kheng Boon (Nominated Member of Parliament); and

Ms Tan Su Shan (Nominated Member of Parliament).

Group 2 (In Mandarin)

Mr Teo Siong Seng (Nominated Member of Parliament).

I welcome the Nominated Members of Parliament and look forward to their participation in the proceedings of this House.

Order. On behalf of this House, allow me to pay tribute to the late Dr Toh Chin Chye. On behalf of the House, I would like to place on record the demise of Dr Toh Chin Chye, former Deputy Prime Minister, on 3 February 2012.

Dr Toh was first elected as a Member of the First Legislative Assembly for Rochor constituency on 30 May 1959. He retained his seat over six successive General Elections and eventually retired from this House on 16 August 1988. In a parliamentary career that spanned some 29 years, Dr Toh had served with distinction as a Cabinet Minister from 1959 to 1981, as Leader of the House from 1959 to 1968, and finally, as a backbench Member from 1981 to 1988. Shortly after winning the 1959 General Election, Dr Toh was appointed Singapore's first Deputy Prime Minister and continued in that office until 1968.

By the time Dr Toh stepped down from office in 1981, he had helmed a number of Ministries, serving as Minister for National Development, Minister for Science and Technology, Minister for Health, Minister for Education and Minister for Social Affairs. Dr Toh was a founding father of modern Singapore and had made significant contributions to Singapore's development during our crucial nation-building years. Dr Toh will be remembered for his great integrity, his tenacity and his unwavering determination to serve the cause of Singapore, his beloved country, to the best of his ability. Succeeding generations owe much to the dedication and toil of visionary leaders like Dr Toh, whose distinguished contributions to Singapore and to this House will always be remembered.

On behalf of this House, I would like to express our deep sense of loss at the passing of Dr Toh Chin Chye. I join all Members in expressing our deep sympathy and condolences to the family of the late Dr Toh Chin Chye. As a mark of respect to the late Dr Toh Chin Chye, I propose that the House observe one minute of silence. Will Members please rise.

[The House rose and observed a one-minute silence.]

1 Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim asked the Minister for National Development (a) how does HDB engage the residents under the Interim Rental Housing Scheme (IRH) to adjust to living with other families; and (b) whether there are plans to provide for housing under the IRH based on single-family occupancy rather than the current multiple-families occupancy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the main mode of HDB rental is based on single-family occupancy, in 1-room and 2-room public rental units. There are currently about 48,500 such rental units in operation.

The Interim Rental Housing (IRH) came about because there were a number of old HDB blocks which were vacated, pending demolition. To put them to some interim use, HDB decided to rent them out to families in financial hardship requiring urgent temporary accommodation. As IRH flats are 3-room or larger flats, co-sharing helps tenants reduce their rental cost. There are currently about 1,000 IRH rental units.

Understandably, co-sharing arrangement is not preferred. But it is manageable, provided the tenants exercise tolerance, consideration and respect. HDB plays an active role in pairing the families; it will take into account factors such as race, religion and family size. HDB will also proactively get the families to meet up, before they are paired. This should help to improve the chance of successful co-sharing.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether MND will do away with the Interim Rental Housing scheme in view of the various side-effects that this scheme brings, such as the social problems associated with it and the heavy rental burdens? Does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary not agree that these associated issues further jeopardise the dire predicaments that these residents were already facing? And will MND consider long-term solutions for this group of lowest income residents who have exhausted their public housing options due to previous circumstances or misfortunes, by giving them one extra last chance to purchase 3-room HDB flats, albeit with the stricter rules on subsequent resale by them?

Sir, I thank the Member for the question. I understand the concerns on the ground. Many Members would have met some of these families. Let me just explain the profile of the families in the Interim Rental Housing (IRH) scheme. As mentioned earlier, IRH is a temporary measure to help families who are low-income and are looking for permanent accommodation. They do not have current accommodation. It is temporary. There are different groups of families in the IRH. There are families who are currently without housing options, and we try to use the IRH to give them stability first as we try and help them look for longer term housing options. There are those who are waiting for allocation of rental flats – meaning they have already been allocated a rental flat but are waiting for allocation. There are those who are waiting for BTO flats and because the BTO flats take some time to be ready and they do not have alternative accommodation and their families cannot accommodate them, we would then allow for them to stay in IRH. There are those who are really looking for other options.

I think what the Member is asking is: how do we manage to help them cope with the co-sharing existence that the IRH offers. At this point in time, we recognise that there are some issues. HDB has put in new measures to try and minimise their discomfort. Most importantly is for us to try to see if local community support systems can be activated to help these families. Certainly, this is a temporary measure. As mentioned earlier, the IRH is not a permanent feature. It is something that we want to put in place to help families in transition. We hope to help these families transit into long-term accommodation.

Sir, I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. While I understand this is a transition process, I find that it is important for us to provide basic housing for Singaporeans. I would like to appeal to the Ministry to consider how, as we ramp up the supply of rental flats, we can also provide single-occupancy for these families. As they transit, we want them to climb up the ladder again. We want them to succeed in life. We must provide adequate and sufficient housing facilities for them, so that they can live a better life as a family, and as part of the Singaporean family.

The other issue that I would like to seek clarification on is: how has HDB looked into the interests of the younger children in school? I visited a few of them and I saw young children. I am concerned as to how they are able to cope with school. It is important that their educational needs are not affected. It is important that we take care because this is our future generation.

Sir, as mentioned in my reply earlier, indeed, the main bulk of rental housing for Singaporeans is the 1-room and 2-room rental flats. For the longer term 1-room and 2-room rental flats, they are provided for single families. They are not shared. For the IRH flats, they are shared because the IRH units are 3- and 4-room flats, and co-sharing is to reduce the rental cost for these families.

On the issue of how we try to help the families and the children: not all the families in IRH scheme require assistance. Some of them are able to cope. They are stable, earn sufficient income and are able to manage childcare arrangements. For the small group of families who really do need help, HDB works very closely with MCYS and the Family Service Centres. These families are referred to the Family Service Centres for them to receive social services to ensure that the needs of the children are not compromised and continued to be addressed, as highlighted by the hon Member.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary: if an applicant who has been offered this interim housing has consistently requested not to share the flat because of special needs children in the family, would it result in the offer being taken away from his family permanently, in the sense that it will not be given because of the rejection to share with another family?

Sir, HDB tries its best to pair the families as best it can. It looks at various factors and issues. But we certainly recognise that the circumstances may be different when it comes to children with special needs. For such circumstances, I would encourage the Member to let us know so that we can look into this case individually.

May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what he meant earlier when he said "temporary housing". I noticed that the majority of them have to stay more than one to two years and there was still no other option. May I also ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether it is fair to put two families who are strangers with 12 kids between them in a 2-room flat? How do we get these people to tolerate one another?

Sir, what I meant was that IRH is not permanent housing. IRH is temporary housing. When a family needs accommodation, we try to help them with various options. One is, if they are really low-income and do not have any other options, we try to help them with rental flats if they have already exhausted many of the housing opportunities available to them. For public rental, we try very hard to accommodate and provide after we have assessed that the family is really in need of public rental flats.

As highlighted earlier, at this point in time, we are in short supply of public rental flats. My Minister has announced earlier that we are increasing the supply of public rental flats. We have done our best and have improved the duration it takes for families waiting for public rental flats. So what I meant by IRH being temporary is that they are moving towards longer term accommodation, whether it is public rental or to another flat. We do help families to downsize to a smaller flat. Some of the families who are waiting for the BTO flats are waiting for the smaller 2-room BTO flats. HDB helps them personally to acquire these smaller HDB flats.

We acknowledge that there are some situations where families with many children are put together. We have fine-tuned the process. HDB is taking greater oversight of the situation, trying to make sure that they pair families to minimise the situation where families with a greater number of children are paired together. Moving forward, with the new guidelines in place, we hope that the situation can be improved. In the longer term, we also want to ensure that the social support services from the Family Service Centres continue to be provided to these families while they are in this temporary housing accommodation.

2 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for National Development over the last three years (a) what is the number of cases of HDB flats found to be sublet without permission from HDB; and (b) how many of these cases involve HDB flats owned by Permanent Residents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, over the last three years, HDB has taken action against 179 flat owners for unauthorised subletting. Of these, eight flats were owned by Singapore Permanent Residents (PRs).

Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. I would also like to thank the Ministry for the previous written replies on related matters. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary how investigations are conducted to ensure that the flats are not illegally sublet, and what penalties are imposed on those who do so illegally?

Sir, all flat owners who wish to sublet their flats must obtain approval from HDB and fulfil the minimum occupation period. This subletting policy applies consistently to all flat owners – Singapore Citizens as well as Singapore PRs.

What are the measures that HDB has put in place against unauthorised subletting? There are several measures, and they include:

requiring the flat owners to seek HDB's prior approval before subletting, as mentioned earlier, so that they do not get into trouble. Whether they are eligible or not, it is better for them to start by asking HDB for approval;

granting subletting approval to eligible cases for a maximum of three years, subject to subsequent extension or renewal, meaning that it is not automatic, so that people do not take for granted that once it is approved, they can go ahead and sublet it to anybody that they want to;

conducting half-yearly flat inspections of approved subletting cases by the Branch officers to detect any irregularities, for example, the number of sub-tenants, whether it exceeds the limit permissible;

conducting planned and routine inspections of flats to ensure proper occupation by the flat lessees; and

engaging periodically grassroots organisations' assistance to provide feedback on irregularities.

The HDB provides a dedicated hotline for members of the public to provide feedback on unauthorised subletting of these flats. In fact, many times, we take action and investigate based on feedback from the residents living within the vicinity of the sublet flats. We also publicise the action taken against lessees who have committed unauthorised subletting of their flats or breached the subletting rules, to serve as a deterrent. On the penalties, HDB can and has compulsorily acquired flats which have been sublet without authorisation, or, in lieu of compulsory acquisition, we impose a fine.

3 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) why information about the arrests of senior Government servants were not made public until weeks later; and (b) whether the Government should have suspended senior civil servants from their official duties once they have been arrested.

4 Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether he can provide an update on the status of investigations into the cases involving the former Commissioner of the Singapore Civil Defence Force and former Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau; (b) why the arrests/investigations are not disclosed earlier; and (c) whether the investigations have revealed lapses in the agencies' procurement systems and processes and, if so, what will be done to address these lapses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take Question Nos 3 and 4 together, please?

Yes, please.

Sir, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Edwin Tong have asked why the arrests of the former Commissioner of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and the former Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) were not made known earlier. As was made known in a Ministry of Home Affairs' statement on 24 January 2012, the CPIB commenced interviewing Mr Ng Boon Gay on 19 December 2011 and Mr Peter Lim on 4 January 2012. In CPIB investigations, it is normal procedure for the person to be placed under arrest if CPIB assesses that there is some basis for suspecting that the person may have committed an offence. Both persons were placed under arrest. They were then released on bail to secure their attendance for further investigations as required.

At that point in time, it was premature to make any announcement as CPIB was in the midst of their investigations and the outcome was not known. It was necessary to give CPIB time to gather evidence, seize documents, conduct interviews with various persons who were connected to the case and establish whether further action was warranted. A public announcement at that point in time would have compromised the investigations. On the day that CPIB interviewed the two officers and decided to place them under arrest, the Ministry of Home Affairs placed each of the two officers on leave on the respective dates. They were told not to return to their offices, nor to carry out any official duties. Their deputies acted during their period of absence on leave. As investigations were still underway, it was also premature and not fair to remove the officers from their office or to interdict them from their duties then, until the situation became clearer.

An arrest by CPIB does not necessarily mean that the person would be prosecuted in court or referred for some disciplinary action, for example, civil service disciplinary action. It is possible that after referral to the Attorney General's Chambers, no further action is taken. So an arrest, therefore, has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of a person.

On Friday, 20 January 2012, CPIB informed the Ministry of Home Affairs that although their criminal investigations have not been completed, there was sufficient basis for the Ministry to consider civil service disciplinary action for misconduct. The Ministry of Home Affairs immediately commenced civil service disciplinary proceedings, including interdicting the officers from their duties. On 24 January 2012, after obtaining the Public Service Commission's approval, the Ministry of Home Affairs called up the two officers and served them notices of interdiction, which took effect from 25 January 2012. The Ministry of Home Affairs had intended to carry out these procedures on 25 January 2012, which was the first working day after the four-day weekend and Chinese New Year holiday, and make a media statement on that same day. We received the notification from the CPIB on the Friday before that weekend. However, as one newspaper had reported the matter on the morning of 24 January, the Ministry of Home Affairs decided to advance the process and media release by one day to 24 January 2012, which was the second day of Chinese New Year.

There was thus no delay in the release of information. Due process in both the investigations and disciplinary proceedings had to be followed to avoid prejudicing any subsequent legal or civil service disciplinary proceedings, as well as to be fair to the officers accused. A premature release of information in such cases would jeopardise the investigations, and also unfairly prejudice the officers and any other parties who are involved in the case.

CPIB investigations are still on-going. Once the outcome of the investigations is known, the MHA will correct any lapses uncovered in the procurement systems and processes in the Singapore Civil Defence Force and the Central Narcotics Bureau. The civil service and MHA will apply those same lessons civil service-wide where applicable. In the meantime, MHA has reviewed various outstanding IT tenders, including the composition of the tender evaluation committees. This has been done to safeguard the integrity and fairness of the tender system.

Sir, it is disappointing that these cases have occurred. However, as both cases have shown, any allegation of misconduct against public officers is investigated fully, regardless of the position or seniority of the officers involved. This Government will continue to require the highest standards of integrity and conduct in the public service. The public depends on the Home Team officers to do their job right, and to do it properly. The key to this is that they act with the utmost integrity in whatever they do. MHA will do its utmost to uphold the trust which has been placed in our officers.

Sir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the answers to the questions. May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he thinks that the two CPIB investigations and the recent probes into allegations of vice activities involving public servants reflect the lowering of the moral and ethical standards to which members of our public service are held?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is committed to upholding high moral and ethical standards in the public service. And I have confidence that the vast majority of civil servants do live up to these standards. However, when we come across an officer who has transgressed, we will not hesitate to act against him, even if he is in a senior position and even if it may embarrass the Government. I have told our public officers to continue to hold true to the public service values of integrity, excellence and service, and to continue to carry out their duties diligently, honestly and to the best of their abilities. And this is the way that they would be able to maintain the public's high trust in the public service and our officers.

I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, apart from the two officers, has any initial investigation shown that there is potential corruption by other officers in the service as a result of this. The second question is this: I do agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that the premature release of news would have jeopardised investigations. But the fact is that the media actually received news even before the official statement. Will MHA also investigate this leak to the media?

We will investigate leaks to the media, particularly if official information which should not have been revealed was revealed. And I am not able to comment now on the further investigations of the CPIB and whether others are involved because investigations are still in progress.

Sir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the reply. The public understand that arrests once made are not taken lightly. Bearing in mind the responsibility of the two persons concerned, the fact that they are Heads of respective departments, what is the possibility that had they remained unsuspended in their positions that they would be able to influence the outcome of the investigations? Perhaps, the Deputy Prime Minister could clarify that so that there would not be any kind of doubt that they can remain in their positions so that they can influence the outcome of the investigations.

There should be no doubt that the officers were removed from positions of responsibility and any ability to influence the outcome of investigations the moment the investigations began by CPIB. When the CPIB decided that they should be placed under arrest, they were placed on leave from their duties. Therefore, they were not able to continue with their duties and they were told not to come back to office, not to exercise their official duties. And when CPIB informed the Ministry of Home Affairs that there was sufficient basis to consider commencing civil service disciplinary proceedings, we then took steps to interdict them. So there is clearly no ability for them to have influenced the proceedings of the investigations due to their positions in office.

5 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what channels are available for uniformed officers to furnish information about improper conduct of superior officers; (b) how many times have these channels been used in the last five years against superiors, what was the nature of the information given and what was the outcome of such reporting; (c) what repercussions will an officer face for giving information about a superior which is not substantiated or proven; and (d) whether reporting of superiors is hampered by the strict hierarchy of ranks within the uniformed services.

Sir, Ms Lim asked about the channels available for uniformed officers to report improper conduct of superior officers. The Home Team has a reporting framework in place, which provides a confidential channel for officers to report any wrongful behaviour of officers. Under this reporting framework, the usual channel for a uniformed MHA officer to raise concerns and feedback is to do so in person, or in writing, to designated persons within the officer's Home Team Department. The designated persons in the Home Team Departments are typically the Head of Department or the Deputy Head of Department. If, however, officers prefer to raise their concerns to a channel outside their Department, they can furnish the information to the Deputy Secretary or the Senior Director, Human Resource in the Ministry Headquarters. The identity of the reporting officer will be kept confidential.

Sir, this approach ensures that the reporting of any instance of improper conduct of a superior officer is not hampered by the hierarchy of ranks within the uniformed services. The above confidential reporting framework is communicated to our officers, and is contained in the Code of Conduct guide book issued to every officer [indicating]. This is the Home Team Code of Conduct guide book and the channel for confidential ethical disclosure is there for all of them to see, on page 5 of this guide book.

The key principle of our reporting policy is that reports should be made in good faith. If a report is made in good faith, but a case of wrongdoing cannot be established after investigation, no action will be taken against the reporting officer. If, however, an allegation is made frivolously, maliciously or proven to be falsified, disciplinary action may be taken against the officer. This is also explained in the Code of Conduct guide book.

In the last five years, there were 59 cases reported; 44 of these cases were anonymous, so we are unable to ascertain if they were from subordinates or from peers. Of the 15 which were not anonymous, eight were against a superior officer. Wrongful practices reported include allegations of failure to comply with procedures, and improper conduct or unethical behaviour. After investigation, errant officers will be dealt with in accordance with established disciplinary procedures.

We expect our officers to report a wrongdoing if they have sufficient grounds to believe that it has been committed, even if the report is against a superior officer, even if it is his direct superior officer, and the channels in the reporting framework for this are in place. This framework ensures that the highest standards of conduct will be upheld in the organisation.

Sir, two supplementary questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. First, I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify in this particular case concerning the two MHA bosses, whether there was any prior internal information about them before the CPIB investigation commenced based on external report. The second question is, the Minister mentioned just now in his answer that there were 59 complaints through this channel and 44 were anonymous. So my question is, does this indicate that knowledge of that Code of Conduct has not been fully felt through MHA, in terms of the requirements for valid report, or does he assess that perhaps there is a sub-culture of not wanting to be named in making such complaints?

I do not have the findings of the CPIB report of the investigations. So I am not able to say whether or not there were officers who knew of these cases and had not previously reported them. But I would say that the number of cases reported indicates that the officers do feel that they have a channel of reporting. Officers do report. There is no indication that the officers who have something to report fear reporting.

Anonymity, of course, is something which we do not encourage, because we encourage officers to identify themselves so that it is possible to seek their assistance when we look into the cases that are brought up. But where there are anonymous reports, we will still look into them if the reports have substance and if they are serious. But if it is a frivolous, anonymous report with no basis, no substance, very few details, then of course it is not possible to investigate the report. We will continue to advise our officers to educate them on the reporting framework that is available in the Ministry of Home Affairs, particularly for those officers who feel that they do not understand it well enough.

6 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Prime Minister what measures has the Government taken to maintain the integrity and incorruptibility of the public service.

7 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister in light of investigations into senior SCDF and CNB officers (a) whether the Government will conduct a comprehensive review of the feedback mechanisms currently in place in the civil service; and (b) whether the Government will consider whistleblower/whistleblower protection legislation and the institution of a national ombudsman to act as layers of deterrence against wayward civil servants.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 6 and 7 together?

Yes, please.

Sir, the civil service is governed by a Code of Conduct based on the principles of integrity, incorruptibility and impartiality. The Code articulates key conduct principles and expected behaviour of our officers. All officers are expected to maintain a high standard of conduct by upholding the integrity of the public service and public confidence in it. We do not tolerate corruption, which is an abuse of position and trust.

There are specific requirements set out in this Code. For example, where decisions are taken on issues which an officer is deemed to have personal interest in, he must declare his interest. Officers should not accept gifts on account of their official position. Where it is impractical or inappropriate to refuse, the gift must be declared.

The Ministry of Finance (MOF) sets out the Government financial procedures and procurement rules, and reviews these on a regular basis. Ministries are required to put in place sound accounting practices and internal controls to ensure integrity of their financial systems. These include the rotation of officers handling financial work and segregation of duties so that no single officer is allowed to handle all phases of a transaction. For instance, in procuring goods and services, the officer who approves the award of contracts or quotations is different from the officer who approves payments. For procurement tenders, the approving authority for award consists of a panel of at least three officers, rather than an individual.

Internal audits are also conducted on a regular basis. In addition, there is scrutiny by the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) and Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee which examines various accounts of the Government. While the principles, policies and processes are in place, the leaders must set the tone for effective implementation. We expect Public Service Leaders to have the ability, commitment and integrity to act in the national interest. They are selected and assessed on that basis. Where they fail to meet the high standards expected, appropriate corrective action will be taken.

To reinforce high standards of conduct and accountability, there is a reporting framework for officers to report wrongful practices or behaviour they have observed in the service. Officers should be vigilant and make a report if they have sufficient grounds to believe a wrongdoing has been committed. There are multiple avenues for officers to report wrongdoings and irregularities. Apart from making such reports internally within their own departments or agencies, officers can escalate cases of misconduct to their Permanent Secretary of the Ministry or the Head of Civil Service. In addition, they can also report wrongdoing to the Public Service Commission (PSC), which is an independent body, set up under the Singapore Constitution, vested with the authority to exercise disciplinary control over civil servants. Corruption cases may be raised with CPIB. Where there is sufficient basis and information provided, the complaints will be looked into.

CPIB plays a pivotal role in curbing corruption. CPIB acts swiftly against offenders who, if convicted of corruption offences, face severe penalties. As part of CPIB's preventive programmes, it regularly reaches out to Government agencies to remind officers of the importance of maintaining incorruptibility and the potential consequences of failure to do so. CPIB also reviews the work processes and procedures of Government departments to see whether there are systemic flaws which can be exploited. In cases where corruption is not involved, but the law has been broken, for example, where public funds or property have been stolen or misappropriated, the matter will be investigated by the Police. The officer can be charged under appropriate provisions in the law according to the facts of the case.

Even when there are insufficient grounds to proceed against an officer under the law, there may be sufficient grounds to proceed with civil service disciplinary proceedings against an officer for misconduct. In such cases, the Public Service Commission will institute formal disciplinary proceedings against the officer. An officer who has been found to have mis-conducted himself could be reprimanded, fined or have his increment forfeited, reduced in rank, retired in the public interest or dismissed depending on the severity of the issue. If an officer is found to be responsible for loss of public money or Government property, the officer involved may also be required to make good the losses.

All reporting will be treated with utmost confidentiality and every effort will be made not to reveal the identity of the officer, to the extent feasible and permissible under law. If an officer has sufficient grounds to feel that he is being treated unfairly as a result of a report that he has made, he may submit a complaint to his Permanent Secretary. Therefore, there are already provisions for the protection of officers who make such reports. I should add that we should encourage responsible reporting and discourage malicious or frivolous allegations. Those who make reports are expected to identify themselves. If a report is made in bad faith or for personal gain, disciplinary action may be taken against the officer making the false report.

The measures I have outlined guide our officers on proper conduct, deter the officers from misconduct and reduce the opportunity for corruption and wrongdoing. However, even in the best of systems, no one can guarantee that corruption or wrongdoing can be entirely eradicated and that there will never be cases of misconduct, as there will always be human failings, human weaknesses which we may discover later. To sum up, there are multiple channels for raising irregularities. Independent bodies like the Public Service Commission (PSC), the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) and CPIB are involved in the process.

The recent cases demonstrate that there are strict rules, reporting procedures, and legal and disciplinary processes in place to maintain the integrity of the public service and the proper conduct of public officers. This Government is committed to upholding high moral and ethical standards in the public service.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for those extensive remarks. Just to clarify, the Deputy Prime Minister initially showed the House a manual for Home Team officers which clearly laid out some procedures as to what they could do in the event of some reporting that they want do or perhaps because of some misdemeanor. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister: is there something similar for regular civil service officers, if not in the printed format, at least, perhaps, on the Intranet or there are some local media which they can have ready access to?

Indeed, Mr Speaker, I said at the outset of my reply, the very first sentence, that the civil service is governed by a Code of Conduct in the Instruction Manuals. So, there are such written Codes of Conduct.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for a very comprehensive reply. It is very heartening that the civil service takes a very serious view in terms of the integrity and incorruptibility of our system and our civil servants. May I just seek the confirmation and assurance from the Deputy Prime Minister that integrity is the key criterion in terms of selecting our officers at the recruitment process as well as in terms of promotion?

Certainly, I can assure the Member that integrity, ability, commitment to the service and to serving Singaporeans are key attributes which we look for at recruitment and appointment, and in our continual assessment of our officers. But as Members will know, the assessment of an individual is a very difficult thing. A person whom you may know for five years, or 10 years, may have some weaknesses which are only uncovered later, or which may develop later. The important thing in such cases is to be clear, accountable and transparent. And how an organisation responds to such things defines the organisation. This Government has always been clear and unequivocal in dealing with any such issues of integrity, honesty or wrongdoing. We come out with it in the open, we deal with it by the law or by disciplinary proceedings, and we are not shy of doing so even if it causes embarrassment to the Government.

8 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for Education for each of the past 10 years, what is the number of Normal (Technical) students and percentage of its yearly cohort who (i) progress to Secondary 2 Normal (Academic) stream at the end of Secondary 1; (ii) progress to the Normal (Academic) stream after the Secondary 4 Normal (Technical) examinations; (iii) qualify for a place at the Institute of Technical Education; and (iv) progress to study at a local polytechnic or university.

Sir, on average, around 380 students or 6% of each Secondary 1 Normal (Technical) cohort transfer to Secondary 2 Normal (Academic). Most students who could benefit from a more academically-oriented track are identified early and would transfer to the Normal (Academic) course prior to Secondary 4. On average, around five students transfer from Secondary 4 Normal (Technical) to Secondary 4 Normal (Academic).

All students who complete the Normal (Technical) course qualify for admission to the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), and compete for courses of their choice.

On average, around 960 students or 15% of each Normal (Technical) cohort go on to our polytechnics and autonomous universities. Many also upgrade themselves to Diplomas and other qualifications after gaining some work experience, through Continuing Education and Training programmes at our ITE, polytechnics, and universities.

Sir, I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I have two supplementary questions. The first is that it seems that the mobility out of the Normal (Technical) stream is still quite low despite there being provisions for them to move to the Normal (Academic) stream. What does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary think of re-combining Normal (Technical) back with the Normal (Academic) stream to increase the mobility for the late developers?

The second question is that for the Normal streams, are we able to offer more widely modular courses that range from those that are technical in nature to those in the visual and performing arts? By "modular" I mean that we can even have examinations at the end of the module rather than at the end of Secondary 4 for the major examinations.

I thank the Member for his concerns on mobility for students. Please allow me to explain. Amongst our students, there are different aspirations, different aptitudes, different interests and learning profiles, and our education system seeks to cater for such a range of profiles amongst our students. The most important priority for us is to help them to learn best whatever their learning profiles or interests are. And this is the reason why within the education system, we do set up diverse pathways for our students.

The key for us, beyond ensuring mobility beyond the pathway, first, is to ensure that each education pathway is well supported and resourced, and this we have done, including for our Normal (Technical) students. The second is to ensure that there is mobility between the pathways. For instance, our students are able to move laterally between Normal (Technical) and Normal (Academic). This is in response to the Member's concerns.

The third thing that we do is also to ensure that beyond formal education, there continues to be continuous education and training so that our students are able to upgrade their skills. And I think the most important and overarching priority is to ensure that there are fulfilling jobs and good employment outcomes for our students, regardless of whether they graduate from ITE, from polytechnics, or from our autonomous universities.

In terms of the design of courses for our students, the Ministry of Education is constantly considering different methods of pedagogy and of organising the way our curriculum is taught and managed so as to optimise learning outcomes for our students. For our Normal (Technical) students, for instance, we are considering experimenting with different ways of organising their curriculum and this has also been discussed in the House previously.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her reply. I have a feedback from parents when I speak to them. Many are concerned about children being streamed to Normal (Technical) at Secondary 1 level, whether it is too early especially for the late developers. But, in terms of self confidence, self-esteem – I know that pedagogy at the Ministry of Education is being taken care of – what measures are in place or the Ministry of Education is looking at to help them with their self confidence as they grow and mature?

As we had discussed previously, I think the key is to ensure that for all of our pathways, they are viewed as equally valid. For the Ministry of Education, we do not view any educational pathway as being superior to any other, and in terms of promoting the self confidence as well as the learning outcomes of our students, this is something that our teachers and our school leaders work very hard in, regardless of the educational stream. In the case of the Normal (Technical) students, for instance, we have resourced the schools with additional teachers and also with additional attention in terms of how the pedagogy should be developed so as to ensure that learning is customised as far as possible and also to cater to the interests of the students.

9 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Education what measures are taken by the Ministry to ensure that Primary schools attend to the safety of its students especially on roads next to the schools which are accessed by many students before and after school hours.

Sir, there are several measures in place to enhance road safety around our schools. In consultation with the Ministry of Education (MOE), the Land Transport Authority (LTA) introduced the Enhanced School Zone (ESZ) scheme in 2005 at Primary schools to increase the visibility of school zones. Parts of the road surface near the school gate are covered with a red textured surface to capture drivers' attention and to alert them to look out for children crossing the roads. There are also bigger traffic signs with yellow backing to indicate the start and end of school zones.

Since 2009, for all new Primary schools and schools undergoing major upgrading works, MOE works with LTA to conduct a Traffic Impact Assessment to develop optimal traffic arrangements within and around the school. In addition, MOE provides schools with a handbook to support them in ensuring safety within and in the vicinity of the school as well as to provide road safety education.

Schools teach our students important personal habits and road safety behaviour. School leaders highlight road safety habits during assembly at the beginning of the year, and students are reminded again of the importance of road safety during the course of the year. For Primary schools, road safety is also a topic in the Health Education syllabus at the lower primary levels.

During peak periods such as arrival and dismissal, Primary schools deploy staff, security guards or parent volunteers at school gates to reinforce road safety behaviour.

The safety of students using roads around the school is the responsibility of all. We need motorists to play their part by slowing down in the vicinity of schools, and parents to reinforce the importance of road safety at home.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I understand that road safety programmes are carried out in schools but this is probably not standardised across all schools, in particular the primary schools. What safety aspects are actually addressed in the road safety programmes? Are parents involved in such programmes with students? Because I think somehow our young children would develop habits that they see and, most of the time, they will do what their parents do, for instance, crossing the road not at the traffic lights or beating the red light. Would the Ministry consider involving parents as well in such safety programmes in schools?

Sir, parents are informed about the importance of helping the children understand the dangers in using roads, especially for primary school children who have very little experience in using roads. Schools issue handbooks to parents to alert them to the potential dangers and to highlight the important elements in helping their children understand how they can take care of their safety. That is a very important aspect. Schools also work with parent volunteers in getting support to help ensure that the students can use the roads safely during peak hours, during arrival as well as dismissal times. Schools also work very closely with the community organisations around the school to get their support to educate members of the public. But, ultimately, I would say that it is the responsibility of all to ensure that our children can go to school and return to their homes safely, and parents play a most critical part in it.

10 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) over the last three years, how many road traffic accidents occurred in school zones; (b) how many of these accidents involved students; and (c) what additional safety measures are put in place to enhance road safety in school zones.

Mr Speaker, in 2011, there were 16 accidents within school zones in which there was an injury or fatality. This is a decrease from 35 such accidents in 2009 and 28 such accidents in 2010. In the last three years, a total of 10 children aged 12 and below were injured in such accidents, and there were no fatalities.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary from MOE has already elaborated on what is being done by the Ministry and also on the efforts by the Land Transport Authority, in terms of the Enhanced School Zones. I would augment that by talking about what the Traffic Police are doing on the enforcement front. Essentially, the Traffic Police conducts ground patrols around school zones and the vicinity of schools. Based on feedback from schools and residents, the Traffic Police will step up its enforcement patrols from time to time, where necessary. The Traffic Police will also work through the schools to issue advisory letters to parents. Errant road users are taken to task and firmly dealt with.

The Traffic Police will also work with the Land Transport Authority, schools and the local community on education efforts to inculcate road safety awareness and road courtesy. One such initiative involves the Road Safety Community Park where children are taught basic traffic rules, and to keep a proper lookout for motorists when using the roads. Finally, I would like to reinforce and echo an important point made earlier, which is that road safety is, indeed, a shared responsibility. We seek the cooperation of parents and all other stakeholders, including schools and the community, to ensure that our children are aware of how to use the roads safely.

Mr Speaker, let me thank the Minister for his reply. Just last month, a nine-year old Primary Four boy was killed by a speeding car outside Sembawang Primary School while crossing at the traffic light, which was displaying a blinking "green man", and this was in a school zone. I would like to ask a few supplementary questions. First of all, what is the speed limit in the Enhanced School Zone and how effectively is this enforced? Does the Minister think that the Enhanced School Zone is currently adequate to ensure the safety of our children? Because every young life lost is one too many, and certainly for such a tragic event, we must do our best to prevent at all cost. I would also like to know whether we are reviewing the Enhanced School Zone since it was implemented a few years back, and whether there are any plans for MHA and MOE to review and see how that could be enforced. How many summons tickets have recently been given at Enhanced School Zones? We do not really see much enforcement at Enhanced School Zones.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. Let me say, first, that we all share his concerns for the safety of our children when they use the roads. I think, first of all, we ought to put the numbers in perspective. The accidents that occurred within the school zones are 0.3% of the total accident statistics. So, it is a very small proportion. We should still take it seriously, but we need to keep it in context. It is not a problem that has grown and gotten out of hand.

Secondly, on the question on speed limits, the speed limit is typically 50 kph in these Enhanced School Zones. It is set by the Land Transport Authority. But the Traffic Police works with the Land Transport Authority and, indeed, other local stakeholders to ascertain whether there is a need to vary those requirements, specifically whether to lower the speed limit in situations where it is warranted. This is something that is done based on local circumstances. But, typically, the speed limits are set at 50 kph. The overall statistics would suggest that it has been reasonably adequate.

Thirdly, on the question of whether the Enhanced School Zone ought to be reviewed, the point I would make is that the investigation is underway on this particular case and I think we should allow for it to find out what the full reasons are in due course. In the meantime, we should refrain from drawing too generalised a conclusion. But, at the same time, if there are local or specific actions required, I want to assure the Member that they would be taken by the Traffic Police and the other Government authorities.

11 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs with the liberalisation and opening up of Myanmar recently, what is the state of Myanmar's bilateral relations with Singapore and the larger ASEAN community.

12 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether ASEAN has set any progress targets for Myanmar before Myanmar takes over the chair of ASEAN in 2014 and, if so, what are these targets.

Sir, with your leave, I will take Question Nos 11 and 12 together.

Yes, please.

Singapore and Myanmar enjoy good and long-standing bilateral relations. We cooperate well bilaterally and within ASEAN. Recently, the Myanmar President made a state visit to Singapore. That visit further affirmed the close friendship between our countries. During the visit, Myanmar Foreign Minister and I signed a Memorandum of Understanding between our two governments on the Singapore-Myanmar Technical Cooperation Programme. This underscores our commitment to support Myanmar with capacity-building in economic and human resource development, as well as public administration.

Our belief is that this is a good way to assist, as the need for trained people in many fields is likely to increase in Myanmar. Our cooperation on capacity building and human resource development goes back some way. We have worked with Myanmar under the auspices of the Singapore Cooperation Programme. Myanmar has been one of the largest recipients of our technical assistance. We also made humanitarian contributions after the devastating Cyclone Nargis in 2008. The Myanmar government appreciated the US$5 million that we disbursed for relief efforts. These included the deployment of a medical team, the building of a hospital, tube-wells, as well as shelters for the Cyclone survivors. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef was one of the dedicated members of the Singapore medical team that helped the survivors.

Bilateral cooperation is not confined at the governmental level. A Singapore Business Federation delegation is currently in Myanmar to explore economic opportunities. We hope to develop more links with Myanmar as the country opens up economically and politically. Members may recall that in 2005, Myanmar voluntarily decided to skip its turn as Chair of ASEAN. At that time, the ASEAN Foreign Ministers agreed to allow Myanmar to become the Chairman when it was ready. In October 2011, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, in his capacity as Chair of ASEAN, visited Myanmar to get a sense of ground developments. He delivered a good report that reflected on the positive steps taken by Myanmar. As a result of these positive developments, the ASEAN Leaders agreed at their Summit in November 2011 that Myanmar would assume the ASEAN Chairmanship in 2014.

Singapore welcomes Myanmar's Chairmanship in 2014. ASEAN has never set any specific pre-conditions or "progress targets" for any ASEAN Chairmanship. ASEAN has taken the position that Myanmar should be allowed to follow the seven-step roadmap it had set for itself. The Chairmanship presents an opportunity for Myanmar to build on its current momentum. As ASEAN Chair, Myanmar will be the external face of ASEAN. It will have to defend not only its own interests and record, but also ASEAN's interests. Myanmar will also have to reassure our external partners that under its Chairmanship, ASEAN would continue to make progress towards an ASEAN Community in 2015. The world will be watching. Given the stakes, I am confident that Myanmar will work hard to make its ASEAN Chairmanship a success. Singapore will offer to work with Myanmar to ensure successful outcomes under its 2014 Chairmanship.

Sir, let me thank the Minister for his reply. I would like to ask the Minister this question. Yes, we are encouraged by the progress and the reform that is made by the Mynamar government currently. In the event they do not follow through with the seven-step roadmap that the Minister has highlighted, or in the event they regress on their reforms within the next two years, will there be any possibility of ASEAN reviewing the Chairmanship for Myanmar?

Sir, in foreign policy terms, these are hypothetical questions as to what might happen, what ASEAN might do – 10 members of ASEAN – should Myanmar fail to do certain things. First, I think we should acknowledge the current position, which is that there have been significant developments in ASEAN which I have put on record, and we should encourage those developments. If the course changes, we must look at that and consider, and we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

Sir, I thank the Minister for the response. We know that there are long-standing economic sanctions, especially by the West, on Mynamar. So, I am wondering how crucial does the ASEAN members, and also the Minister, think that the lifting of the sanctions is to opening up the region even further.

ASEAN Foreign Ministers recently called for the lifting of sanctions and we were quite unequivocal about it. We have always believed that sanctions may not be the best way to deal with the situation in Myanmar. In my recent visit to the United States, I said publicly as well as with various influential congressmen and women that I met, the United States, as Members might know, has made a number of reciprocal gestures as well in the context of its dealings with Myanmar. The lifting of sanctions is to be seen in the context not so much of opening up of the region as a whole but primarily to be seen to be in the interest of Myanmar. And in a secondary context, when we do talk about ASEAN connectivity in 2015, creating a centre with 600 million people, creating physical and social connectivities, obviously sanctions against any particular member are not the most helpful. So, in a number of context, we have indicated that sanctions ought to be lifted. And, I think, increasingly, the response both by the United States and the European Union has been positive.

13 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth, Sports what is the regulatory policy towards fundraising activities such as the recent "Elephant Parade"; (b) whether such sales of products are allowed to be positioned as a charity fundraising event; and (c) whether the regulations will be tightened to protect the interests of the local charities and potential donors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, any appeal to raise funds in Singapore where the entire or part of the proceeds is for charitable purposes is regulated under the Charities Act. If the organisers are raising funds for overseas charitable causes, they would have to apply for a permit from the Office of the Commissioner of Charities and comply with a set of conditions. These include providing clear information to donors on the fund-raising purpose and the intended beneficiaries and submitting audited accounts after the fund-raising event.

The recent "Elephant Parade" was an initiative by a commercial company to raise public awareness and support for elephant conservation projects in Asia. The organiser sought sponsorship for the production of life-size elephant statues, arranged for them to be painted by artists and well-known personalities, and exhibited them at various parts of Singapore for two months. These elephants were then sold at a private auction opened only to invited guests. This event has been held in other cities such as London, Milan and Amsterdam since 2006. "Elephant Parade Singapore" is not a pure charity fundraising event where the bulk of the proceeds go to charities. It is a sale of merchandise by a commercial company, where part of the proceeds is donated to charities and the remaining parts used to cover cost or retained as profits. In this case, 20% of the auction proceeds were donated to an overseas charity and another 5% to a local charity.

As required by the Office of the Commissioner of Charities, the organiser had to provide accurate information to potential customers and disclose how the monies raised would be used. They were not allowed to give the impression that the event was a charity fundraising where the whole or majority of the proceeds goes to the charities. They also had to announce the allocation of the auction proceeds before the commencement of the auction.

While "Elephant Parade Singapore" had met these conditions, some invited guests and members of the public have given feedback that they were under the impression that the event was a charity fundraising where the majority of the proceeds would go to the charities. Some commented that they had formed this impression because of the display of the painted elephant statues in publicly-accessible places, as well as the media coverage on the statues.

Such fundraising arrangements by commercial companies are becoming more common. While we would encourage corporate social responsibility and the giving spirit among companies, we also need to protect public and donor interest.

To ensure better transparency and accountability for such events, the Office of the Commissioner of Charities will look into refining the rules and regulations. These will include making clearer distinctions between sale of merchandise with partial donations of proceeds and charity fundraising, as well as between public and private fundraising. It will also consider amending the rules for private fundraising, including the extent of public visibility, whether in the form of media publicity or public displays.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his response. May I ask the Minister whether the Commissioner of Charities can be more proactive in keeping the public informed on fundraising activities in the future?

Mr Speaker, Sir, indeed, we share the same concern as the hon Member of Parliament. The Office of Commissioner of Charities can play a role in public education. As part of the move to promote informed giving, fundraisers are already required to inform donors upfront about how their donations will be used and how much of their donations will go towards charity. In addition, an up-to-date list of fundraising permits issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Charities and other authorities, which include the Police and NCSS, is posted on the charity portal to inform the public of ongoing fundraising activities. There is also an SMS facility where the public can send an SMS to verify the authenticity of the fundraising appeals they have come across. When the public is in doubt about any fundraising activity, they can also call or email the Charities Unit directly to voice their concerns. We will do more. For example, the charity portal will also be revamped this year, and one of the enhancements is to display information on fundraising and other information of public interest more prominently to raise public awareness and to promote informed giving. The Office of the Commissioner of Charities will also work with our stakeholders and step up and tap on various platforms to enhance the public education efforts on informed giving.

14 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports if he will provide an update on the status of the restructuring of social services to be more ground-up and centered on voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs).

At the Opening of Parliament last October, I shared that MCYS will play a more active role in strengthening the social service sector and developing its capability to meet future demands and needs. This includes developing our social service professionals, providing more resources for key services and raising productivity. We will take a public-private-people partnership approach to help the sector become more effective and efficient, while maintaining its "personal" touch.

I am pleased to report that we have since taken concrete steps in this direction. Allow me to recap a few recent examples.

For the community eldercare sector, to encourage "ageing in place", we have extended subsidies for day care centres and home help services from the 30th income percentile to the 50th income percentile and raised Government's share of funding for Seniors Activity Centres from 50% to 60%. These changes were effected on 1 October 2011 and 1 January 2012 respectively. Going forward, we are significantly increasing the number and range of programmes to better support the seniors in our community.

For the children and youth sector, we have introduced licensing for residential care facilities. To equip the sector to deliver better outcomes for these children, we introduced a common assessment tool to guide care planning, resilience building programmes as well as a training competency framework. We will also be investing $13 million over the next four years to pilot small group homes that can provide more intensive and specialised services for children with higher level needs.

We have also made progress with the Family Service Centres (FSCs). Last week, I announced a series of new initiatives to build up the sector. These include providing more resources to FSCs and enhancing the capability of their staff to bring about more effective family services. We will also fund the development of more FSCs to enhance the accessibility of FSC services to Singaporeans in need.

On manpower development, the National Council of Social Service launched the Social Service Talent Development scheme in October 2011 to provide structured career development for social service professionals with leadership potential.

There is still a lot of work to be done to strengthen the social sector as well as to better serve specific groups of vulnerable Singaporeans. We will share these initiatives in due course when they are ready.

I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. I would just like to ask: since the objective is to be more ground-up and pro-centric in terms of the social sector, has the Ministry actively engaged the VWOs maybe to get their feedback or conduct certain appraisal to find out whether this objective has been achieved or they are on the right path?

I thank the hon Member for the question. Yes, indeed, we actively and regularly consult all VWOs and other stakeholders in the sector. For example, in the development of the plans for the Family Service Centres, we have formed various committees that have participants from the practitioners in the sector to give us feedback. In the childcare sector, likewise, we regularly meet with the providers of the services to hear their feedback and their ideas because we believe that for the Ministry to implement effective policies, we need the 3P partnership that comprises the Government, which is the public, the private sector and the people sector. It is only when all stakeholders work closely together will we come up with better ideas to better care for the Singaporeans that are with us.

15 Mr David Ong asked the Minister for Health (a) if he can provide an update on the sufficiency of hospital beds for the critically ill; and (b) whether the hospitals can cope with the current number of beds in the event of a surge in the number of chronic cases turning critical.

Sir, the Ministry of Health has over the years built up high dependency and intensive care capacities to meet the needs of critically-ill patients. As of end of 2011, High Dependency (HD) and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds constitute approximately 9.4% of beds in service. Bed occupancy rates for HDs and ICUs vary across different hospitals and time periods. The bed occupancy rate in 2011, up to the end of the third quarter of 2011, for HD was 60% while the bed occupancy rate for ICU was 73.1%.

We recognise that the demand for such facilities would increase as our population ages with increasing prevalence of chronic diseases coupled with advances in medical treatment that enable treatment of increasingly more complex cases. We would thus be increasing the number of high dependency and intensive care beds even as we increase the overall number of public hospital beds. At the same time, we need to use these facilities appropriately and ensure right siting so that only patients who need HD and ICU beds are warded in such facilities.

I thank the Minister for the response to the question. Indeed, I am concerned about the shortage in capacity in view of the fact that we are a fast ageing population and there is a significant rise of people suffering from chronic illnesses, such as diabetes. Our specialist outpatient clinics, which are a prelude to hospitalisation for many of our chronic sick, are now seeing a waiting time of about six months or more, and this long waiting time can lead to further complications, such as eye, limb and kidney problems. So, I would like to ask the MOH whether the Ministry can look at quickening the pace in shortening the waiting time and whether our restructured hospitals can be better prepared to take care of this sudden surge of cases turning from chronic to urgent and critical.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Ong has raised a very important point. As part of our healthcare strategy, I would share more about our overall capacity plan during the Budget Debate as well as during the Committee of Supply (COS). What is more important as we progress is that we must recognise that as our population ages, we will see an increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, as Mr Ong has pointed out. But if we do nothing, these diseases will progress and we will end up with many of the patients developing multiple morbidities, and many of them will end up in hospitals and putting a stress on our hospital system as well as our healthcare system overall. But to address this problem, while we continue to add hospital beds, we must also look at how we can manage these chronic diseases better and more effectively.

It is for this reason that we have introduced recently the Primary Care Master Plan. Through this Master Plan, we hope to be able to transform the primary care sector to deliver patient-centric, team-based, holistic care to manage the chronic diseases more cost-effectively. At the same time, we have also enhanced our Primary Care Partnership Scheme, or what we now call Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS). Through this scheme, we tap on the capacity in the private sector (the private GPs) to help us manage the chronic diseases in the community so that we can prevent these diseases from progressing into multiple morbidities. And we hope that through this Primary Care Master Plan as well as CHAS, we will be able to be more effective in managing these diseases and reduce the load on the hospital beds. This will be beneficial to the society as a whole and, more importantly, this will be beneficial to the patients themselves. I hope to be able to share more with Members during the COS.

Dr Lily Neo, keep it short.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I ask the Minister, apart from what he has just mentioned earlier, is his Ministry looking into other measures or new options to ease the demand of the expensive, acute hospital beds to cope with this ageing population and more and more chronic cases, and what are these measures?

Mr Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, we would like to share more details during the COS. But I think it is probably appropriate for me to stress at this moment to Dr Neo as well as the rest of the Members that for us to be able to manage the hospital beds, it is not just about building more beds. We will continue to build more hospitals. We talked about Jurong Hospital. We will be bringing forward Sengkang Hospital, and we will share more about our plans and capacity expansion.

But more than just building beds, we also have to look at various measures to manage the demand in the hospitals. For example, right siting is very important. We want to make sure that only those who need to be hospitalised will be hospitalised. Patients who can be cared for in community hospitals, in nursing homes or even at home, we should find ways to encourage them and facilitate better care in the community as well as at home.

These are the various measures that we will be discussing during the COS. In the short term, while we build more capacity in the hospitals, the various healthcare institutions also look at measures to increase effective capacity. One example is to shorten the length of stay. If we are able to shorten the length of stay, manage it better, then, effectively, you create more bed space for patients.

Secondly, we are also looking at whether we can decant some of the administrative facilities or spaces to convert them into medical facilities that can provide additional space. We are also looking at how we can manage the process more efficiently, such as discharge processes, so that it is more efficient for us to discharge patients when they are ready rather than to have to wait for administrative procedures to be completed. And if we are able to discharge patients more efficiently, then we will also be able to create more space to cater for the increasing needs.

Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 16-17, 22-23, 26, 29 and 32-34 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix (Pg 1149-1155). Question Nos 18-21, 24-25, 27-28 and 35 have been postponed to the next sitting of Parliament on 17 February 2012.]

"to amend the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (Chapter 52A of the 2009 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the Hire-Purchase Act (Chapter 125 of the 1999 Revised Edition) and the Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276 of the 2004 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Teo Ser Luck); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2012 and 2013, and to be printed.

"to amend the Moneylenders Act (Chapter 188 of the 2010 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Sim Ann); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2012 and 2013, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill makes three key amendments to the Legal Profession Act, to strengthen the legal industry in Singapore. Let me explain the changes.

The first of these changes makes it slightly easier for foreign expert counsel to appear in our Courts. The policy on the admission of foreign counsels to appear in our courts has evolved over time. Prior to1991, more QCs appeared in our courts. Many of us benefited from working with them, watching them in action, and pitting ourselves against them in Court. As our Bar developed, the conditions for admitting QCs were tightened. In 1991, admission was restricted to cases which were, in the view of the Court, of "sufficient" complexity and difficulty. In 1997, the first batch of Senior Counsel was appointed. Over the years, the Courts have gradually restricted ad hoc admissions of QC. This was in line with the 1991 Amendments. Meanwhile, Singapore has grown exponentially as a business and financial centre with a corresponding growth in the demand for top-tier legal representation. This has thrown up a different set of challenges. One of the key challenges has been that in several cases, litigants had difficulties getting a Senior Counsel (SC) in Singapore of their choice when they are up against a bank or a large corporate.

We have several SCs. The majority of them practise in large firms. These firms have extensive corporate practices serving a wide range of clients. As a result, many of our SCs from the big law firms often find themselves unable or unwilling to act for a client when a large bank or corporate is on the other side. The larger firms would have had some relationship with such banks and corporates. Thus, even if the bank or corporate does not instruct them in the specific case in question, the SCs will decline to accept instructions from the other side. The Courts have observed this to be quite a serious problem over the years. When he opened the Legal Year in 2010, the Chief Justice (CJ) said:

"€¦ there is another area of practice we might want to revisit – litigation, and the availability of top counsels to appear in our courts. Currently, we have a provision in the Legal Profession Act for the ad hoc admission of Queen's Counsel and Senior Counsel from other Commonwealth jurisdictions, in cases where legal expertise is not available. Fortunately, it is rare that we cannot find the necessary expertise since we have built up a pool of first class litigation counsel under our Senior Counsel scheme. However, many of them are no longer in active practice and not many appear frequently in our Courts, especially the Court of Appeal. In Opening of Legal Year 2002, I spoke on this topic and pointed out that a major corporate client with a court case could immobilise all the litigators in the large law firms, including our best Senior Counsel. [This is a point that the Chief Justice when he was Attorney-General thought about 10 years ago.] To maintain our eminence as an international business and financial centre, we should make available to litigants in important commercial and financial disputes a greater diversity of legal representation in our courts. I have discussed this with the Minister for Law. He agrees with me that this is an issue that needs looking into, and he intends to consult the Law Society on it."

The CJ was very clear in what he has said and he did speak with me on several occasions on this matter. The CJ reiterated his point during the Opening of the Legal Year in 2011. Again I quote:

"This year will see the revival of the Singapore Circuit – not the Singapore Grand Prix – but something older which was sidelined by the need to grow our own pool of expert advocates. We now have a sizeable pool of Senior Counsel who provides advisory, arbitral and litigation services to offshore and onshore clients. However, experience has shown that their services may not be available to the general public in times of need. We have a very large financial and business sector in terms of contributions to our GDP – it grew from 24.4% out of a nominal GDP of S$158.1 billion in 2002 to 25.9% out of a nominal GDP of S$303.7 billion in 2010. But, the legal services provided to these sectors are dominated by a small number of large law firms. The result is that the best litigation counsel are usually conflicted out of advising or acting for claimants against big business as they are mainly concentrated in the large firms. So we need a greater diversity of expert counsel to advise, negotiate and pursue legitimate claims in court. This is not a new problem. The Ministry of Law has consulted the Law Society and the Senior Counsel Forum on the best way forward. We can expect amending legislation to be enacted this year. The Bar can rest assured that this will not be a free for all. The courts will admit ad hoc expert counsel on the basis of need, and not simply because a litigant can afford to pay. We do not want to disadvantage litigants who cannot afford equivalent representation, nor do we want to impede the nurturing of our own Senior Counsel. So, ad hoc admission will be on a case-by-case basis, with the court doing a judicious balancing of competing interests in each case."

Sir, clause 4 amends section 15 to deal with this situation. The amendments were made after frank and intensive consultations with the Law Society, the Forum of Senior Counsel and the Bar at large. The Bar was generally supportive of this proposal. Lawyers from mid-sized and small firms, in particular, were very supportive. There can now be a less restrictive approach to the ad hoc admission of QCs and foreign counsel holding appointments of equivalent distinction to QCs. Greater discretion will be given to the Courts. Nevertheless, the Chief Justice has stated during his address during the Opening of the Legal Year in 2012: that ad hoc counsel will only be admitted on the basis of need, and it will not be a free for all. The CJ will, before the amendments come into force, gazette the matters that the Court may consider in deciding whether to admit foreign counsel, and the Amendments give him the power to do so. There will remain prescribed areas of law, where ad hoc admissions need to be justified by special reasons. These are: constitutional and administrative law; criminal law; and family law areas.

The next key amendment relates to Singapore law practices. Sir, the legal services market today is a globalised one and increasingly competitive. Size, international presence and economies of scale matter. Consolidation is the trend. The international market is dominated by a handful of large international practices which secure the most lucrative transactional work. Singapore law practices realise this, and many of them are moving to embrace the new paradigm.

To this end, my Ministry has been in consultation with the Law Society and a diverse range of Singapore law practices on the regulatory framework that will be needed for us. The thrust of the feedback that we have received is that Singapore law practices need more flexibility to collaborate with foreign law practices. One area which has been raised is the sharing of profits and the holding of shares in Singapore law firms by foreign entities. Currently, foreign lawyers can take profit or equity shares in Singapore law practices up to a maximum of 25%. Clause 10 amends section 130L, to clarify that foreign law practices may participate in such equity and profit sharing. At the same time, we will change our policies and rules to give greater flexibility to Singapore firms on how they collaborate with foreign law practices. Some of these changes are:

Singapore law firms will be allowed to give an increased share of profit and equity in their practices to foreign lawyers, up from the current 25%;

When there is collaboration between a Singapore and foreign law practice, a lawyer will be allowed to be a partner in both practices;

A significantly greater degree of collaboration within Formal Law Alliances will be allowed;

Qualifying Foreign Law Practices (QFLPs) will be allowed to enter into Formal Law Alliances as well as Joint Law Ventures with Singapore law practices while retaining their QFLP licences.

There will be conditions imposed to ensure that the Singapore law practice remains in effective control of Singapore lawyers. Within these limits, we will allow Singapore law practices significant freedom and flexibility to tie up with foreign partners. The details of these changes will be put up on the Ministry of Law website after my speech.

I had earlier asked the Attorney-General to chair a Committee to undertake a comprehensive review of the framework regulating lawyers and law firms. The review will also put in place a systematic and clear framework for the future. We are also giving Singapore law practices more flexibility to expand their practices. First, Singapore law practices will be allowed to set up a related law corporation. That will give them more flexibility to structure their operations. They can also take advantage of corporate tax incentives. Second, Singapore lawyers will be able to hold executive appointments in companies set up by the Singapore law practice for related activities, such as patent agent services.

The third key area concerns mandatory continuing professional development. Last year, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education was set up. It was set up to administer legal education in Singapore. One of the Institute's functions is to oversee mandatory continuing professional development for the legal profession and that will be implemented later this year. Clauses 2, 5, 8(a) and (b) amend the Act to provide for the means to enforce mandatory continuing professional development obligations. The annual application by a lawyer for practising certificate will now need to be accompanied by a declaration in writing on matters to be prescribed by the Institute. This will include a statement that the applicant has fulfilled his continuing professional development obligations. If a lawyer fails to fulfil these obligations, the Institute can refer the case to the Law Society for disciplinary action.

The remaining clauses make ancillary, consequential minor amendments to the Act. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

I declare my interest as a lawyer and a Senior Counsel. I will deal with the proposed amendments on the admission of foreign advocates and to allow a foreign law practice to become a shareholder in any Singapore law practice which is a law corporation or to share in the profits of any Singapore law practice. These amendments, like all Government policies, are born out of good intentions. However, the success of a policy is not determined by its intentions, but by its implementation and effect.

At the heart of the amendments is the desire to grow and add diversity to the legal market, and to give individuals and corporations greater freedom of choice. That is a good thing. However, free-market economics, while important, is not the only principle which should apply to the legal profession. In fact, hardly any country around the world, including those which practise free market economics, is completely free when it comes to legal services.

Let me touch on some relevant considerations. First, on foreign advocates. Not too many years ago, Queen's Counsels (QCs) were easily and readily admitted to argue cases in Singapore – that is, if you could afford one. The fact of the matter is that if one side appointed a QC, the other would inevitably ask for one as well – even if local Counsel were competent to handle the case. The result was that the larger, more complex cases were argued by QCs. All this was to the detriment of the local bar because it inhibited its development.

So we changed the rules. In 1991, the LPA was amended such that foreign advocates would only be admitted where the court is satisfied that a case is of sufficient difficulty and complexity and the circumstances of the case warrant his appointment. We also put in place a system of appointing our own QCs, or Senior Counsels. In 1992, the High Court had occasion to consider this change. Justice Chan Sek Keong, as he then was, noted that it intended to lay the foundation for the development of a strong local Bar by the imposition of more stringent conditions for the admission of QCs, but at the same time, to continue to allow litigants to avail of their services in appropriate cases, in cases where it is sufficiently complex and difficult. Ten years on, the High Court, in another case, commented that after nearly a decade following the change, it was fair to say that the local Bar had matured and was acquitting itself commendably. The Court also noted that there had been forged and carefully nurtured, particularly over those 10 years, a body of Senior Counsels, potential Senior Counsels and an impressive group of young advocates and solicitors, both in the public service and in the private sector, with excellent academic credentials and the right attitude.

A further 10 years on, our legal industry has stepped up further in quality and competency. To date, 68 Senior Counsels have been appointed, most of them from the private sector. Our local law firms have demonstrated that they are more than able to handle complex, high-value disputes. In the arbitration circuit where one crosses swords with law firms worldwide, our local firms have proved more than a match for others. The practice of law also attracts the best young minds in the country, and there remains a good pipeline of hungry, bright and impressive young advocates. What they need most is the experience and opportunities to allow them to become good advocates, as Horace Rumpole puts it, to stand on their hind legs and make an argument. That is because, where litigation is concerned, there is no substitute for arguing a case yourself. A large part of becoming a good counsel is from first-hand experience, dealing with complex issues, making tactical and strategic decisions, many times while on your feet.

The proposed amendments may undermine all that has been achieved. First, it is unclear what the criteria for admission will be. The Minister says it will be slightly easier to admit foreign advocates. It is unclear what "slightly easier" means. The Honourable Chief Justice will now have the responsibility to specify the matters that the court may consider when deciding whether to admit a foreign lawyer. I am not against giving the Courts more discretion but it is the duty of the House, I feel, to make clear what policy considerations should dictate the exercise of that discretion as it is done under the current regime. Second, while the discretion is wider, the undisputed aim and the effect of the change is to make it easier for foreign advocates to be admitted to argue Singapore cases. It is a reversal of the earlier position. If this is the case, the question arises as to the need for this change, and who it is intended to benefit. Now I would like to make two points.

First, I am concerned that if we relax the criteria for ad hoc admission, we might end up going back to the old days of having many foreign advocates walking the hallways of our Courts, and stifling the development of our local talent. I accept that there may be areas where we lack expertise. But the LPA already allows for ad hoc admission in such cases.

It has been suggested that some litigants find it difficult to appoint local Senior Counsel, particularly when up against a large institution. Such institutions have on their panels the larger law firms and a good number of Senior Counsels is therefore unable or sometimes unwilling to act against them. I accept that happens in practice. I am not sure, however, whether this criticism is entirely sound as there are a number of Senior Counsels who do not practise in large firms. And it is unclear whether the litigant has made reasonable efforts to engage them. However, in cases where the litigant cannot secure a Senior Counsel, then I agree that he should be given more leeway to apply to admit a foreign advocate to argue his case for him.

However, the existing admission requirements can then be modified to allow for admission of foreign advocates in such cases. What I question is whether we need to make such wholesale and drastic changes to deal with that special case. Can we not tweet the current regime as opposed to having one which makes the criteria less clear and more ambiguous?

Parliament struck a balance in 1991 which it felt was appropriate. It allowed our local firms and legal industry to grow, while at the same time ensuring that in areas where we lacked the experience and knowledge, we could import that expertise. The formula has worked and I hope that the balance will continue to be struck under the proposed new regime. Can I ask the Minister to tell the House what considerations will now apply to the admission of foreign advocates? I understand that the Chief Justice will be presenting the considerations but could the Minister tell the House what consideration is being considered before that change is put into effect? More importantly, does the Minister have any concern that the development of the local Bar would be adversely affected and, if so, are there any plans to address this?

Mr Speaker, on the second amendment of share ownership or profit sharing, the proposed amendments would also allow, for the first time, a foreign law practice to own shares in a Singapore law practice. The foreign law practice would have to comply with conditions which would be prescribed as well as conditions the Attorney-General may think fit to impose in such cases.

We have incrementally allowed foreign law firms to enter our legal industry. We have the Joint Law Venture licence, the Formal Law Alliance licence, the Qualifying Foreign Law Practice licence, the licensed foreign law practice licence and finally the representative office licence. There is no doubt that foreign firms have a role to play in our legal industry, and their presence enhances Singapore's position as an international hub for businesses. By setting up shop in Singapore, the firms provide expertise that may be lacking, increase the breadth of choices for clients and even provide good jobs for Singaporean lawyers. All these are good things.

This new move, however, suggests that the Government believes that the current framework is lacking in some respects. Allowing foreign law firms to hold an equity stake in a local law practice represents a change in the development of our legal landscape, and I think we should be careful as we go down this road. I am concerned about allowing a foreign law practice to own, and more importantly, dictate how a Singapore law practice functions. We must never forget the legal profession is a noble one. A lawyer serves his client but he owes a higher duty to the Court and to society. This requires sensitivity to local conditions and circumstances. By allowing a foreign legal practice to own part of a law firm, there is a serious risk that, with their financial muscle, they will now call the shots from abroad and dictate how the local firm should be run.

This problem was highlighted by one Mr Lindsay Esler, Operations, Managements and Projects Partner of an indigenous Hong Kong firm, who highlighted in an article that promotion decisions in the branch offices of international firms are generally made by the home office. The partners in the home office might have drastically different ideas regarding promotion criteria, and local lawyers would have to bend to the will of their foreign bosses if they wish to be promoted. It is also not uncommon to hear of glass ceilings for local lawyers when it comes to promotions. Furthermore, in a firm where the final decision lies abroad, the bottom line becomes paramount. Obtaining maximum financial returns might not necessarily coincide with what is best for the legal industry and, more importantly, what is best for society. In April 2004, for example, Denton Wilde Sapte axed its entire Asian network and, in January 2012, CMS Cameron McKenna laid off 69 of its 75 staff in Hong Kong. Here at home, when the financial crisis hit in 2009, The Business Times reported that foreign law firms in Singapore started trimming headcount, freezing salaries and asking staff to work fewer hours. In times of crisis, there may be less loyalty to Singapore and Singaporeans.

An increased presence of international firms could also affect the ability of local firms to obtain high quality hires, as they cannot afford to compete with the starting salary often offered by these larger firms. This might appear like free-market economics at its best and it would be so if we were only talking about commercial areas, the mainstay of foreign firms. But this may mean fewer quality graduates entering into domestic disciplines, such as family law and criminal law. These areas tend to be dominated by smaller firms which are already struggling today to find lawyers to hire. There is a serious risk that these practice areas may be hollowed out.

Could the Minister clarify the gaps in the current regime this move is intended to address? Does the Minister foresee our legal industry heading in the direction of Hong Kong where international law firms dominate nearly every area of the law, and local firms have all but disappeared? Is this a consequence the Government is prepared to accept? I also hope the Minister can clarify the nature of the conditions which will be imposed on the foreign firms to take up equity stakes, whether such conditions will be made public and how his Ministry intends to ensure that these conditions are obeyed. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

Order. I propose to take the break. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.50 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.26 pm until 3.50 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm

Debate resumed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I would like to thank the Ministry for re-considering the original amendments in light of public feedback and the legal fraternity's reservations to some of the proposed changes to the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill.

It is noteworthy that the Ministry has decided to delete the proposed amendment to section 35 after public feedback, in light of one of the central pillars of arbitration – party autonomy; in recognition of the fact that clients should be free to choose whoever they believe is best suited to represent them in arbitration proceedings. I understand many in the arbitral community welcome this view, and the Law Ministry should be commended for doing away with this proposed amendment.

Mr Speaker, it leaves me to pass some views on the ad hoc admission of Queen's Counsel. According to the MinLaw public consultation paper on the amendments, the original manifestation of this amendment called for a proposed licensing scheme that would give rights of audience in the local courts to a small number of "independent counsel". The purpose of this licensing scheme, according to the consultation paper, was to address the shortage of Senior Counsel in commercial and financial disputes. However, after feedback, MinLaw noted that preference was for Queen's Counsel to be admitted on an ad hoc basis, rather than through the Licensing Scheme.

But while the current amendments ostensibly seek to make it easier to admit QCs for commercial disputes, it also statutorily raises the threshold for the admittance of Queen's Counsel from criminal cases to other areas of domestic law, such as family, constitutional and administrative law. What this suggests is that the freedom of Singaporeans to choose the appropriate counsel for legal advice is going to be statutorily curtailed as clause 4 amends section 15(2) to say "any area of law prescribed for the purposes of this section", rather than just criminal matters, as it currently stands. Effectively, the amendments set out two standards, both of which are clearly not spelt out in the Bill, but are understood to be those stated in the consultation papers.

There was some opposition to the amendment to section 15 from the public, I understand, and the Ministry replied noting that the Court still had the discretion to decide whether to admit Queen's Counsel on a case-by-case basis, effectively stating that such Counsel can still be admitted in cases involving domestic areas and that the factors taken into consideration in such an application would be a matter for the court to decide. This position from the Ministry then begs the question: why is there a need to amend section 15, especially since any application to admit a Queen's Counsel remains a matter for the court to decide?

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the desire of the Ministry to open the door to QCs in commercial matters is an opportune time to consider whether the courts should be left to decide whether the admittance of QCs would be necessary or not. It is noteworthy that public confidence in our judicial system is not low. Insofar as the proposed amendment to section 15 is concerned, the changes effectively operate to narrow the scope of the judiciary's flexibility to allow the admittance of QC and statutorily sets an even higher threshold for family, administrative and constitutional matters, amongst others. A more propitious course of action would be to allow the judiciary to assess each case, regardless of area of law – commercial or otherwise – on its own merits, and to assess whether the questions of law or fact necessitate the admittance of a QC.

Mr Speaker, Sir, over the years, albeit in a handful of significant cases, some local lawyers have found it difficult to engage senior local lawyers to act in cases where there were political overtones. Like the admission of Queen's Counsel for complex commercial and financial disputes – which is what this Bill ostensibly seeks to address – in the same vein, there is a concern that the door to entry for QCs should not be restricted for politically-charged cases either because senior local lawyers are reluctant to accept such briefs, or that only very few are willing to do so.

Sir, there are, of course, many pros and cons to keeping the door ajar for a Queen's Counsel. A natural response would be that opening the door to them could take away work for local lawyers. This concern should not be taken lightly. But to mitigate this, any individual or corporate who seeks redress in a local court should expect to make clear to the Bench why he or she needs a foreign lawyer, regardless if the case involves commercial law or local law – my view, Sir, is that it is simply a case of one standard for all, with the courts, not Parliament, determining that standard and applying it equally across all legal practice areas.

This would result in greater consistency insofar as the development of Singapore law as a whole is concerned, rather than the current proposed amendment which could portend a bifurcation in the development of Singapore law in the years to come – a highly up-to-date common law on commercial matters to the benefit of businesses, but a regime that could be behind the curve on local jurisprudential matters to the detriment of Singaporeans, as the brightest international legal brains have many more hoops to negotiate before being allowed to take on a domestic matter. To a lesser extent, the diminished prospects of local lawyers being invited to advise clients in foreign jurisdictions on non-commercial matters or penning cutting-edge academic commentary on local law could also be apparent over time when compared against their commercial colleagues.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in light of the fundamental changes to the local legal landscape over the past few years, especially with the entry of foreign lawyers and law firms, some local lawyers fear that the Government has gone too far in its drive to liberalise the legal sector, and that the qualified entry of QCs for commercial matters is but evidence of this – an about-turn in view of the judicial impetus to develop Singapore law from the 1990s and the appointment of local Senior Counsels to practically remove the necessity of QCs.

To some Singaporeans, there is a concern that opening the door for QCs in commercial matters is myopically driven by economic interests alone as the international corporates may seek to extract quid pro quo from the Government, that is, if you want us to come and invest, we want to bring our own lawyers. Mr Speaker, this emotive can be quite strong in small and medium-sized firms. Opening the door to QCs, especially in areas of law that are financially lucrative, is perceived by some to further prejudice the prospects of small and medium-sized firms who cannot compete.

To conclude, like the response of the Ministry in cancelling its proposed amendment to section 35 on arbitration issues, perhaps the Minister could review the proposal to admit Queens Counsel, in a holistic manner rather than solely from the perspective of a shortage of Senior Counsel to advise on commercial and financial matters. I am of the view that the judiciary and not Parliament is best placed to decide if any case heard locally warrants the admittance of a QC, regardless of the area of law. Parliament need not over legislate, but allow the judiciary space to shape the contours of Singapore's legal development in an independent way, keeping in mind the interests of local and foreign lawyers, and, of course, the local Bar. With that, Mr Speaker, thank you.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at first glance, the replacement of section 15 of the Legal Profession Act seems like a U-turn after the years of the development of our own legal profession. In essence, we are now going to make it easier to admit persons outside Singapore before our courts – this will be the effect of removing the requirement of a case being of "sufficient difficulty and complexity". If there are to be foreign admissions, then it seems reasonable for it to be shown that the expertise is really required in each individual case.

Nevertheless, I am willing to accept the Minister's proposal. I agree with Mr Pritam Singh in inviting this House to consider admitting Queen's Counsels for cases of a political nature, such as defamation suits involving Opposition politicians. I say this because of a number of high-profile defamation cases of complex nature, where these litigants were unable to hire Senior Counsels or their representatives. The ambit of the amended section should also include Queen's Counsels with constitutional law expertise given that the complex arena of constitutional cases, such as the mandatory death sentence legal challenge in Court in 2010, straddled on international law which local lawyers needed the expertise of a Queen's Counsel. Edward Fitzgerald QC of London, an expert on human rights law, was present in court as part of the research team to lend his assistance on a pro bono basis in a capital case before the Court of Appeal but did not argue the case as already the current requirement for ad hoc admission is already too stringent.

Mr Speaker, there are a number of hon Members in this House who are distinguished Senior Counsels. But would they be willing to take up such political or constitutional cases? Who else in Singapore can tackle such cases of a sufficiently difficult and complex nature, if our Senior Counsels decline to take them up? I therefore urge this House not to impose on a significantly higher threshold for the admission of QCs in areas of constitutional and criminal law which the draft Bill seeks to impose at paragraph 6 of the said Bill. I am making this plea before this House so that Singaporeans and the local lawyers are not denied of such eminent assistance on local issues concerning fundamental liberties which should not be ranked in secondary importance to commercial matters.

This is precisely where I think the admission of a Queen's Counsel is most necessary. But if these cases fall into the category of legal practice for which the courts will not admit foreign legal practitioners, then I question the fundamental rationale behind this Bill. Could I, therefore, seek the Minister's clarification and explanation on this issue?

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate at the Second Reading of this Bill. I support the Minister's intention to improve Singapore's status as a legal hub in Asia, if not the world. I therefore rise in support of the Bill but I would also like to flag some unintended negative consequences the Bill may bring. Therefore, I would seek the Minister's assurance that the Ministry for Law will deter or prevent these consequences.

At the outset, I wish to declare my interest. I am a member of the Singapore Bar and practise commercial litigation in a local partnership. The concerns I alluded to about are principally surrounding the proposal to widen the scope for the ad hoc admission of Queen's Counsel (QC) in Singapore courts. Under the new Bill, the requirement for a case to be "sufficiently difficult and complex" is removed. This Bill, if passed, may have unprecedented implications for the legal profession in Singapore. The question is whether these implications have been comprehensively thought through and systemically addressed by the Ministry. The proposed amendments have far-reaching consequences that will impact, whether beneficially or adversely, the entire local legal scene. Hence, these suggestions must be carefully reviewed. There must be sound policy reasons in support of them in order to justify these changes.

My understanding is that the main policy reason for giving QCs more scope to appear in Singapore courts is to address what is perceived to be a shortage of elite lawyers in Singapore who can represent opposing parties in high-end commercial and financial disputes before our courts. The Ministry has also added a qualifier to the proposed amendments that certain areas of practice, such as criminal, constitutional, administrative and family law, will remain at least more protected. The fundamental question here is whether or not the policy reason behind the proposed changes is indeed a sound one.

Let us examine the premise behind the policy rationale and the underlying assumptions. The main assumption is that there is a shortage of sufficiently qualified lawyers in Singapore who are capable of representing parties in certain specialised areas of law, in particular high-end commercial and financial disputes. Allow me to share with this House that this assumption has been met with much disquiet at the local Bar. A case may certainly be made for the appearance of independent counsels for cases involving areas of law that are unfamiliar to Singapore lawyers or where there are potential conflicts of interests should any arise. However, I do not agree with the view that there is an actual shortage of talent who are capable and qualified.

Let us pause and make a balanced and fair analysis that is accurately rooted in factual realities. First, I think the fiction that there is a dearth of experienced and competent lawyers within our local Bar is one that can easily be debunked on the facts. To date, we have a total of 68 appointed Senior Counsels, most of whom have many years of litigation experience. They occupy diverse positions within the legal fraternity and some have accepted judicial positions on the High Court Bench. Do we really lack the breadth and expertise in our Senior Counsels' ranks and other practising litigators to take on complex cases, even those that fall within specialised areas of law? I think not. On the contrary, our local Bar is extremely privileged in terms of its membership. It comprises exceptional luminaries who can clearly hold their ground and more than measure up to some of the best litigators in the Commonwealth.

Perhaps, then, the issue is one of conflict of interest. In essence, the issue here may be that there are insufficient qualified Counsels who will litigate against a big MNC or a bank but this concern is also questionable. The Bar includes stellar litigators who do not necessary hail from the big firms and who will be in a position to take on larger institutions. A few outstanding examples are Mr Kenneth Tan, Mr Michael Hwang and Mr Chelva Rajah. Two of these three litigators were appointed Judicial Commissioners before returning to private practice as leading litigators. So, is there really a need to have QCs to fill a gap that does not seem to exist?

Proponents of the proposed changes have raised attractive arguments for widening the scope of admission of QCs. Yet, these purported benefits should not be allowed to obscure the real question at hand. Is the existing arrangement, which already allows for the ad hoc appointment of QCs to argue cases locally, not an adequate framework within which these objectives can already be fulfilled? I repeat: is the existing arrangement, which already allows for the ad hoc appointment of QCs to argue cases locally, not an adequate framework within which these objectives can already be fulfilled?

It may be prudent, Sir, at this point in time to consider the rationale for the Senior Counsel scheme in Singapore and why it was even implemented in the first place, to take a leaf from the speech of the learned Member, Mr Hri Kumar. The appointment of Senior Counsel was a formal recognition of the emergence of highly specialised litigators in Singapore. The position of Senior Counsel was intended to be analogous to the rank of Queen's Counsel in England. The appointments were precisely intended to encourage home-grown advocates instead of reliance on the ad hoc admission of Queen's Counsels. The selection process is a highly rigorous one, carried out by a selection committee comprising the hon Chief Justice, hon Attorney General, and Judges of Appeal. In appointing a member of the Bar as Senior Counsel, the committee must be of the opinion that by virtue of the person's ability, his standing at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law, the person is deserving of such a distinction. Such stringent qualifying criteria, as well as the intention behind the scheme, which is the grooming and nurturing of a slate of Singapore advocates, are compelling counter-arguments to the need to allow more QCs to appear in local courts.

As stated earlier, by virtue of the qualifying criteria, the quality and capabilities of our current Senior Counsels (SCs) are virtually guaranteed. Even if specialised knowledge is required from foreign sources who may be better versed in specific areas of law, are present demands not sufficiently met within the existing framework which already allows for the ad hoc admission of QCs and their equivalents on a case-by-case basis? It is evident that the courts have, thus far, taken a fair and reasonable approach which enables the special expertise of QCs to be tapped on when needed. Would widening the scope to allow more representation by foreign counsels better serve existing needs? Or are there potential adverse implications to such a move that would render it possibly unfeasible?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the main rationale underlying the SC scheme is to nurture "home-grown advocates of the highest calibre", then is not the proposed liberalisation an effective reversal of that policy? How will allowing more QCs in to represent parties in local courts enhance the quality our local Bar? To be a high-quality litigator, one has to go to court regularly and fight cases of significance. One of the dangers of over liberalisation, from the perspective of developing a high-quality Bar at least, is the risk of alienating lawyers in the middle and junior ranks who are the very people who need the experience in order to build up their legal skills and expertise. The counter-argument that our younger lawyers would actually benefit from having the guidance and counsel of these elite lawyers is, in reality, a weak one. The truth is that these foreign counsels will likely look out for and work with their own juniors in London in strategising and preparing for their case. Where, then, is there space for a Singapore lawyer to learn in that environment?

Another issue that emerges from the proposed changes is that it could convey the message that the local Bar lacks expertise. The Law Society has rightly expressed concern in a submission that removing the criteria about complexity and circumstances of the case would send the signal that these issues were no longer relevant. Accordingly, QCs should only get admitted if, for some exceptional reason, the expertise they are offering is not available from local lawyers.

The proposed amendment should send a stronger signal in acknowledging the public interest in having a strong and independent local Bar. This leads us to consider our very own legal heritage. There is something unique about the Singapore Bar: its own unique and precious tradition, its own blend of jurisprudence, its own motion of court craft. What will happen to our traditions if we are overly open to foreign QCs arguing cases in our Singapore courts? I am not a protectionist, but we should not be so open as to rock the foundations.

This leads me to my next point. Another important reason why we cannot be overly reliant on foreign talent in the context of our legal profession is because our lawyers are the talent pool that feeds the High Court Bench. Currently, we have an excellent Bench. I am personally grateful to have been trained by many eminent judges when I was a junior judicial officer. Many of them were top litigators in their cohorts. They look at a case, dissect it, decide it through their wealth of knowledge in the law, but also, and importantly, by relying on the reservoir of experiences they accumulated as litigators in private practice. The local Bar is supposed to produce such men and women of top calibre to sit on the Bench. We should pause and recollect that the Bench is an integral institution in the separation of powers our Constitution envisions. It must be staffed with the best and most capable minds, as it is now, who have experienced the marinade of courtroom advocacy over many years. QCs cannot be appointed to our Bench. They are not Singaporeans. So, will an over-reliance on QCs rob Singapore of the talent she continues to require of those who sit on her Bench?

This Bill is unlike the liberalisation of the accountancy sector, an imperfect analogy which some have attempted to draw, as accounting firms do not feed any institution of government. We must look far ahead and consider who will then sit on the Bench. Ultimately, this ties in with the broader issue, which is: what is the direction in which the Singapore litigation landscape will develop? To answer this question as I near the end of my speech, I quote a reassuring pronouncement of the hon Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong at the Opening of the Legal Year this year. The Chief Justice stated, "We can expect amending legislation to be enacted this year. The Bar can rest assured that this will not be a free for all. The Courts will admit ad hoc expert counsel on the basis of need and not simply because a litigant can afford to pay. We do not want to disadvantage litigants who cannot afford equivalent representation nor do we want to impede the nurturing of our own Senior Counsels, so ad hoc admission will be on a case-by-case basis with the Court doing a judicious balancing of competing interests in each case."

The Chief Justice's words artfully marry the need for liberalisation with the preservation of our legal traditions for the benefit of parties and the profession as a whole. Like I said before, I am not a protectionist and I can fully appreciate the difficult task the Minister for Law has before him: that of a clear realisation that Singapore must remain global and porous to attract the best and to provide the best service the world can offer while at the same time personally realising that fundamentals, which have served our unique legal tradition well, should not be discarded or usurped by untested foreign forces too quickly. It is a fine balance but one I am confident that the Minister will strike very well.

The jury is out whether this Bill will be the Bar's Valentine, but if the Minister gives his assurance that the possible negative effects will be kept in check, this liberalisation may pave a win-win for practitioners, and most importantly, Singapore's legal institutions an evolving heritage. It is with this optimism that I support the Bill.

Sir, let me thank all the Members who have spoken. Let me first deal with the issue of foreign expert counsels.

Mr Hri Kumar, Mr de Souza, Mr Pritam Singh and Mrs Chiam have raised some questions on the amendments relating to the admission of QCs. They have asked about the considerations that will now apply to all ad hoc admissions. Mr Kumar and Mr de Souza are also concerned that the changes will stifle the local Bar.

Let me clarify, first, why the Amendments allow for counsel of equivalent distinction to QCs.

The Amendments set up the quality requirements while giving flexibility to clients. For example, Australia has its own Senior Counsel scheme and, in some areas, their expertise might well be more relevant in Singapore. I think, more importantly, the question which I think all the speakers have raised in this context is: why are these changes needed?

I spoke at considerable length in my original speech, and I am not sure that the thrusts of my comments have been fully taken in.

In 1991, the concern was with developing the local Bar, and even then, the intention was to allow QCs to be admitted for complex commercial cases. Strict judicial interpretation has helped to build up our local Bar and a core of SCs. Today, the challenge is not so much the quality of our local counsel but the availability of SCs in commercial cases.

Mr Kumar, and, I think, Mr de Souza, if I am not wrong, gave some number of SCs. Actually the number of active SCs is about 40. This figure has to be set in context as to why I said what I said in my opening speech. Out of the 40 active Senior Counsels, 35 come from large or medium-sized firms. I explained why many SCs are often conflicted out of complex commercial and financial cases. It is because their firms are conflicted out, or their firms do not wish to accept instructions by clients who wish to sue a bank even though those firms are not instructed by the bank or a corporate in that particular case. Members who spoke would have listened to the explanations.

Mr Singh kept referring to the "supposed justifications" for these Amendments. They are not supposed, they are the actual justifications.

I will highlight three points. The Chief Justice said in his Opening of the Legal Year speech that he has noticed this issue since 1992. I do not think anyone in this House questions what the Chief Justice says, or that he meant what he said. Second, he made the point quite strongly in 2010 − I do not need to repeat his remarks which I read in my speech just now − that we need to deal with this situation because the Courts have noticed that in a number of cases, the man in the street – the person who wants to sue a large corporation or a bank cannot find the SC of choice. He repeated it in 2011; he made the point that he has been in discussions with me.

So Mr de Souza says he does not think so, that there would be difficulty. I accept that he has this perspective. I have the views of the Chief Justice, distilled not only by his own observations but also from the observations of the entire Judiciary. I have to give some weight to what the Chief Justice says − in fact, considerable weight. Because I proceed on the basis that he is impartial, he does not look at it in the interest of any particular section or segment of lawyers or profession, that he looks at it in the broader interest of Singaporeans as a whole. And the question for this House is not so much whether this Amendment benefits or is to the detriment of a small segment of lawyers. The question for the man in the street, the litigant, is: is this beneficial? For the ordinary Singaporean, is this beneficial? You have the Chief Justice's views.

Mr de Souza would know that I myself have some personal experience in the matter, both in the context of having been a Senior Counsel and having practised in a large firm. On the ground, we know what the facts are. The banks, MAS, responsible stakeholders welcome this move.

Members will recall that the Chief Justice spoke about this in 2010 and 2011. This Bill is being moved in 2012 because my Ministry took a considerable time in getting feedback and having discussions on the issue. In that context, we wanted feedback from every segment of the legal profession – the Senior Counsel Forum which comprises all the SCs, the major law firms, as well as the medium and small law firms. The clear overwhelming preference among the small and medium law firms was that they wanted this. The Senior Counsel Forum was a little less clear.

What we had put forward originally was the idea that we will have three or four lawyers who would be given a licence to practise. In that way, the numbers are restricted for very much the reasons that Members of this House have articulated − that we should support and nurture the local Bar. And we thought one way of doing it is to have a small number of QCs. But the Senior Counsel Forum was quite decisive. Mr Harry Elias, as coordinator, sent it to me in writing that, not unanimously but overwhelmingly, the SCs preferred the ad hoc admission route to be liberalised rather than having three or four being chosen.

In that context, if I can take Mr Pritam Singh's point that, for some reason, it might disadvantage the small and medium firms. Indeed, it is the reverse, because there are not too many Senior Counsels in small and medium-sized law firms, as I just gave Members the figures. Often, what happens in reality is that many of our banks or large corporations − which is the kind of case we are talking about – will go to a major law firm. They will get an SC and the other side may go, sometimes not infrequently, to a small or medium-sized law firm, something along the lines of Mr Lim Biow Chuan's law firm.

The first thing for the client to ask is – it is human psychology – the other side has an SC, am I going to get an SC? Even if Mr Lim or his peers are entirely competent to handle the case, the psychology is, can I have an SC? And then the problem starts because the firm will hunt around for an SC and, often, and I can only quote what the Chief Justice said, "they will find it difficult to get an SC". It has happened − I am not saying it is 100% − but it has happened frequently enough for the Chief Justice to have noted it and mentioned it twice, and put it in very concrete terms, that there needs to be an amendment.

So, it is in that context and which is why when we consulted the small, medium-sized law firms, they were overwhelmingly in support of this recommendation. It benefits the small man – small, as in the individual – but you do need to pay for a QC obviously; so I do not mean financial means. But for the individual or person who is prepared to fight, it benefits that person. At the same time, MAS and the banks also welcome this because it gives them greater flexibility. So, on different ends of the scale, people welcome this approach.

As for the Members' queries on the criteria for admission, the changes give the discretion to the Court to admit foreign counsel on a case-by-case basis. Mr Hri Kumar asked if I can set out the criteria. I think what is being done is not radical. If you look at clause 4, the original provision, section 15, reads: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, the court may, for the purpose of any one case where the court is satisfied that it is of sufficient difficulty and complexity and having regard to the circumstances of the case, admit to practise as an advocate and solicitor ...". We have proposed to remove the phrase, "where the court is satisfied that it is of sufficient difficulty and complexity and having regard to the circumstances of the case", basically, reverting to the 1991 position, which is the subject of a case law. There are criteria and guidance on what sort of factors the courts would have to take into account and, going further, bearing in mind the Chief Justice's remarks in the Opening of the Legal Year this year, that it is not to be a free-for-all. And the courts want to be very careful about admissions, precisely for the kind of reasons that Mr de Souza spoke about.

We are amending the section to have an additional provision which gives the courts greater flexibility in identifying the factors and gazette it so that it is transparent. And the Chief Justice has made it clear that it would be a fairly strict approach and that is an indication that has been given. The Chief Justice has given guidance, in his speech, on the approach the courts will take.

For the balance between Parliament, the Legislature and the courts, Mr Singh feels that we should give more discretion to the courts; others here feel that we should set it out. I agree it is a question of getting the right balance. It is a question of judgement in these matters because each case can turn on its own facts. My own preference is to tilt more towards giving discretion to the courts with the general guidance of setting up the framework in the legislation, and that is what we seek to do, by removing the phrase "of sufficient difficulty and complexity".

Mr Singh also made a number of other points on this area. I think his first point was, why amend section 15 because it already gives the courts discretion? I went through clause 4 of the Bill – what it does is that it removes some phrases, and as a result of that, it gives the courts greater discretion. So I am not sure that we are on different wavelengths. I think the purpose of the amendments is actually to give the courts greater discretion in complex civil matters.

The second point that Mr Singh made was that there may be, as a result of these amendments, a bifurcation – I think this is what he said – where in commercial law cases, the quality of the lawyers would be much higher and would be international, whereas in criminal cases, the quality would be lower because it is more difficult to admit foreign lawyers in that area. Bearing in mind the courts continue to retain the discretion to admit QCs or foreign counsel even for those cases – I think we accept that the bar is different − would it result in this bifurcation? That argument proceeds from an assumption that I do not share, which is that local lawyers are simply not good enough. I do not agree because − of course, in any profession, there will be a gradation − if we can accept that the best of the local lawyers will be equal to the best anywhere in the world, then there should be no bifurcation.

The real rationale for the approach here is that in complex civil cases, for the reasons that I have given, we frequently find that the litigants are unable to engage the best of the SCs that they do want to engage. That is the problem. If we accept that to be a problem -- and I have quoted the Chief Justice a number of times and I accept what he says -- then we will see immediately why a distinction can be drawn between criminal cases and civil cases, because in criminal cases, we do not have that problem. There is no difficulty for any top SC accepting a brief in a criminal, constitutional, or public case because there is no real issue of conflict. Or even if there is no direct conflict, it is not as if the law firm is on a retainer which prevents any particular SC from taking up a case on a public or constitutional criminal matter.

Underlying Mr Singh's questions was another thread, which is probably his real question: would local lawyers be afraid or unwilling to act in, say – I cannot remember whether it was he or Mrs Chiam who used the words – "political-type cases" or libel cases. I think that suggestion would do local lawyers some injustice because I do believe, at the end of the day, local lawyers will step up to handle any case where they feel that representation is necessary. I am not one to cite my personal experiences frequently, but the fact that I was in a large firm that dealt with many matters for Government-linked corporations did not preclude me from acting in a libel case for The International Herald Tribune (IHT) against the then-Prime Minister, Senior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. It is really the timbre of the man and not this supposed fear, that matters. There are many lawyers in our profession – and I am certainly not holding myself out as the example – who, I am sure, will be prepared to do the same.

Mr Singh made a further point that international corporations – I think he did not use the word "blackmail" – may say they would not come into Singapore unless they bring their own QCs. I am not sure international corporations will say it in those terms, but the sense of MAS and the banks is that greater flexibility obviously helps us in becoming a more attractive centre for business. Here, again, we have to carefully weigh the advantages. My reasons given earlier on as to why we need to make this move in the context of the learned Chief Justice's remarks are good and independent, and stand by themselves about the representation against large corporates and banks. But independent of that, if the financial services sector would benefit from a slightly more liberal approach to the admission of QCs, then that is in the interests of Singaporeans as a whole, even if it results in a few cases where local lawyers may be employed as the second Counsel. Here, it is a weighing of the interests, and I think we have to go by the judgement of the professionals, that is, the financial services industry and what MAS thinks about the matter.

Mrs Chiam, and Mr Singh as well, suggested, does this represent a U-turn? It does represent going back to the position in 1991. We had the position from 1991 to now. We have built up a corps of SCs. But we cannot stand still even if the situation calls for a review. The situation calls for a review because of the factors that I have highlighted. The changes were asked for by the courts, and we believe those changes are necessary and the point is a legitimate one.

I now turn to Mr Kumar's and Mr de Souza's comments about foreign law practices with share ownership in Singapore law practices. The first point to make in this is that this is not really a fundamental change because section 130(l) of the Act already allows that. It allows foreign lawyers in their personal capacities to hold shares in Singapore law practices. All that this amendment does is, not just foreign lawyers, but also allows law practices to have that sort of ownership. And it gives the Singapore law firms – and that is important to emphasise – the flexibility. Firms may now allow foreign share ownership through allowing lawyers or a structure for firm-to-firm tie-ups.

Another point which I think needs to be emphasised is that these changes do not mandate or direct the Singapore law firm to do anything. What these changes do is to give greater flexibility to the Singapore law firms. The underlying fear in some of the speeches is that once we give that flexibility, Singapore law firms will do these things and, lo and behold, what will happen?

What is the duty of the Government in this context? Do we try and hold the line when the local law firms come to us and ask for this flexibility because they see the international scene changing and they need to change with that? Or to believe that we know better than them on how they should structure their business relationships? Law firms which believe that this is not the way to go do not need to do these things. This is only a provision that allows such measures to allow law firms to decide what is in their own best interest, rather than we doing it by dicta.

A consistent feedback that we have received from law firms is that the current regime is too constraining. It does not allow them to structure business models and strategies that would allow them to compete effectively with international firms which are increasingly dominating the high-value cross-border transactions. Even our larger and stronger law firms have told my Ministry that they do not have the international presence and network to compete and that they can only acquire such competencies and capabilities through closer partnerships with foreign firms. Mr Kumar asked if we will become like Hong Kong, where international firms dominate several areas of the law. I had earlier said that the international legal services market is an intensely competitive one. In 2007, the Committee to Develop the Singapore Legal Sector issued its report. That report highlighted the importance of helping our Singapore law practices to capture a greater share of the regional market even as we attract more foreign law practices to Singapore as a base for regional work. Among other measures, we amended the Legal Profession Act in 2008 and issued six Qualifying Foreign Law Practice Licences which allowed foreign law firms to practise in the permitted areas of Singapore law, notably commercial, corporate and financial law. That scheme has achieved its objective of bringing in more international legal work to Singapore. About 80% of the revenue of the QFLPs amounting to about $170 million was derived from offshore work in the second year of their licences. At the same time, the QFLPs have provided substantial opportunities for our young Singaporean lawyers. The QFLP scheme was not the first step in the liberalisation of the sector. As the House will note, we have incrementally allowed foreign law firms to enter our industry through various frameworks, beginning with the former Law Alliance in 2000.

The hard reality is that when it comes to liberalising the legal services sector, there are really only two feasible options: one, we could have decided in 2000 to keep the industry closed, and some other jurisdictions have done that. But in the end, we will find that that will only hurt the profession and deprive young Singapore lawyers of opportunities to hone their skills working on complex international deals. Our financial and economic sectors, which are highly international and open, would be limited by the lack of sophisticated legal services support that global financial institutions are familiar with in other financial centres in the world. I do not for a moment suggest that the lawyers here who spoke up do so out of self-interest. That is obviously not so. But there will be a legitimate question that the Government would have to answer as to why do we have opening up in the banking sector, in the accounting sector, in so many sectors, and as a result we get all of them coming into Singapore and employing Singaporeans, providing job opportunities, and why is the legal sector so special that it needs to be protected completely? That is a question that will be asked. Unless Members can offer a compelling answer to that question, I think the answer must be that we have no choice but to open up.

Second, the only other realistic choice, instead of keeping it completely closed, is to continue to liberalise the practice of law in Singapore, and there are many different approaches. We could have gone for a Big Bang approach and liberalised completely. But we started in 2000; this is 2012. And in a large measure, the profession continues to be protected. We have taken very, very incremental steps. And other Members in this House have spoken up about why we are not liberalising even faster. The reason why we took this incremental step-by-step approach is to give our law firms the opportunity to level up, tie up, bulk up, consolidate, increase their revenues and size so that they can compete, or create a framework which makes it easier for them to tie up with foreign firms on a reasonable basis. That has been our approach.

At each juncture, when we change the law in this area, we have looked at our national imperatives and market needs while keeping as a key prerogative also the interest of the legal profession in Singapore. Can Singapore firms compete? It is a question, Sir, I have dealt with a number of times since I took office as Minister for Law. Looking at the international trends: a jurisdiction like Germany – one of the largest countries in the world and the second top exporting economy in the world – finds it difficult to sustain local home-grown law firms in the context of the internationalised environment. If we look at German industry and German strengths in local business and we compare it with Singapore and our open nature and relatively service-oriented economy, there is simply no comparison. The way the international legal scene is moving is fairly clear. We have to deal with that. In the interest of Singaporeans as a whole, my statements since 2008 have been consistent on the need for firms to collaborate, consolidate because size will allow them the advantage of accessing technology to enhance their ability to compete in the developing international legal market. Survival in this environment depends on ourselves, on our law firms and how flexible and nimble they are. And I speak from experience because from 2000 to 2008, I was in the law firm which had to deal with all these issues and which was in a major tie-up. I know the importance of access to technology, access to the latest legal know-how and the need to bulk up.

Firms which wish to embrace this new environment ought to be allowed to do so, and that is what these provisions provide. The central changes allow our local law firms to enter into closer partnership with foreign firms. The decision about whether to do so lies entirely with our local law firms. If they believe that they do not need to do any of these things and they can survive and can compete, then they may do so. But that is no reason for preventing others from wanting to tie up.

Let me address at this point Mr de Souza's concern that foreign firms are often driven by the balance sheet of their headquarters. He made the point that foreign firms that may lay off people, do so. Every law firm, while it is a professional entity, is also a business operation. That is a reality today. If we do not accept that, I think we are probably not in keeping with modern reality. So whether it is a local or foreign law firm, they would look at business conditions to determine how many lawyers they need. And the practices of foreign law firms on hiring and firing may well be more economically driven, perhaps, than local law firms, I do not want to make a specific comment on that. I note what Mr de Souza says. Surely, that is a matter for local lawyers to decide before they join such law firms. These are market choices, individual choices, and the young lawyer who graduates out of NUS or SMU would like to say, "I join a local law firm. I get an x amount in salaries. That is perhaps a greater certainty of my career path. I join a foreign law firm. It is a little less clear. But on the other hand, I get x percentage more per month, right upfront, and the prospect of working in London, New York, Hong Kong and many Singaporeans have become partners in foreign law firms. So there is no glass ceiling". These are individual choices and I am not sure it is something that the Government should take a fixed view upon and therefore try and shepherd the lawyers into.

Mr Kumar also spoke about international law practices drawing qualified graduates away from the family and criminal Bar. I am not quite sure that if they were not drawing the graduates away from the family and criminal law Bar that the graduates would necessarily go into these places because Mr Kumar's firm would be drawing them away anyway, as has happened over the last 20 years. But the phenomenon which Mr Kumar mentioned is something that has been happening over a long period of time, well before we began liberalising the sector. Let us face it. Corporate practice is glamorous. Litigation practice in a big law firm is glamorous, financially attractive for the individual lawyer, whereas litigation practice in a smaller firm in domestic area of the law may be seen by many as not as lucrative to do it full time. It does not mean that lawyers in big firms, including SCs, will not be prepared to do these cases on a case-by-case basis when they feel it necessary either pro bono or because of a specific reason.

The underlying concern about strengthening of the criminal Bar, I think, is a valid one. But I am not quite sure that not liberalising is the answer. My Ministry is actively looking at the issue. Our problem is that NUS and SMU now attract the very best of the "A" level cohort. You can close your eyes and if you look at the grades, there are usually three As or four As on average. They have a fairly standard career track. When they have gone through that sort of career path, when they come out, then they want to go into an area of practice which they believe, or many of them believe, will be commensurate or will offer the rewards that they feel justify the kind of records they have. These are generalisations. Obviously, there are exceptions. We can only talk about the general trend which is what Mr Kumar is talking about. Many bright young lawyers do pro bono work. They go to small firms, they say, "I want to focus on family law or criminal law." But we talk about the larger trend. It is a question how do we try and make these areas attractive. What I can tell Mr Kumar is that this is an area that we are seized with. We are looking at it together with the courts, AGC and the Law Society. I cannot tell him that I have a solution because this is the behaviour of young law graduates. I am a believer that we cannot shepherd people or dictate people to go into specific areas. We got to find some other solution, if one exists. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe I have dealt with most of the questions.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for Law for taking the time to go through so many of our points. I appreciate that very much. I would like to clarify one point. Prior to the Second Reading of this Bill, the backbenchers, including myself, were presented with a Bill which seemed to actually widen the gate very much, certainly where section 15 was concerned. Hence, the anxieties and concerns raised in my speech. It is reassuring that the Minister agrees with the Chief Justice and especially what the Chief Justice said at the Opening of the Legal Year this year. And I quoted the announcement of the Chief Justice to rely on it as a very well-crafted statement, rich in experience and foresight about how we can achieve a win-win situation, open and yet not so wide, to see a changing of the guards among litigators. Therefore, Mr Speaker, the point that I am trying to make is that until the ventilation of this debate, we were unsure exactly what the Minister's views on the matter were.

Mr de Souza, do you have a clarification?

Yes. I understand that the Minister's views match the Chief Justice's and that there will be a strict and vigorous way forward. In reply to the Minister's request for an argument which distinguishes the accountancy sector, the banking sector and the law sector, may I provide a response? I think the accountancy sector and the banking sector are actually quite different with respect to the litigation sector because –

Mr de Souza, I am sorry to interrupt you. You may have a clarification that you want to ask of the Minister, not an opportunity to speak again.

Yes. It is actually in response to the Minister's invitation for a response to his question which I think is –

Unless the Minister clarifies, I do not think he was asking you for a response. Can you please then make your point very short?

Yes. In essence, the accountancy and the banking sectors do not have a role of feeding the Bench. The Bench is an institution and, therefore, I think we should be guarded in having an over-reliance on Queen's Counsel because I think that would affect the Bench in due course. My last point, which is a clarification, is: in light of the anxieties and the reasons given by the Minister – which are, I must admit, very reassuring – would the Minister assure the House that notwithstanding the liberalisation, the legal heritage that Singapore has remains and will be preserved?

I will take the three points that Mr de Souza made. The first that he is reassured that I agreed with the Chief Justice and that the courts would have the power on how these admissions would be done. I think I would refer him to the proposed subsection 6(a) of section 15, Clause 4 − the amendment clause – "the Chief Justice may after consulting the Judges of the Supreme Court by notification published in the Gazette specify the matters that the court may consider when deciding whether to admit a person under this section". So, if Parliament passes this legislation, it would have given the Chief Justice the power to decide on the factors. In fact, this goes back to Mr Singh's point, which I more or less agreed with, that the courts should have substantial discretion. In fact, Mr Hri Kumar was not comfortable with this. But my own view, on balance, is that the courts should have a greater degree of discretion. What I think about the criteria in this context will become less relevant.

Second, I think Mr de Souza's point about the law being different from banking and accountancy sectors: yes, cynics will point to you that each time those sectors were opened up, they also said they were different. But I accept the point that the legal profession provides people for the Bench. We have top-grade SCs. We have excellent lawyers in the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Legal Service. They will form a good pipeline for the future High Court, and we must continue to nurture the Bar. That is very important, I think. It is a function that is extremely important for us as a Government, in the Ministry of Law, for this House and for the Judiciary and for the system as a whole because a credible, good high-quality Bar is in fact fundamental to a democratic society. And then, it is important and essential for the well-functioning of the resolution of disputes. So there is no difference of opinion on that. And the Courts recognise that. At the same time, where there are gaps − and really what you see from the Chief Justice's speech, are the gaps which need to be filled. And what this amendment seeks to do is to fill those gaps.

On the third point about legal heritage, and that it ought to be preserved: I think that is pushing at an open door because we all want to see it preserved. But ultimately the responsibility for preserving it will be on the lawyers themselves. It depends on how good, how flexible, how robust, how quick our legal profession is in moving with the times in order to preserve its heritage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Today's amendments will enhance the court's discretion to consider relevant evidence by widening the admissibility of: (i) computer output evidence; (ii) hearsay evidence; and (iii) opinion evidence.

At the same time, other amendments deal with procedural justice including: (i) the confidentiality of legal advice to be enhanced by widening legal professional privilege; and (ii) a rule on the evidence of character in rape cases will be repealed.

The Bill has benefited from: (i) the views of professors at the Law Faculty of NUS; (ii) the 2003 consultation paper and the 2004 report on computer output as evidence by the Technology Law Development Group of the Singapore Academy of Law; (iii) the 2011 report on opinion evidence by the Law Reform Committee of the Singapore Academy of Law; and (iv) other legal stakeholders. We thank all who have contributed.

Let me now explain the key amendments. On computer output evidence, clauses 3, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 reform the law on computer output evidence. The current framework for the admission of computer output evidence is found in sections 35 and 36. They were introduced in 1996. Computer technology was then in its infancy. A cautious approach was therefore taken. Currently, short of agreement between parties, computer output can be admitted only if: (i) it is produced in an approved process; or (ii) it is shown to be produced by a properly operating computer which was properly used.

This is a somewhat cumbersome process not consonant with modern realities. With the benefit of experience, we can say now that computer output evidence should not be treated differently from other evidence. Sections 35 and 36 are therefore repealed. In addition, there will be presumptions facilitating the admission of electronic records. For example, where a device is one that, if properly used, accurately communicates an electronic record, it will be presumed that an electronic record communicated by that device was accurately communicated. Sounds a little circular, but it does make sense. Further, documents in the form of electronic records will be treated as primary evidence.

Let me now move to hearsay. Clauses 5, 6, 11 and 19 deal with the admissibility of hearsay evidence. The hearsay rule provides that an out-of-court statement shall not be admitted as proof of its contents, unless the maker of the statement is produced in court. The rule has been much criticised and exceptions have been carved out. Strong views have been expressed to us that the hearsay rule should be abolished. The present amendments, however, do not go that far. There is still a core of sense – commonsense − in the hearsay rule that, prima facie, a statement should not be admitted to prove the truth of its contents if its maker cannot be cross-examined as to its veracity. What we have done is to introduce more flexible exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Section 32 is amended, so that the exceptions in that section will no longer be predicated on the unavailability of the maker. The business records exception in section 32(b) is extended. Existing exceptions under the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 will now be moved to the Evidence Act; they will now apply to both civil and criminal proceedings. The court is given a residual discretion to exclude hearsay evidence in the interests of justice. This ensures that the expanded exceptions are not abused. This is in addition to the court's inherent jurisdiction to exclude prejudicial evidence. A party who intends to rely on hearsay evidence would also have to give advance notice of his intent, in accordance with the relevant rules of procedure.

Clause 8 deals with expert opinion. Currently, expert opinion is only admissible in respect of points: (i) of foreign law; (ii) of science or art; (iii) or as to the identity and genuineness of handwriting or finger impressions. This description does not exhaust the range of expert opinion which may be helpful to the court. All points of scientific, technical or other specialised knowledge will now be made admissible. It is also provided that expert opinion is not inadmissible merely because it relates to a matter of common knowledge. This widens the cases where the court can have the benefit of an expert's views, if it so desires. As in the case of hearsay, the court will have the discretion to exclude expert opinion in the interests of justice. This is in addition to the court's inherent jurisdiction to exclude prejudicial evidence.

Next, I turn to legal professional privilege. Clauses 4, 14, 15, 16 and 17 deal with legal professional privilege. The privilege will be extended to communications with in-house legal counsel which is made for the purpose of seeking legal advice. This includes legal counsel employed by public agencies, including the Government, the Attorney-General's Chambers and statutory boards. The privilege will apply to interpreters and other persons, who work under the supervision of in-house legal counsel. These changes allow advice to be sought from in-house legal counsel in full confidence. The privilege will not protect communications made in furtherance of any illegal purpose, or prevent from disclosure any fact observed by legal counsel which shows that a crime or fraud has been committed.

Next, clause 18, on the character of sexual assault victims. Clause 18 repeals section 157(d). The sub-section provides that the credit of the victim in a rape or attempted rape case may be impeached by showing that she is of generally immoral character. This provision has existed since 1872. It is premised on antediluvian assumptions that a sexually active woman is less worthy of credit. It gives an opening for sexual assault victims to be subjected to gratuitous, traumatising and insulting cross-examination. The Office for Women's Development under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports had given us feedback that this amendment ought to be made. Likewise, AWARE also gave us feedback that this provision ought to be deleted, by making this amendment. When the amendment is made, any cross-examination of a sexual assault victim must proceed on the basis of relevance. I thank both MCYS and AWARE for raising this issue with us and helping us on this particular issue.

In conclusion, the remaining clauses relate to definitional, consequential and other minor amendments.

These are part of the Ministry of Law's continuing law reform efforts in what is primarily a procedural Act. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer. As a litigator, I deal with the Evidence Act a good deal. Although an important piece of legislation, a large portion of the Evidence Act remains in its original form, derived from the Indian Evidence Act enacted some 200 years ago in 1872. It is time for an update. I wish to address the proposed amendments on legal professional privilege, opinion evidence and hearsay.

On the issue of privilege: a lawyer must know all relevant facts before he can give useful legal advice. This can only come about when the client is confident that whatever he shares with his lawyer will not be disclosed to others or used against him subsequently. Confidentiality is therefore key to relationship between the client and the lawyer and the protection afforded by legal professional privilege allows for this.

Before the proposed amendment, the Evidence Act only recognised the position of practising lawyers. But for many companies, the first and critical line of advice comes from their in-house legal counsel. The Evidence Act, however, did not cover communications between such counsel and company employees. The common law filled that gap, but its application is uncertain subject to change and challenge. The proposed amendment to extend statutory privilege to in-house counsel will bring Singapore in line with a number of countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America. I support it.

This is important because if Singapore does not recognise legal professional privilege in respect of in-house counsel, or leaves the position unclear, there will in some minds be a risk that such communications are not protected, whether in civil or criminal matters. This may even include the status of communications between in-house counsel from a jurisdiction that does recognise the privilege and his counterpart in Singapore. This may be a concern to MNCs which are considering locating their in-house legal department or, for that matter, any business unit, in Singapore. In any event, it does not make any sense to deny the privilege to communications to and from in-house as the rationale for according the privilege applies equally to their work.

In this regard, I would be grateful for the Minister's clarification on how such communications will be handled in police investigations, particularly when the police raids a business premise or demands the production of material containing such communications. Will the company be entitled to refuse access to a file, whether electronic or physical, on the basis that it contains privileged material? Will the police still insist on production of the same on the grounds that the privilege is disputed or unclear?

I am conscious of the prospect of abuse. I remember when researching for my speech on the Tobacco (Control of Advertisement and Sale) Act, reading about the troubling practice of the tobacco industry of hiding damaging documents under the cloak of legal professional privilege. This practice eventually proved unsuccessful. But it raises questions on whether the privilege will be abused and how we can address this. How does the Ministry propose to regulate this area? And will there be provisions to punish abuse?

I have just two issues on the amendments on privilege. The amendments also recognise modern corporate structures where employees in a legal department may be employed by a single legal entity but, in fact, support several companies within a group of associated or related companies. The amendments, therefore, quite sensibly allow the privilege to exist for intra-group communications with that legal department.

However, the definition of "related companies" under the Companies Act which the proposed amendments adopt does not include the limited liability partnerships (LLPs). Could the Minister clarify whether communications between related LLPs or a company and a related LLP will enjoy the privilege in the same way and, if not, the rationale for the exclusion and whether it is intended to bring LLPs into the fold in the future?

Second, and this is a technical question. Section 128 and the proposed section 128A employ similar language but are conceptually different. As the Minister pointed out, privilege does not cover crimes or fraud conducted after the legal advisor is employed, and that makes sense because you cannot employ a lawyer and seek to cover a crime under the cloak of privilege. So, for external legal advisors, that is quite clear. After the lawyer is engaged, privilege does not cover crime he comes to know about after his engagement.

Similar language is employed for in-house legal counsel but the distinction is not so clear. We can have a situation where an in-house legal counsel is employed by a company. A fraud then occurs within that company and management wants to go to the in-house counsel and seek advice on that fraud. Surely, privilege should attach to that situation but under the wording of the Act, privilege will not cover any fraud or crime which occurs after that in-house counsel has been employed.

I think there is a conceptual difference between employing an external counsel and employing an in-house counsel. But because the same language is used for both section 128 and proposed section 128A, I think some uncertainties will arise. I will be grateful for the Minister's clarification on that.

Next, it is on the issue of hearsay. Many of our laws and rules on hearsay are based on out-dated concerns or irrelevant principles. In the foreword to Prof Jeffrey Pinsler's book, Evidence and the Litigation Process, the Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong recognised that many of the rules of evidence, including those related to expert opinion evidence and hearsay, are based on jury trials where evidence may have a tendency to prejudice the minds of jurors is excluded from their consideration. Different considerations should apply in Singapore where all trials are Bench trials and the finder of fact is the judge.

In proposing amendments to the law on opinion evidence and hearsay, the Ministry of Law in its press release noted that these amendments would save significant legal time and costs for litigants by preventing unnecessary technical challenges on the admissibility of certain kinds of evidence. It would also help ensure that all the relevant evidence is before the court hearing the matter, whether criminal or civil, thus enhancing access to justice. With regard to expert opinion evidence, the Ministry expressed that the current limited approach was unnecessary because our judges are capable of appreciating the subtleties of expert opinion evidence and according the appropriate weight to it. And I agree with this approach. The considerations that were applied to lay people in the 19th century who sat in the jury box were completely out of place in our legal system.

It is for this reason that I think there is some merit to re-examine whether the hearsay rule should be abolished completely. What we have introduced by these amendments are rules that allow for broader admission of hearsay evidence but keep in place some of the technical rules which may keep out some evidence. Instead of making incremental changes that leave these technical rules and then add layers of discretion, we should just do away with the rules regarding hearsay evidence altogether, as we have effectively done for the rules regarding opinion of experts. Any evidence should be made admissible as long as it is relevant. It is for the judges to decide what weight to allocate to that piece of evidence, and they are equipped to make that assessment and, in fact, do this all the time.

As noted by Prof Chin Tet Yung in an article written over 20 years ago in the Malayan Law Review, confidence is already placed in judges on a matter of admissibility, and to trust judges on admissibility and not on weight is spurious. A judge has undergone years of legal training and is entirely capable of exercising his discretion and according weight to each piece of evidence based on the circumstances of the case, factoring in considerations such as reliability, the reasons for the absence of the maker of the statement and the inability to cross-examine the maker. If the judge gets it wrong, the appellate court is there to put it right.

Prof Chin in the same article also noted that it has been argued that a relaxation of the hearsay rule will lead to a flood of unreliable evidence. He countered that this objection does not take into account the fact that at the end of the day, the judge will be looking for credible evidence and it is not in the interests of the litigant to put forward a mass of multiple hearsay statements. Lawyers are likely to rely on the best evidence possible and that may mean that hearsay evidence will usually play a secondary role. Based on my years of practice, I would agree with this.

From a broader point of view, removing technical rules should be seen as a positive development. It is often being said that not only must justice be done, justice must be seen to be done. Laws, to be effective and accepted, should be understood by the people whose lives they affect. Technical, archaic rules do not help that understanding. We should make our laws simpler. There are fewer legal minefields to navigate. Access to justice, and confidence in the legal system, will be improved.

This proposed approach would also yield tangible benefits. For example, the rules on admissibility of hearsay evidence perpetuate the legal fiction that we find in our courts today. In a jury system, the judge decides on admissibility of evidence and if the evidence is ruled inadmissible, the jury never sees it and, therefore, it does not affect their decision or their reasoning. However, in our system, the judge who decides a case also views the evidence to decide if it is admissible. If he rules it inadmissible, he has to put it out of his mind when coming to his decision. But judges are human and this is an artificial exercise. They will remember what they saw, and it may affect their perception of the evidence. It would be better that they deal with such matters upfront and openly.

Doing away with the hearsay rule could reduce the number of appeals based on whether some evidence was improperly admitted or not admitted. It also addresses the problem that arises when an appellate court rules that a judge wrongly admitted or declined to admit evidence. The error made by the trial judge could impact how the judge considered other pieces of evidence. The appellate court then has the difficult task of deciding whether the trial judge would have ruled or applied his discretion differently if he had not made the error on admission.

So, I would propose that we simplify our laws, get rid of technical rules and make access to justice easier. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as mentioned by the Minister in his speech, part of the rationale for the Bill is to harmonise the provisions relating to hearsay evidence for civil and criminal cases. I am concerned that the harmonisation between civil and criminal cases should not be taken too far. I agree that the hearsay rules in civil cases can be relaxed, as they are unnecessary restrictive. However, there is a justification for keeping strict rules for criminal cases.

The Ministry of Law has itself acknowledged that the rule against hearsay evidence should be retained in criminal cases where an accused's life and liberty are at stake. The law thus has a default position of requiring the best and most reliable evidence. Witnesses should attend court to give oral evidence and be tested under cross-examination. What was said outside of court should only be considered under circumstances where there is no choice, such as when the witness is no longer available or when there is an assurance that the statement made outside of court is reliable and accurate.

Clause 5 of the Bill seeks to have a common regime for admitting hearsay evidence for both civil and criminal cases. The effect of clause 5 will be to enable out of court statements to be tended in court simply if the witness is unavailable, unable or refuses to testify in court. This concept is borrowed from section 270(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). This Bill re-enacts part of the CPC provisions pertaining to hearsay evidence, to make them applicable to both civil and criminal cases under the Evidence Act.

Because the Evidence Act now embodies combined hearsay provisions, the Ministry is proposing under clause 21 to delete the hearsay provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), namely, sections 269 to 277. This massive deletion is, I believe, consequential. It appears to dilute the strictness of rules against hearsay evidence in criminal cases. For instance, under the current section 270(1) of the CPC which is to be deleted, it is provided that the court can admit hearsay evidence if the witness is no longer available, "subject €¦ to the rules of law governing the admissibility of accused's statements". The significance of this qualifying phrase was an important issue in the Court of Appeal case of Lee Chez Kee and Public Prosecutor [2008] 3 SLR (R) 447. In Lee's case, the accused was charged with committing a murder with two other persons. His two co-participants had been sentenced earlier. By the time of the accused's trial, one of them had already been executed, while the other had been deported to Malaysia and was untraceable. One of them had made statements to the police incriminating the accused. The issue arose at Lee's trial as to whether the unavailability of the co-participant made his earlier statements to police admissible against Lee.

The Court of Appeal considered this point extensively. One long-standing concern was that, in general, accomplice evidence is to be treated with suspicion. After all, it is human tendency to drag others down with you or to push blame to others to exonerate yourself. Thus, our laws provide that confessions by accomplices can only be considered if there is a joint trial of all accused; if there is no joint trial, the confessions should not be considered at all. This is found in section 258(5) of the CPC, which was formerly section 30 of the Evidence Act.

The Court of Appeal needed to consider whether the hearsay provisions in the CPC allowed hearsay evidence from accomplices who were unavailable. The court noted that the equivalent of section 270(1) clearly stated that hearsay could be admitted "subject to the rules of law governing the admissibility of accused's statements". Two out of the three Court of Appeal judges found that this qualification meant that accomplice statements should not be admitted under the hearsay exceptions, even if the accomplices were not available.

Sir, section 270 is now being deleted and the words "subject to the rules of law governing the admissibility of accused's statements" are not being ported over to the Evidence Act. The net result is that there is no longer any express mention that the rules against accomplice evidence will apply when admitting hearsay statements. Is this omission intentional? Is it the Government's intention to allow hearsay evidence from dead or unavailable accomplices in a criminal trial? This is clearly a very dangerous path to go down on.

Another result of the massive deletion of sections 269 to 277 of the CPC is that section 271(1) is also deleted. This section excluded statements made in the course of police investigations from being admitted in evidence even if the witness is unavailable or refuses to testify. This section was aimed at ensuring the witnesses attend court personally, and preserved the right of the accused to confront his accusers. Is this omission also intentional? Will the amendments undermine the protection against unreliable hearsay evidence in criminal trials?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have only a few brief comments on this Amendment Bill.

I support this Bill which modernises the law in treating documents created electronically as primary documents. I can only wish that this Amendment Bill was put before us earlier, since the relevant reports from the Singapore Academy of Law were published back in the year 2004.

As for extending legal professional privileges to other legal counsels not acting as advocates and solicitors, this also modernises the law. Legal counsels can now provide advice knowing that the advice is privileged.

Lastly, I commend the repeal of section 157(d), in which the sexual history of victims of sexual assault and rape may be used against them in court. This move is long overdue. Blaming a victim is not merely an outdated concept that only "chaste" women should be afforded legal protection, but it was simply bad law. A crime should be redressed simply because it is a crime.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare my interest as an in-house counsel. I support this Bill. The Evidence Act was enacted in 1893, and the last time it was amended was in 2003. This Bill represents the first major reform of substantive areas of evidence law in many years. I have some comments and queries on four areas of the Bill, namely: (i) expert evidence; (ii) legal professional privilege; (iii) hearsay; and (iv) the abolishment of the provision allowing rape victim's credit to be impeached by proof of "immoral" character.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in 2005 the Mississippi Bar Association in the US published an interesting but somewhat humorous article entitled "Use Caution While Handling a (Hired) Gun – Techniques for Direct and Cross Examination of Experts". The author used the Gun Safety Rules of the National Rifle Association to educate lawyers how to handle expert witnesses hired by the other side. For instance, Rule 1 states, and I quote: "Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction, so that even if it were to go off, it would not cause injury or damage." In short, know how to point the muzzle of your opponent's expert witness so as to minimise damage to your own client's case. And Rule 4 states, and I quote, "Know how to use the gun safely. Before handling a gun, learn how it operates. Know its basic parts, how to safely open and close the action and remove any ammunition from the gun or magazine." In court, what this means is to know how to make good use of your expert witness against the other side.

In many countries, Sir, the terms "expert witness" and "hired gun" have, unfortunately, become synonymous. Some have turned "professional", using their expertise to command high fees in rendering technical or scientific opinions in court. Some are clearly biased, otherwise are far more subtle. In Singapore, as in many other jurisdictions, expert witnesses must always remain objective. Their duty is overall to assist the court. This is set out in case law as well as in Order 40A of the Rules of Court. We should not allow the phenomenon of the "hired gun" to take root in Singapore, as this will protract litigation, increase legal costs, and diminish the overall quality and standing of our legal system. The importance of ensuring accountability of expert witnesses was also highlighted by some speakers during the Forensic Science Conference in 2009.

I would therefore like to ask the Minister if there are any plans to strengthen the deterrence against expert witnesses who are clearly biased, who obfuscate issues and who needlessly complicate legal proceedings. For instance, can the court be given the power in the Rules of Court and in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to order such witnesses to pay costs? Those who are professionally regulated in Singapore or abroad may be referred to their professional bodies for investigation and disciplinary action. These witnesses may even also be placed on a watch list, so that if any litigant wishes to ask them to give expert evidence in future, they must first obtain leave of court. Wherever possible the Court and the parties should endeavour to agree on and instruct one set of court-appointed experts. To ensure that our judges are in the best position to assess expert evidence, our Judiciary should also continue its efforts to acquaint and train judges on areas where expert evidence is given, such as DNA evidence.

I now turn to the amendments on legal professional privilege. I welcome these amendments, which extend the privilege to communications with in-house legal counsel, but have the following queries. First, the existing and amended provisions on legal professional privilege do not appear to protect people who seek legal advice from legal clinics manned by volunteer lawyers or law students. I wonder if this could be reviewed for possible future amendment as we are currently emphasising and encouraging lawyers and law students to serve the community at pro bono legal clinics.

Second, and this is related to the first point, is it clear whether the law adequately covers the following situations such as where lawyers act pro bono for clients, whether on their own accord or under the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme and, secondly, when legal officers from the Legal Aid Bureau or its panel solicitors give legal advice to, and act for, people under the Legal Aid and Advice Act?

Third, the existing section 128, the new section 128A and the amended section 131 do not appear to cover the situation where clients seek legal advice from foreign lawyers or from law firms overseas, for instance, during cross-border transactions. Litigation may subsequently ensue, here or abroad. Should the Act be amended in the future to cover this situation in view of how globally "plugged in" our economy is?

Fourth, do the existing and amended provisions cover the situation where entities do not employ in-house counsel or engage external lawyers, but who have legal advisors or honorary legal advisors onboard whom they consult? These include charitable, civic and religious organisations as well as many societies, clubs and associations that may not have the resources to engage external lawyers or maintain in-house counsel for day-to-day legal matters.

Fifth, while there is case law that suggests that material that is subject to legal professional privilege is not susceptible to seizure by law enforcement agencies, would the Minister consider at some point in time whether such extra-curial privilege should be codified in the law or at least reinforced in guidelines and codes of practice for law enforcement agencies? This will give people the assurance that their communications with their lawyers will not be seized from the law firm premises or their in-house legal departments without due cause.

I would also like to ask the Minister two queries that arise from the Report of the Law Reform Committee on Reforming Legal Professional Privilege, published in October last year. First, following the clarity provided by the Court of Appeal in the 2007 judgement of Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken vs Asia Pacific Breweries, some legal commentators observe that the privilege, which comprises legal advice privilege and litigation privilege, is in part set out in case law and in part set out in the provisions of the Evidence Act. This makes the area of law complex and the Law Reform Committee has fittingly recommended that both components be neatly codified in the Act, which will then allow the courts to develop the privilege within the parameters of statute. As it stands, the courts have to test the case law on litigation privilege for consistency with the codified provisions before they can apply them.

Second, the majority of the Law Reform Committee recommended extending legal advice privilege to material that is prepared by a third party, for example, an accounting firm for a client for the dominant purpose of seeking legal advice, but which is ultimately not laid before the lawyer. In my view, doing so will bring the law up to speed with the complexity of modern commercial transactions. I quote the Report:

"The significance of these questions is greater the more complex the documentation which must be prepared before legal advice is possible. Where the legal advice to be sought requires sifting through voluminous documents and other information not readily available, it will be common for the client to prepare working documents or summaries or other information for submission to the legal adviser €¦ More exceptionally, such documents will not be exchanged but are also created so as to facilitate the client in familiarising the legal adviser with the nature, context and implications of the facts."

I would therefore like to ask the Minister if there are any future plans by the Ministry to relook at these useful proposals.

I move now to the hearsay amendments, and I have four brief technical points. First, clause 5(d), which introduces new subsection 32(1)(j)(i). This introduces the CPC hearsay exception where a statement is made out of court by a person who is now dead. This limb effectively subsumes existing section 32(1)(a), which is a narrow exception for statements made by a person when it relates to the cause of his death. Would there still therefore be a need for subsection (1)(a)?

Second, existing subsection (1)(c) may be too narrow an exception to the Hearsay Rule. Why should it relate only to the statements made against the maker's pecuniary or proprietary interest or when it exposes him to potential criminal prosecution or a suit for damages? How about reputational risks, or exposure to the risk of administrative or disciplinary action, for example? The principle underlying this exception to the hearsay rule is that when an out of court statement is made by a person against his own interests, then the reliability quotient of that statement rises, hence its admissibility. My recommendation is to amend this limb so that it refers principally to statements made against the interests of the maker generally and leave the rest as illustration or examples to demonstrate what it means.

Third, to ensure that the law on hearsay remains up-to-date and nimble, would the Minister consider at some point incorporating a residual power for the court to recognise other categories of hearsay exceptions? This can be a mirror opposite of the new subsection (3). This will ensure that the laundry list in subsection (1) does not become closed. For example, section 3(1)(c) of the South African Law of Evidence Amendment Act 1988 allows the court to admit hearsay evidence in the interest of justice, after considering various relevant factors.

Fourth, new section 32(3), which gives the court a residual power to exclude hearsay evidence in the interest of justice. I would recommend that, instead of creating narrow safety valves in the provisions on hearsay and also in the provisions on expert evidence in the new section 47(4), why not create a broad statutory power in a standalone provision of the Act allowing the court to exclude, in the interest of justice, any evidence that would otherwise be relevant and admissible under the provisions of the Act. This would put existing case law on a firm statutory footing.

Finally, I turn to the abolishment of section 157(d), which currently allows accused persons to try to impeach the credit of rape victims by showing that they are of immoral character. I welcome this development. However, I note that the transitional provision in clause 23 retains this rule for cases that are started or pending before the date of commencement of the provision that abolishes the rule. As this is a rule of procedure, and an archaic one at that, would the Minister consider implementing this retrospectively to the date this Bill is enacted in Parliament as opposed to the date that the provision is brought into force in the future?

In conclusion, Sir, I am heartened by the hard work of the Ministry of Law and its legal policy division in reviewing the recommendations by the Singapore Academy of Law's Law Reform Committee, assiduously consulting stakeholders and the public and proposing appropriate amendments for the consideration of this House. This cooperation and symbiotic relationship is essential to build an effective, responsive and progressive law reform system in Singapore. Sir, I support the Bill.

Good evening, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Thank you for allowing me to speak on this. The Evidence Act, I think, as acknowledged by all speakers before me is an ancient Act. I think it started with the Evidence Ordinance of 1893 and was, I think, updated largely based on the Evidence Act of 1872. Now, many of the rules here were naturally developed in the era jury trials. I think the main purpose of an Evidence Act is two-fold. On the one hand, you want to get all the relevant evidence before a judge so that the judge can make the best possible decision. And that argument will allow a permissive view of evidence, meaning you should allow as much evidence in as possible. The countervailing interest it has to strike is to protect the interest of parties involved to make sure that it is only relevant evidence that is permitted against them. In an era of jury trials, that is especially important because prejudicial information may be based on hearsay, and that can still be very damaging.

It is in this respect that I have three comments to make. The first is on the liberalisation of many aspects of the rules for evidence. I think there are at least three examples of this. One is narrowing the scope of the Hearsay Rule; second is permitting computer output more generally; and third is allowing a broader range of expert evidence to be admitted.

Broadly speaking, what this means is that there will be more information before the judge which the judge would have to consider in making a decision. I also hear Ms Sylvia Lim's concern earlier on that in relation to criminal law, for example, maybe we should keep stronger admissibility rules in order to protect the accused. This is the tension I struggled with for a while. But the reason that I came down in favour of a more discretionary approach in the end was because, ultimately, if we trust the judge to make a decision on the admissibility, then that same judge can decide, "Look, I have admitted hearsay evidence but, at the same time, I would give it less weight." In a criminal case, in particular, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. So if a judge has to go on the basis of hearsay evidence alone, then the judge would be very slow to find beyond the reasonable doubt that the crime was committed.

I would also say that, having practised in arbitration for the last couple of years, the rules of evidence, and certainly as it is stated in the Evidence Act, are not that strictly enforced by most arbitration tribunals. And quite often, hearsay evidence is admitted. But the reason it does not result in very great injustice is because the arbitrators are able to give the appropriate weight to evidence. And when they make findings of fact, they would obviously give more weight to direct evidence. Lawyers, likewise, know that direct evidence is more persuasive. So, on balance, I am in favour of taking a more liberal approach to allowing evidence, provided, of course, we trust the judge to either exclude evidence that they may find prejudicial which they have the power to do, or, alternatively, just give it less weight and not make a conviction on that ground.

The second point I would like to address is the abolition of section 157(d) of the Evidence Act. I was quite heartened that support for this has been almost unanimous, especially from the men in the House, and I think that is quite right. This is essentially the section that actually goes against the grain of allowing more evidence because the abolition of this section means that people who are accused of rape would not be allowed to impinge the character of the accuser. The reason why I think it is all right to allow less evidence in this particular section is because it protects the victim. More often than not, victims of rape would be reluctant to come forward anyway and having their entire previous sexual history brought up in court would definitely be an even greater deterrent. Removing this rule is quite timely and it is definitely a move in the right direction.

Let me now make a third point since everyone here is unanimous that rape victims should be protected. This is actually a different section, but I am just flagging it hopefully for consideration by this House at a future date. It is the abolition of section 375(4) of the Penal Code. I understand that that would probably come under the Ministry of Home Affairs rather than the Ministry of Law. I am just flagging that. This section is commonly known as the marital immunity to rape. What that means is that if a man were to commit sexual violence – I would not use the word "rape" because it is not rape – on a woman without her consent, and they happen to be married, then that is an absolute defence. But there are some limitations now. The law has been cut back so that if the couple are separated, that is no longer a defence. But the fundamental rule is still there. I think the main reason for abolishing this rule is that violence against women, non-consensual sex, is really the same, whether or not that happens in marriage or outside marriage. By abolishing the rule though, what we actually do is we basically say that violent sex against women, even in the confines of marriage, is unacceptable. I understand that this is a controversial issue. One of my good friends was actually behind the "No to Rape" campaign, which was a campaign against the section, and I was myself a little bit sceptical at first. So let me maybe deal with some of the arguments that the sceptics of abolishing the rule might bring up. I think the chief concern they could have is that there might be an increase in the number of false cries of rape, that when a marriage goes wrong, the woman might make a false allegation of rape. But I think the answer to this is that false allegations of rape are punishable anyway, and if that is the real mischief we are concerned about, then perhaps we should either enforce those rules tighter or perhaps make stricter rules against that. But that is not a reason to not offer protection to women who are married. I think it is possible to deal with that particular concern.

I understand that this is a controversial issue and it is not before the House today, and there are probably other arguments as well, including what the duties of parties in a marriage are. But I will just leave that on people's minds for a future date. Although we are ending on this rather unromantic topic of rape, I would like to wish everyone a happy Valentine's Day.

Sir, I thank all the Members who have spoken. Mr Kumar spoke on the admissibility of hearsay evidence. He agrees that the hearsay rules should be reformed. But his suggestion of reform is, in fact, complete abolition, instead of piecemeal reform. His view is that the use of hearsay evidence should be left entirely to the discretion of the courts. The amendments proposed by my Ministry give the courts more discretion. Should we go further and completely abolish the rule? It is actually a fair point. Across the world, there is intense debate in many common law jurisdictions. South Africa, for instance, has abolished the hearsay rule altogether, giving the courts full discretion to admit or exclude hearsay in both civil and criminal proceedings. That approach has, however, not been without difficulties in practice. Some jurisdictions, after having considered the rule very carefully and whether it should be abolished, have decided to retain the rule.

What we seek to achieve is to try and rationalise the rule in the context of the developments, but fully accepting – and I say this to Mr Kumar and Members of the House – that this is not the end point. These amendments are not cast in stone. Mr Kumar has been in practice, others have been in practice and I have been in practice. I hear what Ms Sylvia Lim has said. And we will have to take seriously the suggestions and consider our experience as we go along. This set of amendments represents today what we believe to be the best balance that we can strike between the use of helpful hearsay evidence and the risk of presenting unreliable evidence before the courts. The net result of these amendments will be that the courts will have a broader but still structured discretion to deal with hearsay evidence.

Mr Desmond Lee agrees with our approach but raised a number of suggestions and refinements to the hearsay provisions. He first queried on section 32(1)(a) which provides the well-known dying declaration exception for hearsay evidence should be deleted in light of the new section 32(1)(j) which provides the general hearsay exception when a witness is dead or unavailable. There is an overlap between the two exceptions, a substantial overlap, I accept. If we started de novo today, I think there is a very strong case for saying we ought to have only one of the two provisions. But the reason why we decided to leave these two provisions alone is that there is really a very substantial body of case law not only from Singapore but around the world which has guided our courts. We would lose something by deleting when the courts have been able to get guidance on both provisions. As for Mr Lee's suggestion that the scope of section 32(1)(c) which provides the existing hearsay exception for statements made against the interests of the maker should perhaps be broadened, we will consider that suggestion. As I said, the current amendments are not cast in stone and we will consider whether there should be further amendments to broaden the definition of what amounts to against the interests of the maker of the statement.

Mr Lee also suggested giving the courts a residual power to recognise new categories of hearsay evidence. He says this will ensure that the categories of admissible hearsay evidence under the exceptions are not closed and can grow over time as the justice of the case requires, and he referred to the South African legislation. But that really would be as good as abolishing the hearsay rule, which is what South Africa has done. I have indicated why we do not want to take that approach.

Mr Lee's fourth point was on the courts' general power to exclude prejudicial evidence, and queried if such a power should be made a statutory power in that it applies across all admissibility provisions. The courts' discretion to exclude hearsay or expert opinion evidence in the interest of justice, as set out in the Bill, is – and I emphasise this – in addition to its general power to exclude prejudicial evidence at common law. Such a general power stems from the courts' inherent jurisdiction, and our preference is to leave that unlegislated. Let us see how the courts exercise this power, whether it creates problems or whether it works well, and we will keep this under review.

Ms Sylvia Lim raised her fundamental point, even though she made it as a number of different points, is her concern that by harmonising civil and criminal cases for the hearsay exception rules to both civil and criminal cases, are we taking it too far, would evidence which is prejudicial to the accused now be admissible, and would that weaken supposedly the administration of justice and lead to – I suppose the point is only valid if, ultimately, it leads to – convictions which should not have been made in the interests of justice.

The short answer – I will give a general answer and then deal with the specific points that Ms Lim made – is I have made the point that there are contrasting arguments around the world as to whether we should have the hearsay rules or, in fact, abolish them altogether. Mr Hri Kumar argued strongly for the rules to be completely abolished. I do not think Mr Hri Kumar thinks that that would affect the administration of justice. The reason is simple. There is a strong argument to say that all relevant evidence should be presented to a court. Bear in mind the hearsay rules and other such exclusionary rules really developed in the context of jury trials and that juries will not be able to look at such evidence and weigh carefully the difference between direct evidence and hearsay evidence and give weight to one and give less weight to another, and it is really an assessment of the probative value of the evidence versus the prejudicial value of the evidence. The feeling was, in the context of hearsay in the context of criminal cases, the prejudicial impact on juries would outweigh the probative value. So, one should not take a sort of black-and-white approach to it. The black-and-white approach that should be taken is to the fundamental principle that the judge must at the end of the day be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused, and we should set out clearly what the law disapproves of, which is evidence obtained by coercion and various categories which the law has set out. But when it comes to issues like hearsay, then there is the question of a judgement call. The structure we have put up is that we have set up some safeguards. We also give the overriding jurisdiction to the courts to exclude evidence, both in civil and criminal cases. So the courts continue to have that discretion. In fact, they are expressly given that discretion through these amendments. And do not forget that, even if the evidence is allowed in, there is the question of weight. The court could say: "This is relevant. I allow it in, but I give it very little weight."

Let me refer to a specific example to illustrate what I mean. There is a famous Australian case in 1989 called Walton v The Queen. There was a statement by a three-year-old child. It is a famous and controversial case. The child's father was accused of murdering the child's mother. What happened is that the deceased handed over the telephone to the child and the child said "Hello, Daddy", which the witness heard. The witness gave that evidence in court. The child was considered to be too young to give evidence.

Now, look at the balance of interest. There is evidence that the child said on the phone, "Hello, Daddy", which I supposed would potentially allow someone to infer that the person on the other side of the line was his father. You have the woman who had been murdered. You have the interest of society in making sure that the person who committed the crime is found guilty. You have the interest and the rights of the accused that he not be found guilty except and unless the evidence is proven beyond reasonable doubt. In those circumstances, should such evidence be admissible? The court in the Australian case held the evidence to be inadmissible. It has been highly controversial. Could there be an argument that in the context where you have a hard-bitten, experienced judge hearing the case, you should allow that evidence but leave it to the judge to decide what weight is to be ascribed? Perhaps, very little. And perhaps in appropriate cases, as our amendments made clear, the evidence should be excluded altogether.

What we are doing now is not therefore to allow in what was previously not allowed but to give the courts the discretion to sieve through the evidence to see which part should be allowed if the judge believes that to be in the interests of justice in the particular case. We should not approach the cases and the evidence as a series of technical hurdles for the prosecution to jump. We must also remember that there is an interest of society in allowing relevant evidence, and that the judge is best placed to decide on what is relevant. We, in Parliament, should of course set out the framework. I accept that. The fundamental purpose behind this is not to change the ultimate golden thread which is that, in every case, the judge has to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. It is to give him greater access to evidence when he or she believes that is going to be useful, and he still has the position on weight.

Specific points that Ms Lim made can be referenced by me going through specific clauses. The amendments do not simply expand the scope of admission of evidence, as Ms Lim notes. In some cases, they reduce the scope as well. Let me illustrate.

There are at present some categories of evidence which are admissible in criminal cases but not in civil cases. For example, written records are presently more readily admissible under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) which applies to criminal proceedings only, rather than the Evidence Act which applies to both criminal and civil proceedings. This is largely an anomaly; a matter of legislative history because the hearsay provisions of the Evidence Act are much dated and go way back while the hearsay provisions in the CPC were enacted in more modern times. And so the amendments seek to align the hearsay provisions. We have taken care to port over the hearsay provisions including the safeguards which are set out in the CPC. For example, how or in what context the hearsay evidence is referred to. If we look at the amendments to section 32, we now have a provision which ports over the reference to a person who is compellable but refuses to give evidence, or a person who is dead or cannot be found. There is also bringing over of paragraphs (a) to (j) of subsection (1), where a person makes an oral statement at the hearing of another person who at the request of the maker of the statement, puts it into writing. This is ported over from a contemporaneous records exception in section 270(2) of the CPC. And subsection (3) gives over-riding jurisdiction to the court to exclude evidence even if it falls within the exceptions. That is an important safeguard that we have introduced. Subsection (5) gives the court the discretion to assign the appropriate weight to hearsay evidence. Section 274(2) of the CPC, 274(3) of the CPC − all these now have been transported over.

There is one other point I would like to make: Ms Lim's reference to the Court of Appeal's decision in the Lee Chez Kee v PP [2008] 3 SLR (R) 447 case on accomplice evidence; and on statements made to police, whether they would be admissible. Again, I come back to my central point. It does not mean that they are automatically admissible. They are only admissible if the court is satisfied as to why the maker cannot be produced and is also satisfied that there is some probative value and is also satisfied that the interests of justice require the statement to be admitted, and then the court decides on the weight to be accorded to such evidence.

Let me now turn to legal professional privilege. Mr Kumar touched on three issues. First, the application of the privilege in the context of search and seizure by the police. In particular, he queried about the situation whether privilege can be claimed or disputed during a police raid. Second, the possible abuse of the privilege provisions; and, third, the scope of section 128A(4).

On the first issue, I should first clarify that the Evidence Act relates largely to the admissibility of evidence for court proceedings. The amendments do not seek to deal directly with the privilege against search and seizure. That has to be dealt with under common law, the CPC and the other relevant statutes. I would say this though. The privilege is generally provided for in legislation as an exception to the relevant statuary power to search and seize. On Mr Kumar's specific queries pertaining to the operation of the privilege on police raids, I appreciate the point that clarity may be needed on how privileged documents can be protected and disputes over privilege resolved in such raids. But today's amendments do not touch on that procedure or operations. It is an issue that we will be looking at when we next review the CPC which will be soon. This should also answer Mr Lee's question on what we intend to do for such extra-curial privilege.

As for the abuse of privilege, the amendments provide very clearly that privilege does not prevent the disclosure of communications made in furtherance of illegal purposes or any fact observed by legal counsel which shows that a crime or fraud has been committed. Unless I have misunderstood Mr Kumar, he can clarify later. Also, anyone who conceals evidence not properly subject to privilege would be perverting the course of justice which under section 204A of the Penal Code is punishable up to seven years' imprisonment.

On Mr Kumar's third issue concerning the scope of section 128A(4), he queried why the privilege for legal counsel is extended to companies and their related corporations but such benefit is not extended to limited liability partnerships and their related entities. These concerns have been raised by accounting firms who feel that they would be disadvantaged by the provisions. We are aware of the accounting firms' concerns. They have written to us. My Ministry is in touch with them. The current extension of privilege to related corporations in section 128(4) is a concession to corporate reality. Many MNCs operate under a group of related companies and the Companies Act has a definition of "related corporation". No similar definition exists in the Limited Liability Partnerships Act.

The suggestion is that there be a definition of direct or indirect ownership to be used to determine legitimate related entities of limited liability partnerships. That goes well beyond the scope of today's amendments and we felt that that needed more careful study. We need to be able to establish a clear nexus between the entity employing the legal counsel and the related entity claiming privilege, or run the risk that the provision will be abused to hide communications or material that should be rightly disclosed, be it for investigation, inspection or transparency. We would look carefully at the points made by the accounting profession and the points made by Mr Kumar, to see whether there need to be some amendments to the limited liability partnerships issue.

Mr Lee also raised a number of questions generally concerning the scope of the Evidence Act. He wanted to know what the legal professional advisor in section 131 included. Would it include advocates as well as in-house legal counsel? Will that mean communication with foreign lawyers is excluded from privilege? I would clarify that the main intention behind section 131 is to expand the definition of legal professional advisor to include in-house legal counsel and there is no intention to affect privilege or deal with privilege between foreign lawyers and their local clients. That remains to be dealt with by common law.

As regards Mr Lee's suggestion to adopt the Law Reform Committee's recommendation in their Report on Reforming Legal Professional Privilege to extend legal privilege to materials provided by third parties for the dominant purpose of seeking legal advice, we could look into this in the future. But any extension of privilege to third parties who are not lawyers or legal counsel needs to be dealt with carefully because of the prospect of abuse.

Lastly, on Mr Lee's suggestion to codify litigation privilege, there are presently no plans to do so but we can look into this.

Next, if I can move on to address the points raised by Mr Lee on expert opinion. Mr Lee does not take issue with the amendments but raised a number of suggestions relating to judicial training or dealing with biased expert witnesses and how they should be subject to sanctions. I think they relate primarily to how courts should deal with expert witnesses who come to court not so much as to assist the court but to advocate their clients' cases. That is improper. Again, thankfully, we have judges not juries who should be able to look at the witness and make a decision as to whether he is a true expert or an advocate for his client's case. There is some merit in looking at whether we should put in some rules on the issue of making the expert witness bear costs himself, but it is probably better dealt with by the courts. We will look at it with the courts and see what, if anything, ought to be done.

On credit of rape victims in section 157(d), I think that is generally welcomed by all Members. What would happen as a result of the amendment is not that previous history would automatically be inadmissible but rather it is left to the courts to decide when it should be admissible. That depends on the issue of relevance. It is just that we should not legislatively provide that certain issues will be relevant.

Finally, on Mr Nair's comments regarding the issue of marital rape, I think that issue falls outside the purview of the present Bill as he himself recognised. That has got to be dealt with by the Ministry of Home Affairs. What I can say is when I was wearing that hat, the NGO "No to Rape" saw me as well. I found many of the arguments they put forward worth looking into. They made good points. I will certainly pass over Mr Nair's comments to the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Finally, Mrs Lina Chiam generally welcomed the amendments but her point was why has it taken since 2003, when the technology committee put forward its report on computer output evidence. I think the real point is that we have been slow about it, which is what she is seeking to make. There are a number of reports that are put forward by the Law Reform Committee as well as other committees. Some we took immediate action on. Then there are some like this on computer output. In 2003/2004, when the report was looked at, the prevailing view was the treatment or the requirement for computer evidence to be treated with extra caution and the greater number of requirements to show that it was properly produced was considered to be important. Over time, it has been reviewed a number of times by the Ministry together with the other stakeholders. We have sought to make the amendments and feel that now we are sufficiently confident with the usage and we do not need these extra safeguards. So, committees can come forward and put forward reports but we still have to apply our judgement to say, "Are we ready? Is it better to stick with the time-honoured approach to evidence and not change too quickly? Let us see how it operates in practice before we move." We also look at the practice of other jurisdictions and we have decided this is an appropriate time to move. Sir, I think I have covered all the questions.

Thank you, Sir. I have got three clarifications for the Minister. First, will the Minister confirm – which is, I think, the thrust of his response to my concerns – that the effect of this amendment is to actually undo the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Lee Chez Kee's case as far as the courts ruled that evidence from accomplices were not being jointly tried, could not come in under the hearsay provisions, but now this Bill changes that to allow that to happen?

Second clarification, does the Minister not agree that accomplice evidence has inherent dangers of being unreliable and that it has a higher risk of fabrication compared to evidence from other witnesses?

Third clarification, does the Minister not agree that this Bill would have the effect of lowering the bar of protection for the accused in a criminal case because, pursuant to the judgement in these cases, a trial judge would not have been able to look at the statement from an accomplice if he is not being jointly tried? But now the Bill provides the position that the judge can look at the statement and decide whether or not to exclude it. So from that point of view, there is a lowering of the protection for the accused against unreliable hearsay evidence.

Last of all, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to record my grave reservations about this aspect of the Bill.

Taking Ms Lim's three questions, will I confirm that the effect of the amendments undo the decision in Lee's case? No, because the provision as amended would continue to give the court discretion at two levels. One, the threshold, whether it is to be admitted at all; and, two, whether once it is admitted, what weight is to be given.

Second question, would I agree that evidence of accomplices carries a higher risk? I would agree that, as a general principle, it carries a higher risk. And I emphasise general principle, which is why the court dealing with the issue on any specific case is better placed than Members of this House or myself to make general pronouncements.

And, third, does this Bill lower the bar of protection for the accused in criminal cases? What it does is it allows the court to consider relevant evidence. Ms Lim added on the phrase "it lowers the bar of protection" by allowing the irrelevant and unreliable evidence in. Absolutely not, unless we do not trust the judges. Because if it is irrelevant, as a matter of law, it is inadmissible. If it is unreliable, then it should not be admitted. By definition, the judge applies the law, irrelevant and unreliable evidence should not be in in the first place. What it does is this − bearing in mind the case law, that in some cases, most lawyers who are in practice will agree that hearsay evidence could be relevant. Should we have artificial rules which exclude it de facto upfront, without letting the courts have some discretion? That is the question. Ms Lim argues for that. I suggest that we should trust our judges and should let them decide on whether evidence is indeed reliable or unreliable. You can have compelling hearsay evidence, which the judge might want to look at and consider, and counsel will have the opportunity of addressing it. Let us not take an approach which is an all-or-nothing approach. It is the interests of justice that we are all looking at. There is much to comment on an approach where we clearly lay out that there is a framework within which the judge will consider, and he must ask himself whether the interests of justice require the admissibility of the evidence in the first place. And if it does, what weight will he ascribe to it. Those are my answers to the three questions.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister has asked me to clarify the point I raised, if I may. It really goes towards the wording of the proposed section 128(a), and really the concept of employment. Perhaps I can illustrate in this way: the current section 128 relates to privilege of communications with the advocates and solicitors, and section 128(2)(b) says "nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure any fact observed by any advocate or solicitor in the course of his employment as such showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment". Quite clearly, the purpose of this section is to deal with what the advocate and solicitor sees or hears after he has been engaged by his client. And if he should see or hear or know about the commission of any crime which was committed after his engagement, then clearly privilege does not apply.

The potential problem is that same language is now being employed for section 128(a) in relation to in-house counsel, and the term "employed" is also used. So I read now section 128(a)(ii) which says, "nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure any fact observed by any legal counsel in an entity in the course of his employment as such counsel showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment as such legal counsel". Section 128 for advocates and solicitors deals really with specific engagement for a particular issue. Section 128(a)(v) deals with the in-house legal counsels' general employment.

Let me give a scenario where some uncertainties will arise. Assuming a in-house legal counsel has been employed by a company, and he is there to give general advice. Subsequent to that employment, the management of the company discovers a fraud within the company – in other words, a fraud which is committed after the commencement of employment of in-house legal counsel – if that management with the knowledge of that fraud should go to an advocate and solicitor for advice, clearly that communication will be privilege. Should they go to the in-house counsel, under section 128(a), that communication may not be privilege. I think that is the difference, which I suspect, the Act is intended to cover. And that may well be the consequence of a plain reading of the proposed section. I hope I have clarified the positions.

I think Mr Kumar's question is whether in the first place that communication is not protected from disclosure. If you look at subsection (2), it makes it clear that if it is fraud that such in-house legal counsel observes in the course of his employment from the time he has been employed, and he observes that any crime or fraud has been committed since then, then that is not protected from disclosure. So quite clearly, anything that he observes which amounts to a crime or fraud after his employment is not protected.

I understand that. The problem is there is one section 128(a)(iii), where it says for the purposes of subsection 2(b), it is immaterial whether the attention of the legal counsel was or was not directed to that fact by or on behalf of the entity. So, again, technically if the management comes across a fraud and then directs the attention of the legal counsel to that fact in order to get legal advice, then it would appear that privilege may not attach, or rather privilege may not be attached. And I do not think that is the intention behind this text.

Where the purpose of bringing it to the attention of the in-house legal counsel is really to get advice in respect of the very subject matter. But this Act does not in any way supersede the common law. And if advice was sought in those circumstances, that would in any event, in our view, would be covered by privilege, and, if clarification is needed, we will make sure it is clarified.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move,

That, pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Speaker shall be paid with effect from 21 May 2011: (1) a monthly salary equal to half of 1/14 (or 7.14%) of the Ministerial Range 4 (MR4) benchmark; (2) a 13th-month bonus pegged at one month of the monthly salary; and (3) an Annual Variable Component pegged at the rates received by the general Civil Service.

Sir, on 18 January this year, this House passed a resolution to endorse the recommendations put forth in Paper Cmd 1 of 2012 on "Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government" as the basis for setting the salaries of the President, Prime Minister, Speaker and Deputy Speakers of Parliament, political appointment holders and Members of Parliament. As noted in that White Paper, the annual salary of the Speaker, if it were a full-time post, is pegged to the MR4 benchmark and comprises the monthly base salary, 13th month bonus and AVC. As the current Speaker is not a full-time post, he will receive 50% of this. On this basis, his current annual package, assuming one month AVC, in other words a 14-month norm package, will be 50% of the MR4 benchmark of $1.1 million, or $550,000. Mathematically, this works out to a monthly salary of half of 1/14 (or 7.14%) of the MR4 benchmark.

As Article 41 of the Constitution states that the Speaker shall be paid such salary as Parliament may from time to time determine, the House needs to pass a resolution to put into effect these salary revisions for the Speaker and Deputy Speakers.

On 16 January this year, the Speaker had informed this House that he accepted the salary revisions recommended in Paper Cmd 1 of 2012. The salary revisions would take effect retrospectively from 21 May 2011. Parliament is asked to approve this motion. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Speaker shall be paid with effect from 21 May 2011: (1) a monthly salary equal to half of 1/14 (or 7.14%) of the Ministerial Range 4 (MR4) benchmark; (2) a 13th-month bonus pegged at one month of the monthly salary; and (3) an Annual Variable Component pegged at the rates received by the general Civil Service.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move,

That, pursuant to Article 42(3) the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, each Deputy Speaker shall be paid with effect from 21 May 2011: (1) a monthly allowance equal to 15% of the Speaker's monthly salary; (2) a 13th-month bonus pegged at one month of the monthly allowance; and (3) an Annual Variable Component pegged at the rates received by the general Civil Service.

Sir, the Deputy Speaker's remuneration is pegged to 15% of the Speaker's remuneration. This is in line with the recommendations put forth in Paper Cmd 1 of 2012 on "Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government", as endorsed by this House on 18 January this year. Parliament is asked to approve the motion which will peg the Deputy Speaker's allowance to 15% of the Speaker's part-time salary in line with the current arrangement for the Deputy Speakers. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, pursuant to Article 42(3) the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, each Deputy Speaker shall be paid with effect from 21 May 2011: (1) a monthly allowance equal to 15% of the Speaker's monthly salary; (2) a 13th-month bonus pegged at one month of the monthly allowance; and (3) an Annual Variable Component pegged at the rates received by the general Civil Service.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to 17 February 2012." – [Dr Ng Eng Hen].

Adjourned accordingly at 6.33 pm

to Friday, 17 February 2012.

16 Ms Ellen Lee asked the Minister for Health (a) how many applications have been received by the Transplant Ethics Committee (TEC) since the last amendment to the Human Organ Transplant Act took effect two years ago; (b) what is the breakdown of these applications in terms of (i) Singaporeans, Permanent Residents and foreigners; (ii) the number of approved and rejected applications in each category; (iii) the reasons for the rejected cases; (iv) the income profile of the donors and donees in each of the categories in (i); and (c) whether the applications cause concern among TEC members that only more affluent patients could afford the necessary transplants.

Since the last amendment to the Human Organ Transplant Act on 1st November 2009, Transplant Ethics Committees (TECs) have received 325 applications for living donor organ transplants. Twenty-six percent of the applications were made by Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs), with the remaining applications by foreigners.

The TEC gives written authorisation for the living donation when it is satisfied that the donor has given his consent freely, without inducement or duress, and that the donation is ethical. All TEC members in each case must unanimously agree to approve the organ donation before authorisation is given. Each member will exercise his or her judgement in each case, taking into consideration many factors. As such, the TECs are not required to provide the reasons for their decisions. Four percent of the applications by Singaporeans and PRs and 9% of the applications by foreigners were not approved.

The donors and recipients are from a diverse group ranging from high income professionals to those with no income such as housewives and retired persons. For cases involving unrelated locals where they have declared an income, the median monthly income for donor and recipient is $1,900 and $2,250 respectively. For foreigners, as donors and recipients may come from different countries, income comparison may not be meaningful. They range from $0 to $300,000.

We have not received any feedback from the TEC members on affordability concerns. However, my Ministry will continue to ensure access to healthcare services, including transplants for Singaporeans. Singaporeans and PRs are also eligible for Government subsidies for the surgery, hospitalisation and immunosuppressant medications.

Needy Singaporean recipients who cannot afford to pay for their donors' surgical bills and long-term follow-up can receive further assistance from special programmes set up by Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs), such as the "Share a Life" programme, jointly launched in 2005 by the Kidney Dialysis Foundation (KDF) and the Khoo Foundation, and the "Live Donor Support Fund" established in 2009 by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF). These various schemes and our Government subsidies continue to ensure that no Singaporean would be denied medical treatment due to financial difficulties.

17 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how has the rise in sea water levels affected all the reclaimed land on our shorelines; (b) how is the Ministry monitoring climate change and its impact on our building design and structure; (c) whether there is an inter-Ministry committee to focus on climate change and study its implications on lifestyles.

The Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (IMCCC), chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and which comprises Ministers from MFA, MTI, MEWR, MND, MOF and MOT, oversees Singapore's domestic and international policies, plans and actions on climate change.

Under the IMCCC, MEWR and MND co-lead the Resilience Working Group (RWG) which is studying measures to address our physical vulnerabilities to climate change. It will also review existing adaptation measures and develop long-term adaptation plans to ensure that Singapore is able to cope with climate change.

To better understand the possible long-term impacts of climate change on Singapore, NEA commissioned a climate change study in 2007 involving both local and foreign experts to better understand Singapore's vulnerabilities to climate change. The results of the 2007 study have been factored into the Government's climate change adaptation planning.

The first phase of the climate change study covered the physical impacts of climate change such as average temperature and sea level changes. The second phase of the study, which looks into the potential impacts of climate change on public health, urban temperatures and biodiversity, is currently underway.

Since 1991, all new reclamation projects have been built to at least 1.25 m above the highest recorded tide level. This buffer provides protection against a rise in sea level due to short-lived extreme events, such as storm surges and El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) effects. Arising from the 2007 study, this buffer requirement was revised upwards by another 1 m to provide additional safeguard against the projection of a potential rise in mean sea level of about 0.65 m by 2100, and cater for uncertainty in ice sheet melting.

The climate change study in 2007 found that the future wind speed will not be higher than the current wind speed. As such, the structural integrity of buildings will not be affected. Our buildings are designed based on the British Codes of Practice and the basic structural materials for our buildings are concrete and steel. These are durable materials that are resistant to temperature variation. The range of average temperatures in UK is higher than what could be experienced in Singapore.

As part of whole-of-Government efforts, BCA has, together with other agencies and institutes of higher learning, embarked on further studies to acquire a better understanding of the effects of climate change on Singapore's urban infrastructure, including building design and structure. BCA will share the findings in due course and consult key stakeholders.

While the Government has taken action based on available studies, MEWR and NEA are building up enhanced capabilities in climate science and modelling with the establishment of a Centre for Climate Research Singapore (CCRS) within the Meteorological Service Singapore (MSS). We will also form networks with relevant experts and institutions at the forefront of climate research. Strong climate science capabilities and updated scientific information will further enhance our assessment of risk to adverse impacts of climate change, and better inform agencies on the adaptive measures required to mitigate these risks.

22 Ms Ellen Lee asked the Minister for National Development whether there is a need to (i) review the use of both the imperial and metric system of measurements which has created some inconsistencies in the real estate sector; and (ii) implement a unified national system of measurements.

Singapore has adopted the metric system of measurements. There is already a national system of measurements since 1975. This policy applies to the real estate industry. Hence, the Urban Redevelopment Authority and the Building and Construction Authority define their guidelines and regulations using metric units. The Singapore Land Authority requires the survey plans of land area and the property titles to state all dimensions in metric units.

A common system of measurements has facilitated real estate professionals, property owners, sellers and buyers in the accurate representation and exchange of key property information as well as in real estate transactions.

There is, however, a legacy preference by some to continue using the imperial system of measurements, expressing, for example, property prices and rentals in dollar per square foot. It has not caused any major problem to consumers. The Estate Agents Act does require salespersons marketing properties for sale or rental to accurately represent key information of the property such as the area or unit price of the property.

We will continue to remind the players in the real estate industry to use the metric system of measurements.

23 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will provide an update on the plans to relocate foreign workers who are living in unhygienic and unsatisfactory conditions in the residential areas in Geylang.

The Government takes a serious view of foreign workers who are not housed in acceptable accommodation. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, employers may be fined up to $5,000, or jailed up to six months or both, for each worker found to be housed in unacceptable accommodation. In addition, errant employers are also barred from hiring foreign workers for a period of time.

MOM, together with Government agencies such as NEA, SCDF and URA, frequently conducts joint inspections on premises suspected to be used as unacceptable foreign worker housing. If breaches are detected, Government agencies will take action against the various parties involved in such infringements. This includes the employers of foreign workers as well as the owners and operators of premises where workers are housed in illegal, overcrowded, unsafe or unsanitary conditions.

MOM coordinated a major multi-agency enforcement operation on private residential premises in Geylang in December 2011. Of the 71 premises inspected, 36 were found to be unacceptable for use as foreign worker accommodation. Enforcement action was taken against more than 200 employers for housing over 430 workers in these premises. These employers were required to relocate their workers to acceptable accommodation within six weeks, or face even stiffer penalties. They are in the process of relocating their workers. To prevent further illegal use of these premises, the authorities will be putting up posters around the area to inform the public, premises owners and occupiers that the premises are unsuitable for housing foreign workers. Spot checks will also be carried out where needed.

The Government will continue to press on with our enforcement efforts to ensure that foreign workers are housed acceptably. We will continue to launch new sites for dormitory developments in tandem with demand.

26 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Prime Minister whether the Ministry grants permanent residence more easily to the foreign spouses of Singaporeans, especially those who have children who are Singaporeans.

Permanent Residency (PR) is not automatically granted to foreigners who are married to Singapore Citizens (SC).

However, if such a married couple has children who are Singapore Citizens, this is taken into consideration when the application for PR for the non-citizen spouse is assessed. Various factors are considered in deciding the grant of PR to foreign spouses, including the duration of marriage and length of stay in Singapore. Citizens who sponsor their foreign spouses for PR status will also have to show that they are able to support them financially.

Foreign spouses who do not qualify for PR status may be granted a Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP) for them to remain in Singapore. LTVP holders are allowed to seek employment here.

My Ministry is currently studying how we can further help Singaporean families with foreign spouses, especially those with SC children.

29 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Education if his Ministry will include problems of gambling into the moral education syllabus of schools.

In the current Civics and Moral Education syllabus, topics are organised around the core values of Respect, Responsibility, Resilience, Integrity, Care and Harmony. At both Primary and Secondary school levels, students are taught to make responsible decisions based on sound moral reasoning in topics such as Finance Management. At the upper Secondary school level, students are also taught to recognise the signs of addictions and skills to manage them. Since 2006, social-emotional learning has also been made integral to the school curriculum. Through this, students learn self-management − how to weigh options; think through consequences to themselves and others; and arrive at considered decisions.

MOE works closely with the National Council on Problem Gambling to educate students explicitly on problem gambling through targeted awareness and prevention programmes. Suitable approaches such as skits and comic strips for Primary, Secondary and post-Secondary students are employed. Schools have systems that identify and support students who are affected by issues related to problem gambling. School counsellors work with affected students to resolve the issues.

MOE is developing a core Character and Citizenship Education syllabus this year. We will ensure that key elements of the problem gambling awareness and prevention programmes continue to be given due emphasis in the new syllabus.

32 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) what plans does LTA have to improve the bus connectivity for residents of Yishun with Khatib MRT station, neighbourhood schools and Khoo Teck Puat Hospital; and (b) with more Build-To-Order flats coming up in Yishun, whether there are plans to improve the transport services to cope with the expected increase in demand.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) works closely with the relevant land-use planning agencies, such as the Housing Development Board and the Urban Redevelopment Authority, as well as the Public Transport Operators (PTOs), to put in place the necessary transport infrastructure and services in a timely manner to support projected population growth and future land use plans.

Today, Yishun Town is well served by the North-South Line and a comprehensive network of bus services. Notwithstanding this, LTA has been working with the operators to continuously improve public transport services to keep pace with ridership growth and changing travel needs. For example, LTA has been working closely together with the bus operators as part of the quarterly bus service review process to enhance bus service levels and ease crowding along sectors that consistently experience heavy ridership. Specific to Yishun Town, a total of eight bus services have been improved since this review process began in June 2010, with the addition of more weekly bus trips and the deployment of higher capacity buses. More recent examples since April 2011 include the deployment of more buses on Services 804 and 806 that directly connect the recently completed new HDB development Jadespring@Yishun with Yishun MRT station. In particular, one bus has been added to Service 804 during the morning and evening peak periods, while five buses have been progressively added to Service 806 since late 2010. From the feedback that LTA has gathered, we understand that these additional buses have helped to reduce waiting time and crowding experienced by commuters, especially during the peak periods.

Aside from ensuring that bus capacity along existing routes is sufficient, LTA has also embarked on efforts to enhance the connectivity of the bus network in Yishun Town. Service 811 was amended in October 2011 to provide another option for Nee Soon South residents to access Khatib MRT station. Two other bus routes, Services 853 and 858, were also amended in the past two years to provide better connection to the Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, previously served only by Service 812.

We should be mindful that it is not possible to link all places with direct bus services. Transfers are necessary in our hub-and-spoke transport model. Nonetheless, LTA will continue to review the connectivity of Yishun Town and take into consideration community feedback where feasible. There will be more opportunities to introduce more bus routes when the new developments are progressively completed, especially with growing developments in south-eastern Yishun that we acknowledge should be well linked to Khatib MRT station.

As the Member may be aware, LTA is in the midst of putting in place a programme, by sometime early this year, to partner the bus operators in ramping up bus capacity to reduce crowding and waiting time for commuters. As part of this review, LTA will also continue to work closely with the relevant land-use planning agencies and local communities to monitor the new areas of growth within Yishun Town, and enhance public transport services to serve new developments and expected increases in demand.

33 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Transport whether there are plans to improve bus services plying Ubi Avenue 1 by having more bus services and increasing the frequency of buses.

The areas along Ubi Avenue 1 comprise largely of industrial and residential estates. The majority of residents along Ubi Avenue 1 stay within 400 m walking distance of three pairs of bus stops along Eunos Link and Ubi Avenue 2, and can access 19 bus services that provide direct links to various key destinations such as nearby MRT stations, adjacent HDB towns, and the city centre. In addition, SBS Transit's Service 63 plies along Ubi Avenue 1 today and provides a direct link to Aljunied and Eunos MRT stations along the East-West Line, and also to MacPherson MRT station along the Circle Line. It also connects the Ubi areas with destinations further away in Bugis, Chinatown, Tiong Bahru and Redhill.

Given the good connectivity of the existing bus service network, there is no plan to increase the number of bus services along Ubi Avenue 1, so long as the existing Service 63 performs adequately.

However, to reduce the waiting time and crowding during the peak hours, SBS Transit also operates Supplementary Service 63A to provide additional one-way trips from Eunos Bus Interchange to Aljunied MRT station during the weekday morning and evening peaks. These trips complement the parent Service 63, and provide Ubi residents additional capacity when ridership demand during these periods is higher.

LTA has also been actively working with SBS Transit and Ubi grassroots representatives to explore other possibilities to further improve the level of bus service along Ubi Avenue 1.

LTA and SBS Transit are finalising plans to improve Supplementary Service 63A to further boost capacity and reduce waiting time during the peak periods. More details will be provided by the end of the first quarter this year.

34 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for Education what is the progress in the implementation of second-tier competitions through the Sports Education Programme in secondary schools as recommended in the Secondary Education Review and Implementation (SERI) Committee's Report in 2010.

Since the release of the SERI Report in December 2010, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has piloted or expanded various programmes to encourage greater participation in sports and physical activities.

Organising recreational competitions is one avenue. The Sports Education Programme (SEP) is another, where students have the opportunity to learn to play one or more from over 50 sports.

MOE will continue to expand the opportunities for students to participate in sports, but we have to pace this in accordance with the resources available, while ensuring safety and reasonable demands on students' time.

1 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister (a) if he will give a breakdown of the number of civil service officers who were transferred from the various MX Schemes of Service to the Administrative Service from 2000 onwards; (b) how old were these civil servants when they were transferred to the Administrative Service; (c) how many Permanent Secretaries and CEOs of statutory boards today entered the civil service as MX officers; and (d) what is the percentage of Permanent Secretaries and CEOs of statutory boards today who were not originally from the Administrative Service.

High calibre public officers assessed to have the potential to rise to leadership positions in the public service are emplaced in the Administrative Service. Officers can be appointed to the Administrative Service at any point in their careers. Selection for the Administrative Service is a meritocratic process that draws on the whole talent pool within the public service. There are thus multiple routes of entry to the Administrative Service. All potential candidates are rigorously assessed before they are appointed and, once appointed, Administrative Officers (AOs) are continually assessed to ensure that only the most able and committed officers with the right values eventually assume public service leadership positions.

In 2002, the Management Associates Programme (MAP) was introduced as a talent development programme and main route of entry for the Administrative Service. Under the MAP framework, fresh graduates are not appointed directly to the Administrative Service. They are typically appointed onto the Management Executive (MX) Scheme, which is the generic Scheme of Service for graduate officers. Some may also be appointed to the professional services such as the Economist, Education, or Foreign Service.

Management Associates are considered for appointment to the Administrative Service only after three to four years, if they have proven their leadership abilities, mettle and commitment to serve. Apart from Management Associates, a number of other serving public officers from the Ministries and statutory boards, the Singapore Armed Forces and the Singapore Police Force, are appointed to the Administrative Service each year. Hence, most newly appointed AOs would have started on the MX Scheme or another Scheme of Service within the public sector. In addition to serving public officers, mid-career entrants from the private sector could also be selected to join the Administrative Service directly.

There were a total of 190 appointments to the Administrative Service in the past 10 years (2002–2011), of which 177 were appointed to the Administrative Service from other Schemes of Service, including the MX Scheme 1 . As appointment to the Administrative Service can take place at various points of an officer's career, AOs have been appointed at ages ranging from 26 to 50.

There are currently 22 Permanent Secretaries in the Ministries and 54 statutory board CEOs, or equivalent. All the Permanent Secretaries and 21 of the statutory board CEOs (about 40%) are AOs.

Of the Permanent Secretaries and statutory board CEOs who are AOs, 22 (that is, about half) were selected to join the Administrative Service later in their careers.

2 Ms Ellen Lee asked the Prime Minister whether MAS will consider requiring banks to use fingerprint or iris recognition techniques to replace the magnetic strips used in ATM cards.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has been working with the financial institutions on a comprehensive payment card security enhancement roadmap since 2010. A number of security features have already been introduced for credit and debit cards. These cards now adopt a global standard known as EMV, which is based on chip card technology, to enhance security functions. Cardholders will also receive an SMS alert when transactions exceed a certain threshold. For Internet purchases on 3-D Secure 2 websites, the use of a one-time password adds a further layer of security.

The security enhancement roadmap includes measures to reduce the risks associated with the use of magnetic stripe ATM cards. Banks have deployed various anti-fraud measures, which will give greater assurance to the public that their ATM transactions are protected. Following the recent incident, banks have decided to de-activate the ATM card magnetic stripe for overseas use. This should reduce the risk of fraudulent overseas ATM transactions. Customers have to contact their banks if they wish to activate the ATM card magnetic stripe for overseas use.

The industry has also evaluated various options, including biometrics, to upgrade the overall security architecture of ATM systems. The Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) has announced that banks will adopt EMV standards for payment cards used in ATM systems by 2014. The timeline to move away from magnetic stripe is in line with those in other developed jurisdictions such as Australia and countries in the European Union. In deciding which security technology to adopt, ABS has taken into account security, reliability, convenience, costs and cross-border interoperability. Ease of use, especially for the senior citizen, was also a consideration.

3 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance if he can provide a breakdown of the top 1,000 of all individual income earners in Singapore based on tax returns for the Year of Assessment 2011, segmented by the number and percentage of Singapore Citizens, Permanent Residents and others (segmented by nationality).

Based on the tax returns filed for the Year of Assessment 2011 for the top 1,000 individual income 3 earners of all nationalities, about half are Singapore Citizens, 27% are Permanent Residents, and 23% are foreigners.

4 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower (a) for each of the years from 2006 to 2011, what are the numbers and percentages of local workers versus foreign workers; and (b) what is the forecast for the numbers and percentages of local workers versus foreign workers for 2012 and 2013 for the (i) chemical industry; (ii) marine engineering industry; (iii) aerospace engineering industry; (iv) manufacturing industry; and (v) finance sector.

The breakdown of employment by residential status as at end of 2006 to 2011 is provided in Table 1. There are no forecasts for 2012 and 2013 for the specific industries.

5 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower as at 31 December 2011, how many people in the labour force are self-employed and working as full-time freelancers and what is their educational breakdown in terms of numbers of those who are diploma holders and those with qualifications of degrees and above.

As of June 2011 4 , among 1,998,900 employed residents, 299,800 (or 15%) were self-employed. Of these, 40,600 (or 14%) had diplomas or professional qualifications, while 61,900 (or 21%) had degree and above qualifications. Compared to employees, there are proportionally fewer self-employed with diploma and above qualifications.

There are three groups of self-employed persons: (i) employers, (ii) contributing family workers, and (iii) own account workers. "Own account workers" refer to self-employed persons who operate their own business or trade without employing any paid worker 5 . Table 1 captures the statistical breakdown. We do not have data specifically on freelancers.

6 Mr Yaw Shin Leong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower if he will provide a breakdown of the number of Work Permits, S Passes and Employment Passes issued in each month from July 2010 to January 2012 since the implementation of the foreign workforce tightening measures in July 2010.

The foreign workforce tightening measures have been phased in from July 2010. Foreign worker levies are being increased in steps, starting from July 2010 to July 2013. The salary and other criteria for S Pass and Employment Pass holders are also being phased in.

The impact of these measures will hence not be seen instantly. Their effects should be seen over the next few years and have to be assessed against the context of the state of the economy, the demand for labour and the availability of local workers.

The Table below provides the year-end stock of Employment Pass, S Pass and Work Permit holders (excluding Foreign Domestic Workers) for 2010 and 2011.

7 Mr Yaw Shin Leong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower whether there is a target to keep foreign labour to one-third of our workforce and, if so, whether this target is still relevant.

The Government had accepted the recommendation of the Economic Strategies Committee in 2010 that we should moderate the growth of the foreign workforce, and avoid a continuous increase in its proportion to the total workforce beyond the one-third level over the long term. While the proportion may fluctuate above or below the one-third level from time to time, we should aim to avoid a secular increase in our dependence on foreign labour over the long term.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has implemented a series of measures to reduce demand for foreign workers, in particular by increasing foreign worker levies, revising the qualifying salaries for the Employment Pass and S Pass holders, and enhancing the qualifying criteria of Employment Pass and S Pass holders. We will monitor the situation and will further calibrate foreign manpower access, if necessary, in future.

8 Mr Yaw Shin Leong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower whether bizSAFE-certified companies have better workplace safety standards than non-bizSAFE companies in their workplace safety rate per 100,000 employed workers in the areas of (i) fatal injuries; (ii) injuries resulting in permanent disablement; and (iii) injuries resulting in temporary disablement.

The Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Act was extended to cover all workplaces in September last year. Central to this is the idea that businesses are responsible for safety outcomes at the workplace and must do so by effectively managing risks at the workplace. Proper risk assessment will enable companies to identify and mitigate the risks involved in their work processes, and communicate these risks to employees.

In 2007, the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council launched the bizSAFE programme to help companies build up their risk assessment capabilities. It is a voluntary programme, particularly targeted at SMEs. The five-tier programme starts by educating the company's top management. A critical milestone in the programme is bizSAFE level 3. Only companies that have demonstrated their ability to effectively conduct Risk Assessment, as audited by MOM-approved WSH auditors, are accorded bizSAFE level 3 status. bizSAFE Stars are awarded to businesses with comprehensive WSH management systems in place and who have obtained the Singapore Standard on Occupational Safety and Health management systems, or equivalent certifications.

Whilst we do not have empirical evidence to conclude that companies which have attained bizSAFE level 3 and above have lower accident rates, anecdotal evidence suggests that bizSAFE is a useful programme. Since the introduction of bizSAFE in 2007, the number of bizSAFE companies has grown from 550 to more than 10,000 today. This 18-fold jump over a five-year period is encouraging. Not only does it suggest that awareness of WSH issues amongst SMEs has grown, it also indicates that bizSAFE membership is now seen to be of value, and something that a business must acquire if it wants to compete with firms that are already on board. In fact, several shipyards and main construction contractors have made bizSAFE a requirement for the sub-contractors they engage.

To further build risk assessment capabilities in the industry, the WSH Council offers many online resources and guidelines. Various training courses subsidised by the Skills Development Fund are also available. Where SMEs require further assistance such as consultancy help, they can tap on the Risk Management Assistance Fund (RMAF). This Fund co-funds SMEs when they seek assistance from certified risk consultants to implement risk management in their companies.

MOM and the WSH Council will continue to review the bizSAFE programme based on feedback from the industry and fine-tune it to better cater to industry needs.

9 Mr Yaw Shin Leong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower (a) why across all age and qualification groups, degree holders aged 50 and above persistently have the lowest re-employment rate from 2007 to 2009; (b) as they are already degree holders, how will re-training improve their employability, especially during bad economic times; and (c) whether the current non-discriminatory guidelines have been effective in protecting retrenched degree holders aged 50 and above against Employment Pass/S Pass holders.

Data from MOM's labour market surveys indicate that older workers aged 50 and over are less likely to find a new job within six months after retrenchment, compared to younger workers. To put this in context, it should first be recognised that retrenchment of older degree holders has been low. Likewise, unemployment remains low amongst this group.

There may be various reasons for why older degree holders take longer than younger ones to re-enter the workforce. For example, older degree holders are more likely to have held senior positions with relatively higher wages in their previous jobs, and may prefer to spend more time to look for jobs that match their skillsets, qualifications and salary expectations.

As is the case in other societies, degree holders young and old will find that their knowledge and skills need to be refreshed regularly so as to remain relevant to changing industry needs. It is, hence, important for everyone to continually upgrade themselves and broaden their skillsets.

The Government is committed to helping all Singaporeans improve their employability and employment prospects, including degree holders. The Workforce Development Agency (WDA) has introduced comprehensive training assistance and programmes for Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs), such as through the Skills Training for Excellence Programme (STEP), which offers a suite of programmes from modular to full qualification courses, as well as master-classes and scholarships. Apart from company-sponsored training, we strongly encourage individuals to also embark on self-initiated training and tap on the training opportunities provided by our Continuing Education and Training (CET) system.

PMEs in sectors affected by economic restructuring are also encouraged to explore job opportunities in other growing industries. In this regard, WDA has put in place Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) which equip PMEs with the necessary skills to switch industries. The Government will continue to review our CET and employment facilitation schemes to improve their relevance for all segments of our workforce.

The Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) uses moral suasion to advise companies found to be carrying out discriminatory practices. When feedback is given, TAFEP will take a case-by-case approach in dealing with the companies. Discrimination of any kind can be difficult to prove definitively and it is critical to bring about a more fundamental mindset change. So far, practically all employers approached have accepted TAFEP's advice. MOM also stands prepared to intervene in more serious cases of alleged discrimination.

TAFEP and MOM will continue to monitor and take appropriate action to ensure that the guidelines are implemented smoothly. In doing so, we will seek to strike a balance, so as not to introduce business rigidities that hamper investments and job creation for Singaporeans themselves.

10 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to upgrade the carparks serving the HUDC Blocks of 110 to 112 in Potong Pasir.

After a thorough assessment of the condition of the carparks, HDB has decided to commence cyclical maintenance in the later part of this year.

11 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in view of expected dry spells and extremities in weather conditions (a) what are the short-term and long-term measures of the Government to deal with this problem; and (b) whether there will be more public education to encourage citizens to use water wisely.

PUB is preparing for the consequences of weather extremities. Besides flood risks, PUB is working on strengthening the long-term resilience of Singapore's water supply against the risk of drought.

By adopting an integrated approach to water management, PUB has put in place a diversified water supply system comprising the Four National Taps (local catchment water, imported water, NEWater and desalinated water) to assure us of a robust and sustainable water supply. In particular, NEWater and desalination are not dependent on rainfall and thus more resilient against dry weather.

PUB has been increasing the capacity of local water sources. Marina, Punggol and Serangoon reservoirs have increased Singapore's water catchment area from half to two-thirds of the total land area. Singapore's second desalination plant, with a capacity of 70 million gallons per day, is expected to be completed in 2013. In tandem with future water demand growth, PUB plans to increase NEWater and desalination capacities to meet 50% and 30% of water demand respectively by 2060.

Water conservation is another important strategy in ensuring Singapore's long-term water sustainability. To encourage water users to use water efficiently, PUB undertakes extensive outreach efforts under the "10 Litre Challenge" and "10% Challenge" programmes for the domestic and non-domestic water users respectively.

Initiatives under the "10 Litre Challenge" include the Water Efficient Homes (WEH) Programme, where PUB officers and volunteers visit households with high water consumption to install water saving devices and share water saving tips. The Mandatory Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (MWELS) also helps consumers make more informed purchasing decisions and encourages suppliers to introduce more water efficient products.

The "10% Challenge" raises the awareness and capability of businesses to improve their water efficiency. One of the key initiatives is the Water Efficient Buildings (WEB) certification, where buildings are certified when they successfully implement water efficiency measures. PUB has also worked with BCA to include Water Efficient Building design as a criterion under the Green Mark certification for buildings.

Last year, PUB launched its Water Conservation Programme to promote wise water use. The public responded well with more than 10,000 requests for water saving kits during the Programme. This year, PUB will again run the Programme from end February. Apart from outreach through television commercials, this year's Programme will involve students more deeply through social media platforms and in seeking their ideas on how they can save water.

Through the range of measures, Singapore's daily domestic water consumption per capita has decreased from 165 litres in 2003 to 153 litres in 2011. Our long-term target is to lower this further to 147 litres in 2020 and 140 litres in 2030, as set out in the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint.

12 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Law whether it is time to reconsider the appropriateness of introducing a Good Samaritan law in Singapore.

The hon Member last raised this issue in 2008 with Prof S Jayakumar, then the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law. Prof Jayakumar stated that there were no plans to enact such a law in the immediate future. The reasons given by him still apply today.

Good Samaritan laws have been enacted in other countries to address liability concerns.

In Singapore, there are no major liability concerns for Good Samaritans. Civil liability will generally not attach to a Good Samaritan who acts out of necessity, and with the care that can reasonably be expected of a person having his skill and experience. As for criminal liability, this generally requires malign intent and will not attach to a Good Samaritan who acts in good faith.

There have also been no reported incidents where members of the public refused to render assistance because of liability concerns. In fact, we often see in the news examples of Singaporeans rendering help to strangers in need. Just recently, two joggers rescued a man from a suicide attempt at Bedok Reservoir.

It therefore remains our assessment that there is no need to introduce Good Samaritan legislation in Singapore. We will continue to study the experience of other jurisdictions and will review our position if the need arises.

13 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Law (a) how many victim compensation orders have been granted by the courts under section 359 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 since the Code came into force; (b) what was the range of compensation amounts awarded and for what types of offences; and (c) whether there has been any increase in the number of such orders granted on an annual basis compared to that under the former Code.

Section 359 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (CPC 2010) makes it mandatory for the Court which convicts an offender to consider whether to order the offender to compensate the victim. Previously, section 401(1)(b) of the repealed Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 68, 1985 Revised Edition) only empowered the court to make a compensation order. As I said in my Second Reading speech, the change is intended to make the criminal justice process more meaningful to victims of crime.

The Courts' philosophy has moved in tandem with the legislative intent. In Public Prosecutor v AOB [2011] 2 SLR 793, the Chief Justice described the power to order compensation as a "benign and useful power" which should be exercised by the Courts in suitable cases. The Chief Justice added that:

"Such cases would include those where the offender has caused the victim physical injury in respect of which the victim would be entitled to claim damages in a civil action. Compensation orders are particularly suitable and appropriate for victims who may have no financial means or have other difficulties in commencing civil proceedings for damages against the offender."

At the same time, the judgement of the Chief Justice recognised that it is not possible to make compensation orders in every case. For example, compensation will only be ordered in clear and straightforward cases, and will not be ordered against impecunious offenders.

The prosecutors in the Attorney-General's Chambers are also mindful of the Court's duty under section 359. After the CPC 2010 came into force, prosecutors have in appropriate cases submitted for and successfully obtained compensation orders.

As of 7 February 2012:

There have been 82 compensation orders made since the CPC 2010 came into force on 2 January 2011. This is an increase from the 31 compensation orders which were made in 2010.

Of the 82 orders, more than 75% were made in relation to cases involving the causing of hurt, mischief, and theft.

Of the 82 orders, the quantum of compensation was less than $1,000 for about 70% of the cases, and less than $3,000 for about 90% of the cases.

We will study the judicial practice in this area, as part of our continuing review of the operation of the CPC 2010.

14 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Health (a) if he can provide an update on the Ministry's Residency Programme for doctors; (b) what have been the numbers across the different disciplines over the last three years; and (c) whether these numbers are in alignment with the projected need for specialists in the coming years.

Introduced in 2010, the Residency postgraduate training system provides trainee doctors (residents) with a structured curriculum to achieve a defined set of objectives and core competencies. Training is provided by designated core faculty, and residents undergo regular formative assessments. The residency system was an important step forward from the traditional training method of apprenticeship to a more structured and streamlined training system.

The implementation of the residency system was carried out in different phases, bringing in additional specialties in each phase. The first phase of residency was rolled out in July 2010 with seven specialties offered. These specialties were Internal Medicine, General Surgery, Emergency Medicine, Pathology, Paediatric Medicine, Preventive Medicine and Psychiatry. A Transitional Year Residency Programme was also implemented which allowed residents a one-year exposure in various clinical disciplines to facilitate the choice of and preparation for a chosen specialty.

In July 2011, the second phase was rolled out comprising 11 specialties and Family Medicine. The phase 2 specialties were Anaesthesiology, Diagnostic Radiology, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology Orthopaedic Surgery, and a common-trunk Surgery-in-General leading to training in five surgical specialties, namely, Cardiothoracic Surgery, Hand Surgery, Neurosurgery, Plastic Surgery and Urology. The next phase of the residency system is being developed and is tentatively slated to commence in 2013, offering the various internal medicine specialties, for example, Cardiology, Renal Medicine and Gastroenterology.

A robust quality assurance framework by the Ministry of Health and the Accreditation Committee on Graduate Medical Education International (ACGME-I) ensures that each resident consistently receives quality training.

Seventy-two trainees commenced specialist training in 2000 compared to 176 in 2009. With the roll out of residencies, the combined trainee intake number increased substantially to 377 in 2010 and 451 in 2011. A summary of the specialist trainee intake number is provided in the Table below.

The Table below provides the number of residents in the different specialties since 2010.

Rising demand for specialist care, as a consequence of a growing population, increasing proportion of ageing Singaporeans and higher prevalence of chronic diseases, will require a commensurate expansion in the training of specialists. MOH gives broad directions to training institutions on the number of specialists to be trained annually to address rising demand. Between 2001 and 2011, the number of specialists practising in Singapore grew substantially by 88% (1930 in 2001, 3634 in 2011). However, we will need to further ramp up our own training pipeline to ensure that our healthcare institutions have sufficient specialist manpower. Between 2014 and 2018, two new general hospitals (Ng Teng Fong Hospital and the Sengkang General Hospital) as well as three new community hospitals will commence operations.

There is also urgency to increase training numbers for specialties with high demand such as Cardiology, Orthopaedic Surgery, Ophthalmology and Gastroenterology.

Since residency started in 2010, 32% (183 residents) of the entire residency pool is made up of residents in Internal Medicine, a base specialty that can lead to other related specialties such as Cardiology or Gastroenterology. These specialists can also be dually accredited in Internal Medicine and their chosen related medical specialty. This will minimise fragmentation and enable the provision of holistic care for patients. We will continue to provide incentives to encourage young doctors to take up these critical specialties. Family Medicine residency started last year and we are looking into further increasing the number of positions available. For specialties with training constraints, MOH will work with the healthcare institutions to ensure a sustained and rational expansion of the training pipeline.

MOH will continue to monitor and calibrate the training pipeline for different groups of specialties to meet the nation's evolving healthcare needs.