Hansard, Friday, 1 March 2024

1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the specific measures to ensure widespread implementation of the new salary guidelines for the community care sector; (b) what are the incentives in place to encourage community care institutions to comply with the guidelines; (c) how will the Ministry conduct the monitoring of salaries; and (d) what factors will be considered when reviewing the guidelines.

2 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the rationale for the existence of separate salary guidelines for the community care sector issued by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social and Family Development through the National Council of Social Service; and (b) whether the Ministries will collaborate to develop a unified set of salary guidelines to avoid confusion within the community care sector and to ensure consistency and clarity for both employers and employees.

3 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the projected increase in operational costs for community care institutions to adopt the new salary guidelines; (b) how will institutions run by voluntary welfare organisations with a tight budget be affected; (c) whether the increase in service costs will be passed on to beneficiaries; (d) whether the Ministry will help institutions to subsidise salary increments; and (e) what support will be provided to help institutions to attract and retain staff.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 1 to 3 in today's Order Paper together?

Yes, please proceed.

The salary guidelines for the community care sector have been published to provide greater transparency and clarity to jobseekers and community care workers on salaries in the sector. Through in-depth engagement sessions with Community Care Organisations (CCOs), the Ministry of Health (MOH) provides them with guidance on implementation, such as establishing the appropriate banding of staff and salaries.

It is in the CCO's own interest to abide by the guidelines, or they will not be competitive in attracting and retaining their staff, or pay them salaries that is commensurate with their contributions.

We will continue to monitor the salary movements of community care staff against the recommended salary levels through yearly surveys. In reviewing the guidelines, we will consider salary movements in relevant labour markets.

MOH and the Ministry of Social and Family Development’s (MSF's) salary guidelines apply to the healthcare and social service sectors respectively, as there are differences in the job roles and benchmarked to different sectors. Nonetheless, MOH and MSF will continue to exchange salary review plans and information on a regular basis.

Higher salaries will lead to higher operating costs for all CCOs. Since 2020, MOH has funded CCOs through the community care salary enhancements exercise. MOH will continue to fund and support CCOs to adopt the salary guidelines. However, CCOs will need to co-fund some of the salary increases and these could translate into modest increases in their fees.

Beyond ensuring that salaries in the community care sector are competitive, MOH and our agencies support the CCOs to ensure that their workforce is future-ready through training and development programmes. We have also worked with CCOs to redesign job roles to elevate community care careers and improve their attractiveness.

Mr Yip.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her reply. I declare that I am an advisor to the Healthcare Services Employees' Union (HSEU). I have several supplementary questions. How are the salaries in the community compared to the acute hospitals and is there a significant difference? If so, will the pay alone be a significant factor in drawing manpower either way to institutions or to the community? Will there be any effect on our priorities in staffing the community hospitals or the hospitals in the acute sector?

Secondly, we need to think of ways to attract and retain talent beyond salary. To this end, what are the Ministry's plans to address other factors influencing staff satisfaction and retention, such as career progression, opportunities or mental health support? How are the unions involved in this?

I thank the Member for the question. With regards to the public healthcare institutions (PHIs), as the Member is an advisor to the HSEU, he would then be aware that the PHIs already have prevailing collective agreements signed with HSEU. These collective agreements include information on salary ranges and other information such as leave benefits. This is something that can be accessed through the HSEU's website and that provides a comparison with the CCOs.

The Member mentioned effects on staffing. Since 2020, MOH has been funding CCOs through the Community Care Salary Enhancements Exercise. Salary guidelines are published for purposes of transparency and clarity to jobseekers. It is intended to encourage them to see the benefits and salaries, but CCOs also have to do their part. They also have to attract and retain their staff.

For PHIs, MOH also does the same thing. We work with them to regularly monitor and review their salaries to keep it competitive against the market.

I would like to highlight to the Member that all these are costs. As you would know, our manpower costs already account for 50% of our expenses. This means that we are actually increasing the costs as we increase the services, and Government expenditure is expected to go up. I think all parties have to play a part in this. Already as it stands, we are looking at an increase and this increase has been growing in tandem with the healthcare demands.

The Member had also asked about the efforts to attract and retain workers. I think the Member had also filed a written Parliamentary Question, which is also scheduled for answer today, in relation to this. We have done many different efforts. As mentioned earlier, we also look at training and development. There is different funding support for a suite of initiatives to attract, develop and retain workers in the community care sector.

4 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport in 2023 (a) what is the number of times public transport commuters who were charged twice for the same bus or MRT trip because they used a different SimplyGo device or card for their entry and exit; (b) what was the total amount charged; (c) how many applications for refunds were made; (d) how many applications were acceded to; and (e) what was the total amount refunded.

5 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry will consider providing educational materials and instructional procedures to commuters (i) to avoid using different devices or cards when entering and exiting buses and MRTs and (ii) to apply for refunds should any double charging occur; and (b) whether fare gates can prevent commuters from exiting if they attempt to use a different device or card from the ones they used during entry.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 4 and 5 together?

Yes, you do.

Thank you. Sir, to ensure public transport fares are computed accurately, commuters need to use the same device or card to tap in and tap out at fare gates and bus card readers. If a commuter taps in with one device or card, and taps out with a different device or card, two separate transactions are recorded.

This can occur for a variety of reasons. For example, a commuter may have multiple cards in their wallet and tapping the entire wallet at the reader could result in different cards being detected at entry and exit. A commuter may also have used a different device, such as a smartphone, smartwatch, or physical bank card, to tap in and tap out. As the digital identifier of each device or card is different, even if they are linked to the same bank card, these are also recorded as separate transactions.

The vast majority of transactions in public transport are carried out accurately with commuters using the same card or device to tap in and out. The usage of different devices or cards at entry and exit led to refunds for two out of every 100,000 trips made on public transport, with each refund amounting to $2.70 on average.

It is not possible to identify and reconcile such transactions automatically, since a single card can be used by different commuters. For example, the same bank card can be set up on multiple devices for use by different family members.

It is also presently not operationally feasible to stop commuters who are using SimplyGo from exiting if they use a different device or card from the one used at entry, as this would require a check with the backend system, which will slow down the flow of commuters and lead to long queues during peak hours. This is the same latency problem for account-based ticketing systems that prevents fare deduction and card balance information from being displayed immediately at fare gates and bus card readers.

These errors can be avoided, by using the same device or card to tap in and tap out. That is why other public transport systems like in London and Hong Kong who face similar issues have taken steps to raise awareness among commuters to reduce such occurrences.

Similarly, since the Mastercard pilot for SimplyGo started in March 2017, we have carried out publicity efforts to remind commuters to use the same card or device to enter and exit, such as by placing posters at fare gates and on buses, putting up outdoor banners, making in-station announcements, using radio advertisements, as well as publicising on the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and SimplyGo websites and social media platforms. We will continue with these publicity efforts to raise awareness among commuters.

Commuters can check their transactions using the SimplyGo app or at ticket machines. If they find transactions which are wrongly computed, they can apply for a refund via the app, or seek assistance at ticket offices.

Mr Giam.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Can I ask a few supplementary questions? First, are the commuters charged the maximum fare twice, if they use the same device linked to the same SimplyGo account for tapping in and tapping out?

Secondly, I understand the difficulties in doing the immediate reconciliation, but can this reconciliation be done in the backend so that even if they are charged twice, they can be refunded automatically without having to apply for the refund?

Thirdly, from what I observed, I hear the Minister say that there are posters put up and I do notice those posters, but I notice that they are mostly only in English. Can they also be published in different languages so that all commuters are aware of this issue?

First, I would like to thank Mr Giam for raising these two Parliamentary Questions and also for his supplementary questions. This is an important initiative that we want to raise awareness for. We use this opportunity to let more commuters know that the best way to avoid this issue from cropping up in the first place is to use the same device or to use the same card.

But Mr Giam is right that errors do occur. That is why it is important for us to look at how we can improve the system design where possible to make the refunding process easier, more convenient. I will certainly take on board his suggestion as we look at how to enhance SimplyGo's overall system design and user experience. Which is what we wanted to do for the project as a whole, but I will also pay attention to this particular aspect; in case there are some fares that need to be refunded, we will see what is the process to allow that to happen in a more convenient manner.

I will also take on board Mr Giam's suggestion for the languages on the posters so that we are able to reach out to more commuters and to raise awareness.

For Mr Giam's first question, it depends on whether you are referring to rail or bus because the calculations are slightly different. For rail, if there is a missing entry or a missing exit, that means when you tap in with a different card, it will record as two separate transactions with a missing entry and a missing exit, each one will be charged at $2.

30. So, not quite the maximum, but quite close to the maximum.

For the buses, it depends. If there is a missing entry, for example, you will look at distance from the first bus stop to where you exit, because there is a missing entry. If there is a missing exit tapping, it will look at distance from the point of entry to the end of the bus route. This is because there is no record to calculate the actual distance, so they use the maximum possible distance to compute.

But as I mentioned earlier, I think the best way to protect commuters against such occurrences is to raise awareness and help them to avoid this in the first place by using the same device or the same card.

6 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry will consider imposing a charge for small disposable carrier bags; (b) how many companies have voluntarily introduced their own disposable bag charge; and (c) if the data is not available, whether the Ministry will start collecting the data.

Mr Speaker, the mandatory disposable carrier bag charge at larger supermarkets was implemented on 3 July 2023. My Ministry and the National Environment Agency (NEA) will monitor the effectiveness of the bag charge and review its impact upon the completion of the first full year of implementation. The charge applies to all disposable carrier bags, regardless of size.

Other retailers have the prerogative to decide whether to charge for disposable bags and many have been doing so. The Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) and NEA do not track retailers that have voluntarily implemented disposable carrier bag charges and have no plans to do so. Nonetheless, we are heartened that many major retailers, including convenience stores, have voluntarily implemented charges.

Mr Ng.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Could I just ask why are we not keen on tracking how many of these retailers are voluntarily imposing this bag charge? I think that would be useful to tell the effects of the bag charge that we have implemented on how many people out there are already doing it on their own, without the legislation.

Sir, as I have said earlier, the disposable carrier bag charge was only implemented recently, about half a year ago. So, we will continue to monitor the effectiveness, the impact and then assess whether we would like to expand the scheme.

7 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Education with the implementation of the changes to the Malay Language subject in the Teaching and Learning Measures for Secondary Schools revised in 2021 and, particularly, the removal of the proverb or "Peribahasa" section from the GCE "O" Level Malay Language Examinations from 2024, how will the Ministry ensure that students will still have exposure and familiarity on the usage of proverbs in their cultural and literary sense and of its application in the modern context.

Mr Speaker, while "Peribahasa" or proverb will no longer be examined as a standalone component in the national examination, it will continue to be assessed within texts and passages, so that students will apply their inferential skills and understand its contextual use. Students will continue to learn Peribahasa in the Malay Language lessons. Through discussions, presentations and research, students develop an appreciation for the rich values and culture encapsulated in the Peribahasa.

Mr Zhulkarnain.

I thank the Second Minister for the answer. Peribahasa has a unique philosophy and rich heritage within us and there are lessons passed on from one generation to the next, promoting keen observation and critical thinking. So, I would like to ask the Second Minister, notwithstanding that it is not being examined in the exams and still being taught in the lessons, what other ways are there for schools to inculcate the spirit of using Peribahasa and promoting critical thinking among our students in their daily lives, perhaps in a literary event among schools?

I thank Mr Zhulkarnain for the supplementary question. Sir, I totally agree with the Member that Peribahasa provides a very deep insight into our culture and our values far and beyond just the language itself. And we do want to promote the understanding of Peribahasa, the use of Peribahasa or proverbs that would allow our students to appreciate the culture that they are experiencing and learning. Within the school environment, teachers continue to teach their students Peribahasa and how to use them contextually in lessons.

Our textbooks are already embedded with Peribahasa through the various themes across different sections of the textbooks. In the Ministry of Education (MOE), there is a committee called the Malay Language Learning and Promotion Committee that engages community groups, including the Majlis Bahasa Melayu or the Malay Language Council, to look at events beyond schools where we provide opportunities for students to learn and express their understanding of proverbs or Peribahasa.

We also need to look at how we can ride with the times, because children today have difficulties learning the language itself, let alone the complexities of Peribahasa. So, we want to make sure that they understand it and we are also encouraging them to use new technologies like the production of videos and TikTok, so that they can get interested in understanding not just the Peribahasa, but also the meaning behind it and an appreciation of the values through their own lenses. We encourage that and are looking at the possibilities of having TikTok competitions and video production competitions among students. The teachers can guide them through that process and let the students appreciate and enjoy that learning.

8 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) for each year in the past five years, how many babies are born to mothers who are (i) below 14 years old (ii) above 14 years old but below 16 years old and (iii) above 16 years old but below 20 years old; and (b) what assistance is provided to such families?

Sir, the data the Member requested can be found in the Annual Report on Registration of Births and Deaths published by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA).

Pregnant mothers who are minors receive emotional and practical support from a multidisciplinary team that includes doctors and nurses, counsellors and medical social workers. Following childbirth, the team will also continue to follow up with the mother for review.

In addition, support for the mother and her family is also available in the community, depending on their specific needs. The medical social workers will assess the needs of the mothers and make the relevant referrals to the social service agencies. For instance, the Social Service Offices (SSOs) can provide ComCare assistance to young mothers in lower-income households.

Eligible pregnant mothers can also join KidSTART, which will provide additional support to help them keep well physically and mentally before childbirth and equip them to nurture their child's development after their child is born. They can also be referred to Family Service Centres or FSCs, if they require support to address any social and emotional needs.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I think the report does say the number of births from teenage mothers, but it does not have the breakdown of the data that I have requested in my Parliamentary Question (PQ). So, if I could ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether that data could be provided.

Second, I do understand that some support is given to these teenage mothers, but could I just ask whether there is a specific social worker that is attached to these teenage mothers to journey with them along the way and how long exactly is this help provided to them?

I am asking all these because I am helping this child now who has been sentenced to a Girls' Home and I just realised that her mother actually gave birth to her when she was 15. So, I think there might be a vicious cycle ahead that we might need to address.

Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I would refer the Member to file a PQ with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for a breakdown of the statistics as they reside in ICA.

Regarding the Member's second supplementary question, I think he will agree with me that the nature of such cases are that, in each case, the conditions are complex and there are many stakeholders, many parties involved. And it is not enough for us to take each case and take an approach that is not just sensible, but also sensitive, and delicately handle the situation.

So, I think it really calls upon the entire village, if you will, to detect such cases early and for each of us – it could be the social worker or grassroots leaders on the ground or anyone who raises the alarm – to alert us to such a case, so that we can assess each unique case and then provide that wrap-around.

The provision of a dedicated social worker is one example of how we can journey together with each of these cases, but I think there is more to it than just the provision of social workers. We are talking about a multidimensional approach so that there is a better chance that this problem does not persist, as in the case that Mr Louis Ng brought up, across generations.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, could I just go back to the point where I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that it is a medical social worker that does the first, sort of, diagnosis. Is that the case or could we have another scenario where once the child is born, then a social worker would already come to see how we can help journey with this teenage mother?

Sir, I would like to clarify. The point I was trying to make was that actually anybody can raise the alarm. So, it could well be the medical social worker at the point of a visit to the hospital or the clinic by the person in view, by the teenage mom, or it could well be the family members who raise the alarm, or it could well be teachers and staff from the school. So, what I was trying to say earlier in my reply to the Member's supplementary question was that anyone, any number of stakeholders and parties within this figurative "village", has to step up and raise the alert to social service agencies, to social service officers, so that we can all provide a wrap-around 360-degree-support for each of these cases.

9 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what have been the changes in the number of products certified under the Singapore Green Labelling Scheme in the past three years; and (b)what will the Ministry do to promote more companies to have more green-labelled products.

The Singapore Green Labelling Scheme (SGLS) is administered by the Singapore Environment Council (SEC). We understand that, to date, SEC has certified over 4,300 products from more than 800 companies.

SEC's SGLS is one of the several green labelling schemes in Singapore. Others include the National Environment Agency's (NEA's) Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme (MELS), the Public Utilities Board's (PUB's) Mandatory Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (WELS), the Singapore Food Agency's (SFA's) Farm-To-Table (FTT) Recognition Programme and the Singapore Green Building Council's (SGBC's) Singapore Green Building Product (SGBP) certification scheme.

As a major buyer of goods and services, the public sector plays a role in encouraging companies to provide greener products and services. Under the GreenGov.SG initiative, the public sector has introduced green procurement requirements for nine categories of goods and services, some of which involve the use of green labels. For example, electrical appliances should meet the specified tick-rating under NEA's MELS, relevant building products are to be accredited with SEC's SGLS or SGBC's SGBP certification scheme, and white printing paper is to be accredited with SEC's Enhanced SGLS. Food and beverage establishments that are accredited by SFA's FTT Recognition Programme can also earn evaluation points when bidding for public sector catering contracts.

The public sector regularly reviews and updates its green procurement policies. These include incorporating reputable green standards, certification schemes or labels where applicable. We will also work with the industry and relevant non-Government organisations to gradually expand the goods and services covered under the public sector's green procurement policies. We hope that this will spur companies to produce, develop or supply more green products and services.

Ms Ng Ling Ling.

Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the very comprehensive reply. My one supplementary question is that as Singapore strengthens our move towards more proactive and deliberate efforts to mitigate climate change and further our sustainability efforts, does the Ministry also have plans to further incentivise our local private sector companies to buy from all these sustainability labelled or certified products because some have given feedback that they are a bit more premium priced and add to their operating costs in an already increasing cost environment?

I thank Ms Ng Ling Ling for the question. I believe under Enterprise SG, there could be some schemes or grants to help local companies procure more productive or environmentally friendly equipment or products. I do not have the details now but I believe NEA would also have such grants and schemes. We will continue to look at what other ways we can nudge the private sector to be greener in their procurement.

Essentially, it is good for environment, but it must also be something that is available in the market readily and at a price point that makes sense for such commercial decisions. We will continue to look at that.

10 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether he can provide an update on the testing undertaken by the Ministry of a prototype of the Multi-Mode Passive Detection System to detect wildlife and wildlife products in shipments; and (b) whether the Ministry is exploring the use of other technologies to detect illegal shipments of wildlife and wildlife products, especially through our ports.

Question No 10, please.

Anyone from the Ministry of National Development? There is none. Let me move on to the next Parliamentary Question then.

11 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Prime Minister in each of the past three years, what is the proportion of annual births from women who are (i) 30 years old and below (ii) between 31 and 35 years old and (iii) 36 years old and above, respectively.

In 2021 and 2022, around 33% of total live births were from women aged 30 years old and below. Around 44% were from women between 31 and 35 years old, and around 23% were from those 36 years old and above. Figures for 2023 are still being finalised.

The information is published annually in the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority's (ICA's) Report on the Registration on Births and Deaths, which contains key demographic statistics, including total live births by age of mother. The report is available on ICA's website.

Ms Ng Ling Ling.

Speaker, I thank the Minister for the reply. I am referring to the higher proportion of women who are giving birth between the ages of 31 and 35. From my conversations with some of these women, they are not aware that their fertility health get challenged during that period and sometimes there can be complications.

So, I wanted to ask one supplementary question. Given our low total fertility rate (TFR), will the Ministry consider investing in more longitudinal research and studies on young Singaporean women's awareness, attitudes and considerations towards fertility health and childbirth, so that we can proactively find interventions along the way to mitigate the declining TFR?

Minister, a short reply please.

Mr Speaker, I just need to clarify the first part of Ms Ng's question about longitudinal studies. Could the Member just repeat that?

Yes, I wanted to check if the Ministry will consider investing in the longitudinal studies to understand young Singaporean women's awareness, attitudes and considerations towards fertility health and childbirth.

We can certainly look at those studies, but what is happening at the moment is a global phenomenon where, across the world, women are either choosing not to get married or deferring having children after they get married.

If you look deeper into this, a lot of it has to do with the opportunity cost as well as the sense of wanting to be able to achieve certain milestones. In the past, the first milestone was to get married and have children. Now, there is a sense of "I need to achieve a career milestone", "I need to be able to travel and visit this country", "I want to be able to achieve other things" and then, marriage and children come further down along the line.

These are personal choices, personal decisions. We have to see what we can do to encourage it and make it easier for people to get married and have children. And that was the focus of my speech in the Committee of Supply, looking at all of the various factors which operate in people's minds before they decide to get married and have children. So, fundamentally, we have got to move towards a society that supports family formation and parenthood.

Mr Louis Ng, with regard to your Question No 10, I will get the Ministry to give you a written reply.

Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the day.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day]. (proc text)]

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Head R (cont) – (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [1 March 2024], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates to be reduced by $100." – [Mr Murali Pillai]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]

Sir, I am grateful for your indulgence to allow me to take my cuts today. And I declare, Sir, my interest as a practising lawyer.

Sir, the Public Defender's Office (PDO) commenced operations on 1 December 2022 and, as of September 2023, had received around 1,300 applications, of which close to 580 were assessed as ineligible. Could the Minister provide an update on the number of cases the PDO has taken up to date, as well as whether there would be a review of the means testing criteria, seeing as about half of rejected applications were because the applicants did not meet the prescribed means criteria?

My second cut, Sir, is on supporting small law firms. Sir, our legal industry generated $2.4 billion in nominal gross value in 2019 and Singapore has also grown to become one of the top international dispute resolution hubs in the world.

Domestically, we have over 1,000 law firms, with over 80% being small law firms with five or less lawyers. These firms, however, contribute to only about 40% of value-add.

Could the Minister elaborate on what the Ministry is doing to help small law firms get a firmer bite of the pie of the international work that is coming into Singapore? And second, would the Ministry consider encouraging consolidation in the industry, including through incentives, to help small law firms come together to form larger practices that are more full service and that would place them better to seize opportunities in the market?

Minister Shanmugam.

Mr Chairman, thank you. The Ministry of Law's (MinLaw’s) work, as Members will know, touches on a number of aspects. This includes maintaining a legal system that is robust, fair and effective; enhancing access to justice; and supporting our economic and social vibrancy. We have made good progress and we intend to do more.

I will focus on two areas: one, how can we help the vulnerable better get help when they deal with the criminal and civil law systems; and two, how can we better help resolve family law disputes. My colleagues, Minister Edwin Tong and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam will touch on the other key areas in MinLaw’s work.

First, on access to the criminal and civil law systems, we are focused on ensuring access to justice, especially for the most vulnerable in our community. In this context, the Public Defender’s Office (PDO) and the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) have been doing good work.

PDO helps to facilitate access to justice for accused persons. It was set up in December 2022, as a department within MinLaw, to institutionalise public defence within our criminal justice system. Before that, the Government funded access to criminal defence via the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS), which was run by the Law Society.

When PDO was established, criminal defence aid was made available to more people, by raising the means threshold from the 25th to the 35th percentile of resident households based on per capita household income and allowing aid for most non-capital criminal offences, with some exceptions.

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas and Mr Derrick Goh asked for updates on PDO’s work. As of December 2023, we have received about 1,700 applications. Of these, almost half were assessed as eligible for criminal defence aid. With our ongoing partnership with Pro Bono SG, eligible applicants receive representation from either PDO or from criminal lawyers working with CLAS. As of December 2023, PDO has a team of 16 Public Defenders and they represented more than 440 accused in Court.

As pointed out by Mr Goh, the complexity and impact of PDO cases go beyond legal matters.

Let me give you one example. I will call the gentleman “Mr N”. He is a tingkat delivery driver. He is married with two young children with special needs. He brings them to childcare and school. He meets with their teachers, attends their speech therapy classes and follow-ups at the hospital. His wife is not actively involved in the caregiving.

He needed money urgently to cover daily living expenses and his children’s therapy sessions. He borrowed $1,000 from an unlicensed moneylender and he was subsequently harassed. Threats were made against his children. He felt he had no choice but to assist the unlicensed moneylender in its illegal operations and he was subsequently charged for doing so.

We have to take a serious view of this because that then potentially leads to scams and people losing lots of money, including the elderly. So, if you want to prevent all of that, you need to take tough steps and draw a line when people assist illegal moneylenders.

Prior to these charges, he had a clean record. Mr N could have expected a sentence of around eight to 12 months’ imprisonment. This would have meant that his children with special needs would be left without care during Mr N’s prison term. The Public Defender explained his situation to the Prosecution, and also pleaded with the Court for a lighter sentence. The Public Defender also referred Mr N to a social service agency to assess the care plan for his children.

Eventually, the Court gave a sentence of six weeks’ imprisonment with a fine. The Court also agreed to defer his sentence, to allow Mr N to ease his child’s transition into Primary 1 at a special needs school. I will add that Mr N recently surrendered himself to the Court and he will serve his sentence.

This is one of many examples where PDO has positively impacted the lives of accused persons. And it is a good start. We will continue to strengthen PDO, its capability and capacity to help more vulnerable persons.

Moving to civil legal aid, last year was LAB’s 65th year of providing legal aid, assistance and advice to the less privileged. It was set up in 1958, started out as a small team of 15 staff to provide legal aid to needy persons. Today, it is a department with about 50 in-house lawyers, support staff, as well as 140 Assigned Solicitors. These are lawyers from private practice who work with LAB.

LAB helps with various civil matters, including matrimonial matters, monetary claims and probate matters. Over the years, it has helped many people. Again, I will give you one example of a 101-year-old lady. LAB helped her to reclaim her life savings from her own daughter.

This old lady spoke no English, only Hokkien. She had been put in a nursing home by her daughter. Her daughter began withdrawing monies from the old lady’s bank account and directed the applicant’s Government financial assistance payouts to her, meaning the daughter’s own bank account. Her daughter alleged that the applicant had no mental capacity and refused to return the monies. The applicant, the old lady, checked herself out of her nursing home and asked LAB for help. LAB helped her to secure a Court order for her daughter to return all her monies, with interest.

To ensure that aid is provided to those who cannot afford a lawyer, we require applicants for aid to undergo means testing, and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam will speak about the means assessment of our legal aid and criminal defence aid schemes.

There are also other possible mechanisms to increase access to justice besides Government legal aid and assistance. One of them is conditional fee agreements (CFAs).

CFAs have the potential to help people access justice faster, easier when they do not qualify for legal aid, but also find it challenging to pay the full costs of litigation in the Courts. CFAs can help litigants, who are unable to fork out full legal fees at the outset, by providing an additional funding option, to pursue their claims.

However, it is not an unvarnished benefit, if you look at the examples in other countries, which is why we have been and we continue to be careful about it, because you have got to weigh against these possible benefits, some well-known potential negative consequences of CFAs, and these are visible in other places.

So far, in Singapore, we have permitted CFAs in arbitration proceedings, certain proceedings in the Singapore International Commercial Court, and court and mediation proceedings, which are related to these proceedings where CFAs have been allowed.

So, we refer to Mr Zhulkarnain’s question on whether we will extend CFAs to other categories of proceedings. Our approach is, as far as possible, we will see what other means there are available to allow access to justice in an easier way and then study the applicability of CFAs, the usefulness of CFAs, the positive and negative consequences, by extending to other domestic litigation proceedings.

I will move now to the second part of my speech.

We have invested considerable time, energy and resources to streamline and help people in the family justice system. Where families have breakdowns, their relationships fray, they go to Court, we want to try and minimise the pain for those who have to be involved in the legal process.

The disputes often involve a lot of emotions, psychological wounds and children are often caught in the crossfire. That is why for some time now, we have taken a different approach from the usual litigation process. For family cases, our Courts focus on therapeutic justice, which is about getting parties to establish common ground and move on with their lives. The changes we have made, over the years, to the family justice system reflect this approach, this philosophy.

As Ms Hany Soh referred, a major review was done in 2013, which resulted in amongst other things, the establishment of the Family Justice Courts (FJC). Specialised FJC with specialised judges, with its own head of the FJC. Measures were introduced in divorce cases to help these cases proceed more smoothly and reduce animosity as much as possible. And the focus was also on seeking to protect the children's welfare.

One very important measure is the simplified divorce track. For those on this track, it saves a lot of time. Parties do not need to attend court. The divorce proceedings are concluded within a much shorter timeframe and is available to all parties who agree on the divorce and ancillary matters at the outset and, you can imagine, it helps to reduce acrimony. It is an incentive for parties to come to an agreement on the issues. They spend less time in Court.

If you take the past year, there were a total of about 6,220 divorce cases. Of that, more than 4,000 – to be precise, around 4,150 or 66% of divorce cases – went on the simplified track and almost half of these cases involved children. You can imagine if these 4,000 cases were handled under the normal litigation process. The amount of time, the money, the acrimony and the impact on the children. So, all of that has been considerably reduced. This is a significant number of couples, over 4,000 couples, their children, who we hope were better able to move on with their lives with as little acrimony as possible.

Of those cases that go on the simplified track, the 4,150, 94% were resolved within six months. So, it is much quicker, much less costly.

Where the divorce or ancillary matters are contested, FJC offers free in-house mediation and counselling, if certain criteria are met. Around 930 out of 1,060 cases that went through mediation were fully or partially settled. That is about 88%.

In September 2019, we set up a second Committee co-chaired by MinLaw, the Ministry for Social and Family Development (MSF) and FJC. And a slew of further recommendations were made to strengthen the therapeutic justice elements and address some of the challenges in the new family justice system. The recommendations of this new Committee have been progressively implemented: the Women's Charter was amended last year; MinLaw's and MSF's Family Justice Reform Act was passed last year; and a number of other non-legislative initiatives have been undertaken by MSF and FJC.

One of the key issues that the Family Justice Reform Act addressed, is the enforcement of maintenance orders. Members of Parliament have spoken about this. We observed a fairly high incidence of non-compliance with maintenance orders and a significant number of repeat applications for enforcement, usually by the ex-wife applying repeatedly to enforce the maintenance orders.

The Family Justice Reform Act introduced a new Maintenance Enforcement Process (MEP) which would help to address these issues. Under the MEP, there is a new unit of officers called Maintenance Enforcement Officers (MEOs). They will be established under MinLaw.

MEOs will be empowered to obtain information about the parties' financial circumstances directly from the parties or from third-parties, such as banks and Government agencies. That will relieve applicants from having to go around, instruct lawyers to apply to Court to get the information, that takes time, effort and cost – and usually, there is also non-compliance. So, when the respondent is non-cooperative, it can go on and on for months, sometimes years. But the MEOs will be empowered. People have to answer them. The information, hopefully, should be obtained faster.

With more accurate and clear information, the MEO and the Courts will be better able to distinguish between respondents who cannot pay and respondents who refuse to pay. For those who refuse to pay, the system, the MEP, strengthens the deterrence against them. The Court will monitor payments, typically for around six months and failure to pay can lead to imprisonment. This system should hopefully help reduce repeated defaulters.

Ms Hany Soh asked about the implementation of the Family Justice Reform Act.

Some of the technical amendments were commenced in January this year. The other reforms will be implemented in stages. In particular, we are targeting to operationalise the MEP in phases, starting from the second half of this year.

Ms Soh also asked about collaborations with stakeholders. MinLaw works closely with MSF and FJC to improve the family justice system. Between us, we have regular conversations with the family bar, counsellors, mental health experts and community partners about how best to support families in distress. We also conduct regular outreach to various segments. I ask the public to share about family justice initiatives and therapeutic justice.

The aim remains pretty much the same: reduce acrimony, preserve relationships and protect children. And we can say, the situation has vastly improved since these amendments were put in place for some time now.

Mr Chairman, to sum up, we have been building steadily on our progress over the last few years. We have taken significant steps and will continue to work on helping the vulnerable through the criminal and civil law systems; and enhancing dispute resolution in family disputes.

Mr Edwin Tong.

Mr Chairman, Singapore is a small city-state. Much of our growth depends on our ability to develop strong enterprises and attract foreign investments into Singapore. Today, Singapore continues to be the partner of choice for many businesses – from the world's multinational corporations to the fastest growing startups. We have the highest number of regional headquarters in Asia Pacific.

About 4,200 multinational companies (MNCs) host their regional headquarters here, using Singapore as the gateway into ASEAN, Asia and even the world. We have a vibrant innovation ecosystem with research and development labs for leading Fortune 500 companies; as well as over 150 venture capital funds, incubators and accelerators.

But this did not happen by chance. Businesses come here in large part because of our strong rule of law, trusted legal system, under-pinned by a well-respected Judiciary. They trust that their investments will be safe and that their rights will be protected. Businesses also work out of Singapore because they can access the best legal services – be it dispute resolution, intellectual property (IP) transactions, restructuring and insolvency or banking, financial and commercial transactions.

It is therefore important for Singapore to continue to build a strong legal framework that is business-minded and forward-looking; develop first-class legal services and jurisprudence; and really be at the forefront of legal thought leadership. And all these will strengthen our value proposition as a global business centre.

In addition, legal and IP sectors are also growth engines in and of themselves, contributing to the economy and jobs. Our legal services sector has grown steadily over the years. The nominal value-added of our legal services sector increased by more than 25%, from $2.36 billion in 2018 to $2.98 billion in 2023. Our exports of legal services have also increased by nearly 35%, from $1.04 billion in 2018 to $1.40 billion in 2023.

We are today amongst the most preferred arbitration seats in the world.

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) administers many cases which do not have a connection directly to Singapore. It shows their international reach. The Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) also has an increasing caseload. In fact, last year, it had its most number of cases since it started operations. The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) saw an increased caseload as well last year, up by about 30%.

Our IP regime and innovation environment are also internationally recognised. We were ranked top in Asia and fifth in the world in the 2023 Global Innovation Index. But as Mr Murali says, we should not rest on our laurels. Indeed, we cannot because we are facing a challenging and competitive external environment. If we do not continually improve, others will come in, fill the gap and take our space. Sir, MinLaw is therefore working to improve our value proposition in a number of ways.

First, we need to continue strengthening our legal hub. Our approach is a very practical one – to ensure that parties' commercial needs are met and we ensure party autonomy as far as possible, whether in the choice of law; choice of forum for dispute resolution, be it mediation, arbitration or the Singapore courts, including SICC; as well as the choice of counsel. We are also plugged in to the latest trends and developments, so that we can quickly move to update our laws and it moves in tandem with evolving mercantile needs.

Let me give two examples.

First, we introduced various enhancements in international arbitration, which Mr Zhulkarnain mentioned. In 2020, we provided a default mode of appointment of arbitrators in multi-party arbitration and recognised that the arbitral tribunal and the High Court have the power to enforce confidentiality obligations amongst the parties. In 2017 and 2022, we introduced additional funding options that were available in some other international arbitration centres, such as third-party funding and conditional fee agreements.

Second, the Singapore Convention on Mediation (SCM) also mentioned by Mr Zhulkarnain, provides a uniform and efficient framework for parties to enforce their mediated settlement agreements across borders. Currently, there are 56 signatories and, as of today, 14 Parties, including Sri Lanka, who just ratified the Convention two days ago.

We have been actively encouraging countries to adopt the SCM and to promote mediation, through events and trainings, some of which, we do overseas as well. And we do this because, as the number of Convention Parties grow, mediation will also become more attractive for businesses. Singapore parties who trade with parties from any other Convention country, will be able to effectively use mediation as a means to resolve their disputes. This can translate into time and cost savings, not to mention the preservation of goodwill and relationship.

We are also involved in shaping international instruments, which may impact or potentially benefit Singapore. For instance, the Hague Judgments Convention. MinLaw participated in the negotiations from 2015 until its completion in 2019, because we recognised its potential to increase enforceability overseas of Singapore judgments in commercial or civil matters. To Mr Murali Pillai's specific query, we are now assessing whether to sign on and on what terms we will do so.

Along with a good legal framework, we need a robust, strong legal profession to serve businesses – law firms and lawyers, who can be trusted advisors to help businesses navigate different legal systems. On this, we aim to anchor top international law firms to strengthen our foreign and international law offerings; as well as continue to maintain a strong core of Singapore law practices. I am heartened to see Singapore law practices expanding their presence and networks overseas.

As I mentioned at the outset, Singapore is a small market. Our population is 5.5 million. So, we need to view the region as our hinterland. ASEAN alone has a population of about 660 million and fast growing. Asia, about 4.7 billion. And both these regions are the beneficiaries of increasing foreign direct investments. So, MinLaw is committed to supporting our law firms in their internationalisation efforts.

One of the key markets, to give you an example, is China. We introduced the Singapore-Shanghai Lawyers Exchange Programme together with the Law Society last year. Our firms in Singapore hosted the inaugural batch of 10 Shanghai lawyers. We received feedback that this helped them to better understand the Singapore legal market and form new connections. And in turn, our Singapore lawyers through interaction with the Chinese lawyers, also understand the Chinese legal market better. They also formed new connections. Later this year, we will be sending our Singapore lawyers to Shanghai on the return leg of the exchange programme.

This programme will help them also build networks, understand the nuances of doing business in a foreign jurisdiction and strengthen their value proposition as a lawyer. If there is demand, we will explore similar programmes with other jurisdictions.

Our support also extends to smaller firms. As Mr Raj Joshua Thomas highlighted a moment ago, they are an important part for our legal ecosystem. Many of our small firms have deep expertise in niche areas and some of them take on international, high-value work. In fact, most of the Singapore lawyers who are going on this Shanghai exchange that I spoke about, come from smaller firms.

Mr Thomas also asked how we can support small firms, joining practices together to form a larger entity. Small Singapore practices can come together to form Singapore group practices with other freestanding law practices now, if they wish. This enables firms to reach broader, allow them to reap benefits of co-branding, reap economies of scale in office as well as resource costs.

Besides law firms, we are also look at developing our lawyers – from the time they enter law school, right through to when they go into practice and beyond.

Last month, the Working Group for the Reform of Legal Education made recommendations on legal education and training. Essentially, to keep pace with developments and shifts in other jurisdictions.

One recommendation was to enhance the coverage of civil law concepts. Why? We see this as an important area, because more than half of Singapore's top trading partners operate in civil law jurisdictions.

Earlier, we also accepted the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers' recommendations aimed at lifting overall standards. One key recommendation – to lengthen the practice training period from six months to one year – will be implemented this year.

Ms Nadia Samdin asked about the readiness of the firms and students. In fact, Ms Samdin would recall that we announced this in 2018, some six years ago, precisely to give sufficient lead time to trainees and firms to make that transition. It was to have come into effect last year, but we deferred it by one year, taking into account the impact of COVID-19, as well as industry feedback.

These changes, overall, will help our lawyers better meet the challenges of competition. However, as we all know, learning should not stop, even after one is called to the Bar and out in practice. Legal practice is always evolving, as the world keeps moving and commercial needs keep evolving.

As Deputy Prime Minister Wong emphasised in his Budget speech, we also need to equip our workers for life, likewise lawyers. For the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, which is applicable to all Singaporeans aged 40 and above, this programme will also apply to legal professionals.

Besides broad-based support, MinLaw has also introduced specific, targeted support for the legal industry. Let me give some examples. For instance, Ms Nadia Samdin would be pleased to know that we have introduced a secondment programme for young lawyers.

These secondments seek to provide young lawyers with exposure to high-growth areas in our economy, such as block-chain technology, as well as international sustainability financing. This allows our lawyers to deepen industry knowledge and skillsets, also build contacts and networks with the relevant industry path makers.

And we will do our best to create opportunities for young lawyers, but they will need to also step up to seize these opportunities. Indeed, Ms Nadia Samdin spoke about the challenges faced by young lawyers, including the intensified pace of work that they experience today.

This is feedback that we have heard in our regular engagements with young lawyers. Those of us who are lawyers in this Chamber were once young lawyers, maybe some are still young lawyers, we know that sometimes, practice can be challenging, clients are demanding, hours are long. And we should collectively do our best to improve the work culture, allow for more mentoring of young lawyers, guide them in the profession, expose them to opportunities.

But we also have to recognise the reality that we have to live with. We live in a globalised world today, I spoke about the competition earlier. We are competing with not just the lawyers within Singapore, but also from overseas. If we are not careful, we will lose our competitive edge and lose work and our market share to other jurisdictions. Fundamentally though, I think our young lawyers are resilient, very forward looking, very determined to do well.

So, on our part, we will continue to enhance our legal industry and seek out opportunities for young lawyers.

These efforts, overall, will also deepen the strength of our legal industry, which Mr Murali Pillai highlighted, and ensure that Singapore continues to be a strong legal hub, one that encourages businesses, including MNCs, to choose Singapore for their operations and meet their legal needs.

Finally, a few words on technology, which Mr Christopher de Souza, as well as Mr Zhulkarnain spoke about – the use technology to work smarter and meet complex demands. Generative artificial intelligence, or GenAI, has received attention recently, some good, some not so good. We will continue to encourage law practices to embrace technology to help them level up.

Members will know that we introduced the Legal Technology Platform (LTP) for lawyers previously. In October 2023, MinLaw and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) introduced the Legal Industry Digital Plan (IDP), and as part of the Legal IDP, we identified tools that will help automate knowledge work. For example, document review and assembly tools can drastically cut down the time needed for some rote tasks. Lawyers can then be freed up to do higher-value work, or client-facing work. And the IDP is designed to work in tandem with the LTP.

We are also looking to include tools in our current grant, the Productivity Solution Grant for the Legal Sector, to help Singapore law firms level up on the technology front.

Sir, let me now turn to our strategies in intellectual property, or IP. The value of an enterprise now increasingly lies in IP and intangible assets, or IA. This can be seen from the increase in IP filings globally. In Singapore, our patent filings grew by 40% and our trademark filings grew by 35% over the last decade. It is, thus, important for us to continue to maintain a strong regime that is business-friendly and very forward-looking as well.

In recent years, we have updated our laws to keep pace with developments. In 2021, we overhauled the Copyright Act, in light of new technologies and also market developments in the digital age. In 2022, we made amendments to improve the IP registration processes, made it more business-friendly.

Our Courts have also contributed with important jurisprudence, such as the I-Admin decision that changed the law on breach of confidence. But having a strong network and protecting IP is really just the beginning for us. What will add value to a business is the ability to commercialise and monetise their IP, and use it as a stepping stone to grow their businesses.

MinLaw, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) therefore launched the Singapore IP Strategy or SIPS 2030 in 2021. SIPS 2030 is designed to help enterprises unlock the value of their IA and their IP; spur innovation in the economy, as Mr de Souza said; and also support overall economic growth, particularly for the small and medium enterprises.

We will better support businesses in their IP journey. And let me give Members some examples of the programmes that the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has. Last September, IPOS launched GoBusiness IP Grow, an online platform with a wealth of IP resources, including free tools, guides, programmes, as well as access to Government grants. This adds to existing programmes, such as the IP Business, as well as the Legal Clinics.

IP is also important for youths, budding entrepreneurs and arts creators, as Ms Nadia Samdin mentioned. To increase awareness, IPOS has a wide range of resources on various platforms made available and it constantly refreshes and updates them in response to market trends.

For example, we have the recent AskTheExpert video series on copyright and trademark matters. IPOS also works with industry partners to support microbusinesses, as well as freelancers. And often it is this segment of society or the economy, who are not able to unlock the value in their own IP.

So, IPOS, for example, has worked with the National Library Board and the Visual, Audio, Creative Content Professionals Association Singapore, and we held a session recently for creators to come together, and learn from IPOS on how to better protect their works with IP. This helps them level up, monetise and go further.

As I mentioned, it is also critical to support growing businesses with more sophisticated IP strategies and management processes. In September last year, IPOS launched IP Ready. This pairs local businesses with experts, coming together to develop IP strategies in a curated way, institutionalise IP management processes, and also, overall, help to build IP capacity to sustain business growth.

IP Ready will support the development of key innovation sectors, such as the information and communications technology (ICT) as well as the biomedical technology.

We will also support businesses in monetising the value of IP and other intangible assets. Last September, we launched the Intangibles Disclosure Framework, which helps businesses disclose their IA in a systematic and consistent manner.

We are also working on guidelines for valuing these IA, so that there is a common platform and a common standard and then, that value and the way that you use the value to monetise, can be interoperable across different markets. Together, these initiatives will help businesses and investors appreciate and leverage on the true value of a business' IA.

Sir, before I conclude, let me touch on the Community Dispute Management Framework, an issue that Mr de Souza, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Derrick Goh spoke about. Sir, we understand and agree with the points which Members have made. It is also important that we tackle community disputes quickly, before the disputes become intractable, causing irreparable rifts in society. This rift could then lead to neighbourly friction and ultimately, loosen the threads in the fabric of our cohesion.

As Members know, we have been working on a revised framework to address this issue. This will come in three parts.

One, the Ministry of National Development (MND) has been stepping up efforts to promote and encourage, as well as enforce pro-social norms upstream and will also set up a dedicated team of personnel to respond on the ground, something I will come back to in a moment.

Second, mandating mediation in the appropriate cases.

And third, where parties end up at the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT), we want to enhance the processes and the powers of the CDRT to make it a far more expedient and efficient process.

Let me start with mediation, which Members will agree is effective and particularly useful in community disputes, mainly because we are dealing with disputes between two known parties or neighbours and sometimes, the disputes have a strong emotional undercurrent as well. These are parties who will continue to have to live side by side and probably see each other every day.

So, rather than look at a legal right or legal wrong in a vacuum, mediation helps to bring parties together, look at the bigger picture, look at the overall relationship, and come to reach an understanding and compromise on the matter far more easily. This also helps to keep the parties on good terms.

The Community Mediation Centre (CMC) has, therefore, increased the number of volunteer mediators by 15% over the past year, in anticipation of such increasing cases, given that we are mandating mediation. Today, we have close to 160 volunteer mediators and we will continue to grow this pool.

The CMC has also set up satellite mediation venues in the neighbourhoods, so that residents can take part in mediation closer to their homes. In the past year, we have grown the number of satellite centres from six to 10 and have plans to add more in the neighbourhoods. CMC has also started using Zoom for mediation, in the appropriate cases, to make mediation even more accessible.

To drive more cases towards an early and amicable settlement, we will, therefore, mandate mediation in appropriate cases. This is in line with the suggestion that some Members have spoken about. So, the dedicated response team that I mentioned earlier will be given powers to come onto the ground, understand the problem, triage and identify suitable cases, and direct the neighbours to go to mediation.

In many community disputes cases, quick intervention can often help to prevent the matter from escalating further, before emotions set in and parties become intractable in their positions. So, apart from mandating parties to attend mediation, this team will also, in the appropriate cases, be present on site at the location of the disamenity and will be empowered to issue warnings and advisories.

If this team is satisfied that there is evidence of persistent nuisance or otherwise egregious conduct, it can also issue an abatement order, which is a direction for the particular nuisance to stop, pending a mediation or a CDRT adjudication. Non-compliance with an abatement order will be an offence.

We are now preparing to set up this dedicated team of officers, which will take some time. But for a start, we intend for this unit to cover community disamenities, like noise and hoarding, which could have a serious impact on community harmony.

Finally, as I have said earlier, it is not ideal for neighbours to turn to litigation immediately to deal with a community dispute. Hence, going to the CDRT should really be a measure of last resort, only if all the other upstream intervention measures that I spoke about do not yield a successful outcome.

But for those who have to turn to the CDRT, it probably means you have gone through a process, you are unable to resolve it and it has been an issue for some time. We want to turn the CDRT process into: one, that allows parties to obtain relief quickly and effectively. We have, therefore been working closely with the CDRT to identify several process areas which we will improve.

For example, in serious cases, the CDRT will be empowered to make interim orders on an expedited basis and based on a lower threshold. This will allow affected residents to obtain quick relief, even as the case awaits a full hearing.

This framework has been the subject of public consultations. On these ideas, generally the responses have been positive and supportive, and we will take onboard this feedback, make some adjustments as may be appropriate, and frame the legislation, because these measures will require legislative support. And we are targeting to introduce this later this year. Further details will be shared in due course.

Sir, I thank the various Members for their comments and suggestions and I look forward to their continued support for MinLaw's work.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu.

Mr Chairman, the last key thrust of MinLaw’s work relates to state assets.

The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) plays a key role as custodian of state land and property, optimising land resources for our economic and social development. We continue to plan for the long term, to optimise our limited land and invest in our shared tomorrow.

Mr Patrick Tay asked how SLA optimises state assets to meet market needs. SLA remains continually attuned to market needs through extensive engagements, in order to unlock the value of state land and properties.