Hansard, Tuesday, 10 January 2017

1 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the running of hawker centres by social enterprises on a not-for-profit basis has achieved its desired outcomes; (b) whether it has reduced the overall operating costs for hawkers and food prices for consumers; and (c) whether it has helped attract new hawkers to the trade.

Hawker centres are places where Singaporeans from all walks of life can interact while enjoying hygienic and affordable food. To meet the changing needs of society while ensuring the sustainability of the hawker trade and the affordability of hawker food, the Government has been exploring alternative management models where socially-conscious operators are appointed to manage hawker centres on a not-for-profit basis. These operators have the flexibility to innovate and customise solutions for each centre. With their experience in food and beverage operations as well as property and lease management, we believe these operators are able to improve the dining experience, enhance the vibrancy and improve the operational efficiency of hawker centres under their management.

There are currently four hawker centres managed by socially-conscious operators, namely, at Block 208B New Upper Changi Road and Bukit Panjang Hawker Centre which are managed by National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) Foodfare Pte Ltd, Hougang Ci Yuan Hawker Centre managed by Fei Siong Social Enterprise Ltd and Our Tampines Hub Hawker Centre managed by OTMH.

The feedback from both hawkers and patrons of these centres has been largely positive. The operators monitor the prices of basic food items at these hawker centres to prevent unreasonable price hikes. In addition, some operators have ensured that the hawkers offer at least a few affordable entry-level meals in their menu. For example, the stalls at the centres in Ci Yuan and Our Tampines Hub (OTH) need to have at least two dishes priced at $2.80 each or below. The operators also organise events at these hawker centres to further enhance the vibrancy of the centres.

To help hawkers address any manpower constraints they may face and manage manpower costs, the operators have implemented some innovative productivity measures. For example, the operator at Ci Yuan Hawker Centre has implemented a self-payment kiosk at all stalls, allowing the hawkers to focus on taking orders and cooking. Similarly, at the hawker centre in OTH, the operator has introduced a cashless payment system for the stalls. The operators at Bukit Panjang, Ci Yuan and OTH hawker centres have also introduced centralised dishwashing to reduce the hawkers' need for manpower for dishwashing. Besides improving the hawkers' productivity, centralised dishwashing can also ensure a more hygienic environment for patrons. Some operators have also offered the purchasing of ingredients in bulk to help hawkers reduce the cost of raw materials.

We have also seen encouraging initiatives to attract new entrants to the hawker trade. For example, the operator at Hougang Ci Yuan Hawker Centre has put in place an entrepreneurship programme. The new hawkers are given on-the-job training to gain skills and knowledge that can help them in operating hawker stalls. Thus far, 16 hawkers have benefited from this programme.

Given the encouraging outcomes observed in these pilots, we have recently announced an extension of the alternative management model to other hawker centres, with the appointment of NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Limited, or NFC, to manage a group of new and existing hawker centres. Placing the management of a group of hawker centres under a single operator will enable the operator to derive economies of scale and have greater flexibility and space to experiment with new ideas and processes to further improve the vibrancy and operational efficiency of the hawker centres for the benefit of both hawkers and patrons.

Hawkers can be assured that there will be no change to the way rents are determined when the operator takes over the management of the existing centres. Subsidised stallholders will continue to pay subsidised rents while non-subsidised stall-holders will continue to pay the prevailing market rents as assessed by professional valuers. The National Environment Agency (NEA) will work with the operator to explore ways to increase the vibrancy of the centres to enhance the business there and improve the patrons' dining experience.

I would like to assure the Member that regardless of the management model or the operator managing our hawker centres, my Ministry will ensure that hawker centres will continue to serve the fundamental objective of providing hygienic and affordable food while at the same time allowing the hawkers to make a decent livelihood.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Mdm Speaker, I must say that the resumption in the building of new hawker centres is probably the best decision that the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources has made, in my view, and my constituency is a direct beneficiary. I also support NEA's approach to try out the new model to finesse the way our hawker centres are run.

Can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether there are good learning points since we implemented the not-for-profit model? Has it improved the attractiveness of the hawker professionals and lowered the barrier for entry of aspiring hawkers?

I understand from stallholders from the Bukit Panjang new market that their new monthly conservancy charges are about almost $2,000. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State why are there no benefits of scale, since there is centralised dishwashing and so on, and can this charge be lowered?

Let me share that for the new centres that have been operated under the alternative management model, for instance, Ci Yuan Hawker Centre at Hougang and OTH hawker centre which has just opened recently, the socially-conscious operators have, in their tender proposals, proposed an entrepreneurship programme to allow new hawkers to enter the trade, to support and facilitate their entry. As I have noted earlier, in Ci Yuan Hawker Centre, they have an entrepreneurship programme where some 16 new hawkers have benefited. They trained these hawkers and provided them the stalls and some initial setting-up costs to operate these stalls. In OTH, they also have a train-and-place entrepreneurship programme where new hawkers train with veteran hawkers for about three months and then they operate the stalls at OTH.

These have helped to lower the entry barriers for aspiring hawkers, whether they are young hawkers or people looking to enter the trade. Between Ci Yuan and OTH, we have new hawkers who were formerly an engineer, accountant, real estate agent. Recently, at Chinatown Complex Food Centre, I met a former Deputy Superintendent of Police who has become a hawker. She has been selling herbal buk kut teh there for more than a month or so. Schemes like these would help.

With regard to the conservancy fees that the Member referred to, in effect, at Bukit Panjang Hawker Centre, this is not just one component, this $1,600-odd. It comprises three components: firstly, it is service and conservancy fees for general cleaning, routine maintenance and utilities of the common area; there is a second component which is table cleaning fees; and the third component is centralised dishwashing fees. All these fees are market-determined and paid directly to the contractors. For centralised dishwashing, it is to help the hawkers to address manpower constraints and challenges, as well as to manage manpower costs and improve productivity. With centralised dishwashing, what it means is that the hawkers will save on the cost of employing someone to wash the dishes.

In one of my visits to a hawker centre at Whampoa, which does not have a centralised dishwashing programme at the moment, one of the hawkers has purchased his own dishwashing equipment and that helped him to address his difficulty of getting someone to wash the dishes and saved him nearly the equivalent of one full-time manpower cost. That would definitely offset the fees paid for centralised dishwashing.

2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether it is compulsory for wet market stallholders to display their prices prominently; (b) if so, how does the Ministry enforce this; and (c) how many stallholders have been found to be in breach of such regulations over the past five years.

Currently, all stallholders are required to display their prices as part of their licence conditions. Where it is not feasible to indicate fixed prices, stallholders can also indicate a price range instead. In 2016, in response to feedback, the National Environment Agency (NEA) issued verbal advisories to more than 110 market stallholders to display their prices and most of the stallholders had cooperated.

We recognise that many wet market stalls may face difficulty in displaying their prices as the prices of market produce may fluctuate on a daily basis and are currently looking into revising this requirement.

Regardless of the requirement, it is a good practice for stallholders to be transparent about their prices so that consumers will have greater peace of mind when patronising them and can make more informed choices.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the detailed answer. Would the Ministry consider a campaign to put up posters in some of these wet markets to educate consumers that stallholders are expected to display these prices and perhaps to have a hotline number they can call, if there are stallholders who are consistently not displaying prices?

Indeed, at these wet markets and hawker centres, we do have place managers there to monitor. Anyone is free to contact us to give us feedback on the display of food prices and any other issues with regard to hawker centres.

I wish to highlight that we do understand that, for market stalls, there are challenges for them in fulfilling this requirement. As I had said, for some stalls, in particular, where they are selling market produce and if the prices fluctuate on a daily basis, it is quite difficult. We have engaged them and advised them that they could display a price range instead, which would also comply with the requirements. Clearly, we will do more, in terms of reaching out and educating them through our place managers, too.

3 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) what is the progress made by Singapore companies' investment in skills training to support skills mastery and employees' transition to new growth areas in their respective companies; and (b) how do the training efforts of Singapore companies compare with the best-in-class globally in terms of training hours, dollars spent as a percentage of payroll and track record in supporting employees to gain new skills.

4 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) whether the Government tracks the utilisation of SkillsFuture credits to prepare Singaporeans for alternative careers and how successful the scheme has been in preparing Singaporeans for new jobs, especially amongst older workers.

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

Yes, please.

Let me give a bit of background. Historically, our adult workers' training system tended to support employers training their workers, much more than empowering workers to take charge of their own lifelong learning journey. Just winding back to 10 years ago, Government funding for lifelong learning was heavily weighted towards employer-supported training, with a small proportion going to individual-initiated training. That is the historical background.

Over the years, the Government has expanded its funding support for lifelong learning and also shifted funding more towards supporting individuals directly. This is necessary, given the increase in number of contract workers and freelancers, and that it is much more likely that individuals will take the initiative to prepare themselves for their next careers, as opposed to expecting employers doing so for them.

Today, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) provide about $400 million a year in direct training subsidies for lifelong learning, with as much as 40% of that going towards supporting individual-initiated training. Sixty percent, the majority, still goes towards supporting companies and employers to train their workers.

Employed Singaporeans' participation rate in structured training is now 62%, higher than the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development average of 55%. We are higher than Australia, Korea, Japan and France, but we are below the United States, the United Kingdom, Finland and Sweden. Further, based on our surveys in 2014, 82% of surveyed employers provided structured training to their employees, compared to 72% in 2006.

We are, therefore, not doing badly by international standards, and many companies do take the skills upgrading of their workers very seriously. But we can certainly do better, especially in encouraging small and medium enterprises to do so, and for all companies to be more active in offering structured in-house training and apprenticeship schemes, such as Enhanced Internships under SkillsFuture, the SkillsFuture Earn and Learn Programme, and the Professional Conversion Programmes under Adapt and Grow.

All these are the various measures we take under the SkillsFuture movement. Of course, within the movement, there is one small important scheme and, that is, the SkillsFuture Credit. It is one of many efforts under the SkillsFuture movement to promote lifelong learning. We track the utilisation closely and the latest results were just released yesterday and carried widely in the papers. So, as at end December 2016, over 126,000 Singapore Citizens have utilised $37 million worth of their SkillsFuture credits.

Ms Foo Mee Har.

Madam, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. I have two supplementary questions. The first question is: I acknowledge the great efforts that the Government is making in investing directly in employees' training but there is a lot of sense on the ground that because the Government is doing so much, the part of the employer is missing. Whilst the statistics do show that they are having programmes, but the ground sense is that employers can do a lot of more. Would the Minister consider requiring companies to set aside specific amounts of funds towards training? Their funds, not Government funds. For example, having a target of 2% of payroll towards training which some countries do, failing which they will need to contribute the same amount towards the SkillsFuture account of the Government.

The second question is: whilst SkillsFuture is a national movement for all Singaporeans 25 years and above to pursue lifelong learning, so understandably, it is very wide. But could the Government prioritise SkillsFuture efforts towards helping Singaporeans build new skills necessary for new jobs and prepare for alternative careers by providing differentiated funding and extensive internship opportunities, as well as Place and Train schemes? So, very, very targeted schemes towards getting new jobs and building new skills. Whilst there are other important things, but prioritise towards getting new skills for new jobs.

I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. To set aside a certain percentage of payroll for training will help me and my officers meet all our key performance indicators but I think it is a heavy burden for companies.

In fact, we do have something similar. Under Skills Development Levy, every company sets aside 0.25% of their payroll for workers up to $4,500 in salary. They pay towards today's SkillsFuture Singapore. That money is pooled together, which they can then claim for the training of their workers.

So, in a way, that mechanism is in place. It is levied very lightly at 0.25% but we will be very careful not to add a further burden.

What we should really do is what the Member suggested in her second question − prioritise where the economic activities are, which sectors, which companies are hiring and then put very focused efforts to help workers pick up the skills so that they can take up the new jobs. That is exactly what we are doing together with the Ministry of Manpower.

5 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) what is the progress on the setting up of school-based Student Care Centres (SCCs) in all primary schools; (b) whether the Ministry is seeing increasing demand for more places; and (c) whether the Ministry has plans to increase the number of places in each school.

Mdm Speaker, after-school care is a golden opportunity to enhance and enrich our children's values, growth and character. Student Care Centres (SSCs) play an important role with their after-school support. Within five years, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has steadily increased the number of school-based SCCs from less than 50 to 147 centres today, which means 77% of our primary schools have SCCs. Overall enrolment has risen steadily from about 3,000 to more than 18,000 students.

MOE is on track to open SCCs in all primary schools by end 2020. The provision of school-based SCC places has largely kept pace with demand as the majority of the schools do not have waitlists. For the schools with a waitlist, the average number of students on a waitlist is less than 10.

But having said that, I want to assure the Member that MOE will continue to monitor the demand for school-based SCC places and work with our schools to improve the accessibility of SCCs through the setting up of new SCCs as well as expanding capacity for existing ones, where appropriate, and also at a pace that does not compromise the quality of after-school care.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Madam, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for sharing the very impressive numbers. The enrolment numbers for SCCs increasing from 3,000 to 18,000 is a six-fold increase. Parents I spoke to appreciate the SCC support as this makes their lives better as working parents. I sense that the demand will continue to rise.

So, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether MOE has plans to further scale up both the SCCs within the schools as well as those that are outside the schools. Would MOE work with some of the voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) which are interested to set up SCCs, which they slowed or stopped since the school-based SCCs were introduced? Thirdly, there is more demand. If MOE can increase the effort, that would really help parents, especially the working parents.

I want to thank the Member, Mr Liang, for his supplementary questions and also sharing the observation and feedback from the residents. We certainly agree that after-school care is a crucial period for influence and care where values and children's learning can be reinforced after school hours. It is certainly MOE's priority to ensure that a nurturing environment is availed to the students who most need after-school care, where they can grow and flourish after school.

We appreciate the observation that is shared with us, arising from residents' feedback. Maybe allow me to share some numbers. Out of 147 SCCs in the primary schools now, 45% of the SCCs are operated by VWOs. So, 45% of the 147 centres are operated by VWOs and the remaining 55% of the centres are operated by private sector commercial operators. I wish to assure Mr Liang and the House that the current rate of expansion meets demand. We also recognise that demand may vary from school to school and from area to area. We work very closely with the school principals who will know and would have a good pulse check on the demand for SCC places in the school arising from meetings with parents and parents' feedback.

In places of higher demand, MOE works closely with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) as well as our SCC operators, be it the VWOs or the private sector operators, to increase capacity where were can. I have shared two ways where we can increase capacity: one, opening up an SCC in each of the remaining primary schools – and that will be another 43 more – to cover the total number of 190 primary schools by the year 2020. Another way we can inject capacity is to increase capacity in existing centres. Certainly, the school will be happy to work with the operators to provide them more classrooms so that they can extend capacity, but it is not just the hardware; the software is also important. We want to make sure that as we expand capacity, we are also not compromising the quality of care given to our students.

I want to assure Mr Liang that the two Ministries will continue to work closely to monitor the capacity as well as the demand for SCC places across school-based centres as well as community-based centres. This is especially so for children who lack such a home environment after-school for various reasons. We do that because we know that with after-school support, from schools and the community, more parents would be able to work with peace of mind knowing that their kids receive good care after school. And to this end, we will be happy to work with Mr Liang to look at the needs of his constituency so that families and also students receive quality after-school care.

Mr Leon Perera.

Madam, just two supplementary questions for the Parliamentary Secretary. Does MOE play some role in reviewing the programmes that the SCCs run to level up in terms of the quality of their programmes and to share learnings as to the quality of the programmes? My second question is on students with special needs. Are teachers in at least some of these SCCs trained to provide the appropriate care for students with different types of special needs?

The MOE team works closely with the MSF team to support the Student Care Officers (SCOs) working in the SCC to provide care for the students after-school hours. And we also work with them to provide professional development support. To this end, in August 2015, MOE signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the four self-help groups − the Chinese Development Assistance Council, the Council on Education for Muslim Children, the Singapore Indian Development Association and the Eurasian Association. Under the MOU, the four self-help groups have set up a joint venture company in November 2015 and they aim to set up 30 SCCs that would be owned by the self-help groups, which are also considered VWOs. So, they will set up 30 SCCs by the year 2020.

The self-help groups are happy to report to MOE that to date, January 2017, they have already hit 50% of their target. They already have SCCs in 15 schools to provide care for students who most need this. MOE, together with the self-help groups as well as the other operators, is also looking at how to facilitate sharing of best practices for the SCOs.

To the Member's second question on special needs, based on the feedback from parents, they see a lot of benefits of having their children stay in an SCC in a school-based environment because it is within the school premises and this is where the principal or what we call the Allied Educator (AED) will be able to bridge the communications with the SCO with regard to the learning needs or learning difficulties of certain students in the SCCs and provide relevant support to them. The support being given is not just support from the MOE side but also the relevant disability division in MSF.

6 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Education (Schools) whether the Ministry will be accepting and adopting all the suggestions made by the State Coroner to mitigate the risks of suicide and adverse psychological effects for young people under Police investigation.

Mdm Speaker, the Ministry of Education is part of a multi-agency review committee formed to consider the State Coroner's suggestions. The committee is led by the Ministry of Home Affairs and includes the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Attorney-General's Chambers. As announced by the Minister for Home Affairs last week, the committee has undertaken a comprehensive review of the investigation processes for young persons. Following the recommendations, we will implement further measures that will provide enhanced support for the well-being of young persons under Police investigation. These measures will be implemented in schools by February 2017.

Any young person conveyed from one of our schools to the Police station for an interview will generally be accompanied by an appointed school personnel familiar to the young person. This could be his or her teacher, the year head or the school counsellor. The school will provide the Police relevant information for all cases to better understand the young person's personal circumstances. The Police will inform the parent about the arrest as soon as possible.

The review committee has also recommended the implementation of an Appropriate Adult (AA) scheme for young suspects, as announced by the Minister for Home Affairs last week. This Appropriate Adult will provide emotional support and observe the young person for signs of psychological distress during the interview by law enforcement agencies. Thereafter, the school personnel will keep in touch with the parent to work out the follow-on and follow-up steps to look after the young person's well-being. This includes monitoring his or her well-being and making counselling support available.

These efforts by our schools, other Government agencies, parents and the community, will support the well-being of young persons under investigation.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

Madam, I thank the Minister. The State Coroner suggested that the ideal person would be the school counsellor to be at the interview with the Police, mainly because he would be the resource person and can be the real-time facilitator for communication between the different parties involved. So, by adding in the Appropriate Adults, would this add a new layer that complicates things? Why not just stick to the school counsellor as the resource or key person to be involved in the process?

I thank the Member for the supplementary question. For the counsellor in question, he is familiar to the young suspect. According to the Review Committee, an Appropriate Adult is more suitable because in a Police investigation, the person in attendance should be neutral. While a school counsellor may be in a better place to support the well-being of the young person, in those circumstances, he or she may not be neutral. So, that is one part of the answer.

Second, for the school counsellor, whether he or she is accompanying the young adult, a certain level of flexibility would be required, given the school's circumstances. So, beyond the school counsellors specifically, we have decided to include the teacher, or the year head, who is familiar to the student to accompany him or her to the Police station. In this way, this flexibility will actually have a wider space to support the young person.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

A quick one for the Minister. Just a point of clarification. So, the school staff who is accompanying the student to the Police station, he or she will be there the whole time during the interview process?

I thank the Member for the question. He may or may not be there, depending on the circumstances of the event. When the counsellor, teacher or the year head is at the Police station, there will be a proper handover to the Appropriate Adult. If there is no Appropriate Adult present, the school counsellor would have to make a judgement call to stay with the young person until such an adult shows up. So, this would be operational management and we trust the judgement of the school personnel to make the best call.

Mr Louis Ng.

Madam, I just want to check with the Minister whether the teachers and the school counsellors have adequate training in mental health awareness and psychological first aid, especially awareness of the most common conditions like depression?

I thank the Member for the question. The basic answer is yes, to a basic level to be able to monitor signs of distress, from the teachers and the year head. For the counsellors, they will have a little bit more in-depth training.

7 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Prime Minister whether the appointment of the new Attorney-General, to take effect on 14 January 2017, accords with Article 35 of the Constitution.

Madam, I am taking this question on behalf of the Prime Minister. The appointment of the new Attorney-General (AG) is in accordance with Article 35 of the Constitution.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Supplementary question for the Minister. My concern is actually regarding specifically section 35(4) of the Constitution. I would like the Minister's comments on whether he feels that there is any issue with regard to the age of the new appointee.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker, for allowing me to answer. No, Article 35(4) does not create an age issue for the appointee.

Ms Lim.

Madam, I have a different view of the Article, and I would like to ask the Minister whether he agrees that this could be a reading of Article 35(4), and my view is this.

Article 35(4) provides that the AG may be appointed for a specific period of time and it also says that, subject to his being removed, he shall vacate his office at the expiration of the period but subject as aforesaid, meaning subject to the removal clause, he should otherwise hold office until the age of 60 years.

Furthermore, the proviso to Article 35(4) states that "The President has a discretion if he concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister to permit an AG who has attained the age of 60 years to remain in office." So, my point is that the Article does not seem to contemplate the appointment of a new AG who is more than 60 years old to assume the post.

I think that would not be an accurate reading. In fact, it would be quite an inaccurate reading. If you look at Article 35(4) carefully, it provides for two types of appointments; appointments in two situations. One, an appointment of an AG without a specific term. That can only be done when the appointee is under 60 years of age. There are two parts to Article 35(4). In that first situation, the appointment ends when he reaches the age of 60. The second situation is when the appointment of an AG is for a specified term, say, two years, three years and so on. That person can be below 60, can be above 60 and the appointment ends when the term ends. And of course, in both cases, the Government may allow extensions beyond the age of 60 or beyond the specified term.

The proviso applies in one of those situations when a person below 60 has been appointed, and then he is allowed to carry on beyond 60.

Any other reading − looking for a reasonable word − would not make much sense because that would say that you can carry on beyond 60 but only if you have been appointed before you reach 60. And in which case, then the age does not seem to be the relevant criterion.

And if you look at past practice, the late Mr Tan Boon Teik held the office until past the age of 63. At that time, the relevant provision stated age 55. Mr Chan Sek Keong, who was AG as well as Chief Justice, was appointed in 1992 at the age of 54. He was appointed for a two-year term past the age of 55. And in 1994, that age in Article 35(4) was changed from 55 to 60. And Mr Chan continued to hold the office past the age of 60 and he was re-appointed for a series of terms thereafter.

Current Judge of Appeal, Justice Chao Hick Tin, was above the age of 60 when he was first appointed AG. He was 63 when he was appointed for a term of two years, and 65 when he left office. And we have had a number of AGs below the age of 60 who were appointed for a specified term: Mr Walter Woon, the current Chief Justice, Justice Steven Chong and Mr V K Rajah. All these appointments were in accordance with the Constitution. And the interpretation I have put forward, Mdm Speaker, is something we have confirmed with the AG's Chambers.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Sorry, Madam, may I ask —"

Ms Lim, you have already asked two clarifications.

Madam, I am still not satisfied with the Minister's answer. May I just ask —”

One final clarification.

Thank you, Madam. Madam, I think the Minister would also note that there is an Article 35(5) where it is specifically provided that, "Nothing that is done by the AG shall be invalid by reason only that he has attained the age at which it is required by this Article to vacate his office." So, there is an indication in the Constitution about the importance of the age, and some of the officeholders that the Minister mentioned earlier − I think they were sitting AGs appointed before the cut-off, save for Chao Hick Tin, which case, I think, was never adjudicated.

So, my question is whether the Government would, in good faith, to clarify this matter, apply to Court for an interpretation to see whether the Government's view is correct.

That is quite ridiculous. The Government has taken advice. I am satisfied. Anybody who reads it will be satisfied. If the Member feels that there is something wrong, I would leave it to the Member to apply.

If the Member is right, a number of anomalies, of course, Justice Chao Hick Tin's appointment as AG would then have been not in order.

Secondly, if you look at Article 35(5) − so, according to the Member then, if a person is above 60 − then Article 35(4), since it only applies before the age of 60, then what happens to decisions taken by those people above 60? You must read the Constitution with common sense. "The Attorney-General" − I am reading 35(4) − "may be appointed for a specific period" − and that is the term appointment − "and, if he was so appointed, shall, subject to clause (6), vacate his office − at the expiration of that period, but subject as aforesaid, shall otherwise hold office until he reaches the age of 60". So, it clearly envisages two types of appointments.

And it is strange to ask the Government, which has taken a view and has taken advice from AGC: "I disagree with you and therefore would you apply to Court?"

8 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether Traffic Police (TP) intends to require licensed drivers to notify TP when they develop prescribed diseases or disabilities under the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licences) Rules after being issued with driving licences so that TP may assess and determine whether their driving licences should be suspended or revoked.

9 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether Traffic Police (TP) intends to require a medical professional to inform TP of licensed drivers whom he/she has examined and are reasonably believed to be suffering from prescribed diseases or disabilities under the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licences) Rules so that TP may assess and determine whether the drivers' driving licences should be suspended or revoked.

Mdm Speaker, may I take Question Nos 8 and 9 together?

Yes, please.

The prescribed disabilities and diseases are listed in the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licences) Rules. Examples include mental disorders and epilepsy. The list was drafted in consultation with relevant stakeholders, such as the Ministry of Health and the Singapore Medical Association. This list was last reviewed in 2015.

Drivers should not drive if they develop diseases or disabilities that impede their driving abilities, or if they are unwell and have trouble operating their motor vehicles. Instead, they should get an appointed driver to assist in their commute or use public transport. However, if they decide to drive and subsequently get involved in an accident, they would be liable for having committed a negligent act under the Penal Code, or potentially a rash act if it is proven that they were involved in the accident due to their diseases or disabilities.

Currently, the Traffic Police (TP) require applicants for the Provisional Driving Licence to declare that they are medically fit to drive. TP also require drivers aged 65 and above to undergo medical examinations to determine their fitness to drive.

TP will also subject licence holders to medical examinations to ascertain their fitness to drive, if accidents or other investigations reveal that they might have disabilities or diseases that impede their driving abilities. Drivers who fail the medical examination will have their driving licences revoked. Over the past four years, TP have revoked 69 driving licences due to such disabilities or diseases.

We understand the Member of Parliament's concerns. Not many countries currently compel medical doctors to report such disabilities and diseases to the traffic authority, and requiring individuals to report such disabilities and diseases on their own may have limited effect practically. We will study the practices of other jurisdictions and what are the best options for us. We have to be mindful that our regulations strike a balance in ensuring that drivers continue to be fit to drive on the roads, without imposing overly onerous reporting requirements.

Mr Murali Pillai.

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his comprehensive response. May I ask whether the Ministry is of the view that the current system adequately ensures road safety, given that, presently, a person who attains the age of 18 and gets a driving licence has no requirement to update on any adverse conditions until he reaches the age of 65?

Secondly, the experience of countries, such as the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia, which mandate the reporting obligation, as set out in the questions, and also the experience in the UK, in terms of statistics, in 2011, it was reported that 7% of fatal accidents were caused by motorists having illnesses or disabilities.

I understand that Singapore's experience is a bit different. But in Singapore, we do not have yet an obligation to self-report or for a health professional to report in relation to disabilities that their patients may have. And in relation to the possible limited effectiveness of motorists' self-reporting, by and large, Singaporeans take their social responsibilities seriously. In any event —

Mr Pillai, can you please put your supplementary questions?

Yes, Mdm Speaker. In any event, the suggestion embedded in the Parliamentary Questions prevent the tail wagging the dog because, for the vast majority of motorists, of course, they are compliant. We are only talking about a small percentage.

The Member has summarised the regulations in that at the point of applying for the Provisional Driving Licence, drivers will declare they are medically fit to drive and they will also have to go through medical examinations after age 65. The other thing is, if there is an accident or investigation, then they will be subject to medical examinations.

The data currently does not require such an active intervention. Over the past four years, there were 12 cases in which drivers were involved in an accident and, upon being subjected to medical examination, they were found to be suffering from a prescribed disease or disability, and we have taken stern action. Nevertheless, we note the Member's concern. That is a very good suggestion and we will study that and review it to see what are the best solutions for us.

10 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether he can provide details on the three-year "Break the Silence" public education campaign to encourage witnesses to safely intervene in family violence situations; (b) whether the Ministry will set up a dedicated hotline for victims and witnesses of family violence to report abuses; and (c) whether the Ministry will provide urgent advice to victims and witnesses and coordinate interventions by specialist centres and the Police.

Mdm Speaker, my Ministry launched the three-year "Break the Silence | Against Family Violence" campaign last November, essentially to renew and continue to raise awareness of family violence, with a focus on the role of bystanders. The key message is that family violence is not a private matter. Victims need help. They need to receive help early. The community, including neighbours, family members, friends and even strangers, can play a very important part to tackle family violence.

As part of the campaign, a "First Steps" video, depicting how a neighbour intervenes when violence occurs nearby, is available online. I do encourage each of us in the House to share the video and other collaterals on social media to start conversations around family violence and how we, as bystanders, can step in to help victims. The #breakthesilenceSG effort was started to also gather stories on social media of how everyday Singaporeans stepped in to prevent, interrupt and report suspected family violence. It can be done. There are people who have done so and who have made a difference and it is really to encourage all of us to realise that that is something that all of us can and should do.

Over the next three years, my Ministry will work with our community and corporate partners, including through ground-up efforts relating to music, through the sports community and the arts community, to further raise awareness of family violence. We also have roving community roadshows, training sessions and collaterals being produced to help raise awareness and to equip bystanders with resources and also to update them on skills that are required to safely step in to help victims.

Anyone who encounters family violence can call or approach the nearest Family Service Centre, Family Violence Specialist Centre or community-based Child Protection Specialist Centre. Alternatively, they can call the ComCare Hotline at 1800-222-0000, a number which many of us are familiar with and, from there, they can redirect the individuals to the specialist centres concerned. These agencies will assess each case and render the appropriate assistance required.

When emergencies occur, call the Police. Agencies are connected through the National Family Violence Networking System and will respond to cases regardless of where the first incident report is made. Where there are serious concerns, my Ministry will work closely with the Family Violence Specialist Centres and the Police to address the safety of the victim and any other vulnerable members in the family.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

Madam, I thank the Minister. I think it is a great initiative but I am wondering about the risk that is now opened up for the bystanders because they are asked to safely intervene, and also for the alleged perpetrators because their privacy might be compromised through social media postings, for example; and, of course, the safety of bystanders themselves could be threatened by violent reactions from the perpetrators. So, how would MSF counter these issues?

I would like to thank the Member for his clarifications and these are very real concerns. In fact, that is the reason sometimes people are worried about stepping in: one, they are concerned about their own personal safety; another, of course, sometimes they feel that these are personal issues, family issues and really not for us to intervene.

I am not sure whether the Member has watched the video that we have shared. There are many quite good videos. For example, just knock on the door and just say, "Hello, how are you? Is everything OK?" In the video that we just produced, this old auntie, you look at her and you can tell she is really fed up about the situation. She got up and we thought she was going to get into a ruckus with the neighbours. But she actually cooked the cake or she brought out something and gave it to them, just for them to realise that, as neighbours we heard something, we noticed.

There are lots of ways where we can step in without necessarily making it confrontational. It allows a break in that event so that the individuals perpetrating violence would take a step back and realise that people are noticing it and that may start that whole process for them to self-reflect.

If at all, perhaps, it is just to raise concerns, call the hotline or call the Police, if necessary, if you think it is excessively violent and you are concerned about the well-being of those who are affected. Or just call the hotline and we will then assess accordingly and see whether the grassroots could step in.

These are ways where we want to encourage people to perhaps begin to see how we can play a part. The other roles that can be played are not just by strangers and neighbours. It is actually family members. You will realise that in many of these cases, family members were aware of some of these instances that were happening. In fact, in one very tragic case of a young boy, two years old, who died unfortunately, actually the grandmother was aware but we do not know why she did not raise it.

These are all steps. What we want to do is to encourage people to do something. Let us know. At least let us intervene and at least something can be done. If it turns out to be a false alarm, so be it. There are safe ways to do it and I think the whole idea of some of these collaterals being produced is to help raise awareness that there are ways to do it without putting ourselves at risk.

11 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the number of people who have committed suicide or attempted suicide each year in the past five years; (b) how many were aged 60 and above; (c) how many of these seniors were living by themselves and how many were living with their families; and (d) what resources and programmes are currently in place to help to address the likely causes of such suicides and to prevent the suicide rates from increasing.

Mdm Speaker, between 2011 and 2015, there was an average of about 415 deaths from suicides each year, of which an average of 116 involved persons aged 60 and above. In terms of trends, for the elderly specifically, there are no particular trends that we picked up. It varies from year to year but there is no particular spike in numbers. We do not also have the specific breakdown of the living arrangements of these persons who committed suicide.

As the causes of suicides are complex and multi-faceted, we do need to take a holistic perspective when we examine and try to review each individual suicide and to see how we should approach it. Certainly, we take a whole-of-Government approach.

Why it seems a lot more visible today, I guess a lot of it has got to do with media, especially social media. When news breaks, stories sometimes are shared in various forums. It is circulated and a lot more awareness is there. But when we look at the numbers themselves, the trends are not picking up in a big way. It does not mean that it is not important because every life lost via suicide is one death too many and we should endeavour to try to prevent it.

It is also, perhaps, a bit simplistic to label the reasons as to why it happens because there are social issues, relationship issues, family issues, mental health issues and sometimes a combination of various factors that causes individuals to take their own lives.

We want to work together with community partners, particularly to raise awareness on suicide prevention, encourage distressed persons to seek help, and provide professional support and crisis intervention to at-risk groups.

Essentially, there are four ways in which we want to approach this.

The first one is through public education. Under the Seniors Health Curriculum, which is rolled out by the Health Promotion Board (HPB), this is part of our National Seniors' Health Programme where seniors are taught socioemotional and self-care skills and how to seek help if necessary. HPB also conducts workshops in workplaces to educate Singaporeans, in particular mature workers, on mental resilience and well-being.

Secondly, it is through proactive outreach and support. To prevent social isolation and to help us detect risks among seniors early, Senior Activity Centres (SACs) conduct social activities and carry out home visits to reach out to the elderly living in rental flats. The Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) also works with community-based organisations, including the SACs, to support seniors who may be at risk of depression and dementia via the Community Resource, Engagement and Support Teams (CREST) programme. It is part of the Community Befriending Programme that volunteer befrienders visit seniors regularly to prevent social isolation and support their needs. This is something that all of us as individuals can do. We really should think about mobilising our residents and volunteers to play a part in this effort because it is really about picking up information, picking tell-tale signs and providing social support where we can. Of course, Family Service Centres (FSCs) support families and individuals, including seniors, through casework and counselling to resolve their relationship, financial, emotional difficulties and so on.

Thirdly, in the crisis response effort. Those in distress or who are facing crises do call the Samaritans of Singapore, which operates a 24-hour hotline. The Institute of Mental Health also operates a 24-hour Mental Health Helpline manned by counsellors who can assess and after that triage cases, and activate home visit teams if necessary.

Lastly, while all these initiatives are important, the most critical role really is played by the individuals themselves. Families, let us not forget the role that families play; and, of course, the community, the people who live around us.

At the individual level, individuals should take personal responsibility. They need to raise self-awareness, be self-aware and recognise tell-tale signs so that they can seek help early when feeling overwhelmed and emotionally distressed.

Family members must help to pick up signs of distress and render emotional support, or help the troubled family member to seek professional assistance early. Co-workers, colleagues at work, friends and neighbours can also play a very important role in offering assistance and support to those facing life's challenges.

Without these steps, even the best support programmes that we put in place will be rendered ineffective. So, we must all step forward and play an active part in looking out for our fellow Singaporeans, our loved ones and together with the rest of the other programmes we have put in place, I think we will have a good shot at reaching out to those who need help.

Mr Dennis Tan.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive explanation. On the issue of social isolation, I understand from press reports that there has been a huge number of increase, over the last, say, 15 years, in the number of elderly people living alone compared to 15 years ago. I am particularly addressing people who live alone and whose spouses have passed on. I understand from my grassroots activities that some of these elderly do not want to be involved in some of these current activities at the SACs and other activity centres. I am just wondering whether the Ministry will consider taking a new approach to some form of befriender programme or something to interact with these elderly whose partners have passed on and to provide social company and to try to reintegrate them into society.

I would like to thank the Member for his question and follow-up comments. I think it is a very real concern for a number of reasons. One, the number of people who are ageing is increasing, so the volume itself is increasing. The other factor that we are all familiar with is that family structures are also changing. Families are smaller. So, sometimes, you may have children but they may be working abroad or, sometimes, in some cases, you do have strained relationships. So, you will gradually begin to see, of course, one, more elderly and, of course, there are the elderly who are living alone for a range of reasons and you will also correspondingly see some of these numbers increase.

Does isolation in itself represent a problem? No, not necessarily. But certainly, isolation, I do not think it is necessarily a good thing either because people do need to be socially engaged. They may be living alone but it does not mean that they are necessarily socially engaged. They may be in contact with their family, their regular social activities. So, those are less of a concern. But they can become a concern at some point where they become less mobile, when they become less able to meet up with other people. Which is why it is very important for us to realise that the grassroots activities are very important. Ultimately, at some stage, your neighbours and the community in which you live in become very critical.

Family members are there, and that is always the first line. That is critical and we hope that families continue to visit. Which is why we also want to redefine the sort of family structure and look beyond just the nuclear family; the extended family becomes important − cousins, nephews, uncles, aunts. We need to nurture that extended family relationship as well. Relationships within a family do not just automatically happen. We also need to put in the effort to make sure that at least that part in terms of providing emotional support to their elderly and to family members remains. But the community becomes important.

Indeed, the Member is right. As Members know, some of the activities that we have, we have the same old people taking part in the activities. We want new old people to take part. And the Member is right that some do not participate, for a range of reasons. Sometimes, they may have just moved in, there is no social connection with the local community as yet. The befriending effort is ongoing. That is a very important part of our programme in terms of outreach; slowly getting to know who are those people who are isolated, and then how do we begin to get to know them and slowly begin to connect them with the community at large and begin to get them out of their homes and to participate in activities. Once that ice is broken, we can begin to see some of them beginning to play an active role.

There are some who do not want to come out, again, for a range of reasons. Sometimes, when you become older, you have physical infirmities and then you feel self-conscious and, sometimes, it is just a question of perhaps regular visitation and that is something that we are looking at through the Befrienders' Programme, which is why I would urge Members to grow these grassroots activities, whether from the neighbours, the grassroots organisations, volunteers and, in fact, working with corporates. That is something I am exploring as well, because companies are looking at corporate social responsibility efforts. Sometimes, we may be looking for some big-bang activities. But, actually, low-key, simple, weekly, fortnightly befriending visitation goes a very long way and that becomes a bridge to the other activities that we have.

So, indeed, the Member is right. It is something we need to pay attention to because we all know the ageing profile is changing, the numbers will expand, and it behooves us to put in the effort today, so that by the time we reach that stage in 10, 15 years' time when the numbers are quite phenomenal, we can have an environment where we may live long, but I think we can age well, both as individuals and as a community as well.

Dr Intan Azura.

Madam, I certainly agree with the Minister that in reaching out to our elderly, all of us have a part to play. Even here, in this House, all of us, as Members of Parliament, elected or otherwise, can do something about it. We can visit them regularly at home with our volunteers and not just wait for grassroots events or the Government to do something about it.

Would the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) consider working with the Ministry of Health (MOH) to look at how our Pioneer Generation (PG) Ambassadors can also be that first line of befrienders to visit our elderly, because they are already out there and are already trained?

Indeed, the partnership between MSF and MOH is critical. It is very hard to just draw a line that this is a social issue, this is a health issue. I would say the third factor is a community issue. So, the grassroots organisations and structure are a very valuable set-up. The PG office is particularly important because they are actively visiting the PG. We are also picking up information from them because they sometimes notice that elderly folks are just so happy to have someone to talk to. These are not the elderly folks living on their own. They are living with family members. This suggests to us that, sometimes, they may be living with their older parents but they are not being engaged or are being disregarded in some ways. What we are trying to do, now that the information is being picked up, whether at the PG Ambassador level or the grassroots level, is decide how we then pool the information together so that we can then direct efforts at befriending in a lot more targeted and effective manner.

That is something we are focusing on to see how to operationalise this. Some of us are doing this on the ground as Members of Parliament. I have spoken to a number of you on some of the possible outreach efforts that can be done and I do sincerely believe that this is possible. It is really a question of us organising ourselves at the ground level to do this. No shortage of outreach efforts, but I think we need to work together to collaborate. But that effort is ongoing.

Mr Kok Heng Leun.

I thank the Minister. In my experience working with the elderly, I realise that language plays a very important part in communication. I wonder if all of MSF's outreach programmes would also include other languages. Besides English, which most of the organisations are comfortable with, we are really looking at Mandarin, Malay, Tamil or even various dialects. Would such programmes be available? And how do we make sure that these are going out to the elderly?

I thank the Member for the insight. Indeed, the Member will notice we have a lot more dialect programmes and advertisements. We work closely with the getai community to get some of the messages out. Dialects become important, as well as Malay, Tamil and so on. In terms of the outreach for befriending, it is not just in English. We are looking out for volunteers from different backgrounds. I would urge the different communities to step forward to play a part because we do need to leverage on your language skills.

We do have people who want to reach out. But sometimes there is an impediment because of language. When that happens and we find that some elderly person is not able to communicate beyond a particular language, we will then source for someone who is able to speak the language to come in.

It definitely helps once again to call out for those who are from different backgrounds to play a part, because that is important.

In terms of collaterals, such as videos, we are stepping up the effort, working with different producers, directors, to generate some of the materials. I am sure you have seen a lot of the Hokkien and various advertisements which have gone down very well with the elderly. I know some people are a bit ‒ for want of a better word ‒ kind of scornful about "Why do you have this kind of videos? It is a bit slapstick". But it is different strokes for different folks. We may not always relate to some of these types of programmes and collaterals, but it reaches out to different segments of our society. The key thing, as far as we are concerned, is that it does not matter what the platform is. Get the message out and then enable individuals to then look after themselves as well, and also to encourage those around them to do that. It really takes a collective effort.

So, the Member is absolutely right. Language plays a very important role, particularly presently when a lot of the elderly, perhaps because of their education level where their language competencies are not quite the same. As we go forward in the next 10, 15 years, this issue should be less acute. A lot more people should be able to speak the main languages. But it is something that we still need to look out for.

12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider requiring all building owners to erect vertical barriers along the handrails of escalators as a safety measure; and (b) if not, what other safety measures are in place to protect people, especially children, from injuries or fatal accidents as a result of falling over the handrails.

Mdm Speaker, escalators in Singapore are designed and installed according to the prevailing Singapore Standard Code of Practice. The Code includes several safety requirements to reduce the risk of users falling over handrails. For instance, balustrades have to be designed to discourage users from climbing across the handrails. Handrails also have to be of a certain height. Furthermore, the Building Control Act requires safety barriers of at least one metre at escalator landings to prevent users from falling through the gaps between two escalators. These requirements are in line with international standards across Europe and the United States.

Apart from design and safety requirements, escalator users also have a role to play in ensuring their own safety and the safety of others. Holding onto handrails, not getting distracted by mobile devices, and taking extra care when carrying heavy or bulky items are some of the good practices that will reduce the risk of accidents. Young children should also always be closely supervised when they are on the escalator. The Building and Construction Authority is working with building owners and operators to raise public awareness on safe and proper usage of escalators, such as by displaying posters on safety tips.

Mr Louis Ng.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I understand there are safety measures in place, but I think some of us may have watched the footage of a grandmother who lost her footing on the escalator when she was carrying her grandchild and then dropped the grandchild over the handrail. Can I just check with the Senior Minister of State what safety measures we have in place to prevent this kind of accidents from happening?

I think they are in my answer earlier. The escalators have to comply with certain safety standards. User behaviour is also a major part of incidents that occur on escalators. In many buildings where there are escalators, there will also likely be lifts which people can use if they feel that there is a certain risk to them and others around them.

13 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for National Development in the past three years, what is the number of cases that HDB has received seeking repair assistance for spalling concrete, ceiling and sewage pipe leaks a year beyond the defects liability period under the Home Improvement Programme.

Madam, the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) helps flat owners address common maintenance issues in ageing flats, such as spalling concrete and ceiling leak.

However, occasionally, such problems could still recur after the HIP improvement works are done. For defects reported within the one-year Defects Liability Period (DLP) upon completion of the HIP works, the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) contractors will carry out the necessary rectification.

For cases reported after DLP, HDB will look into the nature and cause of the feedback and advise flat owners on the follow-up action accordingly. Over the past three years, the number of reported cases of defects due to workmanship of HIP works after the one-year DLP is small, of about one to two cases per 10,000 units per year for spalling concrete, ceiling and sewage pipe leaks.

For ceiling leaks or spalling concrete cases that arise out of wear and tear, HDB may also offer assistance to flat owners to repair and co-share the cost of repairs under the Goodwill Repair Assistance Scheme.

Mr Faisal Manap.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply and thank you, Mdm Speaker. Madam, I have attended to cases where residents had sought assistance to appeal to HDB for rectification of the mentioned problems. As mentioned by the Senior Minister of State, usually HDB would reply that they would grant the Goodwill Repair Assistance Scheme.

However, most of these residents feel that the cost for such repairs should be fully borne by HDB. To them, such problems should not surface within a short period after the DLP has expired. I just want to know whether HDB can consider absorbing fully the cost of such repairs, especially for problems that are observed to have resulted from poor workmanship or due to oversight during the pre-repair assessment.

Madam, I think the Member has asked this question recently and an answer was given. But if workmanship is the cause of a leak recurring at the area where the repair works have been carried out, then even though it is after the DLP, if it is due to workmanship, the contractor will fix it. We have said that before.

14 Mr Kok Heng Leun asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) since its inception, what is the respective amount of funds that have been disbursed from the Cultural Matching Fund to (i) national companies and museums (ii) major grant and seed grant companies, (iii) other cultural and arts organisations not covered in (i) and (ii); (b) what is the number of receiving entities within each of these categories; and (c) what is the amount that has been respectively disbursed to the (i) visual arts, (ii) performing arts, (iii) literary arts, (iv) traditional arts and (v) heritage sectors.

Mdm Speaker, since its inception three years ago, the Cultural Matching Fund (CMF) has matched about $152 million of corporate and private giving. Among the arts and heritage charities that qualify for CMF, about six out of 10 have applied for and received funding from CMF. The amount matched by CMF comprised $65 million for 12 national companies and museums; $33 million for 36 Major Grant and Seed Grant companies; and $54 million for 37 other charities supporting arts and heritage causes.

The breakdown by sector is as follows: $23 million for visual arts; $40 million for performing arts; $0.6 million for literary arts; $24 million for traditional arts; $20 million for heritage, and $44 million for the remaining groups.

Mr Kok Heng Leun.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the detailed answer. Looking at it, out of $200 million, $152 million has been actually used up. So, would this scheme stop when the current Cultural Matching Fund runs out? Would the Government continue to support this scheme?

The second supplementary question is: under what conditions are applications for such Cultural Matching grants rejected?

Lastly, I do note that a huge sum has gone to the national companies. So, I am wondering, while this Fund is good for companies, but at the same time, I think the rationale behind it is to help to build other companies in terms of their capacity to get sponsorship. Has this aim been achieved and how do you ensure that this process is being cultivated?

I thank the Member for his interest in CMF. Indeed, the Ministry is currently reviewing CMF and we are looking at the possibility of a new tranche when it runs out.

As for the eligibility for the CMF matching, in order to qualify for CMF, applications must meet the following criteria.

All arts and heritage charities and Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) are eligible for CMF. But CMF may also consider other charities and IPCs that contribute significantly to the arts and heritage sectors. CMF will also only consider cash donations that are certified by a certified public accountant or auditor. So, in-kind donations will not be matched. CMF will also not match grants given by the Government or Statutory Boards, donations from ComChest, President's Challenge or similar entities. CMF will also match donations with benefits that are in line with the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore guidelines on donations with benefits.

In terms of calculation of the amount of cash donations, it is based on the amount that is received up to the previous financial year of the receiving organisation. So, applications which do not meet these above criteria will be rejected.

On the Member's questions about the inclusion of national companies and museums, CMF's primary objective is to promote cultural philanthropy and to encourage individuals and corporations to include arts and heritage causes in their giving. National companies and museums, being larger organisations, are able to raise funds on a bigger scale and will have a greater impact to move the needle in raising public awareness of and support for cultural philanthropy.

However, we are mindful that our national companies and museums should not crowd out the other smaller arts and heritage organisations. Therefore, we have put in place a $15 million funding cap for each CMF recipient. This cap limits the amount of funding that each CMF recipient can obtain, and this will ensure that smaller groups can still tap on CMF over the longer term.

15 Mr Azmoon Ahmad asked the Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) whether there is any plan to review the arrangements for the Malay/Muslim Community Development Fund (MMCDF) disbursements since the Fund's initiation more than 20 years ago; and (b) whether the approval process for grants under MMCDF can be simplified.

Madam, the Malay/Muslim Community Development Fund (MMCDF) was launched in 2001. The last review was conducted in 2014 and saw an increase in the Government's matching grant, as well as an expansion in the scope of MMCDF to help our Malay/Muslim organisations build capabilities and improve organisational development.

The Community Leaders Forum Secretariat, based in the Council on Education for Muslim Children (MENDAKI), manages and regularly reviews the operational aspects of MMCDF, including its funding guidelines and processes. The Secretariat started work on the latest round of reviews in August last year and targets to complete the review by March 2017. Thereafter, the Secretariat will share the outcome of the review.

16 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health for patients with mobility needs who are physically unable to visit the nearest polyclinic, what measures are available to arrange a subsidised medical assessment at home so that the patient can qualify for assistance from the Agency for Integrated Care, SG Enable and related agencies.

Seniors with mobility difficulties can contact the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) to request an assessment by AIC's Community Care Assessment Team (ComCAT) at their homes. This can be done through AIC touchpoints, such as AICare Links at our acute hospitals, Singapore Silver Line and Singapore Silver Pages.

Once contacted, AIC will arrange for ComCAT to visit the senior at his or her home to assess their eligibility for subsidies under the various schemes, such as the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF).

As of end 2016, ComCAT has responded to a total of 1,357 cases in the community.

We will continue to monitor the care needs in the community to ensure that our schemes and services are accessible to patients who require them.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Madam, I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answer. I have two supplementary questions.

Firstly, on my home visits to residents in Clementi, I have come across elderly residents with mobility needs who are seeking subsidised referrals to specialist clinics at our restructured hospitals, but because they are not mobile, they have difficulties going to the nearest polyclinic. So, I was wondering what options or recourse they may have to access the specialist clinics at our restructured hospitals.

Secondly, Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask whether the assessment made by AIC is routinely shared with other agencies, so as to minimise the need for elderly residents to have multiple assessments which may add to the paperwork and potential inconvenience.

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Firstly, with regard to elderly with mobility difficulties who may need referrals to subsidised care, they can contact AIC, or their caregiver can contact AIC, to arrange for home medical visits by MOH-subvented providers, where a doctor can visit them at the convenience of their home to assess their needs and, if necessary, provide them with the subsidised referral to see a specialist.

Such services are provided by various community organisations like Home Nursing Foundation, and eligible seniors can receive subsidies for this service. In fact, for these frail seniors, they can contact AIC for home medical and home nursing services, and doctors and nurses can provide care for them within the convenience of their homes. Seniors with mobility difficulties can also contact AIC to request for Medical Escort and Transport (MET) services, where the provider can escort and transport the senior for medical appointments, including at the polyclinics.

With regard to the second question about sharing of the results of the mobility and medical assessments, we note the requirement and the need to minimise such assessments as much as possible to reduce inconvenience, particularly for the frail elderly.

The medical and mobility assessments are shared and applied for eligibility assessment for similar schemes, as far as possible. For instance, AIC will allow the use of ElderShield assessments for similar schemes run by AIC, such as the Foreign Domestic Worker Grant and the Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme.

However, as different schemes may have different eligibility criteria to ensure that we target the right group of beneficiaries, clients may, in some instances, still need to undergo additional assessments for schemes with different or additional criteria. However, we are mindful of this and we will try to minimise this as much as possible. As Minister Tan Chuan-Jin had said, MOH and the Ministry of Social and Family Development work very closely together. So, AIC and SG Enable, if need to, we will also share information on the medical and mobility assessments.

17 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will explore ways to upskill and enhance the capabilities of enrolled nurses and nursing aides, including those serving in nursing homes, through measures, such as training and certification.

Enrolled Nurses (ENs) and support care staff, such as healthcare assistants and nursing aides, are important healthcare staff in the delivery of care. They assist Registered Nurses (RNs) in the provision of nursing care. ENs are able to carry out tasks, such as inserting stomach feeding tubes and blood glucose monitoring.

As our population ages, healthcare needs will increase and become more complex. We agree with the Member that we should continue to upskill ENs and support care staff to perform a wider scope of patient care.

ENs and support care staff can undergo in-house training provided by our public healthcare institutions.

They can also attend courses offered by training providers, such as the SingHealth Alice Lee Institute of Advanced Nursing Studies and the Agency for Integrated Care's (AIC's) Learning Institute.

ENs can also upskill to be RNs through the Diploma in Nursing course offered by Nanyang Polytechnic and Ngee Ann Polytechnic. As part of the recommendations by the National Nursing Taskforce in 2014, more ENs can progress to become RNs by undertaking the Certificate in Bridging Studies for ENs course and, subsequently, the Diploma in Nursing course, if they have at least three years of post-enrolment work experience and an employer's testimonial.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) has also increased funding for our public healthcare institutions to support the upgrading of ENs to RNs. With these changes, the number of ENs enrolling in the Diploma in Nursing course increased by 7% from 237 in 2014, to 253 in 2016.

We will continue to study ways to enhance the roles, professional growth and career pathways for our ENs and support care staff, so that we can continue to deliver good quality care for Singaporeans.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for Health for her answer. I have one supplementary question.

At present, my residents tell me, and from my own experience in healthcare, a patient's caregiver can learn how to give an insulin injection under the skin. This may be a spouse or a loved one, but in essence, a layperson can be taught this skill through a short course. So, I was wondering whether MOH will consider making these courses available for nursing aides, especially at our nursing homes. This will help them upskill and also allow cross-training of staff and improve deployability.

Allow me to explain first, that while a diabetic patient is trained, he can be trained to give himself a specific type of insulin injection for self-care, or the caregiver could be trained to do so. Healthcare staff, particularly those in healthcare institutions, are required to work with a broad range of different insulin on different patients, and this increases the need for safe care.

Nursing aides are currently not allowed to administer insulin and other subcutaneous injections to nursing home residents.

Such injections are to be done by nurses, RNs and ENs, with training. This is in view that insulin is classed under the group of high-alert medications, which are medications that are most likely to cause significant harm to the patient, even when used as intended. Although any medication used improperly can cause harm, high-alert medications cause harm more commonly, and the harm they produce is likely to be more serious and may lead to patients suffering and incurring additional costs associated with care of these patients. For instance, insulin injections, if wrongly administered, may cause the patient to go into a coma, and further complications can arise.

Nonetheless, as I have noted earlier in my reply, we are looking at the expanding role and scope of patient care by upskilling our ENs and support care staff. So, MOH will work with the nursing homes to review whether nursing aides and other support care staff may be allowed, with appropriate training, to administer subcutaneous injections, while maintaining safe care.

Mr Leon Perera.

Madam, just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State.

Does MOH currently benchmark the level of professional training, specifically for nursing home staff, such as ENs and nursing aides, against other countries that may have a best practice in this area, like Japan, for example, which I think is known for high standards for eldercare and care in nursing homes, to see if there is scope to further improve the level of training and continuous training that nursing staff receive in Singapore nursing homes? I suspect the level of training is rather uneven at the present moment when we look at the nursing home space.

I thank the Member for his question. Indeed, we do conduct study visits, as well as share information with healthcare institutions in different countries, including the Western developed countries, as well as Japan and Hong Kong.

As I am speaking on this, there is a committee that is looking at reviewing the curriculum and training of nurses, to expand their role and scope. It will also be looking at expanding the role and scope, and upskilling of healthcare support staff.

Order. End of Question Time.

[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) "to amend the Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276 of the 2004 Revised Edition), to validate certain sums collected for the purposes of that Act, and to make related amendments to the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Chapter 189 of the 2000 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Transport (Mr Ng Chee Meng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah.

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Singapore is today a leading centre in the world for cross-border dispute resolution, alongside London, Paris, Geneva and Hong Kong. While our legal sector is relatively small, over the last 10 years, we were able to go beyond our shores, ride the wave of rising inter- and intra-Asia trade and investment and establish for ourselves a global brand name as a trusted location for high-quality cross-border dispute resolution.

We are trusted, not only because of our legal expertise, but also because people know that we are, and will remain, neutral, and that our legal regime is stable. In the next decade, when trust commands an even higher premium, Singapore is well poised to achieve even more.

We are tabling two Bills today − the Mediation Bill and the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill − as part of a number of moves that we will make in 2017 to grow dispute resolution work in Singapore to the next level.

Strengthening our position as an international dispute resolution centre will benefit Singaporeans and Singapore. First, it helps create growth and jobs for Singapore law firms and lawyers, amidst a more challenging economic environment. Second, exposure to more, and more wide-ranging, legal work helps broaden and deepen the legal expertise available for domestic cases. Third, our position as a legal service hub will bolster Singapore's overall attractiveness as a business hub and create value for other parts of the economy.

I will now address the Mediation Bill. In Singapore, we provide a full suite of dispute resolution services so that businesses can pick and choose the services that best meet their particular needs. Mediation is one such service, complementing Court litigation and arbitration. It provides a more cost-effective, flexible and faster means of settling disputes. Mediation is also well-suited to our Asian context, where harmony and amicable resolution are valued highly in the dispute resolution process. It is particularly attractive for parties who desire to preserve long-term relationships and continue to do business.

In 2013, the Chief Justice and the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) set up an International Commercial Mediation Working Group to look into developing the international commercial mediation space in Singapore. Arising from the Working Group's recommendations, in 2014, the Ministry set up the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) and the Singapore International Mediation Institute (SIMI). I am happy to report that both institutions have done well in just two short years.

SIMC has, as of end 2016, successfully attracted case filings from parties from more than 20 different jurisdictions and a wide range of industries and sectors. The sums in dispute ranged from S$0.5 million to more than S$600 million. Part of SIMC's success lies in its strong focus on meeting the needs of businesses. For example, SIMC has worked across institutional boundaries, to partner the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) to develop the SIAC-SIMC arb-med-arb, an innovative protocol that offers businesses the option of both arbitration and mediation.

As a professional standards body for mediation, SIMI has successfully implemented and maintains a four-tiered credentialing scheme for 116 − and growing − local and international mediators, and a three-tiered partner scheme for two − soon to be seven − organisations offering mediation services and/or training. SIMI works closely with more than 20 domestic and international organisations to promote mediation and set high competency standards in mediation practice.

Besides building strong institutions, Singapore needs a legislative framework for mediation if we desire to be an international centre for commercial mediation. This Mediation Bill provides such a framework. Its provisions will strengthen the enforceability of a mediated settlement agreement. They will also provide much-valued certainty for cross-border mediation users, in areas where the common law position is unclear or differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

The Bill will implement the last of the recommendations made by the International Commercial Mediation Working Group. Its provisions incorporate inputs from public consultation and extensive stakeholder engagement with lawyers, mediation and alternative dispute resolution practitioners and service providers, academics and mediation professional bodies. The stakeholders we consulted are very much looking forward to this new legislation. It will help draw even more international commercial mediation work to Singapore and further strengthen Singapore's position as an international dispute resolution hub.

Let me now address the Bill's features. First, the scope of the Bill. The Bill will apply to mediations which are conducted wholly or partly in Singapore; or internationally, where the agreement to mediate provides that Singapore law or the Bill, if passed, should apply. The Minister is also able, on consultation with the Chief Justice, to extend any provision of the Bill to any mediation conducted by or under the direction of a Court.

To prevent inconsistencies with existing mediation legislation and frameworks, for instance, community mediations governed by the Community Mediation Centres Act, mediation processes conducted under, or provided by or under any written law, will be excluded. In the same way, the Minister may, where appropriate, also exclude specified mediation proceedings.

The key features of the Bill are to strengthen the enforceability of settlement agreements resulting from mediation; clarify confidentiality and admissibility rules; provide for stay of Court proceedings; and make clear that the restrictions under the Legal Profession Act do not apply under certain circumstances.

I will now take the House through these four key aspects. First, enforceability provisions.

The first key aspect of the Bill relates to strengthening the enforceability of mediated settlement agreements. The lack of enforceability of a mediated settlement agreement is an oft-cited concern of mediation. To illustrate, having gone through significant time and effort in a mediation, parties may finally reach a settlement agreement. However, if one party later reneges on his obligations, the innocent party needs to commence Court proceedings, firstly, to prove a contract exists and, secondly, that the terms have been breached. This lack of enforceability is seen as an inhibiting factor in attracting commercial parties to mediate a dispute, since finality and certainty of dispute resolution outcomes is key.

The Bill, therefore, provides an additional expedited way for parties to ensure that the settlement agreement is enforceable. It does not alter or restrict the Court's existing powers to record a settlement agreement as a consent order, in cases where the dispute is already before the Court.

The additional expedited method provided by the Bill is as follows. First, once parties reach settlement, subject to the Bill's requirements, parties may further agree to apply to Court to have the settlement agreement recorded as a Court order.

To use this procedure, all parties to the agreement must agree to the application being made. The settlement agreement must be in writing, and the mediation administered by a designated mediation service provider, or conducted by a certified mediator. Such safeguards aim to ensure that the quality of the mediated settlement agreement is appropriate for being recorded and enforced as a Court order.

The Court may refuse to record the settlement agreement as a Court order under certain circumstances, for example, if this is contrary to public policy, if the subject matter of the agreement is not capable of settlement, if any term is not capable of enforcement as an order of Court and so on.

Parties who are not able to use this procedure, for example, because other parties refuse to consent to the application, will still be able to commence court proceedings to enforce the settlement agreement as a contract.

Consequential and related amendments are made to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and Family Justice Act to make clear that the Court has jurisdiction to record such mediated settlement agreements as Court orders.

Second, restrictions on disclosure and admissibility. The second set of key provisions relate to confidentiality and admissibility of mediation communications. The Bill makes clear that except under narrow circumstances set out under the Bill, communications made in a mediation cannot be disclosed to third parties to the mediation and cannot be admitted in Court or arbitral proceedings as evidence. These positions seek to reflect current practices and expectations of mediation users.

Confidentiality and privilege are considered key cornerstones of the mediation process. Today, however, such rules are based on a mixture of common law privileges, contractual protections and equitable remedies for breach of confidence. In practice, parties may not be clear on how such protections apply to their individual circumstances.

Under the Bill, a protected mediation communication includes anything said or done, documents prepared or information provided in the course or for the purpose of the mediation. This also includes the agreement to mediate, and the settlement agreement, if any.

Mediation communications are protected in two broad ways under the Bill. First, a mediation communication cannot be disclosed to any third party to the mediation, unless this falls under one of the listed exceptions, for example, party consent, or for the purpose of requesting legal advice and so on. Short of these exceptions, any further disclosure will require the leave of Court, or an arbitral tribunal if the request for disclosure is being made in the context of arbitral proceedings. The usual civil remedies for a breach of confidentiality will be available if unauthorised disclosure is made or threatened.

Second, a mediation communication is not to be admitted into evidence in any Court, arbitral or disciplinary proceedings, except with the leave of a Court or arbitral tribunal.

Next, stay of Court proceedings. The third key aspect of the Bill is a provision to stay Court proceedings. The Bill will provide parties to a mediation agreement with a specific statutory basis to apply to Court to stay any ongoing Court proceedings in relation to the same dispute. The Court may subject the stay order to any terms and conditions as it thinks fit and make further orders to preserve the rights of parties. The provision will provide parties to a mediation with assurance that their legal position in any Court proceeding can be preserved pending the outcome of mediation.

Fourth, Legal Profession Act provisions. The fourth key aspect of the Bill is amendments to the Legal Profession Act, which make it clear that the restrictions on the practice of Singapore law will not apply to the mediation context where the mediation is conducted by (a) a certified mediator; or (b) administered by a designated mediation service provider. These are similar to existing provisions for arbitration.

Such provisions will support international commercial mediation in Singapore by providing flexibility for parties intending to mediate to choose their own mediators and counsel, and encourage foreign mediators and counsel to use Singapore as a venue for mediation.

Mdm Speaker, the present reforms are part of our overall effort to ensure Singapore's dispute resolution framework continues to be progressive and user-focused. The introduction of the Bill is timely. With a strong base of legal talent, high-quality dispute resolution service providers and standard-setting professional bodies, the Bill will serve to create a more conducive environment in Singapore for international commercial mediation and reinforce Singapore's position as a premier venue for the conduct of international commercial mediation. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mdm Speaker, I first wish to declare my interest as a dispute resolution lawyer in private practice. The Mediation Bill serves to introduce a coherent mediation framework in Singapore on various aspects of mediation currently dealt with by agreement between parties to mediation, such as issues of confidentiality and enforceability of mediated settlement agreements. I support the objectives of the Bill, including the economic objectives outlined by the learned Senior Minister of State earlier in her speech.

I take this opportunity to seek clarification on the policy underpinnings of the Bill in two areas.

With the recent launches of SIMC and the Singapore International Mediation Institute, we have made much further inroads into encouraging mediation as a cost- effective form of dispute resolution for potential litigants and in attracting such work into Singapore. Indeed, I note that the Courts are now empowered to take the parties' conduct, including conduct in relation to whether the disputes were or were not submitted to mediation, into account when making decisions about costs at the end of proceedings.

In a parallel development in the United Kingdom (UK) occurring in July last year, it was recommended by Lord Justice Briggs in his Final Report of the UK Civil Courts Structure Review that "resolution by parties [be made] a normal part of civil dispute resolution, rather than something alternative to the mainstream." In his words, the recommendation seeks to "take the 'A' out of ADR", or alternative dispute resolution.

Could the Senior Minister of State kindly clarify if the policy intention behind the Mediation Bill vis a vis litigation in the Courts is to promote mediation as a mainstream form of dispute resolution mechanism rather than an alternative dispute resolution, that is, to encourage parties, especially commercial parties, to turn to pre-action mediation to resolve their disputes before resorting to litigation or arbitration?

If so, I wonder if the Mediation Bill can be strengthened even further to encourage parties to refer their dispute to mediation before litigating by providing for a suspension or extension of the limitation period for instituting litigation or arbitration of a case that is being mediated. Currently, in Singapore, a party wishing to mediate has to either obtain the agreement of the other party to suspend the limitation period, or to first commence proceedings and seek a stay of proceedings while the mediation takes place. In contrast, pursuant to the European Union (EU) Mediation Directive applicable to cross-border disputes, EU member states are required to ensure that the limitation period shall be extended during the period of the mediation process.

Some criticism may be levied that allowing the limitation period to be suspended while mediation takes place may be abused by parties as a tactical manoeuvre to buy more time to commence a claim. While this is possible, I wish to highlight that mediation is, at its core, a voluntary process. It is open to a party to withdraw from a mediation process if it is of the view that the other party is not genuinely interested in mediating to resolve the dispute amicably, or it is using the mediation process to obtain an advantage in respect of the limitation period.

While we should not go so far as to mandate mediation before litigation as this would be an unwarranted restraint on an individual's right of access to Court, we should do as much as possible to encourage pre-action mediation and incentivise parties to do so.

Second, with respect to litigants who are represented by the Legal Aid Bureau in civil claims not involving family matters, I note that, pursuant to section 16(1) of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, aided persons are generally not liable to pay legal costs. There is, therefore, no structural incentive for legally aided persons to mediate their disputes that are the subject of Court proceedings.

In addition, legal aid is granted only in relation to civil proceedings in the Courts under the First Schedule to the Legal Aid and Advice Act, not mediation.

Since costs of legally aided persons are borne by the state and it is plainly obvious that pre-action mediation can result in significant savings of cost and time, I wonder if legal aid may be extended to cover mediation as well. I further suggest that it be provided that aided persons in pending Court proceedings be obliged to comply with advice by their assigned solicitors to submit their cases for mediation.

To conclude, I believe the Mediation Bill will achieve the objectives of enhancing and strengthening the mediation framework in Singapore to facilitate the resolution of disputes by mediation. I support the Bill.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.

Mdm Speaker, the Mediation Bill before this House today gives effect, as the Senior Minister of State said, to the Working Group's final major recommendation in 2013 that mediation should have statutory force. The Bill should be welcomed and I think I speak on behalf of all the legal academics that I can think of, to say that mediation has been often proposed as a form of dispute resolution that has been described as the poorer cousin of dispute resolution when compared to litigation and arbitration.

But seeing people like Mr Joel Lee, Chairman of the Singapore International Mediation Institute (SIMI), chairing it, we have a lot of encouragement and hope.

This Bill should be welcomed, not only because it codifies the definitions that we are used to as lawyers and the principles of mediation and mediation agreement, and the mediation settlement agreement, but also because it provides clarity on the position of mediation in relation to litigation and arbitration.

Clause 8, for example, enables parties to a mediation agreement to apply to Court for a stay of proceedings and for the Court to make interim or supplementary orders to preserve the parties' rights as long as the Court proceedings relate to the subject of the mediation agreement. This is something that is commonplace in the arbitration context, but is not so well-known in the mediation one.

Clause 12 responds to a complaint that counsel and clients often level at mediation, as the Senior Minister of State mentioned earlier. That is, that mediated settlements are only contractually enforceable between parties. This new clause allows parties to consensually apply to Court for a record of the mediated settlement as an order of Court which can be enforced in the same manner as a Court judgment would. Importantly, clause 12(4) gives the Court useful guidance as to the circumstances when it can, in its discretion, refuse to record a mediated settlement agreement.

Finally, clauses 9 to 11 underline the fact that mediation is a private and confidential process. This is something that mediation shares with arbitration. The Bill prescribes a general duty of confidentiality over all mediation communications with defined crave-outs and exceptions under which disclosure may take place in certain circumstances. This will certainly add certainty to the law of mediation.

Having said this, Madam, I would like to ask the following questions of the Ministry in clarification.

First, in response to feedback during the public consultations, the Ministry responded to say that the Bill "does not seek to regulate the conduct of mediation itself, or set out mediator standards". I ask the Senior Minister of State: will ethical breaches in mediation, such as conflicts of interest, impartiality and even mediator competence, be left to the Courts alone? Or should this, in time, be something that the Ministry could envision being resolved by committees established by SIMC, SMC or SIM, as the designated mediation service providers and mediation institutions respectively?

I ask this as well, as this seems to be a direction that arbitration seems to be headed in − looking to the chartered institutes as a training body, resolving some conflict of interest problems, as opposed to having it always decided by the institutions.

In some respects, Madam, this Bill seems to be a nod to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation. What is the Ministry's position on the proposed UNCITRAL Convention on Enforcement of Conciliated Settlement Agreements? In the meantime, while we are waiting for such a convention to come about, how does the Ministry believe that the SIAC-SIMC arb-med-arb, which the Senior Minister of State mentioned, could provide the requisite basis to secure appropriate enforcement? I support this Bill, Madam.

Ms Thanaletchimi.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Singapore prides itself on having a clear and distinct mediation framework that effectively resolves disputes or conflicts in a smooth, expeditious and cost-effective manner. The Singapore Government has also been actively promoting mediation in Singapore and encouraging parties to resolve disputes through mediation rather than litigation or arbitration.

In industrial relations disputes, cases are resolved through negotiations between two parties and if this comes to no avail, the dispute is being sought for third-party mediation, so that issues are resolved without further damage and to arrive at a win-win outcome.

Madam, with reference to the Bill, I would like to seek the following clarifications.

Clause 6(2)(a) states that "this Act does not apply to, or in relation to any mediation or conciliation proceeding, process, scheme or framework conducted under, or provided by or under, any written law". I would like to seek clarification on the coverage of the application of this Bill as clause 6(2)(a) provides wide exclusions regarding its application.

For example, it would exclude workplace disputes involving executive employees and their employers as there are provisions for tripartite mediation of disputes involving executive employees under the Industrial Relations Act. Similarly, are family disputes also excluded from this Bill as there are laws covering mediation referred by the Family Justice Courts and mediation for commercial disputes are also covered by the Small Claims Tribunals?

What roles do the SMC or SIMC play with reference to the Bill? Will they be considered as the "designated mediation service providers" under this Bill? Do the mediation procedures of the Singapore Mediation Centre apply in this Bill?

Does the Bill require the presence of lawyers representing the interests of the parties involved in drafting the mediation agreement? Madam, with this, I thank you.

Mr Christopher de Souza.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Mediation Bill that is before us today. Born out of the recommendation by the Working Group for International Commercial Mediation, this Bill is a welcome move to advance the standing of mediation as a choice mode of alternative dispute resolution in Singapore. I declare my interest as an advocate. In practice, I have seen the fruits of mediation and experienced hearings before excellent mediators at the SMC and SIMC. This would not have been possible without the support and collaboration of MinLaw to promote Singapore as an international mediation centre.

It is with much foresight that the Government and the Judiciary promoted mediation as a choice alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Mediation places a priority on the reconciliation of relationships and, from my experience, this is very useful. Even though the main litigation is hard-fought, when mediation is attempted in parallel, parties sometimes settle. When that happens, there is a win-win for all, companies and individuals alike. If the mediation does not yield a settlement, the suit continues and rights are adjudicated at trial. So, mediation offers no disadvantage.

MinLaw lent valuable support to the mediation movement by forming the Community Mediation Unit within the Ministry and an Alternative Dispute Resolution resource panel. The panel sought to promote mediation in a wide variety of settings and comprised members of varied background. SMC was started in 1997 and plays an important role in Singapore's mediation landscape. In 2013, the mediation movement sought to further promote the mediation in international commercial disputes. The Working Group was thus set up. We have seen the fruits of the first two of the recommendations. Through excellent teamwork, Singapore mediation power houses in the like of SIMC and SIMI uphold the standard of our mediation services. This is on top of the excellent SMC, CMC and Court-based State Court Centre for Dispute Resolution, among others.

Today is, therefore, the time to make the next step, to buttress the current advantages that mediation lends to Singapore as a legal hub. Why? Because mediation is an excellent forum for parties to come together on a non-adversarial platform to understand and resolve the underlying issues that bear on the case.

There are other advantages, too. For example, having a co-mediator which allows industry experts to weigh in on the matter or ensuring that communications are without prejudice, which disarms parties and promotes a conciliatory approach, or, and importantly, having control over the outcome. These and others culminate to facilitate a possible settlement agreement that is agreeable to all parties.

Clause 12 of the Bill provides the welcome ability for a settlement agreement to have the potential to be enforced in the same manner as a Court order where parties agree. Currently, a settlement agreement is purely contractual, requiring further action to enforce the bite of the settlement agreement. To solve this problem, SIMC has resorted to the SIMC-SIAC arb-med-arb protocol. Without this amendment, a party has to go through the onerous steps of enforcing the agreement as a contractual claim or apply to Court for a consent order. This Bill remedies this deficiency and enhances the attractiveness of mediation as a choice alternative dispute resolution with finality and expediency where the parties decide to exercise this right.

Secondly, I would like to highlight the merits of clause 8, which retains parties' option to apply for a stay. The option not to stay an action while mediation is carried out is a valuable tool in litigation. With the clock ticking, the parties may have more incentive to settle in mediation. Let me explain this a little bit further.

If a stay was made mandatory, then there would be little incentive to settle the matter promptly. With no timelines due, no affidavits to file, parties would not have the incentive to enter into mediation quickly. Thus, parallel proceedings, running in tandem with any scheduled mediation hearing, may actually prompt settlement.

In closing, no emphasis on mediation should remove the parties' right to have their rights and duties adjudicated at the full trial. As I understand it, this Bill does not intend to remove a right to a full trial if a company or private citizen seeks it. As such, and for reasons I have explained, I support the Bill.

Mr Louis Ng.

Madam, this Bill seeks to strengthen the overall framework for mediation in Singapore, paving the way for Singapore to position itself as a major international centre.

I applaud the work done by the International Commercial Mediation Working Group in putting together these recommendations. Most notably, I welcome the provisions for parties to apply for stay of Court proceedings and defining the scope of confidentiality of these proceedings. I understand that while the mediation process has always been regarded as confidential, the scope of confidentiality was unclear. Furthermore, the Bill also codifies the circumstances under which disclosure may take place.

I also welcome the proposal to extend the existing Legal Profession Act exceptions applicable to arbitration, to mediation. Mediation, unlike arbitration, is not commonly understood to involve the practice of law and often does not refer to legal principles at all. Nonetheless, in certain cases, the relevant law may be discussed during the mediation session.

The amendment to the Legal Profession Act makes clear that participation by foreign mediators and foreign-qualified counsel in such mediation sessions will not amount to unauthorised practice of Singapore law.

Madam, while I believe these recommendations have been well-thought through, allow me to ask a few questions and seek clarifications.

Firstly, if this Bill is enacted, it will substantially enhance the enforceability of successfully-mediated cases. However, the Bill mentions that the Court may refuse to record a mediated settlement if the subject matter is incapable of settlement. This provision seems to envisage that some matters may not be settled through mediation, for example, a mediated settlement on the custody of a child that may not be in the interest of the child. But it is the view of some mediators that all cases can be settled through mediation. Would the Ministry be able to provide more clarity on which cases it envisages to be unsuitable for mediation?

Secondly, how will the mediation process be affected by the proposed changes from the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill? I ask this with the knowledge that the Bill covers third-party funding for international arbitration proceedings and related proceedings, which also include mediation. Madam, these questions notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Patrick Tay.

Mdm Speaker, I declare my interest as an Accredited Mediator with SMC. I rise in support of this Bill which seeks to promote, encourage and facilitate the resolution of disputes by mediation.

I have two suggestions to make.

First, the continual appraisal of accredited mediators. SIMI was incorporated in 2014 as a non-profit organisation supported by MinLaw to set up professional standards for mediators further to the International Commercial Mediation Working Group's recommendations to develop Singapore into a centre for international commercial mediation.

Based on the offerings stated on SIMI's website, SIMI's work is primarily focused on accrediting at the moment although it also states that it aims to apply and enforce world-class standards of mediation, to make tools available to parties to make basic decisions about mediation and to promote mediation education and awareness.

At the Singapore Mediation Lecture in 2013, Lord Woolf said that "There is a need for the continual appraisal of mediators who are accredited". Mediation has come a long way but it is still a journey. The field now needs to evolve quickly into a true profession. High minimum practice and ethical standards need to be set, made transparent and achieved internationally. Users of mediation need to see these standards operating effectively. More and better information needs to be made available by individual mediators about their skills, capabilities and personalities. Quality and transparency together will enable mediation to grow. Mediators, too, need to be suitably recognised for their expertise and skills.

Clause 12 of the Mediation Bill allows the recording of a mediated settlement agreement as an order of Court with parties' consent where the mediation is administered by a designated mediation service provider or conducted by a certified mediator and subject to other qualifying factors. This facilitates the ease of enforcement of the mediation settlement agreement as parties currently have to commence legal proceedings to enforce the settlement agreement.

With the passing of the Mediation Bill and, in light of clause 12, there is now a greater need to set standards, increase transparency and ensure the continual appraisal of accredited mediators through professional bodies. The professional bodies can also determine the threshold and, where needed, investigate into whether the mediation or mediator falls below the requisite standards. This, in turn, gives credibility to the profession and builds confidence in using mediation as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.

Four justifications to support regulating mediators include: (a) protecting the public from problematic mediators; (b) providing information to the public about mediators; (c) improving mediator ability and capabilities; and (d) enhancing the credibility of the profession. This is bearing in mind the limited number of accredited mediators and also the areas or topics of mediation work which is availed to enhance the experience and currency of their mediation work.

The second suggestion is the grievance system to deal with complaints about mediation and mediators. With increased use of mediation, sooner or later, complaints against mediators may arise. Having a grievance system in place gives confidence to parties agreeing to resolve their dispute via mediation. The grievance system will also complement the accreditation and/or possible self-regulation efforts of professional bodies to raise standards.

Having a professional body implement a grievance system to deal with complaints about mediators also enables better addressing of issues concerning the role of the mediator in mediation proceedings.

Mdm Speaker, I hope MinLaw would consider these two suggestions. With that, I support the Bill.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.

I welcome the changes to this Bill. I just have a few clarifications for the Minister. Firstly, pertaining to the mediation service provider, can I ask the Minister for the details? How are these chosen? And how many service providers are we looking at appointing further and, especially, foreign ones as well? And how will they be accredited to carry out the mediation?

These service providers and their personnel will need to be familiar with Ministry's policies and agencies' guidelines in order to provide the best approach and advisories to the parties seeking mediation. What about the registration and training requirements of the mediators from the appointed service providers? And also, moving along, how about their continuing professional development? How are they going to be monitored and assessed as well?

We are talking about commercial cases particularly in this Bill. For sales disputes, I know that mediators and counsellors have the lemon law as a reference. How about for the service industry, which is really quite broad ranging and wide as well? So, mediators covering these cases may need to be informed and empowered in this aspect.

Also, as we know, in mediation, the choice of mediators plays a critical role. Experience and ability to engage people becomes important. Not forgetting their track records as well.

Therefore, will there also be some kind of consideration for specialist mediators? For example, if there is a related case, something pertaining to medical product or service and someone who is conversant and versatile in this area and discipline will be very useful to have as well. Will we be planning to have this more formalised and made available or, perhaps, have a list of resource mediators who can be called upon for such relevant cases?

Finally, Madam, I would also like to find out if there will be any formal changes to the workings of SMC, CMC and SIMC with the enactment of this Bill. I support the Bill.

Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah.

Mdm Speaker, I thank all the Members who have spoken and for their strong support of the Bill, Mediation is now an integral feature of our dispute resolution landscape.

Mr Murali Pillai sought clarification on whether the Bill is intended to promote mediation as a mainstream form of dispute resolution mechanism as opposed to being an "alternative" dispute resolution option. If so, he suggested that parties can be encouraged to turn to pre-action mediation to resolve their disputes, before resorting to litigation or arbitration, through: (a) allowing an extension of time limits on a claim where this is being mediated; and (b) extending legal aid to cover mediation, and requiring aided persons to comply with advice by their assigned solicitors to submit their cases for mediation.

First, on the question of what type of dispute resolution, our position has always been to encourage parties to find the most "appropriate" dispute resolution mechanism. So, it is still an "a": it is not "alternative", but "appropriate". If you think about it, what we have been doing is that we offer different products. You can have arbitration and litigation, and mediation complements the other two. So, there is a lot of flexibility there, and it is really what suits the parties' needs. So, in that context, mediation is complementary to litigation and arbitration and it is important to recognise that there are unique circumstances behind individual disputes, and having alternative dispute resolution mechanisms will enable the parties to find the right solution to address their issues.

We are committed to mediation as a means for parties to settle disputes amicably and in a cost-effective way. Yet, as the Member has pointed out, it is important to balance a pro-mediation approach against party autonomy to choose for themselves which dispute resolution option best suits their needs, and not to unduly restrict individuals' rights of access to Court, or where they have agreed to other dispute resolution options, such as arbitration. So, in short, we offer an array of options, and parties can pick and choose whatever suits them best.

On the issue of extension of limitation periods, this will require careful study. In the majority of cases, however, it is unlikely that an ongoing mediation would have any great impact on a limitation period, given that mediation typically is a quick process.

There are also existing incentives in the Court process to encourage parties to settle. The Mediation Bill itself will introduce provisions to support an application to stay Court proceedings, on the basis of a mediation agreement, a point noted by many of the Members who spoke.

The Court may also take into account parties' attempts to settle for costs of Court proceedings. And parties are also actively encouraged to consider mediation. For cases in the State Courts, disputes may be referred for mediation at the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution. New changes under the Supreme Court's Practice Directions also encourage lawyers and parties to consider if mediation is appropriate for their case.

If we were to extend limitation periods, where mediation takes place, this wider context would have to be considered.

The Member's second set of suggestions related to the provision of legal aid. I should clarify that legal aid does, in fact, cover mediations which are conducted as part of the process of resolving the dispute between parties. There are also existing incentives for aided litigants to consider mediation as a viable dispute resolution option. The Legal Aid Bureau encourages all legally aided applicants to settle their disputes amicably. That makes sense because it saves time, it saves cost. Only if mediation is not successful or not possible, for example, because the other party does not wish to mediate or does not turn up, would the applicant be advised to proceed with litigation. And this is particularly so for family-related proceedings.

If an applicant unreasonably refuses to mediate the matter, and the Legal Aid Bureau is of the view that mediation would be a good way to resolve the dispute at hand, a recommendation can be made to the Legal Aid Board on whether to refuse or cancel aid in the matter.

Mr Patrick Tay and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef both spoke on the importance of setting standards and professionalisation of the mediation industry. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef also asked if we had considered the issue of specialist mediators.

The Bill does not itself regulate the provision of mediation services or accreditation of mediators. Flexibility is important in ensuring the industry can develop. What we have done is to put in place measures to improve training and standards for the mediation industry, in line with our aim to grow Singapore as an international commercial mediation centre.

To that end, we have established SIMI as the premier independent professional standards body, to promote mediation and set high competency standards in mediation practice.

For mediation training and research, there is also the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (SIDRA). SIDRA is the first regional institution dedicated to thought leadership and training and educational excellence in negotiation and dispute resolution.

As for specialist mediators, both SMC and SIMC have specialist lists of mediators available for parties to choose from. The specialist mediators span a wide range of industries and sectors, such as banking, finance, family, probate and so on.

Mr Patrick Tay suggested putting in place a grievance system to deal with complaints about mediators, while Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked if we will, in due course, establish a form of disciplinary tribunal to govern professional ethics rules for mediators.

The mediation industry is a growing one and a heavy-handed approach may not be the best way to go forward at this point in time. With greater training and accreditation of mediators by the various mediation institutions, we hope that the mediation community will continue to develop its own approach through professional ethics guidance. But we will continue to monitor this, as the industry continues to professionalise, and we will finetune our framework as we learn from experience.

Ms Thanaletchmi and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef both had questions on designated mediation service providers and certified mediators under the Bill and who will be appointed.

The "designated mediation service provider" and "certified mediator" contained in the Bill serve a limited purpose. Specifically, in order for parties to make use of the provision to enable the enforcement of a mediated settlement agreement recorded as a Court order in clause 12 of the Bill, it is a pre-requisite that the mediation in question is administered by either the designated mediation service provider or conducted by a certified mediator. The reason for having this criterion is to ensure that the settlement agreements are of a quality that can be readily recorded by the Courts.

For now, trusted institutions like SIMC and SMC will be considered for designation as mediation service providers. The mechanism will be reviewed and may be opened up to more institutions when it has been successfully implemented and becomes more established.

Ms Thanaletchimi asked if the Bill applies to tripartite mediations conducted under the Industrial Relations Act, or mediations conducted under other legislative frameworks, for example, the Family Justice Court under the Women's Charter, or mediations conducted by the Small Claims Tribunal.

The Bill will not apply to mediations conducted under the Industrial Relations Act, those conducted by the Family Justice Court under the Women's Charter, or those conducted under the Small Claims Tribunal framework. As explained earlier, this is to prevent inconsistency with existing legislative frameworks and rules guiding those mediations. So, our approach is really not a one-size-fits-all. We encourage mediation for all, but within each type of category of claim or type of action, there may be a more specialist approach. So, we have got existing frameworks for existing specialist areas, like family law and industrial relations.

Ms Thanaletchimi also sought clarification on whether the Bill requires the presence of lawyers representing the interests of the parties involved in drafting the mediation agreement. The Bill does not require the presence of lawyers. It is up to the parties as to whether they wish to involve their lawyers in the mediation.

On observations made by Mr Louis Ng on the proposal to extend the existing Legal Profession Act exceptions applicable to arbitration to mediation, I would like to clarify that the exceptions are not broad-based, but will only apply in the circumstances set out in the Bill.

Mr Louis Ng also sought clarification on clause 12(4)(b) of the Bill, which states that the Court may refuse to record a mediated settlement agreement as an order of Court if "the subject matter of the agreement is not capable of settlement". Clause 12(4)(b) of the Bill provides that the Court can refuse to record the mediated settlement agreements if the subject matter clearly cannot be resolved through mediation, for example, if the subject matter is illegal. So, if you have a dispute and let us say, for some reason, the two parties agree that the way to resolve that dispute is to go and cheat a third person. That will clearly be unenforceable. No Court will condone that.

Mr Louis Ng had a question on whether the mediation process will be affected by the proposed changes from the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill. Third-party funding under the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill will only be extended to mediation proceedings arising out of or in any way connected with international arbitration proceedings, but not to standalone mediation proceedings.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan noted that some aspects of the Bill are a nod to the existing UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation 2002, the 2002 Model Law, and asked about our position on the ongoing work of the UNCITRAL Working Group II (Dispute Settlement) on the preparation of an instrument on the enforcement of international commercial settlement agreements resulting from conciliation.

We have taken the 2002 Model Law into account in crafting the Bill. As the Member has noted, parts of the Bill take reference from the model provisions contained in the 2002 Model Law, which addresses procedural aspects of a conciliation or mediation. As for the ongoing work of UNCITRAL Working Group II, Singapore has actively participated in those discussions and will continue to do so. The upcoming 66th Working Group II session will take place in February, where the Working Group will be discussing both the form and substance of the proposed instrument.

As regard to whether the Bill's restrictions on confidentiality will affect Member of Parliament or agency referrals to community mediation, the Bill will exclude community mediations, that is, those conducted under the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) or the Community Dispute Resolution Tribunal (CDRT). These will continue to be regulated by the legislation and rules that apply to those mediations today.

For referrals to the CMC, Members of Parliament and agencies will be updated on the outcome of such referrals. In other words, CMC will update them whether the referred parties have agreed to attempt mediation and, if they do so, whether the mediation materialised in a settlement or otherwise. The terms of the agreement, however, remain confidential. For mediations which are governed by the Bill, as is the case today, confidentiality can be waived if all parties consent to disclosure.

As regard to the "recording" of a mediated settlement agreement, under clause 12 of the Bill, it refers to recording of the mediated settlement agreement as a Court order, that means, in a written format.

Madam, I believe that addresses the issues raised by Members. I would like, once again, to thank them for their strong support for this Bill, which is yet another step forward in helping Singapore grow as a dispute resolution centre. Madam, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

The citation year "2016" will be changed to "2017", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 19 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

As mentioned in my speech to introduce the Mediation Bill, Singapore is well poised to strengthen its position as a leading centre for cross-border dispute resolution. We will make a number of moves this year to grow dispute resolution work in Singapore to the next level, and these amendments for the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill are one of those moves.

Compared to international commercial mediation, international commercial arbitration in Singapore is more developed. Our International Arbitration Act was introduced in 1994 and has been updated from time to time to be on the cutting-edge of international arbitration.

SIAC is now amongst the top five most preferred arbitral institutions in the world. It set a record in 2015 for the number of new cases and dispute quantum. I am confident that in 2016, SIAC would have done even better. I look forward to a new record.

Singapore is now one of the top five most preferred seats in arbitration in the world, alongside London, Paris, Geneva and Hong Kong. But we are not resting on our laurels. We will need to stay responsive to business and constantly adapt what we do to better serve their needs.

One area where we can do so is in third-party funding in international commercial arbitration, where legal costs can be substantial and where there is today a growing body of reputable professional funders.

There are two main aspects to third-party funding. First, as the name suggests, third-party funding involves the funding of a claim by a party who is unconnected to the dispute. The party, usually the claimant, uses the funds to cover its legal costs in the dispute. Second, in return for the funds, the funder usually receives a share of the damages awarded if the claim succeeds. If the claim fails, the claimant does not have to repay the funder. This is the risk that the funder takes.

Currently, in Singapore, agreements for third-party funding of dispute resolution proceedings are generally unenforceable as they fall foul of the laws of maintenance and champerty. Maintenance is the provision of assistance to a party by a person or entity that has no interest in the proceedings. Champerty is maintenance of an action in return for a share in the proceeds of the action.

There are two aspects of champerty and maintenance. First, there is a common law tort of champerty and maintenance. Second, also, under contract law, agreements affected by maintenance or champerty are void as contrary to public policy.

These laws on champerty and maintenance were inherited from English common law. They were originally developed in medieval times to protect vulnerable litigants and to guard against potential abuse of court processes.

However, jurisdictions, such as the UK and parts of Australia, have decided that such protections are no longer necessary and have removed them. Third-party funding of dispute resolution has emerged, driven on the demand-side by business needs for such financing options and on the supply-side by well-capitalised professional third-party funders.

These third-party funders raise capital from investors and use the money to fund claims. Their objective is to make an attractive return for their investors out of the proceeds of the claims that are successful.

Today, third-party funding has become a feature in other leading arbitration centres, including London, Paris and Geneva. As a leading centre for international commercial arbitration, Singapore is cognisant of the practices and business requirements of commercial parties, many of whom choose to arbitrate in Singapore, despite their dispute having no connection to Singapore.

In this context, the Bill, which will introduce a framework for third-party funding in Singapore, will achieve the following outcomes.

It will offer businesses an additional financing and risk management tool when engaged in the relevant categories of proceedings. This includes the financing of valid claims which they may otherwise not pursue, due to financial constraints.

Businesses that seek to access third-party funding will typically have to undergo a rigorous process of claim assessment by the chosen funder.

Funders are known to be highly selective, given that they need to provide attractive returns to their investors. Thus, their due diligence process is designed to provide them with a degree of confidence that the claims they fund will succeed.

Offering third-party funding, which is already available in other international arbitration centres, will strengthen Singapore's position as a premier international commercial dispute resolution hub and a key arbitration seat in the world. This will benefit Singapore law firms and lawyers.

I will now take the House through the main features of the Bill.

The Bill provides a framework for third-party funding in Singapore. The Bill does the following in relation to the laws of champerty and maintenance.

The Bill clarifies that the common law tort of champerty and maintenance is abolished in Singapore, as had previously been stated by the High Court in Jane Rebecca Ong vs Lim Lie Hoa.

The Bill makes clear that while the tort is abolished, contracts affected by maintenance and champerty will continue to be contrary to public policy or, otherwise, illegal. Third-party funding contracts will, therefore, still be unenforceable.

It is only for certain prescribed categories of proceedings that a third-party funding contract will not be contrary to public policy or illegal by reason that it is a contract for maintenance or champerty. These categories will be specified in subsidiary legislation after the Bill comes into force. At the outset, third-party funding will only be permitted for international arbitration proceedings and related Court and mediation proceedings.

This will allow the framework to be tested within a limited sphere by parties of commercial sophistication. The framework may be broadened in future after a period of assessment. Drawing from the experience of other jurisdictions which permit third-party funding, there will be limited but targeted regulation of third-party funders.

The Bill provides that third-party funding may only be provided by an entity which meets the criteria set out in subsidiary legislation. The criteria in the subsidiary legislation will ensure that only professional funders whose principal business is funding claims, will be allowed.

The Bill also allows requirements to be imposed on funders through subsidiary legislation. Entities that do not meet the criteria to fund, or funders who do not comply with requirements imposed on them, will not be able to enforce their rights under a third-party funding agreement. This would include their right to receive a share of damages, should the claim succeed.

The funder would, however, be required to continue performing its obligation under the third-party funding agreement, including its obligation to fund the claim, as the Bill provides that the rights of any other party against the funder under the third-party funding agreement are not affected. To ensure fairness to the funders, the Court or Arbitral Tribunal may grant relief to the funders on their application, if the non-compliance was due to inadvertence or some other sufficient cause, or if it is just and equitable to do so.

In addition, the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules will be amended to impose a duty on lawyers to disclose the existence of any third-party funding which their client is receiving. Disclosure of third-party funding is necessary to ensure there is no conflict of interest. It is anticipated that similar to other jurisdictions where third-party funding is prevalent, industry-promulgated guidelines or best practices will emerge. MinLaw is working with arbitration institutions and practitioners to initiate the production of such "soft laws".

The Bill also makes a related amendment to the Legal Profession Act to clarify that lawyers are allowed to introduce or refer funders to their clients. Lawyers are also allowed to advise or act for their clients in relation to the third-party funding contract.

However, the Bill provides that lawyers are not allowed to receive direct financial benefit from the introduction or referral of the funder. Direct financial benefit does not include legal fees paid to the lawyers for the provision of legal services. Lawyers can be paid for the provision of legal services to the funded party. Such payment can be made by the funded party or by the funder on behalf of the funded party.

The framework will facilitate the use of third-party funding in appropriate cases, commencing with international arbitration proceedings. The amendments contemplated will level the playing field so that international businesses which arbitrate in Singapore are able to make use of the financing and risk management tools available to them in other major arbitration centres. At the same time, we will continue to monitor the third-party funding landscape here and abroad and will seek to ensure that best practices are adopted here. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Dennis Tan.

Madam, I would like to declare my interests as a lawyer who has a practice in the area of commercial arbitration.

Madam, this Bill essentially legalises and introduces third-party funding for legal costs in international arbitration proceedings in Singapore. Third-party funding is essentially financing provided by financing firms for claims in arbitration or litigation. These companies treat arbitration or litigation claims as assets. Like insurance, they distribute risks across their portfolio cases and, in the process, they are able to also invest in claims which are otherwise regarded to have lesser merits and may not otherwise see the light of day.

I recognise that third-party funding has been in existence in some jurisdictions for some time. Third-party funding may be growing, but it is not without controversy. In countries where third-party funding is allowed, the following problems have been raised.

One, third-party funders may transfer control of the cases from the claimants themselves and take control of the strategy and decision-making for cases which they fund. If so, would this not be desirable because it would no longer be about the claimant's interests? For example, the claimant may wish to conduct the claim proceedings in a certain manner or may wish to settle the claim at some point, but the third-party funders may disagree, and the third-party funders' preference will prevail if the third-party funding agreement ceded control and decision-making for the claim to the third-party funders.

Two, there is also the issue of conflicts of interest for the lawyers who are acting on behalf of the claimants in a claim funded by third-party funders. Who are the lawyers answerable to? Can the same lawyers act for both the claimants and the third-party funders without being in a position of conflict?

In many cases, lawyers or even arbitrators have been routinely appointed by the same third-party funders in different cases. Clearly, in such cases, there is a huge question mark over whether the interests of the claimants are protected or compromised. The claimants are left with no one to protect their interests if their position differs from that of the third-party funders, and I do not think this is desirable.

In the context of international arbitration, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said in 2013 that, "International arbitration features the unique situation of counsel and arbitrators often being drawn from essentially the same pool". The Chief Justice also said, "A potential problem can arise when a funder finances multiple arbitral claims and where an arbitrator in one of those claims is also the legal representative of the claimant in a separate claim that is being financed by the same funder". The Chief Justice also raised questions about third-party funders having influence over the arbitration proceedings and appointing arbitrators who have prior commercial relationships with the third-party funders. He asked whether such relationships should be disclosable to the other party.

Three, third-party funding has resulted in prolonged litigation. In some reported cases, third-party funders have entered into third-party funding agreements with claimants which encourage claimants to settle a claim for more money by increasing the claimants' share of the recovered amount, if it is beyond a certain specified sum. Claimants may, in such cases, reject what may otherwise be a fair settlement sum with their opponents earlier on in the proceedings, in the hopes of getting a higher recovery later on, but which may not ultimately prevail.

Four, third-party funders effectively become the new additional party to any proceedings which has an interest in the proceedings, which is to effect maximum returns on its investment, which may run in conflict with the interests of not just the claimants they are funding, but also to the prejudice of the defendants on the opposite side on how the claim should be conducted, and whether settlement should be entered into.

Madam, I would also like to seek clarification from the Senior Minister of State as to how the Government intends to deal with issues I have highlighted above. Will all these issues be addressed in the subsidiary legislation that the Senior Minister of State has mentioned?

Madam, I would also like to seek one other clarification from the Senior Minister of State. What is meant by the term "direct financial benefit" under clause 3 of the Bill where it proposed to include a clause 3A(a) and clause 3B? Will this mean that third-party funders will be allowed to fund the setting up of a law firm's litigation department, which I read that such funders do in some jurisdictions? If so, would there be a conflict of interest for lawyers vis-a-vis the third-party funders and the actual claimant?

Madam, while I am, in principle, supportive of allowing third-party funding and this Bill, I am concerned that the issues which I have raised must be correctly addressed by the Government at the onset, so that we can avoid experiencing the same problems which surfaced in other jurisdictions and exclude the known negative aspects of third-party funding. Madam, I support the Bill.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.

Madam, third-party funding refers to an agreement by an unconnected party to fund another's dispute in return for a share of any damages or settlement.

Traditionally, in the past, this amounted to the tort and crime of champerty and maintenance. The Courts were also cautious in guarding against the abuse of the Court's process, fearing that a third-party funder "might be tempted, for his own personal gain, to inflame damages, to suppress evidence, or even to suborn witnesses".

But this position changed in the UK and the other common law jurisdictions over the years. The UK, through the Criminal Law Act of 1967, abolished the tort and crime of champerty, though the champertous agreements remain unenforceable for being contrary to public policy, or otherwise illegal in contract law. Today, as the Senior Minister of State notes, third-party funding is increasingly used in international commercial arbitration, where costs are increasing and substantially.

It is utilised in arbitrations in major arbitration centres around the world, including London, Paris and Geneva. What of Singapore then, which has been described as the fourth most preferred seat for arbitration?

I welcome this proposal of having third-party funding. In Singapore, as the law currently stands, "champerty and/or unlawful maintenance will be struck down as being against public policy". In 2007, Singapore's highest Court held that champerty applies to any procedure chosen for the resolution of a claim, including arbitration.

The Bill that is before this House is, therefore, crucial. It abolishes the tort of maintenance and champerty; high time, some would say, given that the UK's abolition of the same came 50 years ago.

More importantly, the Bill boldly carves out "prescribed categories" regarding the enforceability of funding contracts for arbitration and arbitration-related proceedings. These proceedings will not automatically be deemed as being contrary to public policy or illegal. This amendment is important for Singapore to gain and maintain its competitive advantage over the other established and popular seats, namely, Geneva, New York, Stockholm and, most close to home, Hong Kong.

As I understand the Bill, our Courts will continue to retain the discretion to inquire into the nature of third-party funding in order to determine whether the circumstances reveal an improper motive or a tendency to act in an unethical manner that would "sully the purity of justice". By allowing third-party assistance, this will promote legal representation and facilitate access to justice in commercial and investment arbitration, which would otherwise be sacrificed.

Permit me though to ask the following questions of the Senior Minister of State.

First, on the issue of balance, could I ask the Senior Minister of State: will the Ministry tell us more about the balance it intends to strike between this need for regulation on one hand, and the parties' autonomy and flexibility in future amendments on the other? Particularly, what is the role that it sees arbitral tribunals and institutions playing as a check against abuse of process by third-party funders?

Second, will Singapore be following in the footsteps of the UK by having a regulatory or self-regulatory body, or perhaps Australia which seems to focus on the avoidance of a conflict of interest? How will we be calibrating our approach? Will there be a periodic review of this approach that we take in consultation importantly with the users of third-party arbitration funding procedures?

Third, on costs, what will the third-party funders' liability be for costs, if any? Does the Ministry envision that it could include not only security for cost but also adverse cost orders? Are there plans to provide further guidance as to the factors that ought to be taken into account in a cost order against a third-party funder?

Fourth, disclosure. Given the proposed disclosure requirements through possible amendments to the Legal Profession Act in due course, what does the Ministry have in mind to allay third-party funders' concerns that their identity and amount of funding will be unduly exposed? I say this as, in my research, I notice that this seems to be a concern for third-party funders. While I personally support transparency, could this disclosure or over-disclosure have a "chilling effect" on the willingness of third-party funders to come forward?

Fifth, finally, on qualifications. The current criteria for qualifying as a third-party funder are focused on capital adequacy in the Bill. Will other criteria, in addition to capital adequacy, such as having a minimum claim requirement, to help to ensure that funders assess the merits of each case carefully before agreeing to provide funding be put in place so that claims are not "farmed"? Mdm Speaker, notwithstanding these questions, I support the Bill.

Mr Louis Ng.

Madam, I commend this Bill for its recognition of third-party funding and the benefit it will generate for Singapore.

Recently, persuasive arguments have been raised in support of third-party funding, especially given the high costs of international commercial arbitration.

It has been used in arbitration centres, such as London, Paris and Geneva.

I support this Bill on two main points.

Firstly, third-party funding would benefit the vulnerable, providing them with access to justice. With this new option, parties to a dispute can now consider their commercial choices: how they might allocate risks, collateralise the claim or apply capital profitably, which may not otherwise have been available.

Secondly, recently, Singapore has become a preferred venue for international arbitration. It is, therefore, necessary to be alive to the need to retain the momentum as an arbitration hub, a status that Singapore has worked tirelessly to achieve.

Madam, while I support the Bill's main purpose in legitimising third-party funding contracts, I would like to raise a few points.

Firstly, it seems that the Ministry is not proposing a blank cheque for third-party funding. There are a number of safeguards which will affect the funders, such as the Civil Law (Third-Party Funding) Regulations 2016, as well as the lawyers engaged by funders. It would be useful to consider if these current regulations sufficiently protect all stakeholders and whether they serve the intended purpose of permitting third-party funding.

Secondly, lawyers will be duty-bound to disclose a few matters to the Court, including the existence of third-party funders, funding agreements, the identity of the third-party funders to a Court or arbitral tribunal, as well as to all other parties to the proceedings. I would suggest for the Ministry to take steps to ensure that the process and mechanisms to all these are adequately clear.

Thirdly, given the complexities of the third-party funding market, it is critical that parties fully understand the details involved. For example, what are the various products available to them? What are the terms on which they are being offered? What is the impact on their control of the proceedings, and what are the consequences of recovery if there is a successful outcome? In this regard, I would also suggest taking steps to ensure that in practical terms, lawyers and parties are equipped with knowledge of funded actions.

Lastly, parties will also need to take appropriate measures to maintain legal privilege and confidentiality. This area of law is always subject to dispute. As such, I would like to clarify if there is sufficient guidance on the effect of third-party funding on legal privilege and confidentiality. Madam, these comments aside, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mdm Speaker, I wish to first declare my interest as a litigation lawyer in private practice. The Civil Law (Amendment) Bill seeks to amend the Civil Law Act to abolish the common law tort of maintenance and champerty in Singapore and to allow third-party funders to provide funding in certain categories of dispute resolution proceedings, namely, international arbitration proceedings under the International Arbitration Act and related dispute resolution proceedings arising therefrom. The amendments aim to ensure that Singapore remains a premier international commercial dispute resolution hub. I support this economic objective.

There is, equally, another important objective that we should look at. Third-party funding allows commercial funders to enable a funded party to litigate what the funder perceives to be a legitimate case. In this manner, third-party funding facilitates access to justice by enabling parties who may not have sufficient financial means to prosecute their genuine dispute to do so. Whilst facilitation of access to justice may not be the main motivation of a commercial funder who is focused on making a return on his investment, as recently recognised by the UK Court of Appeal in November last year, it is nonetheless "true that the facilitation of access to justice is an incidental by-product of commercial funding".

I take this opportunity to comment on and seek clarification on the following areas of the Bill.

First, I note that the wording of the new section 5A appears to be adopted from the UK provisions which also abolished the tort of maintenance and champerty under English law. Also similar to the UK provision, section 5A(2) maintains the law on maintenance and champerty in the context of the enforceability of contracts as a matter of public policy.

However, I wish to highlight that in the UK, the UK courts have allowed third-party funding contracts for both litigation and arbitrations. In fact, the UK court in the same case that I had mentioned earlier recognised that third-party funding "is a feature of modern litigation". Yet, the proposed section 5B of the Bill, read with the proposed regulations, appears to allow only third-party funding in Singapore in the context of international arbitration, at least for now.

Given that the proposed section 5A is similar to the UK provision which allows third-party funding for both litigation and arbitration, could the Senior Minister of State please clarify why it could not be left to the Singapore Courts to determine what contracts can be enforced or what contracts may be contrary to public policy? In this regard, I wish to further highlight that the Singapore High Court, in a 2015 case, has already demonstrated a willingness to uphold third-party funding arrangements for litigation in the specific area of corporate insolvency.

Second, if the objective of section 5A is to specifically allow third-party funding contracts in the context of international arbitration, would it not be more appropriate for the International Arbitration Act to be amended, instead of amending the Civil Law Act, which has a far wider scope? This is, in fact, the approach being contemplated in Hong Kong, where the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission is considering amendments to the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance. I also note that in 2011, the MinLaw had, in fact, consulted the general public on whether third-party funding should be allowed in international arbitration in the context of proposed amendments to the International Arbitration Act.

More fundamentally, if the objective of section 5A is to allow third-party funding contracts in the context of international arbitration only, I would like to ask the hon Senior Minister of State what is the basis for permitting third-party funding in the context of international arbitration but not litigation and domestic arbitration?

This is especially where After the Event (ATE) insurance is already available for both arbitration and litigation. ATE insurance provides coverage for legal costs, subject to an agreed limit of indemnity. It is essentially a risk management tool that allows parties to limit their exposure to costs if they are unsuccessful.

Further, the policy considerations of third-party funding in the context of international arbitration to enhance Singapore as an international hub for commercial dispute resolution are also equally applicable to disputes litigated in the Singapore Courts, especially the Singapore International Commercial Court, which was designed to enable parties to avoid some of the problems often encountered in international arbitration and to encourage litigants to use Singapore as a hub to resolve transnational commercial disputes.

In respect of domestic arbitrations, I would like to highlight that the International Arbitration Act allows parties to a non-international arbitration to agree that the provisions of the International Arbitration Act would apply to the arbitration, thereby turning it to an international arbitration. Therefore, parties to a domestic arbitration who wish to avail themselves of third-party funding may circumvent the proposed section 5B restrictions against third-party funding for domestic arbitrations in this manner.

Additionally, allowing third-party funding in the context of litigation and domestic arbitration would also allow litigants to pursue their legitimate claims where they may not have been able to do so. In the preliminary report on the review of civil litigation costs in the UK in 2009 commissioned by the UK judiciary, also known as the Jackson Report, it was reported that there was a range of third-party funders in the UK, which provided funding in respect of claims of minimum values ranging from £150,000 to £25 million. The same situation could also happen in Singapore where certain third-party funders may choose to cater to a target group of litigants or a portfolio of small claims for commercial considerations.

The Jackson Report cited five reasons why third-party funding in civil litigation is beneficial and should be supported. I wish to highlight three of these.

First, third-party funding provides an additional means of funding litigation and, for some parties, the only means of funding litigation. Thus, third-party funding promotes access to justice. Second, although a successful claimant with third-party funding forgoes a percentage of his damages, it is better for him to recover a substantial part of his damages than to recover nothing at all. Third, third-party funding tends to filter out unmeritorious cases, because funders will not take on risks of such cases. This benefits the opposing parties.

Therefore, if section 5A is intended to allow third-party funding only in the context of international arbitration, I urge a reconsideration of this position and to also allow third-party funding for litigation and domestic arbitration. A key group of potential beneficiaries for third-party litigation funding are small and medium enterprises facing cash flow issues but who may have legitimate claims. I accept that there could be reasons for excluding third-party litigation funding for certain types of claims where there may be greater potential for abuse, such as personal injury claims. I propose that, in lieu, we should consider providing better assistance for these "sandwich class" litigants who do not qualify for legal aid, for example, by enhancing the Litigants in Person programme or the Primary Justice Project.

Thirdly and finally, I note that there has been an increasing concern over the extent of control third-party funders may exert over the dispute resolution proceedings. In the UK, litigation funding contracts may still be struck down as being contrary to public policy if it confers disproportionate control of the claim upon the funder. After all, the common law rules against champerty were developed to protect vulnerable litigants and to guard against third-party interference in legal proceedings to protect the integrity of the judicial process. In the 2011 consultation on the International Arbitration Act, the Ministry had proposed safeguards to third-party funding, to minimise potential abuse, such as restricting third-party funding by stipulating the permissible categories of practice areas, threshold claim value and minimum capital adequacy of third-party funders.

May I please ask, in broad policy terms, what we can expect to be covered in the regulations that will be issued if the Bill is passed? In light of the potential risks of third-party funding, does the Ministry intend to impose further requirements so as to safeguard against the potential abuse of third-party funding?

The extent to which regulatory requirements apply may also be adjusted, depending on the value of the claims. This may incentivise third-party funders to provide funding for smaller value claims, such as District Court claims, where they may not ordinarily do so.

Separately, I also note that the proposed new section 5B of the Bill provides that where a funder ceases to be a qualifying funder, the rights of the third-party funder under the funding contract are not enforceable but the Court or arbitral tribunal may grant relief if it is satisfied that the disqualification or non-compliance was accidental or due to some other sufficient cause.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State why it is being left to the Court or arbitral tribunal to "police" third-party funders in this manner, especially when the qualifying criteria are prescribed by the Minister in the proposed regulations. Would the relevant Ministry not be in a better position to determine if the qualifications and requirements have been met?

In the UK, third-party funders are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority in connection with their asset management activities and supervised by the Association of Litigation Funders (ALF), which is an independent body that has been charged by the UK Ministry of Justice with delivering self-regulation of litigation funding. The Association also oversees and administers a complaints procedure in respect of third-party funders. In Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission is considering whether the development and supervision of the applicable ethical and financial standards should be conducted by a statutory body or a self-regulatory body.

Given the potential risks of third-party funding highlighted earlier, it may be preferable for third-party funders to be subject to some level of supervision, something that the hon Member, Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, raised in his speech. Would the Senior Minister of State consider whether there should be some form of regulation and supervision over third-party funders in Singapore, whether by the Ministry, Statutory Board, Government body, or by a self-regulatory body, to ensure and enforce compliance with statutory qualifications and regulations?

As a matter of parity, I note that the local insurance broker of ATE insurance is regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. The insurers themselves are regulated at their places of business.

The Hong Kong Law Reform Commission has highlighted some risks with third-party funding, including the risk of money laundering. Would it not be better for a regulator to be vested with statutory oversight, with the degree and extent of regulatory control to be adjusted accordingly? Without providing for a regulator and simultaneously providing for a light-touch approach right from the word "go" would run the risk of not providing adequate safeguards to protect the public's interest.

To conclude, while further clarification and clarity on the ambit, extent of regulation and supervision of the activities of third-party funders in Singapore would be welcome, I support the Bill in principle.

Mr Vikram Nair.

Mdm Speaker, I declare my interest as a dispute resolution lawyer in private practice.

It had always been a part of the common law heritage that while litigation was necessary, it should not be encouraged. There were several rules that had developed over the ages in common law jurisdictions, including the tort of champerty, which says that a person with no interest in a lawsuit should not be funding that suit nor have a share in its returns, or the tort of maintenance, where a person interferes in a legal suit he has no interest in.

Along with these two rules, there was also an additional rule which the current legislation does not address, and that is a rule that prohibits lawyers from having a financial interest in the outcome of a suit. This is a rule against contingency fees.

All these rules were designed to prevent frivolous claims, abuse of vulnerable litigants and, in the case of lawyers, it was also to ensure that their primary duties as officers of the Court would not be compromised by trying to advance their client's case at all costs.

These rules were developed at a time when there was a need and, obviously, would have served its purpose as it has lasted for hundreds of years. The reality though is that access to Courts and legal advice is expensive and getting more so. In many situations, an individual or entity may have no ability to pay legal fees but may, nonetheless, have a valid claim.

A classic example that people can relate to is personal injury. A person who suffers a serious personal injury may have a valid claim but may have no financial means to advance that claim, either to pay lawyers or to the Courts, and may end up recovering nothing.

So, it was in order to facilitate access to justice that many other jurisdictions started relaxing these rules. The United States (US), interestingly, started by relaxing the rule on contingency fees, meaning that lawyers were allowed to have an interest in the outcome of the litigation. This meant that a party did not have to pay the lawyer's fees upfront but could give the lawyer a quantum of the proceeds from any claim they successfully get.

The UK was much slower to relax the rules on contingency fees but eventually did that. The UK, however, was one of the leaders in pioneering third-party litigation funding. What this meant is that someone else who has no interest in the litigation could help to fund that litigation in exchange for a return of the proceeds. In principle, this is what the current legislation is aiming to do. It allows third parties to fund litigation expenses. It appears to be focused currently on international arbitration.

Singapore has prided itself on being a leading financial and legal hub, and the strong rule of law in Singapore has helped to facilitate this reputation. I think the speakers before me, including the Senior Minister of State, have pointed out that we are one of the top hubs for international arbitration. However, unlike jurisdictions, such as the UK, Australia and even the US, we have, until now, not permitted more creative fee arrangements that allow financing of claims.

So, in our competition to be a hub for international arbitration, Singapore is sometimes at a disadvantage. In international arbitration, for example, where Singapore firms take on international firms from other jurisdictions, the international firms' clients may have more creative funding arrangements, which means that they may likely have a greater ability to prosecute the claim. Likewise, when a corporate client is deciding which lawyer or counsel to appoint, they may choose the jurisdiction of the lawyer based on their ability to fund their claim. So, for example, they may decide to go to a London law firm rather than a Singapore law firm if they were able to get third-party litigation funding in London. So, in that respect, I think this is an important change that helps to mitigate some of the disadvantages that Singapore lawyers may face when dealing with international competition in international arbitration.

This step is something to be welcomed. However, I would add this important caveat. One of the reasons that third-party funding was allowed in many other jurisdictions was to facilitate access to justice. However, if we look at the example of jurisdictions, such as the UK, in fact, the parties that use third-party litigation funding are mostly sophisticated corporates. And, typically, the corporates will choose external funding for litigation not because they cannot afford fees but because they want to share their risks. After all, litigation is a high-risk venture and you have to pay the lawyers' fees upfront. So, if someone else would share that risk, then the corporates may well make a business decision and they may also be happy to share some of the gains. So, there is a certain benefit in this certainly, and I think my colleague Mr Murali's analogy to insurance is actually quite apposite, because what this is really is a pooling of risks.

However, if we are still taking access to justice as being one of the important aims for these more creative fee arrangements, I would suggest that future legislation go even further and consider looking into allowing contingency fee arrangements. Contingency fees, as some of my colleagues mentioned, have also got a bad reputation. The US, while being a jurisdiction where parties are very proud of being able to access the court, also terrifies business owners because of the astronomical claims that sometimes come out, and its horrible reputation ‒ I guess Mr Murali mentioned it ‒ for personal injury claims. However, I do not think this risk will be as great in Singapore for two reasons.

First of all, we do not have class action litigation as they do in the US. Class action means that you do not even need a named plaintiff to commence the action. You just need to define a group of people. So, this allows lawyers to actually take on claims on behalf of very large groups of unnamed people. Singapore does not have that.

Secondly, we also do not have jury trials. Jury trials are where a lot of the largest personal injury awards are made, and that does not exist here. So, my guess is that we will probably not have the US-style abuse of process. I still think this is a move that requires some consideration, and certainly consideration needs to go into how we can protect vulnerable litigants, particularly in relation to fee arrangements that may be unfair to them.

By and large, if we are talking about ensuring access to justice, particularly for impecunious litigants, chances are that contingency fee arrangements are more likely to achieve that objective.

At many of our Meet-the-People Sessions, we meet litigants who may have either personal injury issues or, more likely, claims for divorce or other personal issues for which they may not qualify for financial assistance under the current Legal Aid schemes. They may have the means to pay, but I guess, like the bigger corporates, they, too, may, in fact, want someone to share their risks. Many have even asked me if there are any lawyers that would be prepared to work and then get a share of the outcome, and I have had to tell them that that is not the way the legal profession works in Singapore. A lawyer cannot peg his fees to what you get from your settlement. But the reality is that if you are talking about access to justice, this may be one of the workable solutions for the truly impecunious litigants.

In conclusion, while I think these changes play an important role in maintaining Singapore's position as a financial, corporate and legal hub, I would say that this is the first step in what, I hope, will be a bold journey forward. I agree with my friend Mr Murali's suggestion that they should also go towards domestic litigation and domestic arbitration because, in principle, they are the same thing. It is a sharing of risks. I would even go further and say it should even go towards contingency fees because, ultimately, the concept is the same. If you are allowing a third-party to have an interest in the outcome of the litigation, there is no harm in allowing a lawyer to do that. I think the abuses can be contained and the fundamental principle of access to justice will be enhanced if we allow these more creative fee arrangements.

Of course, rules can be developed around these, and there are many other jurisdictions that have these arrangements to which we can look to for guidance. The good news is that we are not pioneers in that area and we can definitely learn from all those who have gone before us.

Mr Patrick Tay.

Mdm Speaker, I declare my interest as a Fellow of the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators. I rise to support this Bill which seeks to abolish the common law tort of maintenance and champerty in Singapore and allowing third-party funding contracts in certain prescribed categories of dispute resolution proceedings, as well as set out the regulations around this.

I agree with the ambit of the proposed Bill and objective to allow international businesses to use funding tools available in other jurisdictions and promote Singapore's growth as a leading venue for international arbitration. According to the SIAC Annual Report 2015, 84% of new cases filed with SIAC in 2015 were international in nature, and 42% had no connection with Singapore.

As third-party funding is becoming a feature in major arbitration centres around the world, allowing third-party funding in Singapore for international arbitration will offer international businesses an additional financing option for international commercial arbitration in Singapore.

However, I would like to highlight two suggestions for the Ministry's consideration.

First, to promulgate a set of guidelines on entering into third-party funding contracts. I submit that MinLaw or relevant industry accepted organisations should promulgate a set of guidelines that would help parties to navigate potential areas of concern, for example, conflicts of interest arising from third-party funding arrangements in relation to the tripartite relationship of third-party funder, solicitor and client, as parties should mitigate risks through formulation of a third-party funding contract which covers these areas of concern.

One example would be to emphasise that the solicitor-client relationship take precedence in the tripartite relationship and, especially, as solicitors are allowed to introduce or refer a third-party funder to the client.

Some of these potential areas of conflict are addressed in the new sections 3(A)(b) and 3(A)(c) in the Legal Profession Act. However, they could be further expanded on in the guidelines to cover other situations where conflicts of interest may arise. For example, a major potential area of conflict is in relation to settlements. While both funders and funded litigants have broadly the same interest in maximising any settlement or damages award and they will share the proceeds of the litigation, they can find themselves in conflict over whether or not to settle. This conflict can best be dealt with by providing that any irreconcilable difference over settlement be referred to counsel in the proceedings for a binding expert opinion.

In the same vein, conflicts of interest which are thought to be inherent in funded proceedings can be avoided or resolved by ensuring that the lawyers' fiduciary and professional duties to the litigants are given precedence over any duties or contractual obligations the lawyer may owe to the funder. A properly drafted funding agreement will do just that.

One example would be that the disclosure of client's privileged information to third-party funder should be made on the agreement that the third-party funder is bound to maintain confidentiality of the privileged information shared.

Another example would be the disclosure of funding arrangements to parties in the arbitration and to the arbitrator. In the public consultation on this Bill, it was stated that amendments to the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 were envisaged. These related amendments were expected to draw reference from best practices and international standards reflected in the revised International Bar Association Guidelines on Conflict of Interest in International Arbitration (October 2014) which provides in General Standard 7 that funding arrangements ought to be disclosed to the arbitrator and parties to the arbitration.

My second suggestion is to promulgate a code of conduct for third-party funders. Allowing third-party funding in international arbitration in Singapore may lead to third-party funding organisations to set up and operate in Singapore. As the number of third-party funders increase in Singapore, it would be ideal to have the third-party funders come together to design a code of conduct to self-regulate their involvement in third-party funding arrangements. Self-regulation provides greater transparency and raises standards of funding arrangements whilst not being overly restrictive on funding arrangements.

For example, the ALF in England and Wales is an independent body that has been charged by the Ministry of Justice, through the Civil Justice Council, with delivering self-regulation of litigation funding in England and Wales. The members of the association are governed by a code of conduct which sets out standards of practice and behaviour to be observed by funders in respect of funding the resolution of disputes within England and Wales.

Mdm Speaker, I am hoping that Ministry of Law would take cognisance of these two suggestions. With that, I support the Bill.

Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah.

Mdm Speaker, may I thank all the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill.

Mr Murali Pillai asked about the scope of the third-party funding framework. Specifically, he asked if the amendments should be in the International Arbitration Act, rather than the Civil Law Act.

As mentioned, we are first proceeding with third-party funding in the context of international arbitration and related proceedings. This is because we want to have the framework tested in a limited sphere, where those involved are typically well-advised, commercially sophisticated and better able to bear the reduction in damages. If the framework works well, as and when appropriate, the prescribed categories of proceedings may be expanded. The Ministry will consult closely with the profession and stakeholders on this, as we have been doing. So, that is why the amendments are to the Civil Law Act rather than to the International Arbitration Act.

As a side note, I should mention that ATE insurance is a different product from third-party funding. While it takes many forms with varying features, typically, for example in the UK, it is used where a party pays a premium to insure itself against the risk of having to pay the opposing counsel's fees. As such, the policy considerations may overlap, but it differs from third-party funding.

Mr Vikram Nair also asked about the implications of the proposed third-party funding framework for contingency fees and whether this opens the way for contingency fees generally to enhance access to justice. As part of the review of the civil justice system, event-triggered fee arrangements, including contingency fee arrangements, will be studied. Until such time, lawyers and law firms will continue to be prohibited from entering into contingency fee arrangements.

The issue of regulation of third-party funding was also raised, in particular whether we should do more to regulate funders and how to balance between the need for regulation while preserving party autonomy and flexibility. Other points raised include the protection of stakeholders' interests and how we plan to deal with the bad practices associated with third-party funding.

Singapore is an international dispute resolution hub and, as such, a large number of parties, counsel, arbitrators and funders are not and will not be within our jurisdiction. A heavy regulatory framework will, therefore, have little practical effect and our approach should be focused on what is practical and effective, taking into account the nature of international arbitration.

We also considered recent developments in the third-party funding market for international arbitration. The industry is gaining stability. Norms and industry practices are also emerging. There is now a high level of awareness and acceptance of third-party funding. Certain funders have established good reputations and have flourished. Bad practices have come to light and, with greater awareness, advisers and reputable funders have developed measures to curtail such practices.

In the White & Case 2015 International Arbitration Survey conducted by Queen Mary University, 71% of the respondents indicated that third-party funding is an area which requires regulation. The preference, however, was for soft-law regulation, for example, through the International Bar Association (IBA) guidelines or collective self-regulation through a code of conduct. The survey also indicated that regulation of third-party funding should mainly focus on disclosure rather than on the creation of a prescriptive, substantive regime. This would enable tribunals to handle potential issues on a more nuanced, case-by-case basis.

From the experience of other jurisdictions, abuses typically arise from lack of transparency and conflicts of interest. The proposed third-party funding framework, therefore, seeks to address these issues by making disclosure the central tenet, while giving precedence to party autonomy and flexibility. This approach will allow for the regulation to keep pace with the changes in the industry and this would address the point raised by Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.

As mentioned earlier, amendments to the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules will be made to require legal practitioners to disclose if their client is receiving third-party funding, but not the commercial terms of the funding agreement. This will enhance transparency and allow the tribunal to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Also, with disclosure, parties are put on notice and can take steps to protect their own interests. The reason the obligation is placed on the lawyer instead of the funded party is to ensure that the disclosure requirement has practical and real effect since parties and funders are often outside our jurisdiction. That is the nature of international arbitration. The parties may be international so they may not be here, but the lawyers, when they come here, will be present in our jurisdiction.

As for Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan's question about whether the disclosure requirement will affect the willingness of third-party funders to fund here, I am happy to share that disclosure received support from the majority of international professional funders who responded to our public consultation.

Legal practitioners and legal practices will also be prohibited from holding any share or having ownership interests in relevant third-party funders and from receiving referral fees and commissions. This will also help prevent situations of conflicts of interest.

The proposed approach to regulation would be in line with that in other jurisdictions. In Australia, the focus has been on avoiding conflicts of interest, coupled with reasonable transparency. In England, funders are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, but only in connection with their asset management activities, and not their conduct in relation to funding of proceedings. Nonetheless, some funders choose to become voluntary members of the ALF in England and Wales and self-regulate by agreeing to abide by a voluntary code.

As mentioned, we expect similar self-regulation through the issuance of best practices or guidelines for arbitrators, lawyers and funders and the Ministry is already working with stakeholders to address this need. These "soft-laws" will cover issues, including the solicitor-client relationship, costs, confidentiality, legal privilege, withdrawal of funding, essential terms to include in third-party funding agreements, as well as control of the dispute by funders, which a number of the Members have raised.

Lawyers must be mindful of their duty to act in the best interests of their clients, and industry promulgated best practices or guidelines will help to bolster the legislative framework and ensure that all stakeholders, including arbitral tribunals and institutions, are fully apprised of best practices and standards.

This should address the very valid concerns and suggestions raised by Mr Louis Ng, Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Dennis Tan.

For completeness, I would highlight that the third-party funding framework will only allow entities which meet the "qualifying third-party funder" criteria to provide third-party funding. Such criteria will be set out in subsidiary legislation. The criteria will help to ensure that only reputable, professional funders may fund international arbitration proceedings in Singapore. Non-compliant entities will not be able to enforce their rights under the third-party funding agreement. In other words, they will not receive a share of the proceeds should the claim succeed. This would be a practical and effective deterrent against non-compliance.

Finally, I would like to touch on whether third-party funders will be liable for costs and whether this will include the making of adverse costs orders against third-party funders. These are matters best left to the parties and tribunals. In practice, cost orders against funders may be difficult as they are not party to the arbitration agreement. Feedback received during the public consultation process indicated that parties have sufficient levers, including seeking security for costs.

I will now address some of the queries raised by Mr Dennis Tan. His first concern was whether there would be a transfer of control of the proceedings to the funders from the claimant. The overall philosophy to this is party autonomy. So, that is something that should be dealt with in the funding agreement. The claimant and funder should both have their own representation. So, in that way, you would have a lawyer who is acting in the best interest of the claimant and they can negotiate the commercial terms of the funding agreement in the same way as many other commercial agreements are negotiated. The nature of this kind of industry is that if one funder's terms are too onerous, there would be other funders available that the claimant can turn to. So, the market will find its own level.

With regard to conflict of interest, Mr Dennis Tan asked what would happen if the lawyer found himself in a position of a conflict between the claimant and the funder. Again, this is not different from other scenarios where you have different parties and the question of conflict arises. Let me explain it in this way. Ideally, the claimant and the funder should have their own lawyers. If, for whatever reason, they start off with the same lawyer, which is probably not a good idea, but if they do, and if an issue crops up where it is quite clear that the claimant and the funder have different interests, then the lawyers should − as all lawyers in this scenario should do − either discharge themselves from acting for one, or for both parties. It is no different from a scenario where, let us say, you are acting for two defendants and, for some reason, the defendants' stories start to conflict. The lawyers know that in that scenario, they either have to discharge themselves or act only for one defendant.

I think Mr Dennis Tan had one more question, which was on the meaning of "direct financial benefit" in new subsection 3A of section 107 of the Legal Profession Act. Subsection 3A says that to avoid doubt, the section does not prevent a solicitor from introducing or referring a third-party funder to the solicitor's client, so long as the solicitor does not receive any direct financial benefit, and "direct financial benefit" is defined so that it does not include any fee, disbursement or expense payable by the solicitor's client for the provision of legal services by the solicitor to the client.

In short, lawyers will continue to receive what they have always received, which is, their fees, disbursements and expenses. What they ought not to be getting is the financial benefit, for example, referral fees or a commission.

In the scenario which Mr Dennis Tan described, where a funder takes an interest in the lawyer's litigation department or acquires the department, first, you would have to get around all the provisions of the Legal Profession Act, which will be very difficult. But even if you could get around that, I think the essential question would be: is the lawyer put in a position where he is beholden to the funder and cannot carry out his duties to the claimant? This is the sort of test which lawyers have to face all the time when they are deciding conflicts of interest and the lawyers in third-party funding situations will have to apply those strict standards to themselves. Madam, I believe I have answered the various queries and I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

The citation year "2016" will be changed to "2017", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

Minister of State Lam Pin Min.

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mdm Speaker, before I begin, I would like to acknowledge Mr Patrick Lee, Chairman of Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital (KWSH), Mr Leong Sin Yuen, Board member, and Dr Ow Chee Chung, Chief Executive Officer of KWSH, who are here with us today to witness the deliberations on the Kwong-Wai-Shiu Free Hospital (Transfer of Undertaking and Dissolution) Bill.

Mdm Speaker, the Kwong-Wai-Shiu Free Hospital, or "Kwong Wai Shiu" for short, was established in 1910 under the Kwong-Wai-Shiu Hospital Ordinance (the Ordinance) to provide needy immigrants from the Kwong-Chau, Wai-Chau and Shiu-heng prefectures of the Canton Province of China with free healthcare. Since its establishment, Kwong Wai Shiu has played an important role in providing quality care to patients in Singapore. It has expanded the scope of its services significantly over the years, and currently operates a nursing home, a senior care centre, a Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) Centre, and provides home care services.

Demand for healthcare services is expected to grow as a result of Singapore's rapidly ageing population. Not only do we need to add capacity, especially in the Intermediate and Long Term Care (ILTC) sector, we will need to also build up strong providers to deliver affordable, quality care.

Service providers like Kwong Wai Shiu will have an increasingly important role to play in serving needy patients and leading the way to innovative solutions. To better position itself to meet the future challenges, Kwong Wai Shiu is expanding its capacity and capability.

Kwong Wai Shiu is doubling its capacity at its current Nursing Home with the redevelopment and expansion of its facility at this site. The new Nursing Home, which will also house a Senior Care Centre, will be completed later this year. When fully opened, it will have more than 600 beds and will be the largest nursing home facility in Singapore.

Kwong Wai Shiu's upcoming Active Ageing Hubs in the vicinity of its current Nursing Home will also support our seniors to age in place. The Active Ageing Hub is a new concept we are trying out as part of the Action Plan for Successful Ageing. It is a one-stop centre for our seniors, where they can participate in active ageing programmes, and receive care services at the same place if needed. The centre can also provide assisted living services, such as housekeeping and grocery shopping, to seniors living nearby.

As Kwong Wai Shiu enhances its services and infrastructure to cater to the changing health needs of our population, it will also need to keep up with the times and ensure the hospital is well-positioned to support its mission to serve all Singaporeans. It is thus timely for Kwong Wai Shiu to review its organisational framework, which is currently set out in the Ordinance, and modernise its corporate and governance structure.

The Kwong Wai Shiu management, therefore, sought the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) support to repeal the Ordinance and establish the hospital as a Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG) similar to other voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), for the following reasons.

First, the current Ordinance has not been substantively amended since its enactment. As a result, its provisions have become antiquated and are impeding Kwong Wai Shiu's development and growth as a modern healthcare provider. For example, before Kwong Wai Shiu can dispose of any immovable property, it is currently required to first seek the leave of the High Court and serve the application on the Attorney-General. This unduly hampers Kwong Wai Shiu's ability to efficiently manage and control its assets and property to respond to the changing needs of Singapore and ensure that the hospital's activities remain relevant and viable.

In comparison, assets of modern charities and Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) are usually governed by their boards, and these charities and IPCs are not required to routinely obtain the leave of the High Court and to serve the application on the Attorney-General when disposing of their immoveable property.

Another example is the requirement for Kwong Wai Shiu to follow the Chinese lunar calendar for the submission of its accounts to the "Secretary of Chinese Affairs", a position which no longer exists today.

Second, the Kwong Wai Shiu management wanted to improve and strengthen KWSH's overall governance and corporate accountability framework. The Ordinance is not fully compatible with the guidelines recommended in the Code of Governance for Charities and IPCs. For example, the Ordinance does not include guidelines pertaining to board governance, as well as the avoidance of conflicts of interests.

As a CLG, Kwong Wai Shiu will be governed by a constitution which contains such guidelines. This will ensure that Kwong Wai Shiu will continue to operate in a sound manner and assure its donors and members and the public that its funds and assets are responsibly managed.

Last, and most fundamentally, the Ordinance limits the scope of Kwong Wai Shiu's operations and beneficiaries. The Ordinance restricts Kwong Wai Shiu's role to provide hospital services for "indigent persons connected with the Kwong-Chau, Wai-Chau and Shiu-heng prefectures of the Canton Province of China", hence, the name "Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital".

In reality, Kwong Wai Shiu has gone beyond this limited scope and has long been serving the general public, regardless of race, religion and dialect. The breadth of Kwong Wai Shiu's current activities is worthy and welcome, and it is opportune that the formal limitations imposed by the Ordinance are removed in support of its noble and beneficial activities.

Mdm Speaker, I shall now highlight the main features of The Kwong-Wai-Shiu Free Hospital (Transfer of Undertaking and Dissolution) Bill, hereby referred to as the Kwong Wai Shiu Bill. The Kwong Wai Shiu Bill will allow Kwong Wai Shiu to modernise and strengthen its corporate structure and provide flexibility in managing its assets and operations. The CLG, named "Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital", was incorporated last year and has been registered as a Charity and obtained IPC status as of 18 July 2016. The Commissioner of Charities, and specifically, MOH as the Sector Administrator for healthcare charities and IPCs, have been identified as the supervisory regulatory authority for Kwong Wai Shiu.

The Bill will transfer all the assets, rights and liabilities of Kwong Wai Shiu to the new CLG. The new CLG will be governed by the Companies Act. A new constitution has been established for the CLG, under which there are clear guidelines for governance and the avoidance of conflicts of interest. A board of directors will oversee the management of the CLG. As a result of the modernisation, Kwong Wai Shiu will have greater flexibility to expand its charitable activities, thereby further benefiting the broader community and public.