Hansard, Tuesday, 4 November 2014

1 Mr Alex Yam asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what has been the progress of public consultations on proposed alcohol restrictions in public areas; (b) what are the Government's considerations in working out the proposals following the consultations; and (c) what will be the timeline for implementation of these proposals.

Mdm Speaker, in late 2012, MHA embarked on a review of liquor control measures to address law and order concerns and disamenities posed by people congregating and consuming significant quantities of liquor in public places, particularly at night. This was in response to a range of feedback from residents and businesses about these concerns, especially in areas where residential and commercial premises are located close to each other.

As part of the review, MHA has conducted a series of public consultations between October 2013 and August 2014. The respondents generally supported having some restrictions to mitigate law and order issues and disamenities. We will be releasing the findings of the consultations within this week.

The measures under consideration include restricting public consumption of liquor and the hours for retail sales of liquor. MHA will consider public and industry feedback, and take into account the experience from the alcohol restrictions imposed in Little India following the riot in December last year. We have also been studying the practices in foreign jurisdictions. In states like South Australia and Texas, for example, the consumption of alcohol in public places is not allowed at times when problems associated with alcohol consumption are more significant.

In deciding on the measures to adopt in Singapore, we will balance the diverse interests of various stakeholders including residents and businesses. We will also need to ensure that the regime is practical and enforceable, easily understood with clear rules, and minimal

Page: 11

displacement effect.

MHA is working towards introducing a new law on liquor control in Parliament early next year.

Page: 12

Order. On behalf of hon Members, I would like to extend a warm welcome to the hon Laszlo Kover, Speaker of the Hungarian National Assembly and his delegation, who are present in our Gallery. [Applause]

Page: 13

2 Prof Tan Tai Yong asked the Prime Minister (a) whether he can elaborate on the Government's plans for the Konfrontasi memorial and the marker on the fight against communism including the significance of the sites and dates chosen; (b) what are the rationale and criteria in deciding on these two events for commemoration; and (c) whether this commemoration is a community effort or an internal decision by the Ministry.

Madam, I am taking this question on behalf of the Prime Minister. Let me start by explaining the rationale and criteria for the two commemorative events that the Member had asked about.

The marker on the fight against Communism commemorates Singapore's long struggle against the violence and subversion of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) from 1948 to 1989. It pays tribute to all those who braved Communist violence and intimidation, and especially those who lost their lives and made sacrifices to secure a non-Communist future for Singapore.

In June 1948, a state of Emergency was declared when the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) launched an armed insurrection in a bid to establish a Communist regime in Malaya, including Singapore. Eight thousand civilians and security personnel were killed or wounded during the insurgency in Malaya and Singapore. In Singapore, at least 28 civilians and security personnel, including 11 police officers, were killed as a result of Communist violence. Many others survived Communist attempts on their lives, although some suffered serious life-altering injuries.

One such person was Abdul Wahid Baba, who was a young 21-year-old Police constable on duty in Geylang when Communist gunmen shot him in September 1950. He was paralysed from the waist down, but the tragedy did not stop him from reclaiming his life and contributing to society. Despite being wheelchair-bound, Abdul Wahid went on to represent Singapore at the Paralympics and Pacific Games. He passed away in 2011 at the age of 83.

Former President Mr SR Nathan was also among the many Singaporeans who stood up against the Communists. He personally witnessed the violence of the Communists, especially immediately after the war and confronted pro-Communist activists in the trade unions, where he worked in the 1960s. Mr Nathan will be the guest of honour at the event to unveil the marker. That is on the marker to mark the fight against Communism.

The other marker is the Konfrontasi memorial, and this will honour those who lost their lives and suffered, as well as those who fought during Konfrontasi. It will remind us of a

Page: 14

significant episode at our birth as a nation that threatened our very existence.

As Members would know, Konfrontasi was a campaign using armed forces waged by President Sukarno of Indonesia from 1963 to 1966, to oppose the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. During this time, the First and Second Battalions of the Singapore Infantry Regiment (1 SIR and 2 SIR), the only two regular army units that we had, were deployed elsewhere in Malaysia. Home-front defence was entrusted to the Singapore Volunteer Corps (SVC) and the Vigilante Corps (VC). The VC was established in 1964. Within two months, more than 10,000 people had volunteered.

During Konfrontasi, Singaporeans experienced dark days of insecurity. In Kota Tinggi, soldiers from 2 SIR were injured and killed in combat. But civilians were targeted too. In Singapore, there were at least 42 bombing attempts. Thirty seven bombs exploded, claiming seven lives and injuring at least 50 others.

Both conflicts – the struggle against Communism and Konfrontasi – not only claimed lives but fundamentally threatened Singapore's sovereignty and security. Had the Communist side won, we would be living in a totally different Singapore today. Likewise, if Sukarno's campaign to "crush Malaysia" had succeeded. So, it is important to have tangible landmarks to help younger and future generations of Singaporeans understand how we got here, and why it was critical that our forefathers supported and fought for the security and future of Singapore. We should honour the memory of innocent civilians who became casualties, as well as brave defenders who sacrificed life and limb to protect our way of life. These landmarks will also remind us to stay vigilant, and maintain a strong defence to safeguard our peace and security.

The Member also asked about the significance of the dates and the sites chosen for the landmarks. The marker on the fight against Communism will be unveiled on 8 December this year. December will be the 25th anniversary of the signing of the 1989 Haadyai Peace Agreements between the CPM and the governments of Malaysia and Thailand. The agreements marked the formal end to the campaign of violence and subversion by the CPM and its satellite organisations to replace the legitimately elected governments of Singapore and Malaysia with a Communist regime that lasted four decades.

We will place the marker in the Esplanade Park along Queen Elizabeth Walk. This is a central and prominent location in the Civic District, close to other historical memorials, namely, the Cenotaph, the Lim Bo Seng Memorial and the Tan Kim Seng Fountain, which have been collectively gazetted as a National Monument. By putting these markers and memorials together, we create a larger sense of Singapore's history and the context of our

Page: 15

early years.

The Konfrontasi memorial will be located opposite MacDonald House, on the Dhoby Ghaut Lawn. This reminds us of the events of 10 March 1965 – a date remembered by many as the darkest day of Konfrontasi, when a bomb planted by two Indonesian saboteurs exploded at MacDonald House, killing three innocent civilians and injuring 33 others. Mdm Elizabeth Choo and Ms Juliet Goh died at the scene, while Mr Mohammed Yasin bin Kesit died two days later from his injuries.

In recent months, the Home Team has received feedback from some retired police officers. They recalled episodes of Communist violence, assassinations, student demonstrations and labour strikes, and asked that recognition be given to those who fought the Communists. The idea for the Konfrontasi memorial was suggested by the Singapore Armed Forces Veterans' League earlier this year. In fact, even before that, members of the public had written letters suggesting various commemorative efforts for the MacDonald House bombing.

So, the two markers have strong support from the community and Government. As Singapore prepares to celebrate 50 years of independence next year, it is important to reflect on our collective past and the struggles that we underwent to build today's safe, secure and prosperous Singapore. The Government and the people must continue to work together to instil in all of us, especially the younger generation, an awareness of the history that underpins our shared identity as a nation.

Prof Tan.

I thank the Minister for explaining the rationale for the establishment of these markers. The Minister may be aware that there are also efforts by students in our schools to find, for instance, the locations where the Maria Hertogh riots and the Hock Lee bus riots had occurred. This is no mean task, given the rapid physical changes that are happening in Singapore. So, I want to ask the Minister if there are plans to incorporate some of these ground-up, organic initiatives by members of the public as we seek to commemorate significant events in our history.

Madam, I share very much the Member's suggestion that the efforts to commemorate our history ought to incorporate a very strong ground-up element. I would first say that even for the two markers that are being proposed, these were markers that had been initiated also through extensive ground-up feedback, suggestions from the communities that were involved and were affected. The Government's efforts now to have these two commemorative markers are, in many ways, a response to the community

Page: 16

feedback.

The Member is absolutely right that there are many other ground-up efforts and we are very keen to support these ground-up efforts and initiatives. At the school level, for SG50 next year, MOE has been discussing with the schools to do quite an extensive heritage trial to let the students initiate these. This project will be student-initiated. They will look at history from their perspective and they will find markers or historic sites which they would like to commemorate. These will be done as part of an SG50 event for the schools. This will range from Primary schools to University students. That is something that is already happening at the school level.

At the community level, there are quite a number of community groups that are very interested in marking the historic sites within their respective communities. A good example is a community group from Queenstown. They had come together and put together and documented the history of Queenstown, our first satellite town. The town has just celebrated its 60th anniversary recently and they had put in place markers to document and commemorate some of the historic sites. These were supported by the National Heritage Board (NHB).

NHB will continue to support these ground-up community efforts, both in the community and within the schools. We have also launched a heritage grant scheme so that our support also comes in the form of providing resources. I am happy to say that since the scheme was launched in July last year, NHB has committed almost $3 million in funding to a range of over 90 projects, initiated by individuals and community groups to collectively strengthen our sense of history and heritage. We will continue to support these ground-up efforts.

3 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the evidence of the harmful effects of shisha; (b) what is the prevalence of shisha use in Singapore; and (c) whether the Ministry will review its policies to strengthen the regulation of shisha use.

Mdm Speaker, shisha smoking is no less harmful to health as other forms of tobacco use. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), a typical session of shisha smoking involves the inhalation of smoke that is equivalent to smoking 100 or more cigarettes. This exposes the shisha smoker to high levels of harmful smoke toxicants, including tar, carbon monoxide and nicotine. A research study in the United States found higher levels of such toxicants in shisha smoke compared to cigarette smoke. According to WHO, the health risks for shisha smokers and exposed by-standers include

Page: 17

cancers, heart diseases, respiratory diseases and adverse effects on unborn babies if exposure occurs during pregnancy. Several studies also found that shisha smoke contains high levels of fine particulate matter, also known as PM2.

5. This increases the ambient pollutant levels which can adversely impact bystander.

Due to the sweet smelling smoke and passing of the smoke through water in the apparatus, there are often misconceptions that shisha smoking is less harmful and addictive. A recent WHO report on shisha smoking stated that the misconceptions, together with the social nature of shisha smoking, have contributed to an increase in shisha smoking globally, particularly among young people, which raises further concerns that shisha smoking may serve as a gateway to cigarette smoking.

Similar trends have been observed locally. The National Health Survey 2010 showed that 7.8% of young adults aged 18-29 years smoke shisha at least occasionally, compared to 1% among older adults. The Student Health Survey found that the proportion of students who used alternative tobacco products, including shisha, had increased from 2% in 2009 to 9% in 2012. In another study conducted by the Health Promotion Board (HPB), three in five, or 61.1%, shisha smokers wrongly believed that smoking shisha was less harmful than cigarettes.

My Ministry has reviewed the regulatory framework for shisha over the past year, with a view to strengthening the control of shisha. In view of the health risks associated with shisha smoking and to prevent the proliferation and entrenchment of shisha smoking in Singapore, my Ministry intends to prohibit the import, distribution and sale of shisha.

The ban will be effected later this month, via the publication of the new Prohibited Tobacco Products Regulations made under section 15 of the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act. However, as a transitional measure, existing licensed tobacco importers and retailers who import or sell shisha tobacco will be allowed to continue importing and retailing shisha tobacco until 31 July 2016. This allows such importers and retailers ample time to deplete their stock and restructure their businesses away from the shisha business. My Ministry will also continue to enhance public education efforts on the harms of shisha smoking.

I wish to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply and I am very heartened to hear about the stronger measures that the Ministry is going to take against the use of shisha. The Parliamentary Secretary has quite correctly pointed out the two greatest risks: first, the misconception that shisha smoking is fairly innocuous whereas there is an increasing body of evidence which tends to show that it may be as dangerous as the normal forms of tobacco smoking. The other big concern is, of course, it

Page: 18

might be a gateway to —

Dr Chia, you may want to put your question and cut down on the preamble, please.

Sorry about that. I have got two supplementary questions. The first is in relation to part (b) of my original Parliamentary Question (PQ). I am also mindful that with the widespread use of shisha – there are many retailers out there – I would just like to know whether there is any idea about how prevalent the retail sector is, in terms of sale of shisha, and how they might be affected by this ban.

The second supplementary question is, in view of this transition period, I would like to hear a bit more about the details of this transition period, whether there is a risk that some of these retailers might stockpile stocks of shisha and whether there are any specific measures that we might look at to prevent illicit use or sale of shisha during this period.

Madam, I would like to thank the Member for sharing with us his perspective as a medical doctor and also for his supplementary questions.

For his first question: as at 31 October 2014, there are 16 licensed shisha retailers. They are located in Boat Quay, Capital Square, Clarke Quay, Kampong Glam and Holland Village. Essentially, we have provided that transitional period, so that it can help them to deplete the stockpile that they have and also to see how they can find ways to restructure their business model.

We have developed a regulatory as well as enforcement framework among Health Sciences Authority (HSA), NEA and Customs to see how we can work together and look at how we can regulate some of these activities by the retailers.

We understand the Member's concern about stockpiling and we are mindful of that. As such, what we are thinking is that we will continue to enforce such an action and step up action, so that at the end of the day, we want to protect our fellow Singaporeans and everyone here in Singapore from the health risks associated with shisha smoking, because we care for their lives.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary. There are those who purchase shisha during overseas travel and bring them back for personal consumption, not me. How will this be affected with the implementation of the prohibition?

Page: 19

The other question is what can MOH do to educate our public, especially our young, about the harmful effects of shisha smoking? We increasingly see a lot of our young smoking shisha, especially around the Kampong Glam area.

I thank the hon Member for the question. Essentially, the simple answer is no. You cannot import or bring in any amount of shisha in Singapore. At the end of the day, like what I said earlier, we want to protect everyone from the health risks associated with shisha smoking.

The Member's second question relates to what MOH will do. Through HPB and its partners, we will continue to share and engage the public on the harmful effects of shisha and its addictive nature. For example, we have engaged community organisations as well as schools, ITE, Polytechnics, Universities and we have shared with them online materials as well as printed resources on the harmful effects of shisha. In fact, these few months, we are ramping up our effort to reach out to the people, especially targeting the young, with clear messages about the harmful effects of shisha for this current period of the campaign.

4 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Education (a) how many more after-school care centres will be ready in 2015 and 2016 respectively; (b) whether the new places will be enough to meet the increasing demand; and (c) whether the Ministry will encourage more VWOs to set up after-school centres near neighbourhood schools.

5 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has determined which are the schools that the 40 new school-based Student Care Centres (SCCs) will be located in; (b) what criteria does the Ministry use to determine the location of these SCCs; and (c) whether the Ministry has completed its study with the Ministry of Social and Family Development on the demand pattern for SCCs and, if so, whether the findings of the study can be made public.

Mdm Speaker, may I have your approval to take Question Nos 4 and 5 together?

Yes, please.

Student Care Centres (SCCs) or After-school Care Centres provide students with a convenient, structured and supportive environment after school. The majority of SCCs are sited within the community, but as many parents have given positive

Page: 20

feedback on school-based SCCs, MOE has steadily expanded the number and capacity of school-based SCCs to complement the community-based SCCs. In fact, I have visited several of these centres. I have spoken to parents and students and I appreciate the value that these centres bring to the students.

From less than 50 school-based SCCs in 2011, we have steadily expanded the numbers. I announced at this year's Committee of Supply Debate that we would expand the number of school-based SCCs by a further 40, to 120 by 2015, and had shared the names of the 21 schools that would be setting up their school-based SCCs by end-2014. We are on target to set up an additional 19 school-based SCCs by end-2015. We will announce details of where these centres are in due course and will also provide an update on our plans for 2016.

Our approach is to assess localised needs. We actively support Primary schools with demand for student care services to set up or expand school-based SCCs, taking into account the infrastructure in the schools and the demands in the schools.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa has asked if we would encourage more VWOs to set up After-school Care Centres near neighbourhood schools. MOE will work with MSF on this.

We understand that there is demand for SCC services, and will continue to work with MSF and SCC operators to increase the number of SCC places both in our Primary schools and in the community. At the same time, MOE and MSF are mindful that any expansion must be done at a pace that allows us to maintain quality and affordability.

I thank the Minister for the answer. I would like to know that for the rest of the Primary schools, which number approximately 70, that will not be having these school-based Student Care Centres (SCCs), does the Ministry feel that they do not have the need for such facilities. And is this backed by any extensive survey? I had also asked this question in the Parliamentary Question (PQ), but I do not think it was answered.

The next supplementary question is: will the Ministry set a plan for a more ambitious target to have all Primary schools to have school-based SCCs and, if so, by when?

Lastly, I would like to know whether there will be any plan jointly by MOE and MSF to look at how to encourage more operators and teachers into this sector. For example, there are some schemes in the pre-schools, such as training grants, set-up grants and fee subsidies for all Singapore parents. So, while there are some schemes currently in place for SCCs, would the Minister agree that the support level for student care is currently far less than what is given out in the pre-school sector, and it may be hard to encourage operators and

Page: 21

teachers into this sector under the current arrangements?

I thank Mr Yee for his question. I think the Member's first two questions are similar, which is what is our view on the number. As I have mentioned, first, we got to look at this in perspective. We have over 300 SCCs in the community already. When we started, we had less than 50. I announced at successive Budget debates, during our Committee of Supply debates, a very steady expansion in our SCCs in our schools. I have also mentioned how we look at the needs in the school on a localised level and we expand it steadily. So, the Member's question as to whether we have a view of how many more SCCs we need, the answer is yes, we do. And where there is a demand, we will try and meet those demands. But any expansion has to be done taking into account the need for quality and affordability. This is not an area where you expand in a haphazard way.

As to the Member's third question as to whether we could look at schemes to encourage more operators and teachers to get into this area, this is a subject that we are studying. We will see what we might do.

But let me say that the student care centres, apart from those that are school-based, the value that they bring is not just in providing an after-school care service. The value that they bring is in working with our schools. We are also looking at the very operational aspects of it, as to how we can enhance the value if they are based in the schools.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Thank you, Madam. While I appreciate the effort by MOE to increase the number of student care centres – 40 as stated by the Minister – clearly from the demand that we see on the ground, we need these faster and we need even more centres. I know of centres that have 30 places, but they have a waiting list of another 50 students. I hope that the Minister sees that we can speed this up and provide more places.

The second question is whether we can better harness the VWOs, both the capabilities that they have and the passion that they have for getting into student care. We used to have this in the past and I thought we should look at further incentives or even some concessionary rates for them to use the void deck space for student care centres. The schools may not all have the space for student care centres, or to gear up so quickly. In conjunction with the schools ramping up capacity, maybe the VWOs can also play a part.

Thirdly, would MOE consider having MOE-run student care centres? I understand that most of these are handed out by way of GeBIZ to private commercial operators. Similar to

Page: 22

how MOE runs the MOE Kindergartens, MOE can look at doing their own student care centres as well.

I thank Mr Liang for his follow-up questions. First, whether we can speed up the setting up of student care centres, I would like to do things as quickly as possible. But I think the key, as I had mentioned, is that we got to ensure that quality is maintained. To the extent that these operators and the staff are coming into contact with our students, we want to ensure that the right people are attracted to this sector and that they are doing the right things.

On whether we should work with VWOs, in fact, some of the VWOs which are operating in the student care centres – whether in the community or school-based ones – have done a good job. We are indeed looking at how we can work with VWOs in expanding these student care centres.

On the Member's third question on whether MOE should run the student care centres ourselves, MOE has a very big plate already. We have many issues to tackle. What I would like to add is that many of our schools do run programmes for our students after school. As a school system, compared to many other school systems in the world, we run a very large number of programmes in our Primary and Secondary schools – CCAs, club activities, having students stay back in the library to study and so on. We run a very large number of programmes. Therefore, even though students may not be in a student care centre, many of them do stay back in the school and are provided with a wide range of enrichment and other activities.

Ms Denise Phua.

Thank you, Madam. I can empathise with the demands that many of us make on MOE for cheaper, faster, better facilities. So, I am sorry to add on to the Minister's load. I would like to enquire if MOE can consider conducting a study of the needs and the very vocal demands of families of the students with more challenging requirements – those with special needs, whether in mainstream schools or special schools.

There have been quite a lot of demands for that, but the solution is really not easy. I would like to ask if the Minister can consider starting a workgroup to look into various more innovative solutions, perhaps, a continuum of solutions that involve enrichment centres, parents pulling together with their helpers and so on. We want to come up with solutions that can address this need to keep the children better occupied after official school hours, whether they are special needs or not, whether they are in mainstream schools or not. I

Page: 23

would like the Minister to consider that.

I thank Ms Denise Phua for her suggestion and we will certainly look into that. In fact, we are always looking at the requirements and what can be done to bring out the best in our students. We thank her for her suggestion.

Ms Tin Pei Ling.

Thank you, Madam. I would like to ask the Minister a question. Firstly, I understand the move to have more school-based student care centres. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry is open to considering on a case-by-case basis, perhaps, to give adequate support to VWOs setting up student care centres within communities, especially with rental blocks.

Why I am saying this is because, currently, an example that I know of is Brighton Student Care Centre. It is located at one of the largest rented blocks in my area – about 500-600 units in the block. For the subsidy that they are benefiting from, there is a great disparity between what they are able to receive versus what a school-based student care operator may get. This is causing quite a financial strain on them, even as they are doing this not for profit and even as they are doing this to serve the community to help the lower income families. So, I hope that the Minister will be open to considering at least on a case-by-case basis to provide adequate support for some of these VWOs trying to provide student care services within the community.

I thank Ms Tin Pei Ling for her suggestion. I have visited some of these centres as well. Indeed, many of them are doing a good job. We will study this together with MSF on what we can do – whether the solution is in the student care centre or in some other form, we will look at it and see how we might enable the students, whatever their background, to continue to make progress.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

It is true that many schools have after-school programmes. However, they are not regular. They are not at a fixed timing. Therefore, for parents who are working, they do not have the peace of mind. They would like to have school-based care centres. A lot of my residents feel that because some centres are not in the school, it incurs additional transport and, sometimes, it is not convenient as well. I would like to ask the Minister, is there a plan to have school-based student care centre in every Primary school? If there is not, what is the reason? If there is, what is the plan and timeline?

Page: 24

I think that question had been answered by Minister Heng, but the Minister can respond again if he wishes to.

Indeed, Mdm Speaker, I have responded to that question. As I have said earlier on, we have to look at it in perspective. In 2011, we started with about 50 centres. I visited several of these school-based centres myself. I have seen the details of the operations and I appreciate what they could do for our students as they work with our schools. That is the reason why I have a very deliberate policy of expanding the number of school-based student care centres, taking into account the needs and demands, not just in school-based centres but also in the community. There has been a steady expansion, which has allowed us to maintain quality.

Now that the school-based student care centres have been seen to benefit many students, the demand has grown. The more we do, the greater the demand! I am cognisant of this. I have a lot of empathy for working parents and how they would like better facilities. At the same time, we have to look at the different phases in which our schools are undergoing in terms of infrastructure and demand, and the community-based centres which are already serving some of these schools. Any expansion has to take into account a number of these factors. Most important of all, I want to ensure that the quality is maintained.

We will continue to work hard on all these. As I said to Mr Liang earlier on, I would like to do it as fast as possible, like all Members here. But at the same time, I need to ensure that any centre that is based in a school is of a certain quality and that we are able to assure parents that that quality is maintained and that I do not do it at such a pace that it is going to affect the affordability as well.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong.

Thank you, Madam. Just a quick clarification from the Minister. The Minister stated that there are already over 300 centres in the community. I would like to know whether these are dedicated for student care services or do they also include tuition centres with only a limited space for student care. In the MSF list that I went through, many of the centres that are listed as student care providers are actually tuition centres.

The other question I have is: what is the capacity in total of these 300 centres, in terms of the number of student care places?

The 300 community-based student care centres that I mentioned are registered with MSF as student care fee assistance administrators. In other words, they have been certified by MSF to be running these services. In terms of the details, if Mr Yee

Page: 25

wishes, he can file a separate question on the centres which are registered under MSF.

6 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how can the issue of graduate under-employment be mitigated; and (b) what measures does the Government plan to put in place to ensure that the situation does not worsen.

Mdm Speaker, graduate under-employment is an issue that many governments worldwide are grappling with, including in developed economies where graduates are experiencing challenges in securing jobs which match their skills and expertise.

In many countries, graduate under-employment is due in a large part to a high or increasing proportion of degree holders entering the workforce, at a time where their economies are unable to generate sufficient good jobs for these graduates. This is exacerbated in cases where there is a mismatch between the courses of study and the skillsets required of the jobs available. The disruptive effect of technology on the nature of jobs also means that graduates who are unable to update and upgrade their skills may face challenges staying relevant in their fields.

Singapore's resident graduate under-employment rate is low and stable, at 2.3% in June 2013. While we are not facing the unemployment and under-employment problems in other countries, we will not be immune to these trends. The proportion of degree holders in our workforce has been increasing. We are seeing increasing access to private educational institutions or alternative routes which offer degrees of varying quality, despite their sleek packaging. Those who spend time and money going to these institutions may bear a greater risk of under-employment. The market has begun to differentiate between degrees that carry their full worth in knowledge and skills, and those that are essentially paper qualifications. We should encourage our young to pursue their interests and go for substance when considering their education and career paths.

We will also need to keep up our efforts at ensuring that graduates have the skillsets to take on quality jobs. Our first strategy is to keep our economy vibrant and competitive, so that enough quality jobs can be created. This means we must press on with our restructuring efforts, as well as to continue to grow industries which offer good jobs and, therefore, good opportunities for all Singaporeans. We need to attract the right companies to invest and grow their businesses here.

At the same time, we need to help individuals to equip themselves with the skills to take on the quality jobs of today and also of tomorrow. The SkillsFuture Council will help

Page: 26

spearhead efforts on this front to develop an integrated system of education, training and career progression for Singaporeans. This involves helping individuals to make informed choices on education and training, and strengthening the linkages between education and training institutions and industry needs.

Employers also have to recognise the value in investing in the training of their workers and help them achieve mastery of skills. Overall, we have to create a culture where workers are motivated and able to continually acquire relevant skills and experience that will help them advance in their careers. This includes degree holders, who must also take ownership of their individual career and training development throughout their lives.

I thank the Minister for his response. I fully agree with the Minister that it is critical that our students pursue degree courses that are sought after in the workplace, and that our PMEs need to embrace lifelong learning in order to future-proof their skillsets. However, I would like to ask the Minister two supplementary questions.

First, how can the Government help to mitigate competition for jobs from foreign PMEs? Many Singaporeans feel that they are sometimes passed over for jobs they can do because foreigners come cheaper, without the need for CPF contributions and are free of National Service obligations, to name a few. Would the Minister consider implementing labour market tests already in place in other countries, such as Hong Kong, so that Singaporeans with relevant qualifications and experience are given priorities for jobs that they wish to do before companies resort to hiring foreign executives? So, that is the first supplementary question.

The second is whether the Government would consider launching a targeted internship programme with special incentives for companies to provide Singaporeans with relevant experience, especially for young graduates and mid-career executives seeking a change in industry so that they can gain the necessary experience and exposure to be fully deployed in the future.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank Ms Foo for her two supplementary questions.

With regard to the first question on competition, as I have mentioned a couple of times in the House, the truth of the matter is that foreigners compete with us whether they are in Singapore or not. This is the effect of globalisation. It does not just affect Singapore but it affects many countries in the world. In a large part, you will find that companies go round the world in search of where they can operate most effectively and on the most cost-

Page: 27

effective basis.

Singapore, as we know, is not the cheapest place to operate but there are a lot of strengths operating in Singapore. Companies are attracted here for a number of reasons. In fact, just last week, I had a meeting with the US-ASEAN Business Council and one gentleman shared that when he relocated here, it was one of the best decisions that he made because they have access to Singaporeans who are well skilled, hardworking, talented and capable. One of the pluses here is that we also do have access to a diverse workforce. Many of the companies that are established here – both foreign and local – are multinational in nature. Some of them are global headquarters, some are regional headquarters. They are looking at diverse workforce because that affords them that diversity in exposure and talent for them to be able to reach out to the world. When they are here, they create opportunities for Singaporeans.

Foreigners here do compete with Singaporeans, but having them here does keep the economy competitive. But at the same time, on a net basis, it benefits us because it generates jobs.

We are mindful that there are concerns about competition. We have taken a number of steps over the years. For example, the way we have structured the employment pass, the entry-level salary regime and the tiered salary regime which takes into account age, experience and the salaries required. Those are measures we put in place to help to even out the playing field for Singaporeans. The Fair Consideration Framework was also put in place to ensure that those companies who do want to apply for employment pass would have to make those jobs available in the Jobs Bank so that Singaporeans do have access to apply for those jobs as well. If companies are found to be carrying out practices which are less than fair, we will investigate and follow up accordingly.

Importantly, the best solution is to ensure that the economy is vibrant and is doing well. We are not doing too badly on that front. In terms of specific initiatives, there are existing programmes to help graduates. We have the Professional Conversion Programmes or PCPs. It basically supports job seekers to re-skill themselves, obtain necessary job competencies to take on new jobs. And some sectors with PCP programmes include Biomedical Sciences, Creative Industries, Early Childhood Care and Education, Food and Beverage, Healthcare, Information Communications and Technology, and Marine and Maritime.

We also have the Max Talent Programme where we enhance the HR capabilities of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in the recruitment and management of newly hired PMEs. This initiative also matches unemployed PMEs to suitable jobs in SMEs.

Page: 28

There is also the Enterprise Training Scheme (ETS) where we assist firms to develop holistic training plans and career progression pathways which are tied to employees' training roadmaps. As at March 2014, the ETS has benefited 96 companies, of which 70% are SMEs, and 17,500 local workers.

So, there is a range of schemes available. We are quite open to exploring new ideas and initiatives to help our graduates at different levels to be able to continue to find jobs. The concerns expressed by Ms Foo are something that we track closely in terms of unemployment and also under-employment. And by and large, I think the numbers are low but I would say this: "low" does not mean there is no unemployment. For those who are unemployed, even though they may form a very low statistic, their concerns are genuine. We will do all we can to assist this group as best as possible.

I wish to ask the Minister this: MOM's data on under-employment refers to one that is time-based under-employment. When engaging many young PMEs with diploma as well as degree and above qualifications, anecdotally, the concerns are more on non time-based under-employment. I wish to ask the Minister whether his Ministry could consider doing a more detailed study or survey to understand whether non time-based under-employment is really an issue or the magnitude of it.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Patrick Tay for his question. Unemployment is a concern. Under-employment, as well. We look at them from various perspectives.

By and large, we find that about nine in 10 of our young graduates from the local Autonomous Universities are able to secure a job within six months. Be that as it may, one of our biggest concerns, and I have flagged this up previously, is the increasing proportion of people who are pursuing higher education and special degrees at private education institutions and also at overseas education institutions. We are not at the stage where it is quite as chronic as in some other countries I have cited before, such as Taiwan and Korea.

But looking at the profile of our population and the increasing access to these institutions, that is one big concern going forward. I would add that the concern is not about degrees not being important. The concern really is pursuing degrees from institutions which have less than desirable standards. In these cases, as I have mentioned earlier, you would run the greater risk of under-employment.

We are tracking the data carefully from different perspectives, and this is something that we are mindful of. We are taking steps to see how best to support our young

Page: 29

Singaporeans with different education qualifications.

7 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the 2013 Labour Force Survey report which states that the unemployment rate for degree holders below the age of 30 is 7.4% (a) what are the reasons behind this relatively high unemployment rate; and (b) whether the Ministry is taking any measures to address this issue.

Mdm Speaker, when Mr Yee alludes to the fact that the unemployment rate of 7.4% is high, I am not very certain what his reference points are, but there are a few perspectives. One, does he mean that it is high compared to other countries? Secondly, is it high because it is higher than the overall unemployment rate? Or is it high because it has increased significantly from the past? Let me address these three perspectives.

Firstly, across all educational levels, our youth unemployment rate has remained low, and, in fact, very low by international standards. Whether compared with the advanced economies, such as the US and EU, which are facing youth unemployment rates in the double digits, or with other developed Asian economies such as Hong Kong and South Korea, we are faring pretty well.

Secondly, youth unemployment across all countries is typically significantly higher than the overall unemployment rate. This pattern is similarly reflected in our unemployment rate of 7.4%, which is non-seasonally adjusted, for degree holders below the age of 30, compared to the overall unemployment rate amongst degree holders, again non-seasonally adjusted, of 3.6% in June 2013.

We will find this pattern repeated across all the different countries. And there is a reason for this. This is mainly due to the fact that new graduates joining the job market, as well as the higher incidence of job switching amongst young graduates, as they figure out what exactly they want to do, rather than any systemic difficulty in securing employment. So, you will find these trends typically across most, if not all, countries. About nine in 10 of our young degree holders from the local Autonomous Universities are able to secure a job within six months of graduation. The median duration of unemployment for resident degree holders below the age of 30 is also not long – at about five weeks.

Thirdly, the rate has come down from 2009 and has remained largely stable for the recent few years.

Page: 30

The Government will continue with a comprehensive approach to keep both overall unemployment and youth unemployment rates as low as we can. First, it is crucial – and I think it is important for us remember – that we do need to maintain a strong and vibrant economy so that businesses have a conducive environment to operate in and, in turn, create quality jobs for our young people and, in fact, for all Singaporeans. Secondly, we do need to ensure that our education and training system continues to equip Singaporeans with industry-relevant skills to prepare them for the job market. We know that trends are evolving, technology is evolving quickly. So, this is where the commitment to lifelong education for Singaporeans at every educational level is particularly important.

MOM will also continue to monitor the unemployment rate, as I mentioned to Mr Patrick Tay earlier, and also under-employment rate, of young degree holders and, frankly, for Singaporeans at every level. We will continue to work closely with tripartite partners to help young degree holders access quality jobs, and facilitate their career development and progression.

I thank the Minister for the answer. I would like to just look at the data. The Minister said that we are actually doing very well according to the data. But I also noticed a trend – the Minister said that it has actually been falling or has been steady since 2009. But actually it has been rising from 6.6% in 2011 to 7.4% today. It roughly translates to over 24,000 graduates under the age of 30 that are classified as unemployed.

Also, in the earlier Parliamentary Question (PQ), we looked at the graduates' under-employment. This is also a figure that is rising among graduates whereas for other education groups, it has actually been falling.

So, I would like to know that moving forward, does the Ministry feel that it is important to do further studies to determine if there is any mismatch between the jobs and the training in our tertiary institutions. This is especially so because we are expanding the number of degree places in the publicly-funded Universities, and more and more people are also taking on private degree programmes.

Mdm Speaker, I will be happy to follow up with Mr Yee on specifically the percentage points that he is referring to. I am not sure whether he is comparing like for like. The 7.4% in the PQ refers to the unemployment rate of resident degree holders below the age of 30, while the 6.7% refers to the annual resident youth, aged 15 to 24, unemployment rate. But be that as it may, we can follow up and check which specific data point he is referring to.

Page: 31

We do track this situation quite closely. As I have mentioned before, although we are not at that stage yet, my big concern is that if we do not arrest this trend, I think you will find a greater risk of unemployment and under-employment as more youths pursue other options, especially through private education institutions.

It does not mean that by pursuing studies in the private education institutions, you will not be able to necessarily do well and fulfil your aspirations in life. There will be those who do well. As you would realise, there will be institutions out there that will be quite happy to provide you a qualification if you look hard enough, and are prepared to spend time and money, but the standards do vary. We do see it now in terms of employment outcomes. In terms of the employment opportunities and especially the remuneration packages, it is less than desired and that is a worrying trend. If we continue along that path, we will encounter some of the problems that other countries are facing.

We track this data quite closely to avoid that situation from developing in the first place.

8 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how will the unsatisfactory condition of the National Stadium pitch affect the international reputation of Singapore given that planned international events have been cancelled or rescheduled; (b) besides payment to SportsHub Pte Ltd being withheld, how are the interests of the Government and public protected in the public-private partnership arrangement; and (c) apart from the commercial events, what other planned events will be affected and how will these event owners be compensated.

9 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth what steps will be taken to avoid a repeat of the episode where the National Stadium pitch was deemed to have fallen short of international standards during the soccer friendly between Brazil and Japan on 14 October 2014.

Madam, with your permission, can I take Question Nos 8 and 9 together?

Yes, please.

Madam, Members have expressed concerns about the condition of the pitch at the National Stadium and its impact on Singapore's reputation, and I share

Page: 32

these concerns.

Under the public-private partnership (PPP) arrangement, Sports Hub Pte Ltd (SHPL) designed, built, financed and operates the new Singapore Sports Hub for 25 years. The intent of the PPP is to leverage the private partner's expertise and network to create a vibrant mix of sports and lifestyle activities that would be accessible to all. SHPL is required to make available the various facilities in the Sports Hub for public and private use, according to the specifications and standards detailed in the Project Agreement between SHPL and Sport Singapore (SportSG).

Developing a major sporting venue in land-scarce Singapore does present several unique challenges. Many stadiums around the world are designed for a specific purpose and they are not used intensively all year round. This is perhaps possible in countries which do not face space or land constraints. In Singapore, it is a luxury we cannot afford. As such, SHPL was asked to deliver a multi-purpose Sports Hub, which could accommodate a vibrant calendar of sports and entertainment activities. By and large, I would say that the expertise brought in by SHPL has helped to make the Sports Hub an integrated sports and lifestyle destination for Singaporeans to enjoy.

However, it has faced problems with the National Stadium pitch because of several reasons. For one, SHPL had taken three months longer than expected to complete the National Stadium and this meant that there was not enough time to allow the grass on the pitch to take root and stabilise. In addition, SHPL misjudged the impact that the intensive events schedule would have on the pitch. It had carried out testing before deciding on the hybrid Desso GrassMaster pitch. This is a hybrid pitch which is primarily natural turf anchored by artificial fibres. It procured a cover that was designed to allow activities and concerts to take place on the pitch with reduced impact on the grass. This had been tested but it did not work out as planned, and in part because the grass was not anchored deeply enough. It did not have time to grow and anchor itself deeply enough, and so, as a result, the repeated use and coverage of the pitch ended up damaging it.

SHPL recognises that the poor condition of the pitch and the changes in the event schedule have brought about negative publicity to the project. This is also not in the consortium's own interests and, hence, it has stepped forward to take ownership of the issue. It has acknowledged its own shortcomings and it has embarked on the necessary remedial actions to improve the condition of the pitch.

Earlier, SHPL had procured growth lights at its own cost to enhance the growth of the grass. And after the recent Brazil-Japan match, the Asia Pacific Dragons – Maori All Blacks rugby match was cancelled and the Jay Chou concert postponed and this was done to give the pitch more time to stabilise before the coming AFF Suzuki Cup in November. SHPL is

Page: 33

bearing the costs arising from the cancellation and postponement of these events.

With the freeing up of the events schedule and the measures put in place so far, we have already seen improvements in the pitch conditions. At the same time, SHPL has been engaging local and overseas experts to fundamentally re-examine its earlier assumptions and models for the use of the pitch. They will assess if the current pitch solution is viable beyond the Suzuki Cup, or whether more extensive changes are needed in the medium to longer term to ensure a consistently robust pitch. These are still being studied, and SHPL intends to put in place longer term measures after the Suzuki Cup.

SportSG will continue to monitor the situation and ensure that SHPL does everything that is necessary to establish a top quality pitch for the National Stadium.

Mr Baey Yam Keng.

Thank you, Madam. I would like to ask the Minister how was the Government involved in deciding the type of pitch used for the National Stadium? Was the Government consulted before this hybrid was decided? In resolving this issue now, how is the Government working with SHPL to settle this issue and what is the time frame that the Minister expects this pitch to be restored to the expected standard?

The Minister mentioned that as part of the PPP, the Sports Hub has to cater for public use. So, during this period where the pitch is not satisfactory, what are the public events that would be affected and how would this affect the PPP arrangement? How would SHPL be taken to task for not fulfilling its end of the agreement?

Madam, as I have mentioned earlier, the requirement is stated in the project agreement that spelt out between SportSG and SHPL. SHPL is required to deliver on certain outcomes, so it has to take upon itself the responsibility of ensuring the pitch allows for multi-purpose usage and is robust enough to withstand that usage.

In the course of coming up with the present solution, SHPL had done a series of tests and these test results were shown to Sports Singapore to show that these tests were done and that the proposed solution that was eventually put in place was the best solution that they had, based on the conditions that they had tried out earlier. Of course, as I have mentioned, we know now that it has not worked out as planned, not necessarily because the proposed solution is not the desired one but perhaps there were other extenuating circumstances – as I had mentioned, the project was late and the grass itself had not had time to stabilise before it had to deal with a very heavy event schedule.

Page: 34

The current arrangement or presently, even with the postponement of the events in the coming months and the time that has taken to allow the grass to grow, we have already seen significant improvements in the pitch. This is something that is being done in the interim, for the Suzuki Cup. Beyond that, there is now a process of going through some of the earlier test results all over again – just to ensure that the solution that is being proposed is truly robust. And this is again a process which we have asked SHPL to undertake. They will do a series of experiments and tests to assure all stakeholders that they have a robust solution for the medium and long term. They will be sharing the results with the Government, with SportSG. We are also asking our own experts, for example, from the National Parks to look at the results and to satisfy ourselves that whatever the solution as proposed by SHPL is a robust one.

On private and public use, the public use will pertain to events like the National Day Parade, for example. Not that it is going to be happening next year in the Stadium, but if something like that were to happen, that would be an event that is for public usage. So, in the near term – between now and December or early next year – we have no public events that are in the calendar.

I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. Mdm Speaker, page 58 of the MOF's Public/Private Partnership Handbook states that the misallocation between the PPP provider, in this case, SHPL, and the Government procuring entity, namely, SportSG, is complex and SportSG must be careful that operational risks are not passed back to them.

Separately, there was also the media statement from SportSG suggesting non-payment if the condition of the pitch does not improve – I believe this was issued shortly after the Brazil-Japan Friendly match.

I have three supplementary questions for the Minister. First, what is the annual payment that SportSG pays to the Sports Hub under the PPP framework and how are the payments structured over the re-payment period? Secondly, under what circumstances can SportSG contractually withhold annual payment to the Sports Hub and how much can it withhold for non-performance? And finally, in view of the Suzuki Cup ticket prices that were released yesterday, what role does SportSG and the Sports Associations play to determine the pricing of events with potential mass appeal and what recourse does SportSG have to ensure that ticket prices are not out of reach for the mass public?

Madam, with respect to the questions, on the annual payment, I do not have a figure at hand but I would say that the annual payment is over a stream of a period of time which eventually would amount to the overall cost of the project. The overall

Page: 35

cost of the project is something at a region of $1.3 billion.

As a PPP, instead of forking out $1.3 billion upfront, the Government does not do that. It is done by the private sector but we, instead, pay an annual stream of payments over the 25-year period for the usage of the stadium; of the facilities within the Sports Hub. That is how it is designed and constructed.

Within the project agreement, there is indeed a provision for deductions in the availability payment in the event of non-performance or non-availability of use. And this is quite standard in a PPP arrangement. Even in a mature PPP in other countries, you will often find deductions being made in the event of a non-performance by the private partner. This is something that SportSG will carry out in accordance with the provisions in the project agreement.

On ticket prices, that is something that would be set by event organisers, not necessarily by Sports Hub itself because the events that are taking place in the Sports Hub may be put up by a National Sport Association, it may be put up by SportSG, it may be put together by a private events promoter. These are not regulated prices; these are left to the market. So, the property owners and the event organisers, which are usually commercial organisers, would then have to decide what is the appropriate price range to set these prices.

I would say if you look at the experience so far and compare with what we have seen in Jalan Besar Stadium, what we have seen in the old national stadium for the events and for the sporting activities that we have had in the Sports Hub, I think they are within a comparable range. For example, the Brazil-Japan match ticket prices were comparable to what was in the old national stadium when Liverpool came to play in the old national stadium. We have had many sporting events within the new Sports Hub organised by our National Sports Associations where ticket prices are very affordable and accessible to all Singaporeans.

A clarification for the Minister. I am heartened to note that SHPL is taking ownership and taking steps to ensure that what happened before would not happen again. However, if the maintenance and the management continue to be unsatisfactory from the perspective of Singapore's reputation, then is there an exit clause that enables SportSG to treat the non-performance or the failure of obligation as a breach of contract and award the management to another entity?

Madam, I thank the Member for the question on this worst case scenario that SHPL is unable to perform. I would, first of all, want to clarify that as a consortium, they have taken ownership and responsibility. They are already, as you can see, putting in their own investments – whether it is in the purchase of growth lights; whether it

Page: 36

is in the rescheduling of events – they are already taking these decisions to ensure that the pitch is done properly. That is something we should acknowledge that the consortium may have fallen short in the first instance with this pitch at the early stages, but they have taken ownership and they are now putting in the necessary remedial measures.

I would also say that it is not such a straightforward matter to get it right, right from the start, because in many of these stadiums around the world, in big venues, there is always an initial bedding process, a teething process where you have to go through some of these humps. That is something that I think they are facing now. The good news or the thing that I am assured by is that the consortium is taking full ownership and responsibility of the issue.

But if it should come to pass that there is such a scenario where there is truly non-performance, the consortium for some reason or another is not doing anything to solve the problem or if it is a very bad breach of the terms of the project agreement, then indeed there are exit provisions that we can activate. I do not think they are anywhere near that in this particular case.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I think National Stadium is the first such PPP project for sports facilities of this scale. When we say PPP, it means Government is also involved. I would like to ask two supplementary questions. During the construction of the National Stadium, was the expertise of Government agencies being sought? In this particular case, was the expertise in NParks being involved during the construction stage, for example, selection of the grass and so on?

The next question is that, according to the media report, CEO of SportSG threatened or mentioned the possibility to withhold payment. I would like to ask is this non-payment allowed for in the contract and will this cause any strain in the relationship because this is a PPP project?

Madam, let me take the second question from the Member first. The non-payment and the deduction of availability payment, as I have said earlier, is part and parcel of all PPP projects, not just in Singapore. Anywhere in the world there is PPP project, these sorts of provisions are there and happen all the time.

So it is in our case. There are provisions for deduction in the availability payment. This is spelt out in the contract. We have had many meetings since the statement made by SportSG and many meetings and discussions between SportSG and SHPL. There is no strain in the relationship. The consortium understands that they had fallen short in this particular

Page: 37

case, they accept the consequences and, as I have said earlier, they are moving forward with solutions. So, that is where the team is at, working together to find solutions, both for the short term – for the Suzuki Cup – and for the medium to long term.

On the earlier question of the involvement of the Government in the construction, yes, there was consultation. It could perhaps have been done much better. If you look back and look at whether or not more attention could have been paid in terms of the solution that was arrived at for the pitch, perhaps, in hindsight, we could have put in a lot more attention in terms of looking at the results.

What I can say is that during the construction phase, the consortium had indeed done experiments and tests and derived the best solution for the pitch. At that time, the tests were done under a shade in the Orchid Country Club and so they were trying to replicate the conditions of the Stadium in order to find the best grass and best solution for the pitch. But the Stadium was not there, so they could only attempt to replicate something which they thought would be ideal for the conditions of the National Stadium. The results were done and the tests were shown. In fact, the people who were doing the tests were from an agency that was specifically recommended by FIFA. So, it was not just done by themselves. They had done it through an outsourced agency recommended by FIFA and they had done it extensively to show that this was the best solution available at that time. With the benefit of what we have now, we are re-examining the test results, the assumptions and we are asking them to do many more tests so that we can be very sure of a robust solution going forward.

Madam, Singapore prides itself for its efficiency for being well organised, for being forward looking. But some of the comments arising from the problems affecting the National Stadium pitch have led to international sports groups questioning the ability of our National Stadium to produce world-class conditions. Can I ask the Minister what is his assessment of this on Singapore's reputation as well as its ability to attract world-class sports tournaments to Singapore?

Madam, I acknowledge that there had been negative publicity in the first few events or the first two, in particular – the Juventus game and the Brazil-Japan game – because of the conditions of the pitch. I would say that we will be able to overcome this negative publicity if we get the solution right.

So, if you look at the coming Suzuki Cup and the way the pitch conditions are significantly improved compared to before, and if you look at what we are planning going forward in the calendar, so long as we get a good solution, we will work out the best possible solution going forward. Then, we will be able to overcome the initial phase of negative

Page: 38

publicity.

I would say also that we will still continue to receive a lot of interests from sporting event organisers to do events in the National Stadium, and, in fact, more than we probably can cope, given the event schedule that we have for the National Stadium. Notwithstanding the impact of the first two matches where the pitch conditions were not ideal, there is still very strong interest by sport promoters everywhere in all the different sports, whether it is football or rugby, to have events anchored in our new Sports Hub.

10 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Transport whether sharing economy taxi applications such as Uber are a potential means to address peak hour taxi demand and the difficulty of getting a taxi during inclement weather and, if not, how does LTA plan to address the rise of such sharing economy enterprises.

Mdm Speaker, third party taxi booking applications provide commuters and taxi drivers with an additional means of making and accepting taxi bookings. They facilitate more efficient matching of taxis with commuters as they can source for available taxis from more than one taxi company. However, they do not increase the supply of taxis per se and, hence, will not help the situation if availability of supply is the constraint during peak hours and inclement weather. The taxi availability framework we introduced last year will still be necessary.

Third party taxi booking applications are currently allowed to operate in Singapore without regulation. However, to protect the safety and interests of commuters, some basic regulations may be required. LTA is currently studying this.

Madam, two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first is that the Minister for Transport recently spoke in Parliament about the piloting of a taxi information trial system to monitor the real time demand of taxis. Can I enquire if the sharing economy companies or the taxi application companies are part of this trial, as they would have collected quite a lot of data that can be instructive for LTA to better calibrate the number of taxis on the road, or to explore, potentially allowing private cars with the requisite insurance and safety requirements for the public, for example, to make up the shortfall of demand during peak hours in particular? Secondly, are there any plans to review the taxi quality of service standards in the light of third party taxi applications?

Mdm Speaker, in response to the Member's first question, the answer is, yes. We make use of all available data, including those that are available through

Page: 39

the taxi companies.

In response to his second question on whether there are plans to review the quality of service standards that taxi companies are currently required to meet, what Mr Pritam has highlighted is the fact that when we have these third party applications, it could affect the taxi companies' ability to fulfil those quality of service standards and it is, therefore, relevant for us to take a look at whether these third party applications impact the quality of service standards being met. So, we would take a look at the data first before coming to a decision.

11 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport since cars under the Off-Peak Car scheme are allowed on the road only after 7pm and most Electronic Road Pricing gantries stop charging motorists only after 8pm; (a) whether the Ministry will consider revising the free entry time for Malaysian cars into Singapore on weekdays to be after 7pm instead of the current 5pm to be in alignment with the current scheme for local vehicles; (b) why Malaysian cars entering Singapore on weekends are exempted from paying a fee; and (c) on average, how many Malaysian cars enter Singapore on weekdays and weekends during the past six months compared to a year ago.

Mdm Speaker, the Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP) fee aims to minimise the cost difference between owning and using a foreign-registered vehicle and a Singapore-registered vehicle here in Singapore. This framework, however, provides for VEP free hours and days such as during the weekends when the traffic on our roads is less heavy, so as not to unduly discourage foreigners from visiting Singapore.

Currently, about one in 10 foreign-registered cars entering Singapore needs to pay the VEP fee, or about 10% of them. The average daily number of foreign cars entering Singapore on weekdays and weekends is 10,900 and 12,100 respectively over the six months' period between April and September of this year. The corresponding figures for last year were 11,900 and 13,600 respectively. So, there has been a decline from last year to the same time period this year, and this is from April to September period.

I note the Member's suggestion on revising the VEP-free periods. We will consider this and we will also factor in the possibility of Malaysia implementing its proposed charge on non-Malaysia-registered vehicles entering Malaysia.

Page: 40

12 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Education what is the progress on creating more apprenticeship opportunities for ITE students to work in small and medium enterprises.

Mdm Speaker, ITE has strong links with industry players, including small and medium enterprises (SMEs). These partnerships have helped ensure that course curricula stay relevant and students have access to good opportunities for industry attachments and exposure.

Currently, SMEs make up more than 60% of ITE's host companies for internships and traineeships and host almost 40% of ITE students for their industrial attachments.

Following the Government's acceptance of the Applied Study in Polytechnics and ITE Review (ASPIRE) recommendations, MOE and WDA have been working together on new place-and-train programmes for our Polytechnic and ITE graduates that integrate study and work, to be launched by 2016 as earlier announced. This is being done in partnership with many economic and regulatory agencies, including SPRING Singapore.

Where feasible, we will leverage on existing schemes and funding support for employers to implement these place-and-train programmes, including SPRING Singapore's SME Talent Programme.

Thank you, Minister, for the comprehensive reply. Many Singaporeans are very proud of the various ITE where campuses are with air-conditioning. The reality is that some SME jobs do not provide an air-conditioned environment, including those in the oil and gas industry, construction industry and even repair and maintenance of MRT trains and tracks. So, ITE graduates working in the oil and gas industry also need to get used to the smell of the gasoline.

As a result, quite a number of ITE graduates in the technical field refuse to work in a non-air-conditioned environment and they choose to work in the IR, for example. I have these supplementary questions. How could MOE provide a realistic environment in the beautiful ITE campuses so that the graduates would not react in shock when they attend a workplace which is non-air-conditioned? And does MOE track the number of ITE graduates in the technical field who do not remain in this field?

I thank Mr Ang for his questions. First, on whether every part of ITE is air-conditioned, in fact, Senior Minister of State Indranee and I on our recent visit to ITE Central tried our hands in being aircraft technicians. We were in full suits; we were doing

Page: 41

the work. I assure you that that was not in an air-conditioned environment.

But I think the more important question is, what would encourage our students to continue to go into an area which they have been trained for? And this is exactly what the ASPIRE Committee sought to do. The recommendations of the ASPIRE Committee are wide-ranging, building structured internship, better educational and career guidance and working with companies to ensure that the jobs have the significant skills ladder and career ladder, that will encourage our students to invest their time and energy to enter those jobs and build skills. I think those are the issues that we need to tackle, not whether it is air-conditioned or non-air-conditioned.

13 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, how many Singaporeans have benefited from the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS); and (b) how much in dollar terms have been spent on CHAS.

14 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Health since the introduction of CHAS (a) what is the amount that has been disbursed to private doctors as subsidies for patients; (b) how does the Ministry prevent abuses by doctors who increase their fees artificially; and (c) what enforcement actions have been taken and what are the penalties meted out against errant doctors.

Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take both Question Nos 13 and 14 together?

Yes, please.

There are currently around 850,000 Singaporeans on the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) Blue and Orange tiers. Since 1 September 2014, members of the Pioneer Generation (PG) are also able to benefit from special CHAS subsidy. Taking this into account, around 1.1 million Singaporeans can now benefit from the scheme.

In 2013, the Government gave out $31 million in CHAS subsidies to 145,000 Singaporeans. In the first eight months of 2014, $42 million in CHAS subsidies have been given out, benefiting some 260,000 Singaporeans.

Prices charged differ depending on various factors, including the medical condition, treatment provided, medications prescribed, length of consult as well as the operating costs

Page: 42

of the clinics. The vast majority of our doctors do observe the Singapore Medical Council's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines, which state that doctors cannot abuse the doctor-patient relationship for personal gain. MOH also closely monitors CHAS claims submitted by clinics. Clinics have been, and will continue to be, called upon to account for any exceptional claims.

We encourage clinics to display their common charges, such as consultation fees prominently, and to address any concerns that patients may have. This will make the charges more transparent to their patients. We also encourage patients to clarify with their doctors, if they have any queries on their treatment and charges.

Thank you, Madam, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. If I heard correctly, there are about one million Singaporeans who are eligible for the CHAS scheme, but only about 300,000 have signed up for the scheme. Can I get a clarification from the Senior Minister of State? If so, what can be done to ensure that the other 700,000 or so Singaporeans who are eligible will eventually sign up for the scheme?

My second supplementary question is: can signing up for CHAS be made easier for Singaporeans? And the last question is whether CHAS will eventually be extended to include all GPs because, currently, I think some GP clinics are still not under CHAS.

As I have stated, as at September, some 1.1 million Singaporeans are on CHAS Blue and Orange Cards, or if they are Pioneers, they will enjoy the special CHAS subsidies. Indeed, not all Singaporeans who are eligible are on CHAS. The reason why we need them to step up to apply for CHAS is because we need the household membership data, as well as consent for us to obtain income information on the backend to process their application.

AIC, together with MOH, is working with the grassroots, HDB, VWOs and other organisations to try and target our outreach particularly to the low- and middle-income Singaporeans to get them on CHAS. Regarding GPs, we are also working to get GPs on CHAS. In fact, the number of GPs, as at September, is more than 1,200 now, both dental as well as CHAS GP clinics and we will continue to work on getting more of them on CHAS.

Mr Baey Yam Keng, make it short as we are running out of time.

Thank you, Madam. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State: we will track the claims, but I understand CHAS has a cap per claim. So, is the Senior Minister of State saying that the Ministry will check the total bill of each claim in

Page: 43

order to ascertain that doctors do not overcharge?

My last question is this. I know of some GPs who, in the past, waived certain fees or charged lower fees for those low-income families. But given, now, with this subsidy, they may then revert to the market rate. So, how would the Ministry treat such cases? Is it overcharging or is it acceptable?

I note the Member's concerns about overcharging. Let me say that, currently, what AIC does is to engage and counsel those selected clinics which have been highlighted by the public on their charging practices. We also objectively monitor and analyse the claims submitted by the CHAS clinics, looking at the bill size claims, whether they are large bills consistently, say, top five for the common claims, as well as whether there are large bill size increases over time, and whether there are any unfavourable audit findings for CHAS audits, as well as for Medisave audits.

Proactively, we will engage these clinics which may have potential overcharging behaviour, even if there are no complaints received from the patients. In addition, there is actually an audit framework for CHAS clinics. So, they have to abide by certain CHAS guidelines and, again, the audit team will go down to audit these clinics on a quarterly basis, and if there are exceptionally high bills, we will, again, engage and counsel them. We are also engaging the large medical groups to ask them to publish on their websites typical bill charges for common treatments, for instance, just consultation fees and, in future, perhaps the total bill, including medications. We are encouraging clinics to get on this scheme, publicise it, prominently display their charges and, of course, to address any concerns with their patients.

We also want to encourage Singaporeans to actually engage the doctors if they do have any concerns regarding charges. Let me again reiterate that, actually, most doctors on this scheme have done it with the right spirit and they have done the right thing, in terms of making primary care more affordable and accessible to Singaporeans through the GPs in the private sector and most of them have the highest standard of profession. But we will continue to monitor this situation and, if we need to refine our audit as well as escalation framework, we will do so to address such concerns.

Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 15-16, 19-25, 28-30 and 32 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix (Pg xxx). Question Nos 17-

Page: 44

18, 26-27 and 31 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 5 November 2014.]

Page: 45

Mdm Speaker, I beg leave to make a clarification.

Yes, please.

Madam, I thank you for the opportunity to make a clarification on the Pioneer Generation Fund Bill that was passed yesterday in Parliament without amendment. During the Second Reading, Ms Chia Yong Yong told the House she wished to move an amendment to clause 3 of the Bill on the "Purpose of Act". She suggested removing the phrase "them who are now elderly and are or may be in need of", and replacing it with the word "Pioneers" so that there was no confusion whether the benefits of the Pioneer Generation Package need to be means-tested.

Members will recall that in response to Ms Chia's speech and proposal, I had made clear that the Government would not be applying means-testing to the Pioneer Generation Package. Following my clarifications, the House did not agree to her proposed amendments, most likely also due to its very short notice which meant that there was no time to consider its substance and possible implications. Likewise, MOF needed to consider the proposal, given the importance of the Bill, and, as I said in Parliament yesterday, we would do so and, if necessary, introduce a Notice of Amendment.

We have taken a look at the Bill in the short time since and agree that we should refine clause 3 to better convey the intent of the Pioneer Generation Package and avoid any doubt that the Fund could become restricted to providing relief to only the financially needy. We will formulate this amendment and bring it to Parliament when it is opportune to do so, most likely, together with a Bill of an appropriate nature.

Once again, I thank Ms Chia for her thoughtful suggestion and support of the Bill.

Page: 46

[(proc text) "to repeal and re-enact the Pawnbrokers Act (Chapter 222 of the 1994 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah); 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) "to provide for the regulation of operators of dormitories for foreign employees and for matters connected with or incidental to that", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Manpower (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

Page: 47

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

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

The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, which I will refer to as the "Constitution Bill", seeks to amend the Constitution in five aspects.

First, to create two new judicial appointments, namely, the International Judges and Senior Judges; second, to introduce a gratuity plan for future holders of judicial and statutory appointments in place of pensions; third, to create the office of the Deputy Attorney-General (DAG); fourth, to amend the composition of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights; and, fifth, to reflect the change of name to "GIC Pte Ltd".

Mdm Speaker, before I discuss the amendments, I would like to point out that some of the amendments in the Constitution Bill are related to subsequent items in the Order Paper, as follows.

First, the appointment of International Judges is one part of the legislative amendments introduced to establish the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC).

Other SICC-related amendments are found in the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill 2014 and the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill 2014.

Second, the introduction of a gratuity plan to replace pensions is related to the amendments in the Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill 2014.

Third, the creation of the office of the DAG is related to the amendments in the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments – Deputy Attorney-General) Bill 2014.

I will deal with each of the amendments in turn. I will start with the appointment of International Judges.

Page: 48

Our vision is to become the leading dispute resolution hub in the region. There are significant opportunities arising from the increase in the number of cross-border transactions and disputes in Asia. This increase is a result of the tremendous growth in the volume of trade, business, investment and finance in Asia in recent years.

On trade, a study by the Asian Development Bank suggests that Asia could account for half of the world's GDP, trade and investment by 2050. Last year, the ASEAN economies achieved a combined annual growth of 5%, compared to the estimated global growth rate of less than 3%. ASEAN is also working towards the ASEAN Economic Community to integrate and transform ASEAN into a single regional market with freer flows of goods, services, investment, skilled labour and capital.

Second, FDI into Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, known as the ASEAN 5, grew by 7% from US$120 billion in 2012 to US$128.4 billion in 2013. FDI inflows to Asia have grown by nearly 30% since 2009, reaching US$400 billion as of 2012. This accounts for 30% of global FDI flows.

In Southeast Asia, nearly US$1 trillion of infrastructure investment will be required until 2020 – the next six years. Likewise, India's infrastructure sector potential is estimated to require US$1 trillion in funding from 2012 to 2017. With these opportunities and growth in the region, the number and complexity of cross-border disputes will probably increase exponentially. The need for reliable dispute resolution services will increase. This is a need that we are well-placed to meet. There are three parts to our strategy to become one of the world's leading dispute resolution hubs.

First, international arbitration. For a few years now, we have focused on developing our international arbitration services. Our efforts have yielded excellent results. Singapore is now the third most preferred arbitration seat in the world. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is the fourth most preferred arbitral institution worldwide. This did not happen by chance.

Second, international commercial mediation. My Ministry has welcomed the recommendations of the International Commercial Mediation Working Group to develop Singapore into a centre for international commercial mediation. Two new mediation institutions, the Singapore International Mediation Centre and the Singapore International Mediation Institute will be set up. We are also looking at introducing a legislative framework for mediation. The SICC represents the third part of our strategy that will enable us to provide a full suite of dispute resolution services.

Page: 49

In May 2013, a Committee co-chaired by then Judge of Appeal, VK Rajah, and Senior Minister of State for Law and Education, Ms Indranee Rajah, was appointed to study the viability of developing a framework for the establishment of the SICC. It comprised international and local members to provide a wide range of expertise and views. The Committee submitted its report to my Ministry at the end of last year. We conducted a public consultation on the report, and the feedback received was generally supportive of the initiative. We also conducted a subsequent public consultation on the Bills to put in place the legislative framework for establishing the SICC. The feedback received was taken into consideration in finalising the Bills. So, there were two consultations, one before the draft Bills and one after.

The SICC, under the current framework, will be an international court with specialist jurists hearing international commercial disputes. We want the SICC to hear disputes governed by foreign law as well. The SICC will complement existing arbitration services and broaden the suite of dispute resolution options that are available to regional as well as international parties. It will attract parties who would not otherwise have come to Singapore to have their disputes resolved here. The key objectives are to grow the legal sector by bringing offshore work into Singapore and that will, in turn, give our lawyers and law firms more opportunities to tap into Asia's growth. That process has taken place in the arbitration sector. So, even when the disputes have little or no connection to Singapore, Singapore lawyers will get involved the moment the arbitration is heard in Singapore.

How will the SICC seek to achieve these objectives? We have a strong reputation for good governance, low corruption, efficiency, rule of law and a trusted legal system. The brand name for Singapore is outstanding. Our neutrality is also an important factor which will help. Our Judiciary is highly regarded as being efficient, competent and honest. It is consistently ranked highly in international surveys. Our lawyers and law firms have developed a good reputation for providing high quality legal services.

We have the "Asian advantage" in that we understand Asian context and culture. This advantage is important as arbitration users have indicated that a personal connection to the city in which the arbitration is held is one of the main reasons for selecting the venue. Thirty-seven of the top 100 law firms in the world are present in Singapore. This further helps in what we have to offer in terms of legal services.

Parties involved in cross-border disputes rely on the courts in London or New York if they do not want to arbitrate and wish to have their disputes heard in a neutral court. There is presently no equivalent default court in Asia. Our intention is to become that default court. No other country provides this option. We want to be the first and we want to succeed. The SICC will be positioned as that Court to leverage on our strengths to become the neutral

Page: 50

forum of choice for court-based litigation in this part of the world.

The SICC will provide an excellent new platform for Singapore law firms and lawyers to gain international exposure and experience. They will have more opportunities to work on high-value, complex cross-border disputes. If we are able to successfully develop our international litigation and mediation spheres while maintaining our status as an arbitration hub, we will become the key centre for legal work in Asia. The legal sector will be a direct beneficiary.

The SICC will be established as a division of the High Court. This will enable its judgments to be enforceable as judgments of the Supreme Court of Singapore. The SICC will hear international commercial disputes, including those governed by foreign law, where the parties have agreed to use the SICC, or where the case is transferred from the High Court.

Proceedings will generally take place in open court, but parties will have the option to apply for the proceedings to be heard confidentially. Proceedings before the SICC will be heard before a single Judge, or three Judges.

Foreign lawyers will have to register to appear before the SICC and appeals from the SICC in certain situations to be prescribed in the Rules of Court. This will be covered in greater detail when I speak on the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill.

Local commercial cases will be primarily handled by local lawyers. Decisions of the SICC may be appealed to the Court of Appeal, although parties will be allowed to contractually exclude or limit this right of appeal.

Consistent with the international character of the SICC, parties may apply to exclude the application of Singapore's laws of evidence. Instead, as with arbitration, the Court may allow parties to choose to apply alternative rules of evidence which they may be more familiar with. This will help to make the SICC a more attractive option to foreign parties where the cases or disputes have little or no connection to Singapore.

I will now turn to the appointment of International Judges under the Constitution Bill. These will be persons who, in the opinion of the Chief Justice, have the necessary qualifications, experience and professional standing to be such a Judge.

The International Judges on the SICC's panel will, therefore, comprise eminent foreign jurists who will be able to hear disputes governed by foreign law. They will complement our Supreme Court Judges in hearing disputes at the SICC. The high quality of the Bench will be

Page: 51

a major point for foreign parties.

International Judges will be appointed by the President, if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister. The President may refuse to make an appointment of an International Judge.

An International Judge will be required to take the Oath of Office for International Judges before taking office. This is similar to the oath taken by other Judges, but it excludes a requirement to defend the Constitution.

An International Judge may be appointed for a specified period of time, or to hear and determine a specific case. The Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill 2014 provides that an International Judge may only sit in the SICC, and in appeals from the SICC. Where an International Judge is appointed for a specified period of time, the Chief Justice may, from time to time, require the International Judge to hear and determine any specific case or such classes of cases which the Chief Justice may specify.

Some of the Constitutional protections that are available to Judges of the Supreme Court will be extended to cover International Judges: an International Judge may resign, but may not be removed from office except in accordance with the procedure for removal set out in the Constitution. An International Judge's conduct may not be discussed in Parliament except on a substantive motion of which notice has been given by not less than one-quarter of the total number of the Members of Parliament.

The SICC will be the first court of its kind in Asia that caters to foreign parties and foreign laws. It will bring immense benefits to our legal community. And we hope to leverage on the success of our arbitration sector, and position the SICC as a complementary option that will enhance our ability to become the dispute resolution hub of Asia.

Mdm Speaker, I will now touch on the appointment of Senior Judges. These will be persons who were formerly Judges of the Supreme Court.

The objective of introducing the appointment of Senior Judges is to allow the Supreme Court to tap into the experience of the retired Judges. The process of appointing a Senior Judge is identical to that of an International Judge. The protections they enjoy are identical.

Likewise, a Senior Judge may be appointed for a specified period of time, or hear and determine a specific case. Where a Senior Judge is appointed for a specified period, he may hear and determine any specific case, or such classes of cases as the Chief Justice may specify. However, there is no provision for Parliament to limit the classes of cases that a Senior Judge

Page: 52

may hear.

A Senior Judge may sit in the High Court, the SICC, or, if the Chief Justice so requires, in the Court of Appeal. A Senior Judge will be required to take the same oath as that for the Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the Supreme Court.

We consulted the President on the appointment of International Judges and Senior Judges. The President is supportive of these amendments.

Mdm Speaker, I will now move on to the second set of amendments. These amendments introduce a gratuity plan which will replace the pensions for future judicial appointment holders, namely, the Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal and Judges of the High Court, and future statutory appointment holders, namely, the Attorney-General, Auditor-General and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.

These amendments arise from the Public Service Division's comprehensive review of the salary framework of judicial and statutory appointment holders last year. Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean had informed the House then that, amongst other changes, the pensions of these future judicial and statutory appointment holders will be replaced by a gratuity plan. Future judicial and statutory appointment holders who receive the plan will not be eligible for any pension benefits, including post-retirement medical benefits.

The Bill confers on the President the power to, on the advice of the Cabinet, make regulations to prescribe a gratuity plan for the statutory appointment holders. Similar powers will be conferred on the President to make regulations for the judicial appointment holders. This is provided for in item 4 of the Order Paper, the Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill 2014.

The regulations will set out how the gratuity will be computed, and the terms and conditions for payment. They will also provide a death gratuity to the dependants or estate of these judicial and statutory appointment holders, should these appointment holders die in service.

The provision of a death gratuity is a service benefit that is accorded to existing judicial and statutory appointment holders and all other public servants, should they die in service. The gratuities payable under the plan will be paid from the Consolidated Fund. This plan will apply only to future appointment holders. Current appointment holders will not be affected by this change. Overall, this set of amendments will make future appointment holders non-pensionable, like most public officers.

Page: 53

Mdm Speaker, I will now turn to the third set of amendments, to create the office of the Deputy Attorney-General (DAG). The Attorney-General (AG) performs numerous functions and bears numerous responsibilities. This office carries critical Constitutional responsibilities, namely, acting as the Government's legal adviser; and acting as the Public Prosecutor.

In addition, the AG is responsible for drafting Singapore's laws; and acts as Singapore's representative, both in actions by or against the Government, and in the international arena. The past few years have seen the volume and complexity of the work handled by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) grow enormously.

AGC estimates that the public sector's demand for legal advisory services from AGC has grown by more than a third between 2008 and last year. The effect of globalisation on enforcement and on policy development and implementation has introduced additional work and a new level of complexity.

There has been a fourfold increase in requests for attendance in international negotiations and dispute resolution, and a threefold increase in mutual legal assistance requests. It is, therefore, timely to introduce the office of the DAG, to assist the AG in the discharge of his functions and responsibilities.

The DAG will discharge such duties of the AG as the AG may assign. This may include assisting the AG to have oversight of the day-to-day administration of criminal justice. The DAG will be a constitutional appointment, and there may be one or more DAGs. A DAG will be accorded the status of a High Court Judge and conferred the same security of tenure as that of the Attorney-General. The remuneration and allowances of the DAG will be charged on the Consolidated Fund.

Creating the office of the DAG will enable AGC to have and retain, at its apex, individuals of the same standing and ability as our Judges. The creation of the office of the DAG will also require consequential amendments to various Acts to include mention of the DAG alongside the Solicitor-General. These are found in the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments – Deputy Attorney-General) Bill, which I will take the House through later.

The next set of amendments deals with the composition of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR). The PCMR's main functions are to draw attention to any legislation that contains differentiating measures and to consider and report on matters affecting persons of any racial or religious community in Singapore as may be referred to it by Parliament or the Government.

Page: 54

Presently, PCMR comprises a Chairman appointed for a period of three years, not more than 10 permanent members appointed for life, and not more than 10 other members appointed for a period of three years. The composition of the PCMR will be amended to remove the limit on the number of non-permanent members and to retain the cap of 10 permanent members and the aggregate cap of 20 members, apart from the Chairman.

The amendment ensures that the PCMR will continue to be representative of the major races and religious groups in Singapore. We consulted the President on the amendment to the composition of the PCMR and the President is supportive of this amendment.

Mdm Speaker, the last set of amendments is to Article 142(4) and the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. This is to reflect the change of name of the "Government of Singapore Investment Corporation Pte Ltd" to "GIC Pte Ltd". Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mdm Speaker, I speak in support of this Bill. I also declare my interest as a dispute resolution lawyer in private practice.

This Bill deals with the administration of justice and includes changes to the Judiciary and the Office of the Attorney-General. Some of these amendments are to pave the way for the Singapore International Commercial Court which will be set up.

I will deal with three new appointments created by this: namely, the Deputy Attorney-General, the Senior Judge and the International Judge. The appointment of the Deputy Attorney-General is set out in the new Article 35(8) to be inserted in the Constitution. The eligibility criterion is the same as that of the Attorney-General and he is empowered to carry out any duties of the Attorney-General assigned to him. The duties of the Attorney-General are broad and include advising the Government on legal matters and acting as the Chief Prosecutor.

The size and complexities of the Singapore Government have grown along with the growth of our economy over the years. Crimes are getting more complex, too, and the size of the Attorney-General's Chambers has grown correspondingly with the duties it has to cover. In this regard, I think it makes sense to have additional senior people who may assist the Attorney-General with his duties.

Page: 55

I know that there is scope for the appointment for multiple Deputy Attorney-Generals. I am interested to know how many Deputy Attorney-Generals it is envisioned that will be appointed, at least for starters, and whether each will have distinct duties. I am also interested to know whether this appointment will have any impact on the role of the Solicitor-General, who is, currently, the most senior person in the AGC after the Attorney-General.

The other interesting change is to the Judiciary: the position of Senior Judges being created to allow Judges, who have past the retirement age, to carry on sitting as Judge either for a fixed term or for a specific case. I welcome this development. Many Judges at their retirement age are still in very good health and have a wealth of experience. A good number carry on practices as highly regarded arbitrators. So, I think it would be a shame for the Judiciary to lose their expertise just because they hit the retirement age. The Senior Judges scheme allows us the ability to continue to tap on them.

The International Judge is also a new and rather unique creation. It is very unusual for a country to appoint a foreign qualified person as a Judge in its own national Courts. This provision is to support the Singapore International Commercial Court which will have the capability to hear cases governed by the laws of other countries. It makes sense to have these Judges, qualified in the relevant laws, to hear these cases.

This concept is similar to International Arbitration where a tribunal in Singapore can hear cases governed by the laws of other countries and issue an arbitration award. The SICC, in this sense, is like a hybrid between arbitration and litigation and I would expect that for any international commercial contract, parties that would otherwise have chosen litigation before the Singapore Courts can now choose the SICC instead, especially since this gives them the flexibility of having a Judge versed in foreign law.

I believe international arbitration still continues to have some advantages over the SICC, particularly in that international arbitration awards are likely to be easier to enforce under the UN conventions, whereas an SICC judgment would still be treated as a foreign judgment. However, the SICC enjoys the usual advantages of a court procedure over arbitration, with the added advantage that a suitably qualified foreign judge may be available.

One feature of these constitutional amendments that I find interesting is the idea that Judicial Commissioners, Senior Judges and International Judges may be appointed to hear specific cases under clause 8(5)(a) or to be appointed for a specified period. The idea of a judge being appointed for a specific case is quite unique and, in my view, eminently sensible. As the practice of law gets more and more specialised, there will be practitioners who have in-depth knowledge of specific areas and it would make sense for them to be tapped to hear

Page: 56

important cases that arise in those areas.

This provision essentially allows flexibility to tap a wide range of experience since it permits the tapping of retired judges, international judges and potentially any other lawyer as a Judicial Commissioner. I can see the benefits of this procedure being used widely since it gives tremendous flexibility to find the person suited for a particular case. Once again, this is common in arbitration.

I am not entirely sure if the purpose of this provision is for it to be used widely on a regular basis or for it to be used exceptionally. If the intention is for it to be used widely, then it might make sense to also, perhaps at a later date, review the appointment procedure which still currently involves the President, the Prime Minister and the consultation of the Chief Justice. So, if we are going to get judges to hear specific cases, a more streamlined procedure might be helpful in the administration of justice.

Overall, I welcome these changes. Singapore's legal system is already one of the most highly regarded in the world and, because it is respected by both developed and developing countries, we are a popular jurisdiction for international contracts and for dispute resolution. I believe these changes will improve our system even further and provide additional impetus for parties to use Singapore as a commercial hub.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party opposes the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. The Workers' Party is uncomfortable about the appointment of short-term Senior Judges who can be re-appointed after the age of 55. The renewal of these short-term positions is contingent on whether renewal is recommended by the Prime Minister and concurred by the President. The new Article 95(2) provides that a person who is 65 years of age or older may be appointed as the Chief Justice, a Judge of Appeal or a Judge of the High Court for a specified period. The Workers' Party is of the view that this weakens a concept critical to judicial independence, namely, the security of tenure.

According to the former Chief Justice, Mr Chan Sek Keong, "The freedom to choose one's government is a hallmark of democracy" and that the "governors and the governed must respect the law and all are equal before the law. But respect for and subjection to the law can only be sustained if a neutral institution exists to ensure that the law is respected and enforced against all. That institution, in all democracies, is the judiciary", and it is "the linchpin of a democratic society and the rule of law." Critically, the former Chief Justice notes, "The ability of the judiciary to fulfil such a role is by no means automatic or assured; this is

Page: 57

heavily contingent on it being an independent institution."

Mdm Speaker, these observations of the former Chief Justice appeared in a Singapore Academy of Law Journal article in 2010, titled "Securing and Maintaining the Independence of the Court in Judicial Proceedings." The former Chief Justice's thesis was that the independence of the judiciary hosted a theoretical and practical component.

The theoretical component noted that judicial independence can be secured by surrounding judges with a protective wall against pressure from political appointees, parliamentarians and pressure groups with specific agendas. This protective wall can be categorised according to what secures independence "to individual members of the judiciary and those that secure the independence of the Judiciary as an institution." According to the former Chief Justice, protection afforded by this wall gives the Judiciary the impetus to carry out its Constitutional role and gives judges unfettered freedom to adjudicate disputes without fear or favour and according to law.

What are the components of this protective wall for individual judges? They include lifelong security of tenure and remuneration, immunity from civil suits, adequate remuneration and pension rights.

What are the components of this wall for the judiciary as an institution? They include a fair process for judicial appointment, adequate funding and support for the Judiciary and respect and support for the Judiciary in general.

Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party is of the firm belief that this amendment to the Constitution offers the Government an opportunity to strengthen and reinforce the protective wall around the Judiciary to carry out its Constitutional role.

In accordance with our manifesto, the Workers' Party is of the view that the Constitution should be amended to extend the retirement age of Supreme Court Judges from 65 to 70 years, with no prospect of extension by the Government thereafter. While extensions and short-term appointments are administratively convenient, it is the Workers' Party view that they weaken the protective wall that upholds judicial independence.

Under the existing regime, which this Bill re-enacts, it is conceivable that a Judge past the retirement age may be retained by the Government because his or her judgments are "safe" ones and are acceptable to the Government, even as the Judiciary remains a separate Organ of State. While I am not suggesting that this has occurred, such judgments may well be read as a signal by other judges who have not reached their retirement age as a factor that may determine the prospects for future judicial employment past the statutory

Page: 58

retirement age or for a permanent appointment, in the case of Judicial Commissioners. Such a prospect could threaten to breach the protective wall upholding judicial independence and confidence in the Judiciary.

It is apposite to note, as the former Chief Justice did in his article, that there was also a practical component to judicial independence – namely, that each Judge must believe in and maintain the integrity that the judicial office requires of him or her and that no protective wall can maintain judicial independence should judges be unwilling or unable to exercise personal independence in discharging their duties and functions.

Mdm Speaker, we have a first-class Judiciary. There is no reason to doubt the integrity of our Judges. However, judicial independence as an institution may well take centre-stage and remain in the spotlight in the years to come as our polity becomes more plural and as our citizens turn to the court to adjudicate or clarify disputes covering administrative action and social norms. Before that happens, the Government would be well placed to institutionally strengthen the protective wall of judicial independence so that confidence in the Judiciary remains high. Relooking at the concept of security of tenure for Judges is a good place to start.

In fact, there are some signs that the Government is working to buttress the concept of judicial independence already. In the Prime Minister's speech to Legal Service Officers (LSOs) on 20 March 2014, it was announced that a separate track would be created for LSOs. While the structure of the Legal Service remains an integrated one – hence, retaining room for improvement – this change is nonetheless an improvement from the current situation where legal officers rotate between appointments in the State Courts as Magistrates and District Judges, and as Deputy Public Prosecutors in the Attorney-General's Chambers, heightening the prospects of a conflict of interest and a potential lack of judicial independence.

The creation of a separate judicial service at the State Court level is a better measure to guard against members of the Executive from influencing the career and advancement of Judges at the State Courts, since the judicial officers' career track will now be assessed by the Judicial Branch Personnel Board and not the Legal Branch Personnel Board. In effect, what this change, as announced by the Prime Minister, does is to play some small, but not imperceptible, part in strengthening the protective wall of judicial independence. Even if this may not be the stated intention of the Government, it ought to operate as such.

Mdm Speaker, this amendment to the Constitution would have been a good opportunity for the Government to address judicial independence with an acute focus on the future of the Judiciary in Singapore. To make it better and to reinforce that protective wall. Along with the prospective introduction of a judicial service at the State Courts, it would also have been an opportunity for the Government to address judicial independence globally,

Page: 59

across the courts in Singapore.

On the other changes proposed by the Bill, the Workers' Party does not object to the setting up of an International Commercial Court and the creation of the post of an International Judge as it is not envisaged to have direct ramifications on areas of sovereign domestic law which remains the domain of local judges and because it has the potential of making Singapore a key centre for legal work in Asia.

I have a clarification for the Minister about the Government's thinking behind the possible appointment of multiple Deputy Attorneys-General. The AGC already accommodates for the appointment of a Solicitor-General and a Second Solicitor-General. What additional work is the new Deputy Attorney-General or Deputy Attorneys-General anticipated to take on? Could not taxpayer money have been better utilised to strengthen the middle ranks of the Attorney-General's Chambers if a heavier workload is the reason for the creation of the office of one or more Deputy Attorneys-General?

Finally, I seek clarification from the Minister about the replacement of pensions with gratuities for Judges, members of the Public Service Commission, the Auditor-General and the Attorney-General, going forward.

Mdm Speaker, in 2012, when parliamentary pensions were abolished, Deputy Prime Minister Teo said that "the removal of pensions will further strengthen the principle of a clean wage and align the retirement scheme of office-holders and Members of Parliament to the Central Provident Fund system." There was no replacement of parliamentary pensions with any gratuity and rightfully so. Indeed, the concept of a clean wage goes hand-in-hand with good governance and transparency.

Furthermore, in reply to a Parliamentary Question in April 2013, Deputy Prime Minister Teo stated that for judicial and statutory appointment holders, the proposed gratuity plan is essentially of the same value as the pension and is taken into account in the overall salary levels when carrying out salary comparisons. It would, therefore, appear that there is a lack of consistency in the Government's approach towards the concept of a clean wage, if, indeed, a gratuity is seen to replace a pension.

In principle, because of the competitive salaries already received by civil servants, I seek the Minister's clarification about the current rationale behind paying certain civil servants a gratuity and why it would it not have been just simpler and more consistent to have a clean wage. Mdm Speaker, I oppose the Bill.

Page: 60

Madam, I will focus my speech on the amendments relating to the Supreme Court. These amendments appear innocuous but, in fact, seriously impact some fundamental aspects of judicial power and judicial independence in Singapore.

Our Westminster system of governance separates state power into three functional and sovereign domains – the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. And as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the final interpreters of the Constitution are the courts. To ensure that they decide without fear or favour, judicial independence is ensured through security of tenure and remuneration. Article 98 of the Constitution provides that a judge shall hold office till he reaches 65 years of age and he cannot be removed from office except under very limited circumstances of misbehaviour or ill-health. Neither can a Judge's remuneration and other terms of office be altered to his disadvantage after his appointment. These safeguards are designed to ensure neither of the other two branches of Government can influence our Judges.

Even before this Bill came before the House, the Constitution already had two Judicial Offices that are exceptions in this sense: contract Judges and Judicial Commissioners. The current Article 94(3) provides for the appointment of Chief Justice and other Judges beyond their retirement age of 65, while Article 94(4) provides for the appointment of Judicial Commissioners. More worrying is Article 94(5) which empowers the President to appoint a person qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court to be a Judicial Commissioner to hear and determine a specified case only. These provisions leave Judges and Judicial Commissioners open to possible interference by the other two branches of Government.

Thankfully, this has not happened. But there is no guarantee that it will never happen. We should remove this risk. Instead, the present Bill re-organises and re-enacts these problematic provisions and even creates a new term of Senior Judges for Judges appointed on contracts beyond the retirement age.

Madam, the Workers' Party is opposed to such temporary Judges. These Judges are appointed for short terms, and whether they get their contracts renewed would depend on whether the renewal is recommended by the Prime Minister and concurred with by the President. The uncertainty of the appointment also carries a risk that short-term Judges would be wary of making decisions that put the Government or ruling-party politicians in a bad light and might make safe decisions so as not to jeopardise their reappointment. I am not saying that this has in fact happened, nor am I impugning the integrity of the President or the Prime Minister. But if we are to improve the design of our constitutional institutions for the long term, these provisions do not help instil the highest public confidence in the

Page: 61

independence of the Courts.

One aspect of the Bill that we have no issue with is the creation of International Judges. Though these are also short-term appointments, the International Judges will sit only in the new Singapore International Commercial Court and their expertise may be necessary to boost SICC's standing and to encourage parties overseas to submit their disputes to the SICC for decision. As these International Judges will only hear disputes of an international commercial nature, the risk of such judges worrying about not being reappointed due to the judgments they deliver is, in my view, negligible. However, the continued policy of having Singaporean Judges on short terms, or even to hear particular cases, is not acceptable to us.

However, one issue that Singapore has faced is that many of our Judges, upon reaching 65 years, still have much to contribute on the Bench. They are a wasted resource if forced to retire at age 65. To be fair, 65 years as a compulsory retirement age for a Judge is very early, considering that Singaporeans are living much longer and we are already encouraging people, in general, to work till 67. In other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, Judges retire at age 70. In the United States' Supreme Court, Judges are appointed for life and many of them are still issuing very lucid judgments well into their 80s. It is timely to relook at whether the Constitution should be amended to postpone the retirement age of our Supreme Court Judges from the current 65 years to, say, 70 years, so that the country can continue to benefit from their rich experience and wisdom.

Madam, as far as the other aspects of the Bill are concerned, my colleague Mr Pritam Singh has sought some clarifications about the post of Deputy Attorney-General and the gratuity scheme. I wish to reiterate again that we have no objections to the set-up of the Singapore International Commercial Court and to the creation of the post of International Judges, as proposed in the Bill. However, we have grave concerns and object to the re-enactment and further entrenchment of Singapore Judges of temporary nature, either Judicial Commissioners, Senior Judges or the Chief Justice. Because of these concerns which are fundamental in nature, the Workers' Party opposes the Constitution amendment Bill.

Mdm Speaker, the Constitution is the supreme law of our country. It contains various provisions delineating the powers and functions of the various Organs of State, including the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The provisions of the Constitution may only be amended by the votes of two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament. Hence, any amendments to the Constitution should be scrutinised carefully to ensure that such amendments are, indeed, necessary and

Page: 62

required.

Looking at the Bill before the House today, I would like to seek the following clarifications from the Minister.

The Attorney-General's Chambers recently announced some organisational changes to its own internal structure. There are now three divisions with different senior AGC officers appointed to helm the divisions. We have the Financial and Technology Crime Division, the Criminal Justice Division and the Legislation Division. In addition, we have, currently, the Solicitor-General, Mr Lionel Yee, who is a former Judicial Commissioner.

If the AGC is able to organise itself internally, why is there a need to have the appointment of Deputy Attorney-General institutionalised into the Constitution? I recognise the Bill states the intent for the Deputy Attorney-General to perform such duties of the Attorney-General as may be assigned to him or her by the Attorney-General. But is there really a need for such an office to be specifically provided for and protected under the Constitution? Surely, the Attorney-General can appoint a Deputy Attorney-General within the ambit of the office of the AGC without the need to amend the Constitution. Perhaps, the Minister can clarify on the role of the Solicitor-General as well.

Next, it is a fundamental principle of the Constitution that the Judiciary is independent so that the Government will not be able to influence any decision of the Judiciary.

Clause 8 of the Bill amends Article 95 of the Constitution to provide for the appointment of a Judicial Commissioner, a Senior Judge and an International Judge of the Supreme Court. Article 95(5) provides that the Judicial Commissioner, a Senior Judge or an International Judge of the Supreme Court may be appointed for a specified period only.

I would like to seek the assurance of the Minister as to the intent of such a provision. We should not depart from the fundamental principle that Judges should have security of tenure so that they can exercise their judicial independence without fear that their tenure of office will be affected. I acknowledge that in the appointment of a Senior Judge, the Prime Minister must consult the Chief Justice who will give his input as to the appointment. I also recognise that a Senior Judge is expected to be a person who had ceased to be a Judge of the Supreme Court. So, perhaps, the Minister could clarify as to the intent of the limited term of appointment.

Finally, may I ask the Minister whether the usual qualifications of a Judge under Article 96 of the Constitution would apply to the appointment of an International Judge of the Supreme Court? Whilst I applaud the intent of MinLaw to promote Singapore as a leading

Page: 63

venue for dispute resolution, I certainly hope that we will allow sufficient opportunity for our local senior lawyers, Senior Counsels, retired Judges to be also considered for appointment as an International Judge of the Supreme Court. We should be mindful about appointing foreign senior lawyers as International Judges of the Supreme Court without giving proper consideration as to whether any of our own local lawyers or retired Judges would be suitable.

Perhaps Minister can also share some details as to what class of cases is likely to be heard and determined by such International Judges of the Supreme Court. I will speak more about the gratuity payable to judicial officers at the Second Reading of the Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill. Subject to the above clarifications, I support the proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. This Bill seeks, among other things, to create the office of Senior Judges and International Judges for our Supreme Court.

The backdrop for these changes is the innovative introduction of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC). This is going to be a new division of the Supreme Court designed to hear international cases, that is, disputes with little or no connection to Singapore other than the parties choosing to litigate here. If the SICC succeeds in its goal to attract international court based disputes, this will cement Singapore's position as a paramount centre for dispute resolution in nature; in the same way that London is the pre-eminent centre in Europe. It will build on the success of our Singapore International Arbitration Centre and enhance the choices available to parties who have disputes to resolve. They can choose litigation, arbitration or even mediation, all in a neutral, modern and cosmopolitan setting, which is designed to make international entities feel they can get justice in Singapore.

The last point is vital. International users feel that they will get fair and equal treatment in Singapore even if they have no connections here. It is thus important that we do not overlook the "I" in SICC, which stands for international. Users must feel that this is an international court situated in Singapore, rather than a domestic forum with limited understanding of transnational issues. To that end, the Judges who hear these cases must not exclusively be Singaporeans, notwithstanding the deservedly high reputation of our Singapore Judges. It will assure the Singapore community and the international community if well-known jurists from other countries sit on occasion to hear such cases, as the SICC will benefit from the experience and knowledge of cases with international features. It will also send a strong signal that SICC is truly an international forum for the parties to litigate here

Page: 64

and the foreign counsels who argue their cases here and the foreign Judges who hear these arguments, together with our Singapore Judges.

It is thus a necessary and welcome step to permit the appointment of suitable persons who, in the words of the Bill, have the necessary qualifications, experience and professional standing to be International Judges. But can I ask the Minister to clarify these rather general criteria or, at least, specify the sort of qualifications and experience being looked for? Otherwise, it does seem a very wide brief to be given to the Chief Justice to recommend candidates for International Judges.

The appointment of International Judges will be for specific cases for specified periods, so there is little danger of creating a surfeit of Judges. On the contrary, the increased workload of the Supreme Court, if it starts to hear more international cases, will put a strain on our judicial resources. This is where the appointment of retired Judges as Senior Judges again or specific cases for specified periods will help to plug the gap. Our Judges have judicial tenure up to age 65, but many of them still have the energy and commitment to contribute to the legal landscape. It would be a great pity to lose the benefit of their collective wisdom and experience. The appointment of Senior Judges on an ad hoc basis is thus an efficient manner in which we tap on the qualities of our retired Judges.

It thus puzzles me to hear opposition from the Workers' Party to these changes, to argue that this weakens one of the pillars of the rule of law by undermining the security of tenure of Judges. We currently have security of tenure of Judges up to age 65. This Bill does not to seek to change that. In many countries which do have security of tenure, there are mandatory retirement ages. For instance, in the United Kingdom, there is a retirement age of 70. In United States, there is life-long tenure for Supreme Court Judges, but this has been criticised by many commentators as, in a sense, giving a Judge a licence to go on for longer than his shelf life. Currently, we do have the provision to extend Judges who reach the age of 65. One example is the ex-Chief Justice, whose sage words Mr Pritam Singh quoted. So, I fail to understand how appointing retired Judges for specific cases for specified periods in some way undermines the protective wall around the independence of our Judiciary.

Ms Sylvia Lim also thought that appointing Judges for short terms might have them worrying about being reappointed. But the Senior Judges we are talking about are retired High Court Judges. They are not short-term Judges. They have already been selected and appointed as High Court Judges and served a full career as a High Court Judge, with security of tenure up to age 65. To be able to tap on them, either for a specific period or specific cases, to me, is a cost-efficient way to be able to address shortages in judicial resources when the caseload of the High Court gets too heavy, and to be able to tap on their collective wisdom and qualities for specific cases. I do not see in that any danger that they will suddenly

Page: 65

become short-term in their thinking and this somehow undermines their independence.

So, far from breaching the protective wall around the independence of the Judiciary, I see these changes as strengthening our Judiciary and, thus, upholding the rule of law. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Minister Shanmugam.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members for supporting the Constitution Bill and will address the concerns that they have raised.

Mr Vikram Nair raised a query as to how many Deputy Attorneys-General will be appointed, at least at the start, and how this appointment impacts on the role of the Solicitor-General.

On the question as to how many DAGs will be appointed and what their duties will be, our intention is to largely leave this to the Attorney-General to determine according to the organisational needs of the Attorney-General's Chambers. At the beginning, we think there will be one.

How does the DAG interact vis-a-vis the Solicitor-General? The Solicitor-General will be the Permanent Secretary-equivalent for the Attorney-General's Chambers.

I thank Mr Nair for his suggestion that the appointment process for Judicial Commissioners, International Judges and Senior Judges could be made simpler. We will consider his suggestion. But this is what we think works now.

Let me now turn to Mr Lim Biow Chuan's comments. Mr Lim noted that the internal organisational changes in the Attorney-General's Chambers were made public recently and queried the need to make amendments to the Constitution to appoint the Deputy Attorney-General. The internal organisational changes are meant to streamline the internal processes. The amendments to the Constitution are required because the Deputy Attorney-General will enjoy the same security of tenure as the Attorney-General.

Mr Lim also made some comments in respect of the independence of Judges. I will take those comments when I deal with Ms Lim's and Mr Pritam Singh's comments.

Page: 66

I welcome Mr Alvin Yeo's points. As regards the discretion that is given to the Chief Justice on International Judges, the intention is that we want the Bench to be of an outstanding quality. It is difficult to prescribe, through legislation, who they are or where they will be from. But there are a number of checks and balances. It has ultimately got to be on the advice of the Prime Minister and agreed to by the President. And our intention is that this will be a Bench that will attract international work. If you do not appoint people of that quality, you simply would not get work. So, I think we have to look at how the process goes, but I take the point.

Moving to the points made by Ms Lim and Mr Singh, in a sense, their speeches relate to amendments which are not being made. It is not so much that they oppose the amendments that are being made. They are saying that this is an opportunity, since we are amending the Constitution, why do we not change parts to make sure that there is no possibility of appointing Judges or Judicial Commissioners for the short term. I take it that, specifically, and I heard them say that for the SICC and the related amendments, there are no objections. The objections are in relation to the appointment of Judicial Commissioners and Senior Judges, which is, in fact, a continuation of the existing practice, except that we are introducing the category of Senior Judges.

Now, let me take that at two levels. The first is the broader philosophical issue. Of course, security of tenure is important, and that relates to independence. We now guarantee Puisne Judges up to the age of 65. Should we make it absolute to age 70 or such other age and should we not make the practical adjustments that we have made in respect of having appointments like that of the Judicial Commissioners?

In an ideal world, that, I think, is an approach that should be considered and, fundamentally, we do not disagree. But the point is, you have to take the profession as you find it and then you have to try and fit the rules as best you can. If you are too theoretical or too dogmatic about this, in the end, you will not have the Judiciary that we have had with the outstanding reputation that it has. It has that reputation. It is highly ranked by the World Bank and other such institutions precisely because of the approach we have taken.

What is the balance between giving them security and the practicality? The practicality is that we have a small Bar, a small pool and an even smaller pool of talent of the quality to become High Court Judges and Chief Justices. If you approach a lawyer from the private sector, many of them – as Mr Lee Kuan Yew explained to this House long ago when he was dealing with Judicial Commissioners – have indicated and continue to indicate that they do not want the appointment as Puisne Judges immediately. They would rather come in as Judicial Commissioners (JCs) – take a short-term appointment, take it for three years and then decide whether they want to continue or whether they want to go back into practice.

Page: 67

Some have stayed, some have gone back.

If you do not give that flexibility and if you are like some other countries where perhaps you have 100 people who can become High Court Judges, yes, then you have a wealth of talent. But if you have very few, then you need to make that adjustment and we have, therefore, provided for the appointment of JCs which has worked very well. Outstanding Judges, some of them started out as JCs – Chan Sek Keong, for example, possibly the greatest jurist of his generation, decided he would stay on and then he became the Chief Justice.

In the context of the point made by Mr Singh about independence, I do not think anyone questioned his independence, even though he was renewed for short terms after he turned 65.

I do not disagree with the fundamental point. I am just saying that those fundamental points sometimes have to be leavened with a practicality of a small Bar, which is what we have. And it is a very small talent pool. So, really, what we should be looking at is appointment of persons of the right timbre. At the end, that is your best guarantee. And judgments are public – we have a highly educated public, they can look at the judgments and decide whether the Bench is or is not of the quality that we want.

Now, the other points, and I do want to emphasise, this is not really about the amendments we are making, it is about the amendments that they wish we were making. But I will deal with it in this broad way anyway. Two other points that were made by Mr Singh is, first of all, the Deputy Attorney-General – why? I think there was a gratuitous point about taxpayer's money, the suggestion being that we are wasting taxpayer's money. Really, let us just be quite fair about this without being theatrical. Of course, the Attorney-General's Chambers is strengthening its middle sector. It has expanded substantially in the last few years. It has taken on a lot of officers.

At the same time, the Attorney-General spoke with us and said that he felt the need for someone at the Deputy Attorney-General's level. We are people who take the views of our Chief Justice and Attorney-General very seriously. How does he interact vis-a-vis the Solicitor-General? The Deputy Attorney-General will be the equivalent of a High Court Judge and that is why we are making the Constitutional amendments. He will be between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. And the Attorney-General needs a person of the calibre of a High Court Judge who is constitutionally protected and has his salary paid from the Consolidated Fund, to do the duties that the Attorney-General may give to him to do to help the Attorney-General manage AGC. There is a need for that, and also to deal with a substantial increase in other aspects of work, including criminal work.

Page: 68

Now, as regards clean wage, there is no inconsistency at all in the position that is being taken. Deputy Prime Minister Teo said to this House that the Judges' salaries were at about the right level, as determined by the committee that was appointed. He said last year that the outcome of the PSD's review was the appointment holders are paid at about the right level in order to recruit and retain persons of high ability, integrity and commitment to hold such key appointments, which included pensions. So, pensions were computed and that was part of the package.

Salaries of Judges were delinked from salaries of political officeholders. Political officeholders do not get pensions. But Judges continue to get pensions and we have been very careful. By way of a Constitutional amendment, for example, you could have removed pensions of current Judges, but we do not want to do that.

This amendment relates to future Judges who will be appointed and we want to move them from the pension system to a gratuity system. The main difference is two-fold. One, they will not get monthly payments; and, second, there will be no post-retirement medical benefits. They will get a lump sum at the end of their tenure. And that is the way that most of the Public Service has moved.

The amounts were at the right level. The way you quantify that amount, we are trying to make sure that it is consistent with the rest of the Public Service. And this is the opportunity to make the Constitutional amendments without impacting on the current Judges because we do not want any suggestion that we are making changes to their income in a way that is detrimental to them. We are being quite careful about the way we are making this amendment. I think I have dealt with the questions that have been raised. Thank you, Madam.

I have one clarification to make and two clarifications for Minister. First, the Minister mentioned that Mr Pritam Singh and myself were speaking more on the changes which we wish the Government was making rather than the changes that it is making. But the point is that in this Bill the Government does reorganise those provisions that allowed for temporary Judges so we have to take a stand on the Bill because of this.

Second, I would like to ask Minister whether I heard him correctly that he says that as a matter of principle, he does not disagree that having Judges of short tenure actually undermines the principle of judicial independence. I would like him to clarify because that was the sense which I have got from him.

Page: 69

And the second clarification for Minister is that he mentioned that we have a small Bar and the practical matter was that it may not be so easy to find people who are willing to take on the judicial appointment. But I do notice that in the current High Court Bench, for example, although many of them, if not most of them, started as JCs, quite a number of them continued on to be confirmed as Judges without taking a break at all to go back to practice. So, is it a question of just finding the people who see taking on judgeship as a vocation and are willing to go into it without thinking about practice?

I will deal with the two questions. The first is an observation which I do not think requires a response. Do I agree or did I say that, as a matter of principle, the short-term appointments undermine the principle of judicial independence? I think maybe Ms Lim and, perhaps, Mr Singh, will be the only two people in the House who might have gotten that impression. It is the very opposite of what I said.

What I was saying is that, as a matter of principle, I agree that we should try and look at giving security of tenure and, we do, for Puisne Judges, up to the age of 65. But you also make adjustments and, in the context of a small Bar, the difficulty of getting people and the need for people to come in for a short term and go off. You make your adjustments. It will not undermine judicial independence. Indeed, our Judiciary already has all these structures, and the only change that is being made here is the appointment of Senior Judges. Other than that, everything is the same. With all that existing structure of Judges after 65 being appointed for short terms, even the Chief Justice was reappointed – Chief Justice Yong Pung How and Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong had more than one short-term tenure extended a number of times. The independence of our Judiciary is something I do not think you challenge, I do not think anybody else challenges it, and we are very highly regarded and ranked. So, I believe that the current structure does not undermine the principle of judicial independence or integrity. And, indeed, we rank very highly. But I do agree also that, where possible, we should move towards greater security of tenure. So, there is a slight difference in emphasis.

As regards the third point – I am not quite sure. Can I ask Ms Lim to repeat the third point so that I can respond?

I was referring to Minister's earlier explanation that because we have a small Bar, there was a limited pool of people whom you could tap on. So, some people wanted to go back to practice after trying it out and so on. But what I was saying is that in the current Supreme Court Judiciary, I do note that, I think all of them started off as JCs, but some of them never took a break to go back to practice – as in, they probably went into the JC-ship, well, with the intention, hopefully, to make the Judiciary post a career in that sense.

Page: 70

Yes. I understand. By definition, those who became Judges obviously did not go back. That is why they remained as Judges. There are those who have left. And we believe that they contributed. We believe that having such a system where they come in for a two- or three-year appointment, and then let them make the choice, and also the Chief Justice sometimes will recommend that they are very good lawyers but they may not have the right judicial temperament. So, that has allowed us to have the flexibility, without really, I think, anyone questioning their independence or integrity. Therefore, we have not sought to change that system.

And up to now, I can tell Ms Lim that when practitioners are approached, often, their preference is to come in as Judicial Commissioners, and then decide. They often say to us, "We do not know whether this is something that we can do." It is not a question of aptitude. It is not a question of wanting to contribute. It is not a question of taking a salary cut. Even when they are prepared to do all that, they do not know whether they would be cut out for it. It is a very harsh isolated life and it is very hard work. So, combine the two, some people have told us they would prefer to go back. So, I think it has worked well. With the touchstone that, as far as possible, as our Bar increases in size, in depth, in quality, we should try and move towards greater rather than lesser security. With that caveat, I think, at this point in time, these changes would greatly enhance the reputation of our Judiciary. Thank you.

The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a division is taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament, which is 58 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.

[(proc text) After two minutes – (proc text)]

Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors. Before we proceed to start the electronic voting, Members are advised to read the voting instructions, which are found in the left compartment of your seats, where the ear-pieces are placed.

[(proc text) Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." (proc text)]

Take a division. Members may now begin to vote.

Are we involved?

Nominated Members of Parliament and Non-constituency Members of Parliament are not involved.

Page: 71

Page: 72

There are 68 "Ayes", seven "Noes", zero "Abstention". The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament.

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

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

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment. (proc text)]

Third Reading

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Madam. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a division is taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament, which is 58 Members. Clerk, ring the Division Bells.

[(proc text) After one minute – (proc text)]

Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

[(proc text) Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." (proc text)]

Take a Division. You may now begin to vote.

Page: 73

Page: 74

Yes, Mr de Souza.

Mdm Speaker, a point of clarification. I have voted "Yes" the first time round but it may not have been registered. So, I think I am the reason for the "extra" one. If I could be recorded as "Yes" for both the Second and Third Readings. Thank you.

So, you wish to be recorded "Yes" for both the votings?

Yes, indeed.

Mr de Souza, we do have a problem because you did not press "Present". So, our system did not record your vote. We have already announced the votes. We know that your heart and mind are on supporting it. It will be reflected in the proceedings but we cannot go back on the votes

Very well, Madam. Thank you. I did press "Present". I did. Thank you.

Yes, Ms Foo Mee Har, you have a problem, too?

Madam, I would like to be the witness that Mr de Souza pressed "Present" many times and pressed "Yes", and I tried to help him as well. I think we just want to put on record that he did take the necessary action. I think Madam may want to check the system. Thank you.

We have checked the system many times but we take your word for it and will reflect it in the notes of proceedings. Thank you.

There are 69 "Ayes", seven "Noes", zero "Abstention". The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament.

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

Page: 75

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

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

The Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill introduces amendments in two main areas: first, it establishes the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC); and, second, it refines the procedure for obtaining leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in civil proceedings.

I will take each set of amendments in turn. Mdm Speaker, I have touched on the rationale and general framework for the SICC during the debate on the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. I will, therefore, focus on the key features of the SICC that are found in this Bill.

This Bill establishes the SICC as a division of the High Court. The President of the SICC shall be the Chief Justice, unless he appoints a Judge of Appeal, a Judge of the High Court, a Senior Judge or an International Judge to be the President.

The SICC will have jurisdiction to hear cases that can be heard by the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction, and are international and commercial in nature. The Rules of Court will set out the types of cases that are considered international and commercial in nature. For certainty, potential parties will have the option of applying for a pre-action certificate to certify that the intended action is international and commercial in nature. The pre-action certificate may also certify such other matters as the Rules of Court may prescribe.

In addition, cases commenced in the SICC may be transferred to the High Court, and vice versa. This will enable cases which are more appropriately heard in the other Court to be transferred. The procedure and conditions for such transfer of cases will be set out in the Rules of Court. Proceedings in the SICC will be heard by either a single Judge or by three Judges. Where proceedings are heard by three Judges, the Chief Justice shall appoint one of the Judges to preside. The cases will be decided in accordance with the decision of the majority.

The SICC will have the same powers as the High Court, except the powers that the Family Division of the High Court exercises and it will also not have the power to make

Page: 76

prerogative orders.

The rules and procedure before the SICC will differ from those before the High Court in three broad areas. First, cases before the SICC will not be bound by the rules of evidence that are applicable under the Singapore law in such cases and to the extent as provided for in the Rules of Court. Second, the Rules of Court may provide for different procedures and practices to be followed in the SICC. Third, even where Singapore's laws of evidence are applicable, the SICC may allow any questions of foreign law to be determined on the basis of submissions, without requiring formal proof by experts.

The SICC's jurisdiction will generally be consensual. Parties who have voluntarily chosen to have their disputes adjudicated by the SICC are expected to comply with its orders without the need to resort to enforcement measures.

The Bill further provides that the parties to an agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of the SICC shall be considered to have agreed: (a) to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the SICC; (b) to carry out any SICC judgment without undue delay; and (c) to waive any recourse to any court or tribunal outside Singapore against any SICC judgment or the enforcement of such judgment. That is, unless the parties have expressly provided otherwise. Parties may also strengthen the enforceability of SICC judgments by including clauses in their jurisdiction agreements that will have the effect of waiving their rights to defend against an action based on an SICC judgment in any jurisdiction.

Mdm Speaker, I will now turn to the other amendments. The Supreme Court has suggested amendments to the Act such that it will enable the Court of Appeal to hear applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 34 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (SCJA) without compromising on its case management capabilities.

The Bill also introduces a new procedure for applications made to the Court of Appeal, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Such applications may be determined by two Judges of Appeal without the need to hear oral arguments. The Bill also introduces consequential amendments relating to the appointment of Senior Judges and International Judges of the Supreme Court. These amendments were discussed during the debate earlier.

The Bill also contains amendments to align the position for appeals from the High Court, other than the Family Division, with that for appeals from the Family Division of the High Court in family proceedings. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Page: 77

Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. I will deal with the provisions establishing the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC). Before that, I declare my interests as a lawyer practising in cross-border disputes.

The Bill represents a bold move towards cementing Singapore's position as a leading destination for international dispute resolution. The growth of cross-border investment and trade, particularly in Asia, heralds a corresponding increase in demand for first-rate, efficient and dependable dispute resolution mechanisms. That is the value proposition, the brand, Singapore is able to offer in Asia. More than a few Asian clients have told me that they regard the Singapore system as one which will give a fair, just and reasonably expedient outcome. And so if two or more parties from different Asian countries enter into a deal, they will likely want their disputes to be settled in a neutral environment, and with the assurance that the outcome will be determined on the merits of the case and on the merits alone. And we have seen the results of that confidence in Singapore. Singapore is today regarded as the leader in Asia for arbitration, and the number of new cases handled by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is increasing steadily. And this, as the Minister said in the last Bill, did not happen by luck or accident.

But not all disputes can be arbitrated, and there remains an opportunity to provide a platform for international parties to resolve their differences in a court setting. The establishment of the SICC is a bold and creative move to fill that gap. With our well-developed legal infrastructure and reputable judiciary, and also our willingness to allow experienced judges and practitioners from elsewhere to participate, the SICC represents a new way of thinking about international dispute resolution.

I would like to deal with several aspects of the Bill.

First, a large number of details concerning the SICC will be prescribed by subsidiary legislation, that is, they will be issued without scrutiny and debate in this House. This is no doubt understandable and warranted for technical details and procedural matters. For example, rules governing how questions of foreign law will be determined and rules governing court procedures and practices in the SICC are suitably dealt with by rules. However, I question why important and fundamental aspects of the SICC should not come directly under Parliament's purview.

One such aspect is the SICC's jurisdiction. This is governed by the proposed section18D, which sets out three conditions that must be fulfilled for the SICC to have jurisdiction over a dispute. First, the action must be international and commercial in nature. Second, the action

Page: 78

must be one that the High Court may hear and try in its original civil jurisdiction. And then we come to the third condition, which states that the action must satisfy "such other conditions as the Rules of Court may prescribe". Given that these three conditions must be fulfilled together in order for the SICC to have jurisdiction over the action, the conditions prescribed by the Rules of Court are pivotal.

Further, the new section 80(2A)(b) allows rules to be made to prescribe what constitutes "an action of an international and commercial nature". This should be contrasted with section 5(2) of the International Arbitration Act (Cap 134A) which specifically defines what an international arbitration is.

What this means is that Parliament has no direct control over a matter as fundamental as the SICC's jurisdiction. I would like to ask the Minister why this cannot be prescribed in the Act. And what are the definitions and conditions that will be prescribed by the Rules of Court that cannot be set out in the Bill? Section 18D can be contrasted with sections 15-22 of the SCJA, which sets out the jurisdiction of the Singapore High Court in a straightforward fashion. I understand the purpose is to allow flexibility. But there should be a balance between certainty and flexibility, particularly on fundamental issues like jurisdiction.

My second point concerns the pre-action certificate. This is governed by section 18E of the Bill. According to this provision, parties intending to bring an action in the SICC may apply for a pre-action certificate to state that the intended action is international and commercial in nature for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the SICC and that such matters as the Rules of Court prescribe had been satisfied. I understand the rationale is to ensure that only the proper cases are brought before the SICC. My concern is that it adds an extra layer to the process of making a claim to the SICC, and will have implications on time and costs, therefore making the SICC less attractive. The method prescribed by the Act is for parties to file an original summons – I know it is supposed to be heard on expedited basis, but could there have been a simpler way to get the pre-action certificate issued. And could the Minister elaborate on how this application will be expedited?

Third, I would like to comment on section 18J, which provides for the transfer of cases from the SICC to the High Court and vice versa. Again, the details governing such transfers will be set out in the Rules of Court. Nonetheless, cases properly brought before the High Court, may, without the consent of the parties, be transferred to the SICC. Such transfers may affect costs because the SICC fees may differ from High Court fees. Such transfers may also have an impact on certainty as the SICC Rules and practice directions will now govern the proceedings. Further, foreign rules of evidence may apply to the proceedings and foreign representation may be allowed. These factors may not have been contemplated by the parties when they first brought the dispute to the High Court. Therefore, I would like to

Page: 79

clarify the circumstances in which a transfer may be made.

My fourth point has to do with representation by foreign lawyers in the SICC. This is provided for by section 18M of the Bill. The provision states that a party to a case in the SICC may, in accordance with the Rules of Court, be represented by a foreign lawyer who has been registered under Part IVB of the Legal Profession Act. This implies that there are two pre-requisites for foreign representation: first, the Rules of Court must permit it; and secondly, the lawyer must be duly registered. Again, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister regarding the Rules. What are the conditions that must be satisfied before a party can be represented by a registered foreign lawyer? For example, will foreign representation be restricted to cases governed by foreign law?

My final point has to do with our goals for the SICC and this is a broader point. There is no doubt that there is great interest internationally in the SICC. I have lost count of the number of times foreign lawyers visiting Singapore have asked my colleagues and me about it. The simple question is this: how will we define its success? Does the Ministry have benchmarks it expects the SICC to meet, whether in terms of the number of cases, the value of disputes, the growth of the legal sector or even the direct or indirect revenues it generates for Singapore and Singapore businesses? In short, do we have a list of KPIs which we hope the SICC will meet?

Minister Shanmugam.

I thank Mr Hri Kumar for supporting the Bill. I will address the questions that he raised or at least try to address them. Mr Kumar's first concern is that a number of details and issues concerning the SICC will be set out under subsidiary legislation, for example, those relating to SICC's jurisdiction.

Section 18D provides three requirements to be satisfied before the SICC will have jurisdiction to hear any action. As Mr Kumar noted, the three requirements are cumulative. So, for SICC to have jurisdiction, it must first be an action that can be heard by the High Court under its original civil jurisdiction. Second, there is the additional requirement to show that the action is international and commercial. So, that circumscribes the nature of the cases. The Rules of Court cannot enlarge the jurisdiction of the SICC. It can refine it, it can define it, but it cannot enlarge what is set out in legislation.

Ultimately, Parliament, of course, has direct control over the ambit of SICC's jurisdiction. For example, if necessary, we can enact further laws. At this stage, we have not sought to

Page: 80

define it with too much precision, because the objective is to attract international and commercial cases to Singapore and we took the approach that flexibility is key and that is best achieved through putting it under the Rules of Court. The Rules Committee is chaired by the Chief Justice and includes the Attorney-General, Judges and Members of the Bar.

I will come back to the type of cases the SICC will hear, but let me first deal with the pre-action certificate question governed by section 18E of the Bill. This is an optional step for parties to take. It is not required, it is not essential, but sometimes parties do not want to start and then face an objection that the case is not appropriate. So, if you wanted to have a higher level of certainty, you will go and apply for the certificate. And because the SICC is new and untested, parties would be very uncertain as to whether it will or will not have jurisdiction, or how it will resolve threshold issues. They may not even be sure if their dispute is international or commercial in nature, which are jurisdictional requirements. So, we thought that it would be advantageous for parties to be able to apply for such a certificate in advance of the actual proceedings commencing. We considered other options, a number of options, and we spent a lot of time thinking about this. But in the end, we thought that allowing this pre-action certificate is the easiest and it will be certified by the Court.

The third point that Mr Kumar made relates to the Court's power to order a transfer of cases from the High Court to the SICC and vice versa. The rationale is to allow the cases to be heard in the Court which is more appropriate, rather than again trying to set it in stone upfront, and the Rules of Court again are expected to set out the detailed procedure for such transfers. Section 18J(3) contemplates the Court making consequential orders to address the procedural and other issues that Mr Kumar raises.

On the adoption of foreign rules of evidence and foreign representation, these are optional. Unless the parties make the necessary application, the status quo will prevail, which means the Singapore rules of evidence apply and parties will continue to be represented by local counsel. So, when can parties be represented by foreign lawyers in the SICC? We envisage a system of registration. They will have to register under the Legal Profession Act to appear in the SICC. There will be two types of registration – either a full registration or a restricted registration. I will deal with the requirements for registration in the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill. Basically, in essence, foreign lawyers will only be allowed to appear in cases defined in the Rules of Court. These could be cases which are governed by foreign laws or have no connection to Singapore, or Singapore law cases but with an element involving foreign law, and you want a foreign lawyer to come and argue that specific foreign law part. So, subject to that, for Singapore cases, it is not envisaged that they will come and argue.

If you look at the report of the SICC Committee, there can be situations where a case involves Singapore law but has no substantial connection to Singapore. Foreign parties, with

Page: 81

disputes arising overseas, but Singapore law has been chosen for some reason. In such situations, foreign counsel may be permitted to appear, but the objective is a very different one. It is to persuade parties to choose Singapore law as a choice of law, which will be beneficial for our legal industry.

Finally, on the question of how the success of the SICC will be defined, I think the data is important, like the number of cases filed and disposed, the values of the claims, which is very much the way we look at arbitration. Everyone knows it is a success now. I think it is not going to be possible to precisely track the direct and indirect economic benefits. But we have to define "success" at two levels: one, the number of cases and the type of claims that have come through; and, second, also, the intangible, which is how it positions us as a legal hub, as a place to go to in all of Asia. So, if you sit anywhere in the world and you think of a dispute resolution in the Courts, in a neutral forum, would you think of Singapore? That is what we want to try and achieve. To some extent, we are the only jurisdiction in Asia now that can even think of it. It is not going to be easy. It is not going to be achieved any time soon, but we have to try. And this is an attempt.

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

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

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

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

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 5.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.50 pm until 5.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.10 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Page: 82

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

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

The Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill contains two key sets of amendments, as follows. First, to provide for the registration of foreign lawyers who wish to appear and plead before the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), and second, to modernise and streamline Singapore's regulatory framework for lawyers and law practices. I will take each set of amendments in turn.

Mdm Speaker, earlier, I explained the rationale and structure of the SICC during the Second Reading of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill and the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill.

I also explained that foreign lawyers will have to register to appear and plead before the SICC, or to argue appeals from the SICC.

The Bill provides for two forms of registration. First, full registration, which allows a foreign lawyer to appear and act in proceedings before the SICC and appeals from the SICC in certain cases to be prescribed in subsidiary legislation, for example, where the case does not have a substantial connection with Singapore. Second, restricted registration, which allows a foreign lawyer to appear and act solely for the purposes of making submissions on matters of foreign law in the specific case permitted by the Court.

The foreign lawyer's registration may be cancelled in limited circumstances, for example, where he has been subject to disciplinary action in another jurisdiction. The Judge hearing the application will give the foreign lawyer a reasonable opportunity to be heard before making the order to cancel the registration. His decision is not appealable.

Foreign lawyers who are registered to appear before the SICC are subject to the oversight of the Supreme Court.

The Bill also introduces a framework for dealing with complaints on the professional conduct of lawyers registered with the SICC.

Under this framework, upon receipt of a complaint, the Chief Justice will appoint a complaints committee to hear and investigate the complaint. If the complaints committee

Page: 83