Hansard, Tuesday, 5 August 2014

1 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what is Singapore's position on the latest Gaza conflict that has seen massive Palestinian civilian casualties due to Israeli military action; (b) how does the Ministry plan to address concerns that the Government has not issued a strong enough statement on the violence against civilians; and (c) what are the Ministry's plans to communicate its position to the Muslim and non-Muslim population in Singapore to manage the divisiveness of the issue.

Mdm Speaker, the latest conflict in Gaza has harmed the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP). It has further made worse the already bad situation in the Middle East.

As with all conflicts, Singapore and the international community's primary concern has to be and is for the security and safety of innocent civilians from all sides.

This latest conflict in Gaza comes after the abduction and killing of three Israeli teenagers in June, as well as the abduction and killing of a Palestinian teenager in July. The killing of the three Israeli teenagers and the killing of the Palestinian teenager are heinous crimes.

MFA has strongly condemned the two terrible crimes and called for the perpetrators to be brought to justice. We have also urged the Israeli and Palestinian authorities to do everything possible to reduce tensions and protect the lives of innocent civilians.

Unfortunately, tensions between the two sides have escalated into an open conflict. Hamas has launched rocket attacks, numbering over 2,000 on a regular basis. On 8 July 2014, Israel started "Operation Protective Edge" to destroy the rocket-launching sites, the smuggling tunnels and munitions stockpiles to prevent attacks on Israel.

Page: 11

However, these attacks have also caused severe civilian casualties, which are rising quickly.

On 10 July 2014, MFA issued a statement expressing our deep concern over the escalating violence. We called on Israel to exercise maximum restraint and urged it to do its utmost to protect innocent civilian lives. We also called for the rocket attacks on Israel to cease immediately, and urged all sides to urgently find ways to de-escalate the situation and work towards a ceasefire.

On 15 July 2014, we welcomed and supported the Egyptian proposal for a ceasefire. We were encouraged by Israel and the Palestinian National Authority's acceptance of the proposal and we had hoped that Hamas would do the same. However, Hamas did not accept the Egyptian proposal and the violence continued. On 17 July 2014, Israeli defence forces began its land offensive into Gaza. MFA issued another statement stating that Singapore was seriously disturbed by the deteriorating situation in Gaza and expressed our strong support for the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's call for an immediate cessation of hostilities and for all parties to do their utmost to ensure the protection of civilians and that humanitarian assistance continued to reach all those in need.

We again urged all parties to work towards a lasting ceasefire. We reminded all parties that it was important to break the cycle of violence and that the focus had to be the safety and security of all innocent people affected by the conflict.

Unfortunately, the 72-hour humanitarian ceasefire, which was announced by the US and the United Nations, ended just a few hours after it started on Friday, 1 August 2014.

Regrettably, the conflict has raged on with more casualties on both sides. A new 72-hour humanitarian ceasefire is scheduled to begin today. We can only hope that this will hold. But even as I speak, we cannot be sure, given the recent history.

I would like to make some key points on what Singapore's position is.

First, the loss of many innocent lives, especially young children, is completely unacceptable. Many Palestinians have also been displaced from their homes.

Second, in this complex situation, both sides blame the other for what is happening. Israel says that it has to respond to Hamas launching thousands of rockets against Israel, some of which now reach Tel Aviv.

Page: 12

Nevertheless, there is the question of how Israel has responded. While we understand the legitimate right of Israel to self-defence, the rising Palestinian death toll – over a thousand killed so far, the majority of them civilians, including many women and children – is tragic and extremely distressing. It raises the question of whether Israel's response to the threat is proportionate. Whether or not this response is justified, we believe that Israel can and should do more to ensure that civilian casualties are minimised. Hamas in Gaza should also take maximum precautions to ensure that civilians are not put in harm's way. Unfortunately, Hamas' cynical approach has been the very opposite – to deliberately use civilians as shields. The rocket attacks on Israel should stop and Israel should stop its operations in Gaza.

Third, Singapore supports the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland under a two-state solution. And Israelis must also be able to live in enduring peace and security. Unfortunately, this is proving to be extremely difficult to realise. The situation is compounded by the fact that Hamas does not recognise Israel and calls for the destruction of Israel. The rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel have increased from previous attacks on Israel in 2009 and 2012, and now Israel's counter attack has caused significantly large casualties amongst the Palestinian population – including innocent civilians.

Fourth, only a negotiated settlement consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 242 can provide the basis for a viable, long-term solution. This has been Singapore's consistent position. Unfortunately, talks broke down in April despite the best efforts of the US. I believe that Israel can and should show full commitment to the two-state solution and comply with its international law obligations. And Hamas should stop its attacks on Israel.

Fifth, unless compromises are made by the parties involved, the cycle of violence will repeat itself over and over again.

We have made clear, in public, our position on the latest conflict. We have issued statements, which have referred to the actions of both parties. Both bear responsibility.

We all share a concern for the loss and suffering of innocent lives. Both Israel and Hamas should do their part to stop this violence.

We have joined the international community in urging restraint and supporting humanitarian efforts. Singaporeans have started donating and MUIS has been collecting funds at the mosques and the Singapore Red Cross Society and Mercy Relief have launched appeals for donations. Mercy Relief has announced that it has collected over $400,000. The Singapore Government has also pledged financial support in response to international efforts and is channelling the funds through the Singapore Red Cross. But, really, money is

Page: 13

not the key issue. If there is a stop to the violence, the international community will come forward very generously, including Singapore, to help. Money is not the issue; political will is.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for sharing with us Singapore's position on the conflict. First and foremost, our hearts and sympathies go out to the families on both sides who have been affected by the conflict, and the innocent lives lost.

My three supplementary questions are: first, whether Singapore would play a more proactive role in the UN to take a stronger position against Israel for using asymmetric force on civilians. In some quarters, they have classified this as a war crime. Second, what is our relationship with the Palestinian National Authority? How have we connected with them before, because there is a perception that we are taking sides in this case? Third, is the Singapore Government, in addition to what we have done so far – I mean, it is good to see us come up with some money to help the Singapore Red Cross and other initiatives around it – but do we have the intent to do more to provide humanitarian aid and medical help to Gaza, as we did for Afghanistan?

Can I understand the first question? Is it whether we can play a more proactive role? Taking a stronger position on Israel's actions?

[(proc text) The hon Member Mr Zaqy Mohamad indicated agreement. (proc text)]

Thank you. Let me deal, first, with our relationship with the Palestinian National Authority and what we do. We have maintained good relationships with the Palestinian National Authority. Mr Goh Chok Tong, when he was Senior Minister, had visited Palestine. And we have been supportive of the two-state solution and, consistent with that, we have tried to support the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people.

Last year, at the UN General Assembly, Singapore voted for all Palestinian-related resolutions. That is as public a support as you can get.

I personally met the Palestinian National Authority's Foreign Minister last year and we had a good exchange of views. We have also supported visits from the Ministers of the Palestinian National Authority to Singapore. Indeed, we financially support that.

Since 2013, we have been participating in the Conference on Cooperation among East Asian Countries for Palestinian Development (CEAPAD). During CEAPAD I in Tokyo last year, we announced Singapore's enhanced Technical Assistance Package for the Palestinian

Page: 14

National Authority, worth $5 million over five years, which is more than several of our regional countries have pledged. Under this package, we have received several delegations and study visits. The Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Masagos Zulkifli met the Palestinian National Authority's Prime Minister during CEAPAD II in Jakarta earlier this year. Mr Masagos encouraged the Prime Minister to send more Palestinians to Singapore under this package. We hope that they do so.

So, politically, materially and philosophically, we have been supportive of the Palestinian cause and we have made that very public.

As to the other two questions, whether the Singapore Government can do more and whether we can play a more proactive role, I think the way that I would look at this is that we got to get the facts right. In the Member's question, he said the killing of innocent civilians. If innocent civilians were targeted as a direct act, that would be a serious violation of international law and we believe that this should be pursued under the international fora.

Throughout the current conflict, the UN Secretary General has repeatedly called for an immediate and unconditional humanitarian ceasefire, the protection of civilians, respect for international humanitarian law, as well as the provision of urgently needed humanitarian assistance. We have strongly supported the Secretary General's calls. The Secretary General's calls were also reiterated in a statement made by the President of the UN Security Council, which called on the parties to get into a meaningful and durable ceasefire. But despite all these efforts by the international community and the US and other countries, the hostilities continue. Members have heard me talking about the different ceasefires. There are limits to what the UN can do. And, obviously, there are limits to what the US can do and what Singapore can do.

Look at what is happening in Syria. At least 180,000 people have been killed in the last two to three years. I think this is more than in the last 20 years in Palestine. There has been a limit to what the UN has been able to do

So, the international community can make statements and can try and bring some sense but, ultimately, it is going to require that the actors themselves to also want peace.

At the end of the day, the fact is, the Israelis and Hamas – and I say Hamas because there was not a single rocket from the West Bank which is under the control of the Palestinian National Authority, and there have been no attacks by Israel on West Bank – are responsible for what is happening in Gaza, and they have to exercise political will, and take concrete steps to bring an end to the conflict.

Page: 15

The Human Rights Council in Geneva has decided to establish an independent Commission of Inquiry to investigate all violations of international law, including violations of humanitarian laws. We say that all parties involved should cooperate in that inquiry. Let us hope that the latest 72-hour ceasefire holds and, hopefully, this will develop into something more.

Essentially, only a negotiated solution under UN Security Council Resolution 242 can provide the basis for a viable long-term solution. We have issued statements and made our positions public, and have been consistent with what the UN itself has asked. Both Singaporeans and the Government have come forward to make an offer of material help as well. But as I said earlier, it is not really an issue of money. It is, ultimately, a ceasefire holding. If a ceasefire holds, the international community, including Singapore and the man on the street in Singapore, will come forward very generously.

I think that, really, covers both your questions on the more proactive role and about Israel's actions and whether Singapore can do more.

I do not want to belabour the point, but can I ask the Minister, other than making statements, what is the strongest action that our Government can take to express our deep concern against the killing of innocent civilians? My second question is, under what circumstances would this action be taken, given the escalating and prolonged violence in Gaza?

I am not sure I am going to be able to add much to what I have already said. I think the first point is that, if indeed the facts are that it is a pure targeting of innocent civilians, that is completely unacceptable. It is an international crime. And we would support prosecution under international criminal laws.

There is, however, I suggest, a need to look at the facts carefully. I think the facts are that over 2,000 rockets have been launched into Israel by Hamas; and not a single rocket from the West Bank. As regards the killing of civilians, if I may quote what the President of the Palestinian National Authority Mahmoud Abbas said about what he feels about Hamas' tactics: "What are you trying to achieve by sending rockets?", he asks. "I do not like trading in Palestinian blood."

It is not really just speculation anymore that Hamas deliberately put its civilians in the line of fire. Let me quote Hamas' spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri who went on Gaza national TV and said that the human shield strategy has proven, quote, "very effective".

Page: 16

The rockets that Hamas fires into Israel rarely kill any civilian or cause any serious damage. They are launched from densely-populated areas, including hospitals and schools. They do not cause much damage, because of the preparations that Israel has taken, including the Iron Dome. But then, you would have to ask, "Why launch the rockets without causing any real damage to the other side, but inviting great damage to your own people and then putting your own civilians in the line of fire when the response comes?" Because Hamas knows that its cause is helped when Gazans die. If there is one thing that helps Hamas most, that gives it any legitimacy, it is dead civilians and rockets in schools.

The exploitation of dead children is completely unacceptable but, equally, we have made it clear that we believe that Israel's response is not proportionate. It is disproportionate. The rights and wrongs, we hope, will be investigated by the Human Rights Council.

But when we take the position that there is a targeting of innocent civilians, I think it is important to get the facts right. If – and I do not say that Israel has not targeted civilians – indeed, there is targeting of civilians, that is a serious international crime and should be punished. Equally, you must take into account what Hamas has been doing and Hamas' public admission that it is using civilians as a shield, which is why we said both sides bear responsibility.

I thank the Minister for his wide-ranging comments on what is inevitably a very difficult issue to come to terms with. Nonetheless, I welcome MFA's comments on 31 July 2014 that the shelling of the Jabalia Elementary Girls School in Gaza is unpardonable. But my concerns on these incidents in Gaza and Israel are, really, on the impact on Singapore and our regional situation.

The images that we see of the destruction of homes and schools, and the killing and suffering of children are things that all Southeast Asians are exposed to. Therein lies the fears of further self-radicalisation among the population in Singapore and in the region. In view of this danger, and in view of our deep relationship with Israel, does the Minister not think that we can perhaps send an even stronger message to Israel both publicly and privately that the conduct of its operations in Gaza is jeopardising the safety and security of its friends like Singapore?

I think there are probably the following points and Mr Singh will correct me if I am wrong. One, the impact of the images, including the possibility of self-radicalisation; and two, whether we are in a special position to give some messages to Israel; and three, what else we can do to protect the safety and security of Singaporeans.

Page: 17

[(proc text) The hon Member Mr Pritam Singh indicated agreement. (proc text)]

Thank you. On the first, the impact of the images, I think that is a serious issue. And concomitant effects on self-radicalisation, not just in Singapore and this region but elsewhere, it is a serious issue. And this issue is there, regardless of whether it is Palestine or whether it is Iraq. Members would know what is happening in Iraq and the new caliphate that has been announced and the killing of thousands of people by ISIL, and that has attracted converts from all around the world, some of whom are going back to their countries, and which intelligence agencies have assessed to be the single most serious threat to the security of various countries. We are going to be faced with that, just like others, even if we do not have recruits from Singapore going there.

What can we do about it? Very little, frankly. We can try to be safe and secure within Singapore, but how can we prevent self-radicalisation? We can try and monitor; we can try and persuade within Singapore, but do we have control over what is happening in the region, what access people get to images? All the images of the 180,000 people, mostly innocent civilians – women, children – who have been killed in Syria by both sides, including radical elements which are opposed to Mr Assad, and Mr Assad's troops. That is causing a lot of self-radicalisation, as is the Palestinian cause.

Our relationship with Israel is not any deeper than with many other countries. In fact, several other countries have much more leverage over Israel. We are a small country, far removed from Israel, and we have a good relationship with Israel as we have with the Palestinian National Authority and several other Arab countries, and many others.

The position we take on this issue is a principled one, which is, we abhor the violence. We say that both sides should stop it. We say, "Look at the facts". There is responsibility on the part of Hamas and there is responsibility on the part of Israel. We have gone public and, when we meet people, we give them our views. We must also be realistic as to what we can do. Neither Israel nor Hamas owes their living to Singapore. They have much bigger backers. And until and unless their backers are able to work with them, this situation will continue.

The Palestinians in Hamas, the world knows who backs them and who gives them material support. Until that stops, the attacks on Israel is not going to stop. And for Israel itself, there are countries which are in a much more influential position vis-a-vis Israel.

I think the answer to the third point on the safety and security of Singaporeans, I think I have answered it earlier but, basically, the fact is that in such an interconnected world, anything that happens anywhere in the world, almost, will have a serious impact on us. That is the reality.

Page: 18

2 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the Report of the Auditor-General for FY 2013/2014 on the Ministry's failure to detect under-payment of CPF contributions over a period of 10 years to a company's employees who performed National Service (a) whether the system for detection will be improved; (b) how will this be done; and (c) when will the new detection system be activated.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for his question. The CPF Board has several measures in place to ensure the timely and accurate payment of CPF contributions. This includes an automated system to detect late payments, as well as proactive audits on employers. CPF Board cannot carry out its audit exhaustively on each and every one of the 140,000 employers on a yearly basis. With every system that covers such a wide-ranging number of companies, what we do is we take a risk-based approach. We target our enforcement effort at higher risk industries and firms, and complement it with an investigation regime on complaints that are lodged by employees or whistle-blowers. Through this approach, in 2013, CPF Board recovered $420 million in late, under- and non-payment of CPF contributions for more than 250,000 workers.

CPF Board's audit checks include CPF contributions for NSmen's make-up pay. Among the reasons for underpayment or non-payment of CPF contributions, errors made on NSmen's make-up pay contributes a relatively small factor.

We do take the AGO's findings seriously. It is important that these findings are surfaced. CPF Board has strengthened its audit process to better detect employer CPF liabilities arising from NS make-up pay. It now further requires employers to declare which of their employees have gone for reservist training and provide supporting documents, including an acknowledgement from MINDEF, on the NS make-up pay amount.

CPF Board also works with MINDEF to educate and remind employers that they are required to make CPF contributions for the period that their employees are on NS training.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I just have one supplementary question, which is also more of a suggestion. I understand, for certain types of make-up pay, the NSmen get a notification telling them the amount paid, when it is going to be paid and so on. I was wondering whether the appropriate agencies will look into such a notification system for those who have smartphones or maybe through email alerts, so that the NSmen can be more aware when these things are paid. Of course, if the amounts are wrong or if there is no payment, then the NSmen will be aware of these lapses. I was wondering whether MOM could coordinate something to look into this form of

Page: 19

notification system.

Mdm Speaker, we will be quite happy to take on board any suggestion or approach that will help us to enhance the system.

3 Mr David Ong asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider allowing the use of Medisave for home-based healthcare delivery to the elderly sick which provides qualitative medical care and eases congestion at the hospitals.

With the ageing population, the need for home-based medical care has grown. Today, home-based intermediate and long-term care is subsidised at up to 80% for eligible patients to ensure that they are affordable.

It is important to ensure that Singaporeans have enough Medisave for hospitalisation and outpatient treatments, which are needed more frequently as one ages. Hence, extending Medisave use to home-based services needs to be selective, bearing in mind the Medisave adequacy of Singaporeans.

In 2010, Medisave was extended to home palliative care to help Singaporeans better afford the service. We have just announced that the lifetime limit for home palliative care will be raised from $1,500 to $2,500 per patient. Those with cancer and end-stage organ failure will have unlimited use of their own Medisave for such care.

Next year, MOH will be introducing Flexi-Medisave, where elderly patients will be able to use up to $200 per year for their outpatient treatment. MOH will continue to consider further flexibility for Medisave use, including for other types of home care services. But we will have to do this carefully, to avoid premature depletion of Medisave and ensure sufficient Medisave savings for healthcare expenses, especially during old age.

I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. I do urge the Ministry to reconsider a quick implementation of Medisave for home-based care. I think it is hard for caregivers to take special leave just to bring the elderly to the hospitals and clinics so as to get subsidised medicine and, of course, to use their Medisave.

Three quick supplementary questions: one is that the majority of home-based care providers in Singapore are private operators and that could mean home care can be pricey for some and that the standard of care can vary. My first question is whether the Ministry

Page: 20

has plans to streamline the quality and price of these service providers.

The second question is whether the Ministry can consider extending the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) to home-based care.

Finally, home-based hospice care and home palliative care share similar requirements of longer term care at home. Will the Ministry also consider the use of Medisave for home-based hospice care?

First, I would like to thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I think these are valid concerns, especially if someone is thinking of home care for their loved ones, as we are looking into expanding home care services to prepare for the future in view of an ageing population.

With regard to his first question, today there are actually 13 Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) and four private home care providers who are receiving funding to provide subsidised home medical, home nursing and home personal care. A client can receive up to 80% subsidy, depending on his means-tested income tier for such home care services. In fact, last year, the home care service providers actually supported about 5,000 patients for home care services.

To enhance and align the quality of home care services, MOH has worked with home care providers. In fact, we have set up a workgroup of home care providers to develop a set of home care developmental guidelines in order to help to enhance and align the quality of services and articulate the level of care expected of these homecare service providers. These home care guidelines include good practices to better enable them to coordinate care, enhance the quality of care, promote independence as well as encourage organisational excellence. The guidelines have been drafted and they are under consultation with stakeholders. We will finalise these guidelines at the end of the year. In fact, next year, we will embark on a quality improvement programme to help the home care providers adopt these guidelines.

As I have noted earlier, we are planning to expand home care services up to about 10,000 home healthcare places and 7,500 home personal care places by 2020.

In terms of pricing, over the last few years, we have actually enhanced the Intermediate and Long-Term Care (ILTC) subsidy framework that would include home care. We have raised the subsidy framework from the 50th percentile household income per capita to the 67th percentile household income per capita to cover more middle income households. In fact, in 2013, we have raised the income cut-off to $2,600 per capita per month in view of rising

Page: 21

income. We have also mainstreamed additional home care services, such as a home rehabilitation and home environment review services, since April of this year. So, that would also mean that a client will be eligible for subsidy if he has a need for these services.

With regard to the Member's second question on CHAS, today, if an elderly is home-bound and needs medical services, he can be referred to the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) or to an MOH-subvented home medical care provider. The client will then be eligible for subsidy for home medical service by a General Practitioner (GP) from the home medical provider, up to $133 in subsidy. If the elderly is not enrolled with a home medical care provider and the elderly needs ad hoc medical services, but the elderly is CHAS-registered, they could get CHAS subsidy from a CHAS-registered GP via a house visit, if that is required. The subsidy will be capped to the CHAS subsidy, which is up to $18.50 for common illnesses and $120 per visit for chronic illnesses.

Regarding the Member's third question about home hospice and home palliative care, we consider them as similar. It is just a matter of semantics, there is no difference. Therefore, home palliative or home hospice care is already eligible for Medisave. You can use Medisave for home palliative care.

I just have a quick question: would the Ministry consider expanding the qualifying criteria for, let us say, Medifund, for these services for those who are truly in financial need?

I think the philosophy would be that no one who needs such care will be deprived of the care, and if they are assessed to be in need, even after the subsidies they are not able to pay, firstly, many of these homecare service providers are VWOs and they do have charity dollars that they could apply to assist such patients. But if this is not available, we will look at how we can assist the patient.

4 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health in light of the Report of the Auditor-General for FY2013/14 on the Ministry's lapse in continuing to pay $64,000 in financial assistance to 99 people after their deaths, what measures have been taken to ensure that all financial transactions affecting the Ministry will be accurate and secure in the future.

MOH acknowledges the concerns raised by the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) with regard to the over-payment of $64,000 in relation to financial assistance given to Singaporeans under the Interim Disability Assistance Programme for the Elderly (IDAPE). The support given should have ceased upon

Page: 22

beneficiaries' death.

MOH has since 2002 engaged an external vendor to administer IDAPE. The errors arose mainly due to the administrators' migration of its IT processing system, resulting in the demised list not being updated in certain months. This has since been rectified. MOH has also required the administrator to make improvements in data processing to prevent similar errors from recurring. This includes system enhancements to trigger alerts when there are errors in data processing or uploading. MOH has also sought full reimbursement of the over-payments from the administrator, as provided for under the terms of the IDAPE contract.

MOH views all AGO findings seriously and instituted measures through changes in operating procedures or establishing new Standard Operating Procedures to ensure similar mistakes are prevented in future.

I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive reply. I have two related supplementary questions. The first is, I was hoping the Ministry could give us an idea of the quantity of services of a similar nature which are outsourced. Because I understand this lapse was due to the fact that it was handled by external agencies. So, the first is, perhaps, we could get an idea of the extent to which such types of services are outsourced. And number two, whether the Ministry is actively looking into ways of either reducing the amount of outsourcing that it is using or to maintain the same level, but looking at a more robust way of managing or surveying these outsourced services.

Madam, I do not have in my hand the exact quantity of outsourced services. If the Member is interested, he could file a separate Parliamentary Question and we could try to answer. But I would say that MOH outsources quite a lot of services, for example, hospital services actually are carried out by the corporatised restructured hospitals and the Government provides subvention in a similar way to an outsourced service. For nursing homes, for example, we have adopted a Build-Own-Lease (BOL) model, where we build the infrastructure but we outsource the operation to operators. So, we have quite extensive outsourcing activities.

I agree with the Member that we will continue to find ways to strengthen our outsourcing framework to ensure compliance and strengthen the governance so as to make sure that those who need help will get the help.

5 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Law in the past five years (a) how many Singaporeans borrowed from licensed moneylenders annually; (b) what was the average

Page: 23

loan amount for each borrower; and (c) what was the average age of the borrowers.

Mdm Speaker, we have data on the number of borrowers over the past two years. In 2012, 33,071 borrowers took loans from licensed moneylenders. This number was 34,370 in 2013. The Registry of Moneylenders does not maintain data on the nationality or age profile of the borrowers.

The total amounts borrowed in 2012 and 2013 were $346 million and $478 million respectively. The total number of loans taken in 2012 and 2013 was about 264,000 and 331,000 respectively. These include a small number of loans taken by companies. Thus, the average loan amount per loan taken in 2012 was about $1,300 and, in 2013, it was about $1,400.

Computing the average loan amount per borrower based on the data that we have may not adequately reflect a borrower's overall indebtedness to moneylenders because, for instance, some borrowers may have refinanced loans or taken new loans from different moneylenders to repay earlier loans during the course of the year.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Even though the age of the borrowers may not be available, I understand that the minimum age at the moment is 18 years old. Would the Ministry consider putting in the requirement that the minimum age to borrow from moneylenders is 21, in line with financial institutions, to deter younger borrowers from thinking that they can get easier loans from moneylenders rather than from the banks?

My second question is whether the Ministry would consider putting in the requirement to cap the interest rates for both secured and unsecured loans for borrowers whose annual income is above $30,000 because, currently, it is not capped.

Taking the second question first, I think the Member's question was whether or not we would cap the interest rates for those whose annual income is above $30,000. Currently, they are not capped because the thinking is this: those who earn above $30,000 would also have access to other types of credit from financial institutions. In other words, they have options and they are not necessarily driven to borrow from the registered moneylenders. That said, we are reviewing the issue of interest rates and caps. That is something which the Committee that has been set up to look at moneylending issues is looking at, so they can look at that.

Page: 24

The second question that the Member has raised is about the age. That is something we can ask the Committee to consider as well to see if it is a viable thing to do.

6 Ms Lee Li Lian asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry can expedite the installation of CCTVs at selected blocks of flats ahead of their scheduled installation, especially in places that have frequent Police reports of vandalism, robbery and loanshark activities.

(for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Mdm Speaker, as part of the Community Policing System, Police will install cameras at all 10,000 HDB blocks and multi-storey car parks. Since May 2012, a total of 18,000 Police Cameras have been installed in 3,300 HDB blocks and multi-storey car parks across all 16 Town Councils and the 87 wards that they cover. Installation of Police Cameras at the remaining HDB blocks and multi-storey car parks is on track for completion by 2016. Residents have welcomed this initiative and I would like to thank Members for supporting the installation of Police Cameras in your respective wards.

The selection of blocks and installation schedule takes into account a variety of factors, such as local crime trends, community feedback and recommendations from the Town Councils. The objective is to maximise the impact of Police Cameras to prevent, deter and detect crime. Police review the installation schedule regularly. Such reviews allow us to adjust the schedule in response to changes in the ground situations.

In addition to Police Cameras installed at the entry and exit points of HDB blocks and multi-storey car parks, the Community Policing System programme involves the setting up of the Community Policing Unit and the Crime Strike Force in the Neighbourhood Police Centres to enhance Police presence on the ground. The officers in these units partner the community on crime prevention projects as well as work closely with community groups, such as Citizens-on-Patrol and Neighbourhood Watch Groups, to keep our neighbourhoods safe and secure.

I thank the Minister for his reply. One supplementary question – will such CCTVs be also installed in new BTO flats? And if yes, will the Ministry consider working with MND to have them installed upon obtaining Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP) for these flats?

Madam, as I have said earlier, the intent is to have complete coverage of HDB blocks and multi-storey car parks within the scheduled timeframe. How in fact we execute this with respect to the construction of new flats is something that, again, will be

Page: 25

based on the factors that I have mentioned – community feedback, HDB and how their building programme will be affected, with recommendations from Town Councils as well. But if there are specific issues that the Member wishes to raise, she can do so through the Town Council which is the mode of engagement to the Police we have.

7 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Manpower how CPF LIFE can offer options for Singaporeans who wish to set aside larger sums than the Minimum Sum of S$155,000 in their CPF in order to secure higher monthly payouts of more than S$1,200 for retirement incomes that meet their respective needs.

Mdm Speaker, CPF members aged 55 today who set aside their cohort Minimum Sum of $155,000 will receive about $1,200 in monthly payouts in 10 years' time when they reach the age of 65.

Members who would like to enjoy higher payouts have the option to top up their Retirement Account to the prevailing Minimum Sum subsequently, through the Minimum Sum Topping-Up Scheme. For example, for those who turned 55 years old previously, their Minimum Sum was lower. But the present-day cohort's Minimum Sum is $155,000. So, those who turned 55 previously can make a top-up to the higher amount, even though their particular cohort's Minimum Sum may actually be lower. And members will receive tax relief for the top-up amount of up to $7,000.

Members can also save for their retirement through the Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) and enjoy tax benefits. They can use their SRS savings to purchase annuities in the private market to boost their retirement income.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I have three supplementary questions for the Minister. Given that the Government has acknowledged the current Minimum Sum only provides monthly payouts to cover basic living expenses, I would like to ask the Minister why there is a need to set a cap on the sum of money that CPF members wish to set aside in CPF LIFE, even though they have the option of top-up but still capped at the prevailing Minimum Sum. Can CPF members be given the option to set aside more than the Minimum Sum to join CPF LIFE so as to ensure higher monthly payouts that can pay for a higher level of expenses?

The second supplementary question is, I would like to ask the Minister to explain the mechanism and the funding structure behind CPF LIFE where it can guarantee lifelong monthly payouts, regardless of how long we live – maybe 100, 120 years – even well after the savings used to join CPF LIFE have been fully paid out, and yet when the savings are not

Page: 26

fully paid out upon a CPF member's death, his nominated beneficiaries stand to receive the balance of the CPF savings. So, what is the structure and the mechanism behind that?

And my last question is, if you were to open the scheme for people to put in more money, what additional costs and risks, if any, would the Government need to bear to expand the CPF LIFE coverage beyond the prevailing Minimum Sum?

Mdm Speaker, if I may ask the Member to repeat her last question?

I assume that there is a cap imposed because there must be some risks or additional costs the Government must bear to provide this assurance for a lifelong payout. So, I am asking if the Government is to open CPF LIFE for people to put in more money if they want to get payout beyond the $1,200 per month. What are the additional costs and risks?

Mdm Speaker, with regard to the Member's first question, which is also sort of related to the last question, the CPF LIFE system is designed to help Singaporeans meet their basic needs in retirement. The returns earned on CPF LIFE balances are higher than what most private commercial entities are able to provide. As far as we know today, what CPF LIFE provides, there are very few, if any, private commercial entities which are able to provide an equivalent amount for the same premium. Our priority is in designing this system to help ensure that those with retirement savings of up to the Minimum Sum have sufficient payouts in retirement that are able to last them for life. It is important, particularly with life expectancy going up quite significantly.

For middle and higher income Singaporeans with retirement savings in excess of the Minimum Sum, they do have the flexibility to use other investment options outside the CPF system to meet their retirement needs. We believe that this is a more progressive and flexible approach that will allow us to target our resources on those Singaporeans who need it most. So, it is sort of related to the last question of whether we should open up. I guess that is something that could be possible, but we believe that for those who do earn a lot more and who have CPF account balances higher than the Minimum Sum, they have other options that they could explore. And we would like to focus the system to have better provisions for those at the lower income level.

With regards the second question on the mechanism, the reason why CPF LIFE is able to ensure that CPF payouts do not run out for those who live very long is because the CPF LIFE is essentially a longevity insurance scheme. It operates on the principle of risk pooling. Under CPF LIFE, a portion of a member's RA savings is used to purchase the premium on an annuity. It is the interest earned on the life annuity premium that is pooled and shared

Page: 27

amongst surviving participants and allows the CPF Board to continue to make monthly payouts to members even if they live to 90 or 120 years, as the Member highlighted. While the interest earned is pooled, the premium itself is not. Therefore, upon a member's death, the life annuity premium committed minus any monthly payouts that an individual has received, the whole amount will still belong to the member and this amount will be refunded to the member's CPF account and will go to his or her beneficiaries. The default setting is that it will go in cash, although members can choose to put it into their CPF accounts as well. The life annuity premiums are calculated by the CPF Board's professional actuaries to ensure that the system is fair and sustainable.

We believe that CPF LIFE is an important scheme, especially in view of the fact that life expectancy is increasing significantly. This, I think, would go a long way in providing assurance. I know that many Singaporeans may not feel that they will live that long, but the reality is that many Singaporeans are beginning to live a long life. And I think CPF LIFE will, in time, be shown to provide actually a good degree of assurance for people, so they know that even if their accumulated premiums have depleted, the payments will continue.

I thank the Minister for the answer. I would just like to add that given that there is no such annuity plan that exists in Singapore for CPF members who would like to have higher payouts, as Government repeatedly says – $1,200 payout per month – and with one breadwinner in the family, it may not be sufficient. I hope the Government would explore opening up CPF LIFE to provide annuity plans for people who would be willing to save more under the CPF annuity scheme.

Mdm Speaker, we would be happy to continue to look at the scheme. CPF LIFE is a relatively new scheme. It has been in operation for about four years now. We will continue to look at it and see how best to improve it. Certainly, we are looking at measures to strengthen the system as a whole. What we do know is that going forward as well, the present calculation for the quantum that we catered for, in terms of the Minimum Sum, really deals with a slightly lower middle income and it caters to couples. What we do know, going forward, is that increasingly, more women are also working, so there are dual-income families. Be that as it may, I think with increasing wages over time, you will find that more families are able to provide for themselves in a much more comfortable manner. But I think CPF LIFE will provide at least a basic level of assurance for people going forward as well.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. The Minister has mentioned that the Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) is another additional option for people to save. I agree with that. My question is that while the SRS is not taxable, the annuity payout from the SRS is taxable. Why is that so? Can we improve it so that we can encourage more people to save into SRS and then also to boost their retirement income

Page: 28

through annuity?

Mdm Speaker, the SRS is a voluntary scheme to encourage individuals to save for retirement over and above their CPF savings. Members can contribute any amount to the SRS account, subject to a cap. In general, members can enjoy tax deferment on their SRS contributions where every dollar of their SRS contributions will reduce their taxable income. Members also enjoy a 50% tax concession where only 50% of the accumulated SRS savings will be taxed upon withdrawal after reaching the statutory retirement age. With regard to the annuity purchase by the SRS, I think that is something that we can look at. But, as a whole, the SRS system, as it is, will strengthen individuals' provision for their own retirement. Apart from the CPF system, we will look at other areas to improve as well as to strengthen the SRS system. I think that is something that we will also look at over time.

Madam, I have one supplementary question. In view of the SRS and with regard to the increase in inflation rates from time to time, will the Minister consider increasing the cap of the SRS?

Mdm Speaker, as mentioned, we are open to suggestions. We will take the Member's suggestion on board.

Ms Mary Liew, the next Question.

8 Ms Mary Liew asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the last three years, how many complaints has the Ministry received from Foreign Domestic Workers (FDWs) who are made to pay placement fees to employment agencies that exceed the cap of one month's salary per year of service; and (b) how many employment agencies have been taken to task for collecting more than the one-month salary per year of service from FDWs in placement fees.

Madam, MOM is concerned about the possibility of FDWs having to pay high agency fees to seek employment in Singapore. Therefore, we stipulate in the Employment Agencies Act that Singapore Employment Agencies are allowed to collect no more than one month of the worker's salary for each year of service, capped at two months' salary.

We do not believe that the charging of excessive placement fees by our local employment agencies is prevalent. However, where this happens in Singapore, we will act.

Page: 29

Over the last three years, MOM looked into six complaints from FDWs pertaining to the collection of placement fees above the stipulated cap by employment agencies. MOM also investigated another 15 cases uncovered in the course of proactive audits or investigation. Three of these cases are still under investigation. MOM took action in eight cases. For the remaining cases, there was no evidence that the employment agencies had committed an offence.

In instances where we find excessive charging happening overseas and where our laws cannot apply, we will inform the Embassies or High Commissions of the relevant countries so that action can be taken at source.

9 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for Transport from 2009 to 2013 (a) how many passengers do not board their planes after check-in at Changi Airport; (b) what is the number of unclaimed baggages; and (c) what action is taken in respect of unclaimed baggages.

Mdm Speaker, a very small number of passengers do not board their planes after check-in. These are usually because they went to the wrong gate, arrived late at the gate holding room or were delayed by previous connecting flights. There are fewer than 20 such occurrences every day, out of the 117,000 to 192,000 passengers that the airport handles daily.

As Members may have experienced during their own travels, any item checked in by passengers who do not board the flight will be removed from the plane before take-off. This is in line with international practice.

Unclaimed bags for most airlines are managed by the ground handling agents. SATS, which handles more than 80% of passenger services at Changi Airport, recorded about 1,500 pieces of unclaimed baggage in total from 2010 to 2013. The figure for 2009 is unavailable.

The action taken for unclaimed baggage depends on individual airlines' policies. For example, some airlines donate the baggage to the Salvation Army, while others dispose of the baggage after a period of time.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. It was reported in the media that five people who loaded their luggage did not board the ill-fated MH370. I would like to ask a supplementary question in regard to baggage. At the time when they discovered that they did not board the plane, where are the pieces of

Page: 30

luggage? Have they been put into the cargo cabin of the plane or are they still waiting outside for clearance?

Mdm Speaker, the reports pertaining to MH370 have yet to be verified and so we are unable to comment on this. But if the Member Mrs Chiam is asking a hypothetical situation in Singapore – how it would be handled – in the first place, baggage to be checked in by passengers would have been so before they are issued their boarding passes.

If at the point before an aircraft takes off, a passenger who has been issued a boarding pass did not present himself for boarding, then whatever baggage has been checked in will have to be removed. By that time, it is very possible that the baggage has already gone into the aircraft, in which case, a search has to be made and the baggage removed accordingly but, on some occasions, the baggage may still not be loaded onto the aircraft yet. This baggage is then returned to the ground-handling agents, who will then act on this baggage in accordance with the specific airline's policies.

I should also add that every piece of baggage that has been checked in is subject to security screening. That is a standard operating procedure that is taken on board for every flight.

10 Ms Faizah Jamal asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry has in place an environment audit process of how offshore fish farms manage their daily disposal of trash, biological waste and human waste; (b) if not, what is the reason for not doing so; and (c) whether the Ministry will put such an environment audit process in place to ensure high standards of compliance for the disposal of such waste.

Madam, under AVA's fish farm licensing conditions, owners of offshore fish farms must properly dispose of the waste generated from their farms. The owners must keep their premises in good condition and ensure that the waters in and around their farms are clean and pollution-free at all times.

Fish farmers in the western Johor Straits can use the waste collection points at the Lim Chu Kang jetty while those in the eastern Johor Straits can use the newly-opened Lorong Halus jetty and its waste collection centre.

Page: 31

Instead of environmental audits, AVA carries out routine quarterly inspections on all fish farms, including those in the southern and western coastal areas, to check for compliance with licensing conditions. During these inspections, AVA officers check on the types and amount of waste generated and disposed of, the frequency of disposal, the use of proper waste disposal methods and the location of the waste collection point used by the farmers. AVA also conducts ad hoc night raids on the fish farms to deter the illegal towing of fish farm waste to shore.

AVA works closely with the Police Coast Guard to keep a look-out for fish farmers discarding waste into the sea and conducts regular briefings to remind fish farmers to maintain proper waste management. AVA will take enforcement action against farms caught illegally dumping any waste into the waters.

I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I have two supplementary questions. There has been a recent report just about last week, I believe, where there were fish deaths at Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve where the river turned black and there was a horrible stench coming from it. The report also stated that AVA was investigating the situation. May I ask what the result has been, if there had been any so far?

Secondly, there is also a recent article that I read where a town in America called Toledo in Ohio suffers from what is called microcystis algae. And as a result, there was terrible harm done to the drinking water and it was caused by farming, lawn and sewage run-off. Would AVA and MND take extra precautions, bearing in mind that there are variations in the weather now and the possibility of this happening may be even more severe?

Madam, I think the Member is referring to the report on 22 July 2014 where large numbers of dead fish were found in the waters of Sungei Buloh. AVA carried out its investigations and found that there were no abnormal mortalities in the coastal fish farms nearby. The dead fish were wild fish present in the waters of Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserves. The NParks contractors cleared away the dead fish on the very same day, on 22 July itself. AVA is currently investigating further with NParks and NEA on the possible sources of that contamination.

On the example in the US, I will get my AVA officers to study the conditions in that area to see what learning points we can capture from that experience and ensure that we take precautionary measures to apply in the local context.

Page: 32

11 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many Singaporeans aged 55 years and above currently live in 3-room, 4-room and 5-room flats respectively; (b) out of these, how many in each flat type are considered as lower income elderly; and (c) since the Enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme's introduction in February 2013, how many lower income elderly Singaporeans have come on board the scheme.

Madam, there are about 367,000 households with at least one Singaporean flat owner aged 55 years old and above living in 3-room, 4-room and 5-room flats. Of these households, 32% are 3-room flats, 44% are 4-room flats, and 24% are 5-room flats.

As we do not require the flat owners to update their income, HDB does not have the income information requested by the Member.

Since we enhanced the Lease Buyback Scheme in February last year, 326 households have joined the scheme.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I note that, so far, 326 households have joined the enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme. It is still early days yet because the scheme is relatively new. But may I propose that the enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme be extended to flats that are larger than just 3-room flats – for a start, a 4-room flat. This is because we note that about 44% of 367,000 households have elderly who are aged 55 years old and above. For the Ministry to consider.

Madam, I thank the Member for the suggestion. As we know, our seniors have a wide range of needs and that is why when we formulate monetisation options, we try to provide as many options as we can so that the seniors can choose the type of option that best suits them. That is why we have held, and continue to hold, focus group discussions, talking to the targeted beneficiaries about their preferred monetisation schemes. Indeed, they have raised several suggestions, one of which is like what the Member has raised, and we will continue to study them.

12 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will allow the increase in qualifying salaries for S Pass holders from $2,000 to $2,200 from 1 July 2013 to be met by employers increasing the amount of allowances instead of raising the basic salary.

Page: 33

Mdm Speaker, we need to raise the minimum qualifying salaries for both S Pass and Employment Pass (EP) from time to time, in large part, to keep pace with local wages. Foreigners who are older and more experienced should have a higher salary threshold to qualify for the S Pass or the EP. This is to ensure that we can provide a level playing field so that foreigners, whether they are at S Pass or EP levels, will not undercut Singaporeans with lower pay. This helps to level the employability playing field for Singaporeans. At the same time, we also need to strike a balance in helping to keep our companies competitive and enabling them to have access to a diverse workforce.

Employers can meet the new thresholds either via the basic salary or via fixed allowances, or any combination of the two, as long as whatever increment is a fixed quantum that does not vary from month to month.

Like what was asked in Mr Zainal Sapari's question, we also hear from employers asking about whether it is possible to allow them to count variable allowances, bonuses and Annual Wage Supplements as part of the qualifying salary. We have not done so because the work pass eligibility has to be based on the consistent calibre of the worker, which should not vary from month to month. It is not practical to have a situation where a worker is eligible for S Pass in one month, and then, in the next month, because his performance is not so good, he does not get as much bonus or add-ons and, therefore, he is not eligible; and therefore, his Pass is revoked, because he has not accrued enough variable commissions or bonuses to qualify. This is why only salary components that are paid on a fixed monthly basis – whether it is basic salary or allowances – may be included in work pass eligibility criteria.

We do encourage employers to look at the approach of having allowances, bonuses, commissions and so on to incentivise higher productivity and better performance. They can still provide that to S Pass and also EP holders to motivate them to attain better performance. They can structure salaries such that S Pass holders commit to deliver a certain minimum level of performance each month and the associated bonus or commissions can be built in as a fixed allowance. Variable allowances can be given in addition for performance that exceeds the minimum level. But for all intents and purposes, in the calculation of salary eligibility for S Pass and EP, we look at the fixed monthly salary.

I thank the Minister for sharing. Given that MOM does not specify how the increase in salary should be effected, would MOM agree that this may create a loophole where employers just increase the allowances instead of basic pay to avoid higher overtime rate and bonus payouts to the foreign workers, making them cheaper relative to hiring a local?

My second supplementary question is whether MOM would consider plugging this loophole to ensure that the cost of hiring a foreigner has parity to hiring a local worker, as

Page: 34

what Minister just mentioned, to ensure a more level playing field. I have also come across feedback from some of my union members where some employers actually deliberately adjust the basic pay – lower the basic pay – to contain the cost of hiring a foreigner.

Mdm Speaker, we will be quite happy to look into the specifics of this situation. I think what the Member has illustrated is that employers specify a smaller basic component and they specify allowances, which may be regular and, in totality, meet the salary thresholds. But as a result of that, when you calculate OT and so on, you use only the basic quantum to calculate OT and, therefore, making them cheaper.

This is something that we can look at. I cannot recall whether we have a specific composition as to the amount of allowances and basic pay, but I think this is something that we can take a look to see whether it is a loophole that is exploited on a consistent basis and we can explore that further.

13 Mr David Ong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the outlook for our economy's restructuring efforts and whether it is able to ride on the advantage of a seemingly growing global economy; and (b) what is the progress report on our push for higher productivity, especially in light of the support to the business community in terms of the Productivity and Innovation Credit and Innovation and Capability Voucher schemes.

14 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he can provide an update on how Singapore is faring in its economic restructuring process and whether there is any change in its growth outlook in light of the latest manufacturing and export indicators.

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

Yes, please.

Both Mr David Ong and Ms Foo Mee Har have asked for an update on the progress of our restructuring efforts.

From 2009 to 2013, labour productivity grew by 2.9% per annum. However, this aggregate figure masks some cyclical fluctuations. The high productivity gains in 2010 were due to a strong recovery from the 2009 downturn. Notwithstanding the strong performance in 2010, recent productivity growth has been weak, with labour productivity growing by 0.2%

Page: 35

per annum from 2010 to 2013. However, this is primarily due to sectors, such as retail, F&B and construction, which saw declines in productivity of 2.1%, 0.6% and 0.2% per annum respectively over the same period. At the same time, there have been some bright spots of sustained good productivity growth over this same period. For example, the transport engineering and precision engineering clusters saw productivity growth of 8.1% and 4.1% per annum respectively from 2010 to 2013.

On the ground, the situation is improving. Based on our engagements with businesses, we observe that mindsets towards restructuring have shifted. Many have now accepted the need to restructure and are stepping forward to tap on Government schemes to improve their productivity. To date, more than 17,000 companies have benefited from the various productivity initiatives under the National Productivity and Continuing Education Council (NPCEC), with 7,000 companies in 2013 alone.

Mr Ong asked specifically about the take-up rates for the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) and the Innovation and Capability Voucher (ICV) schemes. For the PIC scheme, which provides businesses with enhanced tax benefits and cash incentives to invest in a broad range of productivity and innovation activities, the number of companies making use of the scheme rose from 36,000 or 33% of all active companies in Singapore in the Year of Assessment 2011, to 50,000 companies or 40% of all companies in the Year of Assessment 2013. As of 28 February 2014, the aggregate tax savings and cash payouts to companies amounted to $1.5 billion under the PIC scheme.

Similarly, we have seen take-up rates for the ICV scheme increase over time. The scheme, which previously only supported consultancy services, was enhanced in March this year to also support the implementation of productivity solutions, such as the purchase of equipment, training of workers and the redesign of workspaces to enhance productivity. From 1 March to 13 June 2014, more than 2,700 vouchers were awarded to businesses.

While these numbers are encouraging, clearly, more needs to be done. Economic restructuring is a long-term effort. We must continue to press on with our restructuring drive. We have the capacity to fund more productivity improvement projects and hope that more firms will step forward to tap on the various productivity schemes. We remain confident that the economy will be able to restructure successfully over time to be more productivity-driven. This will ensure a more efficient use of labour, which will not only help to relieve our labour constraints, but also support higher real wages without eroding the competitiveness of our economy.

Ms Foo asked about Singapore's growth outlook in the light of the latest manufacturing and export indicators, while Mr Ong asked whether the economy would be able to ride on the global economic recovery. As you all know, in the second quarter of 2014, GDP growth

Page: 36

slowed to 2.1% year-on-year, compared to 4.7% in the first quarter. This is largely due to a slowdown in the manufacturing sector. Specifically, the manufacturing sector's growth decelerated to 0.2% year-on-year in the second quarter, from 9.9% in the first quarter, due to a contraction in electronics output and slower growth in transport engineering output. In line with the slowdown in manufacturing, domestic exports grew at a slower pace of 3.2% in the second quarter, compared to 3.3% in the first quarter.

The weak performance in manufacturing and exports growth can be partly attributed to sluggish global economic conditions. In the US, economic activities are only slowly beginning to recover from the harsh weather conditions experienced earlier this year, while China's growth remains modest, given its ongoing restructuring efforts. Lacklustre global economic conditions have also, in turn, affected the exports of regional countries like Japan and Indonesia.

As an externally-oriented economy, quarter-to-quarter fluctuations in our economic growth can be expected. On average, GDP growth in the first half of 2014 remained healthy, at 3.4%. Looking ahead, leading indicators in the US and the EU suggest a modest recovery in the global economy for the rest of the year. In tandem with this, we expect externally-oriented sectors, such as our manufacturing and wholesale trade sectors, to provide support for growth. In particular, our manufacturers are expected to benefit from improvements in the global economy, with the new orders and new export orders sub-indices of the Purchasing Managers' Index rising to 51.8 and 52.0 respectively in the second quarter. Our domestically-oriented sectors, such as business services, are expected to remain resilient, but we can expect some of our labour-intensive sectors, such as retail, to see their growth weighed down by labour constraints.

So, taken everything together, as usual, barring downside risks in the global macroeconomic environment, we expect the Singapore economy to grow by between 2% and 4% this year.

I thank the Minister for the clarification and update. I just want to ask three supplementary questions. The first is that we still have about 60% of the companies which have not embraced the incentive programmes. What else can be done to improve the take-up rate of the Productivity and Innovation schemes? Over the last few years, I think we have been unsuccessful in meeting the productivity target of about 2% to 3%. Can the Minister share with us the estimated productivity goal for this year? And at what point of not meeting the productivity target will the Government consider new measures or tweaking some existing ones that affect business, particularly manpower shortages and rising business cost?

Page: 37

We have tried our best to encourage our companies, particularly the SMEs and the micro enterprises, to take up the schemes that are available. And we are approaching them through all the channels, particularly through the business chambers and trade associations. So, we are encouraged that the take-up rate is improving.

Productivity growth has been averaging about 0.8%, 0.9%, for the last few quarters. If this can be maintained, we hope to see productivity growth of about 1% this year. Our labour force growth should be growing at about between 1% and 2%. So, that is why we are confident that our growth target for this year will be between 2% and 4%.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer and I fully agree that it is critical that we stay committed to the restructuring journey. I have three supplementary questions for the Minister.

First is, apart from dealing with challenges to raise productivity and the pressures of a tight labour market, many businesses have given feedback that they are also struggling to cope with new regulations that are being rolled out at the same time, for example, enhanced money laundering measures that are impacting the banking and the payment sectors, and the enhanced safety regulations in the construction sector. Whilst all these new regulations are very important and correct, they further stretch the manpower requirements and add operational cost and complexity. So, I would like to ask the Minister: how the roll-out of the new regulations could be paced better to help companies cope with a tight labour market as well as their own re-engineering efforts for higher productivity? So, that is the first question – layers of complexity and new things they have to do.

Second is, the increase in take-up rate in the broad-based schemes like PIC and ICV is clearly very encouraging. I am just wondering, given that the Minister has elaborated just now, that different sectors have different success rates with their re-engineering efforts, or different levels in terms of their productivity improvement, whether the Minister thinks it is the right time now to focus more on schemes that are more targeted because unique productivity challenges faced by different sectors require differentiated solutions. For example, can customised solutions be developed for specific sectors with the trade associations and Chambers of Commerce playing a more prominent role in supporting the Government and member companies to map out productivity strategies for the whole sector and develop platforms to migrate best practices quickly?

And the last one, very quickly, for many Singaporeans, company restructuring poses risk of job losses. So, could the Minister provide an update on how we are cushioning the transition for them, for example, re-skilling and preparing them for jobs for the future economy, especially for the senior PMEs? How can companies in the new economy be

Page: 38

incentivised by Government schemes to play a greater role?

I thank the Member for raising the questions. New regulation is really a challenge because the different regulatory agencies have to put up new regulations based on their objectives. So, we are putting together a whole-of-Government approach to see how these regulations, first of all, do not run counter to one another and, secondly, also to be appropriately paced because we do recognise that this is imposing high compliance costs on the businesses and we are also concerned about it.

The second question is about whether it should be broad-based or it should be targeted. In fact, we are doing both. We have both broad-based schemes like the PIC, ICV and what we call horizontal schemes like IT support. At the same time, we have sectoral schemes that target the sectors working together with the trade associations, having champions in a sector to implement productivity schemes and the other companies would then take the cue and follow. And we have had a modest success. Some sectors are more amenable to quick changes in productivity. For example, in the furniture sector and the food manufacturing sector, we have had very good successes and the lessons that had been learnt are percolating to the other companies. Some other sectors face bigger challenges. For example, the construction sector, I think, faces a huge challenge; food services and retail sectors also face a bigger challenge and we have to work very closely with the trade associations to try and maintain the momentum.

On job risk, this is something that is very important to us because the key to all these is to make sure that the skill levels of the jobs are raised so that we can justify higher wages and, commensurate with this, the skill levels of the workers have to be improved. Again, we take this on-board, working closely at the sectoral level and together with NTUC. So, there are various schemes to upgrade the skills of the workers.

It is almost the end of Question Time. Before I proceed, just to remind Members to keep your supplementary questions short because I notice that supplementary questions take up almost two minutes, almost as good as a speech. So, for the next session, do please keep your supplementary questions short. Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3) Written Answers to Question Nos 16 to 25 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question No 15 has been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

Page: 39

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question (4 August 2014), "That the Bill be now read a Second time.". – [Minister for the Environment and Water Resources]. (proc text)]

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

Mdm Speaker, I support the Transboundary Haze Pollution Bill which concerns the conduct that causes or contributes to haze pollution in Singapore and provides for related matters.

We believe the Government has taken a brave step in increasing the fines under clause 5 of the Bill, after their consultation rounds on the earlier draft Bill circulated this year. Observers we have spoken to shared that they were pleasantly surprised.

However, it is unclear if the stiffer fines would be an effective deterrent to the agroforestry companies which make hundreds of millions, if not billions, in profits every year – but a conviction might be a strong enough damper on their business. Any conviction in a Singapore Court will affect their reputation and financial standing which might threaten their access to bank loans and Government tax incentive programmes.

This would allow the Bill to have more bite in achieving its intent of curbing the burning of land in Indonesia.

It also sends the right signal to the firms involved and to Singaporeans that the Government is serious about tackling the root of the haze problem, by taking one more step ahead.

The other point we wish to acknowledge is the Government's decision to go the route of a rules-based, legal regime in tackling the root of the haze problem. For the past 10 years or so, actions have been focused on the ASEAN Transboundary Haze Agreement. But the so-called "ASEAN Way" of addressing the problem by political consensus rather than hard law among ASEAN countries has clearly not solved the haze problem, which peaked last June with a PSI of over 400. It has not been effective in dealing with regional environmental issues. To begin with, Indonesia has not even ratified the agreement yet.

The question, going forward, is the implementation of the provisions in this Bill. Clause 4 provides for the extra-territorial application of this Bill. We believe it will be hard to

Page: 40

implement this on the ground, such as when collecting evidence from another country for the Courts here in Singapore.

There is the real prospect that the firms responsible for burning land in Indonesia may make the local Indonesian farmers the scapegoats for their unsustainable practices. This is not to say that the Indonesian farmers are not culpable, or that they should not be forced to change their ways of farming. Rather, the fear is that the haze problem may persist, while the blame would have merely shifted. That, then, would not be tackling the root of the problem.

For this to be ensured, the Haze Monitoring System must be much further improved. Several of the steps to monitor fires and concessions are already being implemented by major players, such as the Indonesian "One Map policy", and non-governmental organisations such as "Global Forest Watch", and even some of the private corporations. However, the problem is that there are information gaps and issues related to the accuracy of maps. There should be greater information-sharing of land ownership and concession boundaries to promote transparency. As we understand it, all ASEAN countries are highly reluctant to be directly involved in the monitoring process and funding. This is perhaps because they do not want to be dragged into spats with Indonesia and transnational firms. Perhaps, they do not want to be held responsible in the event of a mistake or glitch in the monitoring system, as firms would also have the legal recourse to challenge the accusation of governments that they are at fault.

We state this obviously not to criticise the Government's efforts through this Bill, but to point out the complementary efforts needed to go hand-in-hand with this Bill. It is clear that there are many things beyond the reach of the Singapore Government. We know that the Government is working on these issues. We also hope that the incoming administration of President-elect Joko Widodo of Indonesia will make more headway in tackling the haze problem on the ground.

We also note the explanatory statement in this Bill indicates that it will require extra financial expenditure. May I clarify where this expenditure is going towards and what sort of sum are we looking at?

A related question is how the Government intends to channel the fines collected from errant companies as a result of the new Bill – I would presume the Government intends to channel them towards further efforts to counter the haze problem?

Perhaps the most commonly mooted idea by observers is to channel the Court-imposed fines to the Transboundary Haze Pollution Control Fund, which will help boost the regional

Page: 41

leader's receptivity towards the Bill.

What we would like to say, on behalf of all Singaporeans who suffer from the haze, is this: Singaporeans will support our Government when it takes brave steps to do the right thing to tackle the haze problem. They have been plagued by the haze problem for far too long. We may not be fully aware of the intricacies of what goes on, such as on the ground in Indonesia. But we want to make sure that Singapore will do the utmost on our part.

Mdm Speaker, I fully support this Bill and the efforts of the Ministry in tackling the haze problem that Singapore faces.

This Bill is an important step in targeting the culprits behind the haze. And it addresses the urgent need to hold such culprits accountable. I fully agree with the Minister that Singapore and this Parliament want to send a strong signal that we will not tolerate the actions of errant companies who put the health of our citizens at risk. But, as the Minister himself points out, the actual implementation of the Bill can be challenging.

For this Bill to be truly effective in protecting Singaporeans from haze pollution, there are other facets to the problem that we may need to take into consideration. Firstly, we need to better understand the background behind why these fires are started in the first place. Secondly, we need to ascertain how to clearly identify the perpetrators and bring the right parties to justice. Thirdly, there are the obvious issues of how to enforce Singapore's territorial laws against entities outside of Singapore. Finally, whilst we all agree with the principles enunciated in the Bill, we may need to be mindful of legislative over-reach.

Let us begin by understanding the background behind how these fires are caused. Some are caused by natural causes, others by annual slash-and-burn carried out by small farmers for land preparation. These small farmers usually hold so-called "customary rights" to the land. I believe there are clear guidelines in Indonesia governing burning. Small farmers are actually allowed to burn up to two hectares of land. However, it is illegal to burn on larger industrial scale land that is zoned for logging, these are the so-called HPH/HTI holders and plantation, HGU holders. Hence, as it is not illegal for smaller farmers to burn their land, how would this Bill then be compatible to what is currently permissible in our neighbouring countries?

If it is not illegal under their law to burn their customary land for land preparation, Singapore cannot make it illegal. So, whilst some larger companies now clear land using mechanical means in view of strict rules in Indonesia, smaller farmers are unable to afford

Page: 42

such mechanical means to clear land and so, they resort to slash-and-burn. We do not know how many of such small farmers are out there but the numbers could add up to potentially millions. It will not be easy or practical to try to stop them or even prosecute them. Neither will it solve the issue in the long term. Perhaps, a better solution here is to provide education and direct help to these farmers and to help them to adopt better methods to clear land.

My second point raises the issue of how to ensure the right party responsible is prosecuted. Under the Bill, one of the ways to identify the party responsible is based on "satellite information, wind velocity and direction and other meteorological information". This means that the HGU/HPH/HTI holders are made liable for the occurrence within their boundary based on maps and satellite information, even though they may not have full control of all the areas in their concession areas. Complications arise when the small farms I talked about overlap with industrial scale development within the boundaries of such licence holders. Not all big concession owners own or have control over the small farms around them. Hence, they cannot be held responsible for the action of these small farmers.

Overlapping can be an issue and this results from the same land being given to more than one party. Hence, the wrong party here may be targeted and this could put a heavy burden of proof on them to prove that they were not responsible. We may need to be mindful of the perception that the main culprits behind the haze last year are just large companies. This may not necessarily be the case. For example, Riau is fairly well developed in terms of logging and plantation concessions. These logging areas and plantations are planted usually for the long term – some 25 years or so, in the case of palm trees. In view of the substantial investment by HTI/HGU holders in their planted areas, fire is actually a threat to their investment. Therefore, it is necessary for a thorough investigation to be carried out before pointing fingers at these companies as they may, in fact, themselves be victims of the annual slash-and-burn carried out by the small farmers.

The third issue is the enforceability of the Singapore laws outside of Singapore. So, whilst we can take comfort in the news report that incoming President Joko Widodo is backing Singapore's plan to levy heftier fines against overseas polluters, it is no surprise that they are also asking for detailed protocols to "guarantee the sovereignty of Indonesians". This Bill also allows for judicial presumptions. This means that the accused is assumed guilty, until proven otherwise. The fear here is whether this will open the door to an avalanche of frivolous or unfair accusations.

The other issue is that the Bill now places an obligation under public international law on private entities. It seeks to punish entities that do not even have a presence in Singapore by seeking to punish executives personally whenever they set foot here. And because actual individuals could be punished as a result of their company's transgressions, any person holding a management position, who may not be the key decision maker, could be made a

Page: 43

scapegoat. This raises the issue of fairness. The other issue is the question of legislative over-reach. Will the negative reach of this Bill have the potential to discourage companies from setting up a holding company here or to prevent good companies from listing here on our stock exchange?

Mdm Speaker, even if we implement this Bill, there is no full-proof guarantee that the issue of the haze will be resolved. And we would certainly not want this Bill to create any friction or misunderstanding with our neighbours or, worse still, cause them to adopt retaliatory measures against us. Hence, it is important that we continue to engage and work with these countries to resolve some of the root causes of the issues first. Madam, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Since 1991, Singapore has endured recurring haze episodes resulting from land and forest fires in Indonesia, with last year's being the worst ever. While I appreciate the efforts of our officials over the many years in trying to find workable solutions with our ASEAN neighbours on this issue, I have been concerned about our lack of ability to take more actions that are within our control.

Hence, two years ago, I had asked the Government to consider legislative measures to allow us to prosecute companies found guilty of causing haze in Singapore through illegal burning, even if the acts were committed outside of our shores. This Bill now gives us a new legal lever to exercise our rights to clean air, covering both criminal and civil liabilities for commercial entities responsible for land clearance if their actions outside of our territorial boundaries cause haze pollution in Singapore.

This Bill signals Singapore's seriousness in combating this issue. Agricultural companies that wish to do business with Singapore or have their operational headquarters here will have to think seriously about their practices if they are not already practising good land clearing practices.

My speech will focus on some details of the Bill and the potential challenges to put it in place, which the Minister and other Members had also pointed out.

Presumptions. First, there is a string of sweeping presumptions under clause 8 of the Bill which we need to especially convince our regional neighbours that these are fair and reasonable.

Page: 44

Clause 8 contains a series of legal presumptions to assist the prosecution to pin guilt on entities. There will be much controversy surrounding clause 8(4), which presumes the accuracy of land maps obtained by the Singapore Government from the foreign government or any person requested by the Singapore Government to furnish a map. If the Singapore Government decides to rely on that map, it is presumed under clause 8(4) that the entities reflected on the map as occupying particular geographical areas will be presumed to be doing so unless the entity proves otherwise. Is this presumption from a map reasonable? Therein lies a potential minefield.

Experts in agrarian land laws have cited the complexity of the law relating to land in Indonesia and the need for reforms in land registration. There are reportedly ambiguities in land rights between the customary law or "adat", which deems land as belonging to communities, and the formal law called the Basic Agrarian Law giving individual title to land. There are thus unregistered but valid land rights which would not show up in maps as they are generally not recognised by the State.

A further complication is that, under the Basic Forestry Law of 1967, all forest land is deemed to belong to the State, even when communities recognise their customary rights to the forest land among themselves. The Basic Agrarian Law of Indonesia recognises four types of land tenures that can be registered: (a) the right of ownership; (b) the right to use; (c) the right to exploit; and (d) the right to build. Different entities can hold the four different rights to the same piece of land. Many of the rights given to the urban and rural land in Indonesia have not been registered. In addition, foreign entities also team up with local entities to get de facto rights to the land, making it unclear as to who is the actual entity that is in charge of activities on the land parcels.

Given the state of affairs, how reliable would land maps from Indonesia be? Do the Indonesians themselves accept their government maps as accurate? This may call into question the reasonableness of the presumptions under clause 8(4).

Besides clause 8(4), the rest of clause 8 also places the burden of proof on a suspected entity to disprove its guilt. Clause 8(1) presumes that haze pollution in Singapore is caused by a land or forest fire outside Singapore if the meteorological data suggest so. Clause 8(2) presumes that an owner or occupier of the land alleged to have caused haze pollution in Singapore had engaged in conduct that caused or condoned the haze pollution. Clause 8(3) presumes that if any entity is believed to have caused or condoned haze pollution in Singapore, any other entity that participates in the management of the first entity has also caused or condoned haze pollution in Singapore.

While presumptions have been used in Singapore laws before, such as in the Misuse of Drugs Act, shifting the burden of proof to persons is likely to be more demanding, and even

Page: 45

more so when the evidence is overseas. Where a legal presumption operates against an accused, it is not sufficient for the accused to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case; instead, the accused has the burden of proof to rebut the legal presumption on a balance of probabilities. In order to do so, the accused entity is expected to bring its witnesses and documents to Singapore and foot the expenses of such. Even assuming that a foreign entity does all these things and is acquitted, there is no provision for it to recover its expenses or legal costs, since this is a criminal proceeding. A challenge will be that some foreign entities may not be interested to clear their name at their own expenses in Singapore.

Next, on the defences provided in the Bill. The Bill provides as defence to condoning haze pollution that if the accused Primary Person proves on a balance of probabilities that the Primary Person took "all such measures reasonable" to prevent or stop or reduce substantially such conduct by the Secondary Person, if the haze pollution has already happened.

It will be good for Parliament to clarify what standards of behaviour are the Primary Persons expected to implement to constitute a good defence. It would be a perverse policy outcome if Primary Persons are able to get away by simply inserting clauses in their contracts with their supplier Secondary Persons that the Secondary Persons must not engage in conduct that causes haze, and with the rights to terminate their contracts in the event of a breach.

Should we expect a higher standard of behaviour to be met before the clause can be invoked, such as for the Primary Persons to conduct regular audits of their contractors, plus provide resources to fight fires once they have broken out and to do everything possible to prevent and fight haze fires?

The Bill provides for a fine of $100,000 per day if a party is found guilty of causing haze, plus $50,000 per day for failing to comply with preventive measures, up to a cap of $2 million. This was an increase from the earlier draft for caps of $300,000 to $450,000.

The Minister had said that we need to increase the overall level of deterrence. For the purpose of clarity to the public, I would like to know the processes which the Government had used to arrive at these figures. Were other methods of computations for caps considered? I feel it is important for the Government to have a principled basis for these figures so that there will be greater acceptance of this Bill by our regional neighbours.

Enforcement. The Bill provides for the Director-General of Environmental Pollution or an authorised officer to give notice to any person, whether within or outside of Singapore, to furnish information or documents. The challenge is to get the cooperation of contractors

Page: 46

or sub-contractors, when the persons or corporations do not have a presence in Singapore or are not even managed from Singapore. Large plantation companies often work through contractors. Our Courts will need to have concrete evidences if we wish to prosecute these plantation companies. Would this make it vulnerable for prosecution under this Act to fail due to the lack of evidence because of the lack of cooperation?

There are provisions under sections 4, 6(3) and 6(4) for "extraterritorial application". Singapore currently does not have any umbrella extradition treaty with Indonesia. If the accused person fails to appear in Court, a warrant of arrest is issued under section 17. This will likely have little or no effect if the person is not in Singapore. We have many examples of such cases in other aspects of our laws. For example, in divorce-related maintenance issues, there are many cases that have stalled for indefinite periods at this stage of the legal process because the accused is in a country which Singapore does not have an adequate extradition treaty with, such as Indonesia.

Good evidence is needed, given the complex nature of the ownership and operations of plantations in Indonesia. Last year, in the midst of the haze, several large plantations were flagged out publicly as possible culprits. The press reported that several of the named companies said that they followed strict no-burning policies, demanded their contractors to do the same and had, in fact, worked to put out fires in neighbouring areas. They also stated that while the permits for lands may be listed as belonging to them, they were not conducting activities on these concessions, or the permits have expired, or were not under their control as parts of the land may be occupied by others.

Regional cooperation. While having this new legislation is good for signalling Singapore's strong intent to fight transboundary haze, we will still have to rely heavily on good old-fashioned diplomacy and extending our strong support to our neighbours to help them prevent and fight forest fires. We also need their cooperation to ensure that prosecution and the enforcement of punishment can be carried out.

In this respect, it is very encouraging that Indonesia's President-elect, Mr Joko Widodo, who also happens to be a forestry graduate, has backed our plans to impose heftier fines on transboundary polluters, but with the caveat to respect the sovereignty of Indonesia.

Ultimately, the fires are burning in a sovereign foreign country. We need to have accurate and up-to-date land concession maps in order to have evidence against the companies implicated in unlawful forest fires. Most of all, it is best to be able to prevent these fires from starting.

Page: 47

An important step to solve the regional haze problem is for Indonesia to ratify the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution. Indonesia has remained the only ASEAN country not to have ratified the Agreement, with some officials citing the need for detailed protocols to guarantee Indonesia's sovereignty. As the Minister and others had also pointed out, the haze, unfortunately, affects ordinary Indonesians even more than it does to their neighbours, as those in Riau and Kalimantan are where the most intense fires are. Our diplomacy efforts can extend towards helping Indonesia achieve their stated aim for a more sustainable agro-industry.

Last year, the Minister shared about Singapore's collaboration with the province of Jambi. He had termed it as one of our more successful efforts that saw a greater reduction in the number of hotspots in Jambi Province during our years of collaboration, compared to other fire-prone provinces in Sumatra. He attributed the success to the strong support given by the then Governor of Jambi, Pak Zulkifli Nurdin. The collaboration was not renewed, unfortunately, after 2011.

I believe our officials must be hard at work trying to build up that same level of close collaboration that we had back then with Jambi province and with other Indonesian provinces. This is a tireless effort that must not stop. With the signal of support sent by President-elect Mr Joko Widodo to have greater ASEAN collaboration on various environmental issues, let us hope the Minister can soon share more success on this front of preventing fires at the frequent hotspot areas.

Mdm Speaker, notwithstanding the challenges to operationalise this Bill, I am pleased that we now have the legislative means to allow us to do more in the fight for our right to clean air.

Mdm Speaker, I am sure everyone would agree that we have been very fortunate to have relatively fresh air so far. Favourable winds have kept smoke from fires away from us. Let us hope that our PSI will continue to remain in the healthy range.

The Transboundary Haze Pollution Bill has expanded our powers in the fight against haze. I support the decision to impose fines of up to $100,000 for each day of haze, up to a maximum of $2 million, with an additional $50,000 per day for uncooperative companies.

I am also in favour of the move to penalise those companies that cause haze in Singapore and those engaged to start the fires. In addition, I agree that all those affected by

Page: 48

haze should be able to seek compensation from errant firms via civil suits, even though this recourse is only possible when representatives of such firms enter Singapore. Besides punitive measures, governments, perhaps, may consider incentives to encourage land clearing by non-burning methods. I think that a carrot-and-stick approach will be the most effective method.

Environmentalists can play an important role in ensuring a change of responsible parties' behaviour in the use of tools and methods. Sharing of cost-effective and efficient technology is critical to imprint a sustainable solution to this issue. There is also a need for greater international participation and support for sustainable resolution to this issue. Corporations without good environmental practices and measures in place should be subject to sanction by the international community.

Financial institutions should be discouraged and prohibited from dealing with parties which engage in pollution and do not have good environmental practices. The greater long-term concern is not the haze but the large amount of carbon released into the Earth's atmosphere. The fires are the single largest contributor to Indonesia's greenhouse gas emissions due to the extremely rapid deforestation on an inertia scale. Perhaps, we should consider the reward of carbon credits and incentives, since Indonesia has committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 26% by 2020.

However, and unfortunately, whatever we do, we have to accept that our proposals and ability to enforce are limited at the sources of the haze and are beyond our jurisdiction. We are dependent on the corporations or the governments of the source countries. Since 2002, nine out of the 10 member states of ASEAN have committed to cooperating on the prevention of open burning, fire monitoring and information sharing through the ratification of the ASEAN agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution.

As mentioned by other Members, unfortunately, Indonesia is the only country, until now, which has not signed or ratified the agreement. Hence, I welcome the present statement by Indonesia's President-elect Joko Widodo who indicated that Indonesia would support Singapore's plan to increase fines on those responsible for haze pollution. Bilateral and multilateral cooperation is necessary to solve these issues and problems which affect not only Singaporeans but also Malaysians and millions of Indonesians living in Riau, Sumatra.

I look forward to Indonesia ratifying the agreement in the near future, followed by assistance in investigative efforts and enforcement at the source of fires. Madam, I support the Bill.

Page: 49

Mdm Speaker, I welcome this proposed law, which is much anticipated and which could be emulated by other jurisdictions seeking to deal with transboundary air pollution.

This Bill adds to our legislative muscle to deal with transboundary haze even though the actual impact, which remains to be seen, may be more apparent than real.

The Bill's extra-territorial reach, provided for in clause 4, is a double-edged sword. Given that the serious episodes of air pollution we experienced in 1994, 1997, 2006, 2010 and 2013 were transboundary in nature, this law will not be of any use if it does not provide for extraterritorial application. Hence, it is appropriate that this Bill covers acts as well as omissions, whether such conduct occurs within or outside of Singapore's territorial boundaries which result in haze pollution in Singapore.

Extraterritoriality is double-edged because it can be regarded by another state as an infringement of its national sovereignty. In the Southeast Asian context, the maintenance of national sovereignty is a cornerstone of ASEAN and is enshrined in the ASEAN Charter.

It must be noted that this Bill does not seek to provide our Courts with jurisdiction to determine if a foreign state is responsible for transboundary haze pollution in Singapore. Neither does it seek to impose liability on a foreign state for the damage caused to Singaporeans as a result of the haze pollution.

It is also highly significant that this Bill not only creates an entirely new offence but also broadly expands the notion of extraterritorial reach: this is the criminalisation of a first entity's failure to prevent transboundary haze caused by a second entity to which the first entity participates in the management of the second. This is a significant extension of jurisdiction well beyond what is found in our general criminal law and existing legislation with extraterritorial reach.

Nevertheless, I am confident that the relevant agencies, including NEA and the Attorney-General's Chambers, will exercise due prudence when prosecuting using this law. To be sure, tough times call for tough measures. But this still does not take away the possibility that our neighbours may strenuously object to this law having such an extensive extraterritorial reach, if not now, certainly later.

Madam, I welcome the Bill's broad jurisdictional reach to overseas entities with a presence in Singapore for failure to prevent transboundary haze affecting Singapore. This

Page: 50

ability to investigate and prosecute companies carrying on part of the business here in Singapore, irrespective of where they are registered, is important for better regulation.

I regard this as part of a larger effort in ensuring that there is a level playing field requiring foreign companies having to adhere to the same standards of care and responsibility as our own companies. I hope companies registered in Singapore with interests and/or stakes in the palm oil business, in particular, will promptly clean up their supply chains, including demanding fully traceable palm oil from their suppliers. Ignorance cannot be pleaded as an excuse; it is a shirking of their responsibility and an attempt to privatise their gains while socialising their costs.

For this law to be successful, the cooperation of the country from which the transboundary haze pollution originates would be necessary for any successful enforcement actions and prosecutions. So, I hope that the Ministry will engage and explain to our foreign counterparts about this proposed law before it comes into force, to allay any concerns that they may have.

A Bloomberg report last week, also highlighted by several Members, mentioned that Indonesia's president-elect Joko Widodo backs our plans, embodied in this Bill, to impose heftier fines against polluters so long as Indonesia's sovereignty is respected. So, the initial signs look good and we should demonstrate how this law would also benefit our neighbours in ASEAN even though it is primarily designed to meet Singapore's interests and concerns.

In this connection, I welcome the Ministry's announcement yesterday that the Singapore Government will provide additional haze assistance to Indonesia in the form of a helicopter equipped with heli-bucket to fight fires, to complement Indonesia's fire-fighting capabilities in anticipation of an extended dry season due to the El Nino phenomenon this year. This is in addition to the haze assistance package offered by Singapore earlier in June, comprising several aircraft, a Singapore Civil Defence Force team and high-resolution satellite pictures and hotspot coordinates. This assistance recognises the complexities and constraints in Indonesia and that we are not merely pointing fingers but also seeking to assist within our means and being sensitive to the domestic political dynamics.

As mentioned earlier, this Bill does not just cover landowners whose lands are the sources of transboundary haze pollution but also extends to those engaged in starting the fires and those involved in the management of an offending entity.

This enlightened attempt to deal with the chain of causation of transboundary air pollution is necessary if the proposed law is to have sufficient enforcement "bite". It also does not seek to identify a sole perpetrator, recognising that transboundary haze pollution

Page: 51

is very much the culmination of a series of deliberate acts in a conscious decision-making process that may be cross-border in nature and involving different parties. There should, therefore, be a broader conception of responsibility.

I would like now to turn to a few specific provisions in the Bill. First, may I suggest that the Bill be broadened in its application? As I understand it, the Bill covers a specific type of transboundary haze pollution. Clause 2 states that the Bill covers transboundary air pollution "involving smoke from any land or forest fire wholly outside Singapore".

Why not enlarge its scope to cover all forms of transboundary air pollution? The Bill ostensibly does not cover transboundary air pollution from factories, power plants or other types of smoke emissions. Neither does it cover, say, transboundary air pollution from raging fires on an offshore oil rig or from a gas pipeline near Singapore.

While I appreciate that this Bill is designed to deal with a specific form of transboundary haze pollution that has been long-standing, why limit the scope of this Bill? I understand that this Bill's extraterritorial reach means that it should and would be used judiciously but we are unduly curbing our enforcement ability by specifically confining this legislation to a particular type of transboundary air pollution.

On penalties for an entity convicted of an offence under this Bill, much as I welcome the significant enhancement of the maximum fine from $300,000 originally to $2 million, I share the sentiments expressed by other Members that the quantum is probably on the low side. There must be sufficient deterrent in this Bill. My question is whether the top-line figure of $2 million carries enough of a big stick. Could the Minister clarify how the figure of $2 million was arrived at?

When one considers the profits to be made and the market value of some of the companies involved in the oil palm business, $2 million might just be a slap on the wrist. To give an indication of the scale of business, I would just cite Wilmar International, a leading agribusiness group headquartered in Singapore and one of the largest listed companies by market capitalisation on the Singapore Stock Exchange. It had revenues of US$44.1 billion and equity and liabilities worth US$46.6 billion in 2013.

On this issue of penalties upon conviction, would the Minister consider imposing jail terms for key officers of the offending entity which is culpable?

We have the doctrine of limited liability in our corporate laws but, ironically, this provides incentives for environmental irresponsibility. This is because the parent companies' limited liability creates a potential moral hazard through the reduced economic incentive to

Page: 52

ensure that its subsidiary company exercises its due care when taking environmentally-risky activities. Put another way, because the parent company obtains the financial rewards from environmentally-risky activity but is relatively insulated from the subsidiary's liabilities, there is the incentive for the parent company to use its management and control to make profit-maximising decisions for the subsidiary, including environmentally-damaging ones.

Thus, in addition to fines, perhaps the Bill could also require offenders to provide financial security, such as insurance, performance bonds or guarantees, to enable them to cover their future potential environmental liabilities. As a variation, this requirement could also extend to companies with palm oil business concerns in neighbouring countries and having the necessary nexus with Singapore, such as being listed here, to provide such financial security.

This can provide incentives to motivate such entities to reduce their environmental risk and the likelihood of causing further transboundary air pollution. The details, of course, need to be worked out but they can augment the monitoring and enforcement framework, resulting in a more robust regulatory framework.

I hasten to add that not all entities act, respond and are motivated solely by economic concerns. But I see the provision of financial security as part of a wider regulatory framework comprising fines and jail terms to motivate companies to balance the competitive quest for profits with environmental risk.

Madam, clause 6(3) of the Bill also provides for the imposition of civil liability, on top of the criminal liability, for haze pollution in Singapore. While I welcome the provision for civil liability, I question if this clause is a paper tiger, a remedy in form but not in substance.

Victims of haze pollution could find it onerous to take out an individual civil law suit against a company with far deeper pockets to defend itself. This would be the classic "haves" versus "have-nots" in the litigation arena. For this provision to be fit for purpose, could the Bill facilitate the injured parties to mount a class action suit, and could the state provide the requisite legal support as part of the larger effort to protect the public interest?

Madam, this Bill's success should not be measured by the number of successful prosecutions. I agree with the Minister that we should not expect an overwhelming number of prosecutions when the law comes into force.

More importantly, I see this Bill as nudging companies with business interests in palm oil and other commodities to be more mindful and to be more proactive about preventing transboundary haze pollution, especially if they use industrial scale slash-and-burn methods

Page: 53

to clear land. This Bill can have a direct impact on their operations and reputations. I hope these companies will rise to the occasion as it cannot be business as usual, in which there is a race to the bottom. Instead, it should be an endeavour to be responsible stakeholders.

Such businesses should strongly consider implementing effective anti-air pollution programmes and evaluating the sustainability of their supply chains, including detecting and responding to improper environmental conduct. Implementing and maintaining a sustainable and responsible business plan remain a prudent and recommended course of action. This is not just to simply avoid the long arm of this proposed law but because it is the right thing to do.

Consumers are becoming savvy and discerning in their purchasing choices. If businesses are not able to show a sustainable supply chain, then their sales could be detrimentally affected. Unilever and Procter & Gamble are two major companies that have thrown their weight behind sustainable and responsible sourcing of palm oil. In this regard, can the Ministry consider requiring companies to disclose to consumers the relevant information about their supply chains?

In similar vein, I hope the Government will show its resolve in enforcing this law because Singaporeans expect no less. Would the Government take the lead and adopt a procurement policy that ensures that goods and services procured are from sustainable and responsible sources? What about our Government-linked companies, including Temasek Holdings and GIC? Will they ensure that their investments and business partners are not engaging in conduct that is detrimental to the health of Singaporeans and our economy?

In this connection, businesses and governments should adhere to the precautionary principle in order to reduce the risk of violating this law and to demonstrate that they are responsible stakeholders.

I sense that there are high public expectations that this Bill will be a game-changer in that there will be clear skies and clean air henceforth, and that haze from land-clearing fires will now be consigned to the dustbin of history. If only a complex problem like the haze can be solved so easily by legislative fiat!

Thus, it is important to highlight that the Bill is by no means the silver bullet to combating transboundary air pollution. Managing public expectations will have to go hand-in-hand with enforcement actions under this Bill.

Bilateral cooperation and multilateral cooperation within the ASEAN framework and, more specifically, the 2002 ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution, will

Page: 54

continue to play a far bigger and more important role in ensuring that transboundary haze pollution does not continue to pose a serious annual health and economic concern.

For this law to work, the cooperation of our neighbours is necessary since the evidence, including geospatial information, such as the ownership and occupation of land, that is needed to mount successful prosecutions will not be in Singapore but where the companies and individuals were allegedly conducting such illegal activities.

Our law enforcement officers may also have to travel to neighbouring countries to gather evidence, assuming that permission is granted for such investigations in foreign jurisdictions. This is notwithstanding clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill which provide for the power to obtain information, the power to examine and to secure attendance of those who may know of matters related to an alleged offence under this Bill.

Madam, I must admit that I am sceptical whether there will ever be a successful prosecution when this law comes into force. Land use and land tenure in Indonesia are governed by a complex web of national, provincial and customary laws that often compete and, perhaps, even conflict with one another. As such, it is not at all clear who might own a piece of land. This Bill recognises that legal reality.

Further, as fire moves across the landscape, propelled by topography and wind, one cannot assume that burning within concessions is caused by the owners. Overlaying concession maps with hotspot locations may not be sufficient to meet the burden of proof required for a successful prosecution.

What all this means is that ground realities are a lot more complex. The Bill is bold in its approach but it does also show the limitations of the law. Despite the statutory presumptions, an enlarged conception of extraterritorial reach and an enlightened understanding of legal responsibility, it is going to be a major feat to hold an entity accountable and to penalise offenders. The defences to prosecutions found in clause 7 are necessary to prevent prosecutorial over-exuberance and over-reach and demonstrate our commitment to the rule of law even as we tackle the scourge of transboundary air pollution.

Mdm Speaker, we have a right to breathe air that does not sicken or kill us or harm our economic livelihoods. Indeed, Article 28(f) of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration provides for "the right to a safe, clean and sustainable environment". Although this Bill does not give us the rock-solid assurance that we will be able to enjoy this right immediately or in the foreseeable future, it is an important step in the right direction. As such, I support the Bill.

Page: 55

Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. It gives credence to the fact that when it comes to the environment, there are no borders. Damaging activities in one place affect another area beyond its shores, just as much as in the place of origin. The concept of "transboundary environment damage", as a platform for legal redress, Mdm Speaker – something that I first learnt about way back when I was studying environment law 20 years ago – is only now in the consciousness of Singaporeans.

The Bill also gives credence to the fact that, contrary to earlier narratives that the fires are caused by smallholders and slash-and-burn farmers, these are actually the work of – in the words of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong – "errant companies".

It also gives credence to the fact that, as Minister Vivian Balakrishnan rightly emphasised, "the root cause is commercial" and the fault lies with big business having, he said, "total disregard for their social and environmental responsibilities".

This Bill also stands out for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that it includes Singaporean entities as well as non-Singaporeans as potential offenders and defendants who could be prosecuted and/or sued. It is foreseeable that even financial institutions will now have to be more circumspect when granting loans or investments in case they, too, get implicated. This is a powerful tool to remind the corporate world that it has obligations and responsibilities beyond that of profit-making for their shareholders.

That said, Mdm Speaker, I seek clarifications for the following concerns.

Firstly, for the entity to be liable, and for the Bill to be truly effective, a strong ground mapping of concession areas to pinpoint responsibility for the fires is needed.

Therein lies the rub. We know that such fires occur in peat swamp forests. It is in the nature of such forests that it is the soil below that burns sometimes for years and it is the layers of burning peat soil that are difficult to put out or control once the fires start.

In a situation where the local politics may be hazy – no pun intended – as to who actually owns and is in charge of the land, how does the Bill ensure that the real power behind it is the one that is called to answer? For example, should there be a change in ownership or control of the land which may or may not be transparent or recorded formally, how does the Bill envisage the gathering of proof that a particular entity is the one that caused the fire? Further, such evidence calls for cooperation and collaboration with the countries concerned. Could the Minister clarify how the Bill envisages such cooperation and collaboration to be

Page: 56

sought?

The gathering of such evidence would also include the use of technology for veracity, authenticity and accuracy. Could the Minister clarify what sort of technology is envisaged and whether there may be potential issues relating to infringement of privacy and sovereign rights in the use of such technology? I say this because I note that even as the incoming President of Indonesia supports the proposed law, he also cautions that this must not be at the expense of his country's sovereignty.

Secondly, with regard to civil action, could the Minister clarify how are the parties envisaged by the Bill who may take action, are to do so? If, theoretically, it is open to any individual who has suffered damage or injury to do so, would this not potentially be burdens on our Court system? Further, for individuals or groups who may rightfully take Court action but may not necessarily have the funds to do so, how does the Bill envisage the way they may move forward? Does the Government see the possibility of the creation of a single special public interest litigation agency for this specific issue which may, perhaps, be funded wholly or partly by the Government?

Thirdly, criminal prosecution entails the payment of fines up to a maximum of $2 million. For the big agri-business conglomerates, even this amount is but a dent in their profit margins, compared to the damage they have caused, which may be beyond dollars and cents, for example, the loss of not just human lives but animal lives, too; loss of global bio-diversity and severe destruction of one's tropical rainforest. Could the Minister explain where the fines will be channelled towards? As a way of showing that we in Singapore are equally concerned for the well-being of the Indonesian people who suffer the worst effects of the haze, being at the epicentre, so to speak, as well as the animals like the orang utan and the elephants who are often poached as the forests are opened up, or left to die in the fires, can such monies be set aside in a special fund and used for restoration, reforestation, rehabilitation of the forest, the animals and for humanitarian support for the Indonesian people?

In addition, the ultimate goal that we should be striving for is that pressure be brought to bear on big business to actually change their business practices and become more ethical. I am concerned that the amount of fines stipulated in the Bill alone will not go that far. There is also the possibility that big business might pass on the cost of the fines to the consumer in the form of higher prices of products. Should the Bill have gone further and demanded that big businesses involved be forced to be part of that reparation, restoration and rehabilitation process of the people and the forest? Could the Minister also clarify if there are, in tandem with the Bill, plans to incentivise and motivate companies to take the ethical route and to acknowledge the good ones that have already done so?

Page: 57

In addition, may I seek the Minister's assurance that there will be greater scrutiny of Singaporean-owned and Government-owned businesses that are involved in such businesses, to ensure that the high ethical standards that we expect start from our own backyard?

Mdm Speaker, I started out by noting that destructive activities that affect the environment know no borders. I want now to focus on other fundamental issues.

For some time now, I have noted with concern how quick we are to blame another country for the problem, and, even then, only when the haze occurs literally right in front of our eyes. I am concerned that there is not as much self-reflection and introspection of how this is also a good time to be cognisant of our own contribution to the problem, to our own consumer lifestyle and our responsibility as individual citizens and as a country, to come up with more life-affirming and empowering solutions.

While we hold another country or commercial entity to task for the negative impacts of its activities on our citizens and our country, let the haze not blind us to the fact that we, in a developed country, are, in fact, the beneficiaries of the products of the oil palms through our ability to afford such products. These products are everywhere – in our food, in our homes, in our shops, in our offices – and in all the ways that make our lifestyle the comfortable one that it is, a lifestyle, I might add, that many want to maintain.

Every time we take our money out from our wallets, we are either contributing to the profits of these companies and to the problem that we complain about, or we can opt to make the world a better place by being conscious consumers and demand a higher standard from big business and the Government. If, indeed, the root cause of the haze problem is commercial, as Minister Vivian Balakrishnan rightly pointed out, then I call upon all Singaporeans and our Government to be aware and conscious of their own consumption patterns.

In a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I submitted in April this year and heard in the House, addressed to the Minister for Finance, I had asked what measures are in place to strengthen and reinforce the commitment to the initiative called the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environment Sustainability (PSTLES). I also asked a supplementary question in the House to the effect that in view of reports that paper commonly used in offices that are procured or manufactured by companies that do not practise sustainable oil palm production, should there not be greater vigilance, scrutiny and commitment over this aspect of green procurement on the part of the Government. Senior Minister of State for Finance, Mrs Josephine Teo, in her response, assured the House that "if the source of this supply could be

Page: 58

made known to us, I think we should take a closer look at it".

Mdm Speaker, this is but one small way the Government can take the lead beyond the Bill and show its commitment to take back responsibility for its own consumption patterns and to send a strong signal to big business of which companies it is willing to support and which it will not, in keeping with the principles of this Bill.

The Government can also continue to work with environment civil society that has been involved on this issue because these groups have existing networks beyond our shores that can be harnessed to gain ground information for a more accurate picture of the situation. For example, a young man by the name of Tan Yi Han, has taken the initiative to start a ground-up movement of young people called the "People's Movement to Stop the Haze", or PM Haze for short, and has even recently travelled to the affected areas in Jambi and Riau with his team where he met not only the local NGOs, but also saw first-hand the impact of the devastation on the villagers who have lost everything in the fires, people who are like us in Singapore but do not have the luxury of being the consumers of the products of the oil palm plantations. Yi Han saw for himself the complexity of the situation and realised there is much more that needs to be done and can be done by the ordinary Singaporean, a project he has continued to take responsibility for, and all because he saw the need to do more than complain or wait for the Government to do something.

Civil society, on their part, should continue to educate citizens of the individual's responsibility to reflect on their role, as conscious consumers, to choose products that have an ethical origin as far as possible and to boycott the renegade ones, and I would argue, to go so far as to even reduce consumption. Schools, in their curriculum, should not only teach about oil palm production and the haze, but also the alternative sustainable methods, as well as to empower students in the ways they can take action to change the status quo through a more conscious consumer lifestyle.

The ordinary citizens, as consumers, should be made aware that they have the power to change a business model that has thus far been more concerned about profits than about people or the planet, provided citizens start by taking back responsibility for their own part in the problem. It is no use playing the blame game when there is no sense of personal responsibility for the consumer choices that we make individually and collectively as a country.

After all, if there is one thing that this Bill shows us, it is that we cannot not have an impact on the environment. It, therefore, behooves us to walk lightly on the earth. A sign that I saw while travelling along the busy London highway is most instructive. It says "You

Page: 59

are not stuck in traffic; you are traffic."

Madam, this is a significant Bill for a very serious issue. Why so? It is because it causes an acute state of emergency in Singapore and our neighbours every year for the last 20 years or so. Secondly, it has both short- and long-term effects on our health and development and, thirdly, it has significant economic and business impact.

Fires will remain fires, but what is needed is a sense of ownership, responsibility and sustainable change in behaviour and practices. Only then will the fines, which are up to $2 million, be worth its value.

All parties involved must render full cooperation and collaboration to sort out the root causes and come to a mutual agreement conducive to all. This Bill contemplates both civil and criminal liabilities. It cuts across national boundaries. Thus, we need clarity on its execution. Affectedly, public members must know their rights.

What will be its recognition by countries in the region and their law-making bodies? There will be variations, we know, from the differing practices, culture, laws and legislation in the various countries. With its extraterritorial scope, how consistent will it be with international public law or health laws?

If a person or company is convicted, will they have to come to Singapore to be tried? Questions like this will arise. Can a member of the public file a civil suit, in this case, in a foreign court? What about a whistle-blower? What kind of protection are we able to offer him or will he be entitled to?

On previous occasions, Madam, we have encountered a struggle to get ownership data. With the passing of this Bill, will it facilitate this? Or will it be a matter of investigations taking too long, such that the haze would have come, passed and even been blown over before we come to something concrete?

Will Singapore or NEA be appointing a team of trained negotiators and facilitators to investigate and verify issues and data? Also, can I ask the Minister how we plan to obtain objective data on ownership and thus responsibility? Will we be accessing the NASA Landsat 8 satellite for the data and details, or are we utilising other resources from Indonesia?

Page: 60

Another issue, Madam, is that the owners of the land may sub-contract these out to locals to manage and run. What stand will we take in the event that the person or company claims and counter-refutes that they do not know the errant and illegal practices of the locals that they have engaged? How do we plan to extend the liabilities to these companies or persons who own the accused entity or burnt land? Will there be specific clauses included to ensure clarity so that we can execute these?

Finally, the haze causes numerous health-related effects which cannot really be measured and quantified easily, not forgetting the greenhouse effects and the gas emissions generated yearly. Importantly, follow-up is critical. This cannot be just a one-off fine for the errant companies. Recalcitrant cases must be dealt with adequately and appropriately.

Legislation is one aspect. Education must continue. Commitment must be inculcated. Mutual trust must continue to be strengthened. After all, it is also a matter of regional and ASEAN co-operation. Challenging as it is, Madam, if this Bill works for us, it can serve as a model for ASEAN to implement on a variety of transboundary and regional issues. Madam, I support the Bill.

I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.25 pm. Order, order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.05 pm until 4.25 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.25 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, I am grateful to all the Members of the House who have spoken. I am gratified that there has been unanimous support for this Bill – from the Nominated Members of Parliament, the Opposition Members of Parliament as well as, of course, the PAP Members of Parliament.

Page: 61

I am also gratified by the fact that in all your very thoughtful speeches, it was very clear that you appreciate how difficult it is, both to formulate this Bill as well as, ultimately, to implement and to execute this Bill. I think that is important because it ensures that, at least in this House, we set the expectations right.

I will be addressing the points that Members have brought up and I would try to cluster the questions which arose – first, what is the source of the fires; secondly, how will the extraterritorial application work, what do we do about maps, about overlapping concessions, the issue of fairness. There were questions on whether the penalties are sufficient. There were also questions on class action suits and whether we could facilitate the pursuit of civil actions in Court. And there were questions also on how we would utilise the fines and also questions on the role of consumer power, on the role of civil society, on financial institutions and, finally, a very important set of issues on diplomacy and cooperation. So, allow me to address these issues in sequence. And if I miss anything, you can clarify after my formal speech.

First, the source of the fires. This is not due to small farmers embarking on slash-and-burn cultivation. Slash-and-burn cultivation has probably been around for several thousand years, but transboundary haze of the severity that we now experience has been around only for the past couple of decades and more so in the last decade.

In fact, it is noteworthy that in the period from 2000 to 2012 – in the space of 12 years – the area in Indonesia which has been deforested is larger than the entire land area of England. That gives you an idea of the scale of deforestation. So, it is not the small farmer engaged in traditional slash-and-burn cultivation that is the culprit. It is the industrial-scale deforestation in pursuit of profits from plantations and, in particular, palm oil plantation. That is the big elephant in the room.

Hence, you will notice in this Bill that we recognise it is a matter of commercial interest and we are targeting the commercial operators who, directly or indirectly, are causing or contributing to or condoning activities which lead to transboundary haze.

There were quite valid questions raised on the extraterritorial application of this Bill. I think it was Assoc Prof Eugene Tan who said, well, by definition that we are dealing with transboundary haze, and, therefore, by definition, there has to be an extraterritorial element to it. I think they are valid questions but, first, how does this square with international law?

Under international law, states have a sovereign right to exploit their own natural resources, pursuant to their own policies. But states also have a responsibility to ensure that the activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of

Page: 62

other states or areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

In other words, yes, there are sovereign rights but there are also responsibilities to your neighbours. This is a principle in international law. For the lawyers in this House, you will also be aware of this principle called the Objective Territorial Principle, which, basically, gives us the right to take action against people whose irresponsible actions elsewhere have caused harm within Singapore.

There were also questions on how exactly we are going to apply the extraterritorial provisions. Maybe, it might be best explained by me citing a hypothetical example. For instance, this Bill allows us to act against errant foreign entities and gives us the legal power to serve notices on these entities – and this is an important point – including those with no assets in Singapore and no presence in Singapore. The notice will be served personally on an officer of the entity when the officer or the partner of that entity is within Singapore. NEA will work closely with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), so that we will know when such a person is in Singapore. We will serve the notice to him or her when he or she enters Singapore. Where necessary, the Public Prosecutor could apply for a Court order to require the person to remain in Singapore to assist in investigations. Failure of the entity or of the officers of that entity to furnish information and the documents which we require for investigations – if they fail to furnish information and documents without a reasonable excuse – would be an offence and the officers of such companies who come into Singapore may be charged in Court and be liable, on conviction, to a fine or imprisonment, or both. I think Members of the House will appreciate that this will have a salutary effect on key office-holders and decision-makers of companies, even if those companies have no assets or physical presence in Singapore.

There is also the related question of fairness of the Bill. Some people initially said, "Well, just target the companies with assets in Singapore." After all, they are easier to go after. But that raises the issue of fairness, because if you only expose companies which have a presence in Singapore, are incorporated or listed in Singapore to the potential liabilities of this Act, you will inadvertently or potentially scare such companies from basing themselves in Singapore. And that is not fair and does not make sense. Hence, we have to make sure that this Bill, in its extraterritorial application, also reaches all companies, a level playing field, a level set of liabilities.

Foreign investors and local companies that adopt environmentally sustainable practices should not hesitate to set up shop in Singapore. So long as you do the right thing, you are not the target. In fact, what we really want to do is, on one hand, to tilt the playing field against those who are irresponsible but, on the other hand, where a company has done the right thing, is engaged in sustainable practices, you also want to uphold the company, uplift

Page: 63

the company and burnish its credentials.

Next, there were questions about whether the penalties were sufficient. Members will recall that, in the original version of the Draft Bill, we provided for a criminal penalty of $300,000. The almost unanimous feedback we received then was that this was clearly and grossly insufficient.

There was also a suggestion that it should be pegged to the duration of the haze pollution that it has caused. Hence, we changed the formulation to peg it at $100,000 per day, and then impose the limit of $2 million as an aggregate limit. I have heard all the Members loud and clear. In fact, the majority of you feel that this $2 million aggregate cap may be insufficient. But I want to make this point, that this is a new legislation, we do not know yet how this will work in practice. We want to be very careful that we do not over-reach or have unrealistic penalties. So, we will start now at this level, but we will review the Act when it comes into effect and assess whether it has sufficient deterrence.

It is also worth highlighting that it is not only the criminal penalty that the company will be exposed to but the civil liability, and there is no limit to the civil liability, except what the Court decides to award. So, that could be potentially a much higher sum. Bear in mind that the Bill provides for you to make a claim if there is personal injury or health issues, including if you are a company, even a loss of profits. That computation can be a very large sum. So, let us move cautiously with this level of penalties first and see how we can operationalise the Bill and whether it has the impact that we hope it will have.

There were questions, I think from Assoc Prof Eugene Tan, on the possibility of mounting class action suits. Well, I am not a lawyer but I have been informed that, in Singapore, we do not have class action suits. But under Order 15, rule 12 of the Rules of Court, we have "representative action". Where there is more than one person who has the same interest in any proceedings, any one or more of them may represent all in order to commence proceedings. This is pursuant to Order 15, rule 12 of the Rules of Court. I hope Assoc Prof Tan will agree. So, this does provide for our version of collective action in pursuit of civil liabilities.

There were questions, I think from Mrs Lina Chiam and Ms Faizah Jamal, about the use of fines. I think this is a far more general principle and I would need to remind the House that the Government does not use criminal fines as a means of taxation. So, that is why, also as a matter of principle, we do not hypothecate fines. So, we do not impose a fine and then say the fines that are collected will be used for a specific purpose. All fines imposed by all Government agencies enter the Government Consolidated Fund. It does not even enter into the revenue stream of the public agencies. So, this is a matter of public policy. I do not think

Page: 64

we should change it for the purposes of this Bill.

Nevertheless, if we need money to safeguard our population's interest, money to embark on cooperative action, money to work with civil society and other consumer groups, in pursuit of these objectives, we will do so and, if need be, we will come to Parliament and seek approval from you when my Ministry's annual Budget is presented. So, let us not get into this argument about hypothecating fines for specific uses, even if those uses are good.

There were questions, I think from Mr Christopher de Souza and also Ms Faizah Jamal and, indeed, many of you, on the role of consumer power. I asked my colleagues in my Ministry, "Please go to the supermarket and identify all the products with palm oil", and they came back and said, "I cannot give you that list because more than half of the products you find on the shelves have palm oil", including, you will be surprised, Swiss chocolates of the highest quality. So, the point is, we should not go on this wild goose chase and say, "I am going to exclude and eliminate all palm oil from our consumer consumption." That is not possible.

But I think the larger point that Members have made is that greater transparency and knowing the source of the products and making companies invest in brand equity and, therefore, making them have a stake in ensuring that their supply chains are legitimate and derived from sustainable sources, is one way to apply consumer pressure. That is something which we can encourage but that is something which should be done not just by the Government – in fact, preferably not by the Government – but really by consumer groups, by non-government organisations. And this is more of a kind of grassroots bottom-up approach to apply consumer pressure. I think consumer pressure on commercial companies will have a salutary effect.

There were questions also about diplomacy and on cooperative action with Indonesia. I am glad that Members have brought it up because it shows that you also appreciate how difficult the challenge is. The activities are occurring in another foreign, sovereign country much larger than us. Actually, they have rules, they have laws; it is not a shortage of policies or shortage of legislation. The problem is with investigation and enforcement.

But having said that, we need to be very careful to respect the sovereignty of our partners and not to engage in merely finger-pointing or finger-wagging exercises. That is why we have always taken a cooperative approach. I shared the Draft Bill with my colleagues from Indonesia. I invited their comments. I cannot take credit for what has been reported so far, but I think what has been reported so far on the views of the incoming administration is something which I welcome. It is useful for Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore to see this as a collective problem and that we are all trying to protect the interests of all our citizens. And the most effective way to do so is to cooperate, to share data and to do so with greater

Page: 65

transparency, so that both consumers and governments can put pressure on companies to clean up their act.

Just yesterday, before I came to Parliament, I spoke to Minister Agung Laksono, who is the Coordinating Minister for People's Welfare, and he oversees the disaster relief and the firefighting efforts in Indonesia. I called him; I offered a helicopter with firefighting capability, over and above the earlier offer of assistance that we had made in June. He thanked me for it. He has got my mobile phone number and I have got his number. It shows you that there is a lot of behind-the-scenes to-ing and fro-ing, communication and coordination. And you need to understand, therefore, that we have got to keep these channels open, and cooperation is more effective than trying to give a lecture. We must remember that Singapore is a small little red dot. We are price takers, not price makers. We, therefore, have to do our best to protect our sovereignty, to protect the rights of our people, but to do so in a constructive and, hopefully, ultimately, effective way.

I want to emphasise that this Bill, as many of you have already alluded to, is not a silver bullet and it is not a complete solution in itself. But it is one step, a novel step, that we are introducing new elements into the law. Even for the decisions, the presumption clauses, we also had to calibrate that very carefully. We have to have presumptions on the validity of maps, on control and indirect control.

For lawyers, presumptions in law are not something which is preferred as a first option. Nevertheless, because this depends on circumstantial evidence at best, we needed to get the balance right between presumptions and, at the same time, providing adequate defences and providing opportunities for the companies to rebut. So, I have no illusions that this is something simple; or that this is something settled once and for all; or that this will guarantee blue skies. There are no guarantees.

This year, we have been lucky because the wind has been in our favour. But it is worth reminding this House that, in Malaysia, the air has reached unhealthy levels simply because the wind has been blowing from the south-west. So, the haze from Riau has been going into the Klang Valley and not into Singapore. But if, as in last year, there was a low pressure area in the Philippines which caused the winds to be westerly, we will get hit. So, these are the brutal realities of being "a little red dot". We are in a dynamic, economically growing but difficult region. And I thank Members for their support.

Thank you, Madam. I thank the Minister for the clarifications. I just have one question which is actually from my speech. I would like to know what would be our

Page: 66

Singapore Government and the Minister's expectations as to the Primary Person's responsibility. How do you define "taking all such measures reasonable to prevent, stop and reduce substantially such actions by the Secondary Persons"? The reason I am asking this is that it is very simple for large companies to insert clauses into their contracts with sub-contractors and then say that they have, therefore, safeguarded themselves. If a forest fire happens, they can then simply say it is the responsibility of their sub-contractor and, therefore, they have taken all reasonable measures.

I thank the Member for that query. I do not think the simple insertion of a few clauses into a contract will be a sufficient defence. But I will leave it to the judge in the Court of law to assess whether that controlling entity has really done the best to prevent a fire, or did not know about the actions that led to the fire, or, having known that the haze has being caused, did not take adequate action to put it out. These are issues which have to be settled in Court. I do not think that just having a clause in the contract absolves you of your responsibility and liability.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister: in this Bill, does it provide a whistle-blower provision? For repeat offenders, does the fine remain the same or will there be an increase?

I do not think, in our current version of the Bill, that we have provided a specific provision for whistle-blowing. Actually, this is not common at all in our legislation. So, it is not present now. We will review it if such protection is necessary.

There are no specific provisions that elevate that penalty for repeat offenders. What we have put in place for criminal liabilities is the maximum cap but the amount will be determined by the judge. For civil liability, as I have said, it is unlimited but determined by the Court.

The Minister talks about making errant companies accountable. But what if the errant parties are not companies and lots of individuals?

We have actually defined "owners" quite broadly in the legislation. You do not just have to be a company that is incorporated. Even unincorporated groups of partnerships or sole proprietorships and all the different legal forms could be held liable. We have taken care to define things very broadly so that you cannot escape simply because you say you are not a company.

I would like to ask the Minister two clarifications. First, whether he thinks the Bill is unnecessarily narrow in terms of the scope. It covers only

Page: 67

transboundary haze pollution which involves smoke of any land or forest fires. I gave the example of: what if it is water-based and that could come from a commercial entity as well? Secondly, I appreciate the point that civil society could lead in terms of trying to encourage consumers to make ethical purchases. The difficulty for consumers is always a lack of information. I do not know whether the Government has a longer term plan of requiring products to specify the supply chain to demonstrate they come from sustainable sources.

Before I answer the Member's question, Minister Heng Swee Keat has just pointed out to me that we have defined "entity" to mean a sole proprietorship, a partnership, a corporation or anybody or persons, whether corporate or unincorporated. I think that is quite wide. I hope that addresses Ms Tan Su Shan's earlier query.

For Assoc Prof Eugene Tan's point, this Bill has been narrowly scoped. We have focused on transboundary haze pollution emanating from fires from forest or land. We did not go so far as to look at factories, burning oil platforms and the rest of it. The reason we did not is that this Bill, on its own, is already breaking new ground. I am a surgeon; I do not like making large incisions. So, let us be targeted; let us get this surgical operation done. Let us see how this works before we start taking adventures and liberty. I have deliberately scoped this narrowly.

The second point is about consumer information. This is something which both product regulators as well as NGOs can collaborate on. I will give you an example of collaboration. For instance, at the ASEAN level, we have been having difficulty operationalising the ASEAN Haze Monitoring System because, from the governments' view, civil servants tend to be very protective of data. They say, "No, we cannot share our official concession maps" or "The maps are not ready."

But this has not stopped NGOs like World Resources Institute from publishing maps which it has gained access to, through its own channels, and allowing the creation of platforms which share real-time data from satellites, meteorological data, concession maps and to give people an idea of what is really happening on the ground.

In addition to that, there is this element called "ground-truthing", meaning, yes, you can see something from the sky but what you really need is someone with a camera phone on the ground to say that, "This is the fire and this is occurring here and I saw this person". These sorts of information and information gathering, sometimes are best done through a non-government channel. You do not invoke issues of sovereignty and all the other political sensitivities. But, at the same time, sufficient transparency and sufficient information are put in the hands of consumers to apply real pressure on corporate businesses. We need a full menu of options on the table. Not everything is best done through legislation or Government

Page: 68

action alone.

[(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. – [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan]. (proc text)]

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

Page: 69

[(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 Attorney-General (Additional Functions) Bill of 2014 confers on the Attorney-General (AG) additional powers to represent Statutory Boards in judicial review and other Court proceedings. The AG is the Government's legal representative. In general, Statutory Boards are defined as separate legal entities from the Government. They are staffed by in-house legal counsel and, where necessary, they engage external counsel to represent them in legal proceedings. Consequently, the AG is not empowered to represent Statutory Boards.

In judicial review proceedings against Statutory Boards, the AG may intervene in the public interest but, in doing so, the AG neither represents the defendant Statutory Board nor protects the interests of the Statutory Board. As announced by the AG in his speeches during the Opening of the Legal Year ceremonies in 2013 and 2014, if the AG is conferred the power to represent Statutory Boards in legal proceedings under appropriate circumstances, this will first ensure that the conduct of litigation is aligned across the Government and Statutory Boards. And, second, foster the development of public law principles within a coherent and ethical framework.

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

Clause 3 of the Bill empowers the AG to represent relevant Statutory Boards which are listed in the Schedule to the Bill in applicable judicial review actions and related Court proceedings if four requirements are satisfied.

First, the relevant Statutory Board makes a request to the AG for such representation. Second, the Minister charged with the responsibility for the relevant Statutory Board consents to such representation. Third, the AG is of the opinion that the Government and the relevant Statutory Board have no conflicting interests in the matter; and fourth, the AG is of the opinion that such representation is not contrary to the public interest. However, if the AG determines at any point of time that there may be a likely conflict between the Government's and the relevant Statutory Board's interests, the Statutory Board will have to engage an external counsel.

Page: 70

The AG's decision to represent the relevant Statutory Board or otherwise under clause 3 will be final and conclusive.

Clause 4 deals with representation in Court proceedings which do not involve judicial review or related matters. It empowers the AG to represent relevant Statutory Boards in such proceedings if, (a) the first three conditions set out in clause 3 are satisfied, and (b) the AG is also of the opinion that the proceedings concern a matter of public importance. The AG should be involved in cases of public importance. Such matters have the potential to affect Singapore as a whole and could involve issues of public law and the public interest. As such, they require closer oversight.

As with representation under clause 3, the AG's position to represent a relevant Statutory Board or otherwise under clause 4 will also be final and conclusive.

As mentioned earlier, the AG may only represent Statutory Boards which are specified in the Schedule to the Bill. The Schedule currently lists the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Singapore Land Authority (SLA). This list will be gradually extended to cover other Statutory Boards over time. This phased approach will allow Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) to develop its protocols to meet the projected caseload.

For the avoidance of doubt, in a judicial review application involving a Statutory Board which is not listed in the Schedule to the Bill, the AG may still intervene in the public interest, but, in doing so, the AG does not represent the defendant Statutory Board or protect the interests of the Statutory Board.

Mdm Speaker, in summary, this Bill empowers the AG to represent Statutory Boards in judicial review and other Court proceedings and, in so doing, will, first, ensure that the conduct of litigation is aligned across the public sector; and, second, promote the coherent and systematic development of public law principles. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mdm Speaker, I welcome this proposed law to confer additional functions on the AG.

There are at least 66 Statutory Boards in Singapore covering a gamut of areas in every aspect of life ranging from public libraries, civil aviation, institutions of higher learning,

Page: 71

religious matters, casino and gaming operations, national examinations, sports and more.

We are very much an administrative state. And in tandem with a citizenry that is more assertive of their rights and interests, judicial review of administrative action is probably a growth industry. Judicial review enables citizens to challenge and put a stop to unlawful Government action.

While more litigation is not necessarily better, the fact that there are more judicial review applications and proceedings in the past decade point to faith and confidence in our judiciary. They also signal that the legal system is robust and the commitment to the rule of law remains functional. The rule of law requires that public authorities, in exercising their public functions and statutory powers, do not cross the line of legality.

As a teacher of constitutional and administrative law, I must admit that I have been somewhat puzzled that Statutory Boards or private bodies exercising statutory functions could not avail themselves of the AG's advice and representation in judicial review actions brought against them.

The reality is that counsel from our Bar acting for the Statutory Boards operate under a quite different set of incentives and performance indicators from the AGC. While they may not have a "win at all costs" mindset, lawyers from the Bar may lack an appreciation for and a nuanced understanding of the public interest and what it entails. This is not surprising since they are not schooled in the public service and may not appreciate how the judicial review cases they are handling can have a reach far beyond their Statutory Board principal.

Second, with each Statutory Board defending itself and not being mindful of the larger picture, there is always the danger that there is lacking a whole-of-Government approach and perspective to judicial review proceedings.

Broadly speaking, administrative law principles do not just specifically apply to a Ministry or a Statutory Board; they may also apply to all bodies exercising statutory functions. So, a concession on an administrative law principle might not be onerous to one particular Statutory Board, but may be an entirely different proposition altogether for another. So, we may have a perverse situation in which one Statutory Board may unwittingly undermine the development of a coherent and robust administrative law jurisprudence.

Third, as Singapore develops its own administrative law jurisprudence, it must be developed in a coherent manner and one that is in sync with our system of governance and constitutional order. In serving the public, regulatory frameworks and regimes should adhere

Page: 72

to certain core public law principles.

Madam, for a start, this proposed legislation, when brought into force, will empower the AG to represent MAS and SLA in a judicial review.

My sense is that such representation work by the AG is important and necessary in complex areas of law, such as MAS' functions with regard to prohibited market conduct under Part XII of the Securities and Futures Act. And in land-scarce Singapore, administrative law principles must be cognisant of the need to optimise land resources for the economic and social development of Singapore.

Nonetheless, could the Senior Minister of State elaborate on why MAS and SLA are chosen and the criteria used?

I also seek the Senior Minister of State's clarifications on a few other matters under the Bill.

One, clause 5 provides that the AG may require a scheduled Statutory Board to pay a reasonable fee for legal services and representation rendered by his Chambers. How will the fees be determined and will the fees be charged as a matter of practice?

Two, with respect to the Schedule, are the long-term plans for the AG to represent all Statutory Boards in judicial review proceedings? Also, is the AG already having oversight of all judicial review cases brought against Statutory Boards?

Three, the Bill appears to provide only for the AG to represent a body corporate or unincorporate established by or under a public Act to perform or discharge a public function.

Our jurisprudence has established that judicial review also extends to a body or tribunal that is "private" in nature but which operates as an integral part of a system with a public law character and which is supported by public law in that public law sanctions are applied if its directives or decisions are ignored, and performs what might be described as public law functions. As such, can the AG represent a body corporate or unincorporate that is not a Statutory Board?

Finally, this Bill has the potential to add to the demands on AGC. It is desirable that as much of the public sector receives quality legal advice and representation, especially pertaining to administrative law. AGC will, therefore, have to beef up its manpower to

Page: 73

manage the likely increase workload.

More importantly, AGC will also need to enhance its training outreach to the Public Service so that public officers have a competent understanding of what judicial review is about and how their actions and decision-making processes have to be in compliance with the law.

Madam, judicial review is not about the Courts judging the merits of the administrative act or decision of the Executive branch of the Government. Rather, it is concerned about how an administrative act or decision was arrived at in the exercise of discretionary powers conferred by the law. In this sense, judicial review can be a platform by which public authorities, especially if they lose a judicial review case, can learn to exercise discretionary power and the process of decision-making that do not run afoul of the law and the principles of natural justice. As such, I hope that the Government will consider strengthening the education outreach efforts of the AGC. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Attorney-General (Additional Functions) Bill.

Presently, where Statutory Boards in Singapore are involved in judicial review and related Court proceedings, they engage private law firms to act on their behalf.

This Bill, if enacted, will empower the AG to represent the relevant Statutory Boards in judicial review cases, related Court proceedings and even, where it is a matter of public importance, in other Court proceedings as well. I rise in support of this Bill because the Bill sets out clearly a framework and the requirements for the AG to represent the relevant Statutory Boards in judicial review and related Court proceedings. However, of equal importance is that the Bill does not inadvertently incentivise the initiation of frivolous judicial review applications.

The proposed Bill adopts a four-fold requirement before the AG is empowered to represent the relevant Statutory Board in Court proceedings.

First, the Statutory Board must make a request to the AG for such representation; secondly, the Minister charged with the responsibility for the relevant Statutory Board must consent to such representation; next, the AG must be of the opinion that the Government and the requesting Statutory Board do not have conflicting interests in the matter; and lastly,

Page: 74

the AG must be of the opinion that such representation is not contrary to public interest.

These four prerequisites for the representation of the Statutory Boards by the AG ensure that the core role and purpose of the AG to act as Public Prosecutor and State Counsel for the Government, as set out in our Constitution, are not compromised.

At the same time, it ensures that there is a clear framework for the Statutory Board to first obtain approval from the relevant Minister to engage the assistance of the AG, and also makes it necessary for the AGC to do its due diligence to ensure that its involvement in the judicial review (JR) and relevant Court proceedings is not in conflict with the Government's interest and is not contrary to public interest.

Taken together, the Bill provides an avenue for greater synergy between the AGC and the relevant Statutory Boards and could create overall cost savings.

It is important that, from a resource angle, this arrangement of having the AG represent Statutory Boards in judicial review and relevant Court proceedings must be sustainable in the long term.

While I support the overall aim of this Bill, I would appreciate if the Minister could clarify a few aspects of the mechanics of the Bill.

First, from a manpower point of view, would the legal service officer assigned to assist the relevant Statutory Boards in these judicial review and relevant Court proceedings be solely focused on such judicial proceedings, or would it be one of several responsibilities within the officer's portfolio? It is important that we ensure that our legal service officers are deployed effectively while at the same time ensuring that they are not overly burdened by multiple roles and responsibilities.

Further, could the Minister explain the rationale for the inclusion of just two Statutory Boards in the Schedule to the Bill, which specifies the relevant Statutory Boards that may be represented by the AG – namely, MAS and SLA? Those were the only two currently in the Schedule. Although the Bill does empower the President to amend the Schedule by order published in the Government Gazette, it is unclear as to why just these two Statutory Boards have been identified at the enactment of this Bill.

On the whole, Mdm Speaker, I support the overall objective of this Bill and believe that it would be beneficial to provide a means for the relevant Statutory Boards to have the AG or his deputies represent them in judicial review and related Court proceedings.

Page: 75

The framework that has been created with this proposed Bill ensures that Statutory Boards continue to have the flexibility to request the AG and/or his or her officers to represent them in judicial review and relevant Court proceedings while maintaining the present option to engage a private law firm should there be a conflict of interest.

In a legal system that is premised on the rule of law, judicial review actions in respect of administrative decisions or instruments of legislative character of the relevant Statutory Boards are inevitable. With the enactment of this Bill, the relevant Statutory Boards will now be better positioned to respond to judicial review applications, through its representation by the AG. Ultimately, the Court will decide on the merits or demerits of any application. I support the Bill.

Senior Minister of State for Law.

Mdm Speaker, I wish to thank the hon Members, Assoc Prof Eugene Tan and Mr Christopher de Souza for speaking in support of the Bill.

Assoc Prof Tan had asked whether the AG is already having oversight of all judicial review cases against Statutory Boards. The AG currently provides his views and comments to the Statutory Boards' parent Ministries in cases which involve public law issues that could have implications across the public sector or on the development of the law.

Both Members had asked for the rationale of including just two specific Statutory Boards, namely, MAS and SLA, in the Schedule to the Bill as relevant Statutory Boards that may be represented by the AG.

The inclusion of Statutory Boards into the Schedule of the Bill will be a gradual process so that the AG can put in place the necessary protocols to meet the projected workload.

MAS has been included in the first phase because the financial sector is an important segment of the Singapore economy, as Assoc Prof Tan identified just now, and financial sector regulation is becoming increasingly complex.

SLA is the custodian of state land and properties and has the responsibility of ensuring that Singapore's scarce land resources are allocated optimally. Cases involving state land could have important ramifications for the state, Government, businesses and individuals.

Page: 76

Assoc Prof Tan had also asked about the criteria by which Statutory Boards will be placed in the Schedule and whether there are plans to include every Statutory Board in the Schedule of the Bill. The main criterion is the public functions that the Statutory Board performs in accordance with its enacting public Act. It is envisaged that the Bill will eventually cover Statutory Boards which perform core or sensitive functions.

Members may wish to know the factors that might inform the AG's decision on whether to represent a Statutory Board in Court proceedings. Without fettering the AG's discretion in any way, let me explain some of the factors he could take into account.

One of the relevant factors would be the nature of the allegation that is being made against the Statutory Board or, put another way, the nature of the right that the applicant is seeking to assert. For example, the AG may be more inclined to represent the Statutory Board if the applicant is challenging the scope of the Statutory Board's powers.

Another relevant factor would be the potential impact of the Court's decision in that particular application. Thus, if the applicant makes allegations against the Statutory Board which call into question the system of public administration and governance across the public sector as a whole, the AG could regard this to be a case where he should represent the Statutory Board, in the interests of the entire public sector.

As for potential cases under clause 4 of the Bill, that is, matters of public importance, these would include cases where there are important and novel legal issues that will have an impact on the public sector or Singapore as a whole.

Assoc Prof Tan also asked if this Bill would empower the AG to represent non-Statutory Boards. Although the Singapore Courts have held that under certain conditions, the decisions of non-Statutory Bodies or tribunals could be amenable to judicial review, the Bill allows the AG to represent only Statutory Boards which perform or discharge public functions.

Assoc Prof Tan and Mr de Souza had queries relating to the issue of the AG's resources. The phased approach in the implementation of this Bill will allow the AG to gradually build up the necessary resources for carrying out his additional functions. This would avoid over or under-utilising legal service officers who will be involved in representing Statutory Boards.

As for Mr de Souza's question as to whether a legal service officer assigned to assist the relevant Statutory Board in the judicial review or Court proceeding would be solely focused on these matters, or whether this engagement would be one of several responsibilities within the officer's portfolio, how the AG will deploy legal service officers within his Chambers is an operational matter balancing considerations, such as caseload, the need to

Page: 77

build expertise and the need to ensure diversity of work for legal service officers. So, in short, we will leave that to the AG to determine.

Assoc Prof Tan had also asked how AGC's fees will be determined. The exact charging model will be determined at a later date. Generally, Government agencies operate on the basis of cost recovery. As such, the AGC's fees are likely to be lower than the rates charged by external counsel. But the rationale for imposing fees is to ensure that there is discipline in the use of resources. All fees collected will be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

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

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

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

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

Page: 78

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

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

Madam, this Bill seeks to amend the Land Acquisition Act (LAA) to enhance the compensation framework for landowners who have part of their land acquired and to improve the efficiency of the land acquisition process.

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

The first concerns the application of the betterment levy. When the Government acquires part of a landowner's land, the value of the remaining portion of land held by the landowner could increase due to the use that the land acquired will be put.

At present, section 33 of the LAA requires such increase in value to be deducted from the statutory compensation the landowner is given for the acquired land. This is known as the betterment levy. Clause 12 of the Bill removes the requirement for such increase to be deducted. Landowners will, therefore, receive compensation equivalent to the full market value of the acquired land.

This amendment continues in the spirit of the previous set of amendments to the LAA in 2007 which pegged compensation for acquired land to the market value which a bona fide purchaser would reasonably be willing to pay for the property.

The second amendment enables the Management Corporation of strata-titled developments to act on behalf of individual unit owners when common property is acquired. Today, when small parcels of common areas, such as carpark lots or grass verges in strata-titled developments are acquired, unit owners must go through the entire acquisition process individually even if their own units are not affected by the acquisition and even if their share of the compensation is not significant. And this has resulted in inconvenience to individual unit owners.

The Bill amends the LAA and the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA) to allow the Management Corporation (MC) to represent individual unit owners when common property is acquired. The MC will also be able to use the MC's fund for

Page: 79

acquisition-related expenses. This amendment will minimise inconvenience to individual unit owners, as well as allow for quicker progress of the acquisition proceedings and disbursement of compensation.

Finally, the Bill makes several technical and housekeeping amendments. I will highlight two such amendments. The first relates to the posting of notices on acquired land. At present, the LAA requires the Collector of Land Revenue to post hardcopy notices on the acquired land when possession is being taken, in addition to serving the notice on interested persons.