Hansard, Tuesday, 5 November 2019

1 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the plans to provide student care centres (SCC) in Yishun South including pre-school centres; (b) what are the minimum criteria for private SCCs' operations to ensure that they provide acceptable standards of service; and (c) how often does the Ministry visit these centres to ensure compliance.

Mr Speaker, childcare centres provide full-day and half-day care programmes to children below the age of seven, while student care centres (SCCs) provide care and supervision to school-going children from seven to 14 years old.

At the pre-school level, there are 67 childcare centres in the Yishun planning area. About a third are within the existing Nee Soon South ward at Yishun South. To ensure continued access to quality, affordable preschools, the Government will provide about 2,000 more Government-supported places in Yishun planning area over the next few years.

For student care, there are four SCCs registered with MSF to administer the Student Care Fee Assistance (SCFA) scheme in Nee Soon South ward. Two of them are located in Primary schools and the other two in the community. Together, these four centres have enrolled about 400 students, with sufficient capacity to meet demand. In recent years, MOE has steadily increased the number of school-based SCCs. In particular, for Nee Soon South, Naval Base Primary School has had an SCC since 2007 and Peiying Primary School’s SCC was set up in 2019 to improve accessibility of SCCs. Both centres still have vacancies. MSF and MOE will continue to monitor the demand for SCC places and expand capacity where there is demand.

SCCs that wish to administer SCFA are required to register with MSF. MSF requires registered SCCs, including centres operated by private entities, to meet stipulated standards. These include standards on, among other things, providing a clean and safe physical environment with appropriately sized activity areas, observing good safety, health and hygiene practices, proper supervision of students, and a structured daily programme that supports learning and development. For example, SCC premises should have at least three square metres of space per student, and at least one SCC staff who is trained in first aid should be present at all times during opening hours.

MSF conducts audits on registered SCCs, which may include surprise checks, at least once every two years to ensure compliance with the above requirements. More frequent checks may be conducted as needed, for example to look into feedback and complaints received and where the SCC has weaknesses identified in previous audits. SCCs that do not meet requirements and fail to rectify the areas of improvement within the stipulated timeline can have their SCFA administrator status revoked.

Sir, I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his comprehensive reply. I have four supplementary questions.

First, from the feedback from my residents is that for the school-based SCCs, most of the time, my residents are told that the places are reserved for children from lower income families. Is this true? Many of those from middle income families find that they have problems getting into school-based SCCs.

The second question is, I am glad to hear that there is such a requirement of three square metres per student. I would like to ask if there are audit checks to make sure that the SCCs adhere to such a requirement. The feedback is that it is always very cramped. They have visited the private ones and they say these are always very cramped, and the children, some lie on the floor, some lie on the table; and they look like they are not very well run.

The third question is, the feedback received from private operators is that HDB releases void deck space more for childcare centres, not so much for student care operators. Is there a plan for HDB to release void deck space to private operators for SCCs?

The last question is, I understand that MOE has plans for after-school care in every Primary school. I would like to ask if there is any timeline and whether we are on schedule?

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions and all the suggestions. Let me answer the fourth question first. I am happy to share with the Member that we are on track to have SCCs in all 185 Primary schools by 2020. So, this is good news.

As it is today, the capacity in the Nee Soon South area, in particular, exceeds utilisation. If the Member has any requests or demands from any resident from her constituency, she may like to work with us to see how we can help.

As for the question about three square metres, we do have audit checks. We have a framework where we work not only with operators, but also with parents and whenever we know there are some inconsistencies in the practices, we will be more than happy to look at it. We want to make sure that the child's time in the SCC is meaningful and has value-add, and that helps in the educational journey.

For the question about the private sector, we take note of this feedback. At the end of the day, we work with the local community and the agencies to see how we are able to meet the demand. At this point in time, in Nee Soon South, the demand is less than the capacity that we have. We will continue to see how we can facilitate this whole process of providing every child a good start in life.

2 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether he can provide an update on measures taken to rehabilitate and protect at-risk individuals and offenders to transform their lives and the results to date.

Mr Speaker, the Government adopts a range of measures to support at-risk youths and youth offenders.

First, we intervene upstream to address risk factors before offences are committed.

In 2012, MSF appointed two Social Service Agencies to run "Youth GO!". Under Youth GO!, youth workers would conduct street outreach to engage at-risk youths and sometimes, it could be even late at night. Youth GO! workers reach out to around 300 youths each month and engage them in structured activities, which reduces risky behaviours and improves their relationships and life skills.

MSF works closely with MOE to provide the Enhanced STEP-UP (ESU) programme, benefiting more than 600 youths each year. This programme supports youths who are at risk of dropping out and those who have left school, so that they can continue their education or acquire vocational skills for employment.

MSF is also working with our partners to pilot a Localised Community Network (LCN) in Jurong West, to improve the coordination between various partners and provide more seamless support to the youths and their families. If this pilot works out, we can look to expand it. So, that is first – upstream.

Second, we divert youth offenders away from the criminal justice system as far as possible.

MSF appointed nine social service agencies to be what we call "Integrated Service Providers" or ISPs, which support youth offenders diverted away from the criminal justice system. ISPs run programmes to address offending behaviours and have worked with around 900 youths and families so far. On average, more than 80% of the youths satisfactorily complete their programmes. Arrests of youths aged between seven and 19 years old have fallen from around 3,100 in 2014 to 2,700 in 2018, a decrease of 13%.

Third, we prioritise community-based interventions to involve families and minimise disruption to the youth's development.

Such interventions include probation and rehabilitation outside of residential facilities. MSF employs a family-focused approach to address the root causes of youth offending, such as weak family support. The average three-year recidivism rate of probationers aged below 16 years old has fallen. A 19.5% recidivism rate for cases closed from 2007 to 2009, improved to 12.5% for cases closed from 2010 to 2014.

MSF's Youth Homes run programmes to build our youths’ character and life-skills. Formal education is a key component as well, and the majority of those who sit for national examinations such as the GCE "N" and "O" Levels, attain passes above the national average.

Fourth, we sustain rehabilitative outcomes to better re-integrate children with their families and society.

We announced during the Committee of Supply this year that we are extending the period of post-care support in Youth Homes from two months to one year. The longer duration helps youths to sustain good habits and skills acquired during their residence and encourages them to continue their academic or vocational training. The Singapore Prison Service adopts a similar approach for youth offenders in prison, by staging support from the point of imprisonment, to their release and reintegration back into the community.

In addition, labelling someone as an ex-offender makes reintegration more difficult for him or her. Hence, our recent amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act or CYPA have also included enhancing the protection of youth offenders' identity and privacy.

The Government is committed to protecting and supporting youth-at-risk and youth offenders. This is a continuous work-in-progress. MSF will continue to work closely with other Ministries and our community partners to steer at-risk youths away from negative behaviours and provide rehabilitative and post-care initiatives to break the cycle of offending.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive answer. Indeed, I am very encouraged by the good progress that he has reported. I would like to ask one supplementary question, which is beyond all the efforts taken – both upstream and downstream – and attempts to re-integrate these at-risk individuals with their families and into society, I would like to ask what efforts are being made, in particular, for them once they are able to get into the job market. What efforts are there that are made to help them find suitable jobs? At the same time, are there any schemes which would allow employers to also be encouraged or incentivised to take on-board these individuals?

I thank the Member for his interest in ensuring that beyond the formal framework of supporting youth offenders in the institutions and in the one-year period immediately post discharge, what more are we doing. Sometime ago, we ran a pilot, working with the employment agencies in Government to provide a framework to help at-risk youths and youth offenders re-integrate into the workforce, and to help address any concerns that they may have in doing so. At the conclusion of the pilot, that effort was merged into the mainstream WSG framework so that employment agencies working with WSG are empowered to provide better support to at-risk youths and youth offenders.

We continue to keep a close eye on that front. With the support of the various social service agencies in the community, we will partner and look out for youths who start to struggle, even as they attempt to re-integrate back into society and back into the workforce. We would, of course, be very happy if the Member representing the enterprises that he does, is prepared to partner us in some future point in time, to continue this work of partnership to better enable youth offenders to find their place back in society.

3 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the expected outlook for the net formation (formation minus cessation) of businesses by sector in 2019; (b) which sectors are seeing declining net formation trends and what are the likely causes for the declines; (c) what efforts are being introduced to ensure net formation remains healthy over the coming years; and (d) whether there will be a continued level of "healthy" cessation of businesses.

Sir, in the first nine months of 2019, the total net formation of business entities in the economy was around 9,900. This is about a quarter lower than the average of around 13,800 recorded over the same period between 2014 and 2018.

Most sectors saw a fall in the net formation of business entities during this period, including the transportation and storage, business services and construction sectors. Heightened economic uncertainties in the global economy and the resulting slowdown in the Singapore economy are likely to be factors contributing to this trend. MTI expects the net formation of businesses to remain subdued for the rest of 2019.

MTI has several strategies to develop a vibrant eco-system for business. First, we are looking at ways to grow our economy and enable companies to seize new opportunities, both locally and overseas. This includes transforming our industries, developing new sectors such as agri-tech and precision medicine, and supporting our companies to tap on external growth opportunities.

Second, we are fostering a pro-enterprise environment by lowering the barriers of entry and exit for businesses. For instance, MTI launched the GoBusiness Licensing portal for food services on 31 October, which reduces the number of regulatory touch-points for businesses from 14 to one and the number of data fields required from more than 800 to below 100. Businesses can also benefit from lower licence fees and quicker processing time. We will extend this to other sectors, such as retail and environmental services, so that more businesses can benefit from the rules review and process re-engineering.

Third, we will continue to develop a vibrant startup eco-system. We established Startup SG in 2017 to provide start-ups with access to a wide range of local financial and non-financial support. These include Startup SG Founder, which provides mentorship and start-up capital grants to first-time entrepreneurs with innovative business ideas and Startup SG Network, which connects startup eco-system players.

Sir, Government measures are important, but they are not sufficient. To succeed in our goal of building a vibrant business eco-system, we need a collective effort from business owners, workers and Government to work in partnership to transform our economy and enterprises together.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive answers to my question. I only have one supplementary question. In relation to the continued level of "healthy" cessation of businesses, as stated in the last part of my original question, can the Senior Minister of State share whether MTI has any specific level of target in terms of the definition of "healthy" cessation of businesses? In relation to the economic cycle we are facing now, whether there is any good feel of "healthy" cessation of businesses going forward, in taking into particular consideration, the outlook of the economy.

Sir, I think in any economy, whether in good times or in challenging times, we will see firms entering and firms exiting. This is part and parcel of a well functioning economy. What we want is to ensure that, in the end, resources are being channelled into the more productive, more competitive firms. Firms that are able to offer better services, better products, better able to meet customers' needs. So, we do not have targets in terms of what are the levels of firms exiting the economy. But certainly, I think this process of allowing the churn – firms that are not doing well, exiting; firms that are more competitive, more productive, doing better, coming in – so that the resources – land, labour – these resources are then better able to be channelled to the more competitive and more productive companies.

Over time, if we do this well, then the economy will get stronger and stronger, the capabilities in our enterprises will get stronger and our workers will be able to get better jobs.

4 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what is the impact of Dyson's cancellation of plans to build electric vehicles (EV) in Singapore and whether there are value propositions and opportunities to develop the EV business.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question on electric vehicles and Dyson's decision was also raised by Mr Seah Kian Peng yesterday and the reply had been converted into a written answer. But, let me address Mr Liang Eng Hwa's question on a very similar topic.

Sir, Dyson's decision to wind down its electric vehicles business will not impact its presence and operations in Singapore. Out of Dyson's 1,200-strong workforce in Singapore, 20 employees are from their electric vehicles business. Dyson will redeploy the affected employees within the organisation.

Although Dyson will no longer pursue its electric vehicles business, it will continue to grow its core business in Singapore, develop battery technology for consumer products and expand research and development in areas such as sensors, robotics and artificial intelligence, which will also support the development of a smart mobility eco-system.

Other companies have also expressed interest in developing smart mobility solutions in Singapore. They value our highly skilled workforce, our strengths in advanced technologies such as robotics and automation and our strong intellectual property protection regime; and if I may add, our strong tripartite partnership. We will continue to work with these companies to harness the new opportunities for Singapore, for our companies, for our workers.

Sir, can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether there were any issues of the lack of any specific capabilities or advantages on our part that contributed to Dyson's cancellation of the plans to build electric vehicles here in Singapore? Whether the electric vehicles industry is one that we want to grow or pursue; whether we do have plans to attract other electric vehicles industry players here; and also, whether do we have the necessary capabilities to support such an industry?

Sir, I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his supplementary question. Is it due to a lack of capabilities? No. Dyson decided not to continue with its electric vehicles manufacturing, this is a business that they were thinking of going into and later they decided that it would not be viable, commercially, for the company to continue. So, they have stopped their plans to go into this area.

Singapore, we do have strengths, as I explained in my answer, in advanced manufacturing, in automation. Because people see Singapore as a place where you can do research and development, you have a skilled workforce, you have good intellectual property protection. This eco-system is what we are trying to grow, whether it is for manufacturing of electric vehicles, high-end equipment for precision engineering, for bio and medical technology equipment, things which require high skill and can produce high value, things which require a lot of intellectual property and knowledge-based, things which Singapore, with our trusted brand name, skilled workforce, we are well-equipped to play it.

I just want to ask the Senior Minister of State, Dyson in its earlier investment commitments that it had made, notwithstanding the change in plans for electric vehicles, would these continued to be honoured?

The plans for the electric vehicles and any associated incentives that are tied to the electric vehicles project, if the electrical vehicles project is not going to continue, the incentives would not be given. I want to be clear that because the project has not taken place and the investments have not been made, the incentives have not been given. So, with the decision by Dyson not to continue with this electrical vehicles business, the incentives would therefore not be given for this project.

For other projects that Dyson has already started or it is planning to expand some of its activities in Singapore, that is something we will look at separately.

5 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the reasons leading to only 192,000 out of the projected 300,000 Public Transport Vouchers (PTVs) being redeemed in the 2018 exercise; (b) what are the administrative costs and challenges faced by the People's Association and grassroots organisations in their PTV outreach programmes; and (c) whether the Ministry will explore the possibility of automatic distribution for PTVs 2019 for individuals who fulfil certain criteria, such as those under ComCare, Silver Support Scheme, or HDB Public Rental Scheme.

Speaker, the Government is committed to helping needy commuters cope with public transport fare increases through providing them with Public Transport Vouchers (PTVs). We regularly review the PTV process to set appropriate eligibility criteria and the quantum for each exercise. This year, we have expanded the criteria so that one in five resident households are eligible, doubling the proportion for the 2018 PTV exercise.

In addition, we will continue to make available more PTVs, over and above the number of eligible households. This is so that local Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) can have the flexibility to provide additional assistance to needy households with special circumstances or those that marginally miss the eligibility criteria.

We actively reach out to eligible households to encourage them to apply for the vouchers. In addition to media announcements, we work with the People's Association to raise awareness, including distributing publicity collaterals in four languages at all Community Clubs, as well as through house visits and events.

The PTV application process allows us to directly engage and better understand each household's needs, which may go beyond transport costs. Through this process, the CCCs have been able to provide tailored support through other Government assistance schemes. We will continue to explore ways to streamline the process for future exercises.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. My first supplementary question is really a clarification, which is, whether there is any insight or reason for the quite large shortfall in the number of PTVs issued compared to the projected number initially. I am not sure that there was much insight into that at the moment.

The second supplementary question is, whether the various PT assistance schemes could be consolidated to support low-income individuals better to ensure no gaps in coverage. The reason is, as we have seen, the evidence suggests that right now, there may be gaps in coverage because there could be eligible families who are not coming forward for whatever reason; and it would be better to automatically give them some grants.

Sir, PTVs have been in existence since 2007, so, more than 10 years. The number of vouchers made available has increased over the years. For the latest exercise, in 2018, the number of vouchers made available was the highest amount at that point. The quantum and the numbers benefiting from the PTV exercise have also increased, although given that the fare increase typically follows a certain timeframe – for example, end of the year – therefore, the PTV take-up rate may not be reflective of the economic climate or the needs of low-income households.

We respect the decision of each household to apply for the PTVs. When we look at the proportion, there is no discernible trend of whether it is decreasing or increasing, I think this depends on the individuals or the households' decision whether to apply or not. In fact, there are times when we advise residents to apply for certain social assistance schemes; the response is that they can cope and they do not see the need to go forth and apply for these schemes.

Having said that, we are committed to raise awareness of PTV exercise so that those who are in need are not deprived of it because of ignorance. Given this time, for the 2019 PTVs, we have raised the household income eligibility criterion. So, we expect more households to benefit and hopefully they can come forward to apply for the PTVs.

As to the Member's second question about the consolidation of different assistance schemes, our fare structure does take care of different vulnerable groups. For example, low-income workers who are already on the WIS scheme can already qualify for the concessionary fare. Students, senior citizens and people with disabilities also enjoy concessionary fares. In fact, more than half of Singaporeans do not pay the adult fare, the full adult fare, so they are already taken care of under the concessionary fares schemes. But the needs of every individual or household could differ. It could go beyond public transport. That is why there are various other schemes available, some are automatic, some are upon application, so that tailored assistance could be made available to help these residents. We look forward to the local CCCs' support to help us reach out to these households so that help can be rendered to them.

6 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport whether the Government will undertake a final environmental impact assessment study to consider the holistic impact of the Cross Island MRT Line before making a decision on which of the two existing alignment options to choose from.

Mr Speaker, in 2013, LTA engaged a global specialist consultant to embark on a comprehensive and extensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for a segment of the Cross Island Line (CRL) near the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR). The study was divided into two phases with the first phase focusing on the environmental impact of undertaking site investigation works on the CCNR. The second phase of the study focused on the potential environmental impact of the construction and operational phases of the CRL. Together, they would provide a complete assessment of the environmental impact of the project.

Findings from Phase 1 of the EIA concluded that the site investigations works, with the implementation of mitigating measures and controlled access, could be carried out with moderate impact on the few parts of the nature reserve where these works were to take place. They were gazetted in February 2016 and were widely reported in the media. The Nature Groups were also invited to observe the actual conduct of the site investigation works in the CCNR.

Phase 2 of the EIA took a further three years and the findings were gazetted in September 2019. Phase 2 of the study was conducted based on a robust set of engineering schemes, which were independently reviewed by an International Panel of Advisors. The report concluded that both underground alignment options are feasible with appropriate mitigating measures. LTA has posted a copy of the report on its website for public viewing and feedback.

In undertaking the EIA, LTA engaged with stakeholders for both alignments. These included discussions and site visits with the Nature Groups as well as local grassroots leaders and residents who may be affected. Their feedback has helped LTA develop a comprehensive set of measures to mitigate the potential impact during the construction and operation of the CRL. There are no plans for a further EIA.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I have two supplementary questions.

My first supplementary question is this: in assessing the impact of the Cross Island Line, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Government has evaluated, one, the animal population projections and two, the future impact of climate change for the critically endangered and endangered species in the CCNR and its adjacent forest, and whether this information will be made available to the public. The basis of my supplementary question is as follows.

It has been reported in the EIA report, I believe, that various critically endangered species as well as endangered species of animals tend to be affected as a result. However, it is unclear whether the Government, whether by EIA or other studies, has tracked the population sizes of these species and, more crucially, whether there have been quantitative projections made to gauge how these population sizes may shift due to the construction. It is also unclear whether fairly established matrix used in conservation such as species richness or species evenness have been considered.

For the long-term impact of climate change, factoring in this aspect will allow for better understanding of the true resilience of the eco-system in this area, which is important given that the effects of habitat fragmentation and loss will have long-term impacts on the eco-system in the area.

My second supplementary question is this: even with mitigation, habitat loss and fragmentation at the worksite may result in the loss of eco-system services, such as carbon sequestration and natural heritage, currently provided by these areas.

Will the Ministry conduct a study to holistically evaluate, if it has not, the economic, cultural and environmental value of these eco-system services provided at these sites before making a decision on the Cross Island Line?

The rationale for me asking this supplementary question is simply this: the idea is that when environmental degradation involving habitat loss and habitat fragmentation occurs, even if trees are replanted, the eco-system services provided by the original forest may either be lost or will take decades or more to be re-established to its prior magnitude and scale.

The important principle here is that degraded eco-system cannot be regenerated wholesale, they can only be rehabilitated.

Mr Speaker, the Member Mr Dennis Tan's Parliamentary Question was about the EIA but his supplementary question, if I understand correctly, is about the larger question about how a decision is arrived for the CRL alignment, and whether the EIA done thus far is sufficient.

He has not provided a criticism of either the methodology or the process, or the experts, or the people that have been involved in the EIA. So, as far as the EIA is concerned, it is limited to the projected plans and designs of the CRL and its interaction with the Central Catchment Area. It is not designed to take a whole-of-economy or whole-of-biome approach. Those are things that having had the EIA, the stakeholders, the Ministry, the various agencies involved have to take into consideration including, for example, the economic impact.

I just want to have some clarity. Is he suggesting that we redo the EIA because he fundamentally disagrees with the methodology and the findings? Secondly, is he advocating for a specific choice in the alignment of the CRL? Thirdly, I would just make the point that if the question is how might climate change or change in biodiversity interact with any given technical study limited to one specific part of our biome, that is a moving target. That would be something that you can never be satisfied you have done enough because the next study, say, two or three years henceforth, the climate will have changed. Factors affecting our biodiversity will have changed. These are things that academics have to continue to study even as we make our decisions about how to build our public transport system. So, perhaps, the Member might clarify what exactly he is criticising on the EIA and is he advocating for a specific choice for the CRL.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. My answer in short is no. I am not criticising but I have highlighted, firstly, in my Parliamentary Question to ask the Minister whether the Government undertake a final EIA study to consider the holistic impact. I have sought to explain "holistic impact". Perhaps, let me explain further about my second supplementary question in terms of what I mean by "holistic impact". I am asking if we have done, and if not, are we prepared to do a more holistic valuation of the worksite environment through eco-system service valuation techniques which assess the economic, cultural and environmental value of our natural capital.

I believe I also have touched on and explained, for my first supplementary question, about the animal population projection and the future impact of climate change. If this has been done, and if the Senior Minister of State, the Ministry, is satisfied, so be it. But I am just asking for clarification whether they are prepared to consider these, if these have not been done.

Mr Speaker, I am glad the Member has made it clear that he is not criticising the EIA that has already been done because it was indeed holistic and comprehensive, involving a robust panel of advisors as well as a wide variety of stakeholders. It is a useful set of information for us to then consider how best to align the CRL. It is not the only factor that is taken into account. Indeed, in making the decision, economic and many other factors will have to be taken into account.

Sir, may I just ask, specifically, when will we be making this decision on which alignment we will be using?

Mr Speaker, I do not have a date to announce at this point in time.

7 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the number of illegal vape sellers and buyers apprehended in the last three years; (b) how many of these purchases were made online and through physical stores; (c) what have been the actions taken against these offenders; and (d) what more can the Ministry do to deter the purchase and sale of illegal vapes in Singapore.

MOH banned vaporisers to protect the public from health risks associated with such products.

It is an offence under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act to sell, possess for sale, import or distribute vaporisers. Any person who is convicted is liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment of up to six months or to both for the first offence, and to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment of up to 12 months or to both, for the second or subsequent offence. With effect from 1 February 2018, the use, purchase or possession of vaporisers is also an offence and is punishable with a fine of up to $2,000.

From 1 January 2017 to 30 September 2019, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) handled 219 cases involving the sale of vaporisers, all of which were sold online. From 1 February 2018 to 30 September 2019, 465 people were caught for the possession of vaporisers. The enforcement actions taken against these offenders depended on the merits of each case and included prosecution, composition fines or a warning. The stiffest penalty imposed was $99,000, for a peddler who was charged on 9 September 2019 for importing and peddling e-cigarettes.

HSA will continue to work with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and the Singapore Police Force to deter the illegal import, sale and purchase of vaporisers. Besides enforcement, the Health Promotion Board will continue to educate Singaporeans regarding the harmful effects of vaporisers and correct any misconception that vaporisers conclusively help with smoking cessation. At the same time, we will strengthen smoking cessation programmes so that smokers can access proven therapies and methods to help them quit smoking.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I have two supplementary questions. My first supplementary question relates to these illegal vapes also being sold in our neighbourhoods. Besides online sales, according to news reports last month, illegal vaporisers are also being sold in our neighbourhoods including busy shopping districts such as Orchard Road. Buyers and sellers, according to the news report, used code words such as "cartridges" or "juices" to facilitate all these under-the-table illegal sales. My first question is: can I ask that we also step up our enforcement in these areas especially in the neighbourhoods.

My second question relates to a recent study done in the United Kingdom on adults attending the UK National Health Service's Stop Smoking Programme. I would like to ask what are the Ministry's views on this randomised controlled trial that compared e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking cessation.

On the first point, to step up enforcement, we will do so. We have been working closely with online platforms such as Carousell and Instagram to stamp out online sale of vaporisers. With regard to physical sales, we have conducted intelligence, surprise raids, but we will take into consideration the Member's suggestions. If the Member has specific leads, please do share with us.

On the second question, I believe the Member is referring to the study done in UK on adults attending National Health Service's Stop Smoking Services. That study involved 900 smokers with good motivation to quit. When combined with counselling, 18% of smokers in the e-cigarette group quit smoking at 12 months post-intervention. This is compared with 10% of smokers from the NRT group.

However, in the e-cigarette group, 80% of those who quit smoking continued to use e-cigarettes 12 months later. This means that, overall, less than 4% of those in the e-cigarette group quit tobacco product use and their nicotine addiction totally.

As there are concerns about the potential harmful effects of the long-term use of e-cigarettes – the Member may know about the debate in the US where e-cigarettes have been linked to lung injury – this raises the question on whether they would have been better off quitting using other more proven established methods.

In addition, more than 30% of those in the e-cigarette group who failed to quit ended up using both e-cigarettes and cigarettes. This actually leaves them worse off than before, as a recent large study had shown that dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes are actually exposed to more toxins than persons who only smoke cigarettes.

The Ministry's position is that there is currently limited evidence on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation product but we will continue to monitor emerging evidence and studies like the ones mentioned by Mr Melvin Yong. Our regulation and public health policies are evidence-based and if there is robust evidence that any particular product can safely help smokers completely stop using tobacco or nicotine, we will be happy to consider these options.

8 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Health (a) how many eligible CPF members used up the annual limit of the Flexi-MediSave scheme in the past year; and (b) whether this limit can be reviewed and increased in light of the older members who require frequent outpatient treatments.

Mr Speaker, the Flexi-MediSave scheme allows Singaporeans aged 60 and above to withdraw up to $200 of MediSave each year to pay for their outpatient medical treatments at public sector Specialist Outpatient Clinics, Polyclinics, and General Practitioner clinics under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS). Around 136,000, or 16% of eligible Singaporeans fully utilised their Flexi-MediSave limit in 2018.

MOH regularly reviews our healthcare financing schemes, including Flexi-Medisave. Last year, MOH lowered the minimum age criteria for Flexi-MediSave from 65 to 60. The annual MediSave withdrawal limit for outpatient vaccinations, health screenings and chronic disease management was raised from $400 to $500. This year, MOH enhanced the CHAS scheme, including introducing a new CHAS green tier to cover all Singaporeans with selected chronic conditions, regardless of income. We also introduced the Merdeka Generation (MG) package which provides additional subsidies for MG seniors' outpatient treatments at CHAS clinics, polyclinics and public specialist outpatient clinics.

We will continue to conduct regular reviews of our healthcare financing schemes to ensure affordability and also long-term sustainability.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. Let me share with the Senior Minister of State one of the reasons why I am asking this question. A few residents have approached me. I would like to say in this Chamber that residents were very thankful for the Flexi-MediSave scheme as it has helped them to allay some of their cost concerns. However, a few of them have highlighted to me their concerns regarding medical costs and have requested me to ask for a review of the $200. Because they tend to finish up the $200 for the year within just one or two visits. Some of these senior residents who are 60 and above would really appreciate if the figures could be reviewed. Can the Senior Minister of State share the timeline and how the review process would be? If there any plans to increase the $200 to slightly above, the residents would be very appreciative to MOH on that front.

I understand the point that is being made. But as I have mentioned right at the end of my response, we not just have to look at affordability but also at the longer term sustainability in the use of MediSave. So, we are guided by how residents use the amounts as offered. At this point in time, as I have mentioned earlier, more than eight in 10 of Singapore residents who are eligible to use the Flexi-MediSave do not use the full $200. So, that gives us an indication as to where we have scoped it and the right sizing of that amount at this juncture.

But as the Member has pointed out, we recognise that there are people who rely on this and we will take this into account as we continue to review and update the amounts and the thresholds.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer and particularly the answer to the supplementary question about the scoping of Flexi-MediSave and MOH's position on reviewing the absolute amount. I am just wondering if MOH can look at increasing the ability to withdraw a higher amount through the Flexi-MediSave scheme for people who have sufficient balances in their basic healthcare sum. For example, if you are in the upper tiers, let us say, you have from $40,000 to $50,000 in your MediSave account. I think the pain point is the fact that you have this sum in your MediSave account post the age of 60 and you need perhaps an additional $100 or $200 but the scheme has that ceiling. So, would MOH be able to look at it from a different perspective and to parse the problem a little differently.

Again, I understand the Member's concern and I appreciate the point he is making and we will look at that. But the Member will also appreciate that what he is suggesting will require a differentiated ceiling for each person as to what the Flexi-MediSave limits might be. And that might, itself, present other challenges.

That said, I think, overall, the objective is to ensure that the amounts are correctly sized and I would also suggest that those who may have exhausted the Flexi-MediSave amounts, might also consider that there are other schemes in tandem with it. Just because you have the Flexi-MediSave withdrawal limits reached or maxed out does not mean you cannot also deploy other schemes. But that said, we will look at the suggestion, especially the one that has the basic healthcare sum as a relevant factor to consider in the context of the limits.

9 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for Manpower whether the foreign domestic worker levy can be waived for families with three or more young children who are below 16 years of age.

Mr Speaker, the number of foreign domestic workers (FDWs) in Singapore has increased substantially by about 40% in the last 10 years. In 2018, there were over 250,000 FDWs in Singapore. It is not sustainable for the population of FDWs to grow unchecked.

To moderate the demand for FDWs in Singapore, a levy has been payable by employers since April 1982. The levy is regularly reviewed and was last adjusted in April 2019 to $300 a month for employers without care-giving needs. However, families with care-giving needs continue to enjoy the FDW concessionary levy rate of $60 a month. This measure strikes a good balance between managing FDW demand and the need for continuing support for Singaporean households with children, seniors and persons with disabilities. Currently, there are no plans to further reduce the FDW concessionary levy.

The Government also provides other forms of support for families with children, some of which offer even more assistance to larger families. For example, the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, Child Development Account (CDA) and MediSave Grant for Newborns provide parents with up to $18,000 per child for their first and second child and up to $26,000 per child for their third and fourth child and up to $32,000 per child for their fifth and subsequent child. Parents with more children are also eligible for higher tax rebates and reliefs. As was announced recently during the National Day Rally, pre-school subsidies will also be substantially enhanced.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary a supplementary question. Our latest TFR for 2018 shows a number of 1.

14. This is the second lowest TFR in the past decade. And given the heavy demands of work, many parents have found it to be a necessity to employ an FDW to help them to do household chores and look after their kids. I believe The Straits Times ran an article over the weekend on this particular subject.

So, will the Ministry consider waiving FDW levies for families with more than three children in order to help them lower their financial demands and to encourage them to have more than three children?

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Mr Ong Teng Koon for his supplementary question and to assure him that families with care-giving needs, including parents of young children, will continue to enjoy the FDW concessionary levy. Some of these parents with young children are also staying with their grandparents – so, inter-generational households. In fact, inter-generational households may hire more than two FDWs with levy concessions. Just to give an example.

For example, a couple with two young children under the age of 16 years old can hire two FDWs at the concessionary levy. And if their parents are staying with them and the parents are above 67 years old, because that sometimes is the preferred arrangement – extended family – they will be entitled to hire an FDW at the concessionary levy. So, in this example, the household would be able to hire three FDWs to help the parents, especially when they have young children, whether two, three or more. Allow me to share a number. Over the last three years, in fact, the majority of our FDW employers, that is, about 80% of our FDW employers enjoy the concessionary levy of $60 a month, which translates into a saving of $240 a month per FDW.

If Mr Ong would allow me to elaborate, the Government has committed additional resources and investments in pre-school education to give our young the best start in life. If you remember, a few months ago, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, during the National Day Rally, announced a series of measures to further boost pre-school education, for example, to increase the total number of Government-supported pre-schools from the current 50% to 80% over time. At the same time, he also announced that more middle income families will benefit from additional pre-school subsidies with the increase of the income ceiling from $7,500 to $12,000. I am saying that when young couples consider having children or more children, an FDW could be one of the considerations. But more often than not, a pre-school is also a key consideration.

And to help families with young children financially, the Government provides many forms of support. I mentioned them earlier. In addition to those that I have mentioned, the Government also provides support, such as Primary and Secondary school subsidies as well as parental tax rebates and reliefs. A child entering Primary school in 2018 would have received more than $130,000 in education subsidies by the time he or she finishes Secondary school. And bigger families with more children will also receive more help from the Baby Bonus scheme as well as higher tax rebates.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Desmond Choo –

10 To ask the Minister for Manpower how is the Ministry working with the Ministry of Education to ensure that ITE and Polytechnic graduates can continue to get good jobs in light of the economic slowdown.

Question No 10.

Mr Speaker, most ITE and Polytechnic graduates continue to do well when they enter the labour market. In 2018, around nine in 10 graduates who entered the labour market were employed within six months after their final examinations. This figure has remained stable for the past 10 years. Notwithstanding economic headwinds, overall employment has continued to grow and job vacancies remain available for ITE and Polytechnic graduates.

MOM and MOE have various ways to help our students prepare for and find employment. ITE and the Polytechnics run structured and comprehensive career guidance programmes to help graduating students make informed employment choices. In addition, we offer SkillsFuture Work-Study programmes for Diplomas and Post-Diplomas. These allow ITE and Polytechnic graduates to deepen their industry-relevant skills even as they pursue further academic education.

In January this year, Workforce Singapore rolled out the Career Starter Programme, comprising workshops and personalised coaching to help both graduating ITE and Polytechnic students and fresh graduates boost their job search skills and be more employable. The Career Starter Programme complements existing Education and Career guidance efforts in schools by targeting final-year graduating students who may require additional support when seeking employment.

After leaving ITE or the Polytechnics, graduates can also find assistance at WSG's Careers Connect or NTUC's e2i career centres. They may also tap on online resources, such as MySkillsFuture portal and the MyCareersFuture digital service. For example, they can access information on industries and occupations as well as other resources on MySkillsFuture to chart their career development. They can also search for jobs best suited to their skills on MyCareersFuture.

Although businesses are facing greater uncertainty, the advance third quarter labour market data indicates that employment continued to grow in sectors, such as Professional Services and Community, Social and Personal Services. MOM and MOE are monitoring the labour market closely and will ensure ITE and Polytechnic graduates are well supported in their job search.

11 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current application rate for 2-room Flexi flats in general and by singles in particular; and (b) whether HDB will consider making 3-room BTO units available to singles who wish to accommodate their parents.

Mr Speaker, the overall BTO application rate for 2-room Flexi flats was 1.6 times in the first half of 2019, while that for singles was three times in the same period.

On the second question that the Member raised, singles who wish to live with their parents can, indeed, form a family nucleus with their parents and jointly purchase a BTO flat of any type together.

As for the request for singles to buy a larger 3-room flat, that is something we will have to consider very carefully, bearing in mind the impact it will have on the longer term overall demand-supply balance of the public housing market. I would remind Members that we only opened up the BTO market for singles to purchase 2-room units not that long ago. I remember when I started in MND in 2015, application rates were in the double digits. Now, we have managed to bring it down but it is still slightly on the high side and I think we will need time to ensure that the situation is stabilised before we consider any further moves.

Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for the answer. But I think for singles, three times is still high. Consistently, I hear from my residents who are singles; they told me that they have tried applying several times but were still not successful. I would like to suggest: if, let us say, they have tried applying in non-mature estates for three times or more, can HDB look into their cases specifically and help them?

The next question is: recently, during the Meet-the-People Sessions, I have more and more cases of young couples applying for flats for more than three times and not being successful. Similarly, I would like to request HDB to look into those cases of young couples who applied in non-mature estates for new BTO flat; if they are not successful for more than three times, I hope that we can help them.

Mr Speaker, let me take the second question first. I think there was a similar question that Mr Gan had asked, in fact, that is related, which is for young couples buying their first BTO flat in non-mature estates – whether we will give an additional chance, which we do, and whether that gives them assurance that within three times, they will be able to purchase a flat in a non-mature estate. The answer to that is indeed, through that additional chance, we are able to assure first-timers buying a flat in a non-mature estate, virtually all of them are able to do so within three tries today. That commitment continues. We will continue to ensure that for first-timers buying a flat in a non-mature estate, within three tries, through the processes that we have, they should be able to get an HDB flat.

If the Member knows of any applicant or if Members know of any applicants who are unable to do so, please let us know because based on our data, based on our checks, virtually everyone can do so already today. Many times, they will tell you they cannot, but when you check through their applications, very often they have tried for a mature estate or they have tried for a balance flat. Those do not count. If you look at BTO applications in non-mature estates, within three tries, virtually all of them get it.

The first question that the Member raised: can this apply to singles too? This goes back to my earlier point that we have just opened up the market to singles. We are still dealing with a backlog. We have brought the application rate down to three, and I acknowledge it is still on the high side. So, we still fundamentally have to build more flats and stabilise the situation before we can consider any priority for that matter, for first-timer applicants who are singles.

12 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB flat owners who approach HDB for financial assistance on their mortgage loans will be screened for visits to casinos and, if not, why.

Mr Speaker, HDB has a range of measures to assist flat owners with HDB loans who are in mortgage arrears. These include short-term measures such as the temporary reduction or deferment of mortgage payments and longer term measures such as extending their loan tenure if possible.

HDB also provides one-to-one financial counselling for mortgagors in arrears to tailor HDB's advice and assistance based on the household's circumstances.

As HDB does not withhold assistance from flat owners on the basis of casino visits, HDB does not screen for this when mortgagors approach them for assistance on their HDB loans.

The following question stood in the name of Ms Yip Pin Xiu –

13 To ask the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the sporting targets that are set out for the Singapore Sports School to achieve in the next three years; (b) whether the Singapore Sports School has reached their annual targets in the past three years; (c) which are the top three schools that will have the most athletes representing Singapore in the 2019 SEA Games; (d) how many athletes are from these respective schools; and (e) how many athletes are from the Singapore Sports School.

Question No 13, please.

Mr Speaker, the Singapore Sports School is a specialised independent school under MCCY which offers students with sporting talent an avenue to reach their sporting potential whilst developing them holistically and preparing them for life. To this end, the school provides a strong academic and sport development programme that meets the needs of its students, develops their character and enables them to excel in their sport.

The Sports School is measured by a set of 14 sporting, academic and student well-being targets. These targets include the percentage of student-athletes selected to represent Singapore in international open competitions annually and the percentage of the school's graduating cohort eligible to advance to higher education. In 2016, the school did not meet three of the 14 targets. In 2017, the school did not meet one of the 14 targets. And in 2018, the school met all 14 targets.

In the 2017 Southeast Asian (SEA) Games, 104 athletes and alumni from the Sports School made up 19% of the 560-strong Team Singapore contingent and contributed to 31% of the medals that marked our nation’s best ever away SEA Games performance. For the upcoming 2019 Southeast Asian Games in the Philippines starting 30 November, 101 athletes from the Sports School have to date been selected to compete across 21 sports. MCCY, Sport Singapore and MOE do not track the originating schools of all Team Singapore athletes and neither is this a requirement by the Singapore National Olympic Council.

The Sports School has consistently done better than national average in terms of the percentage of students who passed five or more subjects at the GCE "O" level examinations and better than the global average in the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme score.

The following question stood in the name of Ms Yip Pin Xiu –

14 To ask Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether there has been a review of progress on the recommendations and investments put forth in the Disability Sports Master Plan (DSMP); (b) if so, whether the review has shown any gaps where the implementation of the DSMP needs to be relooked at to deliver the DSMP recommendations; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider forming a dedicated committee beyond ActiveSG to coordinate the delivery of the DSMP recommendations and develop future blueprints to cover aspects beyond mass participation.

Question No 14.

Sport Singapore or SportSG's Disability Sport Master Plan, or DSMP, was launched in May 2016 to improve access and opportunities for persons with disabilities to discover the value of sport and lead an active lifestyle, develop Singapore's capabilities in para sports as well as raise the profile of Team Singapore para athletes with Singaporeans. I chair the Disability Sports Implementation Committee to guide the implementation of the DSMP.

Since 2016, SportSG has been working with stakeholders to implement DSMP. SportSG has set up four Centres of Expertise in Bedok, Jurong West, Sengkang and Toa Payoh, opened seven inclusive gyms and introduced a range of disability sport programmes. The Inclusive Sports Festival, or ISF, has been organised for three successive years. It is a key platform for persons with disabilities to try out sports and an opportunity for the public to learn about disability sport.

Altogether, the ISF and other awareness and outreach events have engaged more than 11,000 participants with disabilities and close to 90,000 others in the last three years. The 2019 edition of the Singapore National Games, or Pesta Sukan, featured nine para and inclusive sports. In sports such as archery and canoe sprint, participants competed in inclusive teams comprising persons with and without disabilities.

We are encouraged by the growth in sports participation amongst persons with disabilities from 28% in 2015 to 51% in 2018, based on SportSG's annual National Sports Participation Survey.

Beyond mass participation, SportSG works with key stakeholders, such as the Singapore Disability Sports Council, or SDSC, National Disability Sports Associations, Special Olympics Singapore and MOE to enable talent development in disability sports and strengthen capabilities in the eco-system. SportSG provides SDSC with financial resources and facilities to support the training of athletes in various para sports. Amongst our current crop of 72 spexScholars, ten are para athletes. Team Singapore para athletes received campaign funding in their preparations for the upcoming ASEAN Para Games in January next year. SportSG has also partnered the International Paralympic Committee to grow the pool of disability sports coaches in Singapore. To date, close to 500 coaches, 300 SportSG staff and 1,600 volunteers have completed relevant courses to support disability sport programmes.

While we have made good progress, we are continually exploring how to augment the impact. In August this year, SportSG reviewed its progress in DSMP and published this as part of its Vision 2030 mid-term report. SportSG stated in its report that it will broaden its range of partnerships to include corporations and organisations to form "Communities of Care" that can serve the community in impactful ways, such as by supporting the DSMP and promoting social inclusion through sport.

We welcome ideas and suggestions from the Member and others in the sport and special needs communities to improve the implementation of the DSMP.

15 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked Minister for Education (a) what is the Ministry's policy on the participation of LGBTQ+ speakers, artists and performers in events at our higher educational institutions; and (b) whether the Ministry monitors decisions taken by educational institutions to bar, censor, or otherwise regulate such LGBTQ+ speakers and performers.

Mr Speaker, our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) have wide-reaching impact on students and the broader Singapore society. They should provide a common space and neutral ground for open discussions and civil discourse. They need to be respectful of Singapore's wider social norms and laws, and exercise appropriate judgement and sensitivity when dealing with potentially socially divisive issues. Within the bounds of these principles, our IHLs have the autonomy to manage the activities on campus, such as deciding which artists, speakers and performers to invite, including those who may identify with LGBTQ+ causes.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for that reply. Just one supplementary question: I wish to ask if the Minister would agree that institutions should make these decisions on LGBTQ+ persons based on established policy and bearing the national interest in mind, rather than, for example, on personal views about such persons.

This concern arises because in a number of recent cases, speakers and performers were asked to censor content at SIM Global Education and Singapore Polytechnic. They withdrew their participation as a result of the request. It is not clear whether these decisions were motivated by these broader national policy concerns rather than any personal views. That is the concern here.

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I think the point is that such decisions should not be made on the basis of personal views because different individuals may have very different personal views.

IHLs and other like institutions provide public spaces. When you have public spaces, you must ensure that your spaces are safe spaces for your audience, and your audience and the people attending those spaces will have many different views, be of many different persuasions – whether it is race, religion, sexual orientation and so on. So, the key thing is to work within the parameters that I have outlined, which is that they have to be respectful of our social norms and laws and they do have to exercise appropriate judgement and sensitivity, which means that there is an element of discretion. That element of discretion should not be decided based on just your own personal belief but from the view point of, "This is common space", you want people coming into the common space to be comfortable, and to take the decision appropriately. So, it depends on your audience. Some audiences may well be able to be much more accommodating, others may feel a little uncomfortable. The institutions will have to take that call.

16 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Education whether the Government will review the policy regarding usage of the Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) to permit withdrawals for tertiary studies at private universities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, various Members, including Mr Zainal Sapari, had previously raised similar questions in this House. The Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) scheme was introduced in 2008 to provide additional financial support for post-Secondary education. Before 2016, we had restricted the use of PSEA to publicly-funded institutions, namely ITE, Polytechnics, Autonomous Universities and the Arts Institutions, NAFA and LaSalle, and also Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) courses. This is because being part of the publicly-funded system, we are assured of the quality of the courses. Further, the programmes are already significantly subsidised and extending PSEA support is a natural thing to do.

The usage of PSEA was broadened in 2016. We included other approved skills development programmes and modular courses that are subsidised by our continuing education and training policy, and delivered by Government agencies and private training providers. Examples include the training programmes offered at BCA Academy and Digital Marketing in Hospitality offered at SHATEC Institutes.

If there is any unused amount in the PSEA when the account holder turns 30, this will be transferred to his or her CPF Ordinary Account in the following year.

Quality and relevance remain the key considerations in deciding whether an education and training programme can qualify for PSEA usage. We need to protect the interests of account holders by ensuring that all courses eligible for PSEA support will meet quality standards and the needs of industries.

Sir, there is a wide range of courses offered by Private Education Institutions (PEIs), with varying quality and learning outcomes. While SkillsFuture Singapore regulates these private commercial players, they are not part of the public education system and we do not extend public subsidy to them. Likewise, we do not have a blanket policy to allow the usage of PSEA for their courses.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Speaker. Four supplementary questions for Senior Minister of State.

First, as he mentioned in his reply, any unused balance in the PSEA account will be transferred to the holder's CPF Ordinary Account (OA) by the time he reaches 31. I would like to ask he knows of the percentage or numbers of such students or young persons who have balances that are left and are transferred in this way. That is the first question.

The second question is, in his reply, I think he repeated the Ministry's stand that the restrictions on PSEA's use are due to concerns about quality as well as relevance. We have come across some residents who had appealed to use PSEA for degree programmes offered by foreign universities that have good international reputation and, in fact, who have collaborations within Singapore with Polytechnics and, in one case, an aeronautical university that has a collaboration with the Air Force. So, would the Senior Minister of State agree that such collaborations are signs that there is an acceptance of the quality of the university offering those degrees and, in a sense, also of the relevance of studies in such fields. That is why there are collaborations in Singapore.

The third question is, he mentioned also that PSEA is only allowed for Government-subsidised programmes as a natural consequence. Would he not agree that in the sense there is a certain perversion in that logic because a person with less resources would need a support if there is a lack of subsidies in that sense. So, I think that reason is not that convincing.

And finally, perhaps he could elaborate a bit on the purpose of Private Educational Institutions (PEIs) in Singapore having the EduTrust mark because I believe some of these private institutions are collaborating with foreign universities to offer degree programmes. So, what is the relevance of the EduTrust mark? Is it not also a sign of quality assurance?

Sir, I do not have the data on the CPF Ordinary Account transfer but if the Member could file a separate Question, we would provide the information to her separately.

As for the other questions from Ms Sylvia Lim, she first asked about the collaborations of different programmes. I think I have explained this in my answer which is that we look at both the quality and also the relevance. Some of these programmes that she mentioned are offered by foreign universities. We understand there is a range of courses offered globally. But it would not be possible for MOE to maintain a comprehensive list of approved overseas programmes because we do need to safeguard the usage of PSEA monies. For practical reasons, it is limited to local institutions. So, if you have a foreign university but they have a local institution and they run some programmes here, as I explained in my answer, some of them do qualify for CET funding. We are looking at the range of possible courses but based on the criteria of quality and also industry relevance.

Ms Lim also said that she has some disagreement with the explanation about quality because these courses are not given subsidy, therefore, we should be allowing the students to use PSEA. I think we have to look at what is the objective that we are trying to achieve in the first place. If you look at the quality of the programme, there is a reason why they are not receiving public subsidy. The quality is uneven amongst the PEIs. For example, we have the Graduate Employment Survey that is done and if you look at the full-time permanent employment rate of their graduates, it ranged from 17% to 60%. There is also a spread in the median gross monthly salary from $2,300, to the highest of $3,200.

So, because of this, it is not possible to use this approach to say that just because a programme is not subsidised, therefore, you should allow students to use their PSEA. In fact, if you agree that quality of a course and the relevance of the course and the outcomes that the graduates are able to achieve are important considerations, then we should first and foremost, be looking at what is the quality of this course and does it offer students good employment outcomes. In the end, we should not forget that the student has to put in considerable amounts of resources, both time and money to be able to attend and complete the course. So, if the outcomes are not good, I do not think we should be sending mixed signals to confuse people that they are encouraged to sign up for this course when the outcomes are actually not very desirable. I think we do have an obligation and duty to signal clearly to students who are looking at options to consider what are the outcomes and therefore, please think carefully before you decide.

Sir, I think the more important point I want to highlight is this: that there are alternative pathways available to students who wish to pursue further studies and to be able to upgrade their skills along the way. Going to a PEI is not the only option for someone who has completed "A" Level or Polytechnic. It is not the only means for young Singaporeans to be work-ready. We have very good employment outcomes for Polytechnic Diploma graduates and for many of them, after they join the workforce, there are still opportunities available for them to do their degrees on a part-time basis or on a full-time basis subsequently after they have started working.

We have also introduced new pathways, including the post-Diploma Advanced or Specialist Diploma for Polytechnic students and the Work-Study Diploma and Post-Diploma pathways that are now available to our students in ITE or Polytechnics. These are applied programmes that combine structured on-the-job training and institution-based courses. The good thing is that when they are under this programme, the Earn-and-Learn programme or the Work-Study Programme, they can earn a salary while they are working and also go back to school. For the students who are doing the Advanced or Specialist Diploma, it takes up to 18 months. For the new pathway that we introduced, where students would pursue a Work-Study programme leading to a Degree, it will take about three years for Polytechnic students.

So, I think it is important that we provide our students with a good understanding of what are the options, what are the pathways and what are the outcomes of the different pathways so that parents and students are better able to make good decisions on how they want to commit their time and resources.

Sir, I think Ms Lim had one last question on EduTrust. EduTrust is something which the Committee for Private Education (CPE) awards, looking at the standards on corporate governance, administration and fee protection but this does not directly relate to the content of the individual programmes and the quality of the academic programmmes or their industry relevance. It is about whether the governance, administration and the fee protection, whether these elements are adequately provided. More to protect students from cases where, like in the past, some of the PEIs folded halfway through the course and the students were then left in the lurch because the money that they had paid, they could not get it back.

So, EduTrust is meant more for that purpose. It does not say anything about the quality of the course or the industry relevance or even the outcomes for the graduate.

I think we should separate the two and not mix it up. Getting EduTrust does not mean that you have good outcomes for your students. So, I will still go back to what I said earlier about the importance of looking at the quality of the course, the relevance and the outcomes in deciding where we should be encouraging people to pursue the different skills upgrading and training options.

Ms Sylvia Lim, keep it short.

I will try, Speaker. Three questions. The first question is —

Maybe time for one. Choose one.

Okay. One question. I would like the Senior Minister of State to clarify that he is not actually saying that currently, the courses that are offered by other universities such as reputable foreign universities that are available to students in Singapore, he is not saying that all of them lack quality or relevance. And I would like to ask whether in this sense, the Ministry would be open, at least, to looking at case-by-case appeals for the use of PSEA.

Sir, I think if Ms Lim listened to my main reply carefully, I ended by saying we do not have a blanket policy to allow the usage of PSEA for PEI courses. But I also mentioned in my reply that we do have private providers that we have allowed to qualify for subsidies. Let us not make classifications based on what type of entity you are as the main focus of our efforts. Let us look at the quality of the courses, the relevance to the industry and the outcomes to the graduates. If there are suitable courses that are offered by private training providers that can achieve those outcomes, I think it is certainly something that we can take a look at.

Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 17-28, 30 and 32-33 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 29 and 31 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

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

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Sir, this Bill is linked to the next two Bills on the Order Paper, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill and the Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill.

Sir, may I therefore propose, with your permission, that the substantive debate on all three Bills takes place now. Members will be welcome to raise questions or express their views on the three Bills during the debate. And we will still have the formal Second Readings of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill and also the Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill to ensure that the procedural requirements are dealt with.

Please proceed.

Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, our judicial system is well-known not only for its commitment to upholding the rule of law, but also for its efficiency, competence and integrity.

In a survey conducted by my Ministry in late 2015 on how Singaporeans view the Courts, 92% said they trust and had confidence in our legal system. In the Worldwide Governance Indicators by World Bank in 2018, Singapore ranked in the 97th percentile for Rule of Law. In the Global Competitiveness Index published by the World Economic Forum in 2019, Singapore maintained the top position for the efficiency of its legal framework in dispute resolution. In fact, Singapore has been ranked first, out of more than 140 countries, in this component of the index, every year for the past 10 years. Singapore has also scored highly for judicial effectiveness in the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom in 2019.

MinLaw has been working with the Courts to ensure that Court proceedings are efficient and that the quality of justice remains high. To this end, for instance, we established the new Family Justice Courts in 2014, with the aim of taking a more multi-disciplinary and collaborative approach to family disputes. We established the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) in 2015, as part of our drive to bolster our status as a hub for resolving commercial disputes.

The Office of Transformation and Innovation was also set up under the auspices of the Supreme Court in 2018. As part of the overarching Courts of the Future blueprint, it has commenced work on various projects and technological enhancements, with a view to enhancing access to justice, improving processes and also embracing innovative ideas for change. One upcoming initiative is the use of video-conferencing for a variety of non-trial hearings.

The current Bills continue in this spirit by facilitating a better use of judicial resources and also introducing procedural amendments to enhance the flexibility and also the efficiency of Court processes. This will also translate to real and practical benefits for Court users both in terms of time and also costs.

A key change is the restructuring of the Supreme Court to establish a new Appellate Division of the High Court. The Court of Appeal is the highest Court of the land. It hears both civil and criminal matters arising from decisions of the lower Courts and tribunals. The decisions of the Court of Appeal form a body of authoritative law that has shaped our local jurisprudence. The Court of Appeal has experienced a growing caseload for both criminal and civil matters. In 2013, there were 314 civil and criminal matters filed to the Court of Appeal. In 2018, the number of matters filed to the Court of Appeal increased to 490. Overall, the Court of Appeal heard 56% more matters in 2018 as compared to 2013.

In addition to the growing caseload, the Court of Appeal has also observed that the cases it is hearing are becoming increasingly complex. The Court of Appeal generally sits with no more than three judges to hear each case. In some of the complex appeals, the Chief Justice may convene an enlarged panel of appeal judges to hear the appeal. This is to allow difficult or novel issues to be considered with the benefit of the collective wisdom and insight of a larger pool of judges. There has been a growing number of written decisions issued by a five-judge bench of the Court of Appeal, which is itself indicative of the jurisprudential significance and difficulty of such cases. In 2015, by contrast, 4.3% of all reported decisions were issued by a five-judge quorum. By 2018, this number had increased to about 11.5%.

The increased caseload and complexity of matters have stretched the resources of the Court of Appeal. Thus far, the Supreme Court has taken interim measures to manage the increasing caseload and also the complexity in the Court of Appeal's docket. Some of these measures, Members would know, include having more High Court judges sit on Court of Appeal hearings and also increasing the sitting days for the Court of Appeal. However, we feel that these are just stop gap measures and a more long-lasting sustainable change would be useful.

This Bill, together with the Constitution Amendment Bill and the Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill, will establish an Appellate Division of the High Court. This will allow civil appeals arising from decisions of the existing High Court to be distributed between two appellate courts, namely, the Appellate Division of the High Court – the new Court that is being set up – and the existing Court of Appeal, which will remain. These targeted structural reforms to the Supreme Court create a more permanent solution to the issues facing the Court of Appeal. The reforms will help to address the growing caseload and also allow the Court of Appeal to focus its resources as appropriate.

Let me now highlight the key features of this Bill for Members. First, in terms of the restructuring of the Supreme Court. Under the structural reforms introduced by the Bills, the Supreme Court will continue to comprise the Court of Appeal, which will remain as the apex court in Singapore and the High Court. The High Court will in turn be restructured to consist of the General Division of the High Court as well as the Appellate Division of the High Court.

I shall first touch on the General Division, before elaborating on the interaction between the Appellate Division and the existing Court of Appeal. In essence, the General Division will be the present-day High Court. As is the case today, it will include the SICC and also the Family Division of the High Court. The General Division will have all the jurisdiction and powers of the existing High Court and will hear all cases that fall within the original and appellate jurisdiction of the existing High Court.

Any originating case, appeal, stated case, or other recourse which presently lies to the existing High Court will continue to lie to the General Division. There will generally be no change to the current position on whether there is further recourse to an Appellate Court. Hence, if certain decisions of the existing High Court are currently final, then in most of these cases, those decisions of the General Division will likewise be final. Similarly, if decisions of the existing High Court are appealable with leave, or appealable as of right, then those decisions of the General Division will likewise be appealable as of right or with leave as appropriate. The original intention overall is to preserve the status quo with regard to the finality of decisions of the General Division.

Appeals arising from a decision of the General Division will be allocated between the Appellate Division and the existing Court of Appeal. Let me explain that. In general, the Court of Appeal will hear all criminal matters. It will also hear appeals or processes that are to be heard by the Court of Appeal under written law and prescribed categories of civil appeals. So, under written law, that is set out in legislation and in prescribed categories of civil appeals.

These prescribed categories will be set out in a new Sixth Schedule to the amended Supreme Court of Judicature Act (SCJA). Where the appeal falls within the categories of appeals prescribed in the Sixth Schedule, then a party should file the appeal or leave application pertaining to that appeal to the Court of Appeal. Where the appeal is not prescribed in the Sixth Schedule, a party should file the appeal or leave application to the Appellate Division, or otherwise in accordance with written law.

The appeals that have been prescribed are generally those that:

are likely to have substantial consequences for individuals or society;

may involve questions of law of public interest which would benefit from guidance of the apex court in Singapore;

concern the general administration of justice;

may involve novel questions of law, or new areas of law which would benefit from guidance from the Court of Appeal;

may involve issues that are likely to be important and require earlier clarification from the Court of Appeal; or

relate to strategic areas that would benefit from the stature of the apex court, such as the areas of laws which seek to bolster Singapore's status as a dispute resolution hub or debt restructuring hub.

Based on these principles, appeals arising from cases relating to constitutional or administrative law, appeals arising from decisions of the SICC and appeals arising from cases relating to the law of arbitration will ordinarily be allocated to the Court of Appeal. Those are examples; the list is not exhaustive.

Where a single appeal contains multiple issues, which I think Members would have their own experience with, some issues may fall within the prescribed categories, others may fall outside. In those situations, the appeal should be filed to the Court of Appeal. For example, if an appeal arises from a case relating to constitutional law, but also, as part of the case, raises issues touching issues on contract or tort law, that appeal should be filed to the Court of Appeal.

All criminal appeals currently heard by the Court of Appeal, will continue to be heard by the Court of Appeal. The Appellate Division will hear all other civil appeals that are not allocated to the Court of Appeal.

The prescribed categories may be amended by the Minister, after consultation with the Chief Justice, by order published in the Gazette. This will allow for the allocation of appeals between the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeal to be refined and also evolved, taking into account operational experience as well as evolving policy considerations. And obviously, as I explained earlier, on novel areas, which are currently prescribed, they may over time, not become novel anymore or it may well become settled with the passage of time. In those cases, there would be flexibility in moving cases or types of cases in and out of the Sixth Schedule.

The Appellate Division will ordinarily sit as a panel of three Judges. This reflects its stature and significance as an Appellate Court.

Let me now touch on some of the transfer provisions and explain that to Members. To provide for flexibility in the arrangements, the Court of Appeal will have the power to transfer to itself any appeal that has been made to the Appellate Division and vice versa. The Court of Appeal has that power, not the Appellate Division, to transfer cases from the Appellate Division to itself or cases from the Court of Appeal to the Appellate Division. This can happen, notwithstanding the Sixth Schedule allocation of appeals.

To give an example, the Court of Appeal may transfer to itself, an appeal which is ordinarily allocated to the Appellate Division, if the appeal concerns a dispute involving complex and novel points of law, and the Court of Appeal is satisfied that it will be more appropriate for the matter to be resolved by an earlier decision of the apex court, in other words, giving guidance at an earlier stage so that the law becomes settled on a key and important issue. The Court of Appeal may also consider factors such as whether there are conflicting judicial decisions on the point of law in question which merits clarification.

Conversely, the Court of Appeal may also decide to transfer to the Appellate Division, an appeal which is ordinarily allocated to the Court of Appeal. For instance, an appeal arising from a case relating to constitutional law is ordinarily allocated to the Court of Appeal. However, if the General Division has already rendered its decision on the case and the only issue on the appeal is one of costs, for example, then the Court of Appeal may well decide to transfer the appeal to the Appellate Division. So, the overall subject matter may fall within, but the issue at stake between the parties, might well relate to something straightforward. In that scenario, the Court of Appeal can exercise its discretion to transfer it to the Appellate Division.

As another example, an appeal arising from a case relating to contempt of court is ordinarily allocated to the Court of Appeal. However, if all issues on appeal relate to uncontroversial points of law, then the Court of Appeal may transfer the appeal to the Appellate Division. The same principles as I have explained will apply. Parties themselves may also apply to the Court of Appeal for the appeal to be transferred to the Appellate Division, if the appeal has not been filed to the correct Appellate Court. To be clear, after the Appellate Division has issued its decision on an appeal that has been transferred for its determination, it remains possible – although not the usual course – but possible for a party to bring a further appeal to the Court of Appeal. This will however be subject to the fulfilment of stringent criteria that I will come to in a while.

The transfer powers help to ensure that the Court of Appeal's resources are focused on the matters that necessitate a decision from the apex court. The matters that the Court of Appeal will have regard to, when deciding whether to exercise its powers of transfer, will be set out in the Rules of Court.

Where an appeal has been heard and decided by the Appellate Division, any further appeal against the decision of the Appellate Division may only be brought with the leave of the Court of Appeal. This is consistent with the practice in other jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, where there is no automatic right of appeal to the apex court.

All such applications for leave will be assessed based on criteria that is more stringent than the usual common law principles that govern applications for leave to appeal against a decision of the General Division. To be clear, if you need to seek leave to appeal from the first instance, High Court currently, or the General Division, those principles are fairly settled, I think Members know. But, the principles on which leave will be accessed to be granted for appeals from the Appellate Division up to the apex court, those would be applied in a far more stringent manner. Because in those situations, the parties would already have had one round of appeal.

The Court of Appeal will consider granting leave only if the appeal raises a point of law of public importance. The Court of Appeal may also take into consideration other factors, such as whether a decision of the Court of Appeal, as the apex Ccourt, is required to resolve the point of law and whether the interests of the administration of justice require the Court of Appeal's consideration of that point of law.

To be clear, so that I do not come across as suggesting that there are automatically three stages, three tiers of Courts, the Appellate Division should not be seen as a further tier of appeal that must be crossed before a matter can reach the Court of Appeal. Where an appeal lies from a decision of the General Division, then the appeal will lie either to the Appellate Division or to the Court of Appeal. It will not be commonplace for appeals to be brought to the Appellate Division first and then further brought on to the Court of Appeal. I hope I have explained that clearly enough.

The Bills also make a number of other amendments to help ensure the timely disposal of appeals, ensure better use of limited judicial resources and bring the overall cost of litigation down. Let me touch on four such initiatives.

First, under existing Court processes, the Court of Appeal will ordinarily sit in a panel of three Judges to hear an appeal or application. However, certain applications can be dealt with by one Judge or, in some cases, two Judges. Certain appeals can also be heard by a panel of two Judges. We will apply a similar approach to the Appellate Division. So, what I have outlined is the current position. We will apply that similar approach to the Appellate Division.

For the Appellate Division, parties will also have an option of consenting to a two-Judge coram to hear the appeal but that is subject to the approval of the Appellate Division. So, if both parties or all parties to an appeal consent, it can be heard by a two-Judge coram.

Second, the Bills expand the situations under which a civil appeal or application can be decided without hearing oral arguments. This is known as a paper hearing. To be clear, the language that I have used – appeals refer to the substantive appeals itself, the applications are applications within the appeals that will arise but are not dispositive of the substantive merits of the appeal.

Presently, a civil appeal or application may be decided on paper in a number of limited situations. These situations are, first, an appeal against the decision of the SICC where all parties to the appeal consent; and second, any application to the Court of Appeal.

The Bills expand the categories of cases that can be decided on paper in three ways.

First, the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeal will have the powers to decide specified categories of appeals without hearing oral arguments, if all parties to the appeal consent. So, again, party autonomy based on whether parties consent, then the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeal will have the ability to hear that on paper. These include appeals against interlocutory judgments, and appeals against judgments relating to the assessment of damages.

Second, the Appellate Division will be able to decide any appeal without hearing oral arguments if all parties to the appeal consent to a two-Judge coram and to a paper hearing. So, if all the parties agree, consent, it will be a two-Judge coram and to a paper hearing, then subject to the Appellate Division themselves considering that it is appropriate, then that can be a way in which that appeal can be resolved.

Third, the Appellate Division would also be able to decide any application brought before it without hearing oral arguments. This will not require the consent of parties and is in line with the current practice of the Court of Appeal.

The possibility of paper hearings provides parties with an option, subject to the Court's approval, of having their matters resolved faster and at a lower cost.

Next, let me touch on leave applications. This Bill simplifies the process for leave applications. Currently, when leave is required to appeal against a decision, the leave application is usually heard by the Court that has made the decision being appealed against. If that Court declines to grant leave, a further application for leave can be made to the Appellate Court. We will simplify this process such as where leave is required to appeal against a decision of the General Division, the relevant Appellate Court will hear the application for leave. The decision of the Appellate Court on the leave application will be final.

Fourth, the Bill makes five interlocutory orders at paragraphs 1(c) to (g) of the existing Fourth Schedule of the SCJA appealable with the leave of the Appellate Court. These five orders are currently non-appealable. So, what this amendment does is seek to increase the prospects of those types of cases being appealed, but with leave. This amendment seeks to refine the balance between procedural efficiency and also fairness to the parties.

There is also one amendment that we are considering in relation to the timing of when an application for further arguments will be taken. Members will know that if you look at the proposed provision 29B(2a), the word that is being used here is "date". The old provision uses the word "time". So, the date by which one has to make the further arguments, versus the time by which one has to make the further arguments. And we propose, at Committee stage, with Mr Speaker and Chairman's leave, to seek to make that amendment. It is a change that was not intended, an error carried through from the drafting. So, we propose to make that to reflect the position better. And I think the lawyers in this House will appreciate that the use of the word "time" will give a greater degree of flexibility in terms of when one starts the computation of time for filing the further arguments. So, I will seek to make that amendment at the Committee stage.

Sir, in summary, these Bills establish the new Appellate Division of the High Court and set out its jurisdiction and powers; and also introduce procedural amendments to enhance the flexibility and efficiency of court processes. Together, these amendments further enhance our judicial system, one that is already robust, flexible but now also allow for greater and more effective administration of justice. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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

Sir, the three Bills propose amendments to restructure the Supreme Court by introducing a new Appellate Division of the High Court. My speech addresses the restructuring collectively proposed by all three Bills.

I support these amendments which will allow the Supreme Court to better manage its caseload in light of the increase in the number and complexity of cases. I have just three clarifications on how the Court of Appeal will exercise its jurisdiction and how the restructuring will affect the application of existing case precedents.

First, the new section 29E(1) proposed by the SCJA Bill allows the Court of Appeal to transfer to the Appellate Division any civil appeal made to the Court of Appeal. The proposed section 29E(5) clarifies that the transfer may be made even if it is a case that is ordinarily allocated to the Court of Appeal. Can the Minister clarify under what situations might the Court of Appeal make such a transfer?

Appendix B of the Ministry's press release on the restructuring of the Supreme Court suggests that the Court of Appeal may do so if the issues on appeal relate to settled law. However, what is settled law may not always be so clear cut.

For instance, the High Court in Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and others and the Court of Appeal in Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung, more commonly known as the City Harvest cases, held that the directors did not fall within the definition of "agents" under section 409 of the Penal Code on criminal breach of trust by an agent. In doing so, the Court of Appeal and the High Court overturned what had then seemed to be settled law for four decades that directors will be liable for the offence of criminal breach of trust by way of their businesses as agents in respect of property entrusted to them in the course of their duties as directors.

Admittedly, the City Harvest cases were criminal proceedings. Nonetheless, the point stands that what appears to be settled law in civil proceedings may subsequently be contested.

The prescribed categories of civil appeals to be heard by the Court of Appeal are to be set out in a schedule, as the Minister mentioned, to the amended SCJA and may be amended by the Minister after consulting the Chief Justice.

While some flexibility is required, it would undermine the purpose of this categorisation and certainty for litigants if the Court of Appeal has unfettered discretion in determining which Court should hear the appeal. Can the Minister provide some guidance on how the Court of Appeal should exercise its discretion under section 29E(1) in transferring a case ordinarily allocated to its jurisdiction to the Appellate Division?

Next, under the new section 47(2) in the SCJA Bill, the Court of Appeal may grant leave for an appeal against a decision of the Appellate Division in a civil case if the appeal will raise a point of law of public importance. However, section 47(4) clarifies that the Court of Appeal is not required to grant leave even if the appeal will raise a point of law of public importance. Can the Minister share what policy considerations override the benefit of having the Court of Appeal rule on a point of law of public importance? In what categories of cases that raise a point of law of public importance should the Court of Appeal nonetheless decline to grant leave to appeal?

Next, can the Minister also clarify how the existing case precedents will apply in the restructured Supreme Court under the principle of stare decisis? The doctrine of judicial precedent means that the finding of a higher Court which forms the basis of its decision is binding on a Court lower in the hierarchy. Currently, the Court of Appeal is at the top of the hierarchy followed by the Singapore High Court, the District Court and the Magistrate's Court.

The Appellate Division will effectively be the final appeal Court for many categories of civil matters and litigants may not have recourse to the Court of Appeal. How persuasive will the findings of the Appellate Division of the High Court be compared against the findings of the current Court of Appeal before the restructuring takes place?

Sir, in conclusion, I hope the Minister can provide guidance on how the Court of Appeal is to exercise its powers and how existing case law is to be interpreted in light of the restructured Supreme Court. These clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of all three Bills.

Mr Speaker, the Constitution Amendment Bill and the two related Bills are aimed at restructuring the Supreme Court for better efficiency in the light of caseload demands. In summary, I understand the key proposed changes to be as follows.

First, there will be a new Appellate Division of the High Court, which will hear most appeals from judgments in civil cases originally heard by the High Court.

Second, the channelling of cases to the new Appellate Division will free up the Court of Appeal to concentrate on appeals which are generally of wider public interest. Under the proposed changes, all appeals from criminal cases originally heard by the High Court, will continue to go on appeal to the apex Court. This is rightly so, as criminal cases heard by the High Court may involve sentences of life imprisonment or the death penalty, and thus deserve scrutiny by the highest appellate Court. As for civil cases, there is also a list of certain types of civil cases that may still be appealed to the Court of Appeal from the High Court.

While we have some queries on the details of the proposed changes, the Workers' Party is supportive of the rationale for the restructure of the Supreme Court. If the caseload is efficiently distributed, parties will have less waiting time for appeals, which must be a good thing. Nevertheless, I wonder whether the Government has considered how the change might impact legal costs payable by parties? In other words, will the introduction of a middle tier Appellate Division lead to cost escalation for appeals to the Court of Appeal, up from present levels? If so, this would be an unwelcome side-effect of the changes.

Sir, I would also like to take this opportunity to revisit one important issue on the staffing of the Supreme Court judiciary. The Constitution (Amendment) Bill provides at clause 2 that there are various categories of persons holding "high judicial office", which is the position today. Such persons are the Chief Justice, a Justice of the Court of Appeal, a Judge of the Appellate Division, a Judge of the High Court, a Judicial Commissioner, a Senior Judge or an International Judge. For some of these categories of judicial office holders, they are protected under Article 98(1) of the Constitution with security of tenure until age 65. Other categories, however, like Judicial Commissioners and Senior Judges, are appointed for short terms of one to three years. As we have said in the past, in our view, having short-term judicial office holders is not ideal.

Since we have debated this matter in the past, I shall keep my remarks on the principle short. The judicial branch of the Government plays a vital role in the country's system of checks and balances between the Executive Government, the Legislature or Parliament, and the Judiciary. The courts are called upon to adjudicate disputes and must decide without fear or favour, regardless of who the parties are. To give assurance that the judicial branch is robust, security of tenure for judges is fundamental. Just as Members of Parliament are accorded with Parliamentary Privilege to ensure free debate in this House, Judges are accorded the security of tenure till retirement age; it is further provided by the Constitution that the office of a Supreme Court Judge must not be abolished during the continuance in office of the Judge.

Sir, in 1979 when the post of Judicial Commissioners was created, one of the reasons given in this House was that they would help clear case backlogs. In 2014, when the post of senior judges was created, it was mentioned that retaining judges past their retirement age would enable tapping on their expertise. To serve these purposes, we would like to repeat our call for the Government to review the retirement age of Supreme Court Judges, to retire later, say at 70 years old instead. In past debates, I do not recall the Government rejecting outright such a move and today, I would like to give further grounds for this from a manpower utilisation perspective.

This suggestion for the retirement age of a Supreme Court Judge to be later than 65 is not radical. At US Supreme Court, judges are appointed for life. The current composition of the US Supreme Court includes two judges in their 80s, and the average age of the bench is about 67 years.

In Singapore, what is age 65 in today's context? Singaporeans today have better health and longer lives. Just looking around this House, there are several Members over 65, whom I need not name. Nobody thinks they are incapable of rational thought or are losing their marbles. At the national level, data from MOM shows that for 2018, the labour force participation rate of those aged between 65 and 69 is 45.3% – close to one in two persons. We see over 70s being cleaners and company directors. Being a Judge requires brain work but is not physically demanding. We believe extending the retirement age of Judges to 70 is entirely feasible, to let our Judges work longer with security of tenure, which will be superior to having short-term Judges.

Sir, we hope the Government will continue its reviews to improve justice, including reviewing the security and retirement age of Judges. In making this suggestion, it is not my intention to cast doubt on the integrity of those appointed as Judicial Commissioners or Senior Judges. Neither are my observations directed at international judges, who may hold concurrent appointments in other jurisdictions and whose caseload revolves around international commercial disputes. Thank you, Sir.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate.

Sir, this Bill will strengthen the capability and flexibility of our high judicial system. I wish to speak on the tenure of Supreme Court Judges. Sir, the Constitution provides special protection for the tenure and terms of employment for Supreme Court Judges. Article 98 provides that they may not be removed from office except with cause, and even then, the recommendation of a tribunal of their peers is required. Their terms of office including remuneration must not be altered to their disadvantage after appointment.

Such protections are vital to safeguard the separation of powers and the independence of the Judiciary. Our Supreme Court Judges must decide cases that may adversely affect a sitting Government or the Legislature. Their judgments may have great public and political impact. In essence, they must be protected from political pressures from the hon Members of this House so that the quality and integrity of their judgments is unimpeachable. However, unlike all other appointments in Singapore, save the Attorney-General, a Supreme Court Judge has a mandatory retirement age of 65, or at most six months after then, specified in the Constitution itself.

I wondered whether the retirement age of Supreme Court Judges in Singapore had been designed with an express parliamentary intent. It seems that the retirement age Article originates in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill No 5 of 1969. The Bill inserted after Article 52 of the Constitution, 52F on the tenure of office of Supreme Court Judges. The original Article, and I quote, is: "Subject to the provisions of this Article, a judge of the Supreme Court shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years or such later time not being later than six months after he attains that age, as the President may approve." The text has remained substantively the same since then.

The Explanatory Notes to the 1969 Bill state that this Article largely re-enacted the constitution of Malaysia's provisions on the Supreme Court, which were not present in the Constitution of Singapore. Our Constitution, of course, was originally designed for Singapore as part of the Federation. This was Minister for Law, Mr EW Barker's explanation to Parliament in the second reading debate on 12 June 1969. It seems that we have not then explicitly considered why the retirement age of Supreme Court judges is specified to be so. I note that the hon Member, Ms Sylvia Lim, has brought up this issue previously. I note also that the Malaysian constitution was amended in 2005 to raise the maximum age for a Supreme Court judge to 66 years.

Today's Constitution (Amendment) Bill deletes and substitutes the retirement age provision in essentially the same terms.

The necessity to provide Supreme Court Judges with tenure and guaranteed terms of employment is not disputed. What is an issue is the basis for why the retirement age should be specified in the Constitution and is different from that applying to the rest of society. This may be viewed as inequitable anytime the age applying to the rest of society is lower or higher than that applying to Supreme Court Judges. For many decades the retirement age of 65 for Supreme Court Judges was considerably older than the norm in Singapore and is still higher than the general retirement age of 62 today. Of course, one key difference is that Supreme Court Judges are required to retire at that age, whereas workers outside are not.

I think more generally, there are at least two main purposes of having such an age limit.

One is simply biological. While our wisdom might increase in years, unfortunately, our cognitive functions do not. The demands of high judicial office are exacting. It is obviously more graceful for a Supreme Court Judge to step down at the due time, than to be asked to retire on grounds of their loss of ability, or worse still, removed by a tribunal of their peers. It also assures us that no party has any reason to complain on the basis of age affecting the quality of jurisprudence, which is specifically prohibited by Article 98 of the Constitution. In this regard, Supreme Court judges are not too different from citizens in other jobs, except for the lack of discretion in when to retire.

The other factor which may be qualitatively important or different is the risk of ossification of ideas or principles in jurisprudence that fail to reflect contemporary values. We are all creatures of our time. Our formative years, our personal and professional experiences, contribute to the decisions that we make. It is no different for Judges. The central difficulty with those judicial systems that grant lifetime tenure, such as the Supreme Court of the United States, is that the composition of the court becomes determined by the longevity of the individual Judges. This is not logical unless longevity itself is a judicial virtue.

It is an issue even in a system with a set retirement age such as ours because the age of first appointment can vary both across individual Judges and across time. This means that the average tenure of a Supreme Court Judge can change even if the retirement age does not. If Judges are appointed early in their career, the end result can be a more ossified judicial system without any intent that this be so.

Therefore, it seems useful to consider: what are the aims of tenure of Supreme Court Judges? Why should the retirement age treat Supreme Court Judges different from the rest of society? What is a desirable length of tenure that protects Judges against political or public interference and yet mitigates the risk of ossification in jurisprudence? If there is such a thing as an ideal tenure length, would it be better to appoint Supreme Court Judges for suitably long, fixed terms, rather than until a set retirement age?

I do not of course expect that these issues can be addressed directly in today's debate. They are much more complex matters. Perhaps a commission of suitable experts could consider these, amongst other issues, for the future. But by drawing attention to this, I hope that future legislatures will consider the issue. Historically, we have not considered it so much.

We are not the only country to have to deal with this issue. In the United Kingdom today, there is an on-going debate about whether to raise the mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court judges above 70. That debate is an urgent one, created by the difficulty of finding suitable candidates for office who are both distinguished in the law and yet not too long in years. We do not want to leave it too late to have that discussion.

Mr Speaker, I support the Bill, but of course I shall not vote on this constitutional matter.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek a few clarifications from the Senior Minister of State on the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill. Section 29C(2) provides for an appeal from the General Division of the High Court to the Court of Appeal if the Sixth Schedule or any other written law so provides. Section 1 of the Sixth Schedule provides that for the purposes of section 29C(2), an appeal against the decision of the General Division in the exercise of its original or appellate civil jurisdiction is to be made to the Court of Appeal in the list of cases provided under A to J.

I would like to know how does the Government decide in such cases under the Sixth Schedule should be allowed a direct path to the Court of Appeal and it would not be appropriate for the Appellate Division to be the final arbiter body. I am saying this bearing in mind that for any existing legislation hitherto requiring the Court of Appeal as the final court hearing any appeal, it may still be possible to amend the relevant law, making the new Appellate Division as the final arbiter.

Yes, I am aware that the Senior Minister of State has provided some explanation in his opening speech and I thank him for that. I do wonder whether the Senior Minister of State can elaborate a little further on this. I would like to know what were the considerations behind the decision leading to the list of cases under the Sixth Schedule. For example, how does the Government arrive at the conclusion that it would suitable to have the Court of Appeal to hear cases under section 18(5) of the Maintenance of Parents Act and that it is not appropriate for such appeals to be now changed to, say, the Appellate Division instead.

Next, on section 29D, the Bill provides that under section 29D, the Court of Appeal may transfer two specific types of appeal to itself: (a) an appeal against any decision of the General Division that has been made to the Appellate Division and (b) when an order under section 39A of the Land Acquisition Act is in force, any appeal made to the Appellate Division under section 29(2) or 38(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

The power to do so can be exercised inter alia on the Court of Appeal's own motion or on a reference by the Appellate Division. Section 29(3) states that making a decision under section 29D(1) to so transfer the case to itself, the Court of Appeal must have regards to matters prescribed by the rules of the Court. In addition to what the Senior Minister of State has shared with us earlier, I would like to ask him whether he is able to share a little bit more as to what would be these matters of considerations which the Ministry has in mind.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, it appears that with the new Appellate Division, an increased in the number of Judges in the High Court is inevitable. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State: one, what is the projected number of judges that would sit at the Appellate Division of the High Court at the inception of the division after the passing of this Bill and two, whether the Senior Minister of State has any estimation or projection as to the number of additional judges which the High Court is expected to have in the next five years after setting up the Appellate Division.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill and the proposed legislative changes for the restructuring of the Supreme Court.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill which introduces an Appellate Division of the High Court with the intent of refining our judicial system to enhance the efficiency and flexibility of court processes.

Sir, since we are examining changes to the judicial system with this Bill, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister and this House to consider security of tenure to ensure full independence of our Judges. Currently, our Judicial Commissioners and older High Court Judges are contractually renewed and do not have tenure under Articles 95 clauses (2) and (5) of the Constitution, meaning that they do not have the certainty of staying on in the judiciary. They are instead appointed by the President with the concurring advice of the Prime Minister.

A 2015 study by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law on the appointment, tenure and removal of judges in the Commonwealth found that such renewable appointments "place the career interest of a judge in conflict with the judicial responsibility for upholding the rule of law in cases involving the government or other powerful persons who may have influence over the renewal decision. Such conflicts of interest may pose a risk to both the actual and perceived independence of the judiciary."

Moreover, the reasons for offering contractual renewal to Judges no longer exist. I believe in the late 1960s, there was a serious shortage of High Court Judges, resulting in a backlog of court cases. Parliament allowed Judges beyond the retirement age of 65 to stay on as "contract Judges", enabling the judiciary to hold on to experienced and able Judges. This Senior Judge scheme is still in place today.

The Judicial Commissioner scheme was introduced in 1979 to attract top practitioners to be judges for a period between six months and three years, then go back to their practice. The income disparity earned by judges and top practitioners was at that time very significant, so practitioners had to be financially attracted to become Judges. However, this changed in the mid-1990s when the salaries of Judges were raised by pegging them to top earners in Singapore.

In addition to security of tenure for Judicial Commissioners and Senior Judges to safeguard their judicial independence, I urge the Minister to consider extending the retirement age of Judges to 70, with optional retirement at 65 years old, instead of having renewal of appointments so that we can still retain the services of older yet experienced and able Judges. As a comparison to other jurisdictions – the tenure for judges in the US is for life, while the retirement age of judges in England and Australia is 70 years old.

These changes will enable the Judiciary to exercise the judicial power vested in them under Article 93 of our Constitution, free from encumbrances and worries that they may not be contractually renewed and therefore provide effective check and balance on the powers of the Executive and the Legislature.

Mr Speaker, it was only with this Bill and studying the underlying Constitution that I fully recognise and appreciate the significance of our Constitution as the supreme law of the land as stated in Article 4, and our duty as Parliamentarians to uphold the constitutionality of the laws that we make in this House for the Judiciary and other branches to fulfill their respective roles independently for an effective democracy.

Yet, the Parliamentary debates in this House rarely make reference to this supreme law. Our Constitution delineates functions and powers of key public institutions including the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary, and our Civil Service. Amendments to the Constitution have also enabled significant tweaks to our political system, including the introduction of the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system, Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) system and the Elected Presidency, to operationalise.

Article 38 of our Constitution vests legislative power in the Legislature, which consists of the President and Parliament. This power enables us to shape our country's progress and our people's behaviours. How should we then exercise this power properly? What are the constitutional ideals that we must uphold? Please allow me to outline three key roles.

First, our Constitution provides for the existence of different branches of Government that serve as a check and balance on one another. While Parliament has legislative power, the Judiciary has judicial power and the Cabinet has executive functions. The Parliament vests powers of the Executive on persons other than the Cabinet, such as civil servants of high authority. The Judiciary can make judgments on the constitutionality of legislation passed by Parliament. The Judiciary can also make judgments on the failure of the Cabinet to properly exercise executive functions. The Cabinet implements regulations and policies based on the legislation enacted by Parliament. It is therefore important for us to ensure that each branch has autonomy, so that they can fulfill these functions in the best possible way. This is the basis for my recommendation for security with tenure to ensure full judicial independence.

Second, we should strive to ensure the constitutionality of legislation for future judicial references. As the supreme law, all other laws passed must not contravene the Constitution. This is called constitutional supremacy. Therefore, Article 4 provides that any law enacted by the Legislature which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. That would mean that in debating Bills, we should consider their consistency with our Constitution. Such constitutionally-informed debates can protect the electorate's rights and allow public institutions like the judiciary to fulfill their roles, in full view of the electorate. I think we will all agree that this will help us build a more informed and engaged citizenry.

Finally, Part IV of our Constitution protects fundamental liberties, including the life and liberty of a person, freedom of speech, assembly and association, freedom of religion, and equal protection, among others. Termed fundamental liberties, they are meant to be zealously safeguarded, with Parliament only being able to restrict these liberties in very limited circumstances. Hence, the legislation we enact must serve to protect these constitutionally-enshrined fundamental liberties, the courts must also be enabled to protect these liberties by being duly kept independent.

As we discuss the changes and significance of our judiciary system with this Bill and the importance of judicial independence with my earlier recommendation of tenure, I would like to seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to discuss a couple of policy examples where we could argue that judicial independence could guard against breaches on the constitutionality of legislation made, for example, to the equality provision.

With other Members of this House, I had raised in the debate on the CareShield Life Bill that the differentiated premiums for men and women goes against the right to equality.

Order. I think what is at stake is really discussing the amendments of the Bill, amendments that are relevant to the Bill.

That is right. I am demonstrating with the policy examples why the judicial independence is important, with my recommendation —

We recognise that but I do not think we need to drag in other issues —

The other example I wanted to share is the debate on section 377A also —

If I can repeat myself, that we should keep to the amendments that are being discussed today.

Okay. The main point here is that I would like to say that legislative policies must also be aligned to the right to equality in our Constitution.

Let me end, Mr Speaker. Our Constitution represented the dreams of a young democracy when it was first created with our sudden Independence and now bears the marks of the growth of a determined and thriving nation. We have come this far and won much praise for our world class model of governance because of the strength of our Constitution in the separation of powers between the Judiciary, the Parliament and the Executive as well as the protection of the fundamental liberties of all Singaporeans including the right to equality.

The security of tenure for our Judges enables full judicial independence, and therefore further upholds our Constitution ideal by providing effective check and balance on the powers of the Executive and the Legislature.

We are in a stronger position than ever to keep fighting for these ideals so as to become the kind of society we want to be. Someone once said, "The strength of the Constitution lies in the determination of each citizen to defend it." And therefore, together with our colleagues in the Judiciary, our duty as Parliamentarians must be to defend the constitutionality of the laws that we make in this House for Singaporeans. For I do believe that the greatest threat to our Constitution would be our ignorance of it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I start my speech, I would like to wish the hon Senior Minister of State Mr Edwin Tong – who persevered with his duty to deliver his speeches despite being clearly under the weather – a speedy recovery.

In my speech, I will focus on two areas: first, how the policy objective behind the creation of the new Appellate Division of the High Court is sought to be achieved; and second, the practical workings of some of the proposed new procedures set out in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (SCJA).

Turning to the first point, I note that the reason for the proposal to create the new Court is to share the burgeoning appeals caseload between the existing Court of Appeal and the new Appellate Division of the High Court. This is expected to ensure that the Court processes remain efficient.

The hon Senior Minister of State had shared some statistics in relation to the heavy workload of the Court of Appeal in dealing with the appeals. I do not wish to dwell at length about the reasons contributing to the increase – save as to point out that we all can agree that, as lawmakers, we have been passing quite a number of Bills both in the First and Second Sessions of the 13th Parliament and it does appear that our Ministers and their respective Ministries are not letting up and this rate of law-making may be likely to be maintained, if not go higher. So, eventually, all this would have an impact on the workload of the Judiciary which applies the law in accordance with the manifested intent of Parliament.

This phenomenon is not unique to Singapore. A retired UK law lord, Lord Sumption, referred to this as "Law’s Expanding Empire".

The proposed restructuring of the Judiciary to deal with the increase in the Appellate Court’s workload comes a right time. We need to ensure that the Judiciary, in its appellate jurisdiction, is provided with adequate resources so that the clearance rate is kept high, there is no significant backlog and litigants get to receive their results of the cases within reasonable time. At the same time, the quality of the judgments must be kept consistently high and in keeping with the hard-earned reputation for Singapore as a world class, independent court with exceptionally competent and committed Judges of the highest integrity; and in that regard I noted Senior Minister of State highlighting how well our Courts are rated in published rankings across the world.

My learned friend Ms Sylvia Lim had highlighted a possibility of increased costs arising from the establishment of the Appellate Division of the High Court. But as I understand the workings of the system, for at least the overwhelming majority of the cases, it is not to have a two-tier appeal. For the overwhelming majority of cases, you only have a one-tier appeal. Only in cases where there are novel points of law of public importance will there be a second set of appeal to the Court of Appeal. And that is rightly so because the Court of Appeal is the apex Court. So, in that regard, I think the impact of cost should not be very significant.

My query is in relation to how and how many Appellate Division Judges are to be chosen. If we were to just draw just from existing cohort of High Court Judges, I am concerned that there could be a "cannibalisation" effect. The High Court workload is not insignificant. It is also expected to become heavier for the reasons I just mentioned. How can we ensure that the workload of the High Court is dealt with by an adequate number of Judges?

I acknowledge that it is also not easy to appoint Judges given that Singapore is small country with a limited pool of legal talent. It is not easy to find top talent with the right aptitude for public service to agree to be appointed as Supreme Court Judges.

I would welcome the Senior Minister of State's response on my query.

Several Members, including Ms Anthea Ong and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, talked about increasing the retirement age of Judges. I am not sure whether that is an appropriate suggestion because there is a linkage between increasing retirement age and independence of the Judiciary. But I see this as two separate things. Based on how the Judges have been appointed, the appointment of Senior Judges as well as Judicial Commissioners are done on an ad hoc basis to clear workload as and when workload increases. And I think that flexibility must still be retained. But I think we should be careful about drawing an analogy between these Judges who are there for specific reasons to clear workload and then an inference that somehow the independence of the Judiciary is affected by their appointments.

I now turn to the other proposed amendments in the Bills. I beg the indulgence of hon Members because these are rather technical areas.

First, the configuration of the High Court hearing a civil case in the proposed General Division. The proposed section 10(1) of the SCJA stipulates that proceedings in the General Division of the High Court dealing with civil cases should be before a single Judge. This is the same requirement that exists now. I note, however, section 18G of the SCJA allows the SICC, which is another division of the High Court dealing with international commercial cases, allowing for proceedings to be heard before a single or three Judges. The reason for having three Judges, amongst others, is a recognition of the complexity of the cases that SICC would have to deal with.

With the increasing complexity of cases and voluminous documents involved in local civil cases, I would respectfully suggest that, as a matter of policy, there should be no distinction drawn between the General Division and the SICC. It may be good to give the Court the discretion to decide which number is more appropriate having regard to all the facts and circumstances. I would be grateful for the Senior Minister of State’s views on this matter.

Second, I note that there is a list of situations set out in the proposed Sixth Schedule where appeals are brought directly to the Court of Appeal, instead of the Appellate Division. I reviewed the list and I note that under paragraph 1(i) of the Sixth Schedule, there is a raft of legislation, from the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act to the Competition Act to Maintenance of Parents Act dealing with a diverse range of topics in respect of which it is stipulated that appeals are to be brought to the Court of Appeal. May I ask what is the policy ground for shortlisting these pieces of legislation?

I note from sub-paragraph (j), it is stated that there would be a direct appeal to the Court of Appeal if it is so provided under a specific piece of legislation. May I also please ask what would be the policy governing the provision for such a direct appeal to the CA in future pieces of legislation that this House may pass?

Third, further arguments. I note with the pleasure that the hon Senior Minister of State has clarified that he will be moving an amendment in the Committee stage of this Bill in respect of the proposed section 29B(2) of the SCJA which would clarify that the operative word there should be "time" and not "date". This would prevent controversy from arising once this Bill is passed and put into effect.

Next, I note that the proposed section 29D of the SCJA provides that the Court of Appeal may transfer a right of appeal against an order made under a provision in the Land Acquisition Act. May I please ask what is the rationale for this reservation of right instead of providing for a direct appeal to the Court of Appeal?

In this regard, I note that section 29(2) of the Land Acquisition Act provides for an appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the Board on questions of law. What is the special characteristic of this provision, section 39(A) in the Land Acquisition Act which for some reason, I am unable to find in the statute book?

Under the proposed section 29E of the SCJA, the Court of Appeal may transfer an appeal made under the Land Acquisition Act to the Appellate Division.

Given that the legislative intent under the Land Acquisition Act is for the Court of Appeal to hear these cases, may I know what are the circumstances in which such remission is proposed so that it is made in a way that coheres with parliamentary intent?

I believe the learned Senior Minister of State mentioned something about the situation where all the substantive issues are dealt with, dealing only with ancillary matters. Perhaps that could be a situation that is being contemplated.

Next, it is proposed under Schedule 7 of the SCJA that there are certain categories of cases which may be heard by a Judge or two Judges of the Appellate Division. This arrangement is different from the current Sixth Schedule which specifically states the circumstances in which the Court of Appeal will have a single Judge or when it will have two Judges. May I know why is there a necessity to reverse the policy? Also, who will decide how many Judges would sit in these circumstances? The learned Senior Minister of State mentioned about a configuration of Judges based on consent of parties. Is that what is being suggested in these provisions?

My questions will also apply to similar provisions that are proposed to be applicable to the Court of Appeal.

Next, Civil Jurisdiction of the Appellate Division is specifically provided under the proposed section 31 and 35 of the SCJA that the Appellate Division only has civil jurisdiction. May I please ask whether it is contemplated that the Appellate Division has jurisdiction to hear disciplinary cases involving professionals such as lawyers, doctors and so on which do not involve judicial review. Disciplinary cases brought in the Supreme Court are quasi-criminal in nature but generally invoke civil procedure. I welcome a clarification on this.

Next, dealing with appeals from the Appellate Division to the Court of Appeal, I note that leave is required; and it makes eminent sense for leave to be required, otherwise the whole rationale of dividing the workload would be thwarted.

I note that the test is whether or not an appeal would raise an issue or point of law of public importance. However, my concern lies with the proposed section 47(4)(a) of the SCJA because it is stated there that leave may not be granted even if the appeal would raise a point of law of public importance. Sir, I would like to ask what are the specific circumstances in which the Court of Appeal may decline exercising jurisdiction in such situations?

Notwithstanding my comments, I support the amendments Bills to the SCJA, JRA and the Constitution.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira?

Mr Speaker, I am sorry, I just wish to make a clarification which is that the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai earlier suggested that I and Ms Ong had said that we had debated on the connection between fixed-term Judges and the independence of the Judiciary, but I think I want to clarify that I actually did not make those remarks. I think that there might have been some confusion there. I did not speak on fixed-term Judges in Singapore and independence. I believe Ms Ong did.

Mr Pillai.

I thank the hon Member, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, for clarifying. I apologise to him for remembering the speech wrongly. I think it was Ms Anthea Ong who made the point.

Minister of State.

Sir, I thank the Members for speaking. I am also grateful to Mr Pillai for his well wishes and also for his wide-ranging speech where he answered not just some other Members' questions, but also some of his own.

Let me address the other questions now.

Ms Lim asked whether the cost of appeal to the Court of Appeal would escalate given the introduction of the Appellate Division as a middle tier. I go back to my earlier point that the Appellate Division is not to be seen as a middle tier. In general, it will not add a further level of appeal in the vast majority of cases and it is not a level of appeal that has to be crossed before one gets to the Court of Appeal.

The appeals from the General Division will be allocated in the first instance. So, you heard me say earlier that there will be two tracks, one of which goes direct to the Court of Appeal and the rest goes to the Appellate Division.

Any further appeal from the Appellate Division will require leave. Mr Pillai, I think, answered that question, and leave will only be granted in very limited situations. In most cases, parties will not go through an additional tier of appeal after a decision from the General Division. As is the case today, there will generally be only one tier of appeal, therefore.

The amendments before the House today also contain initiatives to lower costs of litigation for parties, to address Ms Lim's point directly. So, either by way of paper hearing, which will be quicker and also less expensive in the context of some cases. But all that is of course subject to the overriding discretion of the Court's assessment that it is appropriate for the administration of justice in a case for parties to proceed on a paper hearing.

Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Murali Pillai asked about the expected increase in the number of Judges. We expect at least three Judges from the current High Court to be appointed to the Appellate Division, and additional appointments to the General Division may be made as may be necessary once the Appellate Division has been set up.

Mr Louis Ng asked how the restructuring of the Supreme Court would affect the doctrine of judicial precedent, or stare decisis. He also asked how persuasive a decision of the Appellate Division will be compared to that of the Court of Appeal.

It is quite clear, and the order of precedence as set out in the Bill, is as follows, from the highest to the lowest: first, decisions of the Court of Appeal, which remains the apex court of the land; next, the Appellate Division of the High Court; and then the decisions of the General Division of the High Court.

In line with the usual principles of stare decisis, decisions of the higher Court are binding on the lower Court. Decisions of the Court of Appeal will therefore have precedence over decisions of the Appellate Division. This is regardless of whether the decision in question has been issued before or after the establishment of the Appellate Division.

The decision of the Appellate Division will be binding on the General Division and the lower Courts. And the existing High Court decisions will not bind the new Appellate Division. They will have instead the same weight as a decision from the General Division after it is set up.

Mr Tan and Mr Pillai asked about the categories of appeals in the Sixth Schedule – how they are chosen, what was the thought process going into it. Mr Pillai also asked about the Land Acquisition Act. These will also be ordinarily allocated to the Court of Appeal.

In my opening speech, I outlined the key considerations for allocating the categories of cases to the Court of Appeal directly. Just to quickly recap, these include cases which will have a likely substantial consequence for the individual or society, have involved significant public interest questions which will benefit from the guidance of the Court of Appeal, possibly also novel questions of law, complex cases and so on.

I think it was Mr Dennis Tan, I believe, who raised the questions specifically on section 18(5) of the Maintenance of Parents Act. If Mr Tan looks at that section, it specifically provides for an appeal on the basis of public interest. I think one can understand why an issue which the Maintenance of Parents Act covers might be something that one channels directly to the Court of Appeal.

Importantly, however, for Members to note, the ordinary allocation of appeals, whilst there is a default, is not rigid. Even if a case is ordinarily allocated to the Appellate Division, there is flexibility for it to be transferred to the Court of Appeal, if it requires a decision that the apex court of the land can usefully provide.

The categories allocated to the Court of Appeal are also not cast in stone. For example, as I said in my opening speech, should there be novel questions that we put into the categories today, they may be resolved or settled with the passage of time. Those cases can eventually come off that list if it can be dealt with by the Appellate Division. If an initial area of law is more established or there is a new area of law, that can also be added to the categories.

Next, let me touch the transfer powers of the Court of Appeal. Mr Louis Ng, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Murali Pillai touched on them and raised some questions. As a starting point, the allocation of matters in the two tracks that I mentioned will apply generally, as a starting position. However, it is useful beyond the default allocation to allow the Court of Appeal themselves looking at the specific case and understanding the issues that are raised beyond just the label that is put on it, a discretion to transfer to itself or to the Appellate Division depending on its assessment of complexity, novelty and so on. The basis on which it seeks to do so – novelty, complexity, cases of general public importance and so on – would be amongst the factors that will guide the exercise of discretion in any such transfer exercise.

At the same time, the powers of the Court of Appeal in doing so are not unfettered, and Members will note clauses 29D(3), 29E(3) and 47(3) of the amended SCJA which expressly require that the Court of Appeal have regard to the matters prescribed in the Rues of Court when exercising these powers. As I had mentioned, the relevant matters will be prescribed in the Rules of Court.

Mr Pillai asked specifically about the Land Acquisition Act. The transfer power in clause 12 which will introduce sections 29B and 29E of the SCJA refer to the Land Acquisition Act so that appeals under sections 29(2) and 38(2) of the Land Acquisition Act can be transferred in a manner similar to all the civil appeals.

The land acquisition appeals currently lie from the Land Appeals Board. They do not lie from the General Division up to either Appellate Division or the Court of Appeal, but lie from the Appeals Board. So for that reason, they are set out separately from the Sixth Schedule which applies only to civil appeals from the General Division.

Finally, clause 27(f) of the SCJA introduces a new section 39A of the Land Acquisition Act and that permits the Minister to allocate land acquisition appeals in the same way as all the other categories of appeals in the Sixth Schedule. So, I think Mr Pillai also asked what are the principles of that remission, and I think that is one of the questions that you answered yourself. So, thank you very much.

On a related note, Mr Louis Ng, I think, asked about the transfer to the Appellate Division, should the case raise a matter of settled law. Mr Ng's point seems to be that where a case might appear settled or uncontroversial, the law may subsequently nonetheless be overturned. So, I think the question is how then do we determine that upfront.

The reality is that in most cases, it will be clear if there are controversial points of law that ought to be decided by the Court of Appeal, and that would be flagged earlier rather than later. For example, when settled law is challenged by a party on appeal, the party first has to give notice of its position, file its case, outline its arguments, and the Court would be able to appreciate those arguments upfront.

Further, in deciding whether to transfer an appeal, the Court of Appeal, of course, will also have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the party's case which I have set out earlier, raised earlier on, and of course, understand the nature of the case. As Members who practise in the Courts know, the Courts very actively conduct pre-trial conferences to understand the nature of the parties’ dispute, understand the ambit of the disagreement, and to understand whether this would involve novel questions of law, or whether the parties are seeking a question to be overturned on a settled point of law.

Nonetheless, despite all that, where the appeal has been transferred to the Appellate Division and in the course of that hearing, an unanticipated issue of law of public importance, novelty, complexity arises, the matter can still go on appeal to the Court of Appeal with leave.

Mr Ng and Mr Pillai raised questions about the power of the Court of Appeal to decline to grant leave for a further appeal from the Appellate Division to the Court of Appeal, even if a point of law of public importance is raised.

Let me explain that. Under our proposed amendments, it is a requirement that the appeal ought to raise a point of law of public importance for leave to be considered. However, as Members would appreciate, this alone would not be sufficient as a criterion to grant leave of appeal.

Other matters in the interest of the administration of justice were also considered. That in fact is the position today.

Whether or not there should be further appeal should take into account the fact that the parties had had already a chance to raise their arguments, and nothing new is coming through in the application for leave to appeal. They raised the arguments before the Appellate Division, and the Appellate Division has reviewed them and decided on that point of law.

In other jurisdictions, it is not always sufficient as well just to rely on a point of law of public importance to seek and obtain permission for leave to appeal and I will just cite one example. In Australia, section 35A of Australia's Judiciary Act provides that the High Court of Australia may, when determining whether to grant special leave to appeal, "have regard to any matters that it considers relevant" and that this shall include not only whether the appeal involves a question of law of public importance, but also other factors, such as whether the interests of justice require it. So, there is a degree of flexibility in the discretion given to the judge to assess a particular case and to assess whether, on top of the question of public importance, there are other reasons in the dispensation of justice for this to be heard on appeal.

Mr Murali Pillai asked whether the Appellate Division has jurisdiction to hear professional disciplinary cases. I think judicial precedent has clarified that the Court of Appeal has no civil appellate jurisdiction in disciplinary proceedings for lawyers. Rather, this is heard by the Court of Three Judges; I think doctors as well. This remains unchanged by the introduction of the Appellate Division.

Mr Murali Pillai touched on the minimum composition of the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeal in cases that may be heard by fewer than three Judges. Specifically, he raised the difference in the arrangement of the Sixth Schedule in the existing SCJA – I think the Member said – and the corresponding Seventh Schedule of this Bill. The change in the arrangement is one of drafting – trying to neaten up the provisions – and does not effect any change to the minimum number of Judges required to hear the categories of cases set out in the existing Sixth Schedule. For example, if there is a matter that is currently only heard by a minimum of two Judges, that will remain the case in the Bill. So, the Bill does not seek to change those arrangements.

On SICC, Mr Murali Pillai asked about the difference in the number of Judges. This Bill retains the existing position, where a single Judge shall hear proceedings in the High Court, except as provided for in written law. And that one exception is the SICC, where proceedings might be heard by a single Judge or three Judges. Why? Because there are unique considerations behind the SICC. Although it is a Division of the current High Court and will be a Division as well like the General Division after the amendments, they apply to cases of international commercial considerations and they also have a panel of specialist commercial judges comprising not only Singapore Supreme Court Judges but also International Judges from a myriad of different landscapes, backgrounds and also legal systems. The strength and diversity of the panel are key advantages to attract parties to submit international disputes before the SICC, especially where the issues in dispute relate to foreign law or commercial practices in key jurisdictions overseas.

On section 29B(2), again, we will be taking up the amendment. We wish to correct the word "date" to "time" and I wish to also clarify with Mr Murali Pillai that there is no missing word in between the two sub-provisions. It is a disjunctive provision.

Let me now touch on the tenure of Judges. I think, to be very careful, in different shades, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms Anthea Ong have raised the point. Let me just try to address them as a whole.

There are a couple of questions: first, on the retirement age; second, on the tenure of Judges being extended to the age of 70; and finally – I think that is Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's point – on what is the desired tenure. I think that was the point he made and whether there should be a fixed period.

Yes.

I am glad I got it correct.

In essence, these questions – save for Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's which I will address – relate to that of the independence of our Judiciary: one of tenure and one of retirement age. So, let me address the point.

First, by borrowing from Mr Murali Pillai's own speech where he answered the point by explaining that these are effectively two different things – to look at tenure and to look at the retirement ages of the Judges are two different things when you look at the issue of independence. Let me explain why.

The Government regards a strong and trusted Judiciary as the bedrock of the rule of law. I think that really brooks no dissent. This is the point that has been made by the Minister for Law previously and it is a point that is worth reiterating in the context of the points raised in this debate. The question then is, what does success look like for our Judiciary? Because, ultimately – whatever you might say about the retirement ages, the tenure – the key question is, how successful? What role have our Judges played? What benefits do we have from a strong, trusted Judiciary, an effective trusted Judiciary which is able to attract and retain the best legal talent that we have and which operates in a climate where there are no extraneous factors, no influences interfering with the ability of the Judges to perform their jobs? The question is: have we achieved that outcome?

I think I have answered this earlier when I outlined some statistics, but I would say quite clearly so. I mentioned the World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators ranking Singapore in the 97th percentile worldwide in terms of rule of law. It is a number but what does that mean? One integral aspect of the rule of law is an independent Judiciary which makes decisions based on facts and law and without regard to extraneous factors. So, clearly, we can see from the rankings that judicial independence in Singapore is strong and consistently so. Trust in our Judiciary is high. In a survey conducted by my Ministry – I cited this earlier – showed that 92% of Singaporeans have trust and confidence in our legal system.

Let me look at some other legal systems, I think one that Ms Anthea Ong also raised. You look at the UK, where judges there have tenure until the age of 70. As you know, in 2016, there was this UK Attitude Survey. It was a stark reminder of how things could quickly go wrong if we are not careful. Let me just cite a few findings from the survey of UK judges. Forty-three percent of judges felt valued by the public. Seventy-four percent of judges felt that the remuneration does not adequately reflect the work they do. Sixty-one percent said opportunities for career progression was important but support for this was either non-existent or poor. Forty-seven percent of high court judges and forty-one percent of court of appeal judges – and these are judges in the UK system – said they intended to leave the Judiciary in the next five years. Two percent of judges felt valued by the government.

We could go on. And as I have said, these are survey numbers. But they, overall, give you a sense and picture and they show that there is a system that is facing a serious problem of morale, recruitment and retention. So, is this a system which has tenure till 70 a better system? That is why I go back to Mr Murali Pillai's point. It is not about what age we ask the Judges to retire at and what tenure we give the Judges, but it is in the quality of the output and the quality of the performance that we measure our success.

So, whilst I do not disagree with Members that the broader philosophical issues on security of tenure, of course, the linkage to independence and so on are important, we must never lose sight of the practical factors that have allowed us to build a first-class Judiciary that we now have. We want to always ensure that the morale of the Judiciary remains high, that it continues to attract and retain persons of the highest calibre, legal talent of the highest scruples, so that the highest levels of public trust can be maintained.

To this end, the Government ensures that remuneration for judicial appointment holders remains competitive so that we are able to attract and retain persons of high quality, ability, integrity and, certainly, of an incorruptible character. We are also firm about protecting our Judiciary from baseless attacks against their reputation, as reflected by the adoption of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act in 2016. Trust and respect in the Judiciary has been carefully and closely built up over the generations – and I think Members will agree – it has to be zealously guarded, for it can be easily lost if we are not careful.

Let me now turn to Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's question on the differences in the age of retirement for Singaporeans in general and the tenure of office for a Supreme Court Judge.

In Singapore, when we first introduced retirement age laws in 1993, employers were not allowed to ask employees to retire before 60. In 1999, we raised the retirement age to 62 and this is where it stands now. There were many considerations, such as the need to maintain a competitive economy in the face of an ageing population, providing an opportunity for older workers to earn a regular income and allowing employers to gain from the retention of experienced workers. I think Ms Sylvia Lim herself cited some studies – healthcare is better; life expectancy is better and so on. But I would respectfully suggest that the tenure for a Supreme Court Judge engages very different considerations – a very different set of parameters and issues to consider.

Here, we are not so much concerned with economic competitiveness. Rather, the security of tenure for a Supreme Court Judge seeks to secure the independence of the Judge in judicial proceedings. So, retirement age laws in the context of the Employment Act, for instance, are not immediately comparable to the tenure of office of a Supreme Court Judge. I would not say they are irrelevant but they are not immediately comparable on a same set of paradigm factors.

In fact, if we look at other jurisdictions, we will also find that there is also little relation between the statutory retirement ages for the general population and the security of tenure for a Judge. Ms Anthea Ong – or was that Ms Sylvia Lim, I could not quite recall – cited the example of the US. In the US, the Supreme Court Justices have tenure for life. In India and Malaysia, the retirement ages for workers, generally, is 60, while judges of the apex court in those countries all have tenure until 65. So, there is no direct correlation. I venture to suggest that it is for the reasons I have outlined. In Hong Kong, judges of the apex court have tenure until 65 as well, but there is no statutory retirement age.

Next, on the desirable length of tenure and also extending tenure to Judicial Commissioners and Senior Judges. Again, we need to look at it in the context of our system – what we need to achieve in our system, what has worked for us and what we want to see happening.

First, it bears noting that there is no correlation between age per se and the Judge to make an independent and effective judicial decision. Neither is there any linkage between the age and ability to make a decision free from political or public interest. Rather, it is crucial that the system enables Judges to exercise powers free from encumbrances. So, systemically, structurally, how do we build a system that has that?

What we need to do, then, is to look at our unique circumstance and find our own balance. In this respect, we have achieved a balance between various factors: ensuring a good mix of tenured and non-tenured Judges, rejuvenating the Bench while leveraging on the wisdom and experience of the existing Bench, protecting the Judiciary from baseless allegations and assaults to their reputation.

I do not think that there is much value in pointing to other jurisdictions which provide for tenure of up to 70 years or more, 65 or beyond, the whole variety of different systems and then for us to slavishly adopt those numbers as our own. Going back to the US, for example, the US Supreme Court Judges have tenure for life. Yet, there is a constant debate about the ideological leanings of the Court, whether they have taken into account extraneous considerations and whether it has been politicised. It also appears to be the norm now for the US Supreme Court nominations to attract significant controversy, with all kinds of allegations made. Is that the way we want to go about our Judges that we put on the Bench? Again, I think our answer is very clear.

Then, we look at the other end of the spectrum. We have been talking about Supreme Court Judges and High Court Judges. Let us look at the Judicial Officers of the State Courts. Members who practise in the State Courts will know they deal with and dispose of 95% of all judicial matters in Singapore, but have no security of tenure. Yet, the 2018 Court Users Survey shows that 99% of respondents agree that the Courts independently carry out justice according to the law. And 100% of respondents agree that the Courts administer justice fairly to all in Singapore, regardless of race, language or religion. So, going back to my original point, while I do not disagree that, as a matter of principle, security of tenure is an important aspect of judicial independence, we do not have to be overly theoretical or dogmatic about it. We look at what works for our system and we attract and retain the best and finetune it in a manner that works for our system.

For Judicial Commissioners, the scheme is an integral part of our system of appointments. It helps to manage temporary surges in caseload and enables both the prospective appointee and also the Chief Justice to assess suitability for permanent appointment.

It has been explained in this House before that not all lawyers will want an immediate appointment as a Supreme Court Judge. Some would rather come in first as a Judicial Commissioner for a short-term appointment. This provides the opportunity to ascertain whether the nature of the office of a Judge suits them, before the appointment is made on a permanent basis.

This has little to do with judicial independence or security of tenure. Being part of the Supreme Court Bench is a calling that not everyone will say or can say that they are certain about from the start. The Judicial Commissioner scheme therefore allows outstanding members of the Bar who are at the peak of their profession to contribute to the dispensation of justice and the development of local jurisprudence. If they decide that this is something they are called to do and they also have the suitable judicial temperament, then there is the long-term appointment that is possible with security of tenure.

One prominent example, of course, is our current Chief Justice who was first appointed as a Judicial Commissioner from 2006 to 2007 and returned to private practice thereafter. Five years later, he returned to the Judiciary and was made Chief Justice.

This brings me to my next point, which is that an immediate and permanent appointment as a Supreme Court Judge may not also suit all possible appointees, not only for the reasons of temperament, lifestyle and calling but also because under the Legal Profession Act, an individual who has held office as a Supreme Court Judge for more than three years, cannot then apply for a practising certificate. So, it is a career change altogether. In other words, an individual who trades a successful career as a lawyer to serve as a Supreme Court Judge cannot return to his former career after serving as a Supreme Court Judge for three years or more.

If we look at the practices of other jurisdictions, the appointment of Judicial Commissioners for fixed terms to the Bench is also not new. Similar arrangements exist in many other countries, particularly the Commonwealth countries, such as the UK, where the Lord Chief Justice may after consulting the Lord Chancellor, appoint a Deputy Judge of the High Court for a specified period.

Let me now come to the Senior Judges. Senior Judges who sit in the existing High Court are scheduled to hear trials and applications, and they contribute to the disposal of cases by the High Court. Senior Judges may also deal with urgent applications such as Mareva applications and injunctions, and can also be assigned to hear appeals in the Court of Appeal.

In terms of the issue of security of tenure, the Senior Judges we are talking about here, would have already been previously selected and appointed, and had a full career as a Supreme Court Judge. They would have served a long and distinguished career and from the perspective of the issue of independence and what they are influenced by, it is difficult to see why such Judges, who are re-appointed as Senior Judges, will suddenly start making decisions based on extraneous considerations simply because they are now appointed for a fixed period.

While we want to utilise the wealth of expertise and experience that these Judges carry with them, at the same time, there is also a practical need to allow a younger generation of Judges to have the opportunity to advance. This is also a point I think very graphically recognised by Assoc Prof Theseira when he talked about ossification. So, the system we have put in place strikes that balance – works for us, strikes that balance, allows for the appropriate renewal of the Supreme Court Bench in a fair and systematic manner, but also gives us the ability to tap on Judicial Commissioners and also to retain the wide ranging experience of the Senior Judges.

The Government has made it clear before that it does not disagree with the fundamental point that security of tenure is important. But there is a need to take into account the unique circumstances that we operate in and in the manner in which we look after the success of the Judiciary. What is clear is that we are a small country, with a limited talent pool. When we find suitable talent, we have to ensure that first, this is a calling that they are certain about, and next, that there is room for advancement. Will this undermine judicial independence or will our Judges start making decisions that are affected by political bias? I believe the answer to this is eminently clear. The decisions of the Court are published and the public can judge for themselves.

Sir, I believe that brings me to the end of my responses to the questions raised. I believe I have touched on almost every question that has been surfaced.

Let me just end by saying that the establishment of the new Appellate Division is a milestone in the development of our Court system. Together with the other proposed enhancements to the Court processes, it is designed to sustain, in the long term, the high standards of excellence and access to justice that Singapore’s Courts are known for in and outside Singapore. Sir, with that, I beg to move.

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

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

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]

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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Clause 12 – (proc text)]

Clause 12. Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong, I understand you have an amendment to propose.

Yes, Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That in page 7, line 26, to leave out the word 'date' and insert the word 'time'".

This applies in the context of section 29B(2) of the underlying legislation. I had addressed this point earlier in my speech. I believe this clarifies the position and makes it clear that it is the time that is applicable and not the date from which the Order is made, that the requirement for leave for further arguments to be filed runs.

I am of the view that the amendment, though proposed without sufficient notice, is of a purely drafting character, as explained by the Senior Minister of State Tong. I give my consent for the amendment to be moved. May I have the assent of Members for the amendment to be moved?

[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The amendment read as follows: (proc text)]

[(proc text) In page 7, line 26: to leave out "date" and insert "time". (proc text)]

[(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Clauses 13 to 32 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill reported with amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

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

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill amends the Judges' Remuneration Act consequent to the introduction of the Judges of the Appellate Division who will form a new class of judges that sit in the Appellate Division of the High Court.

This Bill is linked to the previous Bill on our Order Paper, the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill. In that debate, I had explained the amendments proposed in both Bills. Members have already raised their questions and expressed their views on both Bills during the earlier debate, although they are still welcome to do so now if there are any. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Would anyone like to contribute at this stage? Okay.

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

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

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]

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

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

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill amends the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore to create the Appellate Division of the High Court, renames the existing High Court as the General Division of the High Court and creates a new class of judges who will be designated as "Judges of the Appellate Division".

This Bill is linked to the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill, which we had debated earlier. In that debate, I have already explained the amendments proposed in both Bills. Members have raised their questions and expressed their views on both Bills during the earlier debate, although they are still welcome to do so now if there are any other. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Would anyone like to contribute at this stage? If not, the Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 61 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.

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

Serjeant‐at‐Arms, lock the doors.

Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, may I remind Members that they are to be seated at their designated seats and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on their armrests start to blink.

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

Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. May I remind Members to depress their vote button firmly so that you can register your vote in the system.

Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.

Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or displayed incorrectly on the screens? No.

I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 72 "Ayes"; 0 "Noes"; 0 "Abstentions". The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-constituency Members of Parliament. Serjeant-at-Arms, unlock the doors.

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

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]

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

Third Reading

Third Reading, what day?

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

The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected and non-constituency Members of Parliament, which is 61 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.

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

Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

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

Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. As before, do press your vote button firmly in order to register your vote in the system.

Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or displayed incorrectly on the screens? No.

I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 72 "Ayes"; 0 "Noes"; 0 "Abstentions". The third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-constituency Members of Parliament.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That this Parliament, in accordance with section 7(3) of the Bretton Woods Agreement Act (Chapter 27 of the 2012 Revised Edition), resolves that the total subscription of Singapore to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development be increased to a sum not exceeding Eight Hundred and Fifty-Eight Million United States Dollars (US$858 million)."

I will also be moving a second related motion on Singapore's subscription to the International Development Association. The background and rationale for both motions are addressed in this speech.

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, or IBRD, is the main institution of the World Bank Group that lends to developing countries. In October 2018, the Board of Governors of the IBRD adopted resolutions to increase the capital of the IBRD by about US$60 billion. The IBRD intends to use the capital to support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, more commonly known as the Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs. It does this, for instance, by supporting inclusive and sustainable economic growth through investments in infrastructure; as well as delivering higher climate co-benefits and focusing on crisis prevention.

As a member of the World Bank Group, Singapore subscribes to capital of the IBRD. The Bretton Woods Agreement Act, or the BWAA, governs Singapore's subscription. In 2014, Parliament raised the threshold for our cumulative subscription to the IBRD for the first time since 1966 to US$672 million. Today, our subscription stands at US$671.82 million.

We now propose to fully subscribe to the 1,540 shares allotted to Singapore in the 2018 IBRD capital increase exercise. This amounts to close to US$186 million, which will bring our cumulative subscription since 1966 to about US$858 million. We are therefore seeking Parliament's approval to again raise Singapore's subscription threshold to the IBRD.

I should explain that not all the amount subscribed to needs to be disbursed. The capital subscription comprises two categories:

Paid-in capital; and

Callable capital

Paid-in capital is the amount that is actually disbursed. In this case, out of the US$186 million, Singapore is only required to disburse about US$21 million to the IBRD as paid-in capital. The remaining US$165 million of callable capital will not be drawn upon unless in extreme circumstances such as when the IBRD cannot meet its obligations on borrowings or guarantees. Historically, this has not happened. The IBRD is a triple A-rated institution with a long history of sound balance sheets. Nevertheless, the full increase in Singapore's subscription to the IBRD’s capital will be charged to the Consolidated Fund, as the callable capital represents an increase in the Government's financial liabilities.

Mr Speaker, the World Bank Group also offers concessional loans and grants through the International Development Association or IDA to its least developed member countries to reduce poverty as well as promote economic and social development. IDA was started in 1960 and is replenished every three years. Governments are due to pledge their contributions for the next three-year tranche from FY 2021 to FY 2023 this December under the 19th IDA Replenishment exercise (IDA19). IDA has been playing a leading role in helping the world's poorest countries by providing loans and grants for programmes that boost economic growth, reduce inequalities and improve living conditions.

To support the IDA, Singapore contributed US$46 million during the 18th Replenishment exercise in 2016. Structurally, IDA's replenishments comprise subscription and non-subscription components. Today, Singapore's cumulative subscription to IDA since 2002 stands at US$1.09 million.

For IDA19, we believe that the majority of IDA donors are likely to support a total replenishment size of about US$82 billion over the period of FY 2021 to FY 2023.

This will enable IDA to channel more resources to countries in fragile and conflict-affected situations; support programmes that prioritise capability building and economic transformation; as well as enhance crisis response and pandemic preparedness.

The IDA Act guides our subscription to the IDA. In 2016, Parliament raised the threshold for Singapore's IDA subscription to US$1.1 million to enable our IDA18 contributions, up from the earlier US$1 million stipulated by section 4(2) of the IDA Act. We now propose to contribute up to US$70 million over three years for IDA19, which will bring our subscription component to up to US$1.3 million. As a result, we are also seeking Parliament's approval to raise the subscription threshold to the IDA from US$1.1 million to US$1.3 million.

In addition to the foregoing, I would like to update and inform Parliament that Singapore has voted in support of the resolutions to increase the capital of the International Finance Corporation, or IFC, by US$5.5 billion. The IFC is the private sector arm of the World Bank Group. It will leverage the additional capital to mobilise private sector investments in developing countries, creating markets to advance sustainable development.

Singapore's present cumulative subscription to the capital of the IFC stands at less than US$0.2 million. We will be fully subscribing to the 8,612 shares allotted to Singapore in this IFC capital increase exercise. This amounts to US$8.61 million and will bring our total subscription close to US$9 million. The actual disbursement will be less than that, at US$7.44 million as US$1.17 million worth of shares will be allotted through the conversion of retained earnings. This subscription, however, is contingent on the passage of the Board of Governors' resolutions to increase the capital of the IFC. Voting for these resolutions is open until 18 March 2020.

In total, therefore, our fiscal outlay to the World Bank Group's capital raising exercises will amount to about US$92 million for the IBRD and IDA, and an additional about US$7.5 million for the IFC subscription. These amounts will be spread over the next three years or more and will be met from the Government Budget.

We are participating in the IBRD and IFC capital increase exercises as well as the IDA 19th Replenishment for the following reasons. First, it is important that we do our part as a responsible member of the international community by contributing to the efforts of the development institutions to alleviate poverty and boost shared prosperity. In 1966, Singapore joined the IBRD and subsequently received 12 loans from the bank for a variety of infrastructure projects – from port expansion and telecommunications to the capitalisation of then-Development Bank of Singapore and the construction of the National University of Singapore campus. Our final loan with the Bank was signed in 1975.

Having seen and experienced first-hand how timely financial support could accelerate development efforts, we moved from being a borrower to a donor and partner of the World Bank Group in the early 2000s. We are supportive of the World Bank Group's strategic directions for achieving the 2030 SDGs and are keen to join the international effort to supplement its resources to generate more targeted assistance to those in the region and beyond.

Second, the presence of the World Bank Group in Singapore benefits Singapore and contributes to our growth. As Members may know, the World Bank Group has an Infrastructure and Urban Development Hub in Singapore. In FY18, the IFC mobilised more than US$1.5 billion in private capital for the Asia Pacific region, three-quarters of which was done with the participation of Singapore-based banks and financial institutions. This has strengthened Singapore's status as a regional financial hub. Singapore companies and services have also benefited from the World Bank Group's advisory, project preparation, structuring and financing activities in the region. These activities add to the vibrancy of Singapore's infrastructure ecosystem and reinforce our position as a major infrastructure hub for Asia, creating opportunities for our businesses and our people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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

[(proc text) Resolved, "That this Parliament, in accordance with section 7(3) of the Bretton Woods Agreement Act (Chapter 27 of the 2012 Revised Edition), resolves that the total subscription of Singapore to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development be increased to a sum not exceeding Eight Hundred and Fifty-Eight Million United States Dollars (US$858 million)." – [Ms Indranee Rajah] (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That this Parliament, in accordance with Section 4(2) of the International Development Association Act (Chapter 144A of the 2003 Revised Edition), resolves that the total subscription of Singapore to the International Development Association be increased to a sum not exceeding One Million and Three Hundred Thousand United States Dollars (US$1.3 million)."

Mr Speaker, I have addressed the reasons for this Motion in the earlier speech, so, I beg to move.

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

[(proc text) Resolved, "That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4(2) of the International Development Association Act (Chapter 144A of the 2003 Revised Edition), resolves that the total subscription of Singapore to the International Development Association be increased to a sum not exceeding One Million and Three Hundred Thousand United States Dollars (US$1.3 million)." (proc text)]

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.39 pm until 3.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister's speech?

I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?

[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]

[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolved, that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister's speech. – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That this Parliament:

affirms the vital importance of Members of Parliament maintaining high standards of integrity and accountability;

notes the Judgment in Aljunied-Hougang Town Council & anor v Lim Swee Lian Sylvia and ors and anor suit [2019] SGHC 241, where, amongst other things, the Court held that:

Ms Sylvia Lim ("Ms Lim") and Mr Low Thia Khiang ("Mr Low") had acted dishonestly and in breach of their fiduciary duties, and their conduct lacked integrity and candour; and

Ms Lim and Mr Low were fully aware that their conduct was of questionable legality;

notes that Ms Lim remains Vice-Chairman of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, and Mr Low remains an elected member of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council; and

calls on Aljunied-Hougang Town Council to discharge their responsibilities to their residents by requiring Ms Lim and Mr Low to recuse themselves from all matters relating to, and oversight over, financial matters.

I have moved this Motion because of the High Court's findings. Mr Speaker, may I distribute the Supreme Court's summary of the Judgment as Annex 1 to my speech? The full Judgment was released to the public on 11 October 2019.

Yes, please. Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

If there is an appeal against the judgment, the Court of Appeal will decide on the merits of the appeal in due course.

The appeal may take months to conclude. Given the very serious findings about: (a) the dishonesty of particular Members of this House, and (b) the misuse and loss of public funds, the question is what is going to be done in the interim, pending the appeal, if there is one. Will the Workers' Party provide the House with any guarantees to uphold accountability and transparency between now and the appeal?

This Motion is also about the integrity and character expected of public officials and Members of Parliament. It pains me to move this Motion, in particular, because one of the two Members named in it is Mr Low Thia Khiang, if I may be permitted a personal note at the outset, he is someone for whom I have always had a high regard. I think many on both sides of the House share my sentiment.

But there are important questions of public interest to consider. I will mention just a few at the outset.

Millions of dollars of public funds are involved. The High Court has found Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang to be dishonest and deceptive, and to have failed in their duty to the Town Council. Indeed, Ms Sylvia Lim has admitted under oath that she had lied to the public. Pending the appeal, if there is one, this House is entitled to ask: are Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang going to continue to have oversight and decision-making power over public funds in the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC)? And, what do those in charge of AHTC intend to do about the findings in the judgment? I should add that from February 2013 to September 2015, the Town Council included Punggol East and was known AHPETC. For simplicity, I will refer to the Town Council consistently as AHTC so as not to confuse listeners.

I will deal with the judgment and the questions raised following the judgment.

The judgment is the latest chapter in a saga that has been eight years in the making. Throughout this long time, the Workers' Party has consistently and repeatedly refused to take responsibility for the problems in its Town Council. This is lamentable. The Workers' Party town councillors have persistently resisted disclosure, offered countless excuses and made a litany of misleading statements – to the public, in Parliament and before the Courts. They have not been transparent in their dealings.

In essence, what happened is simple.

The Workers' Party wanted their friends to manage their Town Council. The honest and honourable thing to do, if one wants to appoint one's friends is: be transparent and open about it. Disclose all the facts, so that a fair decision can be made. And call an open tender, so that your friends compete with the market. And this is important – you cannot allow your friends to overcharge.

What the Workers' Party did was the opposite. They told untruths and manipulated the circumstances, so that FMSS would be appointed, whatever the case. They did not care whether FMSS was the best candidate to serve residents. Indeed, Mr Low said that he would have appointed FMSS, even if a cheaper, more experienced contractor had put in a bid.

To guarantee FMSS' appointment, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang waived the tender, even though the law required it. They misled their own town councillors, including their own fellow Members in the GRC and gave a false reason to them for not calling a tender. And they removed the existing Managing Agent (MA) and appointed their friends in FMSS, though FMSS had less experience and charged more. This overcharging, abuse of public funds, was inexcusable. What they did was in breach of their fiduciary duties, at every turn. They told untruths and distorted the facts, and knowingly sacrificed their residents' interests in favour of their friends.

After having misled their own town councillors to get FMSS appointed without a tender, they then repeatedly misled the public and Parliament on why they had hired their friends in this manner. They misled their own auditors too, and refused to give them documents which would have revealed the truth.

Mr Speaker, they did all this to cover up their wrongdoing. It is a tale of deception, spun out over eight years, which finally unravelled in Court – and not just in one Court. It unravelled in three different Courts, including the Court of Appeal.

The residents have suffered. Under the management of the Workers' Party's friends, the Town Council ran up deficits. A surplus of $3.3 million under the previous management, became a deficit of $2 million by the third year of the new regime. And meanwhile, their friends made big profits running into millions of dollars. Allowing your friends to help themselves to public funds – that is a tale that belongs to the Third World, not Singapore.

In two different trials, the Courts reached judgments that showed that the Workers' Party's Members of Parliament had misled Parliament – first in 2015, and now, in the latest judgment.

Even so, the Workers' Party maintains that they are not answerable either to the Courts or to Parliament. Indeed, they have taken the position in Court that as elected Members of Parliament, they are not answerable to the Courts for any serious mismanagement or mis-spending of public funds. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal disagreed with this submission, which sought to place the Workers' Party Members above the law.

It was a remarkable position for the Workers' Party to take. They are saying that no matter what wrongs they commit and no matter how much public funds are misused, they are not answerable and nothing can be done to them in Court. This was said in the hope that the electorate would not pay attention to their wrongdoings. Therefore, everything could be covered up and forgotten.

How did we get to this state? Many in the House will remember that it was AHTC's own auditors who first issued a disclaimer of opinion on its accounts back in 2013. The auditors raised serious questions about the adequacy of the Town Council's financial and accounting systems. The responsible thing for Ms Sylvia Lim, the Workers' Party Town Council Chairman then, to have done at that moment, was to come clean, accept that there were issues, and fix them. But she did not.

In the next audit in 2014, they hid details of the transactions with their friends, and refused to give the documents and information to their own auditors. The auditors were alarmed and again issued a disclaimer of opinion on the Accounts. But the issues they highlighted were not rectified.

And so, in 2014, the Auditor-General carried out an audit, but like AHTC's own auditors, Auditor-General's Office (AGO) was obstructed by the Town Council. The AGO report stated that despite repeated requests for critical documents, the Town Council did not produce them. Still, the 2015 AGO report uncovered serious shortcomings, which cast doubt on whether the Town Council was properly managing public funds.

Parliament debated the AGO report in February 2015. Even at that point, instead of taking ownership and rectifying the problems uncovered by the AGO, the Workers' Party Members – and Ms Sylvia Lim in particular – made excuses. They repeated in this House their objections to the AGO report, objections which the AGO had already addressed. Instead of dealing with the issues, they sought to obfuscate, throw doubt on AGO, pretend that everything was fine.

The Law Minister said in this House that the conduct of Ms Sylvia Lim and her fellow town councillors was unlawful and that they were in breach of their fiduciary duties. Ms Sylvia Lim's response was to shout "Rubbish", brazenly denying their unacceptable actions using unparliamentary language.

Despite their refusal to acknowledge the issues, then Minister of National Development, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, patiently advised the Workers' Party to take immediate steps to resolve the problems. He urged them to take concrete steps to recover the losses and make restitution to their residents. And he suggested commissioning a forensic audit.

Sadly, the Workers' Party did not do anything. I do not know what they were expecting. Perhaps, they felt that somehow the public would forget and give them a free pass since they were an Opposition party. They were not used to running a GRC, so the public would "give chance". Indeed, shortcomings resulting from inexperience can be forgotten. But dishonesty, deliberate and repeated deception, to profit one's friends, cannot be forgiven, or swept under the carpet.

We would not be here today speaking about these judgments, if the Workers' Party, and Ms Sylvia Lim in particular, had even at this late stage in 2015, been serious about setting things straight. If they had corrected the problems, got their friends to make good the losses, it could all have been very different. But the Workers' Party refused to acknowledge the issues and flatly refused to deal with them.

In view of the Workers' Party's inaction, despite the debate in Parliament, MND and then HDB, applied to the High Court to deal with the matter. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal took a serious view of the matter. Tellingly, both had sharp remarks about the Workers' Party's conduct.

To help Members follow the Courts' findings, I wish to distribute Annex 2 – Quotes from the Judgments – to my speech. Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to distribute the Annex?

Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

The High Court observed that Ms Sylvia Lim's statement in Parliament in 2015 that the Town Council had done due transfers to the sinking fund was curious because of what she had failed to mention. The Court described Ms Sylvia Lim's behaviour with the Latin phrase "suppressio veri, suggestio falsi" – suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of what is false.

The Court of Appeal said that it was clear that there had been breaches of the statutory requirements. It found lapses in internal controls, which exposed the Town Council to risk of loss of money or valuables; inadequate oversight of related party transactions, where key officers acted despite conflicts of interest; and that the Town Council had not seriously considered whether, and how, to recover possible sums due from wrong payments.

Thus, the Court had already taken a view on this matter as early as 2015, after the AGO report was debated in Parliament.

The Court of Appeal ordered the Town Council to appoint independent accountants, despite the Workers' Party's resistance. AHTC then responded to the Court of Appeal's order cynically, nominating accountants to do the forensic audit, but failing to provide enough information on their proposed accountants’ experience and expertise. When HDB asked for additional information, AHTC did not respond.

The Court of Appeal noted the Town Council's lack of rigour and basic due diligence in how it nominated accountants. On the Court of Appeal’s direction, AHTC eventually appointed KPMG LLP (KPMG). KPMG too uncovered serious shortcomings. Among them:

One, that the Town Council had not been justified to waive tender before appointing FMSS as its Managing Agent. There were conflicts of interest in the Town Council's appointment of FMSS and FMSI. FMSI, which was engaged by the Town Council to provide essential maintenance and lift rescue services, was a sole proprietorship owned by the Secretary of the Town Council, who was also part-owner of FMSS. The people that formed FMSS and FMSI were the Workers' Party’s friends – trusted, loyal supporters. FMSS' directors and shareholders were the Secretary, General Manager and Deputy General Manager of AHTC, respectively.

Two, there were pervasive control failures cutting across the key areas of governance, financial control, financial reporting, procurement and records management. I will mention three of these.

The Town Councillors relinquished an unacceptably high degree of financial responsibility to conflicted persons.

All of the payments to FMSS/FMSI were co-signed by the conflicted persons.

There were overpayments to FMSS, and payments to FMSS without certification of work performed or without the requisite co-signature of members of the Town Council.

There were also numerous breaches of the Town Councils Act and Town Council Financial Rules.