Hansard, Tuesday, 6 February 2018

1 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will consider building more smoking rooms in all buildings with public access so as to contain second-hand smoke.

2 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will consider implementing restrictions against smokers who smoke whilst on the move, such as walking or cycling, as they leave behind residual second-hand smoke.

Sir, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 1 and 2 together?

Yes, please.

Thank you. Smoking has been a significant and long-standing public health issue in Singapore. Over the last decade, the prevalence of smoking has hovered around 12%-14%, and an average of six Singaporeans die prematurely from smoking-related diseases each day.

The Government has taken a multi-pronged approach to tackle tobacco addiction, such as by curtailing access to cigarettes, sustaining public education and imposing taxes on tobacco products. Nonetheless, we recognise that smoking will continue in Singapore and throughout the world and smokers need time to wean themselves off their habit. We must, therefore, continue to remind those who smoke of the health effects and also to be considerate in their actions.

Smokers have generally observed the smoking prohibition in public places, such as hospitals, clinics, sports complexes, office buildings and shopping malls. With smoking already disallowed in most buildings with public access, the Government has no plans to mandate the provision of smoking rooms in such premises.

Notwithstanding this, the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act allows for the provision of indoor smoking rooms in certain types of publicly-accessible premises, such as in entertainment outlets, provided that the smoking room is independently ventilated and not required to be used by any person in the course of his work. The need for smoking rooms should be determined by the managers of these premises as they have a legal duty to uphold the smoking prohibition rule within their premises. Premises managers may also set up designated smoking areas (DSAs) in the outdoor areas of their premises, provided these are not places where smoking is prohibited.

To the Member’s question on imposing restrictions on those who smoke on the move, the Government has already taken steps in that direction. Since 2013, smoking on pedestrian overhead bridges and under covered walkways has been prohibited. In the latter part of this year, the Orchard Road precinct will be gazetted as a smoke-free zone where smoking will no longer be allowed at all in public areas, except at a number of DSAs. This means that smokers will not be able to light up while walking within the zone.

The issue of smoking is one that requires all sectors of society to play their part. Families and communities must come together to encourage smokers to quit and keep them on a smoke-free path. Premises managers must observe their legal obligation to help enforce the smoking prohibition within their premises in consideration of their non-smoking clients and staff. Smokers should also be considerate when smoking in public places, and smoke only in permitted areas so as not to adversely affect the health of others.

Ms Joan Pereira.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I have one supplementary question. On the ground, many people are still walking or cycling and smoking, affecting those behind them. Will the Ministry consider holding a campaign to educate our smokers to be more gracious in public by exercising care to keep second-hand smoke from blowing towards others?

I want to thank the Member for her suggestion. We will look into this. Let me say that, in a way, we have already started this when we set up DSAs in Orchard Road last year to study the effectiveness of reducing smoking in publicly accessible areas, and to encourage the smokers to be considerate and smoke only in the DSAs. We are evaluating the results of this study and the results will be taken into consideration when we decide on the future plans for DSAs.

More importantly, beyond campaigns and to encourage smokers to be considerate, we hope that we can also help smokers to completely quit smoking. And in this regard, the Health Promotion Board has educational campaigns to raise awareness about the harmful effects of smoking. It also has a "I Quit" campaign that it administers to help smokers to quit in more easily adaptable steps by breaking them down to help them in their journey to quit.

Mr Chong Kee Hiong.

Passers-by and pedestrians who currently walk past outdoor designated smoking areas will also breathe in second-hand smoke. If we could have some DSAs within the buildings, it could reduce the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. At the same time, it will protect the smokers from the elements. While we are trying to do our best to reduce smoking, it takes time. Meanwhile, we should provide an avenue where both parties could co-exist but without affecting each other negatively.

As I have said, most of the buildings with public access are already smoke-free areas. We have no intention to mandate smoking rooms in these places. Notwithstanding this, the premises owner can designate smoking areas as long as these are not areas where smoking is prohibited. So, beyond five metres from the entrance or exit of a building which is a smoking-prohibited area, they could designate a DSA. This is actually being done, for instance, in Orchard Road, where we have implemented DSAs.

With regards to having a smoking area within a building, the issue is that, if you have a smoking room in a building, it will reduce the level of exposure of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), but not completely. This ETS could seep into other parts of the building and it could pose a health hazard and a health risk to persons in the enclosed space. That is the reason why under the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act, we only allow smoking rooms in certain publicly accessible areas or premises, such as at Changi Airport Terminals' transit area, as well as in pubs, discotheques and so on, and also in office premises, but subject to very strict requirements. Which is that these premises must have a separate ventilation system where the smoking room is, and it must not be an area where staff is required to be in, in the course of their work and so on. If these can be complied with, then the premises owner can designate a smoking room.

Ms Sun Xueling.

A supplementary question: a common complaint from residents is of neighbours smoking in their balconies or out of the windows of their flats, leading to smoke wafting into the flats of residents. What would the Ministry recommend to residents who suffer from such second-hand smoke?

Smoking within residential premises, in the home, in private space is beyond the jurisdiction of the Government. We do not have smoking prohibition within the homes themselves. Our advice would be for the affected resident to have a discussion with the neighbour to try and resolve this amicably. If not, the resident may get assistance from a Community Mediation Centre.

Let me also say that enforcement alone is not the panacea to curb inconsiderate smoking behaviour. At the end of the day, we need to urge and get the smokers to be socially responsible and to be considerate when smoking so as not to cause disamenities to others. Families and friends of the smokers as well as the public, in general, could help to reinforce the right social norms, through nudges and reminders, in order to be able to try and address such issues.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

I take the Senior Minister of State's note that enforcement is not the panacea and it probably cannot solve all the problems. But without enforcement, it will not be a proper deterrent for many of the smokers because, clearly, they are socially not that responsible. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether there would be considerations if the public can do more. For example, since there are not enough enforcers on the ground, if members of the public do have evidence of frequent smokers at the same location, can they submit that for the National Environment Agency (NEA) to take actions against those offenders?

Indeed. Even as enforcement alone is not the panacea, we will continue with our enforcement actions. We also work with the Town Councils as well as grassroots organisations to educate smokers and encourage them to be more considerate.

Having said that, if a resident has information or sees acts of errant smokers smoking in prohibited areas, they could provide the information to NEA. NEA will conduct investigations.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask two supplementary questions. First, why is the pilot project DSA set up in Orchard Road? Are we protecting the tourists or the residents? Secondly, I have quite a lot of residents asking whether DSAs will be set up in housing estates or not because that is where many of our residents have given feedback that they had been affected by second-hand smoke.

We piloted the DSAs in Orchard Road last year because Orchard Road has a very high footfall or pedestrian traffic. This is an area where many people may be subjected to second-hand smoke. That is a key reason why we have done it there. We are studying and evaluating the results, as I have said. We will take these into consideration in deciding on future plans for DSAs.

Indeed, we are exploring the feasibility of designating other areas as smoke-free zones in order to achieve the Government's long-term goal of prohibiting smoking in all public areas. We need to study the results of the DSA pilot in Orchard Road to determine how effective it is in reducing smoking in other public areas, getting smokers to be considerate to smoke only in the DSAs, as well as the location, design of DSAs and so on.

With regards to DSAs in residential areas, as I have said, we are looking into the feasibility of expanding designated non-smoking areas, but we will look at the study and see how we can scale this up.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Speaker, there is still a lot of people who are still smoking in our public parks and park connectors, and a lot of people who smoke when they are walking to work or to the Mass Rapid Transit stations. I would just like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry would look into increasing the messaging on this concern.

I think this is quite similar to the questions posed by the other Members, including Ms Joan Pereira, about having a campaign to educate smokers. First, we have extended smoking prohibition to common corridors, covered linkways, pedestrian overhead bridges. So, it is illegal to smoke in these places. If there are persons who are doing this, as I have said, we do carry out enforcement actions, particularly in hotspot areas. But beyond that, Members can provide us with further information on such errant smokers.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry –

3 To ask the Minister for Finance what are the efforts to review cost efficiency of our large-scale infrastructure projects.

4 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for Finance what are the specific measures in place to ensure that costs are judiciously managed in the construction of large infrastructure projects, such as Changi Terminal 5, Tuas Mega Port and the Jurong Lake District.

Question No 3.

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

Yes, please.

There are comprehensive measures in place to ensure the cost efficiency of publicly funded infrastructure projects, with greater scrutiny on projects that are of higher value or risk.

Projects that exceed $100 million, which make up over two-thirds of our infrastructure expenditure, are subject to scrutiny by the Ministry overseeing the project as well as the Ministry of Finance (MOF) before they are allowed to proceed. To help MOF perform this role, the Centre for Public Project Management (CP2M) was set up in 2011 with a multidisciplinary team of architects, engineers and quantity surveyors who review the scope, design and cost reasonableness of the proposals. Changes may be made to revise the project scope or optimise the project design to achieve greater value-for-money. After the project passes the review by MOF, approval must be obtained from the Development Planning Committee (DPC), which comprises three Cabinet Ministers.

If a project is estimated to cost above $500 million, it is put through a rigorous Gateway Process. This includes projects like Changi Terminal 5 (T5) and Tuas Port. Such projects undergo a few stages of reviews by the Development Projects Advisory Panel (DPAP) supported by CP2M, before they are submitted to the DPC for approval. DPAP comprises senior public officers, academics and industry practitioners with deep technical expertise and experience in major infrastructure developments. This allows us to draw on the expertise and best practices in both the public and private sectors. The first stage of review assesses the strategic business case of the project and allows MOF and DPAP to be involved upstream in project planning. The second stage seeks to refine and optimise the overall design, including the space take-up, construction method and procurement approach, to achieve greater value-for-money.

The Gateway Process also allows agencies to work with DPAP to come up with alternative solutions that can achieve better or similar outcomes at lower costs over its lifecycle. One example is the construction of the Tuas Terminal Phase One where the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore came up with a method of reusing excavated and dredged materials from other sites for its land reclamation. This saved a few hundred million dollars by reducing the amount of sand needed.

The measures to manage large infrastructure project costs do not end at project approval. When a tender is called by the project agency, this is usually done through competitive open tender which allows price discovery. There is also a robust assessment of the cost-benefit tradeoff before an award decision is made by the tender approving authority, which typically comprises senior officials. For example, the award decisions for large infrastructure contracts called by the Land Transport Authority are approved by its governing Board.

At any stage after a project is approved, re-approval is required if there are material changes to the project scope, or cost increases exceeding 10% or $100 million, whichever is lower. The agency involved is required to provide justifications for the changes, which are scrutinised again by MOF before seeking re-approval from DPC.

Ms Sun Xueling.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. Should the public be interested to track the yearly outlay on these mega infrastructure projects, how would they be able to see that in the yearly Budget release, given that the combined infrastructure spending budget for the Ministry of National Development (MND) and the Ministry of Transport (MOT) was only $15 billion in 2016, whereas the expected spending on these mega infrastructure projects are in the tens of billions?

Mr Speaker, the projects are reflected in the Budget Book, which is year by year. So, each year, you look at the relevant Ministries' budgets. For mega projects, it is spread out but, typically, will be found in the budgets for MOT, MND and for the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources. If the Member is asking whether the Budget Book sets out the expenditure in the next 15 or 20 years, you will not get that. What you will get is the expenditure for that year, but you can track it on a yearly basis.

Mr Pritam Singh.

A point of clarification for the Senior Minister of State in view of the comments made yesterday about the funding of T5 and the views of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) that T5 should not be pre-funded with taxes or a tax levied on passengers, for example. Does the Ministry have any position on this?

Sorry, can I just check: when the Member referred to comments yesterday, whose comments yesterday? Or was he referring to The Straits Times report this morning, I think?

These comments were made yesterday. It was also reported today in The Straits Times, and I believe it was a senior official of IATA who made those comments.

I think what the official had commented on was something about how you should not have pre-funding. Is that what the Member is referring to?

That is correct.

Okay. My comments at this stage would simply be that when it comes to mega projects, we have to look at what is the most optimal way to do the funding. We are still in the process of doing that. We do not rule out different ways of doing the funding but we are not committed to a single model. So, in short, we will try and find the most optimal way to do the funding and spread it out over the proper period of time.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answers. I was wondering, in terms of cost efficiency, to what extent is the lifetime maintenance cost of a large infrastructure project considered as part of that efficiency, given that these projects may last many years and the design of the project may impact the ongoing cost required to upkeep and maintain it for future years.

That is a very valid and pertinent question, and it is something that MOF is studying. Because our view is that when you look at the cost of a project, you must consider not just the initial development but how much that project is going to cost you over time. So, we are looking to see how that should be dealt with and reflected.

5 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) in respect of the percentage of Polytechnic and ITE graduates securing permanent, full-time employment within a year of their graduation (a) what has been the statistical trend over the past 10 years; and (b) what are the reasons behind the trend.

Mr Speaker, every year, the Ministry of Education (MOE) surveys the employment rates of polytechnic and Institute of Technical Education (ITE) graduates six months after they complete their final examinations. The employment rate has remained high over the past 10 years. Each year, subject to some fluctuations due to the performance of the economy and job market, around nine in 10 graduates found jobs.

Having said that, there have been some significant shifts in the choices of graduates. Over the last 10 years, the percentage of polytechnic and ITE graduates who chose to go into further studies, instead of working, has gone up by over 10 percentage points.

This is driven by various efforts of the Government to expand education pathways for students. There are more places at polytechnics for ITE students, and more places at universities for polytechnic students.

As for those who choose to enter the labour force, there has also been a shift. Full-time permanent work has come down, while freelance, part-time and temporary work have gone up. To illustrate this, the percentage of polytechnic and ITE graduates who reported that they were in full-time permanent employment fell from 77% in 2007 to 58% in 2016, a 19-percentage point change.

About half of the decrease is due to students choosing to do part-time work while they prepare for further studies. A similar proportion chose not to do full-time permanent work voluntarily. They could be doing freelance work or have other reasons to lead them to choose to work part-time or take up temporary employment. The small remainder – about one percentage point – represents an increase in those who are involuntarily doing part-time work or are still looking for employment.

The strong desire to further their studies, higher incidence of students choosing to do freelance work or start their own business and students taking longer to look for work, are possible explanations for these changes. MOE will be doing an in-depth study into these trends and understanding the underlying forces driving the decisions of students.

Mr Leon Perera.

One supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. Some economists have opined that technical jobs may be more at risk from trends, such as automation, robotics, artificial intelligence. Does the Ministry feel that the outlook for these jobs is more at risk going forward because of these developments as compared to other kinds of jobs, for example, graduate jobs?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. Our preliminary analysis and the information that we have, suggest that the trends are reflective of the behaviour and aspirations of students as well as the opportunities that are being made available, rather than a specific push as a result of the factors described by the Member. But we will continue to study the matter to ensure that there are factors that we can address to benefit the students as best we can.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, with the change in trend and having more students willing to continue and pursue further studies, would this actually impact the Earn and Learn Programmes that we are trying to encourage more of the Institutes of Higher Learning students to take up over time?

Mr Speaker, again, preliminary data suggests no, the Earn and Learn Programmes are doing quite well, with benefits being observed and appreciated by the students, the employers and also by the faculty supervising the process.

It is early days in terms of the shifts with respect to the behaviour I described in the first part of my answer, so we will continue to study it. But so far, the Earn and Learn Programme appears to be doing well.

6 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) what is the current percentage of full-time ITE students being able to secure internships and part-time jobs to add value to their training throughout their course; (b) how does ITE's Career Services Centre help place ITE students in internships; (c) what measures are in place to expand internship opportunities for ITE students; and (d) how many ITE graduates eventually work in the industries that they have been trained for.

Currently, internship modules have been made compulsory in 68 out of 98 courses in the Institute of Technical Education (ITE). This means that more than half of the full-time students now enrolled in ITE would have done an internship by the time they graduate. ITE targets for all full-time National Institute of Technical Education Certificate (Nitec) and Higher Nitec courses to include internships by 2020.

Given the vocational nature of ITE courses, hands-on training is already an integral part of the curriculum for its students. Students may take up internships to reinforce their learning in the workplace. ITE matches students’ internships to internship places based on factors, such as their course of study, interests and also where they stay.

ITE has a dedicated team that will continue to engage its industry partners and trade associations to expand internship opportunities for its students. It will also raise the quality of internships and make it a meaningful experience for students by introducing structured mentorships, defining learning outcomes and jointly conducting performance management with the industry partners.

Based on the results from the 2016 Graduate Employment Survey of the ITE graduates in full-time permanent jobs, around 55% reported that they were working in jobs related to their course of study. Beyond training targeted at entry into specific industries or even related jobs, ITE graduates are also equipped with the skills that are transferrable across industries and sectors. This gives them greater adaptability as the national manpower needs shift due to technological change and economic restructuring.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I have two supplementary questions, two quick ones. The first one is with regard to the internship statistics that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared earlier. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explain whether there is any differentiation between the traineeship programme that is being done in ITE where employers wish to send their employees to ITE and sort of fund them? Is it separate from the internship statistics that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared earlier?

Secondly, in terms of the Education and Career Guidance (ECG) that is provided in ITE, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share a bit more about the resources that have been allocated to ITE in terms of career guidance and career counselling, and if she can shed a bit of light into how successful they are and how much of the resources that have already been put in to encourage more ITE students to take up internships, and also to encourage employers to take in ITE students as part of their internship programme?

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, for his two supplementary questions.

Let me touch on the first question. When the Member asked about trainees sent by corporations to ITE, this is in appreciation by the employers that ITE's training is vocational by nature. The Member is really asking about companies sending their workers to go to ITE for training, maybe at night or part-time learning, and so that is a separate programme viz-a-viz sending ITE students to companies. So, if the Member could file a separate Parliamentary Question (PQ), we will be very happy to provide more information on that component.

The second question is on ECG. ECG was rolled out about two years ago and, by now, we have close to 100 education and career guidance counsellors in the polytechnics, ITEs and also secondary schools. Every ITE and polytechnic campus is assigned six ECG counsellors and the remaining counsellors are assigned to secondary schools where four secondary schools will be looked after by one counsellor. These counsellors are recruited based on key considerations, such as their experience in the sector, and many of them would have very rich experience in industry.

Having said that, we pay a lot of attention to their professional development, which is why, every month, we will arrange for the ECG counsellors to attend briefings and training, not just classroom training but also field trips to the various industries, like Jurong Island or even LaunchPad@Jurong. It is important that they have insights into the latest labour market information and also understand the key industry trends, as well as the developments in the 23 Industry Transformation Maps.

In the school, the ECG counsellors, for example, ITE will work very closely with the lecturers ‒ actually they are called class coaches ‒ and arrange for the ECG counsellors to have coaching sessions with the class, as well as one-on-one sessions, if the students need.

Other than the ECG counsellors ‒ because every campus is assigned six counsellors ‒ in order for students to really understand the benefits of internship, the lecturers play an important role. And this is why in the ITE we pay a lot of attention to pre-internship briefings for students to set the right expectations, share common expectations and also guidelines of the internship arrangement.

Even during the internship, ITE lecturers will pay regular visits to the students to make sure that the learning outcomes are fulfilled. And after the internship, we will conduct feedback surveys to understand if their experience has fulfilled the learning objectives that were outlined before the internship. Through our surveys, we may cease partnership with partnership companies that have breached the terms of the internship partnership agreement or have consistently received poor student outcomes. So, the welfare, the learning outcome of the student, are at the heart of our ITE internship programme.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Can the Ministry share if it intends to increase the number of ECGs in the ITEs from the six currently? I see the importance of internship for the ITE students, especially as it helps them to go into the industry as well.

The ECG initiative is about two years old and we are looking at it very closely in terms of how it has helped our students better understand how they can navigate and also make an informed decision for their education and career pathways.

Other than the one-on-one coaching with the students, where the ECG counsellors can also make a good impact is sharing the philosophy of what pedagogies are with the lecturers and the class coach, so that they can also impart and facilitate these decision makings by the students accordingly.

I must add that other than the ECG counsellors, the companies play an important role. To this end, not just the Ministry of Education, but even the Ministry of Trade and Industry agencies like SPRING Singapore, through their small and medium enterprises (SME) Talent Programme and their SME Mentors' Programme, work very closely with ITE to extend meaningful internship opportunities for ITE students.

Mr Azmoon Ahmad.

I have a supplementary question for the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary. It is good to know that there are internship programmes at the ITE. It is good to know that there are also target objectives for the institution. But I would like to know whether these targets have been deployed and brought down to the lecturers. Are these lecturers also being measured on whether they have done the internship programmes correctly on them?

The lecturers and the class coaches play an integral role in terms of preparing the students well mentally before they go into an internship. This is why we conduct pre-internship briefings for students, so that the expectations of both the students and also the companies' side are fairly aligned.

In addition, the ITE lecturers will pay regular visits to the partner companies to make sure that the students are doing well during the stint. After the internship stint, the ITE campus will conduct a post-internship survey where students can provide feedback on how their internship stint had been in terms of fulfilling the specified learning objectives by the ITE campus, whether it is East, West or Central, and also the class itself.

We will review all feedback and I want to assure the Member that lecturers play a key role. But this is not the only thing that the lecturers are doing. They are also teaching the students the curriculum and so on. So, if the Member has a particular question about key performance indicators for lecturers, he may wish to file a separate PQ and we will be very happy to provide more detailed information.

7 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Prime Minister with the advent and drive towards the use of artificial intelligence and autonomous machines, whether new laws and regulations will be promulgated or existing ones reviewed to ensure we address the issues of ethics, morality, provision of kill switches as well as liability.

8 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister what policy principles and legal frameworks are being developed to update Singapore's governance and laws to address the issues arising from autonomous algorithms and devices.

Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 7 and 8 together, please?

Yes, please.

Sir, as artificial intelligence (AI) applications become more pervasive, it is being applied to different domains with very different types of risks specific to the domain concerned. The regulatory approach would thus also have to be domain-specific.

For example, in transportation, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Traffic Police require autonomous vehicles (AVs) to first pass a rigorous safety test within a controlled environment before they can be tested on public roads at specific times and places. This progressive testing allows developers to advance the technology without exposing other road users to safety risks. Conceptually, this is similar to how a human driver has to be trained and tested before being given a driving licence. In addition, LTA requires mandatory motor insurance for AVs to cover third-party liability and property damage to protect the interests of all road users and property owners. Developers are also required to share key data with authorities to allow them to monitor the progress of the trials.

In the Government, we have developed machine learning algorithms that can detect and identify trading accounts suspected of syndicated activities. This is unlike AVs, where there are issues of physical safety. However, we still need to rigorously test the software before use, as well as maintain and update the AI engine continuously, by performing human checks on the results from time to time. For example, before any account is suspended, there will still be a human process to check through and ensure that the punitive action is justified.

In other sectors, the Infocommunications Media Development Authority (IMDA) is working with sectoral regulators to discuss issues of AI governance and study the policy and legal implications. Where we see the need to step in to protect the public’s interest, we will implement domain-specific safeguards.

AI is a key enabler of Smart Nation. To exploit its use and manage its risks well, we need people with a deep understanding of the technology. We intend to continue to raise such capabilities within the Government, industry and our research and development (R&D) institutions.

Mr Patrick Tay.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I would like to ask if the Government would consider doing an overall national detailed study on the potential impact of AI and technology to get the conversations going and also pave the way for the ethical developments of technology. This is because there are growing concerns on various issues, such as liability, privacy, consent, safety, security, diversity as well as transparency.

Mr Speaker, the Member will be reassured to know that many of the sectoral-specific bodies, whether they are trade or professional associations, are already interested in this process and have begun such discussions either in terms of their public consultation or in collaboration internally with the Smart Nation Office and other offices.

This is likely to be an ongoing discussion and attempt to look at the issues that are thrown up by new forms of technology, such as AI. The issue is to make sure that we make this process fit into the existing domain's specific laws, operational issues and regulations. So, we have a multitude of issues going on.

The Smart Nation Office will continue to study the matter and, especially as new technology and technological opportunities become available, we will continue to become engaged with the various regulations and domain-specific partners.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers. I would like to ask whether these studies and frameworks will be forward-looking and include drawer plans and scenarios for technologies that may not have reached the market yet but which would have a significant disruptive impact. I have three illustrations for the Senior Minister of State's consideration.

Firstly, what happens when multiple autonomous algorithms interact? What is the impact for competition law if trading algorithms start to collude?

Secondly, for example, what are the implications for the criminal law and the idea of mens rea ‒ the idea of guilty intention ‒ when you have AI?

Thirdly, would there be a role for more aspirational principles of AI, such as studying, say, Isaac Asimov's Laws of Robotics?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the questions.

For the first question, indeed, we are continually studying various frameworks and trying to draw up drawer plans. But it is hypothetical and we will have to look at the technology as it emerges. There is no specific individual plan for AI. AI is a big basket of different types of technologies and opportunities. There is a plan or strategy for the investment around R&D. But in terms of the regulatory and legislative space, we will have to look at the capability and its impact on the various domains. So, we will continue to do so.

The example the hon Member brought up in the second question around multiple algorithms colluding, the regulatory framework would be no different from today, because those algorithms would have to have someone who had owned them, written them, supervised them and benefited from the collusion and criminal activity and so on and so forth. So, the existing legislation and laws would need to apply to the humans or the corporate entities that own and operate such AI.

This then leads us to the hon Member's second supplementary question, which is that criminal law for AI would be an issue if we had what is described as "strong AI" ‒ AI that is sentient, conscious ‒ that is, a general purpose AI where it is able to take its capabilities developed for one task and direct it to another possibly criminal task. We are a long way away from that. AI, in today's use, is what we call "weak AI" or task-specific AI. So, any criminal issue, we would have to ask the legal faculty around us, but I presume will be directed at the person who owns, operates or benefits from such a device or tool of technology.

The hon Member's third question was about the aspirational issues around AI and Asimov's Laws of Robotics. Indeed, we are aspirational around AI. We think it has a significant possibility of enabling both the Smart Nation vision as well as significant benefits for our economy and society over the next 20 years. As for Asimov's Laws, they are a fictional device used in science fiction, but nevertheless inspiring for how we should think about these types of problems. We are a long way away from the situation predicated in the Asimov literature which is where a strong AI is sentient, conscious and able to understand issues around harm, human beings, the rank order of relative issues between society and humanity and morality.

So, today, as far as Asimov's Laws are concerned, we have no need because we do not have sentient-strong AI. Neither have we the technical capability to programme in such laws today. But they are a useful thought experiment about how we should think about the regulations around this space.

Of note, the literary device of Asimov's Laws in his writing was often used as a way to describe what happens when they fail and what happens when poor regulations or poorly thought-out laws fail in terms of the opportunities around robotics and AI. So, in much of the literature, the day was rescued by Dr Susan Calvin, who was a brilliant engineer. I think the salient lesson is that if we can recruit more females, more young women into engineering, it would serve our Smart Nation and AI vision far more than the use of his three laws today. [Applause.]

Coming back to non-fictional issues, Mr Zainal Sapari.

9 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) why there is inconsistency in the approach adopted in finding an appropriate school name for merging schools depending on whether they are primary, secondary or junior colleges; (b) whether the respective schools' stakeholders, including alumni, staff, parents and pupils, are engaged in the process of naming the merged schools; and (c) whether the Ministry is willing to reconsider the names of merged schools to manage ground sensitivities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in naming merged schools, the Ministry of Education (MOE) considers a group of factors, including the schools’ history and heritage, stakeholders' interest and the sentiments of the schools involved. This results in three naming approaches to considering the unique situations of each pair of merging schools: retaining one of the two names, adopting a new name, or having a combination of names.

For primary and secondary schools, MOE also considered the age profile of its students. The combination of both schools’ names may also be repetitive, for example, North View and Northland Secondary. Hence, where it is meaningful to do so, MOE has combined the English names of both schools, for example, Loyang View Secondary School, which is a combination of Greenview and Loyang Secondary School.

For the junior colleges (JCs), a similar group of factors, including the age profile of the students, was considered. On balance, a decision was made to have a combined name to allow the merging JCs to move forward as a combined entity.

MOE worked closely with the schools to take into account the interests of stakeholders, including staff, students, alumni, parents and the School Advisory Committees. The school leaders engaged stakeholders on various key elements of the merger, such as the programmes and values to be retained, as well as the names.

We will not revisit names which have been announced. We should let the schools focus on their teaching and learning programmes to benefit their students.

Mr Zainal Sapari.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I know the renaming of merged schools is not an easy exercise. I would like to ask: what support will MOE be giving to affected schools' alumni to help them retain their school's history?

The opportunity to celebrate and commemorate the heritage of the schools that are being merged is something that we want to leverage on. Schools will be developing heritage corners, looking at opportunities for students and alumni to become involved in the development of material, whether on display or for reference for future generations of students.

The effort will be personalised and localised through the schools, the alumni associations and the School Advisory Committees. I do not think there is a going to be a one-size-fits-all because the historical trajectories of the various schools and the various alumni groups are quite different. So, we will work with both schools, both sets of alumni to try to find some way of commemorating the heritage and history of both schools.

10 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Education (Schools) to what extent are the textbooks and curriculums in primary and secondary schools adjusted to align with our goal of de-emphasising the outcome focus on academic scores and emphasising more on broad-based learning.

Mr Speaker, the national curriculum is designed to prepare our students for life and work. To achieve this, the national curriculum is broad-based and based on four important principles: holistic education, strong fundamentals, engaged learning and future readiness.

Our holistic education equips our students with a broad range of competencies needed for life and work. Besides the cognitive aspect, we also focus on the aesthetic, moral, physical and social domains.

We ensure our students gain strong fundamentals in literacy and numeracy, as well as develop good values and their social and emotional competencies. These essential areas form the bedrock our students are able to draw from for their continual and lifelong learning beyond school.

To bring about engaged learners, teachers design lessons that use different pedagogies to help students develop a strong mastery of the discipline, appreciate the relevance of their learning and then apply it in life.

Our curriculum is forward-looking. It is regularly reviewed to ensure that the learning outcomes remain appropriate for our students and are responsive to future needs.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) textbooks are closely aligned with the objectives of our curriculum and are, therefore, designed to support our students’ holistic development and not just for them to pass exams. Our teachers use a wide range of teaching resources to ensure that students learn from different modalities and immerse them in varied experiences. They also participate in outdoor learning and are given the chance to apply their knowledge in authentic situations. At times, they need to draw on technology to synthesise concepts in new contexts.

For example, in our Science textbooks, students learn about the lives of scientists and the passion and perseverance they demonstrate in pushing the frontiers of scientific knowledge. The youngsters also get to appreciate and discuss the impact of science and technology on the environment. In Geography, students go on field trips to experience how theoretical concepts come alive.

Even though these learning outcomes may not be tested in examinations, they are equally important aspects of development and they are given due emphasis in our curriculum.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her comprehensive answer. While I understand the importance of fundamentals and MOE is trying to develop a holistic approach for the students, the question that a lot of parents have is: are we doing too much and too early?

At a recent education award ceremony, I had quite a lot of parents coming to tell me that they find that if they do not send their children in Primary 1 and Primary 2 for tuition, they are already left out of the train, and they find it very hard to catch up. Even the parents have difficulties following the methodologies to teach their own children. So, do we need to break that cycle in order to help the students, or are we teaching them too much?

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Miss Cheryl Chan for her supplementary questions. I would like to assure her that in recent years, we have been moving towards an education system that is more flexible and diverse, an education system that offers our students more choices and the chance to take greater ownership for their learning, not just in school, but beyond school.

I also want to reassure Miss Chan that in reviewing and adjusting our curriculum, MOE is always mindful of the support that our students need for their learning journey, and that different students have different needs and varied abilities. MOE works with teachers, Heads of Departments (HODs), and school leaders. Teachers have been reminded not to over-test and not to over-teach. To that end, MOE provides support to help HODs and teachers set test papers at the level that is appropriate for students, and at the level that meets the learning objectives.

I want to add that, for national examinations, the majority of students will be able to answer the bulk of the questions.

11 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of the SCDF emergency preparedness exercise and rollout of SGSecure in condominiums and private estates; and (b) whether there are plans to place automated external defibrillators (AEDs) at public spaces in private estates.

SGSecure programmes are accessible to everyone, whether they stay in public or private housing.

An example is the Emergency Preparedness (EP) Day event held at various locations across the island. EP Days are conducted at public areas with high human traffic and all are welcome to attend. Other outreach activities include school assembly talks and counter-terrorism seminars and exercises in workplaces and religious organisations.

To reach out to more members of the public, Home Team officers are also conducting house visits. These visits are currently focused on Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, but we will progressively include private estates and condominiums.

We are also planning a pilot programme to install automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in selected condominiums. This is an extension of our Save-A-Life initiative, introduced in 2015 to enhance community response to cardiac arrest cases. So far, more than 2,000 AEDs have been installed in HDB blocks in 36 out of 89 constituencies.

We are in the midst of identifying suitable condominiums to be part of this pilot. The installation of the AEDs will be packaged together with SGSecure and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)/AED training.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. The first one is: we know that condominiums are confined communities, so are there trials or tests that are being done to see how prepared they are in times of emergencies? The second question is: how can the community play a more active role to help in the rollout of the entire CPR/AED programme?

On the first question, emergency preparedness is an ongoing and whole-of-society effort. We do not specifically track the emergency preparedness of condominiums. However, surveys, such as the national security awareness survey, have found that our residents are generally aware of the different emergency scenarios that they might encounter, and our residents have also been taking practical steps to prepare themselves to respond to an emergency situation, such as by having a first-aid kit at home.

A vast majority, over 90%, also believe that everyone has a role to play in ensuring our nation's safety and security and are willing to help during emergencies. These are encouraging findings, but we can always do more to raise the level of preparedness. That is why the Home Team is working with the People's Association (PA) to identify condominiums to ensure that the message gets to them.

On the second question on what part the community can play, the installation of more AEDs, be it in HDB or private estates, will only be effective if residents know how to use it, are able to use it and respond in emergency situations. Our grassroots volunteers are an important group of people who are not only the community first responders, but they can also help to encourage other residents to pick up CPR/AED skills through programmes, such as the Emergency Preparedness Day.

For programmes like our pilots to install AEDs in condominiums, we will work closely with the relevant grassroots advisers, neighbourhood committees and condominium management corporation strata titles to reach out to residents. This is very important because the survival rate of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in Singapore is low at around 5%. This is a 2015 figure. It is in all our interests to ensure that this programmes succeeds. So, the message is for all residents to open their doors to our Home Team officers to ensure that they are able to receive the CPR/AED training.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

I would like to clarify what are the criteria or conditions required in the decision to determine if the condominiums are suitable for the installation of AEDs? This may be something we want to work towards, and I, in any case, would like to volunteer the condominiums at Bukit Batok East for this programme.

Thank you very much. We note the Member's interest. We intend to identify four constituencies jointly with the PA for this pilot, and these constituencies will be spread across the island. From these constituencies, we will need to identify suitable condominiums to be part of the pilot.

We would need to look at, for example, the location and condominiums where the AEDs can be installed at publicly accessible security posts. These are factors that will be taken into account. We will also need to see the type of management and how receptive they are, and we would encourage condominiums to also maintain their AEDs and equip some of their residents with CPR/AED skills.

We will work closely, as I mentioned, with the grassroots advisers, neighbourhood committees and the management corporation strata titles. This is a whole-of-community effort. We look forward to Members' support.

I would like to volunteer as well. Mr Pritam Singh.

12 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the implementation status of the Police's PolCam 2.0 project across Singapore; (b) what specific abnormalities can the system detect; (c) what information and analytics does the system collect on a routine and on-demand or ad hoc basis; (d) what privacy concerns does the Ministry have with regard to the system; and (e) how have these concerns been mitigated.

As of 2017, the Police have installed about 5,000 cameras under the Police Camera (PolCam) 2.0 project, in town centres, neighbourhood centres, hawker centres and linkways leading to transportation nodes, such as the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations and bus interchanges.

PolCam 2.0 includes cameras which are designed to detect some anomalous events. These include public order situations like persons fighting and sudden congregation or dispersal of crowd. The system will then alert the Police operators, and Police resources can be dispatched, if necessary. The system can also identify suspects and allow officers to quickly search for images to facilitate investigations. The technology continues to be refined.

Polcams, including the versions before PolCam 2.0, in general, have proven to be very useful in helping the Police deter and solve crimes, including unlicensed moneylending, theft and outrage of modesty. As at the end of 2017, video footage from Polcams have helped the Police solve more than 2,300 cases.

The deployment of cameras is crucial in deterring and dealing with crime and any terrorist activity. The Police will continue to install more cameras. Our approach has broad support from the public and has resulted in people feeling safe. Public confidence and trust in the Police Force remains high. In a perception survey conducted in 2016 by the Police, about 95% of respondents feel safe in their neighbourhoods and trust the Singapore Police Force (SPF) as an organisation. Among the survey respondents who felt safer than before, the installation of Polcams in the estates was one of the top factors contributing to their perception that the neighbourhood is safer.

SPF has data protection safeguards and controls on the use of Polcam footage. The footage is securely stored, and only authorised persons are allowed to access them. Any officer found accessing the footage for unauthorised purposes will be severely dealt with.

Mr Pritam Singh.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I just have three supplementary questions for the Parliamentary Secretary. Firstly, is there a more restricted regime in respect of privacy for data collected under PolCam 2.0 compared to PolCam 1.0 in view of the range of information that is collected?

Secondly, how often are audits carried out to ensure that the information collected under PolCam 2.0, in particular, is secure and only used for the purposes for which it is collected?

The third question is how soon is data wiped out under PolCam 2.0, compared to PolCam 1.0?

On how soon the data is wiped out, I am not able to reveal that because of operational considerations. As for the audit and the regularity of audit and the other question on whether the regime is more restricted, we already have a very strict regime. The whole point is to ensure that we maintain public trust and confidence, and audit is something that we do very regularly. We have strict protocols and we ensure that, as I have mentioned, access is restricted and tightly controlled. Any persons found using the footages or accessing the information for unauthorised purposes will be severely dealt with.

Mr Azmoon Ahmad.

One question for the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there are 5,000 cameras already implemented. How many are there to go?

The Police plan to install 11,000 cameras at 2,500 locations island-wide under the PolCam 2.0 programme and this will be done over the next few years. As I have mentioned just now, we have installed about 5,000 cameras. So, we have about 6,000 more to go, under PolCam 2.0.

Mr Pritam Singh.

This is a final supplementary question for the Parliamentary Secretary. I believe the question was not answered. How often are audits conducted to ensure that the information is secure?

I think it is sufficient to say that audits are conducted on a regular basis. We have strict protocols on this. I am not at liberty to discuss exactly how the Police conduct their internal operations, but it would suffice to say that audits are done on a very regular basis. Checks are also conducted as and when there is a need, for example, when there are irregularities. I hope that answers the Member's question.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry –

13 To ask the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider working with Airbnb to come up with a meaningful way of regulating private homes from being rented out by balancing the interests of home owners and neighbours, given that is an important part of the travel experience, especially for the millennials.

Question No 13.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of National Development and the Urban Redevelopment Authority have held meetings and discussions with various stakeholders on the issue of short-term accommodation. There are different views among home owners who are keen to put out their units for short-term accommodation and those who are concerned about privacy and safety in their homes. There are also competing interests between hotel operators and short-term stay platform operators like air bed and breakfast (Airbnb).

Nevertheless, from these discussions, we believe there is scope to allow short-term accommodations in Singapore, subject to proper safeguards and controls. We are working out these regulatory parameters and will consult the public on the proposed measures before finalising them.

14 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider putting a minimum number of years before a development project can qualify for an En bloc collective sale; (b) how many developments that are less than 30 years old have undergone En bloc sales in the past three years; and (c) whether the Ministry considers this to be a waste of resources.

Mr Speaker, the main objective of the collective sales framework is to give owners the choice on whether to go for redevelopment. Such redevelopment allows rejuvenation and land use optimisation in residential developments. The collective sales framework imposes higher consent thresholds for newer developments. The Land Titles (Strata) Act requires buildings less than 10 years old to obtain 90% consent from owners before allowing the collective sale to go through, compared to 80% for older developments.

Of the 40 developments sold En bloc in the past three years, 13 were less than 30 years old at the point of sale. That said, most of them were more than 20 years old at the point of sale and were small developments of less than 20 units each. In terms of the number of housing units, around 240 units, or 6% of the approximately 4,000 units sold En bloc in the last three years, were less than 30 years old.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

I would like to ask the Minister whether is there any concern on the continuous En bloc sales recently?

Mr Speaker, I believe we have a framework where the En bloc decisions are in a way left to the market to decide. That is the framework that I have put in place in the Land Titles (Strata) Act. The consent thresholds are clearly specified but there are also safeguards in place. Even if the consent thresholds are reached, the developer will have to submit their development plans to the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) for approval. URA will go through the plans, look at planning considerations, make sure that heights and unit sizes are kept to regulations; that adequate provisions, for example, are made for parking, and we have now put in place a new provision, which is, to do a traffic impact analysis before the developer gets planning approval.

So, with all these frameworks in place and safeguards, we would allow En bloc developments to go through if, indeed, the consent thresholds are reached, if the market feels that an En bloc is economically viable. But there are safeguards and controls in place which I have just described.

15 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport with regard to feedback on motor dealers stockpiling motorcycle COEs to resell at a higher premium (a) what is the progress of LTA's investigation into this issue; (b) what is the Ministry doing to address this issue; and (c) whether the Ministry will shorten the validity period of these COEs to curb their speculation.

Mr Speaker, currently, motorcycle dealers bid for Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) under their name and hold a stock of Temporary COEs (TCOEs). This is the preferred model for the motorcycle market as it allows buyers to take delivery of their motorcycles immediately.

Our data does not reveal any irregular stockpiling of COEs, or the use of the stockpile, by the dealers, with the exception of the period shortly after the tiered Additional Registration Fee (ARF) for motorcycles was introduced. In that instance, dealers might have kept some of the TCOEs garnered before the announcement of tiered ARF to register more expensive motorcycles. The TCOEs have all been used up or expired. We will continue to monitor the situation.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether there is a trend on the COE for motorcycles going up. Based on the feedback from one of my residents recently, he said that they are very concerned because of this stockpiling of COEs. So, he suggested that the Ministry may wish to consider two things. The first is to increase the deposit. Because currently, deposit is only $200; that is why dealers go and stockpile and take a chance. Secondly, whether we will shorten the six-month registration period, because if it can be shortened, people will not want to stockpile.

I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the supplementary questions. Since the implementation of the tiered ARF for motorcycles, the category TCOE quota premiums have increased from around $6,000 to all-time high of about $8,081 in the second bidding exercise of March 2017, before dropping to about $3,500 in August 2017. So, Members can see that the COE premium actually fluctuates, depending on factors, such as demand and supply. However, we do notice that the Category D TCOE premium was at $8,001 for the second bidding exercise of January 2018 and we will be watching the trend closely.

With regard to the Member's question on whether to shorten the validity period of the TCOE to three months instead of the current six months. The reason why we are not doing so is because if we do shorten the validity period of the Cat D TCOEs, it basically reduces the time available for the dealers or individuals to secure a vehicle before their TCOEs expires, and dealers may have to maintain a large inventory of vehicles to meet the shorter validity period. This might increase business costs.

With regard to the Member's question on the deposit, the reason why it is tagged at $200 is because the quota premium for motorcycles is much lower than that of normal cars. However, like I have mentioned, we do monitor all these very closely and, if necessary, we may look into changing the COE policies.

16 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for Transport with the launch of the Punggol Digital District, (a) what are the road and rail transportation network improvements which will coincide with the development of the Punggol Digital District to ensure good connectivity for residents of the North East as well as commuters to the Punggol Digital District; and (b) whether the Cross Island MRT Line will be built in time for the build-up of the Punggol Digital District.

Mr Speaker, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has made several provisions to ensure good transport connectivity to and within the Punggol Digital District (PDD). A new Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station on the North-East Line will open in 2023, when the first phase of PDD developments is ready for occupation. Enhancements will also be made to the bus network. To cater to increased vehicular traffic, we are expanding the Tampines Expressway (TPE) and Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway (KPE) road interchange linking to Punggol and Pasir Ris and building a new Tampines Expressway (TPE) and Seletar Link interchange. There will also be covered walkways and cycling paths in the area to encourage active mobility. We are also working towards the deployment of autonomous buses and autonomous on-demand shuttles in PDD from 2022 which will improve first-mile-last mile connectivity for those living or working there.

These provisions will enhance the connectivity of PDD significantly in the lead up to 2030, when the Cross Island Line in the Punggol region is expected to be ready.

Ms Sun Xueling.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. May I know, what is the expected number of commuters that the Ministry is planning for, who will travel into PDD; and what is the expected timeline of the inflow of commuters, with the progressive completion of different offerings in PDD?

Separately, does the Ministry have in mind a general transportation mix that it expects commuters will use to travel into PDD, for example, x% by car, x% by bus or rail, if the Senior Minister of State could give an indication on whether there are certain pending parameters?

I would like to thank Ms Sun Xueling for the supplementary questions. I do not have the exact makeup of the commuter mix at this point of time. But suffice to say that LTA will continue to work closely with the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) as well as the various Government agencies and stakeholders when planning for the transportation network in PDD, and also to study the demand of residents as well as commuters to that area. We will continue to work with local advisors to ensure good connectivity for the residents and also address any concerns or feedback along the way.

Ms Sun Xueling.

I would just like to enquire again with regard to my first two questions on the expected number of commuters that the Ministry is planning for who will travel into PDD.

I thank Ms Sun Xueling for the query again. Like I have mentioned, I do not have the figures right now, but I will be happy to reply to Ms Sun Xueling separately with regards to the exact figures.

Mr Ang Hin Kee.

One supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State is that he mentioned that by 2022, there will be autonomous vehicles or buses and shuttle buses serving PDD. Is that going to be island-wide? What is the potential for such autonomous vehicles being deployed across the island and will there be a displacement impact on drivers who currently take on such vocational jobs?

I would like to thank Mr Ang Hin Kee for the supplementary question. The deployment of autonomous vehicles will be done in phases. We do understand the concerns on the ground with regards to displacement of bus captains as well as taxi drivers, for the project in PDD is going to be confined to within the district where it will provide the last-mile and the first-mile connectivity. But, of course, the technology of autonomous vehicles is advancing very quickly and we are watching the space very closely. Eventually, in years to come, it may extend to other parts of Singapore as well.

17 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Social and Family Development regarding the Community Kin Service (a) what safeguards and measures are in place to ensure that seniors' funds do not get misappropriated by social workers; (b) how will the Ministry deal with cases of misappropriation; and (c) whether the Office of the Public Guardian will be able to recommend follow-up actions should misappropriations be suspected or discovered.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) is piloting the Community Kin Service, which will enable voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) to better support seniors who display signs of declining mental capacity and who do not have family support to handle their finances so that they can continue residing in the community.

Under the scheme, the VWO can apply for a Court Order to manage a fixed sum of money to meet a senior’s daily care needs. Once appointed by the Court, the VWO will be supervised by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) and required to submit periodic reports. Appointed VWOs should have established financial procedures, with clear accountability for staff delivering support and handling the finances of the seniors. OPG will check that the seniors’ monies are used prudently and only for the purposes of meeting their care needs, in accordance with the terms set out in the Court Order.

In addition, the Mental Capacity Act has existing safeguards to protect persons who lack mental capacity. If there is indication that anyone has acted in any way which compromises the person's best interest, including exploiting the person financially, the Public Guardian will investigate and take appropriate action. Where necessary, the Public Guardian may apply to Court to protect the personal or financial welfare of the person and refer the case to the Police for further investigation if any criminal conduct is suspected.

18 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many applications have been received for HDB season parking for disabled car park lots since this scheme was implemented; (b) of these, how many applications are unsuccessful; and (c) what are the reasons for the unsuccessful applications.

Sir, the Car Park Label Scheme (CPLS) was introduced in 1980 to assist drivers with physical disabilities to board and alight from their vehicles. CPLS was extended in 1996 to include caregivers who drive passengers with physical disabilities. Drivers with CPLS label can park in dedicated car park lots that are marked with the accessible symbol of a person in a wheelchair. There are two types of labels: the Class 1 label is for drivers with physical disabilities; and the Class 2 label is for passengers with physical disabilities.

The Class 1 label allows drivers with disability to park in accessible parking lots for as long as they need, with no time limit. The Class 2 label allows the caregivers who are drivers to park in a designated lot for up to an hour, to assist their passenger with disability to board or alight, as the case may be. Thereafter, the vehicle must be shifted to a standard parking lot to free up the accessible lot for other eligible users who require it.

SG Enable administers CPLS and processes over 3,000 applications annually. More than 90% of these are successful. For those that are not, the main reason is because applicants are assessed by medical professionals to be able to board and alight their vehicles from an ordinary car park lot, and do not need the wider space provided by an accessible lot to do so.

19 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Communications and Information since the introduction of the Personal Data Protection Act (a) how many complaints have been received against illegal moneylenders who make unsolicited telephone calls, or send unsolicited fax, SMS messages and emails; and (b) what is the procedure to lodge complaints against these unsolicited communications.

Mr Speaker, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), includes provisions that regulate unsolicited communications from businesses. The Do Not Call (DNC) Registry was established under PDPA so that individuals who do not wish to receive unsolicited marketing calls and messages can register their telephone and fax numbers. Organisations are required to check with the DNC Registry and refrain from calling, faxing or sending marketing messages to the numbers on the Registry.

Sir, the DNC Registry provisions of the PDPA came into force in January 2014. Since then, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) has received and investigated some 14,000 DNC-related complaints against businesses, of which more than 4,600 resulted in PDPC taking enforcement or other regulatory action.

In addition, Sir, PDPC has received around 10,000 complaints each year related to suspected unlicensed moneylending, which is a serious criminal offence under other laws. These complaints were referred to the Police, who are the relevant authority to investigate unlicensed moneylending offences. Members of the public who receive or are aware of such activities or communications should lodge a Police report or call the National Crime Prevention Council's "X Ah Long" Hotline at 1800-924-5664. Members of the public are urged not to reply or respond to these short messages service (SMSes) or phone calls.

20 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Communications and Information what measures are being taken to ensure Singapore is well-positioned to be a global centre for data housing and the provision of value-add services for data.

Sir, with the world becoming more digitally connected, global data flows have surged. Cross-border data flows generate significant value and growth to economies. Singapore, like other countries, is also tapping on this opportunity to grow our digital economy, by strengthening our position as a key digital connectivity hub.

According to Cushman and Wakefield's Data Center Risk Index, Singapore is the Asia Pacific region's most robust market for data centres. Singapore holds half of Southeast Asia's data centre capacity and is a major Asia Pacific hub for submarine cables, with 19 cable systems connecting us directly to more than 33 countries.

We will strengthen our digital connectivity hub status further. Government agencies, such as the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) and the Economic Development Board (EDB) are working together to attract more investments in critical infrastructure, such as data centres and submarine cables. To strengthen our international connectivity, IMDA is doing more to facilitate the landing of major submarine cables in Singapore, while EDB is engaging global technology companies and leading data centre players to invest in data centres here. IMDA and EDB are also working with JTC to plan for sufficient land and power in data centre clusters to support quality data centre investments.

It is also important that we continue to research into new solutions that can strengthen our status as a digital connectivity hub. For instance, IMDA's green data centre programme uses new technologies to improve the energy efficiency of our data centres. This is essential in our tropical climate and will help us meet the growing demand for data centres that are more energy-efficient.

In order to drive our Digital Economy ambitions, we need to ensure that we continue to be a forward-looking jurisdiction for the use of data. Domestically, we have a robust yet balanced framework for the protection and management of data, especially personal data. This helps to engender consumer trust and confidence in organisations' handling of data. In turn, this trust facilitates and enables more innovative uses of data by companies and allows society to derive greater benefits from the responsible use of data. This is why we are working on rolling out a Data Protection (DP) Trustmark certification scheme for companies that adopt best practices in managing personal data. We are also currently reviewing the Personal Data Protection Act to further develop our regulations to support our data ambitions.

Internationally, we also recognise that data-related economic activities often straddle borders, as services, particularly digital services, can easily scale regionally if not globally. Therefore, we are also actively working with other countries and participating in international data protection fora to shape standards to facilitate responsible and seamless data flows across borders.

For instance, in 2017, Singapore submitted our Notice of Intent to participate in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Cross-Border Privacy Rules System and the APEC Privacy Recognition for Processors System. In time to come, organisations which have received the relevant certifications will be able to transfer data to similarly certified organisations overseas seamlessly. Within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, there is also good progress being made in recognising the value of balanced policies so as to reap the benefits of data in the digital economy.

Mr Speaker, we will continue to review our policies and regulations to strengthen Singapore's global digital connectivity hub status.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior of State for his detailed answer. Regarding his exposition on enhancing Singapore's connectivity to the rest of the digital world, is there a philosophy to build ahead of demand so that we can keep on seizing opportunities and remain among the first movers? I say this because we could be a key node in the 21st century data world, just as we have been for petrochemicals in the latter half of the previous century.

Mr Speaker, in contrast to my previous answer to the Member's supplementary question, the short answer is yes. We have, indeed, built ahead of demand with respect to both the data centre capacity as well as the submarine cable carrying capacity. Today, our capacity has not yet been fully utilised but we will continue to engage with making sure that we have the capacity to meet all the functional needs of the various consumers/stakeholders in this space.

21 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how is the trend among foreign students applying for Permanent Residency in the last 10 years; (b) what is the percentage of success; (c) how many stayed on and continued to work in Singapore and subsequently take on citizenship.

Mr Speaker, from 2008 to 2017, 7,251 foreign students applied for Permanent Residency (PR) on their own merits. Close to 82%, or 5,932, have been granted PR. Of these PRs, 1,072, or 18%, have subsequently taken up citizenship as at the end of 2017. Eighty-five, or around 1%, have renounced their PR.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

I thank the Second Minister for the reply. I have one follow-up question. Can the Second Ministeer share in terms of the nationalities of the students who have been successful and have taken up citizenship?

Can I ask Mr Saktiandi to repeat his question? I did not quite hear it.

The question I have is the nationalities of the students who had been successful in getting their PR and also those that had been successful in getting their citizenship as well.

Mr Speaker, I do not have the detailed breakdown. But suffice to say that they would have to reflect the profile of the foreign student population in Singapore. By and large, unless my memory serves me wrong, I think a good majority of them come from Asia. The important thing to point out is that in assessing whether an applicant should be granted PR or Singapore Citizenship, an important consideration is the applicant's ability to integrate with the local population as well as his potential to contribute to our society. These considerations apply to all applicants, including the foreign students.

Order. End of Question Time.

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

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

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

The key objectives of the Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill are to enhance the regulation of plumbing works and drinking water quality.

A vital part of any country's water supply management is ensuring water quality. Singaporeans enjoy the convenience of clean and wholesome water at the turn of a tap. This does not come easy, but is achieved through forward planning and careful implementation of sound policies and programmes.

The Bill before the House today seeks to ensure that the quality of the water supplied to Singaporeans remains uncompromised, even with changing conditions.

Plumbing is essential for our access to potable water. While the Public Utilities Board (PUB) ensures the safety and adequacy of the water it produces, owners of premises are responsible for the maintenance of their building's internal pipes and water tanks. Plumbing is also important for the protection of public health, as a well-functioning sanitary system channels used water away effectively.

Currently, PUB regulates water service plumbers who carry out works on the potable water system, but not sanitary plumbers who carry out works on sanitary appliances and facilities, as the latter were deemed less complex.

While this regime has not caused issues thus far, our water and sanitary plumbing systems are becoming more integrated and complex, particularly in large-scale and high-rise buildings, with concealed piping systems becoming more common. There is also increasing adoption of alternative water systems in commercial and industrial developments like NEWater and rainwater harvesting.

All these systems must be built properly by competent plumbers to prevent cross-contamination between the potable water system and the non-potable or sanitary systems. While we have not experienced cases of cross-contamination, this has happened elsewhere, such as in Alameda City, California, where a cross-connection between the city’s drinking water supply and a non-potable irrigation well rendered parts of the city’s water supply undrinkable for days.

We will, therefore, strengthen the regulation of critical plumbing works and ensure that plumbers have the skills and knowledge to undertake complex works.

For instance, sanitary pipes need to be laid such that they are both air-tight and water-tight, otherwise public health may be affected. The Bill will expand PUB's current licensing scheme for water service plumbers to include sanitary plumbers under the revised Licensed Plumber (LP) scheme. PUB will specify eligibility requirements, such as training and competency requirements, for all LPs. Home owners, consumers and developers will be assured of the quality of work carried out by these trained and licensed plumbers. The Bill will also provide for PUB to give directions to LPs as well as professional engineers to rectify works which contravene requirements.

To ease the change to the LP scheme for incumbent plumbers, the Bill provides for a six-month transitional period from the effective date of the LP scheme. During the transitional period, eligible incumbent plumbers can continue to carry out their respective vocations pending receipt of the new LP licences.

Since the announcement of the proposed LP scheme in April last year, PUB has been working closely with the industry to facilitate the entry of plumbers into the LP scheme. To date, 96% of the 863 existing plumbers, who are either PUB's Licensed Water Service Plumbers (LWSPs) or plumbers registered with the Singapore Plumbing Society (SPS), are already qualified to be LPs. The remaining plumbers are either undergoing the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) Academy's Builder Certificate Plumbing and Pipefitting Course and/or PUB's two- or three-day conversion course. They will qualify as licensed plumbers after passing the requisite assessments.

Other than helping existing plumbers upgrade their skills, we also want to encourage new entrants to join the profession. Since the announcement of the scheme, 25 persons of varying backgrounds, ranging from those with GCE "O" level qualification to degree holders, have successfully completed the requisite courses by BCA Academy and PUB.

Among them is 55-year-old Mr Lim Choon Sin, currently a mechanical and electrical contractor with GCE "O" level qualifications, and 36-year-old Mr Tan Jixiang, an engineering graduate, who will qualify as LPs when the scheme comes into effect.

We recognise that not all plumbing work needs to be regulated. PUB has drawn up a list of simple plumbing works which do not affect the integrity of the water supply or sanitary network. For instance, the changing of the flushing mechanism within a flushing cistern and the changing of taps need not be carried out by an LP. Such excluded works will be set out in subsidiary legislation. Consumers can refer to the PUB website for the list of such works. For works that do require an LP, they will also be able to refer to the website for the online database of LPs when the new scheme takes effect.

Mr Speaker, I will next cover the regulation of drinking water. It is crucial for public health and safety reasons for there to be regulatory oversight over the quality of drinking water. Regulation of water quality is currently the responsibility of the National Environment Agency's (NEA's) Drinking Water Unit (DWU) and PUB.

However, NEA's existing powers do not cover drinking water that is provided free of charge. The Bill seeks to close this gap by expanding the regulatory scope to cover all water suitable for drinking that is provided in the course of business, and to the public, except for water that is already regulated by other agencies. Besides this, DWU officers will be provided with powers, similar to those that PUB officers already have, to enter premises to conduct investigations of water quality incidents, which will enhance the DWU officers' response time in dealing with such incidents.

As the public looks to PUB for any water quality-related matters, PUB remains the primary responder. Upon receiving feedback from the public, PUB will first investigate and, if they determine that the issue is caused by a failure of the technical integrity of the water supply, PUB will then take action against the appropriate party. If the failure was the result of any other cause, then the matter will be referred to DWU.

DWU will also continue to have oversight over the quality of the drinking water provided by PUB. With these enhancements to our regulatory system, we can be assured that our drinking water will continue to be clean, wholesome and safe.

Besides these, the Bill includes other amendments to improve operations and allow for the smooth functioning of PUB. For instance, the Bill provides PUB with the powers to regulate the transport of dangerous cargoes as well as board vessels to investigate offences so as to protect water quality in our reservoirs and waterways.

Mr Speaker and Members of the House, let me conclude. The proposed enhancements to the Public Utilities Act are forward-looking and aim to ensure that good and safe water continues to be conveyed and enjoyed by all Singaporeans. We have seen from water crises around the world how things can go from right to wrong very quickly, often with just one misstep in the long complex chain of supplying water. One example is the contamination case in Flint, Michigan, in the United States where lead from ageing pipes leached into the water supply. Once public confidence in their water supply is lost, it is hard to regain, and affected communities take years to recover. We are determined never to let this happen and will continue to strengthen our water system so that Singaporeans will always have access to good, wholesome water. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these proposed amendments to the Bill are timely because water and sanitary plumbing systems are getting more integrated and complex, with constantly-evolving building designs. Plumbing works have become more integrated and concealed, presenting higher risk of cross-contamination between the water and sanitary systems if not built properly by plumbers. Furthermore, many of our homes are getting older, they will need repairs and upgrades and these have attracted many smaller contractors, and even freelancers, working on jobs into our homes. I am not sure all of them are, indeed, qualified persons under the existing Act.

Our water supply, sanitary and drainage system is an important artery, just like the blood vessels that deliver oxygen-rich blood from the heart to the body tissues. We need to get people who are competent, and with proper training and knowledge, to ensure that all homes are well-served.

I fully support the Bill which seeks to license the plumbers, including sanitary plumbers, so that the home owners can be assured that they have competent people doing the plumbing works or repairs. I am pleased to understand that SPS and the Singapore Sanitary Ware Importers and Exporters Association have been in conversation with PUB. We all know how messy it can be if you have problems with sanitary plumbing works and it is good that PUB is ensuring that these plumbers get the right training. I would like to ask the Minister if the courses offered at the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) are continually reviewed to ensure that they keep pace with the industry needs. I believe if we get plumbers who are competently trained in different areas of plumbing, then it would also be good for home owners as they do not have to run around scouting for different plumbers.

Some unlicensed plumbers, including those from across the Causeway, may be cheap, but they may be doing work through trial and error, or based on whatever experience they have amassed. They may not properly understand the mechanics in plumbing. For example, I heard from a home owner who, for several years, have to suffer from water hammer or noises from his water pipes because they were not properly installed before they were concealed. What is worse is that there is no way to seek redress as he could not locate or contact the plumber.

Next is the issue of the quality of the material. Many residents told me that many plumbers nowadays come from across the Causeway. They come in vans and cars or even carry a few pieces on motorbikes. How do we ensure that the materials that they use, such as pipes and fittings, are meeting Singapore's standards? Is PUB working with our Immigration and Checkpoints Authority to address this problem?

Next, is their workmanship up to the standards required by PUB? And there are some other concerns raised.

First, the transition period, the six-month transition period: is this sufficient? Is there sufficient capacity to train all existing plumbers? Next, will the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and PUB exercise stricter control over our renovation contractors and ensure that only licensed plumbers are allowed to carry out plumbing works? The last concern is how to ensure that this will not be just another layer of rubber stamping. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Plumbing systems are like the city's arteries. Hence, licensing plumbers is a timely move.

The Government should make sure that the plumbing courses offered on the market are comprehensive and keeping up with the times. Only by doing so can we ensure the quality of our plumbers.

Many people these days look for plumbers on the Internet. Many plumbers from neighbouring countries come directly to our homes. Some local plumbers told me that some licensed plumbers would pass on the jobs to unlicensed plumbers after getting the jobs. How can the Government prevent unlicensed plumbers from operating in Singapore?

Another problem is that plumbing materials can be easily brought in from other countries, even unauthorised models. Will the authorities pay attention to this problem?

Mr Png Eng Huat.

The Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill is a step in the right direction and consumers can expect to benefit from having peace of mind knowing that public health standards are maintained and their interests are better protected.

The importance of a plumbing system in a modern and densely populated city like ours cannot be understated. A badly designed or maintained water reticulation or sanitary system is a recipe for disaster. A case in point was the contamination of the water supply system in a mixed development in Bukit Timah in August 2000, where over a hundred people were sickened by contaminated water in the incident.

While legislation and licensing can help raise the competency of the plumbing industry, experience does matter when it comes to giving consumers peace of mind. In the water contamination case cited earlier, the plumber appointed by the management corporation was licensed but he could neither anticipate the potential risk of the badly designed water supply system nor prevent the contamination from happening.

Under clause 21 of the proposed amendments in this Bill, those who are licensed under the existing LWSP scheme and who also hold the SPS registration certificate, will automatically qualify for the new LP scheme. The rest of the practising plumbers would have until 30 September 2018 to bring their necessary qualifications up to par to qualify for the new LP licence. That will entail attending sanitary and water service plumbing courses conducted by PUB, as well as to pass an assessment test. The courses and assessment are on top of attaining a baseline BCA Builder Certificate course in Plumbing and Pipe-Fitting or equivalent.

Mr Speaker, the above prerequisite to obtain a LP licence would be too onerous for freelance plumbers and those old-school plumbers who fashioned their trade based on good old fashion hard work, honesty and work experience gained over the years. Some of these seasoned plumbers are non-English speaking and may only converse in their native mother tongues or dialects, but they are armed with a wealth of knowledge and experience honed from the school of hard knocks. For some of them, plumbing may be the only tools of the trade they know, and their livelihood would come to an end in two months’ time, if they are unable to qualify for an LP licence.

While I support the Bill, I wish to seek the indulgence of the Minister to look into making some provisions for these plumbers so that they can carry on working until such time when they decide to call it a day. Some of their work involves only replacing old pipes, nothing complicated and nothing to design.

Can PUB offer the prerequisite courses and assessment for the new LP licence in a language other than English? Can the assessment test be administered in dialects? Can PUB make an exception to waive the prerequisite courses and assessment for plumbers who can prove they have the necessary work experience and have been working in the industry long before even some of us in this Chamber were born?

Mr Speaker, this group of old-timers in the plumbing trade is shrinking over time, just like our pensioners. When the compulsory MediShield Life was introduced, pensioners were worried they would be worse off but it turned out that their entitled medical benefits under their respective pension schemes remain unchanged. MediShield Life coverage, although compulsory, does not kick in for some pensioners.

Would the Ministry consider making a similar exception to allow this group of old-school plumbers to continue to ply their trade without the compulsory LP licence, after PUB has made the necessary assessment of their competency? Can PUB issue these plumbers with a non-renewable provisional licence of three years, for example, so that these seniors can have ample time to make other plans and wind down their trade over time?

We are an ageing society. We are witnessing the passing of a generation of tradesmen and craftsmen from an era gone by. The good old hawker, the Yellow Top taxi driver, the old-school plumber, to name a few, would probably ply their trade one last time in this decade or so. No one is more disrupted than these senior tradesmen and craftsmen as we embrace the digital economy. Could we not give these Pioneer workers a longer runway to adapt, change and to wind down their trade?

There is a Motion in the Order Paper today calling for this House to recognise our seniors as a gift to our society. It calls on the Government to continue to strengthen support for our seniors to age with dignity and to spearhead community efforts to create a society where they can thrive. Mr Speaker, allowing some of our seniors to continue their old trade in their sunset years, even for a fixed period of time, would send a clear message that this Government does support our seniors to age with dignity.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. It addresses one of the dilemmas for home owners who are in need of the services of a professional plumber. The Bill, while it imposes on the plumbers to be properly trained and updated on their skillsets, needs to address one important area that would greatly help the thousands of households who would be looking for professional licensed plumbers.

There are a few ways home owners would commonly go about to get a plumber. One is recommendation from friends or relatives. The other is to look up the listing via the web, including the PUB website, and the third is to turn to the Town Council or management corporation strata title (MCST) for assistance. Many licensed plumbers would tell you they can do everything. But by the time they get to your house, you know they are simply trouble-shooting the problem. I will share an example. Assuming you want a plumber who can handle a water-hammer issue in your home. You will realise that many of them may not be trained in this area of work.

So, while I commend the Bill for spelling out the licensing requirements of the licensed water and sanitary plumbers, I hope the PUB can do more by giving them certification in specialised areas. Get our plumbers to specialise in areas like tackling water hammer, regulating water pressure, water tank pumps and so on, so that, besides the general training, they can each add value by having a specialisation.

It is good that licensed plumbers be proficient in both water service and sanitary plumbing works. It offers added convenience for consumers, who may otherwise have to engage multiple service providers. I hope PUB can give more information on its website. Currently, the PUB website gives the following: licence number, name, block unit number, street name, postal code, business telephone and business hours. But what is helpful is to also indicate their areas of specialisation.

Plumbing as a vocation and means to make a living was fairly popular in post-war Singapore such that, by 1956, SPS was founded to represent the interests of this industry. Many self-employed plumbers picked up and refined their plumbing skills through gaining experience on the job.

Today, many of them are senior citizens but continue to be very active in the industry. Their job serves as their livelihood in their twilight years. My concern is that in our bid to upgrade industry standards, these plumbers, who are senior citizens, may inadvertently be deprived of their jobs if they have difficulties learning all the required skills to get certified. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I note that registration and invitations for the courses are all being done by email. My concern is that this can be a challenge for this group of elderly plumbers, many of whom may not be Internet-savvy. They may also not be aware of the procedures to get licensed or even the need to be licensed. Can I ask if the Ministry has any measures to help those SPS-registered plumbers who are not Internet savvy? In addition, what about those who are not registered with SPS and what will be done to reach out to them to get the necessary qualifications? On this note, I would like to ask if the Ministry has a target to have a minimum number of licensed plumbers as a ratio to the number of flats in Singapore.

Although the licensing scheme for plumbers was announced last April, some of these freelancers may not be aware that only PUB LPs licensed under this revised scheme will be allowed to install, fix and maintain plumbing systems for water service and sanitary works. There are only three months left. How many have obtained their qualification? For those who have yet to undergo or still undergoing the course, would they be allowed to continue with their livelihood in the interim period? And, if they are unable to complete the course due to learning difficulties, can the duration be extended? Next, as some of these plumbers may not be proficient in English, could the courses be conducted in other languages as well?

The cost of the Builder Certificate Course is significantly subsidised under the mid-career enhanced subsidy. Nevertheless, it still comes up to over $600, a sum which is hefty to the low-income and needy. This course is required by plumbers without acceptable plumbing qualifications and many elderly freelance plumbers will likely fall into this group. Will assistance be available to those who have difficulties affording it?

(In English): I hope that those affected by this upgrade will see this as an opportunity to pick up new skills and formalise their knowledge. Ultimately, it would help open opportunities and equip them with modern plumbing skills. The Builder Certificate course will be a worthy investment. Given that there are so many new flats, the demand for their services would certainly increase. Ultimately, consumers, too, will benefit from having a larger pool of professionals who provide quality plumbing services to tap on.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, I welcome this move to revise the licence for this LWSP scheme requiring all sanitary plumbers to be licensed under a new LP scheme, along with water service plumbers. Efforts to streamline regulations and combine both types of plumbers under a single scheme can only lead to enhance professionalism for the plumbing industry.

Enhanced professionalism of our plumbers can only lead to a more reliable water system with fewer faults. These points will benefit all Singaporeans and I stand in support of this Bill.

I understand that the interim period given to plumbers to undergo training for the new licence is six months from 1 April to 30 September this year. After this period, plumbers who have not undergone additional training will not be able to offer their services.

I would like to ask how this six-month duration was determined and the factors considered to ensure that this length of time is sufficient. The Senior Minister of State had mentioned earlier that 96% of plumbers will be able to obtain their new licence. But can the Senior Minister of State also confirm that the other 4% will be able to complete their training and obtain a new licence by the deadline of 30 September?

Next, I would also like to ask what steps PUB had taken to ensure that our nation's plumbers have been well-informed of these changes and what steps will be taken to ensure a smooth transition for this group. Were stakeholder consultations conducted prior to the Bill and, if so, what were some of the concerns raised and how were they addressed? Other groups which I believe would be affected that the Senior Minister of State had also mentioned include the handymen who want to upgrade themselves and obtain a plumber's licence. I understand that the information has been published on the PUB website. But as many in this group are older in their years or less educated, they may need additional assistance navigating these changes and I hope that the Senior Minister of State and the Ministry will consider this.

Next, I also understand that LWSPs are required to attend a mandatory refresher course once every three years. Will sanitary plumbers, once under the new LP scheme, be also required to take this course?

Lastly, from the consumers' point of view and as many Members have raised, let us, say, if I am renovating my house and need a plumber, how would I know if my usual plumber has obtained a new licence? Would the new LPs carry around a card? Furthermore, let us, say, if I need repairs for the water pipe in my house, how would I know if I am required to engage the services of an LP or if a freelance handyman would suffice? Notwithstanding the above clarification, Sir, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill. The new licensing framework for plumbers will make Singapore's qualified plumbers more professional, and it is conducive to the improvement of industry standards. This will also help ensure the quality of water and sanitary services provided to Singaporeans and maintain the standard of our public sanitation.

As the plumbing systems are getting more complex, plumbers must be equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills to ensure the standard and safety of our water, and the health of the water users. For example, plumbers must understand the relevant regulations, the designs provided by developers and house owners, and know under what circumstances they should apply for permission from PUB. The new measures will also allow Singaporeans to enjoy more convenience, both in terms of water service and sanitation works. They only need one plumber to carry out these two types of work.

Although PUB allows unlicensed freelance plumbers to continue to do simple works, such as clearing pipes, changing taps or the hose to the taps, installing, changing or dismantling basins, and replacing floor traps or the cover of the drainage, this new regulation will, nevertheless, greatly affect their livelihood.

Many plumbers are experienced older workers who speak dialect mostly. One of the licensing conditions is that they must have BCA Academy’s Builder Certificate for plumbing and pipe fitting. The minimum requirement for applying this course is to have a “workplace Literacy and Numeracy Level 4 Certificate”. Just like my other colleagues have mentioned, can the authorities consider helping this group of plumbers because the written English test is not to their advantage? Is there any way that the Government can help improve their English standard?

I would like to ask whether PUB can provide these plumbers with more convenient channels to undergo training and upgrade, so that they can obtain the certificate soon.

Lastly, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether foreign plumbers who conduct water or sanitary works are also going to be licensed. Moreover, does PUB have enough inspectors to check on whether works are done by qualified plumbers?

Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.

Mr Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Members who have spoken for their support and comments on this Bill. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Louis Ng have spoken on helping existing and would-be plumbers to continue to serve in this important trade and facilitating their entry into the new LP scheme. We share this important objective. Let me first address the issue of providing sufficient time for transition to the new scheme.

PUB announced its intention to roll out the new licensing scheme some 10 months ago, in April last year. Even prior to the announcement of the scheme, PUB had engaged SPS extensively. After the announcement via several media channels – newspaper, radio, television, including in vernacular languages, as well as circulars – weekly public briefing sessions were held for 10 consecutive weeks to share details with interested stakeholders. All of PUB’s LWSPs and members of SPS were invited to the sessions. Other plumbers and members of the public also attended the sessions.

To facilitate the transition to the new scheme, additional runs of BCA Academy's Builder Certificate course and PUB’s short inhouse conversion course were mounted. As noted in my opening speech earlier, to date, over 96% of the 863 existing plumbers, who are either LWSPs or plumbers registered with SPS, have already obtained the qualifications to become LPs when the legislation comes into effect. In fact, among the 800-odd plumbers who have qualified to become LPs, more than 70% are aged 50 and above. Among them, there are plumbers who are in their 80s and have qualified to become LPs.

Of the remaining plumbers, around 10 will complete the Builder Certificate course by the middle of this year and around 20 will need to successfully undergo PUB’s two- or three-day inhouse conversion course.

Additionally, as noted in my speech earlier, another 25 who have the requisite experience but were neither licensed nor registered with SPS, have completed the necessary courses and will be able to become LPs when the Act comes into effect. Essentially, these are plumbers with the requisite experience but did not have the licence. They will be licensed when the Act comes into effect. During the six-month transition period, water service plumbers and those currently or formerly registered as sanitary plumbers with SPS may continue practising their respective trade pending their licence.

For those who have not completed their licensing requirements by the end of the six-month transition period from the effective date of the legislation, they can approach PUB which will assist them on a case-by-case basis.

While we encourage and help as many as possible to upgrade their skills and be certified, there continues to be a role for those who do not have the new licence. First, they can carry out plumbing works as long as they are working directly under an LP who will manage and sign off on the works. Second, they can carry out non-critical simple plumbing works for consumers on their own, such as clearing chokes and installing sinks, bathtubs and showers. There will continue to be a market for such work and a full list of unregulated works can be found on PUB’s website.

Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Png Eng Huat and Mr Louis Ng expressed concern that some plumbers, especially the older ones, may have difficulties getting certified due to language requirements or financial difficulties. Sir, in Mandarin please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] A minimum working proficiency of English is necessary, so that licensed plumbers can understand the regulatory requirements, read plans and submit forms to PUB.

While the courses are conducted in English, the instructors take a practical approach in helping participants understand the content. To accommodate plumbers who cannot manage the written assessment of PUB's two- or three-day conversion course, PUB facilitates oral assessments in other languages, such as Mandarin.

PUB has also worked with the BCA Academy to recognise the "Workplace Literacy and Numeracy Level 4" certificate for entry to the Builder Certificate course. So far, the plumbers who have engaged PUB are willing to take this course.

Take the case of 50-year-old Mr Anthony Cheng Lai Swee. He used to work for plumbing companies that carry out plumbing and sanitary work and is now doing freelance sanitary plumbing works. When the LP scheme was announced last year in April, he was initially concerned that he did not have the minimum proficiency in English to register for the Builder Certificate course. In the end, Mr Cheng decided to register for the “Workplace Literacy and Numeracy Level 4” course and passed the test, which allowed him to register for the Builder Certificate course. He has since completed the theory part of the Builder Certificate course and will be taking the practical part in March 2018. Mr Cheng was glad that SPS and PUB have been assisting and facilitating him to transit to the LP scheme.

(In English): As for financial assistance, PUB waives the fees of its conversion course for all existing plumbers on their first attempt and, beyond that, on a case-by-case basis. For the Builder Certificate course, a variety of subsidies may be used to offset up to 85% of course fees, such as the SkillsFuture Mid-career Enhanced Subsidy. Individuals can also use their SkillsFuture Credit. Most plumbers whom PUB has engaged thus far have no issues with the course fees. Nonetheless, if any plumbers face difficulties, I encourage them to contact PUB, and we will see how to further assist them.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Gan Thiam Poh expressed concerns over unlicensed foreign plumbers operating in Singapore. It is illegal for foreigners to work in Singapore without a valid work pass. Foreign plumbers with valid work passes who wish to practise in Singapore will need to be licensed. Let me emphasise that consumers who engage the services of unlicensed plumbers do so at their own risk. Plumbing systems have a significant impact on the quality of tap water and on public health. Enforcement action will be taken against the unlicensed plumber and the consumer. I urge consumers, when hiring plumbing services, to go to the register of LWSPs on PUB's website, or call PUB's 24-hour Call Centre at 1800-CALL-PUB, to find these plumbers or verify their status. This register will be expanded to cover all LPs once the new scheme is implemented. LPs will also be required to carry an authorised licence card from PUB for verification.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also brought up LPs subcontracting works to non-licensed plumbers. While LPs can do so, they must directly supervise and sign off on the works carried out by the unlicensed plumber. Should there be any non-compliance with the requirements and standards stipulated by PUB, the LP who signed off on the works would be held responsible. More importantly, even as we enhance the regulatory system, PUB will work with SPS to enhance consumer education so that consumers will be aware of the importance of using LPs for critical plumbing works.

Ms Joan Pereira suggested encouraging LPs to develop specialised skills in specific fields of work. While the LP scheme requires plumbers to be proficient in both water and sanitary plumbing works, they are free to elect the field of work that they wish to practise in.

Currently, to help consumers make a better choice when engaging a plumber, the register of LWSPs on PUB's website also indicates the types of services that some plumbers are offering. When the new scheme takes effect, PUB will extend the listing of types of services offered for sanitary plumbing on the register of LPs on PUB's website as well.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked whether the courses offered at ITE are continually reviewed to keep pace with industry needs. The courses offered are in accordance with Singapore's current plumbing standards, and PUB will continue to work with educational institutions like ITE and BCA Academy to ensure their courses keep pace with industry needs. To answer Mr Louis Ng, LPs are also required to attend PUB's refresher courses once every three years to be kept abreast of the latest industry standards.

To conclude, the amendments to this Bill are an important step forward to ensure that Singaporeans continue enjoying clean and safe water. Therefore, I call on Members of the House to give their support to this Bill.

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

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

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan.] (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, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA) was last extended in 2014. As Members know, it will lapse after five years unless extended. Let me, first, give some examples of how CLTPA has been used, before I go into the specific amendments.

In 2017, CLTPA was used to cripple two gangs operating in Singapore. The first comprised mainly young Indian gang members, most of them in their teens to the 20s, led by a headman in his 30s. They carried out armed attacks against rival gang members. They also attacked a fellow gang member as punishment for leaving the gang. A member wanted to leave. They ambushed him. At least 10 of them assaulted him. Then, the headman called up all the others and said, "If any of you dare to leave the gang, the same thing will happen to you. You will be attacked as well." The Police got on to the case. The members did not want to testify against the headman and CLTPA was used. They were prepared to give evidence; they were prepared to testify but they did not want to do so in public. They feared as to what would happen to them.

The second gang comprised Chinese males in their mid-20s to 30s. Many of them had antecedents for very serious criminal offences. They attacked others, used weapons to settle their disputes. They attacked innocent club patrons, including women. The attacks were quite brazen. They also openly threatened club staff.

Again, in both cases, the victims were unwilling or unable to identify the attackers. The gang members were prepared to give evidence but not in Court, for fear of reprisals. And really, without CLTPA, it would have been difficult to deal with the gangsters. So, that is, if you look at gangsters.

We also used the CLTPA again in the context of drugs. The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) uses it, and many drug trafficking syndicates have been crippled using CLTPA. Often, because they fear attacks on them and their families, the couriers will not want or refuse to testify in Court. And if we let that situation develop, it will affect our ability to deal with the leaders of the drug syndicates.

So, the use of CLTPA has helped us keep the drug situation under control. But, and I have given instructions on this, the approach has to be that, wherever we can, we must use the criminal justice system and not CLTPA. And that is the approach that is taken.

In fact, if Members look at the Detention Orders (DOs) that are issued under CLTPA against drug traffickers, in 1998, there were 192 such DOs. Last year, none. Zero. Sir, with your permission, can I put up the slides? I will just show two slides to Members.

The first one is on drugs. It is a very simple picture. But we want to retain the CLTPA as a tool of final resort, if necessary. It is useful to give Members a picture of the total number of detainees, not just for drugs but the total number.

In 2010, seven years ago, the number was 317. Members will see from the chart, it is now just about 103. Again, the approach is, where we can, we move to the criminal justice system and use CLTPA as sparingly as possible.

I have to tell the House, while the drug situation is under control, the challenges are significant and they remain. I have spoken at length over the last few years about drugs, the issues in the region, in the world and in Singapore. If you look at the World Drug Report, for this region, if you look at the sources of methamphetamine in East Asia and Southeast Asia in 2015, East Asia and Southeast Asia were amongst the highest globally among regions and we have achieved an unwelcome record in that we have overtaken North America for the first time as a source.

Southeast Asia, together with East Asia, is also the second-highest source of opium. The seizures of heroin and morphine related to the production of opium in Southeast Asia grew by nearly 90% in the five years between 2010 and 2015. We turn to ketamine. The seizure of ketamine, if you look at what was seized in the world and what proportion was seized in this region, 97% of all ketamine seized in the world was from this region in 2015. So, that is the nature of the problem that we face. I have shared with Members before that 50 million people passed through our airports. Another 150 million passed through our checkpoints. We have to be very, very serious about the drug situation. So, the Misuse of Drugs Act is very effective. But we have this CLTPA as a backup.

The third situation that I would share with Members is the unlicensed moneylenders (UML). CLTPA has also been used against persons involved in loansharking activities. We have been clear about that in this House. The Moneylenders Act was amended in 2010. It gave the Police broader powers to tackle the UML situation.

We attack the UML situation from different aspects and that has resulted in, again, a drop in the number of DOs issued for UML. If Members look at 2004 to 2010, on average, during that seven-year period, we issued about 20 DOs per year for UML. If Members look at 2011 to 2017, that has dropped to about two per year. Again, we have used the Court processes to prosecute UML offenders. But again, there will be cases where the runners will refuse to testify against the kingpins. The towkays, those higher up in the organisation, they operate behind the scenes, they do not have direct dealings with the debtors.

In 2015, for example, the Police arrested the mastermind of a loansharking syndicate. Many of the syndicate members were also arrested. The main operators were based in Malaysia and Thailand. They do so to avoid arrest and detection. The lowest tier – the harassers, runners and bank account holders – they operate out of Singapore out of necessity.

That syndicate alone was responsible for more than 600 cases of harassment since 2006. Members of Parliament (MPs) will know this; residents come to you. These people who harass would set fire to the residents' doors, they lock them up – serious safety issues; they splash paint, they break flowerpots, they scribble graffiti and, of course, they deliver "hell notes" as well. The whole idea is to frighten the debtor or whoever is in the house and, sometimes, it is somebody else who have moved in, and they frighten everyone around, innocent people as well. Again, the syndicate members were unwilling to testify against the leader and other more senior members.

Fourth, we also use the CLTPA sometimes to detain members of syndicates. There was a case: global match-fixing syndicate. The head made it known to his members that he would kill or harm any person who betrayed him and the syndicate. One person was, in fact, attacked on his orders. The syndicate members were quite unwilling to testify in Court against him. But his criminal activities were dangerous, detrimental to our public safety, peace and good order. So, we used the CLTPA.

Unlike other countries, our physical size, smallness, also makes it difficult for us to relocate witnesses in such a way as to assure them and their families of their physical safety. In bigger countries you can do that. So, given our local circumstances, our law enforcement agencies will not be able to totally satisfy witnesses that their concerns will not bear out.

That is a brief summary of the types of situations where we have used the CLTPA. Let me now take the House through the proposed amendments.

The Bill provides for the Minister to detain any person for a period not exceeding 12 months or place the person under a Police Supervision Order (PSO) for up to three years – we can it DOs and PSOs. This can be done if the Minister is satisfied that the person has been associated with activities of a criminal nature and it is necessary that the person be detained in the interest of public safety, peace and good order.

The Court of Appeal accepted, in the Dan Tan case, and I quote, "section 30 of the CLTPA is similar to sections 8(1) and 10 of the Internal Security Act (ISA) in that power has been given to the Minister, to make the decision as to whether the detention would be in the interest of public safety, peace and good order."

The Court of Appeal also said the phrase, I quote, "persons associated with activities of a criminal nature" is wider than persons who had committed a crime. So, the current approach gives a degree of latitude to the Minister on what activities could be the subject of a DO.

I have thought further about this. Should we continue to leave it as it is? Or would it be better to list the type of criminal activities in a Schedule to the Act? I have decided that we should actually just list it. That gives more clarity to the public and everyone on which types of activities could be the subject of a DO. So, clause 3 states that the Bill applies to "activities of a criminal nature" that will be specified in a new Fourth Schedule. Clause 8 of the Bill inserts this Fourth Schedule. The activities that are currently proposed to be listed have been either activities which have been previously dealt with under the Act or previously been mentioned in Parliament as being within the scope of the Act. Activities relating to participation in or facilitation of activities for Organised Criminal Groups are also included.

The new Fourth Schedule will also set out the powers of the Minister in respect of DOs and PSOs. It will list the types of criminal activity in relation to which the Minister can make DOs and PSOs under section 30 of the Bill. But, of course, section 30 sets out the fundamental requirements. In exercising the power, the Minister will thus have to be satisfied, which is the current position, that the facts satisfy the criteria set out in section 30. That is still necessary. In addition, it has to be criminal activities that are listed in the Schedule.

Let me now deal with clause 3. Clause 3 of the Bill inserts a new section 30(2) which states that every decision of the Minister on a matter under section 30(1) is final. There seems to be some misunderstanding on the effect of this proposed clause. There have been suggestions that this legislatively overrules the grounds for judicial review stated in Dan Tan. That is not the case. Let me make that clear, let me explain. Anyone who knows the law will know that that cannot be the case.

This Bill allows for a DO or PSO on the Minister's orders, and it sets out the grounds and processes for making such an order. It sets out the rights of the detainee and the supervisee, including the right to have his detention or PSO reviewed or considered by an Advisory Committee.

The Minister has to be satisfied that the grounds for DO or PSO exist. The application of the facts to the relevant orders, and whether the order should be made under the CLTPA, have always been for the Minister to decide. The Court of Appeal in Dan Tan pointed that out, accepted that. It said that Parliament may decide to entrust the power and the responsibility to make a decision to a particular decision-maker and, in the case of CLTPA, that is the Minister for Home Affairs.

The Courts are not to substitute their views of the facts or engage in the exercise of scrutinising the evidential basis of detention. As I have said, that has always been the position under the CLTPA and accepted to be so by our Courts. Clause 3 sets that position out.

Judicial review is a different matter. It will be available in respect of CLTPA on the traditional, well-established grounds – illegality, irrationality and procedural irregularity. Again, these classic principles for judicial review have been set out in case law and have been applied for many years. My views on the applicability of judicial review are restricted to CLTPA. I am not proposing here to make general pronouncements on the applicability of judicial review to other legislation because different pieces of legislation have different wordings. My views and comments are directed towards the current Bill and the Act.

Clause 3 does not seek to affect the right of judicial review on the three well-established grounds Even if I did not say all these, it cannot, anyway. Anybody who knows the law will know that. These principles were accepted in the Dan Tan case.

So, let me summarise. The Court of Appeal accepted that under the Act, the Minister had the power and the responsibility to make decisions as to what the facts were, apply those facts to the relevant rules and considerations and exercise his discretion consequently. The Court of Appeal also said that the scheme of the Act is such that the evidentiary basis for the detention is not scrutinised by the Courts.

Third, as long as the detention is within the ambit of the legislation, the Court of Appeal accepted that the power to determine the factual basis for detention, as well as whether this is warranted in the circumstances, lay with the Executive. However, the Courts retain the power to review the Minister's decisions under the Act based on the classic judicial review principles, and I have said what they are, the three grounds. That continues to be the position; it is unchanged. So, it crystallises the position as it stands now.

The third objective of these amendments is to set out in subsidiary legislation the obligations on a person subject to Police supervision. This is currently in the main legislation.

By clause 4, we are seeking to make amendments relating to these persons who could be subject to PSOs. We want to remove them from the main Act and set them out in rules under section 49. Why? Because these conditions need to be tailored to meet the needs of the specific individual. For example, how do you rehabilitate them? To what extent is counselling necessary? It is very difficult to have these in the main legislation. So, we put them in the conditions, to tailor it according to the needs of the individual persons.

Section 33(1) and (2), which are repealed and re-enacted by clause 4, enables the Minister to impose different prescribed condition on each supervisee based on the different risks and needs of each supervisee.

Clause 4 also states that a person subject to supervision – conditions are imposed on him but he cannot comply with them because he is in prison or he is under a Court order – then, obviously, he must be excused from having to comply with the conditions.

Clause 5 repeals section 36 of the Act. Section 36 will no longer be required. These restrictions will be set out under the rules to be made under section 49.

Next, let me move to the provision of powers to CNB. Currently, CLTPA supervisees report to both the Police and CNB. But where there are breaches of PSOs, the orders, only Police Officers have the powers to investigate. Clause 7 will now provide CNB officers with the powers to investigate breaches of PSOs.

The Bill also seeks to renew the Act for a further five years with effect from 21 October 2019. The Act was last extended in 2014. It will expire in 2019. It seeks to provide for extension for five years.

Sir, I had earlier explained why we continue to need the CLTPA in Singapore. I think it is useful to consider Malaysia's experience. In 2011, Malaysia repealed its "Emergency (Public Order and Crimes Prevention) Ordinance 1969". This law allowed for preventive detention of criminals in the interest of public order, the suppression of violence and the prevention of crimes of violence. They repealed it and then they faced significant problems. The Malaysian Parliament then introduced the Prevention of Crime Act 2013, which reinstated preventive detention. One of the Malaysian newspapers reported the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, as saying the following in the Second Reading in 2013:

"After the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance and Restricted Residence Act, 9,095 detainees from Simpang Renggam detention centre were released and assimilated with the society. This year alone, there were 109 shooting cases and all of them involved the secret societies."

That just illustrates that there is usually a tradeoff. We prefer not to give such powers to the Executive. Then we must be clear-eyed about the tradeoffs. I think it is difficult to say one approach or the other clearly must be followed, but we must be clear. Often, arguments proceed on the basis that we can have the current situation of law, order and security without any tradeoffs and yet we can do away with CLTPA. That is not possible. So, you must be prepared to face it after that. The tradeoff that the Government has taken, which Parliament has agreed for many years, is that we give these powers, we impose safeguards and we look at the situation every five years.

Let me now just touch on the safeguards in the Bill. There are six that I will share.

First, any proposal by the Police or CNB to detain a person under the Bill or to place him under Police supervision will be looked at carefully, by both senior officials in my Ministry, the Ministry of Home Affairs, as well as the Attorney-General's Chambers. The practice is that the Minister only issues a DO or a PSO after this process and upon considering the opinions of senior officials.

Second, the Minister must get the consent of the Public Prosecutor before making a DO or PSO.

Third, there is an independent Advisory Committee. It comprises prominent private citizens, including senior lawyers. They have to scrutinise the investigations and documentary evidence. The committee may examine detainees, supervisees, investigation officers (IOs), witnesses. They can also require further investigations of aspects of the case. Detainees and supervisees will have the opportunity to present their cases to the committee. They can be represented by legal counsel. The committee eventually makes their recommendations to the President, who may cancel or confirm the DO or SO. In exercising the powers, the President may also vary the order but the President acts on the advice of the Cabinet.

Fourth, DOs are reviewed annually by a different Advisory Committee.

Fifth, a different Advisory Committee yet again considers all cases of detention if they extend beyond 10 years. So, cases where persons are detained for more than 10 years are specially scrutinised to understand why such a period of detention continues to be necessary.

Sixth, of course, as I mentioned earlier, the Government has to come to Parliament once every five years to renew the Act. There have been calls in the past to make the Act permanent but we believe that the Act should be explicitly extended by Parliament every five years.

Now, in addition to the legislative amendments proposed, I would like to inform the House of another development. I mentioned the Advisory Committees (ACs) earlier. From March this year, 2018, the ACs will be chaired by sitting Judges of the Supreme Court of Singapore. This does not require legislative amendment. I have spoken with the Chief Justice on this and he is agreeable to have Judges chair the ACs. Why is this being done? This is something that I have been wanting for years and we are now doing it.

The Advisory Committee, as I mentioned above, is an essential safeguard for the system. The ACs being chaired by sitting Judges will make the process more robust. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Christopher de Souza.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today we are debating the necessity and proposed refinements to CLTPA.

The CLTPA is a necessary tool for Singapore to dismantle criminal syndicates. Secret societies continue to make up the majority of the detainee population. In 2016, 91 of 109 detainees were detained because of secret society gang activity. This is not surprising as strong loyalties and the pervasive network easily intimidate witnesses, making it impossible for an open Court trial.

Projecting into the next five years, the CLTPA still remains a necessary tool for law enforcers. This is because there is still a need to be able to carry out actions even though witnesses are afraid to step forward and even when it is impossible to procure evidence without undermining the territorial integrity of another jurisdiction. While international collaboration and technology, such as forensics and video recording evidence, may allow us to do what was previously not possible in terms of evidence gathering, technology has a flip side. It also enables intimidation of witnesses and made it easier for crimes to take on a syndicated nature, multiplying the propensity of harm and intimidation like a sinister phalanx formation.

This not a figment of imagination out of a comic strip. This is real. So, we need an arsenal of laws to deploy to deter and overcome the morphing nature of criminal syndicates. I listened to what the Minister said quite carefully and I agree with the Minister's views that the fear of witnesses coming to Court does prejudice justice, does prejudice law enforcement and the rule of law. I agree with this because of my own experience.

When I started off in the Legal Service at the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), when you know the suspect is very likely to have done it and the only witness to corroborate fears for his life or his family's life, then he does not come to Court. Drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act is a good example. The trafficker or the suspected trafficker may have drugs but who is he trying to traffic to? And, if the witness who is meant to have received the drugs so as to prove the trafficking case or the charge says "No, I don't want to come, I fear for my life and my safety", then it does prejudice the procedures.

Similarly, for the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act. A person could have trafficked the woman, abused her and she is very likely to have been someone from overseas and, therefore, fears for the life of her family overseas. What do we do with someone who, with all intelligence, shows very likely committed the crime but there is no witness to corroborate that? Do we just let him go without the facility of the CLTPA detention?

Also, when I sat as a junior judge and there was not a witness to corroborate the charge, then the burden of proof is not met, notwithstanding a lot of evidence against the person who has been charged.

And, even in private practice now, having a good witness is a real advantage to the case. So, from my perspective, I agree with the Minister that when you have situations where all the other facts and all the other evidence point to the conclusion that the person very likely did it and you do not have somebody who is willing to come forward because of fear of his life or the legitimate fear of his family's life, we need something like the CLTPA to plug that gap.

Of course, we need safeguards within CLTPA itself and, since the last time CLTPA was renewed, there has been a successful appeal on detention under CLTPA. This case impacts our debate on the Bill for two reasons: (a) it sheds light on the implications of clause 3 that says the Minister's decision is final, and (b) its observations birthed the new Fourth Schedule specifying the serious criminal activities as legitimate grounds for a detention under the Bill.

Newspapers have reported some concern raised over clause 3 of the Bill. However, in my view, those concerns can be ameliorated as the clause does not change the law. The Bill Supplement clearly says it is to "clarify" the law. What was reviewable in the past continues to be reviewable.

Clause 8 puts in the new Fourth Schedule which specifies the scope of criminal activities, the powers of detention and supervision orders may be exercised for. This promotes the rule of law as it delineates the parameters of the power clearly. It is necessarily wide so as to not remove the efficaciousness of the Act but allows for a more concrete understanding of the scope of power and what is sufficiently serious – an issue examined by the Court of Appeal in the Tan Seet Eng case.

One thing worth noting about the Fourth Schedule is the reference to section 48(1) of the Organised Crimes Act. It recognises the problems with syndicates and also provides the possibility for international activities with local links to be tackled, such as that of match-fixing in the situation of Tan Seet Eng. Nevertheless, it is important that this Act not be invoked merely because a criminal activity is specified in the list. For the interests of justice, the Act should still only be resorted to, not only in the most serious of those activities, but when an open Court trial is impracticable. A trial by the Court must still remain and continue to be the primary mechanism of law enforcement and judicial adjudication.

This Bill also makes some changes to the Police supervisory regime. One of them is regarding restrictions able to be imposed on a person under Police investigation or supervision. Currently, section 33(1) allows for the possibility to impose "all or any" of the restrictions, and subsection (2) provides for the Minister being able to vary, cancel or add restrictions specified under section 33(1). Clause 4 purports to make the regime more flexible by moving the restrictions placed on those on Police supervision from the main Act to subsidiary legislation. This seems to remove boundaries and categories on the kind of restrictions being imposed. As the previous structure also allows for some form of flexibility, would the Minister of Home Affairs kindly elaborate on the rationale behind this change?

Besides detention without trial and supervision orders, this Bill criminalises strikes for employees of essential services, something which drew public attention in 2012. Although the repercussions of that strike then may not have been as deeply felt, a protracted strike on essential services can be quite severe. Therefore, notwithstanding this Bill, it is important that channels of dialogue for amicable settlements of disputes between providers of essential services and their employees remain open and effective.

As this Bill continues to provide a necessary tool to maintain Singapore’s public safety, peace and good order, and the very fact that we need to deploy muscular laws to deter criminal syndicate activity on our shores and based on my own experience as a legal practitioner in the Government and in the private sector, I support this Bill.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Speaker, the prospect of locking people up for an undetermined duration is incongruous with the rule of law. Should a state have such powers? Insofar as CLTPA is concerned, the answer has been yes for reasons that have been enunciated in this House over many decades, albeit not without significant soul-searching and qualified support.

One important reason that underpins the qualified support for the CLTPA in Singapore through the decades has been the prospect of judicial review, which operates as an important safety valve to check against any excesses of the government of the day. The importance of judicial review with regard to CLTPA was publicly expressed recently by the Court of Appeal judgment in the matter of the international match-fixer Tan Seet Eng or Dan Tan.

Unlike many extensions the Government has sought for this Act since then, the one before the House today includes a few fundamental amendments, which are very significant and extend new powers to the Government for an Act which was ostensibly temporary.

At the outset, Mr Speaker, is an amendment to the Act even necessary? To answer this question, it is helpful to look at what transpired in the aftermath of international match-fixer Dan Tan’s short-lived release under the CLTPA after the Court of Appeal ruled against the Government and in favour of Dan Tan. Government critics focused on Dan Tan's re-arrest six days after the Minister cured the deficiencies in the original Grounds of Detention (GD) with a more detailed GD describing how Dan Tan’s activities had a direct relevance to public safety, peace and good order in Singapore. As stressed by the Court, that was the crux of the CLTPA – the Government had to show how Dan Tan's activities prejudiced public safety, peace and good order in Singapore, something it had not sufficiently done in its original GD.

However, what was somewhat overlooked in the decision to re-arrest Dan Tan was the Minister's decision to revoke the DOs under CLTPA of three members of Dan Tan's global match-fixing syndicate. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), in a statement on 18 January 2016, stated that "the evidence against the three persons and their roles in the syndicate were recently reviewed, after the Court of Appeal gave its decision in Dan Tan's case."

It would appear that in light of the judgment in Tan Seet Eng, the Government became aware of the poor case against them in law, putting the three detainees on supervision orders instead. To that end, the purpose of the Act and, more importantly, the separation of powers between the Executive and Judiciary as it currently stands, would appear to be operating effectively, giving the Minister enough leeway to take decisive action against individuals who, in his estimation, pose a threat to ensure public safety, peace and good order in Singapore, while being in a position to clarify and apply the Act lawfully even if it means revoking DOs in light of the clarification of laws by the Judiciary. Quite simply, the system is working as it should. If so, what is the impulse behind this amendment Bill and is it justified?

Secondly, the Bill introduces a new limb to section 30 of the Act, legislating that a decision of the Minister would be final. I seek the Minister’s clarification on how this new clause 3 will interact with the prospect of judicial review for individuals detained under CLTPA in future, in view of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Tan Seet Eng.

While clause 3 does not explicitly exclude the prospects of judicial review, unlike section 8(2)(b) of the ISA, it is a fact that more, not fewer, judicial review cases are coming up for adjudication in our Courts, challenging the lawfulness of Government decisions. In recent years, these include questions on the legality of whether or when elections ought to be called in a Single Member Constituency or a Group Representation Constituency, the constitutionality of section 377A with regard to homosexuals, the constitutionality of the Government's decision to extend a loan to the International Monetary Fund, a challenge by some Hindu adherents on the banning of musical instruments during Thaipusam, and the challenge by a Sikh prison counsellor on prison policy covering Sikh inmates, amongst others.

In concert with a more educated population and a greater recognition of the critical role an independent Judiciary plays as a co-equal Organ alongside the Executive and Legislature, it is unsurprising that more Singaporeans are seeking the avenue afforded by judicial review for clarity on public law matters and for the Judiciary to have the final say on the legality of Government actions. I would hazard that even the front bench recognises and agrees with the critical role the Judiciary plays as a feature of a good government and good governance.

Mr Speaker, in a speech delivered at the American Law Institute in 2016, the Chief Justice referred to judicial review as, and I quote, "the sharp edge that keeps government action within the form and substance of the law." However, it is well established under Singapore law that judicial review only covers the process and legality of Government decisions, not the merits of a decision which are properly empowered to the Executive, who, having been lawfully voted in by Singaporeans at each General Election, make decisions by virtue of their electoral mandate. To that end, a policy question or decision of the government of the day can only be overturned by the Courts on grounds of irrationality, illegality or impropriety, thresholds which are exceedingly high to begin with.

However, the law covering judicial review has not stood still even if Singapore law does not recognise some of the newer heads and principles that define judicial review in the United Kingdom (UK), such as the proportionality principle, ostensibly because some of these new approaches risk substituting the Executive's decision for the Judiciary's, a concern which, in light of our separation of powers schema, is a legitimate one.

But even so, the Chief Justice, in his speech to the American Law Institute which I referred to earlier, found it appropriate to share the Singapore experience with regard to a new head of judicial review recognised under Singapore law – that of substantive legitimate expectation – which concerns Government action that is contrary to a promise or an expectation that it has created or encouraged.

For the man on the street and the average Singaporean, the knowledge of a continual evolution of the law on judicial review is a welcome development. Justice must be seen to be done, and the evolution of the law on judicial review has required judges to make more, not less, enquiries on the facts and circumstances of a matter at hand so as to be able to decide whether the Government has made a lawful or unlawful decision.

In and of itself, it would appear intuitively logical for judges to have maximum access to the Minister or the Executive's thought processes even if they cannot replace it with their own. However, clause 3 appears to be going against the grain, closing the door and further limiting the Judiciary’s scope for judicial review for CLTPA cases. At this juncture, it would be useful for me to recite a short paragraph of the Court of Appeal judgment in Tan Seet Eng which buttresses the point that even though the ambit of judicial review only covers the process and legality of how a decision is made, the role of the Courts is far from routine and administrative.

"In our judgment, while it is one thing to say that the Court must not substitute its view as to the way in which the discretion that is vested in the Minister should be exercised, it is quite another to say that the Minister's exercise of discretion may not be scrutinised by the Court at all. We asked (the Government’s lawyer) if he was contending that the function of the Court was confined to verifying, as a clerical matter, that the paperwork was in order and included at least a bare recitation by or on behalf of the Minister that formally complied with the statutory formula. The (Government’s lawyer) said that was not his position and, in our judgment, rightly so. We have already referred to the decision of this Court in Chng Suan Tze where an objective approach was laid down. This plainly runs counter to any suggestion that the Court is confined to so narrow a role. Indeed, this recognises that a Court may and, indeed, should examine whether the power that is vested in the Minister is being properly invoked."

On clause 3 per se, the explanatory note to the Bill states that the Minister’s decision being final applies in any of these three instances:

that the person has been associated with activities of a criminal nature;

that it is necessary for a person to be detained in the interests of public safety, peace and good order; and

that it is necessary that a person be subject to the supervision of the Police.

Mr Speaker, all three instances operate to narrow the Judiciary's role with respect to judicial review. To this end, I would like to ask the Minister, in the event the Courts require the Minister to reveal detailed information on the background facts on any of the three instances to determine and assist the Court to decide on the lawfulness of a CLTPA detention for the purposes of judicial review, can the Minister confirm if the Courts will be able to do so? More fundamentally, would it not be more propitious for Parliament to extend real scope to the Judiciary to review the Minister's decision in the case of CLTPA detentions, particularly since detainees cannot challenge the evidence against them in an open Court, notwithstanding the Executive check available by way of the Advisory Committee under the Act?

I understand the Minister spoke about the constitution of the Advisory Committee in his Second Reading speech and the idea of including judges as part of the Advisory Committee. Just as a matter of clarification, does this not conflate the role of the Executive and the Judiciary? I would like the Minister's views on that.

The third point I wish to make extends to the inclusion of clause 8 which covers section 48(1) of the Organised Crime Act (OCA) in Schedule 4 of the Bill extends the reach of CLTPA, by way of legislation, to individuals who participate or facilitate a serious crime overseas. This is a significant shift in the reach and ambit of CLTPA and I do have some questions in this regard.

What is the threshold of participation or facilitation in a serious crime overseas as defined by section 48(1) of the OCA before the CLTPA can be employed against an individual? Does the Minister have any examples of criminals having facilitated or participated in crimes overseas only for the Government to be bereft of any legal options to bring such individuals to justice? More narrowly, would the detention of an individual arising from section 48(1) of the OCA under CLTPA require the Minister to include evidence or the results of investigations from a foreign counterpart in his GD or would some other standard apply and, if so, what would that standard be? Or would it be up to the Minister, in step with the amendment proposed in clause 3 that his decision is final and there is, for all practical purposes, very little scope for any enquiry into this matter, if any at all?

Finally, and in this context, does the Minister foresee the CLTPA to be employed against foreigners who commit crimes overseas and who may be members of or in the employ of a Singaporean or local criminal syndicate? Mr Speaker, the Workers’ Party opposes this Bill.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, despite being named the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, the CLTPA has been renewed multiple times since it was first enacted as an ordinance in 1955 to deal with secret societies and gangsters, as the Minister has explained, at a time when these societies were rampant in Singapore and presented a real material threat to public safety, peace and good order.

Over the years, many Parliamentarians − backbenchers, Opposition MPs and Nominated MPs − have said in this House that the powers the CLTPA gives the Government to detain a suspect without trial may "nag" at their conscience. Yet, time and again, this House has affirmed the CLTPA as a blunt but necessary tool, a tool of final resort, to battle against organised criminals in all their forms, a tool to protect law-abiding citizens who might be deterred from reporting or testifying about crimes due to the threat of reprisal.

I note from the statistics that the Minister has shown today that the number of suspects detained under the Act has fallen from more than 300 to just 100 in the past 10 years. I support, Mr Speaker, Sir, the hard choice that has ultimately, and always been made over the past few years, and multiple years actually, to revive the CLTPA. However, the amendment Bill before us today is different in certain respects. Allow me to focus my speech just on clause 3.

At first glance, this clause has trouble. Yes, the proposed Fourth Schedule helpfully lists, for the first time, the "activities of a criminal nature" the CLTPA covers. But clause 3 makes "final" the Minister's decision as to whether a person has been associated with CLTPA criminal activities, whether it is necessary for a person to be subject to Police supervision and, importantly, whether it is necessary for a person to be detained. I was originally concerned for two broad reasons.

First, the amendment proposed in clause 3 could effectively liken CLTPA section 30 with section 8B(2) of ISA. The ISA's 8B(2) expressly ousts "judicial review in any Court of any act done or decision made by the … Minister". Judicial review, Mr Speaker, Sir, is an important check on a Minister’s administrative power in CLTPA and legislation as a whole. It is confined at common law to reviewing the illegality, procedural impropriety or irrationality of a decision-making process, Ministerial or otherwise.

It is thus reassuring that, today, the Minister has said that this judicial review will continue to be available. Without the Court's review, there is fear that investigators, however skilled they may be, may make errors, that they might prefer to proceed under the CLTPA where there is insufficient evidence to sustain charges under a host of other statutes. And Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say there are many. There is the OCA of 2015, the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Remote Gambling Act, the Common Gaming Houses Act, the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act, just to name a few. And, of course, there is the Penal Code.

All these pieces of legislation, read together with the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), allows for judicial supervision and due process, the hallmarks of the administration of criminal justice in Singapore. Therefore, there was my concern that the judicial review process would have been removed from CLTPA by this clause.

Mr Speaker, Sir, safeguards must always be put in place to ensure that the investigative powers are not misused and to weed out mistakes that can happen from time to time.

It cannot be said, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the CLTPA's Criminal Law Advisory Committee can serve as a check on investigators' or the Minister's powers. After all, this particular body performs only an advisory function and has no decision-making powers of its own under CLTPA. I appreciate, Mr Speaker, that the Minister has clarified that, as of March this year, there will be a sitting judge who sits as the Chair of this Advisory Committee. But can I ask, for the purpose of clarification, whether the constitution of this committee and the purpose of this committee would change? Would it be transformed into a decision-making body? I do not suppose so, but I have that clarification. Nor should the onerous task of being a check on investigators fall on the President who confirms DOs under section 31 of the CLTPA. In these circumstances, what obligations can we expect to be imposed in due course on the Criminal Law Police Supervisees through subsidiary legislation?

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was deeply concerned at first glance that history is repeating itself, when I first read the amendment Bill. I was reminded of the Court of Appeal's decision in 1988 in Chng Suan Tze vs Public Prosecutor where a case was legislatively overruled. I asked myself why should we wind the clock back 20 years to 1988? Why reverse the Courts when the Minister just yesterday so convincingly reminded us of the need to trust the Court’s wisdom, regardless of whether we agree with the decision?

Again, I am reassured today, that this is not the case. That the purpose of this amendment Bill is not to parliamentarily override the case of Dan Tan and the apex Court's decision. But if this is the case, may I just ask the Minister, Mr Speaker, Sir, as to why we are having the finality clause, or the words "final" to be included now, after all these years, within this statute? If it is not to reverse Dan Tan or other similar cases, why should we do so now? If the decision, as we know from the Court of Appeal case in Dan Tan, has always been for the Minister to decide, is it necessary to ensure that that decision is final in statute? Having the words, "it is final", why now? And why do we have this?

The apex Court's reasoning in Dan Tan at paragraph 74 bears mention, Mr Speaker, and let me just read out the most important sentences. The apex Court, or the Court of Appeal, said, in this case at paragraph 74, "The CLTPA vests a potentially draconian power in the Executive…Public safety, peace and good order can cover a wide spectrum of possible scenarios. … It is true that Parliament has vested this power in the Minister; but … the Court is to closely scrutinise the grounds put forward by the Minister and consider objectively whether, on the face of these grounds, the decision is open to challenge on the basis of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety".

In the face of what the apex Court describes as a "potentially draconian power", I fear, and I would like some reassurance, as to whether the proposed amendments may ultimately have the effect of limiting the scope of judicial check on the Executive.

As an example, on the of-chance if someone were to challenge a DO in Court, would the Court's role be confined to verifying almost as a clerical matter that the paper work is in order, that it includes a bare recitation by and on behalf of the Minister that his decision is such and, therefore, is final, and that he acts with the Public Prosecutor's consent? The apex Court in Dan Tan flatly rejected such a narrow role and held that the Court may and, indeed, should examine whether the power vested in the Minister is being properly invoked.

I ask, how would the public, Mr Speaker, Sir, be assured that the GD without trial or continuous Police supervision in a particular case is not procedurally improper, illegal and/or irrational? Given the Court of Appeal's reasoning, may I make one simple and humble recommendation? In addition to having, as we do now, as I have learnt just today, that there will be a sitting judge who chairs this Advisory Committee, may I suggest humbly that the written statement of the GD or Police supervision that is made under the CLTPA's section 31 and that is shown to the Advisory Committee be also made available to a judicial review Court if the case so arises? I ask for this because I know that, even in the case of Dan Tan, this particular written notice was not made available to the Court of Appeal.

Finally, let me end, Mr Speaker, Sir, with a word. Let me say that we should think of the fact that there will be others who will occupy the august office of the Minister. The Minister, as he reminded us even yesterday, is in a unique and special position, having been for many years a Senior Counsel and then a public servant. Should we be mindful of future Ministers of Law who may not have the same set of skills, who may not have had the benefit of doing criminal defence litigation work or even representing people who have been detained without trial? So, looking forward, if there could be any safeguards which limit this, that would be perfect.

Minister Shanmugam.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to intervene. I thought if I dealt with one or two points in Asst Prof Mohan's speech, it might help the other Members in the House in their speeches so that we do not go off tangent.

I think the crux of the Member's points is that: is judicial review available, and is clause 3 seeking to curtail that?

First, judicial review is available. Second, it is available on the grounds that the Dan Tan case sets out. Let us be clear about it. Third, I think Asst Prof Mohan would be aware, if you ask any half-decent constitutional lawyer, he will tell you that it is available, that such a clause does not oust judicial review. It cannot do so. I am more than happy to confirm it.

So, judicial review, on the grounds they have set, they are not clerks looking at our records, they are judges, and they are entitled to judicially review our decisions, and they have set out on what grounds. And the Government accepts those grounds. Clause 3 does not oust that jurisdiction. Clause 3 simply sets out the current position which they themselves set out in Dan Tan that they will not substitute their views for the Minister's views on the facts. That is all that clause 3 does – crystalise the position as set out in Dan Tan. So, I hope Members will be aware of this as they make their speeches, otherwise, we will be dealing with an issue, of judicial review, which is not the focus of these amendments.

Why is it necessary to set out that it is final? That is the current position; so, we set it out clearly. The Minister's position will not be looked at by the Courts. It is there in the Dan Tan case. It is there in the other cases. So, we set it out. And so, the passages that the Member read out from the Dan Tan case on judicial review continue to apply.

I also should tell Members that, prior to me, the Minister was not a lawyer – and one of his complaints was that none of his three officeholders was a lawyer – Minister for Home Affairs. And yet, if you saw the charts on the number of detentions, a fair number of the trend took place during his tenure.

Mr Pritam Singh. Keep it short.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a point of order, when I made my speech just now, I did not declare that I was a lawyer in practice.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, I declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice. Mr Speaker, this is the 14th time this so-called temporary Act in its various forms has come before Parliament, or its predecessor, for renewal for another five years. At the last renewal in 2013, this Act was extended for five years from 21 October 2014, which means that it is only due to lapse in October 2019.

The most controversial and draconian aspect of this Act is the fact that this law puts people behind bars without the usual due process. Like the ISA, it is a controversial exception to our legal justice system which usually requires every person to be charged, tried and convicted in Court before he can be detained in prison. To take away someone's liberty like this is not something we should ever take lightly to.

Under the existing section 30, the Minister can order detention of a person for any period not exceeding 12 months if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary that the person be detained in the interest of public safety, peace and good order. Under section 30, the Minister can also make an order for a person to be subject to this supervision of the Police for any period not exceeding three years if he is satisfied that it is still necessary. We should also not regard supervision order lightly as such orders impose restrictions on a person's movements and activities, and they impact on his work and liberty.

The time limits for detention and supervision should also be viewed from the perspective that each order can be renewed indefinitely. This must never be taken lightly.

Mr Speaker, in each of the previous occasions when Parliament debated the initial Bill and the subsequent renewals of the Act, many Members had spoken about their concerns about the undesirability of this Act and how soon Singapore can mature into a society where we can do away with this Act.

Many Members have also spoken in agreement with the Minister of the day on variously the rationale for extending the Act to deal with the concerned crimes of criminal groups of the day. I read from Ministers' and MPs' speeches in the Hansard that these range from secret societies, gangsterism, drug trafficking, murders, extortion and protection rackets, to, in more recent years, money laundering, loan shark syndicates, organised crimes and global match-fixing. There was also mention of arguably activities which are traditionally not regarded as criminal, such as prevention of strikes and lockouts as well as communist domination.

Mr Speaker, today, at the 14th renewal of the Act, we are not asked merely to consider the extension of the Act based on identical provisions. The Ministry is proposing some important amendments. My biggest concern with this Bill is with the proposed amendments in section 30. The Bill proposes to make every decision of the Minister on the matter in the current section 35 final. The explanatory note to this Bill details three matters: (a) that a person has been associated with activities of a criminal nature; (b) that it is necessary for a person to be detained in the interest of public safety, peace and order; and (c) that it is necessary that a person be subject to the supervision of the Police.

These are the applying criteria leading to the Minister making a decision to make a detention or supervision order. The proposed amendment is a disconcerting change to the existing provisions of the Act. I take the view that the proposed amendment will take away the existing rights of detainees under the current law to seek judicial review by our Courts in respect of the appropriateness of the Minister's decision to order any detention or supervision, specifically whether the Minister was correct in deciding that the person was appropriately associated with the type of criminal activities coming within the Act, or whether the Minister was correct in his decision that it was necessary for the person to be detained in the interest of public safety, peace and order, or whether the Minister was right in deciding that it was necessary to subject the person to the supervision of the Police. I am concerned that, if passed, the Minister's decision on these aspects of his order can no longer be challenged even if the Minister's decision exceeds the scope of his powers.

In respect of the Minister's clarifications and his comments earlier, may I seek the Minister's clarification whether the amendment that the Government is seeking would bar the Courts from objectively reviewing the matters that the amendment wants to now declare the Minister's decision as final?

Until now, judicial review is available to detainees to challenge the Minister's order if, for example, the Minister had not acted in his scope of powers. An order can be scrutinised by the Courts if it is illegal, irrational or if there is procedural impropriety. This is confirmed again by the Court of Appeal case of Tan Seet Eng vs Attorney-General. As the Court of Appeal held in that case, the Courts' power for review is not to review the truth of the allegations of fact found in the grounds given for the detention, but to scrutinise the grounds given to justify the detention to see whether the Minister acted within the scope of his powers.

Let me attempt to summarise what the Court of Appeal has stated on the scope of the Minister's powers as it is a helpful reminder of the present principles governing the scope of the Minister's powers under the Act.

One, the normal course of dealing with the criminals will be by way of prosecution in Court and recourse to CLTPA will be in limited circumstances where normal legal processes could not be relied upon due to reprisals to witnesses.

Two, the Court listed certain specific types of crimes and stated that the offences must have the following unifying characteristics: threat of violence and reprisal to intimidate witnesses; detainees associated with criminal activities of a serious nature, not just any criminal activity; the offences must pose harm to public order in Singapore. The Court of Appeal stated, by way of example, the activities of gangsters, secret societies and syndicated crime gangs involved in violent crimes all affect peace, safety and public order.

In the Dan Tan case, the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal and quashed his DO under the Act. The Court held that the facts and activities provided in the grounds were not sufficiently serious to fall within the scope of the Act, and also that it was not clear whether the activity stated had a bearing on the public safety, peace and good order within Singapore. The Court of Appeal's decisive judgment confirmed the importance of the Court's role in ensuring that the Minister's order must fall within the scope of his powers under the current law. There is no doubt that the proposed amendment is a response to the Court's decision in Dan Tan's case.

Judicial review is an integral component of the rule of law. Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said in his speech on the rule of law at the annual meeting of the American Law Institute in May 2016 when he commented on the Court's judgment in Dan Tan's case, and I quote, "Judicial review is the sharp edge that keeps the government action within the form and substance of the law". Is this sharp edge going to be taken away from the existing section 30 of CLTPA by our amendments today?

New Zealand high court judge, Justice Matthew Palmer, in his speech touching on the rule of law and judicial review as the Kwa Geok Choo distinguished visitor at the National University of Singapore on 20 January 2016 said, "I consider that the availability of the law of judicial review to test the legality of exercises of public power is a direct manifestation of the rule of law. If a public body purports to exercise public power in a specific instance, those concerned with the exercise must be able to ask an independent body – the Courts – whether the exercise of public power accorded with law. If it did, no harm is done by testing the question and, indeed, public confidence in law and government is enhanced. If an exercise of public power were not made according to law, then the rule of law requires that be addressed, as it is when any other decision-maker acts inconsistently with law. To leave the decision to the Executive branch, untested, is to leave the effective determination of the law – a judicial function – to the Executive." I agree with what Justice Palmer had said.

Is the change in section 30 really necessary? Is it right or fair to dispose of such safeguards now? After 13 renewals, is this not a step backward? I will leave this point on this note.

I next have a clarification for the Minister. I note that the Minister has told us earlier about the latest development that judges would be chairing the Advisory Committee. But I seem to recall that what the Minister has said may be different from his suggestion in Parliament in 1989. Under the present system, the advisory committee, with the judges as the chair, will still have to report to the Cabinet, which will advise the President. That is what I understand the present system is. And, for ease of understanding, may I just quote the Minister's remarks in his speech in 1989, at the Second Reading of the renewal Bill then.

"The ISA can be justified under our circumstances. But the CLTPA, there may be more questions, and it has to be accepted that we cannot ever eliminate crime. We can only control it within acceptable tolerable limits.

So, the Minister has to focus on that and tell the House whether, at the present stage, the situation is such that secret societies, gangsters, the original justification, continues to exist at the same level of seriousness which justifies powers of administrative detention. If it does so, then I will still ask that the Minister consider one structural change to the existing provision. This is to ensure that CLTPA is not abused.

At present, the CLTPA is such that the Minister decides on the detention; the Advisory Committee advises the President and the President has ultimate powers. I would suggest that the Minister still decide on the detention but perhaps, powers of review be given to the Courts. The reason I say that is, if the Minister takes a reasonable view on the facts that a certain person poses a danger, then presumably, the Act can be worded such that the Courts can look at the facts, the reasons for the Minister's decision and then come down on the side of the Minister.

If Courts disagree and the judges disagree, then again, the Minister's decision will be overturned. So, remove it from the President to the Executive and give the power to the Courts. This is not to suggest that it has been abused but only to prevent CLTPA from being a convenient route where the Police do not have sufficient evidence against common criminals to prosecute them in Court and, therefore, use CLTPA. The Minister is a busy man. He has to rely on the reports that are put up to him by his Police Force. And the Police do not have the monopoly of virtue and morality more than any of us. So, that is an important point and that particular provision worries me."

So, I would like to seek the Minister's clarification whether what the Minister has in mind, as he introduced a short while ago, is similar to what he had said in his speech in 1989. But it seems to me to be slightly different. And, if it is different, perhaps I would like the Minister to share with the House why does he not propose to the House that we go the whole hog to what he suggested in 1989.

I next move on to the suggestion for the reduction of reporting period to the Advisory Committee.

Mr Speaker, currently, section 31 requires the Minister to refer every order to an Advisory Committee within 28 days of making the order. I would like to ask the Minister to review the timeline of 28 days. Why do we need 28 days? It seems like a long time for such a referral. I am sure that when an order is made by the Minister, the Public Prosecutor and the Police would have and should have already carried out proper investigation and inquiries to reach the conclusion that an order is necessary. So, the paperwork should not need much more time after the order has been given. I would like to propose that in the interest of justice, this period should be reduced to 14 days. This will also be in line with the extended period of detention accorded for a Police investigation under section 44(3) of the Act.

Finally, I read in The Straits Times' report of 10 January 2018 that the obligations and restrictions under PSOs will be shifted to subsidiary legislation and that this move will give the Minister greater flexibility in imposing the necessary conditions and curbs. I would like to ask the Minister what will be the changes in the conditions and curbs and the so-called flexibility that the Minister is seeking.

Mr Speaker, in closing, I do not agree with the proposed amendments in section 30 of the current Act. And for that, I am unable to support this Bill.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Speaker, I declare my interest as a disputes lawyer occasionally dealing with criminal cases, including matters involving CLTPA.

The CLTPA was enacted in 1955 for an initial period of five years to make temporary provisions for the maintenance of public order. As highlighted in the title of the Act itself, the provisions of the Act were meant to be temporary to address threats to public safety and order in Singapore as necessary. In 1955, this was to address threats posed by secret societies and gangsters. Since then, the nature of the threats has expanded and evolved to include criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, murder, gang rape, robbery with firearms, syndicated crime organisations, unlicensed moneylending and human trafficking. These are all serious criminal activities that have been mentioned during the Second Reading of earlier amendment Bills to extend the Act. Because of this, Parliament has deemed it necessary to extend the Act for a further successive period of five years each time, which is now due to expire on 20 October 2019.

Whilst the extension of the Act continues to allow for preventive detention without trial, that concept itself nags my conscience, to use the words of Parliamentarians in the House before. In light of the hard facts that the threat of such serious crimes continues to exist to seriously threaten our public order and safety in Singapore, I feel compelled to support this Bill.

In arriving at this conclusion, I am aware that the statistics show that DOs are on the downtrend principally because the CLTPA is used as a matter of last resort.

My assessment though is that the current situation is reversible. The hon Minister's narration of how, just in 2017, two gangs were crippled using the CLTPA, is evidence of this. The elements that promote secret societies and gang-related crimes are far from being "licked". They have been around for decades. Their roots are deeply embedded within our society. We also need to be mindful about the crime and drug environment just outside our borders, too. In my assessment, there is a danger that secret society activities and gang-related crimes in Singapore may proliferate in Singapore if we were to allow these exceptional measures to deal with such problems to expire at this point in time. For this reason, I support the extension of the Bill for another five years.

Notwithstanding my position, I have a few queries for the Minister. This Bill seeks to amend the Act to extend the operation of the Act for a further five years beginning on 21 October 2019. Given that this Act is only due to expire on 20 October 2019, it appears rather early to seek an extension of the Act approximately 20 months before it is due to expire. This amounts to about one-third of the five-year extension period.

Mr Speaker, with your leave, may I be allowed to distribute a handout to hon Members of the House?

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, hon Members of the House would note from the table the length of time between the First Reading of the amendment Bill and the expiry date of the Act for the period 1969 to 2013. It is apparent from the table that this is the earliest time before the expiry of the Act that an extension has been sought.

The sunset clause in the Act is a safeguard to ensure periodic scrutiny by Parliament. This allows Parliament to be apprised of the prevailing landscape, in particular, to consider the prevalence of serious crimes and weigh it against the need for public safety and order, so as to decide if the original justification and basis for the Act continue. Seeking an extension too early before expiry of the Act thus reduces the effect of the safeguard, as Parliament would not have the benefit of being apprised of the most current crime, security and drug situation in Singapore close to the expiry of the Act, to decide whether or not to extend it.

I recognise that the present Bill also seeks to make amendments to other provisions of the Act. However, these other amendments may be dealt with separately within the five-year period the Act is in force, so that such amendments would not take away from the issue of whether there is a basis for Parliament to extend the operation of the Act. This was done before on several occasions in this House. For example, in 1981, before extension was sought in 1984, the Act was amended to enable detainees to be temporarily released from custody so that they could engage in outside employment to facilitate their rehabilitation.

I would be grateful if the hon Minister could please explain why the Government has decided to seek an extension of the Act at this point in time, which is quite some time far away from the expiry of the Act. Recognising that Parliament would need to be apprised of the latest security landscape in order to consider the case for extension of the Act, what is the Government's policy framework that determines when Parliamentary approval to extend the Act would be sought?

I seek further clarifications on the proposed amendments to section 30 of the Act and hon Members have spoken about this, in particular, the decision to make the Minister's decision final. On the issue of whether or not a person has been associated with activities of a criminal nature, I understand from the Minister's clarification that the proposed amendment was meant to, if I could use the word, "codify" the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in Tan Seet Eng, in that the Court recognised that the Minister is competent to determine whether a person's detention would be in the interests of public safety, peace and good order. Is it also meant to "codify" the judicial review approach taken by the Court of Appeal, meaning to employ what is known as the traditional test of illegality, irrational or procedural impropriety on an objective plane? If so, would it not run the danger of the Court not being able to update its approach to judicial review of Executive action in the future as our society develops?

Another proposed amendment to section 30 is to define "activities of a criminal nature" to a list of activities specified in the Fourth Schedule. This is a departure from the previously taken position opting not to specify a list of offences or criminal activities for which the Act would be deployed. I understand from the hon Minister that this is to promote clarity on what kind of activities are contemplated.

In specifying a list of "activities of a criminal nature", I am concerned that this would unduly tie down the Minister's hands. As the then Second Minister for Home Affairs Mr S Iswaran said in this House in 2013, "criminal groups reorganise and rework themselves constantly" and "new forms of serious criminal activities evolve in a borderless world, assisted by advances in technology". Recognising this, specifying a list of the type of criminal activities may instead inhibit our ability to keep pace with creative criminals and possibly dampen the deterrent effect of the Act.

For example, it is very possible that illegal betting activities may entail activities of a sufficiently serious criminal nature to fall within the Act. As has been said in this House on a number of occasions, and which has been distilled by the Court of Appeal in the Tan Seet Eng's case, the main unifying features for offences for which this Act was meant to apply are: first, they feature situations where witnesses fear to testify because of reprisal against them; second, they are of a sufficiently serious nature; and third, they pose a threat to the public order in Singapore. In this context, the amendment to restrict the type or categories of criminal activity may cause us to be less nimble in tackling the evolving types of criminal activities. I would be grateful for the Minister's clarification on this point.

One last point. I am heartened to note the Minister's confirmation that even in respect of the specified types of criminal activities listed in the proposed Fourth Schedule, the activities must still be one of sufficiently serious nature and involve issues concerning public safety, peace and good order of Singapore to fall within the ambit of section 30 to warrant detention. This is important to ensure that the powers are used sparingly and only in exceptional cases.

Minister Shanmugam.

Again, just to be clear, section 30, clause 3, is not intended to deal with judicial review. It is to deal with the Minister's position being final, which is the position today – final in the sense that you cannot appeal on the facts for a different view of the facts to another body. That is what it is meant. And if you look at the cases, that is the legal position. It is not intended to touch on judicial review, on the classic principles that had been set out. As to why we have set out in the Schedule, it is precisely for the reason that the Member has said, to put some constraint and put it out clearly which legislation. It may act as a constraint but it is also clear and it is better.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer working in a firm that practises criminal law. Sir, as my Workers' Party colleagues have said before me, we are unable to support the Bill this time.

Sir, at each renewal of the Act, Members of Parliament are asked to consider whether the prevailing circumstances are such that we still need this law.

On the one hand, we know that Singaporeans want Singapore to be a safe place to live in for ourselves and our families. At the same time, we are very mindful of the tradeoffs of giving the Government too much power to detain people without a fair trial as power can always be abused. This is all the more so when we are dealing with powers that deprive people of their liberty for years.

During the past renewals of this Act, the Workers' Party has accepted the uncomfortable compromise that this law entails on the Constitutional right to freedom. We did not delight in taking this position but did so with a heavy heart. This time, however, our view is that the Government has gone too far. How so?

My colleagues Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tan have already set out grave concerns about the Bill's apparent curtailment of judicial oversight. For my part, I will focus on three points: first, the timing of this renewal; secondly, the dangers of adding the Fourth Schedule to the Act; and thirdly, add my voice to the disapproval of clause 3 making the Minister's decision to detain final.

First, the timing of this renewal. I agree totally with the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai and am surprised that Parliament is being asked to extend the Act now, in February 2018, when the current Act only expires in October 2019, 20 months from now, towards the end of next year.

Past debates for renewals of this Act did not have such a long timeline. The hon Member Mr Murali Pillai produced a table. For my part, I did the counting from the Second Reading of the Bill, not the First Reading, which is in Mr Murali Pillai's chart. And from my counting, the last debate for renewal was in November 2013, less than a year before its expiry date in October 2014. The previous two renewals, in 2009 and 2004, were debated even closer to the expiry date – between one month and eight months of the Act's expiry.

Why is the timing of the renewal important? It is important because, at each renewal, Members are asked to consider the prevailing crime and order situation then, and to decide whether an extension of the Act is justified for another five years. The Government itself has refrained from making the Act permanent, which means that, at each renewal, Members must satisfy themselves that the Act is needed for the next five years.

Today, Parliament is asked to assess that the circumstances justify the renewal of the Act, from October 2019 to October 2024. Notwithstanding that the Minister earlier shared with the House on the crime situation both here and regionally, how do we know what the situation will be like towards the end of next year? Things can always change. How will Parliament make a reasonable assessment of prevailing circumstances so far ahead of time? Does this not make a mockery of the careful consideration Parliament is to exercise when assessing whether prevailing circumstances justify a renewal of this draconian law? In my view, it is premature of MHA to come to Parliament now to ask for a renewal of the Act.

Next, I move on to the inclusion of the new Fourth Schedule. Clause 8 introduces a new Fourth Schedule to include a list of offences which the Minister can detain a person for. In MHA's press release of 9 January, it is stated that the purpose of the new Fourth Schedule is to “restrict the powers of the Minister by clarifying the scope of criminal activities under the Act”. But as I read the Bill, this is not true. The Bill, in fact, increases the Minister’s powers.

Why do I say that the Bill increases the Minister’s powers? Yes, the current Act does not list which kinds of criminal activities would make a person liable to be detained. But that does not mean that the Minister currently has carte blanche to detain anyone he pleases. In the landmark decision of the Court of Appeal of Tan Seet Eng vs Attorney General [2016] 1 SLR 779 referred to earlier, the apex Court made it very clear that the Minister’s powers under the current Act are quite limited. In Dan Tan's case, the Court of Appeal did a thorough examination of the origins and purposes of the Act and also scrutinised Parliamentary debates on past renewals of the Act. The Court then came to some important conclusions.

First, the judges concluded that the CLTPA did not cover all offences but only criminal activities where trials in Court could not proceed due to threats of harm against witnesses or their families. Secondly, the detainee must have been involved in a criminal activity of a sufficiently serious nature to justify detention without trial. Thirdly, the criminal activity must pose harm to the public order within Singapore.

In Dan Tan’s case, the Court found that the GD alleged that he was the mastermind of a global soccer match-fixing syndicate, but the effect of his plans was felt in other countries and did not affect the public safety, peace and good order within Singapore. Earlier, in the Minister's speech and interventions, he appeared to be somewhat watering down the effect of the Dan Tan judgment.

But if I may be permitted to make my own assessment of the significance of the judgment, the Courts made it very clear that it had a duty to objectively assess whether the Minister's Statement of Facts is coherent and within the legal scope of the Act giving him those powers. The Court stated very clearly that its role was not limited to applying a subjective test as to whether the Minister believes that he is making the correct DO, but it was much more than that. The Court had to look at the legal framework provided by the Act, what the Act is set out to achieve, the mischief it seeks to cure and whether the case made out by the Government on its face furthers that purpose. And because the Court was not satisfied that the first DO against Dan Tan furthered the purpose of CLTPA, the Court found that the Act could not apply to such a case and declared the first detention illegal, ordering him to be released.

Sir, bearing in mind what the Court has said, will this Bill now restrict the Minister’s powers, as MHA says, or, in fact, expand them?

Let us examine the effect of the inclusion of the new Fourth Schedule. The Schedule will likely short-circuit the assessment process of cases suitable for detention. In other words, the inclusion of the Schedule may enable the Minister to bypass answering questions as to whether a case is “serious enough” to justify detention, or why it is not possible to prosecute these persons in Court. Concerns have already been raised publicly by several lawyers and academics that the Bill potentially allows persons to be detained for alleged activities of a more minor nature, now that there is a list of defined activities in the Fourth Schedule.

Another striking feature of the activities listed in the new Schedule is item 9, participation in, or facilitating, any organised crime activity as defined in the OCA 2015. What will this mean if the Bill is passed? This will mean that the scope of the CLTPA will be expanded to cover activities that are done overseas or that may not pose a threat to the public order within Singapore.

Earlier in the Minister's Second Reading speech, I noted that he was very careful to say the Schedule consisted of crimes or activities that have been previously mentioned in the House and it also brings in the OCA, which I take to mean he recognises that the inclusion of the OCA is something new, not discussed or contemplated by the previous discussions on the CLTPA.

Sir, under section 48 of our OCA, actions done abroad are considered to be “organised crime activities”, so long as they are done by an organised group with local links. These activities could take place completely in countries far away.

In addition, by referring to OCA in the CLPTA Schedule, the Government is importing into the CLTPA the concept of “serious crime” under OCA. But the OCA considers to be “serious crime” a wide variety of offences, including many crimes that are fundamentally economic or financial in nature. The list of such crimes includes Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud, dealing in goods for which customs duty is not paid, illegal betting, computer misuse and infringements of copyright and trademarks. Do such types of cases typically come up for DOs under CLTPA? I do not think so.

Sir, the OCA already has its own ways of dealing with organised crime, which MHA recommended and Parliament only recently adopted in 2015. By now linking the OCA to CLTPA, enabling criminal law detention for OCA cases, is the new Schedule not expanding the Minister’s powers under CLTPA?

The Court of Appeal in Dan Tan’s case has pronounced that the CLTPA is only meant to protect the public safety, peace and good order within Singapore. Contrary to what MHA has said, the inclusion of the Fourth Schedule under clause 8 clearly expands the Minister’s powers to police criminal activities overseas and expands the kinds of activities that are subject to the Act. In effect, the Bill makes the Minister a global policeman, with no equal in the world. This is a position too arrogant for this House to support.

Sir, next, I move on to clause 3, which purports to make the Minister's GD "final". Sir, the attempt to make the Minister all-powerful under clause 8 is even more toxic when one looks at clause 3, which states that "every decision" of the Minister to exercise detention powers under section 30(1) "is final". Other Members have raised their concerns about the clause. I will only add a few points to the chorus of concern.

Sir, the Courts' powers in judicial review are already very limited. As my Workers' Party colleagues and other Members have said, the principles of judicial review are well-established. When a Court is asked to review a Government decision, it will overturn the Government's decision only if it finds that the decision was illegal, irrational or procedurally improper. Our judges are well aware that they are not Ministers and should not be the ones exercising executive discretion. Earlier in his speech, I believe the Minister clearly understands these principles.

So, what is the justification for the Government to introduce clause 3? The Minister keeps saying and saying that it is not intended to change the legal position, it is meant to preserve judicial review. But it is a tenet of interpretation that Parliament does not legislate in vain.

Earlier, if I heard Mr Christopher de Souza correctly, he attempted to suggest that clause 3 was merely meant to clarify the current position. But if one looks at the Explanatory Statement to the Bill, it does not say as such. The Explanatory Statement to the Bill says that this Bill seeks to amend the CLTPA for the following purposes and the first purpose is to provide that the Minister’s decision would be final on these points.

This is very troubling. If what the Minister is saying is correct, that is, clause 3 is not meant to change anything, then why introduce it at all? Why not leave it as the status quo, instead of causing confusion and possible problems down the road about what this clause is meant to cover?

Sir, it is quite clear that the Government is not infallible and does make mistakes. Dan Tan's detention illustrates this. Instead of welcoming the Court's clarification, the Government comes to Parliament with this finality clause. As MPs, it is important for us to pause and ask: what is the public interest here? Why is clause 3 necessary? Does the public interest not demand that we defend rigorously the Courts' Constitutional duty to ensure that the Government acts lawfully?

Sir, the CLTPA has been in force since 1955. And for more than 60 years, no Minister has come forward to ask for a finality clause on his DOs. We find this very troubling.

Sir, let me summarise. As I mentioned earlier, I have my reservations about the timing of this Bill, as I believe that to renew the Act now to take effect in October next year is premature.

More importantly, the Workers' Party does not see any justification to introduce a finality clause as proposed in clause 3. In addition, I find the insertion of the Fourth Schedule under clause 8 to be dangerous, as it clearly expands the Minister’s powers rather than restricts them as claimed by MHA.

The Bill will expand the scope of the CLTPA beyond its original intention of safeguarding peace and good order in Singapore. These clauses will repose in the Minister of Home Affairs too much discretion and power, not only at home, but well beyond our shores. We find this proposal untenable. For these reasons, the Workers' Party opposes the Bill.

Mr Kok Heng Leun.

Mr Speaker, unlike speakers before me, they are all lawyers. I am addressing this Bill from a layman's view, as someone who does feel uncomfortable with detention without trial.

In the 2017 and 2018 Rule of Law Index compiled by the World Justice Project, Singapore was ranked 13th globally for the Rule of Law, which I think is a good ranking on the state of our judicial system and how much we have upheld the principle of Rule of Law.

Today, we are here debating on this very difficult and important Bill, the extension of the operation of the CLTPA.

Mr Speaker, I recognise the tensions between wanting to balance protection of the rights of an accused and to ensure that our society is protected against serious crimes and to keep crime rates low. This provision, however, departs from two fundamental principles of the Rule of Law – the right to a fair trial and that individuals should be governed largely by the law and not by discretion.

It is true that the crimes which the CLTPA seeks to prevent are no doubt serious and involves complex considerations. But are there other options and measures that might be less intrusive than detention without trial, yet equally effective to address the problem which the CLTPA seeks to achieve? Has the Government, before taking the decision to extend the operation of the CLTPA, considered these options? Can the Government share with the House what these options are and an evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses?

Mr Speaker, my point is that if there are security measures that impose less deprivation of the accused's rights and at the same time are as effective as detention without trial in addressing the security issue, then such options that intrude less on the rights of an accused should always be preferred.

While the threats which the CLTPA address involve a severe nature, it does not lead to an automatic conclusion that the only way to deal with these serious threats is by detaining individuals without trial. It is a policy choice that we make and one that requires robust justification backed by concrete evidence.

Mr Speaker, as this House debates the extension of the operation of the CLTPA for the 14th time, I hope that as we continue to justify its existence and relevance to today’s context, we do not forget about having a meaningful debate on the reduction of our reliance on the CLTPA. I note from the Minister's statement that the number of people detained under CLTPA has gone low. However, as its name suggests, this Bill was meant to be temporary.

One of the justifications for the retention of this Bill is that there are difficulties with prosecuting those detained, as involved witnesses fear reprisals should they testify in Court. This is a legitimate concern that must be addressed. But it points to a larger discussion as to whether there is sufficient protection of witnesses in general under our laws rather than the continuing existence of the CLTPA. There have been proposed amendments to the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code to enhance protection of witnesses recently. The Cybersecurity Bill, which was passed yesterday in this same House, contains a provision to protect informants.

We should re-evaluate the necessity of the CLTPA in light of these new measures to protect witnesses and consider tweaking witness protection methods to better protect witnesses to offences which the CLTPA are applicable, rather than to continue relying on detaining individuals without trial as part of the overall security strategy.