Hansard, Wednesday, 3 November 2021

Order. I wish to inform hon Members that pursuant to Standing Order No 100(7)(a)(ii), I have on 2 November 2021 nominated Mr Edwin Tong and Ms Rahayu Mahzam to the Committee of Privileges, to take the place of Mr K Shanmugam and Ms Indranee Rajah, on the matter of a complaint made against the Member of Sengkang GRC, Ms Raeesah Khan.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai and Ms Rahayu Mahzam will serve as Members of the Committee until the Committee has reported upon the matter referred to it.

Order. Questions for Oral Answer.

1 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Prime Minister in light of the disclosures in the Pandora Papers (a) whether MAS will be looking into the Singapore-based financial institutions and Singaporeans/foreigners who are implicated in the report; (b) whether any individual or financial institution will be asked to issue a clarification as to their activities disclosed in the report; and (c) how does MAS ensure that offshore wealth management services in Singapore remain lawful and legitimate by international standards.

2 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Prime Minister (a) whether Singapore is implicated in the Pandora Papers; and (b) whether the Government is investigating whether Singapore entities or individuals residing in Singapore are involved in the alleged practices.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer all the Parliamentary Questions (PQs) related to the recent disclosure by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) of confidential information, dubbed the “Pandora Papers” together? This includes Question Nos 1 and 2 from Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Mr Patrick Tay filed for today’s Sitting, the Written PQ from Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling filed for today’s Sitting, and the Oral PQ from Mr Murali Pillai filed for yesterday’s Sitting.

Please do.

Sir, as a global financial centre, Singapore intermediates a large volume of fund flows for investment or commercial purposes and also provides services in financial asset management. While the vast majority of these activities are carried out by law-abiding individuals and companies, we are constantly on guard against the risk of illicit financing activities.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) continually monitors and analyses information from a wide range of sources as part of its surveillance of money laundering and terrorism financing risks. This includes suspicious transactions reports filed by our financial institutions (FIs), information from intelligence sources, including those abroad and publicly available information, such as from independent investigations and media reports. MAS, therefore, takes seriously the recent disclosures in the Pandora Papers.

The ICIJ has reported that 336 prominent individuals from around the world had established offshore structures to hold assets, assisted by 14 service providers operating in at least 38 jurisdictions. Two of the 14 service providers are foreign-incorporated trust companies with subsidiaries in Singapore that are licensed and regulated by MAS. Some ICIJ media reports also mentioned that many of these individuals had foreign bank accounts linked to these structures, in various financial centres including Singapore.

Based on MAS’ assessment and information available thus far, the Pandora Papers have not raised significant concerns over the money laundering and counter terrorism financing (AML/CFT) controls of our FIs. Nevertheless, MAS is engaging the relevant FIs to assess if tightening of controls is warranted.

As ICIJ itself is careful to acknowledge, there are legitimate reasons to set up offshore structures, such as for investment and estate management. However, offshore structures often lack transparency and are thus vulnerable to abuse for illicit activities. Hence, MAS has clear requirements for FIs in Singapore to identify and verify the identities of persons who are beneficial owners or effective controllers of their customer accounts. FIs must understand the reasons for the use of such structures, take measures to ascertain that the assets held in these structures are not illicit and scrutinise any unusual transactions as part of their ongoing monitoring of the account.

MAS also supervises the FIs to ensure that their boards and management have implemented robust controls against money laundering and terrorism financing. Where there are breaches of AML/CFT requirements, MAS has taken strong enforcement action.

In fact, both the licensed trust companies in Singapore mentioned in the Pandora Papers have already been subject to MAS’ supervisory or enforcement actions. One of them, Asiaciti Trust (Singapore) Pte Ltd, paid a composition penalty of $1.1 million imposed by MAS in July last year for its failure to implement adequate AML/CFT policies and procedures. The other trust company, Trident Trust Company (Singapore) Pte Ltd, was directed by MAS in September last year to remediate weaknesses detected in its risk assessment controls during MAS’ supervisory surveillance. Both companies were under intensified scrutiny by MAS before they were mentioned in the Pandora Papers.

Let me assure this House that Singapore takes the integrity of our financial sector very seriously. As a major international financial centre, Singapore will always face the risk of illicit financial flows. What is important is that we supervise our FIs well, and take strong enforcement actions where necessary to reduce this risk as much as possible. MAS has been doing this and will continue to do so.

3 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Transport in light of the new COVID-19 protocols where patients waiting for their polymerase chain reaction test results should return home via private transport, what are the measures taken to protect our point-to-point drivers when they are ferrying such passengers.

4 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there are adequate taxis and private transport to ferry passengers to and return from Swab and Send Home (SASH) clinics; (b) whether the drivers are sufficiently protected; and (c) whether the vehicles are kept sanitised and safe.

Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 3 and 4 together?

Yes, please.

Thank you. Persons who feel unwell and are travelling to and from their polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test venue are required to commute via private transport, which includes taxis or private hire cars (PHCs). As these persons are taking regular taxis or PHCs, there is an adequate supply to meet their needs.

These passengers should inform their taxi and PHC drivers about their health status so that the drivers may take appropriate precautions. Drivers have been advised to switch off the air-con when ferrying these passengers, wind down their windows during and after each trip, and clean their vehicles after the trips. Passengers should also sit at the back, diagonally from the drivers.

MOH has assessed that these measures are sufficient to minimise the risk of in-vehicle transmission of the virus and there is no need for extra precautionary measures, such as having drivers put on full personal protective equipment. Furthermore, about 98% of our taxi and PHC drivers are fully vaccinated.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive and very empathetic answer. Our P2P drivers have been very supportive of our journey to the endemic phase and appreciate the Government's continued support of this industry during this period. Given that our P2P drivers will be ferrying more patients and passengers who are exposed to the virus, would the Government be putting in measures to have the taxis and platform companies put in clearer safety SOPs or protocols for drivers and their vehicles? And should our P2P drivers have to self-isolate, will there be additional support for them, given that they would have difficulties with the daily rentals of their vehicles during this isolation period?

I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. We note the concerns of the drivers. We have received the feedback from the drivers, the associations and NTUC about ferrying unwell or Ag+ passengers.

We have worked with MOH who will remind the passengers to declare their health status to the drivers so that the drivers can take the necessary precautions to further minimise the risks of in-vehicle transmission of the virus. MOH has put this information up on their website in their FAQs on Health Protocols. So, this is already up. LTA will be putting it up on our website. LTA is also working with the operators and the associations to publicise this message to the drivers as well as the passengers.

So, for instance, sending emails to the database of passengers to remind them to declare their health status so that the drivers can take action and also to remind the drivers of the additional precautions that they can take. We are also working with the operators to see if we can craft a message that can be printed out and the drivers can opt to display it in their vehicles to remind the passengers. This is what we are doing to give assurance to the drivers.

With regard to support for the drivers, the operators have various measures to provide support to the drivers who either are tested positive for COVID-19 and cannot drive or they are required to self-isolate and, therefore, cannot drive. All the taxi operators provide rental waivers for the drivers who cannot drive due to COVID-19 or if they have to self-isolate. The two biggest PHC operators – Grab and Gojek – provide prolonged medical leave insurance coverage for the drivers. This involves financial payouts if the drivers are not able to drive for these reasons.

In addition to that, drivers who contract COVID-19 as a result of providing services in a heightened COVID-19 risk situation – for instance, ferrying Ag+ passengers for their PCR tests – they can apply for a one-time relief of $3,000 through The Courage Fund for frontliners that is administered by the National Council of Social Service.

5 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is Singapore’s inflation outlook in the near and medium terms; (b) what are the causes of the rising inflationary pressures; (c) what is the assessment of the likely impact of these inflationary pressures on low and middle income households; and (d) whether there will be mitigating measures to reduce the impact of rising costs arising from these inflationary pressures on households and businesses.

6 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the risk of a sharp accumulation of external and domestic cost pressures affecting prices of goods and services in Singapore; and (b) other than tighter monetary policy, what steps can be taken to mitigate some of the effects of rising costs over the next 12 months.

Speaker, Sir, with your permission, can I take Question Nos 5 and 6 together, please?

Yes, please.

CPI-All Items inflation picked up to 2.5% on a year-on-year basis in Q32021, from 2.3% in Q2. The rise in domestic inflation came largely on the back of higher external inflation due to increases in global energy and food commodity prices, and persistent supply bottlenecks in key global industries and transport hubs.

On the energy front, crude oil prices have risen to above US$80 per barrel since early October on account of the decision by OPEC+ to keep supply increases modest, even as oil demand continues to pick up due to the global economic recovery and the rally in global natural gas prices. Higher oil and gas prices will translate to higher electricity prices domestically. And about 95% of our electricity is currently generated using natural gas. That is on the energy front.

On the food front, global prices for food commodities such as cereals and vegetable oil have risen due to supply constraints arising from weather-related disruptions, manpower and labour shortages and export restrictions in key food-producing countries, amidst rising global demand. Higher global food prices will in turn, naturally, exert upward pressure on domestic food prices.

Meanwhile, supply bottlenecks for goods such as semiconductors, and congestion at ports around the world, have contributed to a rise in the prices of imported consumer goods in Singapore.

Domestically, we expect labour costs to rise as the labour market continues to recover and border restrictions limit non-resident worker inflow. We also expect to see inflation in accommodation to persist due to strong rental demand for housing amidst construction delays caused by labour shortages in the construction sector. Against this backdrop, CPI-All Items inflation is projected to come in at around 2% this year and average 1.5% to 2.5% in 2022.

But despite this rise in inflation, Singapore’s economic recovery for the year remains on track. Barring a major setback in the global economy, GDP growth is expected to come in between 6% and 7% for the full year, mainly supported by outward-oriented sectors, such as the manufacturing, finance and insurance, and information and communications sectors.

The Government recognises that higher inflation is a cause of concern for Singaporeans, particularly those in lower-income households. To manage the cost of living pressures faced by Singaporeans, the Government adopts a multi-pronged approach.

First, in view of the external and domestic cost pressures, MAS recently announced a shift towards an appreciating path for the trade-weighted Singapore dollar – the Singapore dollar nominal effective exchange rate. A strong Singapore dollar will help to mitigate imported inflation and temper domestic cost, to ensure price stability over the medium term. That is one.

Second, the Government strives to maintain and manage domestic supply-side constraints, and these include the supply of industrial and commercial spaces to help moderate business cost increases, and reduce the knock-on impact on consumer prices. During the pandemic, the Government has also disbursed rental relief to help businesses cope with their rental costs. In addition, policy measures, such as the Wage Credit Scheme, Jobs Support Scheme and Jobs Growth Incentive Scheme, provide some support for businesses in terms of their manpower and labour costs.

Third, to mitigate the impact of rising global food prices, the Government has diversified our food import sources to help ensure that the prices of our food supplies remain competitive.

Fourth, we will continue to pay particular attention to Singaporeans from lower-income households who need support for their basic living expenses. The Government will continue to provide assistance through ComCare and the permanent GST Voucher scheme. From time to time, the Government also introduces one-off support measures, such as the Budget 2020 Grocery Vouchers Scheme. In addition, Singaporeans from lower- to middle-income households who have experienced involuntary job or income loss due to the economic impact of COVID-19 can apply for financial assistance provided through schemes, such as the COVID-19 Recovery Grant and the Courage Fund.

The Government will continue to monitor inflation and cost of living pressures closely and adjust our policies where necessary.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for his detailed answers. I have just one supplementary question and somewhat related to Question No 5 as well. Beyond the mitigation measures that the Minister of State mentioned just now – we are thankful for the support for expenses and other mitigation measures – can he give an update on other pre-emptive efforts?

For example, the Retail Price Watch Group (RPWG). An update on that would be quite useful. Slightly more than a decade ago, we created that to keep a watch on retail prices and address concerns on any alleged profiteering and excessive pricing of daily necessities and food items. And the role of cooperation with retailers going forward, as a price stabiliser, I think that element of pre-emptive efforts might be useful at this point in time as we proceed into 2022. If we can have further updates from the Minister of State, please.

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. The Government maintains a very strong vigilant stance on price increases and price fluctuations. The Retail Price Watch Group that the Member mentioned has stood down but we have other measures and ways of monitoring the price of goods. For daily necessities, consumers can make use of CASE's Price Kaki app to compare prices of groceries and hawker food to help them to make more informed purchasing decisions.

To also help Singaporeans cope with higher prices for their daily necessities, the Government continues to work with cooperatives, such as NTUC FairPrice and community support programmes, such as the price freezes on essential items under house brands over the period of March 2019 to December 2020.

But as I have mentioned earlier on, I wanted to just reinforce that it is a whole multi-prong approach, a broad and expansive approach that the Government is taking to tackle inflation.

We have mentioned earlier on MAS' monetary policy adjustments, the Government managing supply-site constraints, which is not unique to Singapore but globally. Third, is diversifying food import sources and energy sources over the long term, as we have debated in the House for the last two days. And of course, our particular focus and assistance to lower-income households, including, for example, U-Save vouchers for households living in for 4-room or smaller HDB flats to help them with utility bills.

So, our approach has been multi-pronged. Our approach has been wide and expansive and broad to help our people to cope with inflation.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Sir, the Minister of State mentioned about monetary policy as one of the very important tools to fight imported inflation. So, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether there is further scope for our strong Singapore dollar to mitigate imported inflation, given that it does impact our export competitiveness; whether, from our trade consideration standpoint, is there further room for that to be used to mitigate imported inflation?

Secondly, besides imported inflation, we are also faced with domestic cost pressures. The Minister of State also mentioned about the push for higher wages, the additional measures from the COVID-19-related safe management procedures that the businesses got to follow, the energy prices and others. My concern is whether all these upward pressures on cost will lead to businesses pricing in this anticipated increase in cost and, therefore, will create a spiral in inflation. So, I would like to ask the Minister of State how the Government is going to manage this, whether there will be interventions and also for items that are outside the CPI basket, how are we going to mitigate those cost increases as well.

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. As we all know, inflation is a clear and present issue confronting and vexing economists this week, as well as central bankers and policy-makers. If you look at it, US consumer price inflation is at 5.4%, the highest in 13 years. South Korea just announced that inflation hit a 10-year high in October.

As I earlier updated, MAS had already made a decisive move on 14 October by raising the slope of the Singapore dollar nominal effective exchange rate. It had also said that it would continue to track the growth and inflation trajectories over the next few quarters.

This is one tool in the toolbox; there are many others. And maybe I will just share with the Member how we are dealing with inflationary issues. If you look at the thing as a whole, this issue has been more acute because of two major challenges. The first is that the supply-side constraints and the second is an economic rebound.

The supply-side constraints have been in place, pre-COVID-19, but accentuated during COVID-19. The economic pick-up will lead to pent-up demand, economic rebounding, and so, you have huge demand but then, continued supply constraints. If you look at what is happening right now, despite all of these input prices, our exports have in fact seen a very strong recovery this year. Our non-oil domestic exports (NODX) increased 9.1% year-on-year in Q3 2021, following the 10.1% expansion in Q2 2021. This NODX growth in Q3 2021 was driven mainly by exports of non-electronic products such as specalised machinery, petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals.

When our export performance is strong, it means also that our exports remain competitive in international markets. And we must keep these markets open so that our goods can flow out. It also manages a hedge against other price increases, inbound. How do we do so? The Member knows that we have undertaken a whole slew and suite of major trade facilitation and multilateral frameworks, such as RCEP, CPTPP. These build upon our existing FTAs with major trade partners, representing 85% of global GDP.

At the same time, the other way to manage this is to ensure that our supply chains remain connected and that means diversifying our import and export markets. We have and are negotiating, and have successfully concluded negotiations on the Pacific Alliance Singapore Free Trade Agreement. It is another arrow in our quiver such that we can open up new markets for our imports to alleviate, again, inflationary pressures. We will also continue to support local enterprises so they can deepen their export capabilities in the global economy and ensure our exports remain relevant and competitive in the international market in the long term.

The other aspects to reduce inflationary pressures include also the supply of industrial and commercial spaces to help moderate business costs and reduce the knock-on impact on consumer prices. These also include measures such as disbursing rental relief to help businesses cope with their rental costs and, hopefully, have knock-on effects to consumers as well.

7 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Government expects that ComCare cash assistance will remain elevated for the 2021 financial year.

Mr Speaker, in FY2020, MSF disbursed $236 million in ComCare assistance, a 56% increase from FY2019’s $151 million. The number of individuals who benefited from ComCare schemes also increased by 22% over the same period, to around 96,000 individuals in FY2020.

These increases were largely due to the larger number of ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA) beneficiaries in FY2020 and reflected the economic impact of COVID-19 as well as the additional flexibility that Social Service Offices (SSOs) exercised during the pandemic to provide ComCare support. For instance, MSF automatically extended the duration of support of existing ComCare beneficiaries whose assistance ended between May and October 2020 by a further six months, to provide them with a longer runway to stabilise their circumstances. Most new ComCare beneficiaries assisted between April and December 2020 also received at least six months of assistance.

SMTA supports low-income and vulnerable individuals and families who may be looking for work, are temporarily unable to work or are earning a low income and require financial assistance. SMTA beneficiaries receive comprehensive support, which may include cash assistance for their basic living expenses, and assistance with their household and medical bills. They may also receive employment assistance such as job search and/or training and be assisted through referrals to other government agencies and community partners for casework and counselling. These help the families to tide over their temporary financial difficulty and support them in their journey to regain stability and self-reliance.

In line with the improving economic and labour market situation, the ComCare data for the first six months of FY2021 show that the number of beneficiaries has steadily decreased since FY2020. We do not expect the number of ComCare beneficiaries or quantum disbursed in FY2021 to remain at the FY2020 levels, although it may still be higher than pre-COVID-19 levels in FY2019.

MSF will continue to work closely with other Government agencies and our community partners to provide support and assistance to individuals and families in need. We welcome everyone to step forward and volunteer with us in various initiatives as well. They can register their interest through www.volunteer.gov.sg. If anyone encounters a neighbour, friend or family member who needs support, they can call the ComCare hotline at 1800-222-0000 or refer them to the nearest Social Service Office or Family Service Centre for assistance.

8 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Education what measures are in place to support continuity of school financial assistance when a student is posted from one school to another, including postings taking place after national examinations.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS), which provides support for Singaporean students from lower-income households, is provided for one year at a time. This allows support to be reviewed and adjusted as family circumstances vary with time. Students under MOE FAS continue to receive support, if they transfer across schools in the course of the school year, without having to re-apply.

For graduating students who wish to apply for financial assistance in the school they will be progressing to, they can make an FAS application in their current school towards the end of the graduating year. If the application is successful, the students will receive the FAS support in the school they will be progressing to. This arrangement covers our Government and Government-aided schools, specialised schools and independent schools.

To support students progressing into our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), MOE also shares with Institute of Technical Education (ITE), the Polytechnics and the Autonomous Universities (AUs) the list of former MOE FAS recipients who are posted to them. This allows the institutions to reach out to these students and provide them with financial support, if needed.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I would like to thank the Minister of State for her answer. Sir, my Clementi resident told me she has just been retrenched, with her last day of work in December. Her Primary 6 daughter is on school-based FAS and she is worried about what will happen in the new school. My resident told me that when she sought to apply for MOE FAS for the upcoming school year, she was told she had to wait till she had served the last day of her job, which would then take place in December, possibly towards the later part of December.

Can I ask MOE two supplementary questions? Firstly, for school-based FAS, is there any way to facilitate handover of school-based FAS needy students between the old and new school, especially when these postings happen? Secondly, for MOE FAS, is there any way for MOE to consider pre-application requests from parents who have already received notice of retrenchment just before the end of the school year?

I thank the Member for his question. I would like to share that if he comes across residents who, unfortunately, need financial assistance, one immediate port of call can be ComCare, because MSF and MOE have established an arrangement since 2018 for students in mainstream schools, ITEs and Polytechnics to be concurrently assessed for financial assistance, when the Social Service Offices (SSOs) actually review their families' application for ComCare. In other words, if the resident that Dr Tan Wu Meng mentioned approaches ComCare, ComCare, through SSOs, would actually facilitate an application through the SSOs for financial assistance, as well as help with the application for school-based FAS.

The other point I wanted to mention on school-based FAS is, the specific example that Dr Tan had mentioned was because the student was a graduating student in Primary 6 and would be posting to a Secondary school or another school, and perhaps, at that point in time, it was not yet clear which school the student would be posted to. But I would just like to assure the Member that the MOE directs funds specifically towards the schools to administer school-based FAS, which is over and above the MOE FAS that I was talking about. So, once there is clarity as to which school the child would be posted to, then when the child applies for school-based FAS, the school specifically will make those assessments and ensure that the funds are paid in an expeditious manner to the student.

9 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Communications and Information what are the Ministry’s plans to ensure that all students have easy and low-cost access to high-speed Internet outside of school.

Mr Speaker, the Government is committed to equipping all Singaporeans, including students, with a baseline of affordable digital access.

Almost all households with school-going children have access to broadband. Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA)'s NEU PC Plus and Home Access programmes provide a subsidised device and broadband connectivity to low-income households, including those with school-going children. From January 2020 to September 2021, over 20,000 low-income households with school-going children have benefited through the NEU PC Plus programme.

IMDA's digital access programmes are complemented by MOE's provisions for students to access the Internet to support Home-Based Learning. During the recent full Home-Based Learning in May 2021, schools loaned out Internet-enabling devices to students who lacked Internet access at home. Students also had the option to return to school to use computing facilities. Alternatively, students may also tap on Wireless@SG deployed at public spaces, like the public libraries and Community Clubs (CC), for free out-of-home Internet connectivity.

Citizens’ needs evolve, and the Government reviews our initiatives to ensure citizens from needy households also have access to affordable high-speed Internet. Most recently, in 2020, broadband speed under IMDA’s NEU PC Plus and Home Access programmes were increased from 300Mbps to 500Mbps. This is able to support a typical family for common daily activities, such as video calls and video streaming. The Government will continue to review our provisions to meet the digital connectivity needs of students outside school.

Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for sharing and I would want to commend MOE and IMDA in the past two years in really equipping students and giving them digital access. One question is, given the proliferation of more digital and online educational resources and the increase in home-based learning, I was wondering whether the Ministry will consider further expanding the provision for Home Access programmes beyond the two years to better serve those in disadvantaged circumstances and give them more accessibility, especially outside of school and having to be at home?

I thank the Member for the question. I appreciate his concern for those who may be in a bit more disadvantaged situation. I would just like to highlight to the Member that for the Home Access beneficiaries, they can actually reapply at the end of the two-year period, as long as they meet the eligibility criteria and there is actually no limit to the number of times they can apply, as long as they can meet the eligibility requirements. And this applies also to the NEU PC Plus programmes. I understand his concerns and we are committed to equip all Singaporeans with the basic affordable digital access. So, we will continue to review the provisions to meet the needs, especially of those who are in a more disadvantaged situation, so that they have easy and affordable access to high-speed Internet outside school and in common places.

10 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider incorporating elderly-friendly, child-friendly and disabled-friendly internal and external features to ensure the relevance of HDB flats through all life stages; and (b) what has been the take-up rate of the Enhancement for Active Seniors programme to improve mobility and comfort for elderly residents since its introduction in 2012.

Mr Speaker, since 2006, all new HDB developments have been built with universal design principles and barrier-free access to create an environment that is user-friendly for all. For example, at the precinct-level, barrier-free routes link up blocks with major activity nodes. HDB also provides features, such as three-generation playgrounds, where playgrounds for children are located beside fitness stations for adults and seniors. For better wayfinding, HDB has started designing estates with features to facilitate easier recognition of places, such as larger font sizes for block numbers and the use of icons. Universal design features are also included in the HDB blocks and flats, such as wider corridors to facilitate wheelchair movement and rocker switches that are mounted at lower heights.

To help HDB residents to age in place, HDB provides senior-friendly items to enhance the safety and mobility of our seniors in existing HDB flats through the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme.

As of end September 2021, the EASE programme has benefited more than 242,000 households. HDB also offers short-lease two-room Flexi flats to meet the housing needs of seniors. These flats are fitted upfront with grab bars and seniors can choose from three Optional Component Scheme packages to pre-install selected fittings. In addition, HDB, MND and MOH have launched the Community Care Apartments (CCA), a new public housing typology that integrates senior-friendly design features with care services, and facilitates community building through social programmes and communal spaces. The first CCA pilot at Bukit Batok was launched for sale in Feb 2021 and we are studying plans for future CCA.

In line with HDB’s “Designing for Life” roadmap, HDB will continue to anticipate future needs and develop initiatives to enhance residents’ well-being across different life stages.

Mr Chong Kee Hiong.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. There are HDB units built on the ground level, with a few steps leading to the door. Not all units have sufficient common areas where a ramp could be built to facilitate wheelchair access. Can the Minister of State please share what feedback have they received on the pilot Wheelchair Lifter Programme? Can HDB roll out this programme to all the estates soonest?

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, we launched the wheelchair lifters programme in December 2018 as a pilot programme, whereby about 10 households have participated and 10 wheelchair lifters have been installed. The feedback that we have received so far has been quite positive. The seniors found it easy to use and also it encourages the seniors to go out to the community more regularly than before. We are reviewing the scheme and we will take note of the Member's suggestion and request in our review.

11 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment regarding the Clean Tables Campaign to achieve a higher tray/crockery return rate (a) how many fines have been issued so far; (b) what is the general profile of those who have been warned or fined; (c) what are the most common reasons cited for non-return of trays; and (d) whether targeted public education can be provided for these diners.

Enforcement action against table littering at hawker centres started on 1 September 2021, following a three-month advisory period. For diners who do not clear their dirty trays, crockery and litter, enforcement officers will first advise them to do so. Diners who refuse to heed officers' advice will have their particulars taken down and be issued written warnings if it is their first offence. Only second or subsequent offenders will be issued fines or sent to Court.

Thus far, diners have been generally cooperative at our hawker centres, with many taking the initiative to return their trays and dirty crockery after eating or doing so when advised. The common reason given by diners for not clearing the table after eating is that they had forgotten. To date, one written warning has been issued to a diner for refusing to heed enforcement officers' advice to return the dirty crockery. No fines have been issued.

The Singapore Food Agency will also be commencing enforcement against table littering at coffeeshops and food courts from 1 January 2022, with a two-month advisory period from 1 November 2021 to 31 December 2021.

We will continue with our extensive outreach efforts to ensure that the general public and key stakeholders are aware of the requirement to return their dirty trays and crockery after dining at public dining spaces. This includes multilingual outreach materials on mass media and social media platforms, onsite reminders at hawker centres, coffeeshops and food courts, as well as collaborations with grassroots organisations, schools and youth groups. We hope more diners will exercise their social responsibility, return their dirty trays and crockery, and for this to become a social norm in Singapore.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Thank you, Speaker and I thank the Senior Minister of State too. I have one supplementary question. In view of the ongoing manpower crunches, as well as the roll-out of this Clean Tables Campaign to coffee shops and food courts, could the Ministry consider supporting the adoption of technology in coffee shops and food courts such as deploying tray return robots or automated food waste digesters so as to further improve the cleanliness and environment of these dining areas?

I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, as the Member has noted, the cleaning services and waste management sector are facing a manpower crunch. With the ageing population and declining workforce going forward, this manpower crunch is likely to become even more acute. The average age of our cleaners is 60 years today. So, indeed this self-service concept as part of the Clean Tables Campaign that we have initiated is the more sustainable way going forward, to maintain the cleanliness and hygiene or public dining spaces including at the coffee shops and food courts.

This revised table cleaning workflow will give assurance to our ageing cleaners that their services continue to be needed and appreciated, and also give them better clarity on where to focus on. It will also create a safer and better working environment and perhaps, that will also help in terms of meeting manpower constraints, with better retention, or people who are thinking of joining the sector, might actually do so.

In addition, we also encourage the sector through our Environmental Services Industry Transformation Map to look into improving productivity, either through redesigning the workflow or by adopting technology, as the Member has mentioned. National Environment Agency (NEA)-licensed cleaning companies, premise owners, tenants, eligible ones, can actually apply for the Environmental Services Productivity Solutions Grant or ESPSG, which provides funding support for them to purchase cleaning and waste management equipment, such as autonomous cleaning robots and food waste digesters.

The first tranche of the ESPSG has concluded in August 2021 with a very strong demand, overwhelming demand indeed. We have approved 1,700 applications and committed a grant of $40.75 million. We are assessing the rest of the applications – about 1,200 to commit the remainder fund. NEA is also exploring the extension of this scheme.

12 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many companies have since closed down due to pressures from the COVID-19 pandemic; and (b) what are the current and future efforts to support local firms for post-crisis growth to maintain our status as an international business hub.

Over the last two years, an average of around 3,840 firms were deregistered each month, similar to the period 2017-2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, an average of more than 5,000 new firms were registered each month over the last two years, reflecting an increase in the total number of businesses operating in Singapore, despite the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the last two years, the Government has committed substantial resources to help our businesses weather the immediate impact of COVID-19. We are also helping our businesses prepare for post-COVID-19 recovery and continuing to enhance Singapore's position as a business hub in several ways.

Firstly, we are strengthening both our physical and digital connectivity. For example, we are gradually and carefully reopening our borders to more countries through arrangements such as the Vaccinated Travel Lanes (VTLs). Our ports are kept operating throughout the pandemic to ensure supply chain resilience. We will continue to enhance both our air and sea connectivity.

The Government is similarly extending Singapore's digital connectivity by establishing a network of Digital Economy Agreements (DEAs) with like-minded partners. We are also investing in digital infrastructure and capability building for our businesses and workers to access such opportunities. For example, the Grow Digital initiative helps SMEs tap on established e-commerce platforms to better access global markets, while the Enterprise Development Grant (EDG) encourages our SMEs to transform and strengthen their capabilities. In addition, we are partnering with industry stakeholders in this endeavour. An example is the SGTraDex, which is a common data infrastructure that enables our businesses to transit into the digital domain. It also builds a stronger and more robust supply chain ecosystem for international trade flows.

Secondly, we are supporting our businesses in capturing new and emerging opportunities, such as those in the green sector. As part of the Singapore Green Plan 2030 announced earlier this year, we will help our enterprises and workforce harness sustainability as a competitive advantage, and develop innovative solutions for the green economy. These include, amongst others, carbon trading and related services, low-carbon solutions, green finance, and green infrastructure. Enterprise Singapore recently launched the Enterprise Sustainability Programme which supports businesses, especially SMEs, to build capabilities and capture new opportunities in this exciting space.

Thirdly, we are helping businesses transform for the future economy, sector by sector. The Future Economy Council chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Heng is currently refreshing the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) to meet the accelerated changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. For each of the 23 ITMs, we are working with our tripartite partners, including the private sector to update our sectoral strategies to seize new opportunities, as well as to improve productivity and wages of our workers through digitalisation, innovation, internationalisation, upskilling and job redesign.

These are the fundamentals which will underpin our competitiveness and ensure that Singapore remains as a global-Asia node for technology, innovation and enterprise. We are confident that through close partnership with Singaporeans as well as the business community, we will be able to emerge stronger together.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the very comprehensive reply. Can the Minister of State give us a sense of the growth outlook across the sectors, especially the sectors where business formations are taking place? We have heard about digitalisation and the formation of DEAs and how it would help Singapore. Could you elaborate a little bit more about MTI's plan to grow the capabilities and the potential of enterprises in sustainability or even in the green economy?

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member, Dr Wan Rizal, for his two supplementary questions.

First, he asked about the growth outlook by sector. Growth will continue to be driven by outward-oriented sectors, like manufacturing, wholesale trade, finance and insurance and information and communications technology (ICT). The recovery in tourism related, aviation related or consumer-facing sector is projected to be gradual, in comparison.

He asked about the business formation numbers in sectors. Let me just give him a bit of insights to this. Business formations continue to flourish, in spite of the COVID-19 crisis. Earlier on, I cited the numbers, the formation number and the number of firms that closed. More new businesses have started compared to the number of businesses closed. Between March 2020 and September 2021, over this one-and-a-half year period, a total of 73,036 business entities have ceased while 103,585 business entities have formed. So, again, more business formation numbers.

In the same period, he asked about sectors, the sectors with the largest number of new businesses formed included professional services, wholesale trade and retail.

His second supplementary question is on sustainability. I have cited about digitalisation, internationalisation, innovation; and he correctly pointed out the sustainability is going to be important as a competitive advantage for our SMEs. And indeed, we are encouraging our SMEs to integrate sustainability into their business, into their business process as a competitive advantage and to grow their capabilities in the new economy by tapping on the newly launched Enterprise Sustainability Programme. It was launched by Minister Gan Kim Yong about a month back on the 1 October. It is a $180 million-dollar scheme. So, what does it entail?

The Enterprise Sustainability Programme supports our SMEs in a few areas: (a) in sustainability training; (b) capability development; and (c) product development. And also, in the month of October, ESG launched the Enterprise Financing Scheme–Green which will then catalyse funding for our SMEs to develop green solutions and technology. The Enterprise Sustainability Programme does not just support our SMEs at the enterprise level. It is very important for us to also take a sectoral view and an ecosystem-wide approach.

So, MTI and ESG will certainly work very closely with the trade associations and chambers (TACs), industry partners, to develop a vibrant sustainability ecosystem to support our SMEs in their sustainability efforts, from capability development to product development. At the same time, taking an ecosystem-wide approach to leverage key enablers like financing, certification, training and other sustainability services.

So, I want to use the opportunity to assure the Member Dr Wan Rizal and the House that the Government is fully committed to support the growth and the future of our SMEs in the post-COVID-19 recovery. We will not let up our support. In fact, we will continue to support our SMEs to adapt and develop their businesses to seize new opportunities, whether in internationalisation, digitalisation or sustainability, and other areas.

13 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many companies in the tourism-related and retail sectors have closed down since January 2020; (b) what is the employment situation in the tourism sector including number of tour guides who have been redeployed; and (c) what further efforts can the made to stimulate local retail demand and transform the tourism sector to position themselves for future growth opportunities.

From January 2020 to September 2021, 8,600 retail businesses ceased operations. This was 330 more than the same period between 2018 and 2019. However, there were 15,570 new retail businesses set up, resulting in a net increase of 6,970 retail firms over the same period from January 2020 to September 2021.

For the tourism industry, despite some exits since January 2020, new entrants have kept the number of tourism businesses in operation fairly stable. For example, the number of licensed hotels today remains at around 420 despite 13 hotels having ceased operations. The total number of licensed tourist guides is still around 2,900, even with 175 tourist guides choosing not to renew their licences during this period. Travel agents, unfortunately, have been impacted more – 157 travel agents ceased their operations. This represent 8% of all licensed travel agents, although around 30 new travel agents entered the market.

The Government has supported the sector with the highest tier of support under the Jobs Support Scheme. Together with other broad-based Government support measures, this has helped cushion the impact of COVID-19 on the sector. Initiatives such as the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers (SRV) scheme have also helped stimulate demand by encouraging Singaporeans to rediscover our city, our tourism product offerings and support local tourism businesses, including those for travel agents.

The launch of the SRV scheme has also helped tourist guides. Between the launch of the SRV scheme and the start of the Heightened Alert in May 2021, monthly tour participants grew fivefold from just over 10,000 to more than 50,000. To further help our tourist guides cope with business costs, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) also waived the tourist guide licence fees in 2020 and 2021, as well as test fees for those who wish to be licensed in another language.

STB expects tourism to reach pre-pandemic levels in the next few years. In the meantime, we are helping companies in the retail and tourism sectors transform and upgrade themselves so that they can better capture opportunities when travel resumes.

With regard to retailers, for retailers looking to develop their online sales channels, they can receive support from Enterprise Singapore’s (ESG) E-Commerce Booster Package, which defrays the costs of joining e-commerce platforms, or use ESG’s Productivity Solutions Grant to build capabilities in areas such as digital marketing as well as e-commerce. The tourism sector is also receiving support from STB to pursue transformation efforts to ready itself for the recovery. Examples include the Business Improvement Fund for technology innovation and the adoption of business models and processes to improve productivity and competitiveness; and the Training Industry Professionals in Tourism scheme which supports employee upgrading and talent and leadership development.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for the answers. It is good to hear the Minister of State mentioned that the SRV scheme that has been very useful for the retail and tourism sector. But he did share that there were 157 travel agents which have ceased operations.

My supplementary question is, in particular, about those working in the tourism and retail sector. I have a number of residents who used to work or are working in the tourism and retail sectors, which have been in partial limbo over the past one and a half years. My question is, whether we have the number of tour guides or retail frontline workers who have switched industries or switched jobs permanently.

Can I also ask about the status of our local travel agencies in Singapore, and if they will survive, going forward? Also, what outlook can we expect for the retail sector and the travel agency business in this endemic scenario that we are going to face over the next year or so?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Let me go to our tourism sector first. Between January 2020 and 20 October 2021, 4,373 workers were retrenched across the core tourism industries, 58% of whom were locals. However, with early intervention and support under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Initiative, 67% of the locals, who were retrenched between January and September 2020, found new employment within six months.

With regard to the tourist guides, while we do not track the redeployment of tourist guides, close to 250 tourist guides have served as Safe Distancing Ambassadors with STB.

As I mentioned earlier on in my reply, the SRV scheme has also helped local tourist guides with monthly tour participants growing fivefold between the launch of the SRV scheme and the start of the Heightened Alert in May 2021. I also mentioned earlier on STB waiving the tourist guide licence fees as well as test fees.

So, all of these in concert, and all of these in totality, are helping preserve our capability in our tourism sector, which is an important sector, while we await the recovery in global travel as well as the tourism industry. But we must preserve this. The SRV, for example, helps us to create new product offerings locally, with tourist guides forming new products. I think it will put them in good stead for when travel resumes in earnest, and when tourists come to Singapore and are able to enjoy the sights and sounds here in Singapore.

Just back to the retail question. In 2020, 1,180 retail employees had been retrenched. This translates to 16.9 retrenched employees per 1,000 employees. Of these retrenched employees, 56% were able to enter a different industry within six months after retrenchment.

But I also wanted to share a little bit about Enterprise Singapore's Retail Industry Transformation Map (ITM), as a forward-looking roadmap for our retail industry.

The Retail ITM has done a study and they have looked across the key trends in the retail industry. The key trends are digitalisation, on-demand retail, hyper-personalisation of goods, in effect, and conscious consumerism, which is very much related to the sustainability trend that we are seeing. So, we are supporting our retail sector to take on and to ride these trends, moving forward.

14 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the sectoral productivity growth rates, trends and outlook in Singapore since the onset of COVID-19; and (b) whether there are new measures or productivity needed to better measure the hybrid model of work productivity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the productivity of various sectors of the economy has been uneven, reflecting in large part the differentiated impact of the pandemic.

In 2020, labour productivity, as measured by real value-added per actual hour worked, or AHW, rose for outward-oriented sectors such as manufacturing, wholesale trade, and finance and insurance. For example, the productivity of the manufacturing and wholesale trade sectors increased by 18.6% and 3.1%, respectively. By contrast, sectors which were severely disrupted by travel and domestic restrictions, such as construction, transportation and storage, accommodation and F&B services, experienced declines in productivity. In particular, the productivity of the transportation and storage and F&B services sectors fell by 22.1% and 17.7%, respectively.

For 2021, productivity growth is expected to remain positive for the most outward-oriented sectors, given the pick-up in global economic activity. Sectors that continue to be disrupted by weak travel demand and domestic restrictions such as transportation and storage and F&B services, are not likely to return to pre-COVID-19 productivity levels, as activities in these sectors are not expected to recover fully this year.

Since 2015, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) has compiled statistics on real value-added per actual hour worked, to complement statistics on real value-added per worker. Real value-added per actual hour worked is recognised internationally, including by the International Labour Organization (ILO), to be the most appropriate measure of labour productivity as actual hours worked capture the intensity of labour input more accurately.

In the context of a hybrid model of working, real value-added per actual hour worked also provides a more accurate measure of labour productivity, as it accounts for the varying intensity of labour input by employees under different types of work arrangements. These include (a) flexi-time arrangements that grant employees flexible work schedules, depending on their work, of course, and personal commitments; (b) flexi-load arrangements that involve employees who are hired on a part-time or project basis; as well as (c) flexi-place arrangements that allow employees to telecommute and record hours worked in both workplace settings and at home.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for his answers. I have got two supplementary questions.

First is in relation to my earlier Parliamentary Question (PQ), can the Minister of State share about the outlook for the productivity by sector, if possible, in 2022; and beyond 2022, given growth and other variables?

The second supplementary question I have is, in relation to the second part of my PQ. Are there plans for MTI to do any further granular data studies to examine productivity, in terms of both labour and multi-factor productivity, especially during the COVID-19 period and possibly into the endemic period? The reason is, if we look at the actual hours worked data, which is good that it is in quarterly basis, whether there will be more measures that MTI plans to collect, going forward, similar to what other developed countries like in the US, so as to measure productivity more accurately, going forward?

I thank the Member for his two supplementary questions. I will take the measurement of labour productivity first and then go into the outlook across sectors.

First is on how is labour productivity typically measured and what are the differences between existing labour productivity measures? Labour productivity measures actually measure how effectively or efficiently labour inputs are used to produce output. They are computed in terms of, as I mentioned, real value-added (VA) per actual hour worked, or real VA per worker. There are differences between these two because of changes in the average number of hours worked per worker over time. I think that also has been quite accentuated during COVID-19.

Of the two measures that we talked about, real VA per AHW is recognised internationally including, as I mentioned earlier, by ILO, to be a better measure of labour productivity, because the actual hours will capture the intensity of labour input more accurately.

In Singapore's context, this measure has also become more relevant in recent years with the rising number of part-time workers in the economy and the cyclical changes in the number of hours worked by full-time workers.

If you look at TFP or Total Factor Productivity, which is also known as multi-factor productivity, is also an alternate measure of productivity and captures how efficiently both capital and labour are used together in the production process. It is computed as a residual on an annual basis and is defined as a change in GDP not attributed to changes in capital and labour inputs.

So, for example, an increase in TFP may be due to factors such as a rise in technology, improvements in management practices and organisational structures or maybe even the diffusion of technology across firms. So, while not a 100% accurate indication, I think this particular measure, for now, manages to capture productivity in the most accurate form. But we will be open to looking at other ways to measure, given the changing nature of work across the world and given how COVID-19 has also looked at productivity across workplace and at home.

With regards to the outlook for productivity, both Minister of State Low and myself have shared earlier on that the growth as well as recovery across sectors are uneven. There are domestically oriented sectors and there are the outwardly oriented sectors. The domestically oriented sectors experienced a steeper contraction in value-add in 2020, a reduction in 15.9% as compared to the outward oriented sector's decrease in 0.9%. But our productivity performance tends to be pro-cyclical and so it has resulted in an uneven productivity across various sectors.

I wanted to also just share a little bit that what we are doing is we are not being stagnant in this regard, productivity has been an issue in advanced economies and in particular, Singapore has been managing or trying to increase productivity for decades.

Our refresh of the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs), the 23 ITMs that Minister of State Low had mentioned earlier on, seek to find ways to increase productivity. The increase in technological advances and progress in the way in which we work and how we work, will help in no small measure to help us to increase productivity. But the key part of this is we need to make sure that we upskill, which is a key factor in our ITM and we make sure that there is a good job and skills match such that our people can take on better jobs, increase their productivity and make use of the technological advances available so that as a whole, across multi-sector, productivity advances can be seen over time.

15 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Manpower what measures will be implemented to alleviate the disruptions to our manpower resources, particularly in sectors such as cleaning and hospitality which will experience higher labour demand in tandem with more visitors entering Singapore under the Vaccinated Travel Lane schemes.

Mr Speaker, COVID-19 has had a significant impact on our economy and labour market. In 2020, total employment contracted by 166,600 and this is the sharpest contraction in two decades. Foreign workers accounted for all of the employment decline, with Government support measures cushioning the impact on local workers.

In 2021, even as parts of the economy recover, border restrictions continue to constrain the supply of foreign workers to meet the pick-up in demand. At the same time, some foreign workers who were already in Singapore have returned home. In the first half of 2021, the total number of foreign workers continued to decline by another 32,600. All of this had led to increasing tightness in the labour market. The number of seasonally adjusted job vacancies in the overall economy rose to an all-time high of 92,100 in June 2021. The number of vacancies is especially acute in sectors which rely most on foreign workers, such as construction and manufacturing. The seasonally adjusted job vacancy to unemployed person ratio increased to 1.63 in June 2021, exceeding one for the first time since March 2019.

The Government has been working closely with companies to support their manpower needs. Firstly, we are helping companies to expand local hiring. Through the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package, we have placed 140,000 locals into jobs and skills opportunities between April 2020 and end August 2021. The Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) was introduced in September 2020 and has supported 58,000 businesses to hire more than 400,000 locals thus far. Overall, the number of employed residents has risen by 43,500 since the start of 2020.

Secondly, the Government is helping companies retain and hire foreign workers. For example, the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) is helping to match employers with hiring needs to experienced foreign workers already in Singapore but who are no longer needed by their current employers. We are also facilitating the safe inflow of new foreign workers to alleviate the manpower crunch. Our priority is to ensure that the risk of COVID-19 importation is well-managed to protect our public health.

With the progressive easing of border restrictions, it will also help facilitate the normalisation of foreign worker inflow. The Ministry of Health has recently announced the easing of measures for travellers from various countries, including Malaysia.

The Government will continue to monitor the situation closely, we will continue to work with the industry and companies to adjust to the progressive easing of restrictions and the return of demand.

16 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Education with regard to the proposed Artificial Intelligence (AI) marking system for English subject assignments on the online Student Learning Space (SLS), what safeguards will be in place to ensure automated marking does not undermine the potential for students' writing to develop creativity, cadence, personality and flair.

Our use of educational technology aims to complement and not dilute our teachers' central role in guiding students to learn and master different subjects, especially for higher-level skills. For instance, the Learning Feedback Assistant for English Language (LFA(EL)) provides personalised feedback directly to students on areas such as spelling and grammar. Teachers can then focus their attention to guide students on more complex aspects of language construction and to develop higher-level skills like creative expression, persuasiveness and tone.

For students, immediate feedback from the LFA(EL) can also encourage them to write more often, be more self-directed in their learning and to work on their basic writing errors. These help to strengthen their mastery over the basics of writing, which in turn allows them to devote more effort on more demanding aspects like creative expression.

With the LFA(EL), our teachers have an additional tool to complement their professional practice, enabling them to further develop our students' writing skills.

17 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) from 2018 to 30 September 2021, what is the annual number of road accidents and violations involving heavy vehicles; (b) how many of these accidents involved lorries ferrying workers; and (c) how will the Ministry ensure better road safety to deter such accidents.

Mr Speaker, there were 2,160 road accidents involving heavy vehicles from January 2018 to June 2021. The annual breakdown of these accidents is as follows: in 2018, 776 accidents; in 2019, 690; in 2020, 426; and in 2021 up till June this year, 268.

There were 57,639 traffic violations committed by heavy vehicles from January 2018 to June 2021. The annual breakdown of these violations is as follows: in 2018, 19,004; in 2019, 19,449; in 2020, 13,900; and in 2021 up till June, 5,286.

We do not yet have the figures for the third quarter of 2021.

The Traffic Police (TP) does not track if the vehicles involved in accidents were ferrying workers.

TP adopts a three-pronged approach of education, engagement and enforcement to enhance road safety. On the education and engagement front, TP regularly conducts road safety talks to educate heavy vehicle drivers on safe driving habits and holds dialogue sessions with the industry and key stakeholders.

TP is also partnering other Government agencies, such as the Land Transport Authority and the Ministry of Manpower, to monitor the development of suitable technologies that can help discourage speeding and ensure road safety, such as Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS). ADAS helps improve the situational awareness of drivers and warns them of collision risks. Today, small and medium enterprises which wish to install ADAS or other vehicular safety technologies on their heavy vehicles can apply for support from the Productivity Solutions Grant, administered by Enterprise Singapore.

That said, we recognise that there will always be errant heavy vehicle drivers who, despite the Government's outreach efforts, continue to drive irresponsibly. TP will take strong enforcement action against these motorists.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, can the Minister of State share what are the top three most frequent traffic violations committed by these heavy vehicles. According to MOM's mid-year workplace safety and health statistics, vehicular accidents were the top cause of workplace deaths for the first half of 2021.

In September, I filed a Parliamentary Question to ask about the yearly breakdown of the almost 20,000 speeding violations by lorries in the past five years and found that speeding cases were rising annually up until last year when COVID-19 resulted in a halt to many economic activities. Clearly, employers are putting their workers' lives at risk when ferrying them at the back of lorries especially when some of these lorry drivers have the propensity to speed and it could be down to just sheer luck that there has not been even more fatalities on our roots.

Therefore, I would like to ask whether MHA would reconsider some of my proposals to add a speed limiter to all lorries much as how we have already done in heavy vehicles today and whether there could be a review on having dedicated transport for workers instead of having the workers co-mingle with goods at the back of the lorries.

Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. With regard to his suggestion about speed limiters as well as the lorries, the Government will bring this back and take a look at these suggestions.

With regard to the breakdown of the top three most frequent traffic violation committed by heavy vehicles, indeed, number one is speeding, number two is red light running and number three is careless driving.

Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the day.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 18-24, 26-31 and 33-50 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 25 and 32 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

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

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

Sir, earlier this year, this House debated and passed the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act, or SINGA for short, to reactivate Government borrowing for financing nationally significant infrastructure, subject to strict safeguards.

The borrowings under SINGA are clearly distinguishable from a separate category of Government borrowing for non-spending purposes under the Local Treasury Bills Act, or LTBA, and the Government Securities Act, or the GSA.

The LTBA and the GSA allow the Government to borrow, not for spending, but for specific purposes, such as market development and meeting the investment needs of the Central Provident Fund. To emphasise, the proceeds from such borrowings cannot be spent by the Government.

So, to delineate between the two types of borrowing in legislation, the borrowings which are done under SINGA for SINGA projects and borrowings which cannot be spent, this Bill before the House seeks to merge the LTBA into the GSA, and to streamline our legislation on Government borrowings. This will help to provide better clarity on the profile of the Government's debt.

Let me share some background on the LTBA and the GSA.

The LTBA authorises the issuance of Treasury Bills to develop the domestic short-term debt market and to meet market demand for short-term Government debt securities. The GSA authorises the issuance of longer-tenor securities, like the Singapore Government Securities, or SGS, to develop the domestic debt market and meet the investment needs of the Central Provident Fund.

Both the LTBA and the GSA expressly provide that the proceeds of borrowings raised are to be paid into the Government Securities Fund. This is an important safeguard, because the monies in the Government Securities Fund can only be invested. This is why the monies raised under the LTBA and GSA cannot be used to finance the Government's spending needs.

While the LTBA and GSA were introduced separately with different processes, the Government has gradually harmonised the treatment of Treasury Bills and SGS over the years.

For example, the LTBA was amended in 1996 to account for the proceeds and expenditures of Treasury Bills under the Government Securities Fund, instead of the Consolidated Fund, similar to Government securities in the GSA.

In 2001, the minimum denomination for Treasury Bills of $10,000 was revised downwards to $1,000 to facilitate greater retail participation, similar to that for tradable securities under the GSA.

And in 2004, the GSA was amended to change the borrowing limit of Government securities issued from a gross to a net limit for a more meaningful measure of Government's liabilities, similar to that for Treasury Bills under the LTBA.

So, given the overlaps in purpose and the harmonisation of treatment of securities under both Acts, this Bill is therefore introduced to merge the LTBA into the GSA.

The Government Securities Act will be renamed as the Government Securities (Debt Market and Investment) Act, which I will refer to as the renamed GSA for short, to reflect this consolidation within the name of the Act.

The renamed GSA will provide for the issuance of Treasury Bills and the existing LTBA will be repealed.

The changes introduced through this Bill are largely administrative in nature with no change to the substance of the individual Acts.

There is no change to the provision, limiting the use of monies in the Government Securities Fund from being used solely for investment purposes. Therefore, the monies raised under the Bill cannot be used for spending.

With the merger of the Acts, the current borrowing limits under the LTBA and GSA, which are $105 billion and $960 billion respectively, will be combined to form a single borrowing limit of $1,065 billion under the renamed GSA. There is no change to the overall borrowing limit.

As is the practice today, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) will continue to calibrate Treasury Bill and SGS issuances based on market development needs. And to ensure transparency, MAS will continue to publish the breakdown of outstanding SGS and Treasury Bills.

There is also no change to the existing features and outstanding issuances of Treasury Bills and Government Securities issued under the LTBA and the GSA. The outstanding Treasury Bills will be automatically subsumed under the renamed GSA.

Besides the merging of LTBA into the GSA, this Bill will also repeal borrowing provisions in other Acts that are no longer necessary.

Specifically, the Bill will repeal the External Loans Act and Treasury Deposit Receipts Act, as well as borrowing provisions in the Developmental Investment Fund Act.

There are no outstanding borrowings under these Acts. So, with the SINGA and renamed GSA, the Government does not foresee the need to borrow under these Acts.

The Constitution and other acts, such as the MAS Act will be amended to substitute references to LTBA and GSA with the renamed GSA, and remove references to the External Loans Act. The amendments to the Constitution will be raised by the Minister for Law after this.

We have consulted the President on both this Bill and the amendments to the Constitution, as they provide for the raising of loans by the Government and a single borrowing limit for Government securities and Treasury Bills. The President is supportive of the Bills.

Mr Speaker, let me conclude. This Bill consolidates various pieces of legislation on Government borrowings for specific non-spending purposes into a single legislation under the renamed GSA.

Going forward, the Government will rely on the renamed GSA to borrow for specific non-spending purposes and the SINGA to borrow for spending on nationally significant infrastructure.

We will ensure that the borrowings for spending and non-spending purposes are transparent and clearly differentiated in the processes for the issuances of securities, reporting and public communications. For example, the new SGS issued for infrastructure financing has been named as SGS(Infrastructure) bonds and the existing SGS bonds renamed as SGS(Market Development) bonds to reflect the different purposes of borrowing.

And again, I would like to emphasise that the Singapore Government has a strong balance sheet with no net debt. Borrowings for non-spending purposes, which will be consolidated under the renamed GSA in this Bill, will continue to make up the majority of Singapore Government's borrowings. Through this Bill, we will provide greater clarity on the Government's debt profile. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Mr Speaker, I wish to declare my interest that I work in a financial institution which trade and transaction in securities, including Government securities.

Sir, the Government has issued more debts over the year, largely for investments, and also to develop the bond market and to manage the CPF monies.

Earlier this year, the House has also passed the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act (SINGA) in which the proceeds raised can only be used to fund major and very long-term key infrastructures.

So, the Government's balance sheet has indeed expanded and hence, it does make good sense do some "housekeeping" to the various Government borrowing legislations, and in particular, this Bill to consolidate the GSA and LTBA as well as make consequential amendments and repeals to the other Acts.

Sir, notwithstanding my support, I have three questions for the Minister.

Firstly, can I use this opportunity to seek an update on the outstanding amount of securities that the Government issued under the GSA and the LTBA?

Secondly, clause 14 of the Act merge the two borrowing limits, the GSA and the LBTA, into a single borrowing limit of $1.065 trillion. Can I ask the Minister for the basis of this change?

The reasons for my question are as follows.

Firstly, SGS are long-dated debts greater than one year, while the Treasury Bills tends to be just a few months to a year. Both debts come with different tenures, repayment obligations. The Treasury Bills tend to be more liquid in the trading markets because it is shorter dated. Hence, from the credit market standpoint, the two debts, say, the three-month Treasury Bill versus 20-year SGS would be accorded with different risk ratings.

Does MOF see the need to retain this separate borrowing limits for these two buckets of issuances given that they both have different risk profile?

My third question is, the main bulk of the securities issued by the Government is the Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS) which I believe account for about over 70% of the SGS. This is issued to CPF Board so that the Government can pay the bond coupon rates to the CPF members, which match the interest that CPF members receive. These bonds are not traded in the market and are directly placed with CPF. Hence, this is not for the purpose of creating high quality liquid assets for the financial institutions or to build a domestic risk-free yield curve, as opposed to the purpose of SGS.

Because of its sheer size, this SSGS, and that it will continue to grow in tandem with higher wages and growth in our resident workforce, we can expect the SSGS to get even more sizeable as the CPF savings increase.

As the SSGS is aggregated with the SGS, the overall debt level of the Government will come across as very high relative to our GDP and give the impression that a lot more SGS is issued or traded in the market.

These CPF related issuances, the SSGS, are also not invested by external investors because it is hold by the CPF Board, and its size of issuance and coupon rates therefore do not have any impact on the Singapore bond market nor its liquidity.

Hence, I would suggest that MOF consider classifying these private placed securities which it privately placed to CPF Board as CPF Bond rather than called it the SGS, and it should come under a separate borrowing limit and, of course, to be approved by Parliament and the President.

These would give greater clarity to the market participants and analysts on the level of the borrowing by the Government. Sir, notwithstanding my queries, I support the technical amendments in this Bill.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Mr Speaker, I understand that the stipulations in the Government Borrowing (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, are of a largely technical nature, aiming to repeal various mostly spent acts, and to consolidate any borrowing by the Government across sectors. This is fairly obscure, so obscure, in fact, that I noticed that, initially, I was the only Member slated to speak on this but evidently, two others have since found this topic similarly irresistible.

I favour such simplification and I do not have substantive concerns about the specificities in the proposed amendments. I do wish, however, to make a few points that I think have more to do with potentially unintended consequences of the current iteration of the Bill. These have to do with the debt limit precluding the acceptance of advance deposits by the MAS for Treasury Bills and the lack of justification for rejecting sales.

The first point worth noting is that clause 14 with the Bill proposes to set the borrowing limit for Government loans at $1.065 trillion, which represents the combined limits of $960 billion for the Government securities and $105 billion Treasury Bills that currently exists under two separate Acts. This new limit may then be increased by Parliamentary resolution, which simplifies, since logically, all forms of debt, whether short-term or long-term should, of course, be treated as a component of the overall liability picture and, hence, subject to the same form of debt ceiling discipline.

Given this observation, would it not also make sense to enfold remaining instruments under Government borrowing, such as single bonds issued under the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act to the same limit? I understand, of course, as Minister Wong has mentioned that this is, in fact, a separate accounting convention.

This limit, to be clear, is relatively small, at $90 billion and there is a clear benefit through consolidating under one roof, which is that a consolidated limit would simplify monitoring and allow fiscal policy-makers to ultimately focus on the single figure.

So, the natural objection, of course, is this, is that the Government maintains these separate limits for debt that serve developmental objectives, such as infrastructure, which is the case for SINGA versus those issued under risk transfer and investment purposes for the purposes of CPF funds as mentioned earlier, or to fulfil liquidity and debt functions.

MOF has steadfastly held that all these require separate limit accounts. But from the perspective of understanding the underlying economics, all monies is ultimately fungible and it is unclear why debt issued under one type of accounting constraint cannot subsequently be redeployed to other functions so long as it is only a matter of protocol, rather than one entrenched in actual legislation that prevents subsequent transfer.

Of course, such deviations need not occur under this Government but it could easily occur under another perhaps more profligate one. Hence, even if we did wish to maintain separate debt ceilings for the purposes of accounting, perhaps it may be worth nevertheless incorporating these distinct limits into this Bill.

This is especially the case since insofar as financial markets are concerned, they view the consolidated Government balance sheet as a whole, as they should. Indeed, SINGA bonds do not appear to have affected the Singapore Government's overall credit rating, which is yet another economic reason to not hive off such limits for the instrument.

Concomitantly, it is also important to calibrate the frequency with which this limit is modified. While fiscal rules such as a reasonable debt limit have been used in many countries and can play an important role in ensuring the sustainability of fiscal affairs, a debt ceiling that is too frequently binding can wreak havoc on the efficient operation of government, as the experience of the United States, where bipartisan brinksmanship routinely plagues efforts to raise the debt ceiling, reminds us.

To this effect, may I inquire whether this Government has considered whether this limit is appropriate? What is the premise or justification behind the current debt limit ceiling amount of $1.065 trillion? Is there a body that routinely examines the veracity of this debt limit and how frequently should we expect to change this?

The second point, Mr Speaker, I wish to raise has to do with how clause 20 of the Bill restricts the ability of other Government entities, in particular, MAS from accepting advance deposits in anticipation of raising loans by way of Treasury Bills.

While this may be a sound principle in practice, history is rife with examples of central banks that have gone ahead and monetised debt on behalf of a profligate sovereign, breeding inflation as a result.

It is worth noting that two recent developments may yet necessitate additional flexibility for the monetary authority to act in an anticipatory manner.

The first such circumstance, as Members of this House would be aware of, has to do with the zero lower bound faced by nominal interest rates. Although Singapore has never quite faced this problem in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis of 2007/2008 and the MAS, unlike most central banks, targets the nominal exchange rate rather than the policy interest rate, it is nevertheless worth keeping in mind that one prescription to the problem of the zero lower bound is to allow for central banks to intervene directly in short-term money markets by issuing securities on their own account.

The second situation is to do with the emerging central bank digital currency landscape (CBDC). Such CBDCs are likely to become a permanent part of the future of central banking worldwide and I understand that MAS is on the forefront of this and even commissioned the sandbox for studying the usage of such currencies.

While the detailed findings of this exercise have yet to be made public, it is reasonable to ask if the practical implementation of CBDCs may yet require flexibility for MAS to be able to accept such advance deposits for Treasury Bills and if this Bill would preclude such action.

Hence, while I accept that these two conditions are somewhat unusual, it is nevertheless worth asking if this particular clause in the Bill may unnecessarily tie the hands of the MAS to operate in a modern global macroeconomic environment.

Finally, clause 24 of the Bill explicitly states that the authority may, "refuse any application to take up Government securities or Treasury Bills issued without assigning any reason."

While I accept the prerogative of the Government to reserve the right to refuse the sale of his debt to any given entity, it is also surely reasonable, at least, for Singaporean purchases to be provided some form of explanation for why they are unable to purchase the debt of their own Government.

Notwithstanding these reservations and questions, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, I support this Bill, which will bring about greater clarity by consolidating and harmonising the Government's borrowing powers.

I have two points of clarification to make.

My first point is on the merging of limits under the Government Securities Act and the Local Treasury Bills Act. The new section 11 of the Act will replace the separate borrowing limits for Government securities and Treasury Bills with a single borrowing limit.

My concern is that we currently have a much higher borrowing limit for Government securities than for Treasury Bills – more than nine times as much. The Government had its rationale for maintaining this disparity.

As such, I have three related questions:

One, what was the initial intent of having a much higher borrowing limit for Government Securities and Treasury Bills? Does the Ministry see this initial intent as no longer relevant, given that this intent is no longer reflected in the combined borrowing limit?

Two, will this combined limit now result in a greater reliance on Treasury Bills compared to Government securities?

Three, will the Government internally maintain a separate borrowing limit for Government Securities and Treasury Bills?

My second point is on the approval required for borrowing beyond the $1.065 trillion limit.

Both the existing section 11 and the new section 11 allows the Government to borrow beyond its limit as long as there is a Parliamentary resolution and presidential concurrence. I would like to seek some clarification on the approval process.

In both cases, all the Government needs is for the Parliament to pass a resolution by simple majority and for the President to concur. The $1.065 trillion limit appears to make no difference.

Is the borrowing limit merely meant to signal the Government's stance on maximum borrowing? Relatedly, will the Ministry consider introducing a strengthened check-and-balance for when the Government seeks to increase its borrowing limit or to borrow beyond the existing limit?

For example, we could require such activities to require a two-third vote of approval by the Parliament in addition to the President's concurrence. This process change would reflect the sanctity of the borrowing limit and the severity of increasing or bypassing it.

Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Minister Lawrence Wong.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Members of the House who have shared their views on this Bill.

Let me first reiterate that this is largely an administrative exercise. As Mr Liang Eng Hwa said, it is housekeeping. There is no change to the substance of our borrowing legislation, the overall borrowing limit and the safeguards to raising the current limit. But let me clarify some of the questions and points that Members have raised.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about the outstanding amount of securities under the Local Treasury Bills Act (LTBA) and the Government Securities Act (GSA).

As at 30 September, we have $65 billion under the LTBA and $699 billion under the GSA.

Both Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Louis Ng also asked about the rationale for merging the LTBA and GSA borrowing limits. Let me explain.

First, with the introduction of SINGA, we thought that it would be timely to consolidate legislation of Government borrowings for non-spending purposes so as to distinguish these from borrowing for spending purposes under SINGA. By pooling the LTBA and the GSA together under the renamed GSA, this will emphasise that the borrowings issued under this Act are entirely for non-spending purposes.

This would also address what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim was saying. He had suggested to pool it together as one combined limit, together with SINGA. But from the Government's point of view, for better governance and for better control of processes, we want to distinguish between borrowing for non-spending, which is done under LTBA and GSA, and borrowing under SINGA, which is borrowing for infrastructure, which we spend. I think it is prudent and advisable to have different limits for both.

Between GSA and LTBA, both are borrowing for non-spending reasons – one for short-term securities, another for longer-term securities. And we felt that there is no need to distinguish so much between the two. Furthermore, over time, the processes for treatment of LTBA and Treasury Bills and Government securities have become harmonised over the years. Therefore, we see scope for pooling them together.

Second, a combined limit under this renamed GSA will also provide MAS greater flexibility to calibrate the issuances and tenors of debt issuances based on market conditions. In fact, other countries such as the US and Germany similarly manage their short and long-tenor securities under a single limit.

With this combined borrowing limit, we do not expect the proportion of short- and long-term securities under the renamed GSA to be significantly different from today. This is because a large proportion will continue to be used to issue Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS), which is mainly driven by CPF balances and its investment needs. As Mr Liang Eng Hwa has correctly highlighted, the amount of SSGS issuances is expected to increase over time due to growth in our resident labour force and wages.

The remaining borrowing limit will mostly be utilised by the issuance of Treasury Bills and Singapore Government Securities (SGS) to support market development and it is market demand and conditions that will influence the amount and the tenor of such debt to be issued.

In particular, MAS will calibrate the amount and tenor of such issuances to meet the regulatory needs of financial institutions for high quality liquid assets and to establish a robust sovereign yield curve to support the development of the Singapore dollar corporate bond market. Indeed, it will not be in the Government's interest to issue debt of certain tenors beyond what the market can reasonably absorb as it would skew the interest rate curve used to price Singapore dollar denominated financial instruments and result in capital misallocations.

So, to reiterate again, we are combining all the borrowings that are for non-spending purposes – CPF, market development – pooling them together under this renamed GSA.

We believe it is prudent and, from a financial point of view, provides better control – to have this differentiated from borrowing for SINGA projects, which is borrowing which will be used for financing of actual projects. That will be governed separately under SINGA and with a separate limit.

On Mr Liang Eng Hwa's suggestion for a separate borrowing limit for SSGS, I think he highlighted the need to provide clarity to market participants and analysts.

Here, we do not believe there is a need for a separate limit – to carve out SSGS – because if the purpose is to provide clarity and transparency, indeed, the composition of borrowing, be it SSGS, SGS or Treasury Bills, this will be published and will be subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny. MAS will continue to publish monthly the breakdown of outstanding SGS and Treasury Bills that are issued.

Next, Mr Louis Ng asked about the purpose of this borrowing limit and if the governance over increases in borrowing limits could be further strengthened to reflect the sanctity of the borrowing limit and the severity of increasing or bypassing it. I think Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also alluded to this in his response.

Let me clarify. There is really nothing sacrosanct about the borrowing limits. These are not permanent hard caps. In fact, the Government reviews the borrowing limits periodically and we will come back to the Parliament to raise the limits through Parliamentary resolutions where required. The most recent was in January this year.

For example, as demand for SSGS grows due to rising CPF balances, then, we will start to reach the limit. Likewise, demand for SGS and Treasury Bills will change, depending on regulatory and investment needs and market conditions.

What is important to understand is that the key safeguard, the key legislative safeguard in the Government Securities Act is that none of these borrowings can be spent. Like I said, it is differentiated from SINGA borrowings. Under the GSA, all of the borrowing proceeds are invested. Therefore, such borrowings do not lead to additional debt burdens.

Given that we already such a legislative safeguard under the GSA, some may ask why then is there still a need for a borrowing limit?

Our view is that this borrowing limit, while it is not a permanent hard cap, serve as an additional layer of checks and safeguards. It is useful for monitoring and each time we get close to the limit and we need to raise the limit, the Government would then have to come back to Parliament and get the agreement to raise this through Parliamentary resolution. Thereafter, the President will act independently in her discretion to concur with this resolution.

With the merger of the LTBA into the GSA, there will not be any change to the existing safeguards and processes that we have in place today.

Finally, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also asked about two clauses of the Bill, clause 20 on the acceptance of advance deposits by MAS and whether this unnecessarily ties the hands of MAS. We do not believe so. Clause 20 does not hinder us from effective monetary policy at all today. Clause 24 on the reserving the right to refuse a sale of debt to any entities, yes, that is in place in legislation. But should such a scenario were to arise, the Government will make clear its reasons for refusal.

But in any case, we will continue to review and update all aspects of legislations and should there be new developments in the marketplace or new requirements, we will periodically update legislation where necessary.

In summary, Sir, this Bill seeks to provide clarity on the Government’s debt profile, and reflect that the majority of the Government borrowings will continue to be issued under the renamed GSA for non-spending purposes.

I assure Members of this House that our fiscal position remains strong with borrowings. We will review our debt limits regularly to ensure that we continue to borrow within our means and remain in a net asset position. With this, Sir, I beg to move.

Any clarifications? Very good. Everyone is short and concise today.

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

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

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Lawrence Wong]. (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, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a second time”.

Sir, this Bill is related to the next Bill on the Order Paper, the Judicial Service (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, which will make consequential changes to various Acts arising from the amendments to the Constitution.

Sir, may I have your permission for the debate on both Bills to take place now. There is substantial overlap to both. Members can raise questions or express their views on both Bills during this debate. We would still have the formal Second Reading of the Judicial Service (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, to ensure that the necessary procedural requirements are dealt with.

Please do.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, this Bill makes several amendments to the Constitution to restructure the Singapore Legal Service. In essence, the Bill will: (a) establish a separate Judicial Service, overseen by a new Judicial Service Commission (JSC); and (b) make consequential changes to the Legal Service, which will be overseen by a reconstituted Legal Service Commission (LSC).

We have consulted the President on the amendments, some of which affect her discretionary powers. The President supports these amendments.

I will begin by briefly touching on the history of the Legal Service. It will give Members some context for the changes being proposed today.

The framework for the Legal Service was established via the 1959 Constitution, which marked Singapore’s transition to internal self-government. Over the years, adjustments were made to the way the Legal Service was run. But the fundamental structure remained unchanged for many decades, until two rounds of major changes.

In 2007, a comprehensive review was done. Major changes were made to create a more systematic talent management system. There were two key changes to the Constitutional structure.

First, the composition of the LSC was expanded. Since independence, Members will note that the LSC had comprised the Chief Justice (CJ), the Attorney-General (AG), the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (Chairman/PSC), a Supreme Court Judge and two members of the PSC, as nominated by the Chairman/PSC. Unlike today, all of the members of the LSC were members by virtue of some other office that they held separately.

The 2007 changes widened the LSC’s membership. The CJ, AG and Chairman/PSC would continue to be on the LSC. But in addition, up to six additional members, who need not be Supreme Court Judges or PSC members, could be nominated by the Prime Minister, the CJ and the Chairman/PSC.

The rationale was to bring in members, including those from the private sector, with a wider range of experience, for example, in personnel management, or who have knowledge of the legal service or the legal profession.

A second key change that was made then was to put in place a system of autonomous personnel boards (PBs), which would have charge over different classes of Legal Service Officers (LSOs). I will cover this in more detail later on in my speech.

The second major change happened in 2014. There was a significant shift in favour of specialisation, in response to the increasing scope and complexity of legal work. Two separate career tracks were introduced for the LSOs in the middle ranks: the judicial and legal tracks.

LSOs in the middle-ranks could elect to specialise along either track. They could be posted to jobs within either the Judicial or the Legal Branch to build experience. The PBs were also restructured along the Branch lines to oversee the career development pathways of the LSOs in the respective tracks.

The enduring challenge has been our very small pool of talent, due to our small size. This has been the raison d’etre for keeping with an integrated model. LSOs could be deployed interchangeably across Judicial and Legal Branches over the course of their career.

This principle was, in fact, recognised very early on.

The 1955 Malayanisation Commission, which was set up to accelerate the pace of localising the public service, in preparation for self-government, recommended that Legal Service officers be transferred from the Judicial side to the Legal side and vice versa, so as to “give officers an all-round training, and also to overcome the present objection of potential recruits to having experience limited to one side of the Service only which leads to a monotonous and incomplete professional career.” It was also agreed that all-round experience was beneficial, and that it would be best for officers to have experience at the Bar, on the Bench, as well as in the Attorney-General’s Department.

At the time of Independence, we only had 45 LSOs. It took 30 years for the Legal Service to grow to 235 LSOs in 1995. This number grew significantly, to 589 LSOs in 2014. But even then, a fully specialist service was not a viable option. There were only 159 officers in the Judicial Branch; and 419 officers in the Legal Branch.

With these numbers, having specialist services would leave officers, on the judicial side especially, lacking in opportunities for growth and career development. An “incomplete professional career”, to quote the words of the Malayanisation Commission. This would hamper the ability to attract and also retain talent.

Sir, the integrated model has worked well for our context. The Legal Service has played a key role in the development of our legal system and, consequently, in building Singapore’s reputation for commitment to the rule of law.

As Former CJ Yong Pung How said previously: “... the Legal Service has played a very important role in the success which Singapore has achieved as a nation. The work of many Legal Service Officers has contributed significantly to the recognition which our legal system has obtained as being among the best legal systems in the world.”

Today, over 800 LSOs serve in various crucial roles. LSOs in the Judicial Branch have contributed to building a world-class Judiciary that is both strong and trusted. LSOs in the Legal Branch, such as in the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and in the various Ministries, support effective and nimble functioning of the Executive and Parliament. For example, officers in AGC's Legislative Division, not only draft all the laws that are tabled and debated in this House, and I am sure Members are very familiar with all the Bills that have come, sometimes at breakneck speed, but also many pieces of subsidiary legislation that are critical for the effective functioning of the Executive.

Our international lawyers, they defend Singapore’s interests on the global front and make an outsize contribution to the continued vitality of the rules-based international order.

The high levels of public trust in these institutions is also worth noting. A 2020 public perception survey by MinLaw found that there is a strong positive perception of our legal system and institutions among Singapore residents: 95% of respondents agreed that we are governed by the Rule of Law; 90% had trust and confidence in our legal system and agreed that we had an efficient legal system; around 90% had a positive view of our Courts and of AGC.

On the world stage, in the Heritage Foundation’s 2021 Index of Economic Freedom, Singapore achieved the highest scores among 184 countries for judicial effectiveness. The World Economic Forum placed Singapore first in its 2019 Global Competitiveness Index, in terms of the efficiency of its legal framework in settling disputes.

Sir, this is not an exercise in theory or just in ranking numbers, but an exercise in building an institution that can actually deliver justice.

The COVID-19 pandemic that we have just been experiencing and we are still in, has shown the depth and excellence of our Legal Service.

LSOs in both the Judicial and Legal branches have worked tremendously hard to deal with the challenges brought about by COVID-19. LSOs in the Legal Branch provided crucial legal support to the Government response to the pandemic.

In January 2020, AGC stood up a Cross-Divisional Task Force, staffed by LSOs from the AGC and the legal divisions in various Ministries to provide urgent cross-cutting advice to the Government on all areas of the national pandemic response. For example, establishing Government quarantine facilities, contract tracing, border security, ensuring continued trade flows for essential goods and services and supplies, financing the various COVID-19 response budgets, and also vaccine procurement.

In the first half of 2020 alone, AGC received over 1,300 COVID-19 related requests for advice. It responded to 69% of these requests within 24 hours and 78% of these within 48 hours. So, it is not just the quality, but also the speed of the responses from our officers.

LSOs, including drafters from AGC, worked closely with policy officers in many Ministries as well as with private sector representatives to roll out a series of urgent measures to mitigate the economic impact of the pandemic on individuals and businesses. These measures, which required major pieces of legislation to be drafted in record time, included, and I think Members will recall over the last 18 months: (a) temporary relief from contractual obligations, (b) a rental relief framework, done more than once; (c) simplified frameworks for financially distressed companies to liquidate their businesses or restructure their debts; and (d) a framework for the negotiation of contracts affected by the pandemic. All novel pieces of legislation.

The quickly drafted legislation also allowed the Government to quickly implement new measures to control the spread of the disease. When circuit breaker measures were imposed to stop the spread of the virus, LSOs in the Courts, AGC and MinLaw, with other officers in the various agencies, worked together to formulate legislation to ensure the continued and undisrupted access to justice in spite of the pandemic.

The Courts operationalised a framework for remote hearings, developed a wide range of pandemic-related protocols. This ensured continued, undisrupted access to justice, even in the middle of the pandemic. To enforce the Infectious Diseases Act and COVID-19-related legislation, prosecutors worked closely with law enforcement agencies to assess the evidence and take quick action in all cases.

On the international front, LSOs in the International Affairs Division ensured that our COVID-19 measures remained consistent with our international obligations. As the situation improved in Singapore, they also assisted the Government in negotiating essential travel and air bubble arrangements to sustain economic exchanges and maintain our relevance as a regional and global hub.

Sir, these are just a few examples of the many contributions of the Legal Service in ensuring the fair and efficient administration of justice in Singapore during the pandemic.

So, what I have just outlined has been the model that we have adopted since Singapore achieved self-government. It has served us well to build up a Legal Service into the excellent institution that it is today and I think Members will agree that Singapore has benefited immensely.

Over the years, the Government has considered the question of whether an integrated or a specialist service would best serve Singapore's needs. We recognise the pros and cons both ways. The challenge has been and continues to be finding the right balance for our own circumstances, our own context and our needs.

As mentioned, the small talent pool has been a constraint and that is something that we keep in mind as we consider the options.

In July this year, Mr Murali Pillai, with the support of other Members, spoke on this matter in Parliament, calling on the Government to study the feasibility of setting up a separate JSC for judicial officers. Several members spoke and made good points about the increasing need for specialisation, including for the Judiciary, given the increasing factual and legal complexities of the cases presented to Court.

Minister Shanmugam agreed with their observations that the benefits of specialisation are likely to continue to grow as the Legal Service continues growing and maturing as an institution.

After studying the matter further and discussing the matter in detail with the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, the Government decided that we can take this step.

As Minister Shanmugam has said recently, the amendment is a finely balanced one. You can make a good case for not changing now and waiting. However, you can also consider the following.

The Legal Service has, since 2014, also grown significantly. It had, as of July 2021, 815 officers. Although this is still a relatively small number in context, it will allow us to have specialist services whilst retaining the benefits of the integrated model through a system of secondments.

Officers today have many opportunities to gain meaningful exposure and develop their careers. Since 2014, both the Judicial Branch and the Legal Branch have made various changes to deepen specialist skillsets. There has also been a significant emphasis on the training of our judges to develop specific competencies required for the judicial role.

In 2015, Members might recall the Singapore Judicial College was established as the central training body for the Judiciary. The State Courts and the Family Courts also run their own training programmes to help their judicial officers develop both deeper subject-matter knowledge as well as the necessary practical skills.

At AGC, the AGC Academy was set up to take charge of managing the training for AGC officers. Competency frameworks were developed so that individual training roadmaps could be drawn for each officer according to their own area of practice and specific level of expertise.

The Academy also organises regular workshops and lectures by subject-matter experts in both core and developing areas of the law, for AGC officers. Cross-departmental clusters and specialist tracks have been established to help build expertise in particular areas of law.

Sir, the proposed restructuring will build on these efforts, better support specialisation of roles and competencies required of LSOs. Each Commission will focus on the particular demands of their respective services. They will have flexibility to adapt their personnel management and development frameworks according to their respective services' specific needs.

The shift to a specialist model is not so much to address the problems of today but really a matter of forward planning, preparing for the challenges of the future. As Minister Shanmugam said in his response to Mr Murali's Motion, the key question is: when is the right time to move?

We could take a wait-and-see approach, given what I have said, and maintain the current system and make small adjustments at the margins, smaller tweaks; or we can make the move now, prepare ourselves for the future. We believe this will, eventually, make sense: to split the two services when the Legal Service grows further.

Sir, I will now take Members through the key provisions of the Bills, starting with the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill.

Broadly, the new provisions seek to replicate the existing provisions in respect of the current LSC, with appropriate adjustments to be made where necessary in introducing the JSC.

Clause 6(a), read with clause 26(1), establishes the Singapore Judicial Service. It will consist of existing LSOs holding posts in the Supreme Court or a subordinate court. All other LSOs will remain in the reconstituted Legal Service.

Clause 14 inserts new articles to establish a JSC and to reconstitute the LSC. The new Articles 111B to 111I relate to the new JSC while 111J to 111Q relate to the reconstituted LSC.

The composition of the Commissions is set out in the new Articles 111B and 111J of the Constitution.

Each Commission will have two ex-officio members. The CJ will be the President of the JSC and the AG will be the President of the LSC. Chairman/PSC will be the ex-officio Vice-President of both Commissions.

The key change here is the hardcoding of Chairman/PSC's role as Vice-President of both Commissions. Other than this, the remaining provisions replicate the current position in the Constitution.

So, the respective Presidents of the Commissions, Chairman/PSC and the Prime Minister may nominate up to two members, whose appointment is subject to a Presidential veto. Where any of them nominate two members, then at least one of them must be legally trained and of adequate seniority in order for both to be appointed. The existing disqualifications that you see today will continue to apply.

Similar to today, Personal Boards (PBs) may be established to exercise certain functions of the two Commissions. However, there will be some structural changes to the PBs, which I will take Members through.

In 2014, Members may recall that I had said PBs were restructured along Branch lines instead of by seniority. This was part of a broader shift towards specialisation, as I mentioned earlier. The two PBs that had been operating since 1995 were replaced by the Judicial Branch Special Personnel Board and the Legal Branch Special Personnel Board, which have been in operation since that time.

These two new PBs respectively oversee most human resource functions in respect of LSOs in the Judicial Branch and LSOs in the Legal Branch, up to Superscale Grade 3. Officers at Superscale Grade 2 and above continue to be overseen by the LSC directly. The two Boards also oversee career development pathways in the Legal and Judicial tracks.

The Boards are currently constituted as such. Both are chaired by CJ, who is President of the LSC.

The Judicial Branch Special Personnel Board comprises CJ and three other Supreme Court Judges, and the Legal Branch Special Personnel Board comprises the CJ and senior members of the AGC, including the AG and a Supreme Court Judge.

As part of the review, we also reviewed the appropriate structure for the PBs in the context of the changes that we seek to make for the proposed specialist model.

With the restructuring, we have decided, following discussions with both CJ and AG, to shift to a system of formalised delegation.

The structure of the Commissions already align authority and responsibility, reducing the need for devolution. CJ and AG, as Presidents of their respective Commissions, will be closely involved in the management of the officers in their respective Commissions. They will each be able to nominate Supreme Court Judges and Deputy Attorneys-General to the Commission if they so choose. Both offices are involved in the management of their organisations and enjoy constitutional protection for their independence.

A system of formalised delegation will facilitate alignment of purpose and efficient decision-making and also facilitate the division of responsibilities between the Commissions and the PBs. Post-restructuring, the sizes of the Services will also be smaller – about 200-plus officers in the Judicial Service and 500-plus for the Legal Service.

Under this proposed structure, Commissions will be empowered to delegate, by way of subsidiary legislation, stipulated functions and powers to one or more of the PBs. These are to be exercised under the Commission's direction and control.

In terms of composition of the PBs, the Articles set out a closed list of persons who may be appointed as PB members. There is also a requirement that PBs must have at least three members to ensure a diversity of voices within a PB and to bring balance to its discussion and decisions.

Safeguards, at the same time, will be retained.

The Commissions may not delegate functions and powers relating to (a) either senior officers at or above a threshold grade; and (b) discipline and dismissal of any officers. So, both of those remain non-delegable.

As is the case today, these matters will be decided at the Commission level because matters relating to senior officers should be decided directly by the Commissions, and functions of discipline and dismissal have serious professional implications and consequences.

The appointment of members to any PB remains subject to the President's concurrence, as is the case today.

Cross-Service secondments will continue to be available on application after the restructuring. I mentioned cross-Service secondments earlier in my speech. Those will continue to be available.

To facilitate this, Articles 111F and 111N, for JSC and LSC respectively, allow them to make joint regulations to provide that their personnel management functions over officers holding prescribed posts may be exercised by the other Commission.

Secondments will be available under a framework jointly developed by the two Commissions. Such movements will likely be subject to the prevailing rules or requirements developed by the two Commissions; the needs of the Services, obviously, given their specific manpower needs, including the availability of positions; and, necessarily, the officers' relevant experience and suitability for the job.

Sir, before I move on from the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, let me just briefly draw Members' attention to clauses 21 and 22 of this Bill.

These clauses do not relate to the Commissions. These clauses amend the references in the Constitution to various statutes relating to Government borrowing. The changes are consequential to the amendments made in the Government Borrowing (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, which was just debated.

Sir, I will now turn briefly to the Judicial Service (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, which makes consequential amendments to various other Acts.

The Bill inserts terms, such as "Judicial Service Officer", "Judicial Service Commission" or "Singapore Judicial Service" into the affected Acts, where appropriate, such that Acts which apply in relation to the Legal Service will also apply to the Judicial Service, and Acts that apply in relation to the LSC will also apply to the JSC and, finally, Acts that apply in relation to LSOs will also apply to JSOs.

Sir, in conclusion, these amendments are intended to build on the six decades of institution-building that has made the Legal Service the premier service that it is today. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer.

I stand in support of the Bills and the restructuring of our Legal Service into the separate Judicial Service Commission and Legal Service Commission.

In July, my fellow members from the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Law, Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Christopher de Souza had spoken about the need to consider whether it would be feasible to set up a separate Judicial Service Commission that would be in a better position to nurture specialist judicial officers.

The Government, in response, has stated that it will consider and study the proposals and, so, I am glad that these Bills have now come to be tabled before this House.

The integrated model of our Legal Service, where officers are deployed to both judicial and legal branches, has previously met our manpower needs and helped us to build up our dispute resolution hub and status as a well-respected judiciary in the world. This is no mean feat, particularly given our small population and limited talent pool.

We have heard from the Minister about the great work that our Legal Service Officers have done, especially to meet our COVID-19 pandemic challenges as well.

But as Singapore adds to its repertoire of being the preferred international dispute hub, we need to ensure that our Judiciary and Legal Service are also well-equipped to meet any new challenges ahead.

In the midst of fast-paced disruptions to our legal environment and profession, we are also facing a real competition with other emerging and lucrative sectors to train and retain the talent pool both in our Singapore Bar, the legal service and our Bench.

In preparation to meet future challenges caused by these changes, we need to build a strong and deep bench, towards specialisation of emerging areas of law and expertise required in the future. However, we also need to ensure good range of exposure, especially for our younger officers. In this regard, younger does not mean in terms of age but for those less experienced.

I do have some clarifications that I would like to cover in three parts: (a) firstly, the career in the Courts; (b) secondly, the challenges in the future; and (c) and the last part is the expertise in community-niche and culturally sensitive areas, which I will deliver in Malay.

The first part, career in the Courts. In relation to clause 26 of the Bill, which is the transitional provision, existing officers in the legal service will be allocated or re-deployed according to the posts that they are holding. For example, existing office holders in the Supreme Courts or other subordinate Courts, like the Family Justice Courts, shall come under the newly-formed Judicial Service Commission (JSC). A "judicial branch officer" is defined as an existing officer who is holding a post in the Supreme Court or a Subordinate Court. My question is: what would be the definition of a "Subordinate Court", besides the Family Justice Courts and the State courts, what others can be taken into consideration? For example, such as Tribunals?

We are also facing the challenge of a limited talent pool. Recently, three judiciary commissioners have been appointed judges in the Supreme Court. They are either Senior Counsel or senior practitioners taken from the Bar, one of whom I have appeared before, he was my arbitrator, another was an opposing counsel, the third I have worked with. As much as I am glad that we have very talented and esteemed appointments to the judiciary bench, the thinning of the talent at the Bar is a very real risk to our legal profession. We need to ensure that the deep bench in our Courts does not come at the expense of the Bar and deplete our talent pool at the Singapore Bar which is detrimental to our status of our dispute resolution hub.

Hence, the talent for our judiciary and the Bench must be built up internally as well. I would propose that despite the separate arms being set up with the Legal Service Commission (LSC) and the JSC, that there should still be some flexibility or a fixed rotation between JSC and LSC officers in the early years of their career. This is so that they can get sufficient experience; and also be exposed to experience in the other courts. Hence, I would like to ask whether there would be flexibility to allow for transfers between both commissions to better prepare ourselves for the future needs of the Bench.

Speaking about the future needs of the Bench, this flows into the second part of my speech on challenges in the future. The future challenges of greater cross-border litigation which not only involve complex legal or factual issues but also inevitably involves issues of conflict of laws and interface between common law and civil law systems in the various legal systems in other countries.

New and specialised areas of law, for example, those involving smart contracts and cryptocurrency, would also require our judges to be equipped with the necessary commercial and perhaps, private practice experience and practical know-how. These would greatly complement the technical and legal skills already on the Bench. Ultimately, a strong Bench would help to attract more disputes and bolster our dispute resolution hub status as a nation.

We thus need judges who understand practice and commercial realities. Thus, without the risk of thinning of the Bar, perhaps the Ministry could look into the secondment of Judicial Service officers in specific private practice areas or international postings in the early parts of their career. Of course, this is subject to issues of conflict of interest in the future and disclosure of associations in the future, once that officer leaves private practice to rejoin the Judiciary. However, such declarations are already the norm now when judges declare any potential conflict of interest prior to being docketed as a judge for a case.

Already, we have seen in the courts how a docket system of specialist judges with the relevant practice experience and managing the case from the outset would improve the case management and our cases in litigation have now progressed efficiently and effectively. Perhaps also to complement the skillset, we can have more invited International Judges (IJs) to be part of our Judiciary and not just for cases before the Singapore International Commercial Courts (SICC), but perhaps the IJs, or International Judges, can also sit in specific High Court cases or appeals whenever necessary.

We not only have to broaden our talent pool to meet future challenges, we would also have to deepen our expertise in certain niche areas where perhaps there would be some religious or cultural sensitivities.

In this regard, Mr Speaker, I will move on to the last part of my speech which I will deliver in Malay, on community, cultural and religious sensitivities.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To attract international funds or high net worth individuals to establish endowments or invest in Singapore, we must further strengthen Singapore's status as a leading dispute resolution hub. In addition, the Islamic financial sector has seen an increase in cases filed in courts and arbitration processes around the world, including institutions in Malaysia and the Middle East.

These cases require in-depth expertise and a comprehensive legal framework for handling Islamic financial dispute cases. It also requires a prudent and sensitive approach tailored to each specific region. Apart from commercial or civil cases, our courts also deal with cases involving sensitive issues that affect all walks of life in our Muslim community.

These include the interpretation of Syariah law issues, such as the interpretation of the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA), wakaf or Islamic inheritance law (faraidh), as well as marriage or inheritance law for Muslims which are sometimes heard before the High Court.

In my maiden speech in Parliament, I have suggested how a more comprehensive arbitration process or legal framework can be studied to deal with cases of wakaf or estate disputes in our community. This can be done by broadening the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court or deepening the specialisation of our civil courts to handle such cases.

All these issues affect our Muslim community.

Furthermore, our constitution recognises the special position of the Malays and outlines the Government's commitment to protect the interests of our Malay-Muslim community and our Malay language. In terms of law, Muslim law forms part of the law of the land. Thus, our civil courts have the power to interpret Muslim law itself. Civil courts, when faced with questions of Islamic law, are not obliged to seek an opinion from MUIS.

Therefore, I think it is timely for the Government to set up the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). It not only provides the necessary specialization, but also can balance the approach that needs to be taken in dealing with specific cases.

My recommendation is for suitable JSC members to be seconded or take turns handling Syariah Court or Syariah Appeal Board cases to build their understanding and knowledge. I understand that this is already happening, but perhaps the career path and development of the seconded JSC officers can be further clarified so that this rotation can attract more JSC officers. I also recommend that cross-sharing and learning be established between courts, including Syariah Court and civil court officers and all training perhaps can be conducted under the auspices of the Singapore Judicial College.

Finally, I welcome the establishment of this Commission which can meet the needs of the community and address the challenges of more complex cases in the future for our country.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me first start by declaring that I am a practising advocate and solicitor in the Supreme Court of Singapore. The Constitutional Amendment Bill and the Judicial Service (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill before us today provide for the creation of a separate Judicial Service.

The call for a separate Judicial Service is not something new at all. There has been calls for separate Judicial Services over the past 35 years and indeed, from all sides of the House. The Workers' Party former Secretary General and former Member for Anson, the late Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam, called for a separate Judicial Service Commission back in 1986. Former Nominated Member of Parliament and President of the Law Society, Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair, called for it in 2004. In our manifesto for the 2011 General Election, the Workers' Party called for a separate Judicial Service. The hon Mr Murali Pillai proposed a separate Judicial Service Commission in November 2020, and again, in the Adjournment Motion in July this year together with the hon Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Christopher de Souza.

In November 2020, following the Ms Parti Liyani saga, my colleagues, the hon Member for Aljunied, Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms He Ting Ru, the hon Member for Seng Kang, filed a Motion named "Justice for All". In my speech in the "Justice for All" Motion, I said that it might still be worthwhile for the proposed review then, to still consider whether we should have a more specialised or dedicated Judicial track at the State Court level encompassing Magistrates and District Judges, continuing inter-services posting or rotation with other branches of the legal service, particularly with the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC).

Today, I am heartened to see the Government taking the first step to set up a Judicial Service separate from the current legal service. The Workers' Party supports this move and indeed the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill for these changes as this will among other things, promulgate even greater judicial independence. The Bills proposed the setting up of a Judicial Service Commission (JSC) separate from the existing Legal Service Commission (LSC). Currently, the Chief Justice (CJ) is the president of the LSC and the Attorney-General (AG) and the Public Service Commission (PSC) Chairman sit on the commission together with two other members, each nominated by the Attorney-General, the PSC chairman and the Prime Minister.

Under the new arrangements, pursuant to the Bills, the AG will take over as the president of the LSC and the PSC chairman assume the newly considered role of Vice President. The CJ shall be the President of the new JSC, while the PSC Chairman assumed the newly considered role of the Vice President, together with two other members, each nominated by the CJ, the PSC Chairman and the Prime Minister.

I assume that the reconstituted rows in the respective commissions intend that the AG and CJ cannot be nominated by anyone to be members of the JSC and the LSC respectively. And if my assumption is wrong here, I am happy for the Minister to clarify, but this must surely be the case as this would promote independence between the two commissions. And in the case of the AG, not taking a role in a JSC, it would demonstrate greater judiciary independence.

Mr Speaker, the Singapore High Court has always enjoyed a good reputation in the international community for its jurisprudence and effectiveness. In particular, it has always been well-regarded by many commercial lawyers elsewhere.

As a shipping lawyer, I can further attest to that also, because the cross-border nature of our shipping legal work, both contentious and non-contentious, require us to work with lawyers from different maritime jurisdictions. And the issue of finding jurisdiction for both the contracts we draft and the cases we do, often has to do with finding strategic, reliable and reputable jurisdictions, which we can persuade our clients and other stakeholders to accept.

With the new JSC being split from the current LSC, and the more dedicated judicial track, which must surely envisage more dedicated recruitment as well as Human Resources (HR) policies, even more attention to judicial training at all levels, especially lower to mid levels, as well as a more enhanced career progression plans for all judicial officers, it is hoped that the public will be able to see better access to justice, even better quality judgments at all levels, including the various tribunals, State Courts, the High Court and the Appellate Courts above, as well as the delivery of just outcomes for all litigants.

Mr Speaker, I believe that our current LSC is big enough for the split to take place. I believe that a separate JSC should be given optimum autonomy to plan its recruitment in human resource development, independent of the reconstituted LSC. Having a separate JSC will, hopefully, allow it to look at recruitment, professional and continuing training and retention of personnel with a new focus as it strives to work towards building a team of officers who are specialists in being judicial officers, not merely Legal Service Officers.

I hope that with the JSC, our Courts can continue to recruit and develop more specialists in different areas, be it technology, construction, finance, IP, so on and so forth. This should also not just be at the higher levels, such as in the High Court, but also in the State Courts. This will enable our Courts to maintain its high standing among judiciaries all over the world.

Mr Speaker, I have said in my speech during the "Justice for All" Motion that how an average Singaporean thinks of our judges is important. He or she must, of course, be learned in law, and also in the area of specialisation that he or she is known for, beyond pure commercial law and, particularly, in areas like criminal and family law. The ability of judges to understand and empathise with the different challenges faced by litigants of different socioeconomic backgrounds is critical. I hope and have confidence that, with a dedicated JSC, our Judiciary and judicial officers can continue to rise to these challenges.

Mr Speaker, next, according to The Straits Times article of 4 October on the present Bills in question, I read that secondments will be available on application to provide selected officers with experience across both services and permanent transfers may also be available subject to prevailing personnel rules.

I would like to ask the Minister, following the changes under the present Bills, what are the new changes in respect of (a) the career development for the officers under the proposed new LSC and JSC respectively, as well as (b) the changes in respect of inter-service postings between LSC and JSC that officers can expect after the restructuring. I know the Minister touched on some aspects of this earlier, but, essentially, I would like to know how different will the career tracks be after the restructuring, and how will the changes enhance the new and separate Judicial Service. Will there, for example, be a default career progression plan, planned under each of the Services' Commission and transfers across to the other will only be catered upon request by an officer, or by the management of either services?

In my speech at that "Justice for All" Motion, I also said a specialised Judicial Service may be preferable to the current system to provide more distance between prosecutors and those working as magistrates and judges. For example, to avoid having AGC colleagues, some of them being more senior colleagues, arguing cases before them, knowing that they may be posted back to AGC again. I had asked what safeguards will be in place to encourage reasonable distance.

Next, I would also like to ask whether there are plans to differentiate the remuneration frameworks of the Judicial Service and the Legal Service tracks, to account for the differences in specialisation after the restructuring.

Finally, I would like to ask the Minister for an update on how MinLaw views the current caseloads in our Courts, given our current number of judicial officers and given the pace by which the cases are being managed, and whether it thinks that the current number of judicial officers is adequate across the Courts.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarification, the Workers' Party will vote in support of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill and the Judicial Service (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, almost exactly a year ago in this House, I suggested that an independent Judicial Service Commission (JSC) be set up, amongst others, to deepen the competence of judicial officers.

This suggestion to set up the JSC is not mine alone. Several hon Members made the same suggestion in this House, both before and after me, and we have just heard from the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan an account of the other Members who have spoken in this House asking for the setting up of the JSC. All of us are aligned in the request but not necessarily aligned in relation to the reasons for asking for the setting up of the JSC.

The hon Minister for Law chose his words very carefully in replying to me. He said the way our service was structured "is probably the best model for the time being".

As hon Members know, time is elastic. If anyone were to have asked me then as to whether the Government would set up the JSC, my instinctive reply would have been, "Please do not hold your breath!"

Then, in July this year, hon Members Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Lim Biow Chuan joined me in an Adjournment Motion to call on the Government to study the feasibility to set up a separate and independent JSC to allow for deeper specialisation and ensure that the Judiciary is properly positioned for the challenges of the future.

The hon Minister for Law agreed broadly with the points we made and pithily put it as an issue of timing. The Second Minister for Law recounted this just earlier today as well.

Should we retain the current structure and make incremental changes as we go along, or should we split the services now to put our country on a better footing for the future?

If the same person were to have repeated the question on whether the split would have happened after the Adjournment Motion, my response would likely be that I am hopeful it will happen sooner rather than later.

As it turned out, just three months later, we are now considering these amendments to the Constitution to create a separate JSC out of the current LSC. I am really glad to note from the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan's speech that it will enjoy bipartisan support as well. If these amendments are passed, the plan is to put them into effect in January 2022.

I am highlighting this chronology as it is clear to me that the Government was already considering the merits of these changes for a while and decided that now is the time to make these changes in the interest of securing of country's future.

The Government's approach brings to my mind what Prime Minister Lee stated during his National Day Rally speech in 2016. He asked, and I quote, "whether things could get better for Singapore after SG50. Can the best be yet to come? The answer was a resounding "yes!"

He went on to state that one thing we need, as a country, to ensure this is to be, and I quote, "blessed with a divine discontent, always not quite satisfied with what we have, always driven to do better". These amendments we are considering reflect the spirit of "divine discontent" and "drive to do better".

It is also in keeping with the Motion on Singapore's Justice System passed in Parliament in November 2020 in which we affirmed the Government's continuous efforts to build a fair and just society.

Perhaps, this explains why Singapore did well in the Pew Research Centre Report dated 21 October 2021 which conducted research in 17 advanced economies, including Singapore, to identify whether citizens in these economies want significant changes to their political system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to flash a slide of the table from the report on the screen, please?

Please do. [A slide was shown to hon Members.]

Obliged. Yes. Thankfully, it is clearer. But now it is not.

We should use slides that we can read.

The chart is entitled "Those who want changes to their political system are not confident political system can be changed". So, you do not want to be high up in the chart from the Pew Research Center that I am showing.

Italy is ranked at the top, meaning, amongst the 17 economies, its people are the least satisfied.

Singapore is right below, meaning her people are the most satisfied.

It is stated in the report that in every economy, except Singapore, there are larger shares of the public who want political reform but lack the confidence that reform can happen effectively as compared to those who are confident that change can occur.

Eighty-two percent of Singaporeans said that they are satisfied with the way democracy is working here, compared to an overall median of 57%. A key feature of our democracy is that real action is taken, to make changes essential to securing our future and keeping all of us united in purpose.

The significance of setting up a separate and independent JSC should not be lost on anyone in this House. Just last month, when this House was considering the FICA Bill, there were insinuations in some quarters, particularly outside this House, that the Government is bent on making itself more powerful to suppress legitimate free speech and expression amongst our people.

Since then, this Government has repealed the Sedition Act, which was introduced during the colonial times to rein in discontent against the Government and it is now moving these Constitutional amendments which will enjoy bipartisan support to create an independent JSC to oversee judicial service officers.

These are not the acts of a power-hungry government, hell-bent on entrenching itself and ignoring the wishes of the people. Fair-minded people decide not based on empty words, but on real action.

The razor-sharp focus of our Government is on securing our people’s future against the backdrop of an ever more challenging global landscape.

For the remainder of my speech, I wish to focus on the proposed reconstituted LSC. In my speech during the Adjournment Motion, I had spoken about the indelible contributions of the current LSC, using the integrated model since 1959, for which, as a nation, we owe much thanks. I have also spoken about the highly-respected judicial system that we have in Singapore and how the JSC will serve to strengthen it even more under the proposed system.

Let me start off by acknowledging the quality of the officers in the Legal Branch of the LSC, past and present.

To illustrate this point, I need only ask hon Members, as the hon Second Minister for Law did just a few minutes ago, to recount their own legislative experience in this House.

In the course of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, we had to pass 12 wide-ranging Bills. Seven of these bills were urgent Bills which included the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill and its three subsequent amendment Bills, Supply Bills, Bills providing for Parliamentary elections and marriage solemnisation during COVID-19. Two hundred and twenty-seven pieces of COVID-19-related subsidiary legislation were also published.

We were able to do this because of, amongst others, a top-rate team in the legislative division of the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). They had to be creative but meticulous, be daring but keep an eye for the minutiae of details. And all is done, quoting the hon Second Minister for Law, at "breakneck speed".

I still recall the speech of the hon Minister for Law when he expressed his pride and appreciation for the work done by officers involved during the passing of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill. Several hon Members, including myself, joined him to express our appreciation.

This speaks of the quality and dedication of the officers we have in the legislative division headed by the hon Deputy Solicitor-General, Mrs Owi Beng Ki.

The Legal Branch is replete with great examples of dedicated officers, past and present, with a strong sense of duty. I would like to mention some of them whom I have had the privilege of knowing.

The late Mr K S Rajah SC. He served in the Legal Service from 1963 to 1985. This included a stint as the longest-serving Director of the Legal Aid Bureau, which allows people of limited means with important access to civil and family justice.

The late Mr S Tiwari, who was in the Legal Service for 36 years from 1971 to 2007 when he retired. During his career, he headed MINDEF's Legal Department and AGC's Civil Division and later, its International Affairs Division. He was involved in numerous international negotiations representing Singapore.

Mr Daren Tang, who is currently the Director-General of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). In fact, he is the first Singaporean to lead a UN Agency. The hon Minister Mr Edwin Tong described his appointment as, and I quote, "a momentous occasion for Singapore". Prior to that, he was the Chief Executive of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and held several positions in AGC.

Mr Mohamed Faizal Senior Counsel, Senior State Counsel of the Crime Division of AGC – he is an excellent example of how one mixes heavy duty responsibilities with regular volunteer work for our community. For his contributions to the legal profession and the community, he was awarded the Berita Harian Anugerah Jauhari 2020 award. He was also inducted as a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in 2016.

I make these references for a purpose. We must ensure that with the split of the current LSC into a JSC and the reconstituted LSC, the reconstituted LSC should continue to attract and retain its fair share of top talent with the right set of values.

The Legal Service Officers of the Legal Branch perform vital roles in providing legal advice to the Government and playing their role in the administration of justice and helping to uphold of the rule of law in Singapore.

With the reconstituted LSC, there is an opportunity to hasten the pace of specialisation of the LSOs to keep up with the demands of their respective jobs and the ever-rising expectations of Singaporeans. May I ask the hon Minister whether plans have been made to deal with this issue? If so, I would be grateful for an outline of the efforts that will be expended on this front.

Mr Speaker, Sir, laws are unwieldy creatures. The text of the laws passed can be so turgid and formal such that many people cannot help but describe it as "gobbledegook". But they are also such powerful forces. During the pandemic, for example, these laws make sure that workers get paid, our rents reduced and that the promises businesses made to one another can be modified easily without breaking trust. And all these, in an orderly, legitimate and predictable manner.

This could not have been done without the best legal minds at work in the public sector. This restructuring is needed, but we must do it with care. The reconstituted LSC must stand shoulder to shoulder with the JSC as twin pillars in attracting and developing the best human resource talent in the public legal sector that will continue to meet the high expectations of Singaporeans well into the future.

This will allow us to pursue our democratic dream, partnered with divine discontent, not mere dissatisfaction with the way things are, but the power to change them to the way they should be. I support the Bill.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.32 pm until 4.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.55 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

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

Sir, the Bill proposes to establish a Judicial Service Commission (JSC), separate from the Legal Service Commission (LSC). The restructuring will allow both the LSC and JSC to benefit from greater specialisation and flexibility. This is needed to tackle the increasing complexity of the legal landscape.

Our legal system and judiciary are greatly respected for impartially and efficiently dispensing justice. The amendments will help us to maintain the good standing of our legal system.

I have three points of clarification to make.

My first point is on the independence of the LSC, the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the JSC.

The public place great trust in our institutions. Results released in March this year from an IPS study showed that 81% of the public had a great deal or quite a lot of trust in the Government; 82% said this of the Courts, and 80% said this of the Civil Service.

In the 2020 World Justice Project Rule of Law Index measuring the rule of law in countries, Singapore was placed 12 out of 128 countries. The Rule of Law Index looks at, among other things, accountability and open government.

In the 2019 World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report, Singapore was ranked 14 out of 141 countries for judicial independence.

It is very commendable that we have such high levels of trust locally and internationally in our public institutions. We should work hard to maintain this.

My clarification is on how we can safeguard the good reputation of our public institutions by ensuring independence of the JSC, LSC and PSC.

There are some concerns that the proposed Articles may mean some overlap among the Commissions for the LSC, PSC and JSC. For example, the Chairman of the PSC will be the Vice-President of both the LSC and JSC. The PSC will also advise the President on the appointment of up to two members each on the LSC and JSC.

It would be good if the Minister can share some safeguards in place to ensure the public can continue to have high confidence in the independence of the LSC, JSC and PSC.

My second point is on recruiting a wider range of talents from beyond the existing legal service into the JSC.

In July this year, my colleague Mr Murali Pillai delivered an Adjournment Motion with Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Lim Biow Chuan on the feasibility of setting up the JSC for judicial officers.

In his Motion speech, Mr Murali spoke about the flexibility the JSC may have in recruiting a wider range of talent. He gave the example of how someone with experience in programming who is taught law may be able to navigate the technical facts of a case much better than a legally-trained Judge. I echo these sentiments.

Additionally, the three Members spoke on the benefits of the movement of judicial officers and legal service officers across judicial and legal service branches. Such rotations are beneficial for the officers and the respective branches. That said, I think we can all agree that it is important for the judicial service to be staffed by officers from a diversity of backgrounds beyond the legal service. Recruiting talent from diverse backgrounds will help with responding to increasingly complex and specialised cases before the Courts and also for maintaining trust in the judiciary’s independence.

Can the Minister share the plans to diversify the talent pool of judicial officers within the JSC?

Lastly, under the new Article 111D, an appointed member to the JSC may hold office of three to five years and is eligible for reappointment. Under the new Article 111L, an appointed member to the LSC may hold office of three to five years and is also eligible for reappointment.

Both Articles do not set out any limits for such reappointment. Limits on reappointment are not uncommon in private and public institutions. Such limits steer institutions towards leadership renewal and organisational changes.

Can the Minister confirm whether there are limits on the reappointment of any member to the LSC and JSC? If not, can the Minister share the rationale for not limiting the number of reappointments that a member can hold in both the LSC and JSC?

Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of both Bills.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Sir, I declare my interest in speaking on this Bill as a practising lawyer.

In July this year, my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Murali Pillai, filed an Adjournment Motion on the “Feasibility of Setting up a Judicial Service Commission for Judicial Officers”. I spoke in support of the Motion as I am of the view that it is in the interest of our legal system that we have judicial officers who can be equipped to serve in the various specialised Courts and to meet the challenges of the future. I am grateful that MinLaw supports this need to carry out structural changes to the Legal Service.

The Judiciary is one of the three Organs of State. It plays an integral part in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that justice is accessible to all the citizens of Singapore. For that reason, it is important that the Government reviews the structure of the Legal Service to ensure that both judicial officers and Legal Service officers are adequately prepared for the future.

In the 2020 Annual Report of the Legal Service Commission, it was reported that there are 806 Legal Service Officers (LSOs) in service as at 31 December 2020. Of these 806 LSOs, 224 were in the judicial branch and 582 in the legal branch. The judicial branch serves the Supreme Court, the State Court and the Family Justice Courts. The legal branch serves the AGC and the legal service departments in various Ministries and Statutory Boards. As an example, the 582 LSOs serve in Government agencies other than AGC, like they serve in ACRA, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS), EDB, Health Service Authority (HSA), IMDA, IPOS, IRAS, Office of Public Guardian (OPG), LTA, SLA, NEA, SMC, MUIS and so on. So, it is really a wide scope for these LSOs.

Based on the Singapore Courts Annual Report 2020, the caseload of the State Courts was a total of 187,016 cases in 2020. Out of these 187,016 cases, 143,728 are classified as criminal cases, 31,189 are classified as civil cases and there are 12,099 community and tribunal-related cases. The caseload for the State Courts for 2019 was higher at 249,954 cases. That is almost a quarter million. The caseload for 2018 was even higher at 359,064 cases.

Then we go on to the Family Justice Courts. The caseload is 25,633 cases for 2020 and 27,953 cases for 2019. If you add the total caseloads of the State Courts, the Family Justice Courts and the work in the Supreme Court, many of us will agree that the 224 judicial officers, even with support staff, will be grossly overstretched.

The Singapore Courts Annual Report also gave examples of significant cases handled by the Courts. There was a case about terrorism financing, a case about defamatory comments made on social media against an F&B company; there are cases about protection to be given to litigants under the Prevention of Harassment Act and even a case about euthanasia of a dog.

In a 2020 case involving cryptocurrency, the Court had to make a decision involving cryptocurrency trades and the implications of smart contracts and artificial intelligence. In the not too far future, judges may be called upon to decide who is at fault if there are accidents involving driverless cars.

Another example of the evolving law is in the area of family law. In the past, lawyers acting for parties who have filed for divorce would work towards getting the best resolution for their clients. And that is the nature of an adversarial system. Today, lawyers and judges alike, would have to adjust to this concept of therapeutic justice in family disputes.

Based on the volume of cases handled by the State Courts and Family Justice Courts and the increasing complexity of cases, I would submit that it is timely for us to review the need for our judicial officers to have greater specialisation so as to gain greater depth of knowledge about the latest developments in the law.

There has always been a high regard for our judicial system. The Singapore judiciary and our legal system have always been recognised as among the best in the world. Within Singapore, a recent survey by the Institute of Policy Studies shows that 82% of the respondents had either a great deal or quite a lot of trust in our Courts.

Minister Indranee Rajah had said in her 2014 speech on the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill, “the public reposes a great deal of trust and confidence in the Subordinate Courts – and, indeed, our Judiciary generally. We trust them to apply the law impartially, uphold our laws and dispense justice fairly.”

Our Chief Justice said recently society’s regard for and trust in the Courts are “extremely precious”.

For that reason, Sir, I submit that we need to invest heavily in our legal officers serving both in the Judiciary as well as in the Legal Service so that we can continue to earn and maintain the trust of the people in our legal system. Having a separate Judicial Service Commission and a Legal Service Commission is just a step towards recognising the challenges facing our LSOs and allow them to explore greater specialisation and more equipped for the future. Having a personnel board for each commission also ensures that we continue to attract and retain talent to serve in the legal and judicial services.

Our judicial officers need more specialised knowledge to better grasp the complex laws and facts; they also need equipping to understand the different emotions of the litigant. And that is not an easy task for Judicial officers. I quote Lord Judge, the former Lord Chief Justice in the UK, in a speech which he made in October 2008. He said, “Many qualities are required of a judge… He or she must, of course, know the law, and know how to apply it, but the judge must always be wise to the ways of the world. The judge must have the ability to make a decision."

"Decisions can be profoundly unpleasant. For example, to say to a mother that her children would be taken away from her, or to say to an individual that he is going to prison for the rest of his life."

"Judges must have moral courage. It is an important judicial attribute to make decisions that will be unpopular with the politicians or the media and the public, and, indeed, perhaps, most importantly of all, to defend the right to equal treatment before the law, of those who are unpopular at any given time.”

So, even the person who may be very unpopular or condemned by social media or members of the public, it is the job of a judge to ensure that this person is given the right to equal treatment before the law, even if they are unpopular at any point of time. These are wise words because judicial officers would need to deal firmly with recalcitrant offenders and yet show compassion to an accused person who may have made a mistake due to poor judgement or reacted badly due to a breakdown in emotions. Judicial officers in the Family Justice Courts would have to deal with litigants sensitively, especially where there are young children involved.

Sir, the proposed amendments to the Constitution did not specifically state whether LSOs can still be transferred between the judicial divisions or the legal service division. However, I am glad to hear the Minister's confirmation that cross-service secondments will continue to be available on application where useful, to provide selected officers with cross-service experience.

Sir, I think it is important that legal officers can still be allowed to ask for cross-service postings so as to deepen their knowledge of the work that they do. For example, if a judicial officer in the Family Court wishes to seek a posting to MSF to better understand how family disputes can be resolved, surely that kind of cross-postings should be encouraged. That judicial officer would then be armed with practical life skills that would make him or her a better judge in the Family Justice Courts. Similarly, a legal officer who had served as a prosecutor or a lawyer who had previously worked as a litigation lawyer is better placed to understand the adversarial nature of disputes. I would also submit that all our judicial officers must have some wide exposure to community work and more depth of experience in life before being appointed as judicial officers. Even as we position our legal service and judicial service officers as what former Chief Justice, the late Mr Yong Pung How, described as the “premier service” in the public sector, I hope that we also remind our judicial officers on the need to remain humble as they serve the wider society in Singapore.

Sir, I urge the JSC to encourage their judicial officers to widen their life skills in different areas, including being humble, being patient with others, handling nervous litigants or witnesses and showing empathy and compassion wherever needed. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Vikram Nair.

Mr Speaker, like most of the others before me, I declare my interest as a practicing lawyer.

I speak in support of both Bills. These Bills involve the setting up of a Judicial Services Commission in Singapore which will oversee the judicial officers in both the State Courts and the Supreme Court. The Commission’s role includes determining the appointment, confirmation, placement on permanent establishment, promotion, transfer, disciplinary control and dismissal of judicial officers. So, essentially, this controls the personnel function.

These functions were previously carried out by the Legal Services Commission, which oversaw all legal officers in the Public Service, including both the judicial services, those in the Attorney-General’s Chambers and those in other public agencies. The Legal Services Commission will remain, but its remit will no longer cover judicial officers.

Related to these changes, the Chief Justice, who was previously President of the Legal Services Commission, will now be President of the Judicial Services Commission, while the Attorney-General will now be President of the Legal Services Commission.

The rationale for such changes is that it allows specialisation in each of the services and for the senior officers in each branch to properly evaluate and appoint the officers to that branch. This is obviously quite sensible. There is also an argument that this provides a cleaner separation of powers, with judicial officers cleanly separated from those performing other functions, such as in public prosecution. This separation of functions exists in many countries, including many in the Commonwealth.

Having said that, this matter has been raised before, including in this House, and in the past, we had always believed that having a single Legal Services Commission had worked well for Singapore and had certain advantages. This included that officers could be rotated across functions and to develop broader experiences.

Judicial officers, for example, could benefit from having had stints as counsel, such as public prosecutors. Similarly, those acting as public prosecutors may also benefit from having spent time as registrars, or even as district judges, as they will see matters from the perspective of the bench. There is also a perception that the judicial service would be the more desired branch and, in the past, those in other parts of the legal service may aspire to be judicial officers if they performed well.

So, while I note that the separation of functions does not prevent cross-posting of officers, and the Minister in his introductory statement has stated secondments will be available, will such cross-postings be more difficult, now that there are different commissions governing both? Is there also a risk that if an officer stays only in one branch of the service, they may not get the broader perspective they used to be able to get in the past that will help them perform their functions better? Does this also mean that legal careers will be set in stone, depending on which side of the branch they start in? Clarifications notwithstanding, I support both Bills.

Mr Edwin Tong.

Mr Speaker, I thank Members who spoke in support of the Bill from both sides of the House.

Let me quickly and directly address the questions raised.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked about the definition of “subordinate court” as used in clause 26 of the Bill. As set out in clause 26, on the appointed date, the existing Judicial Branch officers will be assigned to the Judicial Service, and all other Legal Service officers will remain in the reconstituted Legal Service.

A Judicial Branch officer is defined as an officer holding a post in the Supreme Court or a subordinate court immediately before the date of the commencement of the Act. To avoid doubt, the LSC Secretariat will be notifying the individual officers of the Service that they have been assigned to.

The term "subordinate court" as used in clause 26 of the Bill has the same meaning as that in Article 93 of the Constitution. So, it includes the State Courts, the Family Courts and the Youth Courts.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the safeguards for judicial independence, notwithstanding the "overlaps" in the composition of the JSC, LSC and PSC. I think he refers to the overlap in question, which is the Chairman of PSC.

On Chairman/PSC's presence on both the JSC and LSC, Mr Louis Ng might be interested to know that, in fact, the 1959 Constitution, which I referred to earlier and which first established the LSC, already provided for the Chairman of PSC to be an ex-officio member of the LSC and that, has since, remained unchanged. So, we are simply using that and Chairman/PSC remains now on both of the two Commissions, post-split.

Mr Speaker, there is a good reason for this. It has allowed the LSC to draw from the best practices, particularly from a human resource perspective, of the PSC, while the Commissions remain separate and independent. So, this will continue after the restructuring. The JSC and the LSC can draw on Chairman/PSC's experience and expertise whilst the various Commissions remain separate and independent.

There is no question of Chairman/PSC's ability to act independently. He is himself appointed by the President in her discretion, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, and there are constitutional safeguards, which I have outlined earlier, to secure his independence.

Mr Louis Ng also mentioned that Chairman/PSC nominates up to two members each on the JSC and the LSC. Again, as I have said in my opening speech, this is something that has already been in place since the 1959 Constitution although, prior to 2007, Chairman/PSC could nominate two members of the PSC directly to the LSC, whereas, today, Chairman/PSC advises the President on the appointment of up to two members and the President has the discretion to veto such nominations. That structure remains today in the Bill. In fact, just to be complete, this is on the same footing as the Chief Justice and the Prime Minister. Their nominees are also subject to the President's veto.

Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to accept that there is some risk that Chairman/PSC would not act independently, this concern is premised on the notion that Chairman/PSC's nominees will somehow be unable to act independently as well. But Mr Louis Ng will be assured to know that the appointments of both JSC and LSC members, including the Chairman of PSC's nominees, will be made by the President, acting in her discretion. She discharges her duties with a direct mandate from the electorate.

The eligibility criteria for JSC and LSC members are also set out in the Constitution and designed to make sure that members have no formal political links. Just for Members' information, Article 111K sets out the qualifications, and 111L sets out the disqualifications.

In addition, all JSC and LSC members must take an oath of office and it will be an offence for any member to disclose any information in connection with any matter referred to the Commission.

Mr Louis Ng asked if there are limits on the reappointment of JSC and LSC members and, if not, the reasons for not limiting the number of reappointments that a member can hold on the JSC and LSC.

The short answer to Mr Louis Ng is no. There are no limits on the reappointment of JSC and LSC members. Whilst we understand Mr Louis Ng's concerns about leadership renewal and organisational change, we must also, at the same time, be realistic about the pool of candidates that are suitable and also willing to serve on these Commissions.

Candidates must be suitably qualified – I set out earlier the Articles that prescribe the criteria – and sufficiently senior, with experience, and for those from the private sector especially, must be willing to devote time and energy to Public Service.

We want the best people to sit on both Commissions. Given our small size, this pool is not large. It is not feasible to impose strict limits on reappointments, which would not lead to the best results for both Commissions.

Next, let me touch on secondments and transfers.

Both Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Vikram Nair spoke on the benefits of secondments in providing breadth of exposure for officers. Mr Lim asked for confirmation that such secondments would continue. Mr Nair asked if secondments would be more difficult after the restructuring since there are different Commissions governing the officers and whether there is a risk that if an officer remains in one Branch, they would not get a broader perspective that will help them to perform their functions better.

In the same vein, Mr Zhulkarnain made a number of proposals on secondments for exposure. Mr Zhulkarnain, in particular, asked if permanent transfers will be available where necessary to meet manpower needs and if the possibility for suitable Judicial Officers (JOs) to be seconded to the Syariah Court can be retained.