Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

12.09 pm

The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) was incorporated by the IRAS Act in 1992, which set out IRAS' functions in tax administration. Over the last decade, IRAS has also taken on the complementary function of disbursing broad-based grants to businesses. These refer to grants where Government administrative data is used to determine firm eligibility and grant quantum, and payouts are automatically disbursed without a need for businesses to apply.

Examples of such broad-based grants include the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme and the Uplifting Employment Credit, which encourage firms to adopt progressive hiring practices. During the COVID-19 pandemic, IRAS also played a pivotal role disbursing the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS), the Rental Support Scheme and the Small Business Recovery Grant to support our businesses to tide over the challenging economic conditions.

Sir, to give Members a sense of the magnitude of payouts that IRAS disburses annually, last year, it disbursed $4.6 billion of grants to more than 120,000 businesses. At the height of COVID-19 in 2020, IRAS disbursed six-times that amount to more than 150,000 businesses. Given the continued importance of this function, both in steady state and in crisis, the proposed amendments to the IRAS Act aim to formalise IRAS' role as a grant disbursement agency, alongside its role as tax administrator. It will grant IRAS new powers to investigate fraud and abuse and also to seek recovery of monies when there are erroneous disbursements.

Let me take Members through the key amendments.

The first key amendment grants IRAS the function of administering scheduled public schemes for and on behalf of the Government or any other statutory body. In the past, the power to disburse grants was granted to IRAS through subsidiary legislation. As disbursing grants becomes a larger part of IRAS' mandate, it is appropriate to include it as a key function in the IRAS Act.

The second key amendment enables IRAS to effectively audit and investigate cases of fraud and abuse of enterprise grants. With the increase in the number of grants disbursed, there has been a corresponding rise in the number of fraud cases. For instance, in 2022, the director and operations manager of a spa were convicted in Court for attempting to cheat IRAS into disbursing a JSS payout of approximately $50,000 during the pandemic in 2020. The duo had submitted false declarations and fake employment contracts for 28 individuals who did not perform work or receive salaries. Thanks to the vigilance of our IRAS colleagues, no disbursement was made as inconsistencies were detected in the documents provided.

As IRAS continues to enhance its capabilities to detect fraud, it currently lacks the legislative levers to investigate fraud and abuse pertaining to grants. Such cases have to be referred to the Police for investigation. To enable IRAS to be more effective in this role, we propose to amend the IRAS Act to provide IRAS with enforcement powers to investigate serious grant offences, including the power to access premises, conduct inspections, seize documents and make arrests. These enforcement powers are similar to existing powers under the Income Tax and GST Acts, where IRAS investigators are empowered to investigate tax offences.

We will also make it an offence to interfere with or refuse to comply with IRAS' investigation of serious grant offences. Those who are found guilty of the offence will be liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months. The amendments also set out the specific offences and punishments for obtaining or assisting another person to obtain a grant under the scheduled public schemes.

Depending on the severity of the offence, those convicted will be liable to a penalty equal to one, two or three times the amount of payout overpaid or would have been overpaid; and a monetary fine and/or imprisonment. These penalties are aligned with the penalties for similar offences under the Income Tax and GST Acts.

The third key amendment provides IRAS with the powers to recover overpaid grants as a debt due to the Government, and to impose interest on outstanding amounts beyond the prescribed payment period. These debts owed to the Government could arise from either fraud or abuse, or further data updates or data errors.

So, as I have shared earlier, most of the grants are disbursed automatically by IRAS, where Government administrative data is used to determine firm eligibility and grant quantum. This allows disbursements to be made promptly and businesses, especially our small and medium enterprises (SMEs), do not need to expend additional effort to make applications.

However, there could be errors discovered or further updates to the data after the monies have been disbursed, for instance, when a firm makes a genuine retrospective adjustment to its CPF contributions. As the eligibility assessment and grant quantum were computed based on outdated data, certain recipients might already have received more grants than they are entitled to.

When this happens, we propose that IRAS should have the power to recover the excess amounts from these recipients. As these are public funds, even if the error was no fault of the recipients, they have a responsibility to return the overpaid amounts. This can be done without penalties for recipients who are cooperative. The proposed legal powers, including the imposition of interest for late repayment, signal the serious nature of the issue and encourage firms to return any overpaid monies in a timely manner.

The remaining amendments to the Bill are operational and administrative in nature. They are to protect the identity of informers; allow IRAS to compound offences; allow service of documents by personal delivery or ordinary post; and allow a person to provide the documents and information required by IRAS for the investigation of an arrestable offence via electronic service.

Together, these powers allow IRAS to more effectively disburse the various grant schemes and mitigate the risk of fraud and abuse.

Sir, IRAS has and will continue to play an important role in the disbursement of grants and support to our enterprises. The proposed legislative amendments are necessary to empower IRAS to do so effectively. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

12.17 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will allow the recovery of monies where grants are wrongly given, create offences for giving false or misleading information and allow the IRAS to exercise investigation and enforcement powers.

I have three sets of clarifications to raise.

My first clarification is on the recovery of wrongly given grant monies.

The Bill introduces offences for obtaining grants or assisting another person to obtain grants by giving false or misleading information. The Bill also allows IRAS to impose a penalty equivalent to or three times of the amount that would have been given under the grant. Can Minister clarify that if multiple individuals are prosecuted in relation to a single grant, is it possible for IRAS to impose penalties on each offender? In other words, even though only a single grant is or would have been wrongly disbursed, is IRAS entitled to recover a penalty from each and every individual prosecuted?

My second clarification is on the new offences for providing false or misleading information.

Different offences are set out under section 17F(1), section 17F(3) and section 17F(5) depending on the state of the mind of the offender, for instance, whether the offending is carried out negligently or willfully with intent to obtain the grant. The penalties and punishment that can be imposed is of varying severity depending on the section the prosecution is brought under. To provide guidance on how prosecutorial discretion will be exercised, can Minister provide illustrations on when the different provisions will apply?

The imprisonment term is three years for offences under section 17F(3) for negligently providing false information and section 17F(5) for providing false information willfully with intent. Can Minister clarify how the imprisonment term for section 17F(3) and section 17F(5) should be calibrated since the maximum imprisonment term is the same, but the culpability for offending under section 17F(5) is higher?

Lastly, on the new investigation and enforcement powers given to IRAS. With the new powers, can I check what steps will be taken to ensure that IRAS is prepared for the extended scope of powers.

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

12.19 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, IRAS is the Government agency responsible for the administration of taxes and enterprise disbursement schemes. IRAS has been an efficient tax authority and has a consistently low cost of tax collection at less than one cent per dollar of tax collected over the past decade or so.

In recent years, this has come off quite significantly, to around 0.63 cents per for every dollar collected in FY2022, from 0.82 cents just two years ago. This perhaps is also reflective of the significant increases in IRAS' tax collections over the last two years, a jump of around 38% to $68.2 billion in FY2022, with FY2023 set to be another record year of tax collections, as we could soon find out in the upcoming Budget debate.

In my speech today, I will first touch on the broader picture in IRAS' role surrounding the administration of grants, before following up on specific provisions of the Bill.

IRAS today is already responsible for administering enterprise disbursement schemes and is, in fact, also designated as the Centre of Excellence for disbursing broad-based grants to enterprises. These include the administration of enterprise schemes, such as the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme, Senior Employment Credit and CPF Transition Offset. During COVID-19, IRAS also supported the administration of the Jobs Support Scheme, Jobs Growth Incentive, Rental Cash Grant and the Rental Support Scheme.

As described in the explanatory statement of the Bill, the amendments aim to provide for the recovery of any money, credit, rebate or other grant under schemes introduced by the Government or a statutory body that are specified in the new Second Schedule of the Act from recipients that are not entitled to such monies. In other words, wrongly given grants.

To me, this begs the broader question, that had such recipients not cooperated with the Government in the past, were they legally entitled to retain these grants, given that these were given to them not as a result of deceit or fraud on the part of the recipients, but some form of administrative oversight or mistake on the part of the authorities?

There was the recent case of overpayments in the Jobs Support Scheme, where the wage support grants were erroneously paid to about 5,400 companies in October 2020 due to mistakes in computing the disbursements. These amounted to about S$370 million. Subsequently, it was reported that the Government has recovered over 99% of the S$370 million wrongly paid to companies, with the bulk of it recovered through offsets against firms' subsequent Jobs Support Scheme payouts, where applicable, as well as returns in cash by large enterprises.

The issue of overpayments was also an area that was highlighted in the thematic audit by the Auditor-General in its latest report, which looked at key COVID-19 grant schemes, the Jobs Support Scheme, the Rental Cash Grant and the Rental Support Scheme. This issue was also part of the discussions by the Public Accounts Committee which I am a member of.

In any case, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) had updated the Committee that MOF and IRAS have taken steps to investigate and recover the overpayments, which made up less than 0.5% of total payouts across three schemes. Overpayments in relation to Government-funded entities were fully recovered.

On the other hand, in cases of abuse of such Government grant schemes or grants which were fraudulently obtained, it is important that IRAS be empowered with investigative and enforcement powers to deal with such offences to safeguard public monies.

In response to a Parliamentary Question on cases involving the abuse, misuse or fraudulent application of COVID-19 Government grants and payouts, it was shared by the Minister for Home Affairs that from March 2020 to December 2021, the Police received 57 reports involving the abuse or fraudulent application of COVID-19 Government grants and payouts, involving approximately S$1.7 million. Following the various reviews conducted by IRAS and the MOF in recent years and after internal processes highlighted in the Auditor-General's report are refined, does the Minister have further information to update on the cases of abuse uncovered and the monies subsequently recovered?

Moving on to specific provisions of the Bill, section 17D of the proposed Bill provides for IRAS to charge interest on the overpayments that it seeks to recover from recipients. Given the overpayments were not the fault of recipients, what is IRAS' approach in the recovery process and how much leeway do companies have before interest in being levied on them?

Moreover, given that interest is to be calculated on a daily basis, from the end of the payment period to the date the claim amount is paid in full, this could rack up to a substantial interest charge. What are the indicative interest rates under consideration, how much interest was charged for COVID-19 grant recoveries and whether such interest payments can be waived should there be a good faith attempt to make the repayments?

This is especially considering section 17C, where a payment period of 30 days is proposed after the date of service of a written notice to the recipient is served. While the Bill did state that "there can be a later time that the Authority may allow in a particular case", the tight timelines can be particularly onerous on companies which may be facing severe cash flow difficulties or SMEs which may not have as established administrative and finance processes in place, particularly if the amounts in question may be quite substantial relative to the recipient's financial position.

All that being said, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.

12.25 pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, this Bill provides for the recovery of any money, credit, rebate or other grant schemes introduced by the Government or a statutory body from persons that are not entitled to or who were wrongly given the grants.

I am in support of the Bill. However, I have a few points of clarification.

Firstly, the Second Schedule lists many schemes, such as the Wage Credit Scheme, Senior Employment Credit, Jobs Support Scheme but does not specifically identify COVID Support Grant (CSG) and Self-Employed Person Income Relief (SIRS). Will these two schemes and other schemes not listed be included in the Bill too?

The reason I ask is because I have met elderly and unemployed residents who have approached me for assistance as they have been requested to return the SIRS that they have received previously. Some shared that they did not apply personally for the grant and were assisted by their family members or friends. Hence, they cannot recall details of their application. They also mentioned that they have already spent the SIRS money and do not have any money to pay back and are not working. How will these cases be treated?

Secondly, I noticed that almost all the schemes mentioned in the Second Schedule are for schemes that were introduced between the COVID-19 period from 2020 and 2023. From these schemes, what is the total amount of money, credit, rebate or other grants recovered so far from falsely or wrongly given claims?

Does the Ministry have any indication if there was an increased amount of false claims during this period and hence, this Bill allows the smoother recovery from false or wrongly given claims?

Thirdly, for Skillfuture Enterprise Credit, how do we ensure the grants that are provided are effectively disbursed?

We know of the syndicate that defrauded Skillsfuture of about $40 million and last year, in January, Parliament passed the amended SkillsFuture Singapore Agency and Skills Development Levy Act so prevent the abuse of Skillsfuture funding. How will the amendments in this Bill enhance the enforcement and prevent the fraudulent claims and provide more effectiveness to recover money that were disbursed based on false information?

A quick check on SkillsFuture website also shows that there are over 29,000 courses available. Most courses have multiple vendors or course providers. However, the course fees and hence, SkillsFuture grant varies.

Take Lean Sigma Green Belt Certification as an example. The course leads to an industry accepted certification but one provider charges five times more per course and gets three times more the funding received by the other provider, for the same outcome for the participant. I am not referring to this specific example. But how do we ensure course fees are not inflated and do not become an opportunity for companies to claim higher subsidies?

Lastly, the penalty proposed can be equal to three times the amount received or an imprisonment for a jail term not exceeding three years. If there are excessive checks, will this deter those who truly are in need from seeking the support that they require?

Mr Speaker, looking at the Second Schedule, I am grateful to see the long list of money, credit, rebate and other grant schemes introduced by the Government, especially over the past three to four years to provide support for all segments of our society facing many different challenges.

Schemes like COVID Support Grant and SIRS supported those who lost their jobs or had a pay reduction during COVID-19. Jobs Support Scheme made sure workers remain employed during challenging times. I, for one, as one of the over 25,000 aerospace workers in the industry, saw first-hand how the Jobs Support Scheme managed to keep many Singaporeans employed when our borders were shut; the Small Business Recovery Grant assisted SMEs to stay afloat; SkillsFuture provided support for our workforce to upskill and upgrade to meet the needs of the future economy; and the Senior Employment Credit ensured seniors get an opportunity for employment.

Hence, before I end my speech, I would just like to say a huge "thank you" to the Minister and all those working in the Ministries for working very hard to design and administer the grants and schemes for everyone who needs it, especially during the last few years. Clarification notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.

12.29 pm

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's assistance for businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic kept many businesses afloat and Singaporean workers employed. Through support schemes such as those for the self-employed and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) owners, livelihoods were sustained and as a result, Singapore averted a serious economic crisis.

Just between February and May 2020, the Government rolled out four Budgets to provide social support for the vulnerable and increase cashflow to businesses to protect livelihoods. The Government introduced the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) and SkillsFuture Enterprise Credits that helped employers to pay a portion of their workers' salaries and training course fees quickly. The initial roll-out was broad-based to avoid a deeper economic crisis, preserve jobs and maintain key corporate capabilities. Speed was crucial to prevent interruption of cashflow for businesses and incomes for workers.

Civil servants from Statutory Boards like IRAS, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and Enterprise Singapore worked long hours for a long period of time so that assistance was rendered to the deserving applicants during the COVID-19 period. These civil servants received many calls and chasers to approve and disburse the assistance. However, when they were flagged for overpayments due to calculation errors committed under time pressure, the remarks were not kind towards them. Neither did I observe many beneficiaries who stood up for these civil servants.

I support the Bill. However, I would like to seek clarifications on the following. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Can IRAS also administer schemes like the Enterprise Sustainability Programme and Enterprise Financing Scheme? How will the proposed administrative amendments enhance the efficacy of whole-of-Government's grant administration? The information submitted by the SMEs when they apply for other schemes can be relevant to the schemes which are managed by Enterprise Singapore currently. I understand that the Government cannot give subsidies to SMEs in an unabated manner, but SMEs will appreciate that the application processes of various schemes be synergised and simplified. Time saved is as good as revenue earned.

What recourse does a business have if they disagree with IRAS' assessment that funds have been wrongly disbursed to them? Can they raise it to an independent assessment panel?

The Bill also empowers IRAS officers to perform the investigative, audit and enforcement actions. Officers can even arrest without warrant for arrestable offences and perform body searches. Why is there a need to grant such strong enforcement powers to IRAS to audit and investigate cases of fraud and abuse? What are they experiencing currently? How will IRAS ensure that the investigative powers granted under this Bill will be used appropriately and in the public interest?

(In English): How much additional resources will be given to IRAS for the additional caseload as it will include investigation of fraud and abuse as well as recovery of wrongful disbursement?

Does IRAS require additional budget to develop capabilities in-house to investigate and enforce penalties against cases of scheme abuse? How does IRAS plan to develop these in-house capabilities? Can they tap on Commercial Affairs Department for a start so as to minimise additional expenditure?

The amendments mention protecting the identity of informants. How does the legislation ensure this protection, and what penalties are in place for any breaches?

How does allowing IRAS to compound offenses contribute to greater flexibility in dealing with grant non-compliances or scheme abuses that do not meet the threshold of criminal prosecution?

Mr Speaker: Minister Chee.

12.34 pm

Mr Chee Hong Tat: Let me start by reiterating that IRAS is taking on the disbursement of broad-based grants to businesses. These refer to grants where Government administrative data is used to determine firm eligibility and grant quantum, and the payouts are disbursed without a need for the businesses to apply.

So, the examples that Mr Sharael Taha mentioned – SIRS, COVID Relief Grant – these were not administered by IRAS. SIRS was administered by the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the COVID Relief Grant was administered by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF).

IRAS is able to play this role well as it has built up the IT systems and data linkages, payment mechanisms, and audit and fraud detection capabilities over the past decade. Hence, other Government agencies can tap on IRAS' capabilities for such broad-based enterprise disbursements.

Mr Don Wee asked if IRAS can disburse application-based grants for businesses. Unlike broad-based grants which are disbursed automatically based on pre-determined criteria, application-based grants require officers to assess the merit of each application in accordance with the intent of the grant. Administering such application-based grants require specific industry or domain expertise which reside in Government agencies overseeing the respective industry sectors, and not with IRAS. Entities that administer schemes for businesses do tap on data from other agencies including IRAS, to streamline the application process for enterprises and their processing of the grants.

The new Second Schedule lists the enterprise schemes which IRAS is administering, including schemes that it is winding down the disbursements and audits for. The Minister for Finance will update the Second Schedule as and when necessary to include new schemes for which IRAS' enterprise disbursement functions can serve.

Let me now address clarifications raised by Members relating to the proposed investigative and enforcement powers, which broadly fall into three categories: one, the rationale for centralising investigation and enforcement powers under IRAS and what are the appropriate safeguards; two, the process for recovering wrongful payments and recourse available in the event of a disagreement; and three, clarifications on penalties and offences.

Sir, let me explain the rationale for conferring IRAS with investigation and enforcement powers. IRAS currently refers serious cases of fraud and scheme abuse to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) under the Singapore Police Force. However, CAD only investigates fraud cases that are criminal in nature and offences under the Penal Code.

Before referring to CAD, IRAS would conduct its own investigation whenever there are cases of suspected abuse or fraud. IRAS currently does this by triangulating data and intelligence from various sources and looking for inconsistencies in submitted documentation. However, IRAS does not have the legal powers at the moment to compel the provision of information or to conduct on-site inspections and checks. This limits the reach and effectiveness of their investigation. And that is why we are tabling this Bill in this House.

As the volume and total value of grants disbursed by IRAS increases, IRAS will need to have the necessary powers to conduct investigations more effectively, recover public funds and safeguard public interest. These powers are no different from what IRAS does for taxes today. Likewise, there will be similar safeguards in place, where the investigative powers will be restricted to trained officers authorised by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.

IRAS has developed its IT and data systems, disbursement mechanisms and fraud detection capabilities over the years. We will provide IRAS with sufficient resources to take on the enterprise disbursement role.

Let me now move on to the second category of clarifications on the recovery of wrongly paid grants. Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Louis Chua asked for updates on the fraud and abuse cases involving COVID-19 grants and the amount of money recovered so far.

From August 2020 to December 2023, IRAS reported 25 cases of suspected abuse or fraud to CAD. Thus far, investigations into four cases that involve Jobs Support Scheme payouts, amounting to approximately $120,000 had concluded. Three cases were successfully charged and convicted in Court, while one case was given a conditional warning.

None of the $120,000 was disbursed as IRAS had detected the fraud early. The remaining 21 cases reported by IRAS are currently being investigated by CAD.

As for wrongly paid grants, these are a small minority of the total amount of grants disbursed. IRAS paid out $31.5 billion for the Jobs Support Scheme, Rental Cash Grant and Rental Support Scheme during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of these, the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) found errors affecting less than 0.5% of total payouts, as Mr Louis Chua mentioned earlier.

We have since recovered 99.7% of these wrong payments. And in response to Member's question, we did not charge interest.

With the amendments in this Bill, the process of recovering wrongly paid grants will remain largely unchanged and it is not expected to impact the large majority of grant recipients. The amendments address the minority of cases – I would say the small minority of cases – allowing IRAS to impose interest only if the outstanding amount is not paid within the prescribed repayment period, which is usually within 30 days. This is to encourage timely repayment of public funds.

If the repayment is made within the prescribed period, there is no interest imposed. For late repayments, the interest rate will be based on the Government interest rate on instalment payments, with a spread of three percentage points.

A business which disagrees with IRAS' assessment of wrongful disbursement can appeal to IRAS with relevant information to substantiate its case. If the appeal is rejected and the recipient does not want to return the overpayment, IRAS may pursue legal action through the Courts – and then, it is for the Courts to decide the outcome.

The wrongly disbursed funds are public monies from our taxpayers. The overpayment may not be due to the fault of the recipients, but as I explained in my main speech, it is fair that they should return the overpaid amounts. If they face genuine difficulties and need more time to make the repayment, they can appeal to IRAS and we will assess each case individually.

Sir, let me now turn to the queries from Mr Ng and Mr Sharael on offences. These are introduced to deter and penalise errant entities or persons for committing fraud and abuse. IRAS does not have any legal powers to take action against errant employers for scheme abusers today. IRAS can only refer cases to CAD, as I explained earlier, to investigate and prosecute under the Penal Code.

As a deterrent against scheme abuse, IRAS will need powers to impose penalties for offences alongside its investigative powers. Sections 17F(1),17F(3), 17F(5) set out the specific offences and punishments for obtaining or assisting another person to obtain a grant under the scheduled public schemes.

Those convicted may be liable to a penalty equal to one, two or three times the amount of payout overpaid or would have been overpaid, and a monetary fine and/or imprisonment not exceeding three years with the exact terms decided by the Courts. These limits are determined with reference to the penalties for similar offences in the Income Tax and Goods and Services Tax (GST) Acts.

Although the maximum penalties may be lower than existing offences under the Penal Code, they are tailored to target and deter the specific misconduct associated with the payout schemes.

IRAS will regularly review the effectiveness of these penalties.

The amendments will also grant IRAS the authority to compound offences, so, IRAS can offer composition as an alternative to prosecution. This allows minor infractions to be dealt with quickly and efficiently.

Mr Ng asked whether it is possible for IRAS to impose penalties on each offender if multiple individuals are prosecuted in relation to a single grant. The answer is yes.

For instance, if a director and an accountant of the company were convicted of the most serious grant offence, they will each be liable to a penalty equal to three times of payout overpaid, and a monetary fine and/or imprisonment. So, two individuals, each one can be liable, separately, and individually.

The party that receives the funds will also be required to repay the full amount of grant that he or she had obtained, in addition to the penalties imposed.

These offences are meant to penalise those who had deliberately or assisted another person to provide false or misleading information with the intent to induce IRAS to provide a higher amount of payout.

Finally, to Mr Don Wee's clarification on informer anonymity, the amendments will safeguard informer anonymity by forbidding disclosure that could reveal the identity in civil or criminal Court proceedings.

With those clarifications, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

12.45 pm

Mr Speaker: Do Members have any clarifications to seek from Minister? I do not see any.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Chee Hong Tat].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.