Committee of Supply – Head R (Ministry of Law)

Head R (cont) –

Resumption of Debate on Question [1 March 2024],

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates to be reduced by $100." – [Mr Murali Pillai].

Question again proposed.

11.03 pm

Updates on the Public Defender's Office

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, I am grateful for your indulgence to allow me to take my cuts today. And I declare, Sir, my interest as a practising lawyer.

Sir, the Public Defender's Office (PDO) commenced operations on 1 December 2022 and, as of September 2023, had received around 1,300 applications, of which close to 580 were assessed as ineligible. Could the Minister provide an update on the number of cases the PDO has taken up to date, as well as whether there would be a review of the means testing criteria, seeing as about half of rejected applications were because the applicants did not meet the prescribed means criteria?

Supporting Small Law Firms

My second cut, Sir, is on supporting small law firms. Sir, our legal industry generated $2.4 billion in nominal gross value in 2019 and Singapore has also grown to become one of the top international dispute resolution hubs in the world.

Domestically, we have over 1,000 law firms, with over 80% being small law firms with five or less lawyers. These firms, however, contribute to only about 40% of value-add.

Could the Minister elaborate on what the Ministry is doing to help small law firms get a firmer bite of the pie of the international work that is coming into Singapore? And second, would the Ministry consider encouraging consolidation in the industry, including through incentives, to help small law firms come together to form larger practices that are more full service and that would place them better to seize opportunities in the market?

The Chairman: Minister Shanmugam.

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Chairman, thank you. The Ministry of Law's (MinLaw’s) work, as Members will know, touches on a number of aspects. This includes maintaining a legal system that is robust, fair and effective; enhancing access to justice; and supporting our economic and social vibrancy. We have made good progress and we intend to do more.

I will focus on two areas: one, how can we help the vulnerable better get help when they deal with the criminal and civil law systems; and two, how can we better help resolve family law disputes. My colleagues, Minister Edwin Tong and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam will touch on the other key areas in MinLaw’s work.

First, on access to the criminal and civil law systems, we are focused on ensuring access to justice, especially for the most vulnerable in our community. In this context, the Public Defender’s Office (PDO) and the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) have been doing good work.

PDO helps to facilitate access to justice for accused persons. It was set up in December 2022, as a department within MinLaw, to institutionalise public defence within our criminal justice system. Before that, the Government funded access to criminal defence via the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS), which was run by the Law Society.

When PDO was established, criminal defence aid was made available to more people, by raising the means threshold from the 25th to the 35th percentile of resident households based on per capita household income and allowing aid for most non-capital criminal offences, with some exceptions.

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas and Mr Derrick Goh asked for updates on PDO’s work. As of December 2023, we have received about 1,700 applications. Of these, almost half were assessed as eligible for criminal defence aid. With our ongoing partnership with Pro Bono SG, eligible applicants receive representation from either PDO or from criminal lawyers working with CLAS. As of December 2023, PDO has a team of 16 Public Defenders and they represented more than 440 accused in Court.

As pointed out by Mr Goh, the complexity and impact of PDO cases go beyond legal matters.

Let me give you one example. I will call the gentleman “Mr N”. He is a tingkat delivery driver. He is married with two young children with special needs. He brings them to childcare and school. He meets with their teachers, attends their speech therapy classes and follow-ups at the hospital. His wife is not actively involved in the caregiving.

He needed money urgently to cover daily living expenses and his children’s therapy sessions. He borrowed $1,000 from an unlicensed moneylender and he was subsequently harassed. Threats were made against his children. He felt he had no choice but to assist the unlicensed moneylender in its illegal operations and he was subsequently charged for doing so.

We have to take a serious view of this because that then potentially leads to scams and people losing lots of money, including the elderly. So, if you want to prevent all of that, you need to take tough steps and draw a line when people assist illegal moneylenders.

Prior to these charges, he had a clean record. Mr N could have expected a sentence of around eight to 12 months’ imprisonment. This would have meant that his children with special needs would be left without care during Mr N’s prison term. The Public Defender explained his situation to the Prosecution, and also pleaded with the Court for a lighter sentence. The Public Defender also referred Mr N to a social service agency to assess the care plan for his children.

Eventually, the Court gave a sentence of six weeks’ imprisonment with a fine. The Court also agreed to defer his sentence, to allow Mr N to ease his child’s transition into Primary 1 at a special needs school. I will add that Mr N recently surrendered himself to the Court and he will serve his sentence.

This is one of many examples where PDO has positively impacted the lives of accused persons. And it is a good start. We will continue to strengthen PDO, its capability and capacity to help more vulnerable persons.

Moving to civil legal aid, last year was LAB’s 65th year of providing legal aid, assistance and advice to the less privileged. It was set up in 1958, started out as a small team of 15 staff to provide legal aid to needy persons. Today, it is a department with about 50 in-house lawyers, support staff, as well as 140 Assigned Solicitors. These are lawyers from private practice who work with LAB.

LAB helps with various civil matters, including matrimonial matters, monetary claims and probate matters. Over the years, it has helped many people. Again, I will give you one example of a 101-year-old lady. LAB helped her to reclaim her life savings from her own daughter.

This old lady spoke no English, only Hokkien. She had been put in a nursing home by her daughter. Her daughter began withdrawing monies from the old lady’s bank account and directed the applicant’s Government financial assistance payouts to her, meaning the daughter’s own bank account. Her daughter alleged that the applicant had no mental capacity and refused to return the monies. The applicant, the old lady, checked herself out of her nursing home and asked LAB for help. LAB helped her to secure a Court order for her daughter to return all her monies, with interest.

To ensure that aid is provided to those who cannot afford a lawyer, we require applicants for aid to undergo means testing, and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam will speak about the means assessment of our legal aid and criminal defence aid schemes.

There are also other possible mechanisms to increase access to justice besides Government legal aid and assistance. One of them is conditional fee agreements (CFAs).

CFAs have the potential to help people access justice faster, easier when they do not qualify for legal aid, but also find it challenging to pay the full costs of litigation in the Courts. CFAs can help litigants, who are unable to fork out full legal fees at the outset, by providing an additional funding option, to pursue their claims.

However, it is not an unvarnished benefit, if you look at the examples in other countries, which is why we have been and we continue to be careful about it, because you have got to weigh against these possible benefits, some well-known potential negative consequences of CFAs, and these are visible in other places.

So far, in Singapore, we have permitted CFAs in arbitration proceedings, certain proceedings in the Singapore International Commercial Court, and court and mediation proceedings, which are related to these proceedings where CFAs have been allowed.

So, we refer to Mr Zhulkarnain’s question on whether we will extend CFAs to other categories of proceedings. Our approach is, as far as possible, we will see what other means there are available to allow access to justice in an easier way and then study the applicability of CFAs, the usefulness of CFAs, the positive and negative consequences, by extending to other domestic litigation proceedings.

I will move now to the second part of my speech.

We have invested considerable time, energy and resources to streamline and help people in the family justice system. Where families have breakdowns, their relationships fray, they go to Court, we want to try and minimise the pain for those who have to be involved in the legal process.

The disputes often involve a lot of emotions, psychological wounds and children are often caught in the crossfire. That is why for some time now, we have taken a different approach from the usual litigation process. For family cases, our Courts focus on therapeutic justice, which is about getting parties to establish common ground and move on with their lives. The changes we have made, over the years, to the family justice system reflect this approach, this philosophy.

11.15 am

As Ms Hany Soh referred, a major review was done in 2013, which resulted in amongst other things, the establishment of the Family Justice Courts (FJC). Specialised FJC with specialised judges, with its own head of the FJC. Measures were introduced in divorce cases to help these cases proceed more smoothly and reduce animosity as much as possible. And the focus was also on seeking to protect the children's welfare.

One very important measure is the simplified divorce track. For those on this track, it saves a lot of time. Parties do not need to attend court. The divorce proceedings are concluded within a much shorter timeframe and is available to all parties who agree on the divorce and ancillary matters at the outset and, you can imagine, it helps to reduce acrimony. It is an incentive for parties to come to an agreement on the issues. They spend less time in Court.

If you take the past year, there were a total of about 6,220 divorce cases. Of that, more than 4,000 – to be precise, around 4,150 or 66% of divorce cases – went on the simplified track and almost half of these cases involved children. You can imagine if these 4,000 cases were handled under the normal litigation process. The amount of time, the money, the acrimony and the impact on the children. So, all of that has been considerably reduced. This is a significant number of couples, over 4,000 couples, their children, who we hope were better able to move on with their lives with as little acrimony as possible.

Of those cases that go on the simplified track, the 4,150, 94% were resolved within six months. So, it is much quicker, much less costly.

Where the divorce or ancillary matters are contested, FJC offers free in-house mediation and counselling, if certain criteria are met. Around 930 out of 1,060 cases that went through mediation were fully or partially settled. That is about 88%.

In September 2019, we set up a second Committee co-chaired by MinLaw, the Ministry for Social and Family Development (MSF) and FJC. And a slew of further recommendations were made to strengthen the therapeutic justice elements and address some of the challenges in the new family justice system. The recommendations of this new Committee have been progressively implemented: the Women's Charter was amended last year; MinLaw's and MSF's Family Justice Reform Act was passed last year; and a number of other non-legislative initiatives have been undertaken by MSF and FJC.

One of the key issues that the Family Justice Reform Act addressed, is the enforcement of maintenance orders. Members of Parliament have spoken about this. We observed a fairly high incidence of non-compliance with maintenance orders and a significant number of repeat applications for enforcement, usually by the ex-wife applying repeatedly to enforce the maintenance orders.

The Family Justice Reform Act introduced a new Maintenance Enforcement Process (MEP) which would help to address these issues. Under the MEP, there is a new unit of officers called Maintenance Enforcement Officers (MEOs). They will be established under MinLaw.

MEOs will be empowered to obtain information about the parties' financial circumstances directly from the parties or from third-parties, such as banks and Government agencies. That will relieve applicants from having to go around, instruct lawyers to apply to Court to get the information, that takes time, effort and cost – and usually, there is also non-compliance. So, when the respondent is non-cooperative, it can go on and on for months, sometimes years. But the MEOs will be empowered. People have to answer them. The information, hopefully, should be obtained faster.

With more accurate and clear information, the MEO and the Courts will be better able to distinguish between respondents who cannot pay and respondents who refuse to pay. For those who refuse to pay, the system, the MEP, strengthens the deterrence against them. The Court will monitor payments, typically for around six months and failure to pay can lead to imprisonment. This system should hopefully help reduce repeated defaulters.

Ms Hany Soh asked about the implementation of the Family Justice Reform Act.

Some of the technical amendments were commenced in January this year. The other reforms will be implemented in stages. In particular, we are targeting to operationalise the MEP in phases, starting from the second half of this year.

Ms Soh also asked about collaborations with stakeholders. MinLaw works closely with MSF and FJC to improve the family justice system. Between us, we have regular conversations with the family bar, counsellors, mental health experts and community partners about how best to support families in distress. We also conduct regular outreach to various segments. I ask the public to share about family justice initiatives and therapeutic justice.

The aim remains pretty much the same: reduce acrimony, preserve relationships and protect children. And we can say, the situation has vastly improved since these amendments were put in place for some time now.

Mr Chairman, to sum up, we have been building steadily on our progress over the last few years. We have taken significant steps and will continue to work on helping the vulnerable through the criminal and civil law systems; and enhancing dispute resolution in family disputes.

The Chairman: Mr Edwin Tong.

The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Chairman, Singapore is a small city-state. Much of our growth depends on our ability to develop strong enterprises and attract foreign investments into Singapore. Today, Singapore continues to be the partner of choice for many businesses – from the world's multinational corporations to the fastest growing startups. We have the highest number of regional headquarters in Asia Pacific.

About 4,200 multinational companies (MNCs) host their regional headquarters here, using Singapore as the gateway into ASEAN, Asia and even the world. We have a vibrant innovation ecosystem with research and development labs for leading Fortune 500 companies; as well as over 150 venture capital funds, incubators and accelerators.

But this did not happen by chance. Businesses come here in large part because of our strong rule of law, trusted legal system, under-pinned by a well-respected Judiciary. They trust that their investments will be safe and that their rights will be protected. Businesses also work out of Singapore because they can access the best legal services – be it dispute resolution, intellectual property (IP) transactions, restructuring and insolvency or banking, financial and commercial transactions.

It is therefore important for Singapore to continue to build a strong legal framework that is business-minded and forward-looking; develop first-class legal services and jurisprudence; and really be at the forefront of legal thought leadership. And all these will strengthen our value proposition as a global business centre.

In addition, legal and IP sectors are also growth engines in and of themselves, contributing to the economy and jobs. Our legal services sector has grown steadily over the years. The nominal value-added of our legal services sector increased by more than 25%, from $2.36 billion in 2018 to $2.98 billion in 2023. Our exports of legal services have also increased by nearly 35%, from $1.04 billion in 2018 to $1.40 billion in 2023.

We are today amongst the most preferred arbitration seats in the world.

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) administers many cases which do not have a connection directly to Singapore. It shows their international reach. The Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) also has an increasing caseload. In fact, last year, it had its most number of cases since it started operations. The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) saw an increased caseload as well last year, up by about 30%.

Our IP regime and innovation environment are also internationally recognised. We were ranked top in Asia and fifth in the world in the 2023 Global Innovation Index. But as Mr Murali says, we should not rest on our laurels. Indeed, we cannot because we are facing a challenging and competitive external environment. If we do not continually improve, others will come in, fill the gap and take our space. Sir, MinLaw is therefore working to improve our value proposition in a number of ways.

First, we need to continue strengthening our legal hub. Our approach is a very practical one – to ensure that parties' commercial needs are met and we ensure party autonomy as far as possible, whether in the choice of law; choice of forum for dispute resolution, be it mediation, arbitration or the Singapore courts, including SICC; as well as the choice of counsel. We are also plugged in to the latest trends and developments, so that we can quickly move to update our laws and it moves in tandem with evolving mercantile needs.

Let me give two examples.

First, we introduced various enhancements in international arbitration, which Mr Zhulkarnain mentioned. In 2020, we provided a default mode of appointment of arbitrators in multi-party arbitration and recognised that the arbitral tribunal and the High Court have the power to enforce confidentiality obligations amongst the parties. In 2017 and 2022, we introduced additional funding options that were available in some other international arbitration centres, such as third-party funding and conditional fee agreements.

Second, the Singapore Convention on Mediation (SCM) also mentioned by Mr Zhulkarnain, provides a uniform and efficient framework for parties to enforce their mediated settlement agreements across borders. Currently, there are 56 signatories and, as of today, 14 Parties, including Sri Lanka, who just ratified the Convention two days ago.

We have been actively encouraging countries to adopt the SCM and to promote mediation, through events and trainings, some of which, we do overseas as well. And we do this because, as the number of Convention Parties grow, mediation will also become more attractive for businesses. Singapore parties who trade with parties from any other Convention country, will be able to effectively use mediation as a means to resolve their disputes. This can translate into time and cost savings, not to mention the preservation of goodwill and relationship.

We are also involved in shaping international instruments, which may impact or potentially benefit Singapore. For instance, the Hague Judgments Convention. MinLaw participated in the negotiations from 2015 until its completion in 2019, because we recognised its potential to increase enforceability overseas of Singapore judgments in commercial or civil matters. To Mr Murali Pillai's specific query, we are now assessing whether to sign on and on what terms we will do so.

Along with a good legal framework, we need a robust, strong legal profession to serve businesses – law firms and lawyers, who can be trusted advisors to help businesses navigate different legal systems. On this, we aim to anchor top international law firms to strengthen our foreign and international law offerings; as well as continue to maintain a strong core of Singapore law practices. I am heartened to see Singapore law practices expanding their presence and networks overseas.

As I mentioned at the outset, Singapore is a small market. Our population is 5.5 million. So, we need to view the region as our hinterland. ASEAN alone has a population of about 660 million and fast growing. Asia, about 4.7 billion. And both these regions are the beneficiaries of increasing foreign direct investments. So, MinLaw is committed to supporting our law firms in their internationalisation efforts.

One of the key markets, to give you an example, is China. We introduced the Singapore-Shanghai Lawyers Exchange Programme together with the Law Society last year. Our firms in Singapore hosted the inaugural batch of 10 Shanghai lawyers. We received feedback that this helped them to better understand the Singapore legal market and form new connections. And in turn, our Singapore lawyers through interaction with the Chinese lawyers, also understand the Chinese legal market better. They also formed new connections. Later this year, we will be sending our Singapore lawyers to Shanghai on the return leg of the exchange programme.

This programme will help them also build networks, understand the nuances of doing business in a foreign jurisdiction and strengthen their value proposition as a lawyer. If there is demand, we will explore similar programmes with other jurisdictions.

Our support also extends to smaller firms. As Mr Raj Joshua Thomas highlighted a moment ago, they are an important part for our legal ecosystem. Many of our small firms have deep expertise in niche areas and some of them take on international, high-value work. In fact, most of the Singapore lawyers who are going on this Shanghai exchange that I spoke about, come from smaller firms.

Mr Thomas also asked how we can support small firms, joining practices together to form a larger entity. Small Singapore practices can come together to form Singapore group practices with other freestanding law practices now, if they wish. This enables firms to reach broader, allow them to reap benefits of co-branding, reap economies of scale in office as well as resource costs.

11.30 am

Besides law firms, we are also look at developing our lawyers – from the time they enter law school, right through to when they go into practice and beyond.

Last month, the Working Group for the Reform of Legal Education made recommendations on legal education and training. Essentially, to keep pace with developments and shifts in other jurisdictions.

One recommendation was to enhance the coverage of civil law concepts. Why? We see this as an important area, because more than half of Singapore's top trading partners operate in civil law jurisdictions.

Earlier, we also accepted the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers' recommendations aimed at lifting overall standards. One key recommendation – to lengthen the practice training period from six months to one year – will be implemented this year.

Ms Nadia Samdin asked about the readiness of the firms and students. In fact, Ms Samdin would recall that we announced this in 2018, some six years ago, precisely to give sufficient lead time to trainees and firms to make that transition. It was to have come into effect last year, but we deferred it by one year, taking into account the impact of COVID-19, as well as industry feedback.

These changes, overall, will help our lawyers better meet the challenges of competition. However, as we all know, learning should not stop, even after one is called to the Bar and out in practice. Legal practice is always evolving, as the world keeps moving and commercial needs keep evolving.

As Deputy Prime Minister Wong emphasised in his Budget speech, we also need to equip our workers for life, likewise lawyers. For the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, which is applicable to all Singaporeans aged 40 and above, this programme will also apply to legal professionals.

Besides broad-based support, MinLaw has also introduced specific, targeted support for the legal industry. Let me give some examples. For instance, Ms Nadia Samdin would be pleased to know that we have introduced a secondment programme for young lawyers.

These secondments seek to provide young lawyers with exposure to high-growth areas in our economy, such as block-chain technology, as well as international sustainability financing. This allows our lawyers to deepen industry knowledge and skillsets, also build contacts and networks with the relevant industry path makers.

And we will do our best to create opportunities for young lawyers, but they will need to also step up to seize these opportunities. Indeed, Ms Nadia Samdin spoke about the challenges faced by young lawyers, including the intensified pace of work that they experience today.

This is feedback that we have heard in our regular engagements with young lawyers. Those of us who are lawyers in this Chamber were once young lawyers, maybe some are still young lawyers, we know that sometimes, practice can be challenging, clients are demanding, hours are long. And we should collectively do our best to improve the work culture, allow for more mentoring of young lawyers, guide them in the profession, expose them to opportunities.

But we also have to recognise the reality that we have to live with. We live in a globalised world today, I spoke about the competition earlier. We are competing with not just the lawyers within Singapore, but also from overseas. If we are not careful, we will lose our competitive edge and lose work and our market share to other jurisdictions. Fundamentally though, I think our young lawyers are resilient, very forward looking, very determined to do well.

So, on our part, we will continue to enhance our legal industry and seek out opportunities for young lawyers.

These efforts, overall, will also deepen the strength of our legal industry, which Mr Murali Pillai highlighted, and ensure that Singapore continues to be a strong legal hub, one that encourages businesses, including MNCs, to choose Singapore for their operations and meet their legal needs.

Finally, a few words on technology, which Mr Christopher de Souza, as well as Mr Zhulkarnain spoke about – the use technology to work smarter and meet complex demands. Generative artificial intelligence, or GenAI, has received attention recently, some good, some not so good. We will continue to encourage law practices to embrace technology to help them level up.

Members will know that we introduced the Legal Technology Platform (LTP) for lawyers previously. In October 2023, MinLaw and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) introduced the Legal Industry Digital Plan (IDP), and as part of the Legal IDP, we identified tools that will help automate knowledge work. For example, document review and assembly tools can drastically cut down the time needed for some rote tasks. Lawyers can then be freed up to do higher-value work, or client-facing work. And the IDP is designed to work in tandem with the LTP.

We are also looking to include tools in our current grant, the Productivity Solution Grant for the Legal Sector, to help Singapore law firms level up on the technology front.

Sir, let me now turn to our strategies in intellectual property, or IP. The value of an enterprise now increasingly lies in IP and intangible assets, or IA. This can be seen from the increase in IP filings globally. In Singapore, our patent filings grew by 40% and our trademark filings grew by 35% over the last decade. It is, thus, important for us to continue to maintain a strong regime that is business-friendly and very forward-looking as well.

In recent years, we have updated our laws to keep pace with developments. In 2021, we overhauled the Copyright Act, in light of new technologies and also market developments in the digital age. In 2022, we made amendments to improve the IP registration processes, made it more business-friendly.

Our Courts have also contributed with important jurisprudence, such as the I-Admin decision that changed the law on breach of confidence. But having a strong network and protecting IP is really just the beginning for us. What will add value to a business is the ability to commercialise and monetise their IP, and use it as a stepping stone to grow their businesses.

MinLaw, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) therefore launched the Singapore IP Strategy or SIPS 2030 in 2021. SIPS 2030 is designed to help enterprises unlock the value of their IA and their IP; spur innovation in the economy, as Mr de Souza said; and also support overall economic growth, particularly for the small and medium enterprises.

We will better support businesses in their IP journey. And let me give Members some examples of the programmes that the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has. Last September, IPOS launched GoBusiness IP Grow, an online platform with a wealth of IP resources, including free tools, guides, programmes, as well as access to Government grants. This adds to existing programmes, such as the IP Business, as well as the Legal Clinics.

IP is also important for youths, budding entrepreneurs and arts creators, as Ms Nadia Samdin mentioned. To increase awareness, IPOS has a wide range of resources on various platforms made available and it constantly refreshes and updates them in response to market trends.

For example, we have the recent AskTheExpert video series on copyright and trademark matters. IPOS also works with industry partners to support microbusinesses, as well as freelancers. And often it is this segment of society or the economy, who are not able to unlock the value in their own IP.

So, IPOS, for example, has worked with the National Library Board and the Visual, Audio, Creative Content Professionals Association Singapore, and we held a session recently for creators to come together, and learn from IPOS on how to better protect their works with IP. This helps them level up, monetise and go further.

As I mentioned, it is also critical to support growing businesses with more sophisticated IP strategies and management processes. In September last year, IPOS launched IP Ready. This pairs local businesses with experts, coming together to develop IP strategies in a curated way, institutionalise IP management processes, and also, overall, help to build IP capacity to sustain business growth.

IP Ready will support the development of key innovation sectors, such as the information and communications technology (ICT) as well as the biomedical technology.

We will also support businesses in monetising the value of IP and other intangible assets. Last September, we launched the Intangibles Disclosure Framework, which helps businesses disclose their IA in a systematic and consistent manner.

We are also working on guidelines for valuing these IA, so that there is a common platform and a common standard and then, that value and the way that you use the value to monetise, can be interoperable across different markets. Together, these initiatives will help businesses and investors appreciate and leverage on the true value of a business' IA.

Sir, before I conclude, let me touch on the Community Dispute Management Framework, an issue that Mr de Souza, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Derrick Goh spoke about. Sir, we understand and agree with the points which Members have made. It is also important that we tackle community disputes quickly, before the disputes become intractable, causing irreparable rifts in society. This rift could then lead to neighbourly friction and ultimately, loosen the threads in the fabric of our cohesion.

As Members know, we have been working on a revised framework to address this issue. This will come in three parts.

One, the Ministry of National Development (MND) has been stepping up efforts to promote and encourage, as well as enforce pro-social norms upstream and will also set up a dedicated team of personnel to respond on the ground, something I will come back to in a moment.

Second, mandating mediation in the appropriate cases.

And third, where parties end up at the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT), we want to enhance the processes and the powers of the CDRT to make it a far more expedient and efficient process.

Let me start with mediation, which Members will agree is effective and particularly useful in community disputes, mainly because we are dealing with disputes between two known parties or neighbours and sometimes, the disputes have a strong emotional undercurrent as well. These are parties who will continue to have to live side by side and probably see each other every day.

So, rather than look at a legal right or legal wrong in a vacuum, mediation helps to bring parties together, look at the bigger picture, look at the overall relationship, and come to reach an understanding and compromise on the matter far more easily. This also helps to keep the parties on good terms.

The Community Mediation Centre (CMC) has, therefore, increased the number of volunteer mediators by 15% over the past year, in anticipation of such increasing cases, given that we are mandating mediation. Today, we have close to 160 volunteer mediators and we will continue to grow this pool.

The CMC has also set up satellite mediation venues in the neighbourhoods, so that residents can take part in mediation closer to their homes. In the past year, we have grown the number of satellite centres from six to 10 and have plans to add more in the neighbourhoods. CMC has also started using Zoom for mediation, in the appropriate cases, to make mediation even more accessible.

To drive more cases towards an early and amicable settlement, we will, therefore, mandate mediation in appropriate cases. This is in line with the suggestion that some Members have spoken about. So, the dedicated response team that I mentioned earlier will be given powers to come onto the ground, understand the problem, triage and identify suitable cases, and direct the neighbours to go to mediation.

In many community disputes cases, quick intervention can often help to prevent the matter from escalating further, before emotions set in and parties become intractable in their positions. So, apart from mandating parties to attend mediation, this team will also, in the appropriate cases, be present on site at the location of the disamenity and will be empowered to issue warnings and advisories.

If this team is satisfied that there is evidence of persistent nuisance or otherwise egregious conduct, it can also issue an abatement order, which is a direction for the particular nuisance to stop, pending a mediation or a CDRT adjudication. Non-compliance with an abatement order will be an offence.

We are now preparing to set up this dedicated team of officers, which will take some time. But for a start, we intend for this unit to cover community disamenities, like noise and hoarding, which could have a serious impact on community harmony.

Finally, as I have said earlier, it is not ideal for neighbours to turn to litigation immediately to deal with a community dispute. Hence, going to the CDRT should really be a measure of last resort, only if all the other upstream intervention measures that I spoke about do not yield a successful outcome.

But for those who have to turn to the CDRT, it probably means you have gone through a process, you are unable to resolve it and it has been an issue for some time. We want to turn the CDRT process into: one, that allows parties to obtain relief quickly and effectively. We have, therefore been working closely with the CDRT to identify several process areas which we will improve.

For example, in serious cases, the CDRT will be empowered to make interim orders on an expedited basis and based on a lower threshold. This will allow affected residents to obtain quick relief, even as the case awaits a full hearing.

This framework has been the subject of public consultations. On these ideas, generally the responses have been positive and supportive, and we will take onboard this feedback, make some adjustments as may be appropriate, and frame the legislation, because these measures will require legislative support. And we are targeting to introduce this later this year. Further details will be shared in due course.

Sir, I thank the various Members for their comments and suggestions and I look forward to their continued support for MinLaw's work.

Mr Chairman: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu.

11.45 am

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Mr Chairman, the last key thrust of MinLaw’s work relates to state assets.

The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) plays a key role as custodian of state land and property, optimising land resources for our economic and social development. We continue to plan for the long term, to optimise our limited land and invest in our shared tomorrow.

Mr Patrick Tay asked how SLA optimises state assets to meet market needs. SLA remains continually attuned to market needs through extensive engagements, in order to unlock the value of state land and properties.

A few examples of SLA’s innovations and curation of new uses include: the former St Andrew’s Mission Hospital in Tanjong Pagar which will be transformed into a creative lifestyle space. SLA has also made available state properties such as 79 to 95 Hindoo Road and 26 Evans Road to meet the emergent demand for co-living spaces.

We also recognise that spaces play an important role in forging social cohesion and promoting social good in our community. SLA has been repurposing spaces to serve the community. One example is The Foundry at 11 Prinsep Link, which was the former Elections Department office building. This space will be a collective impact hub that houses social purpose organisations.

The Foundry was set up in partnership with The Majurity Trust, Tote Board and the recently launched Singapore Government Partnership Office, and will facilitate the gathering of non-profit startups and social sector partners. Bringing these partners together in a common space will create strong synergies to encourage civic participation. It will act as a base for non-profit organisations and social sector enablers to come together to incubate ideas, drive impactful innovation and build communities.

Another new site is the former Kampong Chai Chee community centre. We have launched a tender to create a new space for social activities and interaction among diverse communities. We are seeking innovative ideas for facilities and programming that will appeal to residents.

On Ms Usha Chandradas’ comment relating to use by arts groups, SLA works with our partner agencies to identify suitable properties for arts uses. In general, SLA will consider factors such as market demand for the specific use, as well as feedback from community and stakeholders, including partner agencies. The rental of state properties to arts tenants will be based on the assessed market rate for such arts-related uses.

Mr Leong Mun Wai asked about SLA’s management of state land and properties, in particular heritage bungalows. Mr Leong and Mr Patrick Tay also asked about the occupancy rates of state properties.

Many of the points raised by Mr Leong were already addressed in Parliament last year. The occupancy rates for residential heritage bungalows from January 2017 to January 2023 were shared publicly last year. In addition, the overall occupancy rate for usable state properties is published annually.

In financial year 2022, the occupancy rate for all usable state properties was 99%. This is publicly available information published in MOF’s Budget Book. So, the Member’s statements relate to the remaining 1%.

Let me recap some of the points that were shared previously. Occupancy rates of state properties generally move in tandem with changes in market conditions. When market conditions are weak and the demand for leasing is low, occupancy rates will generally be lower, as was the case for the Ridout Road estate in 2018, when a number of bungalows in that and other estates were vacant. In addition, for heritage bungalows in particular, the pool of potential tenants is limited, because tenants often have to put in considerable additional work to install modern amenities to make the property more liveable.

SLA’s approach is to make basic additions to ensure that the properties are in a reasonably good condition so that tenants are able to reside in these properties safely. The incoming tenant will also retrofit and enhance the property based on their preferences. Since the tenant will have to spend a fair bit of money, that reduces the pool of tenants further.

SLA will install modern amenities and facilities for selected properties, where the overall circumstances make it advantageous to do so. We have and will continue to rejuvenate properties, with an external private sector partner where possible to place-make the area.

It would, however, not be the best use of public resources to always renovate properties to a high standard before a tenant is found. This is because the condition of the property will deteriorate if there is no take-up such as in a poor market. Taxpayers' money would have to be used again, to redo some works and carry out additional works, when a tenant is found. It is also wasteful and inefficient if we retrofit a property in a particular way only for the tenant to redo it in a different way.

It was also explained in detail that SLA deploys state properties to a variety of different uses. Likewise, the surrounding state land is used in a variety of ways, having regard to the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Master Plan.

While we continue to retain heritage bungalows for their original residential use on the market, some have been demolished as a cluster to make way for newer developments. Others have been re-purposed for different uses, such as commercial and retail. These are subject to the URA Master Plans.

If the heritage bungalows are located amidst or amongst an area zoned for landed properties, removing the properties or redeveloping them and the land around them would not change the area much. The cleared land can only be similarly used for low intensity development.

It should be kept in mind that SLA’s portfolio of state properties cannot be directly compared to that of a typical private commercial landlord, as SLA manages a number of heritage bungalows which are conserved or marked for study for conservation.

SLA has carefully broadened the usage and deployment of its properties to meet the evolving needs of Singapore over time. A judicious balance continues to be needed, between protecting heritage properties in Singapore and redeveloping them altogether.

SLA diversifies the management of its portfolio to include private sector managing agents as they are professional organisations, experienced in managing properties in the public and private markets. Today, overall, the total revenue collected by SLA from state properties significantly exceeds the total maintenance cost incurred.

Sir, turning to geospatial technology, this is a crucial tool to optimise land use, enhance productivity and advance new ways of working and living.

On the issue of building local capability in geospatial data, SLA will be launching the refreshed Singapore Geospatial Master Plan in March this year. Building on the first Geospatial Master Plan, this will guide our national geospatial initiatives over the next decade. The Master Plan has three priority areas.

First, to mainstream geospatial information and technology to benefit Singaporeans in their daily lives. One initiative is the introduction of barrier-free routes in OneMap. These routes have been piloted with more than 100 wheelchair users, covering about 1,100 kilometres across nine planning areas, including Gardens by the Bay and the Orchard Road precinct. This will help make Singapore a more inclusive society for persons with disabilities.

Second, to deepen Singapore’s geospatial capabilities to support national needs. SLA will conduct the third national aerial mapping exercise to capture and update Singapore in 3D in March this year. This supports strategic use cases, such as urban planning, national security, coastal protection and flood mitigation.

To address Ms Nadia Samdin’s query on harnessing AI, SLA launched the OneMap GPT Challenge with IMDA in October 2023. This explored the usage of GenAI technology to enhance OneMap’s usefulness and relevance to the daily lives of Singaporeans.

Third, to project Singapore’s leadership in geospatial development globally. Since 2022, SLA has been co-chairing the UN Expert Group on Land Administration and Management. This is a strong recognition of Singapore’s achievements in maintaining a robust framework and mapping technology for land registration and ownership management.

We have been sharing our experience and contributing to the global shift towards using geospatial information and technologies to address climate change challenges, such as coastal protection and flood mitigation.

I turn now to speak about strengthening our criminal justice system, a point which Mr Patrick Tay had asked about.

Earlier this month, Parliament passed the Criminal Procedure Code (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill. The amendments were significant and focused on: protecting the public by strengthening our levers to tackle crime, including serious sexual crime; and enhancing transparency, fairness and coherence in our criminal court processes.

Key amendments included: setting out a clear legislative framework on the conduct of forensic medical examinations; the introduction of a new sentence for enhanced public protection to better protect the public from dangerous offenders; and the introduction of new provisions on criminal disclosure to provide greater clarity, certainty and coherence.

Together, these amendments will facilitate more effective criminal investigations, enhance public protection and result in greater transparency and fairness in criminal proceedings.

Separately, the inter-agency Sentencing Advisory Panel, which MinLaw is represented on, alongside stakeholders such as the Courts, the Attorney-General's Chambers, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Public Defender's Office and the Defence Bar, issued its first Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas in August last year. The Guidelines provide more clarity, consistency and transparency to existing sentencing practice. They are intended to encourage accused persons who wish to plead guilty to do so earlier. This has significant benefits, especially for victims, as they can find closure sooner and are spared the need to testify in court.

Sir, I will now elaborate on our efforts in ensuring access to justice and build on what Minister Shanmugam mentioned earlier.

First, for our civil legal aid scheme and criminal defence aid scheme, we will be revising the quantum of eligibility thresholds for per capita household income (PCHI) and annual value (AV). This is in light of the increase in household income and property value in recent years. The PCHI thresholds will be increased for civil legal aid from $950 to $1,050, and for criminal defence aid from $1,500 to $1,650. The AV threshold for both types of aid will also be increased from $13,000 to $21,000, in line with MOF’s revision of the AV threshold for social assistance schemes. This will cover all Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats. We are working towards implementing these changes by the second quarter of this year.

On a related note, Mr Derrick Goh had asked whether exceptions are being considered for those who do not meet the means test criteria. We will continue to exercise flexibility for deserving cases. For instance, a Means Test Panel appointed by the Minister can consider and recommend aid be granted to applicants who cannot afford basic legal services due to extenuating circumstances.

Next, we are simplifying the application process for divorce matters in the Syariah Court. In November 2023, LAB launched eBantu. Applicants can use eBantu to get an estimate of the nafkah iddah and mutaah claimable. eBantu also uses a series of guided questions to help the applicant fill in originating documents. This can help applicants minimise form-filling errors, and be better informed of their rights and entitlements.

We are looking to translate the tool into the Malay language in the next phase of development. This is related to the point that our services need to be accessible to non-English speakers, which was also mentioned by Ms Sylvia Lim.

When an applicant approaches MinLaw for services, we will try to find officers who speak the applicant’s preferred language to assist the applicant. If this is not possible, we will find other ways to get translation done.

MinLaw also has non-English versions of brochures relating to some of our services.

In addition, MinLaw is also looking at making it easier for litigants to enforce their judgments, as said by Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Patrick Tay. We have received feedback that sometimes, the time and costs spent to enforce judgments may be disproportionate to the outcome. It may simply not be worth the effort to seek enforcement of lower-value judgments.

One of the issues is that the current civil enforcement process is overly reliant on the compliance and cooperation of the judgment debtors.

Under the Rules of Court, the current process to locate and identify a judgment debtor’s assets is for the judgment debtor to be examined in Court on his or her assets. However, the effectiveness of this procedure is dependent on the truthfulness and cooperation of the judgment debtor. An uncooperative judgment debtor could provide selective or insufficient information, or wear down the judgment creditor by failing to turn up for hearings or bring the required documents.

We are thus studying potential enhancements, such as giving the Court greater powers to identify the assets and means of judgment debtors, to help the judgment creditor decide whether and how to enforce the judgment. We are also looking to introduce new powers to deter and punish non-compliance with court orders and to streamline further the process of civil enforcement.

Mr Vikram Nair had asked about the status of these proposed reforms. MinLaw has made good progress on refining its proposals, having sought inputs from various stakeholders in the past year. We target to introduce the Bill later this year and will provide details in due course.

Another area which MinLaw and the FJC have been working on is probate and intestacy matters. The FJC launched its Probate e-Service in 2023 for straightforward probate applications where the estate is not more than $2 million. In response to Mr Murali Pillai on the potential expansion of its scope, the FJC will monitor its use first, as the e-Service was only introduced recently.

Separately, the FJC also intends to roll out its revamped Family Justice Rules later this year, which will simplify and streamline the rules on family proceedings, including probate and intestacy proceedings.

12.00 pm

On other possible areas for law reforms, I thank Mr Murali Pillai for his suggestions. Given the full slate of work outlined earlier, which MinLaw is committed to delivering, some of these reviews will have a longer tail.

To round off the MinLaw Committee of Supply (COS), let me highlight the key thrusts of our work. We will in 2024 strive to increase access to justice for more in the community, especially the most vulnerable; strengthen Singapore's position as a leading international legal services hub and seize new opportunities; and finally, optimise our state assets and leverage geospatial technology to support the economy and serve the community.

The Chairman: We have some time for clarifications. Ms Hany Soh.

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Chairman, my clarifications concern the Family Justice Reform's MEP component which Minister shared earlier that it will rolled out in stages.

In this regard, I wish to find out what will be the Ministry's efforts when the MEP is being rolled out in stages to ensure that there is sufficient awareness on the ground, particularly the litigant-in-person, to make sure that they know where to seek help and what will be the procedures in line.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, the MEP is part of the court process, whether it is a litigant-in-person or whether it is a lawyer. Lawyers will be expected to know the Act, the provisions, the powers. For a litigant-in-person, the primary touchpoint will be the Courts, because the MEOs report to the Court and that is where he will get the information. The Courts will be expected to talk to the litigant-in-person and this is one process that is available. So, through both the legal process as well as physically in the Courts, the information will be available.

Beyond that, we work with community partners. For example, last year, there was a major conference on these developments and the non-government organisation SG Her Empowerment, or SHE, partnered the Ministry in having the conference, and the Family Justice Reform Act was widely discussed. We will continue to do more of that.

The Chairman: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Thank you, Sir. I just wanted to clarify on my speech earlier. I think I said 580 cases out of 1,300 were ineligible. Actually, it should be 580 were eligible.

Separately, I have got two clarifications. The Minister mentioned that there were about 440 cases that were handled by PDO and by CLAS as well. May I ask for clarification as to whether CLAS assesses cases on its own separately? What criteria does CLAS use and will the threshold changes apply to how CLAS assesses whether it should be giving aid as well?

Mr K Shanmugam: I think those questions are best addressed to the Law Society. But broadly, what the Member can assume that those cases that do not qualify through the means testing of PDO, go to CLAS. And CLAS has its own set of criteria. CLAS, for example, has the power to act for non-citizens, whereas PDO will only act for citizens.

The Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Chairman. I have a clarification for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Ms Rahayu Mahzam on the access for non-English speakers.

Earlier on, she mentioned that there are brochures in different languages and indeed, it is true for some of the departments. But what I noted that was also very good that MinLaw did was that for the Community Mediation Centres, there are videos in different languages which are also narrated in the different languages and subtitled. So, this is very useful for our older residents.

I was hoping that MinLaw could also consider having videos in other aspects of community legal services so that we can direct our residents to watch them.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: I thank the Member for her suggestion. Indeed, I think that would be a useful endeavour. We will take this back and see how best we can enhance this further.

The Chairman: Mr Christopher de Souza.

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank Minister Edwin Tong for his response in relation to the IP hub. First, I declare I am a lawyer in private practice and part of my practice encompasses IP.

I think in order for us to become a solid IP hub, we need to ramp up our ability to value intangible assets. If I may be permitted just to give an example. Most of the cases that go to Court are trademark infringement, patent infringement, copyright infringement. And then, assuming the plaintiff wins, he has got a judgment saying that his patent has been infringed, there is actually a dearth of case law on how to value that infringement. There is a dearth of case law globally, regionally.

If we want to become an IP hub, what we really need, in my humble view, is to increase our ability to monetise and value that IP. Nowadays, so much of what companies' asset is, is in intellectual property; it is not in the building, it is not in the bricks and mortar. It is in the trade secrets, it is in the confidential information.

So, I would like to know, in order to advance Singapore's position as an IP hub, what are we doing to bolster our valuation of IP capability and thereby attracting people here to dispute their IP, to protect their IP and to advance their IP.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, Mr Christopher de Souza is indeed right. If you take the Standard and Poor's 500 list of companies as an example, over the last five, 10, 15 years, a growing number of those companies reported that the majority of their assets are in intangible assets, no longer brick and mortar. And that is the trend. I think we have to be ahead of the curve if we want to be an IP hub that is of value to the business community.

Indeed, also Mr Christopher de Souza is right that valuing it, how you do valuation, what standards, what parameters you look at, what are some of the features of an intangible asset that ought to go into valuation – all that has to be looked at.

So, as I mentioned in my speech earlier, we are working with MOF and MTI, three Ministries coming together, to look at the landscape. In valuation, what is important is you must have a clear, objectively assessed and accepted standard. If you do not have that across different jurisdictions, different markets, it is going to be very hard for something to be marketed, to be monetised or even if you want to use it to raise money, raise capital or provide security, it is going to be difficult.

So, the first thing that we have got to do is to agree on a set of standards and that is what we are working on now, working with leading industry professionals, not just in Singapore, but elsewhere in other jurisdictions, coming together.

When we can do that, then, we will begin to build on that body of case law that Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned, because then, you will have cases that deal with transactions of intangible assets and how they are valued. You then have industry experts coming forward to give expert evidence on how to value intangible assets, in the same way as we now have industry experts who can quite easily value property and other types of assets.

So, that is the trajectory that we are on. It is not something we can jump forward ahead by ourselves because what we do and how we do it has necessarily got to be done in tandem with other jurisdictions and other markets.

The Chairman: Mr Christopher de Souza.

Mr Christopher de Souza: I thank the Minister for his response. I would like to put on record that indeed, IPOS has been doing quite a lot of effort on this. You see a lot of seminars. They are trying to go into valuation of intangible assets. So, I acknowledge the work of IPOS and its ecosystem.

But if we can steal the march, as it were, if we can be ahead of the curve in different regions, then, this can really be an asset valuation hub and give that fillip and advantage to Singapore being an IP hub. I wanted to put that on record.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: And I want to assure the Member that that indeed is our aspiration. We do want to be ahead of the curve and that is why we have set up the framework. We have set up our working committee amongst the different Ministries, working with industry professionals and experts from around the world, precisely to do that.

The Chairman: Ms Nadia Samdin.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Chairman, I would like to thank Minister Edwin Tong for hearing and acknowledging some of the stresses faced by young lawyers. I would just like to go back to the clarification which I sought.

I understand that the Ministry has decided that we are not going to prescribe a minimum quantum in terms of the honorarium which trainees will receive during this lengthened training period, but that the Ministry as well as Law Society was looking into granting leave days and medical leave to support trainees during this extended one-year period. May I please ask for an update on that?

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Yes, we do not think we should prescribe how much each trainee will be paid across this duration. That is something that they can work out with the firms at which they are training.

But we can and we have worked with Law Society to see what additional support can be given and whether it is in terms of leave days or indeed the mentoring scheme that Law Society has put in place. All of these are options for young lawyers whilst at training to level up and to be supported on their journey of learning as they seek to qualify and get called to the Bar.

If the Member has other suggestions, as she often does, we are very happy to work with her, bring them on board and also work with the Law Society to ensure that our young lawyers benefit from these programmes.

The Chairman: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Chairman. I have three questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary.

First question, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the rental income from the state properties far exceed the maintenance cost. Can I specifically ask for the total rental income and total maintenance cost attributable to the black and white bungalows?

Second question, what are the various plans under study now to manage the black and white bungalows to generate a higher return for the Government and, in turn, for the taxpayers? How is the Ministry going to publicise these plans? Because the feeling is that currently, there is not much publicity on the heritage properties and how to invite more Singaporeans or investors to come and suggest ideas to better the performance on these bungalows.

Third question, as an overall strategy, is there a review on whether there is a need to preserve so many black and white bungalows for heritage purposes?

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Chairman, I would just like to give a few responses to address Mr Leong Mun Wai's questions.

Firstly, I just want to highlight that the issue in relation to the black and white bungalows and the details that have been asked have been something we have repeatedly addressed in Parliament last year as well as the various questions that Mr Leong Mun Wai had also put up.

Suffice to say that the key thing is this. There were assertions Mr Leong made about the management of SLA in respect of these properties. We have also specified and explained quite rigorously and I have also repeated that in the bulk of my speech to explain how efforts are being taken in managing this, in making sure that we do not necessarily overspend or waste resources.

I think this actually shows how we have taken great efforts in managing the assets and, as you can see, the figures that I have also given, a large percentage of them are occupied. And we have indicated that the rental that is received far exceeds the maintenance.

12.15 pm

Mr Leong had also suggested that, perhaps, there is not enough publicity or information about the efforts that SLA is doing in managing state assets and optimising the resources we have. I actually spent a bulk of my speech explaining all the different uses and the different efforts we are taking with different partners.

I think that goes to show that there is a lot of thought put into it. It also ties in with the last question he raised about the overall strategy in deciding what to keep, what not to keep. I have also mentioned that in my speech because it is looking at the overall portfolio and deciding what are the best measures to take in light of the uses that are relevant at that time and in light of the partners that we are working with.

So, I believe a lot of this has already been addressed in my speech and I just want to re-assert the point that SLA takes a lot of effort in looking at the overall market, the overall demands of the nation in the decisions they make in the management of these.

The Chairman: Ms Usha Chandradas.

Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Thank you, Chairman. I have two clarifications for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu. I thank her for her detailed response to my question.

My first clarification, if I understand the Senior Parliamentary Secretary correctly, is it the case that presently, no rental subsidies are provided by SLA to tenants that are either artists or arts groups? And if that is the case, would SLA be open to reconsidering this position, given the important role that arts groups play in place-making in Singapore?

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: I note the Member's concern in this space. The rental subsidies are administered and managed by the agencies that are overseeing that sector. So, the feedback that you have raised and the concerns that she has raised, I would have to take it back to the different agencies and we can see what other support can be provided.

The Chairman: Minister Edwin Tong, do you want to add to that?

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thought I would jump in because if we do not answer it now, you might ask me during the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) COS. So, I thought I might as well deal with it now.

Indeed, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu is right. For the arts spaces, they are managed centrally by the agencies, in this case, the National Arts Council (NAC). As the Member knows, NAC has the Arts Housing Scheme over different versions. I will not go into detail now, but depending on the size of the company, the nature of the artist, NAC has a programme where it subvents at the central level. So, it gives a subsidy at the central level, not through SLA because it comes through NAC. And when NAC is of the view that this company or this artist adds value in terms of the field of art or is able to place-make, amongst other considerations, it then decides on subventing the particular group or groups. That is how the arts companies and artists get their subvention – not directly from SLA but through NAC. I hope that clarifies.

The Chairman: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Chairman, I agree with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary that since the Ministerial Statement last year on Ridout Road, a lot more information has emerged about the black and white bungalows. But that does not mean that there is no further information that Singaporeans would like to know.

For example, up to today I do not think the Ministry has shared what is the total income derived and what is the total maintenance cost spent on managing the black and white bungalows, and what is the total land area occupied by the black and white bungalows and all that.

So, these are questions that Singaporeans would like to know and if enough information is being given, then we can assess better whether we have a big underutilised asset here or not.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: I note that the Member is really quite pre-occupied with the details and the specifics, and he has repeatedly asked these questions.

But I think the point we are making is this. At the end of the day, what is the larger point that is being made? And our concern is the larger assertion that is being made that there is mismanagement, that SLA is not doing its part in ensuring that there is proper utilisation, optimisation of the state assets, state properties. That is something that is more important for us to debunk.

The truth is we have given a lot of other facts to show that the market dictates some points like the occupancy rates, vacancy rates. All these are things that we have already highlighted to Mr Leong. We have also explained what are the considerations that SLA takes into account in deciding what to do with the different portfolios, the different state assets and state properties that it has in its bucket.

I think there is a distinction between just vulgar curiosity and actually what are the assertions that are being made on this front. And I am really concerned because I think at the end of the day, it has been repeated many times that SLA has not been looking at this thoroughly, has not been managing this well. I think that is something that is most important for us to address. Which is why I have repeatedly explained that the assets have been managed, we have explained how SLA does this, what SLA takes into account in dealing with these matters. And I think it is important for us to understand and reiterate the point that there is optimisation, there is proper management of the state assets and state properties.

The Chairman: We are approaching the guillotine time. So, for any further clarifications, please keep it short. Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Chairman, I just want to make one point. It may not be a clarification in the strict definition. But we did not start off stating that SLA has mismanaged the properties. We were just raising questions. And we want answers to the questions. A lot of things have been said, but there are still many questions that are unanswered.

So, that is the state of affairs. We did not start off saying that SLA has mismanaged this or mismanaged that, but we are saying that there are questions.

So, if you can provide the answers, then you will be able to erase the doubts in the minds of many Singaporeans.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: I will take note of Mr Leong's suggestions, but I do want to also highlight that in your speech you did indicate that there were areas that SLA could look into in improving and you did say that it could do better, suggesting that there were some gaps in the things that have been done. So, that is where I draw reference from.

But I do note that things constantly evolve, there may be developments and there may be updates that we can give. So, over time, that is something that we are prepared to do and provide information that is relevant to address concerns that Singaporeans and yourself may have.

The Chairman: Ms Usha Chandradas, did you raise your hand earlier? I think we have time for one more clarification.

Ms Usha Chandradas: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just a very quick statement. I thank the Minister and Senior Parliamentary Secretary for their comments. I just wanted to clarify that I am well aware of NAC's very, very good initiatives on arts housing, but what I have heard from artists on the ground is that demand for these schemes far exceeds the supply. So, the reason why I was raising this query through a cut for MinLaw was to see whether SLA could expand the scope of what it does and consider extending some subsidies to arts groups.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her confirmation that this is something that she will take into consideration.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank Ms Usha Chandradas for saying that the scheme is really good. I hope you will say that again at the MCCY COS.

But the point is noted and, in most cases, the demand, especially for land in Singapore, does outstrip the supply. That is one of the challenges we face, not just in the arts sector, but really across a number of different sectors, including the sports sector.

What we do through the scheme is to best optimise it, to understand the needs of the landscape. So, for example, we do not just give the land or the arts spaces to established companies for long periods of time. We try and ensure that there is a turnover so that newer, nascent arts companies in emerging areas, developing areas of artworks can have an opportunity to be in these spaces. So, that is how we manage it through NAC.

I would also add to Ms Usha's point that we do from time to time try to expand the number of spaces. Ms Usha might know that later this year, Kampong Java will be open. Kampong Java is a space that NAC worked with SLA to obtain. It is a new space altogether, meant for artists and will be artist-run so that artists themselves will decide how to run the space, what kind of exhibitions to hold there, which arts companies will come in and use the spaces. So, it is our way also of working with the community to expand the number of spaces in tandem with the growing interest that arts companies have shown.

Finally, my last point is to say that I am actually quite heartened that there is a lot more demand than there is space. Because it does show that there is a growing arts ecosystem and people are interested: people want to make art a way of life and they want to be able to work, perform as well as exhibit. All these bode well for our overall arts ecosystem, which I am sure, no doubt, we will discuss more of next week.

The Chairman: Any other clarifications? None. Can I invite Mr Murali, if you would like, to withdraw your amendment?

Mr Murali Pillai: Thank you, Sir. Sir, listening to the hon political appointment holders' responses to the speeches made by the hon Members, it is evident to me that MinLaw, which is a relatively small Ministry, has and continues to make outsized contributions.

It has the heaviest legislative workload. It deals with high policies, dealing with the internationalisation of Singapore, maintaining our status as a legal hub and so on, and at the same time, it focuses on the small man. The poignant example given by the hon Minister about how the PDO helped a gentleman named Mr N to get an equitable sentence is very heartwarming indeed.

Also, the processes outlined by the hon Second Minister on how to maintain peace in the community – something all hon Members can ascribe to. Last but not least, the processes to allow the common man navigate the courts better, as outlined by the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary.

With that, Sir, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $322,221,900 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $386,904,000 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.