HEAD R - MINISTRY OF LAW

Head R – Ministry of Law

Legal services sector

Mr Alvin Yeo: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100.

The legal services sector continues to play the key role in positioning Singapore as a leading financial hub and international service centre. The rule of law and the breadth and depth of legal talent here are regularly cited in international surveys, ranking Singapore as one of the freest and most competitive economies.

Over the last few years, the Ministry has announced sweeping initiatives to spur the growth of the legal sector. These included the granting of licences to practise Singapore law to qualifying foreign law practices (QFLPs) and measures taken to enhance the attractiveness of Singapore as an arbitration centre. A number of years on, I would like to ask for the Minister's view as to whether these initiatives have borne fruit and whether we should revise, modify or even accelerate them.

Taking the licences granted to QFLPs first. As luck would have it, these were granted at the end of 2008 just as the world was reeling from the global financial crisis. The key factor for the granting of licences was the QFLPs' business plans to increase the manpower base here, the service products they would offer here and the turnover in terms of number of transactions in business from their offices based in Singapore. The crisis has undoubtedly put a dent in those plans but now that the worst is over and most of Asia, including Singapore, have recovered strongly, the question is whether the QFLPs have lived up to their promises or be delayed by the onset of the crisis. After all, it is this concomitant benefit to Singapore from the QFLPs routing more business here that was the rationale for granting them the freedom to practise Singapore law and compete directly with local firms. This should continue to be an important consideration in deciding whether, when and how many more QFLP licences should be issued.

Turning now to Singapore as an arbitration centre. Impressive progress has been made in this direction over the last few years. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) opening a regional office here, the arrival of various top-notch sets of English barristers to set up chambers or offices in Singapore, the inauguration of Maxwell Chambers as a venue for arbitration hearings par excellence have given Singapore a significant boost. The number and value of cases that are heard in Singapore, including by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), have grown steadily each year. Singapore has more new ICC arbitration matters than Hong Kong, while disputes from India, in particular, have climbed, indicating that we are becoming one of the venues of choice for India-related arbitral disputes. What more can be done? We need to identify the sources for arbitration work beyond India and try to market our not-inconsiderable capabilities to them.

China-related disputes are not so frequently resolved in Singapore. We should try to improve on that. We need to continuously review our arbitration laws and the SIAC rules to ensure that they stay in tune with modern commercial practice. We must aim to build up the talent pool of lawyers who can act as arbitration counsels or as arbitrators. At the same time, other regional centres like Hong Kong, and even closer home, Kuala Lumpur, are ramping up their efforts. I hope the Minister can enlighten us on the steps being taken to grow our presence as an arbitration centre and to stay one step ahead of the regional competition.

Singapore – a global legal hub

Mr Christopher de Souza: Mr Chairman, Sir, the opening of a dedicated international arbitration facility, Maxwell Chambers, has made Singapore a regional arbitration hub. I have had the pleasure of acting as counsel in Maxwell Chambers and I agree and echo what Mr Alvin Yeo has said of it being an institution par excellence.

Due to our Government's support, excellent infrastructure, our track record in enforcing arbitration agreements and reputation for integrity and impartiality, we are rising rapidly to be a premier arbitration hub in Asia. Many local and foreign law firms have upgraded their arbitration capabilities here. Will the Minister for Law consider leveraging on this development to make Singapore not just a regional legal hub but a global legal hub for arbitration and non-contentious legal work?

1.30 pm

State land

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on my cut.

In a small constituency like Potong Pasir, we have a few agencies involved in the maintenance and upkeep of State land, HDB land which are classified as non-common property. Agencies involved are namely Land Transport Authority (LTA), National Parks (NParks), National Environment Agency (NEA), Singapore Land Authority (SLA), Housing and Development Board (HDB), Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC), Public Utilities Board (PUB) and SBS Transit (SBS).

I also understand that one agency may engage other agencies for doing certain maintenance work. My point is that the maintenance and upkeep of land maintained by other agencies might be more cost efficient but it is increasingly difficult to get simple routine works like cleaning and regular maintenance done. The public, including residents, are often mistaken that the Town Council did not pay enough attention to this problem.

I would suggest that for every land site which does not belong to the common property, signboards be placed to state the ownership including contact telephone numbers for any feedback. In particular, LTA, HDB, NEA and NParks should also conduct regular supervision and ensure proper upkeep of their respective areas.

Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast): Mr Chairman, may I take my two cuts together?

The Chairman: Yes, take your two cuts together, please.

One Map

Mr Arthur Fong: Mr Chairman, Sir, I was pleased to learn of the launch OneMap last year. I applaud the SLA for this move. It suggested to me that our public agencies are at the cutting edge of technology as well. Civil servants can no longer be seen as drape and boring. As a result of Civil Service innovations, formerly state and unused premises such as Dempsey, Rochester, are being revitalised with new and exciting eating and drinking places. The OneMap is another pro-business and pro-public enterprise initiative.

More public agencies can take the cue from SLA and introduce such innovations to liven up Singapore. For OneMap, I am particularly pleased that the Government agency is sharing with the public information that they have. What is more noteworthy is that it is easily accessible and user-friendly. Indeed, applying technology to geospatial information can potentially benefit the public and community in many ways. Businesses can take advantage and create value-added services. Indeed, I hope businesses may spin off as a result.

I would like the Ministry to provide an update of the usage of OneMap, if any, to add more services. I personally have put OneMap on my homescreen in my iPhone and found the level of detail to be very high. I have seen on the OneMap SERS flats that have not come up in Clementi already on the application.

I would also like to check with the Ministry on the positioning of OneMap. There are other providers of one online maps and there are businesses which already provide value-added location-based services to the public, for example, Maps Buddy on the iPhone. Can the Minister assure that OneMap would not crowd out these other developers and if there any other collaborations in the works?

Fostering creativity

Mr Chairman, my second cut. As Singapore makes good strides towards being a knowledge-based economy, it is important that we, as a nation, continue to innovate and leverage on our intellectual capital. I understand that towards this end, the Government has invested substantially to help businesses to increase productivity and innovation. But many of our companies, especially the small and medium-sized companies may not fully realise the importance of exploiting their intellectual property rights.

For instance, intellectual property rights is not an everyday issue that companies seek help with at the Chambers of Commerce and industries. If they do, some may not know how to fully do so. I would like to know whether the Government has invested enough to build up the ability of our local companies to deal with intellectual property especially when 99% of our businesses are SMEs.

Also, while help is available for businesses in regard to innovation and increasing productivity, I would like to know if the Government is doing something to help individuals. I believe that Singaporeans are creative lot, increasingly so amongst our youths. I know that many polytechnics students are devoting their free time to create apps compatible with the iPhone. But at the national level, we need a conducive environment and framework to stimulate this creativity. We have in our midst, individual inventors who have ideas but do not know how to develop their ideas so that they can be brought to the market. Does the Government have plans to help them take ideas further? Are there multiple agencies that the individual or companies have to deal with or is there a one-stop shop in the works?

Legal Aid Bureau

Mr Michael Palmer (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Sir, in 2008 I had raised the issue of the Legal Aid Bureau during the Committee of Supply debates. I had asked the Ministry to consider revising the limits set for the means test that all applicants for legal aid are subject to.

The number of people that are in need of free legal services is on the rise. I frequently find residents in search of legal advice at my Meet-The-People sessions. Some may say that that is because I am a lawyer but the free legal clinics that are organised by the CDCs in conjunction with the Law Society of Singapore and various other legal clinics are also very popular, and the numbers are growing. Clearly, there is a demand. To that end, the Legal Aid Bureau has also seen a steady increase in the number of cases. In order to qualify for legal aid, one must satisfy two tests. The means test and the merits test.

The merits test is a test that determines whether the applicant has good reason to bring or defend a case under the law. The means test determines whether an applicant qualifies for legal aid based on his disposable income and disposable capital. The current limit for each of these is $10,000. The factors which determine whether an applicant qualifies under the means test are fairly complex, and involve a review of the income of both the applicant and his or her spouse, less certain deductions, and the value of the applicant's property. I do not intend to go into the details but I would like to ask the Ministry to consider the following.

First, I would ask the Minister to consider a review of the limit of $10,000. Based on latest statistics, the average income of households is on the rise. This does not necessarily mean that they are better off as inflation is escalating as well. The Budget has set out a slew of measures to help Singaporeans combat the effects of rising costs. This has seen increases in the monthly amount given out under the Public Assistance Scheme and the income limits for KiFAS and CFAC go up. Would it not therefore be a good time to also review the limits for the means test for legal aid applicants?

My second point is to ask the Ministry to consider giving the Director of the Bureau more discretion in certain cases. Take, for example, the case of a housewife who has stayed at home to raise her children while her husband has worked to support the family. If their marriage breaks down and the husband files for a divorce, the housewife may have no choice but to seek Legal Aid. In determining her disposable income, the Bureau will take into account her husband's income, less certain deductions. But when a marriage breaks down, that housewife may no longer have the benefit of her husband's income, and she cannot get maintenance unless she gets legal aid first. Further, even if she may have a life insurance policy purchased by her husband for the benefit of her children, is it fair to take that into account in the situation of a divorce? Is it fair to take into account what little savings she may have put away and which may be the only money she has to see her through after the divorce?

I would ask the Minister to consider giving the Director more discretion to grant legal aid in different circumstances. Alternatively, provide different parameters for different types of cases.

Pro bono legal services

Sir, my next cut. During the recent debate in this House on the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill, I raised the issue of continuing professional development to be administered by the newly formed Institute of Legal Education. Aside from enquiring as to the format I spoke about pro bono legal work becoming part of the continuing professional development.

The reaction from the legal fraternity was indeed varied. Follow-up reports in the press highlighted that the majority of lawyers interviewed felt that pro bono legal work ought not to be mandated as it should come from the heart. Other lawyers who spoke to me directly felt that it was a good idea. What was heartening to note was that most of the profession felt that lawyers ought to do some pro bono legal work. What we disagreed on was how to accomplish that.

There are several ways in which the lawyers can lend their expertise and provide pro bono legal services. For instance, the Law Society of Singapore operates a Pro Bono Services Office that is an initiative to help bring free legal assistance to people in our community who are in need. Other venues like the CDCs which run legal aid clinics with the Law Society and of course, at Meet-the-People sessions.

The Law Society of Singapore has approximately 3,500 members. In 2006, a collaborative commitment by the Singapore legal profession was made to donate at least 25 hours per lawyer per year towards pro bono work. That works out to about 80,000 hours of free legal services for the community, or less than one hour per month per lawyer. Regrettably, as reported in the Straits Times , figures provided by the Law Society show that approximately 3,500 lawyers declared only some 35,000 hours of pro bono work. That is less than 50% of the target.

I feel that something needs to be done and if it is not to be mandated, then perhaps an alternative proposition might be to allow pro bono legal services to be credited within the professional development framework. For example, if a points system is to be implemented for continuing professional development, can lawyers be given credit for this, say, up to a maximum of 20%? This is one way that we can credit lawyers who are already doing pro bono work and encourage lawyers who are not doing pro bono to do some pro bono work. I hope the Minister will consider this suggestion.

Moneylenders

Dr Ong Seh Hong (Marine Parade): Sir, the legalised moneylending, apart from financial institutions in Singapore, has its roots in the Nagarathar community. In early days of Singapore, they set up shops and lend money to businesses along Singapore River. These moneylenders would sit crossed-legged next to their pettagam or chests where they kept their money. This was how it looked like in those days [ a photo was shown to hon. Members ].

The moneylending business has certainly transformed itself. Today, legal moneylenders are regulated by an Act of Parliament – the Moneylenders Act. Indeed, recent amendments to the Act have modernised the moneylending regime. In turn, easier access to licensed moneylenders has helped to stem the scourge of illegal moneylending or " Ah Long ", where as we just heard in the MHA Committee of Supply debate, the number of cases has dropped. However, there is no cap on the rate of the interest and the various charges the legal moneylenders may impose. In my view, the reported interest rate and the various charges charged by some moneylenders are still too high.

In this regard, would Minister re-consider introducing a cap? Without a cap on how much interest or fees moneylenders may charge, some argue that they are no different from " Ah Longs " or loansharks.

Very often, the people who borrow from these moneylenders would have already maxed out their credit lines. They may have also already owed credit card companies a lot of money. As such, would Ministry consider increasing borrowers' education on their rights and what they should know before borrowing, such as pitfalls of borrowing beyond their means? Can the Ministry make this education compulsory?

1.45 pm

Community mediation

Mr Ong Ah Heng (Nee Soon Central): ( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] The Community Mediation Centre (CMC) has been dealing with community disputes for more than 10 years now. But there are some Singaporeans who still do not know that the CMC exists to help them. Would the Ministry consider doing more publicity on the work of the CMC, especially through new online media?

I have come across constituents who are willing to mediate their disputes through CMC. However, the other party simply refuses to attend the mediation session. It can be very frustrating for everybody, including my grassroots’ leaders who chip in to help. Often, only one in 10 cases was satisfactorily resolved. These constituents have no choice but to try other methods of resolving their problems. They would request agencies like HDB, Town Council or the Police to intervene. At times when the nature of the problem did not fall within the purview of these agencies, the constituents ended up coming back to us to vent their frustration. Would the Ministry consider making community mediation compulsory, instead of leaving it voluntary like the way it is now?

*Cols. 4529-4530.

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. I will respond to Members' questions on the legal services sector, arbitration and legal aid, and Assoc. Prof. Ho will answer the other questions.

Mr Alvin Yeo asked about the impact of recent initiatives to spur the growth of the legal sector and whether these initiatives should be revised or accelerated. The legal sector in Singapore is an important cornerstone in our efforts to develop as a financial services hub, and as a regional and international base for local and foreign multinational firms. A strong legal services sector is an economic engine in itself; it is also a key enabler for work in many other sectors of our economy.

Over the past few years, we have taken various steps to liberalise the legal sector and make Singapore an important international legal hub. As a result of these measures, we now have a more vibrant and diverse legal sector, with 104 foreign law firms registered in Singapore, and 983 foreign lawyers practising here. Eight of the world's top 10 law firms by revenue now have offices in Singapore.

The foreign firms in Singapore complement our 804 local firms and 3,822 local lawyers. Together, there has been a broadening and deepening of legal services expertise in Singapore, and of the ability of the legal sector to support complex international commercial transactions and corporate transactions, especially in industries important to Singapore such as energy, maritime and financial services sectors. Since 2005, the value-added of the legal sector to Singapore's economy has grown by more than 50%.

With the Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) scheme in place, we now have six top foreign law firms practising and promoting the use of Singapore law in permitted areas to their clients. The six QFLP firms have been operating for close to two years now and have done well despite the global financial crisis. In the second half of this year, my Ministry will be reviewing the performance of the QFLP firms at the two-year mark with a view to further liberalisation. The review will also take into account information collected from a broad range of law firms, both local and foreign, as well as data on the supply and demand of legal professionals in Singapore.

Based on the present data available, most of the QFLP firms are well on track to exceed their previously committed two-year manpower and offshore revenue targets. Since the commencement of the QFLP scheme, the six firms have increased their manpower by over 200 lawyers. About two-thirds of these lawyers were hired from overseas, and more than half of these were the result of transfers from the QFLPs' overseas offices.

The QFLP scheme is therefore achieving one of our desired outcomes – the attraction of more legal talent to Singapore, while at the same time providing more exciting opportunities for local lawyers to work in top international law firms without having to leave Singapore. And, of course, they have the choice of working in top Singapore law firms as well. So this gives them a broader choice. As for the QFLPs' revenue, a very large part has come from offshore work, work which might not otherwise have come to Singapore without the scheme.

The past year also saw three new Joint Law Ventures, leveraging the enhanced Joint Law Venture scheme. We now have a total of eight Joint Law Ventures and Formal Law Alliances in Singapore.

Next year, the new Foreign Practitioner Examination (FPE) will increase the pool of lawyers in Singapore qualified in multiple jurisdictions, and will further add to the diversity and richness of Singapore's legal capabilities.

The Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) will be conducting the new FPE. It will allow foreign lawyers who pass the examination to practise Singapore law within the "permitted areas". "Permitted areas" exclude litigation and domestic areas of law, as set out in the legislation.

The new examination was created to help meet industry demand for further high-calibre lawyers. It will be set at a standard that experienced foreign lawyers can pass. Foreign lawyers can take the examination only if they are already employed by or have a job offer from a local or foreign law firm in Singapore. This will ensure that only those foreign lawyers with the skills and experience required by the market will be admitted.

The inflow of lawyers through the FPE will add to the vibrancy of our legal sector without diminishing the attractiveness of Singapore lawyers. Singapore lawyers will continue to be highly sought after because of their training and expertise in Singapore law. It will anchor foreign talent in Singapore and make available a broader range of qualified lawyers in the market.

SILE is currently developing the FPE and will make further announcements in due course. MinLaw, together with SILE, will monitor the scheme after its launch and will fine-tune it as required.

Let me now turn to arbitration. Mr Yeo commented on the progress that Singapore has made as an arbitration centre and asked what steps we are taking to stay one step ahead of the competition. Mr de Souza asked how we could leverage our reputation as a regional arbitration hub to make Singapore a global legal hub

As an aside, if I may say, comparing the number of arbitration cases from India and China – there may be a perception that the number of cases from India are much more than those from China. But in fact, the number of arbitration cases from Greater China – which of course includes Hong Kong – is about equal to the number of cases from India. So in fact, there have been cases from both these high-growth economic areas.

2010 was a good year for Singapore arbitration. The inaugural Singapore International Arbitration Forum (SIAF) took place and was attended by many of the luminaries of the global arbitration community. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre's (SIAC) caseload reached a record of 198 new cases last year – double the number of new cases it handled in 2008. One hundred and twenty cases were heard at Maxwell Chambers last year, up from 46 cases after it opened in mid-2009.

Maxwell Chambers has been well received by the global arbitration community. In fact, the Global Arbitration Review shortlisted the opening of Maxwell Chambers as one of the "Best Developments" in the arbitration industry in 2010. SIAC was also shortlisted as one of the arbitral Institutions of the Year. A White & Case survey found that after London and Geneva, Singapore, together with Paris and Tokyo, are the next most popular seats for arbitration. As for choice of arbitral institution, SIAC was ranked fourth after the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), London Court of International Arbitration (LTIA), and American Arbitration Association / International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAAICDR).

Other countries are now looking at building or improving their own arbitration facilities. They aspire to match or even exceed the standards set by Maxwell Chambers. They have set their sights on competing with Singapore to be the arbitration hub for the region.

A recent article on the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration talked about competing with Singapore. Another article mentioned South Korea's aspirations to be "the Singapore of Northeast Asia". It is interesting, that when South Korea mentions its aspirations to be the Singapore of Northeast Asia, it did not mention – as a reference point – any other city either in Northeast Asia or in Southeast Asia. Hong Kong is also now reported to be looking at what it can do to compete more effectively. Reports suggest that some in Hong Kong acknowledge the efforts that Singapore has put in, and the results that have been achieved.

Ultimately, the success of Singapore as an arbitral destination is not dependent on a building alone. If it were only the building, others can build bigger and plusher buildings. What makes Singapore a top international arbitration centre of choice is that our entire eco-system facilitates and supports independent arbitration, and that is not going to be so easy to replicate. Let me set out some of these aspects.

In terms of the legislative framework, my Ministry updated the International Arbitration Act two years ago. We continue to monitor legislative and other developments in other jurisdictions, and seek feedback from practitioners and users of Singapore's arbitration services on a regular and systematic basis. We have given our commitment to update our laws to reflect best practices, and we have moved fast – and will continue to move fast – when the need arises.

Second, we have a highly regarded, strong and independent judiciary. Our legal system is free of corruption, and is based on Common Law. International best practices are adopted and investors as well as lawyers who advise them can easily understand our system, and work within it.

Another key element of our eco-system is the approach taken by the judiciary in Singapore, in supporting the arbitral process and avoiding too ready a judicial intervention in the arbitral process.

And we can list other factors. The result of these factors is that some of the top arbitration law firms in the world have opened offices in Singapore, including more than 10 of the Global Arbitration Review's top 30 arbitration groups, and renowned arbitration outfits such as 20 Essex Street, Essex Court Chambers, and – most recently – Bankside Chambers. We are working with EDB to encourage these firms to expand their practices in Singapore, and to attract even more top arbitration firms to set up here.

We will host the second Singapore International Arbitration Forum on 1st June this year and the International Council for Commercial Arbitration's (ICCA) annual conference next year. The ICCA is one of the most prestigious conferences in the arbitration calendar. These high-profile events will give us further opportunities to showcase Maxwell Chambers and Singapore as an arbitration venue.

We do not intend to sit back and wait for the world to come to us. We will continue to work closely with various key players to cement Singapore's position as one of the key arbitration venues in the world and the leading centre in Asia.

Let me now touch on the issue of legal aid. We last reviewed the means test in 2007, during which we made several significant amendments such as increasing the personal deductible from $3,000 to $4,500, the dependent deductible from $2,000 to $3,500, and increasing the disposable capital limit from $7,000 to $10,000. As a result of these changes, an additional 846 people received help in FY2007 who otherwise would not have qualified. This number increased to 1,186 in FY2008, 1,360 in FY2009, and an estimated 1,400 in FY2010.

Mr Palmer suggested that we review the means test. We do periodically review the means test to ensure that it is relevant and effective, and will continue to do so. But at the same time we have to be mindful that legal aid should only be provided to those who truly need it, because there are many law firms who provide assistance to various economic groups, including people who are slightly above what we have set out as the means test. But I give Mr Palmer our commitment that we will continually review our limits.

2.00 pm

The 2007 means-test revision also granted the Director of Legal Aid greater discretionary powers to help persons who fail the means test, but are still deserving of legal aid in situations given by Members including Mr Palmer. The Director has the discretion to decide these cases and the Director does, in fact, exclude the husband's means in determining the wife's disposable income.

Mr Palmer's alternative suggestion was that we should apply different parameters for different types of cases. That is a bit more difficult to do. As we informed this House on 27th February 2008 during the Budget debate, the principle behind the provision of legal aid is to ensure adequate access to justice for deserving individuals, based on the means test and merits test, regardless of the nature of their case.

I think it is going to be very difficult to make distinctions based on the nature of cases to decide which case should or should not qualify for legal aid. I think it is better to keep it simple, based on the means test, and deciding on a level, which can assure us that those who would not be able to afford lawyers on their own will get help. That is a test that people can understand and it is defensible.

The Senior Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Sir, I will now deal with the remaining cuts, starting with Mr Michael Palmer's.

Last month when Mr Palmer spoke at the debate on the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill, he suggested mandating a minimum number of pro bono hours as part of Continuing Professional Development (CPD). Mr Shanmugam said then that the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) under whose purview CPD lies, would take into account the different views of the legal community in considering this interesting suggestion.

Sir, as Mr Palmer points out, while all in the legal fraternity agreed that pro bono work is important, not all are of the view that it should be made mandatory. There are really different perspectives on the issue. The CPD scheme is intended to help lawyers keep abreast of legal, regulatory and practice-related developments, so that they are better equipped to handle their work. Some may argue therefore that pro bono work is quite different in objective and outcome, involving mainly the use of already-acquired knowledge whereas CPD is aimed at acquiring new knowledge and skills.

Mr Palmer's alternative suggestion, that of giving credit for pro bono work within the framework of the CPD by allowing lawyers who do pro bono work to do fewer hours of CPD, appears to be one that is carefully thought through. This could be a means of recognising the value of pro bono work, incentivising lawyers to do more. I understand from SILE that it is already considering this possibility.

Pro bono work is crucial to the public and ought to be an integral part of every lawyer's service to the community. Thus, the Law Society has been active in promoting it, publicising the many available avenues for contribution on its website and instituting a Pro Bono Ambassador Award. As Mr Palmer highlights, there are many ways in which lawyers can contribute, including the Community Legal Clinics (CLCs), where, to date, some 700 lawyers have volunteered their service. So I share Mr Palmer's hope that in time each member of the profession will be committed to do his part.

Sir, I thank Mr Arthur Fong for complimenting the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) for creatively rolling out schemes and platforms that are pro-business. These include SLA's OneMap and IPOS' IP Management for SMEs programme.

Sir, OneMap is a platform for the public to access Government information held by separate agencies in an easy-to-digest map form. It reflects a customer-centric Government, with agencies working together in a connected manner to present information in a creative way. The service now offers more than 40 thematic layers of information and value-added services ranging from education, to culture, to community, to the environment.

Sir, two examples of value-added services on OneMap are LandQuery and SchoolQuery. LandQuery makes it easier for the public to find out whether a plot of land is state land, statutory board land or private land. It also enables them to find out if the land is available for use. SchoolQuery, provided in collaboration with MOE, helps parents to search, for the purpose of Primary 1 registration, for schools that fall within 1 km, or between 1 km and 2 km of their homes, presenting the information graphically on a map.

Sir, OneMap is not meant to be and should not be the sole provider of geospatial information in Singapore. I think Mr Fong makes that point. It is just one platform which public agencies, as well as the private and people sectors, can tap to create applications.

Indeed, we see OneMap complementing private online maps. OneMap focuses on public information and services, whilst other online maps focus on commercial information and functionalities. Private online maps can also use OneMap's information to enhance their offerings.

Sir, OneMap has been well received, registering close to two million page views and uses every month. The public has given useful feedback on how to improve OneMap. One suggestion was to provide transport-related information. So we worked with TransitLink to add journey planning by public transport onto OneMap. This will help the user decide whether bus or MRT to take from point A to point B is a better option for him.

SLA will continue to work with public agencies and private service providers to provide more useful information and services on OneMap.

As for innovations fostering creativity among our businesses and individuals, IPOS has invested substantially in building intellectual property awareness and capabilities in both the private and public sectors. Since the launch of the "IP Management for SMEs" programme by IPOS and SPRING in 2007, we have engaged more than 1,000 private companies, of which more than 200 have signed on for formal consultancy and benefited from the grants, creating in turn almost $500 million in projected economic value-add. IPOS and IE Singapore also launched the "IP Management for Internationalisation" programme last year to help local businesses export their IP.

Sir, we recognise that good ideas and inventions do not always come from science laboratories or result from R&D work by research institutions and corporations. In fact, a lot of inventions are the outcome of ordinary people trying to solve problems in their daily lives. I have officiated at innovation competitions and have seen such creativity in abundance amongst our students.

The problem is, people with good ideas may not have the time or expertise to further develop them, or may be too shy or may not know who to approach for help. Creativity and ideas alone may not lead to innovations. Having someone experienced to advise on the feasibility of the idea and how to take it further, as well as funding, are equally important.

To help individual inventors translate their ideas into tangible products and services, IPOS will, later this year, pilot an online idea repository, known as the IP Innovation Platform, which will involve the participation of inventors and investors. We hope to create a safe environment where individual inventors can share their ideas with potential investors. The investors will assess the ideas and give feedback to the inventors. If they find the ideas attractive, they may enter into an agreement with the inventors to fund and guide the further development of the ideas. There will be legal safeguards to ensure that ideas are not misappropriated, whilst bona fide investors, with the means and experience to help refine the ideas and turn them into commercial reality, will also be on hand.

Let me now take Dr Ong Seh Hong's cut on moneylenders. As I had explained in this House before, we had carefully considered whether the interest rate caps should be lifted before we amended the Moneylenders Act in November 2008. Interest rate caps do not protect all borrowers, since the moneylender may refuse to lend if he judges the credit risk of the borrower to be too high and not worth the capped interest rate he is able to charge. So a possible outcome is that such people with high credit risk, and to whom moneylenders may be reluctant to lend, may turn to loansharks.

Nevertheless, for low-income borrowers earning less than $20,000 annually and who take small loans of no more than $3,000, caps remain in place to protect them.

The Act provides many safeguards for borrowers, one of these is to require moneylenders to disclose all the terms and conditions of the loan upfront to the borrower in a language that he understands. These terms and conditions that must be explained include the interest rate and fees charged. Borrowers should make full use of this information to assess for themselves and to make an informed decision on whether to accept the loan. They should also compare the interest rates and terms and conditions offered by the 240-odd moneylenders, who are listed on the Registry of Moneylenders' website. Borrowers therefore are not limited in their choice of moneylenders. The Registry of Moneylenders, early last year, also provided a detailed guide on its website setting out key information that potential borrowers should know.

Ultimately, borrowers should exercise prudence in borrowing, both in terms of the reason for borrowing and the amount that they borrow. If they know they cannot afford to repay the loan, they should be responsible and not take up the loan.

Dr Ong's point about enhancing the reach of information to potential borrowers is a good one. I have asked the Registrar of Moneylenders to consider translating the detailed guide on its website into Mandarin to reach a wider audience.

If a borrower finds the interest rate or fees charged to be harsh or excessive, and the loan transaction substantially unfair or unconscionable, he can file a claim in the Small Claims Tribunal or the Court under the Consumer Protection Act or section 23 of the Moneylenders Act. He can also lodge a complaint with the Registry of Moneylenders, who will investigate the matter.

Sir, Mr Chiam suggested to have signs put all over the estate to inform residents as to who to call should they find a piece of land in need of some maintenance. Sir, it is true that different parts of the estate may be maintained by different agencies. But this is for a good reason, because they possess the expertise and because of the scope of what they do. But the key agencies really are only a few, for example, Land Transport Authority (LTA), National Parks Board (NParks) and for pieces of land that are on a Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL) to the Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC), they would have the responsibility to look after the piece of land.

What is important is that the key organisations in a constituency, for example the Constituency Secretariat or the Town Council, or the CCC should know who to call should maintenance be required. My experience on the ground these past 20 years is that residents will call these organisations should they find that a place needs maintenance. Indeed, some of our newsletters, the grassroots newsletters, the Town Council newsletters, also carry the phone numbers of these organisations. So Mr Chiam's Town Council's newsletter, if he has one, may want to consider this.

For example, I think in Mr Chiam's constituency, there is a Block 142 and a field is in front of it. The field itself is on a TOL to the CCC, and the CCC is maintaining that, while the roadside table, between the pedestrian walkway and the road is managed by LTA. So if there is any problem, Town Council should call LTA. Indeed, if you are not sure as to who to call, the Town Council can also call HDB. The HDB will then ask the right agency to come and do the maintenance. Sir, I thank Mr Chiam for his suggestion but there is really no need for all these signs to be put up all over the estate to indicate the maintenance responsibilities.

Sir, my last response would be to Mr Ong Ah Heng. This is on Community Mediation. Sir, the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) has been in operation since 1998. Over these 13 years, its caseload has grown steadily, with more than 5,200 cases mediated, and a settlement rate of more than 70%. Last year, the Centre handled more than 500 cases.

Sir, the CMC has done much to publicise its services but I agree with Mr Ong that more can be done. Because this is key, residents should know that the CMC exists. Residents should know that when they come to the CMCs, they have an opportunity to talk through their disputes, and they will not be forced or cajoled into a settlement that they do not want. So talking is important. So this year, other than the traditional outreach such as through the newspapers and radio, we intend to tap online media as well. We will also try to weave the mediation message into heartland roadshows, which will reach the ground effectively, and possibly, a television drama series.

Now, Mr Ong is spot-on when he points out that when our youths embrace a mediation mindset, other positive consequences will likely follow. We will therefore intensify our outreach to youths through an interactive Youth Mediation Day in place of the annual half-day Youth Mediation Forum. This morning we heard about issues like anger amongst youth, fighting amongst youth. I think a mediation mindset would help to take care of these things. Last year, we reached out to more than 26,000 students through school assembly talks. This year, the CMU, the unit that looks after community mediation, intends to do more youth outreach this year.

2.15 pm

Now, the key issue, I think, in Mr Ong's cut: should community mediation be made compulsory? Sir, this issue has been raised before in this House and is one which we have been considering. Quite a few Members have expressed their concern that the benefits of mediation can be thwarted when one party to the dispute flatly refuses to attend mediation. I think some of us have had experiences like that. There are arguments for and against making mediation compulsory. Our current framework is based on the ideal that compulsion should be a last resort. But, of course, this is not cast in stone. We will monitor the situation as we go along.

Currently, community mediation remains voluntary at least at the outset of the process. But should the case escalate to Court, under the CMC Act, the Court can mandate mediation. We have strengthened the framework for voluntary mediation by building in strong incentives, short of compulsion, to nudge parties towards mediation before turning to the Courts. In particular, the Criminal Procedure Code which was amended last year, operational this year in January, provides that the Police may refer appropriate cases to the CMC, and for a party's refusal to attend mediation upon such referral to be taken into account by the Court should the case escalate to the Court. With this amendment, we hope that more disputing parties will seriously consider mediation as a first option. We will monitor the effect of these recent changes, taking into account the concerns expressed by Members, and make further adjustments, if necessary.

In addition, the CMC has enhanced its working arrangements with frontline agencies and community-based organisations, such as the HDB, Police, and grassroots organisations, to ensure that disputes on the ground are detected early and, if appropriate, referred in a timely manner to the CMC for mediation. I think that is a useful process because these are the agencies that will have early cognisance of these disputes. The CMC works very hard, going out to these agencies to talk to the staff, the ground officers and let them know how they can contact the CMU. We will continue to do that. Also, it is important that these parties come to the CMCs to talk it over before their attitudes harden.

The Chairman: Are there any clarifications? If none, Mr Yeo.

Mr Alvin Yeo: Sir, I thank the Minister and Senior Minister of State for their thoughtful and thought-provoking replies. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $178,254,000 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $88,991,000 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.