Annex A LIST OF RESPONDENTS TO THE CONSULTATION PAPER ON PROPOSED ACTIVITY-BASED PAYMENTS FRAMEWORK 1. Alipay Singapore E-commerce Pte Ltd, who requested for their comments to be kept confidential. 2. Allen & Gledhill LLP, representing Barclays Bank, Credit Suisse, J.P Morgan Chase Bank (Singapore Branch), OCBC, Standard Chartered Bank, and UBS, who requested for their comments to be kept confidential. 3. American Express International Inc., Singapore Branch, who requested for their comments to be kept confidential. 4. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, Singapore Branch, who requested for their comments to be kept confidential. 5. Association of Cryptocurrency Enterprises and Startups Singapore (ACCESS) 6. AXS Pte Ltd, who requested for their comments to be kept confidential. 7. Banking Computer Services Pte Ltd, who requested for their comments to be kept confidential. 8. Bullionstar Pte Ltd 9. Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) 10. Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS), who requested for their comments to be kept confidential. 11. Deutsche Bank 12. Diners Club (Singapore) Pte Ltd, who requested for some comments to be kept confidential. 13. Docomo Digital (NTT Docomo Group), who requested for their comments to be kept confidential. 14. Dr Sandra Booysen 15. East Springs Investments (Singapore) Ltd 16. EZ-link Pte Ltd, who requested for their comments to be kept confidential. 17. Fintech Alliance, an associate of the Singapore Infocomm Technology Federation 18. Lufthansa AirPLus Servicekarten GmbH 19. M1 Ltd 20. Mastercard Asia/Pacific, who requested for their comments to be kept confidential. 21. MoneyGram International, who requested for their comments to be kept confidential. 22. Network for Electronic Transfers (S) Pte Ltd, who requested for some comments to be kept confidential. 23. OKLink Technology Company Ltd 24. PayPal Pte Ltd (3PL), who requested for their comments to be kept confidential. 25. Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP 26. Red Dot Payment Pte Ltd, who requested for their comments to be kept confidential. 27. RHTLaw Taylor Wessing LLP 28. Ripple 29. Singapore Post Ltd 30. SingCash Pte Ltd ; Telecom Equipment Pte Ltd; Singtel Mobile Singapore Pte Ltd (Singtel) 31. StarHub Mobile Pte Ltd (StarHub) 32. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Singapore Branch (“HSBC Singapore Branch”); HSBC Bank (Singapore) Limited (“HSBC Singapore”); and HSBC Insurance (Singapore) Pte Limited, who requested for all comments to be kept confidential 33. TransferWise 34. UnionPay International (UPI), who requested for their comments to be kept confidential. 35. United Overseas Bank Ltd 36. Visa Worldwide Pte Ltd, who requested for their comments to be kept confidential. 37. Western Union 38. Wex Asia Pte Ltd, who requested for their comments to be kept confidential. 39. Wirecard Singapore Pte Ltd 40. WongPartnership LLP 41. Respondent A who requested for confidentiality of identity 42. Respondent B who requested for confidentiality of identity 43. Respondent C who requested for confidentiality of identity 44. 7 respondents requested for full confidentiality of their identity and submission. Please refer to Annex B for the submissions. Annex B FULL SUBMISSIONS FROM RESPONDENTS TO THE CONSULTATION PAPER ON PROPOSED ACTIVITY-BASED PAYMENTS FRAMEWORK S/N Respondent Responses from Respondent 1 Alipay Singapore E- Requested for all comments to be kept confidential commerce Private Limited 2 Allen & Gledhill LLP Requested for all comments to be kept confidential 3 American Express Requested for all comments to be kept confidential International Inc., Singapore Branch 4 Australia and New Requested for all comments to be kept confidential Zealand Banking Group Limited, Singapore Branch 5 Association of Question 1 Cryptocurrency Enterprises and Our members had a varied opinion about the Startups Singapore approach. Some of them believe that the regulation (ACCESS) net is cast too wide where the activities that were not initially regulated are now regulated. Some of them believe that regulation is great via an activity approach but were concerned that because there is immense innovation in this space, activities-based regulation will always lag behind the innovation that’s actually happening. Consequently, they are concerned that more and more activities will be added, which may lead to over-regulation. Overall our members would like to know the intent of each activity that is written in this consultation paper. For example, if the primary intent for regulating foreign companies is to prevent companies from using Singapore as a shell company, then the comments will differ compared to if it was used for consumer protection. Unlike banks, a lot of Fintech companies are experimenting with products to see if there is traction with various product segments. The members therefore are concerned if the Fintech start-ups are too focused on getting a license, it will hinder their productivity time. They have seen many cases where start-ups that focus purely on getting licenses first, end up shutting down because the company has no traction, and the licenses take too long to apply and obtain. There must be a balance. Some members suggested maybe having some sort of multi-tiered system before the Fintech start-ups are required to apply for the licenses. The members would also like to know what sort of requirements are needed for each of the licenses. Most are concerned that the requirements for licenses may be too challenging and time consuming to obtain. The hope is that the requirements are inclusive of new entrants and innovators and not exclusive. Overall, the main concern of the members as well is whether the proposed regulations aren’t too broad. I.e. in instances where activities weren’t regulated, it is proposed to be regulated, however, at the same time, without the regulation, it was working productively and efficiently for Singapore. Hence the members would like to know the reason for regulating the already-efficient activities. For example, within the MCBRA, inbound and domestic payment transfers are not considered remittance. But in the current consultation paper these are proposed to be regulated. Question 2 Some of the members are concerned that, even when getting the licenses, payment and blockchain related companies still won’t get a sustainable bank account. Would there be any way the MAS can help to ensure this? Some of the members were stating it would be good for Singapore if non-banks i.e. pure online banks would be able to get the same banking licenses, as the ones that have obtained banking licenses in UK and Germany, such as Fidor Bank. Furthermore the members believe that the definition of “leveling the playing field” should include a regulated Fintech ecosystem where banks and non- banks can compete and where the regulations will be compatible between them. Having a separate one might cause regulatory arbitrages. However this does not mean putting non-banks (including start-ups) under the same regulatory environment as the banks. Question 3 The members believe that they should be extended because if they are not there might be regulatory arbitrage. However, as mentioned in our response to Q1, some sort of multi-tiered system should be put in place so that smaller players and start-ups would have exemptions because they have lower impact on the financial ecosystem. For example, single purpose SVFs do not require licences and SVFs with less than S$30m in customer monies are exempted from licensing. This way, we can ensure that innovation continues to happen at the smaller scale, while allowing them to grow upwards with a clear licensing route. Question 4 The members believe it’s important to know the intent of this question. In other words what is the rationale of this question (what is the reason behind). Is it to prevent Singapore from being a shell company location? Or is it primarily for consumer protection. Regardless, the views are wide ranging. Some believe that regulation of foreign companies could reduce customer’s choices, while others believe that foreign companies should be regulated so that it will be less likely that they would be able to establish shell companies in Singapore. Either way, most members agree that there should be a multi-tiered based system. If foreign company activities do not cause any systemic financial risk, they should still be allowed to operate. Question 5 The members believe it’s overly extensive. At this point in time there does not seem to be anything left out. But as Singapore matures to become the Fintech innovative capital of the world, there will be new activities that we will not know of. Question 6 Would a bitcoin or any virtual currency prepaid card issuer be considered under activity 1? Question 7 Payment instrument should not include apps, websites or portals created by an SVF issuer/ewallet /virtual card provider if it only allows the user to transfer money internally to another user of the SVF/ewallet/virtual card. This is because technically it is just an internal book entry and not a “payment” to another channel. Question 8 Same as above in Q7, if an internet banking app only allows “viewing” or internal transfers within the same bank, it should be exempted from this. In practice, however, most internet banking apps/portals will allow transfers to other banks or to pay bills (e.g. tax bills, parking tickets, rent, etc.), and as such, would be considered a payment instrument. Our members want to know what’s the intent behind this question as MAS has made it clear that banks are exempted from this framework, yet this question is related to banking. Question 9 What are the properties of instruments such that they would be considered ‘anonymous’? Is there scope for instruments to be considered ‘pseudonymous’? Question 10 Again, a multi-tiered system is important. However, the purpose of regulating this specific activity should be examined and stated with clarity.