[(proc text) The President has on 25 January 2021 concurred with the following resolution on Government Securities, passed by Parliament on 5 January 2021: (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That this Parliament, in accordance with Article 144(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and section 11(1) of the Government Securities Act (Chapter 121 A of the 2014 Revised Edition), resolves that the Minister for Finance be authorised to borrow, by the issue of Government Securities in Singapore under that Act, a further sum not exceeding Two Hundred and Seventy Thousand Million Singapore Dollars (S$270,000,000,000), thereby in total a sum not exceeding Nine Hundred and Sixty Thousand Million Singapore Dollars ($960,000,000,000).\" (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"President's Concurrence with Resolution on Treasury Bills","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) The President has on 25 January 2021 concurred with the following resolution on Treasury Bills, passed by Parliament on 5 January 2021: (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That this Parliament, in accordance with Article 144(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and section 3(1) of the Local Treasury Bills Act (Chapter 167 of the 2002 Revised Edition), resolves that the Minister for Finance be authorised to borrow, by the issue of Treasury Bills in Singapore under that Act, a further sum not exceeding Forty-five Thousand Million Singapore Dollars (S$45,000,000,000), thereby in total a sum not exceeding One Hundred and Five Thousand Million Singapore Dollars (S$105,000,000,000).\" (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Mr Speaker: Order. Pursuant to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Special Select Committee nominated the following nine persons to the President for appointment as Nominated Members of Parliament:
Mr Abdul Samad;
Ms Janet Ang;
Mr Mark Chay;
Mr Cheng Hsing Yao;
Prof Hoon Hian Teck;
Prof Koh Lian Pin;
Dr Shahira Abdullah;
Dr Tan Yia Swam;
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
On 21 January 2021, President Halimah Yacob, by Instruments of Appointment dated on the same day, appointed the nine Members as Nominated Members for a term of two and a half years, with effect from 21 January 2021.
The Nominated Members are present today to take their seats. They will now take their oaths of allegiance and affirmations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Administration of Oaths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) The following Members took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance, or made Affirmation of Allegiance, in the order below: (proc text)]
[(proc text) Group 1 (proc text)]
[(proc text) Mr Abdul Samad; (proc text)]
[(proc text) Ms Janet Ang; (proc text)]
[(proc text) Mr Cheng Hsing Yao; (proc text)]
[(proc text) Prof Hoon Hian Teck; (proc text)]
[(proc text) Prof Koh Lian Pin; (proc text)]
[(proc text) Dr Tan Yia Swam. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Group 2 (proc text)]
[(proc text) Mr Mark Chay; (proc text)]
[(proc text) Dr Shahira Abdullah; (proc text)]
[(proc text) Mr Raj Joshua Thomas. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: I welcome the Nominated Members and look forward to their participation in the proceedings of the House. Order. Questions for Oral Answer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Nation-wide COVID-19 Vaccination Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the progress of the COVID-19 vaccination programme since it was launched; (b) among those who took the vaccination so far, how many have suffered side effects; (c) where will the vaccination sites be located for the wider population; and (d) whether the accessibility of these sites will be considered, particularly for the elderly and those with mobility problems.
2 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, what is the progress of the national COVID-19 vaccination programme; (b) what are the types of side effects observed; and (c) how many instances of severe side effects are there requiring emergency care.
3 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Health whether the Government can provide an update as to how the COVID-19 vaccination programme is progressing especially with regard to any adverse reactions to the vaccinations so far and how such cases, if any, have been managed.
4 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health in relation to the COVID-19 vaccination programme for seniors aged 70 and above that commenced in late January 2021, whether steps will be taken to proactively identify and help seniors who may find it difficult to make bookings for injections or have mobility issues to receive injections.
5 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the numbers and kinds of COVID-19 vaccines that Singapore has ordered and what are their delivery schedules; (b) how many vaccination centres will be set up in the next six months and what is the capacity of the vaccination centres; and (c) how many people have received the COVID-19 vaccination as of end-January 2021 and how many of them have shown symptoms of side effects, if any.
6 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health in light of the reported deaths of elderly persons in Norway after taking the Pfizer vaccine (a) whether the Government will be consulting with the Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination to review the vaccination strategy in Singapore, particularly for the elderly; and (b) whether any additional precautions will be taken and, if so, what are they.
7 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Health whether a vaccination advisory service can be provided to members of the public to seek clarifications about their suitability for COVID-19 vaccination in view of their particular medical conditions such as allergies and past reactions to vaccines.
8 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether the Government will consider allowing citizens who need to visit an ill family member who is overseas, to take their COVID-19 vaccination before it is their turn to do so.
9 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health with regard to the COVID-19 vaccination exercise (a) whether residents can be given the option to go for early vaccination if they have good reasons to travel abroad and at short notice, such as for studies, business, or on compassionate grounds; (b) whether these travellers can be allowed special dispensation to travel to COVID-19 hotspots identified by the Ministry; and (c) if so, what is the process for this category of travellers to apply for the vaccination.
10 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the vaccination groups for the purpose of scheduling COVID-19 vaccinations; (b) how many persons are there in each group; (c) what is the order of priority for these groups for vaccinations; and (d) whether Singaporeans who are scheduled to travel overseas for studies or essential business can be prioritised for vaccinations.
11 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Health (a) how will the general public be notified of the COVID-19 vaccination schedule and where they have to go for their vaccinations; (b) whether there will be an option for Singaporeans who need to travel to request to have their vaccinations earlier; and (c) what is the progress of the vaccination programme and learnings so far.
12 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Health (a) whether Singaporeans who are required to work or study overseas can opt-in for early COVID-19 vaccination; and (b) if so, what is the process to apply for the early vaccination.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission please to address Question Nos 1 through to 12 on the Order Paper today?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Thank you, Sir. My answers will also address questions filed by Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry1,2 for future Sittings.
Mr Speaker, the safety and well-being of Singaporeans remain our top priorities for the vaccination programme. Only vaccines that meet strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness will be used for our population.
For our vaccine programme to be successful, education and outreach play a crucial role. Singaporeans need to understand why vaccination is important in the fight against COVID-19 and be confident that the vaccines we are using are safe and effective. We must also communicate clearly when and how they can get vaccinated.
MOH has made available general information and detailed advisories through multiple channels.
The MOH website provides information on the groups currently deemed contraindicated or not, as recommended by the Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination (EC19V), to take the COVID-19 vaccine. For example, pregnant women, children below 16 years of age, or those with a history of anaphylaxis or severe allergies such as eye, mouth or facial swelling, difficulty in breathing and/or a fall in blood pressure, are not recommended at this stage. Persons who are unwell or have had fever in the last 24 hours are also advised to postpone their vaccination until they have recovered.
Members of the public may call the MOH COVID-19 hotline for assistance if they have any medical queries. They may also consult their own regular family doctor. All our medical practitioners have been provided with the detailed clinical definitions of indications and contraindications to vaccination, including, for example, what is considered a history of anaphylaxis or severe allergies, or the definition of “a severely immunocompromised person”. They will be able to advise any individual on vaccine-related queries, including evaluating the specific individual's suitability for vaccinations.
Every individual will go through a screening process at the vaccination site before being vaccinated. Each person will have to declare their relevant medical conditions based on the vaccination screening form provided. A final check on the individual’s suitability and fitness for vaccination will be assessed by a trained healthcare personnel at our vaccination centres and polyclinics. These personnel will have onsite access to an individual’s salient medical history in the National Electronic Health Records if necessary, before the individual is allowed to be vaccinated.
We have made good progress in our vaccination programme. As of 31 January 2021, yesterday, more than 155,000 individuals have received their first dose of the vaccine.
More vaccination centres will be set up over the next few weeks to ensure that everyone can conveniently receive their vaccinations. The vaccination centres will be located in high population catchment areas as well as along public transport routes for greater accessibility. In total, we are planning to set up around 40 vaccination centres, with each vaccination centre planned for an estimated capacity of about 2,000 vaccinations per day on average.
Besides the vaccination centres, the polyclinics and selected Public Health Preparedness Clinics (PHPCs) will also serve as vaccination sites. Currently, vaccinations are performed at nine polyclinics and around 20 PHPCs. From 1 February 2021, today, all 20 polyclinics across Singapore will also begin offering COVID-19 vaccinations. Our polyclinics and PHPCs are wheelchair accessible. To reach out to seniors with more serious mobility issues we have set up mobile vaccination teams.
We have begun vaccinations for seniors in the community. All seniors will receive personalised letters inviting them to make an appointment for their vaccinations. They will also be able to make appointments online, or they can visit selected Community Centres near them to book an appointment in-person.
Community volunteers from the People’s Association and our Silver Generation Ambassadors will be conducting house visits to answer queries and to help our seniors to book an appointment if necessary. We are very grateful for the support and participation of the community in this important national effort.
The Ministry, the Health Sciences Authority and the Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination, have been monitoring international reports on vaccine-related adverse events and deaths in elderly recipients. The Norwegian health authorities and the World Health Organization’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety have found no evidence that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine contributes to an increased risk of death in the elderly.
Thus, we continue to offer COVID-19 vaccination for our seniors. It is important, it is vital to vaccinate and protect seniors, as COVID-19 infection in the elderly has been observed to result in severe or fatal illness. Nevertheless, the Ministry has reiterated to vaccination providers that doctors should review the medical history of seniors carefully to confirm that they are indeed suitable for vaccination, and that they should be monitored closely in the immediate period after a vaccination.
As with other vaccines, people who receive the COVID-19 vaccine may experience injection site pain and swelling, fever, headache, fatigue and body aches. These mild symptoms generally resolve within a few days.
Among those who have received the vaccine, there were four reported cases of anaphylaxis, which is the rapid onset of severe allergic reactions. The individuals, in their 20s and 30s, developed multiple symptoms such as rash, breathlessness, lip swelling, throat tightness and giddiness. Three of the individuals had a history of allergies, including allergic rhinitis and food allergy such as to shellfish, but none had a history of anaphylaxis which would have precluded them from receiving the vaccine.
Anaphylaxis can be controlled when detected and treated in a timely manner. As all vaccinated persons in Singapore are closely monitored, the symptoms in these four individuals were promptly detected and treated. All have recovered from the episode. One was under observation for a few hours while the others were discharged from the hospital after a day’s observation or treatment. None needed ICU support.
\t
The incidence rate of anaphylaxis locally is about 2.6 per 100,000 doses administered. The incidence rates reported abroad is around one to two per 100,000 doses administered, after these other countries have administered millions of vaccine doses. Variations in the incidence rate are to be expected initially when the numbers vaccinated in Singapore to-date are relatively small as compared to other countries.
Currently, the benefits of getting vaccinated to protect oneself from the effects of severe COVID-19 disease and its complications, far outweigh the risk of any potential adverse events known to be associated with vaccination. We will continue to closely monitor the safety of the vaccine and ensure the vaccines used in Singapore are safe for our population groups.
We seek everyone's patience and support, as we progressively roll out the vaccinations to the whole population in tandem with the shipments of the vaccines. We have signed advance purchase agreements with Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Sinovac, and are in discussions with a few other pharmaceutical companies. Due to commercial sensitivities and confidentiality undertakings in our advance purchase agreements, we cannot disclose the specific quantity of the vaccines ordered or the delivery schedules.
While there will be some delay to the shipments of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine due to the upgrading of Pfizer's manufacturing plant, we will continue to monitor our supplies closely to meet our target of vaccinating all Singaporeans and long-term residents in Singapore by the end of 2021.
Given the present, short-term limited supply of COVID-19 vaccines globally, there is a need to prioritise the vaccinations at this point in time. We have prioritised healthcare workers and COVID-19 frontline personnel whose work requires them to be in constant contact with individuals who may be infected. These personnel include swabbers hired by Health Promotion Board, staff working at Government Quarantine Facilities, Community Care Facilities and dedicated Stay-Home Notice facilities. Seniors are at higher risk of severe or fatal illness if infected, and hence they are also given priority for vaccination. We have also vaccinated essential workers, such as those in our security services, and our aviation and maritime workers, who have a higher risk of exposure to infected individuals in the course of their work. We must keep our essential services going.
We completely understand the anxiety of Singaporeans who wish to travel overseas for personal reasons or would like to get vaccinated early. At this point when vaccine supplies are limited, we do need to prioritise our healthcare and frontline workers and seniors, for vaccination. We are therefore unable to provide vaccines at this time to these Singaporeans outside of these groups and seek their understanding. When there is greater certainty in our vaccine supply, we will consider allowing these individuals to receive early vaccination. We will announce further details at that time. Further details on the vaccination roll-out to the rest of Singaporeans and long-term residents will be announced later on.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me just thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State when a batch of vaccine reaches the vaccination centre, when it is thawed, which means that it has to be used within six hours, if I am not wrong. So far, what is our experience when we thaw these vaccines, how many of these doses have been wasted because the person who had registered for the vaccine, did not turn up or whatever. What is our wastage right now for this vaccine? That is number one.
Number two, I would like to ask, as a Member of Parliament, I do have requests now from emails from residents who are travelling like what the Senior Minister of State had just mentioned, requesting for whether they can have a chance to have early vaccination. I would like to appeal to the Taskforce and MOH to consider setting up some form of registry for those who wants and see whether it can be prioritised, and give a chance for the public. That is number two.
We are recruiting grassroots leaders now to help us as \"Vaccine Ambassadors\" and some of the grassroots leaders have also been asking, if they are to be \"Vaccine Ambassadors\", is it possible for the \"Vaccine Ambassadors\" to be vaccinated at the same time, so they can better convince the residents to come forward to receive the vaccine. My issue now is, if they go forward to do house visits to convince residents to do vaccination, but they themselves are not vaccinated, then, it is very hard to convince. That is the other point.
Last of all is the side effects monitoring. Currently, now, when I receive my vaccination, there is a QR code for me to report the side effects. Is there a proactive method of sending those who have been vaccinated, for example, three days after the vaccination, to ask them to fill up a survey form as to what are the side effects and to ask them to actively scan the QR code to give the feedback.
So, I would like to urge MOH to be a little more proactive to look out for side effects. Because the main reason why people are apprehensive about vaccination, is side effects. If we can convince people that the side effects are minimal and we can report and all the side effects can be effectively treated and we can quickly nib off the myth in cyberspace, especially once in a while, you have a Facebook post to say that somebody has been vaccinated and is in ICU, you have to really investigate the truth to make sure that it does not spread and people think that we are trying to hide something.
Then, last of all is that, once you are vaccinated —
\tMr Speaker: Dr Lim, I would prefer Members to keep it to two supplementary questions so that other Members can ask. And keep your supplementary questions short. Thank you.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak: Yes, Sir, I will just stop at that.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank Dr Lim for his questions. Our wastage rates are low. I do not have the specific number at this point in time, but in general, a vial is supplied to have around five doses. Because of the way the manufacturer does this, usually there is a bit more inside the vial. And I can tell you on average we are getting more than five doses per vial because of the way in which we have centrally controlled the thawing distribution as well as the training for the people who do the vaccinations. So, our wastage rates are low and well-managed. I do not have a specific number at this point in time that I can share with Dr Lim.
For the early vaccinations, indeed, we have set up a national appointment booking system and we have a single online portal. So, at the appropriate juncture, we would encourage members of the public who are interested to receive the vaccine – whether it is an early vaccination or as part of your schedule – to register their phone number, register their details on the portal; we will get in touch with you as soon as possible.
The suggestion about early vaccinations for grassroots leaders and other volunteers going out to convince seniors or to help seniors make the appointment, is well taken. It may not be possible to ensure that everybody has a vaccination at that point in time, but perhaps we can go at least to the point of ensuring they have a booking and then when you are facing the senior, you can say, \"Well, I have not got it yet, but here is my appointment and I know that I am going to get it because I have committed to doing so.\"
For the adverse event reporting, I would point out that almost all adverse events documented from vaccinations, tend to have an onset very close to the administration of the vaccination. That is, hence, why we are monitoring them for 30 minutes and perhaps we are monitoring them for longer than necessary at 30 minutes. Nevertheless, the use of a single online process as well as the network that we have talked about – I mentioned earlier in my reply about how we are administering the vaccination process as well as administering the vaccination doses – means that there is a certain set number of places where information can flow into. And members of the public should approach either the place where they had their vaccinations, call the hotline where they made the booking, turn up to any one of our medical service providers, and the information around that adverse event will flow through to a single interface and we will have sight of that across our nation so that we track the adverse events very, very closely.
But as I explained in the earlier reply, our adverse events are well within the expected rate.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, given that the Government has signed advance purchase agreements with Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Sinovac, will these agreements have any bearings on whether the latter two vaccines are eventually approved? Secondly, will MOH roll out only the safest and most effective vaccines available or are there other factors like price and country of origin that are considered?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, the factor that is taken into account as to whether a vaccine is licensed for us here in Singapore, is quite simply that they have strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness. And that is the process through which the licence is evaluated for the vaccine and how we manage the process going forward. I am afraid we cannot talk too much about the agreements that we have with the various companies because of the confidentiality of those undertakings.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
\tMr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, I just have one supplementary question. It is heartening to know that the cases of people who have responded, the anaphylaxis responses are low. As the Senior Minister of State has shared earlier, it is good to have all the information of how things are coming along, openly and transparently shared. Would the Government also consider perhaps a whole-of-Government communication approach using various platforms, different types of communication methods, capsules and so on, so that this information as it is constantly coming in, can also perhaps be communicated out there to our public; especially, perhaps to our seniors who might be more comfortable with certain vernacular, be it the the Chinese dialects, Malay, Tamil or even other languages? If that is something the Government can do, I think this will go a long way to communicate what is happening accurately to our public out there.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Darryl David for his suggestions. This has begun. MOH, together with all the different Government agencies involved are coordinating a whole-of-Government communications approach. MCI is supporting this as well. We will produce material in a variety of languages, we will produce material for different levels of interests – the top line messages all the way down to the detailed advisories for the healthcare practitioners. And we will distribute this across a variety of channels – letters, online, mainstream media, broadcast media.
We would ask for Members of this House to also assist us participating in this communication, to make sure that we do reach every Singaporean, every resident, explain to them the essential nature of this vaccine operation. This is to protect them, their loved ones, the community, their family and the whole country. Every single vaccination that we are able to get done, will break a chain of transmission and slow down the spread of COVID-19. Explain to them that this is a medical process and medical processes will have risks. Hence, we have put in place a very stringent, controlled environment and a series of control processes to minimise that risk and monitor them and help them thereafter. Explain to them that the vaccination is safe, the technology that has been developed, the specific vaccines that have been licensed are well researched and we have many millions of data points to assure ourselves of the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the hon Senior Minister of State Dr Janil Puthucheary for his comprehensive answers to the 12 Parliamentary Questions. I have a supplementary question in relation to donees under the Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) and deputies appointed by the Court under the Mental Capacity Act, in respect of seniors citizens aged 70 and above. For these groups of people, I wonder whether MOH or any other Government body could provide some additional assistance, perhaps developing FAQs for them so that they are able to understand what their duties are under the respective LPAs and under the Court orders and kind of juxtapose it with the requirements under the vaccination programme.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Murali Pillai for the suggestion and we will look at it. It is a good idea. I would just suggest that it is not too different from the current duties and responsibilities for donees and deputies with respect to the medical care for the people under their guardianship.
\tSo, there is not going to be a lot of difference from that. But the specific information as to how they would exercise those duties and responsibilities, indeed, we should make very clear and we should do so.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
\tMr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.
First, over the weekend, the EU has issued rules tightening the export of vaccines manufactured within the EU region. I would like to ask how this affects our vaccination roll-out and the supply to Singapore. Related to that, will we at some point consider also vaccine production in Singapore to avoid any of these future issues?
On a more practical level, on various parental platforms, there have been a lot of questions from nursing mothers regarding some confusion over advice on vaccine safety for those who are breastfeeding. The current advice from the MOH website and various healthcare websites in Singapore indicate that nursing mothers should consider suspending breastfeeding for five to seven days after vaccination but then also proceed to say that if mothers are unable to suspend breastfeeding, they should still proceed to vaccinate themselves. So, there is some confusion over this advice and they are wondering if there is any other safety issues that they should consider before proceeding to vaccination. Thank you.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Alex Yam for the questions. There are no plans to change our targets for vaccination roll-out. Again, I cannot discuss the specifics around our arrangements in terms of purchases and supply volumes to the reschedules. But our plans remain unchanged.
For vaccine production locally, indeed, it is something that I am sure will be explored. But ultimately, it comes down to the licensure of a specific vaccine that is demonstrated to be safe and effective for our population.
For nursing mothers, the short answer is they should consult their health practitioner, the family doctor or one of the hotlines of our service provider to get specific advice about their case as to whether or not they should proceed with the vaccine, delay the vaccine, delay breastfeeding, have the vaccine immediately. It depends on the specific individual case of the mother. But if I could sum up the position and explain some of the reasons for the confusion, there is no absolute contraindication for a breastfeeding mother to proceed with vaccination. It is simply that we do not have enough information at this point to be so clear that they should do it without ceasing breastfeeding for five to seven days. Ceasing breastfeeding for five to seven days is the general advice that we would give for medications because that is the length of time that it exists in breast milk and thereafter it is safe. One way to look at it is if the mother has to weigh up the risks to her and her child should she come down with COVID-19 infections. Hence, on balance, it is probably better for her to get the vaccination, protect herself, her child and her family. But an option is then to delay the vaccination until breastfeeding has ceased. That is also a viable way for these mothers to proceed. But, in short, consult the doctor and get some specific advice on your individual case.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. We note that there is currently a limited supply of vaccines. Will the Ministry consider a waitlist for those who want to go for early vaccination, especially if there are strong reasons for them to go overseas, be it for health, studies, business or on compassionate grounds? Thank you.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. It is something to be considered. We will be opening up the registration process and we will be looking for an indication of interest from members of the public who are eligible in this phase as well as in the future.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the update. Two questions. The first, pertaining to the certification of the Moderna and Sinovac vaccines, does the Senior Minister of State have any update on those timelines? The second question is picking up from Mr Alex Yam's first supplementary question: is the Government still on track for vaccination of the entire population by the third quarter of this year?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his questions. I do not have an update on the certification of the Moderna and Sinovac vaccinations. That will be a process for the professional teams to study the data and make sure that our licensure process is applied with its usual rigour for all therapeutic interventions.
Our plans have not changed. Our plans will, of course, be contingent upon the supply of vaccines and the questions from the Members indicate that their understanding and concern about how the supply of vaccines will affect our plans. Currently, our plans have not changed and we anticipate our programme to proceed as previously discussed.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State. Many of the elderly are still very unsure if they should take the vaccination. However, after I have explained to them that the doctor present will speak to them and understand their medical condition and advise them accordingly, they felt a little bit more assured. But then they also asked another question: \"I cannot remember the type of medication I take. So, what happens if I do not give an accurate picture of my condition?\" So, I told them: \"Don't worry. If you give your IC number, the doctors will be able to advise you accordingly\". Then they felt a little bit more assured. Can I ask if this item can be placed in the communication material so that at least the elderly, on their part, they read it and they can understand?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Pereira for the question. Indeed, the Member is absolutely right that when a member of the public attends a vaccination centre or the polyclinic, the PHPCs, the screening process includes a healthcare professional going through your medical history as well as the medication that you have received and, if that member of the public has any queries or uncertainties, please let us know and the staff will have access to the information through the National Electronic Health Records and will be able to pull up what they need to. Ultimately, if they are still not sure and there is a need to cancel the vaccination at all, you merely can defer the appointment until perhaps a fuller consultation with a healthcare professional who understands the situation of that senior and can make a recommendation.
But, in general, the information is available and we will be able to help assure that member of the public as to whether or not they can go forward with the vaccination. But to answer the Member's specific point, to make that absolutely clear in the communication upfront that the people who are administering the vaccination will have access to these critical pieces of information is a very useful suggestion and I thank the Member for that.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
\tMr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State Dr Janil Puthucheary for the clarification. Continuing off Mr Yip Hon Weng's question, my supplementary question refers to students who are hoping to return back to studying overseas or intend to study overseas, given many of our \"A\" Level students are awaiting their results and have an aspiration overseas. Since there is a restricted supply of vaccines and we will not be able to prioritise all of them for early vaccination, can the Ministry also consider some communication or advisory to these students on the help that they can receive overseas so that we can continue to care for our students heading overseas? Thank you.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Sharael Taha for the question. Certainly. We will make available information through our MFA colleagues and their Missions overseas as to how Singaporeans overseas can receive help. But in terms of Singaporeans overseas wanting to have vaccinations and if they plan to return to Singapore to have those vaccinations, I would point out that the total duration required for the vaccination process is not short. With the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, you need about 21 or 25 days between the two doses, and immunity is only achieved about two weeks after the second dose. So, Singaporeans overseas who are planning to return to Singapore in order to have their vaccination need to plan for that length of time, if they have a view that they need to be likely immune before they return back to where they are residing.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for the Senior Minister of State. I am not sure if I heard him correctly in his initial reply regarding by when the Government plans to vaccinate Singaporeans and long-term residents. In his original reply, did he actually say \"end of this year\" because I thought I heard him say that, and I think this is slightly different from the previous announcements that it will be done by the third quarter of the year. So, I would like a clarification on that. Thank you.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for the question. We certainly have the capacity and the capability to vaccinate our population by the third quarter of this year. There is some uncertainty in terms of the take-up rate. So, if, for example, there are members of the public who will need further explanation and who will need persuading that this is the right thing and the safe thing to do, or if there are members of the public who require further medical screening, this process will take some time.
Over the next few months, we can also anticipate that further information will be available from the vaccination process that is happening around the world. So, there is a band that we are aiming for somewhere between the end of the third quarter and the end of the year. Ultimately, the outcome will be determined by a combination of our supply as well as the willingness and the engagement of Singaporeans and long-term residents to go forward to have the vaccination.
Our ability to deliver on this is present and will be present. But we hope that the communication, outreach and engagement necessary in order to make this happen is something that Members of this House will assist with.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider a higher priority for COVID-19 vaccinations to Singaporeans who need to travel overseas for work for a period of time.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Health in light of Norway's elderly deaths after they received their COVID-19 vaccinations, whether the Ministry will review the COVID-19 vaccination requirement, or delay the vaccination till further data of the vaccine trial is fully available, for seniors who are in advanced age, very frail, or has diminishing mental capacity."],"footNoteQuestions":["1","2","3","4","5","6","7","8","9","10","11","12"],"questionNo":"1-12"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 Vaccination Roll-out for Migrant Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the timeline of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out for migrant workers; and (b) what measures will be taken to educate migrant workers so as to encourage the uptake of vaccines.
\tThe Second Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, Sir, as part of the national COVID-19 vaccination strategy to protect all Singaporean citizens and long-term pass holders living in Singapore, vaccinations will be made available to migrant workers. The communal living and working conditions of migrant workers in dormitories put them at higher risk of infection and the formation of large clusters.
MOM is working out the schedule and details with MOH, depending on the delivery schedule for the vaccines. And as what Senior Minister of State Dr Janil Puthucheary has alluded to earlier, this will be in tandem with the delivery schedules. We will make an announcement when it is ready. I can share that the vaccination efforts will be accompanied by a very comprehensive communication campaign to inform migrant workers of the safety and benefits of the vaccine. The common side effects as well as the risks of allergic reactions will also be explained and communication with the migrant workers will be done through videos, pamphlets as well as booklets in their native languages.
Vaccination of the migrant workers helps to reduce the viral load which, in turn, lowers the overall risk and helps protect our wider community from an outbreak. This will also reduce the potential load on our healthcare workers and facilities.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for his answer and assurances. Just two supplementary questions. Firstly, just to clarify that the timeline for rolling out the vaccine to migrant workers will still be within the same timeline as mentioned by Senior Minister of State Dr Janil Puthucheary earlier, for the country as a whole. Will the migrant workers be vaccinated within that overall timeline band? And that is important given the particular risks that they face, as the Minister pointed out.
Secondly, will the Government be working with NGOs who work with migrant workers to help to reinforce these messages and help to provide assurances and education to facilitate the take-up of the vaccine?
\tDr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Leon Perera for his supplementary questions. Yes, the answer to his first question is yes. We will prioritise the migrant workers and it would be within the timeline as communicated by the Senior Minister of State. However, the prioritisation will also depend on the risk stratification of the dorms and obviously those at higher risk, we will vaccinate them first.
With regard to the NGOs, we will be working with some of the larger NGOs which have greater outreach in terms of reaching out to the migrant workers. But as far as possible, in our communications, in our educational strategy, we will try our best to involve all the NGOs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Weather-induced Soil Erosion and Damage to Roads","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) how has LTA stepped up on the monitoring of weather-induced problems such as soil erosion which pose a danger to motorists and disrupt traffic; (b) whether there will be an increased frequency of inspection of transport infrastructure to ensure their adequacy to withstand the elements; and (c) what are the long-term plans for pre-emptive measures to safeguard against weather-induced problems on roads and traffic.
15 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the past six months, how many potholes have been reported on our public roads; (b) what is the average length of time that LTA takes to repair such potholes; and (c) what is the recourse that motorists can seek when their vehicles are damaged by potholes.
16 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the past three months, how many cases of landslips along our public roads have been recorded; (b) whether there are any vehicular damage or injuries that happened as a result of these slope erosion incidents; (c) how many locations in Singapore are prone to such slope erosion incidents; and (d) what are the Ministry’s plans to prevent such incidents from happening.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 14 to 16 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you. LTA conducts frequent inspections of over 9,000 lane-kilometres of roads to check for road defects, including potholes. Expressways are inspected weekly, major roads fortnightly, and all other roads once every two months. LTA also receives feedback from members of the public on any road defects and conducts follow-up investigations.
Wet weather conditions exacerbate wear and tear on our road infrastructure. More potholes appear on our roads during periods of heavy sustained rainfall, due to the continuous seepage of water into the road pavements. January 2021 was an exceptionally wet month, with very heavy and prolonged rainfall. From 1 to 31 January 2021, LTA identified 2,570 potholes on our roads, the highest ever number of potholes recorded in a single month, and more than double the number of a typical wet season month.
When a pothole is identified, LTA typically tries to repair it within 24 hours. In January 2021, LTA has tripled its manpower for road repairs. Unfortunately, heavy rain hampers pothole patching works because the road surface needs to be dry in order for the patching materials to bond properly. As of 31 January, about 95% of the potholes have been repaired. Safety critical ones have been prioritised for repairs. LTA is currently working to repair the remaining potholes.
Members have also asked about slope erosions. LTA conducts quarterly inspections of around 200 slopes located near roads, to look out for anomalies. During rainy seasons, LTA increases the inspection frequency for steeper slopes to weekly, as they have a higher risk of soil erosion.
In early January 2021, during downpours, there were two episodes of soil erosion at two different sections of the slope surface along the slip road from TPE(PIE) to Loyang Avenue and Tampines Avenue 7, despite the slope having been lined with a protective covering.
For the first incident on 2 January 2021, LTA repaired the eroded surface and lined about 70 metres of the slope adjacent to the incident site with concrete. The other areas did not show any anomalies, but LTA continued to closely monitor the entire slope as a safety precaution. When the second incident occurred about 100 metres away from the first erosion, LTA was able to detect it immediately and lined it with concrete as well.
In both incidents, the slip road was promptly closed off as a safety precaution and traffic redirected from the area. Other than these two episodes, LTA has not detected other incidents of soil erosion along slopes near roads last year.
When such incidents happen, be it potholes or slope erosions, our priority is rapid response to minimise risks to safety. In addition, LTA also undertakes preventive measures such as resurfacing roads based on condition assessment of the pavement, to enhance their durability. But because these resurfacing works can be disruptive for motorists and costly, we do it in a targeted way. For slopes, if pre-emptive measures are deemed necessary, they will be lined with protective covering to prevent rainwater from seeping into the soil, or reinforced with retaining walls to enhance their stability. LTA will continue to study technology-enabled approaches for monitoring and repair works.
Motorists who have sustained vehicle damages or injuries generally seek recourse from their insurance providers. We encourage motorists to drive safely and watch out for potholes as well as report any defects through the LTA website, the \"Snap & Send\" function on the MyTransport.SG mobile application, or the Municipal Services Office's OneService application.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines on Students with Gender Dysphoria","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Ms He Ting Ru –
17 To ask the Minister for Education (a) what are the Ministry’s policies and guidelines on students with gender dysphoria; (b) how often are such policies and approaches reviewed at the school and Ministry levels; (c) what level of autonomy do schools have over the setting of such policies and approaches; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider presenting a public report on these matters to Parliament on a regular basis.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Question No 17, Sir.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, gender dysphoria is a clinically diagnosed condition. Medical professionals recognise that each person with gender dysphoria is different. Therefore, the treatments too are individualised.
All medical treatment decisions, including the use of hormone replacement therapy, ultimately rest with medical professionals, the persons with gender dysphoria and their family. Where minors are concerned – meaning anyone below the age of 21 – parental consent is required before any hormonal treatment can commence. Such medical decisions are beyond the purview of MOE or any educational institution.
MOE's focus is on the school environment and the students involved. Schools are a common space for all students regardless of their backgrounds and circumstances. We have a duty of care to every student. For students with gender dysphoria, our main focus is continuing to provide them with a conducive learning environment and to support their overall well-being. Recognising that the issues are complex and that there are diverse opinions amongst students and their parents, we strive to deal with these situations sensitively and with compassion.
One particularly difficult issue is with school rules. They are in place to help students cultivate self-discipline and a sense of responsibility. But we recognise that students diagnosed with gender dysphoria and undergoing hormone therapy could face difficulties with certain school rules. Where there are valid medical grounds, schools can exercise flexibility and work out practical arrangements for these students.
The schools will consult and work closely with different stakeholders, including the relevant medical professionals, the students concerned and their parents, in putting in place these arrangements. As each student's situation is unique, the matter must be dealt with individually. Our guiding principles are to treat these students with dignity and respect, and to provide as much support as we can to help them.
I recognise how strongly some people feel about this issue. We welcome continued dialogue and feedback, and will strive to provide a supportive environment in schools to support our students holistically. Issues of gender identity have become bitterly contested sources of division in the culture wars in some Western countries and societies. We should not import these culture wars into Singapore, or allow issues of gender identity to divide our society.
Ms He suggested a report to Parliament on a regular basis. Our experience dealing with such cases is that the family members themselves, especially the parents, are very uncomfortable with a public airing of their situation. We ought to respect their requests for privacy and avoid putting out information that will compromise any student or family confidentiality. Let us give the students and their families time and space to resolve matters amongst themselves, in consultation with their doctors and counsellors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Bullying in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Ms He Ting Ru –
18 To ask the Minister for Education (a) what support is available for students who face gender-based bullying and discrimination, including at single-sex institutions; (b) what training is provided to staff to support students who face gender-based bullying and discrimination; (c) what proportion of staff at each school receive such training; (d) how do schools educate students about gender-based bullying and discrimination; and (e) what recourse do students have when faced with bullying over such issues.
19 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education (a) what percentage of Primary and Secondary schools have anti-bullying and anti-cyberbullying policies in place; and (b) whether teachers are provided with training and support to handle cases of bullying and cyberbullying in schools and, if so, in what ways is training provided.
\t
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Question No 18, please.
The Minister of State for Education (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 18 to 19 together.
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tMs Sun Xueling: MOE takes a serious view on any form of bullying, including cyber and gender-based bullying. All schools send a clear message to students that bullying is not acceptable and has no place in our schools.
Schools monitor the school environment and discipline closely, and take educative, preventive and intervention measures to address bullying incidents. Through Character and Citizenship Education, students are taught the importance of respect and empathy for others. As part of Cyber Wellness, they are taught to use online tools such as security settings and reporting functions, so that they can navigate the online space safely. We know there are concerns about whether students report bullying incidents. That is why teachers also involve student peer supporters to look out for their peers, speak up against, and report bullying to school authorities. Additionally, for cyber bullying incidents, schools guide students to report these to the online service provider. School rules and disciplinary frameworks are clearly and regularly communicated.
When alleged bullying is reported, trained school personnel investigate and provide counselling support for students involved and decide on appropriate disciplinary action. There is also an educative process to help the students learn from the incident and reconcile with each other. Schools need the help of families as well and work closely with parents to support the students who are involved.
Training on positive classroom culture and classroom management is core for all student teachers at the National Institute of Education. For trained teachers in schools, they are given refresher training through online modules, school-based and MOE workshops. To further equip some senior teachers to handle complex bullying cases, MOE is strengthening their training in fostering positive class culture, investigating and addressing online and offline bullying. We are also deepening schools' capacity to help students protect themselves better online, and work with parents and the community to educate our young.\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations for Setting Aside Green Space in Urban Development ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the considerations as to whether or not a green space can be protected as a nature reserve; and (b) whether this has been considered for the Dover Forest.
21 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development regarding Clementi Forest and similar green spaces (a) what are the criteria by which land parcels are scheduled for development; (b) how are implications for wildlife, biodiversity and green corridor connectivity assessed when a green space is developed rather than redeveloping an existing urban space; and (c) whether and how any potential irreversibility of environmental impact is considered during the above processes.
22 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider extending the public consultation period for the Environment Baseline Study for the Dover Forest; (b) whether the results and outcome of the consultation can be made public; and (c) whether an environment impact assessment will be conducted if active development of the Dover Forest zone is considered.
23 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current number of hectares of existing green spaces that are projected to be developed over the next 10 to 15 years; (b) what percentage of these are forested areas; and (c) of the projected increase of 1,000 hectares of green spaces over the same time period, how much of the increase is reserved for wildlife compared to areas accessible to the general public.
24 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the new trends factored in the current review of the Concept Plan; (b) whether there is a minimum percentage requirement of Singapore's land space to be allocated for natural green space such as forests; and (c) whether COVID-19 has affected the considerations of future land use in terms of natural and built environment.
25 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development (a) what processes are in place to ensure that that public bodies respect the principles laid out in the 2015 Nature Conservation Masterplan when making any development decisions that affect our green spaces or biodiversity; (b) in relation to the Dover Forest, what was the nature and frequency of consultation that the Ministry conducted with MND, HDB and URA about the development of the forest; and (c) what steps are being proposed to address the loss of biodiversity and habitat of endangered and rare species caused by the envisaged deforestation of Dover Forest.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take Question Nos 20 to 25 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Desmond Lee: Thank you, Sir. Sir, Members have asked about development plans for green spaces in Singapore, including specific sites at Clementi and Ulu Pandan.
\t
\t
I will first address our overall approach to land use planning and nature conservation, and then talk about specific sites and locations.
Let me start with our approach to land use. We are a city, 728 sq km of land area in all. But we are also a city-state. Our land use considerations are therefore quite different from most other cities. This is because, unlike most other cities which have large hinterlands, we have to cater for everything that a country needs within the limits of our city, instead of far beyond its limits in the case of other cities. These include things such as airports and seaports, airbases and military training ground, reservoirs, incineration and power plants, agriculture and so much more.
Our approach to conservation as a city-state is also quite different. For example, in other cities, you travel out, sometimes for many hours on the motorway, to enjoy natural greenery and nature. But in Singapore, our wild spaces are right in our midst, with our gem, the Central Catchment and Bukit Timah Nature Reserves, nestled in the green heart of our city.
We have always taken a long-term view towards land use planning, with stewardship and sustainability as core, long-held principles. Given our small size, we have been, and have to be, judicious in stewarding our scarce land resources to support Singapore’s development as well as in our aspiration to be a City in Nature. We have to constantly balance demands and trade-offs across a wide variety of needs, including housing, green spaces, infrastructure, community facilities, workplaces, amongst others. These tensions are inherent in land use planning everywhere, but felt more acutely in a small city-state like Singapore.
Sustainable development for Singapore over the long term also means that we need to recycle and reuse our limited land, while incorporating flexibility into our plans, to meet the changing needs and aspirations of each new generation. We must continue to plan ahead to support our collective vision for Singapore, not just for ourselves, but for our children and theirs.
Our land use needs today are quite different from those of yesteryear, and will continue to evolve. Let me use public housing as an example. Today, we continue to see a high demand for new HDB flats. In 2020, the overall application rate for BTO flats was 5.8 times. This means that for each BTO flat, we broadly get between five and six Singaporean applicants.
This is driven partly by marriage and family formation. Between 2015 and 2019, the annual average number of Singapore citizen marriages registered was 23,600, higher than the annual average of 22,400 registered between 2010 and 2014. In the near term, we expect more demand from the larger \"Echo\" Baby Boomers cohorts – born in the late 1980s to 1990s – as they enter into marriageable age. For comparison, we built an average of 16,200 new HDB flats each year over the same period to cater to BTO demand by all buyer groups and not just newlyweds. For completeness, other housing options, including HDB resale flats, ECs, private property, open market rental flats or living with family members, remain. So, therefore, we need to continue building to meet the demands and aspirations of young families. And I am sure Members, from time to time, at your Meet-the-People Sessions or, more likely, via email, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn, they will reach out to you.
On top of that, our public housing demand is also partly driven by changing social structures. For example, there is a growing trend of smaller households as more young couples, singles and their parents choose to have their own flats and their own homes instead of staying with their extended families, as it was so in the past. Indeed, Members of this House have championed some of these needs and more. The average household size in HDB dwellings was 3.07 in 2019, compared to 4.24 in 1990.
Or take a more recent development like COVID-19, which continues to impact our lives in many significant ways, and has thrown up new land use challenges. Apart from the fact that working from home became the norm for many of us, the pandemic also reminded us that supply disruptions are a very real concern. For example, given the supply tightness that the world experienced for certain food and medical items, our agencies are looking to strengthen local resilience of some of our resource systems, such as for food. This may mean increasing local production and storage capacity for such resources, where feasible. The pandemic has also demonstrated the importance of having buffer sites for emergency uses, which we were able to activate quickly for quarantine and recovery facilities, and temporary housing of our migrant workers. Meanwhile, trends such as tele-commuting and e-commerce have accelerated, raising questions about how much office and retail space we might really need in the long term.
Our economic imperatives may also shift and evolve after the pandemic as technology changes and advances, so we will need to take a good, hard look at land use needs for the future. While it remains to be seen if some of these shifts will persist in the \"new normal\" beyond COVID-19, we are actively monitoring these trends and adjusting our land use strategies to satisfy both the needs of today and the possibilities and challenges of tomorrow.
To meet our growing and changing needs, we have been, and will continue to adopt a range of development options. This includes increasing the density of developments – building higher and building more densely, while ensuring liveability. So, there is a limit.
We are also co-locating suitable uses. For example, the upcoming Punggol Town Hub will feature a public library, community centre, hawker centre and health services, all co-located, some stacked on top of each other, for one-stop, convenient access for our residents. This, of course, beats having one site for the CC, one site for the hawker centre, one site for the healthcare services, one site for the library, and so on and so forth. We maximise the land take. We are also co-locating a Water Reclamation Plant and an Integrated Waste Management Facility at Tuas Nexus, and a four-in-one rail and bus depot in the East Coast. Such projects save us hectares of land that can be used for other purposes.
We are also redeveloping brownfield sites such as golf courses, old school sites, or industrial areas, as leases expire. For example, last year, we launched the former First Toa Payoh Secondary School site for public housing, after the school was merged. Many Members might also remember that Bishan used to be a cemetery. Going forward, when the lease for the Keppel Club Golf Course expires, we will use the land to develop public and private housing. Land taken back from Jurong Country Club, Raffles Country Club, Marina Bay Golf Course from 2024 and Orchid Country Club from 2030, will also be used to meet other needs. By 2030, we would have taken back more than 400 hectares of golf course land for redevelopment.
We will continue to carry out land reclamation where appropriate and see how we can also make use of underground spaces and deep cavern spaces for infrastructure, though the costs are high. If you look at the geological map of Singapore, parts of it are granite, solid hard rock; parts of it are sedimentary rock. In fact, a number of years ago, I visited the Jurong Rock Caverns at Jurong Island, which makes use of cavernous underground space, through advances in engineering, to store high-value products, saving the surface for other uses. But this is work in progress.
We also undertake major long-term strategic redevelopment moves whenever the opportunity arises – an opportunity to re-imagine Singapore, to advance our children's interests and that of their grandchildren. For example, the height restrictions over a large part of eastern and north-eastern Singapore will be lifted after the air base moves out of Paya Lebar, allowing us to intensify land use both in and around the site. We will also progressively redevelop the Greater Southern Waterfront after the port moves to Tuas, freeing up prime waterfront land for public and private housing and other purposes.
But many of these moves take time and require complex planning and careful coordination, because they affect people, homes, livelihoods and industries. So, we cannot redevelop these spaces overnight but plan far, far ahead, like now, for the needs of the next generation. There are also different trade-offs to weigh, including the compatibility of a new development with surrounding land uses, and the availability and capacity of supporting infrastructure, among other considerations.
Now, let me move on and explain our approach when it comes to greenfield sites, vegetated sites, green and natural areas. Because of our commitment to land stewardship and sustainable development, we adopt a science-based approach to identify core biodiversity areas and surrounding buffers that we want to retain for future generations. Broadly, the considerations include ecological significance and ecological connectivity of habitats. The four-pronged Nature Conservation Masterplan sets out the strategies to safeguard these green spaces. In fact, the Masterplan goes much more than that; in terms of City in Nature, it is also the mindset of people, their ability to be conscious about nature, to be scientific about it, and also to be able to understand all the stresses and tensions we deal with, as we seek to protect biodiversity on our city island.
As a result of this approach, we have retained a number of ecologically important sites as green spaces, although they had initially been designated for other uses, human uses. For instance, the Mandai Mangrove and Mudflat had initially been planned for factory use, for industry. Yet, after careful study through biodiversity surveys and ecological modelling, we decided to keep it as a Nature Park given its high ecological value, both domestically as well as playing our role internationally as part of a flyway.
Similarly, while other green spaces such as Dairy Farm Nature Park and Rifle Range Nature Park could have been developed for housing, they have been retained as green buffers to our Nature Reserves instead. And we have done this in many other areas too over time – Sungei Buloh, Pulau Ubin and Chek Jawa, Kranji Marshes, Chestnut, Thomson, Khatib Bongsu, Bukit Batok Hillside Nature Park, Admiralty Park, Hampstead Wetland Park, Tampines Eco Green, Tampines Quarry, Rail Corridor, to name a few. We are looking out for more areas to help enhance ecological connectivity; and we have to look at those areas with biodiversity and significant biological importance, and prioritise those.
Today, we have safeguarded approximately 7,800 hectares of our land for Nature Reserves, Nature Areas, Nature Parks and other green spaces, such as parks and park connectors. These comprise key representative eco-systems and habitats for Singapore’s native biodiversity.
We need to also remember that not all of these areas were untouched habitats. For example, Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve and the upcoming Khatib Bongsu Nature Park were once prawn farming areas. These areas were abandoned, the land was acquired by Government in days gone by for future redevelopment, and they were marked out by earlier batches of leaders and public officers for our generation's use, and the next generation. But over time, they have become green spaces inhabited by indigenous flora and fauna.
\t
We will not only protect and enhance existing green spaces but will also extend our network with an additional 1,000 hectares of green spaces over the next 10 to 15 years and weave greenery more intensively into our urban areas. I seek all Members' support when we intensify in your areas. In tandem, we will implement species recovery plans for 130 animal and plant species by 2030 – native, flora and fauna – to strengthen the conservation of our endangered and rare species. These efforts will restore existing ecological habitats for our wildlife and provide Singaporeans with greater access and a more immersive experience in nature.
And so, it is not just the green space that we protect but we intensify it, for example, through the Forest Restoration Action Plan. To scientists, they know the difference. When you go into a green space, you look at the mix of native and alien invasive species, you look at what might be strangling the forest and ecology, what may be disrupting the habitat, even though it looks all green from afar. And it is painstaking. For example, in the Bukit Timah area, the Rifle Range area, painstaking removal of Dioscorea by hand and by basic tools, the replanting of native species, the soil preparation, the intensive work; and then, allowing the forest to recover after the removal of invasive species, for it to settle again and for forest succession to take place over time. That requires stewardship beyond our generation.
Let me assure Members that we are committed to stewarding and protecting our green spaces. But given our physical constraints and scarce land area, there will be some greenfield sites that we might have to develop to meet our land use needs. Any decision to proceed is made only after detailed study of the trade-offs and alternatives, including the assessment of ecological and biodiversity value. And where development cannot be entirely avoided, we proceed with care.
Developments near to sites with significant biodiversity undergo an in-depth consultation with technical agencies and may be subject to an environmental study to assess the possible environmental impact of development plans, including ecological connectivity. We also engage stakeholders, such as those from the nature community, to take in feedback and strengthen the rigour of the studies. Unless there are security considerations, the studies will be made publicly available, so that anyone can provide feedback on the findings and recommendations. The studies, as well as feedback received, guide the planning of the site, including mitigating measures to reduce the impact on the environment where necessary. We also seek to preserve and integrate natural elements within the development where possible, to facilitate ecological connectivity. We thank our nature groups and the nature community for their close partnership in working with the relevant agencies to achieve these outcomes.
Let me talk about the specific sites in Clementi and Ulu Pandan mentioned by Members. Some called Ulu Pandan \"Dover\", but, of course, according to the planners, it is part of Ulu Pandan. So, let me use in Parliament the correct planning language.
The site at Clementi was an abandoned rubber plantation, which has since been overgrown with Albizia trees which are not native. In January this year, I explained to Parliament that the land had been rezoned \"Residential (Subject to Detailed Planning)\" 23 years ago, since the Master Plan 1998. While there is no immediate need to develop the site for housing, we will retain the zoning of the site for now, and not touch it for housing. This will give our future generations the option of deciding whether to use it for housing as intended by generations gone by, or to review its land use if the need arises.
As for the site at Ulu Pandan, it used to be a rubber plantation, fruit orchards and kampongs. In fact, I took a photographer of a marker and had a good discussion with heritage buffs, who are continuing to study what the history of that site was. Because underlying all of Singapore, every inch of land, there are layers of history, layers of heritage, many stories to tell over the generations.
The Ulu Pandan site is similarly overgrown with non-native trees after the rubber plantations, fruit orchards and kampongs were abandoned and the land taken by Government. Since the Master Plan 2003, the land had been zoned \"Residential (Subject to Detailed Planning)\". HDB engaged an external consultant to conduct an Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) for Ulu Pandan, to guide HDB's development plans and identify the native flora and fauna and their habitats. HDB then consulted nature groups to refine their plans for Ulu Pandan, incorporating the findings from the EBS. Subsequently, the EBS report was published online to invite public feedback.
HDB has since received and continues to receive feedback and suggestions from nearby residents, members of the public and those interested in nature and environmental issues. There has been a very wide range of views and we thank everyone for contributing them.
Some have called to retain the site fully for greenery and recreation and to designate it as a Nature Park. Some say keep it green. Others say keep it green but let us intervene through restoration. So, different levels of scientific understanding and interests.
Some have gone further to say that we should not build any more flats and halt all development. We can understand that sentiment too.
Others have urged the Government to redevelop other sites instead, including vacant sites, acquiring older private or public housing or taking existing school fields, running tracks, car parks in the vicinity.
Several have suggested that new housing and nature should co-exist on the site. For example, develop parts that are less vegetated or with more non-native species.
While there are diverse views and what I have just summarised is really just scratching the surface, many who have written in appreciate the tension between the need for development and nature conservation; and actually, all of them lie along a continuum of where that balance should lie.
We are studying the feedback in detail and welcome more Singaporeans to give their views and inputs – give us your ideas, sketch them on a map – as we consider our plans for the Ulu Pandan site. Accordingly, HDB will extend the public consultation period for the EBS for another four weeks. So, please write in. We will carefully consider all the feedback received and share our plans when ready.
We are encouraged by the keen interest generated in our plans for Singapore and nature conservation. Indeed, mainstreaming of nature consciousness or having conversations about conservation among Singaporeans at large is a key part of our strategy to become a City in Nature. I talked about it in an interview with The Straits Times and, really, it is beyond just the locations and the science and conservation, but about mainstreaming these conversations. This is a good time as concerns about sustainability are now at the top of our agenda.
At the same time, as part of such conversations, it is good for all of us to better understand the opportunities and constraints facing Singapore when it comes to balancing our various land use needs. And if we recalibrate the balance between conservation and development, or for that matter, between different kinds of developments and needs, or adjusting the ratio of different land use types, we should also need to discuss what this would mean, in practical terms. For instance, I read in a TODAY commentary over the weekend, which quoted a 24-year old SUSS student Mr Yeo Wei Jiang who shared his personal convictions and some of those in his generation. He said that preserving the natural environment should be Singapore's \"top priority\" and that, I quote, \"I am willing to commit to it even if it means waiting longer for a BTO, living in a more inconvenient area, or paying a higher price\".
Some may resonate; others may not agree. But that is part of the conversation.
Singaporeans' aspirations and views are evolving: on housing, property, on material pursuits, on family and society, on nature and on the nature and form of work. At the same time, the world and the global economy around us and technology are changing and changing rapidly – and so too must our strategies and approaches so that we can emerge as a stronger nation after this most difficult of tests.
URA will engage Singaporeans later this year – as we do regularly every few years – to discuss our aspirations as a people and gather ideas and inputs, and importantly, partnerships to formulate our long-term plans for a liveable and sustainable future. We invite everyone to join these conversations and to partner us in action.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government resolves to continue to regularly review our plans in partnership with the community, to support the diverse aspirations and changing needs of our people, as consensus on the balance between environmental conservation and development evolves. Our goal is to steward a home and a City in Nature that all Singaporeans, in this generation and future ones, love and cherish.
\tMr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to thank Minister for the very comprehensive reply. I think Minister touched on a very important concept which is the one about recycling and reuse of land. I think that is critical as we balance the demands and needs of our population across generations. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister.
The first is, we know that typically, there is a time lag between the planning and execution of projects, especially for the longer term projects. How does the Ministry make adjustments during this period, between planning and execution, as new factors arise due to the changing social structures, and also for the fact that there is global impact in the short term?
The second question is, if further assessments are made at any specific point of time, and we find that the ecological value and connectivity of the green sites have changed, what will the Ministry do with the original plans?
Mr Desmond Lee: I think the Member makes a very important point that planning is not done on paper. It involves visiting the site, doing lots of tests, looking at the surrounding community and their needs. And then, from a decision point that we need to prepare for some need – whether industrial, housing, social community – to when it actually can start operating, it is quite a few years. And as more considerations, checks, tests, sampling and analysis need to be done in consultation, then, that time will grow longer and longer.
And remember that over that period of time, a lot of factors may change and there are many moving parts. For instance, the planning parameters and planning horizons for different sites will take time. And for smaller sites, maybe slightly shorter; for big strategic sites like the Greater Southern Waterfront, it could take decades. Or for Paya Lebar to relocate after land reclamation, land preparation, it will take decades. During that kind of timeframe, whether it is years or decades, things may change, including demographic structures, social need, demand may fluctuate depending on economic considerations and, of course, people's values and principles in what they feel is important here and now, and in the future.
And therefore, because we have had the privilege over the decades since our Independence for stability and continuity, our Public Service, together with the political leadership, have been able to put in place plans but also alternatives and contingencies – what if it is this; what if it is that. And that is really our mindset – because we are not developers; we are stewards. We provide the needs for Singaporeans, even those not yet born. And therefore, we have to make all these plans ready. And if there are some changes to our plans, we will then have to activate some of these contingencies, some of which may not necessarily be the best solution; it may be the next best. And if changes are made to certain plans, then, sometimes, we squeeze in one location, the problem pops up somewhere else. Then, the question is – we talked about ecological prioritisation of biodiverse sites, or even the decision points on whether to redevelop or recover land from settlement or business, to recycle them, when and where we do so – there will be those implications.
So, I give you very broad concepts. But in essence, our demands are tied for today and tomorrow. We have to keep in mind the future generations. We must remember that things can change along the way. And thanks to long-term planning by our planners and our leaders of days gone by, we seek to continue that mantle of responsibility. We hope to be able to make those adjustments.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive answer and supplementary reply to the other Member. Just want to ask one clarification to the Minister, please. The Minister shared about the assessments for green corridor connectivity. Can I just clarify with the Minister that when these assessments are made, especially when an environmental impact assessment is commissioned, the assessment looks not just at the plot of land under consideration, but also at the implications for the rest of the network of biodiversity if a particular node is developed?
\tMr Desmond Lee: I invite the Member to clarify, when he mentioned green corridor connectivity, are you talking about general ecological connectivity or the connectivity of the Green Corridor, the Rail Corridor? I just want to be clear because the Rail Corridor runs through your constituency too, I believe.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng: So, I thank the Minister for that. I am asking both specifically as well as more generally. Just want to clarify that we are looking at the broader impact to the network as well.
\tMr Desmond Lee: Specifically, to the Green Corridor, it is 24 km thereabouts, from north to south that runs through what is formerly that rail from Malaysia to Singapore, to Tanjong Pagar. We have committed to keep that as a green corridor. And it is for many, many users – it is for runners, joggers, cyclists, hikers, families, young people, seniors. It is for artists, musicians. It is for communities. It is for communities of gardeners and farmers. It is also for ecological biodiversity and connectivity.
There are a number of areas which look green, but if you go with Nature Society and my NParks colleagues, the survey will show that those are mainly not native flora and fauna; and a lot of effort has to go into replanting, into reforesting, into removing the invasive species and replanting them with species that can support biodiversity in the area. And the different stretches of the Rail Corridor can also serve as ecological connectivity, for dispersal of flora, for fauna connectivity, whether it is insects, odonates, whether it is mammals, large or mostly small, to be able to then, also play that part in connecting different biodiversed core areas. And, more broadly, it is the same concept as well.
And, in fact, in our conversations with our nature community – because our relationship has evolved and strengthened over time into a constructive and deep one – we are beginning to ask ourselves: should we just be looking at individual sites or should we be looking at the overall ecological map of Singapore? That map is very different from your urban map, I can assure you; very, very different.
And in our EIAs or EBSes, we do study the impact on connectivity between different areas. That is why over the last year plus, there were all these to-ing and fro-ing with our nature friends over, say, the ability of some sites in Tengah to be able to provide that level of connectivity; and we make adjustments along the way to provide for them.
But, of course, beyond environmental impact assessments, I can assure the Members in this House that we also study other issues that also affect the residents, like traffic impact assessments, noise assessments. We look at the impact on a whole range of issues that also impact the urban environment as much as we look at the environmental impact.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question time. Clarification by Minister Josephine Teo.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 26-28, 31, 34-35, 38, 40, 42-43, 45-49, 51, 54, 56, 58, 60-63, 65-67, 70-72, 74-75, 77-78, 80-81, 83, 87, 90-93, 95-98 and 100-101 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 29-30, 32-33, 36-37, 39, 41, 44, 50, 52-53, 55, 57, 59, 64, 68-69, 73, 76, 79, 82, 84-86, 88-89, 94 and 99 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 2 February 2021.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister for Manpower","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, with your leave, may I make a clarification with respect to my response to Mr Gerald Giam’s supplementary question on 5 January 2021, during Question Time for the Parliamentary Question \"Rationale for Support Threshold in Jobs Growth Incentive Scheme\".
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Thank you, Sir. Mr Giam had asked about the take-up of the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) by companies. I had explained that we use CPF data to compute the JGI incentive in order to reduce the administrative burden for companies. I said that for every employer that has a local employee, for which he has CPF employer obligations, the employer is given two months in order to make the CPF payments. So, for someone who was employed, brought onboard at the start of the programme in September 2020, the employer actually has up till the end of November in order to make those payments. [Please refer to \"Rationale for Support Threshold in Jobs Growth Incentive Scheme\", Official Report, 5 January 2021, Vol 95, Issue No 15, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
I wish to make a correction to that last statement. For every employer that has a local employee, for which he has CPF employer obligations, the employer is given two weeks after the end of the month in order to make the CPF payments. However, the CPF Board must thereafter validate the data before handing it over to IRAS for further processing. So, for those who were employed, brought onboard at the start of the programme in September 2020, the data is only ready for use around the end of November. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Order. Introduction of Government Bill. Minister Vivian Balakrishnan.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) First Reading. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: We will just pause for a few minutes.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Apologies, Speaker. I was just outside.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The Government understands the difficulties faced by Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: Minister, please provide the Certificate of Urgency.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Sorry. Mr Speaker, I have a Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment) Bill, to be laid on the Table.
[(proc text) Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Bill, laid upon the Table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The Certificate is in order. Minister, please proceed.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled \"An Act to amend the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020.\"
[(proc text) Bill read the First time. (proc text)]
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, copies of the Bill have been provided to the Clerk, who will distribute it to Members now. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Speaker: Minister, second reading when?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it. Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time”.
Sir, the Electronic Transactions Act or ETA, was first enacted in 1998. Recognising the growing importance of electronic transactions, especially e-commerce, Singapore was the first country to adopt the Model Law on Electronic Commerce of 1996 or the MLEC, by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law or UNCITRAL. The ETA has also facilitated the Government’s use of electronic documents in its engagements with businesses and citizens.
The ETA was repealed and re-enacted in 2010 to adopt the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts or the ECC. The ECC provisions were updated for application to Internet technologies and to harmonise international laws on electronic transactions.
Today, electronic transactions and e-commerce underpin the global economy. In 2018, the value of global e-commerce was estimated at US$26 trillion, equivalent to 30% of the global GDP that year. The COVID-19 pandemic has given further boost to global retail e-commerce, which grew by 37% in the first half of 2020, more than double the rate in 2019.
The digital economy is key to the next phase of Singapore’s growth, and our efforts to emerge stronger from the pandemic. Our strategies include enhancing our digital infrastructure and frameworks, strengthening our citizens’ and businesses’ digital capabilities, and collaboration with international partners. This Bill will ensure that our legal and regulatory infrastructure keeps pace with international trade law and the latest technological developments so that Singapore remains globally competitive.
The Bill was drafted after extensive consultations with stakeholders over several years. It aims to facilitate faster and more secure transactions while enhancing businesses' and citizens' trust in digitalisation.
Sir, the proposed amendments are guided by two main considerations. First, to meet the digitalisation needs of citizens and businesses while introducing adequate safeguards; and second, to ensure that the international harmonisation and technology neutrality of our laws relating to electronic transactions.
Clause 6 of the Bill introduces a new part 2A to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records, or MLETR, with certain modifications. The Model Law enables the creation and use, domestically and internationally, of electronic forms of transferable documents or instruments, otherwise known as Electronic Transferable Records, or ETRs.
Transferable documents or instruments entitle the rightful holder to claim the performance of the obligation indicated, such as the delivery of goods or payment of money, and to transfer the right to performance by transferring the document or instrument. These transferable documents are instruments are used extensively in international trade in industries such as shipping, logistics and finance.
Let me illustrate how an electronic bill of lading can enable faster transactions, lower costs, and importantly, foster greater trust among businesses.
A bill of lading is used in maritime trade as a transport document and as a document of title over goods in transit. The seller will engage a carrier to deliver the cargo and will in turn receive a bill of lading from the carrier. The seller will generally only release the bill of lading to the buyer on payment and the buyer can only collect the goods from the ship by producing the bill of lading.
Often financing is involved and the bill of lading will pass through many parties from the seller to his export bank, then to the buyer's import bank, and eventually to the buyer who may even sell the cargo to a sub-buyer while its cargo is enroute. The final buyer will have to produce the bill of lading to take delivery of the cargo at the port.
Sometimes, goods arrive at their port of destination before the documents have been processed. In such instances, there will be additional costs to either hold the cargo or to secure a letter indemnifying the carrier for delivering the goods without a bill of lading.
Fraud is a real risk because paper bills of lading can be forged. Significant resources are therefore required to process paper documents and verify their authenticity. This means considerable time and costs are attributed not only to the actual transportation of the goods, but also to the administrative cost of cargo holding and document processing.
With electronic bills of lading, the transmission of documents will be instantaneous and time spent on verification and rectifying areas will be reduced. With digital authentication technologies such as digital signatures, centralised ledgers or blockchain, electronic bills of lading also improve security against forgeries.
Commercially available technology solutions for an electronic bill of lading based on contractual frameworks already offer many of these benefits for shippers today. For example, last year, Singapore-based Ocean Network Express announced that it had used an electronic bill of lading using the S-docks system in a successful shipment of synthetic rubber from Russia to China.
While this contractual approach benefits the parties to such a contractual framework, it does not affect third parties that are not part of the framework. Clause 6 of the Bill addresses this gap by enabling the creation and use of an electronic bill of lading that is legally equivalent to a paper bill of lading which will be legally effective beyond parties to such a contractual framework.
One commercial advantage in using an electronic bill of lading enabled by clause 6 is that a trade financing bank can obtain collateral security over the electronic bill of lading which is legally equivalent to a paper bill of lading. This may allow the bank to obtain a regulatory capital relief in respect of its trade finance exposure and to pass some of the benefits to its clients in the form of lower fees.
The Digital Container Shipping Association estimates that about US$4 billion would be saved annually if just half of today's container shipping lines adopt electronic bills of lading. Ultimately, end consumers tend to benefit from the lower costs of legal documentation, transportation and trade financing.
As with any digital technology, we need appropriate safeguards to ensure the transactions can be executed with confidence. The technological and legal challenges of establishing what constitutes an original document and its possession in an electronic environment are key impediments to the use of electronic versions of transferable documents or instruments.
Technological advancements have made it possible to meet these requirements and to prevent the unauthorised duplication of an original document with strong safeguards. Existing commercial electronic bill of lading solutions from the providers such as Bolero and S-docks, as well as newer digital utilities such as IMDA's TradeTrust have demonstrated that stakeholders can use electronic bills of lading with trust through the use of title registries, blockchain and advanced encryption standards and firewalls. These technologies help to reliably establish the control of the singular electronic bill of lading while ensuring document veracity. Indeed, the industry itself is confident of the use of these technologies as evinced by the International Group of Protection and Indemnity Clubs, providing an equal level of marine liability cover for both paper bills of lading and carriage of cargo under certain electronic bills of lading systems.
With such technological solutions available today, it is timely to provide the enabling legal infrastructure through this Bill to allow the creation and use of ETRs under the law in a trusted and secure manner.
Let me know address the key provisions of the Bill.
The new 16F to 16I set out specific requirements that an electronic record must meet in order to be recognised under the ETA as the electronic functional equivalent of a paper transferable document or instrument. The functional equivalence rules apply to writing, signature, transferable document, or instrument and possession.
The new sections 16J to 16L set out further functional equivalence rules for requirements relating to the use of ETRs.
Specifically, section 16H provides that an electronic record is the electronic functional equivalent of a paper-based transferable document or instrument if several specific requirements are met.
First, the electronic record must contain the information required to be contained in the paper transferable document or instrument.
Second, a reliable method is used to identify that electronic record as the authoritative electronic record constituting the ETR.
Third, that reliable method renders that electronic record capable of being subject to control from the time it is created until it ceases to have any effect or validity.
Fourth, that reliable method must retain the integrity of the electronic record.
Today, these give effect to the singularity requirement which requires reliable identification of the ETR that entitles the holder to request performance of the obligation indicated in it and avoids multiple claims.
Section 16I provides that the legal requirement for the possession of a transferable document or instrument is met with respect to an ETR if a reliable method is used to establish exclusive control of the ETR by a person, and to identify that person as the person in control. Where this requirement is met, the person in control of an ETR will be in the same legal position as the person in possession of an equivalent paper-based transferable document or instrument.
The new section 16O also sets out a general standard to assess the reliability of each of the methods referred to in the functional equivalence provisions I listed earlier. In the event of a dispute, it is for the Court to assess the reliability of the method in question, taking into account the non-exhaustive list of relevant circumstances set out the same section.
With these amendments, Singapore will be one of the first countries to enact a legislative framework for ETRs based on the MLETR, the Model Law, giving a competitive edge to our key industries like shipping, and reinforcing our status as a leading maritime and trade hub.
Sir, while the ETA gives electronically concluded contracts the same status as written contracts through a set of legal provisions, it does not apply to certain types of legal instruments or contracts as listed in the First Schedule of the Act, also known as the Exclusion List, as these were assessed to be not ready for the electronic medium at the time.
With the adoption of the MLETR in the new part 2A of the amended ETA, clause 8 of the Bill will remove item 2 relating to transferable documents or instruments from the Exclusion List.
The Government is studying the feasibility of removing the remaining items from the Exclusion List bearing in mind the benefits that could accrue to our citizens and businesses. These items will be removed from the Exclusion List when the necessary legislative and regulatory frameworks and corresponding safeguards have been put in place.
Let me now move on to how the proposed amendments will help ensure the international harmonisation and technology neutrality of our laws.
The MLETR is an internationally harmonised legal framework developed by UNCITRAL, the core legal body of the UN in international trade law, as a uniform model law recommended for adoption by all jurisdictions. The Model Law facilitates the cross-border use of ETRs, especially when adopted broadly by countries. Moving forward, as more countries incorporate the MLETR into their domestic law, it will greatly promote cross-border transactions and Singapore's early adoption of the Model Law will strengthen our position as a global commercial hub.
Given the tangible benefits to global trade, we will continue to work with our international partners to promote the adoption of the MLETR through our free trade agreements and digital economy agreements.
In this bid to promote cross-border transactions, the new section 16P will facilitate the cross-border use of ETRs by supporting the principle of non-discrimination against the foreign origin or use of an ETR. It provides that an ETR is not to be denied legal effect solely on the ground that it was issued or used outside Singapore. The question that then arises is what happens if a cross-border trade involves jurisdictions which do not yet support the use of ETRs.
Recognising that not every country would have enacted the MLETR, the new sections 16M and 16N contain substantive provisions that enable the change of medium from a physical transferable document or instrument, to an ETR and vice versa. A change of medium in accordance with the provisions of the Bill does not affect the rights and obligations of the parties. This provides parties with the confidence to use ETRs which are typically transferred multiple times, knowing that a subsequent transferee can choose to convert an ETR to a physical form.
Finally, regardless of changes in the technology related to electronic transactions, our laws must continue to be relevant in the long run. Consistent with the MLETR the amendments introduced by the Bill abide by the principle of technology neutrality, which means that legislation should not impose the use of, or otherwise favour, any specific technology. In other words, the provisions are intended to accommodate the use of different technologies, such as traditional registries, tokens and distributed ledgers.
Sir, in summary, the amendments to the ETA will reinforce Singapore's position as a world leader for electronic transactions and strengthen our status as a maritime and trade hub by being one of the first countries to enact a legislative framework based on the MLETR for the creation and use of ETRs. Coupled with our close partnerships with sectoral agencies like MPA, Customs, MAS and the industry to develop the eco-system for ETRs, and efforts to promote global adoption of the MLETR through various digital economy agreements, these amendments will further enhance Singapore's position as a global digital economy and bring opportunities and benefits to our businesses and our people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Mr Speaker, Sir, 2020 was an eventful year and will be vividly remembered by many Singaporeans. For one, the year 2020 heralded the start of digital transformation journey for many people in Singapore.
On this note, I applaud the introduction of the amendment Bill as a timely and impactful step towards our Smart Nation journey. In fact, I would see this amendment as a catch up because the technological solutions are readily available, the people's will and attention to this, the willingness to try it out, are also available now and now it is the legal catch up. And so, this is yet another piece to the puzzle.
Mr Speaker, digitalisation has always been tightly associated with productivity gains, improving cost effectiveness and these attributes are evident in the example of the maritime industry. It is an industry that has been unduly burdened by tonnes of paperwork for conveying goods across seas. Earlier, Minister would have illustrated this with many examples and details, so I would just be reinforcing some of these.
The impact of digitising bills of lading in Singapore would be very significant given that seaborne trade has been a critical lifeline of the country ever since Sir Stamford Raffles transformed Singapore into a bustling trade port back in 1819. With an extensive connection to 600 ports in over 120 countries and more than 130,000 vessels calling on Singapore, the decision to embark on the digitalisation of paper bills of lading is apparent.
A recent finding from the Digital Container Shipping Association predicted a potential cost savings of more than $4 billion a year on the maritime industry by digitalising the paper-based bills of lading. Apart from\tthe\tenhancement\tof\tcost\tsavings\tand\tdata accuracy and perhaps even preventing fraud, digitalisation helps to promote environmental sustainability. The International\tAir\tTransport Association (IATA)\tintroduced digitalisation of air waybills for the airfreight industry about 10 years ago. Apart from the clear cost saving benefit, digitalisation could help eliminate more than 7,800 tonnes of paper documents annually, which is equivalent to 80 Boeing 747 planes filled with paper.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the recognition of digital signature in a legal document plays a pivotal role in transforming a legal sector with deeply rooted reliance on wet-ink signature and physical seals for executions. On this note, I am heartened that the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) is the one of the first legal document to be digitalised, which is timely in view of the increasing awareness and acceptance of LPA. In 2019, the number of registrations reported was 24,488 and this doubled, the registration numbers, in 2017. Moving forward, the number of registrations is poised to grow further with newer generations of Singaporeans joining the ranks of seniors. This group of seniors will be technologically savvy, digitally proficient and more receptive of registering for a LPA.
Furthermore, we could open a bank account today on a mobile application through SingPass – MyInfo for authentication, doing away the need to physically step foot into the branch.
These changes will enhance citizens' access to important services. Prior to this, I had wanted to ask the Minister whether there will be plans to further digitalise other transactions and recognise digital signatures for more legal documents. I know that Minister has shared this in his speech earlier, that the Ministry will be looking into this. And I would like to ask the the Government and the Ministry to give priority consideration where there are large volume transactions happening on a day-to-day basis, including for example, option-to-purchase agreements, so that it will be much more convenient and save time and cost for our normal ordinary citizens.
That said, as digital solutions increasingly become available and transactions made easier with digitalisation, I would also urge the Government to constantly review and ensure that legal and process safeguards are in place to prevent abuse, especially for transactions that interact or intersect with ordinary citizens' lives. Technology is just an enabler, but the process design I think it is very key. So, in terms of inauthenticity as well as doing away with duplicates, blockchain, for example, could solve it. But, sometimes, how do we prevent someone with an agenda from masquerading as someone who he is not, and taking advantage of the process and the convenience of digital solutions? I think this is something that we will have to always bear in mind, to constantly review and make sure that the safeguards are in place. Therefore, with that Mr Speaker, Sir. I support the amendment Bill.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Electronic Transactions Act of 2011 and related amendments to two other Acts are intended to incorporate the UN Commission on International Trade Law's Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records, into our domestic legislation. To the extent that these amendments represent the Government's on-going efforts to renew as well as support the modernisation of various areas of the economy – and in this specific case, with regard to trade – it is undeniably welcome and will further bolster our position as a global trading hub.
While such laws that enhance trade facilitation may seem pedestrian, they represent important steps to ensure that less glamorous bread-and-butter aspects of international trade are brought into the 21st century and represent low hanging fruit insofar as gaining efficiencies from digitalisation are concerned.
That said, I wish to just add three points about moves to incorporate blockchain technologies to caution that the remaining excluded items could still be a binding constraint to fully realising efficiency in trade and to stress the need to provide support for our smaller firms as they make this important digital transition.
My first point concerns electronic document verification. Paragraph 1 in Article 10 of the Model Law was written with the recognition of the inherent difficulty in ascertaining the uniqueness of any given document in an electronic environment. In many ways, this is a purely technical issue and one not easily finessed by the language of the law. That said, recent innovations in blockchain technology now offer the promise of decentralised assurance of transactions integrity.
Minister Iswaran did explicitly point to these issues but MTI's position on incorporating such innovations, insofar as the amended law is concerned, remains somewhat unclear. It therefore behooves me to ask what the status of MTI's plans are on the roll-out of these blockchain based platforms for transferable electronic transactions in this space, such as, cargo access, smart bill of lading or the International Port Community System Association or IPCSA's e-bill of lading initiative, which I believe Minister Iswaran also alluded to.
And it would be helpful to know if MTI has already decided on favouring one of these platforms versus another, and if relevant industry players have been informed.
My second point is one of caution. I note that the amendments only propose to delete item 2 of the First Schedule and these are items excluded by the Electronic Transactions Act. Although it may seem sensible to proceed linearly and delete the other items when related legislation is ready, it is worth recognising that these other items may be less unrelated than they may seem prima facie. For instance, item 4, excludes from the Act the sale, and item 5, the conveyance of immovable property. But real world trade is executed alongside a very rich set of trade financing instruments, which include not just standard, fair letters of credit, but also other subtler forms of financing such as leasing or inventory financing. To the extent that such instruments are still represented on the First Schedule, digitally-enabled trade transactions may potentially remain partially inhibited until these items are ultimately removed.
Mr Speaker, my final point is more general, but perhaps the most pertinent one in the context of our local businesses. The amendments as they stand do not include provisions that will support our SMEs in adopting trade-related electronic transactions records, thereby transitioning to this 21st century economy. Perhaps this issue will be addressed in subsidiary legislation or is implicit in the number of existing policies to support digitalisation. But I believe it is worth reiterating the importance of embedding the trade elements outlined in this Bill into programmes such as Enterprise SG's Enterprise Development Grant or Productivity Solutions Grant. And will these funds be applicable not just to new transactions, but also to enable the digitalisation of the existing stock of paper records for these firms?
Beyond rolling SME support into existing policy, is there a way to ensure that cost savings that accrue from this digitalisation effort are then passed on through to the firms themselves. One practical way forward, is to endow a Government secretariat, possibly within IMDA's own Digital Tech Hub or Go Digital platform that would assist small business owners in filling up standardised trade documents as a pre-approved solution. Another practical suggestion would be for IMDA to maintain a database of accredited shipping or trade legal firms that are familiar with the new digital records standards.
Finally, I would go as far as to suggest that it might be helpful if the Government were to take a proactive step in identifying a selection of externally oriented SMEs and working with them to digitalise their international trading operations. This would not only allow the all important demonstration effect, but also enable IMDA to learn the best practices and standard operating procedures necessary for scaling up their assistance and to enable a more systematic evaluation of the costs and benefits of digitalised trading operations for small firms. Notwithstanding these three issues, I support the Bill.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. My focus is on the legal recognition of the digital form of the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). This is timely, especially during this pandemic. It allows applications and amendments to be made to the LPA safely and conveniently.
As Singaporeans live longer, more people will spend their later years in weaker health. This can create conflict in a family where their loved one whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently impaired.
Despite the importance of an LPA, the take-up rate is still very low. As of August 2020, there are just 93,000 registered LPAs. Only about 30% of the 60-69 year-old age group registered for an LPA. This is the largest percentage compared to all other eligible age groups.
I must emphasise that LPA is not just for the elderly, but also for every adult with sound mental capacity. The physical nature of the process involves multiple parties, including a doctor or lawyer to sign the documents in person. This is one of the challenges that puts people off the process. Digitalisation will reduce some of these inconveniences. This will attract more people to sign up.
Nevertheless, we must ensure that there is an underlying system in place, to enable the required parties to certify the documents online. For example, if doctors have access to the patient's medical history, this will help them with their assessment of the patient's mental condition when issuing the LPA.
LPA goes hand-in-hand with Advanced Care Planning, or ACP. LPA applicants should have the option on the application to select their preferred organisations to handle their ACP, and exercise the necessary financial planning. Can we look into streamlining this as part of digitalising the LPA? Can we also explore possibilities for regular updates and reviews of LPA appointments and ACP wishes online?
Mr Speaker, Sir, digitalisation is the way forward. But digitalisation is merely an enabler. We should take this opportunity to fundamentally review the LPA application backend processes, adopt a systemic approach and introduce changes accordingly. We need to do more than changing the physical to digital. Only then can we move the needle and make a real social impact. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill is a step forward in Singapore's progress towards digitalisation. This Bill will adopt, with modifications, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records. This allows the recognition of electronic records of trade documents at international ports and supports our digitalisation efforts.
I have three clarifications on the Bill and on Singapore's efforts to move towards electronisation.
My first point is on the effectiveness of national digitalisation in international trade with other countries at varying stages of digitalisation. Any single transaction in international trade is likely to involve multiple parties in various jurisdictions. It will be important for all parties involved to be certain that electronic documents will be legally valid and enforceable in jurisdictions where the documents may be needed to be enforced.
The reality, as the Minister pointed out, is that the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records has only been adopted by Bahrain. While Singapore's adoption of the Model Law will make Singapore one of the first mover countries, the current low rate of uptake may mean that electronic trade documents recognised in Singapore may not similarly be recognised abroad. Minister had addressed this point earlier, but could I ask whether we working with other countries to provide assurances that electronic trade documents will similarly receive recognition abroad?
My second point is on electronically signed deeds. During the circuit breaker period, electronic execution of contracts became much more common practice. However, deeds remain one category of documents where it is unclear if electronic signatures may be accepted. Lawyers generally advise against signing deeds using electronic signatures because of the risk that deeds governed by Singapore law or signed in Singapore may not be enforceable if signed using electronic signatures.
Can Minister clarify if deeds signed using electronic signatures, which comply with all other formalities required for deeds, are enforceable?
Lastly, the explanatory statement to the Bill makes clear that the adoption of the Model Law and the inclusion of trade documents under the Electronic Transactions Act is part of a wider initiative by the Government to support the electronisation of documents and transactions.
As part of IMDA's consultations in 2019, IMDA proposed removing the exclusion of Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). In other words, it is proposed that electronic LPA should be allowed.
The Bill explains that these other transactions, such as LPAs, will be deleted when the legislative and administrative frameworks supporting electronisation are ready to be implemented. I understand that an Office of the Public Guardian Online Electronic System is in the works to allow LPAs to be registered electronically.
Can Minister share how it is working with MSF to ensure that the needs of the elderly are taken into account when rolling out the Electronic System? We need to consider that they might not be familiar or comfortable with such a system. While LPAs are of course not only for the elderly, they are a significant population that will make use of this instrument. We should ensure that any Electronic System caters to their needs. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare that my work at a financial institution involves dealing with trade documents. I also declare my interests as a member of the Institute of Mental Health's Visitors' Board and as an Office of Public Guardian pro bono donee appointed by the Court under the Mental Capacity Act.
I welcome the amendment Bill which will bring trade documents within the scope of the Electronic Transactions Act (ETA). Most maritime trade now uses paper copies of bills of lading. A single transaction can involve hundreds of pages for such bills. As a result, the documentation and processing work can constitute up to 20% of the cost of shipping the goods.
Providing legal recognition for digitalised trade documents, such as bills of lading, negotiable instruments, documents of title, bills of exchange, promissory notes, consignment notes and warehouse receipts will cut administrative costs, speed up processing time and boost efficiency. However as digitalised trade documents can be duplicated easily, financiers, banks must be careful and put up additional measures to prevent double-financing.
With the amendments, the ETA will adopt most of the standards of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, which sets out an internationally recognised legal framework for electronic records. Being aligned with the international system for electronic documentation is crucial for us as a global trading and shipping hub.
I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. Presently, banks only finance international trade documents based on signed paper documents. With the amendments, am I correct to understand that electronic signatures will be recognised legally? As domestic online purchases have surged in recent years, especially for the last one year, can we also look into allowing digitalised delivery notes for local delivery to be recognised as legitimate too?
Next, the proposed changes to the ETA also seek to provide legal recognition for digital forms of the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), pending the readiness of the related legislation, the Mental Capacity Act, and supporting administrative framework.
LPA forms have to be witnessed and certified by an LPA certificate issuer, who are limited to a medical practitioner accredited by the Public Guardian, a practicing lawyer or a registered psychiatrist. This means that in effect, all the data entries, signatures and submissions have to be done in the offices of these professionals.
I am particularly concerned about the administrative, hardware and software support for the medical practitioners. I would like to suggest that the Government extends some assistance to them in this area so that they will be equipped suitably when the amendments to the Mental Capacity Act are made. Notwithstanding the abovementioned queries, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) has facilitated electronic commerce and filing of documents by providing legal certainty for many, though not all, categories of digital transactions and electronic records.
With the amendments, trade documents will be included. This will enable digital documentation with international ports, leading to shorter processing time, reduced costs and hopefully, lowered risks of fraud. These changes will have a significant impact on shipping and global trade. As a maritime and trading hub, we will definitely benefit from the resultant efficiency and productivity gains.
At this point, I seek the Minister's assurance that we have the digital infrastructural support and cyber expertise to ensure that the cyber fraud risks are minimised. Would he elaborate upon the measures we have in place to protect the integrity of such digital documents?
Next, the other area not covered under the ETA is the creation, performance or enforcement of an indenture, declaration of trust or power of attorney. This amendment Bill seeks to introduce changes to bring the power of attorney into its scope when the relevant legislative framework and administrative structure are ready, paving the way for the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) to be digitalised.
I would like to ask if there are plans to continue to accept hard copies of LPAs, even after digitalising LPAs. This will be helpful for those who struggle with digitalisation, especially the elderly and underprivileged.
It is also important to provide training and guidance for people who intend to make their LPAs online. Training should be very personal and one-to-one, so that they can ask questions and feel assured. There should be a one-stop venue where people can make appointments to be guided and advised.
Can we seek the support of the SG Digital Ambassadors to help in this initiative and also draw upon the community to assist? In addition, would cybersecurity measures be introduced to protect the LPA databases, guard against hacking and fraudulent submissions? Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to ask if there are plans to continue to accept hard copies of LPAs, even after digitalising LPAs. This will be helpful for those who struggle with digitalisation, especially the elderly and underprivileged. It is also important to provide training and guidance for people who intend to make their LPAs online. Training should be very personal and one-to-one, so that they can ask questions and feel assured.
There should be a one-stop venue where people can make appointments to be guided and advised. In addition, would cybersecurity measures be introduced to protect the LPA databases, guard against hacking and fraudulent submissions? Can we seek the support of SG Digital Ambassadors to help in this initiative and also draw upon the community to assist?
(In English): Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendments to the Electronic Transactions Act (ETA). I first declare my interest as a practising international trade and shipping lawyer.
This amendment Bill is one of the many steps that Singapore is taking in its journey to digitalisation. This amendment Bill seeks to amend the ETA and adopt with modifications the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records.
This amendment specifically deletes Item 2 from the First Schedule of the ETA which are trade documents such as negotiable instruments, documents of title and bills of lading. I welcome this move.
Singapore is one of the busiest international maritime hubs. Most of maritime trade involves the use of physical bills of lading which can be cumbersome and voluminous. With physical bills of lading, there is also a higher possibility and propensity of fraud being perpetrated. As a lawyer, I have been personally involved in many cases concerning litigation disputes on competing claims or contradicting bills of lading and frauds committed upon consignees or trade financing banks. Therefore, having electronic bills of lading or electronic negotiable instruments would clear up this area.
This legislation, together with the Government's Networked Trade Platform (NTP) which is a one-stop trade and logistics eco-system, shall assist Singapore to be a leading trade, supply chain and trade financing hub. It will be able to cut costs and streamline processes of trade financing.
Digitalisation means faster processing, lower risks and lower risks of fraud. Innovative technology like blockchain or smart contracts can further supplement our foray into digitalisation; bringing with it, not only costs and time efficiency, but more convenience and greater confidence in our system. This will give Singapore the edge.
In the area of shipping and international trade, this amendment Bill signifies an important step which will allow Singapore to further enhance its position as a maritime and trade hub.
Given the various changes and developments to be expected in this area, I hope that the Minister can consider a thorough public awareness campaign, perhaps through industry leaders or trade associations and chambers of commerce, so that businesses especially small and medium enterprises or those that have yet to embark on the digitalisation journey, so that they can too take full advantage of these digital alternatives to trade documents and the specific requirements for electronic records to be recognised.
In the Explanatory Statement of this amendment Bill, it is stated that the other matters in the First Schedule will be deleted when the legislative and administrative frameworks supporting the electronisation of those other items are ready to be enacted or implemented. For these other matters, I think most families would welcome the impending deletion of Items 1 and 3 of the First Schedule regarding the creation or execution of a will and trust or power of attorney, which would include lasting powers of attorney or LPA.
Currently, an LPA must be in hard copy form. MSF in its public consultation in 2020 has considered the potential digitalisation of LPAs; reducing the time needed from three weeks to just eight working days.
Digitalisation would also allow deputies appointed under LPAs to file their reports online and make it more convenient and faster for deputies to manage the affairs of the donor, like sending an electronic copy of the LPA to third parties, like banks. For banks or any third parties, they would also have confidence in the transaction as they will be receiving the most up-to-date electronic copy of the LPA from the Office of the Public Guardian.
Given our ageing population and the current pandemic situation which limits face-to-face and physical interactions, it is important for us to expedite the digitalisation of such documents, LPAs and wills for our fellow Singaporeans. This hopefully will bring about a higher take-up rate of LPAs and wills, and reduce the risks of litigation and disputes on competing LPAs and wills.
Hence, I would ask the Minister if there can be further announcements on the estimated timeframe for the deletion of the other items in the First Schedule, particularly those relating to the electronic or digitalisation of LPAs and wills. In short, I am asking for the estimated time of arrival, or ETAs, on the LPAs.
With that Mr Speaker, Sir, suggestions and clarifications notwithstanding, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Janet Ang.
Ms Janet Ang (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I am Janet Ang and I would like to make the following declarations. I am Chairman of SISTIC.com, an SME, Independent Director of SPH, Council Member of Singapore Business Federation and Deputy Chairman of SBF Foundation, and a former IBM Managing Director of IBM Singapore.
If you would, allow me to make a couple of points to address the Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-Charge of Trade Relations’ proposed amendments to the Electronic Transactions Act. Of course, I start by saying this is my maiden speech and I support the Bill, which is the reason why I am up here.
If you would allow me, I would just like to remind us that one of the key things is to create the future, we must understand the past. When I read the Bill, the first thing goes back to 1985 when Singapore first launched TradeNet.
Looking back at the past, we always must have the lessons from our journey so far and develop our collective response to the opportunities and challenges ahead of us to ensure that Singapore 2.0 will be even better than 1.0, for ourselves and for our children and future generations to come.
And, as the past year has taught us, we learnt to be resilient in the wake of disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic, to expect the unexpected, to learn from past experiences like SARS and the Global Financial Crisis, while at the same time stay alert to constant changes, be agile and adapt as we go along, and most importantly, to strengthen our resolve for collective response to emerge stronger post-COVID-19 even as we are being tested at every level, every day.
It will be remiss of me not to take this opportunity, as this is my first time, to thank everyone in the House for all that you have done to lead and will continue to lead us safely and thoughtfully through these unprecedented times. And, of course, special mention to the WOG or whole-of-Government Taskforce at every level and to our essential workers in the front line. As Singaporeans and residents, we are all grateful.
Singapore has always led with a vision, rallied Singaporeans and the community to work towards the common goal, and execute together, to make it a reality. Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his team rallied Singaporeans with the vision to take Singapore from “Third World to First”; “from mudflat to metropolis”. And our Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Long in his National Day Rally Speech of 2014, has yet again set in motion, our transformation agenda to becoming the world’s first smart nation.
I feel so humbled to have the opportunity to be here in this very Chamber where these visions and strategies for Singapore were and are being charted. Singapore’s success lies in our collective ability to execute and I have no doubt that once again, even with this Bill and amongst others, we will do the same.
We are in an era of \"acceleration of digital”. The coronavirus pandemic has propelled technology to the forefront of business agendas, and into the lives of everyone. Work-From-Home, Home-Based Learning, SafeEntry, TraceTogether and SingPass have become common vocabulary amongst Singaporeans and residents. We have all personally experienced during the last 12 months, the surge of e-commerce, the convenience of online food delivery, the proliferation of Zoom meetings and online webinars, and for me personally, K-dramas and masses crash-landed into my living room. So, acceleration to digital “everything” is on a different trajectory.
On the business front, COVID-19 has accelerated business digitalisation efforts across industries by almost two to five years and e-commerce trade have tripled, according to speakers at last week’s World Economic Forum's Davos Agenda. In a recent National Business Survey 2020/2021 conducted by the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) from 9 October to 28 November 2020 with respondents from 1,075 companies across key industries – 85% from SMEs and 15% from large companies – it was found that 39% of companies report that their IT/digitalisation budgets have increased as a result of the COVID-19 situation. The Government support has been and continues to be vital toward recovery with 47% and 31% reporting that help with talent and building capabilities respectively, were very relevant. In the same survey, 58% of the businesses highlighted that the key barrier to digitalisation is the perceived high investment cost of technology adoption. Other technology adoption challenges which they spelt out include the upskilling of staff, expensive licensing of IP, cyber security risks and lack of management expertise to drive technology change. For more information on the survey results, please refer to SBF. I highlighted these more specifics, related to their digitalisation challenges.
Just to complete the backdrop of where all the SMEs in Singapore stand, based on IMDA's Digital Acceleration Index 2020, most Singapore SMEs have very low digital maturity scores, with 67% of SMEs being Digital Starters – at the bottom. By contrast, so that we do not think that we are that bad, Singapore’s MNCs in the IT and professional services sectors and the LLCs in Financial Services sector had outperformed their peers globally. So, we can see the divide. Of course, the good news is that even for the SMEs, it did improve and increase from 2019 to 2020.
The Minister has given us a succinct proposition for why the amendments to the Electronic Transaction Act. In my past life at IBM, I was involved with the Maersk and IBM TradeLens project as well as initiating the PIL and IBM electronic bill of lading pilot. We saw reduced time and reduced costs for trade document processing, and transactions were more secure, inter-operable, and transparency and provenance was built into the system.
I believe that the Bill for the Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Bill is very timely as the outlook for digital trade and digital services is rapidly growing. The lack of regulation and legislation globally does increase costs and risks for all. Singapore’s leadership with TradeTrust, the Digital Economy Agreements with Chile, New Zealand and Australia, and now this Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Bill will pave the way for accelerating digital trade safely with open transparent standards, for Singapore companies and give us a leg-up in being plugged into the global trade eco-system. New rules are needed in the digital economy, and it is certainly far better to be co-writing the rules then to be playing catch up.
That said, we are cognisant that COVID-19 has exacerbated the divide between the \"haves\" and \"have nots\". We have seen during the circuit breaker that access to computers and high-speed wifi for students to take part in home-based learning cannot be taken for granted. Likewise, for our SMEs, their ability to effectively participate and leverage the trade platforms created for their benefit, cannot be assumed. Sixty-seven percent of SMEs are Digital Starters, and they are still battling with the barriers of investment cost, skills, management expertise and so on, to get across the digital chasm.
Perhaps the following suggestions I am going to make, are already being considered and so I beg your indulgence. Specific to the preparation of our businesses especially the SMES for the adoption of Electronic Transactions, I believe we need to bear in mind that there will be increased costs in the short to mid term, when there are investments required, and there is a time when both manual and digital will have to co-exist. So, one suggestion to consider is that the platform for digital trade to be part of a national infrastructure funded/sponsored by Government, PPP or some sectoral Queen Bee, pretty much like how the banks effectively bank-rolled PayNow to facilitate e-payment.
PayNow Corporate has crossed more than 4 million registrations in December, of course, accelerated by COVID-19, no doubt. But certainly, it is because of the network effect.
Innovation in business models, policies, regulation, technology and the development of skills all go hand-in-hand. That is the first suggestion.
The second is SMEs lack the skills and the management leadership and expertise to drive digital transformation. The lack of leadership expertise to drive this transformation is one of their challenges. One suggestion or thought, is for the Government to consider seconding some of their tech scholars to work in SMEs or SME sectors, on these digital transformation efforts. And leveraging on the Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Bill is definitely a good one to go with.
The third suggestion. We have PayNow. We have InvoiceNow. Our businesses have enquired about when we will have “SignNow” so that companies can use e-signatures on banking documents and comply with the banks’ compliance process. And I believe several speakers ahead of me have mentioned this.
These are but some ideas and thoughts. We need on-going dialogue among the stakeholders to listen to each other, to better understand the issues and find the solutions together.
To conclude, I hope that we can take this unprecedented time of chaos caused by a health pandemic, to forge ahead on how we might have an integral development approach to growth where we collectively – Government, big corporations, large enterprises, the well-endowed, civil society, IHLs, together with the SMEs – bring all the SMEs along, bring those who feel that they are marginalised and disadvantaged, along. The only criteria is that the SMEs and their teams are themselves hungry to survive and to grow, and have the conviction and the resolve to transform.
To get on to the digital train, there are investments to be made, and if you see the list of challenges which I shared earlier, the work to get them on the digital track must be now. I support the Bill, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Minister Iswaran.
Mr S Iswaran: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to begin by thanking all Members who have spoken on the Bill and for their support of this Bill.
It has been my experience any laws, policies and programmes on digitalisation never fail to elicit very wide-ranging views and suggestions, all given and with the best of intentions. I hope Members will understand if I confine my response to the issues that are germane to this particular Bill and some of the immediate adjacencies. And I also like to assure them that some of the other areas will be looked into by the respective agencies.
I want to start by agreeing fully with all Members the fact that digitalisation and indeed this Bill, are all but enablers. They are means to an end. And ultimately, it is how these enablers help to improve the lives of our citizens and opportunities for our businesses. That is the ultimate lens through which we should be looking at this and many of the other initiatives.
And in that spirit, I want to thank Members for their various questions and comments on the key issues that this Bill seeks to address. In particular, if I were to condense it, the views fall into two broad themes, namely: what are we doing to ensure that businesses digitalise in a sustainable and effective manner; and secondly, what are we doing to enhance and protect consumers' quality of experience related to electronic transactions?
Let me endeavour to address each in turn.
First, on sustainable digitalisation for businesses. Some Members have asked about the cost impact to businesses arising from the proposed amendments. Beyond replacing paper documents with electronic transferrable records or ETRs, businesses that wish to unlock the full potential of digital solutions will have to invest resources into reviewing their existing operations, IT and digital infrastructures and systems and their business processes.
As Members have noted, today's predominantly paper-based trading environment does incur in inefficiencies and delays because the time required to process paper documents may far exceed, in some instances, that needed to physically move the goods. To give some sense of proportion, according to research done by Maersk and IBM, and as highlighted by Mr Don Wee, the cost of processing trade documents could cost as much as 20% of the physical transportation cost of a shipment of goods, which is quite staggering if you think about it.
So, ETRs, such as electronic bills of lading can yield significant savings cost savings across the entire cost value chain. Although Ms Janet Ang highlighted, there may be a transition period when businesses have to work with both electronic and paper-based bills of lading, because their business partners may not be ready to adopt electronic bills of lading, the overall long-term benefits and competitive advantages remain compelling.
Ultimately, individual businesses must weigh the costs and benefits for themselves. The proposed amendments to the ETA do not mandate the use of ETRs but they are an important enabler that confer greater certainty to the business environment. The new section 16D provides that both parties must consent to the use of the ETR and, therefore, businesses are free to choose.
Mr Louis Ng asked about how the amendments will ensure that Singapore continues to be interoperable with the global trade eco-system, especially when many countries have yet to adopt the use of ETRs widely.
Sir, the MLETR is an internationally harmonised legal framework for adoption by all countries. Its text was formulated at the UNCITRAL Working Group meetings, attended by delegates who represented the views and interests of countries from all over the world. As a Model Law, the MLETR text provides a suggested framework for lawmakers in national Governments to consider adopting as part of their domestic legislation. In the long run, as countries move forward to adopt the MLETR, these amendments will naturally confer a certain degree of international harmonisation with other jurisdictions.
But not every country will be ready to enact the Model Law in the near future. Hence, the new sections 16M and 16N contain substantive provisions that enable the change of medium from an ETR to a physical transferable document or instrument, and vice versa. This enables parties to decide to use an ETR with the assurance that the ETR can be converted to a physical transferable document or instrument at some later stage in the life cycle, and can be converted back to an ETR, if needed.
We have also been working on Digital Economy Agreements, which is really a digital analogue of Free Trade Agreements. And through these agreements, we hope to foster the global adoption of the Model Law, and encourage the global trade industry to use ETRs with confidence via a common legal framework. Members will recall that we have signed two such Digital Economy Agreements, one with Australia, and one with Chile and New Zealand. We are in discussion others as well. So, this will be another part of our effort to promote the adoption of this Model Law thereby realising the network benefits that many Members have mentioned.
Mr Zhulkarnain asked about our efforts to encourage industry to adopt ETR solutions. Apart from legal reforms, Singapore is actively working with our industry and international partners to develop the digital trade eco-system.
One such example is IMDA's TradeTrust, a digital utility that comprises globally accepted standards and frameworks that connects Governments and businesses to a neutral and public blockchain. In doing so, it enables interoperability across digital platforms so that electronic trade documents can be exchanged in a trusted fashion while ensuring document authenticity, proof of provenance and transfers of title for ETRs.
We have made good progress in the development of TradeTrust since the signing of our partnership with the International Chamber of Commerce and 17 major corporations, such as MasterCard, PSA International and Standard Chartered at Davos last year. Our collaboration with the Port of Rotterdam culminated in the successful technical Proof of Concept where transfers of title for electronic bills of lading were achieved between two standalone solutions on the TradeTrust framework. This goes to the point that Mr Louis Ng raised about how we are promoting the use of such technology.
I would like to thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Ms Janet Ang for their suggestions to support SMEs to digitalise. We agree fully. And I think it is important to note that the SMEs will stand to benefit from TradeTrust. In fact, in some ways, perhaps even more so, and not just large organisations.
The TradeTrust software is distributed for free under open source licensing terms. This is a good starting point for tech firms in the business of providing products or services around ETRs, while enabling them to be interoperable without additional cost.
Businesses of all sizes throughout the entire value chain involved in cross-border trade, stand to benefit from TradeTrust, as electronic trade documents, including ETRs can be transferred in a seamless and secure manner.
Additionally, IMDA partners Trade Associations and Chambers have been reaching out to SMEs through webinars and industry events to help SMEs better understand the benefits of digitalisation as well as the different Government support that is available. IMDA's SME Digital Tech Hub provides specialist digital technology advisory to SMEs that have advanced digital needs, such as data analytics and cybersecurity.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked how this syncs with the broader effort by MTI in terms of promoting the adoption of such technologies by SMEs. Broadly speaking, we have a digitalisation effort which all Government agencies, in particular, our economic agencies are working on. This is an effort that we undertake in partnership with industry partners, Trade Associations and Chambers and international partners, in the manner I have just described. In doing this, our objective is to not just pursue technology for the sake of technology, but to ensure that it is assessed through the eyes of industry to ensure that there is value. Because, as we have all agreed, that is the ultimate objective that it derives benefit and it is a means to an end.
So, our objective is not so much about picking platforms or picking technologies but it is about ensuring that our system remains open, interoperable, allowing for the fact that technology may evolve over time and therefore, we need dexterity in our system that allows that compatibility across current and new technologies, and indeed, current technologies that may be co-existing.
Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Tin Pei Ling asked about the issue of the sufficiency of safeguards for ETRs and digital transactions, and how the Government will ensure the integrity and authenticity of these newer forms of electronic transferable documents or instruments.
There are legal safeguards in place for the creation and use of ETRs.
As I mentioned before, the new sections 16F to 16I set out specific requirements that an electronic record must meet in order to be recognised under the ETA as being a functional equivalent of a paper transferable document or instrument. Mr Don Wee will be glad to know that these provisions collectively serve to prevent the unauthorised replication of an ETR by an ETR management system.
The new section 16O which sets out a general reliability standard for the assessment of the reliable methods used to give effect to the requirements in new Part IIA, also includes factors, such as the \"assurance of data integrity\" and \"the security of hardware and software\".
In terms of technological safeguards, there have been significant advancements which enable us to transact in an even more secure and seamless manner. Distributed ledger technology, smart contracts and biometrics are just some examples of the rapidly evolving areas. These technologies, along with transparent electronic audit trails, will help prevent the tampering of data by third parties.
We must all do our part to acquire the skills to protect our digital resources from cybersecurity risks. The Government is committed to the security and resilience of Singapore's cyberspace and to protect our critical information infrastructure.
Businesses on that part must create a cyber secure environment for their business and customers. CSA launched the Safer Cyberspace Masterplan, which lays out the detailed steps that organisations can take to protect themselves from cyber risks. As they introduce ETR solutions, business owners should review their cyber risk assessments because the digital footprint grows in tandem and they must implement proactive measures to protect their businesses.
Mr Don Wee asked for clarifications with regard to the circumstances in which electronic signatures may be used and Ms Janet Ang provided suggestions to facilitate use of electronic signatures.
Essentially, the ETA today allows electronic signatures to be used in place of physical signatures, but this does not cover matters under the Exclusion List, including transferable documents or instruments. With the new section 16G, it is now possible to rely on the ETA to legally recognise electronic signatures for transferable documents or instruments. For Excluded Matters, it may still be possible to use electronic signatures in circumstances permitted under the Common Law. And I would advise parties to consult their lawyers for guidance on this.
Mr Louis Ng spoke about signing deeds electronically. Currently, the formalities for executing a deed depend on whether there are requirements prescribed in the legislation governing the subject matter of the deed. Where the legislation is silent, then a deed must be executed according to the principles established at common law. In other words, it must be sealed and delivered. We understand that deeds are also commonly witnessed in practice. Such formalities are safeguards developed over time to provide a measure of reliability and security. It is necessary to consider whether and what safeguards are needed if, in fact, we want to migrate these deeds to the electronic domain, in other words, to digitalise them. And this is an area of work that MinLaw and other relevant Ministries are studying.
I want to now address the issues pertaining to consumers’ quality of experience related to electronic transactions. I have shared how the Bill will enable the use of ETRs, such as electronic bills of lading, to reduce the cost of shipping, streamline workflows, resulting in a more efficient global logistics network. While the direct benefits of the amendments primarily impact businesses, individuals could ultimately enjoy lower prices of goods as a result of the reductions in transaction costs associated with faster documentation processing, transportation and trade financing.
Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Zhulkarnain asked about our future plans to digitalise other transactions. Looking ahead, the Government is studying the feasibility of progressively removing the remaining documents and instruments from the Exclusion List, and we will be guided by the benefits that will accrue to citizens, if they are made available in electronic form whilst keeping a keen eye on the safeguards that are necessary. When an item is feasible for digitalisation, the Government will work towards the implementation of the necessary legislative and regulatory frameworks and corresponding safeguards. To Mr Zhulkarnain's specific point, we do not have a specific estimated time of arrival for the Electronic Transactions Act's Exclusion List to be reduced or removed completely. But as a general move as part of the Government's larger effort, we are seeking to remove as many of these exclusions as possible by 2023.
The progressive removal of items from the Exclusion List will send a strong signal that Singapore remains committed to be a leading digital economy and a secure and trusted hub for e-commerce and other forms of electronic transactions. It will also reinforce the Government’s wider digitalisation effort and facilitate the achievement of the Digital Government Blueprint to provide end-to-end digital options for most Government services.
For example, MSF’s forthcoming Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill will introduce, amongst other things, a framework to enable and safeguard the creation and registration of electronic lasting powers of attorney, or LPAs. Currently, only hard copies of LPAs are accepted. Excluding the mandatory three-week waiting period, as some Members have observed, digitalising LPAs could cut the time needed to register LPAs from an average of three weeks to about eight working days.
I thank Mr Louis Ng, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Don Wee and Mr Yip Hon Weng for their suggestions and queries relating to the upcoming plans to digitalise LPAs. MSF, as the domain Ministry, will partner other Government agencies and community touchpoints to assist those who are less digitally-savvy. MSF will also engage the relevant professional groups to ensure effective implementation of the electronic LPA. In general, with all the domains and the specific documents and concerns, the Ministries will undertake consultation with stakeholders and ensure that even as we seek to realise the benefits of digitalisation, appropriate safeguards are put in place to foster the trust that is pivotal to the success of these moves.
As we step up our digitalisation efforts, it is also understandable that there will naturally be concerns about new types of risks and fraud in going digital. This is by no means unique to the digital domain. We know that fraud and other risks exist even in the physical domain.
Transferable documents or instruments, such as bills of lading, are largely for commercial use. I have already covered in quite some detail the legal and technological safeguards which will protect businesses and strengthen trust in the use of ETRs. These apply to safeguards for individuals as well.
We do recognise that documents or instruments are used differently, depending on the specific context and use cases, which means safeguards will need to be calibrated or tailored to the situation as well. MCI, IMDA and sector agencies are, therefore, adopting a phased approach, where items from the Exclusion List will be removed only when the relevant supporting legislative and regulatory frameworks and corresponding safeguards are in place. This approach will, first, provide clarity to businesses and individuals on requirements needed to use such documents electronically and, second, ensure adequate safeguards are put in place to protect the vulnerable and less digitally-savvy.
I agree with Ms Joan Pereira on the importance of ensuring that our less digitally comfortable citizens do not inadvertently experience greater inconvenience as we step up our digitalisation efforts. My colleagues and I at MCI accord utmost importance to digital inclusivity. That is why the ETA does not, for a start, mandate the use of electronic documents or the electronic medium for transactions. Instead, the ETA enables electronic transactions as an additional option and provides a clear legal framework to recognise and support these transactions. As such, it does not remove individuals’ option to receive communications and to transact through non-electronic means.
Similarly, businesses are free to weigh the costs and benefits and decide for themselves if they wish to invest in adopting ETR solutions. The new section 16D specifically provides that both contracting parties must consent to the use of ETRs. Currently, section 5 of the ETA already provides for party autonomy and makes clear that the use of electronic forms of documents or instruments is not compulsory. So, again, at the business level, there is flexibility.
While providing the flexibility of options to businesses and individuals is important, we need to also ensure that Singaporeans keep pace with technology, not just for economic reasons or for the sake of technology in itself, but to enhance their quality of life and to fully derive the benefits that can be realised through the use of technology. Hence, we have taken additional steps to ensure that companies and individuals have the knowledge and skills to embrace digitalisation. I can give you a long list but it would suffice to illustrate with one or two, for example, the Digital Resilience Bonus which was aimed at the retail and food services sector, and our more recent SG Digital Office Community Hubs which ensure that we reach out to segments of Singaporeans who may require more support in their digitalisation journey.
Mr Speaker, I believe I have substantively covered the points that Members have raised. I would like to thank them once again for their insightful comments.
In conclusion, since the ETA was last amended in 2010, we have made significant strides in our digitalisation journey, bringing significant benefits to businesses and citizens. However, the landscape is ever-changing and we need to be agile to adopt new technologies and to respond to changing circumstances.
This Bill is an important step for the digitalisation of our trade sector. It ensures that our laws continue to facilitate businesses’ use of new technologies while ensuring that we remain interoperable with the global trade economy, reinforcing Singapore’s status as a maritime and financial hub.
Today’s Bill largely addresses the trade sector. But there are many other sectors that can benefit greatly from digitalisation. The Government will progressively review these other sectors, focused and guided by the benefits they bring to our people and businesses the safeguards that are necessary to preserve trust and, ultimately, to secure Singapore's competitive position in the global digital economy. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr S Iswaran]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accelerate and Deepen Efforts Against Climate Change","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Sustainability and the Environment, I beg to move*,
\"That this House calls on the Government, in partnership with the private sector and the people of Singapore, to deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and to embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore\".
[(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the names of Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Don Wee. (proc text)]
Sir, it is too hot! And I am sure everyone has also realised it is too wet! The past January was the wettest January in the past 100 years. Floods submerged our pathways and toppled our trees. Many of our deliverymen got stranded in shelters because it became too dangerous to ride. The past two decades were also the hottest decades on record. But if you think you are sweaty now, get ready to sweat more: Singapore is becoming hotter twice as quickly as the rest of the world.
Our climate is changing for the extreme. Our science and our senses tell us so. As Minister Grace Fu shared last month, “With climate change, we can expect more of such erratic weather in future.”
Sir, I remember learning about climate change when I was still a little boy. In fact, I was 10 years old when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up in 1988. It saddens me that my daughters Ella, Katie and Poppy will grow up facing the same environmental issues I learnt about when I was in school so many decades ago. Sir, we must do more – a lot more and a lot more urgently.
Today, my fellow Members of Parliament and I will present recommendations on 10 topics. The GPC for Sustainability and the Environment as well as the Young PAP have worked hard and worked together – in partnership with climate activists, business leaders and members of the public – to come up with these recommendations.
We are pushing hard for changes but, at the same time, we are mindful not to push people and businesses away. We are mindful of the trade-offs, particularly for our economy and jobs, and we have sought to find the right balance. All of us believe that a healthy economy and a healthy planet can go hand-in-hand and should go hand-in-hand.
Sir, let me start by sharing why my fellow Members and I have brought this Motion to the House today.
Our first point of departure is the common understanding that climate change is a global crisis that strikes at the very foundations of how Singaporeans live. In his 2019 National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Lee called climate change “one of the gravest challenges facing humankind.” He outlined how Singapore will be hit. Rising sea levels may put coastal areas underwater. Floods may become more frequent. Developers will have to build at higher levels than before. Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars will have to be spent on massive projects, such as building polders.
Singapore has always managed to build our way around problems. We built upwards, touching the sky with skyscrapers and HDB blocks. We built outwards, reclaiming land from the sea. We built our NEWater plants, turning waste into water. But climate change is not an ecological threat that our engineers can just build around. It is an economic and political threat.
Near and far from our borders, cities and villages will face the test of climate change. Some will sink into the ocean. Others will be consumed by wildfires. Farms and fisheries will be reshaped, disrupting supply chains. The polar ice caps will melt, opening new shipping routes that bypass Singapore’s port. There may be price instability. Businesses and consumers will both be affected. There may even be geopolitical conflicts over water resources.
In other words, we cannot hope to escape climate change through superior engineering and high-quality design. Globalisation means climate change will find a way to hit our livelihoods, our breadbaskets and our peace.
This brings me to the second reason we have brought the Motion to this House: it upholds Singapore's reputation of fulfilling our international commitments.
As Minister Vivian will tell you, we are a little red dot, but there is nothing little about our voice. We have led negotiations in the most significant multilateral agreements of our time. We have hosted peace summits, had UN conventions named after us and had our people elected to lead UN agencies.
All this is made possible because our diplomats at MFA and our Public Service work so hard. But it is also made possible because Singapore has a reputation for responding when the international community calls.
So, our Motion today responds to what is perhaps the most critical call of our century – former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's call that every country must take urgent, immediate action to combat climate change. More than anyone else, Singapore understands the significance of going together, not going alone. On these rough tides, every pair of hands counts.
We have signed the Paris Climate Agreement, but we must do more. Our recommendations today provide specific proposals on what we can do.
Our third and last reason for bringing this Motion here today is that it responds to voices Members of this House must all have heard. These voices come from Singaporeans, young and old. In the past few years we have seen them build, organise, research, educate and advocate to move the needle on climate change.
Let me start with a voice from the private sector.
Esther has been City Developments Limited's Chief Sustainability Officer for over 25 years. It really is not common to see a business leader advocate about climate change like she does. In one breath, she is talking about Sustainable Cities Index; in another, she is casually dropping data about Canada's climate change policy. Let me quote her interview with Eco-Business: \"We should ask ourselves what sort of solutions can really tackle the climate emergency and how we can take action. There is no point in just talking if you do not take action.\"
Good thing, she also walks the talk. She has worked with her company to cut emissions, secure green loans, fund green start-ups and create awareness campaigns. She has won the SDG Pioneer award, given by the UN to business leaders who have done an outstanding job advancing their Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs.
Despite all her time working with titans of industry, her inspiration comes from youths. To quote her again, from interview with The Edge: \"Given their energy and desire for a bright future, youths play a vital role in helping our planet to recover from the harm humans have inflicted. We need to engage, encourage and empower youths to drive the green agenda and impart them with the necessary skillsets and tools to drive sustainability for decades to come.\"
I could not agree with her more about youths being the future. I have spoken with many of them in the past few years and decades. Let me share a few of the personal stories they shared with me.
Xiang Tian is a young man studying at the Singapore Institute of Technology. You may have seen him holding a microphone and giving a heartfelt speech at the Singapore Climate Rally in 2019. But his passion for the environment goes much further back. It started in kindergarten, when NEA gave out a Green Package to his class. His memory is vivid: it was three books and one music CD, instructing him on how Singapore will pile up with trash if he did not reduce, reuse and recycle.
And so he did. But that was not enough. He learned, as we all do, that big problems require big solutions. So, he started studying engineering, with an eye on finding solutions. He connected with other passionate people. He founded LepakSG, which consolidates environmental events in a single calendar.
\"Lepak\" means relax, but he is nothing but hard work. In fact, what he finds energising is that the climate change community are the kind of people who, like him, are happy to volunteer their Friday nights and weekends discussing problems, researching solutions, gathering feedback, reaching out to public agencies.
\"No one is Superman,\" he told me. \"We cannot save the world by ourselves. But we can move others and we can change systems.\" And that is exactly what he is doing and, as many of us know, he is doing this while infamously always wearing his slippers.
Like Xiang Tian, Lastrina found a connection with the environment at a young age. Her dad came from Pulau Sakijang Pelepah, or what some of you may know as Lazarus Island.
Growing up around sea captains and divers, she gained a natural appreciation for the environment. But almost 10 years ago, she heard what the experts were saying about climate change. \"Something worrying was happening,\" she said. It was time to graduate from appreciating the environment to helping it.
And so, in 2015, she started the Singapore Youth for Climate Action with some friends. She understands instinctively how powerless other youths feel in today's world.
The solution, she says, is to shine the light on what they can do. Speak up. Organise. Collaborate. Build a movement. Talk to decision makers. Everyone has a role to play. Her message is one of empowerment, and Singapore is lucky to have her.
Sir, I am happy to share that our People's Action Party's youth wing also has its own activists passionate about sustainability and climate change.
For Wei-Shan from our Young PAP, or YP, sustainability has a lot to do with changing people's mindsets. She has first-hand experience with this. Running a business that designs gifts, she found that clients would almost always opt for plastic packaging even when she recommended greener alternatives. Hard to change people's minds, she says.
It is a challenge, but it is one we cannot shy away from. That is why the many public consultations organised by Wei-Shan and her passionate team mates at YP brought industry experts and climate activists to the same table. Each party gets the chance to persuade and be persuaded. Good policy, she says, must balance the viewpoints of different groups.
Wei-Shan is also a mother of two young children. We are used to seeing their faces during our many Zoom calls. These little ones fuel her passion for sustainability. \"I want the world to be better for them in 10, 20 years’; not worse,\" she says.
Like Wei-Shan, Cynthia's passion is informed by her work. Having worked for over 10 years in the maritime sector, an industry at the heart of global business, she recalls that MNCs were working on sustainability, even before it became a buzzword in Singapore.
That is why she believes good climate policy must be pragmatic. Of course, it must reduce emissions, and of course, it must ensure the welfare of Singaporeans. But the path to that outcome should involve working with the private sector. Acknowledge their concerns. Help them find alternatives. They have the capacity to change, and we all benefit if we help them to do so.
That is why Cynthia and her passionate team of activists at the YP climate change policy team envision such an important role for businesses in their position papers.
But business aside, climate change is, for Cynthia, about responsibility. \"We have treated the Earth badly,\" she says. It is time we do what is right for the future generations.
I hope Members of this House do not make the mistake of thinking any of these people work alone. Xiang Tian, Lastrina, Wei-Shan and Cynthia were all at pains to emphasise the work of others. They are just four names amongst thousands in Singapore who are waging the battle against climate change in their own ways.
We may not agree with everything climate activists say or do. But let us pause and remember: these are Singaporeans who care deeply about helping and protecting something other than themselves. Is that not something we should cherish?
Just as importantly, they speak up because they believe in the capacity of this Government to listen. Is that not something we should respond to?
And so we should. This Motion today responds to their call.
Today, my fellow MPs and I will discuss 10 topics. Let me kickstart the discussion with the first topic: stepping up sustainability standards in the Public Service.
Government is big business. In 2016, our 35,000 Government contracts were worth a whopping $22.6 billion. As the largest employer and one of the biggest business clients in Singapore, the Government can move the standard business practices of entire industries, just by enhancing its sustainability standards.
It is good that we have the Public Service Taking The Lead in Environmental Sustainability initiative. It is also good news that Minister Grace Fu said last year that the Government is already looking at a sustainable framework for Government procurement. We should ensure that these higher standards are robust.
First, life-cycle costing should be expanded to more categories of products. Life-cycle costing is simple. It means when we buy something, we look not just at the price tag, but also at how much it will cost us to maintain, use and dispose. This practice helps us spend less and waste less. The Government currently requires its agencies to do it only for electrical appliances. We should do it also for vehicles, furniture and other products.
Second, Government contracts should measure and set standards for carbon footprints. It is already a common practice in Europe. We should mandate it, especially, for high-emissions infrastructure projects. In addition, we can increase standards on accredited efficiency. For example, public procurement standards currently require air-conditioners to have only three ticks of efficiency. We can raise the standard to four or five ticks, which will save us money in the long run while cutting emissions.
Third, every Ministry should be required to publish a yearly Sustainability Report. This can just be an adapted version of the confidential Resource Management Plans that they already must prepare. It will tell the public how each Ministry is greening its operations.
To sum up, we can do a lot by enhancing our Government's sustainability standards. I will also note that many of our Government's contractors also service other clients. When we tighten our sustainability requirements, it can spark process improvements across the supply chain, creating a multiplied effect.
But Sir, the Government's work does not stop at its procurement or its operations. It sets policies, and this means there are a lot more things it can do.
My colleagues will focus on nine other topics and propose changes in policies. Again, these proposals were formulated from over a year of public consultations with business leaders, researchers, activists and fellow Singaporeans.
Some of the ideas were sparked by YP's Climate Change policy team. The Members' various legislative assistants also contributed to making this happen. My thanks to my own climate change team, led by Elliot. They have done extraordinary work.
Sir, the first topic is carbon tax. The carbon tax is perhaps Singapore's most important policy tool against climate change. I agree that we needed to start low to avoid spooking investors and I agree that our economy needs to emerge from COVID-19 first.
But our 2030 target of $10 to $15 per tonne increase is far too low. Some feel that it simply will not work as a way to slash emissions. IMF, which has one of the most conservative models out there, says our rate needs to be no lower than S$99 in 2030 to keep climate change at safe levels.
Even if we decide that $99 is too high, $15 is not anywhere near enough. We need to be honest with ourselves: without a high enough carbon tax, even with all the other things we do, our emission level might remain high – far too high.
Research studies from Ireland, Scotland and British Columbia find that a revenue-neutral carbon tax, where the money collected is poured back into the economy, could slash emissions while boosting the economy. That is the path we need to take. Mr Don Wee will share more of his thoughts on this topic. Mr Henry Kwek will also share his views about cutting our emissions.
The second topic is professionalisation of the carbon documentation industry to heed the UN's call for global harmonisation of carbon documentation standards.
The third topic is embedding sustainability into our industry transformation maps (ITM) or having an ITM for the sustainability sector.
Both of these topics flow from the reality that climate change is terrible, but the fight against it can create good jobs for Singaporeans and grow our economy. Miss Cheryl Chan will share her take on these two topics.
The fourth topic is the Green Mark scheme. Green Mark sets standards and certifies sustainable construction. It is a good idea, but its standards need to be improved. A Green Mark Silver or Green Mark Gold building, today, may not be very green at all. The scheme needs to be tightened. Ms Poh Li San will speak on this topic.
The fifth topic is climate education and the sixth topic is increasing public access to emissions data of top-emitting entities. Both of these topics are about empowering our citizens. How can we teach our young ones about climate change? What can we do for them outside the classroom? And can we release more data on carbon emissions to the public?
Sustainability is an increasingly integral part of people's lives. We must provide the education and the data needed for people to act in line with their moral compass. This will also help Singapore cut emissions. Ms Nadia Samdin will share more on the topic and Ms Hany Soh will also speak about community involvement.
The seventh topic is charging points for electrical vehicles or EVs. EVs are the future of motor vehicles. Singapore aims to phase out cars with internal combustion engines by 2040. But this shift will be hard if we do not have enough charging points for them. The Government needs the private sector to build more charging points. We need to find new ways to help them do so. Mr Gan Thiam Poh will speak on this topic.
Mr Gan will also speak on the eighth topic, data-sharing mechanisms. The world of business competition is a treacherous place, but robust data-sharing frameworks can help provide the trust needed for industry players to share data, become more efficient and reduce emissions.
The ninth topic is climate defence. Total Defence has six pillars. It is time to add climate defence as the seventh pillar to reflect how climate change is an existential threat for Singapore. Mr. Seah Kian Peng is passionate about this topic and will discuss this in his speech.
Beyond the 10 topics, we are all also concerned about our forests in Singapore. Recently, the Government shared an environmental baseline study carried out by HDB to guide future plans to the Dover, or I should correct it now, Ulu Pandan Forest. I thank HDB for consulting nature groups on the findings and also publishing the study online to seek further public views. I thank Minister for his comprehensive reply during Question Time earlier.
Many Singaporeans have spoken up. I share their concerns and I too hope that the Ulu Pandan Forest and other forests like the Clementi Forest will be protected. I believe we can work together to find a middle ground and embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore.
Sir, our forests are carbon sinks. They are our vanguard in our fight against climate change. In fact, because we have cut down so much forest in recent years, Singapore's land now emits more carbon than it absorbs. It is needless to say that forests are also sites of great, irreplaceable biodiversity.
The importance of biodiversity in forests is why when I amended the Wild Animals and Birds Act through a Private Member's Bill last year. We included a new section 10 that empowers the Director-General, Wildlife Management to \"issue directions to developers to carry out wildlife-related measures to safeguard wildlife, public health or safety, or the health of the eco-system.\" This was meant to give our Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports more teeth. It also allows wildlife-related conditions in our EIA reports to be formally issued as directions. Developers must comply, or they may be punished by $50,000 fines or six months' imprisonment.
Sir, I am glad that there is good news in that we are protecting more green spaces that were previously not protected. Indeed, we are setting up the new Khatib Bongsu Nature Park and the Sungei Buloh Nature Park Network. I have brought many people, young and old to explore Khatib Bongsu in the past few months and they are all in awe of the amazing biodiversity we have in Singapore and the need to conserve the precious green spaces we have left.
Just last Saturday, my GRC colleague, Mr Derrick Goh and I kayaked with students from Secondary schools in Nee Soon to explore Khatib Bongsu. The kids are now brainstorming and coming up with ideas on how to build this new nature park. They are excited. There is more we can do to protect our flora and fauna. It starts by not destroying the natural habitat.
Many of these species have inhabited this land long before us. They bring life to our island. They remind Singaporeans that a world exists beyond the containers of steel, glass and concrete that we live in. They provide enriching spaces for scientific research. We call it nature, but it is also identity and it is also heritage. Buildings can be rebuilt. Art can be preserved. But it will take hundreds, if not thousands, of years before a living, breathing eco-system like a forest regrows itself.
Sir, we have committed to planting a million trees in Singapore over the next 10 years. Let us also commit to protecting a million existing trees in our existing forests. Ms Rachel Ong will share more of her thoughts on this topic. Mr Christopher de Souza will also discuss this in his speech in his Adjournment Motion.
Sir, let me end with a quote as always. This, by the former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, \"We are the last generation that can take steps to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Future generations will judge us harshly if we fail to uphold our moral and historical responsibilities.\"
Sir, way back in 1956, the New York Times published an article, titled \"Warmer climate on the earth may be due to more carbon dioxide in the air\". It was a warning about climate change and how human actions will contribute to it. I live this moment in sadness and optimism. Sadness because we are somehow fighting the same battle that our forefathers fought decades ago. But, also optimism – because we are now much clearer about what we can do. Optimism because Singaporeans, more than ever before, are speaking up and taking action.
The Government is listening and has done a great deal. We are spending more than $1 billion in carbon tax revenue for the next five years to help our industries become more efficient. We are building solar panels on our flats, reservoirs, ports and even airbases to increase our use of renewable energy. We are making aggressive plans to replace conventional vehicles with EVs and hybrids to cut transport emissions. We are facilitating green loans and green bonds to help green businesses grow. We are making big bets on carbon capture, hydrogen and other aspects of climate science as part of a massive $25 billion research blueprint.
We are doing a lot. But still, we need to do more. Let us deepen and accelerate our climate change efforts. Let us slash our emissions while building new industries and creating new jobs. Let us commit to 2050 as a target year for net zero emissions so we catch up to the many countries we often compare ourselves to, such as Korea and Japan.
Sir, three years ago, I was in London for a conference. I listened to His Royal Highness Prince William as he delivered a passionate speech that has stuck with me all these years. He shared about how he had just returned from a visit to Namibia, Tanzania and Kenya, and how some of the rhinos he saw were under such threat that they had more bodyguards than he had. He said, \"It is heart-breaking to think that by the time my children George, Charlotte and Louis are in their 20s, elephants, rhinos and tigers might well be extinct in the wild. I, for one, am not willing to look my children in the eye and say that we were the generation that let this happen on our watch.\"
In the same vein, Sir, let us not also in our twilight years, have to look our children in the eye and tell them we saw climate change coming and did not do all that we could to avert this climate crisis. There is more work to be done. I hope our Government will continue working with the private sector, with our activists, and with all Singaporeans to do it. I am confident that by working together, we will win this battle against climate change. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this topic. I want to thank Mr Louis Ng for raising this Motion as I believe it to be particularly important. Singapore has long been renowned globally for being a City in a Garden and that status allows us to play our small part on the world stage. For example, Singapore played an instrumental role behind the scenes in the build-up to the signing of the Paris Agreement in December 2015. In fact, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan played a major role in that. This was recognised by then President of the United States Barack Obama when Prime Minister Lee made a State Visit to Washington DC in 2016.
Furthermore, we are known for our efforts in promoting regional sustainability. In 2014, during the peak of the haze period, we passed the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act that allowed regulators to prosecute local and foreign companies that engaged in illegal forest burning that causes severe air pollution. So, in partnership with other countries in Southeast Asia, we can strive towards regional sustainability that protects not only our own forests, but the forests of surrounding countries. We can do our part, our small part to arrest climate change.
Mr Speaker, Singapore, as a global city, is poised to play a critical role toward regional urban sustainable development through a more comprehensive ecological assets and biodiversity value framework. To realise this vision, we must think out of our island-box when it comes to climate change impact and possibilities. Instead of approaching this as a dichotomy between conservation and development, we must become a biophilic country that views its forests as assets to not only protect, but to grow and invest in for its biodiversity value to our residents.
On that note, I would like to have it stated on record that I believe HDB and MND have already started to embody this concept of biophilia that has led to reports like the Environmental Baseline Studies, for which I am appreciative.
Mr Speaker, there are many other aspirations I have on this point, but I will speak more on this and other topics during my Motion to preserve Dover Forest.
The second point I want to make is about how we can continue to develop ground-up initiatives to cultivate a culture of biophilia. By this, I mean that sustainability should not be just a conversation or creed, but sustainability by deed. It should be a fact of life. In everyday living, residents should be reducing, reusing, recycling and even upcycling. In my ward in 2019, we held a series of events at Old Holland neighbourhood aimed at reducing the use of plastics, especially single-use plastics. All the residents were encouraged to bring their own water bottles and no disposable cutlery was used at the event.
There are many other avenues and initiatives aimed at reducing use of plastic. The Bring Your Own or BYO Singapore movement encourages consumers to bring their own reusable bags, bottles and containers.
Mr Speaker, all these initiatives are in line with the vision of biophilia and I would like to share how this has manifested in Ulu Pandan, which brings me to my third and last point.
Mr Speaker, Ulu Pandan is privileged to have much greenery within its surroundings that makes it appropriately placed to envision what a sustainability community can look like and support the wider national movement of sustainability. With Dover Forest, Clementi Forest and the Rail Corridor all within the area, these ecological assets have produced great biodiversity value to Ulu Pandan residents, especially during the pandemic.
During these past few months, when everyone had to work from home and stay indoors a lot more, many people felt a nature deficit for a prolonged period which led to greater appreciation of our forests and parks.
I might note that when the news that Dover Forest might be developed to build BTO flats, I received many emails, dozens and dozens of emails and Facebook messages and WhatsApp and in conversations, person to person conversation at Meet-the-People Session, from residents expressing their concern at the loss of the forest. So, following my discussion with MND, I am very happy that Minister Desmond Lee has extended the deadline for public feedback to the Environmental Based Study by a full four weeks. I am very appreciative of that and I will go into more detail in my Motion.
In fact, residents pointed out how they appreciated the privilege of being able to enjoy the forest alongside the various plant and animal species that reside in there. Residents even sent me pictures of migratory eagles, allegedly from Russia and Japan who had sought shelter in Dover Forest during the wintry season.
Mr Speaker, my hope is to transform Ulu Pandan into a nature-surplus neighbourhood. As we intensify the use of our land to fit our growing population, it is similarly important to continue providing access to nature for our residents so as to counter a nature deficit.
Let me give you an illustration. One aspiration I have for Ulu Pandan is to partner with NParks in building a nature trail from Holland Green Linear Park that will weave its wave through the contours of Clementi Forest all the way to Clementi Road. This will not only create a link between the estates along Sixth Avenue and Greenleaf to Sunset Way, but allow the residents in this area to have a convenient way into Clementi Forest.
This is not the only on-going partnership. We are working with SFA and HDB to explore the possibilities of urban farming sites. A commercial operator would run the farm, but allow the community to be a part of it as we revamp community gardens to include growing more edible vegetables, fruits through hydroponics. Furthermore, in partnership with NEA, we can introduce food composting to the community and we plan to introduce that to Ghim Moh Market and Food Centre.
In conclusion, Sir, even as we continue to develop and grow this country, let us advance the legacy of investing into the nature around us and encouraging sustainability as a fact of life so that we may do our part in domestic and regional urban sustainability.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. For a low-lying island nation like ours, climate change is an existential threat. At the global scale, when the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015, nations around the world came together with the aim of limiting global warming to 1.5-degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels with an understanding that a two-degree Celsius rise would lead to major environmental risks. In 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that: one, we have already reached warming of one-degree Celsius; two, that we are likely to reach 1.5-degree Celsius between 2030 and 2052; and three, that a slate of worrying impacts involving changes to sea level, temperature and rainfall will still be experienced by 2100 even if warming is limited to 1.5-degree Celsius.
At the local scale, these changes will cause significant problems for Singapore. Sea level rise, threats to our water and food security, and an increased risk of vector-borne diseases are but a few of these impacts. The magnitude of these impacts will depend on how global emissions evolve, the influence of regional factors, and, ultimately, whether we can rise to the challenge of doing our part to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
Addressing this challenge will require us to acknowledge the urgency of the threats before us and to empower multiple stakeholders – from businesses and the public, to civil society including academia and NGOs – to come together to respond to the threat of climate change.
On this note, with your permission Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to introduce an amendment to the Motion before the House.
Mr Speaker: Have you written the amendments?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Yes, I have, Sir.
Mr Speaker: You can proceed with your speech first while we check your amendments.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, I beg to move the following amendments:
(1) In line 2, after the words “That this House” to insert the words “acknowledges a climate emergency and”;
(2) In line 2, after the words “private sector” to insert a comma and the words “civil society”.
With your permission, Sir, I wish to explain the rationale for these amendments which the Workers’ Party is proposing today.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workers’ Party calls on this House to declare a climate emergency and bring to bear the necessary tools to respond to it. As we have heard from the Members who have brought the Motion to the House today, so far, I am hopeful that there is common understanding of the seriousness of the threats posed by climate change on both sides of this Chamber. Declaring a climate emergency on top of the original Motion will send a clear signal to Singaporeans and the world that our nation is committed to seriously addressing one of the most long-term threats we face in the 21st century.
For Singapore, two consequences of climate change stand out. The first is an increase in how variable and unpredictable our weather may become. Singaporeans will remember very well the period of intense rainfall we experienced in the first half of January this year, the second wettest January since records began in 1869. While it would be incorrect to assume that these downpours were direct evidence of climate change, the increased frequency of intense rainfall may emerge as a very real consequence of a changing climate in Singapore over longer scales of time. Thus, what happened in January may have been a foreshadowing of future costs we will have to bear – the cost of floods, of mudslides and landslides, and of potholes. These costs, in both monetary terms and in terms of the cost to human safety, will add up over the decades. Simultaneously, we are also warned that droughts may become more frequent. What could this mean for our water security as the supplies of water from our local catchments as well as from catchments which supply our imported water decrease?
Another consequence of climate change for Singapore is, of course, sea level rise. With 30% of our land lying within 15 metres above mean sea level, sea level rise in the longer term could inundate low-lying areas including neighbourhoods, vital industrial areas and parts of the Central Business District.
Last year, I mentioned in the House that even under an optimistic emissions scenario, sea level in Singapore could rise by half a metre by 2100. However, there is still uncertainty regarding this figure. Studies also suggest that IPCC projections for global mean sea level rise by 2100 tend to be conservative, where high emissions scenarios are concerned.
This is why we need to continue investing in research to better project sea level rise in Singapore. We should also think about the kind of planning principles we should aim for in adapting to sea level rise. As we consider different options such as the building of extensive polders as well as other coastal management measures such as nature-based solutions, we must seriously consider all options on the table together with all stakeholders.
In my supplementary Budget Debate speech in October 2020, I said that, even as the Government tackle the effects of COVID on our economy, we must concurrently work on our efforts to address the climate emergency. I took the opportunity to ask the Government for an update on our efforts since the Unity Budget, and for an assurance that Singapore is on track to meet our goals and timelines for the Paris Agreement. No answer was given then. Today, I would like to repeat my call to the Government to provide the House with an update on our efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
I would also like to ask how we are working with other countries, especially our ASEAN neighbours, to curb global emissions.
With major investments in adaptation strategies forthcoming and because the full force of climate change has not been felt by Singaporeans yet and may thus seem intangible today, it will be important to foster public buy-in and support for these efforts. Hence, before it is too late for the world to limit warming to 1.5-degree Celsius and for us in Singapore to plan our adaptation strategies robustly, a crucial first step is to recognise climate change as the emergency that it is. I hope Members will agree with me that this is an important step by which the Motion today can be strengthened.
While declaring a climate emergency will send a clear collective signal, it is not enough. Because we must act. The impacts of climate change are complicated and will be felt across our country, by our biodiversity and by our people too. People of all socio-economic backgrounds, including those who may find some policy adjustments more difficult to cope with than others.
It is for this reason that we need to work together with multiple stakeholders to chart the future of our sustainable development. This brings me to the second part of the amendment we are proposing. The Motion introduced by the respective PAP Members today calls on the Government to work with the private sector and the people of Singapore to respond to climate change. The purpose of our amendment is to include civil society in this call. The pivotal role that civil society stakeholders such as academics and NGOs have played and will continue to play in guiding our response to climate change cannot be understated.
To illustrate this point and to argue for how we need to truly embrace sustainability in Singapore, I wish to draw the House’s attention to the example of the conservation of our forested areas.
Forested spaces play a critical role in our response to climate change. Their vegetation and sediments act as carbon sinks, thus helping to mitigate a rise in greenhouse gas emissions. They also help to cool our urban environment – meaning a decrease in forest cover will worsen the urban heat island effect in various parts of our city-state, thereby adding to the threat of rising temperatures due to climate change on our future urban liveability. We know that forests play these important roles thanks to research by academics in Singapore.
Of recent interest has been the zoning of two secondary forests – Clementi Forest and Dover Forest – for residential development. The benefits of developing housing are obvious, and these benefits are ones that we should not write off in principle. But we must also commit to seriously assessing the cost of clearing our natural capital. While it may be tempting to think of planting new trees elsewhere to mitigate these losses, we must remember that we are talking about the loss of benefits derived from centuries if not millennia of carbon accumulation and decades of forest regrowth which make it possible for forests to carry out the functions I mentioned earlier. This natural heritage is one that we relinquish at our peril.
Today, we live in an urban landscape where primary forests cover only approximately 0.28% of our area and where less than 20.2% is covered by vegetation that is not dominated by human management, although with varying degrees of protection under the law. That we even have some of these green spaces left is due to our vibrant civil society consisting of academics, NGOs such as the Nature Society and passionate individuals. They are surveyors of our eco-systems and stewards of our environment, many of whom engage in public education. It is due to their decades of commitment – not without significant pushback from the state in the past – that we have such areas as Sungei Buloh and Chek Jawa intact.
Today, our diverse community of academics and activists, both seasoned and young, have given us a better understanding of the value of many other areas including Clementi and Dover Forests. Thus, I hope the House will support our amendment to recognise the role of these civil society stakeholders who must remain key partners in the Government’s efforts to address climate change.
Even as the Government continues to engage various stakeholders, not least because of the large degree of influence the State has on land use planning, the onus is on the Government to better protect green spaces in the fight against climate change. In response to my Parliamentary Question on the status of Clementi Forest in January this year, the Government claimed that the zoning of the site for residential use will be retained, while giving our future generations the option of deciding whether to use it for housing, if the need arises.
But if we continue to operate with the assumption that we can always free up more forests or indeed coastal eco-systems for infrastructural development, we will run the risk of relying on a land use planning paradigm that is far more inefficient and short-sighted than the Government may wish to recognise. I wish to propose the following steps we can take to better plan our land use with the aim of sustainably developing Singapore.
Firstly, track and publish changes in land use areas in Singapore on a biennial basis. This can be done relatively cheaply with the use of high-resolution satellite imagery and geographical information systems (GIS).
Secondly, re-assess plans for existing forested areas by taking into account the full costs of development. To do this, environmental impact assessments should be conducted in a more transparent manner, engaging multiple stakeholders, including the public, during the process.
Thirdly, provide more secondary forests with greater protection under the law. A portion of these areas could be afforded greater protection, similar to those in nature reserves, while others could be regulated under the different regime to enable Singaporeans to benefit from simpler recreational activities which are less destructive in nature.
If we fail to take bolder steps to safeguard our forested areas and if we fail to improve our land use planning in non-forested areas today, we will leave our future generation to the landscape deprived of enough areas to even consider conserving and perhaps more worryingly, we will leave them with the mindset that tomorrow's problems are for tomorrow's generations to solve.
Mr Speaker Sir, as we seek to address one of the most major threat Singapore faces today, we, in the Workers' Party believe that we need to rethink our notions on what sustainable development should truly mean as we move into the future – a future where we do not see development and sustainability as two opposing outcomes, a future where sustainability is embraced by all sectors of the economy and a future where all Singaporeans know and feel that all of us have a stake in co-creating a stronger response to the emergency, that is climate change.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my fellow Workers' Party Members of Parliament will further elaborate on why the Workers' Party is proposing the amendments to the Motion, for which I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: It has been proposed as amendments:
\"(1) In line 2, after the words, 'That this House', to insert the words 'acknowledges a climate emergency and'; and
(2) In line 2 after the words, 'private sector', to insert a comma and the words 'civil society'.\"
It may be convenient that the debate on the Original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single question. Do I have hon Members' agreement on this?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The Question is, \"That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted.\" Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion put forth by my fellow Member of Parliament, Mr Louis Ng.
Climate change requires collective action. All of us acting in concert, with resolution and most importantly, with wide agreement on the sorts of policy and behaviour that we must all adopt. As we have seen in the current pandemic, even in matters of life and death there is sometimes room for non-compliance, for ways to \"get around\", learning how to bend, if not break the rules. So, why do we do this?
Public health is a funny creature of collective action. It requires all of us to play our part and together we benefit. It is vulnerable too – if the few do not comply, the many suffer. And because it is a matter of health, we sometimes pay the highest price. And yet – people disregard this cost – because they think they are not the ones to pay it. Because of this lack of direct link between the cause of harm and the final person who bears the burden, public health outcomes require strong regulatory intervention and social pressures.
The environment is another peculiar sort of creature of collective action. It is what we would call a \"common pool resource\" – a sort of thing which everyone extracts benefits from, with almost no cost, but whose value is degraded with each use. Unlike a pandemic, however, this creature is even more vulnerable because its voice is very, very soft. The price too is high but paid in generations, so each one does not think of the final tally. The harm too is great, but borne uneven – so that even as some die because of air pollution, others live in air-conditioned comfort. And so, power and justice come apart.
Climate change is an important and significant issue confronting Singapore today, and it has become trite to use the word \"existential\" when it comes to the narrative in this House. Everything – because we are small – becomes a matter of life and death. Each Minister and each Member of Parliament, in our wards and constituencies, we have natural and understandable instincts to speak loudest, and feel strongest, about our own place and cause. But as a country, we must decide as a whole, what things are most important.
Singapore's Total Defence was conceptualised in 1984 to underscore the importance of a whole-of-society approach to national security. The message was simple and clear; everyone has a part to play in protecting Singapore from internal and external threats. Up till 2019, Total Defence comprised five pillars. Digital Defence was subsequently added as a sixth pillar, a move that rightly reflected the need for Singaporeans to be aware and better equipped to handle online threats to Singapore society such as fake news.
And so, today, our six pillars of Total Defence are: military, civil, economic, social, digital and psychological defence.
Psychological Defence refers to our mind – each person's commitment to and confidence in the nation's future. Social Defence to our links with each other – in harmony and with a strong idea of our common interests. Economic Defence is about jobs – Government, business and industry working all working together for joint prosperity.
Digital Defence, Civil Defence and Military Defence are three rings of national security, making sure all of us are defending our key interests in cyberspace, in emergencies and in times of war.
Today, I am asking this House to consider adding another pillar – Climate Defence. I supported this call during last year's Committee of Supply debate and continue to support it because I believe that it is an important step in Singapore's fight against climate change. There are three reasons: the first, because it is like all six other pillars; the second and third reasons, because it is so different.
Like other types of threats that Singapore face, climate change and its associated effects such as rising sea levels pose clear and high-risk threats towards the well-being of Singapore and Singaporeans, as well as our way of life. This is seen in the 2019 National Day Rally where the Prime Minister, let me quote him – he said, \"we should treat climate change defences like we treat the SAF – with utmost seriousness\". So, it is quite clear that Prime Minister already then identified it as a climate emergency.
Unlike threats such as terrorism, war and the current pandemic, climate change and environmental disasters do not have high salience. In fact, these issues face a perfect storm – low salience, high blame avoidance and very little chance for credit claiming. In addition, each person would feel that his own effort would probably not move the needle.
Hence, many Singaporeans do not have climate change in the foreground issue and do not incorporate Climate Defence in their psyche. Placing climate change as a seventh pillar will give it priority and urgency. As a pillar of Total Defence, Climate Defence will be placed on the same pedestal as other threats. This sends a clear message to all Singaporeans about the importance of tackling climate change and how it should be a priority. More importantly, it underscores how a whole-of-society approach is needed to combat climate change and this leads me to the second significance.
Another reason again, one which distinguishes climate change from other pillars – is that it is not defence against any specific threat such as a malicious foreign actors, economic crises or cyber attackers. Rather, it is a defence against inexorable, environmental degradation that we can all play a part to fix.
Climate change, like other threats, will affect all Singaporeans. But the good news is that everyone can also do their part to combat it, instead of solely relying on the Government. While seemingly small, individual actions can add to substantial contributions towards Singapore's fight against climate change. Reducing individual consumption and wastage is one such way. We can all make a conscious effort to reduce food waste as well as our plastic waste, of which the latter is unfortunately experiencing an increase, in my opinion, because of COVID-19 and shift towards e-commerce. Individuals are in a position to also set their own environmental targets and evaluate their lifestyles to see if they have achieved what they set out to do.
As what Mr Louis Ng had said earlier, as a signatory to the Paris Climate Agreement, Singapore has demonstrated that despite being a small country, it has an interest in combating climate change and is very much committed to doing so. A common perception amongst many people is that Singapore is a small country and any action taken will not have a significant effect on climate change.
But, if every country thinks this way, then nothing will be done. The consequences of that are unimaginable. By adopting Climate Defence as a pillar of Total Defence, it demonstrates that Singapore is a responsible member of the international community with regards to climate change and can be trusted to adhere to the goals set under the Paris Climate Agreement.
Mr Speaker, Sir, being the seventh pillar of Total Defence entails a more organised, more deliberate and strategic approach by the Government to its climate adaptation and mitigation policies. Just as important is that these policies and strategies must be communicated well to the public. That would mean a targeted approach to communications, with usage of different mediums and content for different age demographics.
There should also be a focus on education as a way to facilitate and inculcate long-term behavioural change. The emphasis should be on promoting sustainable behaviour, particularly with regards to the 3Rs – Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. The notion of environmental stewardship should also be underscored where we have a responsibility to the next generation to leave them a society that is better than the one we inherited. This can be done by fostering in our young ones a connection with the natural environment.
This Motion proposed by Mr Louis Ng has already consulted, in the course of the year, several groups of people – different parts of the civil society. I would also greatly like to acknowledge the good work that Mr Louis Ng and his team have put in.
Mr Speaker, Sir, making the climate our seventh pillar cannot be the old \"green\" message in new bottles. Aside from behavioural nudges, there must be resolution towards new laws and regulations; there must be a new willingness to make the market work for the environment, there must be more will, more attention and more resources.
The Government has already said that it is committed to working on the mitigation measures against climate change. But that is not enough. We need every one of us to do so too. Let us make Climate Defence the seventh pillar of our Total Defence.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I support the Motion to accelerate and deepen efforts against climate change, as proposed by Member and fellow Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) colleague, Mr Louis Ng.
Singapore is one of the signatories to the Paris Agreement on climate change. For the first time, all nations will combat climate change as a common cause. Unfortunately, even with such a landmark agreement in place, global efforts to slow down the rate of global warming are still uneven and inadequate. Climate change will cause droughts, global warming, resulting in the reduction of cold days and increase in heat waves and glacier meltdown. These impacts will inevitably affect the social and economic structures across the globe.
Be that as it may, people are not motivated to address climate change consciously. Climate change involves circumstances that make it hard for people to be persuaded as there are short-term benefits to both individuals and corporations. Adjustments are the hardest trade-off for people to make. It is not difficult to tell someone that climate change is affecting the world, but it is expectedly difficult to make changes when it affects an individual's habitual lifestyle.
Climate change requires social transformation. It requires a mindset change and everyone taking ownership. It requires every individual's participation. Going green is a collective responsibility. We should always try to replace our daily activities with greener alternatives, even if that means some inconveniences to reduce consumption. It is about every individual taking concrete steps towards the 3Rs – reduce, re-use and recycle.
In Sembawang West, my volunteers and I have started a community programme to encourage our residents to embrace sustainability. The programme includes recycling initiatives for the community and distribution of rescued fruits and vegetables to low-income families. We hope to increase awareness, change mindset and motivate residents to adopt green habits through these ground-up efforts. Over time, we have to be as green as the Scandinavian countries where an environmentally friendly lifestyle is already deeply ingrained throughout the Nordic societies.
Mr Speaker, Sir, Member Mr Dennis Tan proposes to insert the words \"civil society\" after \"private sector\" in the Motion.
I agree with Mr Tan that the green activists and the civil society have played an important role in pushing the efforts to combat climate change. In fact, in the last one-and-a-half years, the YP has been involving many green activists and groups from the civil society in their public consultation work. Many of the proposals and views were included in the YP paper entitled \"Singapore; the Green Hub\" and including the point on improving carbon efficiency.
Let us talk a little about improving carbon efficiency. I was surprised to discover that concrete using Portland-based cement releases almost a tonne of carbon dioxide for every tonne of cement produced.
Concrete is widely used in the construction process. By weight, it is used more widely than steel, wood, plastics and aluminum combined. Embodied carbon will be responsible for half of the entire carbon footprint of new construction developments between now and 2050, threatening to consume a large part of our remaining carbon budget.
In Singapore, 82% of our land is used for built-up areas, for residential and commercial buildings and for public infrastructure. Given the fact that most of our buildings are high-rise, the concrete usage density is extremely high. The Government and private businesses have to look towards implementing rigorous green legislation and change industry standards and business processes, especially within the construction industry where new buildings must be designed to be more carbon efficient. We should set our 2050 carbon emissions goal for all new buildings, infrastructure and renovations to be net zero operational carbon.
So, how can we reduce carbon footprint in our new buildings?
I am an employee of Changi Airport Group and involved in the planning for development projects, including Terminal 4 and Terminal 5. My own experience in the built environment started almost a decade ago in 2012 when I was responsible for the closing and demolition of the Budget Terminal in Changi Airport, to make way for Terminal 4. We moved re-useable furniture and equipment, including transporting the rooftop solar-panel, to the other terminals. The demolition contractor then salvaged the building materials, such as steel parts and concrete, and traded in these materials in the recycled materials market. In the end, we even managed to recover some cost after paying off the demolition expenses. From there, we went on to design and build Terminal 4. In the process, I learnt about the BCA Green Mark Scheme. We incorporated many green and eco-friendly features which earned Terminal 4 a BCA Green Mark Gold Plus Award.
The BCA Green Mark Scheme was launched in January 2005. This green building rating system provides a comprehensive framework for assessing the overall environmental performance of new and existing buildings to promote sustainable design and best practices in construction and operations in buildings. The Green Mark scheme rates buildings according to five key criteria – energy efficiency, water efficiency, environmental protection, indoor environment quality and other green and innovative features that contribute to better building performance.
Over the last 16 years, the Green Mark Scheme has been widely adopted and more than 4,000 buildings in Singapore have earned the BCA Green Mark award. It is time to make some changes to the BCA Green Mark Scheme.
I would like to suggest the following.
One, to review construction regulations and standards, the Green Mark Scheme must encourage more use of recycled \"green concrete\", \"pre-cast concrete and low-carbon concrete\". Currently, the Green Mark Scheme includes carbon accounting. However, this scheme allocates only two out of 100 points for embodied carbon accounting. The assessment allows buildings to score highly despite performing poorly on certain measures of carbon intensiveness, which actually means buildings can be certified as Green Mark Silver, Gold, Platinum or Zero Energy despite being extremely concrete-intensive. This is not good.
Green Mark can better achieve its goal of encouraging carbon-efficient construction by ensuring the Concrete Usage Index as a mandatory criterion.
For existing buildings to be greener, projects undergoing addition and alteration ought to account for lower concrete usage. Designers and owners can consider the use of sustainable materials from carbon-aware manufacturers and vendors.
When it comes to demolition work, under the Green Mark Scheme, one point is awarded if 35% of demolished concrete, is handled by a recycling contractor. This proportion should be raised to encourage more recycling. And recycled concrete can also be brought back to construction site for non-structural use.
Two, adopt environmentally friendly design approaches, materials and technologies. We should allocate a higher score for the adoption of environmentally friendly designs. With creative designs, technological innovation and advancements in material engineering, such green buildings will be more common in the future.
A prominent example would be the NUS School of Design and Engineering Blk 4,or commonly known as SDE4. That was designed by NUS Design and Environment, in partnership with external consultants, developers and builders. It is the first building in Southeast Asia to be awarded the Zero Energy Certification by the International Living Future Institute, which is one of the world's most prestigious sustainability organisations. Two key features of SDE4 are a large overhanging roof which hosts more than 1,200 photovoltaic panels to harness solar energy to meet the energy demands of the building and also an innovative hybrid cooling system to effectively manage the building's energy consumption by supplying 100% fresh pre-cooled air, albeit at higher temperatures and humidity levels than in a conventional system.
Other examples of successful green concepts encapsulated in the building designs include CapitaGreen, Park Royal on Pickering, Oasia Hotel, Kampung Admiralty, Bukit Canberra and Woodlands Healthcare Campus, just to name a few.
Three, introduce an incentive system to offset the higher construction costs. The billion-dollar question is: who should be paying for higher building costs of environmentally friendly buildings? Most billion and multi-millionaires developers will ask: what incentives will I get to accelerate change? They will claim that they do not directly benefit from the lower carbon footprint.
But the fact is whether you are a developer or a potential property buyer, you must be informed that if our environment is ever destroyed, no one escapes this catastrophe. We cannot continue to shape policies and develop our country with a narrow view that is heavily weighed on cost and benefit analysis. The higher costs incurred today is a worthwhile investment to safeguard our future. I would like to reiterate the rationale highlighted at the start of this speech. As a signatory to the Paris Agreement, whether it is the Government or the private sector, everyone must be prepared to go green.
I agree that the Government will have to take the lead by reviewing the current incentive and tax system in the building industry in order to encourage the private sector to play its part.
An example of an incentive could be creating a circular financing scheme, by way of grants awarded to developers from a central pool of carbon taxes collected from within the building industry. This collection could offset the higher costs for green buildings.
And on the supply side, if the demand for eco-friendly building materials, furniture and engineering systems increase, the unit cost will drop over time. And with this new equilibrium, the market will then be able to support itself with higher demand and lower cost. We can then discontinue the carbon efficiency grant over time.
These are my suggestions. They are non-exhaustive and I hope the key industry stakeholders, such as Singapore Green Building Council, architecture firms and construction firms will continue to work together to refine the Green Mark Scheme and make it compulsory for all new developments. The Green Mark Scheme can be our identity to embrace sustainability.
I hope BCA and the Singapore Green Building Council, who are co-leading the creation of the next Singapore Green Building Masterplan would consider the proposals I mentioned.
Everyone must do his or her part to expedite and deepen efforts against climate change. We must all embrace sustainability. The future will always be uncertain but we must face the uncertainty of the future head-on by not being selfish and making a change in our attitudes today. Mr Speaker, Sir, once again, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.45 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.26 pm until 4.45 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.45 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
(Motion)
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the Motion first raised by Member Louis Ng \"To accelerate and deepen efforts against climate change\" is an urgent one, as we make a decision on how we want to rebuild our economy and what kind of an economy we envisage for Singapore in future. Just recently, at the Climate Ambition Summit 2020, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged all governments to declare a state of climate emergency. Our Government has also acknowledged the threat of climate change and put in place a number of strategies to tackle this global issue. But are we doing enough as a nation? Are we acknowledging the climate emergency for what it is?
In March 2020, Singapore submitted an updated Nationally Determined Contribution to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). While we previously committed to reduce our Emissions Intensity levels on a per dollar of GDP basis, the new NDC adopts an absolute emissions target instead. This is a step forward as it provides greater transparency and reinforces the Government’s commitment to tackling climate change.
However, when we take a closer look at the updated target, how much has actually changed?
The first NDC, submitted in 2015, stated our intention to reduce emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030, and this will imply emissions at around 65 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) with the aim of peaking around 2030. Similarly, the updated NDC reiterates that Singapore intends to peak emissions at 65 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emission around 2030, and only reach net-zero emissions “as soon as viable” in the second half of the century. While we now have an absolute emissions target, this absolute figure of 65 MtCO2e is actually equivalent to the 36% reduction in Emissions Intensity from 2005 levels by 2030 and, hence, it is the exact same target that was set back in 2015.
To put it bluntly, the updated target does not genuinely limit emissions growth today beyond what was already committed to under our first NDC. I recognise that the Government is targeting 33 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, which is half that of the 65 million tonnes around 2030. As a nation, Singapore’s climate targets still fall short of IPCC’s recommendations to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. In contrast, the European Union, Japan and the Republic of Korea have pledged carbon neutrality by 2050, along with more than 110 other countries. Even China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, is pledging to reach carbon neutrality by 2060.
Even as a small island-state, Singapore has always been daring in our vision for the future. Climate change should be no different. We can, should and must do more. In view of this, I would like to propose four specific areas for improvement to reflect our nation’s commitment to tackling climate change.
Firstly, we need to set more ambitious targets in growing our renewable energy mix. According to statistics from Singapore’s Energy Market Authority, as at July 2020, 96% of our electricity in Singapore is produced from natural gas, 1.2% is from coal and petroleum products and 2.8% is from other sources, including solar. I recognise that there are significant challenges to deploying solar on a large scale in Singapore, including land constraints and local weather conditions. Yet, we were still able to punctually achieve our 2020 solar deployment target of 350 megawatt-peak in the first quarter of 2020, reaching 1.5 gigawatt-peak by 2025 and at least 2 gigawatt-peak by 2030. Solar, however, is only expected to contribute 3% of our electricity needs. Are we genuinely pushing the boundaries, or simply setting benchmarks we can easily hit?
Earlier, in January this year, I asked the Minister for Trade and Industry on whether we have a target mix for the amount of electricity generated from renewable energy sources in 2030 and 2050, and if we would consider setting a target mix that we can strive for together as a nation. However, I do not recall such a target being shared. The Workers’ Party previously called for a minimum of 10% of Singapore’s energy to come from renewable resources by 2025. The IEA also estimates that 30% of electricity generation globally in 2020 is already from renewable sources. A starting point for us then is having a target in the first place.
Secondly, the carbon tax is another area with much potential for impact. To put it simply, the IMF has described carbon pricing as the “single most powerful” way to combat climate change. It is commendable that Singapore implemented a carbon tax in 2019, the first nation in Southeast Asia to do so. But the current rate of $5/tCO2e, however, is too nominal, sitting far below global scientific recommendations.
I fully recognise that this is a sensitive period to be raising the carbon tax and also note the Government’s plans to review the tax rate by 2023, and increase it to between $10/tCO2e and $15/tCO2e by 2030. As Member Louis Ng said earlier in his speech, this is far too low. I urge the Government to adopt a carbon price trajectory that is better aligned with the latest research on what is effective. It should also be complemented by financial assistance schemes to help cushion the impact of the carbon tax for lower income households.
Thirdly, Singapore’s refining and petrochemical sector remains an elephant in the room in our discussions on climate change. In 2017, about 75% of our industrial emissions were from this sector. There is, therefore, an urgent need to consider the role such industries will play in the Singapore economy of 2050 and beyond.
Already, we are starting to see key players restructure and pivot towards cleaner energy sources, particularly in the wake of COVID-19's impact on energy demand and prices. Both Shell and BP have set ambitious targets of becoming a net-zero emissions company by 2050. Shell is investing in more lower carbon technology while expanding its renewable energy and power division. Thus far, the Government has been advocating for a practical approach, a realistic approach towards the petrochemical industry, given that it is a key employer and a key contributor to our economy today.
However, we are already seeing signs of the practical changes oil majors are making today, in preparing for their companies’ realistic future. In June 2020, BP announced it is cutting 10,000 jobs or 15% of its workforce. In October 2020, ExxonMobil announced it is cutting 14,000 jobs globally, 15% of its workforce. Closer to home, Shell is targeting to cut 500 jobs by 2023 at Pulau Bukom from the current 1,300 staff today, and with refining capacity halved in the next one to two years.
Given Singapore’s position as a leading oil and gas hub in Asia, it is inevitable that such changes will impact our economy. Yet, should our focus still remain on the old economy industries of the past? With oil majors pivoting away from fossil fuels, should Singapore not proactively engage these companies, to partner them on their journey to a net-zero future? How can we accelerate the restructuring of our economy to be better prepared for a low-carbon future which is fast approaching?
This brings me to my fourth and final point, on Singapore’s potential to successfully drive the green revolution, if we genuinely commit to accelerating our efforts on this front. This is not the first time we are breaking new ground for Singapore. Shell built an oil refinery on Pulau Bukom in 1961 and it was the first foreign investor to receive Singapore’s Pioneer Certificate Number 1 for its investment. A small island to the south of Singapore became one of the largest refinery complexes globally and sparked the start of Singapore’s pursuit of the petrochemicals industry.
While the sun is setting for fossil fuels, the time has come for a new period of rapid development in the clean energy industry. Minister Masagos previously said in 2018 that the clean energy industry will add as many as 2.2 million jobs in Southeast Asia by 2030.
Looking at global trends, this number will only continue to grow. To keep pace, we must continue to upsize the green industry and ensure our workforce is prepared to take on these new roles. I highly commend the recent move to boost training and recruitment of local talents in the solar industries, and urge the relevant agencies to expand and extend this commitment to other green industries as well. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, even as a small island-state, Singapore has always been daring in our vision for the future. Climate change should be no different. Upon the 5th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged all governments to declare a state of climate emergency until carbon neutrality is achieved at the Climate Ambition Summit 2020. We should not only acknowledge this state of climate emergency, we can, should, and must do more. In view of this, I would like to propose four specific areas for improvement to reflect our nation’s commitment to tackling climate change.
Firstly, we need to set more ambitious targets in growing our renewable energy mix. The Workers’ Party previously called for a minimum of 10% Singapore’s energy to come from renewable resources by 2025.
Secondly, the carbon tax is another area with much potential for impact. I urge the Government to adopt a carbon price trajectory that is better aligned with the latest research on what is effective. This should also be complemented by financial assistance schemes to help cushion the impact of the carbon tax for lower income households.
Thirdly, when it comes to Singapore’s specific measures in tackling climate change, the refining and petrochemical sector remains an elephant in the room. In 2017, about 75% of our industrial emissions were from this sector. There is therefore an urgent need to consider the role such industries will play in the Singapore economy of 2050 and beyond. How can we accelerate the restructuring of our economy to be better prepared for a low-carbon future, which is fast approaching?
Lastly, to keep pace, we must continue to upsize the green industry and ensure our workforce is prepared to take on these new roles.
Mr Speaker, Singapore still has much room for improvement in our efforts to tackle climate change, and the very first step is to recognise the climate emergency for what it is today. Rather than seeing this as an obstacle to economic growth and progress, instead, it should be viewed as an investment into future developments.
Building a zero-carbon economy is a critical pathway to more resilient economic growth in the long run – a fact that is increasingly recognised by governments and corporations around the world. Temasek, for instance, has committed to delivering a net-zero emissions portfolio by 2050. As a nation, let us challenge ourselves to push the boundaries further, to set the bar higher for the sake of our children, and to be more courageous in our collective fight against the threat of climate change.
(In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, Singapore still has much room for improvement in our efforts to tackle climate change and the very first step is to recognise the climate emergency for what it is today. Yet, the beauty of it is that these changes need not come at the expense of economic growth and progress, but should instead be viewed as an investment into the industries of the future. The UK’s Climate Change Committee has concluded that despite there being an overall cost in bringing about the technologies to reduce carbon emissions, there is an increase in economic prosperity in terms of an aggregate increase in GDP, jobs and real disposable incomes.
Building a zero-carbon economy is a critical pathway to more resilient economic growth in the long run – a fact that is increasingly recognised by governments and corporations around the world. Even Temasek, for instance, has committed to delivering a net-zero emissions portfolio by 2050. As a nation, let us challenge ourselves to push the boundaries further to not be afraid to set the bar higher for the sake of our children and to be more courageous in our collective fight against the existential threat of climate change. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.
The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I would just like to ask Member Mr Louis Chua two supplementary questions.
First of all, it is on carbon tax. I appreciate his point about the current tax level being low and we should raise it further. I would just like to know if he has specific targets or specific carbon tax that he thinks the Workers' Party would like to propose.
Number two, he has drawn comparison with Japan, Korea and China, which have announced carbon-neutral targets. I would like to, again, seek Mr Louis Chua's explanation if there are any specific proposals or actions that these countries would adopt in order to reach these goals that Singapore has not considered.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: I thank the Minister for her supplementary questions. I think for the first question on the cabon tax, as mentioned by Member Louis Ng as well, the current carbon tax level is far too low and I would not want to pre-empt my colleague who will be speaking on this further. But I would say that, at this point in time, if you look at the Government's plan to review the tax rate by 2023, I think the $10 to $15 level is a level we believe – and I believe that Member Louis Ng has also agreed that it is inadequate. I will leave it to my colleague, Jamus, who will be speaking a bit further on what we do propose to be the levels of the carbon tax.
On the second question in terms of what some of these other developed countries have done that we have not already done, I think this is a continuum. This is a continued progress. To me, the very first step is, as I have mentioned in my speech, that we have to set ourselves a bold target. If you just look at the energy mix, for example, I think that is one starting point which we could consider to reduce our reliance on, basically, fossil fuel sources for energy. I think that is one way where we can start to set the target for what is the level of energy generation from renewable sources that we would like to consider. This is something which we have to start with the end goal in mind in terms of potentially reaching net-zero much earlier rather than later.
Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: I thank the Member for the clarification. The reason for me to ask the clarification in the first place is in order to understand if that proposal to be like Japan, Korea and China has been formed with the national context, our local Singapore context, in mind, because, like all countries, we have our own constraints. We have our own opportunities to move towards renewable energy. So, it is important that, when we set policies and when we advocate targets here, even as we want to be ambitious, even if we want to be pathfinding, it is important to have that understanding and that realisation behind. So, that is the purpose of my clarification. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua, do you want to respond? You do not have to.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: I thank the Minister for the response. So, again, if we just use our energy sources, I do recognise that we have geographical constraints. And even in the use of solar energy, for example, we have set a target to reach 2 GWps by 2030. But is there more that we could do to basically bring this number higher? I think in the last sitting in January, some of the Members have also asked about this question.
I also understand that certain projects are basically in the pipeline in terms of potentially importing solar energy from our neighbours, or even from Australia, in terms of the project that is on-going there. I believe there are various technological pathways through which we can achieve some of these targets. But this is where, in the first place, for us to be able to recognise this climate emergency and to basically set ourselves a bit more of an ambitious target, given that Singapore has always had this history of outperforming its original expectations.
Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, over the years, generations have been categorised by the technological advancements of their time, and also the crises and social issues that challenged the values and shaped their growing years. In the past year, we had talked about children born last year as \"Coronials\" and \"Quaranteens\". But other than COVID-19, a longer term issue which also has implications on survival and economic viability that is top of mind for many in my generation is climate change.
Today, we know that climate change is more expansive than the environment and is entangled in our socio-economic system at large; it is not a single-issue concern. Finding and implementing solutions to climate change involve complex trade-offs, and the world we live in today has entrenched barriers. The trans-boundary nature of climate change also requires global action. Singapore cannot go at this alone. And if we truly want to move the needle, we need to strengthen cooperation across countries and move together.
Social norms will not change on their own. We need to engage more heavily in climate change education. We also need to give people enough information to make informed decisions grounded in data.
Climate change solutions should be developed in a consultative manner, utilising nature-based solutions where possible. Singapore is nimble and can set an example, playing our part in the global community.
Here, in our island city state, we have felt the effects of climate change first-hand, such as warming temperatures, and increased levels in annual rainfall have caused ponding during the monsoon seasons, with the rains last month making it the wettest January we have had in 30 years.
So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful for the opportunity to add my voice in support of the Motion today.
In focus-group discussions run by the Young PAP, participants expressed hopes that climate change and sustainability can be better interwoven into our national curriculum. While geography and science subjects do touch on these topics, the teaching can be piecemeal with little being said about the social justice element and economic impact of climate change in subjects, such as Social Studies or Character and Citizenship Education. Not all our students are equally equipped to discuss these issues and they continue to see people around them leading highly unsustainable lifestyles despite what they learn in textbooks.
Would the Government consider, first, to review the curriculum with sustainability as one of the core pillars of educational outcomes and, second, building responsible habits through a holistic approach so that it goes beyond a subject to a lifestyle? For example, in \"A\" Level economics, carbon policies can be discussed. In addition, the \"O\" Level Social Studies syllabus discusses a globalised world, but its key concepts and content sections do not meaningfully incorporate climate change.
Beyond the classroom, I am sure many of us remember the Young Scientist badges in Primary school. In recent times, the community behind the Singapore Blue Plan 2018 suggested the Young Marine Biologist Badge, and Temasek Foundation and the Science Centre of Singapore have also organised the Young Sustainability Champion Programme.
Our efforts in educating students about climate change must include hands-on approaches such as these. For example, more Values in Action projects can be jointly organised with community groups and civil society, such as Green Nudge, Zero Waste SG or the Forest School, so that students are empowered to contribute to the community and also get involved in systemic climate solutions. With the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment's announcement that more than 50,000 new and upgraded jobs will be created in the next 10 years for the sector. Education and career guidance counsellors can more actively introduce pathways related to climate solutions, such as sustainable finance or engineering in green technology. A whole-of-school approach would also be necessary, for example, the displaying of each cohort's trash to show the impact of their habits, or having a farm-to-table canteen.
We know that our students and our schools already run a variety of programmes, and our teachers and students have packed schedules. Climate change education is also an opportunity for schools to deepen partnerships with other organisations in the community, such as interest groups and advocates, who can come in to supplement climate change curriculum, and teachers and students can learn alongside each other together, leaning on green experts.
In December 2019, a poll on climate change perceptions by the National Climate Change Secretariat in Singapore revealed that over 90% of those polled were aware of climate change and its impact, and almost 80% were prepared to play their part towards a low-carbon Singapore. However, less than half of those polled said they knew what they could do to address it.
One of the reasons why environmental issues can feel foreign to us is because of its perceived intangibility. However, utilities bills and the My Carbon Footprint function by the SP Group are designed to help residential consumers better track and reduce their energy and water consumption, as well as their carbon footprint. It provides a comparison to the average consumption of neighbours in similar housing types within a block or a street in relation to landed homes. The publishing and accessibility of such information breaks down the information in a relatable and personal way for individuals.
Climate change solutions come not just from the Government, but also through public efforts, and I hope that more individuals take steps to actively understand their carbon footprint.
In driving corporate change, while previous suggestions to publish data have been met with responses that emissions data is confidential, could an alternative be to recognise and affirm low-emitters across different industries to incentivise positive behaviour?
Research has shown that younger buyers are more discerning consumers and Millennials and Generation Z have the spending power to influence the retail landscape through their purchasing decisions. A US Forbes 2019 report found that 62% of Generation Z, who were already in the workforce, prefer to buy from sustainable brands, and more than half of them stated that they were willing to spend more on such products.
Collective behavioural change can, ultimately, influence commercial decisions, and a generation of educated consumers can only make conscious consumption choices if they have the relevant information at hand.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that nature already mitigates a significant portion of man-made greenhouse gas emissions: approximately a quarter of these emissions are absorbed by trees, plants and soil, while another quarter is absorbed into marine systems. If protected, sustainably managed and restored, nature has the power to do even more. In Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As a green and blue spaces enthusiast, I am saddened to see the change in the ocean's temperature which has affected several species of ocean life and caused the bleaching of coral reefs which previously filled the ocean with colour. We must raise awareness about the threat of climate change and how we, as a society, can take proactive steps to fight it.
We must explore nature-based solutions and invite the public to participate to fight climate change. For example, studies have shown that mangroves and sea grass meadows are able to store more carbon dioxide per hectare than any other forest types. The Government can explore such solutions and engage more members of our community to raise awareness and fight climate change.
(In English): Mr Speaker Sir, as a diver who loves our oceans, I have felt first-hand the difference in temperature in the water, seen certain species in areas where they should not be, and stared in dismay at white lifeless corals which were once alive with colour, when diving in the same place over the years. Climate change means warming oceans and rising sea levels, which poses a threat to reefs and marine life.
Beyond just the hard engineering of polders and seawalls, mangroves, sea grass meadows and corals can also be part of our defences against climate change. Research has shown that mangroves can store three to five times more carbon per hectare than other forest types, and sea grass meadows are up to 35 times better than rainforests at storing carbon.
Nature-based solutions also allow for more participatory development. The Sultan Shoal project in connection with the development at Tuas which commenced in 2013 was an example where an environmental impact study was done, public volunteers were engaged, and science, conservation, biodiversity and development needs were carefully considered together. As more Singaporeans are interested in the conservation of our blue and green spaces over the years, such consultative efforts, although requiring more coordination, will allow for wider public participation, so that more have a stake in our development, and better awareness.
Mr Speaker, Sir, some amendments to the Motion have been put forth for consideration before the House. I appreciate the multiple voices, both within and outside the House, on this important topic and hope that more will come forward with concrete proposals and solutions.
When we talk about climate change, the conversation often begins with us thinking about what kind of world we want to leave for our children and grandchildren. But in order to secure this, the time to act is now, and I urge the Government to accelerate and continue building on the good efforts which are in place in consultation with all stakeholders before it is too late.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In preparation for today's speech, I have engaged in a series of dialogue sessions, both formal and informal ones, involving Young PAP activists, climate change advocates, green-living community leaders and my Woodgrove residents. I wish to take this opportunity to thank them for their active participation and their enthusiasm in advocating for a greener society.
In these dialogue sessions, a common theme was identified, which was similar to what Members of this House who have spoken ahead of me, have shared in this House, being the recognition of that climate change is a pressing issue. We have all in some way began to feel the impact it has caused to our environment in recent years, and there is a need for us to play a part in combating climate change.
While acknowledging the issue is a hopeful first step, the question remains: have we done enough? It is easy to say, \"We can and we must do more.\" But, are we simply just expecting to rely on our Government to roll out more policies and initiatives, while trusting business organisations to do their part in reducing carbon emissions? The purpose of my PAP Member of Parliament colleagues who have put up this Motion today with me is that we are looking upon to explore what are the actual actions taken into account and local context that we can do bearing in mind the importance of three-piece collaborations together to combat climate change as a nation.
In Woodgrove, we have a G.E.L. Mission, where the \"G\" pertains to \"Green Living Initiatives\". We believe that as a community, we can do our part to combat climate change, beginning with a re-examination of our current lifestyle habits. Many residents have remarked that there is a need to increase awareness and the keenness to go green, as the present efforts in our day-to-day water, waste and energy saving actions are somewhat lacking due to the lack of understanding and the passion for doing so.
Take the blue recycle bins, for example. Meant for depositing recyclable items such as cardboards and bottles and glasses, they are more often than not, misused as common rubbish bins instead, usually due to the convenience of irresponsible dumping or a lack of proper recycling knowledge. All you need is one person to discard items containing food residue in them to cause the entire contents of the blue recycle bins to be contaminated and wastefully discarded.
Mr Speaker, I believe that if we are to truly encourage Green Living, we should aim to make sustainability a core component of our lifestyle. I must also emphasise that in order to make this a reality, as what I have emphasised earlier, we should collectively and continuously involve the efforts of our 3Ps: People, Private and Public sectors. In other words, this will require close mutual co-operation between the Government, Organisations and the Community. Organisations would of course include corporates, companies, VWOs and NGOs.
While the Government and private sectors can instate sweeping policies and provide the expertise or financial means to promote sustainability, the community also plays a vital role by getting together and through ground-up initiatives, encourage one another at a grassroots level.
The dialogue sessions that I have held with my residents in Woodgrove have left me optimistic and inspired for our future, as I discovered that many of them are willing to step up and offer their ideas to promote this cause. For example, a number of my Woodgrove residents like Mr Foo and Mdm SS, have commented that while they can understand why plastic bags may still be essential in Singapore – for example, for disposing of food waste through the garbage chute – they are convinced that Singaporeans can be encouraged to develop a habit of using their own reusable bags for shopping and refusing to take more plastic bags more than they need.
Suggestions by other Woodgrove residents also included, one, setting up more active recycling points within our community, partnering with Northwest CDCs and organisations such as Tzu Chi Singapore where eco-awareness and proper recycling tips can be shared with our residents; two, setting up a repair centre in the Residents Committee Centres, working with partners such as Repair Kopitiam. Under this initiative, we can collect rusted and abandoned bicycles lying around in the void decks of the neighbourhood, and send them to the repair centre for refurbishment. Once restored, they can be donated to needy children within our community for their further use.
Another of the more innovative suggestions I had received revolved around the use of technology to encourage habits that promote sustainable living. Wilson, another of my Woodgrove resident, shared that the Health 365 app has proven to be popular amongst him and his peers in promoting healthy lifestyle, encouraging more people to stay active through recording progression and reward-based incentives.
As this may prove to be helpful in terms of promoting sustainable living, Woodgrove will be collaborating with Singapore Institute of Building Limited (SIBL), and applying for the SGEcoFund to explore the possibility of developing such an app, where residents can interact and pick up Green Advocate skills virtually. We also intend to explore ways to incorporate features such as a carbon footprint calculator, which would enable residents to key in and measure relevant data points including their utilities consumption, mode of transportation and time taken in commutes, food consumption and sources of production, and the number of items and weightage of items which they have recycled. If successful, this Go-Green app will raise greater awareness on environmental issues related to waste, water and energy, while encouraging the community to collectively shift to an eco-friendly lifestyle through app-based education and gamification.
Tapping on the expertise of SIBL and other climate change VWOs and NGOs, more in-person workshops will also be taking place in the Community Centres, Residents' Committee and even the private estates in Woodgrove, allowing our residents access to more hands-on learning experiences through events such as active recycling and upcycling of old abandoned items and the exchange of pre-loved items in flea markets. Such activities like these will enable more residents to become the Green Advocates of our community.
In summary, I would use the alphabets, A, B and C to describe the on-going and upcoming initiatives which Woodgrove will be implementing in playing our part against climate change as a Community.
A for \"Acceleration\". We are stepping up on the actions which will be introduced in our community, such as building more community gardens, setting up more active recycling points and training more Green Advocates.
B for \"Bolder initiatives\". Exploring and trying out new methods to increase sustainability awareness. This will include creating a mobile application as what I have shared earlier with the House and encouraging residents to start embracing not just the existing 3Rs, but an additional 2Rs: \"refuse\" and \"repair\" as well.
C for \"Collaborations and Community-centric involvement\". The initiatives that we execute as a Community to raise more awareness on environmental issues will not be complete without the support of our Government agencies and private organisations as well as our community partners, like the schools which Ms Nadia has shared earlier. We look forward to remaining engaged with them and to deepening our ties together.
Singapore has proven to the world that our Government and people are willing to work together and make sweeping changes for the benefit of our society. Most recently, we can see that from our way in combatting the COVID-19 pandemic. I am confident that we can harness the same strength and unity to build a green community and lead the fight against climate change for the better well-being of our future generations. In Mandarin, please, for my conclusion, Mr Speaker.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, overall, I will use the three Chinese character 加 to describe how Woodgrove is going to contribute to the fight against climate change.
First, 加速, or acceleration. We will step up building community infrastructures to deal with climate change such as more community gardens and recycling stations and encourage active participation from our residents.
Secondly, 加强 or strengthening. We will be boldly trying out projects that have not been implemented before, including designing mobile apps to educate more residents on how to do their part to protect the environment, such as refusing to use environmentally damaging items and trying to repair old items as far as possible to reduce wastage.
Thirdly, 加入 or participation. As we encourage more residents in participating community programmes and do their part to protect the environment, we also understand that without the concerted support of Government agencies, the private sector and community partners, our efforts to fight against climate change will not be complete. Therefore, we must continue to invite them to participate in our community activities.
Over the years, our Government and people have worked together very closely for the well-being of our people. How we have worked together to fight COVID-19 is a case in point. I am confident that by harnessing the same strength and unity, we can fight against climate change and give our next generation a better and greener future. Thank you.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to begin by first saying thank you to our youths. While the growing environmental awareness and advocacy among Singaporeans have not gone unnoticed, it is especially our youths in Singapore and also around the world who have been speaking up tirelessly through movements such as Straw Free Singapore, Bring Your Own Bottle Singapore, SG Climate Rally and many more, in the struggle to institutionalise greater environmental protections – a struggle that they should not have to do alone.
My generation was lucky to grow up playing in \"longkangs\" or drains, climbing trees and catching grasshoppers in natural environments. The access to natural eco-systems, flora and fauna had a very positive physical and psychological impact on our development.
Research worldwide has shown a strong link between green space availability, and physical and mental health. Moreover, nature provides much intrinsic and spiritual value. The declining opportunities for human-nature interactions has been termed by conservationists as the \"extinction of experience\".
The absence of such opportunities today in Singapore bears testament to the cost of solely focusing on economic development and treating GDP growth as the sole indicator of social progress.
The recent public discourse on the Ulu Pandan and Clementi forests confirmed again our Government's growth priorities. The Government continues to zone Clementi forest for future housing needs while Ulu Pandan forest may be slated for deforestation and development sooner. Many other forest patches have already been cleared in recent years, such as in Tengah and Pasir Ris.
The Government's past strategy was very clear. In order to maintain growth, we need to increase our population size and we need to clear our forests as a result to house the growing population. We act as if the deforestation of our precious natural green spaces is an inevitability when we actually have other options.
The Government has engineered high population growth by allowing a high level of immigration over the past two decades. Our population grew from 4 million in the year 2000 to 5.7 million in 2019, an increase of 41% over 20 years. This is a compounded average annual growth of 1.7% which is in line with that of many developing countries facing population pressures now.
This population policy is a conscious choice of the Government and is not necessarily supported by most Singaporeans. While the Government has reduced immigration growth somewhat since 2011 and promises that it has no population target to achieve, it has continued to award about 25,000 new citizenships and 30,000 permanent residencies every year.
Even assuming no increase in the non-resident foreigner population, the 55,000 new citizens and PRs will increase our population by about 0.8% a year. At that rate, we will still reach 6 million people by 2030, and 10 million in 2095!
I pause at this juncture to note that population growth is actually not the main driver of the immediate demand for land to build housing. Housing demand depends on the Government policies in the property market.
We all know that housing demand in Singapore is largely driven by investment and speculation. This is the result of the many conscious policies of the Government to create a sustained increase in housing prices so that the HDB flat is an appreciating asset and the buoyant property market can contribute to economic growth.
While a steady rise in property values is generally good for the economy, we have also created too much housing demand. Many Singaporeans understandably want to leave the wage-earning class and join the property-owning capitalist class to make passive income, and developers would like to have more land to satisfy that demand. On top of this, there is a huge demand for housing from foreign investors who do not even stay in Singapore.
If we continue to try to satisfy the strong investment demand for housing as a means to drive economic growth, we will definitely need to remove more of our green spaces. But we need to ask ourselves: is this truly what we want? So long as each Singaporean family has a decent place to call home, should we not restrain housing demand?
In fact, evidence is mounting that the current property policies are affecting the future of our younger Singaporeans negatively. The long-term repercussions of having less green spaces in Singapore would affect them even more.
It is not be sustainable to allow property prices and property demand to continue to go up at the current rate. Before we rush to cut down more of our forests, we should do a comprehensive review of what is a sustainable economy and society to us.
Singapore has made great strides in economic growth since Independence, moving from Third World to First. We have also experienced massive changes during the recent pandemic. It is a good time for us to sit down and think carefully about the future direction of our country. Do we want to build a compassionate and sustainable society, or do we want to continue bulldozing through with our current unsustainable strategy of growing through immigration and property value increases?
Any discussion on sustainability in our country necessarily entails a discussion in our population growth. Do we want to still pursue high population growth at the cost of our environment?
If we choose to hold our population constant at around 5.7 million by only awarding enough new citizenships to maintain but not increase our current population, the pressure on providing more housing will ease immediately and there is no need to cut down more forests to increase land supply. We should therefore be in no hurry to destroy our forests.
Slower population growth offers us a better foundation to pursue our sustainability agenda meaningfully. On that note, I thank the hon Members of the GPC for Sustainability and the Environment for their Motion and the 10 proposals that they have put up, which I am broadly in agreement with.
However, there should be mention as to how these piecemeal proposals can be integrated into a future socio-economic development roadmap. Under Proposal 3, creating a sustainability sector is good in encouraging professionalism. But we must bear in mind that we do not want a lot of auditors and consultants running around, who will just impose a lot of additional costs and pressures on other industry sectors.
This sustainability sector should be about technology and not regulation. We do not want to be a climate change technology consumer all the time but the transformation roadmap must make us a technology leader. To that end, I would like to know how the sustainability sector will create more opportunities for our SMEs and more jobs for our Singaporeans.
It is also unclear as to how carbon neutral or reducing some of the proposals are. For Proposal 6 on electric cars, for example, has it been conclusively proven that they will be carbon neutral under our fossil fuel energy infrastructure? Is there a change in our country's energy strategy?
Looking at the bigger picture, our climate mitigation commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement fall far short in comparison to many other countries. Singapore's climate commitments allow for a net increase of emissions up to 2030, and merely promise a slight reduction from a hypothetically projected \"business-as-usual\" benchmark. On the other hand, many European countries have committed to a net decrease in emissions, and even China has committed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060.
We hope the 10 proposals are intended to enable us to achieve more than what we have committed at the Paris Climate Agreement.
Another feature of the 10 proposals is that they are all climate mitigation actions and no climate adaptation actions although both mitigation and adaptation are mentioned in the Motion. Probably as a result of that, population and forest were left out in their proposals, or at least the proposals that I have seen.
Climate Defence was mentioned in Proposal 8 but there were no proposal on how we can defend ourselves against climate change. Adapting to climate change will require many natural and man-made solutions, the so-called \"green and grey solutions\", such as protecting and restoring forests and wetlands to reduce heat and flooding risks, as well as building physical infrastructure, such as dykes to prevent sea level rise and canals to mitigate flooding.
Having a smaller population and retaining a larger reserve of undeveloped land can better help us to implement these solutions when the need arises. This should be the true spirit for including Climate Defence into our Total Defence, not just lip service or for education purposes.
Sir, today, sustainability is not just an abstract economic or social concept. It is a necessity for human survival and the flourishing of societies. There is strong expectation that sustainability should embody all the human aspirations that the market system cannot effectively deliver.
Sustainability has grown out of the painful experience that an economic development comes with a heavy social cost when the scale of environmental damage caused by pollution became a huge problem in the 1970s. When I was studying in Japan in the 1980s, there were still many victims of the \"itai itai\" disease inflicted by chemical pollution in Japan. And today, sustainability is not just about localised problems but have become a global crisis.
With that knowledge, allowing the market system to dictate our path towards sustainable progress is unwise and will have dire long-term consequences. In the same way, we should not allow the market system to dictate the degree of social inequality in our society. It is just not sustainable that way.
Sir, in conclusion, we should not allow immigration and excessive property demand dictate the continued deforestation of our nature resources. We express our support of the preservation of our forests. We propose that the cutting down of the Ulu Pandan forest should be put on hold immediately until we are clear what our post-COVID development roadmap will be.
Sir, we support the Motion with the Workers' Party's amendments. We note also that as of December 2020, at least 38 countries have already declared a state of climate emergency and it is time that Singapore should take resolute action as well.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I would like to raise some clarifications to Mr Leong. I would like to ask whether he knows that Singapore's greenery coverage is about 47%. Second, from which report did he learn that our projected population would be about 10 million? Third...Sorry, I have just these two questions to ask.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I thank Member Mr Don Wee for the questions. Regarding the first question, even though our greenery coverage is about 47%, much of the greenery is man-made. Much of our natural greenery has been lost. That is why we should try to preserve our natural greenery. This is the first point.
On the second question regarding the 10 million figure, this is a projection based on the growth rate of our population, not a figure that I have read in some report. So, this is a figure which I have deduced based on our population growth rate. Thank you.
Mr Don Wee: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Thank you. As a Member of Parliament, we have met many young residents. They tell me that they have been waiting for a long time after applying for a BTO. According to Mr Leong’s reply, does it mean that the HDB should build less HDB flats, therefore, we do not have to cut down more trees? Thank you.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I thank Member Mr Don Wee for the question. I think the tight situation of the BTO market is not a result of not cutting down trees fast enough. Because the HDB could tweak its policies in various aspects. Now demand for BTO flats has increased, perhaps HDB could step up the building of these flats. The land is already there, and even if you cut down the trees now, they will not turn into BTO flats immediately. These are two different matters. We should understand this. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the climate situation is a looming crisis. It has been growing in urgency for some time.
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres highlighted the severity of the problem during the Climate and Vision Summit in December 2020. The world is 1.2-degrees Celsius hotter than it was before the Industrial Revolution and if current trends continue, global temperatures will rise by three-degrees Celsius by the end of this century. Mr Guterres noted that the G20 Nations has spent 50% more of their respective stimulus packages on fossil fuel production and consumption than on low carbon energy. He called on all leaders worldwide to declare a state of climate emergency in their countries until carbon neutrality is reached, noting that some 38 countries have already done so.
As a tropical island state, Singapore is particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels and changes in weather patterns resulting from climate change. Given the way our economy is intertwined with the global economy, disruptions resulting from climate change in other parts of the world could well have a deleterious effect on our country as well. For example, on our food security.
The Government has already recognised these risks. It is thus important for Parliament to acknowledge that our country is in a climate emergency in order to further focus our national priorities on mitigating and adapting to climate change.
The on-going COVID-19 pandemic has hit the global economy hard. However, the crisis has also provided an opportunity for us to reshape our fractured economy. We have a chance to develop industrial sectors, which are less destructive to the environment and thus enhance our overall resilience. We can rebuild our economy to be greener by introducing and improving measures such as one, the provision of grants, loans and tax relief directed towards green transport, the circular economy and clean energy research; two, financial support to households and businesses for energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy installations; and three, new funding and programmes to create jobs and stimulate economic activity in green industries.
There are other steps that we can take towards reshaping our economy in this fashion. The Government is aiming to fully electrify transport by 2040. Can we be more ambitious and bring forward our timeline to 2030? Norway is aiming to reach this milestone by 2025 and the UK and Germany have aimed to do so by 2030. In fact, Norway is very much on track to do so and it has just become the first country in the world where electric car sales outstripped those powered by other means. Our 10-year COE system makes it easier than in most countries to have a fully electric automobile fleet earlier.
In the last few weeks, we have seen an outpouring of support for the conservation of Clementi and Ulu Pandan Forests. Rather than using our limited remaining forests for urban development, we should look first into redeveloping existing industrial land and golf courses instead.
Our workers are the backbone of our economy. It is crucial that we find ways to leverage on our manpower resources to develop a talent pipeline for the green economy.
The hard reality is many industries, particularly those in the fossil fuel-related sectors, will be hard hit. Royal Dutch Shell pivoted away from crude oil towards a low-carbon slate of fuels will cost Singapore 500 jobs and half of the processing capacity in Pulau Bukom in the next three years; while ExxonMobil, BP and Chevron will be cutting the global workforce as well. Keppel Offshore and Marine recently announced that it will be pivoting away from its offshore rig business to clean energy, in large part, due to depressed global oil demand. More than 10,000 workers will be impacted by this move and it remains unclear how many will end up losing their jobs.
The International Labour Organisation in its guidelines for a just transition towards environmentally sustainable economies and societies recommended several active labour market policies such as: one, helping enterprises and workers transition to the green economy by facilitating access to jobs, employment and training; two, giving particular attention to workers at risk of unemployment in industries affected by climate change including those in the informal economy; and three, introducing well-targeted subsidies that allow workers to acquire skills through work experience and on-the-job training.
In this vein, I propose extending the Special Employment Credit Scheme to provide time-limited wage support to all Singaporean workers while taking up their first job in the green economy. This will incentivise companies to expand their ventures in the green economy and hire and train workers in this growing industry.
In order to formulate more effective policies, it is important that we improve the quality and quantity of statistical data on the green economy. Such data is necessary for us to assess the impact of climate-related policies on our economy, health and social inclusion so that we can fine tune and adjust them.
The Government should take the lead in promoting more sustainable practices through green public purchasing. One of the ways we can do so is by making sustainability a criterion in more public sector procurements. This will provide industry with incentives to develop environmentally friendly works, products and services. It could also lead to savings in public expenditure, especially if full-life cycle costs of contracts and not just the purchase price are considered during the procurement process.
Enhancing GPP practices will also equip public officers with more knowledge and experience to meet evolving environmental challenges. GPP in Singapore has already been introduced via the public sector taking the lead in environmental sustainability initiative. Under this initiative, public sector agencies have been encouraged to put in place environmental sustainability measures, like energy efficiency, water efficiency and recycling. Other green factors that can be considered in public procurement could include recycling, reducing single-use plastics, data centre efficiency and reduction of food wastage in catering.
There is increased demand for corporate performance metrics on a range of environmental, social and governance issues or ESG as more investors seek to align their stock holdings with their issue interests and values. In the biggest survey of its kind ever done, the UN Development Programme's People's Climate Vote found that more than 60% of 1.2 million respondents aged between 18 and 59 see the climate situation as urgent, with 58% of those above 60 affirming. We can thus expect more investors placing environmental issues as a priority.
The Singapore Exchange introduced sustainability reporting in 2016 for listed companies. This complements existing reporting requirements and shows the risk posed by ESG factors managed for future returns. However, no such requirement is placed on private companies.
ACRA could consider requiring simplified environmental sustainability reporting for private limited companies with the revenue of over 100 million dollars and with more than 200 employees.
The Government could also provide grants to incentivise SMEs to optionally submit sustainability reports. This will aid our local firms in their ventures overseas, where they may face increasingly stringent demands for sustainable business contracts, and help them to be more globally competitive. We should equip our local firms before they are affected by such de facto barriers to trade.
It is vital that we look into improving our energy efficiency towards reducing our consumption of fossil fuels and emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Much has already been put in place by way of the Energy Conservation Act of 2013.
I would now like to talk specifically about energy efficiency in the power industry, which produces 39.7% of greenhouse gas emissions in Singapore.
Singapore's total registered power generation capacity was 12,582 megawatts in 2020 while the highest peak system demand since 2005 has been 7,404 megawatts. This currently leaves a spare capacity of some 5,178 megawatts in the system. Combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) operate at a lower thermal efficiency when partially loaded. For example, the Alstom GT26 gas turbine CCGT, of which there are several in Singapore plants, has a turbine efficiency of 59% at full load but suffers a 14-percentage-point drop in efficiency at a 30% part-load.
Given that the power industry is the single largest source of Singapore's greenhouse gas emissions, even a small efficiency gain will reap a significant greenhouse gas abatement. Based on EMA data, the average thermal efficiency of power plants in Singapore in 2019 was about 50%. Can efficiency be increased by operating gas turbines at a higher average part load?
For example, a 4 percentage-point improvement in thermal efficiency of power plants will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.65 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or about 5% of Singapore's 2050 carbon dioxide reduction target. It will also save almost $100 million a year in natural gas costs at current prices.
In this regard, I would like to know if EMA has looked into what impact the power generation sector's over capacity has on energy efficiency of the power generation sector in Singapore; and whether it has explored ways to increase average part loads and therefore improve the thermal efficiency of our power plants.
Given the deregulated market mechanisms that are currently in place, I acknowledge that this will be a challenging task. However, given the potential benefits to be gained, surely, we can find a way towards a win-win solution. For example, is it possible to maintain the present deregulated system, but revert to some form of efficiency-driven-central load dispatching?
The final point I would like to make is on creating an innovation-oriented sustainability strategy.
Environmental protection has traditionally been the domain of governments which set the regulatory framework and push it down to industries and households to comply. However, as Yale Environmental Studies Prof Daniel Esty pointed out in this article, \"Red Lights to Green Lights\", this command-and-control framework is now widely recognised as slow and inefficient. The government does most of the work of spotting problems, analysing causes of various harms, spelling out standards and requiring specific technologies to be adopted by particular industries. But an over-reliance on the government as the central actor can lead to high cost, avoidable inefficiencies and disincentives for innovation.
Instead, more government incentives should be put in place to encourage broad engagement in environmental problem solving, that draws on all stakeholders, including companies, entrepreneurs, academics, civil society activists and ordinary citizens in the pursuit of a sustainable future. These practical incentives will induce innovation and help embed a green mindset in all firms and households.
Mr Speaker, while I acknowledge that Singapore has taken many steps to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, the urgency of the problem grows stronger with each passing day. I suggested today some ways to enhance our efforts to integrate more environmentally friendly and sustainable practices in our firms and households. Given the urgency of the climate situation, I call for the House to acknowledge that a state of climate emergency exists in Singapore.
Sir, I thank Mr Louis Ng for tabling this Motion and I support the amendments to the Motion proposed by the Member for Hougang, Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Speaker: Prof Koh Lian Pin.
Prof Koh Lian Pin (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, first, allow me to declare my professional interest in this issue as a Professor and Director of the Centre for Nature-based Climate Solutions at the National University of Singapore (NUS).
I stand in support of this Motion. Climate change is an issue of pressing concern in Singapore and around the world. In recent years, we have already experienced some of the impacts of climate change in Singapore, including rising temperatures and higher rainfall intensity, which can result in flash floods, causing much disruption to our daily lives.
But what is perhaps even more worrying is that climate change can expose Singapore to potentially more serious and insidious consequences in the long run. For example, climate change can result in a higher frequency of extreme weather events that can affect global food production and supply which, in turn, can compromise Singapore's food security. By diversifying Singapore's food supply sources and by ramping up our local food production, we may reduce some, but not all, of these risks .
And therefore, one of the reasons for tackling climate change is to ensure that Singaporeans can continue to have access to quality food, that you and I, can continue to enjoy our favourite plate of Tiong Bahru \"chai tow kway\" whenever we want to and at affordable prices.
The climate change we are experiencing today is the result of rapidly increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Globally, these emissions are caused by two main activities.
The first is the use of fossil fuels to generate the energy that powers our society. The second is deforestation – the loss of our forests and natural eco-systems to agriculture, forestry, urbanisation and other land uses.
Of course, we need energy to drive our cars, to run our businesses and to keep the lights on in our homes. Of course, we need land for schools, for hospitals, for housing and for the many other legitimate priorities of our society. But, at the same time, we also need to weigh these priorities against the priority of tackling the existential threat of climate change.
Singapore, along with nearly 200 other countries, has committed to the Paris Climate Agreement and its goal of limiting global warming to below two degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. Achieving the Paris Climate Goal is key to reducing the risks of long-lasting and potentially irreversible climate change impacts.
According to scientists on the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we may have only three decades or less to drawdown our emissions to net zero, for us to achieve the Paris Climate Goal.
And when it comes to tackling climate change, mitigation is, at least, as important as adaptation, because whereas climate change adaptation is like learning to live with the disease of climate change, mitigation is preventing or treating the disease itself, by tackling its root cause.
In terms of climate change mitigation, Singapore can do our part by setting more ambitious science-based targets for three key outcomes.
First, we urgently need to reduce our emissions from the use of fossil fuels, by transitioning to renewable sources of energy, increasing our energy efficiency and cutting down on waste.
Second, we need to protect our remaining carbon rich forests and eco-systems and avoid further emissions from deforestation.
And third, we need to start capturing and removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
To achieve these outcomes, we need to invest in the research, development and implementation of both human-engineered and nature-based climate solutions, including forest conservation and reforestation.
Achieving these outcomes also requires us to work closer together as a society.
The Emerging Stronger Taskforce, co-chaired by Minister Desmond Lee and Mr Tan Chong Meng, is an example of a much-needed Government-corporate partnership. The Taskforce is developing clear roadmaps for new growth areas and job creation opportunities, as Singapore emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic stronger, cleaner and greener.
We also have many Government-People partnerships, such as the PEERS Network, SG Cares Community Network and Youth Stewards for Nature.
Widening and deepening these partnerships may require the Government to take a more active role than before in communicating to the public, some of the thought processes and reasoning behind certain hard decisions and policies.
Nurturing such partnerships may also require the Government to be even more receptive to feedback from the public on the changing needs and priorities of society, especially with regards to climate change, nature conservation and sustainable development.
Conversely, effective partnerships may also require civil society and the public to understand the broader context of Singapore's many constraints and considerations within which hard decisions have to be made.
Importantly, as Singapore embraces sustainability in a less certain and more polarised world, it becomes ever more pressing for the Government, the corporate sector and the wider public to work together to tackle new challenges and to capitalise on emerging opportunities on the horizon.
I will be 45 this April, maybe still considered young by some Members' standards, but old enough to have been a child in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I still remember back when I was in Primary school, at Bukit Panjang Primary School. My parents brought me on my first overseas trip to Sydney, Australia during one of the school holidays. When the Australians we met heard that we were from Singapore, they spoke very highly about Singapore's reputation of being clean and green, of having the world's best airport, busiest seaport, and so on. And I remember the immense pride I felt as a very young Singaporean.
I think our youths today are ready to be even prouder of Singapore, especially if Singapore takes seriously and demonstrates global leadership in the many causes that our youths care deeply and passionately about, including climate change.
Of course, climate change is a problem much bigger than Singapore. But tackling this problem is also an opportunity for us to be part of something much bigger than ourselves, and be proud of it.
How much is this national pride worth? To me, it is priceless. Mr Speaker, I support this Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Motion. Today, I would like to speak on how we can achieve our ambitious target of peaking emissions in 2030 and then halving it by 2050. I also urge Singapore to do more, by building a carbon offset industry overseas.
But to start, Mr Speaker, I would like to highlight our coming carbon emission dilemma that we, a country without much fossil fuel or renewable energy, face in the coming years.
Broadly speaking, at the primary level, 40% of our emissions today comes from power-generation, 40% from industry and 15% are from transportation.
Over time, as we change from cars to EVs, emissions from transport will be folded into power generation. And if, which I suspect it will, our industries continue to electrify, they will swap fossil fuel for electricity. This means that over time, at the primary level, the power generation will account for the vast majority of our emissions. Yet, even as we reduce the emission, we must assume electricity demand will grow as we seek to improve our people's lives and livelihoods.
Therefore, our top challenge is how to have sufficient low-carbon power generation capacity, which must supply most of our future energy needs.
Getting there by adapting our natural gas power generation infrastructure is not easy. The industry experts I speak to inform me that even the new natural gas power plants can yield a 4%-5% efficiency gains, far less than the 50% target.
Carbon and capture and sequestration techniques is too expensive in its present form for natural gas power plants, given the fact that the carbon emissions from natural gas plants are too unconcentrated to be efficient.
We could, of course, go nuclear. But I doubt Singaporeans will be comfortable with that. And given our lack of renewable energy locally because of our intermittent sunlight, we must rely on imports which means either import direct low-carbon electricity imports or low-carbon energy imports like hydrogen. So, electricity or hydrogen.
But, yet, and that is an important point, there is an upper cap on how much we can import electricity from overseas through submarine cables if we are to maintain our energy resilience. As we speak about this issue, let us ask ourselves, can we realistically expect half of our electricity to come from overland or submarine cables? If something goes wrong with those cables, it could take months to fix them. What happens when we need to turn on the switch? In fact, our energy resilience is at stake.
At the same time, the possible low-carbon import – hydrogen, is far from ready. It takes many years to develop hydrogen based energy infrastructure and transportation. Will hydrogen be ready by 2030? By ready, it does not mean ready in the lab but ready in terms of infrastructure, in terms of ships that can ship liquified versions of it. The answer is, in my view, no.
Therefore, if we expect our emissions to decrease steadily immediately after 2030, in the immediate years, before affordable low-carbon power generation options are ready, low-carbon electricity will be Singapore's growth and societal constraint. Will we see a contentious debate on who gets the first dip on scarce low-carbon electricity, much like the issue of how foreign manpower divided Singapore in the past decade? We will be facing stark trade-offs then unless everybody, Government, industry, people, civil society start moving now.
And at this juncture, let me make a broader point. I am glad to hear many inspirational speeches in this Chamber, including from Workers' Party and Progress Singapore Party. Inspirational speeches inspire, but they are not sufficient. For something as important as climate change, we must go beyond saying \"do more, do more\". Specifics matter, especially on concrete matters on that, in its entirety, can allow us to meet this ambitious targets. What I hope is that, when we propose ideas in this Chambers, they are grounded on realities especially technological realities and informed by consultations of stakeholders from all walks of life and that we explain it to our people in plain simple terms, the trade-offs. Be it giving up on national securities when we import too much low-carbon electricity or higher cost of living or losing one's livelihood or let us say, less BTOs for young people. Only when the policy is debated and discussed in this manner, can we fully expect Singaporeans to buy in what we decide in this Chamber.
Now, let me next talk about how we can halve our emissions and preserve our livelihood at the same time. To achieve this, I believe we should focus on four things.
One, pace ourselves. As explained earlier, there will be a crunch in low-carbon electricity immediately after 2030, until technology matures. Therefore, when we grow our industries, we must start treating electricity as a scarce growth constraint, much as we treat foreign manpower today. We must also not rush to import too much renewable electricity now, so that we at least have headroom left – by that, I mean the option of importing more renewable electricity later on – so that we can continue to improve our lives and livelihoods immediately post 2030, because of the hard limit I spoke earlier about being overly reliant on imported electricity.
Two, I hope we can continue to invest and explore all technologies and infrastructure. The Government is doing a lot now including carbon mineralisation, investments in the hydrogen economy, encouraging Electric Vehicles or EVs. But the technology path ahead is not so clear for Singapore. Therefore, we should hedge our bets by exploring even unusual renewable sources, such as geothermal solutions; by exploring hydrogen based fuel cell car and biofuel options, instead of just relying purely on EVs because that would tax our electrical system and by actively investing in critical energy infrastructure ahead of time, such as, in the future, a liquified hydrogen import terminal, so that the industry has viable alternative renewable energy imports.
We must also be open to ideas, innovations from not just large renewable companies, but also from innovative non-incumbent players too. And create sandboxes for new ideas to be piloted. Because this is one sector where new players have consistently made an impact. And we can weaved all this into an integrated policy and technology road map much like the visionary Reinventing Fire plans that the US and China separately did through the America's Rocky Mountain Institute.
Three, we can put in even more incentives beyond what we have pledged previously, to help our industries, achieve efficiency. In particular, I hope we can come up with a determined effort to reduce emission from our petrochemical industry. We can also revise our Green Mark incentives, to reduce emissions for both new and existing commercial buildings. While I am cautious about increasing carbon tax amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, it is clear to me that over time, our carbon price must trend towards the international norms.
Four, create an open and transparent process on climate change debate, as I mentioned in my opening speech in the debate on the President's Address. To Singaporeans, open and transparent process is just as important as an effective outcome. The Government can open up our plans more regularly, to share to people what we are confident to achieve and to also seek collaboration from everybody, in areas we have less confidence in achieving. This process will encourage and increase trust.
Lastly, I would like to talk about how we can contribute beyond our Paris accord commitments. A number of Singaporeans and climate change believers have strongly suggested that Singapore should achieve net zero as early as possible. In fact, I also heard some of my Parliamentary colleagues mention it today. I understand where they are coming from. As a Government, we are mere custodians of Singapore for future generations. We have a moral obligation to leave behind an inhabitable earth. But we also have an obligation to the livelihoods of our people.
So, let me state the obvious – Singapore is probably one of the least efficient countries to be a carbon sink. But I strongly feel that we can do more to live up to our moral responsibility and go beyond halving our emissions. How? Well, as a country, we can go all out to develop carbon offsets beyond Singapore. The means of doing so, the technology of doing so, is already there. By that, I mean planting trees. Indeed, can Singapore be a big player in reforesting our region, or even the rapidly diminishing Amazon rainforest?
If Singapore or our GLCs come in, in a big way, perhaps backed by MAS' green bonds, we can shape this nascent industry which currently operates without robust standards. In fact, I see much corporate demand globally, as international companies are rising to the occasion. They are wanting to go net-zero because this is what their customers and stakeholders expect.
Just look at the recent announcements. Black Rock, which controls $9 trillion assets, is asking all companies to disclose a plan for how their business model will be compatible with a net-zero economy.
Microsoft wants to be carbon neutral by 2030. Salesforce.com pledge to conserve or restore 100 million trees. Large companies now understand they risk being global pariahs if they do not make significant reductions, regardless of the country specific emission reduction targets in their host countries.
If as a country, Singapore go big into carbon offsets through overseas reforestation, we can create value and then that could then pay for carbon offsets for the other half of the remaining emissions in Singapore. Some people will say that carbon offsets overseas do not accrue towards our national targets. It is true, but I would say that there is nothing wrong with helping other countries meet their tough targets, especially when we all know the lack of watertight reporting under the Paris accord means that the real emission situation is probably and definitely much worse than reported as progress.
We can complement this carbon offset industry by developing Singapore into a leading and trusted professional services hub for emissions and carbon accounting. We can encourage leading standards bodies such as the VCS and Gold Standard to set up centre of excellence to shape and promote standards, in partnership with our accounting and professional services firms as well as tertiary institutes. This will create green-collared jobs that many young Singaporeans aspire for.
As we develop our carbon accounting, it is also important that we evolve the regulation of our financial markets to encourage proper disclosure and risk assessment arising from carbon emission. Leading financial centres like Hong Kong and London are moving fast on this.
MAS recently announced Environment Risk Management Guidelines is a step in the right direction. I hope MAS can actively get our FIs to disclose more to the public and encourage them to conduct environmental risk training programs for senior management and board members, and persuade our FIs to stop financing of coal power plants.
Lastly, MFA can also draw on these expertise to hopefully play a bigger role in shaping the global climate change policies, and push for transparent and effective global rules, including in the area of cap and trade, which could benefit Singapore, should we go big on developing overseas carbon offsets.
To conclude, Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng and MSE's Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC), Young PAP, the VWOs and industry members I spoke to, especially people like Climate Conversations and Green Swans. I would like to end with a quote from Elon Mask, \"We are running the most dangerous experiment in history right now, which is to see how much carbon dioxide the atmosphere can handle before there is an environmental catastrophe.\" So, let us get to work.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Hang on a second. Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day’s sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accelerate and Deepen Efforts Against Climate Change ","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. As a representative of a constituency with a comparatively younger demographic, many of whom are parents of young children and as a father of a young daughter myself, I have a deep enduring interest in the implications of climate change for the next generation. This is precisely why we should regard this issue as a climate emergency. Not so much because of the specific challenges that we face today, but in terms of what we leave behind for our children tomorrow, who will bear the costs of any impending environmental disaster.
I wish to commensurate with this House about the importance of a well-functioning carbon tax system for delivering effective reductions in our nation's carbon footprint. Importantly, I would argue in favour of such a tax, relative to other seemingly more efficient systems such as cap and trade. But, I will also suggest reasons why the current system as it stands, is inadequate, as well as proposed some radical, some practical refinements to the existing regime.
To be clear, there is an existing carbon tax stipulated in the Carbon Pricing Act of 2018, which came into force in January 2019. This was an important first step as 老子 (Laozi) reminds us 千里之行,始於足下, commonly translated as \"a journey of thousand miles ends with a single step.\" But it is only a first step and unfortunately this step has been too tentative. The current rate is set at $5 per metric tonne of greenhouse gas emissions, set to be increased to $10 to $15 dollars a tonne by 2030.
This figure falls far below recommended amounts by just about every credible source. The median estimate called for by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is $95. Systematic reviews of academic estimates suggest a price closer to $77. Our rate is even low compared to actual rates currently impose worldwide. The OECD's calculations indicate that the effective rate among 41 major economies amount to $65. And all these numbers are in US dollars, not even local currency.
Moreover, the exiting carbon tax is limited to just the largest industrial facilities – those emitting in excess of 2,000 tons of carbon dioxide, and effectively covers just about 30 to 40 companies. Not only would this excessively conservative target fail to generate the sort of volume reductions required, it also concentrates the tax burden on a small set of firms. Even if these firms account for the vast majority of emissions, the narrow coverage is inconsistent with public finance principles.
It is worth noting that there an attractive alternative to the carbon tax: a cap-and-trade system. As the name implies, cap-and-trade \"caps\" the total amount of emissions according to some target, before subsequently allowing the trading of each firm's allocated emissions amount. The idea behind this is straightforward: firms that are better at reducing their carbon footprints tend to gain by selling their share to other less-efficient firms. Meanwhile, those with less carbon-reduction capacity can obtain reprieve by purchasing offsets from these more efficient firms.
In theory, it is possible to arrive at the same final outcome of reductions in environmentally harmful emissions with either carbon taxes or cap-and-trade. But there are a number of reasons to favor taxes as a preferred instrument.
The carbon tax is more robust to uncertainty. Cap-and-trade systems, while offering greater clarity over the ultimate amount of emissions that would result, tend to fall prey to uncertainty in terms of compliance costs. In a post-recession economic climate where uncertainty over impending costs is especially pernicious for the functioning of business, it makes more sense to allow uncertainty to fall on the total emissions front.
Furthermore, carbon taxes are less likely to be gamed by participants. The experience of countries that have sought to introduce quantity restrictions on pollutants is that they are difficult to ensure compliance. Cap-and-trade also encourages front-loading of investments in dirty technologies, since those with greater polluting potential are more likely to be granted higher initial caps. And even after implementation, permit trading can ironically encourage more pollution than otherwise, as firms trade off gains in market share against environmental penalties.
In comparison, a carbon tax, based as it is on a price mechanism, is straightforward, easily observed and monitored, and hence more likely to be enforced successfully. Another principle of public finance has to do with to whom the rents from the imposition of a tax or a quota accrues. Because taxes are directly collected from the Government, taxes generate revenue that flow directly into the public fisc. In contrast, if permits are simply assigned to firms, firms will capture the quota rents.
This is not simply a theoretical matter; it also carries enormous practical implications. Although the end objective – a reduction in total emissions – may be equivalently achieved via either method, carbon taxes raised can be directed toward other important social objectives. If instead quota permits are either simply issued or sold at an inappropriate discount to corporations, there is no guarantee that the excess value will subsequently be redirected toward the most optimal societal needs.
Mr Speaker, a properly calibrated carbon tax also offers a more decisive push toward climate-friendly structural reforms of our domestic economy. At the moment, our energy and fuel sources, not to mention our export basket, remains heavily inflected toward fossil fuels.
For instance, in late October 2020, the Government announced that it would import electricity from Malaysia under a two-year trial. I accept that part of the underlying premise for the effort is to spur a regional green electricity market. Even so, the contours of the deal, as reported by the press, strike me as incomplete. After all, energy is fungible; if Malaysia sells us clean energy, only to undo our emissions gains with producing more dirty energy elsewhere, the planet will suffer as net emissions increase. The deal is also symptomatic of how we tend to postpone the difficult act of passing costs through to the end consumer, some of which would ultimately be necessary to institute a behavioral shift toward a greater reliance on non-renewables.
As another example, the number of hybrid and electric vehicles in Singapore remain tiny: about 1,400 electric vehicles and 52,000 hybrids, out of our 950,000 strong fleet, a mere 6%. While Minister Heng Swee Keat did announce last year that internal combustion engine vehicles would be phased out by 2040, and Minister Ong Ye Kung has stated that we could be \"more ambitious\" in our move to low-emissions vehicles, it is difficult to envision this occurring without a clearer commitment, at least in the medium run, toward carbon taxes applied to petrol, as well as diesel.
The petrochemicals industry currently contributes a nontrivial share to Singapore's national output, around $81 billion or 3%, and our nation is currently the world's seventh largest exporter of chemicals and industry. What have we done to reduce this sector's footprint in our local economy and to transition toward more climate-friendly production? In this regard, it is worth noting that China, despite its relatively lower per capita income, has recognised the enormous potential that green technology offers and has embraced it in earnest. It has, in doing so, taken an important lead in developing such technologies. While we may not have certain built-in advantages in every dimension of green tech, we could find comparative advantage in certain niche areas, as my colleague, the Member of Parliament from Aljunied Leon Perera, will share in his speech.
A higher carbon tax, applied more broadly across the economy, will help usher in the necessary shifts by embedding the costs of carbon emissions directly into input prices. It also ensures that all segments of society: business, workers, Government and civil society, internalise the costs and consequences of climate change.
So, how should we move forward? Mr Speaker, I have made the case that the carbon tax, even the upper limit of $15 suggested by the CPA for 2030, is too low. If we wish to proceed carefully, we run the risk of our efforts being wholly unproductive altogether, if we remain excessively cautious. In such a case, we end up with the worse of both worlds; we introduce a friction on business operation, but we fail to gain the benefits of effective climate change mitigation.
While the specific price is certainly up for debate and should, ideally, be deliberated by a panel of experts with representatives from business, environmental civil society groups, policymakers from the NEA and MSE, and academics, a starting point of around $58 would at least place Singapore at the midpoint among industrialised economies, even if it remains below what would be necessary for decisive climate change mitigation.
Another useful benchmark is $133, which is the average cost of carbon capture and sequestration activities. A figure within this range would be a very useful start for the panel and our civil service to deliberate. And if I may turn the question around, posed by Minister Fu: how did the Government arrive at the $15? Was this based on the latest, credible scientific evidence of the amount that would be necessary for Singapore to achieve its climate change goals?
I would also suggest significantly expanding the coverage of the tax. The Government has already accepted that there should be no exemptions to firms liable for the tax. Yet, it has chosen to limit the scope to the 30 or so major emitters. This runs against a standard principle of public finance, that taxes should, ideally, be small and broad, to minimise their distortionary effects.
Moreover, there is little reason to retain the existing uniform tax across sectors. The firms currently affected by the tax are in distinct industries – petroleum, chemical, semiconductors and should the scope of coverage be further expanded, they would include firms in even more disparate sectors. Accordingly, sector-specific taxes would offer more room to ensure that targets are met, given the varied propensity for emissions in different industries.
Perhaps most crucially, the revenues from our carbon tax can then be used to offset other taxes, to ease the transition and ensure progressivity. Such tax-for-tax which we may call \"raise and rebate\" are not unprecedented, and have been exercised by the Government in the past. The Government can do the same this time, as a \"Green Dividend\". Alternatively, carbon taxes can be directed toward a \"Green Fund,\" to be used toward investments that would further advance environmental objectives, such as solar panels or recycling operations that serve to decarbonise the economy. My colleague, Member of Parliament for Aljunied Gerald Giam, has developed these ideas in greater detail in his speech.
The bottom line is that we can ensure that the tax is revenue-neutral, which can go a long way toward mitigating the negative effects of higher costs and focus instead on shifting the structure of our economy.
Mr Speaker, I am aware that I find myself in the somewhat unusual circumstance of defending the merits of an existing Government programme, against an alternative that has been proposed by, among others, the PAP youth wing, which sit on the opposite side of the aisle. That said, other Members of Parliament, such as Mr Don Wee and Mr Henry Kwek, have made the case for retaining the carbon tax, albeit with differing details. I attribute it to the shared rarified air that we have all the way up here.
That said, I have taken this position because I believe that the carbon tax is not only more credible, but it also embeds preferable distributional outcomes, relative to schemes that may be more attractive from an efficiency standpoint on paper, but ultimately fall short in real-world conditions.
Perhaps, ironically, economists have moved toward this new consensus position despite being the ones to initially champion a cap-and-trade system. This shift occurred after increasing evidence emerged in favour of a tax relative to cap-and-trade. And when the facts change, we should be willing to change our minds.
Singapore has the fortune of already being a technologically advanced, services-oriented economy, and hence inherently better positioned to embrace more decisive moves toward addressing environmental issues and, in particular, the threat of climate change. Climate change is an emergency, which calls for drastic measures.
We should not allow this opportunity to pass, victim to a lackadaisical policy position and undue timidity. Perhaps just as importantly, we cannot relinquish our chance to be global leaders by our signal of how a decisive move away from business-as-usual is, truly, a moral imperative.
With that parting thought, I express my support for the Motion, as amended by the Member of Parliament from Hougang, Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.
The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. I thank the Members – Mr Louis Ng, Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Don Wee – who have tabled the Motion for drawing the attention of this House and the public to the important topic of climate change. Like all of you, sustainability is close to my heart. It has been almost a decade since I first joined MEWR in 2011. And in MCCY, sustainability often featured in my engagements with our youth and citizen groups. I can speak for all of my colleagues in MSE, and across the Government, that we are encouraged by this debate, and the strong voices of support for the work that we do every day to promote a sustainable Singapore for all generations.
Sustainability has always been a part of Singapore's DNA – always. Even before the term became widely used, we have always pursued sustainable development by balancing economic growth with protecting our environment. As early as 1967, we had the vision of a \"Garden City\" and took active steps to make this a reality. The 1971 Clean Air Act, with its stringent pollution controls, is another example of our early actions to not industrialise at the expense of the environment. In the 1980s, we undertook the monumental task of cleaning up our rivers and made Singapore River the icon it is today. More recently, we launched the ABC Waters programme – Active, Beautiful, Clean Waters – to realise the full potential of our water infrastructure beyond their drainage and water storage functions. Generations have transformed Singapore into the clean and green city we enjoy today. As we enjoy walks along our parks and waterways, we can take pride in the progress we have made.
With climate change looming, we will, and we must, continue to pursue this path of sustainable development. At the 2019 National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee outlined the Government's commitment to understand, mitigate and adapt to climate change. Across the Government, we have charted out specific strategies to support our sustainability drive in the various sectors. Our inaugural Zero Waste Masterplan strives to transform Singapore into a Zero Waste Nation powered by a circular economy. Our Energy Story aspires to transform Singapore into a bright green spark for the world. We are on track to transform Singapore into a City in Nature. These are just examples of on-going efforts to energise all sectors to make climate change and sustainability core considerations. The Government's commitment is underscored by our decision to rename my Ministry to include \"Sustainability\".
We have been able to come this far by safeguarding not just the environment, but also ensuring economic growth and social inclusion; and galvanising Singaporeans to build a fair and just society, of hope and opportunity, that is sustainable, inclusive and resilient.
In doing so, we have always been keenly aware of our strengths and also our constraints. This awareness has prompted us to tackle our challenges pragmatically and turn constraints into opportunities. As we look ahead to strengthen our national approach to climate change, it is important to recall our key immutable realities.
First, our physical limitations. We will always be a dense and small island city-state. We have limited land, which we use to support diverse needs, including defence, industry, transport, housing and greenery. As Members noted, land use in Singapore will always be a trade-off between competing needs. Yet, we have always found a way to balance these needs. We built high-rise housing estates to house a growing population but set aside large nature reserves with about a third of the island covered by trees. With careful planning and in pursuit of our City in Nature vision, we have been able to protect and enhance ecologically important sites as green spaces and carbon sinks over the years. We are looking at more possibilities to enhance ecological connectivity and provide more green spaces for Singaporeans.
Second, we do not have the same options for alternative energy as other larger countries. We have neither great rivers for hydroelectric power, nor strong winds required for wind power. We are alternative-energy disadvantaged. Solar energy is our most viable renewable energy option, but even that is limited by available land area, urban shade and intermittency issues. Nevertheless, we have set ambitious solar deployment targets of 1.5 giga-watt peak of solar deployment by 2025 and at least 2 giga-watt peak by 2030.
As Mr Henry Kwek highlighted, we are taking a holistic approach to our energy challenge. We are tapping our four energy supply \"switches\". Other than solar, we rely on natural gas, which is the cleanest burning fuel, regional power grids and low-carbon alternatives. Energy conservation is a key priority. Other clean energy solutions may not be mature today, but show promise in contributing to our energy transformation efforts. Low-carbon hydrogen is one such emerging solution. Our research institutes are actively pursuing low-carbon energy research and development to unlock this potential over time.
Third, with no hinterland and no natural resources, we need a vibrant economy that is well plugged into the global economy. This will create jobs and opportunities for our people. To protect us from external shocks, we need a diversified economy, including maintaining manufacturing capabilities and capacity. This is especially so in a post-COVID-19 world, where resilience, inclusiveness and reliability have become paramount. At the same time, sustainability is at the top of mind for investors and consumers.
To remain competitive, we have to take into account these realities and balance our competing national priorities. The Energy & Chemicals sector (E&C sector) contributed around 3% of Singapore's GDP and employed over 25,000 people in 2019. It also enables many other parts of the economy, by transforming raw materials into important products that we use, including the personal protective equipment (PPE) for our healthcare workers. Our E&C sector produces not only for Singapore, but for the world. We aim to be a responsible supplier of such products, helping our industries to shift towards lower carbon products and be among the best-in-class in energy and carbon efficiency globally. Early on, we dared to transform Jurong Island into a world-class chemicals hub, even though we had no oil nor gas resources. Today, Jurong Island is home to over a hundred global chemical firms.
The E&C sector will play a key role in the global transition to a low-carbon future. For example, the chemicals industry provides silver paste, high performance plastic films and membranes that go into photovoltaic cells and batteries for electric vehicles. Members may be aware that Neste, the largest renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel producer worldwide, will be operating its largest renewables refinery in Singapore. Neste opened the first phase of its plant in 2010 and will be doubling its refining capacity to about 2.6 million tons of renewable fuels per annum. The E&C sector is also a key partner in the development of emerging low-carbon technologies, such as carbon capture, utilisation and storage. These technologies can be pivotal in enabling decarbonisation at scale. Singapore will benefit from anchoring industry players here.
We face inherent challenges as a nation. Yet, we have always tackled them squarely, turning challenges into opportunities. This continues to hold true, as we apply the same determination to tackling climate change.
Members, like Mr Louis Ng, Ms Nadia Samdin and Prof Koh Lian Pin, have highlighted that Singapore is already feeling the impacts of climate change. The year 2020 was one of the top 10 warmest years on record. Yet, June 2020 was one of the wettest and coolest Junes we have had in decades. Our weather is getting warmer, rainstorms heavier and dry spells more pronounced. Climate change can result in more frequent episodes of extreme weather, disrupt global supply chains, encourage diseases like dengue and threaten access to food, water and energy.
To effectively tackle climate change, we set up the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (IMCCC) in 2007 and the National Climate Change Secretariat in 2010. At that time, climate negotiations were just ramping up. We needed a whole-of-Government effort, with top-level leadership. The IMCCC has played a key role to oversee and coordinate both the international negotiations and domestic aspects of our climate change efforts over the years. So, since 2007, more than 10 years ago. And, because of this, we have a strong Climate Action Plan today.
To better understand climate change and its impact, we made early investments to boost our climate science capabilities. This will increase the scientific rigour in our policies. Launched in 2013, the Centre for Climate Research Singapore (CCRS) is now one of the few leading centres in the region, focusing on research in tropical weather and climate. Last year, we set up the Climate Science Research Programme Office under the CCRS to drive our national climate science research masterplan.
Climate change is a global challenge which will require an international solution. No single country will be able to tackle climate change on its own. Singapore cannot go it alone. To mitigate the global climate threat, we need a strong global response. All countries, big and small, must join hands to do their part. As a responsible global citizen, Singapore, too, will play our part as part as part of a larger international solution. This is why we are a strong advocate for a robust multilateral rules-based approach to addressing climate change. Although we contribute to only 0.1% of global emissions, we have and we will continue to push the envelope on climate ambition, taking into account our constraints.
We have been playing an active role to sustain the momentum for global climate action, whether at the annual Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, or by supporting fellow small states and developing countries to build capacity, implement and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. We are proud that experts from our Universities are making useful contributions. Assoc Profs Winston Chow from SMU, Lynette Cheah from SUTD and Prof Benjamin Horton from NTU are participating actively in the Sixth Assessment cycle of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Singapore was one of the first few countries, in fact, to ratify the Paris Agreement, which enabled its early entry into force. As a signatory to the Paris Agreement, we have pledged to peak our emissions at 65 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent around 2030, and aspire to halve emissions from its peak to 33 million tonnes by 2050. We will seek to achieve net-zero emissions as soon as viable in the second half of the century. As Members have highlighted, we do not make commitments lightly because we have every intention to make this commitment a reality.
After deliberation, we have made several enhancements to our NDC, including a clear peaking target and detailed implementation efforts. Given our circumstances, these targets are challenging and ambitious, yet credible. For example, even if we were to put solar PVs on every single rooftop our our HDB estates, we will still need to rely on natural gas for our electricity needs unless there are breakthroughs in needle-moving technologies like low carbon fuels, such as hydrogen or low carbon solutions like CCUS. We consulted widely, and our strategies strike a careful balance between all stakeholders – individuals, businesses, green groups and academia. Many of them recognised the constraints and trade-offs that we have to work with and appreciate that we back our ambition with concrete targets and action.
We will take a serious, hard look at our emissions and continue to transform our industry, economy and society. To achieve deep emissions cut, we will need to draw on technologies that are still nascent today and pursue international and regional collaboration. We have to rely heavily on cross-border collaboration, such as regional electricity grids and the establishment of a robust international carbon market with high environmental integrity. These are long-term strategies. Over time, we will gain experience and better understand the extent to which potential emissions reductions can be realised. This will help us further calibrate our actions to achieve positive climate impact.
Central to our climate mitigation strategy is our carbon tax. We are the first in Southeast Asia to have implemented a carbon tax in 2019. Our carbon tax framework has been tailored to our context, putting in place a fair, uniform and transparent price signal to incentivise emissions reductions. At 80% of our total emissions, our carbon tax coverage is one of the most comprehensive globally and we have not provided exemptions to any of our covered facilities.
We agree with Members on the importance of a strong carbon price signal in moving our industries. Several Members – Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Louis Chua – provided comments on how our carbon price should be raised. We will review our carbon price by 2023, with the intent of raising the tax rate by 2030, and we note the suggestion made by Member Jamus Lim. We will take into account international climate change developments, the progress of our climate mitigation efforts and our economic competitiveness. We will continue to work closely with all relevant stakeholders to address concerns.
Learning from our carbon tax experience so far, what had worked well for us was the clarity in our communications and close cooperation with our companies. By announcing the intent to review our tax rate early, we had provided a clear sense of direction. This gave us and our companies the confidence and time to transit to a competitive low-carbon economy. This consultative approach must continue to feature in our work.
Our carbon tax is not a stand-alone measure. We are committed to supporting our businesses and households transit to a low-carbon future and are prepared to spend more than what we collect in carbon tax revenue in the first five years on worthwhile projects to achieve emissions reductions.
On our building sector, which Ms Poh Li San spoke on, we have, indeed, come a long way in our green buildings journey. Over the years, we have progressively raised our building sustainability standards and stepped up efforts to encourage the adoption of green technology and sustainable practices. This is not just in the construction process, but throughout the building lifecycle. While we have made significant advances in the energy efficiency of our buildings, we still need building users to play their part in managing energy consumption, for example, by reducing their use of air-conditioning.
Despite our constraints as a highly urbanised tropical city, we are committed to further reducing the carbon footprint of our built environment. We will continue to push for the adoption of Super Low Energy Buildings and to support the development of energy-efficient and cost-efficient green technologies. We have been working with stakeholders on how we can achieve these aims in the next edition of the Singapore Green Building Masterplan.
Mindful that we might not be able to reverse climate change completely, adaptation must also feature in our plans. We take a long-term approach to building up our climate resilience. From coastal adaptation to mitigating urban heat island effects and enhancing our food supply resilience, we will plan ahead, invest in science and technology, and develop innovative solutions.
Our plans will include a combination of measures, including nature-based solutions, as Prof Koh Lian Pin has mentioned. The benefits to such solutions are multi-fold: conserving our biodiversity and creating new recreational space for the community to enhance our living environment and, importantly, as Ms Nadia Samdin and Prof Koh have mentioned, these solutions will also contribute to mitigating climate change. This is an exciting, growing area that we will study closely and work in partnership with our researchers, as well as international counterparts.
While we have been taking serious steps through our Climate Action Plan, there is much more we can do together in the coming years. Not only will this allow us to cope with our challenges, it will provide new opportunities to test-bed and commercialise new solutions in Singapore, which may be relevant for other cities and countries facing similar challenges.
We must adopt an enabling mindset and environment, and actively engage scientists, businesses and citizens in meaningful partnerships, including civil society groups. This will keep us agile in tapping opportunities as the world transits to a low-carbon future. COVID-19 has underscored the importance of transformation, resilience and cohesion in societies. Singapore will strive to emerge stronger together from the COVID-19 crisis and build back greener and better.
We will promote green growth. We are actively pursuing new opportunities, both in existing sectors and new sectors, that Singapore companies can thrive in. We will build an eco-system to support and equip our companies and people with the right skills to seize these opportunities. For example, developing Singapore's capability in green financing will catalyse the growth of sustainability practices in our economy and enhance our competitiveness. Global investors are increasingly sensitised to environmental, social and governance issues, and the right allocation of capital will support sustainability projects and unlock green growth opportunities and good jobs for Singaporeans. As Mr Henry Kwek highlighted, by harnessing the potential of our carbon services industry to grow Singapore into a leading carbon trading and services hub, we can build an eco-system of expertise in this growing field.
Plastics, an issue of growing global concern, also presents an opportunity. Just as we closed the water loop, we hope to do the same for plastics. Mechanical recycling and chemical recycling solutions can turn plastic waste into usable plastics. We are actively exploring chemical recycling that turns plastics which are not suitable for traditional mechanical recycling, including contaminated ones, into NewOil.
As part of the Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2025 plan, we will strengthen the networks between our research institutes, and between research institutions and companies. The solutions for sustainability and climate change will come from such multi-disciplinary, yet disciplined approach to research, development and enterprise.
We will green transport. Singapore is investing in public transport and is the only country in the world that has a zero-growth policy for vehicles. We will go further in making our vehicles green, including through the electrification of vehicles. The Government aims to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles and have all vehicles run on cleaner energy by 2040. We are working closely with stakeholders, including the private sector, to catalyse the adoption of electric vehicles.
We will be enhancing the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability initiative so that we leverage the collective capabilities across the Government to improve resource efficiency and pursue environmental sustainability in the Public Sector.
This brings me to the importance of deepening engagements. Mr Louis Ng, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Nadia Samdin, Mr Seah Kian Peng brought up the need to rally everyone around the common goal of sustainable development. And engagement not only with our community and 3P partners, across the people, public and private sectors, but also harmonious engagement with our natural environment. We strongly believe in the importance of this and have been engaging communities, schools and individuals through citizen science programmes and the One Million Trees movement, among others. We will continue to do more, and recently launched the Youth@SGNature initiative to provide young people with more platforms to engage with nature.
Educating our young on environmental sustainability and climate change is important. The Government will continue to strengthen the learning experiences for students and mould the values of our future generations.
We have heard similar hopes and aspirations, and more, at our Emerging Stronger Conversations, which many of us have been involved in, and other platforms. These are areas of key priority to the Government. The Government has heard the voices, the suggestions and are actively incorporating these suggestions into our plans. While building on many of our past policies and programmes, we can do more to pull these different strands and efforts together, culminating in a common, united vision.
This Motion is, therefore, timely. Over the last few months, the Government has been making preparations to launch a whole-of-nation movement to advance the sustainability agenda in Singapore. We call this the Singapore Green Plan 2030 or, in short, the Green Plan. This is a multi-Ministry effort and will be a major policy priority for this Government.
Under the Green Plan, agencies will set ambitious and concrete targets on a sectoral basis, building on what we have achieved. We want to rally and work with our 3P partners by articulating our priorities and goals, and we will consciously create space for the community to join hands and do more together. Ministers and political officeholders will be actively involved in the development of comprehensive programmes as part of this national engagement process. It is not just about getting feedback on Government policies, but working together to co-create solutions. Every sector, and every action, will count.
Through this process, we hope to catalyse bold, balanced and collective action. Bold – that we push the envelope on all fronts, challenging ourselves to do more, in spite of our national circumstances and constraints. Balanced – for we know that, with every action and target, there are considerations and trade-offs to be made, and every Singaporean must have a voice and stake in our sustainability journey. And collective – because we need all 3P parties, all segments of the society, to work with us to make the Green Plan a reality.
We will announce more details in the coming weeks. The Deputy Prime Minister will speak about our sustainability agenda during the Budget debates. The Government has every intent, as the Motion states, to partner the private sector and the people of Singapore, to deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change and to embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore.
Sustainability is a journey, not a destination. Our work to achieve sustainable development is never done. Our Singapore Green Plan will be a living document. We will adapt our plans, ambitions and policies over time. Circumstances will change, new opportunities will emerge, and new ideas and initiatives will present themselves as we work with our citizens, businesses and communities.
More importantly, we must build the social compact to deal with the challenges of climate change and sustainability. Just as we have come together to fight the COVID-19 pandemic collectively, we will need to act with the same sense of solidarity and make collective, informed decisions on the steps we will take to achieve sustainable development as a society.
As we walk together on the sustainability journey, it is not enough for us to just set up impressive sounding goals. We will need to consider Singapore's circumstances and constraints. We may not be able to avail ourselves of solutions deployed in countries like China, Japan and South Korea. On the other hand, as a city, we are as ambitious, if not more so, as Beijing, Tokyo and Seoul.
This will involve candid discussions on the costs and trade-offs involved, which we will have to bear, whether as consumers, as businesses or as the Government. These costs may manifest in the change in the price for a good or service we enjoy today, the cost of producing a product, the need to allocate scarce resources to a new solution, the investment in new infrastructure, or some inconveniences in changing our habits and the way we do things.
These costs are not a given as they can be mitigated by the choices we make. As individuals, we can consume less, use less air-conditioning and recycle more. As companies, we can redesign our business operations with greater efficiency in the use of resources. And the cost differences will close over time as technology advances, as we are seeing with electric vehicles, for example.
Hence, we need to evaluate each choice carefully, and find the right pace and balance in our policies and actions, taking into account our realities as a small city-state. Trade-offs we must make and changes we must pursue, for the consequences of not doing so will inflict on us costs that are many times greater in the future. Disruptions to essential supplies, increased exposure to vector-borne diseases, and catastrophic weather.
How we view these costs and how we achieve that balance to build a sustainable future will define us and will be defined by us. The many valuable suggestions and contributions shared in this House today are very encouraging. We will consider each idea seriously. For some, you will be pleased to know that work is under way and you will hear more about it in the Green Plan. For others, more time may be needed for study and review and consultation. Sustainability is not just about doing more, but doing more together, in an inclusive way, with all our stakeholders on board. I hope that Members will support us and work with us on this national movement.
It is often said that the best way to predict the future is to create it. Climate change requires us to envision a new future, and be prepared to give up the old to embrace the new. And we firmly believe that in Singapore, we will co-create a sustainable future for present and future generations. On this note, I support the Motion, and look forward to working with all of you on this journey towards sustainability. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Miss Rachel Ong.
Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I would like to start my speech conveying appreciation to the proposing team of this Motion, and to our many Government agencies who have long started the good work to support Singapore in mitigating and adapting to climate change, especially our teams at NEA, NParks, MSS and PUB. Also, many thanks to Minister Grace Fu for sharing Singapore's multiple efforts and achievements to-date in mitigating climate change.
One distinguishing mark in Singapore’s policy-making approach is our ability to think generations when designing policies. At the price of popular vote, the Government of today has often bitten the bullet, knowing that some benefits will only be reaped by our future generations.
Today’s topic on deepening Singapore’s efforts against climate change is one such Think-Generations policy. The trade-offs on current economic growth are real and tangible especially in light of the heavy pandemic that has cost to our economy.
Yet, to safeguard Singapore’s long-term well-being in the ways that even the deepest financial reserves cannot, we must act today.
The start of 2021 saw several remarkable natural phenomena in Singapore, beginning with the non-stop rain that has led to one of the highest recorded rainfall in the past 39 years. We then saw mudslides and flooding in various parts of Singapore and temperatures dipped to a low of 21.1 degrees celsius. These unpredictable weather patterns have increased in frequency the last decade in Singapore.
Later in the month, we then saw pink-purple algae bloom in Singapore Waterways — Mr Speaker, I am so sorry, my document has some mix-up. May I request for a minute?
Mr Speaker: Why not we move to the next speaker while you sort out your speech?
Miss Rachel Ong: Thank you very much.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee, you may proceed next. Stepped out? Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, the climate change Motion before us today raises one of the gravest challenges we face as a nation to the platform of Parliamentary debate. The number of speakers on this Motion from all parties in the House attests to the gravity of this issue.
I support the amendments proposed by the hon Member for Hougang, Mr Dennis Tan. The climate crisis is an emergency. Before we act, we must acknowledge the serious consequences of not acting. The hour has come for Singapore to call a spade a spade and join the close to the over 30 other countries in the world who have declared climate emergencies. As Mr Dennis Tan eloquently argued, the costs of getting climate change wrong in terms of the impact on sea levels, the weather and other dimensions of the crisis are so severe as to more than warrant the term emergency.
The word emergency signifies several things. One is the seriousness of the crisis. But another is the fact that this is a crisis that will deeply affect the nation as a whole and every person in it – rich and poor, fortunate and unfortunate, well-educated and not. An emergency calls for all hands on deck.
And it is in this spirit that Mr Dennis Tan’s other amendment, defining a role for civil society in our response, is important. As I argued in my maiden speech in this House in 2016, independent Singapore has traditionally had a strong state but a less strong civil society and domestic private sector. In this long 21st century, we need all these sectors to be strong, to contribute to diverse ideas in the public square and to augment our nation’s capacity to execute the best of those ideas, alongside a balanced political system to foster accountability, diversity of views and alternatives.
Mr Speaker, Sir, one way Singapore could be a beacon to other nations is by showing how economic development and environmental sustainability can go hand-in-hand. Just as Singapore was lauded in the past for national innovations like the HDB and EDB, we can be admired and emulated in the future for mastering the intersection between economic development and environmental sustainability. To do this we must be ambitious, united and smart.
Sir, in my speech on the Motion, I will speak about a few broad principles that will stand us in good stead as we address the challenge of climate change as a nation. And I will provide several examples of policies we can adopt under each of these thrusts.
Firstly, we should place people in the centre. We must go into battle with a keen sense that the costs of climate change affect people unequally. A rise in temperatures affects those who cannot afford air-conditioning more, for example. Our climate change policies should be calibrated to reduce those inequalities.
Secondly, in this climate change cause, transparency is a powerful ally. Government plays a crucial role here. More information being made available about how well we are doing will facilitate public scrutiny and well-informed public debate about the inevitable policy trade-offs inherent in any debate on climate change.
And thirdly, in terms of Singapore’s longer term green vision, our green goals should be ambitious but smart – we should aim for more green substantive targets but also ensure that our approaches add value to our economy in terms of cultivating pools of expertise, know-how, talent and entrepreneurial acumen that will drive a high-quality economy through partly exporting those skills to the region and the world. And as we battle climate change, our fight needs to be guided by a clear idea of what success looks like. Green goals should figure strongly in the key performance indicators we adopt in Government and as a nation – not necessarily at the expense of economic indicators like household income, but alongside these.
Sir, first, let me first move to sustainability and inequality. There is an important and troubling nexus between these two issues.
The effects of climate change would be borne disproportionately by those of lesser means – those with less resources to move house, to air-condition their homes, to filter their air and afford medical treatment. This is true globally and within Singapore. Also, some geographic areas are more vulnerable to these impacts than others. In responding to the climate crisis, our responses have to take into account this fact of unequal impacts and burdens.
Extensively built areas like, for example, Woodlands, Serangoon, Geylang, Sengkang and Punggol are listed as very high vulnerability in terms of urban heat, according to Cooling Singapore’s 2020 study. The risk is much higher for low-income residents and other people who live and work in these areas because many do not have the options for adaptation or have them to a lesser degree: no air-conditioning; shift workers who have to sleep during the hotter day-time; and older people of lesser means who are at higher risk of heat stroke. Moreover, less living space per resident means hotter rooms.
This suggests the need for progressivity in terms of our policies. For example, can we do more to entrench innovations like anti-solar paint, especially for HDB rental blocks and HDB blocks for lower income constituents.
My Parliamentary colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, has made an eloquent case for an upward trajectory for the existing carbon tax. One avenue towards which the incremental revenues from a higher carbon tax could be directed would be progressively-tiered green dividends paid to Singaporeans of lesser means, to cushion the impact of the carbon tax on the cost of living. This is not a new or radical idea. In Switzerland, two thirds of the collected revenue from their carbon tax is redistributed to households, on a per capita basis, and to firms in proportion to their payroll. In Canada’s British Columbia province, the government makes payments of a Climate Action Tax Credit or BCCATC to families. The payment is quarterly and combined with the quarterly payment of other credits.
Before I leave the issue of inequality, I would like to touch on the issue of protecting our mature forest land, but in the context of our golf clubs. The land leases of seven of eight golf clubs whose leases were due to expire between 2021 and 2023 have been renewed to some extent. Our golf clubs take up 1,500 hectares of land or roughly 2% of our land area.
Sir, I am not arguing for all golf clubs in Singapore to be removed and I welcome the information shared by Minister Desmond Lee on the subject earlier today. Given the importance of protecting pristine natural habitats like mature forests, can there not be more scope to review the land devoted to golf courses as a general planning parameter, going forward, keeping in mind the fact that not everyone plays golf; the fact that there are available golfing options very close to Singapore; and the likelihood that golf is not a huge driver of inbound tourism?
Secondly, Sir, let me touch on the broad subject of transparency and consultation. In the climate change cause, transparency is a critical ally. We are unlikely to achieve success in any endeavour if we do not define what success looks like and if we do not track our progress towards that end in a transparent manner. On this theme, I have a few suggestions for Government and governance.
I suggest a stronger suite of incentives and disincentives for quality sustainability reporting for SGX companies in line with Global Reporting Initiative and Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures standards, with additional support and a longer transitional runway for small-to-mid cap companies.
The current reporting scheme does not mandate companies to report according to specific guidelines. Hence, reporting standards differ amongst publicly-listed companies and renders the process not very meaningful. SGX has announced that it will improve on this front, but the improvements can and should be done in a single step with additional support given earlier on.
Next, it would appear that environmental impact assessments or EIAs are not strictly mandatory for all major projects. I would suggest that this be corrected.
Moreover, it is not clear to what extent Environmental Monitoring and Management Plans (EMMPs) have regulatory teeth behind them.
There has been much mature forest that has been cleared over the years that could possibly have failed EIAs. For example, 700 hectares of Tengah forest was cleared. The environmental baseline study for this has not yet been disclosed by the HDB. The same can be said of Tagore forest, which was home to several endangered and threatened species.
Moreover, under the current regime, EIA consultants are hired and paid for by the developers, which can lead to a perception of conflict of interest. The EMMP and EIA reports are intended to keep these same developers accountable. Can an independent regulatory body administer the consultant engagement and quality controls inherent in the EIA and EMMP process?
Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall touch on how being green need not come at the expense of creating good quality jobs and an economy that delivers better quality of life for Singaporean.
As as we promote sunrise future-ready green sectors in our economy and make plans to help sunset less green sectors pivot towards a greener future, we should always keep in mind the imperative to nurture domestically-rooted pools of expertise, know-how managerial and entrepreneurial talent together with the eco-system needed to root them here. We can show the world how a high quality economy can be combined with sustainability just as we can show the world how it can be combined with democratic ownership and participation.
There is more to be done to support local entrepreneurs in fields like solar installation and maintenance, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, wind turbine construction, riding perhaps on our talent IP and know-how for oil and gas rig building, vertical urban farming, green financing and professional services for a green economy. Before I continue, I declare my interest as the CEO of an international research consultancy that undertakes work in environmental-related sectors amongst others.
Sir, in many of these future-ready green sectors, it may be hard to compete for the manufacturing, for example, in solar cell, in electric vehicle (EV) production – not impossible but hard. But we can compete for our R&D rapid prototyping installation and maintenance activity. Our companies have the opportunity to build capabilities in performing installation and maintenance in and designing products for optimised for tropical environments. For example, Sunseap's Charge+ is one of the first companies to get involved in EV charging here and the company does business across the Asia Pacific. Recently, Keppel started building its first offshore wind turbine installation vessel in the US which previously built sophisticated offshore rigs.
We need more of such examples and the Government should play a facilitating role by providing incentives support in proportion to how ambitious and capable these local firms are and how fast they can grow and create good jobs at home, in other words. We need a strongly developmental mindset and not a scheme with administration mindset.
More can be done to nurture in a very targeted manner local champions in professional services fields where there is a relative dearth of these and these fields would be, for example, clean development management advisory, carbon trading, verification, consultancy for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, or REDD+ and other similar consulting services.
Next, to make a better case for the conservation of mature forests, mangrove areas and so on, which my colleague Mr Dennis Tan spoke about and which Mr Tan and my Parliamentary colleague Ms He Ting Ru asked about in their Parliamentary Questions, can the Government commit to making sure that peripheral Woodland and green areas are accessible to the public via trails, wherever feasible? It is important to prevent mature core forests and mangroves from turning into parks. But even if they are conserved, we still need to reduce impact to sensitive areas in light of, for example, the trail erosion at Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. Hence, it is advisable to work with peripheral and non-core forests, some of which are in URA's Masterplan for development.
This could yield public recreational and educational benefits which helps to cement public buy-in to green efforts as well as possibly garnering eco-tourism benefits. The URA's Masterplan 2019 lists 20 forest sites as being slated for development. Public attention is only focused on a few of these right now. The rest have also been earmarked for various land uses. Can some be developed into accessible public trails that can also serve as wildlife corridors?
Lastly, Sir, on the theme of a national green agenda, let me talk about indicators of national development and welfare.
There is room for us to review the KPIs applied to Ministries and Statutory Boards to incorporate green goals and targets, such as reducing net carbon emissions alongside reflecting more transparency in reporting these. The example of New Zealand has attracted considerable interest globally and for good reason. For years, the New Zealand government has been collecting indicators of well-being broadly defined, An OECD paper in 2019 said and I quote, \"The Treasury of New Zealand has developed its living standards framework and associated dashboard to integrate well-being evidence more systematically in its advice to the government\". And, of course, this approach goes beyond green goals, but the green dimension is baked into this approach. One of New Zealand's commitments for its public sector is to be carbon neutral by 2025.
I would like to suggest that the different arms of Government set targets for carbon emissions reduction in carbon neutrality at some point in the future then publish regular indicators of progress. This should be accompanied with a roadmap for the decarbonisation of the public sector. This roadmap should extend to all Government bodies with stronger targets or sooner targets for some rather than others, depending on their ability to cut emissions. This goes beyond what is currently being done under the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability (PSTLES) initiative. The important suggestion for green procurement by state agencies mooted by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Gerald Giam cuts along the same grain as this thrust.
I would also suggest that a part of our National Research Foundation funds be earmarked as a matter of policy for projects that have a high likelihood of strong environmental impact as well as tracked in terms of environmental outcomes. These could include, for example, R&D projects related to electric vehicles, solar power and plant-based proteins.
I would also like to suggest that green goals be reflected in our Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs). Our ITMs should have sustainability transformation goals and roadmaps baked into them as it were. This green dimension should not only be contained in one ITM but should be seen as a horizontal that cuts across all existing ITMs. This is not only important for pursuit of our green goals, but would also help ensure the longer-term competitiveness of our ITM sectors given that environmental and sustainability standards will inevitably rise all over the world and Singapore-based companies should be ahead of the curve on this so as to stay globally competitive.
To that end, I would also like to make two suggestions.
Firstly, ensure diversity in the membership of the Future Economic Council (FEC) to include good representation of NGOs, academics, sustainability professionals and civil society representatives. And secondly, pathways into a green future should reflect transition plans for sectors and their workers that will be sunset sectors in a greener future, for example, fossil fuel industries and traditional car workshop activity.
My Parliamentary colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, has made an important suggestion about the use of the Special Employment Credit (SEC) to help nudge such workers to take up green jobs.
I would also like to call for our Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) to set targets to wind down their investment in fossil fuel sectors which, in any case, will face an uncertain longer term future even in commercial terms. Such a strategy need not be inconsistent with earning good returns. As shown by the example on performance of the Norwegian SWF, which began divesting from fossil fuels in 2019. Moreover, can our SWFs be given a mandate to proactively invest in local firms that are developing next generation solutions for the green future in sectors like EVs, solar and plant-based proteins, for example?
In passing, I would like to observe that ambition plays a key role in this climate change fight. As argued eloquently by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Louis Chua, Singapore's action is still \"highly insufficient\" and consistent with three to four degree Celsius warming, well below the two degrees Celsius goal targeted by the Paris Agreement. Singapore aims to peak emissions in 2030 while the IPCC recommends 45% emissions reduction from 2010 levels by 2030 and net-zero by 2050.
One device to move us on the right track to is to set hard national goals for renewable energy share of total energy consumption – hard goals but realistic goals, as Mr Louis Chua argued for.
Sir, in conclusion, I would like to briefly share some personal perspectives on why this subject is so important.
In 1990, I remember astronomer Carl Sagan persuaded NASA to get the space probe Voyager 1 to turn back towards earth and take a photograph of earth before it left for the outer reaches of the solar system. The resulting photograph became known as the pale blue dot photograph which shows us the stark reality of how small this planet ultimately is in the vastness of the cosmos and how our differences as members of humanity paled beside the shared imperative of protecting the only home we have ever known.
We know the reality of the climate emergency facing Singapore in the world now. The generation that led the world through the Second World War was known in some quarters as the greatest generation. Out of the ashes of war came institutions like the United Nations, the World Bank and the IMF, that continue to play a useful role, however imperfect, in the current and hopefully soon-to-be improved world order. Let us reflect on that —
Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Perera. You have 45 seconds.
Mr Leon Perera: Sure. Let us reflect on that for a second. Great crises can bring out the best in us. That is the fate we can choose. And it is because we need to make that choice that I support the amended Motion proposed by Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister Teo.
The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had not intended to speak on the subject, but after listening to so many speakers, I am truly gratified at the support for environmental action and climate change that is coming from all sides of this House. As the Chairman of the IMCCC, I have never seen such overwhelming support in so many years and I am glad that it is so forthcoming.
I would like to make one clarification on carbon tax because there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding even among normally well-informed Members of this House on carbon tax in Singapore.
There has been a comment that the carbon tax in Singapore is very narrowly focused and only affects a few industries. In fact, the carbon tax in Singapore is one of the most comprehensive in the world. If one looks at it, you can see that we have chosen to apply the carbon tax at key nodes of carbon emissions in Singapore so that this tax will flow through evenly to the rest of the economy. This makes the implementation of the carbon tax and the administrative load on companies, especially SMEs, very low.
By selecting these key nodes and applying the carbon tax there, for example, the power companies and the key emitters in industry, we have been able to cover 80% of emissions in Singapore, and this is an extremely effective way of doing so.
The remaining 20%: the highest proportion of the remainder actually comes from transport fuel emissions, which are already fairly substantially taxed in Singapore. So, our coverage is even higher than 80% when one talks about the carbon tax coverage.
I just wanted to make this clarification so that there is no misunderstanding in this House about how we have implemented the carbon tax.
In fact, I am very gratified that many Members have made very strong arguments for a comprehensive and even carbon tax that is applied across the whole economy as a very effective way of implementing carbon emission controls. In fact, a number of Members have advocated substantially higher carbon tax rates than we are applying today, and I hope that this will smoothen the passage of any such measures in this House when they are discussed in the future. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): As my speech touches on carbon tax and green financing, I declare that I am working with a bank and a council member of the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants.
The carbon tax is widely recognised as the most effective way to reduce emissions. Currently, Singapore's carbon tax of $5 per tonne of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is levied only on key facilities as mentioned by Senior Minister Teo whose annual emissions are more than 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. These facilities contribute to 80% of Singapore's emissions. The Government aims to raise the tax to between $10 and $15 by 2030, subject to a review in 2023. In comparison, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change recommends at least US$135. So, we are looking at a huge gap here.
Proposing an increase in carbon tax during this challenging period seems counter-intuitive. On the other hand, we know that however difficult it is, we must still look beyond our immediate future to plan for decades ahead. Many of the changes we need to make to combat climate change have to begin now.
I am hopeful that we will emerge from the COVID-19 crisis by 2025. Therefore, I suggest that we increase our carbon tax gradually, so that we will be able meet higher targets incrementally, based on the following timeline and quantums: between $30 and $55 by 2030; between $50 and $90 by 2035; and between $75 and $120 by 2040.
In addition, I request that these increased taxes be announced with a long period of advance notice. For example, the 2023 review should be the deadline by which 2030 rates are finalised. The same review should also provide an estimate range for 2035 rates. The advance notice is extremely important, as it gives businesses time to adapt and plan.
The Government should also provide the reassurance that each review of the carbon tax will take into consideration a matrix of socio-economic factors – such as projections of GDP impact, cost of living and employment – to ensure that Singapore maintains its reputation as a responsive, business-friendly hub.
The revenue from the carbon tax can be used to expand funding for energy efficiency and green financing schemes. For example, the Energy Efficiency Fund, Resource Efficiency Grant and Genco Energy Efficiency Grant could increase their co-funding of efficiency projects beyond the current 50% for meritorious projects.
Similar efficiency grants should also be extended to other industries, such as transportation and agriculture progressively in future, to ensure that carbon abatement is an economy-wide project. Tax exemptions could be granted for start-ups and joint ventures that specialise in emerging green technologies and services. The Government should also incentivise green financing initiatives by the banks. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Among the climate change measures our country has implemented, the carbon tax is one of the most effective and noticeable. Although the public support environment protection measures, they are also worried about the impact of carbon tax on most consumers and small and medium size enterprises. I think that while carbon tax increases will lead to increases in utility bills, our country is still able to bear the increments. Utility bills normally only constitute a small part of an enterprise’s expenses. After all, rental, salaries and equipment fees take up a larger proportion.
What our Government must do is to ensure that our SMEs and low-income families obtain appropriate rebates and subsidies, for example, the kueh-lapis style of tiered support to help underprivileged families. The Government can use the carbon tax collected to subsidise our local companies' and underprivileged families' utility bills, so that they will not be affected.
Presently, a $5 carbon tax means a 1% increase in household's utility bills. COVID-19 has already given many of our families huge financial pressure, especially the low-income families. They face many challenges, and hence, we should reduce their burden in this area. The Government had announced that the U-Save voucher scheme will be run until this year. I suggest that the Government link U-Save with carbon tax increments, so that in this way, even when the carbon tax rises, the increase in utility rebates will be enough to offset the increases in charges.
Just now, Member Mr Louis Chua suggested that the Government advocate Green Financing. Last November, MAS introduced the Green and Sustainability-linked Loan Grant Scheme (GSLS) which will come into effect on 1 January 2021. This is an unprecedented scheme in the world. GSLS will support companies to obtain green and sustainability financing, regardless of their size. It will help them to pay for the cost of hiring an independent service provider to certify the green and sustainability certificate. The scheme also encourages the banks to introduce a loan framework to link green and sustainability, so that SMEs will find it easier to obtain this type of loan.
Just now, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim quoted Laozi’s words: the journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step, I would also like to quote Laozi: Great undertakings have small beginnings, and difficult tasks are tackled from where it is easy. As Minister Grace Fu mentioned just now, the Government already took the first step in 1967.
So, in conclusion, I support this Motion.
Mr Speaker: Miss Rachel Ong.
Miss Rachel Ong: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity. Mr Speaker, I would like to start my speech conveying my appreciation to the proposing team of this Motion and to our many Government agencies who have long started the good work to support Singapore in mitigating and adapting to climate change, especially our teams at NEA, NParks, MSS and PUB. Also, many thanks to Minister Grace Fu for sharing Singapore's multiple efforts and achievements to-date in mitigating climate change.
One distinguishing mark in Singapore's policy-making approach is our ability to think generations when designing policies. At the price of popular vote, the Government of today has often bitten the bullet, knowing that some benefits will only be reaped by our future generations.
Today's topic on deepening Singapore’s efforts against climate change is one such Think-Generations policy. The trade-offs on current economic growth are real and tangible especially in light of the heavy blow the pandemic has dealt to our economy.
Yet, to safeguard Singapore's long-term well-being in ways that even the deepest financial reserves cannot, we must act today.
The start of 2021 saw several remarkable natural phenomena in Singapore, beginning with the non-stop rain that led to one of the highest recorded rainfalls in the past 39 years. We then saw mudslides and flooding in various parts of Singapore and temperatures dipped to a low of 21.1 degrees Celsius. These unpredictable weather patterns have increased in frequency the last decade in Singapore.
Later in the month, we then saw pink-purple algae bloom in Sentosa Waterways. The bloom is then believed to have caused the death of various fish and marine life in the waterway, a consistent consequence of similar blooms in the Mediterranean Sea.
All the above are not isolated, curious incidents, but are sure signs of the tangible negative impact climate change has on Singapore, as pointed out by other Members earlier. Singapore is now almost one degree Celsius hotter than our pre-industrial 1950s and heating up twice as fast as the rest of the world.
Without further intervention, Singapore may see our temperature increase from 1950s, hit 1.5 degrees Celsius within the next 20 years.
Today, Singapore remains in the top 30 nations in carbon emissions per capita out of 142, standing at 8.45 tonnes per capita.
For this reason and as party to the Paris Climate Agreement, we have set a target to peak at 65 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2030, a target I urge this House to review.
Even at a previously projected population size of 6.9 million by 2030, which the Government has clarified we are unlikely to reach, we are looking at a production of 9.4 tonnes per capita of carbon dioxide, an increase rather than a decrease of where we are currently.
I urge our Government to take even more determined measures to lower our per capita carbon emissions and to do so sooner, instead of waiting till 2050 to half this target. To maintain global temperature rise to under 1.5 degree Celsius, every year and every decade counts.
There are two mitigating strategies to a sustainable Singapore I would like to focus on. First, reducing our carbon dioxide emissions target. Second, increasing public appreciation and accessibility to nature and biodiversity.
First, reducing our carbon emissions. This can happen in two ways. The first, reducing production of new carbon emissions; and second, removing carbon emissions in the atmosphere.
Singapore has made great efforts and progress to reduce production of new carbon emissions, an essential mitigating strategy to climate change. They range from the Green Mark Scheme for sustainable building design, exploring renewable energy for transport and industry, extending research for new carbon capture and storage technologies, amongst many other initiatives.
I also want to applaud MOT's target to switch entirely to low emissions vehicles by 2040 or earlier.
And we should not miss out on strategies to remove carbon emissions by using natural carbon sinks that already exist in Singapore – our forests. Forests, wetlands and soils are some of the most effective natural carbon sinks. While Singapore has made concerted efforts to retain carbon sinks in our current marine and nature conservation areas, we should leverage to our advantage the remaining forests that make up approximately 23% of our land.
Our 1 Million Trees Movement is an excellent initiative to increase our green cover and help keep temperatures cool in Singapore. However, not all green cover is equal in their ability to sequester or absorb carbon. A 2015 study with Singapore shows that older trees sequester a significantly larger amount of carbon than younger trees we plant in new parks or sidewalks.
Additionally, it is the production of biomass in foliage, woods, roots and the soils that store the most carbon, all of which are found in abundance in forests and limited in other urban green spaces.
Afforestation and reforestation are great measures, but retaining what forests we have, even secondary ones, and allowing them to grow to their full ecological potential will allow far more effective carbon sequestering than planting new ones.
We can both plant new trees and retain the forested areas we have. We can complement our technological climate solutions with natural ones and support our remaining forests to do what they do best naturally to reduce Singapore's carbon emissions.
The tension between conservation and development is real in our land-scarce nation. Yet both are now equally essential for Singapore's growth.
For this to happen, nature must be integrated as living infrastructure vital to our development as a sustainable city state. Singapore should continue to explore other means such as upgrading older estates, redeveloping or innovating current parcels of land for new use.
Incentives can be given for current and new infrastructure to be re-designed or designed for multiple benefits and use, such as mixes of commercial uses with community farms, community centres and schools.
On our forests: the Clementi Forest covers 85 hectares and Ulu Pandan Forest, 33 hectares. It would be ecologically responsible of us to consider utilising portions of the 1,500 hectares across 17 golf courses, before reaching into our forest land. I am encouraged to hear from Minister Desmond Lee earlier today that by 2030, 400 hectares of golf course land will be taken back for redevelopment.
While future generations can choose to rebuild golf courses, forests that are removed now will take decades to grow and the connected biodiversity that we lose now, may never return.
Given the forests' cumulative benefits of stabilising carbon emissions over time, we must consider our forests as our last resort.
May I clarify that this does not mean that every plot of land that has existing vegetation and trees must never be used for development, but rather, I urge us to make deeper efforts as a nation to find ecologically better alternatives that also factor in and measure carbon sequestration of our land and other ecological measures as part of our decision-making.
Some may think that we are over-stating the value of forests and biodiversity to our future generations, and this brings me to my second point, that is, to increase public appreciation and accessibility to nature and biodiversity.
Studies have shown a positive correlation of exposure to nature to environmentally conscious behaviour. However, the amount of exposure Singaporeans have to biodiversity is limited as urban dwellers. We tend to have limited experience with nature around us beyond the roadside trees and carefully manicured parks. The impact on our population's environment comes as no surprise.
A young volunteer at my constituency commented that his first memory of close encounters with Singapore nature was the one during his NS days and that it was not too pleasant. Much more can be done to instill appreciation and wonder for nature within Singapore in our schools and community.
Some may be aware that Singapore holds species that can only be found in our country; the Johnson's freshwater crab, which thankfully is an unlikely candidate for Chili Crab, and a Tyrannomyrmex Rex is not the dinosaur, but a rare ant species named for its resemblance to the dinosaur.
I propose two ways to raise public appreciation and accessibility to nature and bio-diversity: first, through enhanced education. One benefit of the pandemic has been an increased awakening to our local nature reserves and parks. We should seize this opportunity to inform and interest our people on the bio-diversity in our midst. At the same time, cultivating love for nature and bio-diversity can start earlier through active education in our schools.
This should go beyond the occasional excursions to nature reserves or classroom lessons, but rather, regular, immersive experiences in nature similar to the curricula we see in forest schools in Europe, US and more recently in Singapore. An intentional and focused curricula on nature is no longer a good-to-have, but a necessity as we raise our next generation to be better stewards of our environment as Singaporeans and global citizens.
Such education should not be limited only to those who can afford private schools or enrichment programmes. May our children's first immersion to our tropical nature not be in the form of military service, but through a growing curriculum of nature as their living classrooms.
The second way to raise public appreciation and accessibility to nature and bio-diversity is through per capita access to nature. Singapore has set a goal to raise our green space per capita to eight square metres by 2030, just shy of the WHO's recommended minimum of nine square metres per capita, and far from the ideal 50 square metres. It is time to review this target and clarify \"green spaces\" as forests, nature parks and reserves, if we are to build an urban population that is not only healthy, but also increasingly environmentally conscious.
In light of the climate risks we now face in Singapore, I support the proposing team's proposal of the seventh pillar of Total Defence – which I had also prepared for this speech, but named it \"Ecological Defence\". Singapore owns capital not limited to the human and financial. Our natural capital, little as it may be, must be carefully invested-in even if the bulk of the benefits may only be reaped by generations to come. I appeal to this House to accelerate investment in our natural capital by creating a conducive environment for Singaporeans and for our companies to do so.
In summary, for the purpose of mitigating Singapore's carbon emissions, I propose that Singapore further lower our 2030 targets for carbon emissions, not only by deployment of technology, but also by preserving the forests we have, especially re-zoning Clementi and Ulu Pandan Forests as nature reserves while exploring other land space for our housing and industrial needs.
Secondly, I also propose raising environment consciousness in our populace through an early nature immersion for our children in education and for us to increase the amount of green space per capita. This will support long-term sustainability efforts in Singapore.
Building a sustainable Singapore is a responsibility shared by each of us. As individuals, we can all do more in Singapore's fight against climate change. The recent petition for Ulu Pandan Forest has brought to national attention this needful conversation on Singapore's commitment to steward nature and fight climate change. Many residents and I are grateful for Mr Sydney Cheong, not because he started the petition but because of his genuine care for our nature, lived out day to day.
My hope is that the conversations started will continue to extend to a larger national conversation on eco-friendly habits we intentionally adopt as individuals to make Singapore both a City in Nature and a sustainable home for all generations. With this, Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many of my colleagues have made suggestions to increase the carbon tax. I felt a bit of unease about it, because this will increase the cost of businesses, and will, perhaps, eventually be passed on to the consumers, hence increasing their financial burden. Any increase should be done progressively according to market needs, not at one go. Otherwise, prices will increase sharply and may cause hardship for the people.
At the same time, I agree with the suggestion by some of my colleagues that the Government can use incentives to encourage businesses to reduce carbon emission, adopt alternative clean energy sources and invest in them. The relevant investment can be used to offset carbon tax. This is akin to linking rising productivity with wage increases. By doing this, we can build a green economy and environment, a win-win situation.
Tonight, I would like to speak on two topics: charging points for electric vehicles and the data sharing mechanisms. First of all, I would like to reaffirm my support for a car-lite Singapore. However, cars will continue to play an important role in our transport system, so we must still build an infrastructure for cars, especially electric vehicles (EV). The Government is already planning to install 28,000 public charging points and is looking to work with the private sector to ramp up the infrastructure for electric vehicles.
I urge the Government to ensure that sustainability will be a major consideration in the process of building charging points. Charging point projects should only be awarded to contractors who factor in life-cycle costing and carbon footprint analysis, and provide points with energy efficiency certifications, such as those accredited by the US government with Energy Star. At viable locations, the charging stations should be powered up by solar panels.
Users should also have the options of paying via Parking.sg app and paper coupons in the event of poor network connection or lost mobile phones. They should also be able to see and compare the charging fees across different energy suppliers and charging locations. The pricing structure should use fees, demerit points and message nudges to dissuade drivers from leaving their EV at the charging lots once they complete charging.
(In English): Due to the higher costs of EVs, those in the middle and upper middle income groups are more likely to be the early adopters of EVs. As over 16% of Singaporeans live in condominiums, I urge the Government to introduce regulations and incentives for condos to provide EV charging infrastructure. For a start, new condos should be required to set aside a certain number of their parking spaces as charging points. Existing condos should be required to adapt existing spaces or create new spaces for charging points, with a longer grace period. For those living on landed properties, the Ministry should assist them to check and ensure that the junction boxes in their estates are able to support the charging of electric cars so that their homes do not suffer a blow-out or power trip.
The Government should also incentivise private developers to build publicly accessible charging points. Currently, with the low EV population, there is little incentive for private developers to build them. Financial incentives can be in the form of grants, tax breaks or subsidies. Public-sector data can be shared with the private sector to help them identify sources of demand, track usage patterns of Government-built charging points and disclose information on points with excessive charging demand. This will alleviate the pressure on the Government to build new charging points and also relieves congestion at the existing ones. In fact, the Government also can look into encouraging more innovations; not just fixed charging points, but can be flexible charging points, so on and so forth.
This brings me to my next point on the data sharing mechanisms. All businesses recognise that pooling data, or getting access to external sources of data, can help generate value through the identification of new sources of income and cost reduction methods. However, due to reasons of confidentiality and competition, data sharing is always a challenge.
The Government can step in by setting up data-sharing mechanisms within and across industries, particularly for key industrial sectors. The IMDA's Trusted Data Sharing Framework provides principles and examples that can serve as the basis of such agreements. Such a framework fosters collaboration and benefits companies in many ways.
The EU is already leading in such data-sharing systems. The Shared European Logistics Intelligent Information Space brought 37 logistics entities together to create a trusted data-sharing environment for the industry. In the Netherlands, the logistics and transport sector came together to develop iSHARE, a uniform set of agreements to identify and access management among organisations, allowing all parties to easily share data with business partners and downstream entities.
For Singapore, several industries could do something similar. Retail developers can share data on the reliability, efficiency and quality of common fittings, energy-saving technologies and other energy-consuming equipment. SMEs in the manufacturing sector could have a standardised digital system for reporting sustainability-related data points, which makes it easier for downstream clients to assess such data points and comply with their own sustainability requirements.
The benefits of such frameworks for climate change are significant. In addition to increases in efficiency and the reduction of resource consumption, such frameworks nurture the growth of specific sectors, nudge them towards digitisation and increased data sophistication.
Finally, I hope that the Government would also consider investing, and encourage investments, in EV battery research and development. EVs have not been adopted as quickly as we hope because potential buyers are wary of their higher costs and suffer from range anxiety – the worry that their EVs will run out of electricity before they can reach charging points. Imagine if one could just drive into an energy station and swap the car battery, similar to the option for many mobile phones. This would address the concerns over the time needed to charge the EVs, unlike the quick petroleum top up we can get for internal combustion engine vehicles.
I hope that the Ministry would consider my recommendations in support of the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I propose an amendment to Mr Dennis Tan's first amendment?
Mr Speaker: Can I have a copy of the amendment, please? [A copy of the amendment was handed to Mr Speaker.] The amendment is in order. Do you have copies made for all the Members?
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling: Yes, Mr Speaker. I have given copies to the Clerk for distribution.
Mr Speaker: Okay, we will distribute the amendment to the Members. [Copies of the amendment were distributed to hon Members.] Miss Chan, please move your amendment.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling: Mr Speaker, I beg to move that after the word \"acknowledges\" in Mr Tan's first amendment, to leave out the words \"a climate emergency\" and to insert the words \"that climate change is a global emergency and a threat to mankind\". Sir, let me explain the rationale to the amendment.
Today, Singapore makes up 0.1% of global emissions annually. Hence, declaring a climate emergency in Singapore alone is insufficient. Singapore has done a fair amount of balance of growth development and environmental protection, but actions against climate change must take place in Singapore and beyond our shores. Be it roadmaps, the type of investments, supply chains, energy demand and much more. Singapore is part of a larger international solution.
Thus, we need to look into these efforts globally and how they impact mankind. Singapore can certainly contribute our part and we must do so no matter how small or large we are. Having heard many suggestions and views from the Members on both sides of this House, we all agree that this is an area we should focus on and it is the actions and measures taken now that matter.
In the spirit of mutual improvement towards the same goal, I hope both sides of the House will support the amendment. This is what the proposed amendments to the Motion reads: \"That this House acknowledges that climate change is a global emergency and threat to mankind and calls on the Government in partnership with the private sector, civil society and the people of Singapore to deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change and to embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore.\"
Mr Speaker, the decarbonisation journey is a multi-faceted and dynamic one. The efforts and commitment, however, should not be shy of determination and innovation from different stakeholders in society. Today, I will touch on two themes – the need for sustainability accounting on greenhouse gas emissions (GhG) and carbon emissions and preparing the talent pool to embark on this green economy in Singapore. It is my hope that we can achieve our goals in fighting climate change. Let us begin by discussing how through different aspects we can enable Singapore to be more focused in our actions and obtain more tangible outcomes.
First, greater accountability and consistent standards of measursing GhG and carbon emissions. The development of framework to deal with GhG and carbon emissions depends heavily on the ability to measure, account and document emissions. To be fair, many companies and industries have already introduced standards to measure carbon emissions as part of their Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) contributions. However, the pertinent issue is, there are many different standards and accounting practices being used, thereby making it difficult to do a cross-industry assessment or benchmark companies within the same sector.
Before the proposals, I will provide an understanding of what other jurisdictions are doing globally. Regulators globally are currently adopting a more prescriptive approach to ESG reporting by making such reporting mandatory rather than voluntary. In 2007, Sweden mandated state-owned companies to publish sustainability reports. In June 2020, the Bank of England also published its first climate risk disclosure report based on the framework by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, TCFT. More recently, regulators have begun to introduce ESG reporting obligations for financial market participants and not just companies. Europe is the first jurisdiction to mandate ESG reporting for asset managers. From March 2021, asset managers in Europe will be required to disclose how they integrate ESG factors into their investments.
Additionally, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDG) has called for the harmonisation of accounting standards for GhG to facilitate transparency, accuracy and comparability of climate actions.
Thus, I would want to propose concrete actions through the following.
One, companies must publish an annual ESG Report based on standardised reporting frameworks. Using standardised reporting frameworks, which I will elaborate on later, this would help establish a common criterion of measurement and consequently assessment in the annual carbon footprint of an organisation. Thus, facilitating baseline comparison across different companies and industries.
As a next step, companies can establish carbon emission reduction targets against their baseline and the industry's benchmark of an \"ideal carbon footprint\". This would better help Singapore companies take reference and adjust their goals using the industry benchmark. In a way, companies that are ahead of the curve in their decarbonisation plans and emission measurements can share best practices with those experiencing difficulties in meeting their targets. Further, with industry-wide efforts and Government directive, the focus can be placed in dedicating resources towards assisting companies in finding ways to remedy and improve their situation rather than penalising. It is the collaborative ecosystem approach that we want to encourage in the value chain and bring all parties towards the same goal.
Thinking longer term, with a more standardised and quantified approach, we as a nation will be better positioned to continuously review the adequacy of our carbon emission target and adopt technological solutions to accelerate our achievement towards the goal.
Two, MAS to provide a list of reporting frameworks that can be mandated for the annual ESG reporting. While there are many GhG accounting standards adopted by industries today, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) appear to have the largest relevance and ease of adoption across industries. These frameworks are also recommended by UNSDG and the market participants. The frameworks have their respective strengths and identified subsets of ESG issues most applicable to financial performance. Additionally, it recognises that not all sustainability issues have equal weightage to each industry and the same sustainability issue may manifest differently across industries.
While the Singapore Exchange or SGX currently mandates ESG reporting, the reporting guidelines are loosely framed, which allows for much flexibility in reporting. Thus, hampering the ability in making meaningful interpretations and comparison of emissions that we urgently require to understand.
I am certainly cognisant that it will be tall order for many companies without the ability to administer and comply with a reporting framework. Hence, the suggestion is to begin mandating specific framework of reporting from the larger public listed companies, including the multinational companies. The larger companies in Singapore can take the lead in adopting the frameworks so at the start, the support will be given to provided induction for SMEs who may have limited knowledge about their supply chains or their production footprint. In the interim, more can be done educating and heighten awareness amongst the local SMEs on the significance of selected frameworks' applicability to their industries and the annual ESG Reporting method. The purpose is to gain their buy-in and not merely treating this as another regulation that needs to be adhered to or increasing cost of business. This way, we exercise prudence to ensure that the smaller SMEs have a roadmap to adopt the frameworks and compliance cost of ESG reporting is taken into consideration for future.
Next, getting everyone onboard the fight in climate change. The Green Economy is a new model of sustainable growth and an exciting one. However, there exists a gap today between interests of participants entering this economy and their ability to embark. Much needs to be done to develop Singapore's infrastructure and talent pool for sustainable accounting, should it eventually become legislated and the job opportunities in Green Economy blossom.
To bridge this gap, here are some suggestions of immediate actions that can be taken to enhance the quality and understanding of sustainability for those interested to participate in this field.
One, provide more variety in the courses at Institutes of Higher Learning for those who are interested in the field of sustainability field as a career. For example, financial accounting for sustainability, low carbon manufacturing and materials, food supply alternatives.
Two, facilitate early or mid-career moves towards jobs focused on environmental sustainability in partnerships with companies through structured mentorship and work transition programmes.
Three, work with industries and public sector to outline types of future green jobs and constantly align on skills and competencies that are required for such roles in emerging sectors
Four, develop understanding of sustainability as a career and professionalising the Green Economy as the current perception is that green jobs usually exist in non-profit organisations.
We can be accelerated at the beginning of this transformation through adding a pillar in the Industry Transformation Map (ITM) with specific focus on sustainability. The industry sectors with more advance capability around sustainability can provide the inputs to our strategies and guidelines on the roadmap for others to take reference. Over time, the sustainability element can then be incorporated directly under each of the 23 ITMs. This hybrid approach will enable MTI to better shape the development of training, programmes and infrastructures to create more eco-friendly business environment that supports inclusion of sustainability within the sectors over time.
With a sustainability ITM, sustainability will be put at the forefront and elevating its role and importance within businesses and our society. The public-private sector partnerships through economies of scale can be better deployed when there is visibility and definition of scope as opportunities arise across industries. Greater exchange of best practices, R&D and innovation can also be identified with greater synergy for collaborative work to drive the Green Economy. Further, data pooling will ultimately result in better design of processes, improved efficacy, shorten learning curve, drive fresh investments and reduce the overall carbon footprint.
Mr Speaker, Singapore has had past successes of building new industries, ranging from microelectronics, finance, pharmaceuticals to advance engineering, to name a few. I firmly believe we can achieve the same for the sustainability industry. Climate change is indeed a very existential threat to our world and our country today. The pressures will only increase as our demand for energy and as a developed economy continues. It is essential that we cultivate civic consciousness to the extent that sustainability becomes our way of life. So, not only do we need to get everyone on board to fight against climate change, we must lead the way and lay the foundations today. All hands on deck, let us navigate this adventure together! Sir, I stand in support of the Motion.
Mr Speaker: It has been proposed as a sub-amendment that after the word \"acknowledges\" in Mr Tan's first amendment, to leave out the words \"a climate emergency\" and there to insert the words \"that climate change is a global emergency and a threat to mankind\".
We are having a simultaneous debate. Members may wish to speak on all the amendments before the House.
The Question is, \"That the words proposed to be left out, be there left out.”
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Sir, I grew up watching Captain Planet and the Planeteers. Some of the younger Members in this House will have no idea what I am talking about. It was a cartoon series about protecting our planet. I loved it. This is how the opening went, \"Our world is in peril. Gaia, the spirit of the Earth, can no longer stand the terrible destruction plaguing our planet. She sends five magic rings to five special young people: Kwame, from Africa, with the power of Earth; from North America, Wheeler, with the power of Fire, from the Soviet Union – yes that is how old this cartoon is – Linka, with the power of Wind; from Asia, Gi, with the power of Water; and from South America, Ma-Ti, with the power of Heart. When the five powers combine, they summon Earth's greatest champion, Captain Planet.\"
I also remember the show's catchy theme song, but I remember Speaker's Facebook post about not getting any ideas about singing in Parliament, so I shall not sing it. Plus, it is getting pretty late.
Mr Speaker: Thank you. [Laughter.]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I also remember one sentence, something Captain Planet said over and over again: \"The power is yours.\"
As I shared in my opening speech, Singaporeans, more than ever, believe in Captain Planet's message. They believe the power to protect the planet is theirs. So, they speak up and take action. This makes me optimistic.
But our optimism must not take us away from our urgency. Greenhouse gas emissions reached a new high in 2019.
The Paris Agreement aimed to cap this century’s temperature increase at 1.5-degree Celsius. But instead we are on track for three-degree Celsius change. We are hurtling towards extreme climate change and we must urgently change course.
The Government must help by deepening and accelerating our efforts against climate change. Sir, in summary, the GPC for Sustainability and the Environment is calling for:
One, post-COVID, increase the carbon tax quantum and regularise future reviews.
Two, professionalise the carbon accounting and reporting industry.
Three, incorporate sustainability into the Industry Transformation Map scheme or have an ITM for the sustainability sector.
Four, enhance the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability initiative with higher and expanded standards.
Five, introduce rules and incentives to promote the building of publicly accessible charging points by private developers.
Six, revise the Green Mark scheme to increase standards on carbon intensiveness.
Seven, expand climate education in school curricula.
Eight, introduce data-sharing mechanisms on clean energy technologies and energy efficiency.
Nine, increase public access to emissions data of top-emitting private companies and public entities.
Ten, and lastly, add Climate Defence as a seventh pillar of Total Defence in Singapore.
These 10 recommendations will help us meet and, I believe, exceed our commitment under the Paris Climate Agreement.
Sir, many Members have stepped forward today. All of them delivered passionate speeches. I will not be able to do justice to everyone's speeches but let me summarise some themes of their proposals.
The first theme is nature. Members stressed the importance of protecting our natural carbon sinks. Miss Rachel Ong shared the science about trees and alerted us that keeping existing trees is far more effective than planting new ones, though both are important steps.
Mr Dennis Tan asked for additional legal protection for secondary forests. Ms Nadia Samdin, Prof Koh Lian Pin and Miss Rachel Ong rightly noted that our corals, our mangroves, and indeed, our forests powerfully trap carbon and help us fight climate change.
The three Members also stressed the importance of helping Singaporeans learn and become more in touch with nature.
This brings me to the second theme: education. Our youths are our future. For them, Ms Nadia Samdin discussed installing sustainability as a core pillar of our education system.
Education should also involve vocational training. Miss Cheryl Chan suggested preparing young adults so they have the interest, skills, knowledge and connections needed for the green sector.
But education is not just for the young. Mr Christopher de Souza discussed this, his exciting vision for Ulu Pandan as a nature surplus neighbourhood, with nature trails, community gardens and food composting sites. Ms Hany Soh painted a colourful portrait of her Woodgrove community and discussed how all Singaporeans could learn about sustainability through hands-on experience and convenient technologies.
The third theme for today is incentives and regulations – in other words, carrots and sticks. All Members proposed solutions that would limit carbon intensive activities but they also made sure to suggest ways to soften the impact and spark the economy.
Mr Don Wee discussed using carbon tax revenues to grow our industries and protect our households. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim similarly asked to give out a green dividend from our carbon tax revenues. Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested sharing Government data to help the private sector figure out where to build electric vehicle charging points. Mr Gerald Giam asked to extend subsidies and support for petrochemical workers as the industry shrinks its global workforce.
Mr Leon Perera proposed growing our green industry, particularly those dealing in professional services, like environmental impact consulting and carbon trading verification. Ms Poh Li San suggested a circular financing system to help the construction industry adapt to tougher Green Mark standards. Miss Cheryl Chan asked for increased support and a more generous timeline for SMEs to file ESG reports. Mr Louis Chua asked for greater reliance on solar energy and cited statistics to show how the clean energy sector can create good jobs for Singapore. Mr Henry Kwek pitched solutions like investments in geothermal solutions and carbon offsets to help the economy adjust to decarbonisation.
Together, these balanced recommendations show that Members want Singapore to be both green and prosperous, not just one or the other.
Sir, Mr Leong Mun Wai expressed broad support for our 10 topics. I thank him for that. He also raised some general concerns about trade-offs. As I mentioned, many Members have been proactive in raising these trade-offs in their speeches and propose specific ideas on how to overcome them.
There is no disagreement that a healthy economy and a healthy environment need to go hand in hand and I encourage Mr Leong to continue sharing his ideas on how to manage these trade-offs. Mr Leong said that forest protection and climate adaptation were not included in the Motion's 10 topics. I think Mr Leong will find that several Members today have raised proposals on both topics, myself included. The 10 topics are not an exhaustive list.
Mr Leong also asked whether EVs would reduce emissions in Singapore's context. The answer to this is yes. The E-mobility Technology Roadmap published by the Energy Research Institute at NTU looked at the data and found that by 2050, EVs are expected to reduce emissions by up to 64% in Singapore.
Sir, I thank Mr Dennis Tan and Miss Cheryl Chan for their proposed amendments. I agree with Mr Tan on the importance of civil society. I spent more than two decades of my life as a civil society activist. We have not just recognised the role of civil society but we have actively engaged them throughout the year long consultation. They have played a crucial role in this Motion and, as I mentioned, in my opening speech, this Motion responds to their call.
The original Motion's statement focused on the three Ps that we are all familiar with – the public, private and people sector. Having said that, I support the inclusion of the word \"civil society\" into the Motion's statement.
Sir, the Motion's statement today is also about actions rather than what climate change is. We already know what it is. There is no debate about that.
As I have shared in my opening speech, Prime Minister Lee has already stressed that climate change is \"one of the gravest challenges facing humankind.\" This Government already recognises that the existential threat of climate change is an issue that nations cannot ignore.
I believe all of us in this House are on the same page but, Sir, we drafted the Motion's statement that reflects actions. That is important. We have drafted it that way to focus on actions and how we can deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. That was my preference but I recognise the merits of the proposed amendments and I agree with the rationale.
I thank Miss Chan for the proposed amendments of acknowledging that climate change is a global emergency and a threat to mankind. I believe this will reflect the climate change issue more holistically and focus again on action on how we all need to work together in this global community. I hope that all of us in this House will support the proposed amendments.
Sir, I will also like to thank Minister Grace Fu for responding positively to our proposals and concerns and for her strong and continued commitment in ensuring that sustainability is at the heart of everything we do.
Indeed, sustainability has and always will be a part of Singapore’s DNA.
I thank Minister for sharing about our strong Climate Action Plan today and most importantly the good news that we have a new Singapore Green Plan 2030.
This whole-of-nation movement to advance the sustainability agenda in Singapore is an important one and I am glad that the plan is a multi-Ministry effort, and that it will be a major policy priority for this Government. That really is good news.
To conclude, I would like to refer to a point Mr Seah Kian Peng made. As part of his ask to include Climate Defence as a pillar of Total Defence, he argued that Singapore needs to take bold, unprecedented steps. There must be a new willingness, a new resolution by the Government to do things differently.
I could not agree more with him. Sustainability must become a core part of our nation’s development. It will take time, but every corner of policy-making – and indeed way of life – must transform to match our aspiration towards sustainability.
Sir, I thank all the Members who spoke up on this important issue. My heartfelt thanks also to the GPC for Sustainability and the Environment, the Young PAP's Climate Change Policy Team, my Climate Change Team, business leaders, researches, activists and fellow Singaporeans who all contributed to this Motion and the recommendations.
Sir, the Government plays an important role to co-lead, to nurture, to protect our environment and to set policies and enforce legislation in this battle against climate change.
Each one of us in this global community also plays an important role and by working together, this battle is strengthened and this fight for our planet becomes stronger.
Sir, I often push for changes in this House but there is finally one change I am not pushing for and that is climate change.
Let us make sure that climate change becomes a thing of the past, something our children learn about in this history lessons. Sir, the power is indeed ours. Let us change our mindset, our behaviours and our policies to move the needle on climate change.
Let us focus on action and deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and to embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Before I open up for clarifications and comments, there is carbon footprint that comes from long sessions of Parliament. Mr Dennis Tan. [Laughter.]
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me get organised because I cannot really write so I could not really take notes.
I thank the Member for Fengshan, Miss Cheryl Chan, for the amendment. At first glance, I have a concern that the amendment pertaining to the word \"That the climate change is a global emergency\" seems to have de-emphasised the importance of climate change in Singapore. But I think I do recall that Miss Chan did mention something along the lines of not just in Singapore so I believe we are in agreement that, as many Members in the House today have expressed concern of that climate change, how it affects Singapore, how it affects the world and the efforts that all of us, locally and all round the world, need to make. So, on that note, I am prepared to accept these amendments.
Miss Chan also mentioned about the term \"a threat to mankind\". Perhaps, it should be more appropriately worded \"as a threat to humankind\" or, in fact, \"a threat to all life on earth\". That is all I have to say. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications and comment?
Okay, we have now finally come to the conclusion of the debate. I shall put the question to the House for decision. We have an amendment by Miss Cheryl Chan and two amendments proposed by Mr Dennis Tan. We will deal with the sub-amendment first. Miss Cheryl Chan's amendment is that after the word \"acknowledges\" in Mr Tan's first amendment to leave out the words \"a climate emergency\" and there to insert the words \"That climate change is a global emergency and a threat to mankind\".
[(proc text) Question, \"That the words proposed to be left out, be there left out\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question, \"That the words proposed by Miss Cheryl Chan to be inserted, be there inserted\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan's amendment to the original first amendment by Mr Dennis Tan has been agreed to.
We come now to the original amendment, as amended, which is after the words “That this House” to insert the words “acknowledges that climate change is a global emergency and a threat to mankind and”.
[(proc text) Question, \"That amendment number (1) as amended be made\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The second amendment is in line 2, after the words “private sector” and insert a comma and the words “civil society”.
[(proc text) Question, \"That amendment number (2) be made\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The amendments have been agreed to. The original Motion, as amended, is now before the House.
[(proc text) Original Motion, as amended, put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That this House acknowledges that climate change is a global emergency and a threat to mankind and calls on the Government, in partnership with the private sector, civil society and the people of Singapore, to deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and to embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to 12 noon tomorrow\". – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this topic.
I would first like to record my appreciation to the Singapore city planners and the MND planning team that have really allowed Singapore's reputation as a City in a Garden to flourish in the minds of so many who look to our city for urban planning ideas. This Motion is meant to support that vision of Singapore being a City in a Garden and, by extension, being a place where people live around lush greenery, nature and wildlife.
It is with such a spirit that I wish to deliver this speech. Of particular importance to me is Dover Forest, which is a 33-hectare forest within my ward. I have looked very carefully at the Environmental Baseline Study which I must thank MND and HDB for so openly sharing with the public. But if one looks at the study, you will see vast numbers of plant and animal species, including species that are critically endangered. This has caused me some concern if we were to demolish the forest. Now, this forest is also\tbetween Ghim Moh,\tMount Sinai, Pine Grove and Holland Grove estates. So, it is not just a forest but a shared and extended green landscape that the residents have, for a long time, admired and grown used to. Ulu Pandan residents know that I have a record of both developing the land in Ulu Pandan to make the best use of it but also, where possible, to preserve an environment of greenery to surround their estates. When Ghim Moh Link was being built some years ago, I walked the ground along the canal and worked together with different agencies to get signs hammered into the ground to state \"protected tree\".
It would be too easy to just say \"halt and do not demolish Dover Forest\" without giving alternatives. So, in the spirit of partnership and transparency, I would like to share with URA and MND some possible alternative sites and, in so doing, also share the long-term aspiration for Ulu Pandan and how this fits in. I have given a significant amount of time thinking about how to preserve as much of the forest as possible. One way to achieve this is through the use of vacant sites.
In considering possible alternative locations for the development of BTOs, I would like to propose the vacant plot of land next to the Ulu Pandan CC. In fact, in the Master Plan 2019, it is publicly stated that those two vacant plots of land have a gross plot ratio of 4.6 and 4.9, respectively. That, to me, is a golden opportunity to have a serious rethink about how we can grow, enhance and rejuvenate Ghim Moh Town. My idea is to use the 4.6 and the 4.9 gross plot ratio sites as BTO plots as well as possible SERS plots in rejuvenating some of the older blocks in Ghim Moh. I can appreciate that SERS is a sensitive topic. Although I am not expecting an answer today, given its sensitivity, I would like to put on record that my long-term aspiration, which I have given a fair amount of time thinking about, includes both an influx of BTO flats and also the rejuvenation of Ghim Moh for the existing residents living there.
When Ghim Moh Link was built some years ago, the residents from the old Blocks 9 to 12A, through SERS, moved to Ghim Moh Link and the old blocks were demolished. That land which the old blocks stood on, is now the vacant plot of land beside Ulu Pandan CC. This vacant plot of land opens the door to unprecedented possibilities of how we may use the land in as creative a way as possible.
So, when I say that the two plots completely vacant now can be used for both BTO as well as, subject to MND's clearance, for SERS, I do not say that in a flippant manner. The older flats in Ghim Moh, which were built in 1976, are 45 years old. One such group of flats is a group of six blocks of 3-room flats on the other side of the Ulu Pandan CC. The current gross plot ratio for those blocks – being blocks 1 to 6 Ghim Moh Road – is 2.8. I ask that the gross plot ratio be reconsidered so as to increase it.
There could be a selective en bloc of these six blocks to the vacant plot of land next to the CC. This then will release the whole plot where these Blocks 1 to 6 currently sit on, thereby releasing another jigsaw piece, another plot of land, for my other residents who are living around Ghim Moh market, that is, in Blocks 7 to 21, to be rehoused into that vacant plot of land, possibly through SERS. The vision is to continue to keep the market as the heart of Ghim Moh while, at the same time, rejuvenating the whole of Ghim Moh town through a deliberate and phased SERS development and the use of high gross plot ratios. The land around the market can then be redeveloped for more and taller housing, if my idea of offering SERS to Blocks 1 to 21 is accepted by MND. This will mean the ability to accommodate new residents in BTO flats as well as provide new flats with new leases for existing Ghim Moh residents, through SERS. This is my suggestion as an alternative, instead of felling Dover Forest.
I can anticipate that there are constraints. One constraint that MND may tell me today in response is that the pieces of land I have in mind are insufficient to accommodate BTO and SERS flats. My response, if I may, to that point is that there are two other under-utilised plots of land in Ghim Moh that we can use for planning purposes. The first is MOE's Language Centre, which was the old, now defunct, Ghim Moh Primary School. Residents of Mount Sinai, as well as residents of Ghim Moh, would know that there is a huge old unused field there lying fallow. So, that also allows for space for additional housing.\tIf MND's view is that this is still insufficient land, although I do not think it is insufficient, but if MND is of the view that it is still insufficient, I have an additional solution to propose. This involves questioning whether or not we need the old sprawling RJC campus to remain. In my view, it is under-utilised. In fact, it is not housing any school now and its fields are unused. According to the Master Plan, the campus is subject to detailed planning. I am offering a proposal for that \"detailed planning\" today.
So, I come here with solutions – vacant plots of land next to the CC, using the old RJC campus site and the big field next to the now-defunct Ghim Moh Primary; all of these are under-utilised. Such a holistic rejuvenation of Ghim Moh Town will allow it to flow seamlessly into Holland Village with the rail corridor being the natural green valley between the two towns. So, one can picture that – a rejuvenated Ghim Moh with a green valley being the rail corridor seamlessly linking on to Holland Village and that town.
Mr Speaker, I am also making a broader point. I believe in providing alternative plans and solutions within my own constituency. For example, when the former Nexus International School campus was transformed into a temporary dormitory to house essential migrant workers in June 2020, we welcomed these workers in Ulu Pandan. In the end, it worked out to the benefit of everyone. It also built mutual trust and respect between residents and workers. We – the residents of Ulu Pandan and I – did not take a NIMBY approach to the workers and have welcomed them to the Nexus site. In fact, we were discussing that it being called the Nexus International School, how wonderful it would be if, after our essential workers came in and occupied the dormitory, there will be a nexus created between the workers and the residents. And I dare say there has been, fortunately.
So, the point that I am making is, if more BTO flats need to be built, we have a solution in Ulu Pandan. I am not taking the easy way out by saying \"go build in someone else's constituency.\" The solution I am offering ties in with my longer term aspiration to both develop and rejuvenate Ulu Pandan while preserving greenery. That solution involves using vacant or under-utilised plots of land around Ghim Moh to accommodate new residents in BTO flats, as well as to rejuvenate Ghim Moh through a deliberate and phased SERS exercise.
This allows for a compact community allowing for the inflow of new residents to live alongside existing Ghim Moh residents. Some of the new residents will be the children of existing Ghim Moh families who will be able to buy BTO flats next to their parents. But this idea of conservation and having residents live within a green environment surrounded by greenery and nature is not something that has been crystalised by virtue of what we are debating today. This has been my long-term aspiration for Ulu Pandan residents I serve.
Allow me now, Sir, to expand on this long-term aspiration as it foretells or provides insight into why the Motion was worded as \"Preservation of Dover Forest in Ulu Pandan\". It was worded such because it is part of a wider aspiration for residents and it is not constrained to residents living in Ghim Moh. If you can picture it from a satellite view, if we were to retain Dover Forest, it would mean that we have a wonderful loop of nature around the whole constituency. Dover Forest links up all the way to Clementi Road, where if you cross Clementi Road, the Ulu Pandan park connector runs along and links up to my residents in Sunset Way. And there is a railway bridge that connects to an expanse of green land that goes behind the Sunset Way HDB estate and eventually leads to Clementi Forest, which then eventually leads out to the Rail Corridor and Bukit Timah Railway Station. If one comes back down the Rail Corridor and Bukit Timah Railway Station heading south, you will go through the estates of Old Holland, Greenleaf, Mount Sinai and then back to Ghim Moh. So, a loop of greenery within Ulu Pandan itself.
Parallel to this vision of keeping Ulu Pandan as green as we can was our effort, together with NParks, to create as many access points into the Rail Corridor for the residents in Ulu Pandan.
So, actually we have managed to secure access at eight points. These points are at Holland Green, Greenleaf, Ghim Moh, Ulu Pandan CC, Mount Sinai, Bukit Timah Road, Ewart Park,\tHolland Road. And there are other estates within Ulu Pandan that will be able to link up to the Rail Corridor, especially through the Holland Green Linear Park, which we recently opened. For example, for residents living in Namly Estate and Coronation Estate, all they have to do is cross Sixth Avenue, walk down Laurel Wood Avenue and they will get to Holland Plain which will link up eventually to the Rail Corridor.
My hope is that we will be able to have a footpath that connects Holland Green Linear Park to Clementi Road through the scenic route of Clementi Forest which, I should state, I would like preserved, where possible. In fact, there is a whole belt of condos along Bukit Timah Road that will be able to link up to the Rail Corridor, through the sky walk above Bukit Timah Canal as part of the Bukit Timah-Rochor Green Corridor Initiative.
So, if you can picture a satellite’s view, that would mean everyone living in between King Albert Park and Sixth Avenue, both condo-dwellers and house-dwellers, will be able to walk down, connect to Bukit Timah Railway Station, link to the Rail Corridor, head south, head to Ghim Moh and down to Dover Forest.
So, Mr Speaker, the idea is to have Ulu Pandan residents live within a landscape of lush greenery. In order to do that, I have to be able to provide alternative sites and alternative solutions to protect Dover Forest.
This aspiration for the constituency I serve, especially the phased rejuvenation of major towns, will take 20 years or more from today – very likely, beyond my time as a Member of Parliament in this House. But that should not stop me from aspiring for my residents today. What I am trying to get across today to the planners is the need to think long and hard before making irreversible decisions. A 40-year-old forest is home to creatures over many life cycles. Many life cycles of creatures and species create an eco-system. That eco-system has been adopted and made to become part of the wider shared landscape of Ulu Pandan residents.
There are other proposals obviously, which I may not have time to go into, but these also include how we can bring nature, greenery and greater amenity to our residents living in Farrer Gardens, building a jogging and cycling flyover over Clementi Road to link the Park Connector from Pine Grove Estate to the Sunset Way Estate, and also allowing Ulu Pandan residents in the Sunset Way HDB blocks to access the green corridor behind them that will link to Clementi Forest. I hope MND will consider these proposals, aspirations, hopes and dreams for Ulu Pandan.
In conclusion, Sir, it is with all this in mind, that is, the environmental baseline study, the desire of many Ulu Pandan residents to retain Dover Forest, the idea of it being a part of a nature loop around the constituency and the longer term aspiration for Ulu Pandan as a constituency that I stand today in the hope that the planners will revisit and will come up with solutions, some of which I have suggested, so as to preserve the Dover Forest.
Mr Speaker: Mr Tan Kiat How.
The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Member, Mr Christopher de Souza, for raising this matter.
Mr de Souza shared that the Ulu Pandan site, which some refer to as the “Dover Forest”, is close to the hearts of his residents and he spoke up very passionately about this topic. As someone who grew up in the area and spent much time exploring the spaces there, I can well appreciate these sentiments, and the way that Mr de Souza described the regions that he has in Ulu Pandan gives me a tinge of regret for moving out.
Sir, first and foremost, I want to acknowledge the concerns and wishes of Mr de Souza’s residents. The Ulu Pandan site used to be a rubber plantation before it was abandoned. It was re-zoned for residential use under the Master Plan 2003. We were mindful of this characteristic when planning for its development. Hence, the HDB engaged a consultant to conduct an environmental baseline study to inform our plans. Nature groups were consulted and many residents living in the area provided feedback when the report was published online and we received a wide range of views.
Some called for the preservation of the Ulu Pandan site and asked HDB to consider alternative sites in the area instead, and Mr de Souza mentioned a number of these sites in his speech. Others supported using the site for public housing so as to meet the needs of Singaporeans. However, these respondents also called for the site to be developed in a way that allows for their children and their grandchildren to continue enjoying the greenery.
We are studying the feedback and welcome more Singaporeans to provide their views as we refine plans for the Ulu Pandan site. HDB will extend the public consultation period for another four weeks. We will carefully consider the feedback received and share our plans when ready.
We take this approach of consulting stakeholders and balancing the different needs of Singaporeans seriously. Minister Desmond Lee spoke about this important stewardship role earlier. Because land is scarce in Singapore, we have to plan judiciously. We recycle our limited land, for instance, through selling it on a leasehold basis, allowing us to refresh our land use and renew our cityscape and neighbourhoods. We optimise our limited land supply by co-locating uses, increasing the density of land plots, redeveloping existing sites and, where it makes sense, going underground. For example, the East Coast Integrated Depot, will incorporate three MRT depots and one for buses. Doing so will save 44 hectares of land, which is about twice the size of Changi Airport Terminal 4.
With careful planning, we can safeguard some of our ecologically important sites as green spaces, such as the Kranji Marshes. And where we have to develop greenfield sites, we do so after careful deliberation, seeking to preserve and integrate natural elements into the developments.
At the heart of these decisions, it is not just about balancing the various needs of Singaporeans today, but, importantly, it is also about balancing the needs of today’s generation with those that come after us. And that is why I am very heartened that despite the differing viewpoints we received on the Ulu Pandan site, there was a common thread running through the feedback: there was a strong desire to be responsible stewards for future generations.
And we put in just as much thought and effort into conserving nature. It is part of our DNA, deeply intertwined with our Singapore Story. The lush greenery we see today is the result of dedicated and sustained efforts by generations of Singaporeans who have been greening our city and planting trees year after year for over 60 years. It is the result of deliberate decisions made by earlier terms of Government, who have safeguarded our green spaces even as they developed our urban landscape and built homes for Singaporeans.
But we are not done. We have a vision to transform Singapore into a City in Nature. We will continue to identify core biodiversity areas and their surrounding buffers, and retain these sites where possible. We will also continue to strengthen ecological connectivity through enhancing our network of ecological corridors, such as the Bukit Batok Nature Corridor. This will better connect habitats in nature reserves and nature parks to that in gardens and parks.
And we are committed to do more. We will intensify greenery and integrate nature into our built environment, for example, through partnering the community to plant one million trees by 2030 and to implement more skyrise greenery in our buildings and infrastructure. These efforts will help us mitigate the impact of urbanisation and climate change and provide a high-quality living environment for Singaporeans, with greater access to nature’s benefits. Mr Speaker, let me speak in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, I can understand the concerns and wishes of Mr de Souza’s residents. The Ulu Pandan site which some referred to as “Dover Forest”, was rezoned for residential use as part of the Master Plan 2003.
HDB engaged a consultant to conduct an Environmental Baseline Study before it proceeded with its planning.
We received a wide range of views from different groups. Some called for the preservation of the Ulu Pandan site, while others supported using the site for public housing to meet the needs of Singaporeans. For those who supported the development of the site, they called for it to be developed in a way that allows for their children and grandchildren to continue enjoying the greenery.
We welcome more Singaporeans to give their views and inputs, as we consider our plans for the Ulu Pandan site. HDB will extend the public consultation period for another four weeks. We will carefully consider all the feedback received and share our plans when ready.
We take this approach of consulting stakeholders and balancing the different needs of Singaporeans seriously. Because land is scarce in Singapore, we have to plan judiciously. It is not just about balancing the various needs of Singaporeans today but, importantly, it is also about balancing the needs of today’s generation with those that come after us.
We put in just as much thought and effort into conserving nature. The lush greenery we see today is the result of dedicated and sustained efforts by generations of Singaporeans who have been greening our cities and planting trees year after year, for over 60 years.
It is the result of deliberate decisions made by earlier terms of Government who have safeguarded our green spaces even as they developed our urban landscape and built homes for Singaporeans. These decisions have provided the solid foundation in our vision to transform Singapore into a City in Nature.
(In English): In conclusion, we are committed to act as responsible stewards for Singapore and Singaporeans, for today’s generation and those that come after us, striving to make good use of our limited land, preserving as much of our natural heritage as we can. We will continue to consult and engage with Singaporeans, consider their feedback and suggestions seriously as we balance the various needs.
I am confident that we can do so if all Singaporeans continue to see ourselves as stewards for what we have and for the future.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 9.13 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount Spent on Supporting Dormitory Operators to Comply With COVID-19-related Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower how much has been spent on supporting dormitory operators to comply with COVID-19-related measures and whether these dormitory operators are required to reimburse the Government for this expenditure.
Mrs Josephine Teo: At the height of the COVID-19 outbreak in the dormitories, the Government needed the full cooperation of dormitory operators to contain the infections in the dormitories quickly, and take care of the well-being of their residents. These included stepped-up and additional cleaning and disinfection services, utilities provision associated with the increased duration that migrant workers had to spend in the dormitories, manpower and infrastructure needed to meet the new Safe Living requirements in dormitories. As these were new impositions not originally catered for by the dormitory operators, the Government introduced support schemes to reimburse them for qualifying expenses incurred over a limited period from April to August last year.
Till date, the Government has provided $4.6 million of reimbursement directly to dormitory operators who had to manage about 160,000 migrant workers. There are further claims that are pending assessment and clarifications.
MOM, in our assessment of the claims, check that dormitory operators have exercised financial prudence in their purchases and the reasonableness of the claim amounts. We also impose a cap on the amount claimable based on our assessment of a reasonable claim.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prioritise Early Completion of Jurong Region MRT Line","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Transport whether resources can be redeployed to expedite the construction of the Jurong Region MRT Line for earlier completion in the light of the cancellation of the High Speed Rail to Malaysia.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: COVID-19 has unfortunately affected the progress of the construction of the JRL, because of manpower crunch, disruption to supplies and the need for strict safe management measures at work sites. The estimated delay is about a year, which means that JRL will now open in phases from 2027 to 2029.
It is however not practical to rush the project, especially given that JRL is a complex project that will interface with three existing MRT stations and is built in close proximity with existing buildings and within road corridors. I would like to assure the Member that LTA and its contractors are already doing their best to expedite the JRL project, but in a way that does not compromise safety.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rezoning Land Acquired for Terminated Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail Project","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development whether URA has any plans to rezone the land acquired for the abandoned Kuala Lumpur – Singapore High Speed Rail.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Government had acquired two land parcels in connection with the Kuala Lumpur – Singapore High Speed Rail (HSR) project.
The first land parcel is the former Jurong Country Club site. It is currently zoned White (Subject to Detailed Planning). This remains consistent with our plans for the land to be used for new mixed-use, commercial and residential developments, as well as community facilities.
The second land parcel is the former Raffles Country Club site, which is currently zoned for Transport Facilities use. This also continues to be relevant, as the land will site the future Cross Island MRT Line Western Depot and an Integrated Train Testing Centre.
These land parcels continue to be needed to realise our overall vision for Jurong Lake District, which is not affected by the termination of the HSR project.
We will study the appropriate mix of uses for the parts of the land parcels initially set aside for the HSR to ensure that they tie in with the surroundings. As land is scarce, we will make good use of these acquired land parcels to realise their full potential value to benefit Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effects of Introducing Gender-neutral Fertility Leave on Employability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has studied the effects of introducing gender-neutral fertility leave on the employability of the individuals who use it; (b) if so, what are the results of the study; and (c) if not, whether it intends to undertake such a study, or why not.
Mrs Josephine Teo: From time to time, there are suggestions for a variety of additional leave provisions to be provided. These include caregiver leave for aged parents, compassionate leave for bereaved children and grandchildren, and more annual leave. Mr Louis Ng has also proposed gender-neutral fertility leave and asked if MOM has studied the effects of gender-neutral fertility leave. We thank the Member for the suggestion, and will consider it along with other meaningful studies that can be undertaken as well as resources available. Keen researchers may also apply to the Social Policy Research Council for support.
Over the years, the Government has progressively enhanced leave provisions. In 2013, we extended two days of childcare leave each year to parents with children aged seven to 12 years old. Later in 2017, we legislated the second week of paternity leave, increased shared parental leave to four weeks, and increased adoption leave for mothers to 12 weeks. More recently, we worked with tripartite partners to introduce the Tripartite Standards on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs, which encourages employers to allow employees up to six weeks of unpaid leave to support their unexpected caregiving needs. The Government has led by example to adopt this set of Standards across the public sector.
Further enhancements to leave provisions require careful consideration. The Government has consistently taken a tripartite approach, taking on board the views and concern of employers, unions, and other stakeholders. In this period of heightened uncertainty in the economy and job market, we must also assess the overall impact of concurrent policy moves on employers and employability.
During public consultations on caregiving support, the feedback gathered from workers indicated that flexible work arrangements (FWAs) were more sustainable than leave provisions to help them meet their work and caregiving commitments. The tripartite partners have continuously reviewed and enhanced our efforts to support the provision of FWAs. Today, the vast majority of employees, including caregivers, have access to FWAs. In 2019, about 85% of employers offered some form of FWA. This has increased further during the COVID-19 period. We are doing more to entrench FWAs such as by implementing the recommendations of the Citizens’ Panel on Work-Life Harmony. These include growing a community of Work-Life Ambassadors who will advocate for FWAs and developing sector-specific Communities of Practice that will promote best practices for employers to implement FWAs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Change in WhatsApp's Privacy Policy on Government Communications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Communications and Information with the recent revision to WhatsApp’s privacy policy (a) whether the use of WhatsApp channels by various Government agencies to communicate with the public will be impacted; (b) whether the Ministry has detected any decrease in the number of subscribers following the change in policy; and (c) whether businesses and organisations will need to review their WhatsApp policies for communication with the public to avoid breaching personal data protection protocols.
35 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Communications and Information in view of the changes to WhatsApp’s terms and policy (a) what will be the impact on the Government in its use of WhatsApp for official communication among (i) public officers and (ii) Government agencies and individuals; and (b) whether it is permitted for a third party to share for commercial purposes the Government data which it has collected.
Mr S Iswaran: The Government has rules in its Instruction Manuals on the use of commercial messaging platforms. The communication of classified information through these messaging platforms is strictly disallowed. These rules remain relevant and are independent of the changes to the terms and privacy policies of the messaging platforms – WhatsApp or otherwise.
Public officers can continue to communicate non-classified information on these commercial messaging platforms, such as publicly available information, or information that will not impact Singapore’s national interests and national security, including the sharing of opinions on general affairs outside the scope of their work.
The Government uses a variety of platforms to communicate. The number of subscribers to the Gov.sg WhatsApp channel is increasing and is at 1.22 million to date. Besides WhatsApp, the Government uses platforms, such as the Gov.sg website, Telegram, Twitter and more, for broadcasts of non-classified and publicly available information to keep the public updated with timely and accurate information.
Private sector organisations contracted by the Government to perform data-related activities, including the processing and communication of personal data, are bound by contractual terms and conditions. These will determine whether organisations are permitted to share, for their own commercial purposes, the data that has been provided by, or collected on behalf of, the Government. Depending on the nature of the data involved, organisations may also have to comply with the data protection requirements in the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) and adhere to the Official Secrets Act.
Regarding WhatsApp’s updated privacy policy and sharing of personal data with Facebook, the Personal Data Protection Commission is engaging the company and looking into the concerns raised by consumers. Private sector organisations that use WhatsApp as a business communications tool should be aware of the changes and review their data protection policies and contracts with third parties to ensure they continue to align with the requirements under the PDPA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation Rates of Funds Set Aside to Help Families, Workers and Businesses During COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how is the $100 billion that is set aside to deal with the COVID-19 crisis spent to support families, workers and businesses; and (b) what is the projected unused amounts if any.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Our spending to combat the COVID-19 crisis went towards three major areas to protect lives and livelihoods. First, we dedicated $13.8 billion to support public health efforts. Second, we committed $73.5 billion to protect livelihoods, through support for workers and businesses. Third, $10.0 billion went towards social and household support.
Our first priority has been to protect lives. $13.8 billion was committed towards public health. We expanded testing and contact tracing capabilities to contain the virus, building up the capacity to carry out over 50,000 tests per day. We secured health supplies to ensure that frontline workers are well-equipped and protected. We stood up additional healthcare capacity to ensure everyone can access the necessary treatment. We secured early access to vaccines – allowing us to be the first Asian country to receive and roll out the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
These efforts have helped Singapore to avoid the worst of COVID-19 so far. While we encountered serious challenges, we have kept our death rate low and brought community transmission to a manageable level. This was possible because of the dedication of our frontline workers, and unity and cooperation of our people in fighting COVID-19.
Second, we devoted $73.5 billion to protect livelihoods, through support for workers and businesses. At the height of the crisis, we subsidised up to 75% of wages for all resident workers through the Jobs Support Scheme, to which we devoted $26.9 billion. We also provided other cost and credit support to enable businesses to preserve jobs and retain workers. For example, we helped businesses manage costs through tax and rental reliefs, and access credit through the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme and enhanced Enterprise Financing Scheme. We also provided additional support for the sectors most adversely affected by the crisis, such as the aviation and tourism sectors. This included the SingapoRediscovers vouchers to catalyse domestic tourism in a safe manner.
Beyond emergency relief, we are creating new job, traineeship and skills upgrading opportunities through the SG United Jobs and Skills programme and Jobs Growth Incentive. At the Fortitude Budget, I said that we planned to create 100,000 opportunities. We have in fact exceeded this target since August last year. Our focus now is to match jobseekers to the available opportunities. As at end-December 2020, the SG United Jobs and Skills programme has achieved about 75,000 placements. The Jobs Growth Incentive also encouraged firms to bring forward their hiring plans and accelerate the hiring of locals. We are also helping businesses transform and adapt to a post-COVID world, so that we continue to have viable jobs. For example, we enhanced the Enterprise Development Grant and the Productivity Solutions Grant, which provide up to 80% funding support for businesses to digitalise and upgrade productivity. We are starting to see some signs of stabilisation in the labour market. The Government will continue to monitor this closely and refine our policies.
Finally, we devoted $10.0 billion to social and household support. We rolled out the Care and Support Package and Solidarity Payment, as well as the Workfare Special Payment to provide more help to lower-income workers. The Government also gave funding support to charities and self-help groups, and set up the Temporary Relief Fund and COVID-19 Support Grant to help those requiring additional assistance. For Self-Employed Persons (SEPs), we introduced the SEP Income Relief Scheme (SIRS). To date, the Temporary Relief Fund, COVID-19 Support Grant and SIRS have helped more than half a million individuals.
Beyond the fiscal resources committed, the Government had put in place other measures to support workers and business owners, through the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act. The MAS’s monetary policy stance and measures to ease cashflow and debt obligations for individuals and businesses also formed part of the broader support package.
The Government committed $100 billion in FY20 towards these measures, but how much is used depends on the take-up of the schemes we put in place. In some areas, such as the SG United Jobs and Skills programme, take-up has been stronger than expected, whereas less support was needed in other areas where market conditions turned out to be better than earlier expected. Overall, we expect that we will not fully utilise the $100 billion committed in FY2020. But the fight against COVID-19 is not yet over. The pandemic rages on in other parts of the world. More infectious variants of the virus threaten to undo our good work. We will need to continue dedicating resources towards the fight against COVID-19 in FY2021. I will present the revised FY2020 estimates and lay out the Government’s detailed plans for FY2021 at Budget 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Age Limit for Matched Retirement Savings Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Manpower why does the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS) limit eligibility up to 70 years old and not allow those aged beyond 70 to benefit as well.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS) is aimed at seniors below 70 who have not started or are just starting their payouts. This allows the top-ups to benefit from compound interest for a longer period and have a bigger impact on eventual payouts. Most of our seniors above 70 would have already started receiving their CPF retirement payouts. The Government supports them in other ways. For example, as members of the Pioneer Generation, they enjoy enhanced healthcare support. They may also be eligible for quarterly payouts through the Silver Support Scheme which supplements their retirement income. In addition, they can tap on the Lease Buyback Scheme to receive a cash bonus and a stream of income for life.
We will continue to review the scheme to ensure that it remains relevant to members.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lessons for Maritime Sector from Bunker Vessel NewOcean 6's COVID-19 Cluster","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what lessons are learned from the COVID-19 cluster of cases arising from the bunker vessel \"NewOcean 6\"; and (b) whether any new protective measures have since been or will be introduced for (i) visiting commercial vessels to the Port of Singapore (ii) the boarding of such vessels by any personnel who are not part of the vessels’ crew and (iii) MPA’s crew change requirements.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As a global maritime hub, many ships call at Singapore. They ensure that we get our supplies, and sustain a vibrant maritime industry of some 170,000 jobs. On average, more than 200 ships call at Singapore daily and conduct cargo operations and other activities such as refuelling and resupplying. Harbour craft such as bunker tankers and launches provide essential marine services in our port, and are manned by crew who work and live on board the vessels.
The Maritime Port Authority of Singapore (MPA), together with its industry stakeholders, developed a safe way for crew change – through tests, quarantine and 'bubble wrap' movement while in Singapore. In summary, the old crew will disembark, segregated from everyone else, and are then taken to the airport and fly home. The new crew, typically from neighbouring countries, would have to serve a 14-day Stay-Home Notice (SHN) in their home country and be tested negative for COVID-19, before coming to Singapore. Upon arrival here, they will be tested again, and are segregated or 'bubble wrapped', until their test results are known. Once they test negative for COVID-19, they will board the harbour craft for work. The crew stay on board the vessels and do not come ashore.
It is in this context that the \"NewOcean 6\" imported case occurred. An Indonesian crew member did his 14-day SHN at a dedicated facility in his home country, was tested negative twice pre-departure, before he came to Singapore on 17 December 2020. He tested negative again upon arrival, and then boarded \"NewOcean 6\" and started work. But shortly after, he developed symptoms. On 30 December 2020, he tested positive for COVID-19.
Subsequently, 11 of 12 other crew members who worked on board \"NewOcean 6\" and one Singaporean shore-based cargo officer who had boarded the vessel also tested positive for COVID-19, between 2 and 14 January 2021. By then, all of them were already contact traced and under quarantine. As a result, there were no other community infection cases linked to this cluster.
Our safety measures are effective and have worked well, but they cannot fully eliminate all possible risks. Given the worsening COVID-19 situation globally, including the emergence of more infectious strains of the virus and odd cases with long incubation periods, cases like the \"NewOcean 6\" crew have slipped through.
MPA has therefore reviewed and enhanced its measures, to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission to harbour craft crew and shore-based personnel who board vessels for work.
First, instead of 14-day SHN in their home country, we will require incoming harbour craft crew to serve 5-day SHN in their country of origin and be tested negative for COVID-19, before travelling to Singapore. They will be tested on-arrival, and undergo another 14-day SHN here. The crew member will only be allowed to board a vessel to work, if he tests negative for COVID-19 at the end of his 14-day SHN.
Second, as a precaution, we are testing all crew on board harbour craft in our port waters that have conducted crew change since 17 December 2020. We expect to complete this exercise by mid-February 2021. This is similar to the previous exercise where MPA tested 27,000 shore-based personnel who board ships for work in January 2021, where we detected one individual who tested both PCR and serology-positive, and was assessed to be a recovered patient.
Third, we introduced \"contactless bunkering operations\" in our port. Bunker tanker crew are no longer required to board ships to service them during refuelling operations.
Fourth, shore-based personnel such as surveyors, cargo officers and marine pilots who need to go on board ships must now undergo rostered routine testing (RRT) every seven days, instead of every 14 days previously.
Fifth, we implemented SafeEntry@Sea for shore-based personnel. They are required to produce a valid negative COVID-19 test result from a RRT programme or an ad-hoc test within 72 hours before going on board ships.
Sixth, agencies are stepping up checks, and firm actions will be taken against companies and individuals for non-compliance. Persons found guilty of an offence will be liable, on first conviction, to a fine not exceeding $10,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both, under the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (Port) Regulations.
Finally, we have started vaccinating 17,000 frontline maritime personnel, including all those who need to board ships. This is the most significant step to secure our maritime border. 95% of eligible personnel have registered for vaccinations, and as of yesterday, more than 13,000 maritime personnel have received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. We should substantially complete the vaccination exercise by end February 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Management Support for Frontline Healthcare Workers who are Verbally or Physically Harassed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health whether it is compulsory for all public healthcare institutions to have clear policies on (i) escalation processes for frontline healthcare workers who are verbally or physically harassed (ii) consistent management responses to support the workers tiered according to severity of the harassment and (iii) reporting of the number of such cases to the Ministry to monitor the overall situation.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MOH and our public healthcare institutions view all cases of abuse and harassment against our healthcare workers seriously. We adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards abuse and harassment of our healthcare staff and will not hesitate to take appropriate actions against persons who do so. Our healthcare workers deserve to work in a safe environment while they care for patients.
Our institutions have established escalation processes for frontline healthcare workers who are verbally or physically harassed, including notifying their immediate superiors, referral to security officers on-site or reporting to the Police, if warranted by the situation. Our public healthcare institutions monitor and track all such incidents through their reporting information systems. While they are not required to report individual cases to MOH, the Ministry works with them to monitor the situation and review policies when needed.
The Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) protects all individuals, including healthcare workers, from harassment. Public healthcare workers receive enhanced protection under Section 6 of the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) while they are on duty. Based on data provided by our public healthcare institutions, the number of abuse/ harassment cases has been increasing over the past three years from about 1,080 in 2018 to about 1,300 in 2020.
Over the same period, the number of cases of harassment or abuse of public healthcare workers while on duty that were reported to the Police, under Section 6 of the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA), has also similarly risen from 40 in 2018 to 58 in 2020. The Police do not specifically track reports made by healthcare workers for abuse or harassment while they are off-duty.
Our public healthcare institutions are committed to protecting and supporting healthcare workers to ensure a safe workplace environment. Members of the public are reminded through prominently displayed signages to treat our staff with respect and dignity, and that any form of verbal or physical abuse of our staff will not be tolerated. Besides the escalation procedures highlighted earlier, frontline healthcare staff are trained to assess and de-escalate potential conflicts in the first instance and manage abusive situations. In addition, our institutions have robust support systems in place to help healthcare staff cope with abuse and harassment cases. This includes helplines for affected staff, anonymised counselling support services on and off campus by institutions and community providers, and peer support programmes for staff.
During COVID-19, there have also been concerns about our healthcare workers’ well-being due to the increased workloads and higher levels of stress that they face, and whether there is an adequate and effective social support system in place to ensure their psychological well-being. To cope with mental health issues, healthcare workers can tap on the counselling services, staff helplines, and peer support programmes highlighted earlier. To enhance the preparedness and resilience of staff coping with stressful situations, some institutions have also rolled out bite-sized training modules on stress management and regularly shared mental health tips with their staff. The Ministry will continue to work closely with our public healthcare institutions to monitor and introduce timely measures to enhance staff well-being.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Helping Companies Transit into TraceTogether-only SafeEntry Phase","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister (a) which types of establishments will be required to comply with TraceTogether-only SafeEntry; (b) how many of such establishments presently do not have the capability to accept TraceTogether token check-in and what is their percentage of all affected establishments; (c) how is the Government supporting these establishments in acquiring this capability; and (d) to what extent will the Government help defray additional costs incurred by smaller establishments to comply with TraceTogether-only SafeEntry.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): SafeEntry is currently mandatory at venues that have high visitorship, or have high transmission risk. We intend to implement TraceTogether-only SafeEntry at these venues. This will require businesses to allow check-ins with either the TraceTogether app or token. Members of the Public can refer to the SafeEntry website for the categories of venues where SafeEntry is currently mandatory.
We estimate that more than half of these 40,000 public-facing venues where SafeEntry is currently mandatory, have already begun accepting TraceTogether Token check-ins and are ready to implement TraceTogether-only SafeEntry.
With the better TraceTogether coverage after the implementation of TraceTogether-only SafeEntry, we will also remove some existing SafeEntry check-ins to minimise public inconvenience. For example, after checking-in to a mall via TraceTogether-only SafeEntry, a customer would no longer need to check-in to larger retail stores and supermarkets inside the mall. However, the individual would still need to check-in to gyms and F&B dine-in outlets via TraceTogether-only SafeEntry. These are examples of establishments where transmission risk is higher, with individuals likely to be in close proximity for long periods and/or where they will legitimately remove their masks, in this case to exercise or eat.
We will assist businesses to get ready for a smooth transition. Businesses already using the SafeEntry Business app to read ID barcodes, such as NRIC or FIN barcodes, can use the same app to scan the QR codes on TraceTogether Tokens. Safe Distancing Ambassadors will guide them in using the SafeEntry Business app to conduct TraceTogether Token check-in. We have also published step-by-step online guides on the use of this app.
Businesses using physical scanners that can only read ID barcodes may need to change to scanners that can read QR codes as well or change to using the SafeEntry Business app that is free for download.
We are working on potential solutions that would make it more convenient for public-facing businesses to enable the checking-in of TraceTogether Tokens and TraceTogether-only SafeEntry. Details will be announced later.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Raising Awareness of Potential Risks on Emerging Social Media Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Communications and Information how does the Government support the building of understanding and awareness of potential risks among youths, parents and educators on emerging social media platforms including Tik-Tok and OnlyFans and the creation of a safer Internet culture particularly on such platforms.
Mr S Iswaran: The Government is committed to ensuring that our citizens are equipped to use social media and the Internet responsibly and safely, particularly given the constant creation of new platforms like Tik-Tok and OnlyFans. These digital literacy and cyber wellness efforts are undertaken by various Government ministries, often in partnership with stakeholders in the people and private sectors.
My Ministry launched the Digital Media and Information Literacy Framework in July 2019, to provide a common frame for programme owners to deepen Singaporeans’ understanding of the benefits and risks of digital technology. The framework is updated periodically to incorporate emerging trends in the digital space.
The Ministry of Education’s updated Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum equips students with skills to recognise cyber risks, discern negative influences and inappropriate websites, as well as manage excessive use of social media. Schools engage parents in sensitising children to be literate users of the digital space. In addition to MOE’s efforts, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) is working with agencies including MCI, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and MOE, and companies to promote youth mental wellbeing on social media platforms.
The Media Literacy Council (MLC) is a key partner of Government agencies in mitigating online risks. Its 2020 Better Internet Campaign focused on safeguarding youths from online harms and risks, and encouraged online users to exercise sound judgment about content they encounter online. The MLC also worked with technology companies on social campaigns to educate youths on online safety and responsibility, as well as workshops on digital parenting skills.
All of us – the Government, companies and the community – have a role and responsibility to create a safer internet culture. Collectively, these efforts help to nurture a discerning and vigilant community of netizens, which strengthens society’s defence against evolving threats on emerging social media platforms. MCI and our agencies will continue working with our partners to this end.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Legal Requirement for Social Media Platforms to Inform Users When Accounts Have Been Compromised","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Ministry will consider (i) legally requiring social media platforms to inform its users that their account has been hacked or that an attempt has been made (ii) providing a channel for companies to report such acts and (iii) legally requiring social media platforms to maintain an office to respond to reports filed by the victims.
Mr S Iswaran: Mitigating cybersecurity and data security risks on social media platforms is the collective responsibility of the Government, social media companies and individual users.
Users, including companies, may file a report to the Police if their social media accounts have been hacked. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Police may commence investigation if an offence is disclosed under the Computer Misuse Act or other relevant laws.
For significant data breaches, the Government has introduced further safeguards under the recently amended Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). If the exfiltration of personal data arising from the hacking of social media accounts results in significant harm to the users, the organisation responsible for this platform must notify both the Personal Data Protection Commission and affected individuals. In addition, the PDPA requires all organisations, including social media companies, to appoint a Data Protection Officer whose role includes responding to public enquires and complaints.
The major social media platforms also provide a channel for users to report to them suspected hacking incidents. Actions that could be taken by the platforms include removing suspicious messages from hacked accounts and assisting affected users in recovering their accounts. In addition, these platforms have mechanisms to notify users of unusual attempts to log into their accounts. All social media platforms should consider putting in place such measures, if they have not already done so.
Users of social media platforms should also take steps to protect themselves. They should immediately change their password and notify their contacts, if they realise or suspect that their accounts have been hacked. This way, their contacts could take the necessary precautions, such as not clicking on messages or posts which may contain malware or phishing links. To keep their online accounts secure, users are strongly encouraged to practise good cyber hygiene at all times. For example, they should set strong passwords, use a unique password for each account, and activate two-factor authentication.
The Government is committed to working with all stakeholders to protect our citizens in the digital space, and will continue to review our laws and other measures to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allocation of Additional Places Across Different Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (a) how will the proposed additional University places this year be distributed across the different Universities and their various courses; and (b) whether these proposed additional places may result in a corresponding easing of qualifying grades for some University courses.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In 2020, MOE granted additional flexibility to the AUs to cater to candidates whose overseas study plans were disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic. These students must meet the admissions criteria in the AUs, and so there is no easing of admission standards. About 1,000 additional students were eventually admitted to the six AUs across a range of courses, especially those with stronger employment outcomes and student interests.
MOE is monitoring the global COVID-19 situation closely, including the situation overseas and the impact of travel restrictions. As we had done last year, MOE is prepared to consider increasing the number of AU places in 2021 on an exceptional basis while maintaining admission standards. This is part of the Ministry’s broader efforts to support local students and help ensure that their education journeys are not unduly disrupted by the pandemic.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tie-breakers in Computerised Allocation of Secondary School Places","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education (a) based on simulations using past PSLE data, how many students taking the 2021 PSLE does the Ministry forecast will have their Secondary school places allocated using computerised balloting as a third tie-breaker; and (b) whether the Ministry is considering introducing additional tie-breakers, in addition to citizenship and choice order of schools, to minimise the number of Secondary school places which are allocated based on chance.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Under the new PSLE scoring system, students will be graded in wider scoring bands, known as Achievement Levels, to reduce fine differentiation at a young age, and recognise a student’s level of achievement, regardless of how their peers have done. In line with this move, we have introduced school choice order as a new tiebreaker under the Secondary 1 Posting system, to encourage parents and students to choose schools that would best suit the student’s interests and strengths.
Under the new system, tiebreakers will be applied in the following order if students with the same PSLE score are vying for the last remaining place in a school:
First, citizenship, which is an existing tiebreaker. Singapore Citizens have the highest priority, then Permanent Residents, and lastly International Students.
Second, the new tiebreaker based on school choice order.
Lastly, if citizenship status and school choice order are the same, randomised computer balloting will be used to determine who is admitted to the school.
Balloting only happens when there are more students who choose the same school than there are vacancies in that school, and takes place after the tiebreakers of citizenship and choice order of schools have kicked in. This means that balloting happens only between students at the margins of admission to the same school who have the same PSLE score, citizenship and choice order of schools.
Based on simulations using the performance and school choice patterns of past cohorts, we expect that about 1 in 10 students will undergo balloting. Notwithstanding, the vast majority of students will be allocated one of their six school choices, comparable to the proportion under the current T-score system. There are currently no plans to introduce further tiebreakers. We will continue to review the system after some experience with running it, and consider if further updates or refinements are needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals for Medical Subsidy for Long-Term Visit Pass and Dependant Pass Holders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Health (a) in the past five years, how many appeals have been received from Singaporeans and permanent residents for medical subsidy for their sponsored Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) holders and Dependant Pass holders; (b) how many cases and percentage of appeals have been allowed; (c) how many have been allowed to use their MediSave to help pay for the medical expenses of their LTVP holders and Dependant Pass holders; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider requiring the sponsors for all LTVP holders and Dependent Pass holders to acquire medical, hospitalisation and travel insurance for them during their stay in Singapore as part of the conditions of pass approval.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Government subsidies at our public healthcare institutions are generally accorded to Singapore Citizens (SCs) and Permanent Residents (PRs). From 2012, subsidies in the inpatient setting were also extended to dependants of SCs and PRs who are Long-Term Visit Pass Plus (LTVP+) holders.
While LTVP or Dependant Pass holders are not eligible for medical subsidies, some may be covered by their sponsors’ employee medical benefits or other private medical insurance plans. SCs and PRs may also tap on their MediSave to pay for the medical expenses incurred by LTVP or Dependant Pass holders who are their immediate family members, including parents, spouses, and children. Among a total of nearly 6 million MediSave withdrawals made within the past year, more than 500,000 were made on behalf of immediate family members; however, we do not track the number of LTVP or Dependent Pass holders specifically who have benefited from this provision. MOH receives fewer than 20 financing-related appeals each year from Singapore Residents for their sponsored dependants who are LTVP holders. Separately, our public healthcare institutions also receive appeals which are handled by their medical social workers.
Healthcare insurance could serve to better protect LTVP or Dependent Pass holders from large hospitalisation bills. However, any mandatory requirement for healthcare insurance for these individuals will have to be carefully considered, as it is important to strike a balance between premium affordability and the benefits of insurance coverage. MOH will look into this further, including the approach for other long staying foreigners.
LTVP or Dependant Pass patients who are facing financial difficulties may approach the medical social workers for assistance. Our public healthcare institutions may provide some assistance using their own hospital charity fund, or offer instalment plans for payment where required, based on their medical social workers’ assessment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Complaints Regarding Ceiling and Water Leakages Received by HDB","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for National Development (a) over the last three months, what is the number of complaints regarding ceiling and wall water leakages received by HDB; (b) whether this is significantly more than what has been received over the same period the year before; and (c) what are the main reasons for these ceiling and wall water leakages in HDB flats.
Mr Desmond Lee: The external walls of HDB blocks are common property under the Town Councils’ management and maintenance. As they are subject to wear and tear over time, Town Councils are advised to keep them in good condition by carrying out regular maintenance and repairs where needed. Residents who encounter water seepage through their walls typically report such cases to their Town Council. As such, HDB does not have information on the total number of external wall seepage cases. For cases that were reported to HDB, in the last three months, HDB received an average of 350 cases reported per month, out of about 1 million flats. This is slightly lower than the average received in the same period the year before, which was about 360 cases per month.
Ceiling leaks that occur in HDB flats are generally a result of wear and tear over time. In such cases, the responsibility for repairs is shared jointly between the upper and lower-floor flat owners. Both upper and lower-floor flat owners would need to jointly investigate and carry out the repairs. In most cases, leakages can be amicably resolved when flat owners exercise mutual understanding and cooperate with one another. In the last three months, from October 2020 to December 2020, HDB received on average about two reported cases of ceiling leaks per 1,000 dwelling units. These figures are similar to those observed over the same period the year before.
Lastly, ceiling leaks can also occur for units that are on the top floor, as water seeps into the flat through the roof. Such cases are generally a result of wear and tear of the roofing material at the top of the HDB block over time. As the roof is part of common property, the Town Council is responsible for addressing the leak. Where necessary, HDB can provide technical advice to the Town Council on the root cause of the leak, and on the appropriate repair methods.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints over Construction Quality of HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past three years, how many complaints has the Ministry or BCA received regarding the construction quality of housing estates in Singapore; and (b) what is the percentage of cases which have been resolved by the developer or contractor.
Mr Desmond Lee: For public housing, as mentioned in this House previously, based on BTO flats completed over the past five years, around 90% of the feedback on defects was received during the Defects Liability Period (DLP). On average, during the DLP, the number of reported defects per BTO flat was around 2.6, and this dropped significantly to 0.2 after the first year, 0.1 after the second year and 0.05 after the third year. The same trend has been observed for data taken over the past three years – that is, around 90% of the feedback on defects was received during the DLP. The vast majority of reported defects are minor and are rectified within the one-year DLP period. For any maintenance issues reported after the DLP, HDB will investigate the likely cause and advise flat owners on the follow-up action accordingly. If the issue is assessed to be due to an inherent defect or quality issue, HDB will engage the building contractor to rectify it.
For private housing, the approach for defects rectification is governed by the Sale and Purchase Agreement signed between the home buyers and the developer. MND does not receive the feedback that home buyers provide to the developers directly. The feedback that MND and BCA has received from residents regarding construction quality makes up around 1% of private residential and Executive Condominium (EC) units that have been completed over the past three years. Where the feedback relates to specific projects, agencies will provide the feedback to the developers, which will respond to the purchasers directly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"CPF Nomination Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) out of the total number of Singaporeans who maintain a CPF account, how many of them have opted for the CPF Nomination Scheme and out of which, how many have made their nominations online; and (b) upon the demise of a CPF member, how long does it take for CPF Board to be alerted and thereafter process the payout to those who have made a nomination, and for those cases where no nomination is made.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Today, more than two in five CPF members have made a nomination. Among those aged 65 and above, three in four members have done so. The online nomination service was rolled out last year to make this process even more convenient for members. Since then, about half of nominations have been made online.
CPF Board is notified by the Registry of Births & Deaths after the death of a member is registered, and typically distributes nominated CPF monies within a month of notification. For un-nominated CPF monies, CPF Board will pass the monies to the Public Trustee’s Office (PTO) within three weeks of notification of the member’s passing after accounting for transactions such as MediSave deductions for hospital bills. The PTO will trace and search for the eligible beneficiaries under the law and charges administrative fees for disbursement. Eligible beneficiaries may come forward at any time to make their claims. Upon the submission of the complete set of documents and information by the applicant, PTO usually disburses the un-nominated CPF monies within four weeks.
To allow their CPF monies to be distributed to preferred beneficiaries faster and without incurring fees, we encourage all members to make their CPF nominations and update it as their life circumstances change.
We will continue to regularly review our CPF policies to ensure they better meet members’ needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Madrasah Students Diagnosed with Mental Health Conditions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what is the current number of madrasah students diagnosed with mental health conditions; (b) whether measures are put in place to engender awareness about mental health issues among madrasah students; and (c) whether more can be done to combat the stigma surrounding mental health in madrasahs.
61 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what is the current number of madrasah teachers in Singapore; (b) what is the number of madrasah teachers who have benefitted from (i) Teachers Development Capitation Grant (ii) MUIS-led Teacher Development Programmes and (iii) Teachers Training Support Grant; and (c) whether MUIS or the Ministry is working towards programmes to equip madrasah teachers with the necessary skills to deal with mental health issues among their student population.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Mental health is an important aspect of our overall health and well-being. The Government has been working with the community to strengthen support for the mental health and well-being of our youth on various fronts. This includes Malay/Muslim youths and students in our madrasahs.
MUIS partners community organisations with specialised expertise in the area of mental health to support the well-being of our madrasah students.
a. One such partnership is with Club HEAL, where professional counsellors provide face-to-face counselling sessions and support to the madrasahs. Between 2018 and 2020, 175 mental health-related cases in the madrasahs were referred to Club HEAL for counselling support, for issues such as stress, low self-esteem, depression and anxiety.
b. Other partners include the REACH teams (which stands for Response, Early Intervention and Assessment in Community Mental Health), Persatuan Pemudi Islam Singapura (PPIS) and the national network of Family Service Centres.
Our madrasahs also conduct mental health talks and enrichment programmes for teachers, students and parents. Peer support is available in the form of a buddy system for students, and there are regular one-on-one teacher-student sessions so that teachers can check on students’ well-being.
There are about 270 teachers across the six full-time madrasahs. MUIS provides a range of training opportunities for madrasah teachers.
a. Under the Teachers Development Capitation Grant, every full-time madrasah teacher receives a $1,000 training grant per annum to undertake relevant training programmes. This is complemented by the centrally coordinated MUIS-led Teacher Development Programmes, which sets out a training plan for madrasah teachers.
b. In addition, the Teachers Training Support Grant sponsors madrasah teachers for selected training programmes with external institutions such as the National Institute of Education (NIE), Edith Cowan University and Republic Polytechnic. To date, 60% of madrasah teachers have benefited from training support programmes under this scheme.
c. Specifically in the area of mental health, madrasah teachers are equipped with the skills and competencies to respond to the mental health needs of their students. In 2020, MUIS sponsored 16 madrasah teachers for the 'Certificate in Para Counselling' programme by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS), and the 'Post-Graduate Diploma in Islamic Counselling' and 'Situational Counselling' by Pergas. Currently, each madrasah has two to three teachers with basic training in counselling including identifying early signs of emotional trouble.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Consultation for Review on Strengthening Foreign Halal Certification Bodies Recognition Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs following the announcement that MUIS is conducting a comprehensive review to further strengthen the foreign halal certification bodies (FHCBs) recognition framework by end-2021, whether MUIS will open a public consultation where members of the public and stakeholders can provide their feedback and suggestions.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The review of Foreign Halal Certification Body (FHCB) recognition framework aims to strengthen governance and transparency, as well as more closely align the framework to our domestic halal food consumption needs.
As part of the review, MUIS will engage industry players, FHCBs and relevant stakeholders to gather feedback. More details will be announced later in the year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implications of Consumer Data Monopoly by Firms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister (a) whether MAS has done any study to monitor the extent and implications of consumer data monopoly by firms; (b) how is the personal data of users of digital payments being protected when they use this payment mode; and (c) what has been the progress on the Central Digital Currency project and whether it will be an appropriate substitute for consumers who wish to preserve their privacy when paying digitally.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): In the course of providing services to their customers, financial institutions (FIs) will use information from their transactions and details, in order to provide services that are more suited to the needs and wants of the customers.
For instance, we can obtain better financial advice if FIs have more comprehensive information of our financial positions and commitments. The recent introduction of the Singapore Financial Data Exchange (SGFinDex) in fact enables customers to consolidate their financial data across multiple FIs and share it with FIs of their choice.
Notwithstanding, entities with large amounts of customer data could potentially exploit it to restrict competition. The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore and Infocomm Media Development Authority have regulations in place that prevent such abuse of dominance, and protect consumers from anti-competitive business practices1.
There are measures in place, such as the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), to ensure that the confidentiality of personal financial data is safeguarded. Under the PDPA, FIs must obtain the consent of their customers and inform them of the purposes for which they are collecting, using, or disclosing personal data. The PDPA was recently amended to criminalise the knowing or reckless unauthorised use or disclosure of personal data.
In addition, FIs, including payment service providers, must adhere to cyber hygiene requirements and meet standards on technology risk management, in order to protect personal data from unauthorised access, use, or disclosure. These include encryption for sensitive or confidential customer information, strong user authentication, and data loss prevention controls.
Protection of our personal data is also a personal responsibility. We should exercise utmost care when we share personal data online.
Finally, Mr Supaat asked about Central Bank Digital Currencies, or CBDCs, and whether they will help consumers preserve privacy. Project Ubin, an industry effort led by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), has successfully experimented with blockchain technology for wholesale inter-bank payments and settlements, using a digital Singapore Dollar. DBS Bank, J.P. Morgan and Temasek will be jointly developing a multi-currency payments network, based on the findings from Project Ubin.
Some central banks are exploring the issuance of retail CBDCs, for use by consumers. However, a highly anonymous CBDC, essentially digital cash, raises the risk that it could be used for illicit purposes such as money laundering and terrorism financing. Further, a retail CBDC effectively enables customers to hold money directly with the central bank, and could have significant implications for the funding of banks and their lending activities.
The case for a retail CBDC is being assessed more carefully, beyond the consumer privacy concerns, before any large scale issuance.
As one of the pioneers in experimenting with CBDCs, MAS is closely monitoring developments in digital currencies, and learning from the experiences of other central banks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Competition Act (Cap. 50B), the Code of Practice for Competition in the Provision of Telecom Services 2012, and the Code of Practice for Market Conduct in the Provision of Media Services."],"footNoteQuestions":["63"],"questionNo":"63"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Telecommuting Options for School Teachers and School Staff","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Education given the rise in community COVID-19 cases, whether the option for telecommuting or remote teaching can be made available for teachers or staff who fall within the vulnerable group like pregnant women, elderly or those with immune deficiency.
Mr Lawrence Wong: MOE aligns our workforce arrangements for teachers and staff with the workforce advisories issued by the Multi-Ministry Taskforce (MTF), Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and Public Service Division (PSD).
With the return of all students to schools on a daily basis since 29 June 2020, we will need teachers and staff to be physically present to support school operations, and to ensure that the learning of our students is not disrupted. We have put in place stringent safe management measures to ensure that schools remain a safe environment for both staff and students.
The schools will exercise flexibility on work arrangement where operationally feasible. For example, school staff may be allowed to:
(a) Report/leave at staggered hours if they have no lessons or duties assigned for the start/end of the school day; or
(b) Work from home on a day where they have no physical classes or other assigned duties requiring their physical presence in school.
In addition, schools pay close attention to school staff who may be more vulnerable to COVID-19, such as staff with underlying medical conditions or pregnancy with complications. Extra care is taken when considering their deployment. For example, they are not assigned to roles with greater exposure such as taking temperature at the school gate. We will continue to make every effort to ensure the well-being of our staff and minimise the risk of exposure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Punishment against Criminals who Commit Cheating or Scam Offences Electronically","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government will consider enhancing the punishment against criminals who commit cheating or scam offences electronically or via telephone.
Mr K Shanmugam: Depending on the facts of the case, scammers can be charged for one of the cheating-related offences under Sections 417 to 420 of the Penal Code, which carry maximum imprisonment terms of between 3 and 10 years. MHA’s assessment is that the penalties are adequate.
The main challenge in combating scams is that most of the scammers are based overseas. We have been actively collaborating with foreign law enforcement agencies. MHA has also stepped up efforts on scam prevention through education and public awareness. We have also enhanced collaboration with industry partners such as telcos, online marketplaces, banks and remittance companies, to detect and stop scams before they happen.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend of Cyber Scams and Hacks in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Ministry can share statistics from 2015-2020 of cyber attempts made to (i) scam non-natural persons and (ii) hack into financial or non-financial accounts of non-natural persons; and (b) what actions have the Ministry taken to protect locally registered organisations or companies.
Mr S Iswaran: Cyber attempts to scam and hack are chargeable offences under the Computer Misuse Act or other relevant laws. Between 2015 and 2020, the Police received about 1,900 reports of cyber attempts made to scam non-natural persons such as companies and organisations. Over the same period, the Police also received more than 8,000 reports on unauthorised attempts to access computer material. The Police however does not specifically track whether these attempts are targeted at companies.
Besides relying on our regulations and enforcement efforts, it is also important to increase cybercrime awareness in the private sector through structured engagement, and to establish key partnerships to achieve operational effectiveness in combating cybercrime. To this end, the Police set up a public-private industry platform – the Alliance of Public PrivAte Cybercrime sTakeholders (APPACT) comprising technology giants such as Facebook and Google, telecommunications companies, web hosting companies, banks, e-commerce platforms and fintech companies.
The Government is also committed to supporting enterprises and organisations in mitigating the cybersecurity risks that come with digitalisation. To raise the national cybersecurity posture in Singapore, the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) launched the Safer Cyberspace Masterplan last year, which aims to raise the general level of cybersecurity in Singapore for individual users, communities, enterprises, and organisations. The Masterplan comprises three thrusts: one, securing our core digital infrastructure; two, safeguarding our cyberspace activities; and three, empowering our population.
Under the third thrust of this Masterplan, CSA aims to enhance cybersecurity awareness and increase the adoption of appropriate cybersecurity measures amongst enterprises and organisations. To this end, CSA is rolling out toolkits that enterprises and organisations can use as a ready resource for cybersecurity education. To enhance cybersecurity adoption, enterprises and organisations can leverage on Security-as-a-Service solutions, which will be made available to companies under Enterprise Singapore’s Productivity Solutions Grants and IMDA’s SMEs Go Digital Programme.
While the Government will take the lead to drive efforts toward a safer cyberspace, everyone has an important role to play. Businesses must safeguard their systems by building up their cybersecurity capabilities and putting in place digital risk management measures. To avoid falling prey to scams, businesses are also advised to adopt measures such as verifying any request for payment instructions or bank account details. Together, we can build a safer and more secure cyberspace.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Continued Vibrancy and Sustainability of Singapore’s Hawker Culture","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what are the long-term plans to ensure the continued vibrancy and sustainability of Singapore’s hawker culture; and (b) what are the infrastructure plans for current and future hawkers to have affordable space and options to conduct their businesses whilst achieving environment sustainability and a high standard of hygiene, food and waste management.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The continued vibrancy and sustainability of our hawker culture have been longstanding priorities for my Ministry. The recent inscription of Singapore’s Hawker Culture onto the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity has given this an additional boost.
Manpower constraints are a key challenge faced by the hawker trade. To address this, the National Environment Agency (NEA) works closely with hawkers to enhance the productivity of their operations. For example, at the centre-level, we introduced centralised dishwashing services under the Productive Hawker Centres programme. The Hawkers’ Productivity Grant also subsidises automation equipment and technological solutions for individual hawkers.
To attract new talent and nurture the next generation of hawkers, we have kept barriers to entry low through measures to keep rents reasonable, by not requiring minimum bids during monthly stall tender exercises. In our Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs), NEA also gives more weightage to tender bids from operators that offer lower stall rentals, which cannot be increased during the tenancy period. We also provide support to aspiring hawkers through the Incubation Stall Programme which offers subsidised rentals to new entrants. SEHC operators have similarly introduced incubation programmes in new hawker centres.
To provide aspiring hawkers with business and culinary skills, the Hawkers’ Development Programme complements classroom training with an apprenticeship stint with a veteran hawker. We have also recently announced the Hawkers Succession Scheme to facilitate the transfer of hawker stalls and recipes from retiring veterans to aspiring hawkers.
To maintain a conducive environment in our hawker centres, NEA regularly refreshes hawker centre design and infrastructure. New hawker centres built since 2011 feature bigger stall sizes, wider aisles and High Volume Low Speed fans to improve ventilation and keep the centres cool. Family-friendly amenities like seating and diaper-changing facilities are also provided. Provision has also been made for the adoption of automated equipment, such as centralised dishwashing, automated tray return and food waste digester systems.
These features will be incorporated in new and redeveloped hawker centres. We welcome suggestions from all Singaporeans on how hawker centres can better serve their needs. For example, during the recent SG Hawker Fest, we gathered ideas from different stakeholders on what they would like to see in our future hawker centres.
Singapore’s hawker culture belongs to all of us. Many members of the public have also shared that keeping our hawker centres clean is important, and should be part of our mainstream hawker culture. I urge all of us to play our part to sustain our hawker culture by supporting our hawkers, and cleaning up after ourselves to keep our hawker centres safe and clean community dining spaces for all.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Work From Home Policy on Demand for Commercial Office Space","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether there is an impact on demand for commercial office spaces given that work-from-home remains the norm and offices are downsizing; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry is exploring any measures to soften the impact on the market.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The COVID-19 situation is still evolving and the long-term impact of work-from-home on office demand remains to be seen. Occupied office space had increased in 4Q2020 compared with the previous quarter. The vacancy rate of office space in 4Q2020 also decreased slightly compared with 3Q2020, and was comparable with the vacancy rates in previous years.
The Government will continue to monitor the market, and calibrate the supply of commercial properties if needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tackling Family Violence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there are any recommendations from the Inter-Agency Task Force on Family Violence to tackle family violence; and (b) whether there are any immediate steps to help prevent family violence against children below the age of 12 years who may not have direct access to help except through their own caregivers.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Family violence is not a private matter. Our society does not condone it. The Break the Silence Campaign was launched in 2016 to raise public awareness and alertness about family violence.
The Inter-Agency Taskforce on Family Violence was set up in February 2020 to further focus efforts to tackle family violence. As tackling family violence is a whole-of-community effort, the Taskforce comprises members from the Government, the Courts and partners such as hospitals, family violence specialist centres, crisis shelters and family service centres. The Taskforce has conducted a focus group discussion with community partners and intends to submit its recommendations to the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister for Home Affairs in April 2021.
Family violence and abuse against children must not be tolerated. Over the past few years, MSF has introduced rigorous screening tools and training to enable community partners at the various touch points to detect and act against child abuse. For example, educators, counsellors, and other professionals in preschools, schools, clinics and hospitals are alerted to pick up safety concerns involving children and intervene based on established protocols, including alerting MSF’s Child Protective Service.
A key community partner – Centre for Promoting Alternatives to Violence (PAVE) has launched an app called \"Community Guardian\". This app allows grassroots leaders and volunteers to report family violence cases so that trained first responders in the vicinity can quickly investigate the incidents. The Taskforce has also stepped up efforts to bring in corporate partners and trained community leaders so that there are more eyes and ears on the ground to alert the authorities to possible instances of family violence.
We urge neighbours, family members and members of the public to step forward and report concerns about abuse, so that victims, especially children, in our midst can be protected and assisted in a timely manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Medical Costs of Foreign Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will review the rule that employers must bear all medical costs of their foreign domestic workers especially where the medical treatment is not related to the work of the worker.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Singapore has a sizeable number of foreign domestic workers (FDWs) who provide essential caregiving and household support to families. In setting out the rules of their employment, we seek to ensure they get proper care while in Singapore and establish clear lines of responsibility.
Employers are responsible for their FDWs’ medical care, as long as the FDW remains in Singapore. To ensure that they can cope with large bills, employers are required to purchase medical insurance to provide coverage of at least $15,000 for their FDWs, to cover hospitalisation episodes regardless of how the need arose. In other words, the hospitalisation insurance covers both treatment for both work-related and non-work-related conditions. This amount has been sufficient to cover about 95% of all hospitalisation bills incurred by FDWs over the past three years. Employers can also opt for higher coverage from their insurance provider.
Employers who face financial difficulty paying for the hospitalisation bills of their FDWs may approach medical social workers at the hospitals for assistance. Beyond hospitalisation expenses, employers of FDWs may assess the benefit of further insurance coverage in the same way all employers can voluntarily do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prerequisites for Remaking our Heartland and Revitalisation of Shops Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the prerequisites for a neighbourhood town centre to qualify for the Remaking our Heartland (ROH) and Revitalisation of Shops (ROS) schemes respectively; (b) what is the scope of works covered under each of the schemes; (c) whether the scopes will potentially overlap with each other; and (d) whether the Ministry can consider integrating these two schemes to achieve a more holistic approach for the upgrading of the town centres.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Remaking Our Heartland (ROH) initiative is a comprehensive rejuvenation blueprint to renew existing HDB towns and estates, ensure the sustainability and vibrancy of the HDB heartlands, and make Singapore a distinctive and endearing home for Singaporeans. It is a multi-agency effort to develop customised plans that suit the needs of each ROH town, and to bring the plans from different agencies into a holistic package to rejuvenate the town as a whole. Towns are identified for ROH based on the potential and opportunities for rejuvenation within the towns. Given the scale and effort involved, each plan typically takes about 5-10 years to be implemented. Since the programme was launched in 2007, we have announced ROH for 13 towns/estates.
A key part of the ROH package is usually the upgrading of the neighbourhood centre, with the upgrading work aimed at strengthening the identity of the neighbourhoods such as through entrance promenades and heritage markers, infusing more greenery, and providing more public spaces for the community to gather, such as community plazas, common areas sitting or fitness facilities. Other examples of ROH upgrading works could include upgrading of existing facilities. As ROH funding is limited, there is a need to prioritise works that will benefit the community, rather than specific groups such as commercial tenants for which other programmes are available.
The Revitalisation of Shops (ROS) Scheme is a targeted programme to help the retailers and Merchants’ Associations (MA) in our HDB town and neighbourhood centres enhance the vibrancy and competitiveness of their shops. In line with this intent, HDB co-funds physical upgrading works to improve the shopping environment, as well as retailers’ promotional activities. To qualify for the scheme, retailers must be represented by an MA, which will be responsible for drawing up the scope of physical upgrading works taking into account the localised needs of retailers. This is to encourage ownership of the upgrading plans by local stakeholders. Shop owners in the town or neighbourhood centre must also support and co-fund the upgrading works. This ensures a common vision and continuity of the revitalisation effort in the long term. Examples of upgrading works under the ROS scheme include the installation of shopfront awnings and vertical blinds, re-tiling under the fixed awnings, and the replacement of shop signages. The ROS scheme is currently being reviewed, and more details of the changes will be announced when ready.
The ROS scheme is implemented independently from ROH, so that MAs in towns that have not yet been identified for ROH can tap on ROS to upgrade their business environments whenever they assess that there is a need to do so, and have garnered sufficient support from the retailers within the town or neighbourhood centre. Nonetheless, where a site has been identified for both ROS and ROH or other upgrading programmes, HDB will work with the MA to scope the ROS upgrading works to complement the common area upgrading works under ROH or other upgrading programmes where possible. This is to facilitate a more comprehensive and impactful improvement to the shopping environment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Option for Singaporeans to Register Preferred Language of Communication for Government Correspondence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether Singaporeans and residents can register their preferred language of communication with the Government so that paper wastage may be reduced and to ensure that those who can only understand Mother Tongues receive messages in the appropriate languages.
Mr S Iswaran: We agree with the need to make choices available to citizens. We seek to do so, firstly, by going digital. The Gov.sg Whatsapp channel, which provides information on COVID-19 in the four official languages, allows subscribers to choose their preferred language. Similarly, the LifeSG app provides seniors above 60 years old the option to browse content in the app in their preferred language.
The public service is continuously seeking to improve the way it communicates and serves citizens. For example, in conducting face-to-face outreach, the Silver Generation Office will seek to identify the language that the senior understands, and deploy volunteers who can engage the senior in their preferred conversational language and with the relevant collaterals.
We will continue to improve in this area and will study the suggestion further.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Waiting Time for Admission to Nursing Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current waiting time for admission to nursing homes; (b) how has COVID-19 impacted the admission of new cases into nursing homes; and (c) what options do families have to care for their ailing family members pending such admission.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Nursing home placements are prioritised based on care need. Seniors who require help and supervision in three or more activities of daily living such as feeding and toileting, and have weak family support are given priority. The waiting time for a subsidised nursing home bed is also affected by family preferences and available capacity.
During the COVID-19 outbreak, nursing homes continued to accept new admissions. Additional precautionary measures have been implemented to protect residents against COVID-19, including enhanced infection control and prevention practices, safe management measures and COVID-19 testing protocols for nursing home staff and residents. New admissions to nursing homes and residents returning from hospitals were also tested for COVID-19 and/or isolated prior to assimilation into general ward. The median waiting time for a nursing home bed has remained stable over the last few years at around one month.
While awaiting nursing home placement, the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) works with the seniors and their caregivers to make alternative care arrangements such as home-based and community services to support the senior. For example, seniors discharged from hospitals who require more time to finalise their long-term care arrangements may apply for the Interim Caregiver Service (ICS), which provides short term post-discharge custodial care for seniors, six days a week and 10 to 12 hours a day. Depending on their care needs, seniors can also make use of home care services such as home medical, home nursing, home personal care, meals delivery and medical escort and transport services. They may also apply for the Integrated Home and Day Care (IHDC) programme and have flexibility to receive home-based care services, centre-based care services, or a combination of both.
Seniors or caregivers who need help can approach AIC for further assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Length of Tenancy for Eateries at HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the average tenancy term of a HDB eating house; (b) how many eating houses have been tendered under the Price Quality Method to date; and (c) whether HDB keeps track of rent for individual stallholders with the operators of eating houses to ensure that the terms of the agreement between HDB and the operators are adhered to.
Mr Desmond Lee: To ensure that residents have access to affordable food options, HDB provides a good supply of eating houses across all HDB estates. There are 770 HDB-built eating houses at present, of which 402 are sold and 368 are under tenancy with HDB. HDB typically offers a tenancy term of three years, after which the incumbent operator’s tenancy may be renewed at the assessed market rent, subject to the absence of ground issues or infringements. This approach provides business continuity for operators, and minimises possible disruptions to residents.
Since September 2018, all new HDB eating houses have been let out via Price-Quality tenders. Transitioning to Price-Quality tenders has allowed HDB to ensure more sustainable rents, as tenderers need not drive up the tender price to secure a unit. Tendered rent under Price-Quality tenders has been lower on average compared to Price tenders previously. Price-Quality tenders also allow HDB to select tenants who can better serve residents, for instance, tenants with a good track record and productivity, who implement community initiatives, and who are committed to provide affordable food options.
However, HDB does not control or keep track of rents between operators and individual stallholders as this is a private contractual agreement between the parties involved. This provides eating house operators with flexibility to negotiate with stallholders and allows operators to manage their own costs in terms of renovation, upkeep and other initiatives. At the same time, it is in the operators’ business interest to keep stall rents reasonable, to retain their stallholders. If the rents are too high, stallholders could move to other nearby eating establishments, resulting in vacant stalls.
Nonetheless, HDB continues to monitor the operators’ performance as well as ground feedback to ensure that the operators are managing the eating houses well. Should there be negative issues on the ground, HDB can review the tenancies of the rental eating houses at the end of their tenure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Resources and Opportunities for Pursuit of Education for Households with Both Singapore Citizen and Non-resident Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the current number of households with both Singapore citizen and non-resident children (ie at least one child who is on a Long-Term Visit Pass or student pass); and (b) how does the Government ensure that the higher cost of education for the non-resident siblings does not lead to less resources and opportunities for their Singapore citizen siblings.
Mr Lawrence Wong: MOE does not have full data on the number of households with both Singapore citizen and non-resident children of all ages. Across all of MOE’s primary and secondary schools, and junior colleges and Millennia Institute in 2020, there are around 500 families with siblings of whom one is a Singapore citizen and the other has a different citizenship status (i.e. Permanent Resident or International Student). This number is less than 1% of the total families with at least 2 siblings that are attending these schools.
Education is heavily subsidised for Singaporean students at all levels, with additional government support for those from lower-income households. The financial support provided for Singaporean students bring down the overall out-of-pocket education expenses for households. This allows the family to channel its financial resources to other needs, which could include any higher fees payable by a non-Singaporean child.
Nonetheless, MOE recognises that there are non-Singaporean students with Singaporean parents, who may also be in need of support. These families can approach their schools or institutions for assistance. MOE and the institutions will assess their situation and exercise flexibility on a case-by-case basis. We will give special consideration for low-income households, so that resources are appropriately extended to those with greater needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthen Enforcement Action against Reckless Cyclists on Footpaths and Park Connector Networks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA can step up its enforcement action against reckless cyclists riding along the footpaths and Park Connector Networks.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Over the last two years, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has more than tripled its enforcement resources to more than 200 enforcement officers deployed against errant active mobility riders. Today, LTA conducts daily operations on public paths, including enforcement against cyclists who ride recklessly on footpaths, and works with the National Parks Board to conduct targeted enforcement at parks and park connectors. Since 2019, LTA has taken enforcement action against more than 720 errant cyclists.
With close to 6,000 km of footpaths and cycling paths island-wide, enforcement will always be a challenge. LTA has been harnessing technology such as the use of mobile CCTVs and the public reporting function in the MyTransport.SG mobile app to augment its enforcement presence. LTA will also step up public education to foster a safe riding culture.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extend Evidence-gathering Methods for High-rise Littering to Cases of People Smoking at Windows and Balconies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry can extend the evidence-gathering methods used in cases of high-rise littering to those cases that involve people smoking at their windows and balconies.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: For blocks with persistent cases of high-rise littering, the National Environment Agency (NEA) will deploy surveillance cameras, where ground conditions permit, to assist in apprehending high-rise litterbugs. Using the evidence of falling litter gathered from the surveillance footage, NEA conducts further investigations through interviews with occupants of the identified residential units, and then takes enforcement actions against the offenders.
As explained in this House earlier, there is a difference between capturing the throwing of a physical object and gaseous smoke. While the optical cameras are able to capture images of a physical object, it is very challenging to capture images of transient smoke, more so smoke from cigarettes. We would therefore have to capture the act of cigarette smoking. There are privacy concerns and practical challenges when pointing surveillance cameras into homes to capture acts of people smoking at their windows and balconies. For high-rise littering enforcement, optical cameras can be deployed at ground level with cameras angled upwards, at the façade of the building. On the other hand, to capture the act of smoking at windows and balconies, the cameras will need to point and focus on the windows and balconies of the suspected units to detect the smoking act.
Besides privacy concerns arising from such deployments, the limited range of thermal cameras, which are often needed for more accurate detection, makes it harder to find suitable vantage points for deployment. In addition, it is easy for smokers to evade such camera surveillance, for example, by hiding behind curtains, window panes or pillars in their units.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Difference between Tech.Pass and Existing Visa Options such as EntrePass","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"90 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Trade Industry (a) how is the Tech.Pass different from the current visa options such as EntrePass for foreign individuals intending to start their own companies; (b) whether there will be a reduction in the number of work passes available generally in view of the introduction of the Tech.Pass; and (c) whether the eligibility criteria are too lax especially with regard to “at least five cumulative years of experience in a leading role in the development of a tech product that has at least 100,000 monthly active users”.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Our economic strategies enable Singaporeans to fulfil their aspirations and seize opportunities in Singapore and beyond. The tech sector will be a key pillar of our next phase of economic development. Talent is essential to nurture a vibrant and competitive tech ecosystem, especially in critical areas such as artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. Our Government is also using technology to transform our public services, and serve businesses and citizens better.
There is a global shortage of tech talent. Countries such as the UK, France, Australia, China, Thailand and Malaysia have launched various visa programmes to attract tech professionals to their shores. Singapore is building our local tech talent pipeline through programmes such as the TechSkills Accelerator (TeSA), but demand remains high. Where there is a shortage, we will complement our local talent pool with skilled workers from all around the world.
The Tech.Pass aims to attract high-achieving, top-tier global talent to Singapore and allow them to contribute to our economy in multiple ways – they can be a founder, investor, employee, consultant, and academic at the same time. Holders of the EntrePass or the Employment Pass (EP) are usually only able to perform one of these roles at any one time.
The Tech.Pass targets highly accomplished entrepreneurs, business leaders, or technical experts, and there will be 500 places available for applicants. Given this, the eligibility criteria is stringent. Tech.Pass candidates must meet at least two out of three criteria relating to their previous salary, track record of working in sizeable tech companies or track record in developing tech products with mass adoption. This is in line with our broader EP framework, which relies on measures of quality rather than quantitative caps such as quotas to ensure complementarity.
Having five cumulative years of experience in a leading role in the development of a tech product that has at least 100,000 monthly active users is not a lax criteria, especially when coupled with the requirement to have a last drawn salary of $20,000 a month or have five cumulative years of experience in a sizeable tech firm. We will review the outcomes of the Tech.Pass in due time, and if needed, adjust its parameters to attract the right talent.
91 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) over the last five years, what is the annual number and capacity (MW) of new data centres approved for construction; (b) whether there has been any forms of moratorium imposed on the construction of new data centres; and (c) if so, what are the terms of such a moratorium and when was this announced.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Data Centres (DCs) are an important part of the digital economy as they store, process and disseminate data for many businesses and consumers. Global technology companies like Facebook, Alibaba and SEA that run regional business out of Singapore have data centres here to support their operations.
Singapore’s political stability and reliable infrastructure are conducive for operating DCs. However, DCs are intensive users of water and electricity. We will thus need to manage the DC ecosystem to ensure that it is environmentally sustainable, while supporting our business needs. We will strive for quality, not quantity – this means we seek to anchor a range of DCs that can meet both industry and society’s needs, are best in class in terms of resource efficiency, and that continuously innovate to push the boundaries of resource efficiency of DCs in a tropical climate.
In the last five years, 14 DCs with a total IT capacity of 768 MW were approved to be constructed on industrial State land. This was a rapid increase compared to the 12 DCs with a total IT capacity of 307 MW in the preceding five-year period. The Government therefore decided to moderate the growth of DCs with a temporary pause on the release of State land for DCs, as well as the development of DCs on existing State land. The Government informed the industry in 2019 and has been consulting them on ideas to enable their growth in a sustainable manner. The Government is concluding its review and will be sharing its plans with the industry later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prohibit Feeding of Community Animals through Inclusion in Wildlife Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"92 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for National Development arising from the many inconveniences caused to residents and damage to public property caused by the feeding of community animals, whether the Ministry will consider including the feeding of community animals under the Wildlife Act.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Wildlife Act aims to protect, preserve and manage our wildlife. In this regard, the Act is not intended to cover the feeding of domestic species, such as community animals.
Instead, NParks works with stakeholders such as NEA, Town Councils, animal welfare groups and feeders to ensure responsible feeding of community animals. This includes educating feeders to place food in receptables and to clear up after feeding so that they do not dirty the environment.
Where there has been irresponsible feeding leading to littering, enforcement action can be taken under the Environmental Public Health Act. Enforcement action can also be taken by the respective agencies if there has been damage to public property.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Demand and Supply Imbalances of HDB Rental Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the latest demand and supply imbalances of HDB rental flats; (b) whether there are new supplies of rental flats planned for the next three years; and (c) whether the Fresh Start Housing scheme has been useful in helping rental dwellers own their HDB flats.
Mr Desmond Lee: The stock of rental flats is sufficient to meet demand. HDB currently has about 5,000 vacant rental flats available for new applicants.
HDB plans to continue building a small number of new rental flats in the next few years, to gradually replace older rental blocks that are redeveloped and renew our stock of rental flats.
The Fresh Start Housing Scheme has helped second-timer public rental families with young children to own a home again. Close to 100 families have been placed on the scheme. Public rental families can also tap on other support for home ownership, such as the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant, the Step-Up CPF Housing Grant, and guidance from the Home Ownership Support Team.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Seniors and Care-givers Facing Mental Health Challenges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"95 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the framework currently in place at the national and localised levels to support seniors and their care-givers who face mental health challenges; and (b) whether plans are on track to expand the long-term care workforce.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Ministry of Health (MOH) has been working with the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC), community partners such as the Social Service Agencies (SSAs) and Public Healthcare Institutions (PHIs) to provide community mental health services to persons who face mental health challenges, including seniors, under the Community Mental Health Masterplan.
To support seniors who face mental health challenges, MOH and AIC have worked with the SSAs to establish community outreach teams who reach out to these seniors to provide mental health information and support. These teams are able to provide basic emotional support, and can help to link these seniors and their caregivers up with other health and social services where necessary. As of June 2020, we have set up 48 community outreach teams which have reached out to over 324,000 persons.
In 2019, MOH launched the Caregiver Support Action Plan to strengthen support for senior caregiving, covering a range of support measures including care navigation, respite care, financial support and socio-emotional support. In particular, under the Action Plan, caregivers who have or are at-risk of developing depression, anxiety and burn-out due to their caregiving role can approach AIC or the community partners to access support by caregiver community outreach teams. These caregiver-focused community outreach teams will support caregivers in self-care through health and wellness activities, stress management and future planning. Caregivers will also be directed to support groups and counselling services where needed.
Based on data reported by service providers, in 2019, there were about 12,700 workers employed by Long-Term Care (LTC) providers who received subvention from MOH. This is a 67% increase compared to 2014 when there were about 7,600 workers in the LTC sector .
To meet the growing demand for manpower in the healthcare sector, we have increased local training places, in particular for nursing. The local nursing intake increased by about 50% from 1,500 in 2014 to 2,200 in 2019. AIC has also been working with LTC providers and recruitment partners like Workforce Singapore (WSG) and the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) to facilitate employment of individuals and raise awareness of job opportunities in the LTC sector. These efforts, which commenced since 2017 as part of a suite of employment facilitation initiatives, have resulted in about more than 3,400 locals joining the Intermediate and Long Term Care sector from 2017 to 2019. LTC providers can also tap on employment facilitation schemes such as AIC’s Senior Management Associate Scheme (SMAS) to hire mid-career locals for leadership or managerial roles within their organisation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Types of CCAs Offered at Primary and Secondary Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"96 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Education for 2019 and 2020 (a) what is the median number of sporting co-curricular activities (CCAs) and non-sporting CCAs available in Primary and Secondary schools; and (b) which Primary and Secondary school offered (i) the most number of sporting CCAs and non-sporting CCAs and (ii) the least number of sporting CCAs and non-sporting CCAs.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In Primary Schools, the median number of Physical Sports CCA is five for both 2019 and 2020, and that of non-sports CCA is 12 in 2019 and 11 in 2020. For Secondary Schools, the median number of Physical Sports CCA is six for both 2019 and 2020 and that of non-sports CCA 15 in 2019 and 14 in 2020.
There are typically more non-sports CCA than Physical Sports CCAs in schools as non-sports CCAs span a wide range of domains, from Visual and Performing Arts, Uniformed Groups to Clubs and Societies.
We prefer not to single out the schools with fewer CCAs. Many of them face genuine constraints such as lower student enrolments. So it would not be fair to compare them with schools with much higher enrolments and therefore more CCAs. Instead our approach is to proactively help these schools by offering selected CCAs outside of school. This includes Strategic Partnership CCAs for Athletics and Ethnic Dance. We are studying what other measures we can undertake to help students in these schools access a broader range of CCAs, based on their interests and needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Possibility for Teacher Given C-Grade to be Graded Differently in Another School","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"97 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education whether a teacher who gets a C-grade in one school can potentially get a different grade for the same work performance if ranked with teachers in another school.
Mr Lawrence Wong: MOE, like the rest of the Civil Service, has a performance management system based on relative ranking. The Member has raised a hypothetical question, but I believe his underlying concern is whether our teachers are assessed in a fair and consistent manner across schools. Let me assure the Member that every effort is made to do so and to take into account that human judgement and inputs are part of the assessment process.
The performance of our teachers is assessed based on a set of competencies and expected key result areas as stipulated in the Enhanced Performance Management System (EPMS), and the supervisor uses these competences not just to assess, but to also help teachers continue their professional growth and development. The supervisor’s assessment inputs are then brought to a school ranking panel, where there is a cross-ranking process. This allows us to moderate differences in supervisors’ assessments and establish common standards of performance assessment.
To better ensure consistency in how performance management is implemented across schools, our Cluster Superintendents, who oversee several schools, are present at the school ranking sessions to provide guidance and useful benchmarks on the standards for performance grading.
For all C- cases, the supervisors will follow up with the teachers to guide them on their areas for improvements and help them with their professional growth and development. With the support provided, we hope these teachers will improve in their performance grade in the subsequent years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Updates to Work-from-home Advisory in Phase Three of Re-opening","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"98 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower with the start of Phase Three of Re-opening (a) what is the maximum proportion of employees who are able to work from home allowed at the workplace at any point in time; (b) whether work-from-home remains the default mode of working; and (c) whether the Ministry will allow employees who are able to work from home the right to do so for a specified proportion of workplace hours in Phase Three and beyond.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Given the recent trends in COVID-19 cases in the community and workplaces, and the higher risk of potentially more transmissible COVID-19 strains, the tripartite partners decided last month to postpone any further adjustments to Safe Management Measures for the workplace. This means that work-from-home remains the default working arrangement. Employers must also ensure that no more than 50% of employees who are able to work from home are at the workplace at any point in time, and that these employees work from home for at least half their working time.
The Safe Management Measures for the workplace, including work-from-home requirements, will be adjusted taking into account the public health risk, and employee and business interests. They may be eased or tightened in the coming months depending on how the COVID-19 situation evolves.
Work-from-home is one of many flexible work arrangements that help employees better manage their work and personal responsibilities. We encourage employers to continue providing such working arrangements even when the public health risk abates. Tripartite partners have been promoting flexible work arrangements, taking into account the need to balance the considerations of employees and employers. This includes progressively implementing the recommendations of the Citizens’ Panel on Work-Life Harmony that were submitted last year. While there were no specific calls for legislating flexible work arrangements, the Citizens’ Panel focused on efforts to spur adoption, such as growing a community of Work-Life Ambassadors and developing sector-specific Communities of Practice on Flexible Work Arrangements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Awareness of Need for Cervical Cancer Checks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"
100 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are any statistics about the awareness and practice of doing pap smear tests among females in Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry will work with tertiary institutions to educate students about the importance of such tests.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: We recommend that women aged 25 to 29 years should undergo a Pap smear at a 3-yearly interval. For women aged 30 years and above, the recommendation is for them to undergo the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) test at a 5-yearly interval.
Based on the 2019 National Population Health Survey (NPHS), 88.5% of Singaporean women aged 25 to 74 years reported being aware of cervical cancer screening tests (e.g. Pap and HPV tests). About one in two women, aged 25 to 74 years, had undergone screening for cervical cancer within the last three years. However, only 76.5% of the younger age group (25-29 years) had knowledge of Pap smear compared to 91.0% of the older age group (30-69 years).
HPB works closely with partners such as the Singapore Cancer Society on public education efforts, so as to bridge the knowledge gap. Annual campaigns such as the Women’s Gynecological Cancers Campaign (WGCAM), focus on the main gynecological cancers of which cervical cancer is one. HPB also runs the Screen for Life (SFL) programme which encourages Singapore residents to go for regular recommended health screenings, including cervical cancer screening.
Beyond national-level campaigns, HPB and partnering organisations will continue to work with schools, including tertiary institutions, to raise awareness about women’s health, expanding beyond specific cancers. As part of the Health and Physical Education curriculum for upper primary and lower secondary students, discussions are held on the topic of cancer including common cancers among males and females in Singapore and the importance of a healthier lifestyle to prevent cancers. HPB worked with Nanyang Polytechnic to develop a video on cervical cancer prevention and the importance of early detection in 2019. This animated video is available on Health Hub’s page on cervical cancer. This complements our HPV school-based vaccination programme. Since its launch in 2019, at least nine out of 10 Secondary 1 female students have received HPV vaccinations. HPB is expanding its work to involve student groups in tertiary institutions and partner organisations on student led initiatives to raise awareness of cancers and early detection.
We will continue to intensify our efforts to encourage women to go for regular screening, and welcome suggestions to improve our early detection efforts to save lives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Childcare Leave Period to Facilitate Parents' Care Arrangements for Children Placed on Mandatory Sick Leave","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"101 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Prime Minister whether, in light of the Minister for Health’s advisory issued in February 2020 to medical practitioners to issue five days of sick leave to patients with respiratory symptoms during this pandemic, whether childcare leave period for eligible parents under the Child Development Co-Savings Act may be extended for the period of the pandemic so as to allow parents to provide support for their children who may be issued with sick leave and are therefore required to stay at home.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): \tSince the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers and employees have had to make adjustments to work arrangements to cope with the evolving situation. In February 2020, the Ministry of Health advised doctors to issue five days of medical leave to patients with respiratory symptoms in order to reduce the risk of community spread. As a result, we recognise that working parents may face challenges balancing their work commitments and caring for a sick child at home.
Today, each working parent of a Singaporean child is eligible for up to six days of paid childcare leave if their child is under the age of seven years, or two days of paid extended childcare leave if their child is between seven and 12 years. In addition, almost half of all employees in Singapore have more than 14 days of annual leave. Parents who are unable to work from home due to the nature of their work can avail themselves of these childcare or annual leave entitlements. We have taken a practical approach to calibrating childcare leave provisions. Any enhancements, even if time-limited, will need to account for the manpower and operational needs of employers, as well as the caregiving needs of parents.
Rather than expanding leave provisions during this time, we encourage employers to provide a work environment that helps parents manage their work and family responsibilities. The Government, together with unions and employers, introduced a Tripartite Standard on Flexible Work Arrangements in 2017, and a Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs in 2018, to establish good practices that all employers should implement to support their employees’ personal or caregiving responsibilities.
In the past year, more employers have adopted flexible work arrangements such as flexible work timings or remote work, as part of measures to reduce interactions in the workplace during the pandemic. We call upon employers to adopt the Tripartite Standards and to continue exercising flexibility, including allowing employees to work-from-home to care for their children who are issued medical leave.
A sustainable way to help parents better juggle their work and childcare needs is to make flexible work arrangements a norm in our workplaces. Technology solutions and workplace practices put in place by employers to facilitate remote work during the COVID-19 period could also be extended beyond the crisis. The Government will work with the tripartite partners to study ways to foster a more family-friendly work environment and to better support working parents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Obtaining Feedback from Ministries on Potential Impact from Any New Initiative to Ensure Coordination Among Agencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Prime Minister what procedures are in place to obtain feedback from all Ministries regarding potential impact on their work and related legislation from any new initiative and to ensure better coordination among Government departments and agencies.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: The Government has established coordinating processes and structures at various levels to bring together Ministries and agencies for Whole-of-Government (WOG) decision-making and information-sharing. These include meeting platforms chaired by the Minister or Permanent Secretary, that organise Ministries to deliberate on strategic issues and trade-offs within a sector, committees or workgroups focusing on specific projects that require alignment across several agencies, and work processes to ensure all relevant agencies are consulted before major initiatives are approved by the Cabinet.
Agencies working on new policy initiatives are expected to take into account the implications of existing legislation on their policy proposals. Should their initiatives require legislation to be introduced or amended, they will work closely with the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) and all relevant stakeholders. Proposals for major policies and new legislation, incorporating feedback from the relevant Ministries including on their fiscal impact and public communications requirements, are also tabled to Cabinet for approval.
COVID-19 has been a stress test of inter-agency collaboration, both in developing new policies in a prompt manner, as well as in operationalising them. On the whole, our public agencies have adapted quickly and acquitted themselves well. But there will always be room for improvement and lessons to be learnt. We therefore continually review our processes and outcomes, to identify and remedy any shortcomings, and to strengthen inter-agency alignment and communication across the whole of Government.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of 2020 Budgets for Expenditure Items Amounting to $100 Million and above","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether he can provide a breakdown of the 2020 Budgets amounting to $100 billion in terms of (i) expenditure items that total $100 million and above and (ii) which Ministries and contractors are involved in these expenditure items.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Through the five Budgets in 2020, the Government committed a total of $97.3 billion to support our economy and society in fighting COVID-19. Over 85% of this comprised direct transfers, grants and loans to eligible individuals, businesses and households, like the Jobs Support Scheme and the Solidarity Payment.
A total of $13.8 billion was set aside for Ministries' and Statutory Boards' spending on operational aspects of our COVID-19 response, comprising the following major expenditures:
(i) $10 billion under MOH and MTI for medical and emergency operations and supplies. This included the expansion of testing capacity, clinical management of COVID-19 patients, contact tracing capabilities, and securing of critical medical and emergency supplies such as personal protective equipment.
(ii) $2.9 billion under MND to set up and operate quarantine and Stay-Home Notice (SHN) dedicated facilities and build new dormitories to reduce the population density and spread of infection.
(iii) $0.9 billion under MOM to manage the COVID-19 outbreak in the dormitories.
For medical and emergency supplies, 10 agencies awarded contracts to more than 100 suppliers for the provision of relevant equipment and services. For COVID-19 related facilities (quarantine, temporary migrant workers' housing, medical, SHN) and transport arrangements, 13 agencies engaged over 150 suppliers to supply the services. To manage the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak in dormitories, MOM awarded contracts to more than 150 suppliers for the provision of food and telecommunications, among others.
When procuring goods and services, we must bear in mind the unprecedented nature of this pandemic and the level of global shortage. This requires us to act swiftly and to adapt. Agencies took care to engage suppliers and evaluate them on who could best meet the requirements while offering value for money. This includes using established contracts as well as establishing new links to diversify and secure emergency supplies that were in short supply globally.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tax Incentives to Encourage Companies Doing Well to Donate to Charities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of the difficulties that charities are encountering in raising funds under the current climate, whether the Ministry will enhance tax incentives to encourage companies still doing well to donate.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Government adopts a multi-pronged approach to encourage charitable giving from individuals and businesses. This complements Government funding and support for our charities and their beneficiaries.
Currently, the Government provides a 250% tax deduction to qualifying donations1 made to Institutions of A Public Character (IPCs). In addition, through the Business and IPC Partnership Scheme (BIPS), businesses can enjoy 250% tax deduction on wages and related expenses for corporate volunteering. Beyond tax incentives, the Government also supports charitable giving through grants that match donations raised.
The current 250% tax deduction on qualifying donations to IPCs is relatively high, compared to other jurisdictions such as Australia, Hong Kong, and United States. Companies that are doing well, and choose to give or volunteer generously, will benefit from lower taxes.
However, we must also pay attention to our fiscal position which has been weakened by the impact of COVID-19 on our economy. Hence, we have to strike a balance between granting tax benefits to encourage charitable giving, and ensuring sufficient tax revenue for our recovery and spending needs.
We will continue to review how best to encourage sustained giving through tax and non-tax measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Qualifying donations to IPCs are: i) Cash donations; ii) Gifts of shares listed on the Singapore Exchange (SGX), or of units in unit trusts traded in Singapore; iii) Gifts of artefacts to approved museums; iv) Donation of public sculptures or works of art for public display to approved recipients; and v) Gifts of parcels of land or buildings."],"footNoteQuestions":["3"],"questionNo":"3"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Piracy Attacks in Singapore Strait","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Defence (a) how many piracy attacks in the Singapore Strait have been recorded in 2020; (b) how many successful arrests have been made in these cases; (c) whether there has been an increasing trend of piracy attacks in the Singapore Strait over the past 10 years; and (d) what are the Ministry’s plans to enhance the safety of ships plying our waters.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: 34 sea robbery incidents were reported in 20201. For valid year to year comparisons, these incidents refer to those that occurred in waters about 40 kilometres from Singapore. Similar to many previous years, none of them occurred within or originated from Singapore territorial waters. These numbers fluctuate widely from year to year but over the past decade, the trend of such incidents has not seen a rise, 28 on average annually. The majority of these robberies involve petty theft of items like crew belongings, engine parts, or scrap metal. The number of incidents correlate with economic hardships, and is expected to be exacerbated by the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic.
As these incidents took place outside our territorial waters, Singapore agencies do not have the authority to directly intervene or apprehend these perpetrators. Nevertheless, our agencies, which include RSN, PCG and MPA, work in concert and make every effort to work with our neighbours for the security of our SLOCs. Some of these measures include escorting and boarding vessels that have been robbed at sea and subsequently call into our ports, so as to rule out any residual risks prior to docking. The Singapore Maritime Crisis Centre also serves as the Whole-of-Government set-up that maintains our maritime situational awareness, drives sense-making efforts, coordinates responses to potential maritime security threats, and shares vital real time information to surrounding countries and the shipping community at large.
Singapore also has longstanding cooperation with the navies and coast guards of Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand to deal with transnational maritime piracy, robbery and other security threats. We continued to carry out patrols and share information despite the onset of COVID-19. The RSN’s Information Fusion Centre (IFC) shares information with our neighbours on a regular basis to aid them in deterring possible perpetrators and to facilitate the successful responses to sea robbery attempts. On 16 March 2020 last year, IFC received information that a Bulk Carrier vessel \"SAM JAGUAR\" sighted perpetrators on-board, while she was transiting along the eastbound lane of the Singapore Strait. As the incident occurred outside Singapore territorial waters, IFC shared the information with the Indonesian Navy’s HQ, who promptly acted and arrested three perpetrators.
MINDEF and the SAF remain committed to the prevention of incidents of sea robbery and piracy. We will continue to improve our measures to deal with these threats, as well as work with the neighbouring littoral states to deal with maritime incidents and threats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : According to the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, piracy consists of any illegal acts of violence or detention on the high seas or in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state. The International Maritime Organisation has stated that armed robbery against ships refers to illegal acts of violence or detention taking place within a State’s internal waters, archipelagic waters and/or territorial sea."],"footNoteQuestions":["4"],"questionNo":"4"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Psychoactive Substances are Not Easily Bought Online","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs with new psychoactive substances on the rise and the possibility of them being masked and labelled as medicine, what measures are being taken to ensure that they are not easily bought online.
Mr K Shanmugam: New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) are proliferating at an unprecedented rate globally, due to the ease of modifying the chemical structures of substances to create new compounds with psychoactive effects. At least 1,000 different types of NPS have been detected worldwide as at August 2020, up from 166 at end-2009.
Since 2010, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has been proactively listing NPS as controlled drugs to the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA). In 2013, amendments were made to the MDA to better address NPS challenges. The temporary listing of NPS in the Fifth Schedule to the MDA was provided for, which allows the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) to seize these NPS to prevent their proliferation, while consultation with stakeholders is being carried out to determine if there are any legitimate uses for these substances. If there are none, these NPS will be listed as a controlled drug to the First Schedule to the MDA subsequently. The MDA currently has 12 generic groups and 67 individually listed NPS in the First Schedule, which covers a significant proportion of the NPS detected overseas.
The abuse of NPS is on the rise. NPS has become the third most abused drug in Singapore since 2018. One key challenge in tackling the NPS problem is that traffickers and abusers switch very quickly to new forms of NPS that have yet to be listed as controlled drugs in the MDA, and thus we may not have the legal powers to prosecute such cases. MHA will be amending the MDA later this year, to better deal with the NPS problem.
Given the increased internet penetration among the general population and the abundance of mobile applications that allow for encrypted communications, CNB has noted an increasing trend of illicit online drug transactions. This challenge is faced by law enforcement agencies worldwide.
CNB has been monitoring the developments on illicit online drug sales closely, including those of NPS.
CNB has also stepped up enforcement efforts. CNB works closely with partners such as the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and courier companies. These efforts have resulted in many successful interceptions of drugs, including NPS, and drug-related paraphernalia. In 2020, CNB arrested 287 persons for buying drugs and drug-related paraphernalia online.
At the same time, it is crucial that we raise public awareness about the dangers of NPS. For instance, in March 2020, CNB worked with Channel News Asia to release a podcast about the harms of NPS and cautioning against buying drugs online. In December 2020, CNB launched a 'Mythbusters' series to share about the harms of NPS on its Facebook and Instagram pages. This series will continue in Q1 2021.
CNB will continue to monitor developments closely and keep up its enforcement and public education efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Restricting Public Access to Identity of Property Owners in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Law (a) in view of the Personal Data Protection Act, whether the Ministry will consider restricting public access to the identity of property owners in Singapore; and (b) whether any such disclosure ought to be subject to the consent of the property owner or through an order of court.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Land Titles Register is a public record of land ownership and all registered property transactions. It enables property ownership to be easily ascertained, in order to prevent fraudulent property transactions and other undesirable outcomes.
While a title search does not require the consent of the property owner, it can only be performed using details such as the property address, lot number and title reference number. It is not possible to retrieve information on the properties an individual owns, by submitting his name or identification number on the search portal.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Community Sentences Imposed since Enhancement of Community Sentencing Regime under Criminal Procedure Code in 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law since the enhancement of the community sentencing regime under the Criminal Procedure Code in 2018 (a) how many persons have to date been imposed community sentences and what is the breakdown for each type of community sentence; (b) whether the numbers represent an increase over the corresponding period before the enhancement of the regime; and (c) what steps have been taken to ensure that there are sufficient resources channelled to deal with these cases.
Mr K Shanmugam: Our sentencing philosophy is aimed at deterrence, prevention, retribution and rehabilitation. A fair sentencing framework is one that enables the Court to deliver the appropriate mix of these four objectives on the specific facts of each case.
Community-based sentences (CBS) were introduced in 2010 to make available a wider and more sophisticated range of sentencing options, so that the Courts have more flexibility in sentencing offences and offenders traditionally considered to be on the rehabilitation end of the spectrum. In 2018, the CBS regime was expanded in a controlled manner to allow more offenders to benefit from the rehabilitative opportunities CBS offered, while balancing this with the need to deter crime. The amendments to the CBS regime came into force on 31 October 2018. The Courts decide, based on the law and the specific facts of each case, whether CBS is an appropriate sentence.
There was a slight increase in the number of cases where offenders were sentenced by the State Courts to CBS for the 26-month period from 1 November 2018 to 31 December 2020, compared to those sentenced from 1 September 2016 to 31 October 2018. This is shown in Table 1.
The number of each type of CBS imposed by the State Courts from 1 November 2018 to 31 December 2020, compared to those from 1 September 2016 to 31 October 2018, is set out in Table 2.
The agencies which administer CBS conduct regular reviews to ensure that adequate resources are available to carry out the various types of CBS. For instance, the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), which administers MTOs, increased the number of case managers, who assist in monitoring patients’ compliance with treatments and scheduled appointments, to prepare for the amendments to the CBS regime in 2018. The Singapore Prison Service (SPS), which administers DROs and SDOs, arranges for SPS officers to undergo regular training to update their skills and knowledge so that they are better equipped to supervise and support the offenders sentenced to DROs and SDOs, and also works with community partners, such as Family Service Centres, the National Addictions Management Service and the IMH, to facilitate the reintegration of offenders in selected cases.
The Government will continue to monitor the CBS regime and ensure that it is adequately resourced.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Wills Registered with Public Trustee's Wills Registry Annually for Past 10 Years Before and After Implementation of Registration Fees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Law (a) to date, how many wills have been registered with the Public Trustee's Wills Registry; and (b) what is the take-up rate annually for the past 10 years, before and after the implementation of the registration fees.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Wills Registry (the \"Registry\") was launched in 2001 and is a confidential registry where testators or their solicitors can deposit information on wills. With effect from 4 May 2020, the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) took over the management of the Registry from the Public Trustee's Office (PTO). As at 31 December 2020, there were 128,931 will records deposited with the Registry.
In 2014, PTO introduced an online service for the electronic submissions of will records including a one-time $50 fee to cover the costs of processing and maintaining the records in the system for up to 120 years from the testators' date of birth. The number of will records deposited annually over the past 10 years is as follows:
As part of broader efforts to encourage estate planning, MinLaw is working with stakeholders to study how access to services such as the Wills Registry may be further improved.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prosecution Action Taken Against Non-compliance with Assessors' Directions under COVID-19 Temporary Measures Act 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Law regarding contracts of which relief has been sought under the COVID-19 Temporary Measures Act 2020, what prosecution action has been taken under Sections 13(11) and 13(12) of the Act to deal with parties who, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with directions as determined by Assessors.
Mr K Shanmugam: Under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 (\"Act\"), parties who are unable to perform certain contractual obligations because of COVID-19 may serve a notification for relief on the other party (or parties) to the contract. Contracting parties are encouraged to continue negotiations in order to reach a mutually beneficial outcome.
However, if parties are unable to agree, the Act provides a simple and inexpensive framework for an Assessor to review the case. The Assessor may make a determination to resolve the dispute between parties, without any party having to initiate court proceedings or similar legal action.
In many cases, parties have been able to resolve the matter between themselves without requiring an Assessor. For most cases that were reviewed by an Assessor, parties have complied with the determination issued by the Assessor. In some cases, parties may have difficulties meeting the directions made in the determination. For example, they may need more time to refund the monies specified, because they have been impacted by COVID-19 significantly, or because time may be needed for third parties such as banks, or credit cards, to process and effect the refund. If one party does not comply with the determination, we would urge parties to first discuss, and show consideration to each other if possible.
If the matter cannot be resolved amicably, the Act provides that the party in whose favour the determination was made may apply to the Court to enforce the determination in the same manner as a court judgment or order.
The Act additionally provides for offences including that for failing to comply with an Assessor’s determination without reasonable excuse. Given the economic situation, such prosecution should be reserved for the most egregious type of cases.
As at 22 January 2021, no prosecutorial action has been taken in respect of the offences provided for under sections 13(11) and 13(12) of the Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Legal Protection for Events and Holiday Tour Contracts under the COVID-19 Temporary Measure Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Law (a) how many individuals and companies who have signed contracts for activities such as wedding celebrations, conferences and holiday tours have applied for legal protection under the COVID-19 Temporary Measures Act; (b) what is the percentages of cases where negotiations failed and assessors had to be involved; and (c) whether there is any further recourse for individuals and companies who do not agree to the assessors' assessments.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 20 April 2020 and 20 January 2021: (a) 1,056 notifications for relief (NFRs) were served through the electronic system for event and tourism-related contracts. We do not track the number of hardcopy NFRs which parties may have served on the contracting parties; (b) 414 applications, excluding rejected or withdrawn applications, for an assessor's determination were filed in relation to such contracts. Cases would be withdrawn if parties eventually managed to come to an agreement themselves. There were also some cases that were rejected as they were not within the scope of the framework.
Based on the statistics outlined above, about 60% of the cases for which NFRs have been served were settled or resolved without the involvement of assessors.
The Act seeks to provide just and fair outcomes through a simple and inexpensive mechanism, rather than abiding strictly with contractual terms. This is to ensure parties that are already impacted by COVID-19 do not stay embroiled in lengthy litigation over issues that arose materially because of the pandemic, through no fault of their own. In line with ensuring efficiency and finality, determinations are not appealable.
However, a review may be conducted in limited situations. For example, an application for a subsequent determination may be made where: (a) one party did not have the opportunity to place all relevant information or evidence before the assessor; or (b) where an extension of time is required to make any payment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Businesses Taking on Re-Align Framework to Terminate Existing Rental Contracts ahead of Schedule","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Law (a) how many businesses have taken on the Re-Align Framework in order to terminate their existing rental contracts ahead of schedule; (b) what are the categories that these contracts fall under; and (c) within non-residential immovable property, what is the square footage of the property sub-sectors affected.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Re-Align Framework (\"Framework\") allows small and micro businesses that have been significantly impacted by COVID-19 to renegotiate selected types of contracts, so as to realign their contracts with the post-COVID-19 business environment. Renegotiation is the primary relief, not termination.
The Framework commenced on 15 January 2021, and affected businesses have until 26 February 2021 to submit a Notice of Negotiation (\"NoN\") to seek relief under the Framework.
As of 26 January 2021, a total of 114 NoNs have been served using the online electronic system. Affected businesses may also serve the NoNs in hardcopy on the other party or parties to the contract (\"Other Party\") . We are unable to track the number of hardcopy NoNs served.
As of 26 January 2021, the number of NoNs served using the online electronic system for each category of contract is as detailed in Table 1 below.
We do not track the square footage of the property sub-sectors covered by the Framework.
Under the Framework, the service of a NoN by an affected business on the Other Party triggers a 4-week negotiation period, during which parties are encouraged to understand each other’s position, and work towards a mutually acceptable outcome. The contract may be terminated only if there is no successful negotiation. We would like to encourage contracting parties to approach the negotiations in a fair and reasonable manner, and work towards a mutually acceptable outcome, bearing in mind that COVID-19 was an event that no one could have predicted.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiatives to Equip People with Mental Health First Aid","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider rolling out initiatives to equip people with mental health first aid.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mental health first aid involves equipping individual with the skills and knowledge to recognise common mental health problem, provide initial support, and guide the person with mental health issues towards appropriate professional help.
In this regard, the Government has been actively promoting mental health literacy and awareness of mental health conditions in the population. In schools, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) offers psycho-emotional programmes and peer supporter training to promote the understanding of mental health and support those who need help. In 2021, the Ministry of Education will also introduce the enhanced Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) which will feature mental health education to teach students on maintaining their wellbeing, better understand and recognise mental health problems and symptoms, and know when and how to seek help and support.
At workplaces, HPB runs a management training workshop to equip managers and human resource personnel with the knowledge to recognise staff facing difficulties at work and may need help, and be supportive leaders at their workplace. HPB also rolled out the Workplace Outreach Wellness (WOW) Package to help companies co-fund and implement health promotion programmes such as mental wellness workshops to enable their staff to better cope with stress at work.
In the community, HPB and MCCY are implementing a \"Brave the New\" campaign targeting the general population exposed to varying levels of stress and adjustment challenges arising from COVID-19. The campaign aims to help people recognise negative emotions, equip them with coping tips, and normalise help-seeking behaviours. The Ministry of Health Office for Healthcare Transformation also launched mindline.sg, a stress management and coping website that consolidates access to resources to improve mental well-being. The website includes a wellbeing self-assessment tool for users to conduct a self-assessment of their stress level; users will be guided along appropriate pathways of intervention and support based on the assessment outcomes.
For social service providers, the Social Service Institute runs the E.M.B.R.A.C.E. Mental Health course which aims to equip providers with knowledge on the signs and symptoms of common mental health conditions and how to properly communicate and provide support to persons with mental health issues.
In addition, the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) has developed mental health awareness e-learning modules to equip key stakeholders such as frontline officers and community partners with the knowledge and skills to identify signs and symptoms of mental health and know where to go for help. AIC has also set up community outreach teams to actively reach out and provide early identification and community support for persons with mental health needs.
Ministry of Health recognise the importance of mental health first aid in the population and will continue to work with agencies and community partners to expand the outreach of our efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Projected Rise in Cost of Medical Services and Health Insurance in 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the projected rise in cost of medical services and health insurance for 2021; (b) what are the active measures to be taken in 2021 to ensure that the rise in cost of medical services and health insurance remains low and affordable; and (c) what are further measures and considerations in 2021 to further flatten the curve of medical insurance premiums for elderly citizens as they age.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Several factors contribute to healthcare cost increases, including our ageing population, medical advancements that can improve life spans and the quality of life, as well as increases in healthcare manpower and other operating costs.
Managing healthcare costs has been a key priority of MOH. For example, to guide private sector doctors and healthcare providers in charging appropriately, and enable patients and payers in making better informed healthcare decisions, we published the private sector surgeon fee benchmarks in 2018, and further published a second tranche of fee benchmarks, for anesthetists’ fee and doctor’s inpatient attendance fees, in December 2020. This is on top of our regular publication of total bill size for common conditions seen in both the public and private hospitals.
As announced previously, Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) with zero co-payment coverage have also been progressively phased out, in line with our principle of co-payment in the consumption of healthcare. This is important to reduce the propensity for over-consumption, over-servicing and over-charging which can arise when there is no co-payment required for medical treatment. The MediShield Life Council has also noted the rapidly rising costs of cancer therapies and will be reviewing MediShield Life coverage for such treatment so they can be covered in a more sustainable and affordable manner. These measures will take time to bear fruit. We will need a sustained effort over many years and all stakeholders must play their part and exercise responsibility when choosing and recommending appropriate and necessary care.
For MediShield Life, the Government has accepted the MediShield Life Council's recent recommendation to adjust the premiums, to keep pace with the rising number of claims and payouts, and also to support the updating of claim limits and benefit enhancements to ensure that the scheme continues to provide adequate protection for Singaporeans. To ensure that MediShield Life premiums remain affordable, the Government will provide up to $2.2 billion for premium subsidies and support over the next three years, including support measures for lower and middle-income households, and Pioneer Generation (PG) and Merdeka Generation seniors. The net premium increase for all Singapore Citizens will be no more than about 10% in the first year. In addition, the lifetime annual MediSave top-ups for PG seniors will be increased from 2021 and premium payment will be deferred till end of this year for those who have insufficient MediSave balances and are unable to pay their premiums due to the economic impact of COVID-19. The financially needy can also apply for Additional Premium Support. No one will lose their MediShield Life coverage due to an inability to pay for their premiums.
Under MediShield Life, Singaporeans pay higher premiums when they are young, which are given back as rebates in old age to make premiums more affordable. Younger policyholders have more lead time to do so and will thus receive higher premium rebates when they reach old age in future.
Insurers offering IPs that provide additional private coverage above MediShield Life will also review their premium pricing from time to time. As IP premiums are higher than MediShield Life premiums, we encourage Singaporeans to carefully consider their ward preferences and long-term affordability of IP premiums when choosing an IP, especially since premiums increase with age.
In the longer term, staying healthy is key to managing healthcare costs. We encourage Singaporeans to lead healthy lifestyles, go for regular health screening as well as nationally recommended vaccinations, and will continue to enhance our outreach efforts. The Health Promotion Board has been at the forefront of our health promotion efforts and is continually enhancing our health promotion initiatives to ensure that they remain relevant and meaningful. For example, it launched the \"Stay Well to Stay Strong\" campaign last year to share bite-sized videos and articles with tips on practising good personal hygiene, healthy eating, exercising, and mental well-being. Individuals are also encouraged to go for regular, evidence-based, and subsidised health screening under the Screen for Life programme for early detection and management of chronic diseases, as well as subsidised nationally recommended vaccinations at participating providers such as the Community Health Assist Scheme General Practitioner clinics.
MOH will continue to monitor and review our cost containment efforts and the various features of healthcare insurance design, to ensure that healthcare treatments remain affordable and sustainable for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Option to Receive Early COVID-19 Vaccination for Singaporeans who are Required to Travel for Work and Studies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will allow Singaporeans who are required to travel for work and studies to opt in to receive early COVID-19 vaccination.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: There is at present a limited supply of COVID-19 vaccine globally. Supplies for Singapore will arrive in batches over several months as manufacturers increase the production of vaccines. In addition, there may be unforeseen disruptions to the vaccine delivery schedule. There were delays to shipments of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines due to Pfizer's manufacturing plant upgrading. We will continue to monitor our supplies closely to ensure that we will have enough vaccines for all Singaporeans and long-term residents in Singapore by the third quarter of 2021.
There is a need to prioritise the allocation of the vaccines. We have prioritised healthcare workers, COVID-19 frontline personnel, seniors, and other essential services personnel. We will progressively broaden our vaccination exercise to include other Singaporeans and long-term residents who are medically eligible.
We understand the anxiety of some Singaporeans wish to travel overseas for personal reasons and are anxious to get vaccinated early. At this point when vaccine supplies are limited, we need to prioritise our healthcare and frontline workers, and seniors for vaccination. We are therefore unable to provide vaccines at this time to these Singaporeans and seek their understanding. When there is greater certainty in our vaccine supply, we will consider allowing individuals to receive early vaccination. We will announce further details when available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Seeking Assistance with MediShield Life Premiums Payments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the avenues to seek assistance with payments of MediShield Life premiums; (b) what does Additional Premium Support entail and what is the duration of the approval process; and (c) how is future inflation taken into consideration in planning the various support schemes to ensure MediShield Life premiums remain affordable for all.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: To ensure MediShield Life premiums remain affordable, the Government provides premium subsidies of up to 50% for lower and middle-income households. All Merdeka Generation seniors receive additional subsidies of up to 10% on top of these premium subsidies, and annual MediSave top-ups of $200 from 2019 to 2023, which can be used to pay for the premiums. All Pioneers receive special subsidies of up to 60%, and lifetime annual MediSave top-ups which will be increased to $250 to $900 from 2021. As MediShield Life subsidies are designed as a percentage of the premiums payable, the absolute amount of subsidy increases as premiums increase over time due to inflation and other factors.
The Government has also provided additional COVID-19 subsidy for all Singapore Citizens for two years, to further cushion the premium increases during this period. Taken together with the existing subsidies, the net premium increases for all Singapore Citizens will be no more than about 10% in the first year. Premium payment will also be deferred till end-December 2021 for those who have insufficient MediSave balances and are unable to pay their premiums in the coming year due to the economic impact of COVID-19.
There is no need to apply for these subsidies, and the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation MediSave top-ups. They are automatically extended to eligible individuals. Singaporeans who experienced a recent, major change in their financial circumstances can appeal for a re-assessment of their eligibility for premium subsidies if needed.
MediShield Life premiums can be fully paid using MediSave, and family members can also utilise their MediSave to help pay the premiums for their loved ones. Singaporeans who continue to face difficulties even after subsidies and have limited family support can apply for Additional Premium Support (APS). If approved, APS will cover all outstanding premiums as well as the premiums for the next two years. APS applications are generally processed within 20 days of receipt. Each application undergoes a thorough and careful assessment, including taking into consideration any extenuating circumstances that the applicant may be facing. No one will lose their MediShield Life coverage due to an inability to pay premiums.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Harassment, Physical or Verbal Abuse of Healthcare Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) over the last three years, what is the annual number of cases reported of healthcare workers encountering harassment or physical or verbal abuse respectively in the course of workplace duties or targeting healthcare worker roles while off-duty; (b) what proportion led to (i) police reports (ii) legal action and (iii) offences being made out as assessed by authorities; and (c) what are the eventual outcomes.
17 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether harassment protections under the Protection from Harassment Act apply to nurses and healthcare workers facing harassment in the course of workplace duties; and (b) whether the Act protects off-duty nurses and healthcare workers who encounter harassment pertaining to their healthcare role while the worker is on public transport, in public areas, or at home.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) protects all individuals, including healthcare workers, from harassment. Based on data provided by our public healthcare institutions, the number of abuse/ harassment cases has been increasing over the past three years from about 1,080 in 2018 to about 1,300 in 2020.
Over the same period, the number of cases of harassment or abuse of public healthcare workers while on duty that were reported to the Police, under Section 6 of POHA, has also similarly risen from 40 in 2018 to 58 in 2020. The Police do not specifically track reports made by healthcare workers for abuse or harassment while they are off-duty.
Harassment of anyone, at any time, is an offence under POHA and offenders are liable to a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment for up to six months, or both. Victims may also obtain Protection Orders restraining their perpetrators from further acts of harassment or sue them for damages.
Punishments are higher if the offence is directed at public sector workers in the course of their duties under Section 6 of POHA. Persons who harass or abuse public healthcare workers in the course of their work are liable for enhanced penalties, and may be fined up to $5,000, imprisoned for up to 12 months, or both.
Our healthcare workers deserve to work in a safe environment while they care for patients. MOH and our public healthcare institutions adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards staff abuse and harassment and will not hesitate to take appropriate actions against abuse and harassment of our healthcare workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subsidies Provided for In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) Treatments in Past Five Years and Expected Increase in Subsidies Expenditure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) for each year in the past five years, what is the total amount of subsidies provided for In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) treatments; and (b) based on current amount of subsidies and data, what is the expected increase in subsidies expenditure where subsidies are provided beyond the current three fresh and three frozen subsidised cycles for (i) an additional fresh cycle (ii) an additional frozen cycle (iii) two additional fresh cycles and (iv) two additional frozen cycles respectively.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: To support couples in fulfilling their marriage and parenthood aspirations, the Government provides co-funding for patients seeking Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) procedures, including In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF), to defray their out-of-pocket costs for such procedures at public hospitals. Eligible couples1 can receive up to 75% in co-funding from the Government for ART treatment cycles, for a maximum of three fresh and three frozen ART cycles. From 2015 to 2019, annual co-funding provided has increased2 more than 40% from approximately $14 million in 2015 to $20 million in 2019.
Government support for ART is based on clinical evidence that the success rate of ART decreases for successive cycles as a woman progresses in age. In 2019, among the 48 couples who utilised their sixth co-funded cycle, close to 75% of the women were aged 35 and above at the time of their sixth co-funded cycle. Clinical data shows that while success rates exceed 24.6% for women aged 34 and below, this falls to 17.1% for women from ages 35 to 39, and falls further to 6.7% for those aged 40 and above. Given the significantly lower success rate for couples undergoing additional co-funded cycles beyond the sixth cycle, it is important that we remain grounded by the clinical evidence when extending co-funding to more cycles at this point, while bearing in mind that the couple will still be subject to the emotional strain faced in each attempt. Hence, we must continue to encourage couples to seek treatment early, in order to maximise the chances of conception.
Co-funding of six cycles hence strikes a balance between providing financial support to couples with parenthood aspirations and ensuring that public funds are used in a targeted way.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : ART co-funding eligibility criteria include:","a.\tThe patient has not already received three co-funded fresh and three co-funded frozen cycles in the past; ","b.\tThe patient or her spouse must be a Singapore Citizen at the start of the ART cycle;","c.\tThe patient must be below 40 years of age at the start of the cycle;","d.\tThe treatment is a fresh or a frozen cycle; and","e.\tThe patient has been assessed by a doctor to have met the clinical requirements for ART.","2 : 2020 data has been excluded as it is not yet complete and likely distorted by the local COVID-19 situation."],"footNoteQuestions":["18"],"questionNo":"18"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Availability of Air Filters Proven to Effectively Filter out Harmful Effects of Secondhand Smoke in Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether he can provide an update on whether the Ministry is aware of any air filters available in the market which have been proven to effectively filter out the harmful effects of second-hand smoke in private homes.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The toxic constituents of tobacco smoke are both particulate and gaseous in nature. Residential air cleaning technology is unable to adequately remove all of the gaseous components, such as formaldehyde, benzene and carbon monoxide. We are unaware of any air filtration technology which would be effective at removing tobacco smoke and there is no risk-free level of second-hand smoke exposure according to the World Health Organisation.
As such, my Ministry together with other agencies urge smokers to exercise social responsibility and refrain from lighting up where the second-hand tobacco smoke can affect those around them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Control Private and Public Healthcare Costs following MediShield Life Council's Recommendation to Reduce Proportion of Private Healthcare Bills Covered by MediShield Life","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health besides the MediShield Life Council's recommendation to reduce the proportion of private healthcare bills covered by MediShield Life from 35% to 25%, what other measures can be implemented to control private and public healthcare costs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Several factors contribute to healthcare cost increases, including our ageing population, medical advancements that can improve life spans and the quality of life, as well as increases in healthcare manpower and other operating costs.
Managing healthcare costs has been a key priority of MOH. To guide private sector doctors and healthcare providers in charging appropriately, and enable patients and payers in making better informed decisions, we started publishing the private sector surgeon fee benchmarks in 2018. This is on top of our regular publication of total bill size for common conditions seen in both the public and private hospitals.
As announced previously, new Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) must require a copayment of not less than five percent, in line with our principle of co-payment in the consumption of healthcare to prevent over-consumption, over-servicing and over-charging which can arise when there is no co-payment required for medical treatment. The MediShield Life Council has also noted the rapidly rising costs of cancer therapies and will be reviewing MediShield Life coverage for such treatment so they can be covered in a more sustainable and affordable manner.
Choosing therapies that are cost-effective and well supported by clinical evidence would help us to stretch our healthcare dollar. We established the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE) to evaluate healthcare technologies and issue guidances on drugs and other technologies to share with both the public and private healthcare sectors.
These measures will bear fruit over time. We will need a sustained effort over many years and all stakeholders must play their part and exercise responsibility when choosing and recommending appropriate care.
In the longer term, staying healthy is key to managing healthcare costs. We encourage Singaporeans to lead healthy lifestyles, go for regular health screening as well as receive nationally recommended vaccinations. The Health Promotion Board has been at the forefront of our health promotion efforts. For example, it launched the \"Stay Well to Stay Strong\" campaign last year to share bite-sized videos and articles with tips on practising good personal hygiene, healthy eating, exercising, and mental well-being. Individuals are also encouraged to go for regular, evidence-based, and subsidised health screening under the Screen for Life programme for early detection and management of chronic diseases, as well as subsidised nationally recommended vaccinations at participating providers such as the Community Health Assist Scheme General Practitioner clinics.
MOH will continue to review our policy and funding measures, to ensure that healthcare treatments remain affordable and sustainable for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of COVID-19 Vaccine for Seniors Aged above 80 and Take-up Rate of Vaccinations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will review the provision of COVID-19 vaccines to seniors aged above 80; and (b) what is the take-up rate of vaccinations so far.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: We have made good progress in our vaccination programme. As of 31 January 2021, more than 155,000 individuals have received their first dose of the vaccine.
We have prioritised our seniors for COVID-19 vaccination, as COVID-19 infection in the elderly has been observed to result in severe, or fatal illness. The safety and wellbeing of Singaporeans remain our top priorities for the vaccination programme. Only vaccines that meet strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness will be used for our population.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Elderly Suicides Relating to Terminal Illness in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Health (a) in the last three years, how many elderly suicides were there; (b) how many of these are related to cases of terminal illnesses; and (c) what are the measures to reduce the suffering of the terminally ill elderly.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In the last three years, the number of elderly suicides, defined as those amongst persons 60 years and above, was 129 cases in 2017, 115 in 2018 and 122 in 2019. The suicide rate among Singapore residents aged 60 years and above fell from 16.4 per 100,000 residents in 2017 to 13.8 in 2018 and 13.5 in 2019, even as our senior population continued to increase. We do not track the number of suicides related to cases of terminal illnesses.
There are currently a range of measures to support those with terminal illness, and their family members and caregivers. The Ministry of Health, the Agency for Integrated Care and Social Services Agencies have set up Community Outreach Teams to reach out to at-risk elderly (including the terminally ill) and their caregivers. The Community Outreach Teams provide basic social-emotional support and education on coping with mental health challenges, and link them to community resources for further support.
In addition, MOH has enhanced the quality, accessibility and affordability of palliative care in Singapore. Palliative care aims to improve the quality of life for patients with terminal illness. Aside from relieving physical suffering through pain management, palliative care also addresses psychosocial and spiritual needs through holistic care provided by a multi-disciplinary team. Palliative care is currently available in the home setting, day care setting and inpatient setting to support these patients and their caregivers.
MOH will continue to work with stakeholders to strengthen our multi-pronged approach in supporting terminally ill seniors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Concord International Hospital's Suspension of Operations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) how frequently does the Ministry conduct inspections on private hospitals; (b) how many patients have been affected by the suspension of operations by Concord International Hospital; and (c) whether there have been any lapses detected during March to September 2020 while the hospital was caring for COVID-19 patients who were clinically well but tested positive for the virus.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Ministry of Health conducts inspections on all private and public sector hospitals once every two years. The regular inspections are supplemented with audits, compliance checks and additional inspections where required, for example when there is a change in management or when the institution is taking on new services.
Prior to Concord International Hospital (CIH) providing inpatient care to COVID-19 patients, a joint inspection was conducted by the Ministry together with the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID) in March 2020 to evaluate the suitability of CIH to accommodate COVID-19 patients. There were no non-compliant findings and CIH was assessed to be suitable for the management of COVID-19 cases at that time. The last COVID-19 patient was discharged from CIH on 26 September 2020.
Subsequently, a change in management at CIH was notified to the Ministry on 9 December 2020 and an inspection on CIH was conducted from 14 to 16 December 2020 in view of this change. The inspections revealed several significant lapses from October 2020 onwards, after the last COVID-19 patient was discharged from CIH. These lapses posed significant risks to patient safety and well-being. A stop order was issued to CIH on 19 December 2020 and the Ministry is working closely with CIH to address its lapses.
When the stop order was issued, CIH had on-going outpatient medical appointments with four patients, none of whom were COVID-related. There were no patients warded at the hospital. The Ministry has worked with the management and medical team of CIH to review the treatment plans and ensure the proper continuity of outpatient care for these four patients at other licensed healthcare institutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Upgrading Rubbish Trucks into Newer and Quieter Electric Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider working with companies to upgrade rubbish trucks into newer and quieter electric vehicles.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: As part of the National Environment Agency's (NEA) efforts to transform the waste management industry to be more sustainable, NEA encourages Public Waste Collectors (PWCs) to use electric vehicles (EVs) in their waste collection fleets. Since 2019, higher scores are awarded to tenderers proposing EVs for their waste collection vehicles. NEA has also introduced a new requirement in contracts called since June 2020 for PWCs to deploy at least 11 EVs for refuse collection and three EVs for collection of recyclables. With this requirement, EVs will make up about a third of the fleet in the new contracts.
As the use of EVs is still relatively nascent in Singapore, NEA has adopted a phased approach to electrify our refuse and recyclables collection fleet. This allows PWCs to acquire expertise in EV fleet management over time, including operational considerations such as designing truck routes to factor in charging locations and time. Such a calibrated approach will also mitigate potential inconveniences to waste collection services and manage costs. NEA will refine the requirements over time.
We are heartened that all PWCs have taken the lead to voluntarily introduce EVs into their collection fleet ahead of the contract requirement. For example, 800 Super has three EVs operating in the Pasir Ris-Bedok sector, while ALBA W&H and SembWaste plan to bring in three EVs and 10 EVs for the Jurong and Clementi-Bukit Merah sectors respectively. We will continue to work with the PWCs to adopt sustainable solutions for the waste collection industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Educating Food Stall Owners and Customers on Use of Reusable Containers to Ensure Hygiene and Prevent Spread of COVID-19","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what is being done to educate food stall owners and customers on the precautions that can be taken to ensure hygiene and prevent the spread of COVID-19 while still allowing customers to bring their own reusable containers.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: There is currently no evidence of COVID-19 transmission via food items or their receptacles. Nevertheless, to minimise the spread of COVID-19, all food establishments, food handlers and customers should observe good personal hygiene, comply with safe distancing and safe management measures, and undertake joint responsibility to ensure a clean environment for the preparation and consumption of food.
To this end, the National Environment Agency (NEA) and Singapore Food Agency (SFA) have issued joint advisories and stepped up engagement efforts with all food establishments, including hawker centres and hawker stalls, on the importance of cleanliness to safeguard public health and ensure food safety for consumers. This includes the need for the wearing of masks properly at all times.
The SG Clean movement was also launched in February 2020 to rally Singaporeans to keep Singapore clean. As part of the movement, NEA and SFA introduced sanitation and hygiene checklists for hawker centres and stalls, which highlight key practices to safeguard hygiene and reduce contamination risks. These practices include regular cleaning of premises and sanitisation of food preparation surfaces, utensils and cooking equipment, and not handling ready-to-eat food with bare hands. Food establishments that adhere to the requirements in the checklists are awarded the SG Clean Quality Mark, which provides assurance to customers on the measures taken to minimise the spread of COVID-19. To date, more than 23,000 food establishments have been awarded the SG Clean Quality Mark.
At the same time, customers also play their part in ensuring a clean environment and in minimising the spread of COVID-19. Their reusable containers should be properly cleaned when taking away food and drinks. If they are dining at the food establishments, including hawker centres and coffee shops, they should also return their trays after eating, and properly dispose their litter.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Second-hand Cigarette Smoke Do Not Affect Other Homeowners who are Non-smokers in Their Own Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what are the further measures to be considered in 2021 to ensure that disamenities such as second-hand cigarette smoke that causes long-term medical problems does not affect other homeowners who are non-smokers in their own homes.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Government takes a multi-pronged approach to address the disamenities from secondhand cigarette smoke.
To tackle smoking at prohibited residential areas, the National Environment Agency (NEA) works with government agencies, Town Councils and community leaders to display visual reminders to remind smokers to be considerate and entrench positive social norms. Where feedback on unlawful smoking persists, NEA steps up surveillance and enforcement operations at the affected block. Since January 2019, for smoking offences in corridors, NEA has enhanced its surveillance capability with the use of thermal cameras which can detect objects emitting high heat and capture images of the smoking offence.
On the issue of smoking in homes affecting neighbouring units, the Government is working with the community to adopt a three-pronged approach: (a) engender greater social responsibility, (b) facilitate productive conversations between neighbours and (c) enhance the dispute resolution process to better address disputes arising from smoking in homes. For example, NEA has collaborated with the Housing Development Board (HDB), Health Promotion Board (HPB), Municipal Services Office (MSO), and Town Councils to develop and issue joint advisories to units where feedback on tobacco smoke is received. The advisory urges smokers to be considerate to their family members and neighbours, as well as advises them on the smoking cessation helplines available. We will continue to encourage and support ground-up efforts by community organisations and the grassroots to manage feedback on smoking in homes. In addition, NEA, as part of an inter-agency committee, is working with other agencies to study how community disputes including secondhand smoke in homes can be better addressed under the Community Dispute Management Framework through upstream measures to encourage mediation and conflict resolution between neighbours.
There are also cessation programmes available across healthcare institutions, workplaces and in the community, to support smokers in quitting the habit. For example, HPB’s 'I Quit 28-day Countdown Programme' encourages participants to take daily actions to remain tobacco-free and rewards participants who quit successfully. Smokers can call QuitLine (1800 438 2000) to receive customised smoking cessation counselling from Certified Quit Smoking Consultants or visit HealthHub for articles, tips and support. HPB is also leveraging digital platforms during COVID-19 to pilot online delivery of programmes such as smoking cessation talks at workplaces, and will continue to ensure easy access to smoking cessation programmes.
While we will continue to monitor our efforts and best practices overseas, mitigating secondhand smoke in homes ultimately requires everyone to play their part. I urge smokers to exercise social responsibility and refrain from lighting up where the secondhand tobacco smoke can affect those around them. Families and friends of smokers, as well as the general public, can help reinforce these social norms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supporting Smoking Ban by Window or Balcony of Residence with Support from Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry will conduct outreach to determine the percentage of the population that will support a smoking ban by the window or balcony of their residence; and (b) whether the Ministry will work with the Town Councils to pass by-laws on smoking bans with support from residents.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: This House has recently discussed a proposal to ban smoking at windows and balconies of HDB flats and private apartments. My Ministry has shared our position that a smoking ban within homes is not a panacea for this issue, given practical challenges in enforcement, including privacy concerns.
Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor international best practices and improvements in technology that may open up practicable solutions, including legislation, to address secondhand smoke coming from homes. As with other key policy changes, we will engage and consult stakeholders prior to implementing these policies, including ascertaining the degree of support for a smoking ban in homes.
The Town Councils Act is administered by the Ministry of National Development. It is beyond the Town Council’s legal remit under the Town Councils Act to pass by-laws prohibiting smoking in homes, which are private spaces.
We will continue to work with government agencies, Town Councils, grassroots leaders and the community on a variety of approaches to address this issue, including encouraging individuals to be socially responsible and facilitating conversations between neighbours.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Biohazardous Waste Generated and Disposed in Past Five Years and Efforts to Reduce Biohazardous Waste Generated","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) in the past five years, what is the annual amount of biohazardous waste generated in Singapore; (b) how are these waste being disposed; and (c) what are the efforts introduced to reduce biohazardous waste generated in Singapore.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The approximate annual amount of biohazardous waste generated and disposed of in Singapore is shown in Table 1 below. On average, it is about 4,800 tonnes a year.
The National Environment Agency (NEA) regulates the collection and disposal of biohazardous waste under the Environmental Public Health (Toxic Industrial Waste) Regulations. Biohazardous waste must be collected and disposed of by toxic industrial waste collectors that are licensed and regulated by NEA. Such wastes are required to be transported along an approved route within a stipulated time using vehicles that are fully enclosed, before they are incinerated at dedicated treatment facilities.
Most biohazardous waste arises from essential healthcare activities, and comprises materials such as used syringes and other items contaminated with patients’ bodily fluids which are disposed of by hospitals. As such, our focus is to ensure that all biohazardous waste is collected and disposed of safely to safeguard public health.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Active Recycling Collection Points across Singapore and in Community Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how many active recycling collection points have been set up across Singapore; and (b) how many have been set up in community centres to educate and bond residents to build a green community.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: There are currently over 90,000 recycling collection points across Singapore. These include recycling bins in residential and non-residential premises, Cash-for-Trash stations, \"Recycle N Save\" reverse vending machines (RVMs) for beverage containers and electronic waste recycling points voluntarily offered by industry stakeholders. The locations of the Cash-for-Trash stations, RVMs and electronic waste recycling points are available on the National Environment Agency's (NEA) website.
The recycling collection points include recycling bins, Cash-for-Trash station, RVM and electronic waste recycling points in selected Community Clubs (CCs). The Public Waste Collectors appointed by NEA will also offer recycling bins at no charge to all CCs upon request. Various ground-up programmes and initiatives, such as eco interest groups, regular recycling drives and sustainability-related activities by grassroots organisations will further encourage recycling among residents.
My Ministry and NEA will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to raise public awareness on recycling and make it convenient for Singaporeans to do their part for the environment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Environmental Costs of Digital Currencies and Estimated Costs of Bitcoin and Related Digital Currency Mining in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry has examined the environmental costs of digital currencies, such as Bitcoin, that require large amounts of electricity to derive new units of the currency (\"mining\"); (b) whether there has been an estimate of the costs of Bitcoin and other related digital currency mining in Singapore; (c) whether these costs are substantial; and (d) whether there has been any consideration of restricting the mining of such currencies in Singapore.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mining of cryptocurrencies is currently not regulated in Singapore. We observe that cryptocurrency mining happens predominantly in markets with a cheap supply of electricity. Conversely, our local conditions are not favourable for cryptocurrency mining. Our relatively high land, labour, and electricity costs, coupled with our hot tropical climate, make it expensive to operate cryptocurrency mining. The Government will continue to monitor the development of cryptocurrencies and the risks they pose.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Operational Situation at Tuaspring Desalination Plant after PUB's Takeover","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the current operational situation at Tuaspring Desalination Plant after PUB's takeover; (b) how much additional capital outlay will be necessary to bring Tuaspring Desalination Plant to optimal operating capacity; and (c) whether PUB has decided to operate the Tuaspring Desalination Plant over the long term.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: PUB has been operating the Tuaspring Desalination Plant, now renamed as Tuas South Desalination Plant, since taking it over in May 2019. While the plant is capable of producing water, PUB has been doing repair work in order to address operational issues. The repairs, which included the replacement of ultra-filtration and reverse osmosis membranes, cost around $80 million in total and are on track for completion in mid-2021.
PUB will continue to operate the Tuas South Desalination Plant to safeguard Singapore's water security.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allow Use of SingapoRediscover Vouchers at Food and Beverage Outlets in Tourist-targeted Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry will consider allowing SingapoRediscover Vouchers for use at food and beverage outlets in tourist-targeted areas.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The decline in international air travel due to COVID-19 has led to a corresponding decline in tourist arrivals and impacted our tourism establishments badly. The SingapoRediscovers Vouchers (SRV) scheme was therefore designed to target tourism businesses, specifically hotels, tourist attractions and tours, that derive most of their income from tourists.
F&B merchants can work with eligible merchants (i.e. hotels, tourist attractions and tours), to develop bundles that qualify for the SRVs. Some hotels are already working with F&B merchants located in the vicinity for their staycation packages. F&B merchants can also leverage on marketing initiatives by the Singapore Tourism Board to reach out to locals. For example, they can contribute deals and content for the SingapoRediscovers campaign.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Learning Points from False Positive COVID-19 Incident on Board Royal Caribbean Cruise Ship on 9 December 2020 and Plans for More Cruise Ships to Ply Through Singapore's Ports","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the learning points from the false positive COVID-19 incident on board the Royal Caribbean cruise on 9 December 2020; and (b) whether the Ministry supports plans to allow more cruise ships to ply through Singapore's ports.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The suspected COVID-19 case onboard Royal Caribbean's Quantum of the Seas provided an opportunity for government agencies and the cruise line to test and refine the stringent emergency protocols that were put in place as part of STB's CruiseSafe certification. Particularly useful protocols included cessation of all onboard activities, prompt isolation of suspected case and close contacts, the use of TraceTogether for effective contact tracing, and sending of test samples to National Public Health Laboratory for verification of results. Besides the prompt execution of emergency protocols, clear and timely communication with passengers by Royal Caribbean International also engendered confidence in how the situation was handled.
Key areas for improvement included the efficiency of processes such as retesting of samples and the debarkation of passengers. The Government and cruise lines will continue to finetune the health protocols for cruises over time to ensure the health and safety of all cruise passengers.
We remain confident in the calibrated and safe approach taken in the resumption of the cruise sector. Pilot sailings commenced with strict safe management measures onboard, a reduced maximum capacity and no ports-of-call to mitigate risks. We will continue to monitor the findings from the sailings, as well as developments in the local and global COVID-19 situations, before determining the next steps for the cruise industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Basis of Land Allocated for Sandcrawler Building and Breadtalk HQ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the land for the Sandcrawler building and Breadtalk HQ have been awarded to Lucasfilm and Breadtalk respectively based on a direct allocation basis without an open tender and subject to business plans; (b) what is JTC's consideration before approving any sale; and (c) whether JTC will consider for land and buildings subject to direct land allocation to be only 'resold' back to JTC except under exceptional circumstances.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: JTC's role is to ensure that Singapore's limited industrial land is used to promote economic growth and create good jobs. In assessing land allocation applications from companies, JTC, together with EDB and ESG, considers a number of factors which contribute to Singapore’s economic growth, such as land productivity, the ability of the projects to create good jobs, the amount of investment the companies put in, and the companies' growth plans. The land for the Sandcrawler building and Breadtalk HQ were allocated after careful consideration of their business plans, and contributions to the info-comm and media and the F&B industries respectively.
Once allocated, lessees are not permitted to sell or assign their lease unless they meet certain conditions, such as fulfilling a no-assignment period or proposed investment commitments for the site. After meeting these conditions, JTC may allow its lessee to assign its lease to facilitate changes in its business needs, as long as the industrial land continues to be put to optimal use. JTC may also consider buying back the site if it has alternative plans for the site, such as redevelopment for other uses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore’s Macro Economic Policy and Development Change in COVID-19 and Post-COVID-19 Economy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry how will Singapore's macroeconomic policy and development change in a COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 economy.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: COVID-19 has resulted in massive economic disruptions and changed the world irrevocably. Based on advance estimates1, the Singapore economy contracted by 5.8 percent in 2020, the worst full-year contraction since Singapore's independence.
While Singapore's GDP is projected to rebound and grow by 4.0 to 6.0 percent this year, the recovery of the Singapore economy is expected to be gradual, with GDP not likely to return to pre-COVID levels until the latter half of 2021. The recovery will also be uneven across sectors. Even as sectors like manufacturing and finance and insurance are likely to continue to post steady growth this year, aviation- and tourism-related sectors are expected to take a longer time to recover given global travel restrictions and weak travel demand.
Amidst these economic challenges, there is an opportunity for us to build the foundation for Singapore's continued success. We will pursue four main strategies to support our economic recovery and position Singapore for sustained growth in the longer term.
First, we will fortify Singapore's position as a critical node in global value chains. As a small city-state with limited resources, we will not be able to participate in every global value chain nor every part of a global value chain. Our strategy is therefore to identify high-value segments of key global value chains that can create good jobs for Singaporeans, especially in areas such as agritech, biomedical sciences, electronics and infocomm and media, and attract and groom the best global and local companies in these areas. This will allow us to enhance the relevance and resilience of our economy, and ensure that Singapore cannot be easily bypassed.
Second, we will forge new trade rules in areas such as data, finance and technology. COVID-19 has changed consumer preferences, resulting in a greater demand for e-commerce, e-services and digital channels. To improve digital connectivity, we will engage with likeminded partners to set high standards in digital trade rules in order to develop our digital economy and provide our firms with access to new markets and opportunities. For example, we successfully concluded digital economy agreements with Australia, Chile and New Zealand in 2020. These agreements help our companies trade more seamlessly with other countries.
Third, we will pursue an innovation-led and sustainable economy, given the increasing value that accrues to innovation activities in global value chains, as well as the increased demand for sustainability solutions. To promote innovation, we will continue to bolster our R&D and technology translation efforts to support the creation of new products and services, while encouraging companies to expand to regional and global markets. To promote sustainability, we will invest in the green sector and establish ourselves as a hub for sustainability, providing Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) solutions to meet our region's and the world’s needs for sustainable development.
Fourth, we will push ahead with transformation efforts to help our companies and workers stay resilient and competitive. Companies realise that the world has changed as a result of COVID-19. The sooner our businesses transform, the better positioned they and their workers will be to seize new opportunities. For companies in growth sectors, we will continue to help them expand and create jobs. For companies facing a prolonged poor economic outlook, we will help them pivot to new areas of opportunities, by developing their corporate capabilities and boosting their access to additional platforms for innovation and new markets beyond Singapore. For our workers, we will continue to invest in their skills development and training. This includes providing them with the exposure and experience required to compete in a globalised economy, so that they are more likely to succeed.
While the Singapore economy has started on its path towards recovery with our vaccination programme well underway, there are still significant risks ahead. Notwithstanding the availability of vaccines, there remains uncertainty over how the COVID-19 pandemic will evolve around the world given the emergence of new strains of the virus and difficulties faced in vaccination rollouts globally. However, the pandemic can also be a catalyst for Singapore to reinvent itself and sharpen its competitive edge. The Government will continue to support our workers and businesses through this difficult period so that, together, we can emerge stronger from this crisis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The advance GDP estimates are subject to revision when more comprehensive data become available."],"footNoteQuestions":["35"],"questionNo":"35"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Targets and Progress of SingapoRediscovers Scheme and Support for Smaller and Less Digitally Literate Merchants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the targets of the SingapoRediscovers scheme in terms of the numbers of merchants who will benefit from it, broken down by revenue size and sector; (b) what is the current progress in terms of the numbers of such merchants, broken down by revenue size and sector; and (c) what support is given to (i) smaller merchants and (ii) merchants who are less digitally literate, to be onboarded to the scheme.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: All licensed hotels, attractions and tours which have been approved by STB/MTI to operate may apply to participate in the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers (SRV) scheme. There are currently 402 businesses on the SRV scheme, out of which 37% are tours, 11% are attractions and 52% are hotels. Eligible businesses may submit their applications at any time.
The SRV scheme does not target businesses of a specific revenue range. In fact, its digital platform features approved tourism products by all eligible businesses, allowing smaller businesses which otherwise might not have the marketing reach to be able to feature their products to all Singaporeans. The appointment of the five authorised booking partners for the scheme also allows businesses, including smaller businesses, which may not have their own booking systems to participate in the scheme. At the same time, STB had secured lower-than-average commission rates for the SRV products listed on the five authorised booking partners.
Eligible businesses do not need digital expertise to participate in the SRV scheme. The authorised booking partners have teams that can assist businesses in developing digital content such as images and write-ups. Additionally, the authorised booking partners have put together comprehensive plans to market the products and offerings of our tourism businesses. These efforts will help businesses who may not have the same reach and audience that the authorised booking partners may have.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown on Investments Secured by Singapore from 2005-2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether he can provide a breakdown on the investments secured by Singapore from 2005-2020; (b) after the completion of these projects, what is their contribution of value-add per annum; (c) how many new jobs are created per year; and (d) what percentage of the jobs are manufacturing, research and development, and professional services in emerging sectors.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Member may refer to the table below for the breakdown on investments, contribution of value-add and new jobs created per year1.
On average, about 23,000 jobs are created annually as a result of these committed investments, of which about 40% went to manufacturing, 20% to research, and 40% to Services, including Professional Services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : All investment figures from industries covered by EDB (refer to EDB’s media release on investment commitments in 2020 for breakdown of industries), and do not cover all investments into Singapore. "],"footNoteQuestions":["37"],"questionNo":"37"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pre-emptive Interventions by Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore against Anti-competitive Mergers in Ride Hailing Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what are the pre-emptive interventions that the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore is taking to ensure that anti-competitive mergers do not recur in the ride hailing industry in Singapore to the detriment of consumers and drivers.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Businesses have a duty to ensure that their conduct and transactions comply with the Competition Act (Cap. 50B). The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) provides avenues for businesses to apply to CCCS to seek clearance on their conduct prior to engaging in any merger or agreement that may be anti-competitive. Should businesses proceed with a potentially anti-competitive merger without CCCS's prior clearance, CCCS is empowered to impose interim directions to preserve or restore competition and market conditions to protect the public interest. CCCS may also issue the necessary directions to remedy any anti-competitive effects arising from a merger, and impose significant financial penalties.
The ride-hail industry specifically, is also regulated by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) under the Point-to-Point Transport Industry Act 2019 (P2P Act). Under the Act, licenced ride-hail service operators are required to provide LTA with at least 60 days of written notice in the event of: (a) a direct or indirect acquisition of the licencee, and/or (b) the licencee's direct or indirect acquisition of another licencee under the P2P Act. Both CCCS and LTA have written to parties in the ride hailing industry to remind them of their obligations under the law. The parties have expressed their commitment to comply with the relevant laws and regulations in Singapore. CCCS and LTA will continue to keep a close watch on developments.
Ultimately, we need to ensure market contestability. Since the commencement of the new P2P regulatory framework in October 2020, we have several ride-hail service operators - Grab, Gojek, ComfortDelGro, Ryde and Tada Mobility. The new P2P regulatory framework also requires all operators to observe non-exclusivity, which means drivers can choose to provide ride-hail services for multiple platforms. This will substantially reduce entry barriers into the ride-hail industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accrediting Requirements for Private Educational Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there are accrediting requirements before a private educational institution may offer a diploma and, if so, what are the accrediting requirements; and (b) what measures are taken to ensure a minimum standard of education is provided by private tertiary education institutes situated in Singapore.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Committee for Private Education (CPE) under SkillsFuture Singapore regulates private education institutions (PEIs). CPE utilises a two-tier regulatory regime, comprising the Enhanced Registration Framework (ERF) and the EduTrust Certification Scheme (EduTrust). All PEIs are subject to this regulatory regime.
The ERF sets out the minimum standards that the PEIs must adhere to before they are allowed to operate. Registration under ERF does not constitute endorsement of the quality of the PEI. The framework seeks to ensure that PEIs meet minimum standards in corporate governance and administration, student fee protection measures, and disclosure of key information so that students can make informed choices. PEIs are also required to establish an Academic Board and an Examinations Board to oversee academic processes, and ensure that teachers meet minimum requirements in terms of academic qualifications and experience.
EduTrust is a quality assurance scheme that distinguishes PEIs who, from a corporate governance and administrative systems angle, consistently maintain a high standard of quality in their provision of education services that lead to positive student outcomes. Information about which PEIs have EduTrust status is available publicly on the SkillsFuture Singapore website, and can be accessed by prospective students considering programmes at PEIs.
CPE's regulatory framework does not seek to accredit the quality of PEIs' individual programmes, including diploma level programmes, given the wide diversity of offerings and subjects of study in the PEI sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment and Wage Outcome of Tertiary Graduates from Private Education Institutes and Efforts to Strengthen Pedagogy Quality and Industry Relevance Over Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Education (a) over the last three years, what is the employment and wage outcome of tertiary graduates from private education institutes (PEI); and (b) what are the efforts to strengthen the quality of PEI pedagogy to be more industry relevant.
Mr Lawrence Wong: SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) conducts and publishes the Private Education Institution (PEI) Graduate Employment Survey (GES) annually. The PEI GES examines the employment and wage outcomes of graduates enrolled in full-time bachelor’s level External Degree Programmes (EDPs) at PEIs, six months after graduation. The objective of the GES is to provide individuals with more information in their decision-making when considering PEI programmes.
Between 2017 and 2019, graduate employment outcomes of PEI EDP graduates have remained relatively stable. On average, overall employment rate has hovered around 80%, and full-time permanent employment rates at close to 50%. Median gross monthly salary has ranged from $2650 to $2800 over the past three years (Table 1).
Under the Private Education Act administered by SSG, PEIs are required to meet baseline standards in areas such as corporate governance, quality of provisions and information transparency to protect the interest of students, in order to operate. Teachers deployed at PEIs are also required to have minimum qualifications and years of relevant working experience for the course, module or subject that they are teaching. However, SSG does not review or endorse PEIs and their programmes for academic quality or market relevance.
The onus remains on PEIs to work with industry, and regularly review their curriculum and course offerings so that students attain industry-relevant skills. For certain programmes, such as nursing and early childhood education, PEIs would have to obtain prior accreditation from the relevant regulatory bodies to ensure their courses meet the needs of the sector. SSG shares its Job-Skills insights with PEIs, so they have a better understanding of market changes and demands and raise the quality and relevance of their offerings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Secondary School Students Absent from School for More Than Six Months in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Education (a) in the past three years, what is the number of cases of secondary school students who are absent from school for more than six months; (b) what are the reasons for their absenteeism; (c) what are the steps taken by schools in managing such situations; and (d) of these students, how many of them decided to (i) continue or (ii) discontinue their schooling.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The number of secondary school students who are absent from school for more than half the school year has remained low at around 3 per 1000 students for the past three years. About one-third of them discontinue their schooling despite all efforts by schools to encourage them to return.
Students become long-term absentees due to a combination of reasons, such as personal and family circumstances, desire to earn an income rather than study, negative peer influence outside of school, difficulties coping with studies, resulting in loss of motivation to continue schooling.
Schools put in place early identification and intervention processes to support long-term absentees. Form teachers and School Counsellors reach out to students with irregular school attendance to understand and address their challenges, and Student Welfare Officers conduct home visits and work with Family Service Centres (FSCs) to engage parents in order to encourage the student to return to school.
Early upstream intervention is critical, to strengthen students' engagement and sense of belonging to school, to prevent occasional non-attendance from becoming long-term absenteeism. Secondary schools have set up after-school programmes, which focus on befriending and mentoring, strengthening peer relationships and self-management skills, and utilising interest-based activities to engage students.
Under UPLIFT (Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce), MOE collaborates with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) to address absenteeism issues early, through a mixture of school and community-based support. Schools in three pilot areas – Woodlands, Kreta Ayer and Boon Lay – refer students with emerging signs of absenteeism to an UPLIFT Town-Level Coordinator (TLC) based at the Social Service Office (SSO), who will assess the problems faced by these students and their families and refer them to appropriate agencies, local programmes and resources, such as drop-in centres and family befriending.
For students with chronic absenteeism or drop out eventually, MOE taps on partners such as the SSOs, FSCs, Self-Help Groups and SSAs to continue supporting them. For example, they may be referred to the Enhanced STEP-UP Programme where appointed Social Service Agencies (SSAs) engage the student to support their continued education.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Amount for Successful Payouts under COVID-19 Support Grant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is the breakdown of the amount for successful payouts under the COVID-19 Support Grant.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The COVID-19 Support Grant (CSG) supported lower- to middle-income resident employees who, as a result of the economic impact of COVID-19, were:
(a) Involuntarily unemployed due to retrenchment or contract termination;
(b) Placed on involuntary no-pay leave (NPL) for at least three consecutive months; or
(c) Experiencing monthly salary loss of at least 30% for at least three consecutive months.
As of 3 January 2021, MSF had approved the CSG for around 97,000 applicants, and disbursed around $215 million in total. Successful applicants who experienced job loss or involuntary NPL may receive up to $800 per month for three months, and applicants who experienced salary loss may receive up to $500 per month for three months. Recipients of CSG could apply for a second tranche of support if they required further support and met the eligibility criteria.
Table 1 provides the number of approved CSG applications and the median amount of CSG payout per recipient per tranche of support (i.e. for three months). These figures are accurate as at 3 January 2021.
Applications for the CSG have closed on 31 December 2020. MSF launched the COVID-19 Recovery Grant on 18 January 2021 to support lower- to middle-income employees and self-employed persons whose livelihoods are affected by the economic impact of COVID-19.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Applications of Asatizah for Financial Assistance under Self-employed Income Relief Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what is the number of applications of asatizah for financial assistance under the Self-Employed Income Relief Scheme; (b) how many of these applications are successful; and (c) for those who are unsuccessful, whether they are able to apply for the COVID-19 Recovery Grant.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: To date, 330 asatizah have applied for the Self-Employed Income Relief Scheme (SIRS). 77% of applications have been approved, while 10% are still in process.
The remaining 13% of applicants were rejected as they did not meet one or more of the SIRS criteria. However, they may apply for the COVID-19 Recovery Grant (CRG). Those who require assistance with their CRG applications can approach MUIS.
In addition to the SIRS and CRG, MUIS has also been providing other forms of financial support for asatizah whose livelihoods have been affected by COVID-19. This includes the $200,000 top-up to Pergas' Gracious Package, which provides financial assistance to asatizah who have been economically impacted by COVID-19. The Gracious Package supported 500 asatizah last year.
MUIS thanks the Asatizah community for stepping forward during the COVID-19 pandemic to care for, guide, and lift the spirits of our Muslim community. Our asatizah are an important pillar of our society, and MUIS will continue to work with them closely to support the spiritual needs of our Singaporean Muslims.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Types of Assistance Made Available to Singaporean Students Studying Islamic Studies Abroad During Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge for Muslim Affairs what are the types of assistance made available to Singaporean students who are studying Islamic studies abroad during this pandemic.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Amidst the global COVID-19 pandemic, MUIS has been working closely with government agencies to ensure the safety and well-being of Singaporean students in overseas Islamic universities, and limit disruption to their learning.
As the pandemic started to spread across the world, MUIS worked with Ministry of Foreign Affairs, our overseas missions and foreign embassies to repatriate 410 Singaporean students studying in overseas Islamic universities on chartered flights and special travel arrangements. For 180 students with financial constraints, MUIS provided subsidies totaling $102,000 to defray the costs of airfare back to Singapore.
Where possible, MUIS also facilitated online university examinations, so as to minimise disruption to the students' Islamic studies. MUIS also facilitated online Arabic classes and placement tests for students enrolling in overseas Islamic courses during the pandemic.
In order to make the best use of the repatriated students' time in Singapore, MUIS organised a total of 41 workshops, webinars and engagements between August to December 2020, to allow them to pick up relevant skills and prepare themselves for employment in the Islamic religious sector. The webinars and workshops covered topics such as digital literacy and marketing, communication and public speaking, countering exclusivism, as well as support for mental health. MUIS also arranged internships and part-time employment for these students, in religious organisations and the social services sector. 72 students also served as Safe Distancing Ambassadors in the mosques, to keep our community safe from COVID-19.
MUIS will continue to monitor the COVID-19 situation and advise students accordingly on the resumption of their overseas studies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Enforcement Actions on Vehicles and Motorcycles with Illegal Modifications Resulting in Excessive and Unnecessary Noise in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the last three years, what is the number of enforcement actions on vehicles and motorcycles with illegal modifications that resulted in excessive and unnecessary noise; (b) whether there will be a review of standards for noise pollution caused by vehicles and motorcycles; and (c) whether there will be stricter enforcement on vehicle modifications that create excessive and unnecessary noise.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) enforced against 1,123 cases of illegal noise-related vehicle modifications in 2018, 1,686 cases in 2019, and 1,650 cases in 2020. The majority involved motorcycles.
The National Environment Agency (NEA) sets the noise emission standards for new and in-use vehicles under the Environmental Protection and Management (Vehicular Emissions) Regulations, and these standards are internationally benchmarked and reviewed regularly.
LTA will continue to enforce strictly against vehicles with illegal noise-related modifications. This include conducting targeted enforcement actions, and ensuring that vehicles comply with the stipulated in-use noise emission standards during the mandatory periodic vehicle inspection.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Address Potholes on Roads from Heavy Rainfall","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport in light of the changing climatic pattern in Singapore which involves heavy rainfall from time to time which has led to the emergence of more potholes on roads, what steps will LTA take to address this issue.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for his question. I have addressed them in my reply at the 1 February 2021 Parliament sitting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Making Helmets and Lights Mandatory for Bicycles and Mobility Devices in Park Connectors for Safety of Riders and Other Park Connector Users","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport whether helmets and lights are mandatory for bicycles and mobility devices in park connectors and, if not, whether the Government will consider making them mandatory for the safety of riders and other park connector users.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Users of bicycles, power-assisted bicycles (PABs) and personal mobility devices (PMDs) are required to display a front white light and a rear red light or reflector on their devices when riding on all public paths, including park connectors, from 7pm to 7am the following day.
We strongly encourage all active mobility device users, including cyclists, to wear helmets while riding on all public paths, for their own safety. But we have thus far decided not to make this mandatory, because unlike riding on roads, bicycle and PAB users on public paths do not ride alongside larger and faster vehicles. The current rules are a result of the Active Mobility Advisory Panel’s 2018 review, where the Panel conducted a nation-wide public consultation exercise featuring diverse groups of active mobility device users.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Public Electric-car Chargers Built as of 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport how many public electric-car chargers are built as of 2020.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As of January 2021, there are more than 1,900 electric car charging points in Singapore. This includes around 1,400 charging points in public carparks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Surcharge on Certificates of Entitlement for Owners Purchasing Second Vehicle or More","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Transport apart from higher surcharges and increased rebates to promote cleaner and electric vehicles, whether the Ministry will consider an additional surcharge upon certificates of entitlement for owners purchasing their second vehicle or more.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Our assessment is that an additional surcharge on owners purchasing their second vehicle will not likely have any impact in terms of promoting cleaner vehicles. General incentives and surcharges on cleaner or pollutive vehicles respectively, without linking to the number of vehicles owned by the buyer, will be more effective.
The objective of any surcharges on second vehicles is more like a wealth tax. But it will be a policy fraught with problems. It is difficult to judge when a second-time buyer is less deserving than a first-time buyer. For example, a bigger family with many children and grandparents may genuinely need more than one car. There will also be loopholes, such as buyers registering the car in the name of another family member. We will have to introduce many more rules, which would add to the complexities of the COE system.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sanctions on Companies Requiring Nursing Mothers to Return to Office without Provision of Appropriate Lactation Rooms and Other Support Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether sanctions can be imposed on companies that require nursing mothers to return to the office without provision of appropriate lactation rooms; (b) what specific measures will the Ministry take to support the implementation of Flexible Working Arrangements (FWAs) for nursing mothers; (c) whether the Work Life Grant (WLG) application deadline that closed on 18 August 2020 will be re-opened with modifications to the kind of FWAs that it will support; and (d) whether the WLG supports the set-up of lactation rooms.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Government recognises the importance of supporting nursing mothers who work. First, we support employers to offer Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) to help all workers, including nursing mothers, better manage their work and family needs. Second, we require and support building owners to provide lactation rooms for the benefit of nursing mothers who have to be at their workplaces.
FWAs such as flexi-time and work-from-home arrangements enable all workers, including nursing mothers, to meet both their personal and professional goals. Together with the Tripartite Alliance on Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), the Ministry of Manpower and our tripartite partners promote the adoption of FWAs by (i) recognising progressive employers through the Tripartite Standard on FWAs, (ii) developing and sharing an FWA implementation guide and videos, and (iii) raising awareness of FWAs through engagements and advertisements.
In 2019, about 85% of employers offered some form of FWA. These numbers have since increased further over the past year with work-from-home remaining as the default mode of working. As the provision of FWAs is increasingly normalised and made prevalent at workplaces, we assess that there is no need to reopen the Work-Life Grant for now. We are implementing recommendations by the Citizens’ Panel on Work-Life Harmony. These measures will further enhance the provision and take-up of FWAs.
Today, the Building and Construction Authority's (BCA) Code on Accessibility requires specific building types that are frequented by the general public to have at least one lactation room. This applies to both new, as well as existing buildings undergoing addition and alteration works that need BCA’s approval. The Code was recently enhanced to require even more building types to provide lactation rooms.
For eligible private buildings constructed before these requirements were in place, BCA’s Accessibility Fund provides funding support for building owners to construct lactation rooms.
We are mindful that imposing sanctions on employers that require nursing mothers to return physically to workplaces without lactation rooms may have unintended consequences. For example, employers may have reservations about employing nursing mothers, or women in general, if they are unable to provide a lactation room due to genuine space constraints at the workplace.
Together with tripartite partners, MOM will continue to advocate for the implementation of FWAs to support all workers, including nursing mothers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Rules and Regulations Governing Placement on Fair Consideration Framework Watchlist","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the fact that companies that have not broken any rules or regulations are placed on the watchlist for indicators like high proportion of employees from certain nationalities, whether the rules and regulations will be reviewed to cover these indicators that have given the Ministry cause for concern.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Employers in Singapore have diverse manpower needs. As a result, their workforce profiles and hiring practices vary widely. This is not a concern as long as employers uphold the letter and the spirit of the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP). In particular, they must consider all qualified applicants fairly.
Besides investigating complaints of discriminatory hiring, MOM carries out proactive surveillance. This includes identifying companies whose share of foreign Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) is noticeably higher than their industry peers, or which have a high concentration of a single foreign nationality source. They are then placed on the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) Watchlist, during which their work pass applications are subject to closer scrutiny. These companies are also engaged by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair & Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) to help them improve their Human Resource (HR) practices and local hiring.
In most instances, the employers updated their hiring and expanded their employment of local PMETs with help from Workforce Singapore. Since 2016, firms on the FCF Watchlist have hired more than 4,800 Singaporean PMETs in total. Many of the firms have adjusted their HR practices and made sufficient improvements in their workforce profile to exit the FCF Watchlist within a year. For the minority of Watchlist firms who are uncooperative, they are barred from work pass privileges. This approach has therefore allowed for calibrated treatment depending on the employers’ responses, and has expanded local employment more so than rules that uniformly penalise all firms on the Watchlist.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Skills Transfer from Employment Pass Holders to Local Workers to Build Up Local Capabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what measures are in place to ensure skills transfer from employment pass holders to local workers to build up local capabilities; (b) how are companies currently committed to such skills transfer; (c) whether there is a timeframe for companies to ensure such skills transfer; and (d) if so, what is the timeframe.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Helping our people acquire skills to access good jobs has been a long-standing priority for the Government. In the 1990s, about three in 10 employed locals were in Professional, Manager, Executive and Technician (PMET) jobs. Today, about six in 10 employed locals are in PMET jobs. This is achieved through creating good jobs, motivating individuals to upskill or reskill, promoting employer commitment to fair hiring and progression, and sustaining Government investments in education and training.
For PMETs, the process of skills transfer is rarely linear or one-to-one. In the course of developing their careers, PMETs learn from a variety of people including their peers, superiors, customers and suppliers. They may also acquire valuable skills through a range of assignments, including overseas postings, and even job changes to gain exposure to different industries or markets. Structured training programmes also play a part. These opportunities for skills acquisition require employers that are supportive and intentional in staff development, as well as individuals who take ownership of their learning and development. The Government commits significant resources to expand such opportunities through the Skillsfuture movement and the many programmes in place to upskill and reskill our workforce.
In regulating the presence of work pass holders in Singapore, our aim is to enable businesses to continually create good jobs while keeping the labour market tight. For the broad majority of PMETs, these conditions provide better benefits than prescriptive micro-measures targeted at specific work pass holders. With more jobs requiring higher skills, there is added impetus to level up skills acquisition through multiple pathways.
Our work pass policies are therefore regularly reviewed and adjusted. For example, we raised the qualifying salary criteria for Employment Pass applicants in 2017 and twice more in 2020. Likewise, for S Pass holders, we reduced the S Pass sub-Dependency Ratio Ceilings for the Services, Construction, Marine Shipyard and Process sectors in the past two years.
We will continue to review and adjust our work pass policies in support of local employment outcomes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Number of Companies Rejected by Singapore Business Federation on Usage of SGUnited Traineeship Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many companies have been rejected by the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) on the usage of SGUnited Traineeship programmes; (b) whether companies are given a quota of trainees who can be hired by a company at any one time; (c) what recourse do trainees have to resolve disputes with their employers; and (d) how many complaints have been lodged with SBF in relation to disputes over the scheme.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Each application to host a traineeship or company attachment is carefully screened by the Singapore Business Federation (SBF), which is appointed by Workforce Singapore (WSG) as programme partner for the SGUnited Traineeships and SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways programmes. SBF checks that the traineeships are of good quality and provide meaningful opportunities for the trainees. SBF will also work with the applicant to improve their proposals, such as improving the development plans for trainees. Not every application will be approved. As at end-December 2020, the SBF received applications from more than 5,200 companies to host traineeships or attachments. Around one in ten of these applications were rejected for reasons such as development plans not meeting requirements, and proposed roles being unsuitable.
There is no quota on the number of approved traineeships for each host organisation as long as the proposals are of good quality and the host organisation has the ability to host trainees for all the approved positions.
Although traineeships and attachments are not employment contracts, SBF requires participating host organisations to enter into an agreement with SBF, which sets out the conditions that the host organisation will need to abide by. These conditions include adhering to the approved development plan and the prompt submission of monthly traineeship progress reports that are signed off by both the host organisation and the trainee. The agreement also includes the right for SBF to arbitrate in any disputes between the host organisation and trainee, with SBF’s decision to be taken as final.
SBF monitors the trainees through the monthly traineeship reports. Trainees with enquiries or feedback on the programme should contact SBF directly via a phone hotline or email. In addition, WSG and SBF have set up a dedicated online whistle-blowing channel for reporting of irregularities by host organisations. As at end-December 2020, we have received 8 complaint cases. Issues raised included absence of proper guidance from supervisors, and the lack of safe-distancing measures within the organisation. For each of these cases, SBF’s first priority is to establish the facts and render assistance to the trainee or host organisation. Some of these cases are being resolved amicably through mediation.
However, if there is evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the host organisation, SBF will work with MOM and WSG to take action against the host organisation, including rescinding approvals and clawing back any grants disbursed in serious cases. In one case, we have barred the organisation from future participation in WSG’s programmes. If necessary, WSG will support the affected trainee to find new opportunities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria Used in Regulating Type of Pets Permissible in Public Housing Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"54 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for National Development what are the considerations when regulating the type of pets permissible in public housing estates so as to balance the different interests and needs of the residents.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB considers factors such as potential disamenities and the impact on the living environment when determining the types of pets permissible in public housing estates. HDB's pet ownership policies aim to preserve a pleasant living environment while balancing the interests of residents who are pet lovers and those who may be affected by disamenities from pets. In many cases, pet owners may not be aware of the disamenities caused, and will undertake the necessary mitigation measures after advice from HDB. In cases where a dispute arises between pet owners and their neighbours, HDB will encourage them to seek mediation at the Community Mediation Centre to resolve the issue amicably.
HDB works with NParks to regularly review and update its pet ownership policies, including the types of pets permissible, to balance the different interests and needs of residents. Agencies will continue to take into consideration the views and feedback from residents, and adopt a holistic approach in addressing the issue of pet ownership in HDB estates. Residents also need to be responsible pet owners, to maintain a harmonious living environment for all.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Development Plans for Open Land between Tampines Expressway and Fernvale Street","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether Ministry intends to develop the open land between Tampines Expressway and Fernvale Street; and (b) if so, what is the plan and when will the plan be carried out.
Mr Desmond Lee: The plot of land between Tampines Expressway and Fernvale street contains sites with a mixture of zones, including Residential, 'Civic & Community Institution', 'Place of Worship', 'Park' and 'Road' use. Government agencies are currently working on future plans for the site, and will share more information with the public when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans and Measures to Reduce Impact from Loss of Greenery and Biodiversity from Deforestation of Tengah and Dover Forests","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"56 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there are plans and measures to reduce the impact from the loss of greenery and biodiversity as a result of the deforestation of Tengah and Dover forests; and (b) why it is necessary to resort to deforestation when development of built-up areas can be intensified by constructing taller buildings.
Mr Desmond Lee: Members have asked about development plans for green spaces in Singapore, including specific sites at Clementi and Ulu Pandan. I will first address our overall approach to land use planning and nature conservation, and then talk about specific sites.
Let me start with our approach to land use. We are a city, 728 square kilometres of land area in all. But we are also a city-state. Our land use considerations are therefore quite different from most other cities. This is because, unlike most other cities which have large hinterlands, we have to cater for everything that a country needs within the limits of our city, instead of far beyond its limits in the cases of other cities. These include uses such as airports and seaports, airbases and military training ground, reservoirs, incineration and power plants, agriculture, and so much more.
Our approach to conservation as a city-state is also quite different. For example, in other cities, you travel out, sometimes for many hours on the motor-way, to enjoy natural greenery and nature. But in Singapore, our wild spaces are right in our midst. With our gem, the Central Catchment and Bukit Timah Nature Reserves, nestled in the green heart of our city.
We have always taken a long-term view towards land use planning, with stewardship and sustainability as core, long-held principles. Given our small size, we have been, and have to be, judicious in stewarding our scarce land resources to support Singapore's development as well as in our aspiration to be a City in Nature. We have to constantly balance demands and trade-offs across a wide variety of needs, including housing, green spaces, infrastructure, community facilities, workplaces, amongst others. These tensions are inherent in land use planning everywhere, but felt much more acutely in a small city-state like Singapore.
Sustainable development for Singapore over the long term also means that we need to recycle and reuse our limited land, while incorporating flexibility into our plans, to meet the changing needs and aspirations of each new generation. We must continue to plan ahead to support our collective vision for Singapore, not just for ourselves, but for our children and theirs.
Our land use needs today are quite different from those of yesteryear, and will continue to evolve. Let me use Public Housing as an example. Today, we continue to see a high demand for new HDB flats. In 2020, the overall application rate for BTO flats was 5.8 times. This means that for each BTO flat, we broadly get between 5 and 6 Singaporean applicants. This is driven partly by marriage and family formation. Between 2015 and 2019, the annual average number of citizen marriages registered was 23,600, higher than the annual average of 22,400 registered between 2010 and 2014. In the near term, we expect more demand from the larger \"Echo\" Baby Boomers cohorts (born in late 1980s to 1990s) as they enter into the marriageable age. For comparison, we built an average of 16,200 new HDB flats each year over the same period, to cater to BTO demand by all buyer groups, and not just newly-weds. For completeness, other housing options, of course, including HDB resale flats, ECs, private property, open market rental flats or living with family members, remain. We therefore need to continue building to meet the demand and aspirations of young families.
On top of that, our public housing demand is also partly driven by changing social structures. For example, there is a growing trend of smaller households as more young couples, singles and their parents choose to have their own flats instead of staying with their extended families as it was so in the past. Indeed, Members of this House have championed some of these needs and more. The average household size in HDB dwellings was 3.07 in 2019, compared to 4.24 in 1990.
Or take a more recent development like COVID-19, which continues to affect our lives in many ways, and has thrown up new land use challenges. Apart from the fact that working from home became the norm for many of us, the pandemic also reminded us that supply disruptions are a very real concern. For example, given the supply tightness that the world experienced for certain food and medical items, our agencies are looking to strengthen local resilience of some of our resource systems, such as for food. This may mean increasing local production and storage capacity for such resources, where feasible. The pandemic has also demonstrated the importance of having buffer sites for emergency uses, which we were able to activate quickly for quarantine and recovery facilities, and temporary housing of our migrant workers. Meanwhile, trends such as tele-commuting and e-commerce have accelerated, raising questions about how much office and retail space we might really need in the long term. Our economic imperatives may also shift and evolve after the pandemic, as technology changes and advances, so we will need to take a good, hard look at land use needs for the future. While it remains to be seen if some of these shifts will persist in the \"new normal\" beyond COVID-19, we are actively monitoring these trends and adjusting our land use strategies to satisfy both the needs of today, and the possibilities and challenges of tomorrow.
To meet our growing and changing needs, we have been, and will continue to adopt a range of development options. This includes increasing the density of developments – building higher, and building more densely, while ensuring liveability. So there is a limit. We are also co-locating suitable uses. For example, the upcoming Punggol Town Hub will feature a public library, community centre, hawker centre, and health services. All co-located for one-stop, convenient access for our residents. We are also co-locating a Water Reclamation Plant and an Integrated Waste Management Facility at Tuas Nexus, and a 4-in-1 rail and bus depot in the East Coast. Such projects save us hectares of land.
We are also redeveloping brownfield sites such as golf courses, old school sites, or industrial areas, as leases expire. For example, last year, we launched the former First Toa Payoh Secondary School site for public housing, after the school was merged. Many Members might also remember that Bishan used to be a cemetery. Going forward, when the lease for the Keppel Club Golf Course expires, we will use the land to develop public and private housing. Land taken back from Jurong Country Club, Raffles Country Club, Marina Bay Golf Course from 2024 and Orchid Country Club from 2030, will also be used to meet other needs. By 2030, we would have taken back more than 400 hectares of golf course land for redevelopment.
We will continue to carry out land reclamation where appropriate, and see how we can make use of underground spaces and deep cavern spaces for infrastructure, though the costs are high.
We also undertake major long-term redevelopment moves when the opportunity arises, to re-imagine Singapore to advance our children’s interests, and those of their children. For example, the height restrictions over a large part of eastern and north-eastern Singapore will be lifted after the air base moves out of Paya Lebar, allowing us to intensify land use both in and around the site. We will also progressively redevelop the Greater Southern Waterfront after the port moves to Tuas, freeing up prime waterfront land for public and private housing, and other purposes. But many of these moves take time and require complex planning and careful coordination, because they affect people, homes, livelihoods, and industries. So we cannot redevelop these spaces overnight. There are also different trade-offs to weigh, including the compatibility of a new development with surrounding land uses, and the availability and capacity of supporting infrastructure, among many other considerations.
Now let me move on to explain our approach when it comes to greenfield sites. Because of our commitment to land stewardship and sustainable development, we adopt a science-based approach to identify core biodiversity areas and surrounding buffers that we want to retain for future generations. Broadly, the considerations include ecological significance and connectivity of habitats. The 4-pronged Nature Conservation Masterplan sets out the strategies to safeguard these green spaces. In fact, the Masterplan goes further than that, and in terms of our City in Nature ambitions, it includes the mindsets of our people, and their ability to be conscious and scientific in their understanding of nature, and to understand the stresses and tensions that we deal with as we seek to protect the biodiversity on our city-island.
As a result of this approach, we have retained a number of ecologically important sites as green spaces, although they had initially been designated for other, human uses. For instance, the Mandai Mangrove and Mudflat had initially been planned for factory use. Yet, after careful study through biodiversity surveys and ecological modelling, we decided to keep it as a Nature Park given its ecological value. Similarly, while other green spaces such as Dairy Farm Nature Park and Rifle Range Nature Park could have been developed for housing, they have been retained as green buffers to our Nature Reserves instead. We’ve done this in many other areas too over time – Sungei Buloh, Pulau Ubin and Chek Jawa, Kranji Marshes, Chestnut, Thomson, Khatib Bongsu, and Bukit Batok Hillside Nature Parks, and the Rail Corridor, to name a few. We are looking out for other areas, to enhance ecological connectivity and biodiversity.
Today, we have safeguarded approximately 7,800 hectares of our land for Nature Reserves, Nature Areas, Nature Parks and other green spaces, such as parks and park connectors. These comprise key representative ecosystems and habitats for Singapore's native biodiversity. We need to remember that not all of these areas were untouched habitats. For example, Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve and the upcoming Khatib Bongsu Nature Park were once prawn farming areas. These areas were abandoned, acquired by the Government for future redevelopment, and have over time become green spaces inhabited by indigenous flora and fauna.
We will not only protect and enhance existing green spaces but will also extend our network with an additional 1,000 hectares of green spaces over the next 10 to 15 years, and weave greenery more intensively into our urban areas. In tandem, we will implement species recovery plans for 130 animal and plant species by 2030, to strengthen the conservation of our endangered and rare species. These efforts will restore existing ecological habitats for our wildlife, and provide Singaporeans with greater access and a more immersive experience in nature.
Let me assure Members that we are committed to stewarding and protecting our green spaces. But given our physical constraints and scarce land area, there will be some greenfield sites that we might have to develop to meet our land use needs. Any decision to proceed is made only after detailed study of the trade-offs and alternatives. And where development cannot be avoided, we proceed with care.
Developments near to sites with significant biodiversity undergo an in-depth consultation with Technical Agencies and may be subject to an environmental study to assess the possible environmental impact of development plans, including ecological connectivity. We also engage stakeholders, such as those from the nature community, to take in feedback and strengthen the rigour of the studies. Unless there are security considerations, the studies will be made publicly available, so that anyone can provide feedback on the findings and recommendations. The studies, as well as feedback received, guide the planning of the site, including mitigating measures to reduce the impact on the environment. We also seek to preserve and integrate natural elements within the development where possible, to facilitate ecological connectivity. We thank the nature groups for their close partnership in working with the relevant agencies to achieve these outcomes.
Now, let me talk about the specific sites in Clementi and Ulu Pandan mentioned by Members. The site at Clementi was an abandoned rubber plantation, which has since been overgrown with Albizia trees which are not native to Singapore. In January this year, I explained to Parliament that the land had been zoned \"Residential (Subject to Detailed Planning)\" 23 years ago, since the Master Plan 1998. While there is no immediate need to develop the site for housing, we will retain the zoning of the site for now. This will give our future generations the option of deciding whether to use it for housing or to review its land use if the need arises.
As for the site at Ulu Pandan, it used to be a rubber plantation, fruit orchard and kampongs. It is similarly overgrown with non-native trees after the settlement and agriculture were abandoned. Since the Master Plan 2003, the land had been zoned \"Residential (Subject to Detailed Planning)\". HDB engaged an external consultant to conduct an environmental baseline study (EBS) for Ulu Pandan, to guide HDB’s development plans and identify the native flora and fauna and their habitats. HDB then consulted nature groups to refine their plans for Ulu Pandan, incorporating the findings from the EBS. Subsequently, the EBS report was published online for public feedback.
HDB has since received and continues to receive feedback and suggestions from nearby residents and members of the public. There has been a very wide range of views, and we thank everyone who has contributed so far. Some have called to retain the site fully for greenery and recreation, and to designate it as a Nature Park. Some have gone further to say that we should not build any more HDB flats, and halt all development. We can understand this sentiment too. Others have urged the Government to redevelop other sites instead, including older housing blocks, or existing school fields and running tracks in the area. Several have suggested that new housing and nature should co-exist on the site, for example, develop the eastern end where vegetation is less dense, while integrating mature trees into the new estate and preserving some of the streams. While there are diverse views, many who have written in appreciate the tension between the need for development, and nature conservation.
We are studying the feedback in detail and welcome more Singaporeans to give their views and inputs, as we consider our plans for the Ulu Pandan site. Accordingly, HDB will extend the public consultation period for another four weeks, so please write in. We will carefully consider all the feedback received, and share our plans when ready.
We are encouraged by the keen interest generated in our plans for Singapore and nature conservation. Indeed, mainstreaming of nature consciousness among Singaporeans is a key part of our strategy to become a City in Nature. This is a good time as concerns about sustainability are now at the top of our agenda. As the same time, as part of such conversations, it is good for all of us to better understand the opportunities and constraints facing Singapore when it comes to balancing our land use needs. And if we recalibrate the balance between conservation and development, we also need to discuss what this would mean, in practical terms. For instance, in a TODAY commentary which I read over the weekend, a 24-year old SUSS student Mr Yeo Wei Jiang summed it up aptly. He said that preserving the natural environment should be Singapore's \"top priority\" and that \"I am willing to commit to it even if it means waiting longer for a BTO, living in a more inconvenient area, or paying a higher price\". Now some may resonate, others may not agree, but that's part of the conversation. Singaporeans' aspirations and views are evolving: on housing and property, on material pursuits, on family and society, on nature, and on the nature and form of work. At the same time, the world, the global economy around us, and technology are changing, and changing rapidly. And so too must our strategies and approaches, so that we can emerge a stronger nation, after this most difficult of tests. URA will engage Singaporeans later this year, as we do regularly every few years, to discuss our aspirations as a people, and gather ideas, inputs and partnerships, to formulate our long-term plans for a liveable and sustainable future. We invite everyone to join these conversations and to partner us in action.
The Government will continue to regularly review our plans in partnership with the community, to support the aspirations and changing needs of our people, as consensus on the balance between environmental conservation and development evolves. Our goal is to steward a home and City in Nature that all Singaporeans, in this generation and future ones, love and cherish.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Complaints Received from HDB Residents of Water Seepage from Heavy Downpours, Average Time Taken to Resolve and Causes of Such Incidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"57 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry collates from Town Councils and HDB on the number of blocks and units with residents reporting water seepage issues after heavy downpours; and (b) what is the average turnaround time that such water seepage issues are completely resolved.
58 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the reported number of water leakage incidents in terms of equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) or per 1,000 blocks of HDB flats for each five-year period between 2000 and 2020; and (b) whether any study has been performed to identify the causal reasons for such incidents.
Mr Desmond Lee: Water seepage into flats after heavy downpours can be via the external walls of the flats, or via the rooftop, for flats located on the top floor. This is generally caused by wear and tear of the external walls and roofing material of HDB blocks, resulting in small cracks that allow water to seep through. The external walls and roof tops of HDB blocks are common property under the Town Councils' management and maintenance. Residents who encounter such water seepage issues typically report them to the Town Council managing their estate. MND does not collate data from Town Councils on the total number of such water seepage cases that are reported to the Town Councils, or the turnaround time that Town Councils take to completely resolve the cases. Nevertheless, if Town Councils face difficulties in resolving such cases, HDB will work with the Town Councils to resolve them by carrying out joint inspections and providing technical advice.
For water seepage cases that have been reported to HDB directly and referred to Town Councils, the data is as follows:
(a) For water seepage via external walls, HDB received an average of 11 cases per 1,000 dwelling units (DUs) over the five-year period from 2011 to 2015, and 15 cases per 1,000 DUs over the five-year period from 2016 to 2020.
(b) For water seepage via roof tops, HDB received an average of 1.7 cases per 1,000 dwelling units (DUs) over the five-year period from 2011 to 2015, and 1 case per 1,000 DUs over the five-year period from 2016 to 2020.
Water leakage can also occur as a result of water seeping from the floor of the upper floor unit to the ceiling of the lower floor unit. The cause of such leaks is generally wear and tear over time. HDB received an average of 104 cases per 1,000 DUs over the five-year period from 2011 to 2015, and 105 cases per 1,000 DUs over the five-year period from 2016 to 2020.
HDB does not have readily available data on water seepage cases before 2008.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Number of Residents in Subsidised HDB Rental Flat and Consideration for Allocation of Adjacent Flat to Bigger Families","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"59 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for National Development what is the average number of residents in a subsidised HDB rental flat and whether the Ministry will consider allocating more than one rental flat, such as two adjacent flats, to bigger families.
Mr Desmond Lee: The average number of residents living in a public rental flat is 2.3.
Most rental households with three or more members live in 2-room flats. Families that form two nuclei, such as grandparents living with parents and children, can apply for two rental flats and request for the flats to be in the same block, subject to vacancies. On a case-by-case basis, we will also be prepared to offer larger families a 3-room rental flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Cases of Popping Tiles Rectified by HDB Beyond 15-year Goodwill Repair Duration and Extension of One-off Measure to Cover Flats Whose Warranty Had Expired Since Onset of COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"60 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the number of cases of popping tiles that have been rectified by HDB that were beyond the 15-year goodwill repair duration; and (b) under what circumstances does HDB repair these tiles beyond the 15-year goodwill repair duration.
61 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past three years, how many applications have been received by the Community Development Councils for financial assistance for repairs of dislodged tiles and of these, how many applications are successful; and (b) whether HDB will consider, as a one-off measure, absorbing the cost for repairing dislodged tiles for flats which 15-year warranty period expired since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr Desmond Lee: Flat owners are responsible for the maintenance of their flats, including repairs for general wear and tear. Nevertheless, HDB will help flat owners repair dislodged tiles originally provided by HDB for a period of up to 15 years. This is beyond the current industry standard of one year.
For flats more than 15 years old, flat owners will need to engage their own contractors to carry out the tile replacement. HDB can provide owners with a list of repair contractors, whom they can then engage on a private basis.
Residents who need financial assistance with the cost of dislodged tile repairs can seek assistance from grassroots organisations and the Community Development Councils (CDCs). HDB will assist such residents by referring them to these community organisations.
Over the past three years, CDCs have provided funding support to 146 households for repairs to dislodged tiles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plan and Timeline to Incorporate Small Scale Upgrading Projects for Clothes Drying Rack and External Electrical Cabling for Public Rental Blocks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"62 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there are considerations to incorporate small scale upgrade projects like the clothes drying rack and external electrical cabling for public rental blocks; and (b) if so, what is the implementation timeline.
Mr Desmond Lee: As with all HDB blocks, rental blocks upgraded under the Home Improvement Programme will be provided with external clothes drying racks amongst other improvements. Some older blocks which were previously upgraded under other programmes are still using the pipe socket laundry pole holders. We are studying the possibility of replacing the pipe socket holders in these blocks with other clothes drying rack solutions.
HDB has implemented specific upgrading programmes for rental blocks, such as the Ad-Hoc Upgrading Programme and the Rental Flat Upgrading Project, which included external rewiring among other improvement works. Beyond these programmes, external rewiring is carried out as part of the Town Council’s cyclical works.
HDB will continue to ensure that rental blocks are in good condition. This includes studying the need for additional improvements as the blocks age.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installation of CCTV Cameras by HDB Flat Owners at Unit’s Main Door or Metal Gate and Number of Cases Lodged against Such Installation in Last Three Years and Actions Taken","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"63 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB flat owners are allowed to install closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras at their unit's main door or metal gate facing the common corridor/area; (b) in the past three years, what is the number of cases lodged with HDB by flat owners pertaining to their neighbours installing CCTV cameras at their unit's main door or metal gate; and (c) what are the actions taken for such reported cases.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB flat owners are not allowed to install CCTV cameras at their unit's main door facing the common corridor or common areas, to protect the privacy of their neighbours. However, residents may install CCTV cameras at the main door if they are facing safety issues, such as harassment from unlicensed moneylenders. In such situations, the CCTV footage could aid the Police in the investigation.
All requests for installation of CCTV cameras facing the common corridors or common areas must be supported by a Police report. If the installation is outside the flat, the Town Council's approval will also be required. The CCTV camera must not face the door or windows of another flat, and the installation is only allowed for a period of 6 months and has to be removed thereafter.
In the last three years, HDB received about 361 cases of feedback from residents on CCTV camera-related disamenities. In such cases, HDB will look into the feedback, and if it finds that the resident has not sought HDB's approval to install the CCTV cameras, HDB will ask that the cameras be removed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4241,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210201/vernacular-Joan Pereira Electronic Transaction 1Feb2021 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira Electronic Transaction 1Feb2021 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4242,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210201/vernacular-Chua Kheng Wee Climate Change 1Feb2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Chua Kheng Wee Climate Change 1Feb2021-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4243,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210201/vernacular-1 Feb 2021 - Ms Nadia A Samdin - Motion on Climate Change.pdf","fileName":"1 Feb 2021 - Ms Nadia A Samdin - Motion on Climate Change.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4244,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hany Soh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210201/vernacular-Hany Soh Climate 1Feb2021 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hany Soh Climate 1Feb2021 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4245,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210201/vernacular-Don Wee 1.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee 1.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4246,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Leong Mun Wai","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210201/vernacular-Leong Mun Wai 1.pdf","fileName":"Leong Mun Wai 1.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4247,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210201/vernacular-Don Wee 2.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee 2.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4248,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Leong Mun Wai","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210201/vernacular-Leong Mun Wai 2.pdf","fileName":"Leong Mun Wai 2.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4249,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210201/vernacular-Don Wee Climate 1Feb2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee Climate 1Feb2021-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4250,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210201/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh Climate 1Feb2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh Climate 1Feb2021-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4251,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Tan Kiat How","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210201/vernacular-Tan Kiat How Adj 1Feb2021-Chinese v2.pdf","fileName":"Tan Kiat How Adj 1Feb2021-Chinese v2.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}