Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to inform hon Members that under the provisions of Standing Order No 102, Mr Speaker has on 27 July 2022 nominated Mr Chee Hong Tat to be a Member of the Public Petitions Committee to take the place of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Mr Lawrence Wong, and Mr Leong Mun Wai to be a Member of the Public Petitions Committee to fill a vacancy. The nominations took effect from 27 July 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Petition","subTitle":"Calling for Review of the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) and Imposition of a Moratorium on SERS pending the Findings and Recommendation of the Review","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Presentation of Petition. The Non-Constituency Member Mr Leong Mun Wai wishes to present a Petition.
To be fair to you, Mr Leong, I should point out that under Standing Order No 18(2), you are allowed to provide a brief statement when presenting a Petition. I should highlight that the Standing Order states that you – or for that matter, any Member presenting a Petition – shall confine himself or herself to a brief statement. That statement should contain the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it – in this case, I see from the papers you have shared that there are five signatures – and the material points contained in it, specifically the prayers you are seeking.
So, I would be grateful if you would contain yourself to a brief statement, Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker, I present to Parliament a Petition from Ms Chua Shanyu, Mr Lim Cheng Kiang and others of like opinion. Including the two petitioners named above, there are a total of five valid signatures.
The petitioners are the affected residents under the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme or SERS, of Blocks 562, 563, 564 and 565 of Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3. They allege that there is a lack of transparency concerning various aspects of the SERS project and the treatment given to them is unfair. They are also concerned that this project may set a precedent which affects future SERS residents negatively.
The petitioners pray, and I quote the following points (a) to (f).
(a) Review SERS in its entirety, which includes a transparent and independent evaluation of the reclaimed and replacement sites, options of compensation and Lease Buyback Scheme for senior citizens.
(b) Consider in its review the intended use of the reclaimed site be made public so as to assess the actual and potential value of the site.
(c) Consider in its review the priority of ensuring residents affected by SERS be relocated within the vicinity of the reclaimed site.
(d) Consider in its review the waiver of the Resale Levy and full reimbursement of stamp and legal fees for the affected residents are applicable in all future exercise of SERS.
(e) Consider in its review an ex gratia payment to affected residents to help defray renovation costs and for such a sum to be adjusted for inflation and other factors.
(f) Consider in its review a moratorium on SERS until such a time that a review on SERS is conducted and the findings and recommendations be made for Parliament to deliberate. I will now hand the Petition to the Clerk.
[(proc text) Petition handed to the Clerk at the Table. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order No 18(6), the Petition shall stand referred to the Public Petitions Committee. 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":"Actions Taken by SkillsFuture Singapore in light of Lapses in Disbursement of Grants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Education with regard to the findings of the Auditor-General’s Report for FY 2021/22 (a) what remedial actions are being taken by SkillsFuture Singapore in light of frauds and lapses in the disbursement of grants; (b) how much has been defrauded or overpaid since the inception of SkillsFuture; (c) how much have been recovered; and (d) whether any individuals overseeing the grant schemes have been or will be held accountable for the loss of public funds.
2 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education regarding the FY 2021/22 Auditor-General's Report finding that SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) was lax in collecting Skills Development Levy (SDL) funds (a) what are the reasons and root causes as to why the discrepancy is not detected over five years; (b) how long will it take for SSG to collect back the required funds; and (c) what does the agency intend to do to prevent such similar grant management issues from occurring in the future.
The Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to combine the response to Question Nos 1 and 2 by Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Yip Hon Weng?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Please do.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: The Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) had identified lapses in two areas in the audit of SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG): overpayment in grant disbursement and under-collection of Skills Development Levy. SSG takes these findings seriously.
First, AGO found lapses in SSG’s disbursement of grants, which led to estimated overpayments of about $4.22 million between 1 April 2018 and 30 June 2021. The main causes of these lapses were due to inaccurate or erroneous declarations by grant applicants and training providers that were not picked up by SSG’s internal checks. The bulk of such errors occurred prior to November 2020, when SSG’s previous IT system for grant administration had used a declaration-based approach. Other errors also occurred during manual processing of grants, including human errors made by the service provider contracted by SSG to perform grant administration functions.
SSG has contacted all affected training providers, companies and individuals for the necessary recovery. Parties will be given time to check their own records and return any confirmed overpayment.
To reduce reliance on declarations and manual processing, SSG implemented a new IT system for administering Training Grants since November 2020. The system uses administrative data in Government databases to determine and verify eligibility of the grant applicants. SSG is also streamlining its business rules to rely less on declared information and manual verification. Where these cannot be avoided, SSG will tighten its audits on payments disbursed and on the work of its service provider.
Separately, AGO found that SSG did not follow up adequately, on a variance of $43 million, between SSG’s estimate of the Skills Development Levy (SDL) that employers should pay and what was collected for the period 2015 to 2020.
Allow me to explain the SDL and how it is collected today. The SDL is a levy which companies pay every month for both their local and foreign employees in Singapore. The SDL payable for each employee is 0.25% of the monthly total wages. SSG derives estimates of SDL payable by companies based on existing Government data such as CPF. SSG’s estimates may differ from actual SDL amounts paid by the employers due to factors such as fluctuations in total wages paid to foreign workers every month, some of whom might be on home leave and not receiving salary during the period of home leave. In some cases, the variance may be due to employers using more updated employee data, instead of being an actual under-payment of SDL.
SSG has adopted a risk-based approach to follow up on estimated variances. The overall variance between the estimated SDL payable and the actual payments has fallen from 18% of overall SDL collected in 2008, to the current 3% to 4%, with the majority of companies compliant in paying their levy today. This was achieved through IT system improvements and SSG’s reminder letters and calls. Nevertheless, SSG acknowledges that more needs to be done to actively reconcile the remaining gap and help all employers pay the correct amount of SDL.
SSG will give affected employers time to validate the amounts owed. It has started engaging the affected employers and will contact all of them by the end of the financial year.
SSG will send timely payment reminders and develop more efficient processes to resolve differences in the companies' and SSG’s estimates of SDL payable. For the few recalcitrant employers who do not pay the outstanding levies despite reminders, SSG will take decisive punitive actions.
Finally, if there is any negligence found, individuals will be taken to task. Learning from the AGO audit, SSG will do even more to review and enhance its processes, policies and systems to prevent lapses.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, whether errant vendors will be closely monitored to prevent similar situations from happening in the future? Two, will SSG consider working with specialist agencies like GovTech to make sure that the computer system is up-to-date and to ensure that similar situations do not happen in the future?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I thank the hon Member Mr Yip Hon Weng for the supplementary questions. Indeed, SSG will work more closely with GovTech and is actually looking at rolling out a new IT system to be able to estimate more accurately and be able to track the employers in the payment of SDL. By the middle of next year, we are hoping to roll out a new system to help employers as well, to estimate much better what is the SDL that they are liable for and also for SSG to be able to verify.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I have four supplementary questions for the Minister of State. The first is, AGO cited that there were $4.22 million of overpayment. I would like clarification as to whether this is based on a 100% check by AGO or this is just what was found based on test checks, meaning there could be others that have not been detected so far. So, that is the first question: whether $4.22 million is based on a test check or a 100% check.
The second question: one of the lapses found was that there were payments made for courses that were actually not approved by SSG. The remedial action cited in the report was that retrospective approval would be obtained for these courses to be approved. My question is: is this the correct approach to take? Meaning that funding was paid out for unapproved courses, but now retrospective approval is being sought to approve those courses retrospectively.
The third question: whether the Ministry is considering taking any action against the outsourced service provider?
The fourth question: earlier, the Minister of State mentioned that if there was negligence found in these lapses, then actions will be taken. AGO actually mentioned that the business rules of SSG were not well-defined. So, the question is: how far up should this accountability go?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: First of all, I would like to say that the SDL Act has been around since 1979. Prior to SSG, the Government was already collecting the Skills Development Levy. Indeed, as AGO has pointed out, business rules have a certain looseness that needs to be tightened so that companies can better assess – more accurately as well – the SDL that is payable. SSG is in the process of reviewing this. In fact, we are also in the process of reviewing the SDL Act.
With the review of upstream business rules, it will make it easier for companies to be able to estimate the SDL that is payable and for SSG to be able to collect more promptly the amount that companies owe to the Government.
\tMs Sylvia Lim also asked about whether AGO had conducted 100% checks when they detected the $4.22 million of grant overpayment. At the moment, I do not know if it was 100% checks, but to my knowledge, AGO normally does sampling checks over a period of time and in this case, they had checked for the grant disbursed between the period of 1 April 2018 and June 2021, I believe. And amongst the transactions that they had checked, they found overpayments. Actually, these overpayments are still in the process of being verified with the entities involved.
Just as an example, AGO found that through their own AGO database, there was overclaim of absentee payroll by employers. What AGO did was, they looked at the salaries paid by companies over a 12-month period and they divided it by 12 to estimate the monthly salaries paid by the companies. But actually, it is more accurate for us, for SSG, to take a look at the salary that the company had paid to its employees in the month that the course was conducted. So, what I am trying to say is that, it is quite a complicated process and for the amounts that are estimated to be over payment of the grant, SSG is now in the process of doing verification and using more detailed data with the entities involved.
To that question about whether retrospective approvals will be made, I think, what is more important is for us to understand the spirit of SkillsFuture courses. SkillsFuture courses are meant to help individuals as well as employers with upskilling. I think what matters to us most at the end of the day is, whether the individuals and companies are eligible for the grants that they have applied for. If the lapses in application were due to administrative errors, then we would want to look at how we can help these individuals, companies and the training providers in rectifying this in a proper way.
As to whether actions will be taken against the service provider, indeed, we discovered some human errors in the manual processing by the service provider. There are contractual terms and key performance indicators (KPIs) that the service provider is liable for and SSG will be looking through this.
At the moment, I think the root cause that we have identified is the massive volume of manual processing. It makes it very, very difficult for all the verifications to be done fully. And hence, there needs to be more upstream changes in policies and business rules.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Sorry, I should have asked earlier also. I do not know whether part (b) and (c) of my filed Parliamentary Questions were answered. So, is the Minister of State able to tell us how much has been defrauded or overpaid since inception and how much has been recovered? I am sorry if I missed your answer, but I do not recall hearing that the answer to (b) and (c).
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Actually, it has not been ascertained if the $4.22 million that AGO pointed out is fraud. We have not used that term yet, because, as I explained, there is a lengthy verification process with the individuals and the companies and training providers involved. Since SSG was formed, there have been fraud cases detected. I think the most significant one was in 2017. There was a syndicate that was found to have committed fraud amounting to $40 million. Besides that, similarly in 2017, there was a discovery of 4,400 individuals who made false claims for SkillsFuture Credit and that was also discovered and arrested back then.
As to how much is being recovered, SSG is still in the process of following up with individuals and the companies and they will need some time. It is not very easy to do the verification quickly. So, we ask the Members to allow SSG some time to recover the overpayments.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay, last supplementary question, on this topic, please.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): I thank the Minister of State for her response. I just want to make an appeal and ask MOE, especially SkillsFuture Singapore, to not because of this episode, hold back SkillsFuture funding for employers, workers, Singaporeans, who actually genuinely want to undergo lifelong learning and Continuing Education and Training (CET). Therefore, I really hope this does not hold back the generous funding and support for lifelong learning and CET.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: MOE and SSG remain committed to providing sufficient and timely SkillsFuture support and grant to individuals as well as companies. It is our collective desire to make sure that Singaporeans have access to sufficient SkillsFuture opportunities and resources. We will continue to work on that. At the same time, we need to make sure that the money is being accounted for properly and being used wisely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Causes of Time Lags in Data Used to Determine Eligibility for GSTV – U-Save Rebates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance regarding the finding of the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) Report for the financial year 2021/2022 that GSTV – U-Save rebates could have been given to ineligible households (a) what are the reasons and root causes for the reported time lag issues in the data used to determine eligibility; (b) whether there are households that are eligible but do not qualify during the initial eligibility assessment; and (c) if so, how many are there and whether these households have since received their rebates.
\tThe Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Deputy Speaker, the substance of my response today will also effectively cover a similar Parliamentary Question (PQ) filed by Ms He Ting Ru1 for a subsequent Sitting. If Ms He is satisfied with the response today, then she may wish to withdraw her question after this session.
Sir, MOF uses data from various Government agencies to determine the eligibility of households for the GST Voucher (GSTV) – U-Save rebates. This way, Singaporeans need not apply for the rebate and will automatically receive the rebates in their utilities accounts.
The data used include the identities of the owners and occupiers of HDB flats, the number and types of properties they own, and their citizenship and living status. The relevant Government agencies have processes in place to keep their databases updated. For additional assurance, MOF also engages an external auditor to conduct an annual audit on the allotment logic for U-Save rebates, to make sure that households are given the correct amount of rebates. For the U-Save payments that were the subject of AGO's report, no errors were detected during these prior checks.
One of the eligibility conditions for U-Save rebates is that the household must include a living Singapore Citizen. From AGO's observations, some households were given rebates that they were not eligible for, as the sole Singapore Citizen household member had already passed away as of the date used to determine eligibility. The error arose as there was a time lag in some deceased citizens' living status data, due to legal processing of records after their deaths had taken place. For example, the date used to determine eligibility was 1 December. The citizen's death on 30 November, that is a day before, might not have been updated in agencies' database until after 1 December, as some time is taken to document and process the death record. So, the household was tagged as being eligible. By the time of the AGO audit, the updated data showed the date of death as 30 November and the household concerned would not been eligible.
While we try to strive to keep our data updated as soon as possible, there are practical constraints. This time lag issue affected about 3,100 households, or about 0.3% of all households living in HDB flats. There were another 23 cases of U-Save rebates given even though there were no Singaporean Citizens in the household, due to errors in agencies' databases. Time lag and data errors were the two sources of errors found during the AGO audit.
On Dr Tan's question about those who qualify after initial assessment, eligibility is determined on a pre-determined cut-off date. Those who do not qualify on that date will not be eligible for the relevant round of rebates. However, should their circumstances change after that date such that they subsequently meet the eligibility criterion, they will be included in the later disbursements of the rebates, provided of course that they remain eligible at the next cut-off date.
As for Dr Tan's question on whether there are eligible households who have missed out on the U-Save rebates, we have not found any system flaws resulting in this. Any feedback or appeals regarding eligible households who may not have received their rebates is investigated to ensure that eligible households are not left out.
MOF has commenced recovery of the rebates given to ineligible households. We are working with data agencies to tighten our operational processes to ensure the use of latest available data to administer the GSTV – U-Save scheme.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister for her detailed answer. I have got one supplementary question. Sir, some of my Clementi residents have observed, that sometimes the GSTV – U-Save rebate for a particular month, might not be credited in time for the SP group invoice for that month. For example, we have met Clementi residents, who, for the April invoice by SP group received the April rebate, but for the July invoice, had not yet seen the July rebate in that July invoice. Can I ask MOF whether the Ministry tracks that the GSTV – U-Save rebates are distributed in a timely manner and in particular, implemented in the service providers such as SP Group so that they arrive in a timely way for families who need that help?
I ask this because some Clementi families have observed that when a family is facing cash flow problems in a difficult time with a rising cost of living, when the rebate that they expected to see in that particular month does not show up in the SP Group invoice, it comes as a surprise and a worry. We will help these families on the ground, but we hope agencies can close the loop with SP Group as well.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, as a general rule, the rebates are given or credited into the households' accounts in the months that they are disbursed. So, if there are specific instances like this where that is not the case, then I would encourage the Member or other Members who encounter this, to raise this with us and we will see what is the cause. I mean, sometimes it could be, for example, that the resident opened the account after the crediting date, things like that on the ground, but those will be dealt with by appeal.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\t
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): I thank the Minister for the response on my Parliamentary Question (PQ) that was filed for tomorrow. I take the point that there can be limitations on how quickly the data can be updated because, as the Minister explained, sometimes, there is a bit of a time lag. But given that there is going to be some clawbacks and reimbursement steps to be taken, and also, it probably is quite a stressful situation for the households involved, when previously, they received the rebates and now they are being asked for some clawbacks.
I am just wondering are there any steps that can be taken to prevent this from recurring? After all, over 3,000 households were involved. What are the steps being discussed between the agencies to prevent this from happening again?
The second point is, the Minister stated that action has already been taken to recover the sums that were erroneously disbursed. I am just wondering is there a timeline for this to take place and, at the moment, how far is MOF through this process? How many households have actually had the amounts clawed backed from them?
And the last point: there were 3,166 ineligible households identified. Is there any further action that will be taken to identify whether there are any other households involved in this or is the number of households already taken as 3,166?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. Let me deal with the last one first because she asked, are we just taking it at this figure? As I mentioned in my reply earlier, the eligible households number was taken at a particular date and then by the time the AGO audit was conducted, that would be a subsequent time and the databases would have been updated. So, it is essentially comparing what was the database as at the cut-off date, with the updated database. So, I think, that sort of circumscribes the numbers and that is how we were able to arrive at these numbers.
The other question she asked was, given that there is a clawback and it can be stressful for families, are there steps which can be taken to prevent this from happening? We would obviously do our best but perhaps it would be useful for Members to understand the process.
The process is the agency that has the information on living status, whether you are born, or whether you have passed on, is ICA. And ICA then passes that to HDB, who will then check who is the owner living there, whether it is a tenancy occupier and then they pass the information to MOF. So, the initial part is ICA receiving the information. And really, that information comes from the family. Even if we want to speed that up, you also have to be sensitive to the family because you cannot say, \"Your family member is dead. Please go and file your documents now\". That would not be sensitive either. So, I think we do have to be sensitive to the families and bear in mind that it may be unavoidable that there is a bit of a time lag. Of course, we will remind them as soon as possible. And, of course, if it comes to the attention of HDB or any of the agencies we would likewise remind them.
So, we will do as much as we can to tighten the process, but bearing in mind that you must also give some time to the residents to be able to update their records. And then in terms of the action taken to recover, what is the timeline? As soon as possible. The Member asked if I have the exact figures now, how many have been recovered or not? I do not have the exact figures at the moment, it is still in process, but I think the Member can have the assurance of knowing that we are doing this as soon as we can.
\t
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in respect of the finding in the Report of the Auditor-General for FY 2021/2022 about the possible disbursement of GST – U-Save vouchers to ineligible households (a) whether any steps were taken to verify a household’s eligibility for U-Save vouchers prior to disbursement; (b) if so, what were the steps taken; and (c) apart from the mostly time lag issues, what were the other reasons for the possible disbursement to ineligible households."],"footNoteQuestions":["3"],"questionNo":"3"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Monetary Authority of Singapore's $7.4 Billion Loss on Government Budget","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government is prepared for the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to continue making net losses over the next one to two years should the tightening of monetary policy be maintained; and (b) whether and, if so, how will Government funding be affected by MAS’ financial position.
5 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether MAS’ $7.4 billion loss will have any impact on the Government budget; (b) if so, what is the impact; and (c) whether any reconsideration is needed on how MAS contributions in the Government budget is to be used given the volatility in its returns.
6 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Prime Minister (a) whether he can clarify the context for the loss of $7.4 billion reported by MAS in their financial statement for FY2021/2022; and (b) whether the recorded loss will have implications on the Government’s strong Singapore dollar policy and overall budget position for the current financial year.
\tThe Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 4, 5 and 6 together, as they pertain to the $7.4 billion loss reported by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) in its financial statement and the impact of the loss on the Government's Budget position?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Please do.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, first, in my capacity as Deputy Chairman of MAS, let me explain the context of the net loss. The net loss of $7.4 billion reflected a currency translation effect, in other words the effect of translating the foreign currency value of the Official Foreign Reserves (OFR) into Singapore dollars. The negative currency translation effect is not relevant to MAS’ investment performance, which is measured in foreign currencies. It also has no bearing on the international purchasing power of the OFR, or on MAS’ conduct of monetary policy.
For FY2021/2022, MAS made investment gains of $4 billion on the OFR. These investment gains were, however, outweighed by the negative currency translation effects of $8.7 billion arising from a stronger Singapore dollar. As MAS tightened monetary policy in October 2021 and January 2022, the Singapore dollar had strengthened against several of the foreign currencies in which the OFR are held. This meant a currency translation loss when the OFR were reported in Singapore dollar.
The negative currency translation effect has no implication for the international purchasing power of the OFR. In fact, given the purpose of the OFR in safeguarding the international purchasing power of the Singapore dollar, it is the foreign currency value rather than the Singapore dollar value of the OFR that matters.
MAS’ net loss in Singapore dollar terms also has no implications for its conduct of monetary policy. The aim of MAS' monetary policy is to secure low and stable inflation as the basis for sustained growth over the medium term. MAS, as Members know, conducts an exchange rate-centred monetary policy, managing the Singapore dollar against a basket of currencies of Singapore’s major trading partners. When inflationary pressures build up, as they have over the past year, MAS allows the trade-weighted exchange rate to appreciate faster. Negative currency translation effects do not have any bearing on MAS’ ability to manage the exchange rate; rather they are a consequence of MAS’ conduct of exchange rate policy.
Next, let me, in my capacity as the Minister for Finance, answer the questions relating to the impact of MAS’ net loss on the Government’s Budget position. At the outset, let me clarify that MAS’ overarching mandate is to ensure macroeconomic stability. The Government does not expect MAS to deviate from this mandate in order to maximise its contributions to the Government.
MAS contributes to the Government’s Budget in two ways.
First, under the Net Investment Returns (NIR) framework, the Government can spend up to 50% of the expected long-term real return on the net assets invested by MAS, GIC, and Temasek. The NIR framework is designed to provide a steady, sustainable stream of income to help meet the Government’s expenditure needs. The NIR is based on the long-term expected returns of the three investment entities and therefore, is not affected by their short-term performance. MAS’ reported net loss in the last FY has no impact on the NIR that is available to the Government.
Second, similar to other Statutory Boards, MAS makes contributions to the Government in lieu of corporate income tax. This is based on 17% of the net profit for the year after offsetting cumulative losses from previous financial years.
In the case of MAS, the Government recognises that its contributions will vary considerably from year to year due to the combined effect of currency translation and investment returns on MAS’ balance sheet. This is why, since FY2019, the Government has smoothened the revenue volatility by requiring the annual contributions made by MAS to be paid in equal proportions over a period of three years. This means that even though MAS recorded a net loss for FY2021/2022, the Government will receive $1.1 billion from MAS, based on the contributions accrued for the previous two financial years, when MAS recorded net profits. The smoothening formula has helped to mitigate the impact of MAS' net loss on the Government’s Budget.
Investment returns are inherently volatile reflecting market conditions. The Government has taken steps to ensure that this volatility does not unduly affect the Budget. It is neither responsible nor prudent for us to rely on windfall surpluses in any given year to fund our increased structural spending needs.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. I also thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the comprehensive reply. Can I clarify a couple of points? How much has MAS contributed to Government's consolidated funds in the past five years, beyond FY2021/2022 that was reported in the press? How does MAS decide how much money MAS needs to contribute to the consolidated fund every year?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I do not have the specific figures with me right now. I have explained just now that MAS' contributions are in lieu of corporate income tax and there is formula for it. It is based on 17% of the net profit for the year, after offsetting cumulative losses from previous years. On top of that annual contribution, in FY2019, we also introduced a smoothening formula so that the contributions made by MAS are paid in equal proportions over a period of three years.
These are all based on a formula and MAS will publish every year in its annual report the contributions it makes to the consolidated fund based on these formulas.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. I would like to further ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. We know that for the investment returns, we do have the NIRC framework where it smoothens out over a long period of time. We call it the long-term expected real returns. So, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, why are these investment returns from OFR, and hence, the foreign exchange translation effects and fluctuations, not counted under the NIRC framework where the returns are smoothened out over the long period of time, through that methodology?
The second question, in MAS' annual report, it also mentioned the higher interest rate expenses. Can I ask if the rising interest rates will add to the overall interest expenses of the Government, given the size of securities the Government intends to issue going forward?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I should clarify first of all on the first question that, in fact, MAS' investment returns are part of the NIR framework. The NIR framework covers our investments by MAS, Temasek and GIC – three investment entities. The investments are largely in foreign currencies, they are in foreign assets. So, they will be converted, translated into Singapore dollars, into a net asset base, which is smoothened out. The smoothening formula for the net asset base computation, in a way, helps to moderate foreign currency effects. So, in fact, MAS' contributions through the NIR mechanism to NIRC is very much incorporated already into the present NIR framework.
On the second question of the impact of interest rates on interest expenses, that is something that will happen. With rising interest rates, there will be implications for MAS' interest expense. But it also has an implication for MAS' investment income. On the expense side, MAS will have to spend more, perhaps, when it needs to borrow as part of money market operations to manage banking system liquidity. But on the investment side, over the medium term, rising interest rates will also help to raise investment income from our foreign asset holdings.
So, taking both into consideration, over the longer-term, MAS should be able to manage the effects of rising interest rates on its financials.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Any further supplementary questions? Mr Leong.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance one supplementary question. While MAS had chalked up a $7.4 billion loss in 2022, both the investment companies Temasek Holdings and GIC have chalked up hundreds of billions of dollars of additional profits because of the good markets in 2021 and 2022. Can I ask the Minister, overall, are we expecting a further increase in our foreign reserves in 2023?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Temasek and GIC have reported their performances in their annual statements. I am not sure where Mr Leong Mun Wai got \"hundreds of billions of dollars\" in returns, but the performance by Temasek and GIC have been published, we can find out what they are.
In the end, regarding these performances, it is not so much whether they do well, or not so well on an annual basis, because what matters to us is the NIRC that comes into the Budget. And as we have explained time and again, that is not based on short-term investment performance, which can be up or down, depending on market volatility, but it is on the long-term expected real rate of return, which is determined and then applied, as I have mentioned just now, on the net asset base of MAS, GIC and Temasek respectively for us to work out the NIRC into the Budget.
So, that is what matters for budgetary matters. When we work out next year's Budget in 2023, Members will see what is the NIR contribution. This framework has been worked out, I think it is something that is sound and it is something that we will continue to manage prudently and responsibly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on COVID-19 Situation and Measures Given Emergence of New Variants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry is observing an increasing trend in the COVID-19 reinfection rate given the continued emergence of new Omicron sub-variants; and (b) whether there are any plans to further expand the eligibility for second booster shots for younger age groups, especially when the vaccines are updated to deal with new variants or subvariants.
8 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health in view of the current wave of COVID-19 infections (a) what measures are in place or planned to be put in place to cope with the spike in the number of patients at general practitioner clinics, polyclinics and hospitals’ emergency departments; and (b) whether there are plans to further support the growth of the telemedicine sector in Singapore to provide medical services for mild cases and to reduce the number of infected persons visiting physical clinics.
9 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the recent wave of COVID-19 infections has resulted in much longer waiting times for patients at polyclinics and neighbourhood general practitioner clinics; (b) whether the waiting time and services can be improved; and (c) whether the capacity for primary care at the heartlands can be further stepped up.
10 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Health (a) what proportion of the Singapore population does the Ministry estimate has been infected with COVID-19, including unreported cases; and (b) whether Singapore has attained herd immunity with such an infection level.
11 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health whether an update can be provided on the study by the Health Sciences Authority and the Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines formulated for young children aged under five years old.
12 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the number of foreign patient arrivals in Singapore in (i) 2022 year-to-date and (ii) each of the last five years; (b) what are the current utilisation rates of existing capacity by foreign patients in private and public hospitals respectively; and (c) what is the bed capacity in private and public hospitals (i) currently used and (ii) set aside, for COVID-19 hospitalisations in light of the rising number of COVID-19 cases.
13 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry plans to allow all adults below 50 years old to take their COVID-19 vaccination second booster under the National Vaccination Programme (NVP) and, if so, when is this expected; and (b) will all adults below 50 years old who wish to take their second booster due to travel requirements or concerns arising from travel plans be allowed to do so under the NVP.
14 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health whether the recent deaths of two young children from COVID-19 on 27 June and 17 July 2022 raised any cause for concern regarding the susceptibility of young children to the recent COVID-19 strains, bearing in mind the relatively higher number of daily reported COVID-19 cases in recent weeks and the infectiousness of the recent strains.
15 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health whether he can provide an update on the progress of the Ministry's evaluation of (i) COVID-19 vaccines for children under five years old and (ii) other types of COVID-19 vaccines that can be administered to children.
The Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, may I and Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary address the COVID-19 related Parliamentary Questions (PQs) for oral answer, Question Nos 7 to 15 in today's Order Paper; and then those filed by Mr Saktiandi Supaat1 and Mr Yip Hon Weng2, filed for 2 August; and Parliamentary Questions for written replies filed by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Dr Shahira Abdullah and Mr Shawn Huang, please.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Please do.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I will touch on the COVID-19 situation, healthcare capacity and vaccination programme. Thereafter, Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary will address PQs for our treatment and vaccination plans for children. And if the Members who filed tomorrow's questions are satisfied with the answer, they may wish to withdraw their questions.
My Deputy Speaker, we are still in the middle of an infection wave driven by the Omicron variant BA.5. Over the last 10 days, infection numbers have been falling and the week-on-week ratio has dipped below 0.9 over the last week. We should see the wave subsiding further this week.
We did not tighten any social restrictions during the current wave. Everyone went about our lives normally: going to work, visiting families, going out with friends, travelling in and out of Singapore.
However, life is not as normal in our hospitals. Without additional social restrictions, our healthcare system is bearing the brunt of the current wave. Healthcare workers have been very busy. Polyclinics and our general practitioner clinics also saw higher patient volumes.
To answer Ms Joan Pereira, we are indeed promoting the use of telemedicine for mild COVID-19 cases. It is now a lot more accepted by patients than before. But even so, we need to be realistic that in a big infection wave, the healthcare system will come under stress, notwithstanding the common usage of telemedicine. Waiting times at private clinics, polyclinics and hospitals will inevitably go up and I seek the patience and understanding of all our residents.
In such a situation, the key is to ensure that hospitals are not overwhelmed and that those who need urgent care can be attended to promptly. By and large, we have been able to achieve that.
The first important measure to achieve that is to set aside sufficient bed capacity to cater to COVID-19 patients. So, in response to Mr Louis Chua, based on our worst-case scenario projection for the current wave, we have plans to set aside up to about 1,000 COVID-19 hospital beds for COVID-19 patients.
This is a dynamic plan and fortunately, in the course of this infection wave, we did not have to activate all of those beds.
In the same question, Mr Louis Chua asked about foreign patient arrivals for the last five years. I think that this is a non-COVID-19 related question, we will answer it separately and Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary will touch on that.
Second, we eased the workload of hospitals by transferring lower-risk patients to COVID-19 Treatment Facilities and discharging long-term stayers back to community care facilities, like nursing homes. Many of these facilities and services are run by private or social sector providers and we are deeply appreciative of them for doing this work.
Compared to the last Omicron wave, the transfer processes are now a lot smoother and patients and their families have also become a lot more understanding when hospitals say that your loved one needs to be transferred. As a result, for this infection wave, we have been able to make many more transfers than the last and this has made a significant difference to the workload of hospitals.
Finally, hospitals also have to manage their own demand for beds. They have cut down on \"business-as-usual\" workload, by about 5% and this comprises of mostly elective surgeries. This is not ideal, because it builds up the backlog of work which have to be attended to eventually. However, the 5% cut today is far less than the 15% cut that we had to implement during the first Omicron wave in the beginning of this year.
Hospitals restricted but did not suspend visits to patients. We also did not suspend the leave of healthcare workers, so they can still take breaks, including flying to their home countries to see their loved ones and their family members. This is extremely important in maintaining the morale of our healthcare workforce.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if hospital-acquired COVID-19 infections is contributing to a bed crunch. The answer is no. Absenteeism in hospitals due to the current COVID-19 wave has been lower this time round, at about 2%. As far as we can determine, while there had been some transmission within hospitals, overall, hospital-acquired COVID-19 infection has been low and very likely, lower than community-acquired infections. This is because of good infection control measures in hospitals.
We need to recognise that bed crunches are mainly caused by high case numbers because of an infection wave and how those case numbers translate into severe illnesses that need hospitalisation.
There are only two ways to minimise this: one is social restrictions, two is to ensure good coverage of vaccination amongst the population. All of us do not want to bring back social restrictions as far as possible. The rule of five, the rule of two – we try to avoid that. And so, therefore, we need to rely on vaccinations.
In that regard, like many Singaporeans, I am very proud that Singapore has achieved what many countries want to achieve, which is that most people have gotten up-to-date vaccinations. The resilience has been further strengthened as many people recovered safely from COVID-19 infections.
Mr Seah Kian Peng asked what percentage of our population has been infected. On record, we have about 1.7 million reported cases, which is about 30% of our population. MOH also systematically monitors blood samples from routine polyclinic cases and other healthy volunteers for signs of previous infection. From these samples, we estimate about 60% of local residents are likely to have been infected with COVID-19.
Notwithstanding that, this does not confer us \"herd immunity\". By and large, scientists around the world do not think herd immunity is achievable because the virus will continue to mutate, escape the protection of vaccines and then, infect people.
What is achievable is population protection against severe illness through vaccinations. This is what enables our healthcare system to weather through an infection wave, even with high case numbers, because the translation of case numbers into severe illnesses is very low.
During the last Omicron wave at the beginning of this year, 2.4% of infected persons needed hospitalisation. During this wave, 1.9% ended up in hospitals. The actual percentages are likely to be lower because not all cases are reported.
Notwithstanding our strong resilience due to good vaccination coverage, MOH still has some concerns and we can never be complacent.
First concern, coverage of the vulnerable, especially our seniors. To get good vaccine protection against severe illness from the Omicron variants, we need three doses of mRNA shots. It is no longer a two-dose vaccination; it is three doses.
However, we have more or less hit a plateau – there remains 40,000 seniors, aged 60 and above, who have not received their booster shots, even though they are eligible. Another 40,000 seniors have not completed two doses yet. All of them are vulnerable to severe illness, if infected. We will continue to try to reach out to them through our Mobile Vaccination Teams, through our home vaccination teams.
The second concern – MOH knows that vaccine protection against severe illness will not last forever. So, Mr Shawn Huang has, therefore, filed a very pertinent question on when this will start to wane.
MOH monitors this data closely. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I show some graphs on the screen, please?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Please do. [A slide was shown to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: At the top left-hand corner, the line shows \"Vaccination Effectiveness Against Severe Illness\"; at the top left-hand corner is for the age group above 80; top right hand, 70 to 79; bottom, 60 to 69. And Members can see that the graphs are not dipping; in fact, they are staying at a high level. And that is 10 months' worth of data.
So, our empirical data shows that after 10 months, the protective effect of three doses of mRNA vaccines remains very strong in preventing severe illnesses. That is why as of now, our recommendation is for those who are 80 and above to receive their second booster, or fourth shot, to better protect against severe illness.
Members will notice that at the top left-hand corner is the chart for those aged above 80. In fact, it has not dipped, but in general, the protection level is lower than younger cohorts, which is why we recommend that they take a fourth shot, or the second booster.
As for those aged 50 to 79, although the protection levels continue to be strong, this is also the age when chronic illnesses start to set in. So, they have been offered the second booster if they want to take it, either because they are travelling, or they are worried about their health because of underlying chronic illnesses.
Our experts are actively studying the benefits of a fourth shot, or a second booster, for the age group of 60 to 79, in further reducing the likelihood of severe illnesses. We will announce their recommendations shortly, once they are ready.
As for the younger individuals below 60 years old, they have the protection of both the third shot, as well as age. Currently, they do not require a second booster if they are healthy. MOH will continue to study the emerging data, including the benefits of newer vaccine formulations, weigh against the risk of new variants and update our recommendations, as and when necessary.
Ms Joan Pereira asked about the incidence of reinfections. It does occur in Singapore, but by and large, reinfection rate during the current wave has been low in Singapore and we recorded reinfection rates that are lower than many countries. This is likely because we have very good vaccination coverage and that we just went through a fairly large BA.2 infection wave, just at the beginning of this year.
MOH has been watching the reinfection numbers very closely, because it will inform us of the likely timing of future waves. Our observation is that for those who were infected over the last three months, the chance of getting another infection is very rare. For those infected four to seven months ago, the probability of getting infected again is about 3% that of an uninfected or naïve person. If you have been infected with the Delta variant last year, the probability of getting infected again is about 20% that of an uninfected person, or COVID-19-naive person.
\tOf course, this picture will change as time goes by and the protective effect of prior infections wanes. Hence, having been infected by COVID-19 before, should not be a reason to let your guard down.
In the meantime, reinfections are taking place, albeit not as frequently in Singapore, compared to other countries, but they are likely to increase as protection of prior infections wanes. We should, therefore, start to include reinfection numbers in our daily reported case counts. In the past, we report the number of patients who had been infected every day. So, a patient who has been infected twice, we count him only once and there are very few of them. With more reinfections, from today, we will report the infection episodes instead of infected persons. This will be a more accurate reflection of the pandemic situation.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked about COVID-19 therapeutics. All polyclinics and more than 130 participating PHPCs can prescribe oral antivirals to clinically eligible patients in the community. To date, more than 3,200 patients have been prescribed such therapeutics across different healthcare settings. It is a small percentage of all infections, reflective of the fact that the vast majority of infected cases are of low risk.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the Flu Subsidy Scheme. As at end FY2021, the Government has spent about $178 million on the scheme for over 11 million attendances at private clinics and polyclinics for the treatment of acute respiratory infections.
As we progress towards living with COVID-19, Singaporeans have become familiar with exercising social responsibility through self-testing by following Protocol 1-2-3. By keeping ourselves healthy, getting up-to-date vaccinations and with employers and education institutions not always insisting to see medical certificates, most COVID-19 patients can recover uneventfully by resting at home and seeking care only when needed.
Our policies will, therefore, need to evolve with the state of our preparedness. For safe management measures, we refrain from imposing additional restrictions even as we ride through a wave now. Likewise, healthcare financing policies would also need to start evolving and progressively scale back from subsidy policies that were enacted under exceptional pandemic circumstances.
I want to reassure Members of the House that for residents who see their primary care doctors, they will continue to receive institutionalised, pre-COVID-19 subsidies, such as CHAS, polyclinic subsidies, health screening subsidies and so on. PHPCs and polyclinics will also continue to provide Government-funded swabs to eligible symptomatic individuals at no charge.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while the current wave is subsiding and I think the worse is over, it is important that we do not be complacent.
As the protection of vaccines and prior infection wanes, the virus will circulate in our society again and cases will rise. We must anticipate when that will happen and take the necessary precautions, including the most important of all, which is to keep our vaccinations up to date.
I have deliberately used the term \"up-to-date vaccinations\", rather than a second, third or fourth booster shot. This is because, at some point, just like flu vaccinations, we have to stop counting the number of boosters we have taken. Instead, we must ensure that we get a jab at a suitable interval – maybe nine months or a year. This is something MOH will try to determine in the coming months.
As of now, there is no change to MOH’s guidance and recommendations. It remains what have already been announced.
We need to be alert to the threat of a new variant that is more infectious, leads to more severe illnesses or evades the protection of current vaccines. We hope it will not happen, but many countries in the northern hemisphere are worried about that and what might come up in the coming winter. If we encounter such a variant, I am afraid social restrictions will become necessary again.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding these words of caution, let me underscore the importance of what Singapore just went through.
With each wave, we are coping better. We are riding through this current BA.5 infection wave without imposing further social restrictions or imposing border measures. In our hospitals, we imposed fewer restrictions and hospitals are, generally, able to cope better than the last wave.
That means that the Singapore society has taken another major step forward in living with COVID-19 as an endemic disease and I think this is a big National Day present for all Singaporeans.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there were several PQs on our treatment and vaccination plans for children.
I was saddened by the recent deaths of two young children from COVID-19 and offer my deepest condolences to their families.
Based on local and international data, the BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants have not been observed to affect children more severely than past variants and severe COVID-19 infection continues to be rare in children, especially amongst those who are vaccinated.
For children aged five to 11, a third mRNA dose may be necessary at some point to keep protection levels high and MOH is making the necessary preparations to roll out vaccination booster doses for this age group in about two months’ time. At present, the Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine remains the only vaccine authorised for use in children aged five to 17 in Singapore. Children who are not medically eligible for the Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine may receive the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine under a dedicated public health programme, while Moderna’s vaccine for this age group remains under evaluation.
Children under the age of five are, currently, the last group not yet protected by vaccination. MOH is preparing to start vaccination for those under five towards the fourth quarter of this year. The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) is currently reviewing the data submitted by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna on their COVID-19 vaccines for this age group. We will provide an update when an assessment of the quality, effectiveness and safety of the vaccines has been completed.
Members asked what could be done to detect, diagnose and treat COVID-19 in children. Currently, children under the age of five remain more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection and have higher rates of severe outcomes, as compared to older children. This is similar to other respiratory diseases. However, the overall incidence of severe outcomes from COVID-19 infection remains much lower amongst children, compared to adults and the elderly.
Children needing medical attention should be seen by a general practitioner (GP) or polyclinic if unwell and the clinical team, the doctors there, will test children with acute respiratory infection (ARI) symptoms using an Antigen Rapid Test (ART) by default or a Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, if indicated. Children under three months of age are admitted to hospital by default, whereas older children are treated under the Home Recovery Programme (HRP) and reviewed by doctors via telemedicine. This service is available round the clock. Our hospitals continue to prioritise care for children with urgent medical conditions and those who require further observation and treatment will be admitted. MOH regularly reviews and updates the screening and review criteria with inputs from a panel of specialists.
Oral antivirals are licensed for use under HSA’s Pandemic Special Access Route for patients aged 18 and above only. For children aged between 12 and 18, local and overseas treatment guidelines indicate that Paxlovid may be considered on a case-to-case basis. We will continue to review the evidence for the use of oral antivirals for children under 18 years of age.
We will continue to monitor the incidence of severe illness and deaths due to COVID-19 closely and adjust our processes to protect our healthcare system and patients. We ask everyone to take the necessary precautions and remain socially responsible by self-testing if unwell, getting vaccinated and boosted, and avoiding social interactions if you have a fever or respiratory symptoms.
Lastly, Sir, to address Mr Louis Chua's question on foreign patients, the number of foreign patients who come to Singapore to specifically seek inpatient treatment or day surgery at our hospitals has, historically, been small. Between 2017 and 2019, our public and private hospitals saw about 32,000 foreign patients annually, or about 3% of all inpatients and day surgery patients. These numbers have since fallen by 80%, compared to pre-COVID-19 levels. In 2021, there were just 6,000 episodes, comprising less than 1% of total cases seen in hospitals.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. A recent study from Portugal suggested that the current lead dominant Omicron BA.5 subvariant is linked with higher odds of causing reinfection, regardless of the vaccination status. Is the Ministry considering conducting similar studies and would such findings affect our country's vaccination and treatment strategies?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I heard only one question. I will try to answer it.
As I have reported just now, MOH, likewise, is monitoring empirically the rate of reinfections in Singapore. By and large, we have noticed that our rate of reinfection is lower than many other countries. We are at a stage where every country's experience is different because they experienced different waves with different dominant strains and different vaccination and booster rates and also different age profiles, old and young. So, when you take all that into account, every country's experience is now unique.
We know Portugal's experience. In fact, Portugal has gone through a wave with many hospitalisations. Australia is undergoing a BA.5 wave with many hospitalisations. In our case, due to a combination of factors – high vaccination rate, high booster rates and the fact that we recently went through a BA.2 wave which gives better protective effects against BA.5 – we have waded through this current wave much more smoothly, compared to Portugal.
We will continue to monitor the reinfection rate. As I have mentioned, what is important is whether reinfections or infections translate into hospitalisations. So, what is important is vaccination effectiveness against severe illness. We will monitor that closely. As I have mentioned and as I have shown in the chart earlier, after 10 months, the protective effect is still strong but we will monitor closely.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for his answer earlier with regard to my PQ scheduled for tomorrow. I have two supplementary questions which are related to the PQ which the Minister probably did not get the chance to answer.
The first is whether the Flu Subsidy Scheme has encouraged more eligible residents to seek medical treatment. One of the reasons I asked the PQ for tomorrow is that some residents have come to me on the scheme because they have found it to be useful, especially in the current context of rising costs.
The second supplementary question is with regard to the deactivation of the scheme, whether it will hamper early detection of efforts in terms of data collection for COVID-19 by MOH as well, going forward.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Notwithstanding deactivation of the Flu Subsidy Scheme, as I have mentioned, the current subsidy schemes, especially CHAS, polyclinic subsidies, continue to be there. Does the Flu Subsidy Scheme increase the number of people seeking medical treatment? I believe that is a reasonable effect that we should expect of any subsidy.
I think in the community, we have seen and we have probably met residents who say, \"Since there is the Flu Subsidy Scheme and it costs $10, no harm. I think I might have COVID-19. Just go to the GP,\" and when they are very well, young and probably can recover uneventfully at home, drinking more water, rest, taking ART.
I think, when we have a subsidy scheme like that, on the one hand, more people may come forward; on the other hand, you can also overcrowd the GP clinics. As we enter into a phase where we are more prepared and better able to live with COVID-19, just as we wound back our SMMs, we also need to go back to the subsidies schemes, pre-COVID-19. That is what we are trying to do for one of our smaller schemes, which is Flu Subsidy Scheme. Hospitalisation, testing – all these continue to be fully subsidised. And that is an even larger amount that we continue to support.
Will this therefore reduce the detection rate of COVID-19? I think a lot depends on self-testing, much more than testing at the GPs. You can now use telemedicine, as Ms Joan Pereira said. Using telemedicine, test in front of a camera on Zoom and the doctor can record it in the system. So, by and large, people know how to use the system and we continue to be able to monitor our epi curve with the reports from people, very promptly and quite accurately.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just three supplementary questions for the Minister for Health.
Firstly, he shared some data on the mRNA vaccines being effective – three shots against seriously falling ill. Could he give us a sense of that data for the non-mRNA vaccines, the traditional vaccines? Are these less efficacious than the mRNA?
The second supplementary question is: would MOH consider sending mobile vaccination teams to individual homes to vaccinate them even if they are not seniors, if there are strong mitigating factors? For example, if the individual is diagnosed with a mental health condition that makes it hard for them to leave their home.
The third supplementary question is: would the Ministry consider tweaking its systems and processes to encourage people who go for the COVID-19 vaccines to also get the regular flu vaccine at the same time if, indeed, that is scientifically feasible?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: We have a few non-mRNA vaccines. Novavax has shown to be efficacious in preventing severe illnesses. The other two slightly less. I do not have the data. But the data has shown that these are slightly less efficacious; not just us, but Chile, Malaysia and other countries have also published similar data and admit similar observations. Having said that, they do have a protective effect. Having those vaccinations is better than not having vaccinations. So, please encourage residents to take them.
As for mobile vaccinations, for those who are not seniors, we will do so and we have been doing so. If you come across any residents that need them, you can always raise with MOH and we will assess and try to be as helpful as we can.
Do we administer flu vaccines together? In practice, we can. But unlike many other countries where there are four seasons and there is a winter and a flu season, they find it useful to administer flu vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines concurrently, which is what Australia is doing currently. And towards the fall, many Northern Hemisphere countries intend to do so.
We do not have a flu season. It comes and goes. It could be anytime. So, it is harder for us to combine two vaccinations at the same time because of the lack of a flu season. But theoretically, it is possible. And if someone wants both together, we should think of a way to administer both.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Just two supplementary questions for the Minister.
First, Minister mentioned that the current 60% infection does not accord us \"herd immunity\". I would just like to ask at what level would it be considered that we have \"herd immunity\"?
My second supplementary question relates to the seniors. I am concerned that there are 80,000 of our seniors who either have not gotten their second vaccination or have not had the booster jab. Eighty thousand seniors is a lot of people. I know we are still trying to reach out to them through our mobile vaccination teams. I think that will take too long; we have been trying that for quite a while. I think to cover the entire 80,000 will take a long, long time. So, my question is: what other solutions are there beyond the current mobile vaccination teams?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I am sorry to disappoint Mr Seah Kian Peng. But even if we hit 100%, we will not have \"herd immunity\". It is no longer a function or percentage coverage of vaccinations or infections but it is the fact that it is a fast mutating virus and it will escape prior infection protection as well as vaccine protection. So, therefore, do not aim for \"herd immunity\" where we think the virus will disappear but instead live with the virus and protect ourselves against severe illnesses.
What other solutions are there? Mobile teams have been useful; home vaccination teams have been useful. Eighty thousand is a big number. But on the other hand, compared to other countries, we are 93% covered by vaccinations; 79% covered by booster. These are very, very high by international standards. We will continue to try hard. But I suspect, especially the 40,000 seniors who have not even taken two shots, they must have deep personal reasons not to do.
For the other 40,000, they have taken two shots but somehow have not taken the booster. For them, I am a bit more sanguine because they have taken two before; I think we can persuade them to take a third. But those who have not taken, we have met them and we have tried to persuade them; it is difficult. The better way now is for us to be considerate that there are such vulnerable seniors amongst us. So, we must always exercise our social responsibility. If we do not feel well when we are meeting one of these seniors, avoid meeting them or test yourself before you meet them. In other words, the rest of us who have been vaccinated or have been infected, we have to protect those who are not protected and are vulnerable.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I just want to seek clarification from the Minister regarding my Question No 13, part (b). I am not sure I heard the answer. For Singaporeans under 50, if they wish to take the second booster because of travel requirements or because of concerns arising out of travel, will they be allowed to do so under the National Vaccination Programme?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Currently, our rules do not provide for that. If you are below 50, you have taken three shots already and you are healthy, our rules do not provide for them and they would not be offered. But if they have underlying conditions and they suspect they are sick, they can let us know and we will offer it to them. The reason is, as I mentioned earlier, protection against severe illness is what is important and it continues to stay very high, especially if you are young. And towards year end, we do not know what is coming our way. In the Northern Hemisphere, many countries are worried about new variants. So, therefore, sometimes, it is also worthwhile to keep our powder dry, especially for the younger group.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: We will take the last two questions on this topic. Mr Yip Hon Weng and then Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): I thank the Minister for his reply and response to my PQ slated for tomorrow on hospital-related infections. I have one clarification for the Minister on whether his response on hospital-acquired infections include our community hospitals and nursing homes, because many of the patients there are seniors and vulnerable patients.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Yes, it does. And thankfully, we have been able to keep our nursing homes safe. It makes all the difference. We will continue to try hard to protect our nursing homes and community hospitals.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just have one supplementary question for the Minister.
On 9 May, in a report in The Straits Times, one of the private hospital groups shared that it has stood down its ringfenced general ward capacity. I note from the Minister's response that about 1,000 hospital beds are being set aside for COVID-19 purposes. I just wanted to understand – the healthcare system today across both the public and private hospitals, what is the current level of bed utilisation as a whole? And if the need arises, where would these additional 1,000 beds come from and how quickly can they be activated?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The 1,000 beds I mentioned referred to public hospitals only. If we include private hospital beds that we can acquire, that is another couple hundred more – I cannot remember the number. Today, hospitals are busy, not because of COVID-19 patients, but a lot of business-as-usual patients. Ninety percent occupancy is quite common. And this is after taking into account, setting aside some beds for COVID-19 patients.
As I mentioned, it is a dynamic plan. When we see a curve going down, numbers going down, we may release more beds. When we see the epi curve going up, we may take out more beds and inch towards the 1,000-bed scenario. So, it is a dynamic plan. But what is important, what I mentioned, is that for this wave, we managed to ride through it. I think the worst is over. We managed to go through it better prepared and better response than the last wave.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Because the presentation of the Petition took six minutes, I have been informed that Question Time will be extended to 3.06 pm. So, we can carry on with the PQs. Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : To ask the Minister for Health (a) what is the net Government expenditure on the Flu Subsidy Scheme during the COVID-19 outbreak up to the de-activation of the scheme on 1 July 2022; (b) whether the Flu Subsidy Scheme has encouraged more eligible Singapore residents to seek medical treatment for respiratory infections; and (c) whether the de-activation of the Scheme will hamper early detection efforts as COVID-19 community infections are spiking again.","2 : To ask the Minister for Health following the major easing of COVID-19 rules in end-April 2022 (a) what is the infection rate for hospital-acquired COVID-19 infections; (b) how many transmissions have been from visitors and how many from healthcare workers; (c) whether hospital-acquired COVID-19 infections affect discharge dates; and (d) whether this has led to a bed crunch situation."],"footNoteQuestions":["7","8","9","10","11","12","13","14","15"],"questionNo":"7-15"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evidence of Community Spread of Local Monkeypox Cases and Vaccines to Protect Vulnerable Groups","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there is any new evidence of community spread of local monkeypox cases; (b) how many doses of smallpox vaccines have been administered; and (c) whether there is an adequate stockpile of vaccines to protect the vulnerable groups.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Sir, as of 31 July 2022, Singapore has had a total of 11 monkeypox cases reported in 2022. None of these cases are linked to each other. All the cases have had mild symptoms and are clinically stable; they were promptly isolated until non-infectious; contact tracing was initiated and 45 close contacts were identified.
All close contacts who remained in Singapore are well and 11 of them have completed their quarantine. Thus far, none of the local contacts had developed symptoms compatible with monkeypox nor tested positive for monkeypox. There is, therefore, no evidence of further spread in the community from the reported cases.
Close contacts were offered the smallpox vaccine as post-exposure prophylaxis, which is reported to be 85% effective at preventing monkeypox infection. To date, 11 close contacts have taken up the smallpox vaccine.
However, and as recommended by WHO, mass population-wide vaccination with the smallpox vaccine is currently not recommended as a preventive strategy for monkeypox as the benefits do not outweigh the risk.
Individuals who are at higher risk of infection due to exposure to confirmed cases or their specimens, including healthcare and laboratory personnel, may be offered the smallpox vaccines to protect them from getting infected. There is an adequate supply of smallpox vaccines.
Based on international data, the current monkeypox outbreak generally causes a mild and self-limiting illness. With globally three deaths out of more than 20,900 cases reported outside of Africa, the case fatality rate currently stands around 0.01%, or approximately one in 10,000. As we learn more about the disease, MOH will continuously review and calibrate our response measures to be commensurate with the public health risk. In line with WHO's recommendations, MOH has also provided appropriate advice and precautionary measures to the public, including the at-risk population, to raise awareness and reduce the risk of onward transmission.
MOH will continue to monitor the monkeypox situation closely and further calibrate our preparedness and response measures, including vaccination strategies, as needed.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State that since WHO declared monkeypox as a global health emergency on 23 July and New York City has just declared monkeypox as a public health emergency two days ago, what is the status of the monkeypox threat in Singapore with the rising numbers and when will it become a public health emergency in Singapore? And if it ever does become one, what are the measures that MOH will take?
\t
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank the Member for his question. I think I have answered the issue of the current status of monkeypox in my original answer.
Notwithstanding the declaration by WHO and the status in New York, the public health response measures adopted Singapore prior to these declarations and the status in New York remain relevant and they are in line with WHO's recommendations after the declaration. Early detection and isolation of cases, prompt contact tracing, quarantining of close contacts – all of these are important strategies and all of these were in place prior to the declaration.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Qualifying Criteria So That Silver Support Scheme Benefits More Needy Seniors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the criteria of the Silver Support Scheme so that more seniors in need of the support can be assisted; and (b) whether the criteria for the scheme can be better communicated and explained to the seniors.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Silver Support Scheme provides quarterly cash supplements to seniors who had lower incomes during their working years and now have little or no family support in their retirement. Lifetime wages, housing type and the level of household support are used to decide who is eligible.
MOM reviews the Silver Support Scheme regularly and enhanced the scheme last year.
First, we have raised payouts for recipients by 20%. Second, we have expanded the thresholds for lifetime wages and household monthly income per person to cover more seniors. We have also added a new payout tier that provides a payout to seniors with household monthly incomes per person above $1,300 but not exceeding $1,800.
With the enhancements, the number of Silver Support recipients has increased from one in five seniors in 2020, or about 150,000 seniors, to one in three seniors this year, or about a quarter of a million or 250,000 seniors. Total Silver Support payouts have also nearly doubled from $330 million in 2020 to $600 million per year today.
Seniors do not need to apply for Silver Support. They are automatically assessed annually, and the payouts are directly credited into the senior's registered bank account or sent to the senior's registered address via a cheque.
Currently, all seniors who are eligible for Silver Support in any given year are automatically notified by the CPF Board in December of the preceding year. For newly eligible recipients, the notification letter contains an accompanying infographic which explains the qualifying criteria in all four vernacular languages. We also disseminate information on Silver Support through Community Centres and Silver Generation Ambassadors who are trained to explain the scheme to seniors during their house visits.
If Members have suggestions on how the Silver Support eligibility criteria can be better communicated, we are happy to take these comments on board and we are happy to look into them as well.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\t \tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. My question is more for seniors who used to receive and depended on the payouts, and subsequently, the payouts stopped because of changes in their household income and so on.
I understand that the CPF Board does review seniors' eligibility annually but I want to ask the Minister whether for those who used to receive and subsequently do not receive payouts, how does the CPF Board communicate this to those seniors? What are the reasons that are given to them – whether they used to receive for many years and then they do not receive payouts. Should there not be a clarification as to how that happens?
Secondly, for those who have received payouts for many years, can the Minister consider, perhaps, a phased stepdown from the Silver Support Scheme? Because many of the seniors depended on the payouts for some years and suddenly, it just gets removed. There could be some problems for them to manage their monthly expenses and so on. Would the Minister consider that as well?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Liang for his supplementary question.
The CPF Board automatically reviews a senior's eligibility for Silver Support every year. The main reason for seniors becoming ineligible usually could be due to a combination of reasons. It could be due to increases in their household monthly income per person, which is a broad indicator of the level of household support which is available to the senior. In many of these circumstances, the senior's financial situation has actually improved.
For those seniors who no longer qualify for Silver Support in the following year, they will be notified in the preceding year – in December of the preceding year. For instance, if the senior no longer qualifies for Silver Support for 2023, they will receive notification in December 2022.
To the Member's suggestion about stepping down, seniors who are no longer eligible for Silver Support will receive two tranches over two quarters of a stepdown Silver Support payment to help ease their transition out of the scheme.
Having said that, the CPF Board also considers appeals. When seniors find that notwithstanding the support that has been withdrawn, they are not able to be able to transition appropriately, we are prepared to consider each appeal.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement. Minister for Culture, Community and Youth.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix, unless Members had asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Unlocking the Sports Hub's Full Potential for Singapore","subTitle":"Minister for Culture, Community and Youth","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank all members of the public and Members of this House who have shown a keen interest in the Government's move to take over the Sports Hub and have filed various Parliamentary Questions. My Ministerial Statement today will address the 25 oral and written questions that were filed for the Parliament Sittings in July.
Sir, the Sports Hub we see today is a fully integrated sports, entertainment and lifestyle hub across a 35-hectare site in Kallang. It is anchored by the National Stadium and the Singapore Indoor Stadium, with a range of indoor and outdoor sports and retail facilities in the surroundings. It has been in operation since 2014 and was designed, built, financed and operated by Sports Hub Pte Ltd (SHPL) under a Public-Private-Partnership, or PPP, agreement that was signed between SHPL and SportSG in 2010.
Over the last 12 to 18 months, we spent some time closely evaluating the performance of the Sports Hub project, including its performance in the pre-COVID-19 period, with a view to assessing if we should continue with the partnership. We took a holistic long-term look at the changing environment in the sporting, lifestyle and also entertainment ecosystem in Singapore and what we wanted to achieve in our sporting and social policy outcomes.
In our assessment, the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans would be better served by the Government taking over the ownership and management of the Sports Hub instead of carrying on with the PPP arrangement. A main consideration was our desire to bring stronger community participation and activities to the Sports Hub.
Once we reached that view, a detailed financial, legal and operational due diligence was carried out with the support of external consultants and advisors to satisfy ourselves that taking over the Sports Hub would indeed be a viable option. Thereafter, we engaged with SHPL to inform them of our decision and worked through the details of the handover. SportSG formally served notice to terminate the Sports Hub PPP with SHPL on 10 June 2022 and reached a mutual agreement with SHPL over the termination and the process of the handover.
On 9 December 2022, a few months from now, SportSG will assume full ownership and management of the Sports Hub and begin a new chapter for the Sports Hub.
Sir, in my Statement today, I will address the range of issues raised in the various Parliamentary Questions that Members have filed. I will organise my response along the following lines: first, set out the historical and contextual reasons leading to the development of the Sports Hub via a PPP – I will explain why we chose the PPP model for this case; second, explain the changed environment and the reasons which led to the termination of the partnership as well as the details around the termination, including the financial information; finally, I will touch on what we envisage for the community and Singapore following the change of ownership and management of the Sports Hub.
Sir, by way of background, let me begin by briefly sketching out some key points in the history of the Sports Hub.
Prior to the development of the Sports Hub, the former National Stadium stood in the same location. This was officially opened in 1973 and hosted its first major event in September that year – the seventh Southeast Asian Peninsular Games – the SEAP Games.
It was a place where major national, sports and entertainment events were held, such as the Malaysia Cup – which Members, I am sure, will recall – where the stadium echoed with the \"Kallang Roar\" and concerts by global stars like Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Bon Jovi and Mariah Carey. I am not sure if this is all in our generation but I am sure you recall.
It also hosted 18 National Day Parades before the last in 2007.
In 2001, the Sporting Singapore Report set out how the former National Stadium, whilst one of the best in Southeast Asia when it was first built, had become quite inadequate to support our ambitions to stage major sporting events of international or world repute. The report recommended that the National Stadium be redeveloped into a multiuse Sports Hub with top-tier infrastructural facilities for both sporting as well as lifestyle and entertainment activities.
This would give us a world-class venue that could compete with the world's best in attracting major sporting and entertainment events into Singapore. This would in turn also help in the larger development of our sports and lifestyle entertainment industry.
Following the report, the Government commissioned an in-depth feasibility study. It then announced plans in 2003 for the redevelopment of the former National Stadium into the Sports Hub that we see today to achieve the outcomes stated in the Sporting Singapore Report.
The Sports Hub was to be a new best-in-class international stadium envisioned to bring our sports, social and lifestyle offerings to the next level and position Singapore as a leading venue for local, regional and international events.
With this in mind, the Government had to decide on the best way to design, finance, build and operate the Sports Hub.
Broadly, there were two options available to us at that point in time.
First, the traditional procurement method. Under this model, the Government fully finances the upfront capital investment for the project and thereafter either pays a service provider to run the project or does it on its own. The Government would also bear the costs and risks of undertaking the project from the start, including the design and construction and in also getting suitable parties to come in to operate the project.
Alternatively, a public-private partnership model. Under this arrangement, the Government could tap into current international private sector expertise, particularly where the project was innovative and cutting edge, as the Sports Hub was intended to be.
A suitable partner would fully undertake the design, the construction as well as the financing of the operations and management of the project and thus, in this way, also directly bear the risks. The Government would not have to incur any upfront capital costs or financial outlay until the project was completed or operational.
Thereafter, the Government would then commit a steady stream of payments to the private sector partner for the entire duration of the project term.
Given the unprecedented scale and complexity of such a major sports infrastructural project in Singapore and the limitations at that time of not having sufficient depth and breadth of such expertise in Singapore, including in the private sector, we chose to adopt the PPP model.
These reasons have previously been fully explained in this House but let me briefly emphasise a few points in relation to the choice of the PPP model for this project to address the various questions raised by hon Members.
First, as I said earlier, the PPP approach allowed us to benefit from the expertise of major international private sector partners with worldwide experience. This, to us, was an important consideration.
The Sports Hub development as an integrated sports, entertainment and lifestyle hub was to be the first of its kind in the region. In terms of infrastructure, it was to be a new innovative, forward-looking world-class sports facility that was intended to be configured for different events, be it sports, entertainment or lifestyle. As a global events venue, it had to be able to attract live entertainment events from all over the world as well as provide a first-class spectatorship experience.
Sir, we have to remember that when we first started exploring this, it was in 2003, or close to 20 years ago. At that time, neither the Government nor our local sporting or lifestyle entertainment industries had sufficiently matured and developed depth of experience, networks and contacts in bringing in marquee sports and entertainment events from all over the world.
Thus, besides needing to tap on market leading experts with not only the right technical expertise to build the infrastructure, we also needed the experience and connections of someone with international sporting and entertainment networks.
Based on our assessment, SHPL was chosen as the PPP partner because each of the consortium members of SHPL brought with them substantial expertise that was relevant to certain key aspects of the project. For instance, InfraRed Capital Partners for project financing; Dragages Singapore to design and build the project; Cushman & Wakefield for the subsequent facilities management; and Spectra for the venue operations.
At the same time, we also wanted to ensure that our partners would have skin in the game. The PPP model was useful for this because it allowed risks to be shared with the private sector in two material ways. And I would illustrate this by outlining the terms of our own PPP with SHPL.
First, as I mentioned earlier, there is no upfront cost to the Government. The entire project design, planning and construction were borne by the PPP partners, from the time the project started in 2010.
The Government did not pay any of the upfront construction costs at all. The entire sum, an amount in excess of S$1.3 billion, was borne by the consortium upfront and they took out a loan to finance this cost.
The Government only started paying the annual availability fee, at $193.7 million per year, subject to inflation and other benchmarking adjustments, when the project was ready and operational in 2014. Under the terms of the agreement, this was to be paid to SHPL every year until 2035, which is the end of the project agreement period.
These annual payments go towards SHPL's debt service repayments for the loan they took out to finance the Sports Hub construction, as well as day-to-day maintenance and operations of the asset. These are payments which we would have had to make, had the Government chosen to undertake the project on our own.
These payments were also subjected to and moderated by SHPL's achievement of a broad and comprehensive range of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which were set out expressly in the project agreement.
These KPIs included the availability of Sports Hub facilities and performance of services, such as events and activity programming, infrastructure maintenance, cleanliness, estate management, security and so on.
Overall, having no upfront costs for the Government turned out to be useful. For instance, when the Global Financial Crisis in 2008 hit unexpectedly, as the Government's fiscal resources were not tied up, we were able to use those resources to meet other pressing economic and other needs.
Second, this structure also allowed the Government to mitigate the, sometimes, unexpected risks of such a major project undertaking. In fact, these risks did come to bear. For instance, the project encountered construction delays, for which SHPL underwrote the costs. SHPL also bore the costs of addressing the defects such as the roof leaks, the inadequacy of the pitch and poor sound quality for concerts. In all of these cases, whether in delay to the project, or to the cost of rectifying the project, the associated costs were borne by SHPL because, under the PPP, it assumed the risks for both timing and quality.
Third, the PPP structure ensured that there would be inherent financial discipline in the project. As I explained earlier, this was a ground-breaking, novel project and we had not undertaken such a project, at least on this scale before. It was therefore important for the Government to ensure that the costs would not run away.
This was achieved by ensuring that the consortium would have to bear any costs above their expectations and also return the assets back to the Government at zero cost at the end of the project period in 2035.
As such, this was an effective incentive built into the PPP model to ensure that they align and maintain commercial discipline and minimise the risks of any budget overrun.
Finally, when considering the use of the PPP model in this case, it is also useful for Members to have this in mind. This was essentially a project that had two parts: the design and building of a world-class sporting, entertainment infrastructure, or the hardware – which took place at the outset – and the subsequent running and operations of the project to meet sporting, lifestyle and community aspirations, spread over about two decades.
On the infrastructure, it is vital that we get it right, from the get-go, from the start. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to change the hardware mid-stream, or once it is built. And we needed the relevant expertise to achieve this, to get it right, build a world-class cutting-edge facility.
As to the operations and running, I have explained how the consortium's know-how and networks and connections were key to the initial periods, when international marquee events were attracted to the Sports Hub in Singapore.
But we also envisaged that there could come a time when Singapore would be ready to operate this project, after it has been built – both in terms of expertise in the Government and also growth and maturity of the industry and the broader ecosystem.
And that is why the structure of the PPP provides for a unilateral right on the part of the Government, but not SHPL, to terminate the project, to take over ownership and management at any time it wanted, before the expiry of the project, with no penalty for such an early termination.
This reserves to the Government the right to assess, at any time, if its interests might be better served by stepping in to run the Sports Hub directly – run, own and manage, directly. If so, there is an agreed mechanism upfront, right at the start of the arrangement, for such a mechanism and there is a clear formula that defines what happens consequent to that decision.
Overall, this structure enabled the Government to manage its interests, through the different phases of this project, to mitigate its financial risks, to drive greater economic efficiency and also align the parties, particularly in relation to the upfront design and construction of the new infrastructure.
Sir, various Members have asked about the termination. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Miss Cheng Li Hui, Mr Xie Yao Quan, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Ms Sylvia Lim, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Edward Chia and Mr Sharael Taha asked about the roles of SHPL and the Government in the PPP; what the arrangement entailed; the ways in which SHPL had fallen short; and the reasons why the Government decided to terminate the PPP.
Sir, there is a confluence of several reasons, and not just any single one, which has led to our decision to terminate the partnership. Let me explain them.
The first reason is this. The current arrangement has helped us achieve the world-class sporting infrastructure. I have explained that. Nonetheless, it still falls short of promoting sufficient community vibrancy in and around the Sports Hub.
At present, it has been about eight years since the Sports Hub first opened in 2014, though the operations of the last two and a half years have affected by the pandemic. So, it has really been about five, five and a half years, with another 13 years to run.
In terms of getting a world-class sporting infrastructure, I have explained that and I think we have achieved that.
When we set out to redevelop the former National Stadium, the intent was to have a Sports Hub capable of staging major events and entertainment events of world standards. And through the PPP, which has worked well, we now have a world-class Sports Hub. It has won international accolades for its architectural design, hosted multiple major international events such as the International Champions Cup, HSBC Rugby 7s and also, more in line with today's concert-goers – BTS, U2 and Coldplay.
Members in this House know that there were some early infrastructural problems that occurred after operations began, such as the roof, the pitch, the lights and so on. When these occurred, we imposed the suitable and relevant financial penalties to hold them accountable.,By and large, SHPL made efforts to work with SportSG to correct them.
However, when it came to promoting and enhancing the vibrancy of community sports and lifestyle activities at the Sports Hub, the project did not do so well. The quality and volume of its calendar of events and programming fell short of what we had envisaged, even taking into account the private sector interest in this project.
We wanted to see SHPL invest in the creation of their own new event intellectual properties and building on existing event properties, but these did not come to fruition.
Apart from the Super Rugby event from 2016-2019, SHPL has not secured any recurring or marquee sport events at the Sports Hub on a multi-year basis.
Sir, the Sports Hub is a world-class sporting facility and, of course, international marquee events are important.
But it is also an iconic national sporting asset and there must be a strong sense of affinity and connection between Singaporeans and the Sports Hub. There ought to have been more community participation and activation around the Sports Hub. For instance, we would have liked to see the sporting community from the grassroots, from schools and junior national athletes, having more access to the Sports Hub. Hosting National School Games – key events like the finals – could be at the Sports Hub, or grassroot programmes and activities, family days or carnivals around sporting or social objectives.
These are programmes for which there will not likely be any or much commercial return. But there is an intrinsic social value in realising a young athletes' aspiration to play in the national stadium, cheered on by his or her schoolmates, or having seniors take part in a social event at our iconic stadium grounds.
This is where the profit-driven model of the SHPL consortium, which had worked well in the infrastructure phase of the project, was not sufficiently aligned in the current phase of the project, where greater emphasis was needed on community programming and driving social outcomes, even if such programmes did not always resonate with commercial returns.
Our assessment is that this would be difficult to change by just adjusting some KPIs or trying to improve the outcomes with SHPL via negotiation. We had in fact tried this for some time, but the difficulty lies in the inherent structure of the project terms. For example, SportSG had wanted to bring in ActiveSG academy programmes such as the Basketball Academy at the OCBC Arena but encountered resistance as such programmes were not revenue generating.
The costs of hosting school sport events, such as combined sports days and National School Games, were also high and in some cases, prohibitive.
Due to SHPL's exclusive subcontracting arrangement with its catering subcontractor, community events organisers that wanted to cater for their own food and drinks also had to pay high levies for doing so. These costs were then either borne by the event organisers or passed on to participants.
Accordingly, terminating the present arrangement and taking over the infrastructure on a clean break basis, would allow us better flexibility and discretion, in being able to drive our own policy outcomes.
A number of Members – Mr Darryl David, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Mr Seah Kian Peng, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Shawn Huang, Miss Cheng Li Hui, Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Poh Li San, Mr Gerald Giam and Dr Wan Rizal – asked about the Government's vision and plans for the Sports Hub moving forward, after we take over and how it would benefit Singaporeans.
Besides what I have already outlined, let me share a few ideas which SportSG and other agencies are already working on.
As an over-arching consideration, the Sports Hub will be made more accessible to Singaporeans. We want to make it a community icon that Singaporeans can identify with and feel a part of in their social and sporting activities.
We are thus planning regular Sports Hub and National Stadium Open Houses with activities for the young and the old, and of course, everyone else in between.
For instance, as part of our Unleash the Roar! national project, children who have joined our new ActiveSG Football Academies can also participate in the year-end football tournament at the National Stadium.
We are also working with MOE to host even more National School Games, such as the Track and Field, Netball and Rugby competitions, as well as the Singapore Youth Festival performances, or even some Sports Days for schools, at the Sports Hub.
Our children can then aspire to play and compete at the National Stadium, or simply come, soak in the atmosphere and cheer on their schoolmates.
The plans for the National Day Parade for the next few years are not out yet, but regardless, the Sports Hub will be a place where all of us – both young and old – will be able to build treasured memories and meaningful shared experiences.
Seniors from all walks of life can also participate in mass events such as GetActive! Singapore at community spaces in and around the Sports Hub, including the 100PLUS Promenade, OCBC Square and the nice space along the waterfront.
We also hope to see the return of the casual stroller or jogger to the stadium, by enhancing access to the stadium.
Where community programmes such as ActiveSG events and activities are concerned, we will also aim to keep them affordable and accessible to all and we will ensure that as many community spaces as possible are open and free for all to use.
Sir, the objectives I have set out above – enhancing sporting and social outcomes and driving greater community affinity with the Sports Hub – will be complemented as well by the impending development of the Kallang precinct in our Kallang Alive plans, which aims at developing the area in and around the Sports Hub. Therefore, the second key reason for the taking over the Sports Hub is to achieve greater integration with the broader Kallang Alive plans.
Sir, let me say a bit about the Kallang Alive precinct. Kallang Alive will be an 89-hectare site along Kallang River and the Kallang Basin. For comparison, the Sports Hub is 35 hectares. So, this area of 89 hectares, including the 35 hectares, will be two odd times larger than the current Sports Hub. This area is envisaged to transform into a vibrant sport, entertainment and lifestyle precinct by 2030.
Sir, because a picture really speaks volumes, may I have your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, to display some slides on the LED screen.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Please do. [Slides are shown to hon Members.]
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir.
The Kallang Alive Precinct development is on a much larger scale and magnitude, as I have said, about 2.5 times that of the 35-hectare Sports Hub. This picture provides an overview of the future Kallang Alive Precinct. This is what it looks like today.
As part of the Kallang Alive Precinct plan, there will be an expansion of sporting facilities around the Sports Hub, which will be developed, owned and operated by SportSG directly. I will show Members some photos of the ongoing developments.
This includes the Kallang Football Hub, which will be our national training centre, to be ready as soon as the end of this year. Here, we see the ongoing construction and a close-up shot of one of the turfs that is already completed and an artist’s illustration of what it will look like when fully completed.
We have also started work on the Kallang Tennis Centre, which would be ready by next year. Here, we see the ongoing construction and an artist’s illustration of what it will look like when completed.
All of these that I have just shown are assets which sit outside the current Sports Hub group of assets. They are part of the Kallang Alive Precinct but not within Sports Hub.
There are also other facilities, such as the Youth Hub, in the longer-term pipeline with youth-centric activities and \"young\" and \"youth\" here include those who are young at heart as well.
Beyond these sporting assets, SportSG also plans to launch a tender for the redevelopment of the Kallang Theatre Precinct into a mixed-use development, comprising a multi-purpose indoor arena, office spaces to bring sport-related businesses and entities together, commercial facilities, such as a hotel and other hospitality offerings.
Once ready, these entertainment and lifestyle offerings will integrate with and support the activities of the Sports Hub. These are exciting plans which we have in store for the future.
But these are not our only plans. We have a vision to transform the entire Kallang Alive Precinct, including the Sports Hub, into one single integrated ecosystem which is not only capable of hosting world-class events, but also to be the home ground for our national athletes as they train and compete. We want this to be the beating heart of our community, grassroots and school sports and the testbed and breeding ground for sports innovation and growth.
Taking over ownership and management of the Sports Hub will enable SportSG to unlock the Sports Hub’s full potential for Singapore. We will integrate the Sports Hub more closely with its upcoming facilities within the precinct to deliver more seamless offerings and capture stronger precinct synergies. Members might ask, what does this integration entail and what does this mean?
I will give a couple of illustrations.
First, integration from a physical perspective, which will allow us to do more with one event. Members would have seen a glimpse of this at the recently-concluded WTT Grand Smash earlier this year, where we had table tennis tables set up around the main event, which the public could use to play with family and friends while they waited for the elite matches, and these were matches that were taking place with some of the world's best and we had tables around to engage the community. People come freely and play while waiting, engaging the entire community in the precinct.
With the fuller integration with Kallang Alive and the upcoming facilities, we can step up on this and activate more of the Kallang precinct. For instance, we can seamlessly combine the facilities at the OCBC Arena, the Singapore Indoor Stadium and the new Kallang Tennis Centre and can confidently bring in marquee sports events, such as an ATP1000 tennis event.
High-quality international marquee events will be complemented side by side with local programming. We can use the entire spread, all 89 hectares of the Kallang Alive Precinct seamlessly to do so.
By concurrently integrating community programming on the sidelines and in the months running up to the event, many more Singaporeans can benefit. These could include community tennis for the masses to try out the sport, tennis clinics for social competitive players and aspiring athletes, youth competitions and so on.
So, we will have a whole ecosystem of sports – our professional athletes competing in the arena, our budding young athletes training on the sidelines and in the facilities, and the general public enjoying a social game, all integrated with the other lifestyle offerings which will be coming up. It will also provide for better and dedicated experiences for participants and audiences.
Second, integration from a user point of view. With different ownership structures and different commercial profit and loss, it can be incredibly challenging to achieve seamless integration in the delivery of services across the entire suite of facilities. In fact, adversarial competition between the facilities is the more likely outcome.
So, by taking over the Sports Hub, we will be able to give users a more integrated service experience across the entire precinct, for instance, precinct-wide promotional and marketing activities and hospitality offerings that span across multiple facilities and programming.
Beyond just integrated service experiences, users are likely to enjoy cheaper costs as SportSG will now be able to reap precinct-wide economies of scale through shared functions and services.
Overall, taking back the Sports Hub and integrating it with Kallang Alive will enable us to unlock greater value and achieve our broader social and sporting vision for the wider precinct as a whole.
Finally, the third reason for taking over the Sports Hub at this time is because the wider sporting and entertainment ecosystem has since matured. I spoke a little bit about this earlier. One of the key reasons for working with SHPL and choosing them as a partner was to rely on their expertise and networks with many other networks and international players around the world.
Over the years, our own sector in Singapore has grown and matured and we are now much better placed to continue making Sports Hub a premier hub for sports and entertainment.
Our own internal capabilities have grown. Over the past few years, SportSG had played a key role alongside SHPL to bring in major sporting events, such as the WTA Finals, International Champions Cup and Rugby Sevens and so on. We have developed the know-how, links, networks and the experience to continue doing this.
Besides that, our local and locally-based companies have also matured. Companies, such as UnUsual Limited and LiveNation, are now much more established and can bring in larger gigs into Singapore. Group One Holdings and Ironman Asia have also continued to grow, introducing several flagship events that Singaporeans can identify closely with and actively participate in.
Our growing capabilities and international recognition as a premier hub for sports and entertainment can be seen in major names that have set up operations in Singapore as well, such as AEG and IMG, as well as NBA which has announced the set-up of their Singapore office.
Third, demand for these events has also grown. With our recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, there is now greater demand and we see that gradually ramping up, both locally and regionally, for larger-scale sport, lifestyle and entertainment events.
Overall, the limitations of the current arrangements, the changing environment and our growing capabilities and ambitions are all factors that we considered when deciding on terminating the relationship. I would add that this was not a decision taken lightly. We felt that, however, having done our due diligence, as I have explained at the start and a confluence of these factors in the ecosystem all coming together, this was now a right time for the Government to exercise its right to step in, take over ownership and continue the management of the Sports Hub.
Members Mr Edward Chia and Mr Sharael Taha asked about the impact which the termination in this case might have on the guidelines and considerations for future PPPs.
Sir, each venture, whether PPP or otherwise, has to be considered on its own merits and to consider the purposes for which you enter into an arrangement in the first place. In this case, we foresaw in this arrangement that it was long term, that circumstances could change along the way and we provided upfront for an agreed no-fault termination without penalty in the PPP.
As I have outlined above, we had good reasons to terminate the PPP, with regard to the reasons I have outlined. But having reached this decision does not necessarily mean in all cases, that the Government should no longer be open to other PPP projects.
Regardless of how projects are financed, we have a sound evaluation process to review the business case, scope, lifecycle cost, implementation approach and also the relative risks between Government and private sector for each of these projects.
For PPPs, in particular, a framework is in place to assess the suitability of undertaking the PPP, including tangible outcomes, potential for downstream lifecycle cost savings, the nature of project risks, which will differ from industry to industry and project to project, the available private sector expertise in that area relative to what the Government can offer and the need for flexibility or the likelihood of downstream changes. All of these are factors to be taken into account and I would say that no two projects would be similar.
This framework is continuously refined and builds on the lessons learnt both here, locally, our own experience, as well as internationally elsewhere. We will, therefore, continue to be open to leveraging PPPs as a model, where suitable.
Having explained the reasons for termination, let me turn now to explain the costs of termination and how it might compare with carrying on with the PPP project till its conclusion in 2035.
Members Mr Seah Kian Peng, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Mr Edward Chia, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas have all asked about the costs of termination.
Sir, the key questions are: how much is the Government paying in total for this termination? How does it compare with what we would pay if we had continued with the partnership till 2035? And if it is different, how do we account for it?
Let me address these points. To do so, let me just quickly recap a few financial points on the PPP which I had raised earlier.
First, SHPL funded the full initial capital expenditure for the construction of the Sports Hub. They did so by taking out a loan. This meant that the Government did not have to contribute any upfront capital for the construction in 2010. So, we did not pay upfront and it is also now that the cost of the loan for the financing of the infrastructure, the capital cost, is still being borne by SHPL.
Second, the Government would pay SHPL a fee of $193.7 million each year from the time the project started operations in 2014 all the way until the end of the project in 2035.
Third, with this fee from the Government, SHPL would then be responsible for the full operating expenditure, including daily operations, maintenance, security and lifecycle costs for the entire project term.
Fourth, the assets would be returned to the Government at no cost in 2035. So, that is the framework of the PPP.
Therefore, if we had continued with the PPP arrangement, the Government would continue to pay SHPL approximately $193 million each year, every year, from now until 2035, and that works out, from 2022 onwards, to be approximately $2.32 billion. That is a committed sum under the PPP. This sum does not take into account net present value and other financial or accounting adjustments.
With the termination, the Government would have to pay two main buckets of costs and let me explain them to Members.
The first is the amount to be paid to SHPL for the termination. This amount is made up of several components, derived from the financial terms stipulated in the Project Agreement. I had explained earlier that this Project Agreement contemplated this early termination on a no-fault basis without penalties and the agreement itself provides for the formula by which such a termination sum can be calculated.
Conceptually, the single largest component which accounts for about $1.2 billion, or slightly more than 80% of the total sum to be paid, is the capital expenditure that the Government would have had to bear. In other words, the $1.2 billion or so of the sum that would be paid will go towards the capital expenditure. As I explained earlier, this is the capital expenditure that the Government would have had to bear if it adopted the traditional procurement approach of proceeding with the Sports Hub on its own.
The remaining components, or about $300 million, are due to the fair market value of the Sports Hub, which is commercially negotiated and also other costs, expenses and deductions, based on the Project Agreement.
At present, the sum to be paid to SHPL for termination is projected, therefore, to be around $1.5 billion. But the final amount will be based on the accounts as at the date of handover, which is December. So, there could be some fluctuations and variations, but we do not expect there to be material variance from this figure.
The second bucket of costs is the costs of the future running and operating of the Sports Hub, post-handover. So, for parity of consideration, let me sketch out what this cost is projected to be. Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Sharael Taha asked about this.
We will take, as a benchmark, the current operating assumptions and costs incurred by SHPL which include, as I mentioned earlier, maintenance, operations, security, future lifecycle costs, replacement, programming costs, day-to-day costs and so on, all the way until 2035, which is the comparable period.
Based on this, and we use data from actual incurred, that means, this is from SHPL's actual incurred, we expect to incur approximately $68 million per year doing this for operations.
If we were to draw a parallel comparison against the balance tenure of the Project Agreement, in other words, if you compare like-for-like until the end of the period in 2035, at $68 million per year for operational costs, that brings us to approximately $800 million over the balance period until 2035.
If this $800 million is added to the termination sum, this makes the full projected costs of termination at around $2.3 billion. So, it is roughly the same, although I have not gone into the decimal places. The termination sum, added to the projected cost of maintenance and operations, is roughly comparable to what it would cost had we chosen to continue with the PPP and incurred the availability payments over the rest of the project period until 2035.
So, with the component figures taken at face value – and as I have said, without taking into account accounting and other net present value adjustments – this aggregate sum would be comparable to the financial obligation committed under the PPP if we had chosen to continue with it.
Sir, we have carefully examined the finances to ensure proper due diligence and that we can reach a financially rational outcome when we are doing this. Taking the two buckets of costs to be paid for the termination – the sum to be paid to SHPL, which largely reflects the upfront capital expenditure and future operating costs – this would be a fair deal for the Government on which to take back the assets.
None of these components are penalties to the Government, as I have said, because the project agreement provides for a no-fault termination. These are simply the costs that we would have had to incur, or would have incurred, going forward, in terms of the capital expenditure and the operating expenses.
Sir, the financial calculations and their due diligence, as I have said, it is to ensure that we reach an outcome that is financially rational. I want to make it clear that the decision to terminate the Sports Hub project was not driven by financial considerations or to save money.
Indeed, we do not plan to operate the Sports Hub at status quo or on the same assumptions as SHPL.
As you heard me say earlier, we want to make the Sports Hub more accessible, invite more participation, bring more people into the Sports Hub, make it more accessible. To do this, we would have to have more community programmes, invest to bring more world-class events into the Sports Hub and open up the Sports Hub and the National Stadium to general community use.
All of this would probably mean higher expenditures and increases in daily operating and maintenance costs. As such, we should probably expect our operating expenditure on an ongoing basis, once we take over, to likely be higher than what it was previously.
At the same time, however, this might be balanced off against the future revenue generated by the events and activities at the Sports Hub. Previously, under the PPP, any revenue that was generated by these commercial activities would go into the project. When we run it, albeit we want to do it in a different way on different assumptions, the revenue that we generate will go back directly to mitigating and defraying any of the increased costs in maintenance.
Sir, let me be clear that, even as we do this and we have these considerations, even as we want to enhance community participation at the Sports Hub and enhance our programmes, we must also do it judiciously. We must still operate within financial prudence and ensure that we are not profligate in spending, that we are careful in how we spend.
But, taking back the Sports Hub from the private sector will also mean being able to redefine our outcomes away from being mainly or predominantly commercial in nature, we will be able to better realise our sporting and social objectives, open up the Sports Hub to more Singaporeans and bring greater value and outcomes for us, the future of sports in Singapore, our athletes and the everyday Singaporean.
Sir, Members Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman, Mr Shawn Huang and Ms Sylvia Lim asked about SportSG's confidence and ability to take over and how SportSG will continue working with the private sector.
The PPP project has enabled us to have a strong foundation of a world-class infrastructure. We intend to build on that and continue to bring in top-tier international sporting and entertainment events whilst, at the same time, incorporating our ambition of attaining wider and better social and sporting outcomes for Singapore.
To achieve this, SportSG will incorporate a holding company to own and operate the various pieces of assets within Kallang Alive. A subsidiary of this holding company will be set up specifically to own and manage the Sports Hub.
This structure will enable SportSG to focus on the Sports Hub, but also, at the same time, have regard to the wider Kallang Alive Precinct and what could be done in those cases, when the other projects that I have mentioned in the Kallang Alive precinct come onstream.
Where necessary, it can be operated as a single, integrated entity, able to reap synergies and economies of scale across the entire suite of sporting and lifestyle assets of Kallang Alive. A team of officers from SportSG has already been earmarked to move into the Sports Hub holding company and manage Sports Hub on a full-time basis.
These are officers who have had years of experience with the Sports Hub, many of them having worked alongside SHPL since the inception of the project in 2014, gaining experience and know-how along the way.
These officers within SportSG have already been functionally organised in a structure that coheres with the structure of SHPL, suited to running the Sports Hub. They have been in this position for the last few years, readying for a takeover if and when needed.
Beyond the internal capabilities of SportSG, we value the expertise and experience of existing SHPL employees and would like to retain them.
All SHPL employees have been offered an opportunity to cross over into the new corporate entity and continue on this mission to make Sports Hub the centre of sports in Singapore.
Beyond the internal structure and resources, we intend to continue working and partnering the best providers in the private sector in the areas of programming, broadcast, hospitality, facilities upkeep and management, to name a few.
We will, therefore, continue to retain the contracting model. In other words, the model where we can subcontract and work with external parties in the private sector. This allows us to work with market-leading, optimal partners to provide the best services and facilities fit for the particular purpose in question, for a particular occasion or event.
In the mid to longer term, we also intend to tap into the private sector, to explore the prospects of redeveloping some parts of the Kallang Alive precinct. For instance, projects, such as the redevelopment of the Kallang Theatre into an integrated multi-purpose sport, entertainment and lifestyle hub. Or even turn the Kallang Wave Mall into a one-stop sporting, health and wellness destination. Those are just some ideas.
Overall, with SportSG taking over, the Government would be better placed to drive a synergised and coherent vision for the whole precinct and achieve internal synergies while providing more integrated offerings and programmes to the public.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I wrap up my speech, let me bring us back to the very initial vision of a Sporting Singapore more than 50 years ago, all the way back to the early days of our Independence.
Then, at that time, we had the \"Pesta Sukan Minggu Merdeka\" or Sports Festival Week of Independence, which was an annual feature in our National Day celebrations from 1966 to the early 1970s.
This was an event which was not just about excellence in high performance sports, but really, sports for all, as part of our culture and in our everyday life.
As then-Minister for Social Affairs, Encik Othman Wok, put it in his speech at the ground breaking of the former National Stadium in 1966, he says and I quote, \"Sport… must be an essential feature of our way of life. The new generation will not fear stagnant thinking because they will have dynamic reflexes built into them\".
We must go back to that spirit and conviction to make sports an essential feature of our everyday life, because of the impact it can make in our own lives and in the lives of others around us.
Some of my own fondest memories growing up were the excitement of being able to play at the Zone or National Finals at the old National Stadium, or simply being in the stands, skipping class, supporting and cheering my friends as they competed against rival schools.
It made me feel like I was part of something bigger, larger, something more. And it connected me with my school, friends and, certainly, with the sport in a way which no other way can – intangible.
Sport has this immense power to bind us as one, to be hungry for more and to strive to be the very best. This is what our TeamSG athletes embody when they compete under the Singapore flag and it is the spirit that we want to see in every Singaporean.
Together, sport can make us more resilient individuals and strengthen our sense of unity as One Singapore.
At the heart of it, this next chapter of Sports Hub is about sports being a part of the life or everyday life of Singaporeans.
As we close the previous chapter, let me also acknowledge SHPL for its contributions. The partnership between SHPL and SportSG has given us a strong foundation from which we can now proceed to drive our social and sporting ambitions confidently. And we look forward to working with SHPL for the next few months to ensure a smooth handover and to welcoming SHPL employees to continue with the new corporate entity which we will set up.
Even so, as we leave this partnership, as SportSG assumes full ownership and management from December this year, the efforts towards Sports for Singapore still remain a partnership. Between the Government and the private sector partners, we will have to continue to work to provide top-class services.
We want to partner with the many community stakeholders, as I have mentioned – students, young athletes, junior athletes, seniors, NSAs and, of course, the many Singaporeans who will participate and make the place even more vibrant and alive.
I am, certainly, excited about the potential we will be unlocking, as we build on what we have achieved to turn Kallang Alive into a larger, more diverse and more vibrant sporting and lifestyle hub for everyone.
The Sports Hub will be a place where our students grow to be resilient, as they deal with wins or losses in their school colours; where we bond with our family and friends, as we enjoy running around the jogging track, participating in the community sports events and enjoying international concerts. And we cheer our athletes on, as they take on their competitors from around the world.
So, let us write this next chapter together to make Sports Hub and our National Stadium, our Home Ground and a place which we can all be proud of. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: We have some time for clarifications. Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for that speech. I have a clarification that is linked to an oral Parliamentary Question (PQ) which I filed previously. The Minister talked about going beyond sports and about involving the community a lot more in the Sports Hub. That is very heartening.
I would like to ask the Minister if there is any consideration being given to perhaps having one of the, if not the biggest, community event of the year, which is the National Day Parade (NDP), held at the National Stadium at the Sports Hub.
I had the privilege of marching in the PCF contingent for the only NDP held at the Sports Hub since – I think it was in 2016 – and I can say it was a wonderful experience.
So, Minister, in the past, as you know, the NDP would be held one year at the old National Stadium; one year at the Padang. Are there plans to perhaps commit to a more regular schedule of having the parade held at the Stadium, at the Sports Hub and perhaps even involving the Kallang Alive area, in a month of celebrations, say, across the entire month of August, that leads into a meaningful celebration at the NDP?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank Mr Darryl David. I am glad that he enjoyed marching in the PCF contingent. I take it that he was leading the contingent. [Laughter.]
Mr Darryl David: Yes, I was, Sir.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: We will, certainly, be open to it. I think what this taking back of the ownership and management of Sports Hub was designed to do is to give us more flexibility and the ability to not let cost, which was otherwise a serious prohibitive factor, constrain the organisation of events, such as the NDP, at Sports Hub.
At the same time, we also want to be circumspect about having it there every year, or even every other year, because there is a five- to seven-month lead time before and after, where much of the facilities will have to be decked up for rehearsals and cannot be used. So, you have to think about it in terms of the programming that we want to do for the Sports Hub, the availability and the options around how to organise the NDP at the Sports Hub. But, certainly, Mr Darryl David can be assured that this will be a consideration and, at the very least, the Sports Hub will be open for MINDEF to consider hosting the NDP there.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive update on the decision to take back ownership and management of the Sports Hub and also the plans to unlock the Sports Hub's full potential for Singapore and Singaporeans.
I am very glad to hear about the move and I have a clarification for the Minister about the leadership of the Sports Hub going forward, starting with the CEO. I think we will need a CEO going forward who is able to understand the vision, execute on the vision and really bring it alive.
And importantly, a CEO who is able to build the leadership team to help him or her to achieve all of this. Can the Minister give some update about what is the selection process that we can expect, maybe in the months ahead and what are some of the principles or qualities that we would be looking for in a CEO to lead the Sports Hub in its next chapter.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I thank Mr Xie Yao Quan for his support of this takeover and the project that I have laid out before Members over the last 45 minutes or so.
We are considering various options for the CEO of the Sports Hub. I do not want to go into specifics at this point in time, but I agree with Mr Xie Yao Quan that we do have to look out for qualities, such as an ability to integrate with the rest of Kallang Alive. That is, after all, one of the fundamental raison d'être behind why we are doing this. That person must have strong organisational skills because they are several components that come together that are not just sports, but also lifestyle, entertainment. You have got to deal with the local ecosystem, have an eye for who our best international and private sector partners might be, liaise with them externally, bring in international events into Singapore.
And there must, most importantly, also have a clear eye on being able to use the Sports Hub's assets to be able to drive our sporting, social and lifestyle outcomes. And those are the key qualities that we will look out for, for the leadership of Sports Hub.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Sir. I am heartened to hear from the Minister that once the Government takes over the Sports Hub's management, we are going to do a lot more things for a lot more Singaporeans. But, Sir, that will also mean that we need a lot more resources. Bearing in mind that the MCCY budget is always amongst the smallest in every Budget, I would like to ask the Minister whether he can go to the Finance Minister and ask for more funding because, Sir, especially when we celebrate National Day next week, the lion must roar.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance is grinning at me, from behind the mask.
Sir, I think that is a good question. Before we embark on this, we satisfied ourselves that at least for the baseline of what we say we want to achieve, we have enough resources to drive towards. But, obviously, the details as to what an enhanced budget might look like is something we will have to discuss closely. And we have to bear in mind our current fiscal constraints and position as well.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, could the Government not have tapped on international private sector experience using the procurement model?
Secondly, how would SportSG bring in more marquee events when SHPL, with all this international experience, could not?
Lastly, will the Sports Hub and Kallang Alive precinct be used to host all national sports competitions and national school games and can SportSG make greater efforts to market such events to a wider audience? This will inspire our young athletes to push themselves harder, increase the public attendance at such competitions and also free up other community sports facilities to the general public. These facilities, as some might be aware, tend to be blocked booked by the National Sports Associations for competitions and training, to the consternation of some members of the public.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank Mr Gerald Giam. On the first point, yes, it would have been possible to work with third parties and private sector partners in the traditional procurement model. Indeed, that is the case in many procurement models. But the reasons I outlined earlier carefully about the unique nature of this project, the fact that it was innovative, cutting-edge and we were moving into an area which, frankly, in Singapore, we, at that time, did not have much experience in. And also, it was a question of risk allocation, having a PPP project in the way I have described, puts this partner in the context of having some skin in the game. And to ensure that every delay, every failure of availability, in other words, when the stadium or the facility is not available because of a defect or a problem with the facility, that is a responsibility they bear.
If you went to a third party and you bought those services, then the Government will bear the risk of that. Quite apart from that, the Government would also have had to bear the risk and the financial obligation of incurring the capital expenditure (capex) from the start. So, having regard to what I have said earlier, I think I have explained why, whilst we could have in the way Mr Gerald Giam has put it, we chose not to do so in a procurement model but to do it by way of a PPP.
On Mr Gerald Giam's last question whether we want to host all national school games and all other community games there because, as Mr Giam puts it, facilities are block booked and unavailable, we have to be clear. The Sports Hub, obviously, is a top-class infrastructure and you cannot conflate that with training and more local, domestic events for which we have many of the ActiveSG facilities available in the stadium and other facilities around the island. And we got to make sure that the relevant level of facility is used to host and cater for the relevant level of sporting activity.
Yes, I did say we do want some national school games to be there – the finals or key moments – but we cannot turn the Sports Hub into a place where every school event is being held there. I think that will be difficult.
Can Mr Gerald Giam please repeat the second question on SportSG?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Yes, my second question was how will SportSG be able to bring in more marquee events when SHPL, with all its international expertise, was not able to?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Well, first of all, that has been done. We have had some experience. As I have mentioned earlier, we have built up our expertise over the years. We also worked with developed partners in the private sector today. So, I have mentioned UnUsual Limited, LiveNation being here, AEG and so on, located in Singapore, having a vested interest in making sure that they bring these products into Singapore. So, it is not just about SportSG, but, as I have said, the maturity and development of the entire ecosystem in Singapore.
Mr Gerald Giam's other point I think presupposes that when PPP partner, SHPL, did not bring marquee events into Singapore it is because they were unable to do so. Part of the reason is because the cost structure of the project disincentivised them from doing so on a freely available basis because the cost structure meant that they would have to bear the risk of there, for example, not having a good turnout or good take-up of the ticket sales for such events, then the losses would be borne by them.
So, there were a number of structural problems with the current arrangement, which made it harder, not impossible, but harder for SHPL to have done so.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I want to thank the Minister for sharing with us the Kallang Alive plans. I am very excited to hear about it, especially since the bulk of it falls within my constituency. But, Sir, Members of Parliament in this House need to hold the Government accountable for Ministries' expenditure. The Minister has explained that the cost of taking over the Sports Hub is about $2.3 billion, which is about the same price as what the Government would have to pay to 2035.
May I ask the Minister, what about revenue from sports or entertainment events that SHPL would have carried out during this term between 2014 and 2035? Does the Government take a share in any of this revenue taken from sports or entertainment events? For example, I think Liverpool played recently at Sports Hub. Did the Government take a share in any of these major events? Because if it does, then we also need to balance how much we will lose in terms of lost revenue in taking over the Sports Hub.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank Mr Lim. The project agreement provides for a waterfall formula by which such costs would be apportioned, how payments would be apportioned and the priorities by which they meet the costs. There is a formula which cascades down the takings from these events and they are then put it into a fund and, in some cases, shared with the Government. So, there is a formula for that.
The cost of running is high. In most cases, there is not much that comes down to a level which allows the Government to share and that, itself, is also one of the considerations behind this decision, because if we were to take on board the entire project and run and manage it ourselves, as I mentioned earlier, then we would avail ourselves entirely of the upsides of any of these projects. Of course, these are things which we should not automatically assume that just because a team like Liverpool comes here, that there will automatically be a tremendous upside, because you have to weigh up these commercial considerations. But the point is, once we take back ownership of this, the structure allows us to then directly manage it. We will assess the risk and if it is something we can get into, then the commercial revenue and the upsides can be taken by the Government in this case.
So, currently, there is a formula that prescribes the usage and the allocation of these takings. After we terminate it and we do it on our own, then all of these would be within SportSG and within the Government to control.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Please allow me to have one or two minutes of preamble, before I ask my questions, okay?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Perhaps, I can restrict you to half a minute, please.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. There has been a lot of aspirational delivery throughout this session. I must also share my experience, that, first, I support the Government taking back the Sports Hub. We are all very attached to the old National Stadium. Ministers past and present have participated in the opening of the old National Stadium together with me in 1973. So, we are very attached to the old National Stadium. We do not know why the Sports Hub was given to a private consortium.
Secondly, throughout the discussion we had today, no one asked the question – is the $1.5 billion compensation or termination cost given to the private consortium fair or not? Of course, then, we have to go into a lot of details of financial calculations and all that, but we still need to debate about that. But so far, no question has been raised. So, let me ask two questions. The fact remains why the decision was made at the beginning —
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, please ask your questions.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, my question is —
Mr Deputy Speaker: Be fair to the Members who are after you also wanting to ask clarifications. So, please keep it short. I will give you the leeway, but please keep it short.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, my first question is, why was the decision made in the first place when it is quite possible that we can run on the procurement model?
The second question is, looking at the financial numbers – and bear with me a little while on that ‒ basically, SHPL seems to have failed in its job, failed in the expectations that we have on them. Of course, when we ask international companies to come in, I am in business for many years, I know! When I use the international partners, we expect them to bring in the marquee events. If they did not bring in the marquee events, they have failed in their job. So, why, for example, in the compensation formula, do we pay for the $1.2 billion, which, I presume, is the outstanding bank loan?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, I have been listening to you quite carefully. You have asked your first question quite succinctly.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I invite you to ask your second and final question now succinctly.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: My second question is, is it fair for us to pay $1.5 billion to SHPL? And I have to elaborate, right?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr Leong. We will allow —
Mr Leong Mun Wai: So, I will let the Minister elaborate first then. Thank you.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Mr Leong. I think I have spent the better part of the last 45 minutes precisely doing that, elaborating at some length, because I think Mr Leong did ask that question about why we chosed the PPP model. I thought I had explained in some detail why we considered the procurement model but it was not appropriate, why we wanted to put the risk-sharing allocation mechanism to work, so that our partners would have skin in the game, that they would bear the risk as well, that there will be financial and market discipline in the way we structured the arrangement. I think all of this Mr Leong would understand very well.
So, in the first place, why we went into it, why we chose this model, I think I have explained that in some detail.
Then, the question about whether it is fair. This is a termination sum that is based on a formula in the PPP. So, it is the defined formula. The majority of this cost is the capex, as I have explained and this is the capex that we would have had to bear had we undertaken the procurement model anyway.
To give Mr Leong an example, if we had taken the procurement model, we would have had to raise the entire cost of the construction upfront and paid it by around 2010, which was when the project started, even before it became ready. So, a full commitment of the sum in 2010.
And over the years, we would have had to make at least two large payments every year. One, to service the loan that we would have taken, or at least to account for the interest of that loan; and second, a commitment to an income stream that would allow the project to run, operate, maintain, keep a sinking fund for lifecycle costs and so on.
And when we pay every year, the $193.7 million towards SHPL, that is what those sums are for. It goes towards, as I have explained earlier, for SHPL to meet their loan obligations and to meet their expenses for operations, maintenance, lifecycle costs and so on.
Instead of paying the sum upfront, what we did was we asked SHPL to come in. You have heard me explain it earlier, so, I would not go further into it. And they bear the risks and the costs. And once it is ready, and only when it is ready, we then make the payments each year to SHPL.
On that basis, when we take over, these are costs that we would have had to bear anyway, at least for this portion. The rest of it, as I have said, is an open market valuation, because they are the current owners of the asset, and then there are some items like deductions, more minor items, how we deal with the debt reserve account and so on. But those are all minor.
So, in that regard, I have set out the premise of the payment, the formula by which this is done and why I believe this is a fair assumption.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I will come back to you, Mr Leong Mun Wai. Ms He Ting Ru.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: No, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is a continuation. Minister has not answered my question.
Mr Deputy Speaker: No, I will come back to you. I think there is a point of order, Mr Leong. We have to give people a chance in the House to ask their clarifications. The next person the Chair is calling is Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to follow up on the question that I asked the Minister previously. I am not sure whether it was answered. It was whether a review would be held to look into the circumstances that basically led to this early termination of the PPP project. This is really very much in the spirit of taking up learning points to be applied to similar projects in the future, whether it is for a vibrant sports and events scene in Singapore or, in particular, in terms of our negotiation and structuring or usage even of the PPP projects in the future, whether or not there is anything to be learnt from this. The Minister has described that some parts of the project have been assessed to be successful, but, other parts have fallen short.
So, I am just wondering in terms of the learning points, making sure that any mistakes are not being repeated in the future, whether this is something that is going to be taken and whether this review and the results would be shared with the public.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I thank Ms He Ting Ru for the question. In terms of doing a review, what had been done leading up to this decision was a very thorough review already. And that review went into aspects, such as where they performed well, where they did not perform so well, looking at the internal capabilities within SportSG, whether we could muscle up enough resources to do what they are doing, the extent to which we feel we can commit to doing this on an international marquee basis, the kind of partners that we might have in Singapore. Everything I mentioned in my speech earlier are all factors that we took into account to reach this decision.
So, that review actually had been done and that is why we are confident and capable of coming to Parliament and explaining this to Members and embarking on this termination.
To Ms He Ting Ru's point about whether all of these learning points would become something that we take on board, obviously, yes. With each PPP project that we do and indeed, for the Government, with each project that we do, large or small, there are always continual learning points. We look back, we reflect and we think about what we could have done better and take all those learning points into play as we embark on new projects.
I also want to emphasise that, in this project, it is somewhat unique and different as well, for the reasons I have set out earlier. And also because, as I have said, this is a multi-year project over two decades, for which at different junctures of this project, there are different objectives. That is why the agreement is structured this way – to put financial discipline, to put technical expertise at the forefront, at the start of the project, but, along the way, to give us the ability to step in to manage when we feel that we were able to do so. And that is exactly how this project was done.
But, obviously, these are learning points that we will take on board and in subsequent projects, whether it is PPP or otherwise, they will feature in the thinking as we embark on this with third parties.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Minister for the comprehensive statement. I believe many sportsmen and women and athletes in our national schools feel the excitement on the vision on the integrated sports precinct. The Minister mentioned that sports, such as football, tennis and track and field, would have world-class facilities at the new sports precinct. Is that list exhaustive?
How do we create equal opportunities for other sports, such as floorball, netball and even boxing, to benefit from this vision and investment in our sporting future? I say this because some in the fraternities, for instance, the netball fraternity, are worried that they have got to move out of their Kallang Netball Centre, a much beloved location with facilities for netball.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank Mr Sharael Taha. It is not an exhaustive list and there are various other plans in the pipeline. But I mentioned these because you do need something specialised for these sports. You need a specialised facility to play tennis. Whereas if you have a hall that has a big space, it can be reconfigured for various purposes. As you know, the Indoor Stadium can be reconfigured for basketball. Floorball has taken place there in the OCBC Arena. We can also reconfigure it into one that deals with netball competitions as well. So, there are a number of options when you have these spaces. Whereas for cycling, football, tennis and some others, you will need a specialised facility to play that sport.
Having said that, the Member's point about netball, I understand that they are moving out because that area is part of the area that, from memory, will be developed into the Youth Hub in time to come. Netball, we have been in touch with them and will ensure that they will have a place that they are comfortable with and that they will be able to continue training and take care of the national players and their training needs as well.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I see two hands. We will have Mr Leong Mun Wai and we will end with Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. But actually I have to be given the right to ask because the Minister did not answer the question.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I am giving you the ability to ask, but not to elaborate in a speech.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you. Okay, I will ask a question. Can I ask the Minister why the Government is so generous to pay $193.7 million a year to the private consortium when he just mentioned also that the operating cost, after we take over, will be about $68 million?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Two points. One, it is not about being generous, this is what the contract says. And the contractual agreement provides for the way in which the sums are calculated. Secondly, Mr Leong Mun Wai may not have heard me. But the $193.7 million is not just for operation and maintenance. It is for debt service as well. From my memory, the single largest portion of the $193.7 million goes towards debt service.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. Deputy Speaker, can I ask —
Mr Deputy Speaker: One more question and then we will go to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Can I ask the Minister what is the debt servicing amount inside the $193.7 million?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The debt servicing amount, to my memory, is about 65% of the $193.7 million.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Deputy Speaker, we have not got to the bottom of the thing.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Well, if you need to, you can file a specific Parliamentary Question. But to be fair to the Members, this is a topical issue —
Mr Leong Mun Wai: But what is the point of having the debate without getting to the bottom of the thing, having all kinds of questions? We must get to the bottom of the issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I am asking and I do not think —
Mr Deputy Speaker: It is a point of order, Mr Leong. I have been very fair to you and the Chair has called Mr Pritam Singh. But before that, I think Leader of the House would like to have a word. So, I invite you to take your seat, Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. Thank you.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, a point of order, what the Standing Orders require is for a Minister to answer a question that is put. In this case, Mr Leong Mun Wai had put a couple of questions. Mr Edwin Tong had answered the questions. I think the fact that Mr Leong does not understand the answer does not mean that the question has not been answered.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Deputy Speaker, point of order, please. Can I answer the Leader? Because the Leader is accusing me of not understanding certain things.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, I invite you to ask Parliamentary Questions, which any Member is capable of doing, if you think that your questions have not been suitably answered by Minister Edwin Tong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: But now, not only my question has not been suitably answered but the Leader is accusing me of something. She said I —
Mr Deputy Speaker: I am not sure that the Leader of the House is accusing you —
Mr Leong Mun Wai: She is accusing me that I do not understand the financials behind all the questions I am asking.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, I am going to say this as a final position to you. The Chair has been very fair. I think you have spoken on this issue three or four times in this debate alone and I asked you to give way to the Member whom I have just called, Mr Pritam Singh. Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one question for the Minister. In 2014, I asked a Parliamentary Question with regard to non-performance by SHPL. This was on the back of the Brazil-Japan football game when there were concerns about pitch quality and so forth. The then-Minister for MCCY confirmed that there was a provision for deductions in the event of non-performance or non-availability for use.
Can I just confirm that from 2014 to date, how much has the Government, by way of liquidated damages or whatever the clause in the PPP contract states, charged SHPL for non-performance?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Deputy Speaker, subject to checking this – and I am just answering Mr Singh based on memory – I believe the figure is around the order of $44 million for defects rectification, non-availability payments and so on. But as I have said, I will check the precise figure since he is asking for something from 2014 until, I take it, this point in time.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for Home Affairs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Debt Collection Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to regulate the operation of debt collection businesses and the conduct of certain debt collection activities and to provide for other connected or incidental matters\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Registration of Criminals (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Registration of Criminals Act 1949 and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts.\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Tourism Board (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Singapore Tourism Board Act 1963 and to make a consequential amendment to the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Act 1996.\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Industry) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.50 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.28 pm until 4.50 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.50 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Defenders Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
I will speak about the broader policy and principles behind this Bill, as well as the specific provisions of the Bill.
Let me start with the backdrop to this Bill.
In April this year, the Minister for Law delivered a Ministerial Statement on the establishment of a Public Defender's Office to deliver criminal defence aid. Minister said that this is a significant shift in policy.
Before this, in 2015, we began directly funding CLAS. This is the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme run by the Law Society Pro Bono Services. In 2019, we began studying how else we could make criminal legal aid available to the vulnerable in society. We decided that setting up a Public Defender's Office, or PDO, is the right model for Singapore.
This is a very significant move as the state is taking on a direct role of providing criminal legal aid.
Today's Bill provides for the establishment of a criminal defence aid scheme, to be administered by the PDO. This has come after intense consultations – at least 10 consultations with the Law Society and Criminal Bar over the last two years. And we considered their feedback carefully.
I will now sketch out the reasons for setting up the PDO and explain the shift in our philosophy towards criminal legal aid.
The previous view taken, in light of the developments in Singapore then, was that the state should not be paying to defend accused persons. There are good reasons for this. Before accused persons are charged, there would have been thorough investigations done by the Police. The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) would also have reviewed decisions to charge.
However, this would have to be balanced against the need for accused persons not to be denied representation, in their defence.
For a long time, the balance has been struck against providing representation. This is a question of judgement and our view is that the right balance was struck at that time. However, in today's Singapore, we think that the balance has shifted.
With this, we need to consider, first, who we should help.
A study conducted by MinLaw showed that accused persons whose monthly per capita household income, or PCHI, is less than S$950 cannot afford legal representation. These households are around the 25th percentile of resident households by income. Those whose monthly PCHI is less than S$1,500, or around the 35th percentile, will also find it challenging to afford representation even for plead guilty cases. Thus, we are expanding our coverage from the 25th to the 35th percentile of households by income. We will, at the same time, increase aid coverage to all criminal offences, with some exceptions.
Second, we need to consider how our existing model of criminal legal aid can be improved. Today, criminal legal aid is provided through CLAS, which we began funding in 2015. This has helped more accused persons.
However, the number of cases that CLAS could handle, is dependent on the support from the Bar. Whereas if the Government steps in, the assurance level for the provision of legal support can be higher.
Our assessment is that the Government should provide more assistance to help needy Singaporeans who cannot afford legal representation. Hence, we will be establishing the PDO to help such accused persons.
This is a significant move as it will institutionalise public defence within our criminal justice system. The PDO will have its own full-time officers. This will allow us to deliver timely and higher quality representation. The PDO will also help to build up the capabilities of the criminal bar.
The Minister for Law had spoken at length during his Ministerial Statement about the experiences of other jurisdictions with Public Defender Schemes. He mentioned an example of escalating costs in Hong Kong. They spent S$217 million on criminal and civil legal aid in 2016. This was due to continual increases in lawyers' fees of around 4% to 10% every year.
He also shared other examples of abuse from various jurisdictions and how these strained the public purse, and led to cuts in funding. For instance, some asset-rich individuals managed to find ways to meet the eligibility criteria. These legal aid recipients would show up in Rolls Royces and other fancy cars, which they said were not theirs.
Thus, while we press ahead to establish our own PDO, we must be careful to avoid the challenges of escalating costs and abuse by accused persons who can afford representation. It is important to learn from others' experiences and avoid making the same mistakes. We are determined not to run down their routes. This includes instituting various safeguards into the Bill.
Let me touch on three key elements.
First, to maintain public confidence. Good governance is important. That is why we are moving this Bill – to provide us with a strong governance framework, with legal backing, for the PDO. We will set up the PDO as a department under MinLaw. This enables better oversight of criminal defence aid by MinLaw.
The PDO will be helmed by a Chief Public Defender or Chief PD. He will report to the Permanent Secretary and Minister for Law. The Chief PD will maintain operational and professional independence. Similarly for the officers under him.
The Chief PD and his team will exercise their discretion in deciding whether to grant aid or not, by carefully examining the merits of each legal aid application. They will also be able to exercise their professional independence when providing representation and advice to persons granted legal aid.
Second, to ensure that only deserving applicants receive aid, all applications for criminal defence aid will be subjected to robust means and merits tests. These tests are our key gatekeepers to ensure that aid is given to those who truly need it.
There may still be applicants who try to game the system to get aid. For example, they may not be eligible for aid, but lie about their means or make false declarations. There will be criminal penalties to deter such behaviour.
Third, to keep our costs in check while ensuring quality representation, frameworks will be put in place for the PDO to ensure costs continue to remain sustainable. We will hire full-time officers. This will allow us to budget and let us know what the overall cost will be.
I will emphasise again what the Minister for Law mentioned in his Ministerial Statement. If there is no careful control of the cost initially, it would be difficult to bring it back down later.
We will build up the capability and credibility of the PDO to command the trust and respect of Singaporeans, the legal fraternity and the accused persons we serve. We have to learn from the examples of other Public Defender Schemes overseas and take pre-emptive steps to make sure we do not face the same issues. This is not going to be easy, as there will be demand for legal representation and we would have to be careful about this.
Having set out the broader policy considerations behind the PDO, I will now turn to the provisions in the Bill.
There are four key areas: first, the appointment of the PDO's officers; second, the scope of aid, called criminal defence aid in the Bill; third, the administration of criminal defence aid; and fourth, the penalty framework.
First, the appointment of the Chief PD and other officers. The Bill provides for the appointment by the Minister of a Chief PD, Deputy Chief Public Defenders and Assistant Chief Public Defenders. The Chief PD can also appoint qualified and experienced persons as Public Defenders to assist him or her.
The officers of the PDO, or PD Officers, will have the right to appear and plead in the Courts, and can therefore represent aided accused persons. Just like a Deputy Public Prosecutor, a PD Officer is expected to assist the Court in coming to a correct decision in respect of guilt or sentence.
The Bill also includes related amendments to the Evidence Act and the Legal Profession Act, to bring PD Officers under the provisions of both Acts, where relevant.
The related amendments to the Legal Profession Act ensure that the PD Officers have the standing to advise and represent accused persons in criminal proceedings and subject PD Officers, as officers of the Court, to the disciplinary framework administered by the Supreme Court.
This disciplinary framework currently applies to officers under the Judicial and Legal Service Schemes. This gives the public confidence that PD Officers are subject to the same checks and balances as Judicial and Legal Service Officers.
The related amendments to the Evidence Act are for the purpose of extending statutory protection to PD Officers, in respect of professional communications with an advocate or a solicitor.
Second, the scope of criminal defence aid. The Bill provides for criminal defence aid to be granted to needy Singaporean Citizens and Permanent Residents, or SCPRs, who are charged with offences not excluded by the Bill. An SCPR is therefore not eligible for aid if he or she is only under investigation for such an offence.
The scope of criminal defence aid also covers criminal appeals or criminal applications arising from criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant. As mentioned earlier, we will widen our coverage to all criminal offences with specific exceptions. These exceptions fall into four classes of offences.
First, offences that are punishable by death. These are capital cases that will continue to be covered by LASCO, the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences, which is administered by the Supreme Court.
Second, offences that are generally regulatory in nature. This refers to minor offences for which the accused person is served\ta notice to attend Court or a summons by an officer of a statutory body or Government agency.
This exclusion is not intended to extend to criminal offences that are dealt with by law enforcement agencies such as the Singapore Police Force, Central Narcotics Bureau and Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. This ensures that criminal defence aid is only given in respect of proceedings for serious offences as opposed to minor traffic offences or offences brought under departmental summonses such as littering and failure to file income tax returns.
Third, offences under 10 Acts whose main purpose is to deter behaviours that bring about negative externalities to society. These offences cover gambling and betting, organised and syndicated crime, and terrorism.
Fourth, private prosecutions that have not been taken up by the Public Prosecutor. Criminal defence aid will only be given for state prosecutions.
If an applicant for aid does not qualify because his offences are excluded, his application falls outside of the Bill but it does not mean that he cannot obtain legal aid elsewhere. If there are such applications that may deserve aid due to their particular circumstances, the applicant may apply instead to the Law Society Pro Bono Services, or LSPBS, for consideration.
The Bill provides for criminal defence aid to be given to accused persons who face multiple charges before the same Court in respect of offences, some of which are excluded offences. The PDO can represent such accused persons if he or she passes the means and merits test for the offences that are not excluded. This will allow the PDO to effectively represent the aided person when all his charges are dealt with in the same Court.
Third, the administration of criminal defence aid. As mentioned earlier, all applications for criminal defence aid will be subjected to rigorous means and merits tests. These tests ensure that only deserving and needy applicants receive aid.
The Chief PD can also refer applications that pass the means and merits tests to other organisations to provide legal aid rather than assign the case to a PD officer. CLAS is an important partner in this. And the PDO will co-deliver aid with CLAS.
The exact means test criteria will be laid out in subsidiary legislation. It will comprise two components: income and wealth.
The income criterion is the monthly PCHI threshold, which will be raised from S$950 to S$1,500 when the PDO commences operations. This is a significant move to ensure we cover more needy applicants who would otherwise struggle to pay for a lawyer at these income thresholds.
The wealth component looks at an applicant's savings, assets and investments.
Even if an applicant does not satisfy the means test criteria, the Minister can direct the Chief PD to grant aid if the Minister is of the opinion that it is just and proper to do so. This gives leeway to provide aid to those who do not satisfy the means test criteria but are unable to afford legal services due to extenuating circumstances. For example, an applicant may be battling an illness or may have to care for an incapacitated family member. We will consider all relevant circumstances in the grant of aid.
For the merits test, aid can be granted where the applicant requires legal representation to plead guilty or there are reasonable grounds for defence.
In appeal cases, aid can be granted where there are merits to the appeal brought by the applicant or in defending the appeal brought by the prosecution.
The merits test will be administered in two ways. For expediency, the Chief PD will decide on the merits to an application in respect of offences or class of offences that carry lesser penalties. The merits to an application in respect of offences or class of offences that carry heavier penalties will be decided by a board comprising the Chief PD and at least two private solicitors. This ensures that applications with more severe offences will be subject to greater deliberation. Solicitors on the board will also provide a diverse and independent point of view on the application and enhance public confidence in the merits test assessment.
This classification will be provided in the subsidiary legislation.
The Chief PD can also refuse aid if he considers that it is not appropriate in the circumstances of the applicant's case to grant aid. This could include cases where the applicant may not benefit much from legal representation, such as those with established sentencing frameworks. Where the Chief PD decides not to grant aid, the Minister is empowered to authorise the Chief PD to grant aid in the interest of justice.
Some applicants may require legal aid urgently. Examples are those in remand or who are minors. Such applicants can be issued with a provisional grant of aid if they are likely to pass the means and merits tests. This ensures that no deserving applicant will be denied aid while waiting for the means and merits tests to be completed.
To prevent wastage of resources, the Chief PD can refuse to consider repeat applications for the same matter unless there is a change in circumstances. This ensures that resources are optimally allocated to deserving cases.
The PDO will only represent one accused person in proceedings involving multiple co-accused persons, if more than one party qualifies for aid. This is to prevent any potential or perceived conflicts of interest where the co-accused persons have inconsistent defences. The Chief PD will have the discretion to decide which accused person will be represented by the PDO. The other co-accused persons may be referred to CLAS.
Applicants will be required to co-pay the costs of legal aid. The less they have, the less they pay and vice versa. Those with very little savings and investments may even pay nothing. This ensures that applicants contribute towards their defence and do not abuse the system. This is no different from the current approach by CLAS and the Legal Aid Bureau for civil legal aid.
The co-payments may be provided in a lump sum or by instalments. The Chief PD will have the discretion to reduce, waive or refund any such contributions.
In future, the PDO will adopt a hybrid model of managing cases in-house while outsourcing some others to the private sector. To cater for this, the Bill includes provisions for the appointment of one or more panels of solicitors to act for aided accused persons and for the solicitors to be paid fees.
The fees payable to a solicitor will be agreed on between the Chief PD and the solicitor based on considerations that include: the complexity or novelty of the issues involved in the case; as well as the skill and specialised knowledge required of; and time and labour expended by, the solicitor.
Finally, there are criminal penalties if an applicant abuses the system. This includes making false or misleading statements in the application, failing to make full and frank disclosure about one's means or failing to inform about changes in one's means or other circumstances that would render an applicant ineligible for aid.
For such cases, the Bill provides for a fine not exceeding S$5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.
The Bill also provides for the Court to order costs against a person who: (a)\tobtained aid through fraud or misrepresentation; or (b)\tacted improperly in defending or contesting any proceedings or in the conduct of those proceedings.
Sir, to conclude, the Bill has been carefully calibrated to ensure that only deserving persons are provided with criminal defence aid in a timely manner, while ensuring that we manage our resources prudently and do not strain the public purse.
The Bill will enable the Public Defender's Office to provide criminal defence aid, which will enhance access to justice for the more vulnerable members of society. Justice should not only be the preserve of those who can afford lawyers. It should be accessible to those without the means to do so. This is a measure of how far we have come and how caring and compassionate we are as a society. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, hon Members will recall the marathon debate on the criminal justice system Motion moved by my honourable friends across the aisle, Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms He Ting Ru, on 4 November 2020.
In my speech during the debate, I said that our society has and continues to be strongly anchored in the rule of law. I observed that since Independence, great strides have been taken to improve the administration of justice in Singapore. I acknowledged, however, that further work needs to be done in our quest to ensure that such administration is accessible to all.
This arena will always be a work in progress. For new proposals to be implemented, there is a need to strike a balance between the interests of the crime victims, accused persons, members of public and effective marshalling of public resources.
The introduction of this Bill represents an important development in this quest. It formalises the arrangement for provision of legal representation by the Government to accused persons of limited means in criminal proceedings. This is to enhance access to justice for these vulnerable persons. I believe this is a development that hon Members from both sides of the House would welcome.
It is also noteworthy that the Government's position on the issue of providing legal aid to accused persons in\tcriminal proceedings has evolved over the years. Let me trace this evolution.
Twenty-seven years ago in this House, the hon Minister for Law then, Prof S Jayakumar, stated in unambiguous terms the Government's original position that it was incongruous for the state to fund the legal defence of accused persons.
He said that accused persons are only brought to book after a thorough and careful process. He went on to state, \"Why are they prosecuted? They are prosecuted in the public interest and the state expends these monies in the public interest and in order to protect the law-abiding majority... It is incongruous and inconsistent that public funds should be used to defend an accused person which the state has decided ought to be charged in Court and use public funds at the same time to get him off. The exception is where life is involved and for capital cases, counsel is assigned.\"
The Government's position changed in November 2013 when it announced its decision to fund the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, a volunteer scheme run by the Law Society since 1985 to help indigent accused persons.
At the launch of this funding programme in 2015, the hon Minister for Law stated that, \"This represents a significant shift in the Government's philosophy.\"
But there remained the issue of the model. Which model serves us best?
In 2006, the hon Minister Indranee Rajah, then a backbencher, put it pithily. She said in this House, \"It just seems a little odd that for something as serious as a criminal charge, these persons would actually have to defend on a volunteer scheme.\" She then called on the Government to extend legal aid to cover criminal matters as well.
Sixteen years later in April 2022, the hon Minister for Law finally announced the Government's decision to set up a Public Defender's Office for indigent accused persons in certain criminal proceedings that will be co-funded by the Government. This was described as yet another significant shift. This Bill was then introduced in July 2022, after extensive consultations.
I applaud this move. We agree that on the point of fairness, access to justice cannot be denied to those who cannot afford it.
Can I ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary for some data relating to accused persons who have legal representation and those without as a percentage of the cases prosecuted by the state, how many have legal representation and how many do not? Where the accused persons claim trial, what is the percentage of success in terms of acquittal for those who have legal representation and those who do not?
I am aware that this is a crude piece of data. The difference in the acquittal rates is a function of many factors, of course, but one wonders to what extent this is due to the lack of a professional defence presented for some of these cases.
In any case, we should have this data as a point of comparison and to revisit this after the PDO has had time to run once this Bill is passed. The Government will then be able to gauge what other considerations that it may have to monitor compliance with the policy objectives of the Bill.
In addition to the duty to ensure access, the Government also has a corresponding duty, to maintain fiscal prudence. The basic point Prof Jayakumar made about the need to ensure fiscal sustainability when committing public resources is something we must continue to bear in mind in structuring this new office of the PDO. It does cost serious money to fund the defence of accused persons and we heard the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary mention about the Hong Kong experience just now.
We all agreed that the set-up of the PDO and the provision of criminal aid to indigent accused persons is a commitment we have to make to enhance the rule of law in Singapore. This is a cost that we are collectively prepared to incur in priority to other needs.
As responsible Members of Parliament, therefore, we will have to bear this commitment in mind when we make a case for our Government to commit further public funds in other areas.
Let me now turn to the proposed workings of the PDO. For us to ensure that indigent accused persons are provided with good quality representation in criminal proceedings, we need two things: first, adequate resources; and second, competent Public Defenders.
Dealing with the second issue first, may I ask what steps are or will be taken to ensure that the Public Defenders consistently provide a good quality representation to indigent persons? I would also like to offer several suggestions on this matter.
First, in my research, I have come across models in other countries where committees consisting of independent and eminent legal experts are set up with a view to regularly audit the work of the Public Defenders. I wonder if the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary is minded to follow suit.
Second, in some countries, the PDO publishes annual reports providing information on its key performance indicators. In fact, this is mandated in some pieces of legislation that provided for the set-up of the equivalent of the PDO. I recommend that this practice be followed too.
Turning to adequate resources, the hon Minister for Law in his April 2022 speech cautioned against following the examples in several countries where escalating costs eventually had the effect of undermining the very objective of setting up the PDO in the first place.
I fully agree. We need to strive to strike an appropriate balance. In this regard, I support the Ministry's intent to cover accused persons in households with a PCHI of $1,500 or lower. At the 35th percentile, these households would basically have little excess income that can be used for payment of legal fees.
What we need to ensure is that PDO is adequately staffed to ensure that it can handle the expected volume of cases that will be generated. May I ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary what are her plans to ensure this?
There is also another aspect of providing other defence resources which I wish to touch on.
Regularly, in criminal cases, there is a need to procure public documents which are ordinarily subject to payment under the Fees Act. Examples include the First Information Report, Traffic Accident Reports and cautioned statements of the accused.
There is also a need to procure expert evidence such as medical opinion, handwriting expert opinion and so on.
May I ask what is the plan to procure such support for the PDO such that costs can be managed?
In particular, one issue I am concerned about is where the Government has provided resources to the Prosecution, say in form of a psychiatrist, from IMH or the College of Psychiatrists, to opine on the state of mind of the accused. Would the Government be willing to share similar resources with the PDO?
It seems to me that waiver of fees and sharing of resources will have the salutary effect of bringing down the costs of defending the accused. I therefore, would like to encourage the Government to explore this idea.
One practical point which I wish to offer is whether the Prosecution and PDO can explore, in appropriate cases, the joint appointment of experts that will bind both sides. This trend is already being promoted in the Civil Courts.
One concern I have though involves the issue of timing. Usually, the Prosecution may have already dealt with these issues even before an indigent person is charged in Court. However, the indigent accused person may only be entitled to criminal defence aid from the PDO after being charged in Court.
In other words, there may not be an opportunity to make a joint appointment in the circumstances I outlined.
It seems to me that having the PDO involved earlier in certain cases may allow for better cost management. I seek the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary's views on this.
Finally, I turn to the provisions in the Bill. I wish to make three points.
First on the definition of \"Court\" appearing in clause 2 of the Bill, I note that it is widely defined to include any Court of competent jurisdiction before which any \"proceedings\" are heard.
\"Proceedings\" is defined as proceedings mentioned in clause 8(1) or 12(8) of the Bill which deals with circumstances in which a grant of aid may be issued. In clause 8(1), it is provided, amongst others, that a grant of aid may be issued in respect of any \"criminal proceedings\" instituted in respect of an offence.
So, what constitutes \"criminal proceedings\" is not specifically defined. As a matter of statutory interpretation, it should be interpreted in a manner that promotes the aims of this Bill. Potentially, this may also include proceedings involving military offences in the Subordinate Military Courts and the Military Court of Appeal set up under parts 5 and 7 of the Singapore Armed Forces Act 1972.
It may also potentially include proceedings under part 7 of the Industrial Relations Act 1960 for contempt in the Industrial Arbitration Court set up under the same Act.
May I please confirm with the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary that Government's intention is to restrict the provision of Criminal Legal Aid to accused persons facing criminal proceedings in the State Courts and the Supreme Court?
Second, may I ask how will the PD deal with an accused with mental illness? As can be imagined, the PD can face formidable challenges when he is instructed to act for an accused with mental illness. He needs to ensure that he is authorised to act for the accused. He needs to take instructions on the conduct of the case as well as provide advice. The question is who should be the proxy for the accused in these circumstances?
In other jurisdictions, there are specific provisions that will enable a PD to be empowered to act for and take instructions on behalf of a mentally ill accused through a Court appointed guardian or intermediary.
From my perusal of the Bill, although there are provisions dealing with applications for the grant of criminal defence aid to a minor, there are no similar provisions dealing with persons with mental issues. This is, with respect, a little bit incongruous, because there is no legal difference in the situation between a minor and a mentally incapacitated person in that both of them cannot act on their own.
I seek a clarification from the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary as to how she proposes that the PDs deal with accused with mental illnesses in the absence of the empowering provisions in the Bill.
Finally, I note that under clause 16(1) of the Bill, it is proposed that the Chief Public Defender may cancel a grant of aid in prescribed circumstances.
I take it that it is proposed that the prescribed circumstances are to be provided in subsidiary legislation. If I am right, may I ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary to outline the prescribed circumstances she has in mind for the purposes of cancellation of the Grant of Aid bearing in mind the aims of this Bill.
Once this Bill is passed, the Government will both prosecute and defend its citizens – there will be no contradiction if we see both acts as necessary for the pursuit of justice and protection of the public good.
Of the two functions, we need to see that the prosecution of persons who do harm as mainly driven by the pursuit of public goods such as safety, peace and security. The public prosecutors are not vengeful vigilantes but impartial officers of the state. So too are Public Defenders. They are not activists or lobbyists for specific causes, but advocates presenting the best defence possible for their clients. They are driven by the fairness of due process, which includes the exercise of mercy and compassion – a point that the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary made admirably in her speech.
Together, these officers – prosecutors and defenders – make for a true commitment to the rule of law in Singapore. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, in November 2020, the Workers' Party moved a Motion in this House to call for a review of some aspects of the criminal justice system. This Motion was filed in the wake of the case involving, Ms Parti Liyani, a domestic worker, whose theft convictions had been overturned on appeal in the High Court. Though that case was the trigger for the debate, the Motion was filed on a wider basis, extending to how the criminal justice system operated against those who could not afford legal representation.
It was notable that there was substantial agreement between the Government and the Workers' Party on the need for some enhancements. However, the Government emphasised that it needed to decide on what specific changes to implement and how to pay for them.
The fact that the Government is tabling this Bill today shows that it has squared that circle, as far as enhancing of criminal legal aid is concerned. This is a progressive move. My party colleague, Ms He Ting Ru will speak more about this later.
This Bill is in my view overdue, but as they say, better late than never. In putting forward this Bill, the Government is recognising that fair play is fundamental to justice; so fundamental, that part of the annual national Budget should rightly be set aside for this purpose. Nobody should question the principle behind this Bill. The Workers' Party has over the years spoken about the importance of justice for all and legal aid in criminal cases. We strongly support this Bill.
Sir, I recall that in the past, the Government did not want to fund criminal legal aid in non-capital cases. It was said that there was a contradiction in it funding both the prosecution and the defence. It was the Law Society who stepped up to offer pro bono representation in non-capital cases around 30 years ago through the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, or CLAS, on limited resources. CLAS was in my view the most morally uplifting project embarked on by the Law Society at the time. Those of us involved in the early days of it in one way or another, look back with pride to see how far CLAS has come from its humble beginnings.
Over the years, the Government also evolved its position and from around 2015, started providing funding to CLAS. This Government support has been critical to the sustainability and enhancement of CLAS. Today, there are many lawyers, providing pro bono services under CLAS, conscious of their public duty and committed to obtaining the best outcome for their clients.
That said, it is quite clear to me that the current CLAS scheme for criminal legal aid does not adequately cover cases of need. In my view, there are three main limiting factors, whether a case is: which is covered by the scheme or not; how poor one must be to qualify for aid, also known as the means test; and how strong one's case needs to be, also known as the merits test.
It would be important to understand how the PD scheme will widen the net to provide legal aid to more people.
First on the coverage of the PD scheme. It should be noted that only citizens and permanent residents will be covered. Although foreigners could well need legal aid, I accept this scoping due to the need to watch the budget, especially at this initial stage. The scheme also does not cover a list of offences in the Schedule to the Bill. Ten statutes are totally excluded as they relate to behaviours that should be deterred, for example, terrorist activities and gambling. There is also a partial exclusion under 36 Acts if the accused is brought to Court by way of a notice to attend Court or a summons.
For these partially excluded Acts, this will mean that the more serious offences where the accused is brought to Court upon arrest or bail will still fall within the PDO's coverage for aid. I think this is a sensible compromise to strike. Going forward, this will mean, for instance, that persons facing more serious charges under the Road Traffic Act may be able to obtain criminal legal aid, which is currently totally excluded under the CLAS scheme.
Second, the means test. The Minister for Law had informed the House in April this year that while the current CLAS scheme was able to cover applicants up to the 25th income percentile, the PDO scheme would cover up to the 35th income percentile of resident households.
It is good to note the move to cover about 10% more of the population. The Minister stated then that the per capita household income cut-off would be raised from $950 to $1,500. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary confirmed this earlier and this is a significant inclusive change.
Third, the merits test. According to clause 12 of the Bill, there will be two different baskets of cases to be assessed. The first basket are offences which are prescribed where the Chief Public Defender can decide whether the case has merits. The second basket involves offences which are not prescribed, in which case, the decision on whether the case has merit will not be made by the Chief PD alone but will be made by a board consisting of the Chief PD and at least two lawyers.
It would appear that cases involving prescribed offence would be approved on a faster track while those involving non-prescribed offences needed more consideration.
Earlier, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary touched on this matter and if I heard her correctly, she said that more serious offences needed more consideration. May I ask what is the intention and rationale behind this differentiation such that more serious offences need to pass a more rigorous test?
Next, on the issue of merits for aid, clause 12(2) provides that the Chief PD could consider factors such as whether the proceedings might involve the tracing, interviewing or cross-examination of witnesses on behalf of the applicant. This raises an important issue regarding the power of Public Defenders. Could I ask what powers the Chief PD or other officers of the PDO would have to access Government information, to locate witnesses or to compel their attendance for interviews?
It is further provided in clause 3(7) that every Public Defender who is not a public officer is deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of the Penal Code when carrying out his PD functions.
What is the implication of this provision? Does it mean that offences such as furnishing false information to public servants will apply, such that witnesses who lie to the Public Defenders may be prosecuted under the Penal Code? It would seem to be somewhat anomalous if that were the case since private defence counsel have no such powers when people lie to them. Some clarifications on this would be necessary.
Next, on the Minister's residual power to order aid. Despite the requirements to qualify for aid set out in the Bill, clause 12(7) enables the Minister to direct that aid be given even in cases where the applicant does not satisfy the requirements. This will be where the Minister considers it in the interests of justice that aid be given or where the applicant does not satisfy the means test, that it is still just and proper to grant aid. Is the intention to use this provision only in exceptional situations? Could the Ministry confirm that the Minister's residual power under clause 12(7) does not extend to providing aid for excluded offences?
Sir, before I conclude, I would just like to seek two broader clarifications, please.
First, in April, I had asked the Minister whether the Legal Aid Scheme in Capital Cases (LASCO) administered by the Supreme Court would be brought within the PDO scheme. The Minister had then replied that it would be considered. But clearly today, the answer is no. Could the Ministry inform the House whether this matter was broached with the Supreme Court and why the decision was taken not to include capital cases under the PDO?
Secondly, would MinLaw be able to explain when a person needing legal aid should go to CLAS run by the Law Society and went to the PDO, since there will be overlapping coverage?
Sir, in conclusion, this Bill represents an important milestone for Singapore's criminal justice system. The PD scheme has the potential to go some way towards addressing the imbalance of power and resources between the state prosecution and an accused person. For that alone, I welcome this development.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer whose practice involves criminal law.
I welcome the introduction of the Public Defenders Bill. In the course of my work as a lawyer, I find that many accused persons struggle to understand the legal process whenever they are faced with a criminal charge. Many times, they are not given a copy of the charge sheet and do not know what is the exact allegation being made against them. They do not understand the concept of bail and sometimes, they just want to plead guilty without understanding the consequence of a criminal conviction.
In fact, a few of my clients had informed me that when they are charged at the Police station, it is the Police investigator who advised them on the legal process and what to expect when they attend Court. Sometimes, the Investigation Officer informed them that if they plead guilty, the Police will ask for a lighter sentence from the Court.
Sir, this is, of course, unsatisfactory because the interest of a Police investigator is different from that of an accused person.
Allow me to quote from a speech made in Parliament in February 2013 by my former Parliamentary colleague and the current the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr Hri Kumar. He said, \"It is not the Government's role simply to arrest, try and jail. Government's role is to ensure the rights of all citizens are protected and that includes making sure that those who are accused have a fair hearing. Its KPI should not be the number of successful prosecutions, but rather that in every case, a fair and just result was achieved.\"
He continued, \"There have been cases of accused persons seeking what they consider to be the easier path – pleading guilty to an offence they did not commit simply because they cannot afford the cost of a trial. And whenever we have cases of wrong convictions, it is a blight on our legal process and the administration of justice. And there is no higher cost than the indelible stain of a wrong conviction, particularly, where the cause is one of lack of resources.\"
Sir, I agree with Mr Hri Kumar's views. I also appreciate Minister Indranee Rajah's response to Mr Kumar's speech where she stated that, \"The Government's KPI is not convictions. The Government's KPI must be and always has been justice.\" Ms Indranee had then replied that the Government had received suggestions about a possible Public Defender's Scheme and the Government is reviewing the suggestion. I wish to commend the Government for their funding support for the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) which had given various degree of assistance to persons charged with criminal offences and who require legal advice on criminal matters.
Although it had taken some nine years since Minister Indranee's speech, I am glad that this Bill has finally been tabled in Parliament.
Sir, I have some queries regarding the Bill and hope that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can address my concerns.
Clause 4(5) of the Bill states that despite any privilege arising out of the relationship between solicitor and client, a solicitor has a duty to disclose any information to the Chief Public Defender (CPD) which may enable the CPD to perform his functions under the Act.
Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether this requirement would expose the solicitor to allegation of breaching his professional duty to the accused person? For example, if the solicitor obtains privileged information about the guilt of an accused person, does he have an obligation to inform or disclose to the CPD or can he seek a discharge as the solicitor if the accused person refuses to take his advice to plead guilty?
Next, clause 5(1) of the Bill provides for the exclusion of a solicitor from the panel of solicitors. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether such a solicitor can still act in a personal capacity if the accused person wants him to continue outside the Public Defender's scheme? For example, if a solicitor insists on making frivolous applications to Court and is eventually removed from the panel, can he continue to act as a solicitor for the accused person and continue with such frivolous applications?
Clause 6 of the Bill provides for the fees payable to the solicitor to be agreed. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary give an indication as to how fees can be agreed upon because it is difficult for a solicitor to determine his fees without knowing whether such a trial would drag for many days or even months? Or would the legal fees be determined after the trial is completed?
Sir, I urge the Government to pay reasonable fees so that we can attract more talented solicitors to join the criminal bar and that we will have then sufficient lawyers to ensure a fair administration of criminal justice. Sir, I understand that even for LASCO, the fees payable to the lawyers involved are very low and way off the market rate for lawyers of that seniority who do capital offences.
Clause 12 of the Bill sets out the process for grant of criminal defence aid. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary provide greater clarity as to the timeframe for such aid to be granted?
In practice, most accused persons have very little time to respond when they are charged in Court. Frequently, the Court allows the accused person one to two weeks to engage a lawyer before going back to Court for the next mention. Would the Chief PD be able to assess whether an applicant would meet the criteria for criminal defence aid within two weeks?
In a situation where an accused is in remand, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has said that the family member can apply for criminal defence aid on his behalf. How much time would be required before the Chief PD can assess the application for criminal defence aid if this person is in remand?
The solicitor would presumably have to visit the accused in remand to determine reasonable grounds for defending. Would the State Court allow an accused person a longer period of time to engage counsel if the person in remand is applying for aid?
Regarding the means test referred to at clause 12(1), how does the Chief PD ensure that a rich applicant does not hide his income and assets so that he can receive the criminal defence aid? Would the Chief PD investigate the declared sources of income and assets or would the Chief PD simply rely on the declaration made by the applicant? I believe this point was previously made by Minister Shanmugam in Parliament that the state should not finance the criminal defence aid of a rich applicant.
For clause 14(2), can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify why aid should not be granted to more than one person in the same set of proceedings? Supposing there are three to four persons who are youth or juveniles who are accused of rioting and all deny responsibility for the offence, why should the Chief PD deny criminal defence aid to more than one applicant? Would it make any difference if the applicants seeking criminal defence aid intend to simply plead guilty? Why not allow the Chief PD the discretion to decide instead of having a statutory bar to giving criminal aid to more than one applicant in the same proceedings?
For the excluded offences under the Schedule, while I understand the need to exclude offences for most traffic offences or most regulatory offences, may I urge the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to consider allowing criminal defence aid to persons accused of dangerous driving where the sentences may entail imprisonment of a few years? And these are not just regulatory offences.
Before I conclude, I wish to refer to the speech made by the then Minister of Law, Prof Jayakumar during the Second Reading of the Amendment Bill to the Legal Aid and Advice Act in July 1995. He was seeking Parliament's approval to delete Part II of the Act. And the Minister had said, \"The policy of the Government is not to grant legal aid in criminal cases except for cases involving capital punishment\". And in his speech, Prof Jayakumar said that, \"It is incongruous and inconsistent that public funds should be used to defend an accused person which the state has decided ought to be charged in Court and to use public funds at the same time to get him off.\"
Sir, in the interest of transparency, since the Public Defender comes under MinLaw and prosecution by the Police comes under MHA, may I ask Senior Parliamentary Secretary to confirm that the Public Defender's Office (PDO) will be given full independence to represent their accused in Court without concern that the state is incurring public funds to prosecute the accused person. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also clarify what brought about this change in the policy? Sir, I support the Bill.
Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza): Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, while speaking during the Private Member's Motion on Justice for All raised by my colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim in November 2020, I talked about the importance of having the house of justice possessing strong pillars to ensure that just outcomes are delivered for those guilty of crimes, but also for those who are innocent.
Like many other countries, we continue to work to ensure that accused persons from vulnerable backgrounds do not end up being further disadvantaged, particularly because they cannot afford to be legally represented in the criminal justice system.
This is why today's Bill for the creation of the Public Defender's Office (PDO) is a cornerstone in the development of our criminal justice system and its importance cannot be overstated. The idea of a Public Defender in some form or another is also one which has existed in many other jurisdictions for many years.
While I agree that we must exercise caution in ensuring the our own PDO does not fall into a situation seen in many other countries where clients abuse the system at both the expense of the taxpayer and adversely affects the credibility of the office, we also must not forget to take on board where public defence systems do work to bring about a stronger, more robust and credible criminal justice system and to take on board these positive lessons.
It is in this spirit that I would like to raise some clarifications and questions about the Bill before us.
First, I note that clause 4(5) of the Bill states that the solicitor has a duty to disclose information which may otherwise be subject to client-attorney privilege, the Chief PD (CPD) to enable the CPD to perform its functions under the Act. There is concern that although there are reasons for this exemption, this ultimately compromises the client-attorney relationship or it would be seen to be compromised by the clients who may then be reticent in providing full and frank disclosure to their solicitor.
While the Bill does make it clear about the circumstances under which such disclosure may occur, namely, when deciding whether to refuse an application for criminal defence aid, to vary or cancel a grant of aid or to determine whether there are merits to an application for criminal defence aid, would it be possible to have more explicit guidelines as to what types of privileged information may be disclosable to the CPD and to ensure that the clients either consent to such disclosure or know exactly what may be disclosed and under what circumstances such disclosure will take place. Perhaps, to allay concerns, it could also be made explicit that any such information that is necessary to be disclosed will remain strictly confidential and not disclosed to any other third parties.
Second, on the scope coverage. Clause 12(1)(b) of the Bill states that only Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents are eligible to apply to the PDO. As cases such as Parti Liyani's has shown, a sizeable proportion of the more vulnerable parts of our society include Work Pass holders. These individuals would continue to rely on the goodwill of lawyers to act pro bono if they do not have the financial resources to engage a criminal defence lawyer. While we understand that at this early stage of setting up the PDO, it would be prudent to limit its scope until the exact expenditure is known, would the Government be considering at some point, expanding coverage to long-term residents, albeit subject to more stringent criteria?
Next, moving onto the decisions themselves, relating to whether or not an applicant is granted access to aid under the PDO, the Bill provides that the CPD has the power to issue a grant of aid to an applicant, provided he has satisfied, that they meet the requirements as outlined in clause 12. The CPD's decision would be final, except in circumstances under clause 12(7), where the Minister may overwrite the decision.
This approach is in contrast against the case of solicitors who are excluded or removed from a panel by the CPD. In the event that the solicitor is aggrieved by the CPD's decision, they may apply to the general division of the High Court under clause 5(2) to appeal against such a decision.
While there may be reasons for this different approach, we should consider having a formal appeals mechanism for an accused person to appeal against the CPD's decision not to grant them aid for greater certainty. This would also further enhance public confidence in the office. This appeal process could take on the form of an appeals panel of solicitors to review the decision.
Moving on to a more general point about the criminal legal landscape in general and the impact that the PDO would have on it, part of the concern about the formation of the PDO was that this would adversely affect the livelihoods of current criminal defence practitioners. I do not believe this should be the case, however, as the PDO has been primarily designed to expand legal representation to accused persons who do not currently have the means to appoint counsel to represent them to minimise the possibility of this happening.
What may, however, warrant more attention is the concern raised by the Criminal Bar in the past, that they sometimes feel like they are battling a perception that criminal work plays second fiddle to civil and commercial matters and that they struggle to attract lawyers into their field. While the Ministry has previously stated that the PDO hopes to recruit across a mixture of backgrounds, what is its specific plans to address the concerns raised by the criminal bar and could the Minister elaborate on what will be done to ensure that talented young and mid-career lawyers would consider public defence and even private criminal defence work as their first choice.
Are there plans for officers in the Legal Service to be rotated into the PDO to allow greater exposure to the work that public defence entails? If so, what safeguards would there be in place to ensure that any information obtained by a Public Defender is safeguarded from unauthorised use or disclosure if the officer is subsequently reassigned or rotated into another office, such as that of the Public Prosecutor's office. After all, Public Prosecutors are responsible for bringing cases against accused persons and thus represent the other side of the coin in the criminal justice system.
To round up, I would like to touch on the important principle of justice being kept accessible and comprehensible. This was a key point of our Motion raised in November 2020 and all of us would agree that in order to maintain confidence in our judicial system, justice must be done and also must be seen to be done.
There will be questions from the public about whether public funds should be expanded to fund a Public Defender's Office, especially in the case where the accused person is, in fact, guilty of a crime. This is where public education is crucial in helping the public to understand the important role played by defence counsel, and by extension, Public Defenders. After all, defence lawyers are there to, amongst others, ensure that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty, understands the charges being brought against him and safeguards the due process of law while an accused person's case is being brought before the courts.
It is also helpful to note at this point, that Public Defenders are officers of the Court. They are also Public Officers pursuant to clause 3 of the Bill. This means that they both have duties to the Court and also to the public. Public Officers are expected to uphold values of integrity, service and excellence and are governed by a code of conduct. Ensuring that the public are aware of these duties and codes which Public Defenders are bound by will be key in convincing the public about the necessity of the PDO. The PDO must thus ensure that its conduct is exemplary, standing up to intense scrutiny and that it provides an accused person of a proper defence.
While I have touched on some areas of concern and asked for some clarifications in my speech today, it does not take away that the formation of the PDO by the Ministry is a positive development. A strong PDO would only further aid in ensuring that the robust house of justice continues to endure. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. We commend the Government for putting forward this Bill to improve the access to justice for the underprivileged in Singapore. We are heartened that in the aftermath of the Parti Liyani case, the PAP Government has followed through on its promise during the Singapore's Justice System Motion, to seriously consider and implement a Public Defenders Office (PDO). We are supportive of the general scope of offences that the PDO is intended to cover.
However, we think that the Government can do more.
Minister Shanmugam has proposed in his Ministerial Statement in April, to peg the eligibility for criminal legal aid at a per capita gross monthly household income of $1,500. We are of the view that this amount should be raised to $2,200, which is in line with our recommendation for Singapore to adopt a minimum living wage of $2,200 for Singaporeans.
The Government may argue that this would unnecessarily drive up costs. However, we note that this Bill gives the Chief Public Defender the right to require applicants to co-pay for the legal costs. A scaling co-paying model could easily be implemented to ensure that applicants pay their fair share of the defence and yet at the same time, increase access to legal representation for underprivileged people. This will also increase the potential business for criminal lawyers.
Increasing access to justice cannot be measured in dollars and cents. Every person should have a chance to present his best case in court with legal representation. Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. The Progressive Singapore Party commends the Government for putting forward this Bill to improve access to justice for the underprivileged in Singapore.
We are heartened that in the aftermath of the Parti Liyani case, the PAP Government has followed through on its promise during the Singapore’s Justice System Motion to seriously consider and implement a Public Defender’s Office (PDO). We are supportive of the general scope of offences that the PDO is intended to cover.
However, I think that the Government can widen the income eligibility criteria for criminal legal aid. Minister Shanmugam has proposed in his Ministerial Statement in April to peg the eligibility for criminal legal aid at a per capita gross monthly household income of $1,500.
We are of the view that this amount should be raised to $2,200, which is in line with our recommendation for Singapore to adopt a minimum living wage of $2,200 for Singaporeans.
The Government may argue that this would unnecessarily drive up costs. However, we note that this Bill gives the Chief Public Defender the right to require applicants to co-pay for the legal cost. A scaling co-payment model could easily be implemented to ensure that applicants pay their fair share of their defence and yet at the same time, increase access to legal representation for underprivileged people.
Increasing access to justice cannot be measured in dollars and cents and every person should have a chance to present his best case in court with legal representation.
Hence, while we support the Bill, we also propose that the eligibility criteria for criminal legal aid be pegged to a per capita gross monthly household income of $2,200.
(In English): To conclude, Sir, I support the Bill and propose that the eligibility criteria for criminal legal aid be pegged to a per capita gross monthly household income of $2,200.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I fully support the establishment of the Public Defender’s Office. The PDO will ensure legal aid for vulnerable citizens and permanent residents who are charged but do not have the financial means to hire a lawyer. The new programme will set the income cap at the 35th percentile, which would cap the defendant's per capita household monthly income at $1,500. I think this cap is quite reasonable and it is a good beginning as well.
I also support the expansion of criminal legal aid to include all non-capital charges, but not private prosecutions not handled by the Attorney-General, gambling, organised crime and terrorism, as well as traffic summons and certain charges such as littering and illegal parking.
I am reassured that the Attorney-General has given the Minister the power to authorise the Chief Public Defender to grant assistance to ineligible applicants who are facing exceptional circumstances. These particular factors may include the applicant's medical condition and caregiving obligations, among others. It is important that the authorities retain a certain amount of flexibility, as each defendant and case is different. They face different difficulties. Some families may also run into temporary problems and are not able to get aid.
(In English): Deputy Speaker, Sir, the setting up of the Public Defender’s Office (PDO) will ensure that accused persons who are vulnerable will have access to representation and defence in Court and build confidence in our justice system.
There will be a new system of contracts for the lawyers in the private sector to provide legal aid services. The PDO should be responsible for the contracts coupled with a declaration form that the lawyers hold valid practising licence and have been in active legal practice in criminal law for a minimum of three years with supporting cases. This specifically designed criteria should be created for an effective introduction of the system.
The likely benefits of such a device in place will ensure the following.
First, provide good or better quality services from private practices at equal or lower costs.
Second, create a better alignment in the objectives of the PDO than would be possible with private sector lawyers.
Third, provide management information on the supply of criminal defence services that would not otherwise be available to it through contracting.
Fourth, provide a test or a benchmark for the cost and quality of the criminal defence services by private practitioners under the contracts.
Fifth, provide independent, high quality and value-for-money criminal defence services to the public.
Sixth, provide the PDO with benchmarking information to improve, implement, initiate and introduce better performance of the contracting regime with private practice lawyers.
Seventh, raise the level of understanding within MinLaw of all issues faced by criminal defence lawyers in the provision of high quality services to the public.
Eighth, recruit, train and develop people to provide high quality criminal defence services in accordance to the objectives of the PDO.
Ninth, share with private practice lawyers in terms of forms and systems which are developed within the PDO to assist in the overall improvements in the provision of criminal defence services.
In the longer term, the best approach will prove to be a mixed system, combining both private and staff lawyers. This will produce better value for money for the taxpayers because the two systems will in effect both complement and compete against one another. The cost of the salaried service will provide a benchmark, which can be used to assess whether prices charged by private lawyers are reasonable. Staff lawyers will also give flexibility to fill gaps in the system, for example, the participation of too few law firms.
The PDO has a role to play in benchmarking and further developing quality standards in criminal defence. It will perform an integral part of the service development of the criminal justice system. The PDO will develop and demonstrate more efficient ways of delivering criminal defence services. We can envisage a wider role for the PDO as an essential guarantor of quality standards, minimum costs and people-centric satisfaction in a more managed market for such services. With that, I strongly support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, a fundamental principle of the rule of law is access to justice, which includes access to legal advice and representation.
Accused persons who are unable to afford lawyers to represent them face an indomitable inequality of arms against the Public Prosecution. Helping impecunious persons gain access to good quality legal representation evens the field and ensures that robust criminal defence is the not the preserve of only the well-to-do and instead is available to everyone.
The Law Society Pro Bono Services' Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) had, amongst other organisations and programmes, served this function. The Public Defenders Bill seeks to enact and enshrine in legislation criminal legal aid, funded by the Government, for persons who meet the means testing and other criteria.
I thank the Minister for tabling this Bill. It will fill a lacuna in our rule of law institutions and create a more fair and equitable society.
But public defending is a new concept to Singaporeans and given our reputation for robustly enforcing our laws and regulations and given the Government's previous position that the hon Member Murali Pillai had spoken on, it is novel and perhaps even discombobulating for the public that the Government will now be required by law to provide or to arrange for the defence of persons accused of certain offences.
In time, it will become an accepted part of our criminal legal system but how it is perceived and how it is approached will depend on the information and education provided to the public on this new setup and how the office carries out its statutory functions when it is set up.
In this regard, I have several points for the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary's consideration.
First, as there may not be sufficient understanding of the structure of the state as regards its legal components, it would be important to step up public education on how the public prosecutor is an independent organ of state and not part of MinLaw, which the PDO would be.
Often, laymen tend to lump all official bodies under the broad heading of the Government. In fact, the Public Prosecutor and MinLaw and the PDO as part of the Ministry are distinct and the public prosecutor is not part of the Government.
It may be otherwise confusing to the layman that the Government is funding both prosecution and defence and this was mentioned by earlier speakers. I note that clause 12(3) does provide that the Public Defender must not determine the benefit or detriment of a case based on the interests of the prosecution or of any other law enforcement agency.
Second, as the Public Defender will be providing a service to impecunious persons who may be elderly or who may not be highly educated, it is important that the process of making an application should be easy and accessible. This would include having various modes of application, including online and in different languages, and assistance to make an application.
Furthermore, to improve access, would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary consider providing a standard allocution for Police officers to recite to accused persons as regards having an option to avail of public defence when that person is being charged?
Further to this, I would also suggest that the period for considering an application should not be too lengthy while, of course, giving enough time for the PDO to carefully consider whether the application meets the criteria.
An accused person would naturally have anxiety as to how they are going to deal with their case and many would be relying on legal aid to help them get through the criminal process. A timely response would ease their minds if they get the grant of aid. If they did not, it would allow them sufficient time to quickly pursue other options, including preparing to self-litigate.
By way of comparison, CLAS currently takes about two weeks to consider an application.
I note also that for urgent cases – and this is something that the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned – clause 12(4) does provide for an expedited process.
When a case is taken up, it is important to manage the expectations of persons receiving aid, in particular as to what are the prospects for their case as regards both verdict and sentence.
I am a little concerned that there may be backlash against the office by the accused person and their family members where a desired outcome in a particular case is not achieved. So, managing expectations will be extremely important.
As regards the performance of the Public Defenders, I note that in many jurisdictions that have such institutions, the common feedback is that Public Defenders have huge caseloads and are overworked to the point that they are not able to spend the necessary time and effort on each case. This leads to less than optimal performance and quality of defence.
As a rough measure, CLAS undertook 864 cases in 2020 and 775 cases in 2021, figures of which I had obtained from CLAS. So, it is not a small number of cases.
In this regard, we need to ensure that the PDO is adequately staffed, of course, with a prudent budget and that there is careful monitoring of each Public Defender's case load so that they take up a manageable number of cases.
On a related note, we must ensure that the Public Defenders are also adequately compensated and have career progression prospects. While they should, of course, have passion in what they do, the PDO should not be a passion project, as it is in many other jurisdictions.
I would expect that because the Public Defenders would come under the Legal Service Officer scheme, their compensation would be competitive and that good lawyers will be attracted to join and stay in the office to build seniority and institutional knowledge. This will help ensure a high standard of defence provided.
I am also gratified that the Bill provides for the involvement of lawyers in private practice via panels of lawyers who can be assigned to cases. The private sector has carried the pro bono defence for many years and this spirit of public service to assist impecunious persons remains strong in the legal fraternity.
I would suggest that the panel of lawyers can be utilised in two ways: one, to assign cases to lawyers whose particular expertise would be useful in those cases; and two, as a release valve when the PDO's caseload gets too voluminous. I hope that there will also be avenues for Public Defenders and private lawyers to be able to work together on appropriate cases to leverage each other's knowledge and experience in defending the aid recipient.
In addition to what I have covered, I have the following clarifications on specific clauses.
On clause 8(1)(b), which sets out the scope of criminal defence aid, I would like to ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the PDO can take up appeals or criminal applications where the PDO had not represented the accused person in the originating proceedings, which are provided for in clause 8(1)(a). This is relevant where a person had, for example, litigated in person in the first instance and then seeks help for an appeal after the verdict in the lower Court.
On clause 12(5), which provides that the PDO may, instead of approving an application, refer it to a body or organisation providing pro bono legal services, I would like to ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the PDO will be able to refer cases to an external body if the applicant does not meet all the criteria. This would help to build complementarity between the PDO and other pro bono schemes.
On clause 14(2), which provides that the PDO must not act for more that one accused person, appellant, respondent or party in the same proceedings, the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the PDO could refer these cases to CLAS. I would like to ask whether the PDO could appoint these accused persons to assigned lawyers from the panels as well so that they can act for other persons in the same proceedings who meet the eligibility criteria.
Finally, on the Schedule, on paragraph 1(e), I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary why private prosecutions are not covered. In many cases of private prosecution, the prosecuting party appoints lawyers to pursue its or their case. In this regard, if the defending party is unable to afford their own lawyers, they are essentially in the same position as regards the inequality of arms as a person who is charged by the Public Prosecutor and they would face the same sentences if they were convicted.
So, would the Ministry consider allowing for the Public Defender to grant aid in private prosecutions prosecuted by lawyers where the defending party meets the eligibility criteria?
Sir, public defence is a critical component of our criminal defence system. It provides access to justice that bolsters the rule of law. Notwithstanding my suggestions and clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, according to the World Bank Group report on Cost Benefit Analysis of Legal Aid, the world faces a widespread justice gap. Globally, billions of people lack access to basic justice services and the most vulnerable are often women, children, people with disabilities and people from minority ethnic communities. It is thus important to address this justice gap.
While Singapore has a leading legal system and great access to justice already, we must continue to ensure that the most vulnerable segments of our society get the fair representation that they deserve in our criminal justice system – which is why this Bill is important.
I welcome and stand in support of this Bill and I would like to applaud MinLaw for this step towards greater access to justice. In Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In October 2020, I asked whether the Government would consider providing direct legal aid to those with lesser financial means, who have been charged with criminal offences. This was in light of concerns raised about access to justice and adequate legal representation for such persons, following the case of Parti Liyani.
This Bill allows for access to justice for criminal cases. Previously criminal legal aid is administered by the Law Society alone.
Based on my previous experience as an assigned solicitor with the Legal Aid Bureau and CLAS, I welcome the mechanism for provisional grant of legal aid and mechanism for approval by the Public Defenders Office board. I also welcome the scope of cooperation and sharing of caseload between PDO, that will be established, and CLAS, that is administered by the Law Society, as this will enable accused persons to have access to reasonable legal representation and expertise.
With the setting up of the Public Defender's Office, I hope that more accused can get access to fair and equal representation in Court notwithstanding their position, status or financial standing.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, providing criminal or civil legal aid requires funding and resources. However, there is also an economics argument to improve access to justice in society.
In Canada, the cost of unequal access to justice on public spending in other areas, like social assistance and healthcare costs, had been estimated to be about 2.35 times more than the annual direct service expenditures on legal aid. In Australia, studies have shown that there are net public benefits from legal assistance expenditures. Investments in legal aid can lead to significant Government savings through avoided cost of arrest, conviction, incarceration, probation and post-prison supervision. In addition, public investments in legal aid are also found to generate net savings in terms of avoided shelter or housing costs.
For one to qualify for PDO aid, one would have to pass the means and merits test. I have a few clarifications in this regard.
Firstly, on the merits test, I welcome the expanded means criteria that Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned just now. Already, it is higher than the civil legal aid criteria of $950 dollars. Specifically on PCHI and definition of household members, I would like to ask, if there will be discretion on the part of the Chief Public Defender (CPD), to grant criminal legal aid, if the accused person (AP) is no longer residing in the household, but the NRIC reflects the same address?
How about APs who can actually afford private lawyers because their children can pay, but their children are not living with the AP?
I quote hon Member Mr Lim Biow Chuan's concern that there is need to safeguard against abuse of process. It is important to clarify that passing the means and merits criteria does not automatically mean criminal legal aid will be granted. PDO, or CPD, shall still retain discretion whether to issue grant of aid or not. Hence, I welcome clause 12(1)(d), which retains such discretion and this will cover the exceptional cases and prevent the decisions of CPD from being challenged unmeritoriously.
To illustrate this point: in October 2021, a US couple sued the Colorado Public Defender's Office for refusing to represent them in a criminal case. Both of them earned less than $3,000 a year, which automatically qualifies them for a Public Defender under the Colorado Supreme Court's guidelines. In Singapore, this may not be challenged because of the proposed clause 12(1)(d).
Secondly, with regard to the merits test, CPD can award aid if he is of the opinion that AP requires legal representation to plead guilty, as stated under clause 12(c). However, what about a straightforward plead guilty case, where the AP would require legal assistance to formulate a mitigation plea, for instance, for appropriate sentencing? I propose that for such cases, aid should be granted because firstly, it will save time and resources for both AGC and CPD, if issues on sentencing are appropriately addressed; and secondly, it will be just if the appropriate sentencing is meted out, if the necessary mitigating factors are highlighted.
Next, in respect of co-accused situations now, clause 14 prevents PDO from acting for more than one accused person. This is rightly so, to prevent conflict of interest. However, how will PDO ascertain which accused persons PDO will represent? What will be the criteria? Is it the one with the best merits, the one with the lowest means, or the one that is first in time of application?
In instances where it is equal and the co-accused person is deserving of representation, I welcome Senior Parliamentary Secretary saying that PDO may assign the case to CLAS. I hope it would be the same for the other co-accused persons as well.
Next, in relation to offences involving false or misleading statement, the Offences and Penalties proposed under clause 23 of this Bill, is the same as that of section 21 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, in that both carry fines of S$5,000 per contravention and imprisonment of up to six months.
May I ask, what is the rationale of having similar penalties? Would not the breaches under the Public Defenders Act be more egregious and, thus, should attract more hefty penalties as a deterrent? Given that, firstly, it amounts to a perversion of criminal justice; secondly, it mainly involves matters of policy and public interest, as opposed to civil claims; and thirdly, it involves wastage of public resources.
Lastly, I would like to highlight the important role that PDO plays in portraying the image and integrity of Singapore's criminal justice system, and therefore, it is very important to look into the following aspects. The first is the practice of plea bargaining, which is practised in Singapore and may generally occur once an accused is charged. The outcome of any plea bargain depends on various factors, including public interest, timing of the guilty pleas and so on.
It is important to note, that while a guilty plea saves public resources, a plea bargain is not a given right. In the US, the vast majority of felony convictions are now the result of plea bargains: some 94% at the state level, 97% at the federal level. Very few cases go to trial. US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy once wrote: \"Horse trading [between prosecutor and defense counsel] determines who goes to jail and for how long. That is what plea bargaining is. It is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system.\"
The situation in US is possibly due to a disparity in funding of the two sides of the criminal justice system. Of the US$200 billion spent on criminal justice activities by state and local governments in 2008, only 2% went to indigent defence. There was also lack of training and support for overworked Public Defenders and a lack of reform to the bail system which holds people in jail simply because they lack the funds to secure their own release.
In Singapore, with the establishment of PDO, it is important to ensure that our system does not devolve into a similar scenario like that in foreign countries. I would propose for safeguards to be put in place to ensure that any plea bargain entered will be in the best interest of an AP and perhaps, these cases may have an avenue for review by an independent body with MinLaw and LawSoc's involvement.
I echo hon Member Mr Murali Pillai's suggestions for publication of KPIs. I would like to propose for such transparency, whereby there is publication of annual report of statistics of PDO cases that went to trial, number of APs assisted and conviction rates, if possible.
Next, on avenue of redress, if complaints are raised about PDO officers, to which body would these complaints be referred? For private or CLAS practitioners, they are governed under the professional conduct rules and referred to the Law Society.
My next point is on building up the capability of PDO officers. It is imperative that we attract and retain talent in PDO, to ensure that there are PDO officers with the appropriate trial experience. I propose a secondment of AGC officers to PDO and for active recruitment from the criminal bar.
We need to dispel the myth that Public Defenders are not going to give a fair representation of any accused. In fact, the converse may be true, studies show that Public Defenders perform better than the appointed counsel, that is, those who are counsel in private practice and paid by the system.
In an article published in Yale Law Journal which involved a study of almost 2,500 cases in Philadelphia, it was found that in comparison to appointed counsel, Public Defenders had reduced the clients' murder conviction rate by 19%, lowered the probability that their clients receive a life sentence by 62%. Public Defenders also reduced overall expected time served in prison by 24%. There were two factors that interviewees cited as important differences between public defenders and appointed counsel: firstly, Public Defenders use of integrated teams, which means greater access to non-legal professionals who may help in the defence; and, secondly, the larger amount of case preparation by Public Defenders.
What this means is that a robust training will create more opportunities for our PDO officers. Firstly, they would be able to handle more cases and this will enable them to build up their specialisation and hone their skillsets; and secondly, they will have greater access to resources to aid them in their defence of APs.
In terms of specialisations, perhaps there could be a setting up of dedicated teams within PDO, like that in AGC, arranged according to the types of offences, so that PDO officers can build up deep capability and skillsets, and secondly, a platform for the cross-training and sharing of ideas between prosecutors, PDO and the criminal bar.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with the setting of the PDO, we will have greater access to criminal justice for the public and build skillsets and experience deep enough to prepare us for tomorrow. I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will establish a Public Defender's Office, which is a significant step towards increasing access to criminal justice. I have clarifications to raise in respect of three areas.
My first area of clarification is on the scope of offences. I have two clarifications.
First, the PDO will collaborate with the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, which similarly provides criminal legal assistance for the vulnerable and covers offences under 17 statutes, such as the Penal Code, Vandalism Act and the Women's Charter. The Ministry has announced that it is considering how best to define cases dealt with by the PDO and CLAS. To prevent potential confusion, can Senior Parliamentary Secretary provide an update on how the cases will be scoped?
Second, under subsection 8(2), the grant of aid will not be granted to an offence excluded or belonging to an excluded class, as specified in the Schedule of the Bill. The Ministry has explained that this Bill will exclude regulatory offences, minor departmental and Statutory Board charges. However, regulatory charges can carry potential jail terms. For instance, the general offence provisions under section 22 of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act provides for jail terms of up to two years to be imposed for certain cases. The general offences and penalties provision under section 131 of the Road Traffic Act provides for jail terms of up to six months to be imposed for certain cases.
Can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share why such offences are excluded from the grant of aid when the potential jail terms are no less than what is provided for other offences covered by the PDO, including those under the Penal Code.
My second area of clarification is on the appointment and discharge of a solicitor. First, under subsection 8(8), a grant of aid may be extended to proceedings involving an excluded offence, if the applicant faces charges for two or more offences and one or more of which is an excluded offence, or if the appeal or application arises from the proceedings.
In criminal proceedings, it is common for charges to be withdrawn, taken into consideration, or replaced with alternative charges. Can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share how a grant of aid may be affected in a situation where the prosecution exercises its discretion to withdraw, take into consideration, or replace charges such that the prosecution will only proceed on excluded offences? Would this be ground for the withdrawal of a grant of aid? If so, how will the PDO ensure that the defence of the applicant is not prejudiced by any withdrawal of aid?
Second, section 18 provides that criminal defence aid cannot be discontinued without the permission of the Chief Public Defender. This means that even if an aided person no longer wishes to instruct a Public Defender, the accused person cannot discharge their solicitor without permission.
Practically speaking, it will be extremely difficult for a Public Defender to take instructions from an aided accused person who no longer wishes to be represented by the Public Defender. With any other solicitor-client relationship, a litigant is entitled to discharge their solicitor. Can Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify the rationale for requiring the permission of the Chief Public Defender before an aided accused person can discharge a solicitor assigned to act for them? What are the situations where the Chief Public Defender may decline the accused person's request to discharge the Public Defender?
Third, under section 17, the Chief Public Defender may require an aided accused person to make contributions to a matter where a grant of aid has been provided. In a situation where the aided accused person is unable to meet the contributions, can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share if this is ground for discontinuation of grant of aid? If so, how will the PDO ensure that the defence of the applicant is not prejudiced by the withdrawal of aid?
My final area of clarification is on the relationship between AGC and PDO that many Members have raised. The PDO will be a department under MinLaw. I understand that AGC is separate from MinLaw. However, AGC's functions include acting as the Government's lawyer and advising Ministries. There may still be some potential areas of conflict given the proximity of MinLaw and the AGC. Even if there is no actual conflict, there may still be perceived conflict, which can be equally as damaging.
There is some basis for concerns about conflict given that the Government's position previously was that it may not make sense for the Government to be both prosecuting the accused and paying for the defence. Can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share what mechanisms are in place to address the potential areas of conflict and to ensure that the decision making and operations of the PDO are independent of AGC?
Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to first declare that I am a practising lawyer.
In 1985, the late Mr Harry Elias, Senior Counsel, along with several counsel members of the Law Society, spearheaded the setting up of the Law Society's Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, in short, CLAS, to help the less fortunate to obtain free criminal legal representation. Since then, the Law Society's mission to grant better access to justice and ensure criminal legal aid for needy and deserving accused facing a criminal charge never wavered.
It must be remembered that every accused person is innocent unless proven guilty and he or she is entitled to seek legal representation to defend himself or herself. And as recounted by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Murali Pillai, earlier in his speech, I am glad that the Government has also stepped in over the years to support this meaningful endeavour.
The latest plan to set up the Public Defender's Office (PDO) is the next significant step by the Government in facilitating adequate and easier access to justice for more vulnerable Singaporeans and permanent residents by raising the income limit of applicants to cover more of limited means and expanding the scope of support to cover most offences. I envision that the end result of institutionalising public defence in our criminal justice system to include the following.
First, enabling more vulnerable applicants to apply and receive criminal legal criminal legal aid swiftly.
Secondly, the quality of the criminal legal representation rendered to the applicant being both adequate and desirable.
And thirdly, to cultivate an ecosystem devoted recruiting, retaining and motivating more people to pursue criminal defence as a profession.
In these aspects, I wish to seek the following clarifications.
Firstly, in terms of the offence coverage, while I understand the scope of the coverage for PDO will be expanded to cover more types and class, it will exclude regulatory offences as well as certain acts whose primary purpose is to deter specific behaviours that bring about negative externalities to society, such as organised and syndicated crime.
However, rather than having a total blanket exclusion for those of the offences listed in the 10 specific statutes, can we explore the flexibility to enable either the Chief PD or the Minister to exercise discretion to grant aid due to special circumstances when he or she is of the opinion that it is in the best interest of the justice to do so. This flexibility is needed as the situation that requires it can vary in detail.
An example would be an accused person charged under the Common Gaming House Act. They could either be intellectually disabled or induced to be a lookout for a common gaming house or a gullible teenager who has been influenced by peer pressure to be a bookie. In both scenarios, if the family members of the accused do not have the financial means to assist to seek legal representation for them, these situations will be undesirable unless they were granted aid due to such special circumstances.
Secondly, in relation to the process of granting aid, how long would PDO take to process an application to grant aid?
On the same point as what Mr Lim Biow Chuan has raised earlier in his speech, we have often heard of cases where applicants who have already been in remand for a period of time are still waiting for their request for legal representation to be processed. To prevent situations where the remanded period ends up being longer than what a Court might eventually sentence the accused for, I think it is important that PDO ensures that the application process and the time taken to review the application is as straightforward and as swift as possible to reduce the possibility of such occurrences.
With both PDO and CLAS operating as independent entities, would an applicant be required to make duplicated requests for aid? I hope that a single centralised system can be implemented. With this, each applicant's record will be visible to both entities, reducing the time needed to verify if the applicant has previously received aid in either of the schemes.
I also wish to inquire about the optimal number of Public Defenders and support staff required to ensure smooth operations of the PDO and whether the Ministry is on track with the recruitment to reach this target when the PDO begins operations by the end of 2022. I understand that PDO is looking to bolster their manpower by bringing in a wave of fresh graduates, young lawyers, mid-career hires and Legal Service Officers. But apart from meeting the required numbers, I firmly believe that there is a real need to ensure the quality of the service to be provided.
In this regard, I wish to inquire what would be considered by the Chief PD as duly qualified and experienced to carry out duties as Public Defenders and whether adequate training will be provided to fresh graduates and young lawyers before they are assigned to take on cases independently.
To ensure consistency in terms of the quality of the legal representation provided by each of the Public Defenders, be its in-house Public Defenders or those engaged under the panel of qualified lawyers, the PDO may wish to consider collaborating with the Law Society of Singapore's Advocacy Committee, the Criminal Practice Committee and the CLAS Committee, in working out a series of training sessions to sharpen the skills of the lawyers in areas such as the advocacy and criminal procedures.
In a Mass Call Address 2021, the hon Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon have shared that and I quote, \"The pro bono spirit is among the very best tradition of our Bar. Few things are more precious than the opportunity to help someone who has been shut out from the access to justice.\"
As a lawyer, we are trained to be the person who unlocks that door. The Chief Justice strongly encouraged the newly minted lawyers to actively seek opportunities for involvement in pro bono work and CLAS was cited as an excellently meaningful avenue for pro bono service. I am glad that, moving forward, the PDO will also be another available option for one to contribute accordingly,
However, the reality of our legal profession is that criminal defence is not widely regarded as lucrative work and that those who pursue it as a career are often driven by passion and a conviction to help others. As a result, many young lawyers may not be exposed to doing criminal defence work unless he or she are in firms which support pro bono initiatives or do criminal defence work on a frequent basis.
But just as what the hon Chief Justice has shared in the Mass Call Address, young lawyers should, which I quote, \"Learn to lean on the community, look for role models and mentors to whom you can turn for guidance and inspirations.\"
In this regard, I hope that PDO would be opened to having young lawyers with little experience to volunteer and be included in its panel of solicitors for cases in their capacity as a junior assistant counsel. This is similar to what is currently practised under the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences, in short, LASCO, which allows relatively inexperienced lawyers to observe proceedings and provide some support for the lead counsel, allowing them to be exposed to much needed experience in criminal legal matters. As a further suggestion, we can perhaps also consider giving this junior assistant counsel Continuing Professional Development (CPD) points instead of offering honorariums.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill to establish the Public Defenders’ Office (PDO). The PDO will provide greater legal assistance to the underprivileged group when they are unfortunately embroiled in criminal proceedings.
In this Bill, the Minister or the PDO have the power to grant aid to applicants who do not meet the monthly income criteria under certain circumstances. One Member proposed to increase the per capita monthly income cap to $2,200. The $1,500 per capita proposed by MinLaw is equivalent to $6,000 total household income for a 4-person household. This is quite high already.
We must exercise caution when deciding whether this power should be used. We should not forget the objective of this Bill is to help those accused who cannot afford legal representation. Ultimately, all the cost will be borne by taxpayers.
(In English): Notwithstanding the above clarifications and suggestions, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, most fellow Members will agree that a strong and consistent rule of law has contributed to Singapore's success over the years. A key aspect of the rule of law is access to justice, not just for some, but for all Singaporeans, regardless of their means.
I would first like to commend the Government's readiness to regularly relook this position as our society matures and to shift its policy accordingly. Where the Government has previously taken a position that criminal legal aid should not be publicly funded, today, we are debating a Bill that would render assistance to Singapore residents if they are charged with certain criminal offences. So, we can build a fairer society based on justice and equality.
Speaking as someone who is not legally trained, I would like to seek some clarifications on the Bill and the proposed Public Defender's Office (PDO).
First, from the practical perspective of a person who may use and benefit from the PDO's services and second, on the operational and structural aspects of the PDO. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The law cannot just be a rich man’s game or for the wealthy. Today, there are various options for people to get free legal advice or answers. You can book appointments with legal clinics at the CDCs and CCs to talk to a volunteer lawyer. The iLAB chatbot on the MinLaw's website also provides legal information on issues related to family and divorce issues.
On the other hand, there are lesser schemes for people to get legal representation in Court. This Public Defenders Bill aims to provide just that for Singapore Citizens and PRs who meet the criteria. I understand that the income ceiling will be set at the bottom 35% of households, whose income per household member is $1,500 or lower. How were these limits determined? Is it still too low a ceiling, considering that a three- or four-member household who is just above that ceiling would still struggle to pay legal fees ranging between $5,000 and $8,000 that private lawyers may charge for simple criminal defence matters? This is especially so bearing in mind the current state of high inflation.
To avoid conflicts of interest, clause 14(2) of the Bill rightly provides that the PDO must not act for more than one accused person or party in the same proceedings. However, if there are multiple co-accused qualifying for PDO assistance, how would the PDO choose which case to take up?
One other issue is regarding centralising legal aid in general.
With the creation of the PDO, is there an intention to centralise legal aid into a one-stop shop? Ordinary Singaporeans may not know which specific agency to approach for their matters. For example, the PDO, the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO) and the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) will provide legal representation for different types of criminal offences. The Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) may provide legal representation for certain civil proceedings. All these must also be distinguished from the agencies that provide free legal advice but not representation.
I understand that clause 12(5) of the Bill already empowers the Chief Public Defender to refer an application to another suitable body or organisation providing pro bono legal services. Going one step further to provide a one-stop shop to direct Singaporeans to the legal aid they need – and which they qualify for – all these will definitely be helpful.
(In English): There are some offences that the PDO will not cover and it looks like quite a long list. Some of the excluded offences appear to be offences that ordinary Singaporeans would likely get into trouble for and require legal aid for. Such as offences under the Road Traffic Act or regulatory offences under the purview of certain Statutory Boards.
As clause 8(3) of the Bill allows the Minister to amend the Schedule of excluded offences, how often will the Ministry review the list of excluded offences and potentially reduce some of the exclusions, so that more people can benefit?
Clause 12(8) of the Bill also helpfully clarifies that a person may still obtain legal representation from the PDO even if he is charged with multiple offences and if one or more of them is an excluded offence. However, will such an applicant be treated differently? Will he be required to co-pay a pro-rata share of the legal expenses corresponding to the excluded offences?
Next, on clause 17 of the Bill which allows the Chief Public Defender to require a legal aid applicant to co-fund his legal defence, would that be the norm or the exception? In principle, some degree of balancing would be required to prevent abuse of the legal aid that is provided.
Talking to some lawyers, I have heard stories of legal aid applicants who are less than cooperative with the volunteer lawyers who take up their defence pro bono, especially when the applicants need not fork out a single cent for their defence. So, a default co-funding arrangement may not entirely be a bad thing. It will of course be necessary to calibrate the amount of co-funding on a case-by-case basis considering the applicant's financial and other circumstances.
In terms of timing, at which point in time will the applicant be informed of the contributions that he will have to make? Save for special circumstances, any financial burden should be fully disclosed to the applicant at the outset of the legal aid application. Any uncertainty would detract from the objective of allaying our vulnerable residents' concern over accumulating legal fees; which is quite important.
Moving on to the operational and structural aspects of the PDO, I understand that PDO is targeted to commence operations in end of 2022, and the aim is to start by having PDO-employed lawyers take on all of PDO's cases before PDO considers outsourcing cases to qualified lawyers at a later stage.
When PDO commences operations, how many more people will be able to receive full legal representation, compared to the present average of 1,400 people who receive full legal representation every year under CLAS? I hope Senior Parliamentary Secretary can help answer that question later on.
Another question I have is, what are the conditions to be satisfied before PDO will consider outsourcing cases to qualified lawyers in private practice? Is the intention for the remuneration payable to external lawyers under clause 6 of the Bill to be fixed under subsidiary regulations or will that be subject to another consultation?
There is also an overlap between the space that the PDO will occupy and the space occupied by volunteer lawyers who take up criminal defence cases pro bono. Have there been any studies on whether there are particular types of criminal defence cases that private practitioners are more willing, or less willing, to take up pro bono?
From an efficiency standpoint, PDO should complement the existing pro bono efforts of our lawyers and multiply the potential reach of criminal legal aid in Singapore.
As PDO is also aimed at developing expertise, building up institutional knowledge and access to expert witnesses, medical and forensic analysts and so on, will private lawyers volunteering under CLAS be allowed to tap on PDO's precedents and knowledge? This would reassure the public that there would be minimal difference in outcomes to prefer the criminal legal aid provided by PDO, or that provided by volunteer lawyers through schemes like CLAS.
Finally, what were the considerations behind structuring PDO as a department of the MinLaw, with the Chief Public Defender who is appointed by the Minister for Law? I ask this primarily because I am concerned that the Chief Public Defender's decisions to grant or not grant aid may potentially be politicised especially where specific individuals or offences are involved. Such concerns would have been substantially reduced if PDO and the Chief Public Defender had been given an independent role under the Singapore Constitution. As the famous saying goes, \"Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done\".
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Deputy Leader, Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","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.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Defenders Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the move to establish the Public Defender's Office (PDO). I believe that the PDO will help to reduce the inequality in our criminal justice system, by providing legal representation to the vulnerable and low-income citizens and PRs. Notwithstanding, I have several clarifications on the PDO Bill.
First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there needs to be clearer delineation of the various legal help channels available to low-income groups who face criminal proceedings. Currently, they have a few options. One is the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS). There may be an overlap in matters covered by both CLAS and the PDO. For instance, if an applicant is eligible for both CLAS and PDO, that is, if both offences are non-capital offences under the Penal Code and if the applicant qualifies under both means test, will there be redundancies to have both CLAS and PDO capable of providing the same aid?
One way to ensure efficient resource allocation is to create a clearer distinction between the nature and the types of cases that the PDO and CLAS should respectively take on. The PDO hires full-time lawyers and pays them for their work. On the other hand, lawyers under CLAS volunteer their services and expertise. Therefore, I believe it would be fairer for the PDO to take up more complex cases. They should also take up the bulk of the cases. The PDO, with more resources at its disposal, may be better positioned to handle the greater workload. This is compared to pro bono lawyers who often have to manage other paid work concurrently.
In fact, how would the interplay between CLAS and PDO evolve the legal aid landscape in the future, for instance, for offences that are covered by CLAS and not PDO, and vice versa.
Furthermore, what about offences that are not covered by CLAS or PDO? Will there be regular reviews as to what offences should be included or excluded for aid granted under CLAS or PDO?
In this regard, who should inform the accused of the aid available? This is particularly important since the person would usually be in a very stressful situation. Would it be possible to use the Public Defenders Bill to also provide for such a support structure?
On a related note, with the establishment of the PDO, it is imperative to communicate the different avenues of legal help to the public in clear and simple terms. Potential applicants may be less educated. To many, the legal system is not something that crosses the mind of one on a regular basis. How does the Government intend to do this, so that the average Joe can understand and navigate the various means for free or subsidised legal support? Community legal clinic volunteers should also be advised, so that they are able to dispense timely and up-to-date information. Ultimately, both initiatives, in addition to the functions of the Legal Aid Bureau, need to be clearly positioned, to avoid potential confusion by the public.
Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can the Ministry clarify why offences under many pieces of legislation have been excluded. The idea of broadening access to justice through the setting up of the PDO should not be narrowly construed. No one, regardless of the alleged offence committed, should be less deserving of access to legal representation.
Related to the above, should regulatory offences be included? Members Mr Louis Ng and Mr Saktiandi also raised this point. For instance, should serious traffic offences be covered under the PDO? Are the accused eligible for legal assistance or criminal legal aid for serious traffic offences that carry potential jail terms? Almost all cases of perceived careless driving carry a potential jail term, with reckless and dangerous driving carrying a potential jail term of up to eight years for a first-time conviction.
Serious traffic offences are often complex in nature. I refer to accidents where multiple parties or even the victim could be partially responsible. The high stakes make it even more critical that the accused parties have the necessary resources to legal aid. I have met residents at my Meet-the-People session (MPS), who were involved in serious traffic offences and needed help. They fit the criteria for means testing. However, traffic offences which carry the risk of custodial sentences, do not appear to be covered under CLAS. As such, their options are limited.
I pause here to note that whilst the assumption is that most drivers have adequate means, we must not forget that several drivers do not own the vehicles that they are operating. These include bus or delivery drivers. Some may be private hire or taxi drivers too.
Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, ensuring cost efficiency is a must. This is especially so in the current economic climate. Now, the intention is to have the PDO publicly funded. On top of this, the Government will continue to provide co-funding to CLAS and expand the coverage so that more vulnerable residents will get the help they need. How will the Government ensure that the costs do not spiral? What are the safeguards in place?
There are calls for the Government to cover more people with higher income under the PDO Scheme. While it is good to ask, we should also be mindful of how it is going to be paid for by the Government and how the public taxpayers' money is spent. The Minister had previously cited cases of abuse in his Statement. In some of these cases, the accused persons may meet the means and merits eligibility criteria but could be morally undeserving of aid. One example was a war criminal in Australia, who incurred closed to $1 million in costs to defend him. It does not necessarily take a crime of international impact to be widely considered morally reprehensible among citizens.
One example is the case of violent crimes against children, like sexual assault or severe abuse. If the accused has been found guilty, but appeals against sentence, citizens may find it repugnant to have taxpayers' money used to defend such a heinous person. Moreover, what safeguards are there to prevent people from misusing the PDO to make all sorts of appeals against the legal process?
Having safeguards on keeping costs down would also go some ways in preventing abuse of the legal process. Aid should not be granted to unmeritorious applications. An example of such an application can be seen from the recent appeal of an appellant, against her sentence of 30 years imprisonment for, amongst others, the killing of her maid. Therein, the Court of Appeal found the factors which were raised in the appeal to be wholly without merit.
Fourth, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need to ensure adequate manpower for the PDO, which will consist of an entirely new department. Back in 2014, the Chief Justice said that Singapore faces a shortage of lawyers in criminal law. There seems to be little relief since. Private law firms continue to report a talent crunch. Can the Ministry share statistics on how many practising criminal lawyers are there currently in Singapore? How can we recruit adequate talents to fill the new roles? And how do we attract more criminal lawyers, without adversely affecting the rest of the criminal law landscape in Singapore?
Fifth, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must strike a balance with protecting the victims' legal rights. What about circumstances where victims that wish to separately seek personal redress and private prosecution is needed? For example, if the injury is not particularly serious, but these victims may want to seek a vindication of their rights. If they are unable to afford lawyers and are too emotionally distressed and tied up to navigate the legal process with minimal support, who can they turn to for help? Are there cases where victims feel pressured to drop charges, or to settle for the first offer of compensation, due to the lack of funds? Who can victims turn to in such situations?
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, everybody deserves equal access to legal advice and representation. This should be regardless of their financial circumstances. I have met some of these vulnerable residents at my MPS. One of them is Mr C. He works in the F&B sector and was charged with committing a criminal offence while he was drunk. He came to see me at the MPS as his last resort. He needed professional legal advice and representation. But his income and means were limited. While he could be eligible for certain pro bono legal services, he was unsure of where to seek help. Community Legal Clinics could take weeks to see an applicant and only for 20 minutes each time. Mr C was anxious that he would not have fair access to justice, taking into consideration that the nature of his offence was rather complex. The PDO will help to provide assurance to residents like Mr C.
Ultimately, all of us cannot bring justice to the poor every day. But the PDO, together with other schemes in place, creates a holistic system that allows us to be a more caring nation, to reach deeper into ourselves to find ways to help every Singaporean achieve equality and justice. We would be a dead society if we do not make every effort to lift people up from the bottom. We need to have a criminal justice system where dedicated officers have their eyes, ears and hearts open to the difficulties underprivileged people face and to make the Courts see that pain and respond. It is an exalted mission, a mission of maximum importance by releasing underprivileged people from their bondage of powerlessness. As part of the larger system, the PDO will narrow the gap between the rich and the poor and more importantly, it keeps the promise of justice and equality alive for all Singaporeans. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken for their views and support of this Bill.
Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested that this Bill arises from the Motion concerning Ms Parti Liyani's case. That is not accurate. He might recall that the Minister for Law had specifically stated that the Ministry had started reviewing our criminal legal model and how we provide aid, in 2018 and 2019. He repeated this point during his Ministerial Statement in April this year.
Members have raised questions and suggestions on the structure and management of the Public Defender’s Office (PDO), specific provisions in the Public Defenders Bill and the provision of aid by both PDO and the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS).
I will address each bucket of issues in turn.
First, on the PDO’s structure and management. Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about the independence of the PDO and if there would be any conflict of interest between the PDO and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).
The PDO will be set up as a department within MinLaw, separate from AGC.
First, this ensures that the Government has oversight over the PDO. The structure we have adopted for the PDO follows a study of various common law jurisdictions, such as the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. The offices in these jurisdictions are accountable to the Executive arm but retain independence in day-to-day operations. This accountability is necessary to ensure better governance and fiscal control.
Second, this structure ensures independence from the Prosecution, which is under AGC. Officers in the PDO, or PD Officers, will be employed directly by MinLaw and are placed on a different scheme from the officers in AGC. They will report to the Permanent Secretary and Minister for Law. This ensures a clear separation of powers and responsibilities from the Prosecution.
Ms He Ting Ru mentioned secondments. We want talent flows from AGC, but we want to be careful to maintain independence. We are working out how this can be done and whether it should be secondment or some other mechanism. This will provide opportunities for knowledge sharing, job exposure and career development for the officers.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about funding and cost control measures that the PDO would need to adopt.
We have worked closely with MOF to size the resourcing needs for the PDO in the immediate term. The PDO will start modestly and scale up over time. We will review the PDO at an appropriate juncture and assess the PDO’s needs in the medium and long term, based on the trends from its initial years of operation.
On cost controls, I spoke earlier about the means and merits tests that function as key checkpoints. We want to ensure that aid only goes to those who deserve it.
I thank Mr Murali Pillai for his suggestions on how we can manage our costs, such as requesting that certain fees be waived. We will work with other agencies to ensure that our budget is well-managed.
Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Hany Soh, Mr Raj Joshua Thomas and Ms He Ting Ru asked about the recruitment and remuneration of PD Officers.
We are in the process of recruiting suitable candidates via a robust selection process. We are looking for individuals with both the heart and necessary legal qualifications and skills. I am heartened to say that there has been a very good response from both fresh graduates and mid-career lawyers.
We are also reviewing our staff remuneration package and career development opportunities to ensure that the PDO is competitive enough to attract and retain talent. We will monitor the caseload of the PDO to see that there is adequate staffing and capacity.
I would also like to assure Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms He Ting Ru that the PDO is not here to compete with the Criminal Bar. We intend for the PDO to be an important stakeholder in the criminal justice system and play its part to develop a competent and reputable Bar. The PDO also provides an additional avenue for lawyers to engage in community work and serve vulnerable communities.
We will consider Ms Hany Soh’s suggestions on working with the Law Society to organise trainings for our officers and for young lawyers in private practice to have the opportunity to volunteer for cases with the PDO.
Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked how we could manage the quality of our PD Officers.
Our aim is that the pool of PD Officers will comprise a healthy mix of experienced criminal lawyers, young lawyers and fresh graduates. The officers will, obviously, have to act in the best interests of the aided accused person during plea bargaining, an area of concern highlighted by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
I thank Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim for their suggestions on the conduct of independent audits and publishing of annual reports. We will, certainly, look into them.
On Ms Sylvia Lim's question regarding the powers of the Chief Public Defender (Chief PD) and PD Officers, they will not have the powers under the Bill to compel witnesses for interviews, similar to private solicitors.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked how complaints against PD Officers would be handled. As mentioned in my opening speech, PD Officers are subject to the same disciplinary framework as Judicial and Legal Service Officers. As public officers, PD Officers are also subject to internal disciplinary proceedings if they misconduct themselves.
Mr Murali Pillai asked for data on accused persons who have legal representation and how that relates to the number of acquittals when they claim trial. From 2017 to 2019, about half of the criminal cases involving Singaporeans and Singapore Permanent Residents in the State Courts were unrepresented.
However, it may not be fair or accurate to measure success in terms of acquittal and to measure that against legal representation. As Mr Murali Pillai pointed out, there are many factors that affect the outcome of a case – legal representation is one of many. I assure Mr Murali Pillai that our focus is on ensuring that those who need and are deserving of help, get help.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how many more people will receive legal representation when the PDO is established, compared to the number represented by CLAS. In FY2020, the Government funded CLAS to cover 712 cases. With the enhancements to income and offences coverage, we estimate that this number will likely increase by about 50%.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked about the provision of criminal defence aid for the bottom 35% of households by income. As I mentioned earlier, we raised our income coverage to the 35th percentile because our analysis showed that individuals up to this income threshold would find it challenging to pay for their legal costs, even for a plead guilty case. We have to balance providing sustainable aid, while exercising prudence in the use of public funds.
Ms He Ting Ru asked about the provision of aid to non-Singaporeans and Permanent Residents. Our intention is that the assistance under this Bill will be provided to Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents (SCPRs). Non-SCPRs can look at other avenues for legal aid.
Mr Yip Hon Weng was concerned that the public might find it repugnant if tax dollars go towards supporting accused persons who are viewed as morally reprehensible.
As the Minister for Law had raised in his Ministerial Statement in April, public outrage alone cannot be the basis upon which criminal defence aid should or should not be provided. Rather, these assessments will be made based on the legal merits of the applicant's case.
Mr Murali Pillai suggested that the PDO and the Prosecution can explore the joint appointment of experts that will bind both sides. This is not the current practice for criminal cases. This suggestion involves broader procedural considerations. It will require further study.
Currently, the Prosecution, generally, asks for the accused person to undergo a forensic psychiatric assessment only after the accused person is charged in Court. Likewise, the PDO will have the avenue for doing so even after the accused person is charged in Court.
As for the early involvement of the PDO in certain cases, the Bill is only intended to cover criminal defence aid to accused persons who have been charged in Court and not those under investigations. Not all investigations result in criminal charges in Court. It is not fiscally prudent to extend aid to accused persons who are still under investigations.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas suggested how we could manage the lawyers we outsource cases to. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked what conditions need to be satisfied before the PDO will outsource cases to lawyers in private practice.
I thank Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas for their suggestions. We will consider them. The selection process to appoint solicitors onto the panel for outsourced cases will be stringent. Only solicitors who are sufficiently skilled and with a good track record in handling criminal cases will be appointed.
On Mr Lim Biow Chuan’s question about how we will pay these lawyers, these are operational matters which we are still working out.
Second, on the Bill. Mr Murali Pillai proposed to amend the definition of “court” in clause 2 of the Bill to limit to Courts constituted under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 or the State Courts Act 1970.
I should, first, highlight that the Bill is intended to include criminal proceedings tried in a Family Court or a Youth Court. A Family Court and a Youth Court are not constituted under the State Courts Act 1970 or the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969. Mr Murali Pillai’s proposed amendment, therefore, excludes the Family Court and Youth Court, which can exercise criminal jurisdiction. This is not our intent. The definition in the Bill is clear and our position is that an amendment is not needed.
Let me explain. The scope of criminal defence aid is determined by the scope of proceedings in clauses 8(1) and 12(8), which have been carved out to only cover criminal proceedings. The definition of \"court” cannot be looked at in vacuum.
Under the Criminal Procedure Code, criminal proceedings are heard by the Court of Appeal, the General Division of the High Court, a Family Court, a Youth Court, a District Court or a Magistrate’s Court, which exercises criminal jurisdiction. The intent is to only provide criminal defence aid to criminal proceedings before these Courts.
The term “criminal proceedings” does not contemplate other types of proceedings, such as those before the Subordinate Military Courts, the Military Court of Appeal or the Industrial Arbitration Courts. Moreover, proceedings before Military Courts are only against persons subject to military law.
In light of the clarification above, I hope that Mr Murali Pillai will withdraw his Notice of Amendment.
Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Ms Hany Soh asked about the exclusion of offences under various legislation listed in the Schedule.
First, I should reiterate that we are excluding offences under specified legislation in paragraph 1(1)(c) of the Schedule, only where the accused person is served with a notice to attend Court or a summons. In other words, if an accused person is charged in Court after being arrested or is issued an arrest warrant, their offences under these specified legislation are included. These offences tend to be more serious in nature.
The same applies to accused persons who have been arrested and charged for more serious traffic offences under the Road Traffic Act, which is one of the specified Acts. Accused persons can apply for criminal defence aid for these offences. On Mr Yip Hon Weng’s concern that not all drivers are well-off, they can qualify for aid as long as they pass our means and merits tests, so long as the offence is not an excluded one.
Our decision not to provide aid for regulatory or minor offences is in line with many other jurisdictions, where certain offences which are less serious are also excluded. For example, in Ontario, Canada, aid is restricted to offences that are indictable or which carry a risk of incarceration. We have to strike a balance between providing aid for all offences and ensuring that costs are sustainable.
We also recognise that in a single set of proceedings, an accused person may face multiple charges, some of which are excluded offences. The Bill covers such accused persons. If granted aid, they will not be treated any differently.
The amount of contributions required will be based on the applicant's means rather than the type of offences which he or she is charged with.
The PDO will see through the matter until the criminal proceedings have concluded, even if the non-excluded proceedings are withdrawn or replaced mid-way, leaving only excluded proceedings. Where charges are taken into consideration, these remain part of the criminal proceedings.
On Ms Hany Soh's request for discretion to provide aid for offences under the 10 Acts specified in paragraph 1(1)(d) of the Schedule, we have explained the reason for their exclusion. These are Acts whose primary purpose is to deter certain behaviours which are morally depraved or bring about significant negative externalities to society.
Nonetheless, we will monitor and periodically review the list of excluded offences after the PDO has commenced operations. If we find excluded offences that are assessed to be deserving of aid, we can subsequently amend the list of excluded offences.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the provision of aid for Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO) matters. MinLaw remains open to the possibility of the PDO covering capital offences at a later stage.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Leong Mun Wai asked about the specifics of our means and merits test criteria. Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked about the safeguards to prevent the use of the PDO's resources for frivolous appeals.
Our means test criteria is largely aligned with that of civil legal aid and other social support schemes where we look at the per capita household income (PCHI). The difference with the civil legal aid's criteria is that our gross monthly PCHI covers up to S$1,500.
Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested increasing the PCHI to S$2,200. We have pegged it to S$1,500. As Ms Hany Soh said, in a family of four, that would be S$6,000. It is a significant amount.
We have tried to be prudent in spending taxpayers' monies. We need to be careful. Money has to come from taxes. The House knows that expenditures are increasing and there is some resistance to how we raise the monies needed.
The provision of legal aid has been a subject of abuse elsewhere and we need to be fiscally prudent. We will start with S$1,500 and consider whether it should be further refined after the PDO commences operations. It depends on the available funds as well.
We are mindful that there may be applicants who have extenuating or special circumstances such as those listed by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim. We will develop administrative discretions for our means test framework, which can be applied on a case-by-case basis.
We can confirm to Ms Sylvia Lim that the Minister's discretion to grant aid in the interests of justice or where it is just and proper is not intended to extend to the excluded offences in the Schedule.
I assure Mr Lim Biow Chuan that we have robust measures in place to check that an applicant is not hiding his or her income and assets. It will be an offence for an applicant to provide false or misleading statements to obtain aid.
As for our merits test criteria, I assure Mr Yip Hon Weng that the Chief PD will assess the merits of any application before deciding if aid should be granted to the applicant. Aid will not be granted indiscriminately. Even if an applicant satisfies the means and merits criteria, the Chief PD can decide whether to grant aid depending on whether it is appropriate to do so.
The Chief PD will consider factors such as those in clause 12(2) of the Bill. These include whether the applicant is likely to lose his or her livelihood if any matter in the proceedings is decided against him or her, whether any benefit may accrue to the applicant if criminal defence aid is granted and our resource constraints. This discretion allows aid to be given to those who need it most. We will use this discretion judiciously.
To circle back to Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim's question, aid can certainly be granted to an applicant who intends to plead guilty, for the purposes of formulating a mitigation plea for sentencing, so long as the requirements to the means and merits are satisfied.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about the provision of aid for criminal appeals and criminal applications. Aid can be provided to such applicants, even if it was not provided at first instance.
Where an applicant is unsuccessful in his application, the referral mechanism under clause 12(5) will not be applicable. The applicant can seek aid from organisations providing pro bono legal services such as the Law Society Pro Bono Services' Ad Hoc Pro Bono Assessment Scheme.
Next, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas queried the speed at which the merits and means tests are conducted. The Chief PD can grant provisional aid to accused persons if he is of the view that the case requires urgent attention. For instance, because the accused has been in remand for some time or by virtue of the accused person's age. We will work with the Singapore Prisons Service and the Courts to ensure that these urgent cases are handled expeditiously.
On Ms Sylvia Lim's question regarding the deliberation of non-prescribed offences by the board, the presence of the board allows for greater deliberation of offences which carry a more serious consequence on the applicant.
Regarding Ms He Ting Ru's suggestion on an appeals mechanism, none is provided. After we get some experience with the PDO, we will consider whether such an appeals mechanism will be useful.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked if contributions will be a norm and when an applicant will be informed of the contributions required. Mr Louis Ng asked if an applicant's aid will be discontinued if he or she is unable to make the contribution.
As I mentioned earlier, the amount of contributions is decided based on the means of the applicant. Any contribution required will be made known to the applicant before aid is granted. If an aided person is unable to pay, we will take into account any extenuating circumstances and will work with him or her to meet the contribution.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about the provision of criminal defence aid to multiple co-accused persons. Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim also asked how the PDO would choose which cases to take up if there are multiple co-accused persons.
As I mentioned earlier, where multiple co-accused persons qualify for aid, the PDO will only represent one accused person. The other co-accused persons will still receive aid as they will be referred to CLAS or, in future, assigned solicitors from a panel. This would be the case whether the co-accused person decides to plead guilty or claim trial.
An assessment will be made as to which of the accused persons would most require representation by the PDO and who can be referred to CLAS instead. For example, an accused person in remand may require more urgent representation, which can be provided by the PDO.
Mr Murali Pillai asked about how the PDO will deal with accused persons with mental illnesses. The issue is one of mental capacity. While an accused may have mental illnesses, he may not lack cognitive abilities and can give instructions. If he lacks mental capacity, there are provisions in the Mental Capacity Act for an application to Court to be made for a deputy to make decisions on the person's behalf.
If the accused person cannot give proper instructions to his or her solicitor or PD officer because of a mental condition, the Court can call for a psychiatric assessment to determine whether the person is of unsound mind and incapable of making a defence. There are provisions under our law for Court proceedings to be held off if an accused person is found to be of unsound mind.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about the extent that clause 4(5) may affect legal professional privilege and confidentiality applicable to communications between an assigned solicitor and an aided accused person.
Under clause 4(5), privileged information may have to be disclosed to the Chief PD so that the Chief PD can perform his or her statutory functions in deciding whether to grant, vary or cancel aid. Such information may be necessary to enable the Chief PD to make a fully considered decision.
We recognise and respect the confidentiality that exists within a client-and-solicitor relationship but such confidentiality is subject to exceptions even within the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules and includes situations where the disclosure is permitted or required by law.
On Ms Sylvia Lim's question regarding a witness who lies to a Public Defender and whether he or she will be committing an offence, not all untruths will be covered. There will be instances where the individual lies about the means of the aided accused person in relation to the grant of aid. In such instances, the conduct will be covered.
Mr Louis Ng, Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about processes relating to the termination of criminal defence aid.
Mr Louis Ng and Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about the discharge of an assigned solicitor. Clause 18 governs the relationship between an aided accused person and an assigned solicitor. It does not cover the representation of an aided accused person by PD officers. Clause 18 is intended to address a situation where, for example, an aided accused person repeatedly seeks to change the assigned solicitor to delay the criminal proceedings. The criminal defence aid scheme should not be used for such abuses of process.
When deciding whether to grant permission for the aided accused person to discharge an assigned solicitor or for an assigned solicitor to discontinue the provision of criminal defence aid, the Chief PD will consider all relevant factors, including any reasons provided by the aided accused person and the assigned solicitor.
Mr Murali Pillai asked about the cancellation of aid. We expect that the factors under Regulation 8 of the Legal Aid and Advice Regulations would generally apply here. For example, a grant of aid may be cancelled if the applicant provides false information in the application for criminal defence aid.
Where a grant of aid is cancelled, the PDO will work with the aided accused person and/or his or her subsequent solicitors to minimise any disruption to the criminal proceedings and ensure the proper administration of justice.
As for Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim's question on the offence for making a false or misleading statement, this is equally egregious whether someone is applying for criminal defence aid or civil legal aid. Both are criminal offences and are a waste of public resources. On this basis, we have decided to impose the same penalty for both offences.
On Mr Lim Biow Chuan's query regarding a solicitor who has been excluded from the panel of solicitors, the Bill does not cover and the PDO will not interfere with the relationship between solicitors and accused persons who are both outside of the criminal defence aid scheme. As for whether such a solicitor can continue with a frivolous Court application, there are existing provisions within the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) which will address such conduct.
Mr Yip Hon Weng expressed concern that some victims may wish to seek personal redress through private actions. Mr Raj Joshua Thomas also asked about private prosecutions.
Thorough investigations are conducted by our Police and the AGC considers criminal complaints seriously before determining if charges should be brought against accused persons. Where a criminal charge is brought and the accused person is found guilty, the Court may also make an order for compensation to the victim, where appropriate. This process does not require the victim to engage his or her own legal representation.
If a victim wishes to take up private prosecution against an alleged perpetrator, the victim can file a Magistrate's complaint. The Courts have put in place mediation facilities to assist such private disputes, which are intentionally simplified so that there is no real need for legal representation. Hence, criminal defence aid is not provided for private prosecutions.
If the victim wishes to take up a private civil suit and cannot afford a lawyer, he or she may apply for civil legal aid with the Legal Aid Bureau. Ultimately, we want to provide aid to those who need aid, but in a sustainable manner.
Finally, the third bucket deals with the co-delivery of aid by PDO and CLAS. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Sylvia Lim noted that the PDO would overlap with CLAS and asked what cases would be handled by each outfit. Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Hany Soh also proposed centralising all legal aid.
CLAS remains an important partner and player in the criminal justice system. We will continue to work with CLAS to provide criminal defence aid. This will ensure a sustainable and effective legal aid system.
To this end, PDO and CLAS will co-deliver Government-funded aid in criminal matters and applicants can apply for aid through a common application platform, whether online or at the physical shopfront at the State Courts. The assignment of cases to PDO or CLAS will be done at the backend.
Broadly, there is a two-step process for deciding which cases go to PDO or CLAS.
First, the case would be assessed for urgency. Cases which are time-sensitive, such as remand cases where the eventual sentence of the applicant could be less than the remand period, will be assigned to the PDO. This ensures that legal representation is provided as early as possible. We do not expect many such cases.
Second, the remaining cases will be shared between PDO and CLAS. This forms the bulk of cases. The actual number of cases taken on by PDO or CLAS would depend on factors such as workload and capacity. Apart from urgent cases that will be assigned to the PDO, we do not expect fundamental differences between the cases handled by the PDO or CLAS.
On Mr Saktiandi Supaat's query on the exchange and sharing of knowledge between CLAS and the PDO, we will consider this at the appropriate stage and share what we can, subject to confidentiality and privilege. Rest assured that the PDO is committed to playing a part in strengthening the expertise and knowledge of the defence bar.
MinLaw is also working with the Law Society Pro Bono Services to develop a one-stop portal, which will provide legal information in simple layman's terms. This portal will also include the various avenues of legal assistance available so that applicants will not find it challenging to navigate should they require assistance. This is part of our broader efforts to enhance access to justice.
We will also be collaborating with other agencies and stakeholders to plug the PDO into the social service ecosystem.
We want to provide a more holistic support. To this end, we will consider Mr Raj Joshua Thomas' suggestions on working with the Police to inform accused persons about the PDO and making the application process simple and accessible.
On this note, we assure Mr Lim Biow Chuan that there are rules governing the conduct of our Police officers when dealing with any witness, suspect or accused person. If Mr Lim feels that any information given by any Police officer to an accused person is improper, he may wish to share this with the relevant authorities so that they can look into it.
I also thank Mr Saktiandi for his suggestion for a one-stop shop to apply for all types of legal aid. We can consider this as part of our broader efforts to shape the access to justice ecosystem in the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude by thanking the Members for their support and suggestions. The PDO is a significant move that will benefit society and enhance access to justice. We are establishing the PDO to institutionalise public defence. We will continue to work closely with all our partners and stakeholders to ensure that criminal defence aid goes to those who need it most, when they need it most. Sir, with that, on behalf of the Minister for Law, 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. – [Ms Rahayu Mahzam]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 2 – (proc text)]
The Chairman: Clause 2, Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Chairman, Sir, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment* because my purpose is served.
* In page 4, line 17: after \"Singapore\", to insert \"constituted under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 or State Courts Act 1970\".
Just to state that the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the word \"Court\" as appears in the Bill is meant to refer to the State Courts, the Supreme Court, the Youth Courts, as well as the Family Courts.
The trouble I had was that there was no such definition in the Bill itself. And the phrase \"criminal proceedings\" was also not defined. As a result, there was a controversy as to whether or not \"criminal proceedings\" would extend to proceedings in the military courts. And I am glad to hear the clarifications from the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary that it would not.
But I would commend to her in this House that terms of art should be actually defined in statutes so that there be no controversy when a reader or the Courts would look at these terms of art and try to interpret these in accordance with parliamentary intention. With that, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Chairman: So, just to confirm Mr Pillai, do you require a response from Ms Rahayu Mahzam?
Mr Murali Pillai: I do not require, Sir.
The Chairman: And you are seeking leave to withdraw the amendment?
Mr Murali Pillai: Yes, Sir.
[(proc text) Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clauses 3 to 28 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(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. – [Ms Rahayu Mahzam]. (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":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 1.30 pm tomorrow.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Keeping our Workers and Workplaces Safe","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Deputy Speaker, let me start by saying that it pains me to have to speak today on prioritising the safety of every worker.
In Singapore, where we pride ourselves on being efficient and attentive in all that we do, we certainly need to do more and do better in workplace safety and health, or WSH.
Sir, it is alarming how the COVID-19 pandemic has seem to set our WSH practices back. Pre-COVID-19, we were witnessing a downward trend for workplace fatalities, where the workplace fatality rate had dropped from 1.9 per 100,000 workers in 2016, to 1.1 per 100,000 workers in 2019.
But COVID-19 seems to have undone all the hard work and strides that we have made. In 2021, we saw a spike in workplace accidents, injuries and fatalities, as companies rushed to clear the backlog of work caused by the pandemic.
Workers, who were quarantined for varying periods, returned to new worksite layouts, unfamiliar team members and constantly changing safe management measures at their worksites. Measures meant to keep them safe from the COVID-19 virus might have unwittingly raised the risk of an accident happening.
The tripartite partners recognised this and encouraged employers to conduct Safety Time-outs four times in the past 18 months – in December 2020, February and June 2021, and most recently in May this year.
While I am sure that the numerous Safety Time-outs have helped companies to re-evaluate their WSH practices and prevented an even sharper rise in workplace fatalities, the unfortunate truth is that workplace accidents, injuries and fatalities are still occurring at an alarming rate.
The Labour Movement is deeply concerned – and rightfully so. Every life lost is one too many. Injuries sustained because of a workplace accident can also have lifelong debilitating effects. The right to a safe workplace is fundamental, sacred and we must do all we can to uphold this.
Before I suggest how we can do better, let me first acknowledge what MOM has done in recent months to address the rise in workplace fatalities and injuries.
It is important to acknowledge that MOM has: one, increased the number of safety inspections; two, doubled the maximum composition fine for offences observed during inspections; three, required companies that have been issued stop-work orders or have had workers sustained major injuries to engage external auditors to review their WSH practices; and four, is developing an Approved Code of Practice for Company Directors' WSH Duties.
While these are indeed important measures, the Government's actions alone are not enough. The Labour Movement, therefore, proposes five action areas to further improve WSH practices: one, establish safe and easy-to-use Reporting channels; two, partner the unions to enhance safety Inspections; three, step up safety Gearing of our workers; four, mandate Higher management's commitment to safety; and five, leverage Technology to enhance workplace safety.
Together, they make up the acronym RIGHT, R-I-G-H-T. Let me elaborate.
First, we must establish safe and easy-to-use reporting channels for anyone to report unsafe workplace practices. MOM's investigations into workplace fatalities often find that unsafe, unsupervised practices had been ongoing for a period of time. Those at the workplace would sometimes even say that is \"normal practice\".
In some cases, workers would tell us that the unsafe practices had been escalated to their supervisors, but nothing was done. Tragically, the inaction can lead to someone dying from a preventable accident.
We must therefore provide a better whistle-blowing channel – one that ensures the anonymity of whistle-blowers. We should make near-miss reporting more prevalent in the industry, as these are early warning signs of accidents to come.
We must also allow anyone, including members of public, to report unsafe workplace practices when they see them. In 2016, The New Paper reported how Mr Gusharen Singh snapped pictures of safety lapses at worksites and public spaces and alerted MOM through the Snap@MOM crowdsourcing app. How can we revive such practices? Could we consider leveraging the OneService mobile application to allow anyone to report unsafe work practices? After all, everyone has a part to play when it comes to safer workplaces.
Next, I hope that MOM can partner the unions to supplement their routine inspections. Since 2019, NTUC has been training our union leaders on WSH. Today, more than 1,000 union leaders have completed the courses. MOM could consider sharing the data received from feedback channels with NTUC and our union leaders can partner MOM in stepping up safety inspections at these companies. Having union leaders will add an element of moral suasion to MOM's inspections and help convince workers and supervisors alike to pay more attention to workplace safety.
In the public transport sector, the National Transport Workers' Union initiated the Rail Industry Safety and Health Community of Practice to enhance safety for our rail workers. Earlier this year, the union, together with LTA and the public transport operators, launched the Safety Champions initiative to empower frontline transport workers to proactively surface feedback and areas for improvement to enhance safety at the workplace. We should strive to replicate this model of tripartite collaboration in other industries.
Beyond doing one-off safety inspections, I hope that MOM will also regularly reinspect companies with poor WSH performance to ensure that sufficient safety measures have been implemented and prevent these companies from \"relapsing\" into poor WSH practices.
Third, workers should be properly geared at the workplace so that their safety is not compromised. This means companies must ensure that the work environment is safe and their workers are equipped with the proper safety equipment and be trained and certified to perform the work activity. I therefore urge MOM to make WSH training mandatory for all workers in high-risk sectors. NTUC LearningHub stands ready to offer training courses to all workers so that they can continually refresh their WSH knowledge.
Safety is a collective mindset. Beyond ensuring workers are well trained, we need also to ensure that supervisors and management are geared with the right WSH mindset. We can train someone to be the best lifting supervisor, but if his management does not appreciate the dangers involved, his hands could be tied if critical resources are not deployed for his safety needs.
In a recent interview with The Straits Times on 29 July, Minister Tan See Leng said that most workers who died at the workplace in the last few months were experienced staff and a factor driving up workplace fatalities involved employers pushing staff to catch up on the backlog of work. This just goes to show that even the most experienced of workers can fall victim if tiredness seeps in and causes a momentary lapse in concentration.
I would like to call for minimum rest hours for workers working in high-risk sectors to be legislated. If employers are pushing our workers to quite literally work towards their deaths, then we must surely act to stop this.
Next, buy-in from higher management is vital if we truly want WSH to be pervasive at the workplace. The culture at the top shapes practices on the ground.
In Australia, it is a legal requirement for company directors and business owners to ensure employees’ safety at the workplace. Company directors have been held liable for fatalities, such as a recent case in June 2020, where two directors of the Brisbane Auto Recycling Proprietary Limited were sentenced to jail when a worker was killed by a forklift operated by an unlicensed operator.
MOM is developing the Approved Code of Practice for Company Director’s WSH Duties. I would like to ask the Minister for an update – when will the Code be ready? Like Australia, we should seriously consider legislating the Code so that it will have legislative “teeth”. The bottom line is that company directors must not only be aware, but also act on their WSH roles and responsibilities.
Lastly, we should leverage technology, a key enabler to detect and prevent workplace accidents. Today, workplace safety technology has matured to a level that is possible to predict the risk of workplace accidents.
For example, sensors and wearables can alert management when a worker deviates into a restricted area, or when a worker slips, trips, or falls, allowing medical help to be dispatched quickly. Big data and predictive analytics provide the potential of predicting accidents before they even happen.
Some companies have already started to trial body-worn cameras for their workers. This is something that we should pursue especially in high-risk worksites. Body-worn cameras not only facilitates near-miss reporting and aids in post-incident investigations, but they also allow workers to be more conscious of their actions and behaviour at the worksite.
The cost of such technologies, however, can be prohibitive and it takes an enlightened management, usually large multinationals, to invest in them. We should help our SMEs adopt such technologies to improve their WSH outcomes.
MOM currently has the Workplace Safety and Health Institute (WSHI), a department that focuses on WSH trends and partners with stakeholders in the technology ecosystem to improve WSH outcomes. I hope MOM can elevate the WSH Institute into a national WSH Centre of Excellence.
The new centre should focus on lowering the adoption cost of new workplace safety technologies through demand aggregation and facilitate the deployment of such technologies in our SMEs. It is imperative that we do so as smaller companies cannot possibly hope to emulate the strong WSH practices of large companies without proper support. Government procurement can also lead by example and favour companies that adopt WSH technology as part of the tender bid.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude by reiterating my numerous calls over the years for every company to have a WSH representative, regardless of size and industry. This is already practised in Sweden today and we should implement this in Singapore too. Like the internal audit functions that many companies have, having a dedicated WSH representative will ensure that sufficient attention is dedicated to WSH issues, no matter how big or small. I therefore, sincerely hope that the MOM will consider my numerous proposals on this issue: make every company have a mandatory WSH representative.
Sir, our workers are an important pillar of our economy and they are vital to the continued success of our Singapore story. Every Worker Matters. Every Life Matters. Let us do what is RIGHT and ensure that our workers can go home safely at the end of every workday. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad.
The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his suggestions and I agree that we need to do what is right.
MOM is extremely concerned about the recent spate of workplace fatalities. We saw 31 fatalities since the start of 2022, compared to 37 for the whole of 2021 and 39 in 2019 pre-COVID-19.
Singapore has reached a stage of development where we can and we should be held to higher WSH standards. We made good progress to reduce workplace fatal injury rates from 2.1 per 100,000 workers in 2012, to 1.1 per 100,000 workers last year. Our goal remains to reduce workplace fatalities to less than 1 per 100,000 workers by 2028 on a sustainable basis and join just four countries that have achieved this. We have set high workplace safety standards in Singapore because we want all our workers to return home safely to their loved ones. This is not just an aspiration, but a shared mission with our tripartite partners and industry stakeholders
Since the higher fatality trend surfaced in April this year, MOM has ramped up inspections, imposed stiffer penalties and conducted Safety Time-outs.
In my response, I will share further measures to strengthen companies’ WSH ownership, step up inspections and enforcement, and raise awareness and promote WSH, so that more companies will want and will be equipped to do well by WSH.
The inculcation of a safety culture, which underpins safe workplaces must start with the top management. Managements set the tone, the culture and they also allocate resources within their organisations, which ultimately shape WSH practices on the ground.
To strengthen management commitment to WSH, we will be gazetting the Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) for Company Directors’ WSH Duties later this year. The law today already places WSH responsibilities on company leadership. With the ACOP, corporate leaders and Boards of Directors will be guided on their WSH responsibilities, including conducting ground engagements and communicating the need to prioritise WSH.
The Member asked about the legislative “teeth” of ACOP. In the event of a WSH Act offence, the Courts will consider the ACOP when assessing the culpability of a company, its leaders and its Board. They can and will be prosecuted if found to be culpable for safety lapses.
MOM has completed the first round of industry consultation and will commence public consultation this month. We are putting Managements and Boards on notice, that the ACOP is coming.
To further strengthen management commitment, MOM will harmonise the criteria for disqualifying contractors with poor workplace safety practices from public sector’s construction contracts. We are also reviewing the Demerit Point System to ensure errant contractors are sufficiently penalised. This includes debarring them from employing foreign employees for a period of time.
To provide transparency on companies’ safety records, CheckSafe on MOM’s website allows anyone, particularly developers and service buyers, to check safety track records before engaging contractors and vendors.
Inspections and enforcements form a key part of MOM’s efforts to uphold WSH. We conduct targeted inspections of companies in higher risk sectors such as construction, manufacturing, transportation and storage. Those with poor WSH performance are inspected more frequently.
Mr Deputy Speaker, our analysis of recent fatal accidents showed that many companies did not conduct their risk assessments or follow safe work procedures. This is disturbing. Simple and totally avoidable mistakes that resulted in loss of lives. I urge companies and workers to take these safety requirements seriously.
Our efforts go beyond enforcement. Our inspectors also spend time to advise companies on the WSH rectifications that are needed, so that they can learn and sustain improvements over a period of time.
I thank the Member for his kind offer to do more in support and I look forward to partnering NTUC to supplement MOM’s inspection and engagement efforts.
Sir, it is heartening to hear union leaders’ efforts to empower rail workers to surface WSH feedback. I encourage union leaders to rally company management to do more walkabouts and join them too, in this effort to strengthen WSH commitment.
Today, the MOM hotline and e-feedback are easily accessible to everyone. Information on these channels is prominently displayed on signboards at construction worksites. To raise awareness among migrant workers, MOM has also shared these channels via WSH Alerts on the FWMOMCare app and through our partners.
On Member’s OneService app suggestion, MOM is already exploring adding the MOM e-feedback function into another whole-of-Government app – we will let you know once that is ready.
Anyone, including members of the public, who witnesses safety lapses or poor safety practices should not be afraid to inform their management or to report them to MOM. MOM takes every report seriously. Out of 2,300 reports received in the past 12 months, around 62% of the follow-up inspections resulted in enforcements taken.
I wish to assure anyone who comes forward that there are existing safeguards to protect them. Their identities are kept confidential. Inspectors maintain this confidentiality strictly when they follow up with the companies. Under the WSH Act, employers cannot dismiss or threaten to dismiss workers who have reported WSH contraventions. MOM will not hesitate to take enforcement actions against those that do.
The Member spoke about requiring a WSH representative in every company beyond the higher risk companies. MOM is reviewing the coverage of the existing WSH personnel and will update the industry once we complete our review. For workplaces not already covered, we strongly encourage companies to identify employees or perhaps, even NTUC can recommend union leaders to take on these tasks.
I thank the Member for his suggestion to beef up WSH training for management and supervisors. Today, they are required to attend training on risk management as part of the bizSAFE programme. So, that requirement already exists for those on the bizSAFE programme. The WSH Council is already working with NTUC to develop micro-learning modules for worker refresher training. We plan to expand this to include relevant programmes for supervisors and management, so that they can lead their company’s safety culture more effectively.
The Member spoke about workplace fatigue. I agree that it can be a contributory factor of workplace accidents. The Member would be aware that there are existing protections under the Employment Act on the maximum number of hours that employees can work per day and per week, as well as the maximum number of overtime hours per month. I would encourage the unions and workers to keep MOM informed if there are contraventions to the Employment Act.
I also agree with the Member that WSH technology is a key enabler to detect and prevent workplace accidents. We are heartened to know that more companies are adopting WSH technology.
Members will be pleased to note that WSH technology solutions are incorporated in the Industry Digital Plans (IDPs) developed by Infocomm Media Development Authority and sector lead agencies. These are available to firms, including small and medium enterprises (SMEs). SMEs can tap on the Productivity Solutions Grant to adopt pre-approved solutions with up to 70% funding for qualifying costs, such as the e-Permit-to-Work which allows full visibility of high-risk work activities. To drive greater adoption, MOM will continue to work with the Government Procurement Entities to include suitable WSH technology into public sector tender specifications.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we have made good progress on WSH from a decade ago. The recent spate of accidents has been a setback, but I urge all Members in this House, boards, company leaders, industry associations, union leaders and our workers to continue to play our part in keeping up workplace safety and health.
We have made significant progress and we must take important lessons from this episode to build a safety culture that will endure for years to come. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 8.01 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":"Enhancing Workplace Safety and Health of Food Delivery Riders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower how does the Ministry intend to enhance the workplace safety and health of food delivery riders who are often incentivised by food delivery platforms to deliver as many orders as possible during peak hours, which may result in endangering their lives.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) shares the Member’s concerns regarding the safety of food delivery platform riders. While food delivery platforms may want to incentivise riders to take on more orders, this must not be at the expense of safety and health, especially given the inherent risks of being on the road.
There are existing efforts by the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council to guide industry road safety practices for companies, such as through circulars to emphasise their safety duties. The WSH Council is working with platform companies to review work processes to enhance the safety of platform workers on the road to prevent accidents, including food delivery platform riders. More details will be shared when ready.
There have also been campaigns to raise awareness among workers on safety measures and tips to prevent accidents. For example, the WSH Council published its Guide to Safe Riding in March 2021, which highlights the risks that delivery riders face and provides good practices that they can adopt to keep safe on the roads.
In parallel, the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers is looking to strengthen protections for platform workers, including financial compensation in case of work injury. Work is ongoing and is expected to be completed by the second half of 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Adequate Rest for Nurses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the minimum number of hours of rest a nurse should have between shifts; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure that restructured hospitals’ rosters allow nurses to have that minimum number of hours of rest.
21 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will broaden the National Wellness Committee's scope of work to also include the working hours and conditions of nurses instead of only for junior doctors.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: These questions will be addressed in my reply concerning the nursing workforce on 2 August 2022. [Please refer to \"Nurse-to-patient Ratio and Efforts to Reduce Nurses' Administrative Workload\", Official Report, 02 August 2022, Vol 95, Issue 66, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"SMEs that Have Benefited from Green Financing Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many SMEs have benefited from the Enterprise Financing Scheme Green (EFS-Green); and (b) what is preventing more SMEs from rapid adoption of this scheme.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Since the launch of the Enterprise Financing Scheme-Green (EFS Green) in October 2021, 19 local enterprises have taken up close to $60 million in such loans. The take-up of the scheme has been promising. We will continue encouraging our enterprises to use the EFS Green scheme to finance their sustainable projects.
Examples of local enterprises that have taken up EFS Green loans include solar energy developer,Terrenus Energy, which used the loan to deploy portable solar photovoltaic panels and mobile substations at Changi Business Park. Another example is Durapower Group, which tapped on EFS Green to accelerate the development and distribution of lithium-ion batteries for Tuas Mega Port's automated guided vehicle fleet.
In addition to the EFS Green scheme, the Government has implemented various measures to support our local enterprises in developing capabilities in sustainability and embarking on green projects. These include the Enterprise Sustainability Programme (ESP), MAS' Green and Sustainability-Linked Loans Grant Scheme, NEA's Energy Efficiency Fund and EDB’s Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions.
Furthermore, as part of the ESP, Enterprise Singapore has worked with various partners to develop training courses to help business leaders build awareness and knowledge of sustainability. The courses cover sustainability trends, risks and opportunities as well as key concepts and topics such as decarbonisation and sustainability reporting, and highlight the kinds of Government support available. Enterprise Singapore is also partnering our trade associations and chambers to develop sector-specific initiatives, including outreach and training programmes for their respective sectors. We encourage Singapore enterprises to leverage the various support schemes to capture new opportunities in the green economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Difference in Rates of Increase in Consumer Price Index and in Cost of Living","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether there is any difference in the rate of increase of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as compared to the rate of increase in cost of living; and (b) if so, why.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Consumer Price Index for All Items (CPI-All Items) captures the average price changes of a basket of goods and services commonly purchased by resident households over time. It is a widely used and internationally accepted measure of consumer price inflation. The Government also tracks the MAS Core Inflation measure, which excludes accommodation and private transport costs that do not affect the day-to-day expenses of most resident households.
The cost of living on the other hand, is multi-faceted and shaped by both price and non-price factors, such as changes in lifestyle and household preferences. For instance, while younger families may be concerned about the costs of education, families with elderly members will be more concerned about the cost of healthcare. Given their different needs and changing aspirations, the cost of living faced by Singaporeans cannot be fully captured by a single measure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Comparing Inflation for Essential Items in Singapore with That in Other Developed Countries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry is able to provide a comparative table of inflation for essential items in Singapore and other developed countries for the past three years.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The list of items that are considered to be essential is likely to vary across households in Singapore and different countries depending on their specific needs. I will highlight the price trends for food and healthcare to illustrate the difference in inflation rates across countries.
Between the first half of 2019 and the first half of 2022, food prices rose at a faster rate in the US, Eurozone and South Korea – by 4.9%, 3.3% and 4.9% per annum respectively, compared to 2.3% per annum in Singapore. As for healthcare, prices increased by 3.1% per annum in the US and 0.7% per annum in both the Eurozone and South Korea over this three-year period, which is faster than the 0.2% per annum increase in Singapore.
The Government understands Singaporeans’ concerns over rising inflation and has provided targeted relief to lower-income households. We will continue to monitor prices closely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"SMEs' Adoption of Sustainability Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the extent of SMEs in Singapore adopting sustainability practices and initiatives as part of their growth plans; and (b) how are they supported with sector-based frameworks and pre-identified solutions to fast track adoption.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As announced under the Singapore Green Plan 2030, we are helping businesses to harness sustainability as a competitive advantage. We are encouraged that SMEs in Singapore are taking steps to do so. Since the launch of the Enterprise Sustainability Programme in October 2021, over 300 local SMEs have participated in awareness and education programmes, and over 40 sustainability-related projects have been supported by Enterprise Singapore. Examples include the adoption of sustainability-related standards, the development of new sustainable products, as well as financing for sustainability solutions under the Enterprise Financing Scheme Green, or EFS-Green.
As each sector’s approach to sustainability varies, MTI supports and works closely with trade associations and chambers to identify their needs and develop capability-building programmes for their respective industries. An example is the Textile and Fashion Federation (TaFF). As part of its Fashion Sustainability Programme, TaFF recently conducted its first-ever sector environmental impact study of Singapore’s fashion industry. Following that, it will go on to develop sustainability toolkits for enterprises, as well as introduce sustainability talent capability development programmes and support businesses in developing possible solutions to seize green opportunities.
Separately, under the Food Services Industry Transformation Map 2025, Enterprise Singapore is working with companies to build their awareness of food sustainability, and encourage their adoption of solutions in sustainable packaging and food waste management.
We are also taking steps to help SMEs adopt sustainability solutions. For instance, we recently announced the Energy Efficiency Grant for local SMEs in the food services, food manufacturing, and retail sectors, to help them adopt energy-efficient equipment in pre-approved categories. National Environment Agency (NEA) also has an Energy Efficiency Fund that supports SMEs in the manufacturing sector to adopt energy-efficient technologies. These schemes support SMEs in their efforts to go green and manage rising business costs.
The Government will continue to work closely with businesses and key stakeholders to support them in their sustainability journey and help them adapt to a low-carbon future. Together, we can help Singapore remain competitive and seize new growth opportunities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Energy Supply Situation in Singapore Given Global Competition for Liquefied Natural Gas Supply","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the Ministry’s updated assessment of the energy supply situation in Singapore for the rest of 2022, in the light of global competition for limited supplies of liquefied natural gas; and (b) whether the Government will consider any further measures to manage the affordability of electricity costs to businesses and consumers for the period.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: This reply also addresses a question by Mr Yip Hon Weng scheduled for a subsequent sitting.
The world has been facing an energy crunch since September 2021. Global gas prices have increased significantly due to high demand and tight gas supply. The global energy markets are expected to remain volatile and elevated with the protracted conflict in Ukraine coupled with the seasonal increase in energy demand from countries in Europe and Asia during the coming winter.
With Singapore relying on imported natural gas to generate around 95% of its electricity, our domestic energy prices would not be immune from the volatility in global energy markets. Higher fuel prices globally will result in higher domestic electricity prices. While our electricity prices will have to reflect the higher cost of electricity production, it is vital that the global volatility does not disrupt our electricity supply and impair the functioning of our domestic energy market.
I previously shared with the House measures that MTI and EMA have put in place since October 2021 to secure our electricity supply and ensure the orderly functioning of the wider energy sector. Specifically, EMA established a Standby LNG Facility (SLF), which generation companies (gencos) can draw from to generate electricity when their natural gas supplies are disrupted. We also required gencos to bolster their own stockpile of fuel. Where there are potential shortages in electricity supply, EMA will also direct the gencos to generate.
These measures helped to ensure uninterrupted energy supply and stabilised the Uniform Singapore Energy Price (USEP), without the need to bring the electricity market under state control within the short to medium term. Our Uniform Singapore Energy Price (USEP) stablised to around $320 per megawatt hour (MWh) for the first six months in 2022, versus $440/MWh in 4Q 2021.
Members may recall that some businesses could not get electricity contracts towards the end of last year and the beginning of this year. In response, EMA introduced the Temporary Electricity Contracting Support (TRECS) Scheme to help large consumers secure retail contracts. Sembcorp Power and Keppel Electric will continue to offer longer-term fixed price plans for consumers with average monthly consumption from four to 50 MWh. The demand for TRECS has been steadily decreasing, indicating that consumers are now able to secure longer term retail contracts if they want to.
In view of the continuing uncertainty in the global energy market, EMA has extended these measures until 31 March 2023.
The Government will also continue to help consumers cope with the higher costs of electricity, especially the more vulnerable ones. The support measures introduced in Budget 2022 will help eligible households with double the quantum of their quarterly GST Voucher (GSTV) U-Save vouchers in FY2022 to defray the costs of higher electricity bills. This amounts to about eight to10 months’ worth of utility bills for the average household living in 1- to 2-room HDB flats, and about four to six months’ worth of utility bills for the average household living in 3- to 4-room HDB flats, as compared to FY2021, where we disbursed 4.5 to 6 months’ of utilities bills rebates for households living in 1- to 2-room HDB flats, and 1.5 to three months’ of utilities bills rebates for households living in 3- to 4-room HDB flats.
The GSTV U-Save rebates will be distributed in April, July, October 2022, and January 2023. As part of the $1.5 billion Support Package announced in June 2022, all Singaporean households will also receive additional $100 of Household Utilities Credit by September 2022. We are also helping SMEs that are energy intensive, such as those in the food services, food manufacturing and retail industries, to save electricity through the Energy Efficiency Grant.
The global energy crunch is likely to continue and may even intensify as we head into the Northern Hemisphere winter months. The Government will do all it can to ensure that our electricity supply remains resilient. We hope that all consumers can help us in this endeavour by conserving energy where they can.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Long-term Strategy in Managing Wildlife Populations and Incursions by Wildlife into Urban Space","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development (a) from 2021 to date, how many reports have been received regarding wild monkeys (i) intruding into homes and (ii) attacking, harassing or causing injury to humans; (b) whether there are measures being taken to manage or reduce the risk of such incidents while balancing the importance of respecting wildlife amidst the vision of a city in nature; and (c) if so, what are they.
30 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for National Development (a) over the last five years, what is the estimated population of the long-tailed macaque in Singapore; (b) how many feedback cases has the Ministry received for monkey intrusions into homes during the same period; and (c) what are the current measures taken and long-term strategy in managing the habitat and the population of the long-tailed macaque.
31 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development (a) what public outreach efforts are in place to better understand public sentiments towards human-wildlife co-existence as part of our City in Nature efforts; (b) whether there are resources available to cultivate a more holistic awareness and understanding of the effects of strengthening ecological connectivity near residential areas; and (c) if so, what are they.
Mr Desmond Lee: Members have asked about NParks’ wildlife management strategies, including the management of monkey and otter populations in Singapore. From 2017 to June 2022, the Government received about 2,500 cases of monkey-related feedback each year, including cases of intrusions, feeding and attacks.
NParks adopts a community and science-based approach to manage the population of wildlife in Singapore. It carries out research on the distribution of these species, as well as their behaviour and ecology. For example, NParks is conducting a study on the population trends of long-tailed macaques. Recent studies have also shown that there are around 10 otter families in Singapore, consisting of about 150 otters.
NParks will intervene to address intrusions and attacks by wildlife , to ensure public safety. NParks partners the Otter Working Group and the Long-Tailed Macaque Working Group, which include stakeholders such as agencies, academic experts and members of the nature community, to jointly develop solutions and implement measures for wildlife management. This includes monkey guarding to deter troops of monkeys from entering residential areas, which was recently carried out in response to monkey-related feedback in the Clementi area. NParks also cordons off areas with young otter pups to minimise the likelihood of human-wildlife conflict. To safeguard public safety, NParks implements population control measures where needed. These measures have been effective in managing the wildlife population and in mitigating intrusions.
The most probable root cause of flare-ups in wildlife intrusion is feeding, whether in the form of intentional feeding or improper disposal of food waste. Such actions can alter the natural foraging behaviour of wildlife and cause them to approach and rely on humans for food. We have to keep up preventive measures in order to avoid more intense intervention from time to time. Hence, NParks carries out habitat modification such as replacing or harvesting fruit trees to reduce the availability of food sources at macaque hotspots. NParks also works closely with other public agencies, grassroots organisations and Town Councils to engage the community on proper refuse management and to deter illegal wildlife feeding.
Public engagement and outreach are key to NParks’ wildlife management approach. This includes efforts such as school assembly talks, engagement sessions and public webinars to raise public awareness on wildlife management. In addition, NParks works with stakeholders to develop educational resources to advise the community on how to respond to wildlife sightings. For example, NParks launched the \"Our Wild Neighbours\" initiative in April, together with partners from the nature community, to promote co-existence with Singapore’s wildlife.
With some care and vigilance, we can minimise wildlife intrusions – by refraining from feeding wildlife, keeping our residential areas clean and appreciating wildlife from a safe distance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Support Students and Staff After Alleged Murder in River Valley High School","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education given that it has been a year after the alleged murder in one of our schools (a) whether efforts taken by schools in the past year to enhance the mental health of students and teachers have yielded measurable outcomes, such as, inter alia, an increase in students or teachers seeking counselling; (b) whether students and parents feel safe about their school environment; and (c) whether schools are still having active conversations with students about mental health.
34 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the learning points and additional resources available to River Valley High School in the last year since the tragedy will be made available to other schools where necessary; and (b) what learning points or additional processes will be incorporated into the wider school and education system to provide better support and safe environments for other school communities.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Over the past year, River Valley High School (RVHS) has become an even more closely-knit caring community, with strong support from its teacher and staff, Parent-Teacher Association and stakeholders. The school leaders and teachers actively engage students identified with learning and social-emotional needs while looking out for those who may need additional support. The school’s peer support structure has become stronger, with students looking out for their peers’ well-being and supporting them. The school also has more counsellors who conduct regular mental well-being talks for students. Students and staff have designed and transformed spaces in the campus, as well as school events and programmes, to create a warm and inviting environment.
All these measures have had a positive impact on RVHS students and staff. Where applicable, MOE will share these good practices with other schools.
Next, let me update Parliament on MOE’s efforts for mental health announced in my Ministerial Statement last year.
Since July 2021, the Ministry has stepped up efforts to recruit more School Counsellors and identify suitable teachers for further training in counselling skills to serve as Teacher Counsellors who work alongside the School Counsellors.
MOE has also strengthened teachers’ professional development in mental health literacy. Teachers are trained to recognise symptoms related to common mental health issues and are equipped with strategies to de-escalate students’ strong emotions and impulsive behaviour. Through Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) lessons, teachers also facilitate classroom conversations on mental health which provide students with opportunities to voice their concerns. To enable teachers to check in on their students, schools have dedicated time at the start of every term. Among our students, peer support structures have been implemented in all schools to enable them to look out for one another.
Through these measures, we have observed more help-seeking by our students, whether for self and peers.
The well-being of our teaching staff is also of paramount importance to MOE. We monitor the sentiments and morale of our teachers closely and will continue to strengthen the culture of care in our schools. Staff Well-Being Committees have been further resourced with additional funding and materials to enhance school-based staff well-being efforts. Most of our schools have at least one Wellness Ambassador, a peer whom a teacher can approach for support, other than their school leaders and reporting officers. Our teachers also have access to a suite of well-being resources and workshops. In addition to MOE’s in-house counselling services, teachers have free access to the 24/7 whole-of-Government Counselling Hotline.
MOE regularly reviews and updates our security measures. Schools continue to practice emergency drills, such as fire and lockdown drills, at least twice a year with their students. Lockdown drills are aligned to the Run-Hide-Tell principles, in response to a security threat.
MOE is committed to ensuring the well-being and safety of our students and teachers. We will continue to refine our efforts, in collaboration with relevant partners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Regulate or Ban Display of LED Wreaths and Similar Items at Funerals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Government will ban the installation and display of LED wreaths, lanterns, balloon arches and similar items at funerals.
36 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Government will regulate the supply of LED wreaths at funeral wakes to ensure that the supplier is responsible for ensuring that the LED wreaths are safe for use with separate power supply.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: There has been increasing use of light-emitting wreaths, inflatables and similar items at funeral wakes. If not displayed properly, such items can cause public disamenities such as excessive glare to residents and/or pose road safety risks. To address these potential public disamenities and safety concerns, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has worked with the Association of Funeral Directors Singapore (AFD) to develop guidelines for the funeral services industry and premises owners on the appropriate placement and display of such items at wakes.
Under the guidelines, a maximum of 10 light-emitting wreaths, inclusive of one inflatable, conforming to specified dimensions, can be displayed within the funeral wake area between the hours of 7.00 am to 10.00 pm. To ensure compliance, it is the responsibility of funeral services providers and light-emitting wreath suppliers to confirm with the premises owners the number of light-emitting wreaths and inflatables already put up at funeral wakes before taking in any additional orders. Such items should not be placed near fire hydrants, carparks, roads, walkways and neighbouring business or residential premises. Funeral services providers, light-emitting wreath suppliers and providers of power generators are also responsible for the safe use of these items and must engage licensed electrical workers on the use of generators.
NEA and AFD have engaged religious organisations, the funeral services industry and Town Councils on these guidelines. Since the introduction of the guidelines in June 2022, Town Councils have begun to incorporate them into the terms and conditions of their permits for wakes in premises under their management, and some Town Councils have removed light-emitting wreaths and inflatables that do not conform to the guidelines.
We will continue to monitor the situation and work with stakeholders to implement the guidelines at funeral wakes to ensure a pleasant and safe environment 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 COVID-19 Pandemic on Social Capital of Less Well-off and Steps to Strengthen Access to Social Networks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry has conducted (i) updated studies of social capital in Singapore, especially since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and (ii) studies on how the pandemic has affected the social capital situation, especially for families, youths and children starting with less; and (b) what is being done to strengthen social capital, access to networks and network diversity in Singapore.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Social capital – our social networks of trust and mutual support – is critical for building a shared identity and sense of belonging in the community. Whom people interact with, how actively and intensely they engage with others and the trust they have for each other, determine how cohesive our society is.
The last comprehensive national study on social capital was conducted in 2017 by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) with the support of MCCY. Following this 2017 study, we have been monitoring indicators relating to social capital through various other studies. From the IPS World Values Survey1 conducted in 2020, we noted that generalised trust was slightly lower in 20202 during the COVID-19 period compared to 2012. Trust is built through interpersonal interactions. If safe management measures during the COVID-19 period were to persist for a longer time, the social capital we have could well be eroded by the extended reduction in social interactions.
In studies conducted in 2020 and 2021, the National Youth Council found that the pandemic had reduced opportunities for interactions between our youths with those outside their households or social circle. Social interactions emerged as one of the most prevalent challenges for youths and especially for those in schools3. The pandemic also impacted working youths psychologically and economically. A recent study found that lower wage youths experienced greater wage disruption and earnings loss, and also reported higher levels of anxiety4.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Singaporeans quickly adapted to the social restrictions, moving many interactions online. Families gathered and connected on the Internet, while volunteers engaged with beneficiaries virtually by holding their activities online. But these virtual interactions, while they were the best we could do under the circumstances, were not the same as connecting in person.
Recognising the vital need to strengthen our social capital, I highlighted during the recent Committee of Supply debate, how MCCY is fortifying the social connections and \"glue\" that binds us together. We will continue to boost our social capital and deepen connections through the four Ps – Places, Programmes and Partnerships, and most crucially, People.
First, through common places, specifically social infrastructure, we aim to provide opportunities for people to meet and build friendships. An example is the \"Bring Sport Back\" programme where the public gets a chance to interact and participate in mass sports activities at common sports spaces.
Next, we foster greater connections in the community through programmes and partnerships designed to encourage people from different backgrounds to interact and bond together. These include efforts such as the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs), BRIDGE programme (Broadening Racial and Religious Interaction through Dialogue and General Education), the MOE-OBS Challenge and volunteering opportunities offered by Youth Corps Singapore.
Last, MCCY builds social capital by facilitating connections among people. To foster a culture of care and neighbourliness, initiatives such as the SG Cares movement and the national network of volunteer centres seek to make volunteering part of our daily lives. In addition, PA will launch a new Community Volunteering initiative to allow people to work with their communities on causes they care about.
Through these various initiatives, we hope to provide our people with opportunities to connect, bond and feel a sense of belonging to one another. As they do so, our social capital is strengthened. MCCY will continue working with all Singaporeans to harness places, programmes and partnerships, and people to build a more cohesive society that we are proud to belong to.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Lived Experiences in Singapore: Key Findings from the World Values Survey, IPS Exchange Series, Number 18, July 2021.","2 : Percentages who agreed that most people can be trusted was 37.5% in 2012 and 34.6% in 2020.","3 : Three in 10 schooling youths felt that they have insufficient opportunities to interact with others (Source: Youth Sentiment Tracker, NYC, August 2021).","4 : Separate Lives, Uncertain Futures: Does COVID-19 Align or Differentiate the Lives of Low- and Higher-Wage Young Workers, Applied Research in Quality of Life, June 2022 by Irene Ng, Tan Zhi Han, Vincent Chua and Annie Cheong."],"footNoteQuestions":["37"],"questionNo":"37"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Success Rate for BTO Applications and Projected Number of BTO Flats Coming Onstream in Sengkang and Punggol","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past five years, how many applicants for HDB BTO flats in Sengkang and Punggol have been unsuccessful; and (b) what is the projected total number of new HDB BTO flats in Sengkang and Punggol by room type in the next five years.
Mr Desmond Lee: In the past five years, about 26,000 applicants applied for flats in BTO projects in Sengkang or Punggol. Of these, about 20,000 were successful and had a chance to book a flat, while about 6,000 were unsuccessful.
Under the Master Plan, we have safeguarded 45 parcels of land in Sengkang and Punggol for future residential developments, including public and private housing. Government agencies are reviewing the plans for these specific areas and HDB will share details of public housing projects closer to the launch of these sites. As with most HDB projects, HDB will offer a range of flat types from 2-room Flexi to 5-room/3Gen flats to cater to households with different budgets and needs, and these details will be confirmed and announced closer to the sales launch.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Objective, Evidence-based and Non-discriminatory Sexuality Education in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education whether there are steps in place to ensure that sexual health and sexuality education in schools (i) address public concerns about the subject matters (ii) are based on the best available science and evidence (iii) have clear guidelines about educators sharing their personal and religious views and how these are presented and (iv) are conducted in ways that are non-discriminatory, avoid stigmatisation and seek to reduce harm.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: MOE reviews its Sexuality Education curriculum regularly, guided by research, specialist expertise and stakeholder feedback.
As matters relating to sexuality are sensitive and need careful handling, Sexuality Education teachers are specially nominated by their school leaders to be trained by MOE. Like all educators, Sexuality Education teachers have to exercise professionalism and not impose their personal views and beliefs on their students, or advance the interest of any advocacy, political or religious group in school.
The MOE Sexuality Education is secular in nature, taught in the context of values that reflect Singapore’s mainstream society and focuses on equipping students with age-appropriate knowledge and skills. Students are taught to treat everyone with respect and empathy. Sexuality Education teachers also guide students to understand, evaluate and respect multiple perspectives, without discrimination or stigmatisation.
Our schools are committed to provide a caring, respectful and enabling environment for all students through fostering empathy and building positive relationships.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Distribution of Mosquito Repellent to Encourage More Frequent Use","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider island-wide distribution of mosquito repellent so as to increase awareness and encourage more frequent use of such repellents as protection against mosquito bites.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) focuses the distribution of mosquito repellent to residents staying in dengue cluster areas. This serves to encourage residents to take measures to protect themselves from mosquito bites by adopting the \"Spray, Apply, Wear\" (\"S-A-W\") protective steps – spray insecticide in dark corners around the house; apply mosquito repellent regularly; and wear long-sleeve tops and long pants. These measures are important to break the cycle of dengue transmission, by preventing the Aedes aegypti mosquito from biting human hosts and spreading the dengue virus to others in the vicinity.
NEA can support community leaders and grassroots volunteers who wish to distribute mosquito repellents to their residents, by providing educational pamphlets on the \"S-A-W\" protective measures. Residents are also encouraged to purchase their own mosquito repellents, which are widely available in the market.
As part of our efforts to promote partnership with private sector, the community and the Government to fight dengue, NEA and Temasek Foundation, with the support of the Ministry of Education and the Early Childhood Development Agency, have started the progressive distribution of 800,000 bottles of mosquito repellents to all students in preschools, primary schools and secondary schools from 28 July. Each student will be provided with a 30 millilitre bottle of DEET-based mosquito repellent and an educational pamphlet. From 10 August onwards, repellents will also be available for collection by clients of the Social Service Offices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Confidentiality Maintained by School Counsellors for Students They Counsel","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education (a) what levels of confidentiality are school counsellors obliged to maintain vis-a-vis the students they counsel; (b) in what circumstances do counsellors inform the students’ teachers and/or parents about their findings during counselling sessions; (c) whether these sharings will have an impact on the students’ school-based leadership opportunities; and (d) what is the Ministry doing to put students more at ease about seeking counselling at school to address mental health issues.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Observing confidentiality of information is key for school counsellors to maintain trust with their students. Before counselling begins, they will inform students of the limits of confidentiality. For example, school counsellors may need to communicate with parents and school leaders should there be concerns with student safety (that is, harm to self and/or others).
School-based leadership opportunities are extended to students based on multiple factors, including their qualities, past participation and interest. Students who undergo or have received counselling are not excluded from leadership opportunities if they meet the selection criteria.
Schools have taken steps to raise awareness and facilitate access to counselling services. First, students learn about common mental health issues and the importance of help-seeking through lessons in the refreshed Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum. They are also taught to be accepting and empathetic towards those struggling with mental health issues, and to alert their teachers to peers who need counselling support. Second, information on counselling services in school and beyond are availed to students and parents through various communication platforms.
Whilst school counsellors have an obligation for confidentiality to their students, they also need to take into account their need for parental support. School counsellors will continue to work closely with teachers and parents to promote positive help-seeking behaviours amongst students. Students are assured that seeking counselling help is a natural means of coping with their mental health issues.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"\"Live\" Broadcast of English Premier League Matches Under IMDA's Crosscarriage Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Communications and Information with regard to IMDA’s Cross Carriage Measure (CCM) (a) whether, as a policy, a transmitting or receiving pay TV operator has the discretion not to share or broadcast exclusive content under the CCM; and (b) whether there are measures to ensure that both Singtel and StarHub have a joint obligation to broadcast all English Premier League matches \"live\" even if the number of matches being played at the material time may exceed the four channels allotted by Singtel and, if so, what are they.
43 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Communications and Information why does IMDA allow StarHub to impose a subscription price of $64.90 per month for Premier League Pack via crosscarriage, in comparison to the preferential charge of $19.99 per month for subscribers applying by 30 June 2022 for the same programme via StarHub's set-top boxes.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Cross Carriage Measure (CCM) was implemented by IMDA in 2011 to facilitate competition in the Pay TV market and reduce inconvenience and cost for consumers from having to subscribe to multiple set-top boxes to access content across Pay TV operators. The CCM was subsequently scoped to cover \"live\" TV programmes acquired on an exclusive basis, to focus on key programmes of consumer interest.
Hence, to the Member’s question, if a \"live\" TV programme is acquired on an exclusive basis, the CCM requires the Pay TV operator to cross-carry the TV programme in its entirety and under non-discriminatory terms, on all other Pay TV operators’ fibre TV platforms. This is to ensure that consumers are able to access the same content on a standalone basis, via one set-top box, regardless of the Pay TV operator they subscribe to. Pay TV operators are not subject to the requirement if the TV programme is not exclusively acquired.
As StarHub has acquired the broadcast rights for the Premier League Seasons 2022 to 2028 on an exclusive basis, the CCM applies to StarHub for the Premier League Seasons 2022 to 2028. The CCM requires StarHub to offer the same Pay TV channels and programming that it offers to its own Pay TV subscribers, to Singtel’s Pay TV subscribers through Singtel’s set-top box. StarHub has discretion to decide how many channels to allot to the Premier League broadcasts and is not obligated to carry all 380 matches on a real-time basis. StarHub has to broadcast the non-real-time matches within 48 hours after the matches have ended, on both Singtel’s and StarHub’s Pay TV platforms. IMDA will ensure that their arrangement adheres to the CCM.
To the Member’s question about the difference in pricing for the Premier League Pack, I would like to clarify that it is offered at $64.90 per month via the Pay TV platform and this same price is offered to all Pay TV subscribers, whether through StarHub or Singtel.
The Member may be referring instead to the pricing for StarHub’s Premier+ pack, which provides access to the broadcast of the Premier League not through Pay TV set-top boxes but via the Internet, also termed as over-the-top (OTT) platforms. The CCM does not apply to content accessed via OTT platforms, since consumers can more easily access content offered on many OTT platforms, without the need to subscribe to multiple set-top boxes.
For the Premier+ pack via OTT, StarHub’s offer of $39.99 per month is not exclusive to its own subscribers. For existing and new subscribers of StarHub’s mobile, broadband or Pay TV services, this pack is available at discounted rates ($19.99 per month for a limited time before 30 June and $24.99 per month thereafter). The offering of volume discounts across multiple services can provide savings to consumers. It is also a common industry practice, not limited to service providers in the telecommunication and media industries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Per Capita Annual Value of Homes as Basis for Assistance Packages to Offset Cost of Living","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether future financial packages to help Singaporeans offset the cost of living will consider per capita annual value of their homes so that larger families living in non-HDB flats can be better supported by the Government.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Our social support schemes are generally means-tested to ensure support is targeted. Various criteria are used for the means tests, and several of them do take into account family sizes. For example, we use Per Capita Household Income (PCHI) for certain schemes that are available to private estate residents, such as CHAS and Seniors Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF).
Annual value (AV) is currently used as a proxy for wealth and family support. While it is not a perfect measure, it remains a reasonable proxy for the financial resources available to the individual, including from immediate family members who reside with this individual. Where individuals miss the scheme criteria narrowly, we can consider appeals on a case-by-case basis.
Not all support measures are means-tested. For example, in the recent $1.5 billion Support Package, all Singaporean households will receive a $100 Household Utilities Credit to provide support for utilities bills. Under the Budget 2022 Household Support Package, all Singaporean households also received CDC Vouchers to provide support for daily essentials.
We will continue to review the criteria used for social support schemes for appropriateness and fiscal sustainability, while prioritising assistance to individuals with greater need.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Taxation Policy on Gains from Exercise of Share Options, Given Downturn in Startup and Technology Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of the current downturn in the startup and technology sectors, whether IRAS will review the taxation policy on gains from the exercise of share options, especially in situations where the value of stock options declines tremendously after the initial assessment of tax due.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Employee Share Options (ESOP) plans awarded or granted to an employee while he is exercising employment in Singapore is part of his employment income here. This is because such ESOP gains are gains derived by reason of his office or employment here. Like other employee benefits, an ESOP is considered part of the employee’s compensation package.
Generally, ESOP gains are taxable in the year in which the ESOP is exercised. The difference between the market price of the shares on the day of exercise of the ESOP and the exercise price paid for the shares, constitutes the employee’s employment income, which is subject to personal income tax. If there is a moratorium imposed on the selling of shares after the ESOP is exercised, the difference between the market price of the shares on the day the moratorium is lifted and the exercise price paid for the shares, constitutes the employee’s employment income, which is subject to personal income tax.
An employee should make an informed decision whether to exercise the ESOP, taking into account tax- and non-tax factors, including the future share price outlook.
After exercising the ESOP, the employee then chooses whether, and when, to sell the shares. If he sells them at a higher price than the exercise price, these incremental gains, which are capital gains, are not taxed. Correspondingly, if he sells the shares at a lower price, the capital losses will not be tax deductible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcome-based Considerations in Awarding Criteria in Government Procurement Processes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether Government procurement processes have started to take into account outcome-based considerations in their awarding criteria; and (b) what are some of these considerations especially for industries that have or are adopting Progressive Wage Models.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government adopts outcome-based procurement where appropriate and feasible. Such adoption is only possible if the outcomes can be measured or monitored and when there is industry readiness to bid for outcome-based specifications. These considerations apply to all industries, whether they are adopting Progressive Wage Model (PWM) or not.
In support of the implementation of the PWMs for the cleaning, landscape and security sectors, most new tenders called by Government agencies for these sectors today adopt Outcome-Based Contracting (OBC). For instance, agencies specify the response time expected of security officers or the cleaning outcomes and service quality to be maintained, rather than specify headcount for the contracts. This allows service providers to suggest solutions that integrate and better optimise manpower, technology and processes. However, there are still some instances where specific manpower and technology requirements may be spelled out due to critical operational requirements, such as for security escort operations and landscape maintenance in national gardens.
Where we are able to measure or monitor the outcomes, we will similarly adopt more OBCs for other PWM sectors that the Government procures from.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventing Incidents between Cyclists and Pedestrians with Increased Cycling Within Towns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Transport given the rollout of more dedicated cycling paths and promotion of cycling within towns, what are the safety precautions to prevent collisions between cyclists and pedestrians at key intersections such as bus stops, traffic light junctions and exit points of residential developments.
Mr S Iswaran: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) enhances safety for path users on our cycling paths through various initiatives, ranging from infrastructure, public education and enforcement.
Cycling paths are designed to provide a safe and convenient way of commuting. The paths are wider than footpaths, with visual cues such as the distinctive red coating and clear path markings, to demarcate boundaries. For better visibility at night, lights are provided at cycling paths, in addition to existing street lights.
At key intersections such as bus stops, traffic light junctions and exit points of residential developments, there are additional safety features. Cycling paths have speed regulating strips and safety markings to remind and slow down cyclists when they approach bus stops. Where space permits, these paths are routed behind the bus stops to segregate path users from commuters at the bus stops.
At traffic junctions, there are advisory signs for users to look out for each other and crossings have been widened to provide more space for cyclists and pedestrians to cross the junction safely.
For residential areas, LTA works closely with the management of developments and the community to develop mitigating measures such as D-markings, spring-loaded posts and ground markings to alert residents of potential oncoming path users at areas such as property gates and corners with poor visibility. LTA also works with the developments’ management on other initiatives such as putting up notices within the development’s premises to alert pedestrians to look out for path users when exiting.
Beyond infrastructure, we promote the awareness of path users on safe riding practices through regular campaigns and programmes such as Confidence on Wheels Programme. LTA also carries out regular enforcement operations to take errant users to task.
Ultimately, cycling paths are shared spaces that benefit all. I urge all path users to play their part in behaving responsibly and graciously. With collective ownership and responsibility, our shared spaces will be safe for everybody.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Higher ERP Rates on Traffic Volumes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the rationale for increasing ERP charges in May and June; (b) what is the impact of these higher ERP charges in terms of traffic congestion; (c) what is the effect of the higher ERP charges on the Consumer Price Index (CPI); and (d) whether any further increases to ERP charges this year can be halted in view of high petrol prices and general inflation.
Mr S Iswaran: The Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system is a congestion management tool, to reduce time and productivity losses from traffic congestion by encouraging motorists to plan their routes and travel times. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) regularly reviews ERP rates based on observed traffic speeds on ERP-priced roads. ERP rates are increased when traffic speeds fall below optimal levels, and decreased when they are above optimal levels.
The adjustments of ERP rates in May were part of this regular exercise. At the same time, LTA also announced the temporary reduction in ERP rates for the June school holidays and their restoration at the end of the holidays. This is done as part of LTA’s twice-yearly school holiday reviews in June and December when rates are temporarily reduced, given that congestion typically eases in some timeslots and locations during the school holidays.
ERP was suspended across all gantries and time slots in March 2020 during the circuit breaker. From July 2020, LTA has gradually introduced ERP charges, which currently apply at a total of 35 timeslots across nine locations. For comparison, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, ERP was chargeable at 173 timeslots across 29 locations. With all workers now allowed to return to the workplace as per pre-COVID-19 norms, more traffic congestion is to be expected. LTA will thus continue to monitor traffic speeds and adjust ERP rates accordingly to target traffic congestion.
Halting ERP increases will lead to heavy congestion and inadvertently increase costs. As an example, logistics drivers will have to spend more time on the road, which raises not only their fuel costs but also shipping and delivery costs, and consumers may ultimately bear such costs indirectly. Separately, to cushion the impact of higher prices, the Government had rolled out a comprehensive package of measures in Budget 2022; brought forward the disbursements for several schemes in April 2022; and most recently, the Government had announced a $1.5 billion support package to provide immediate and targeted relief, especially to lower-income and vulnerable groups. The package includes a one-off relief of $150 for eligible taxi and private hire car drivers, and up to $300 under the NTUC Freelancers and Self-Employed Unit Relief.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Privileges, Immunities and Hospitality Accorded to Former Heads of State or Heads of Government Visiting or Transiting Through Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what privileges, immunities and hospitality are accorded to former Heads of State or Heads of Government who visit or transit through Singapore; (b) whether any public resources are expended in such instances; and (c) whether the former Sri Lankan President was accorded any privileges, immunities and hospitality in Singapore following his resignation.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: In general, the Singapore Government does not accord privileges, immunity and hospitality to former Heads of State or Heads of Government. Consequently, former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was not accorded any privileges, immunity or hospitality.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Long Working Hours of Junior Doctors' Training on Patient and Doctor Safety","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) whether any studies have been conducted to (i) ascertain the efficacy of work weeks of up to 80 hours on junior doctors’ training outcomes vis-à-vis a shorter work week of 70 hours and (ii) assess the potential impact of long working hours on patient and doctor safety; and (b) if not, whether the Government will consider conducting such studies and publishing the findings.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Some international studies had shown that long working hours were associated with increase in risks to patient safety, for example, medical errors and adverse events, especially when doctors worked continuously beyond 24 hours. Therefore, inter alia, local work hours guidelines limits work hours for junior doctors to a maximum of 24 consecutive hours of clinical care duties with not more than six hours for handover. Besides working hours, patient safety can also be affected by other factors, including work processes, environmental and organisational factors.
On the other hand, some international studies also showed that reduced work hours may result in shortage of manpower and reduced opportunities for learning. By inference, this will have a negative effect on clinical outcomes and safety.
MOH is looking into the wellness of junior doctors under the National Wellness Committee for Junior Doctors (NWC-JD), and that includes a review of junior doctor work hours and training outcomes while ensuring that patient safety and training requirements are not compromised.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prevalence of Sudden Cardiac Arrest in General Population and Public Education Programmes on Spotting Signs and Symptoms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has observed an increase in the number of sudden heart failures in the general population over the past three years; and (b) whether there can be more public education programmes to help people better spot signs and symptoms of heart failure.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We confirmed with Ms Joan Pereira that the \"sudden heart failures\" in the Parliamentary Question refers to people with no previous cardiac history dying as a result of an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or \"heart attack\".
The number of people with no previous history of cardiac disease who passed away within 30 days of a heart attack in 2018 to 2020 were 353, 359, and 389, respectively. Accounting for Singapore’s ageing population, this translates to death rates of 8.4 per 100,000 population in 2018, 7.4 in 2019 and 7.8 in 2020. Data for 2021 is still being collated.
The Health Promotion Board (HPB) has put out public messages on common symptoms experienced by people suffering from heart attacks. Under the national Screen for Life (SFL) programme, HPB also encourages Singapore residents to go for regular health screening for high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, obesity and diabetes, which are all risk factors for AMI; as well as to avoid unhealthy diets, physical inactivity and smoking.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Engage and Involve Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners under Healthier SG Initiative","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Health how does the Ministry plan to engage and involve traditional Chinese medicine practitioners under the Healthier SG initiative.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Healthier SG is a significant and transformative national healthcare strategy, requiring many stakeholders and partners to work together to support our residents’ needs.
Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners (TCMPs) are important stakeholders, especially given their emphasis on holistic and long-term care. However, unlike western doctors, TCMPs are not tightly regulated by MOH, the standard of care delivery varies widely and we will not be able to take the same approach as we have for western doctors.
Since July this year, MOH has started engagement efforts with the TCMP community, through the Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board (TCMPB), to hear their views and discuss with them how they can play a part in Healthier SG. TCMPB welcomed the initiative and will work with MOH and other community partners to support Healthier SG initiatives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Policy on Allowing Foreigners Wanted By Their Governments to Transit or Enter Singapore Temporarily","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the policy on allowing foreigners wanted by their government to transit or enter Singapore temporarily pending their onward flight; (b) under what circumstances will such requests be rejected outright; (c) whether the Singapore Government is responsible for the personal safety of these foreigners during their stay here; and (d) what is the Government’s response to concerns that Singapore will become a destination for political fugitives.
Mr K Shanmugam: Foreigners who possess a valid travel document and meet entry requirements will be allowed to come into Singapore. We also reserve the right to deny entry to a foreigner if we assess that to be in our national interests.
If a foreigner coming into Singapore is wanted by his government and his government has made a request, the Government will render assistance in accordance with our laws.
Travellers transiting through Singapore en route to another destination have technically not entered Singapore if they remain within the transit area and do not clear immigration. This is international law. Nevertheless, if we are aware of the presence of undesirable persons, we may still check them and take appropriate actions.
MHA ensures the general safety and security of residents and foreign visitors in Singapore. We may accord additional security depending on the current or former status of any person, taking into consideration the safety and security risk that may be posed to the person and the general public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recourse for HDB Flat Lessees Given Misrepresentations by Home Improvement Programme Contractors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development what recourse is available to HDB flat lessees to obtain compensation when they have been inappropriately pressured by or were given misrepresentations by Home Improvement Programme (HIP) contractors to opt in for HIP works.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Home Improvement Programme (HIP) helps flat owners address common maintenance problems related to ageing flats. If 75% or more of the eligible households in the block votes for HIP, HDB will carry out compulsory essential improvement works that are considered necessary for public health and safety. This includes works such as the repair of spalling concrete. For Singapore Citizen households, these essential improvement works are fully paid for by the Government.
Aside from essential improvement works, flat owners can also opt for optional improvement works, such as toilet upgrading and new entrance doors and grille gates. These works are heavily subsidised if residents opt for them.
However, if residents decide not to opt for toilet upgrading works, a water test needs to be conducted to check for existing or potential leaks to the lower floor unit. Flat owners can only opt out if their toilets pass the test, or if there is no existing leak at the lower floor. The toilet upgrading package includes waterproofing works to address the ceiling leakage, tiling of floors and walls, and provision of new pedestal pan, wash basin, door and vent. Three packages of different tile designs are available for residents to choose from. As long as the waterproofing works are carried out, flat owners may also choose to use their own fittings and fixtures, but these will have to be at their own cost.
With the exception of toilet upgrading works which are required if potential or existing ceiling leaks are detected, residents are free to choose whether they want to take up the optional improvement items under HIP. HDB contractors are not allowed to influence residents or pressure them to opt for such works. If residents feel that they have been inappropriately pressured, or subject to misrepresentations, they may approach HDB, who will investigate and take appropriate action.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Actions against Contractors who Illegally Dump Renovation Debris at Common Areas of HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will impose an immediate suspension or debarment of renovation contractors who illegally dump renovation debris at common areas of HDB flats.
Mr Desmond Lee: When carrying out works in HDB flats, contractors are required to properly dispose of renovation debris at NEA-approved disposal sites at the end of every workday.
Renovation contractors who are found to have improperly disposed of renovation debris on common property in HDB estates will face a penalty of $500 and be given six demerit points under the Demerit Points System. Renovation contractors who accumulate 24 demerit points within a 24-month period will be barred from carrying out any new renovations works in HDB flats for the next 12 months.
In addition, Town Councils are also empowered under the Town Councils Act to make by-laws to allow them to take appropriate action against contractors for dumping offences at HDB common areas. This may include issuing a notice of composition to errant contractors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Owners Having Breached Terms and Conditions for Renting Out Rooms in HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the last five years, how many HDB flat owners have breached HDB's terms and conditions for the renting out of their rooms; (b) what are the common reasons provided for breaching these terms and conditions; (c) whether appeals are made against HDB's revocation of the rental approval due to the breach; and (d) if so, how many appeals have been successful.
Mr Desmond Lee: Owners of 3-room and larger HDB flats are allowed to rent out their spare bedrooms for rental income, subject to the prevailing terms and conditions, such as the occupancy cap and whether the tenants are allowed to rent HDB rooms. Flat owners must obtain prior approval from HDB to rent out their bedrooms and inform HDB of any changes made to the tenancy records, such as a change of tenants or early termination of tenancy, for the duration of the approval.
Between 2017 and 2021, HDB approved about 456,000 applications from flat owners to rent out their bedrooms. Of these, 41 approvals, or less than 0.01% of approved applications, were later revoked as the owners had breached the terms and conditions governing the renting out of bedrooms. The most common reasons include failure to update HDB on subsequent changes of tenants and exceeding the occupancy cap.
Owners who have their room rental approvals revoked may submit a fresh application for bedroom rental if they meet the terms and conditions to do so, without the need for an appeal.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for HDB Loan Eligibility Letter by Singapore Citizens with Spouses on Long-Term Visit Passes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current number of applications for a HDB Loan Eligibility (HLE) letter made by Singapore citizens with spouses holding Long-Term Visit Passes (LTVP) who do not have a CPF account; and (b) whether the income of the spouse holding a LTVP is factored into the housing loan quantum indicated in the approved HLE letter.
Mr Desmond Lee: An HDB Loan Eligibility (HLE) Letter advises flat buyers on their eligibility to take an HDB housing loan and the loan quantum that they are eligible for. From January 2022 to June 2022, HDB received an average of about 400 applications per month for an HLE letter from Singapore citizens with a non-resident spouse. HDB does not keep track of the type of work passes held by the non-residents.
In determining the loan quantum to be indicated in the HLE letter, HDB only considers flat buyers’ incomes because they are the borrowers who will need to service the mortgage loan. The incomes of all occupiers are not considered, regardless of their citizenship and relationship with the flat buyers. Nevertheless, HDB does consider appeals to include an occupier’s income for the computation of the HDB housing loan quantum on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Release of Race-based and/or Community-based Data to Members of Parliament","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Government will release race-based and/or community-based data that are shared in closed-door settings with community leaders and groups, to Members of Parliament on a confidential basis if need be; and (b) if not, why.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Our public agencies make available a wide range of data, which includes race- and community-based statistics. Some examples of such data are set out below.
This data is used to inform the formulation of our policies, including those which are designed to address community-specific needs.
The Government does not make all race-based data publicly available, for reasons which have been previously explained. However, where appropriate, the Government would discuss such data with community leaders and/or other stakeholders in a confidential setting. This assessment, as to when this is done, and with which groups of community leaders and stakeholders, is guided by what is in the public interest, including the relative benefit of so doing against any negative impact. This has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Some examples of publicly available data with breakdown by ethnicity include:
(a) For education, the Government publishes data on the level of education that students are attending, the highest qualification attained and the fields of studies by polytechnic and university graduates.
(b)\tFor housing, the Government publishes data on the type of housing, home ownership, and the geographic distribution of residences.
(c) For health, the Government publishes data on the prevalence of obesity, chronic health conditions, smoking and poor mental health.
(d)\tFor income and employment, the Government publishes data on household income, employment status, the type of industry and the type of occupation.
(e)\tFor other important social areas, the Government publishes data on religion, marital status, the number of children born and the language most frequently spoken at home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Replacement Sites for Lim Chu Kang Farms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development with regard to the 70 Lim Chu Kang farms that have their leases extended till July 2022 and February 2023 (a) how many farms have been successful at securing a replacement site; (b) whether any financial and non-financial support has been extended to these farms to help with their relocation and, if so, what are they; and (c) what is the expected date for the commencement of development works at the sites for military use.
Mr Desmond Lee: The western part of Lim Chu Kang, which includes vacant land and farm sites, will be needed for the Singapore Armed Forces' operational and training purposes. The development works will take place in two phases. One phase will commence later this year and the other phase will commence next year.
Since 2014, the affected farms have been informed that their leases will not be renewed after they expire. Since then, agencies have provided many forms of support to help the affected farms relocate.
For example, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has facilitated the food farms in tendering for new agri-land plots and other spaces such as rooftop urban farms or industrial spaces, and worked closely with the farms on their transition plans.
NParks has also engaged the non-food farms regularly to guide them in tendering for replacement sites, or to move indoors into industrial space where possible.
Funding support has also been provided to facilitate the adoption of technology and innovative solutions to enhance their productivity and modernise their operations, as part of their relocation.
Agencies have also expedited regulatory approvals for farms that are transiting to new farm plots. We have also provided multiple lease extensions to facilitate the tenants’ participation in various land tenders and to give the farms more time to plan and execute their relocation plans.
The Singapore Armed Forces needs the land for military training to replace military training land that had been given up for the development of Tengah New Town. The development plans for the affected area cannot be delayed any further.
Of the 70 affected farms, eight farms have vacated and returned their plots to the state and 62 farms currently remain in the affected area. Of these 62 farms, 24 farms have successfully secured replacement sites and are in the process of relocating their farms. The remaining 38 farms say that they are still in the process of looking for a replacement site or are winding up.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Wrongful Dismissal Claims and Salary Disputes Pertaining to PMETs and Number of Cases Successfully Prosecuted","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower arising from the Employment Standards Report 2021 (a) what proportion of wrongful dismissal claims and salary disputes in 2021 pertained to PMETs; and (b) among the less than 1% of salary claims in 2021 that involved wilful employers who refused to make full payment for salary arrears despite having the means to do so, how many cases have been successfully prosecuted to date.
Dr Tan See Leng: In 2021, there were 4,848 salary claims and 922 dismissal claims lodged at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management. About a quarter of the salary claims and 40% of the dismissal claims were lodged by managers and executives.
In 2021, there was only one case of a wilful employer that refused to make full payment for salary arrears despite having the means to do so. This case is pending prosecution.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Correlation between Parents' Socioeconomic Status and Take-up of Maternity and Paternity Leave","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister (a) whether there is a correlation between a parent’s social economic status and the taking of maternity and paternity leave respectively; and (b) if the Ministry is not aware of any such correlation, whether it will conduct a study.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): We have not studied the correlation between parents’ socioeconomic status and their maternity and paternity leave utilisation. Generally, parental leave utilisation may be affected by factors such as nature of the job and workplace norms and practices.
For example, even as employers are required by law to provide maternity and paternity leave, parents in jobs that require physical presence such as those in frontline roles, or whose income is dependent on the number of hours clocked at work, may find it more difficult to tap on these leave provisions.
Our focus group discussions and interviews with parents have reflected that workplace support is key across all types of jobs and companies. Where supervisors are supportive and colleagues are willing to support covering arrangements, parents are more likely to take paternity or maternity leave. Therefore, we encourage parents to discuss their paternity or maternity leave plans with their employers early so that employers can start planning for covering work arrangements.
At the same time, we also encourage employers to adopt progressive human resource practices and design flexible solutions which balance support for both employees and business needs, such as allowing parents to take the leave over different days, instead of over one continuous period, within their child’s first year.
A whole-of-society effort is needed for parents to feel supported in taking time away from work to care for and bond with their newborns. We will continue to work with our stakeholders to encourage companies to build a more supportive workplace culture, to enable parents to better benefit from our parental leave schemes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Eligible Children whose Parents Have Not Enrolled Them in KidSTART Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether he can provide an update on KidSTART since its rollout; (b) what proportion of eligible children whose parents have been reached out to have enrolled in the programme; and (c) what are the reasons given by those who have not enrolled.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: KidSTART has supported about 4,300 children across 13 Social Service Office (SSO) regions since it was piloted in 2016. Preliminary outcomes are encouraging. Generally, KidSTART children had better preschool attendance than their peers of similar socioeconomic backgrounds and they gained greater confidence in interacting and socialising with their peers. Their parents or caregivers also felt more competent and better supported along their parenting journeys. KidSTART will be progressively expanded from 2023 to benefit more families across all 24 SSO regions in Singapore.
KidSTART reaches out to pregnant mothers and lower-income families with young children through the hospitals, community and preschools. KidSTART also receives referrals from social service agencies.
Since 2016, KidSTART has reached out to about 7,000 eligible families and their children. On average, 60% of these families joined the KidSTART programme. Families who declined to join the programme either did not see the need for additional support or had difficulties committing to the programme. For these families, they would nonetheless be offered assistance with preschool enrolment for the children.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Absenteeism Rate of Preschool Children in Bottom 20% of Socioeconomic Groups by Age and Ethnicity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is the absenteeism rate of preschool children in the bottom 20% of socio-economic groups, broken down by (i) ages of four, five and six years old and (ii) ethnicity.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Early Childhood Development Centres Act requires preschools to maintain daily records of children’s attendance. However, preschools are not required to submit attendance records for every child to the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) and the requested information is thus not available.
Based on available data from a major Anchor Operator, the attendance rate of lower-income children is about 10 percentage points lower than their peers. This is why programmes like KidSTART and Community Link work closely with preschools to support lower-income families with young children, to address barriers to children’s regular preschool attendance.
The Government will continue to invest in efforts to improve preschool enrolment and attendance, to give every child a good start. As part of these efforts, ECDA is working with Anchor Operators on regular submission of attendance records of all enrolled children.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Safeguard Biodiversity and Natural Hydrology in Choa Chu Kang Waterworks Area","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment following the consultation on the environmental impact of reconstructing Choa Chu Kang Waterworks (a) what are the steps and measures that will be taken to safeguard the biodiversity and natural hydrology in the area; and (b) whether the construction of the project will be adjusted to fully take into account the implementation of such steps and measures.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Choa Chu Kang Waterworks is Singapore's second largest waterworks and the only one located in western Singapore. The plant was constructed in phases between 1975 and 1981 and its aged infrastructure requires renewal and upgrading works to ensure that it can continue to supply good and safe drinking water to meet Singapore’s water needs.
Choa Chu Kang Waterworks will have to remain in operation during the upgrading works to continue supplying water to the western areas of Singapore. For this reason, there is insufficient space within the plant to construct new treatment infrastructure. Therefore, about 3.2 hectares of additional land adjacent to the existing plant will be used.
PUB is mindful of minimising any potential impact on the environment. PUB worked closely with NParks to scope a comprehensive environmental impact assessment, also known as EIA, of Choa Chu Kang Waterwork’s proposed reconstruction. This was completed in end-2021. PUB subsequently sought feedback from nature groups on the EIA findings, which have since been incorporated in the EIA report. Taking in the findings, PUB has proposed a suite of mitigation measures to safeguard the biodiversity and natural hydrology in the surrounding areas. These measures will be adopted during the reconstruction works.
Allow me to outline some of these measures:
(a) PUB has adjusted the original project footprint to preserve a part of a freshwater stream which is home to aquatic species of conservation significance. PUB will also put in place a 10-metre-wide strip of vegetation to serve as a buffer and implement an enhanced Earth Control Measures plan to protect this stream;
(b) Flora species of conservation significance will be salvaged and placed in a designated nursery for transplanting to other suitable habitats. The salvaged species could subsequently be utilised in the replanting of the site if feasible; and
(c) Prior to land clearing, wildlife shepherding and the targeted relocation of animals will be conducted before the worksite is progressively hoarded up.
While the measures will add time and cost to the project, PUB is fully committed to implementing them to mitigate the project's impact on the environment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiver of Admission Fees to Local Places of Interest to Encourage More Family Outings during Year of Celebrating SG Families","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in conjunction with 2022 being the year of celebrating SG families, whether the Singapore Tourism Board will consider working with private operators to offset or waive admission fees of local places of interest for children and senior citizens so as to encourage more families to go on outings together and enjoy inter-generational bonding.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In support of the Year of Celebrating SG Families (YCF), partners of Made For Families have introduced deals and promotions targeted at families. Made For Families is an initiative by the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) to build an ecosystem of partners that support families in different ways. Some of these deals were launched in the 2022 June school holidays. They included promotions and discounts for family-friendly events and activities, staycations, attractions and food and beverages. Selected deals are valid for the entire year of 2022.
STB will continue to drive the SingapoRediscovers marketing campaign which was started in conjunction with the SingapoRediscovers vouchers scheme in 2020. Although the voucher scheme ended in March 2022, there are many local attractions and places of interest where families can explore and strengthen their bonds. We hope Singaporeans will keep venturing into their backyard with a sense of adventure, as quaint neighbourhoods, lush nature, as well as fascinating arts and heritage trails, await. Many of these places are admission-free.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Students Unsuccessful in Getting into School of Choice in Secondary School Posting Process","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Education (a) for students who do not get their choice of school during the Secondary school posting process after PSLE, what are the parameters considered by the Ministry in posting allocations; and (b) whether distance of school from home is a priority factor in the parameters considered.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Secondary One posting process takes place after the release of PSLE results and is based on merit, choice order and citizenship of students. The vast majority of students are placed into a school of their choice, with more than 80% posted to a school within their top three choices, and more than 90% posted to a school in one of their six choices.
If a student is not placed in a school among their six choices, the student will be posted to the school nearest to his or her residence that has vacancies in the course that he or she is eligible for.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Competition Commission's Review of Alleged Anti-competitive Behaviour by Fuel Retailers in First Half of 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) when will the results of the review conducted by the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) on alleged anti-competitive behaviour by fuel retailers during the spike in commodity prices in the first half of the year be released; and (b) whether such a review will be conducted periodically henceforth.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Last month, Minister of State Low Yen Ling updated the House that fuel prices in Singapore had risen in tandem with global crude oil prices. Global crude oil prices had increased significantly due to higher demand as economies reopen following the pandemic, coupled with tight supplies due to sanctions against Russia and the past years of under-investment in fossil fuel productions.
MTI is currently reviewing the fuel retail market to determine if there are other ways to alleviate the pressure on fuel prices. This study will also examine how global developments, as well as the practices of the fuel retail operators, have led to the pricing trends seen so far.
To support the study, CCCS has required fuel retail operators to submit data and we will update the House when ready. In the meantime, we welcome the fact that petrol pump prices have fallen by 7% to 12% since early July. As to whether such a review will be conducted periodically henceforth, future reviews would depend on market conditions and the practices of the industry players.
The Government is committed to ensuring a competitive fuel retail market and we are continuing to monitor the actions of the fuel retail operators closely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"New Guidelines for Future Public-private partnership Projects Given Termination of Singapore Sports Hub Partnership Agreement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in light of the learning points from the Singapore Sports Hub public-private partnership (PPP) project agreement which the Government has decided to terminate, what will be the new safeguards, guidelines and considerations placed on all Government agencies and statutory boards when executing another PPP in the future.
73 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the considerations behind the termination of the public-private partnership (PPP) project agreement for Singapore Sports Hub; (b) what has been the total cost to the Government for keeping the PPP running in terms of the (i) financial costs and (ii) non-financial costs; and (c) what will be the anticipated cost of it being run fully by SportSG.
74 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with regard to the Singapore Sports Hub, what plans does SportSG have to (i) manage its facilities to encourage better utilisation (ii) attract world-class competitions and talents and (iii) allow more Singaporeans to access the facilities.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: These questions were addressed in the Ministerial Statement delivered in the Chamber on 1 August 2022. [Please refer to \"Unlocking the Sports Hub's Full Potential for Singapore\", Official Report, 1 August 2022, Vol 95, Issue 65, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Recent Booking Difficulties and Price Surges for Private Hire Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has conducted any studies to identify the respective demand-side and supply-side causes of recent booking difficulties and price surges of private hire cars and taxis; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider liberalising current regulations limiting private motor cars to two paid carpooling trips a day.
Mr S Iswaran: Since January 2020, the number of active taxi and private hire car (PHC) drivers has fallen by 18% to about 57,000 drivers as of June 2022, in response to lower demand for point-to-point (P2P) transport during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was despite the Government setting aside more than $530 million for P2P support measures such as the COVID-19 Driver Relief Fund and the Special Relief Fund.
Demand for P2P services has picked up sharply after community safe management measures were eased in March and April 2022, including the reopening of international borders and the return of all employees to workplaces. Daily P2P trips have increased by 30,000 in June 2022 compared to February 2022. However, the number of P2P drivers has not increased as rapidly as demand and this has resulted in fare surges and booking difficulties.
Like other sectors, the P2P sector will require time to adjust to the surge in demand after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted. We are seeing signs that the market is responding. Vocational Licence applications have increased recently, and some drivers who left the P2P sector may progressively return in response to the higher demand. These will boost the supply of P2P drivers in the upcoming months.
Carpool trips are incidental and non-commercial in nature, and this remains the case today. As private car owners typically take two trips a day – to and from home, the current regulatory regime allows private car owners to charge at cost-recovery basis for up to two trips a day. We have no plans to change this limit as existing avenues, such as the P2P framework, are in place for drivers to provide ride sharing services which are commercial in nature.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exclusive Motorcycle Lane on Expressways Given High Casualty Rate amongst Motorcyclists","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider conducting a feasibility study on the construction of exclusive motorcycle lanes along expressways to deal with the high road accident casualty rate amongst motorcyclists and pillion riders compared to other road users.
Mr S Iswaran: There are many competing uses for land in land-scarce Singapore. While we have been expanding and building new expressways over the years, these are heavily utilised. So, it is not practical for every vehicle type to have its own lane.
That said, we share the concern over the safety of riders. That is why our Government agencies work closely together and take a holistic approach to improve road safety. The Land Transport Authority (LTA), Traffic Police (TP), and the Singapore Road Safety Council (SRSC) have various outreach activities to engage key stakeholder groups annually. This includes the Singapore Road Safety Month, and the Ride Safe Campaign, which encourage all road users to do their part in making our roads safe, and motorcyclists to practise safe riding habits.
Last year, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) also enhanced the safety requirements for motorcycle helmets by increasing penalties for sellers who import or sell non-approved helmets.
Nevertheless, we recognise that motorcyclists remain over-represented in road traffic accidents. We will continue to work on various initiatives and measures to enhance and promote road safety for motorcyclists, as well as other road users.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Covered Walkways for Residents Who Live Within 800-metre Radius of MRT Stations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport whether there are plans to consider expanding the Walk2Ride programme to build more covered walkways that benefit residents who live within an 800-metre radius of all MRT stations.
Mr S Iswaran: The key objective of LTA's covered linkway programme is to connect large numbers of commuters from major public transport nodes to key amenities such as schools and polyclinics, in a manner that is fiscally prudent. Covered linkways are provided within a 400-metre radius of major transport nodes, which includes MRT and LRT stations and bus interchanges. There are no plans to expand the current criteria of the programme, as our priority is to stretch our limited financial resources to cover more locations and benefit more commuters who travel within 400 metres of these transport nodes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines on Rental Rates for Vehicles Hired for Driving Trades","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry plans to provide guidelines to vehicle rental companies on recommended rental rates for vehicles hired for the driving trade, such as private hire vehicles.
Mr S Iswaran: Vehicle rental rates are part of commercial agreements between vehicle rental companies and drivers. The Land Transport Authority does not set guidelines on such terms and rates, which are commercially determined. To remain competitive, vehicle rental companies may offer different packages and contracts, which cater to the different needs and preferences of drivers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Managing Traffic and Parking in and Around Sports Hub to Prevent Massive Traffic Congestion or Illegal Parking During Major Events","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether Sports Hub Pte Ltd can be tasked to manage traffic and parking in the public areas around the Sports Hub to ensure that there is no massive traffic congestion or illegal parking in these areas whenever there are major events held there.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Prior to any major event, Sports Hub Pte Ltd (SHPL) is required to set out a Traffic Management and Crowd Control implementation plan to mitigate traffic and parking issues. On the day of the event, when large crowds are expected, SHPL employs additional marshals to manage traffic within its precinct.
The Sports Hub is also easily accessible by public transport, which includes two MRT lines and public bus networks. Event attendees are strongly encouraged to take public transport and arrive early. This is communicated through mainstream and social media channels, as well as directly to event attendees via email and SMS.
On the day of the event, Government agencies also step up their presence at public residential areas around the Sports Hub to stop/deter illegal parking, if necessary.
As activities resume and more major events are held, SHPL will continue to engage and work closely with Government agencies to better manage the traffic and parking situation during major events.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans' Exposure to Recent Collapse TerraUSD Stablecoin and Luna Tokens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister (a) whether there is data on the extent of Singaporeans' exposure to the recent collapse in value of the TerraUSD (UST) stablecoin and the Luna token; (b) whether there are further systemic risks to the economy arising out of fundraising efforts to shore up the UST through the Luna Foundation Guard; and (c) what is the status of the MAS' review and consideration of its overarching regulatory approach towards crypto assets, including stablecoins.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The recent chain of high profile failures in the cryptocurrency markets, starting from the collapse of the TerraUSD (UST) and Luna tokens, illustrates the high risks involved in investments in cryptocurrencies that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has warned the public about repeatedly.
Despite this turmoil, spillovers to the mainstream financial system and the economy remain limited at this point. While data on cryptocurrency holdings among the Singapore public are not available, statistics collected by MAS show that banks in Singapore have insignificant exposures to the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
Alongside other regulators globally, MAS is actively reviewing its approach to the regulation of stablecoins. Currently, stablecoins, together with other cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, are considered digital payment tokens (DPTs) under the Payment Services Act. The regulatory regime for DPT services under the Act primarily targets money laundering, terrorism financing and technology risks. Hence, services relating to DPTs that pose such risks, including dealing and facilitation of exchange, are subject to regulation1. MAS is assessing the merits of a regulatory regime tailored to the specific characteristics and risks of stablecoins, such as regulating the reserve requirements and the stability of the peg, and will consult the public in the coming months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The definition of DPT services will be expanded to include, for instance, the transfer of DPTs and provision of custodian wallet services for DPTs, when the amendments to the Payment Services Act take effect."],"footNoteQuestions":["1"],"questionNo":"1"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Civil Service Salary Structure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister (a) when was the last review of the Civil Service salary structure; and (b) when is the next planned review.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Salaries of civil servants on the generic schemes were last adjusted in 2014.
The last substantive change to the Management Executive Scheme (MXS), the largest generic scheme, was in 2015 when the MXS was extended to create a single career scheme for both degree and non-degree holders. However, salaries were not adjusted then.
3 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Prime Minister (a) how many eligible voters are among the Singaporeans residing overseas; and (b) which are the top 30 countries that overseas Singaporean voters reside in and their respective number in each country.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The number of registered overseas electors will only be known when the applications to be an overseas elector have been processed after the application deadline, that is, by the second calendar day after the issue of the writ of election.
At the last General Election in 2020 (GE2020), 6,570 Singaporeans living overseas registered to vote at the 10 overseas polling stations. Those living in countries without an overseas polling station are not likely to register to vote as an overseas elector. The breakdown of registered electors by overseas polling station for GE2020 is given in the table below.
4 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister (a) how many payment service licences have been awarded to digital payment token (DPT) service providers; (b) of these DPT service providers, how many have suffered significant adverse business impact from the volatile cryptocurrency market; and (c) whether there are plans to continue promoting Singapore as a cryptocurrency hub.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Mr Desmond Choo asked about digital payment token (DPT) service providers and the cryptocurrency market. Mr Saktiandi Supaat has raised a related PQ for the next Sitting. This response will cover the questions raised by both Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Cryptocurrency markets have sold off sharply in recent months, with market capitalisation down by about two-thirds since its peak in November 2021. There have also been reports of the collapse of a number of crypto-related firms in the past few months.
The turmoil in the cryptocurrency market has not posed financial stability risks in Singapore. Our key financial institutions do not have significant exposures to either distressed cryptocurrency firms or cryptocurrencies more broadly. The spillover to the domestic financial system has thus been very limited.
To date, the impact of the cryptocurrency market on the six DPT service providers licensed under the Payment Services Act has also been limited. MAS is evaluating the financial condition of the DPT service providers that had submitted licence applications.
MAS, along with other international regulators and standard setting bodies, has been closely monitoring risks and developments in the crypto ecosystem. Thus far, the focus of crypto regulation in Singapore, as in most major jurisdictions, has been on countering money laundering and terrorism financing risks. In Singapore, MAS has also gone further to restrict promotion of DPT services to the general public.
Given the cross-border nature of cryptocurrency services, there needs to be broad regulatory consistency globally on rules to preserve market integrity, investor protection and financial stability. MAS is involved in international regulatory discussions, which are seeing growing consensus on the need to step up oversight of the industry for this purpose. Domestically, MAS is also enhancing our regulatory framework and will be consulting on the proposed measures in the next few months.
From a developmental perspective, MAS' aim has been and remains to enable growth of an innovative and responsible digital asset ecosystem. Our main focus has been on innovations in distributed ledger technologies that can enhance efficiencies in key wholesale market activities such as trade finance, cross-border payments and the capital markets. MAS is working closely with the industry on these areas.
MAS has been focused on this broader ecosystem aimed at real use cases, rather than cryptocurrencies, which formed a small part of the digital asset ecosystem. We have been very selective in licensing cryptocurrency players as DPT service providers. We will also continue to actively discourage retail participation in cryptocurrency trading, which as MAS has repeatedly warned is plainly hazardous.
MAS will continue to adopt a risk-focused approach to regulating the digital asset ecosystem, with a view to facilitating innovation and anchoring high quality players with strong risk management and value propositions, while seeking to limit retail participation in the cryptocurrency market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Results of Review Arising from Phishing Scam on OCBC Customers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister regarding the review arising from the phishing scam on OCBC customers (a) what is the interim arrangement or understanding with banks when losses occur, pending the completion of the proposed framework for equitable sharing of losses arising from scams; and (b) whether the Ministry has seen a decrease in the prevalence of bank-targeted scams since safeguards, such as the removal of clickable links in e-mails or SMSes sent to retail customers, were implemented earlier this year.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Banks have progressively implemented the anti-scam measures announced in January and June. Specifically, banks have stopped sending clickable links in emails or SMS to retail customers and have been closely coordinating with the Singapore Police Force (SPF) Anti-Scam Centre to support rapid account freezing and fund recovery operations. According to statistics from SPF, the number of phishing scams involving banks has declined from a high of 839 during the OCBC phishing scams in December 2021 to 113 in May 2022.
MAS will be publishing a consultation paper on equitable framework for sharing of losses arising from scams. However, pending implementation of the framework, MAS continues to expect banks to thoroughly investigate all scam cases and treat their customers fairly. Customers who had practised good cyber hygiene and were diligent in protecting their login information and one-time passwords from being divulged to third parties should not have to bear losses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Including Recognition of Reports by Accredited Chartered Valuers and Appraisers Under Appraisers Act 1906","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Don Wee asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance regarding the Appraisers Act 1906, whether the Ministry will consider including recognition of reports by chartered valuers and appraisers accredited by the Singapore Institute of Valuers and Appraisers in addition to reports by the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers (SISV) and the Institute of Valuers and Appraisers, Singapore (IVAS) have different areas of specialisation. SISV focuses on matters relating to the valuation of real estate and immovable property, while IVAS focuses on the valuation of businesses and intangible assets.
The Appraisers Act provides for the licensing of appraisers for the valuation of real estate and immovable property, including land. As IVAS focuses on business valuation, which is not regulated under the Appraisers Act, it would not be appropriate to recognise the Chartered Valuer and Appraiser (CVA) designation that IVAS confers, for purposes of the Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Singaporeans Who Received GST Vouchers in 2021 but Not 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance how many Singaporeans who received the GST Vouchers in 2021 are not receiving GST Vouchers in 2022.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The GST Voucher (GSTV) scheme helps lower- and middle-income households defray their GST and daily living expenses. The number of recipients vary from year to year as the circumstances of individuals may change.
About 88,000 Singaporeans who received GSTV – Cash in 2021 will not be receiving GSTV – Cash in 2022. This number includes individuals whose incomes have increased, who have moved to higher-value private properties, who have moved overseas, or who have passed on.
At the same time, about 218,000 Singaporeans are newly eligible for GSTV – Cash this year. This is due to changes in their circumstances and the enhancements to the eligibility criteria as announced at Budget 2022. The Government expanded the GSTV – Cash Assessable Income qualifying threshold from $28,000 to $34,000.
In all about 130,000 more Singaporeans will receive GSTV – Cash in 2022 as compared to 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Male Children of New Citizens Who Did Not Serve National Service Subsequently","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Defence since 2000, how many new citizens have male children below the age of 18 when the Singapore permanent residency or citizenships are obtained and these children subsequently did not serve National Service when they reached 18 years of age or older.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: From 2000 to 2021, there were about 60,000 new citizens granted Singapore Citizenship who sponsored their children for Singapore Citizenship or Permanent Residency in the same period. Among the male children who were below 18 at the point they were sponsored and have since reached 18 years old or older, around 3% were exempted from National Service (NS) for reasons such as being medically unfit for NS, mirroring the overall exemption rates for each enlistment cohort.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Further Clarity on National Service Enlistment Dates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Defence whether the Ministry will consider providing further clarity on National Service enlistment dates beyond approximately two months, particularly to preclude short notification enlistment notifications of two weeks.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: MINDEF recognises the benefits of providing adequate notice of enlistment dates to pre-enlistees to prepare themselves mentally and physically for full-time National Service (NS). For this purpose, we conduct regular NS engagement sessions in schools, where pre-enlistees are informed that most can expect to be enlisted within four to six months after completion of their post-secondary education in Singapore. Pre-enlistees are also able to check on the various possible upcoming enlistment dates on the Central Manpower Base’s (CMPB) website.
Within the entire cohort of NS liable males averaging around 23,000 each year, some will require further evaluation or delays in their scheduled enlistment date due to medical reasons or other personal requests. Nonetheless, more than 80% of pre-enlistees receive notice more than two months before enlistment. For those who receive notice of less than two months, short-term postponements have been granted on appeal.
Only around 1% receive their Enlistment Notices less than two weeks before their enlistment date, often due to late finalisation of their medical status, whereupon the pre-enlistee had requested for the next available enlistment date, or due to enlistment slots opening up due to deferments and dropouts. In such instances, CMPB will contact them to confirm their availability to be enlisted on short notice, before serving them their Enlistment Notices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-Warrant Officer Regular Specialists Who Retired by Age 50 and Top Five Jobs Taken Up After Retirement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Defence (a) for each year from 2016 to 2021 how many regular specialists who were not Warrant Officers retired from the SAF by the age of 50; and (b) whether the Ministry tracks the career progression of these retired specialists and, if so, what are the top five jobs taken up by them upon retirement.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Between 2016 and 2021, about 120 each year or 7% of all Specialists who were not Warrant Officers left the SAF to pursue careers in other sectors before the age of 50.
Specialists retiring from the SAF, typically close to or at the age of 50, are provided with the career transition support which includes dedicated career coaching, as well as funds and time-off for courses, job interviews and internships to transit into their next job role. Based on surveys conducted by our Career Transition Resource Centre, the majority of the retiring specialists who intend to continue working are able to secure jobs in roles such as training, security, operations and administration.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventive Drug Education for Youths Travelling Overseas Given Legalisation of Cannabis Trade in Thailand","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs given the legalisation of the cannabis trade in Thailand, what are the plans for preventive drug education or campaigns for increased awareness to combat drug abuse and the harms of drugs especially for youths or students travelling overseas.
Mr K Shanmugam: Research shows that cannabis use produces short-term and long-term adverse effects, including impairment to respiratory and cognitive functions. An extensive literature review conducted in 2015 by experts from the Institute of Mental Health found that cannabis consumption is associated with harms such as irreversible brain damage, brain shrinkage and serious mental and psychiatric illnesses.
In a 2019 report, the World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) said that there are particular risks of cannabis use for children, such as respiratory depression, tachycardia and coma.
A 2019 study published in the Lancet Psychiatric Journal showed a link between cannabis use and psychosis and schizophrenia.
These findings inform Singapore's position that cannabis should remain a controlled drug.
Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973, it is an offence for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents to consume controlled drugs, including cannabis, overseas. We apply extraterritorial jurisdiction to the drug consumption offence. Local addicts will face prosecution in Singapore, even if they travel overseas to consume the drugs.
The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) brings these messages on the harms of drugs and on Singapore's drug laws, to the public through multiple channels. These include advisories published on the CNB website and social media platforms, as well as briefings held for students going on overseas exchange programmes. CNB also tailors preventive drug education programmes and informational toolkits for schools and those in positions of influence over youths, such as parents, counsellors, educators, youth advocates and national service commanders. Among others, in April and May 2022, CNB collaborated with Singapore Polytechnic students to develop two social media campaigns titled \"The Adventures of Piller Parker\" and \"Drug Abuse, No Excuse\". The campaigns leveraged youth-centric online platforms such as Instagram and Tik Tok to educate youths on the dangers of drug abuse, correct online misinformation and sensitise them to the motives and marketing tactics employed by profit-driven companies lobbying for cannabis legalisation and use.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Education and Reskilling Programmes for Prisoners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs regarding education and re-skilling programmes available to prisoners (a) whether there are any capacity constraints for such programmes that result in waiting lists; (b) on what basis are inmates prioritised in the event of capacity limits for these programmes; and (c) whether inmates serving long sentences such as life imprisonment or 20 years or more, are able to access such programmes at their discretion during their incarceration or whether these opportunities are offered towards the tail end of their imprisonment terms.
Mr K Shanmugam: Education and skills training programmes are provided to inmates by the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) and Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG).
Admission to these programmes is based on considerations such as whether the inmates (including inmates serving long sentences) meet the minimum entry requirements to undertake the programmes, their general conduct, medical condition as well as their interest and willingness to attend the programmes.
The inmates also need to have sufficient duration of incarceration period left to cover most, if not all of the curriculum while still in prison. An inmate who has only weeks to a few months left before release will thus not be suitable to be emplaced on education programmes.
Currently, there is sufficient capacity in SPS and YRSG’s programmes. Inmates who were not emplaced on the programmes, were those who did not meet the admission considerations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Prisoners Who Passed Away Due to Old Age and Offences Committed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) over the last five years, how many prisoners have passed away due to natural causes related to old age; (b) of these prisoners who have passed away, what are the offences committed for their imprisonment; and (c) what is the age of the oldest prisoner currently incarcerated.
Mr K Shanmugam: From 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2021, 14 prisoners, aged 65 and above, passed away due to their underlying medical conditions. These medical conditions included cancer, heart disease and pneumonia.
The offences leading to the imprisonment of these 14 prisoners were as follows.
The age of the oldest prisoner incarcerated as of 30 June 2022 is 90 years old. He was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment for the offence of unauthorised import or export of a controlled drug and was admitted to prison on 30 April 2014 when he was 82 years old. He is currently staying in the Assisted Living Correctional Unit (ALCU) to mitigate his risk of falling. He has been observed to be fairly independent and does not require any assistance for his daily activities, nor does he display any sign of mental deterioration.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Access to Websites on How to Make Dangerous Weapons","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what measures are in place to prevent or minimise access by Singaporeans and local residents to Internet websites with information on how to make restricted and dangerous devices and weapons such as bombs and guns; and (b) whether the Ministry has the capability to identify and monitor these persons who seek such information.
Mr K Shanmugam: Today, the Internet Code of Practice prohibits content which is objectionable on grounds of public interest, public order or public security, or is otherwise prohibited by applicable Singapore laws. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has powers under the Broadcasting Act to direct Internet Content Providers to take down prohibited material, as well as direct Internet Service Providers to block access to websites that contain such material. However, given the dynamic and borderless nature of the Internet, we cannot realistically block every website with undesirable content.
Specifically on the manufacture of dangerous weapons, in January 2021, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) introduced the Guns, Explosives and Weapons Control Act (GEWCA) to further strengthen controls over them. Among others, GEWCA introduces a new offence for possession of digital blueprints of guns or major parts of guns for 3D printing. The new laws will be operationalised by the end of this year.
Over the years, we have enhanced our intelligence capabilities to detect threats such as radicalised individuals and terror groups, who may try to procure or manufacture such weapons. The public also has an important role to play. They can report suspicious behaviour by contacting the Internal Security Department Counter-Terrorism Centre hotline (1800 – 2626473), calling 999, SMS to 71999, or use the \"Report\" function in the SGSecure app.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Countering Dangers of Indoctrination Via Social Media Targeted at Vulnerable Groups and Youths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs what measures are in place to counter the dangers of indoctrination via social media, especially for messages targeted at vulnerable groups and youths.
Mr K Shanmugam: There is a growing array of harmful online content, including terrorism-related materials that promote violence.
To tackle this, the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) recently announced two proposed Codes of Practice to strengthen safety for users of social media services, especially young users. In particular, the Code of Practice for Online Safety will require designated social media services, those with significant reach or impact, to put in place appropriate measures and safeguards to mitigate exposure to harmful online content for Singapore-based users. These include system-wide processes to enhance online safety for all users, and additional safeguards for young users who are below the age of 18.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is also working to strengthen Singapore’s legal levers to deal with harmful online content, including materials disseminated by terrorists, and content that incite violence.
To counter indoctrination by such online materials, we also need to educate and raise the awareness of our public, including youths. MHA drives the SGSecure movement, which is a call to action to Singaporeans to prepare for the threat of a terrorist attack. As part of SGSecure, we have been working with the Ministry of Education to engage students on terrorism-related issues. For example, we have incorporated SGSecure content into story books for students, and held assembly talks and exhibitions in the schools.
The Internal Security Department (ISD) has also been working with schools, Institutes of Higher Learning and community organisations to conduct counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation outreach activities for students, youths and educators since 2007. These include workshops, talks and seminars.
Community partners such as the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG) and the Inter-Agency Aftercare Group also conduct counter-ideology outreach activities targeted at students and youths. For example, the RRG has been working with schools to organise assembly talks, workshops, as well as learning journeys to the RRG Resource and Counselling Centre. The RRG has also intensified its digital outreach efforts, producing online lectures, \"live\" postings, online engagements and videos, for the community, including for youths.
We will keep up these efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Home Team Science and Technology Agency and Anti-Scam Centre's Success in Deterring Scammers and Recovering of Monies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs how have the Home Team Science and Technology Agency and the Anti-Scam Centre (i) targeted and deterred scammers and (ii) further plans to help victims of such scams to recover monies.
Mr K Shanmugam: The vast majority of scams are perpetrated by scammers based outside Singapore. These scammers are typically part of organised criminal groups and run sophisticated transnational operations which are not easy to detect or dismantle. These scammers are also well-resourced and adept at using technology to cover their tracks. The number of scammers is also potentially limitless and the authorities will not be able to detect and stop every scam attempt, no matter how much resources we pour in.
Such cases are difficult to investigate and prosecute. Much of our efforts to solve these cases will depend on the level of cooperation of overseas law enforcement agencies, as well as their ability to track down these scammers based in their jurisdictions – this varies across countries.
Given the investigative challenges associated with transnational scammers, enforcement alone will never be sufficient. The first line of defence must be an aware, watchful and discerning public, who will be sceptical and check first with authoritative sources before responding, when approached with suspicious stories. This is because once monies have been transferred out of Singapore, recovery is extremely difficult.
While these challenges are substantive, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has taken steps to try and deal with the issues that can be dealt with, and enhanced our ability to deal with scams.
The Home Team Science and Technology Agency (HTX) has developed and deployed an Online Cybersquat Hunter (OCH) that uses artificial intelligence to trawl the Internet daily, to detect potential scam and phishing sites. The OCH currently targets sites spoofing MHA's public websites, such as those under the Singapore Police Force, Singapore Civil Defence Force, and Immigration and Checkpoints Authority. HTX is collaborating with GovTech to adapt OCH to also detect sites which spoof other Government sites.
Through the Inter-Ministry Committee on Scams, the Police coordinate efforts with other public agencies and private stakeholders to combat scams. For example, the Police have worked with the telecommunication operators through the Infocomm Media Development Authority to block numbers known to be used to perpetuate scams, including those that start with \"+656\" or spoof numbers of Government agencies.
The Anti-Scam Centre works closely with financial institutions, for example, to swiftly freeze bank accounts suspected to be involved in scammers' operations and enhance banks' fraud controls to facilitate timely detection and blocking of suspicious transactions.
The Police have also collaborated with the National Crime Prevention Council and GovTech to develop ScamShield, a mobile application which filters out scam messages and blocks calls from phone numbers that were used in other scam cases or which were reported by ScamShield users.
As I have mentioned, enforcement, alone, will never be sufficient. The scammers will adapt and find a way around our measures. Combatting scams has to be a whole-of-society effort, and we urge the public to be alert, and to raise our collective awareness of scams by sharing scam prevention tips with your friends and family.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Organisations Partnering Anti-Scam Command in Raising Awareness on Scams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs what agencies and organisations have partnered the Anti-Scam Command to raise awareness on scams and protect Singaporeans.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) chairs the Inter-Ministry Committee on Scams (IMCS), which leads the Government's efforts to combat scams.
Public education is key. MHA works with our partners to reach out to population segments of concern. For example, through collaboration with the Agency for Integrated Care, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Manpower and MoneySense, the Police disseminate anti-scam advisories to seniors, students, migrant workers and professionals.
We have also involved members of the public in our scam prevention efforts. For example, as part of Project PRAISE (Police-RSVP Anti-Scam Engagement), the Police have worked with RSVP Singapore to appoint senior citizens volunteers as anti-scam advocates and train them to reach out to their fellow senior citizens to share the latest information about scams and scam prevention tips.
The Police and National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) have been working with the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) on various initiatives to educate bank customers. Initiatives include an online quiz on scam prevention and sending of advisories to customers to remind them not to share their One-Time Passwords with others. Police have also worked with the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) to educate the public not to pick up calls with a \"+\" or \"+65\" prefix if they are not expecting any calls from overseas.
Combatting scams is a whole-of-society effort. We urge the public to be alert and to raise our collective awareness of scams by sharing scam prevention tips with your friends and family.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employees of Major Banks Co-located at Government's Anti-Scam Centre","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether all major banks in Singapore have employees working from the Anti-Scam Centre to facilitate the cooperation in targeting and bringing down online scams.
Mr K Shanmugam: Having banks co-locate their staff with Police at the Anti-Scam Centre (ASC) enables banks to provide real-time assistance to the Police, to coordinate investigative efforts, trace the flow of the funds, and freeze bank accounts suspected to be involved in the scammers' operation.
As of July 2022, we have staff from DBS, OCBC, UOB, HSBC and Standard Chartered Bank co-located at the ASC. ASC and the Monetary Authority of Singapore are working with more banks to likewise co-locate their staff at the ASC, to provide real-time coordination and timely intervention.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Oversight of Project Consultants Assessing Cost Reasonableness of Contract Variations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs on the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) Report for the financial year 2021/2022 regarding star rate items' cost reasonableness of contract variations and quotations authenticity for two development projects under MHA (a) whether any additional steps were implemented following AGO’s similar finding in relation to HDB for the previous financial year and, if not, why not; and (b) what further steps will be taken to strengthen the oversight of its project consultants in charge of assessing cost reasonableness of these contract variations.
Mr K Shanmugam: The two Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) development projects audited by AGO commenced construction in FY2015 and FY2016 and obtained their Temporary Occupation Permits (TOP) in FY2018 and FY2020, respectively. They were completed prior to the issuance of AGO’s findings on HDB in 2021.
MHA has reminded officers managing construction projects to adopt the good practices in Appendix S8-6 of the IM on Procurement. We have been conducting engagement sessions with Home Team Departments (HTDs) to share best practices such as lessons from the AGO’s audits and BCA’s Good Practice Guide.
There are several layers of safeguards. At the same time, the Member must note that there are a very substantial number of projects every year. While every effort is taken, human error and sometimes bad conduct, cannot be completely eliminated. We are using technology increasingly to pick up anomalies and are reminding officers of the processes. We will continue to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Joint Efforts to Detect and Prevent Advertisement of Controlled Substances in Closed Social Networks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs what efforts and steps does the Government take together with the telecommunications and social media companies to detect and prevent the advertisement of controlled substances or drugs in closed social networks, such as group chats.
Mr K Shanmugam: CNB works with foreign counterparts in dealing with these matters.
CNB also engages private sector entities such as social network services, e-commerce businesses, Internet service providers, and technology companies, to seek their cooperation in detecting and preventing the advertisement of controlled drugs, for example by taking down such advertisements, banning the accounts being used to peddle the drugs and publishing anti-drug advisories.
Through such partnerships and its own enforcement efforts, between 2019 and 2021, CNB arrested 86 suspected drug traffickers who used specific applications to conduct drug transactions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Personal Mobility Device-related Fires in HDB Blocks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) for the past year, how many Personal Mobility Device (PMD)-related fires have occurred in HDB blocks; (b) whether there is an increasing trend on the occurrence of such fires since 2021; (c) how many of these cases are due to non-compliance of the UL2272 standards which is required; and (d) whether PMD owners will face penalties when the cause of the fire is due to non-compliance.
Mr K Shanmugam: In 2021, there were 18 Personal Mobility Device (PMD)-related fires in HDB blocks, all involving PMDs that were not compliant, or could not be determined to be compliant, with the UL2272 standards.
From January to June 2022, there were five PMD-related fires in HDB blocks, down from 11 cases during the same period in 2021. Similar to 2021, all these fires involved PMDs that were non-compliant, or could not be determined to be compliant, with the UL2272 standards.
When a PMD-related fire occurs, the inter-agency Active Mobility Fire Safety Taskforce co-chaired by the Singapore Civil Defence Force and Land Transport Authority will jointly investigate the incident. Users will be taken to task if they are found to have used non-compliant PMDs. They can be liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding S$10,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Gender and Age Breakdown of New Citizens at Point of Obtaining Citizenship Each Year Since 2000","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each year since 2000, what is the gender and age breakdown of new citizens at the point of obtaining citizenship according to the age brackets of (i) below 18 years old (ii) between 18 and 30 years old (iii) between 30 and 40 years old and (iv) above 40 years old respectively.
Mr K Shanmugam: The average number of new citizenships granted each year (that is, citizenship by registration, and citizenship by descent) from 2000 to 2021 and their breakdown by gender and age is as follows:
23 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) for each year since 2000, how many new citizens have renounced their Singapore citizenship; and (b) for each year from 2000 to 2018, how many permanent residents (PRs) have renounced their PR status.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2000 and 2021, an average of about 290 naturalised Singapore citizens (SCs) renounced their SC status annually.
Between 2000 and 2018, an average of about 3,370 Permanent Residents (PRs) renounced their PR status annually.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Due Diligence and Credit Checks for Foreign Domestic Workers Taking Loans from Moneylenders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Law with regard to foreign domestic workers who seek to take loans from moneylenders in Singapore (a) whether there are any due diligence and credit checks currently in place and, if so, what are they; and (b) whether there are safeguards being implemented to ensure that foreigners earning less than $10,000 per annum do not exceed the aggregate loan cap of $500 and, if so, what are they.
Mr K Shanmugam: Licensed moneylenders are required by law to conduct due diligence and credit checks. This applies to all individuals who apply for a loan from licensed moneylenders, regardless of whether they are Singaporeans, PRs or foreigners.
Before granting a loan to an individual, a licensed moneylender must obtain the loan applicant's personal details and income information from the applicant. The licensed moneylender must also verify the information obtained using genuine and contemporaneous documents, for example, identification documents, CPF contribution statements, payslips and so on.
In addition, the licensed moneylender must obtain a credit report of the loan applicant from the Moneylenders Credit Bureau (MLCB) to conduct a creditworthiness assessment before deciding if a loan should be granted.
The MLCB is a central data repository that contains records of borrowers' loans and repayment with licensed moneylenders. It provides up-to-date details of a borrower's creditworthiness and indebtedness through its credit reports. This enables licensed moneylenders to make informed and responsible lending decisions, and helps borrowers avoid borrowing beyond their means.
To ensure that borrowers, including foreign borrowers, do not exceed the applicable aggregate loan cap, such as the $500 cap for foreigners earning less than $10,000 per annum, the credit report from the MLCB will indicate the maximum unsecured loan amount an individual can borrow (based on his/her income level) from all licensed moneylenders combined. If the individual already has outstanding loans with licensed moneylenders, the credit report will indicate the maximum unsecured balance he/she can borrow. In addition, the MLCB system will automatically reject the submission of a loan application if the amount exceeds the maximum unsecured balance.
The Registry of Moneylenders also conducts regular inspections on licensed moneylenders to ensure they comply with moneylending laws.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rental Cost as Percentage of Total Business Cost in Retail Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry tracks rental cost as a percentage of total business cost for businesses in the retail sector; and (b) if so, what is the percentage for each year from 2000 to 2021.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Department of Statistics publishes data on the share of rental costs in total business costs in the retail trade sector. Between 2000 and 2020 (latest available data), the rental cost share of the retail sector was relatively stable, at around 31% on average. Details are provided in Table 1.
26 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry tracks rental costs as a percentage of total business costs for food establishments in (i) hawker centres (ii) coffee shops that are owned by HDB (iii) HDB coffeeshops owned privately (iv) food courts and (v) restaurants; and (b) if so, what is this percentage for the year 2000, 2010, 2019 and 2020.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Department of Statistics publishes data on the share of rental costs in total business costs in the food and beverage services sector. A further breakdown of the sector is not available. The National Environment Agency (NEA) compiles data on the business costs of cooked food stalls in hawker centres managed by NEA and NEA-appointed operators.
Data on the rental cost share of firms in the food and beverage services sector for the years 2000, 2010, 2019 and 2020, as well as non-subsidised cooked food stalls in hawker centres for the years 2019 and 20201 are provided in Table 1.
27 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry has data on the average annual rate of increase in rent for food establishments in (i) hawker centres (ii) coffeeshops that are owned by HDB (iii) HDB coffeeshops owned privately (iv) food courts and (v) restaurants; and (b) if so, what is the data for the period from (i) 2000 to 2004 (ii) 2005 to 2009 (iii) 2010 to 2014 and (iv) 2015 to 2019.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Data on the average increase in rent per annum for firms in the food and beverage services sector for the requested periods are provided in Table 1. A further breakdown of the food and beverage services sector is not available.
Based on available data for hawker centres, the median monthly rental for non-subsidised cooked food stalls has remained relatively stable at around $1,250, with a per annum increase of 0.3% on average from 2015 to 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profiles of Licensed Electrical Workers as of June 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) as of June 2022, how many licensed electrical workers are (i) Singaporeans (ii) permanent residents and (iii) foreigners respectively; (b) of those with such a licence who are non-Singaporeans, what are (i) the top 10 nationalities and (ii) the type of work pass that they hold respectively; and (c) what are the age profiles of all workers with such a licence.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As of end-June 2022, there were close to 4,000 licensed electrical workers (LEW), of which less than 1% were foreigners from various nationalities on either S Passes or Employment Passes. The majority of LEWs were between 41 and 80 years of age.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profiles of Licensed Gas Service Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) as of June 2022, how many licensed gas service workers are (i) Singaporeans (ii) permanent residents and (iii) foreigners respectively; (b) of those with such a licence who are non-Singaporeans, what are (i) the top 10 nationalities and (ii) the types of work pass that they hold respectively; and (c) what are the age profiles of all workers with such a licence.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As of end-June 2022, there were close to 600 licensed gas service workers (GSW), of which less than 15% were foreigners from various nationalities on Work Permits, S Passes or Employment Passes. The majority of the licensed GSW were between 31 and 70 years of age.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Information on Existing Pick-up and Drop-off Points in Public Areas and Government and Commercial Buildings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA and related agencies collate information on existing pick-up and drop-off points in public areas and Government and commercial buildings, especially those located near public transport nodes; and (b) if so, whether such information can be made available for use by public and private mobile device platforms, including OneMap.
Mr S Iswaran: LTA collects information on passenger pick-up bays located at MRT/ LRT stations and commercial sites, including retail malls and office buildings. This information is publicly available on LTA DataMall.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Noise Barriers Installed Along MRT Tracks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) how effective are noise barriers installed along MRT tracks; (b) whether there are ongoing trials to explore ways to reduce the noise generated from MRT trains; and (c) if so, whether there have been any promising results thus far.
Mr S Iswaran: Since 2013, LTA has installed 21.5 kilometres of noise barriers along MRT viaducts, covering 45 locations. Works are ongoing to install a further 5.5 kilometres of noise barriers. These noise barriers have been effective in reducing train noise by five to 10 decibels (dBA), which is similar to halving of sound volume. In a recent Straits Times' article published on 18 July 2022, residents who live near train tracks shared that there was a perceptible reduction in noise from passing trains after the installation of the noise barriers.
Apart from noise barriers, LTA also works with the train operators and industry to further reduce train noise in other ways. Operators frequently monitor noise levels near residential buildings, and service train tracks and wheels to minimise noise generated. For above-ground rail lines, ballast and concrete sleepers are used to better absorb vibration and noise. LTA is also fitting noise-dampening wheels on new trains, such as those for the upcoming Jurong Region Line.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Risks of Electric Vehicles Catching Fire and Training of First Responders to Handle Such Fires","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the risks of an electric vehicle (EV) catching fire while in operation; and (b) whether first responders, such as those operating the Expressway Monitoring Advisory System vehicle recovery tow trucks have been trained to handle EV-related fires.
Mr S Iswaran: All vehicles, including electric vehicles (EVs), are subject to stringent internationally benchmarked safety standards such as the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Regulations before they are approved for use. All EV charging systems in Singapore must also be compliant with our national charging standard, Technical Reference 25, before they can be installed. These standards provide assurance that both vehicles and chargers are compliant with the requisite safety standards. As of end-July 2022, we have not had any EV-related fires in Singapore which arose from normal operation.
I agree with the Member that it is important that our emergency responders know how to handle EV-related fires safely. The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) has already been trained to handle such fires if they arise. The Expressway Monitoring Advisory System (EMAS) recovery crew, who assist in the removal of damaged vehicles from our expressways, have also been trained to handle damaged EVs.
It is also important for members of the public to know how to respond to incidents should the need arise, such as before the SCDF’s arrival onsite. The 9th Edition of the Civil Defence Emergency Handbook updated in 2021 incorporates guidelines on handling EV-related fires, and we encourage EV owners to familiarise themselves with the guidelines.
The EV industry is nascent and EV technology continues to evolve. We will continue to monitor developments both locally and overseas to allow us to formulate effective safety protocols in addressing key risks and review our requirements and training regularly to ensure their relevance and effectiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enabling Less Visually Impaired Commuters Not Technologically Savvy to Travel More Independently","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Transport with the roll-out of the NaviLens app to help visually impaired commuters at SMRT's bus interchanges (a) how will LTA better enable visually impaired commuters who are not technologically savvy to travel more independently, safely and conveniently; and (b) what are the future improvement plans for bus stops and interchanges so that the visually impaired can be better at independently identifying arriving bus services.
Mr S Iswaran: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) works with our public transport operators and social service agencies to improve the accessibility of our infrastructure and enhance navigation for commuters with diverse needs. Apart from the NaviLens trial led by SMRT, which uses an app to provide audio navigational information when activated, LTA has implemented other systems to help commuters with visual impairment. Since 2018, all new public buses have been fitted with the Passenger Information Display System that includes audio announcements to inform passengers about the next bus stop.
Tactile ground surface indicators have also been installed at all train stations and all new bus interchanges since 2014 to facilitate wayfinding. For existing bus interchanges, tactile ground surface indicators will be progressively implemented. In addition, LTA has installed Braille signages at railings at boarding areas of all new bus interchanges since 2019 and will progressively install Braille signages at other commuter facilities such as accessible washrooms for all new and existing bus interchanges.
To complement the above measures, LTA and the Police Transport Council (PTC) have been working with public transport operators to promote a more inclusive and caring commuting culture in our public transport system through the Caring SG Commuters Committee. For example, through the Caring Commuter Champion initiative, we are growing a group of volunteers trained to assist commuters with mobility needs during their daily commute. The Committee will continue to work with relevant stakeholders such as schools and social service agencies to foster a more inclusive commuting experience.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ratio of Successful to Unsuccessful Tenderers for Cooked Food Hawker Stalls in Toa Payoh, and Mean Bid Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) from 2019 to 2021, what is the annual ratio of successful tenderers to unsuccessful tenderers for hawker stalls selling cooked food in the Toa Payoh area; (b) what are the mean and median bid prices among such successful tenders; and (c) whether the Government will consider giving incentives or prioritising coffeeshop stallholders who are displaced as a result of increase in rentals.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: From 2019 to 2021, the National Environment Agency (NEA) received an average of 13 tender bids per cooked food stall put up for tender/application at hawker centres in Toa Payoh. This subscription rate is similar to the national average of 13.5 across all our hawker centres.
The mean and median bid prices among successful tenders for hawker centres in Toa Payoh during this period were $1,323 and $1,417 respectively. Hawkers who have successfully bidded for their desired stalls will pay these rentals, which are kept unchanged for the duration of the initial three-year tenancy period, before having their rental reviewed and adjusted based on independent professional valuation, which may be similar, higher or lower than the tendered rental.
Vacant stalls in NEA-managed hawker centres are included in NEA's monthly stall tender exercises. This tender process ensures that stalls are allocated in a fair, open and transparent manner. The barrier to entry is low as there is no minimum bid price and the stall will be awarded to the highest qualifying bid. Successful bid prices for stalls awarded are also published online as reference to guide prospective hawkers in placing bids. Eligible Singaporeans or Permanent Residents, including coffeeshop stallholders, can participate in the open tender system or apply for vacant stalls at hawker centres operated by NEA-appointed operators.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Hawker Stalls Left Empty in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) in the last three years, how many hawker stalls are left empty each year; (b) on average, how long do these stalls remain vacant; and (c) what plans are there to help hawkers who are made to give up their stalls for various reasons.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Vacancy rates at hawker centres managed by the National Environment Agency (NEA) or by NEA-appointed operators have remained low over the past three years, at about 2% to 4% each year, which are similar to the vacancy rates prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Vacant stalls will be put up by NEA or NEA-appointed operators for tender or application and most of them would be occupied within three to six months.
Hawkers may give up their stalls for various reasons such as poor health or poor business. Hawkers who are in arrears may approach NEA for assistance. NEA will carefully review the stallholders' situation and provide relevant support, such as allowing more time to make payments, on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efficacy of Anti-Aedes Mosquito Paint and Plans to Encourage Its Use for Buildings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry has explored the efficacy of anti-Aedes mosquito paint; and (b) if such paint is proven efficient, whether there are plans to encourage more buildings, especially HDB flats undergoing repainting works, to adopt such paint in areas, such as common corridors and void decks.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency has reviewed anti-mosquito paint. The duration of the effectiveness of such paint varies, depending on the active ingredient, the material of the painted surface, and environmental conditions. Its effectiveness can also be hampered by insecticide resistance of the mosquito species. Overall, the effectiveness of anti-mosquito paint against dengue has not been proven and there is currently no scientific data to support its widespread use for dengue control.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Freshwater Bodies Open to Public for Recreation and Plans to Increase Access","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what percentage of the freshwater bodies in Singapore are open to the public for recreation; and (b) whether there are plans to further open up access and increase the number of approved water activities in those freshwater bodies.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Public Utilities Board (PUB) works closely with agencies such as Sport Singapore and People's Association and organisations such as the National Sports Associations to offer recreational water activities at eight reservoirs and two waterways1. Fishing is also currently allowed at designated sites in 10 reservoirs and five waterways2.
These agencies and organisations continually work with PUB to review the demand for such water recreational activities and the possibility of opening up more freshwater bodies for recreation uses.
For reservoirs, the recreational activities must, first and foremost, not impact their primary function, which is to serve as a source of raw water for treatment into potable water. Other important considerations include potential impacts on ecosystems within the freshwater bodies that could affect biodiversity and water quality, and the available space for other important uses, such as the deployment of floating solar photovoltaic systems as part of our sustainability efforts, in land-scarce Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : This includes Bedok, Jurong Lake, Lower Seletar, MacRitchie, Marina, Pandan, Punggol, Upper Seletar Reservoirs; Kolam Ayer, Punggol Waterways","2 : This includes Bedok, Jurong Lake, Kranji, Lower Peirce, Lower Seletar, MacRitchie, Marina, Pandan, Serangoon, Upper Seletar Reservoirs; Geylang River, Kolam Ayer, Pang Sua Canal, Pelton Canal, Rochor Canal Waterways"],"footNoteQuestions":["37"],"questionNo":"37"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profiles of Licensed Plumbers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) as of June 2022, how many licensed plumbers are (i) Singaporeans (ii) permanent residents and (iii) foreigners respectively; (b) of those with such a licence who are non-Singaporeans, what are (i) the top 10 nationalities and (ii) the type of work pass that they hold respectively; and (c) what are the age profiles of all workers with such a licence.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Licensed plumbers (LPs) form an integral part of Singapore's water value chain, serving as the touchpoint to customers for their residential and commercial plumbing needs.
Out of the more than 950 LPs in Singapore, close to 90% are Singaporeans, some 5% are permanent residents, while the remaining LPs are foreigners. Around 70% of the LPs are above the age of 50.
We do not collect information on the nationalities of non-Singaporean LPs. In terms of work passes, the majority of foreigner LPs are S Pass holders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Tackle Solar Panel Waste and Solar Panel Recycling","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment as Singapore ramps up solar energy deployment to meet growing clean energy needs (a) how is Singapore tackling solar panel waste; and (b) what are the future plans regarding solar panel recycling.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The disposal of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels is regulated under the Extended Producer Responsibility scheme for e-waste, wherein companies that supply solar PV panels to the Singapore market are responsible for their end-of-life treatment.
These companies are required to provide free take-back services for disused solar PV panels supplied by them and send this waste to licensed e-waste recyclers for recycling. There are currently four licensed e-waste recyclers of solar PV panels in Singapore.
We are also actively supporting efforts under NEA's Closing the Waste Loop research and development programme to build capabilities and develop more sustainable solar PV recycling solutions. For example, one project undertaken by Singapore Polytechnic in collaboration with Sembcorp, seeks to develop an end-to-end pilot demonstration line to recover materials from disused or end-of-life solar panels.
We will continue to strengthen our e-waste management capabilities in tandem with solar PV panel deployment to ensure that solar PV panel waste is properly managed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Class Size of Students Enrolled in TRANsition Support for InTegration Programme and Teachers Deployed Per Class","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education in relation to the TRANsition Support for InTegration (TRANSIT) programme (a) what is the current average, lowest and highest class size of the students who are enrolled in this programme; and (b) how many teachers, excluding allied educators, are deployed to each class under this programme.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: TRANsition Support for InTegration (TRANSIT) helps Primary 1 students identified with social and behavioural needs to develop foundational self-management skills when they start school.
TRANSIT is currently offered in 66 schools and will be in all schools by 2026. Every school is able to support up to 10 P1 students in TRANSIT. The average number of P1 students participating in TRANSIT per school is four in 2022.
A team comprising key school personnel, form and subject teachers and Special Educational Needs Officers, previously known as Allied Educators (Learning and Behavioural Support), undergoes training on TRANSIT processes to equip them with skills and knowledge to identify and support the students in TRANSIT. Each school has two to four teachers trained for TRANSIT. The teachers and SEN Officers work together to support students in small groups as well as in their form classes in their P1 year. They also work closely with parents to ensure that self-management skills learnt in school are practised at home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Option for Parents to Register Interest in Multiple Schools in Single Application for Primary 1 Registration","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry would consider reviewing the process for Primary 1 registration to give parents an additional option of registering their interests in a few schools for a single application during each phase, instead of registering for only one school at any phase as the child may not be allocated to that school in the earlier phase.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Under the current Primary 1 (P1) Registration Framework, parents can only register in one school per phase. The key rationale for this policy is to ensure that children registering in priority phases are not overly advantaged, so that more children are able to be enrolled in a primary school of their choice.
For the last three P1 registration exercises, about 98% of registrants were able to obtain a place in a primary school of their choice, or a primary school within two kilometres of their residence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Removal of Punitive Implications for Teachers Receiving Lower Grades Under Performance Management System of Stacked Ranking","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry will remove the punitive implications for teachers who receive lower grades under the performance management system of stacked ranking; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: MOE, like the rest of the Civil Service, adopts a system of relative ranking from which officers can be identified for recognition and development appropriately. Those who perform their jobs well are given better performance grades and bonuses to recognise the good work that they have done. At the other end, officers who have difficulty meeting the minimum requirements of their roles are given lower performance grades and also lower or no performance bonuses. Indeed, the private sector also practices differentiated renumeration based on performance.
Regardless of performance grade, all teachers have access to the relevant in-service training programmes, such as courses to improve on their content mastery and pedagogy, which they need to carry out their professional duties. Through such professional development, we continually seek to enhance teachers' effectiveness in teaching, as this has significant impact on students' learning.
We identify weaker-performing teachers so that their supervisors can guide them on their areas for improvements and help them with their professional growth and development. However, those who fail to improve in their performance over time despite the developmental support are assessed for their suitability to remain in the Education Service.
We will continue to evolve the system based on feedback and also in close consultation with the teachers' unions to support the weaker performers, while ensuring that we maintain a high-quality teaching force that can better guide our students in their growing years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Students' Mental Well-being and Mental Health Literacy Through Refreshed Character and Citizenship Education Curriculum","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) whether an update can be provided on strengthening students' mental well-being and improving their mental health literacy through the refreshed Character and Citizenship Education curriculum; (b) whether the curriculum is well-received by students and teachers; and (c) whether the refreshed curriculum has been rolled out to the primary, upper secondary and pre-university levels.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The refreshed Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum has been progressively implemented in schools since 2021. By 2023, all levels from primary to pre-university will be conducting lessons from the refreshed curriculum.
Mental health education is one of the key features of the CCE curriculum. Through these lessons, students are equipped with knowledge and skills to build their resilience, strengthen their mental well-being and resolve their challenges. For example, students learn to differentiate normal stress from distress and mental illness. They learn to break negative thinking patterns, overcome social emotional problems and seek help when they need to. Students are also taught to stand up against stigma around mental health issues.
Students and teachers who have experienced the new CCE lessons found them engaging and the class discussions relevant and useful. With the establishment of peer support structures in all schools and stronger mental health literacy, students can better support their peers proactively. Teachers also appreciate the professional development and resources provided to support their delivery of mental health education.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Students Who Have Received Counselling on Mental Health-related Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education how many students from schools and Institutes of Higher Learning have received counselling on mental health related issues over the past two years.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Over the past two years, around 70 out of every 1,000 students in schools and Institutes of Higher Learning were estimated to have received counselling support for a wide range of issues each year, such as relationship challenges, anxiety and self-expectations, and family stressors. A smaller segment of these received support for mental health related issues. With increasing awareness and availability of support and resources, more students have sought help for mental health in the last two years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Fraud Cases and Amount Defrauded Since Inception of SkillsFuture Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Education since the inception of SkillsFuture programmes (a) what is the annual expenditure; and (b) what is the number of fraud cases and the amount defrauded.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) was set up in 2016 as a Statutory Board under the Ministry of Education to coordinate and drive the implementation of the national SkillsFuture Movement. SkillsFuture subsidies to individuals and companies amount to about $700 million annually.
Since its inception in 2016, SSG has encountered three unrelated cases of fraudulent claims. The total amount defrauded was about $42 million, including $40 million by a criminal syndicate in 2017.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Local Researchers and Experts Employed by NUS Infant and Child Language Centre to Conduct R&D Programmes for Malay and Tamil Languages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Education (a) how many local researchers and experts are employed or hired by NUS Infant and Child Language Centre to conduct research and development programmes for Malay and Tamil languages; (b) whether the Centre will recruit locals as part of the plan to expand and enhance its capabilities; (c) whether the Centre has conducted any collaborations and inter-agency work or deployment with other institutions and agencies such as Yayasan Mendaki and the Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA); and (d) whether there are plans for other local universities to establish similar research centres in the coming years.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The NUS Infant and Child Language Centre is a laboratory set up in the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences to research into the early childhood learning of languages in Singapore. This laboratory is helmed by one faculty member and two full-time Research Assistants (RAs), and trains about three to four undergraduates in a year. Due to the focus of its research, the RAs and undergraduates working in the laboratory are typically locals.
As part of their research work, the researchers are looking into ways to identify at-risk factors of language delays in Singaporean children learning Malay and Tamil. The researchers had previously collaborated with the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) to study how children acquire languages. The research team is open to working with community partners such as Yayasan Mendaki and SINDA, where opportune.
There are other ongoing research projects in the Autonomous Universities in the area of early childhood language development, with an emphasis on Singapore's multicultural context. For instance, the National Institute of Education (NIE) in the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has research projects covering a range of areas, including the growth in bilingual and biliteracy proficiency of Singaporean children with Chinese, Malay and Tamil language backgrounds, as well as the reading habits and preferences of bilingual children in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Independent Investigation and Review of Hiring Practices of Professors at Autonomous Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education in light of SMU's review of its vetting procedures on academic integrity, whether the Ministry will consider launching an independent investigation and review into the hiring practices of professors at the Autonomous Universities.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Autonomous Universities (AUs) exercise due diligence in hiring and have in place processes to ensure the quality of hires. For instance, academic hires are subject to a rigorous appointment process with reviews at multiple levels, including verification of academic credentials. Such verification is done through referee letters, checks with appropriate third parties tapping on the AUs’ faculty networks as well as vetting agencies. AUs also conduct checks with journals and publishers to verify candidates’ publications. If relevant new information is subsequently surfaced, the AUs will conduct further checks and take appropriate action as necessary, including rescinding the job offer or terminating employment if the individual is already hired.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Securing Sessions with Counsellors or Trained Professionals Beyond Phone Hotlines and Online Counselling Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development beyond the phone hotlines and online counselling services, whether there are avenues for individuals to procure urgent and immediate meetings with counsellors or a trained professional to talk to.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: There is a comprehensive range of counselling services available under the Community Mental Health Masterplan developed by the Ministry of Health.
Apart from telephone hotlines and online counselling services, Social Service Agencies (SSAs) also provide in-person counselling services to those who require such support. The SSAs prioritise those in greater need of support in their appointments.
For persons with severe emotional distress, they can seek urgent support from the Institute of Mental Health’s Emergency Service or Emergency Department of restructured hospitals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Infant Care and Childcare Subsidies Under Special Approval Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in relation to infant care and childcare subsidies (a) for each month in the last two years, how many applications are made under the Special Approval framework for each of the schemes; (b) how many are successful for each of the schemes; and (c) whether children living in public rental flats or in households receiving Comcare will continue to qualify for maximum preschool subsidies automatically until the next fixed point of assessment, regardless of their mother's working status.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Under Special Approval, applicants who are not working due to extenuating circumstances (for example, illness, seeking employment, undergoing training/skills upgrading, and those who need to care for other dependants) receive subsidy support equivalent to what a working mother applicant will receive.
Around 10,000 applications for Special Approval are made each year, with around 95% approved.
Since August 2020, families under HDB’s Public Rental Scheme or MSF’s ComCare schemes are automatically eligible for maximum preschool subsidies until the next fixed point of assessment, regardless of the mother’s working status. There is no change to this provision.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors Determining Duration of ComCare Assistance Offered to Residents in Need","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how does the Ministry determine the duration of ComCare assistance offered to residents in need.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Social Service Offices (SSOs) decide on the duration of ComCare assistance based on assessment of how long the household requires support to stabilise their circumstances, and the likelihood of improvements in their circumstances, such as their prospects of finding employment, family support and future income streams. ComCare Long Term Assistance (LTA) is for persons permanently unable to work and have little or no financial means or family support. Short-to-Medium Term Assistance (SMTA) is typically granted for three to six months in the first instance and renewed if the household continues to require support. If a person is temporarily unable to work for an even longer period due to illness, we will grant the support for the duration of their medical certificate.
When ComCare clients apply to renew their SMTA, we are able to take stock of their most recent circumstances, such as sources of support and sources of income that were not present when the original application was made. This allows ComCare assistance to be adjusted upwards or downwards, as appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Services of Office of Public Guardian to Vulnerable Individuals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Office of the Public Guardian will consider extending its services to individuals who do have mental capacity yet may be pressured into making less than fully informed decisions or be taken advantage of, such as individuals with special needs.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The powers of intervention for the Public Guardian is confined, and rightly so, only to those meeting the required threshold under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). It is not appropriate to vest excessive powers in the Public Guardian to override the ability of a person to make their own decisions. Persons with some special needs are not necessarily incapable of making decisions for themselves. For individuals with special needs, the same threshold under the MCA – that the person does not have the mental capacity to make certain decisions – must be met, before a deputy can be appointed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Singaporeans Required to Top-up Cash for Medical Expenses After Reaching MediSave Withdrawal Limit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current annual number of Singaporeans who are required to top-up cash for their medical expenses after hitting the MediSave withdrawal limit; and (b) what is the average balance in these MediSave accounts.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Data on the MediSave balances of Singaporeans who incur cash out-of-pocket (OOP) after hitting their MediSave withdrawal limits is not readily available. MediSave withdrawal limits are generally adequate to cover the majority of bills incurred by subsidised patients, after taking into account Government subsidies and MediShield Life payouts where applicable. In the inpatient setting, seven in 10 Singaporeans did not have cash OOP for their subsidised hospitalisation bills after subsidies, insurance and MediSave. The MediSave withdrawal limits are largely sufficient in the outpatient setting as well, hence only a small proportion would hit the MediSave withdrawal limits and incur cash OOP. For instance, about nine in 10 patients who withdrew MediSave under the Chronic Disease Management Programme did not reach their annual limit.
Patients who face difficulties affording their cash OOP may apply for financial assistance such as MediFund at our public healthcare institutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Resignations of Local and Foreign Nurses from Restructured Hospitals in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health in each of the past five years, how many and what percentage of local and foreign nurses respectively have resigned from the restructured hospitals.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question will be addressed in my reply concerning the nursing workforce on 2 August 2022. [Please refer to \"Nurse-to-patient Ratio and Efforts to Reduce Nurses' Administrative Workload\", Official Report, 02 August 2022, Vol 95, Issue 66, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines and Protocol for Treatment of Children Under Age of 12","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"54 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current percentage of COVID-19 patients who have been treated with oral antiviral drugs; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider approving the use of such drugs for the treatment of toddlers or young children who are infected with COVID-19 and are unvaccinated.
55 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he can provide an update on the longitudinal studies thus far on effects of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations; and (b) whether there are any new observations on the efficacy of vaccinations after subsequent boosters.
56 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health what steps can be done to accurately detect, diagnose and treat COVID-19 among symptomatic children under the age of 12 years in an efficient and expeditious manner, such as making PCR test and hospitalisation mandatory, especially for children who are vulnerable, unvaccinated or under the age of five years.
57 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Health whether the Government will consider changing the current protocol to one advising all children under 12 years old who are infected by COVID-19 to be seen by a doctor even if they feel well.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: These questions have been addressed by Questions 7 to 15 for Oral Answer on the Order Paper for 1 August 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases Managed by Community Resource, Engagement and Support Teams and Community Intervention Teams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"58 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Health (a) in each of the past three years, what is the number of cases managed by Community Resource, Engagement and Support Teams (CREST) and Community Intervention Teams (COMIT) respectively; and (b) whether there is an increasing demand or trend in the types of support required.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Due to the implementation of COVID-19 safe management measures (SMMs), the number of individuals outreached by the CREST teams had reduced in 2020 and 2021, compared to that in the pre-pandemic period in 2019 (Table 1). The number of clients with mental health needs supported by the COMIT teams has been relatively stable over the past three years. With the relaxation of SMMs, the community teams have progressively resumed their activities to reach out to and support those at risk of or with mental health conditions.
59 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the Government’s assessment of osteopathic medicine as a treatment option for musculoskeletal problems and overall health; and (b) whether there are any plans to register and regulate osteopaths as allied health professionals in Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Osteopathic medicine is considered a form of complementary medicine in Singapore. Although there are some small studies done in other countries on its use in pain management related to musculoskeletal disorders, better designed, higher quality, multi-centre, randomised control clinical trials are needed to affirm the efficacy and safety of osteopathic medicine.
There are currently no plans to register and regulate osteopaths as allied health professionals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcome of Pilot WHEELS Programme Providing Wheelchair Servicing at Selected Senior Activity Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"60 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the pilot WHEELS programme that provides wheelchair servicing at selected Senior Activity Centres (SAC) is still ongoing; and (b) if so, whether it is being progressively rolled out to all SACs nationwide.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The WHEELS programme was a three-year pilot to train seniors to provide free wheelchair servicing and basic repairs at 13 Senior Activity Centres and Senior Care Centres. Unfortunately, many participating centres could not find enough volunteers to deploy the service or meet demand. The pilot ended in March 2020.
\tThe Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF) was enhanced in February 2022 to provide seniors with subsidies for replacements when their current devices, including wheelchairs, reach the end of its lifespan. SMF can also cover repairs, if they are cost-effective, on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancements to Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund to Include Mid-life Servicing Costs for Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"61 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry is considering enhancements to the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund to include mid-life servicing costs for devices not near its end-of-life period.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF) was enhanced in February 2022 to provide seniors with subsidies for replacements when the current device reaches the end of its lifespan. For devices not reaching the end of its lifespan, SMF can also cover the replacements, or repairs if they are cost-effective, on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Malay Households Attaining Home Ownership under Project Dian@M³ Since Its Inception","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"62 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for National Development (a) since the inception of Project Dian@M³ on 17 June 2021, how many Malay households have managed to attain home ownership under this scheme; and (b) whether a breakdown can be provided on the number of these Malay households according to the zones of Geylang Serai, Bedok and Jalan Besar respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: Project Dian@M3 was launched in December 2021 at three public rental blocks across the M3@Towns, with one block each in M3@Bedok, M3@Geylang Serai and M3@Jalan Besar. This initiative is run by the M3 Engagement Coordination Office and aims to support Malay/Muslim families living in public rental flats to achieve stability, self-reliance, and social mobility.
Project Dian@M3 complements the Government's efforts in supporting households living in public rental flats, by providing wrap-around support for Malay/Muslim families in rental flats and linking them up with community and national programmes, including MSF's Community Link (ComLink) initiative, and HDB's Home ownership Support Team. Under Project Dian@M3, volunteers befriend, build trust, and journey with the families, while connecting them with other agencies such as Social Service Offices, SkillsFuture Singapore, Ministry of Education, as well as community groups to help the families address their various challenges, and work towards purchasing their own HDB flat when they are ready.
To date, M3@Towns and their volunteers have reached out to 170 out of 252 Malay/Muslim families living in the three rental blocks – 49 families in M3@Bedok, 72 families in M3@Geylang Serai and 49 families in M3@Jalan Besar. Amongst the families that are currently under Project Dian@M3, all of them are still working towards home ownership.
For families living in public rental flats, attaining home ownership is a journey that takes time. The profiles of the families engaged under Project Dian@ M3 are varied, and they are at different stages of progress. Some are grappling with other challenges, such as employment challenges, family issues, and health issues. M3 continues to work with its partners and volunteers, and leverages Government schemes to support these families to achieve stability, self-reliance and social mobility.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Malay Households Owning HDB Flats, Relinquishing Ownership and Applying for and Living in 1- and 2-Room Rental Flats in 2021 and 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"63 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for National Development (a) between January 2022 and June 2022, how many Malay households have moved from 1- and 2-room HDB public rental flats and successfully become homeowners of HDB flats; (b) between June 2021 and June 2022, how many Malay households have relinquished their HDB flat ownership and applied for HDB public rental flats; and (c) how many Malay households are living in 1- and 2-room HDB public rental flats as of 30 June 2022.
Mr Desmond Lee: Between January 2022 and June 2022, about 140 Malay public rental households successfully achieved home ownership and bought their own HDB flats.
Between June 2021 and June 2022, about 70 Malay households relinquished their HDB flat ownership and applied successfully for a public rental flat.
As at 30 June 2022, there are about 17,600 Malay households living in public rental flats.
We will continue to work closely with MSF's ComLink initiative, other social agencies and community partners, to uplift public rental households and support them on their journey towards home ownership.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feedback Received on Nuisances Caused by Crows and Pigeons and Effectiveness of Measures Taken","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"64 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there has been an increasing number of feedback received on nuisances caused by the growing number of crows and pigeons in recent years; and (b) whether an update can be provided on the effectiveness of the current measures in reducing the nuisances caused to residents.
Mr Desmond Lee: The number of pigeon-related feedback received by NParks has remained constant, while the number of crow-related feedback cases has increased moderately in recent years.
NParks adopts a community and science-based approach to manage the population of birds in Singapore, comprising measures such as habitat modification, food source reduction, and population control.
At HDB housing estates, NParks works with Town Councils (TCs) to carry out habitat modification, such as tree pruning, installing netting on HDB flats, as well as replacing certain tree species to discourage roosting. NParks also works with stakeholders such as animal management companies and TCs to trap pest birds such as crows and pigeons in a safe and humane manner, to manage their populations. In addition, NParks carries out studies to understand the ecology of birds, such as their roosting patterns and movements, to support its bird management strategies.
To reduce the availability of food sources, NParks works closely with SFA, NEA and TCs to encourage proper food waste management at food establishments around HDB housing estates, and to enforce against littering and illegal bird-feeding. NParks also partners agencies and Town Councils to educate the community on proper refuse management. These measures have been effective in mitigating the disturbances caused to residents.
NParks will continue to work closely with agencies to enhance its bird management strategies to reduce bird-related disamenities, such as noise disturbances caused to residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiver of Resale Levies on Flats Acquired under Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"65 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development with regard to households whose flats have been acquired under the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) and subjected to the resale levy (a) whether HDB has waived such resale levies on a case-by-case basis in the past; and (b) whether HDB will consider granting an exemption to current and future affected households.
Mr Desmond Lee: Flat owners are typically allowed to purchase subsidised flats only twice and are required to pay a resale levy before or upon the purchase of their second subsidised flat. This is to ensure a fairer distribution of public housing subsidies between first-time and second-time buyers of subsidised HDB flats.
Under SERS, households whose SERS flat is a subsidised flat do not need to pay a resale levy when they buy a new subsidised replacement flat from HDB. This waiver of resale levy is a concession under SERS.
However, the resale levy is payable for SERS households who had previously sold a subsidised flat elsewhere but had not bought a second subsidised flat and paid a resale levy. In such instances, the resale levy is capped at $30,000 as a concession under SERS.
In addition, SERS flat owners who are liable for but do not wish to pay the resale levy have other housing options, such as selling their SERS flat with the rehousing benefits on the open market or opting for an ex-gratia payment on top of the market compensation for their SERS flat. They can then buy a resale flat of their choice without the need to pay any levy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Income Criteria For Assessing HDB Housing Loan Applications Under Non-Citizen Spouse Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"66 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development whether total household income, including that of the non-resident spouse, is used when assessing HDB housing loan applications made under the Non-Citizen Spouse Scheme.
Mr Desmond Lee: To ensure that mortgage subsidies are prioritised for households who need them the most, there are eligibility conditions that households need to fulfil in order to qualify for an HDB housing loan. This includes meeting the prevailing income ceiling. In assessing whether a household has exceeded the income ceiling, HDB considers the incomes of all household members listed in the application, including non-residents.
In determining the loan quantum that HDB can extend to eligible flat buyers, HDB only considers flat buyers' incomes because they are the borrowers who will need to service the mortgage loan. The incomes of all occupiers are not considered, regardless of their citizenship and relationship with the flat buyers. Nevertheless, HDB does consider appeals to include an occupier's income for the computation of the HDB housing loan quantum on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Ballot Chances for Applicants with More Than Five Unsuccessful Attempts to Buy HDB BTO or Sale of Balance Flats in Non-mature Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"67 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for National Development whether the number of additional ballot chances can be exponentially ramped up for applicants with more than five unsuccessful attempts to buy a HDB BTO flat or HDB Sale of Balance of Flats in non-mature estates.
Mr Desmond Lee: First-timer families are given two ballot chances when HDB shortlists flat applicants to book a flat under the Build-To-Order (BTO) and Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercises. Those who have been unsuccessful in two or more attempts for a BTO flat in the non-mature estates already receive an additional ballot chance at each subsequent application for a BTO flat in the non-mature estates. This is provided they have not been invited to select a flat for any of their earlier BTO or SBF applications.
As a result, virtually all first-timer families have been successful within their first three tries for a BTO flat in the non-mature estates in recent years. There is no need to further increase the number of ballot chances for these applicants at this juncture.
SBF flats are mainly unsold BTO flats. As the supply of SBF flats is smaller and demand is high, it would not be meaningful to accord additional ballot chances to unsuccessful applicants. Applicants should consider applying for BTO flats in the non-mature estates instead, where the chances of success are higher.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Blocking Unsolicited Messages on Unlicensed Loans and Illegal Gambling Websites","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"68 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether additional safeguards or regulatory measures can be taken to prevent unsolicited messages from being sent to Singaporeans regarding unlicensed loans and illegal gambling websites; (b) to what extent can such messages be tracked to their point of origin; and (c) what are the current steps being taken to crack down on syndicates sending such unsolicited messages.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Singapore Police Force (SPF) will take the necessary enforcement actions when they receive complaints from members of public on messages on illegal remote gambling and unlicensed moneylending services. The SPF and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) work with the telecommunication providers (telcos) to block messages related to unlicensed moneylenders and illegal gambling websites by terminating phone numbers linked to such activities.
SIM card registration requirements have also been tightened to prevent errant use of prepaid SIM cards by criminal syndicates to disseminate these messages. IMDA and SPF are also working with Internet Service Providers to block websites that promote unlicensed loans and illegal gambling. Where it is possible to track the identities of the perpetrators, SPF will take them to task.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on 2022 CDC Vouchers Claimed, Redeemed and Utilised and Measures to Benefit Specific Businesses or Segments of Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"69 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what percentage of Singaporean households have claimed their Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers in the recent May 2022 distribution exercise; (b) what is the total value of vouchers redeemed to-date; and (c) whether the Government has conducted any studies on the utilisation of the CDC vouchers, so that targeted measures can be designed to benefit specific businesses or segments of Singaporeans.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Following the launch of the $130 million CDC Vouchers Scheme 2021 in December 2021, the CDCs rolled out another tranche under the CDC Vouchers Scheme 2022, on 11 May 2022 to support 1.22 million Singaporean households in their daily expenses.
As of 19 July 2022, or more than two months since the launch, 86.8% or 1.06 million Singaporean households have claimed the 2022 CDC Vouchers with about $62 million spent in over 17,700 participating hawkers and heartland merchants.
In total, more than $163 million has been spent with the 2021 and 2022 CDC Vouchers. Of this amount, $27 million or 16.6% of the vouchers was spent in 2,800 stalls in 677 coffee shops. We are encouraged by the positive feedback received on the Scheme from Singaporeans, many of whom found the CDC Vouchers easy to use.
Apart from supporting Singaporeans in their daily expenses, the CDC Vouchers also help boost businesses for heartland merchants and hawkers. Of the more than 17,700 participating hawkers and merchants onboard the Scheme, one in six stalls are in coffee shops. The CDCs will continue to onboard more heartland merchants and hawkers so that more people and businesses can continue to benefit from the CDC Vouchers Scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sports Facilities at Proposed Housing Development cum Sports Centre Site at Farrer Park","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"70 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what sports facilities will be provided at the proposed housing development cum sports centre site at Farrer Park; (b) whether the total area available for sports facilities in Farrer Park will be reduced from the current area as a result of this redevelopment; and (c) if so, whether alternative sports facilities will be built at other locations to replace any lost facilities at Farrer Park.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The redevelopment plans for Farrer Park presents an opportunity to enhance the existing sporting and recreational facilities to better serve current and future residents and bring the community together to create new shared experiences.
The myriad of sports and recreational spaces within the new housing estate will include the following:
(a) The existing swimming complex will be replaced with new sheltered and outdoor swimming pools in a new sports centre at the same location, which will also house a gym and fitness studio.
(b) The existing boxing gym will be retained and converted to a multi-purpose sporting space.
(c) More sports facilities, such as a flexible indoor space ,which can be used for sports like table tennis will be incorporated within the multi-storey car park in the estate. This will complement other facilities around the estate such as fitness corners, providing multiple avenues for the community to keep fit and active.
(d) A jogging track will weave through the entire new housing estate and connect the various sports and recreational facilities.
Notwithstanding our limited land and need for space to develop new HDB flats to meet strong demand for housing, we will still ensure that there will be spaces for the community to enjoy sports and that they are readily accessible. There will be open spaces for sports and recreational uses, including an approximately 1.2-hectare central green space (equivalent to the size of two football fields) comprising a multi-use field and park that can be used for various activities, such as community football programmes amongst others.
These plans have taken into consideration Farrer Park’s association with Singapore’s sporting heritage and feedback from various stakeholder engagements, including Friends of Farrer Park (FOFP) and the sports community.
Overall, we remain committed under the Sports Facilities Master Plan to ensure that there are sufficient sports facilities to cater to both national level and town level demand. This includes exciting developments at the Kallang Alive! precinct, including the new Kallang Tennis Centre which will have seven covered courts and 12 outdoor courts, as well as new sports centres that are being built in several HDB towns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trends in Inflow and Outflow of Migrant Construction Workers Since Easing of COVID-19 Border Restrictions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"71 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the trends in the inflow and outflow of migrant construction workers as border restrictions ease from late 2021; (b) whether unskilled or workers who are less skilled are replacing the skilled workers in Singapore who are leaving to visit their home in two years, amidst the backlog of construction projects and increasing manpower costs; and (c) if so, how is the Government looking at mitigating an enhanced risk of workplace injuries and fatalities.
Dr Tan See Leng: With the reopening of borders, the number of Work Permit Holders (WPHs) in the construction sector has been growing steadily, with inflows exceeding outflows, and is almost 100% of pre-COVID-19 levels. While the number of workers on home leave has been growing, we expect this trend to taper off and reverse in the coming months. The proportion of basic skilled and higher skilled WPHs in the construction sector has remained largely the same as pre-COVID-19.
It is unlikely that inexperience was a contributory factor for the recent spate of workplace fatalities as all the accidents involved workers with at least two years of working experience.
From preliminary investigations of recent incidents, most were due to preventable safety lapses. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has been stepping up enforcement, taking stronger enforcement actions and introducing new measures to mitigate the risk of workplace injuries and fatalities. But more needs to be done by all stakeholders, including company leaders and workers. In this regard, I would like to refer the Member to the response MOM provided to a similar question raised by Mr Melvin Yong and Ms Joan Pereira in last month's Sitting. [Please refer to \"Reasons and Countermeasures for Recent Rise in Workplace Incidents\", Official Report, 04 July 2022, Vol 95, Issue 63, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Self-employed Persons Not Meeting MediSave Contribution Obligations in Full","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"72 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in each of the past five years, what percentage of self-employed persons (SEPs) did not meet their MediSave contribution obligations in full; (b) what is the corresponding dollar value of the shortfall in MediSave contributions by SEPs for each year in the same period; and (c) what steps are being taken to enhance the number of SEPs subscribing to the Contribute-As-You-Earn scheme to allow them to make MediSave contributions as they earn.
Dr Tan See Leng: Over the last five years, the percentage of SEPs who did not keep up with MediSave contribution obligations based on declared incomes1 stayed at around 25%. Over the same period, slightly more than half of these SEPs had less than $3,000 in outstanding MediSave liabilities each year.
In 2020, the Government piloted the Contribute-As-You-Earn (CAYE) scheme with a small group of SEPs who contract with the Government, to help them meet their MediSave obligations by making small and regular contributions as they earn. Almost all the SEPs in this group participated and made CAYE contributions. Following the pilot, the Government is studying the feasibility of extending the CAYE scheme to SEPs in the private sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Based on figures as at end December of each year, and including SEPs who (i) have not fully paid up their MediSave contributions, and (ii) are not on GIRO installment plans of 12 months or less."],"footNoteQuestions":["72"],"questionNo":"72"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Collection of Data on Real Wage Growth by Age Group","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"73 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry collects data on real wage growth based on different age groups; and (b) if so, what is the real wage increase for each year from 2000 to 2021 for those aged (i) 29 and below (ii) 30 to 39 (iii) 40 to 49 (iv) 50 to 59 and (v) 60 and above respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) publishes the median gross monthly income from work in our annual reports on the Labour Force in Singapore. It is sensible to examine the trend of wage growth over a longer period of time, instead of annually, as the annual numbers are sometimes subjected to wider fluctuations.
The real annualised change in median gross monthly income from work (including employer CPF contributions) of full-time employed residents by age is provided in Table 1.
74 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current number of workers who are unable to meet their CPF Basic Retirement Sum (BRS); and (b) what is the forecasted number of workers who will not be able to meet the CPF BRS over the next 10 and 20 years respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) is meant to provide CPF members with monthly payouts in retirement that cover basic living expenses.
Among active CPF members who turned age 55 in 2021, about 33%, or 13,300 members, had yet to set aside the cohort's BRS. Of these, about 30% are expected to accrue additional contributions through employment from age 55 so that they could receive similar payouts at age 65 as those who had set aside the cohort BRS at age 55. The other members may have lower total lifetime CPF contributions which means they could be eligible for the Silver Support Scheme1.
The Silver Support Scheme, which covers a third of all seniors aged 65 and above, provides quarterly cash supplements of up to $900 in addition to their CPF payouts and other forms of Government support such as the Workfare Income Supplement. Members who have not met the prevailing BRS may also be eligible for matching top-ups from the Government under the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme, which was launched in 2021. Many seniors also receive additional retirement support from their loved ones, from their private savings, and by unlocking the value of their housing assets through the Lease Buyback Scheme or Silver Housing Bonus. Members can also choose to start their CPF payouts later, up to age 70, to receive higher payouts.
It is difficult to project the BRS attainment 10 or 20 years from now with meaningful accuracy as members' CPF balances could change significantly due to multiple reasons, such as contributions from employment income or voluntary top-ups. Nevertheless, BRS attainment has been improving and this is expected to continue in the next few years. About 20% of active CPF members turning 55 in 2027 are expected to set aside less than the BRS, down from 33% in 2021 and 40% in 2017.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Subject to additional eligibility requirements such as per capita household income and property ownership at the time of assessment"],"footNoteQuestions":["74"],"questionNo":"74"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventing Fall-from-height Fatalities at Workplace","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"75 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower in view of falling from heights cited as the top cause of workplace deaths this year (a) what targeted measures are taken to resolve this problem; (b) whether there will be enhanced penalties for employers if they have worker fatalities in this area; and (c) besides death rates, what other measurables are taken into account in determining the effectiveness of preventive methods for workplace fatalities.
Dr Tan See Leng: Falling from height is a known workplace safety risk with well-established mitigation measures. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM)'s preliminary investigation into the recent workplace fatalities indicate that most of these accidents were due to preventable safety lapses. To address the recent spate of fall-from-height fatalities, as well as the other workplace fatalities, MOM has adopted a combination of enforcement and education efforts and has worked closely with partners.
MOM launched proactive targeted inspections in the higher-risk Construction, Manufacturing and Marine sectors, from April to June 2022. More than 1,000 inspections were conducted, where a total of eight Stop Work Orders (SWO), and more than 400 composition fines and more than 2,200 notice of non-compliances were issued. Companies issued with SWO can only resume work after they have rectified their Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) lapses and the SWO is lifted.
MOM, together with the WSH Council, National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and industry partners had also called for an industry Safety Time-out (STO) in May 2022, with a focus on working safely at heights. A STO forum was held on 19 May 2022 to engage and educate the industry on the findings from recent fatal cases, including the safe use of ladders and good practices when working on fragile surfaces. STO helps to ensure that companies take time to review their WSH management systems and learn from past accidents.
Penalties for a WSH Act breach are calibrated according to an offender's level of culpability, the harm caused by the offence and other relevant factors such as whether the offender has a poor safety record. The penalties are not determined by the type of workplace fatality. MOM has recently introduced stiffer penalties to target errant companies and will continue to hold companies as well as company leaders, supervisors and workers responsible for workplace accidents. To strengthen WSH ownership and accountability of company leaders, MOM is developing an Approved Code of Practices for Company Directors' WSH duties, to provide clarity and practical guidance on how to fulfil their legal obligations.
MOM takes a holistic approach to assess Singapore’s WSH performance and the effectiveness of measures to reduce workplace accidents. Aside from workplace fatalities and fatal injury rates, data on major and minor injuries as well as dangerous occurrences are used to assess the WSH trends and emerging areas of concern that warrant further intervention. MOM, together with the WSH Council, will continue to work closely with industry associations, employers and workers to strengthen workplace safety and health.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":2248,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220801/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"OA","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":5145,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Leong Mun Wai","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220801/vernacular-Mr Leong Mun Wai - PDO - 1 Aug 2022.pdf","fileName":"Mr Leong Mun Wai - PDO - 1 Aug 2022.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5146,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220801/vernacular-Mr Gan Thiam Poh - PDO - 1 Aug 2022.pdf","fileName":"Mr Gan Thiam Poh - PDO - 1 Aug 2022.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5147,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220801/vernacular-Mr Zhulkarnai Rahim - PDO - 1 Aug 2022.pdf","fileName":"Mr Zhulkarnai Rahim - PDO - 1 Aug 2022.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5148,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hany Soh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220801/vernacular-Ms Hany Soh - PDO - 1 Aug 2022.pdf","fileName":"Ms Hany Soh - PDO - 1 Aug 2022.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5149,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Saktiandi Supaat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220801/vernacular-Mr Saktiandi Supaat - PDO - 1 Aug 2022.pdf","fileName":"Mr Saktiandi Supaat - PDO - 1 Aug 2022.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}