Mr Speaker: Pursuant to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Special Select Committee nominated the following nine persons to the President for appointment as Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs):
Mr Arasu Duraisamy;
Mr Douglas Foo;
Mr Terence Ho Wee San;
Prof Lim Sun Sun;
Mr Mohamed Irshad;
Ms Anthea Ong;
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching;
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira;
Ms Yip Pin Xiu.
On 26 September 2018, President Halimah Yacob, by Instruments of Appointment dated on the same day, appointed the nine Members as NMPs for a term of two and a half years, with effect from 26 September 2018.
The Nominated Members are present today to take their seats. They will now take their oath or affirmation of allegiance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Administration of Oaths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The following Members took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance, or made Affirmation of Allegiance, in the order below:
Mr Arasu Duraisamy;
Mr Douglas Foo;
Mr Terence Ho Wee San;
Prof Lim Sun Sun;
Mr Mohamed Irshad;
Ms Anthea Ong;
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching;
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira;
Ms Yip Pin Xiu.
Mr Speaker: I welcome the Nominated Members of Parliament and look forward to their participation in the proceedings of this House.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Salary Components of Prime Minister and Ministers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Mr Alex Yam asked the Prime Minister whether he can (i) list all the components of the salaries of the Ministers and Prime Minister, (ii) state the amounts, in months of salary, paid for each component for each year from 2013 to 2017 and (iii) confirm that these components are fully included in the Ministerial salary benchmark established in the White Paper on \"Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government\" that was debated in Parliament in January 2012 and are not payments over and above the salary benchmark.
\tThe Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, the salary structure for Political Office Holders is clearly and transparently set out in the 2012 White Paper on \"Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government\", submitted by an independent Committee after extensive consultation with members of the public and Members of Parliament.
The Committee had received more than 500 emails and letters from Members of Parliament and the public, including young people, Chief Executive Officers, small and medium enterprise (SME) owners, retirees, overseas Singaporeans, professionals, academics, as well as representatives from non-government organisations. So, there was extensive public consultation.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I display some slides on the LED screen?
Mr Speaker: Please do. [Some slides were shown to hon Members.]
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Thank you. The Committee set out to first determine what the appropriate level of total annual salary should be.
In 2012, the Committee recommended a norm level of $1.1 million as the total annual salary for an entry level MR4 Minister, based on a 40% discount to the market reference, to reflect the ethos of public service. The Committee then recommended how this total amount should be divided between fixed pay and variable pay. So, that was the next step.
The fixed pay comprises the monthly salary and 13th month Non-Pensionable Annual Allowance. The Committee recommended that a significant part of the total annual salary should be variable, and the quantum linked to individual performance and national outcomes. The variable components of the annual salary comprise individual Performance Bonus, National Bonus and the Annual Variable Component. And, together, these variable components constitute 35% of the total norm annual pay, and this is quite usual for executives and senior people at this level. The fixed pay is 65% of total norm annual pay.
All the components added up – fixed pay plus variable pay, including any and all bonuses – make up the norm level of $1.1 million for an entry level MR4 Minister.
I underline this point, Mr Speaker, all the bonus components form part of, and are not in addition to, the $1.1 million salary norm.
The salary structure is totally transparent. There are no hidden salary components or perks. The Prime Minister’s salary does not have an individual Performance Bonus as there is no individual who can assess his performance. But to keep to the principle of making a significant part of the Prime Minister’s total pay subject to performance, that is, 35%, the Prime Minister’s variable pay has twice the National Bonus compared to other Ministers, linking it to national outcomes, in place of the individual Performance Bonus.
The independent Committee recommended that the Prime Minister’s total norm annual salary should be two times that of an entry level MR4 Minister, that is, $2.2 million. Again, this includes all components, including his National Bonus, and there are no salary components or perks beyond this.
I have prepared a handout on the range and average of each of the variable pay components received by Political Office Holders over the past five years.
Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Clerk to distribute the handout, please?
Mr Speaker: Please proceed. [Handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Teo Chee Hean: If Members can refer to the handout, (Annex 1) reflects the actual variable pay components received by Political Office Holders over the past five years.
Between 2013 and 2017, for the National Bonus, the range was between 3.4 and 4.9 months, with the average over the five years being 4.1 months; for Performance Bonus the range was from three to six months each year, with the average across all the Political Office Holders over five years at 4.3 months; for the Annual Variable Component, the range was 0.95 to 1.5 months over the period and the average over the five years was 1.3 months.
All these variable components are in accordance with the framework I earlier described, and not on top of it. The bonuses can be higher than the norm in the framework, or lower, depending on the actual performance of individual Political Office Holders and the national outcomes in each year.
The National Bonus is determined equally by the four national indicators laid out in the White Paper, namely, the real median income growth rate of Singaporeans; the real growth rate of the lowest 20th percentile income of Singaporeans; the unemployment rate of Singaporeans; and the real gross domestic product growth rate.
The Annual Variable Component is always the same amount that all Civil Servants receive.
The Performance Bonus is determined by the Prime Minister who consults the senior Ministers in Cabinet in assessing the performance of Political Office Holders.
In determining the Performance Bonus for each individual, he takes into account the actual work that each Political Office Holder does in the specific responsibilities assigned to him, as well as his contributions in Cabinet when we consider broader national issues.
Many Political Office Holders hold more than one portfolio, in order to stretch them and to build depth and experience in the Cabinet.
But I should emphasise that each Office Holder receives only one salary regardless of whether he holds one or multiple portfolios.
Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong is not a member of the Cabinet, and has not received a ministerial salary since he retired from the Cabinet in May 2011.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has always been transparent with the salary structure for Political Office Holders. The 2012 White Paper on \"Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government\" was submitted by an independent Committee after extensive consultation with Members of Parliament and the public. The paper was endorsed in full in January 2012, after a thorough debate in this House over two and a half days with 29 Members speaking on the matter, including seven Members from the Opposition.
In determining the salary framework, the Committee was guided by the following three key principles.
First, salaries must be competitive so that people of the right calibre are not deterred from stepping forward to lead the country.
Second, the ethos of political service entails making sacrifices and, hence, there should be a discount of 40% in the pay formula.
Third, there should be a \"clean wage\" with no hidden perks.
Members of Parliament, including those from the Workers’ Party, endorsed these principles.
I quote Mr Chen Show Mao – he is in the House, \"We (the Workers' Party) agree with the three principles that political salaries should be competitive, that political service is a calling that has its own ethos and their wages should be transparent.\" During that Parliamentary session, the Workers' Party had proposed their own formula based on these same principles.
Mr Speaker, Sir, could I request the Clerk to distribute Handouts 2 and 3?
Mr Speaker: Please do. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Handout 2 (Annex 2) is a Straits Times report on the 2012 debate in Parliament. The handout provides a succinct summary of the key points and conveys a flavour of the debate.
It reports that there was, I quote, \"Real progress in [the] ministerial pay debate\", and quoting my remarks that the \"Opposition’s agreement on key points marks a breakthrough\", and the \"Shift in the Workers' Party's stance helps debate move forward\".
Mr Speaker, Sir, there was convergence in this House on both the principles as well as the quantum for Ministers' salaries.
If Members could refer to Handout 3 (Annex 3), the formula put forward by the Workers' Party (WP) in 2012 would have resulted in essentially the same total annual salary level for the MR 4 entry level Minister as that recommended by the independent Committee.
But the WP formula would have had a higher level of fixed component of 81%, amounting to roughly $800,800, compared to the White Paper's proposal and a smaller variable component of 19%.
And this means that the WP would have paid out a higher portion of the salary – about $880,000 out of $1.1 million – regardless of individual performance or national outcomes, and even if the outcomes were not achieved.
This would have made the link between salary and performance weaker, though both the WP's and the White Paper’s proposals would have added up to the same norm annual salary.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we recently carried out a second independent review of the salary structure and level.
At the Committee of Supply (COS) debate this year, I informed this House that the Prime Minister had formed a new independent Committee in 2017 to review the salary framework to ensure that it remains appropriate and valid. The 2017 Committee reaffirmed the three key principles and was of the view that the current salary structure for Political Office Holders remained relevant and sound.
Though the MR4 benchmark had increased by 9% since 2011, the Government decided to maintain the current salary structure and keep salary at the 2012 level. Significantly, no member of the Opposition sought clarification on my COS statement.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have answered all three parts of Mr Alex Yam’s question. Mr Leon Perera has also filed a similar Parliamentary Question for Written Answer on Ministerial Salaries, which I believe Table 1 in my handout answers. Before I proceed to the concluding segment of my reply, with your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to invite Members, in particular Mr Perera, to seek any clarifications that they may have.
Mr Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
\tMr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for a very comprehensive reply. Just two very quick supplementary questions. One, since the revision in 2012, in percentage terms, has the average income of our Ministers increased or decreased? Secondly, on the issue of pensions, which has also appeared in the public discourse, can the Deputy Prime Minister clarify once and for all, how many Political Office Holders still qualify for pension?
\tMr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I can confirm that the pay for Ministers currently remains the same, in accordance with the 2012 White Paper framework. Of course, it can go up and it can go down, depending on whether the National Outcomes were achieved and the individual performance of the Ministers. And that is, essentially, part of the structure of the framework that was put in place in 2012.
And I can confirm to Mr Alex Yam that Ministerial pensions were discontinued in 2012, as part of the revision of the framework, and that Ministers receive the same MediSave contributions, percentages and numbers, as Civil Servants do, under the MediSave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient (MSO) Scheme for medical benefits. So, there are no hidden perks, no hidden medical benefits. There are no pensions.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his reply to Mr Alex Yam's question. The Deputy Prime Minister stated that the three components of Mr Alex Yam's question had been answered. The second part actually requests the Prime Minister to state the amounts in months of salary paid for the year from 2013 to 2017. What we have in the first handout is a range in the number of months. Do we have details on the absolute dollar amount that was requested in the Parliamentary Question (PQ) by Mr Alex Yam?
The second question I have is with regard to whether the Deputy Prime Minister agrees that in response to Mr Leon Perera's PQ filed on 10 September, whether the Government could have pre-empted some of the misinformation that occurred online had a fuller and more expansive reply been given to Mr Leon Perera in September.
\tMr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have answered Mr Alex Yam's question as he has posed it. And the most important aspect of that answer is that all the components are within the framework of $1.1 million that was put in place since 2012. That is the most important.
I should point out that Mr Leon Perera asked the question for a Written Answer and his question was fully answered in the written form. Had Mr Leon Perera chosen to ask an Oral question, he could have expanded, he could have asked, but he chose not to. And I invite him to ask any questions for clarifications that he may have. And, of course, Mr Pritam Singh as well, who was present during the debate.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his detailed reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, would the hon Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that my original written PQ filed in September asked for total Bonus Months and not only Performance Bonus? Would that not have been an opportunity to, at that point, when the written PQ was answered, and also disclose and publish the National Bonus level, in addition to the Performance Bonus level, which I think was the point that Mr Pritam Singh was making? So, that is my first question.
My second question is: would the Government be publishing the quantums of National Bonus and average highest and lowest Performance Bonus on an annual basis, going forward?
\tMr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member asked for what each Minister gets. For the National Bonus and the Annual Variable Component, it is the same for all Ministers. The Annual Variable Component is well-known. So, if that was what Mr Leon Perera wanted, he could have filed an Oral question and he could have followed up, and we would have provided him the answer, as we would today. So, there is nothing secret about it. It is transparent. It is open. And I am answering all the questions today.
But could I ask Mr Perera whether he agrees that Ministers' salaries should be competitive, that the salary should recognise the ethos of public service and that salaries should be transparent, which was the Workers' Party's position in 2012?
\tMr Leon Perera: I thank the hon Deputy Prime Minister for his reply. My PQ did not raise a suggestion with relation to the salary, the formulation for calculating the total compensation of the salary, and I have no disagreement with those broad principles, in response to the Deputy Prime Minister's question.
I would also like to pose a question in relation to my original Written question filed in September. It was in relation to total Bonus Months. And I would like to ask the hon Deputy Prime Minister: has the figure for the National Bonus – which I acknowledge is the same for all Ministers – been previously published prior to when the Written question was filed in September? If not, then would that not have been an opportunity to also release that figure in September together with the average Performance Bonus figure?
\tMr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, we did publish the full information once in the first year after the framework was announced. It is in the public records. And in fact, the method of calculating the National Bonus is well-known. All the components are there. All the factors are there and it can be calculated. And I think people have made an attempt to do so; not very far off from where it actually was.
But I take it that Mr Leon Perera does affirm that he agrees that Ministerial salary should be competitive, that the salary should recognise the ethos of public service and that salaries should be transparent. Can I ask Mr Perera whether he agrees that the salary proposals that the Workers' Party had put forward in 2012 would essentially result in the same total annual salaries for Ministers as the White Paper, except for the Workers' Party's proposal having a much larger component of fixed pay?
\tMr Leon Perera: For the Deputy Prime Minister's question, I was not present in the House. I did not participate in this debate and, in my PQ, I did not make a suggestion or a new suggestion about how the total compensation or the monthly salary should be calculated.
\tMr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Perera should not evade the question. I have provided him all the information there. It is there. Does he agree or not?
\tMr Leon Perera: I think with the assumption that this information is descriptive in nature, then, clearly, there are no grounds for me to disagree that it is a description of what had been presented during the debate in 2012 which I did not participate in.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes. We agree. The Ministerial salaries 2012 White Paper versus the Workers' Party's formula table that the Deputy Prime Minister had shared with the House is accurate.
There is one point which I have to make, which is an important distinction even though the result is similar, is the basis upon which the monthly component is calculated. And that was a question of principle. The principle that the Workers' Party took upon itself was to consider what would be a fair multiple, what sort of message do you send to the public with regard to appropriate salary that ultimately is derived. We chose MX9 as the point, because we felt that an entry-level Civil Servant would aspire to that position, and he would not have to be a scholar or anything of that sort. That is our political perspective at that time. The Government's perspective is to take the 1,000 top earners and then you take a percentage of their total salary and then give a discount of 40% or something of that nature.
So, that is the key difference. But the total amount, as it is accurately in the table, is correct.
The second point I would like to suggest – and this is not belabouring the issue, Mr Speaker – is the question again by Mr Alex Yam about the amount. I believe, in the context of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods that came out with a list of recommendations, it is actually more propitious for us to present all the information in an easy-to-understand manner for the public. And that would reduce the prospect of misinformation online.
I understand there is an issue with regard to Performance Bonus. A range would be sufficient. It does not need to specify what each Minister gets. But I would like to read Recommendation 9 which would be a helpful way for the Government to move forward. Recommendation 9 of the Select Committee's Report states that \"Public institutions should wherever possible provide information to the public in response to online falsehoods in a timely manner. They should also seek to pre-empt vulnerabilities and put out information in advance where appropriate to inoculate the public. They should ensure that they communicate with the public in clear and comprehensible terms.\"
I do understand that \"Factually\", the Government website, put out a response to certain misinformation that was generated by Mr Leon Perera's question. His question came out on 10 September; on 11 September, certain websites got carried away with certain information or the way they interpreted that reply. And on 16 September \"Factually\" presents the components as the Deputy Prime Minister did. But I would suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that if we put out the dollar value, the prospect of more misinformation can be reduced.
\tMr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Pritam Singh is being slightly disingenuous. I mean, Mr Perera asked for some data. And the next day, the data was misinterpreted and became the widespread basis for false information. I am delighted that Mr Pritam Singh and the Workers' Party are all for transparency and for debunking falsehoods.
So, perhaps, Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to clarify the position and I hope that the Workers' Party will help us to clarify the position by putting it on your website also, especially as Mr Pritam Singh has agreed.
So, the key facts are these: first, all salary components, including the Variable Pay, are part of the salary structure benchmarked in 2012 at $1.1 million for an entry level Minister at MR4. There are no components beyond that.
Second, the salary structure and benchmark have not changed since 2012. I reported to Parliament earlier this year that the Government had decided not to adjust salaries even though the MR4 benchmark had increased by 9%.
\t
Third, in 2012, there was remarkable convergence in this House on the matter of Ministers' salaries. Mr Pritam Singh has just said that the Workers' Party agrees with the principles underlying the current salary structure and that the Workers' Party's alternative formula used a norm salary level that is also $1.1 million.
The proposals, Mr Speaker, Sir, are really very close to each other – in principle and in quantum.
Indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir, if there were a Workers' Party government in power today, by their own formula, the Workers' Party Minister would be paid essentially the same as what a Minister today is paid. Mr Pritam Singh would pay himself that same amount.
The subject of Ministers' salaries, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a difficult one to talk about. It is an emotional one. There are misconceptions, sometimes deliberately propagated. It is easily politicised.
Even knowledgeable, well-meaning people, who have a deep interest in politics are susceptible to this.
I read Mr Ho Kwon Ping's extensive interview with Channel NewsAsia, which was published yesterday. Among other things, he suggested pegging Ministerial salaries to the median salary of Singaporeans. He also suggested an independent Commission to decide the actual quantum. And Mr Louis Ng, in an earlier similar interview, also suggested that there should be public consultations.
Sir, from my reply today, Members can see that there was an independent Committee, not one but two. The independent Committee did have extensive consultations in 2012 and a significant part of Ministers' salaries are pegged not just to the growth of average salaries, but to the lowest 20th percentile of salaries and to the unemployment rate – issues which are important to every Singaporean.
But even Mr Ho, who is well-informed and has a deep interest in politics, has some serious misconceptions. He claimed, for example, that his salary is lower than the Ministers.
Sir, fortunately, the interviewer had checked, done the homework, and pointed out to Mr Ho that his salary, including benefits and bonus – I would not mention the figure, but it is significantly higher than that of Ministers and certainly not lower than Minister's salaries – to quote the article.
Sir, otherwise, the misrepresentation would have been carried widely and spread more disinformation.
Sir, Ministers, for example, are responsible for tourism development or air transport as just one of their many responsibilities, which contribute to the growth of the tourism industry in our region, in which Mr Ho's company operates.
Mr Speaker, Sir, so, if this is a difficult subject to talk about, why do we have to talk about this subject from time to time? Because, Sir, we need a fair, open, honest, transparent framework in place, so that we can continue to have able, committed and passionate people, with integrity, come to serve as our political leaders.
Sir, I am 64 this year and have served more than 25 years in politics. My most important task now is to help Prime Minister Lee to prepare, not just the Fourth Generation leadership, but also to make sure that we are able to have a Fifth Generation of leaders coming in, having the time to learn, to be tested, and to gain the trust and support of Singaporeans.
These are people in their late 30s and 40s. Many would be at the threshold, where they have a good chance of reaching the peak in their chosen careers and professions.
Sir, the virtues of passion to serve the people is shared by Members from both sides of the House. The PAP looks for people with integrity, who are capable, committed and caring, who are prepared to put others before themselves.
All Members of this House know that coming into politics entails many sacrifices, in privacy, continuous exposure to the glare of the public eye in their careers, in family time, not always being there to watch your kids grow.
Sir, Ministers' salaries have been studied and recommended by an independent Committee. They are fair-minded people who have the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans at heart. They have recommended a framework and a quantum that reflects all these things that we talk about – sacrifice, commitment to service, working for the good of our fellow Singaporeans. All these factors are in there.
The Government accepts the recommendations.
The Workers' Party accepts the principles and has come up with essentially the same quantum, which Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Leon Perera just affirmed.
So, let us agree to agree. This is what politics is about also – not just opposing for the sake of opposing. This is a matter which, whether one is in the opposition or in government, we can agree upon – that we need a fair framework to bring in the best team, to do the best for Singapore and Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations for Singapore’s Agreement to Malaysia’s Request to Postpone High-Speed Rail Project","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the considerations that led to Singapore agreeing to Malaysia's request to postpone construction works of the High-Speed Rail (HSR) project; (b) whether Singapore is obligated to accept changes, if any, proposed by Malaysia to the HSR project; and (c) what is to be expected of Malaysia at the end of the suspension period if the project does not proceed eventually.
3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what was the basis for the agreed reimbursement of S$15 million by Malaysia to Singapore for abortive costs arising from the two-year suspension of works for the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail (HSR); (b) what are the major works which will be suspended during the same period; and (c) whether there are any ancillary works or projects relating to or incidental to the HSR which will still continue in the next two years.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Sir, may I take Question Nos 2 and 3 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: The Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail (HSR) Bilateral Agreement commits the Government of Malaysia and the Government of Singapore to build the HSR Project and to start the Express Service linking both cities by end-2026. Since the Bilateral Agreement was signed in December 2016, both Governments have expended significant resources to implement the Project according to the prescribed timeline. As I explained in this House on 9 July this year, Singapore, on its part, had already spent more than S$250 million by the end of May 2018 in implementing the Project. These are costs for consultancies to design the civil infrastructure, costs for manpower to oversee and deliver the Project, and costs for land acquisition. I added that Singapore would continue to incur costs, more than S$6 million in June, another more than S$6 million in July, and at least S$40 million from August to the end of this year. We expected Malaysia to also fulfil its Bilateral Agreement obligations, as the Bilateral Agreement is a legally binding treaty between two countries.
However, on 11 August this year, the new Malaysian government, through its Minister of Economic Affairs Mohamed Azmin bin Ali, made an official request to Singapore to defer the HSR Project by three or four years. Malaysia acknowledged that it would require Singapore's consent for such a deferment.
The HSR is a major long-term bilateral project. It requires close cooperation between both Governments to succeed. The Bilateral Agreement makes no provision for project deferment. When either party is unable or unwilling to continue with the Project, it can terminate the Project and compensate the other party for costs incurred, in accordance with the terms of the Bilateral Agreement.
Minister Azmin Ali explained that Malaysia did not want to terminate the Project but needed to suspend construction for a specified period, with the intention to resume the Project thereafter. He sought Singapore’s understanding for Malaysia’s predicament. He asked us to give the Malaysian request serious consideration, which we did.
We could have turned down the request to defer the Project, enforced our legal rights on termination and sought compensation from Malaysia. This would have been fully in accordance with the Bilateral Agreement. After that, if and when Malaysia was again ready to pursue such a project, we could discuss a new Bilateral Agreement for it.
However, in the spirit of bilateral cooperation, we decided to work out an alternative resolution to the problem, especially since Malaysia reassured us that it did want to resume the HSR Project, albeit after a delay. After several rounds of discussions, both sides reached agreement to suspend the construction of the HSR Project up to 31 May 2020. This will be two years from the formation of the new Malaysian government. Beyond two years, the current cost estimates would likely be no longer valid, which would affect the viability of the project and its business case. A longer suspension period would also impact our development plans for the Jurong Lake District, which will host the Singapore HSR Terminus and many transport, commercial, residential and recreational developments. As it is, with the two-year suspension, the projected commencement date for the HSR Express Service will be pushed back by four years to 1 January 2031, as both countries will need additional time to call fresh tenders, if and when the Project resumes.
Project suspension is not without costs to Singapore. We have to pay contract breakage costs to contractors for terminating ongoing contracts and to safely wind down operations for the duration of the suspension period. For example, ongoing excavation works cannot simply be abandoned; they need to be safely wound down. The excavation must be backfilled to render the site safe, and re-excavated once the project resumes, increasing costs. These are abortive costs, which cannot be used for the HSR Project after it resumes. They are separate from the project implementation costs which we have already incurred for work done which will still be useful if and when the Project resumes. Malaysia has agreed to reimburse Singapore for the abortive costs of S$15 million, to be paid by end-January 2019. After the ongoing works have been wound down, no new HSR works will be undertaken during the period of suspension.
Malaysia also requested that during the suspension period, both sides discuss the way forward for the HSR Project, with the aim of reducing costs. Singapore is open to such discussions. We are not obliged to accept automatically any proposals offered, but we will assess any proposals from Malaysia carefully and objectively.
By 31 May 2020, we expect Malaysia to resume constructing the HSR Project, either as specified in the HSR Bilateral Agreement, or as amended if there is mutual agreement to do so. There will be no further suspension beyond 31 May 2020. If Malaysia does not proceed with the HSR Project by then, the Project will be deemed to have been terminated by Malaysia, which will reimburse Singapore for the project implementation costs incurred by us up to the point of suspension. These were the terms of the legally binding documents which Minister Azmin Ali and I signed on 5 September 2018 in Putrajaya.
This is a fair arrangement for both countries. It protects Singapore’s interests, while reasonably accommodating Malaysia’s request. It also shows that we can manage our bilateral ties on the basis of mutual respect, and resolve issues amicably in accordance with binding agreements and international law.
Singapore looks forward to continue working with Malaysia to see through the HSR Project. Both sides recognise the mutual benefits of the HSR Project, which will bring both countries closer together by improving connectivity, deepening people-to-people ties and catalysing further economic cooperation.
\tMeanwhile, the suspension affects many stakeholders. SG HSR, Singapore's Infrastructure Company (InfraCo) which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Land Transport Authority (LTA), has hired many staff who have worked hard on the Project. During the suspension period, they will be offered alternative job roles in LTA. I thank them for their good work and dedication to this Project. I am confident that they will continue to contribute in the LTA family, and to the HSR Project if and when it resumes.
The two HSR InfraCos, SG HSR Pte Ltd, and MyHSR Corporation, have jointly notified registered bidders for the AssetsCo tender that the AssetsCo tender has been aborted as of 5 September 2018. SG HSR and LTA have also informed all their contractors of the Project suspension, and are engaging them to discuss further details.
\tMr Speaker: High-speed question from Ms Foo Mee Har.
\tMs Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Minister has said, substantial resources were deployed for the HSR project. So, I actually had asked the Minister in Question No 55 whether with that suspension, the LTA resources can be redeployed for the Jurong Region Line so that we can expedite the project of Jurong Region Line.
\t
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: If Mr Speaker permits me to reply to this question, which is ordered further down the Order Paper. I could.
Mr Speaker: Why not we come to that turn later? Mr Ang Hin Kee.
\t
\tMr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): I would like to follow up with a question about the HSR staff who were deployed to alternative roles in LTA. I was wondering if the Ministry will consider deploying them, perhaps, in other countries that may agree to the arrangement whereby there are HSR-equivalent projects which are ongoing, so that the staff will be kept abreast with the developments of the same nature, dealing with high-speed trains and tunnelling works, so that they are kept abreast with the latest technology which must certainly improve over the next one or two years.
\t
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Ms Foo Mee Har may disagree. The reality is that within LTA, within Singapore, we have many Mass Rapid Transit (MRT)-related projects and the skillsets which are being exploited and applied for the MRT projects are totally applicable for HSR as well. So, within the suspension period of two years, we have enough work to keep them usefully occupied and we will do so.
Sir, if you agree, I can take Ms Foo Mee Har's question now.
\tMr Speaker: If you wish, Minister.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Speed Up Construction of Jurong Region MRT Line with Resources Diverted from Delayed Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail Project","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"55 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for transport whether the construction of Jurong Region MRT Line (JRL) can be expedited by deploying resources from the delayed Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail project.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): The Jurong Region Line (JRL) will be our seventh Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Line, after the Thomson-East Coast Line. It is scheduled to open in three stages between 2026 and 2028. It will cover 24 kilometres with 24 stations, of which, five are interchange stations. Its planning and design works have commenced since March 2014. This is a complex project, and its 10-year project implementation timeline has been carefully adopted to ensure the safety and quality of construction. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is adequately resourced to meet this challenging timeline.
First, the JRL will run along existing road corridors where there are many underground utilities and services, such as high voltage cables and large diameter water pipes. All these need to be carefully diverted before JRL construction can commence.
Second, the JRL main construction works are complex. For example, the JRL will interchange with existing MRT lines at Jurong East, Choa Chu Kang and Boon Lay. The new JRL stations will have to be built to safely and seamlessly interface with these existing stations, which are running live operations with heavy commuter loads. In particular, works at Jurong East Station will involve removal of the existing steel roof structure and the construction of a new roof above live tracks and operating platforms.
Third, some parts of the JRL have tight construction corridors. Extra care needs to be taken for works in these constrained areas, so as not to damage or disrupt existing buildings and structures. There needs to be close coordination with surrounding land and building owners. All these require time.
In short, safety in construction is our top priority. LTA does not recommend further shortening the construction timeline, even if additional resources are available, but we will try.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for his answer. I just want to ask the Minister whether he has any answer for the third part of my question, specifically, whether there are any ancillary works or projects relating to or incidental to the HSR which will still continue in these two years?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: That was in my answer, that during this rail suspension period, once the activities that need to be wound down are done, there will no more HSR-related works to be done during the suspension period.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): May I know the exact date of the suspension, whether there are bids received for the tender which has been suspended? About the termination few months ago, were there any bids that have been received for the open tender or the asset-owning company? And has the Ministry gone through all those who had tendered? Probably some contract sum offered is well within the budget, most likely can be considered?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, there was a strong interest in the joint AssetsCo tender, but the AssetsCo tender had not closed yet – at that time. We postponed the closing date to end of this year but now that the project construction has been suspended, on the same day, we have informed all the bidders that the tender has been aborted. But the Member's question was what were the bids that we had received. So, the tender has not closed yet. The tender's closing date is end of this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cause of Electricity Disruption on 18 September 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the cause of the widespread electricity disruption that occurred on 18 September 2018; (b) how are our critical infrastructure protected against such disruptions; and (c) what is the impact of the liberalisation of the energy market on the reliability of electricity provision.
5 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the root cause of the major disruption to power supply in Singapore on 18 September 2018; and (b) what are the follow-up actions and measures that will be put in place to minimise the risks of recurrence.
6 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what caused the power failure on 18 September 2018 and how many homes were affected by the blackout.
7 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the findings from the investigations by the Energy Market Authority on the disruption of power supply that occurred on 18 September 2018; (b) what are the safeguards that are in place to ensure that there are no power disruptions to critical services, such as those in hospitals, lifts, street lights and traffic lights; and (c) what are the safeguards that can be put in place to prevent another similar occurrence of disruption of power supply in the future.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, can I have your permission to take Question Nos 4 to 7 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\t
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, let me begin by tracing the timeline of events behind the electricity supply disruption on 18 September.
That evening, a total of 16 generating units were operating. At 1.17 am, a power generating unit at Sembcorp Cogen Pte Ltd tripped. Based on the Energy Market Authority's (EMA's) preliminary investigations, this was likely due to an equipment fault. This triggered an automatic response by the other 15 units that were running, to increase their supply, to meet the demand for power. This is usually not a problem, as each of the remaining units only had to increase their supply by about 5%. However, a unit at Senoko Energy Pte Ltd tripped a few seconds later, due to failure of a different equipment component. This led to a further shortfall in supply from the operating plants to meet demand, which caused the protection devices in the power system to kick in as designed and automatically disconnected electricity to about 146,500 consumers to rebalance the system. Out of these 146,500 consumers who were affected, 130,535 were households.
To restore electricity supply, EMA immediately instructed other stand-by generating units, including unaffected units from Senoko and YTL PowerSeraya Pte Ltd to provide additional electricity supply. Once these additional units came online after about 15 minutes, electricity supply was progressively restored. While power was fully restored within 38 minutes, some consumers remained affected as the electrical equipment within their premises had to be manually reset.
EMA treats its mandate of ensuring the reliability of Singapore's electricity supply very seriously and has taken the following steps in response to this incident.
Firstly, EMA has been working closely with the two generation companies and their original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to establish the root cause of their respective equipment failures, even though the units were maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' recommendations. This is an important point because the generation technology is also used in other generating units in Singapore as well as globally, and what happened here could well happen elsewhere. This will take some time, as the parts have to be sent for testing overseas, but we believe a thorough investigation is important.
Secondly, EMA is also working with the industry to review its processes for handling such events to ensure they remain satisfactory. As explained earlier, the technical processes kicked in as designed, allowing for the relatively quick restoration of power. During the blackout, SP Group officers were immediately activated and deployed at key substations and control centres. SP Group also provided the public with progressive updates on its social media channels and concurrently informed the media of its updates. Nonetheless, we will review this incident carefully to see how we can further improve our responses.
Thirdly, we are reviewing our system to ensure that we continue to have sufficient capacity and contingency measures to handle any similar incidents in future. Mr Speaker, I would like to reassure Members of the House that we do, currently, have enough spare capacity in our system, as evidenced by the quick progressive restoration of power within 15 minutes of the incident. In the design of any electricity grid system, we have to balance redundancy and assurance with the cost that will be imposed on consumers. The higher the degree of redundancy, the smaller the probability of disruption, but the higher the cost at the system level.
Hence, we have adopted a calibrated approach in our system planning, with a certain level of redundancy at national grid level, coupled with a higher level of redundancy at the local level for critical systems. This system design has served us well so far, with Singapore having one of the most reliable and affordable electricity systems in the world. From financial year (FY) 2013 to FY2017, the average disruption per consumer annually in Singapore ranged from 12 to 45 seconds, while, in comparison, major cities, such as Tokyo, New York, Hong Kong and London, experienced an average disruption per consumer of between four and 34 minutes in 2015.
The reliability of electricity supply has also not been affected by the liberalisation of the electricity market. In fact, our electricity sector relies on both regulatory powers and market incentives to keep generation companies on their toes. Generation companies that do not maintain their sets will lose market share and face regulatory action by EMA. In addition to the generation companies, EMA also regulates the infrastructure planning and maintenance regime of SP PowerGrid, the national grid operator, to improve system reliability and to minimise disruptions.
For critical services and infrastructure, such as lifts, traffic signalling systems and public hospitals, these have contingency plans to deal with power outages on the national grid. For instance, public hospitals are provided with dual supply sources, each of which is able to provide backup to the hospital if the other one fails. In addition, if there is any disruption from the main power source, backup power systems, such as diesel generators and Uninterrupted Power Supplies (UPS) systems, would automatically kick in, to support all critical equipment and critical facilities. Hospitals also carry out regular and preventive maintenance to ensure that both their electrical installations and backup power systems are in good working condition. During the power outage on 18 September, hospitals in the affected areas activated their backup power supply immediately, preventing disruptions to their operations and patient care. Telecommunication exchanges, similarly, did not experience any disruption as their backup power supplies were activated.
On the other hand, passenger lifts have to be installed with an Automatic Rescue Device that will park the lift at the nearest floor and open its doors during a power failure. Furthermore, a standby generator is required for lifts in very high-rise residential buildings or those serving both residential and commercial and non-residential uses, which will provide emergency power to resume at least one of the lifts. As for traffic signals, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will work with the Traffic Police to quickly deploy resources where needed during a power outage, to assist with traffic control at affected junctions. Backup generators can also be deployed onsite to provide temporary power supply to mitigate the impact on traffic signal operations.
Beyond these sector-specific measures, EMA has been looking at how technological solutions, such as energy storage systems, can increase security and resilience at the systems level. Such technologies can also address other issues, such as the increased intermittency faced by greater deployment of intermittent generation sources, such as solar power. EMA recently completed a round of industry consultation on the regulatory framework for energy storage systems and will publish a policy paper to provide clarity on the regulatory framework by the fourth quarter of 2018.
We will ensure that we incorporate all the lessons from this incident to ensure continued high standards of reliability for our power systems.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): From the Senior Minister of State's reply, it seems that the originating cause of the power supply disruption on 18 September is due to the trip in SembCorp Cogen's generating units. So, can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether such trips do occur quite often to other generation companies (gencos) as well and whether EMA sees power trips at gencos as a potential weak link that needs to be addressed?
Secondly, can I also ask whether EMA carries out audit checks on gencos, including unnotified ones, to ensure that they do carry out their contractual obligations and that the regime is strictly followed?
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I would say that EMA is currently investigating this incident, together with the gencos and their original equipment manufacturers. So, I would not jump the gun to draw any conclusion until the investigations are completed. But that said, we will not hesitate to take any regulatory actions against SembCorb or Senoko if they are found to be at fault, including imposing a financial penalty under section 14 of the Electricity Act, which is a financial penalty of up to 10% of the licensee's annual turnover or $1 million, whichever is higher; and also requiring the gencos to tighten their standard operating procedures (SOPs), where necessary. So, let us wait for the investigations to be completed.
As to the Member's other question about whether EMA does spot checks to keep the gencos on their toes, the answer is yes, because maintenance works by the gencos are done by the original equipment manufacturers, which the gencos have to pay for. And EMA tracks when the units are shut down, because before they can shut the units down for maintenance, they have to apply to get approval from EMA for shutting down their operations. So, because of the need for them to notify us, we then have a few things that we can do.
First, we would know whether they are doing maintenance, because they have to apply for permit to do so. Secondly, we also send our EMA teams down to do spot checks when they are doing their maintenance to ensure that actual work is done. And when the maintenance is done, EMA staff would then file a report highlighting any issues and any problems that need to be resolved, and what are the recommendations for resolving them. Third, we also do a spot check to audit their spare inventory, so we know if there are shortfalls in any of these areas that need to be ramped up.
What we also do is we use a regulatory framework to ensure that standards are maintained, by first imposing penalties if they are not well maintained and, secondly, to give them some of these regulatory incentives to ensure that they are kept on their toes. Because these companies would lose revenue if they cannot fulfil their maintenance requirements and, therefore, they will lose revenue and they will not be able to fulfil their contractual requirements when the units fail.
Secondly, the warranties will become invalid if it is not maintained according to the OEM's requirements. So, there are sufficient incentives to ensure that these companies keep the maintenance up to par, in accordance with the guidelines.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): I have three questions. The first question is: during this interim period where the equipment fault is being investigated, are there any safeguards being put in place to prevent recurrences of equipment failure? The second question is: was there any link to consumer behaviour, especially extensive use of air-conditioners by residential households, due to hot weather, for example? So, is there any link in the disruption to this consumer behaviour? And the third question is: is the grid resilient enough to meet changing consumer behaviour because of climate change and other trends?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, before the investigation is concluded, it would not be wise to kneejerk and impose more demands on the system unnecessarily. Suffice to say that we have enough spare capacity in the number of generators that we have to meet consumer demand. Certainly, the trip on that night was not due to excessive consumer demand, but due to equipment fault. With the OEMs now looking at the equipment, and with the equipment being sent for overseas testing, let us give it some time for things to settle. Nonetheless, EMA is exploring and also looking at it with all the gencos to see how we can strengthen our processes and our SOPs, where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Criteria for Lease Buyback Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many HDB flats have joined the Lease Buyback Scheme since the Scheme was first launched; (b) what is the total number for each flat type; (c) whether there have been younger applicants whose applications were rejected or approved on an exceptional basis; and (d) whether the Ministry will review and lower the minimum age requirement for each application.
9 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for National Development (a) since 2009, whether exceptions to the rules for the Lease Buyback scheme have been exercised by HDB for applicants with unique circumstances; (b) if so, how many have been approved; (c) what have been the main reasons for rejection since the scheme's extension to 4-room flats since April 2015; and (d) whether HDB will exercise flexibility when only one of the spouse qualifies under the age criterion.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 8 and 9 together.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, about 3,100 households have taken up the Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) since it was introduced in March 2009. This comprises 830 households in 4-room flats, 2,030 households in 3-room flats, and the remaining 240 households in smaller flats.
Among those who asked for exceptions to the LBS criteria, the main reason for rejection is that they do not meet the age requirement. The qualifying age for LBS is set at the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Payout Eligibility Age of 65 to allow seniors to immediately receive their monthly CPF payouts when they take up the LBS.
That said, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has exercised flexibility for applicants based on their individual circumstances, such as ill health or financial difficulty, and has done so for about 50 households since April 2015. This includes households who did not meet the age requirement.
We thank both Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Alex Yam for their feedback and will take into consideration their views and suggestions as we continue to review our schemes.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.
\tMiss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): I thank the Minister. Are the appeals considered at branch or the Toa Payoh Headquarters level? The reason I ask is because there was an answer in the Forum Page in The Straits Times that HDB will consider some flexibility. But then, last week, I received a third rejection for my resident who is aged 65 and going blind. He cannot work because he can only see shadows. His wife is 62 years old. HDB just said that because she is 62, they cannot do the Lease Buyback Scheme. They have been trying to downsize their flat to a 2-room, but they could not get it because of the balloting system. They never got a queue number for it. So, I just want to know how it is considered.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I am not familiar with the specifics of the case, but as I have said earlier, generally, if there are any financial difficulties or medical health issues, HDB would use these as considerations for granting exceptions. We can look at the case in specific if the Member would raise it to me separately.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Scope of Work Covered in Home Improvement Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development (a) which repairs, replacements and enhancements will be included in the scope of Home Improvement Programme (HIP) II; (b) for precincts which vote for HIP II, whether there will be caveats related to the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) attached so as to minimise unnecessary expenditure since money has already been spent on HIP II; and (c) what are the key differences between VERS and the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme in the aspects of valuation and acquisition pricing.
11 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) what kind of upgrades will HDB flats receive under Home Improvement Programme (HIP) II to ensure that the flats are safe and liveable even at that age; (b) how will the Government ensure that there is sufficient manpower to carry out all the renewal works safely and efficiently; (c) how often will the Ministry conduct inspections to ensure flats and their amenities remain structurally safe and liveable throughout their lifespan; and (d) do the HIP I and II upgrades include the older rental flats.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, I would like to take Question Nos 10 and 11 with your permission, please.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, the Home Improvement Programme II (HIP II) is a second round of upgrading for our Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats at around the 60th- to 70th-year mark to keep the flats safe and liveable up to the end of their lease. This will be launched in about 10 years’ time.
HIP II will be focused on common maintenance issues which occur in ageing flats. We will need to study the specific scope of works, including taking into consideration the condition of our older flats closer to the launch of HIP II. As HIP II will be a huge financial commitment for the Government, we will also need to see how to pace the works to take into account fiscal sustainability and the capacity of our construction industry.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether older rental flats are eligible for HIP I and HIP II. HDB has, in fact, upgraded older rental flats, including under HIP I, so we will similarly upgrade them under HIP II.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong highlighted the need to minimise unnecessary expenditure between HIP II and the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS). I agree fully with him. The details of these programmes will need to be worked out, including when we offer HIP II and when the flats are subsequently staged for VERS and redevelopment. We will ensure that there is no wastage of public monies in planning the two programmes. As for the technical details of valuation and acquisition pricing for VERS, we will need to study this in detail and ensure that we implement VERS in a way that is fiscally sustainable over the long term. In fact, we had discussions on this at the last Parliament Sitting.
On Mr Saktiandi Supaat's question on safety, we have various regulatory and inspection regimes to ensure that our HDB buildings are structurally safe, both during and after construction. This includes the Periodic Structural Inspection (PSI) regime that ensures that buildings are regularly checked for structural defects. For residential buildings, the PSI requires that the inspection be carried out every 10 years. That is a nationwide requirement. For older HDB blocks, HDB, in fact, adopts a more stringent inspection cycle of five years. We will ensure that such regimes remain in place throughout the lifespan of our HDB flats and will also continue to review our policies and benchmarks against other high-rise high-density cities.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.
\tMiss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Thank you, Minister. I also have a question on the Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS). Do the voting rights for VERS, the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) and HIP belong to the LBS tenant or HDB? And if the homes then come under SERS, VERS, what happens to the tenants under the LBS?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, if I understand correctly, what Miss Cheng is asking, assuming that the flat has already been subject to Lease Buyback, and the residual lease is now with the Government, if HDB is indeed owning the flat at that point in time, then obviously the voting rights will reside with HDB.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.
\tMiss Cheng Li Hui: If the resident is still, let us say, 10 years into their lease, that would mean the voting rights belong to them?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: I suppose Miss Cheng is asking in the context of a Lease Buyback situation, assuming that the resident is staying there at that point in time, then, obviously the resident should have a say in any upgrading or VERS decision.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I would like to clarify on HIP II. Some of the feedback that I regularly get about HIP I is spalling concrete, particularly. Spalling concrete continues to be an issue even though it is an essential item of improvement under HIP I. Some of the suggestions from my residents have been to consider, for future upgrading programmes, hydrostatic solutions for kitchens, so as to slow down the seepage of moisture between floors; and also shower trays for toilets to prevent the same problem. These items and solutions are cheaper when procured in bulk. This is some of the feedback that I get, and I hope the Ministry can consider these solutions for future upgrading projects.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Singh for these suggestions. HDB, indeed, continues to take in feedback, suggestions and do its own research to see how upgrading can be done better, and we will be happy to study these suggestions that Mr Singh has highlighted.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Causes for IT Glitch that Resulted in Patients Receiving Mislabelled Medicines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health in light of the IT glitch in the computer system of clinics where patients received mislabelled medicines (a) what corrective action has been taken to ensure that the IT system is robust and secure; and (b) what measures are being taken to prevent such future incidences.
13 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health what led to over 100 clinics prescribing the wrong dosage for 800 patients and whether there were any adverse effects for the affected patients.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 12 and 13 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: Following a system upgrade by an information technology (IT) vendor for general practitioner (GP) Connect implemented on 1 September, some GP clinics encountered problems where some medication labels were printed wrongly. While the correct medication and the total quantity of medication were correctly dispensed, the system printed the wrong Unit of Measurement (UOM) on the label.\tSeveral clinics were aware of the error and manually corrected the dosage instruction on the label. Once notified, Integrated Health Information System (IHiS), the public healthcare IT agency and owner of the GP Connect system, investigated the incident, informed all affected clinics from 2 September, and provided support to the clinics.
\tIHiS has been monitoring the situation. No further errors have been reported since 3 September. Affected patients were monitored by the clinics and, to date, there have not been any reports of adverse effects.
Investigations revealed that the IT vendor had made some changes to the application code which resulted in incorrect medication labels being printed. These changes were unrelated to the upgrade. Hence, the user acceptance tests designed to evaluate the upgrade did not pick up the error. The vendor also did not report any errors from the other tests done.
Since the incident, additional rounds of testing have been conducted to ensure that existing functions within GP Connect are working as designed. The \"Unit of Measurement\" function is also being enhanced to prevent future errors.
IHiS is also thoroughly reviewing testing procedures prior to future software rollouts to prevent such occurrences. In addition, they will step up monitoring of software rollouts and improve their response to better support users.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, would the Ministry consider putting in place a process encouraging doctors to print out a copy of the prescription for the patient after examination and going through with him the medicines and dosages? That is the first question. The second one, could this same printout be given to the patient so that the dispenser can countercheck against the labels and instructions on the medicines?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Ms Joan Pereira for the supplementary questions. The suggestions are reasonable. In fact, variants of this practice are already being done in many clinics. When medications are dispensed in clinics, it is common practice for the doctors to advise patients at the point of prescribing, for example, alerting the patients to any dosage adjustments to their regular chronic medication. And it is also the responsibility of the clinic licensee and doctors to ensure that there is proper process of verifying the prescriptions during dispensing of the medicines to the patients. The Ministry of Health (MOH) will continue to work with practitioners as well as the professional medical bodies to improve patient safety and medication safety and minimise any possible medication dispensing errors in the future.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State. Just one question. Would IHiS be held accountable for this error in any way?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Assoc Prof Daniel Goh for the supplementary question. As the error was executed as a result of the IT vendor changing the application code without informing IHiS, the fault actually lies with the IT vendor. I will leave it to IHiS to manage the situation with the respective IT vendor.
Mr Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Would the Ministry be considering looking at new security measures or new technologies, such as block chain, for example, to ensure the security and immutability of the data so that such sensitive data, such as prescribed medicine, can be assured?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Dr Intan Azura for the supplementary question. With regard to this particular incident, it is a human error whereby a wrong application code was applied. Of course, we will put in place measures to ensure that such errors can be picked up early or even prevented right from the outset.
As to Dr Intan Azura's suggestion of using new technology or block chain technology to enhance the security of such a system, MOH will seriously look into it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":" Audits on Social Enterprises Managing Hawker Centres to Prevent Charging of Hidden Fees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry has been conducting audits on social enterprises managing hawker centres to prevent the use of hidden fees and charges and what level of surplus of income is deemed acceptable for these social enterprises.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): The National Environment Agency (NEA) started appointing socially conscious operators to manage new hawker centres on a not-for-profit basis in 2015. As private sector operators, they have experience in food and beverage operations as well as property and lease management. This expertise could be harnessed to attract new hawkers to the trade, provide residents with a variety of good and affordable food choices, and improve the vibrancy of the hawker centres by, amongst others, ensuring that sufficient stalls are open during meal times and organising place-making programmes at the centres. This is in contrast to some existing hawker centres where stallholders operate shorter hours and, hence, do not fully cater to the dining needs of residents.
The operators have brought benefits to patrons and stallholders. They have ensured that hawkers provide clean and tasty meals to residents. The operators have also introduced interesting food concepts and options, such as prawn paste chicken rice and halal zichar, and new dining concepts, such as the \"Fareground\" at Pasir Ris Central hawker centre, which brings together \"hipster\" hawker fare, such as beef bourguignon and kebabs, to attract younger patrons to the hawker centres. Almost every stall in the new hawker centres offers at least one economical meal option, priced at $3 or less.
The operators have also implemented productivity improvements that are critical for this manpower-intensive sector. Centralised dishwashing has reduced hawkers' workload while improving the cleanliness of the centre. During my recent visit to Our Tampines Hub hawker centre, a stallholder expressed that centralised dishwashing helped him save on water charges and addressed his challenges of hiring dishwashers.
The operators have also complemented the Government's efforts to support aspiring new hawkers. One example is the Entrepreneurship Programme (EP) introduced by Fei Siong at Hougang Ci Yuan hawker centre, where new hawkers are provided with on-the-job training to help new entrants operate their stalls. They are mentored by veteran hawkers, some of whom have even shared culinary experiences as well as their recipes. Sixteen hawkers have benefited from this programme to date.
Nonetheless, we recognise that there have been concerns over costs to stallholders. NEA ensures that rentals charged and essential services that contribute to operating costs are reasonable. One key tender evaluation criterion when evaluating bids from potential operators is the rental and operating costs that the operators will charge stallholders. Operators who propose lower rentals and operating costs will be considered more favourably, and they are not permitted to vary these charges over the term of the tenancy. Before signing any tenancy agreement with potential stallholders, the operators will have to make known these charges to them. Operators must also bear the risks of rental arrears and stall vacancies. In addition, NEA requires operators to be transparent about costs. Any new charges, including optional charges for value-added services offered by the operators, are subject to NEA's approval.
These measures limit the potential profits, if any, of operators and ensure that rentals are affordable for stallholders. Today, the stall rentals, together with operating costs, at our new hawker centres are significantly lower than those in comparable food courts and coffee shops. The operators also fund their own initiatives to achieve social objectives and enhance the vibrancy of the hawker centres. These include the $1 Meal Carnival at Yishun Park hawker centre in June this year to attract the community to dine at the centre, and the offering of drinks at concessionary rates for senior citizens at Jurong West hawker centre.
It takes time for a new hawker centre to establish itself. The Government will continue to refine and improve the management model, so as to provide affordable food in a hygienic environment while allowing hawkers to make a decent livelihood. With time, we expect the new hawker centres to enhance their vibrancy and grow into valued community dining rooms.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
\t
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Two questions, please. Was NEA aware of the extra costs that were at the centre of the recent public concerns? The second question is, does NEA conduct regular surveys of hawkers with respect to satisfaction with management or any other management issues that they bring up to NEA?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I think the operator had explained, had come out to clarify, and we have also made clarifications that the costs are optional costs. If the Member is referring to, for instance, the Hougang Ci Yuan hawker centre managed by Fei Siong, that $600 was an optional cost and not a mandatory charge. As I have noted, all mandatory charges have to be declared upfront to the stallholders before they sign on the tenancy agreement. And if there are optional charges or any new initiatives that would impact costs, they are required to inform us and to get our approval. So, of the 40-odd stallholders in Ci Yuan hawker centre, for instance, only nine of the non-EP stallholders have taken up this optional charge.
Actually, even though we have appointed operators to manage our new hawker centres, we also have place managers that visit the hawker centres regularly, on a weekly basis, to carry out checks on defects, on cleanliness as well as to engage the stallholders. So, the stallholders can, at any time approach our place managers if there are pertinent issues.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
\tMr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I have a follow up question for the Senior Minister of State. I agree with her that it takes time for the hawkers to establish themselves. But there are some that are still struggling among the hawker centres managed by the social enterprises. So, I would like to ask whether NEA would consider lowering the rentals for a period of time until they could pick up enough business to make it sustainable?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: As I have noted, for the new hawker centres, the rentals for the stalls as well as the operating costs for essential services – general cleaning, dishwashing and so on – are made known to the stallholders so you would assume that when they signed on the tenancy agreement, they would have taken into account all these costs in their computations. In fact, even in our existing hawker centres which are tendered out, they would also have tendered based on what they understand to be the market rate, in most instances.
At this point in time, we have no plans to offer any subsidies because they actually came in knowing what the costs are. But having said that, we do understand and appreciate the concerns of the stallholders and we are keeping a close watch on the situation.
As a matter of fact, for the new hawker centres, as I have said, it takes time for them to establish their business. And I think it is not unexpected that some stalls may not do as well as others at the beginning. In fact, the turnover or the vacancy rate for these new centres are actually quite comparable to our existing centres. The footfall for some of these hawker centres have increased over time significantly. So, we are keeping a close watch.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): A quick point to echo what Member of Parliament Zainal Sapari has said whether we really can provide some subsidies for the hawkers at some of these social enterprise hawker centres who are really not doing well. I know they came in knowing what the rental is. But the fact now is that, in contrast to what Assoc Prof Daniel Goh had stated, some of them are really finding it hard to break even – the social enterprises. So, can we provide some help to the hawkers at these social enterprise hawker centres which really are not doing well because of very low footfall?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I think that when there are specific cases, it can be made known to us. But as I have said, we keep a close watch on the viability of the businesses in these new hawker centres. And as of now, even for the hawker centres which had some bad press coverage and apparently low footfall, they have actually improved their business significantly. The operators have been able to enhance the vibrancy of these hawker centres, for instance, providing free shuttle bus service to the nearby industries and factories as well as office workers to dine in the hawker centres, complimentary car parking, as well as discounts, lucky draws and so on to bring them in.
For instance, in Jurong West hawker centre, they have managed to bring in some popular stallholders which have also significantly increased the footfall. So, based on our understanding and survey of what is happening, we do not see that there is a need to do this. But as I have said, if there are individual stalls that face problems, we can always take a look at it.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Just a quick follow up. With regard to the social enterprises, are they sustainable? Because if they are facing problems in terms of keeping up with costs themselves and trying to get more money because, putting in all these extra costs to the hawkers, are they doing well? Is the model sustainable in that sense?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I think the earlier question was not about whether the social enterprise was doing well, but the particular individual stallholders, from Member of Parliament Louis Ng.
With regard to the social enterprise, as I have said, when they bid for the hawker centres, they know that we will consider favourably those where they offer lower rentals, lower operating costs and so on. They have to bear risks of rental arrears as well as vacancies and so on. So, again the terms of the tenure are clear, transparent.
As far as we are concerned, Ci Yuan, for instance, had actually renewed their tenancy agreement with us, because they have actually met our key performance indicators: they have been able to provide a good variety of affordable food to residents, ensure that the hawker centre is able to provide meals at all times of the day, they were able to enhance the vibrancy of the hawker centres and also implement productivity initiatives. So, we have actually renewed their tenancy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Hike in Water Prices on Overall Consumption Patterns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what impact has the hike in water prices had on water conservation efforts and overall consumption patterns.
\tThe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, in Singapore, water is priced to reflect its scarcity value. We have raised water prices to reflect the rising costs of water supply, so that our water system remains financially sustainable. This will allow us to continue investing ahead of time to ensure a secure and reliable water supply, while encouraging everyone to conserve this precious resource and use it wisely.
I mentioned during my Ministry's Committee of Supply debate this year that Singapore’s daily household water consumption has decreased from 148 litres per person in 2016 to 143 litres per person in 2017. This is encouraging.
The increase in water prices is not the sole reason for the reduction in household water consumption. Our water conservation measures, such as minimum water efficiency standards and the mandatory water efficiency labelling of water fittings and appliances, are also important factors. Over the years, we have progressively expanded the mandatory water efficiency labelling scheme to cover more fittings and appliances and phased out the less efficient ones. These efforts are bearing fruit. The Public Utilities Board's (PUB’s) household water consumption study last year showed that more than half of the water fittings and appliances used by households are water-efficient models.
We will continue to encourage the use of more water-efficient products. Starting this month, PUB will require all dishwashers sold in Singapore for household use to have a water efficiency label, so that consumers can make informed purchasing decisions. From April next year, all other water fittings with a one-tick rating will be phased out from the market. To further boost this effort, the water closet replacement project was launched, where PUB has successfully replaced non-water efficient water closets, basin and kitchen taps for some 3,700 eligible households to date. Recognising that showering contributes most to household water usage, smart shower devices will be installed in 10,000 new homes over these two years to motivate residents to watch and cut down on water usage during showers.
PUB is also keeping up its efforts in the non-domestic sector. PUB has been working closely with more than 600 large water users in the submission of their water efficiency management plans. PUB is working with companies to progressively develop and make available water efficiency benchmarks and best practice guides. These will be resources developed with the industry, for the industry. Companies have already responded positively, with a number looking to implement water efficiency projects.
Water is a scarce resource that should not be taken for granted ever. I urge everyone to do our part to use water wisely, so that we can continue to enjoy it for years to come.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of question time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Land Transport Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act (Chapter 158A of the 1996 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary) on behalf of the Minister for Transport, 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":"Legal Aid and Advice (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Legal Aid and Advice Act (Chapter 160 of the 2014 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161 of the 2009 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) on behalf of the Minister for Law, 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":"Serious Crimes and Counter-Terrorism (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Chapter 65A of the 2000 Revised Edition) and the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Chapter 325 of the 2003 Revised Edition) to enhance the legal framework for preventing money laundering and combating terrorism financing\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo), 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":"Civil Defence and Other Matters Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Civil Defence Act (Chapter 42 of the 2001 Revised Edition), the Immigration Act (Chapter 133 of the 2008 Revised Edition), the Police Force Act (Chapter 235 of the 2006 Revised Edition), the Prisons Act (Chapter 247 of the 2000 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the Enlistment Act (Chapter 93 of the 2001 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo), 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":"Developers (Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act (Chapter 130 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and the Sale of Commercial Properties Act (Chapter 281 of the 1985 Revised Edition) to give effect to certain recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong) 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":"Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Goods and Services Tax Act (Chapter 117A of the 2005 Revised Edition) and to make a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 2014 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of the President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong); 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":"Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The amendments being proposed to the Parliamentary Elections Act seek to improve the administration of Parliamentary elections. They can be grouped into three categories. The first category of amendments involves changes to processes related to election candidates. The second category improves the management of contingencies during an election. The third and final category deals with other election processes.
Let me begin with the first category of amendments related to election candidates. Clause 4 amends section 28 to simplify the computation of election deposits. The election deposit will now be based on an elected Member of Parliament's fixed monthly allowance, rounded to the nearest $500. The clause also deletes the reference to cash payment and, in its place, provides the option for candidates to pay the election deposit by electronic fund transfer or in such other form or manner as the Returning Officer allows. The other methods of payment currently provided in the Act by bank draft or certified cheque will continue to be available.
To facilitate smooth and orderly conduct of nomination proceedings, clause 6 amends section 31 to provide that a person seeking to be a candidate in an election may be refused entry to the place of nomination unless the aspiring candidate satisfies the requirements set out in the new section 31(2). These requirements are that the aspiring candidate must have a political donation certificate issued under section 18(4) of the Political Donations Act and be accompanied by at least six other individuals, namely, his proposer, seconder and at least four assentors. In the case of a Group Representation Constituency, additional requirements apply, including that at least one member in the group must also have a certificate from either the Malay Community Committee or the Indian and other Minority Communities Committee. These requirements are also necessary for successful nomination. With the proposed changes, election officials can focus on processing the nomination papers of those who are serious about meeting the requirements for nomination.
The next set of amendments deals with the returns on election expenses. We will streamline and simplify the submission of returns on election expenses without diluting accountability.
Clause 23 amends section 74 to remove the current requirement for election agents to submit to the Returning Officer the supporting documents for election expenses, such as bills and receipts. To ensure accountability, clause 25 inserts a new section 75A to require a candidate and the candidate's election agent to maintain the supporting documents for the return on election expenses for a period of one year after notice of the return is published by the Returning Officer in the Government Gazette. The clause also empowers the Returning Officer to require, during this one-year period, the candidate or the election agent, or both of them, to furnish any supporting document or any other information relating to the return. Any contravention of the requirements of the new section 75A constitutes an illegal practice.
To protect personal data, clause 24 amends section 75 to require the Returning Officer to redact certain personal details when the returns and statements on election expenses are open for public inspection. Addresses and contact numbers will be completely redacted. However, for accountability, the names of candidates, election agents and donors will continue to be reflected in full with their identity card numbers partially redacted. The clause also extends the period of time for which the Returning Officer must keep the returns and statements on election expenses from the current six months to one year.
Next, I will discuss the proposed amendments to section 83.
Section 83 of the Parliamentary Elections Act currently prohibits certain classes of people, such as foreigners, from taking part in any election activity and also requires the persons conducting election activities for a candidate to be authorised to do so by the candidate or his election agent.
Section 83 currently defines \"election activity\" as including an \"activity which is done for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election\". Clause 26 amends the definition of \"election activity\" mainly to elaborate that an activity which is done to prejudice the electoral prospects of other political parties or candidates is also election activity. The Bill does not make any changes to the substantive rules in section 83 on election activity.
Let me now address the second category of amendments which deals with the management of contingencies during an election. The Bill spells out various procedures to strengthen the current provisions to manage various types of contingencies, such as a riot, fire or flood, which may occur during nomination, polling or counting proceedings. I will now take Members through the key changes being proposed.
Clause 17 inserts a new section 56BA to enable the Returning Officer to deal with contingencies affecting the conduct of nomination proceedings on the day of nomination.
If a contingency arises before the start of nomination proceedings on nomination day, the new section 56BA provides the Returning Officer with the powers to change the hours of the nomination proceedings, change the place of nomination, or to do both, or abandon nomination proceedings. If the Returning Officer decides to change the hours of nomination proceedings, the new hours must enable the nomination proceedings to start and conclude within the same day.
If a contingency arises during the nomination proceedings, the new section 56BA(3) provides the Returning Officer with the powers to suspend the nomination proceedings for a period of time and continue with the nomination proceedings at the end of the period at the same nomination place or at a different place on the same date, or abandon the nomination proceedings. Should there be a need to conduct nomination proceedings on another day, the President will issue a fresh writ stating the new date for nomination as provided under existing law.
Before making a decision under the new section 56BA(3), the Returning Officer may suspend the nomination proceedings for a period of up to two hours in order to assess the situation and decide on the course of actions to be taken.
Similarly, for polling and counting proceedings, clauses 18, 20 and 21 amend sections 56C, 56E and 56F respectively to empower the Returning Officer to suspend the proceedings for up to two hours to assess the situation and decide on the course of action to be taken.
We will also be replicating various changes to deal with contingencies, which we made to the Presidential Elections Act last year. These are covered in clause 13, which amends section 49A to empower the Returning Officer to extend the time taken for sealed ballot boxes from overseas polling stations to reach Singapore; clause 19 which inserts new sections 56DA and 56DB to spell out the procedures to be taken when marked local ballot papers are lost or destroyed when they are being transported after the close of polls to counting places and when marked overseas ballot papers are lost or destroyed when they are being transported from overseas polling stations to the counting place in Singapore; and clause 12, which amends section 48A to remove the current requirement for the Returning Officer to inform candidates or their election agents in writing as to the places where the votes will be counted or the postponement of counting due to certain contingencies described in that section. Instead, the Returning Officer will publish the information in the Government Gazette.
The third category of amendments deals with other election processes.
Clause 2 amends section 9 to remove the requirement for the Registration Officer to publish in the Government Gazette the polling districts within an electoral division. Instead, the Registration Officer will publish maps or other images of the polling districts on the Elections Department's website. This will make it easier for members of public to view the polling districts compared to the current method of using text, such as road names, to describe polling districts. The Registration Officer will continue to publish in the Government Gazette a notice when an electoral division is subdivided into polling districts. The notice will provide details of the website and the physical locations where the maps can be inspected by the public.
Clause 3 amends section 11 to enable the Registration Officer to reject, without having to hold a public inquiry, a claim for a name to be included in a Register of Electors for an electoral division if the claim is clearly without merit. To safeguard claimants' interests, the grounds on which the Registration Officer may reject a claim without holding a public inquiry are tightly scoped in the new section 11(9B) as follows: (a) the claimant was not a citizen of Singapore on the relevant cut-off date for the Register; (b) the claimant was below 21 years of age on the relevant cut-off date; (c) where the claimant claims to be entitled to be included in the Register on the ground that the claimant's address has changed, the new address provided by the claimant is not the address of any premises within the electoral division, such as a P O (post office) box address.
The clause improves administrative efficiency in processing the claims specified in a new section 11(9B). For other types of claims, the Registration Officer will continue to hold a public inquiry before deciding whether to accept or reject such claims. Claimants whose claims are rejected without an inquiry have a right to appeal to the Revising Officer, appointed by the Minister, under the current section 12.
Clause 8 amends section 39 to empower the Minister to prescribe in regulations the method for computing the number of polling agents for each candidate or a group of candidates who may enter a polling station. This will enable the number of polling agents in a polling station to be made proportionate to the number of voters allotted to the polling station instead of the current pegging of polling agents to the number of polling places in the polling station. This amendment gives flexibility to the Elections Department to design polling stations for efficient operation. To illustrate, Elections Department plans to introduce electronic voter registration or e-registration. This will result in a faster registration process for voters. With a faster registration process, the same number of voters in a polling station can be served by fewer polling places. To ensure an adequate number of polling agents for each polling station despite fewer polling places in the polling station, we propose to peg the number of polling agents to the number of voters in the polling station.
The amendment Bill also replicates relevant changes made to the Presidential Elections Act last year through the amendments in clauses 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 28(n). These relate to the notices to voters on voting procedures placed outside polling stations, the design of the ballot paper, recounting of votes, and election advertising. All these changes were elaborated during the amendments to the Presidential Elections Act last year and I will not repeat them today.
Lastly, consequential to amendments made in 2016 to the Constitution, clause 16 amends section 52 to increase the number of Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) to be declared. Currently, the number of NCMPs to be declared is nine, minus the total number of elected Opposition Members of Parliament. The clause increases the number of NCMPs to be declared to 12 minus the total number of elected Opposition Members of Parliament.
Allow me to conclude. The amendments I have described today will improve the administration of Parliamentary elections while ensuring the secrecy of the vote and the integrity of the election process. The changes will ensure that our electorate continues to have high trust and confidence in our electoral system.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Mr Speaker, it is hard for anyone to believe that in this modern age, we still sometimes cannot have a clear definition of what constitutes a valid vote in an election.
I have seen a ballot paper with a faint squiggly cross marked inside the demarcated box rejected by an Assistant Returning Officer (ARO) on the basis that the intention of the voter was not clear. I was flabbergasted and perplexed at the same time on how the ARO could have arrived at such a conclusion. The said voter could easily be an elderly person who, for some reason, could not imprint a more forceful mark on that ballot paper but that did not mean his or her intention was not clear in any way.
I have also seen ballot papers with a tick and a diagonal line drawn across it, well within the demarcated box for the preferred candidate, being marked for rejection. The reason, a tick means \"yes\" but the diagonal line across it forms an \"X\", which means \"no\". So, yes and no at the same time, the intention of the voter was not clear. Yet, I have seen an \"X\" marked on the party logo area counted as valid. I have also witnessed symbols and expletives in the demarcated box of a ballot paper counted as valid as well.
When I asked the Returning Officer to adjudicate on the validity of the rejected votes, he said the individual ARO at the respective counting tables has the authority to decide on such a matter. Sir, in the two General Elections I contested, there were at least six counting tables in each of the counting centres. So, I am looking at potentially six different interpretations of what constitutes a valid vote, just in one counting centre alone.
How can we call ourselves a developed country when we cannot even define, in simple terms and without ambiguity, what is a valid vote?
So, while this amendment Bill seeks to issue clearer guidelines on what the Returning Officers and their assistants should look for in a ballot paper when determining the intention of the voter, I wish to seek some clarifications from the Minister on some of the proposed changes.
First, clause 11 of this Bill, which amends section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, introduces a new sub-section (3AA), which states that “the voter’s mark on the ballot paper must be made in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose, and not elsewhere.”
Sir, to the visually impaired or elderly with poor eyesight, putting a mark squarely within the area demarcated on the ballot paper can be challenging, especially if these voters do not want any help to do so for whatever reason. I am sure many of us in this House would have come across ballot papers with the voter’s mark imprinted outside the area demarcated for that purpose. I believe the intentions of these voters were in no way unclear. However, such votes would be deemed invalid under the proposed amendment to section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
We are an ageing society and we will see more and more elderly voters in time to come. I have utmost respect for these voters who, despite their advanced age or disability, are determined to play a role in shaping our democracy, come what may. It would be sad to know that their effort and passion could be in vain with the proposed amendment. I seek more information from the Minister to address this concern. Separately, I hope the Elections Department could also look into designing a ballot paper with a larger area demarcated for the voters to mark with greater ease.
Second, clause 15, which amends section 50 of the principal Act, introduces a new sub-section (2A) to instruct the Returning Officer, when determining whether a mark made on a ballot paper clearly indicates the voter’s intention to vote for the candidate or group of candidates, to disregard any mark that is not made within the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose.
I wish to ask the Minister, does that mean that as long as a voter’s mark is made within the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose, a voter is allowed to exercise his artistic licence elsewhere on the ballot paper and it would still be counted as a valid vote, since the Returning Officer must disregard other mark found on the ballot paper as directed under this new amendment?
If a voter were to cross out the name of a particular candidate with words like “clown”, \"my hero\" or \"Mr Bean\", and then proceed to put an “X” in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose, would the Returning Officer be compelled to treat it as a valid vote under this proposed amendment to section 50 of the Parliamentary Elections Act? I hope the Minister can provide more clarity on this amendment, else it will only cause more confusion.
Voting is a serious act of civic responsibility. I believe we should not allow the ballot paper to be marked in any other way other than prescribed under the Act. There should be no other mark other than the mark left by the voter in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose. Returning Officers should not be tasked to disregard any other mark found on the ballot paper but to designate such ballot as invalid, as outright invalid. Voter education is also important. Beyond showing voters where to mark on a ballot paper, the Elections Department should also educate voters on what will invalidate their votes.
At this juncture, I wish to reiterate the Workers' Party’s stand on the NCMP scheme. We oppose the scheme as we believe in the fundamental principle that having more NCMPs is not the way forward to make our political system more robust. So, barring the amendment made to section 52(1) of the principal Act to revise the formula to determine the number of NCMP to be declared in an election, I do support the amendment Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill makes various changes to the administration of the various processes related to Parliamentary Elections, such as nominations, polling and counting. I do not oppose the Bill and I concur with the various points made by my colleague Mr Png Eng Huat on the Bill, which I shall not repeat here.
I will pose several questions and request for clarification.
Firstly, clause 3 amends section 11. The new section 11(9B)(b) allows rejections of claims for eligibility without hearing, if the Registration Officer is satisfied that the claimant was not a citizen of Singapore or below 21 on the date prescribed in section 5(4), or the claimant's new address in the claim form is not in the relevant electoral division.
I would like to ask by what means the Registration Officer will make determinations to reject such claims of eligibility. Would he or she, for example, access the relevant Government database for personal information and, if so, what safeguards are there against errors, such as laxity in updating such databases?
Secondly, clause 7 amends section 37 to remove the prescription of the types of information to be included in the notices outside polling stations and to leave such details to be prescribed by the Minister in regulations made under the Act.
Previously, the Act prescribed what information would be reflected in such notices. For example, part of the old section 37 read, and I quote, \"37(1): Outside each polling station, there shall be affixed, in a conspicuous place, by the Presiding Officer, before the commencement of the poll, a notice showing the name of each candidate in English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil, and a symbol allotted to the candidate under section 34. And two, the names of the candidates shall be arranged alphabetically in English, in the order of their surnames and, if there are two or more candidates with the same surname, of their other names.\"
I would like to ask what is the reason for removing these prescriptions and providing the Minister with broad latitude to determine the content of these notices. What guidelines or rules will the Minister be bound by making such a determination.
Thirdly, clause 8 amends section 39 to empower the Minister to prescribe the method for computing the number of polling agents for each candidate or groups of candidates who may enter a polling station. The reason given is to allow the Minister to ensure that the permitted number of polling agents is proportionate to the number of voters allotted to that station. I would like to ask for the reason that this change is being made. I would also like to ask if the legislative intent here is for the Minister to be able to ensure that the ratio of polling agents to voters is more or less similar across polling stations nationwide and in line with recent nationwide averages which is clearly desirable. Or is the intent that the Minister should be able to exercise this discretion by varying the average nationwide ratio of polling agents to voters significantly away from the recent averages, either by increasing or decreasing the ratio?
Mr Speaker, Sir, lastly, and this is admittedly a relatively minor point, clause 12 removes the current requirement for Returning Officers to inform candidates or their election agents of the location of counting centres or the postponement of counting due to contingencies. Rather, the information will be published in the Gazette. I would like to ask why this change is necessary as this could cause confusion amongst candidates if there is some disruption to the counting process due to contingencies. Would it not be possible to automate the broadcast of a simple email or text message to election agents and all candidates upon new information being published in the Gazette?
Mr Speaker: Members are advised to keep to the contents of the debate. The NCMP scheme is not relevant to this debate. Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I agree with what my colleagues, Mr Png Eng Huat and Mr Leon Perera have said in their speeches. I just have a few clarifications.
Firstly, clause 7 amends section 37 to remove the prescription on the types of information to be included in the notices outside polling stations and to leave such details to be prescribed in regulations made under the Act.
The parts of section 37 which are to be removed include sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6). They list out basic information, such as names of candidates in four different languages to be placed in a notice outside the station with their respective symbols, such names to be listed alphabetically, and so on.
The proposed new section 37(2) states, for example, at (a) that the notice must contain such information presented in such form or manner, as may be prescribed.
I would like to ask the Minister what exactly will be prescribed in the new regulations, which existing provisions may not be found in the proposed new rules and what will be the new additional provisions? And what are the reasons for the proposed changes to section 37? What was wrong with the existing provision? And was there any particular incident which has given rise to the proposed changes?
I next move to clause 19. Clause 19 provides for a new section 56DA and 56DB after the existing section 56D. Section 56DA(7) and (8) and 56DB(1)(a)(b) relates to the postponement and abandonment of polling. Under the new section 56DA, if any ballot box containing votes cast is lost or destroyed, the counting of all votes cast at the affected polling station will be abandoned and the poll at that polling station must be restarted only if it is material to the election result.
The new provision sets out the considerations and mechanism for decision-making by the Returning Officer in respect of different scenarios. I would like to ask the Minister: why is the Government introducing these new provisions? Why is the Government suddenly concerned about these scenarios provided for in the new provisions? Are the proposed amendments due to any particular incident which happened in recent years?
I next move to clause 3. Clause 3 provides for a new section 9B(b) which allows for rejection of claim for eligibility without hearing if the Registration Officer is satisfied that the claimant was not a citizen of Singapore or below 21 at the date prescribed in section 5(4) and the claimant's new address in the claim form is not in an electoral division.
I would like to ask the Minister for his clarifications as to what criteria consideration should the Registration Officer adopt to assist him to come to a conclusion on the eligibility of a citizen. And will the basis for a decision be recorded with sufficient details and made available to any such claimant upon demand?
Finally, I move to clause 11. Mr Speaker, clause 11 introduced a new sub-section 3AA to section 42 which provides that the voter's mark on the ballot paper must be made in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose and not everywhere. We must always strive to have a clear and unequivocal set of rules for the Returning Officers (ROs) to make the right determination with minimal chances of any dispute by any candidate and with good sense and bereft of any perverse or absurd outcome. For example, such rules must ensure, and I am going to give an extreme example, that expletives written in the demarcated box of one candidate cannot sensibly be regarded as a vote for that candidate.
The Government should also review and strengthen the process by which Returning Officers handle any disagreement by candidates or their representatives, their counting agents, in respect of the validity of a voter's mark in a ballot to enhance certainty and transparency.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I recognise the peril that an unelected Member has in speaking on the matter of elections. So, I hope to confine my remarks to non-partisan issues.
The elections process must give the Government of the day a clear mandate to govern. I believe this Bill does reflect the Government's intent to ensure elections in Singapore are efficient, future-proof and conducted with integrity. But we should also think beyond the next general election. How will future politicians use, or abuse, these laws, and how will our history as a democracy be shaped by this Bill?
So, let me start with the problem of history. Clause 2 proposes that changes in electoral divisions may be published as maps online or for public viewing, instead of in written detail in the Gazette. This is good for efficiency. But it may unintentionally harm the historical record of changes in our electoral divisions.
The Gazette is a permanent part of our history and cannot be readily altered or destroyed. But materials that you publish online have little permanence – Internet links break, websites go down, documents can be altered or deleted without notice. We cannot even predict whether the Internet will exist in the form we are used to today. Many of us grew up using microfilm readers for research. Our children do not; our grandchildren almost certainly would not even know what microfilm is. But printed work has somehow stood the test of time.
Scholars will use the Gazette in the future to research how our electoral divisions changed, how that affects representation, how that affects outcomes in society and the economy. Let me give Members just one small example. There is a paper, \"The Political Economy of Housing Prices\", published in the Journal of Housing Economics in 2010 by Eddie Sue and Wong Wei-Kang at the National University of Singapore. This paper studies how electoral boundaries affect housing prices. I leave it to Members to make guesses as to whether Government or Opposition wards enjoy higher housing prices. I hope this will encourage Members to read more academic papers.
Sir, the matter of electoral divisions changing does affect a large number of voters. In an article dated 24 July 2015, The Straits Times calculated that one in five voters were affected by redistricting ahead of the 2015 General Election (GE), and nearly one in three voters were affected by the 2011 GE redistricting. So, a change that is so consequential should form a future-proof part of our historical record.
Before I move to the second issue, that of re-polling in the event of a lost or destroyed ballot box, l realise a similar debate took place during the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill in 2017. There are some differences, though, so I do beg Members' indulgence.
I think this problem of clause 19 is how do we minimise the political costs and risks associated with an election. Clause 19 proposes that if just one ballot box is lost or destroyed from a polling station, then all counting of votes from that polling station must be abandoned. If the margin of victory is within that number of uncounted votes, including overseas electors, then, a new poll must be conducted for that station.
Sir, a new poll costs time and money but also creates political uncertainty. The identity of the Government may well hang in the balance of that one polling station. So, let us ask: how likely is it that an election will require re-polling, under the amendment Bill?
The Elections Department informs me there were 832 polling stations in the 2015 GE, and there were about 2.46 million eligible voters, and there are typically between two and four ballot boxes in each polling station. That is an average of 3,000 voters in each polling station. Suppose that by some disaster, one ballot box is lost from every single electoral division. How many re-polls would we have to conduct? So, I did some calculations for the last two GEs.
It turns out that in the 2011 GE, the margin of victory was slim enough in two Single Member Constituencies (SMCs) that they would have required re-polling. In the 2015 GE, it was two SMCs and one Group Representation Constituency (GRC) which would have required re-polling. Obviously, SMCs are more likely to require re-polling because the margin of victory is more likely to be within the number of votes in one polling station. A polling station, on average, will contain 11.5% of the electorate for an SMC, and about 2.4% of the electorate for a GRC.
We are accustomed, of course, to the present Government winning elections by large margins. This may not be so in the future. As margins become tighter, the risk of a re-polling event does rise if a ballot box is lost.
Now, Sir, how can we improve on this? The question is whether the lost ballot box represents a random sample of the votes cast at the affected polling station. After all, votes are generally cast into a ballot box in no particular order. Polling procedures can further improve on this by ensuring that voters who arrive as groups and who may vote similarly, such as families, are to split their ballots between the boxes randomly. This is, in any case, good practice. If the votes contained within one ballot box are actually missing at random, there is no issue in counting the remaining votes from the affected polling station. The procedures described in the Bill can apply in the event that the margin of victory still remains smaller than the missing votes from that particular ballot box.
I understand this clause was adapted from the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill in 2017. But, you see, Mr Speaker, these issues are unlikely to affect the Presidential Election because a polling station contains less than 0.2% of the vote in a Presidential Election. It is a much larger issue in a Parliamentary Election.
The last point I want to make is that clause 19 also does reserve powers to the Minister to decide how these procedures are to be carried out. And, of course, this may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. When Parliament is dissolved, the incumbent Cabinet does hold office until the first Sitting of the new Parliament. Therefore, the Minister's ability to form the Government may well depend on the outcome of this single polling station. In another country, the results of a recent general election were unclear until well past the midnight hour. There were rumours of political interference there. So, I would suggest we consider reserving these powers to the Returning Officer to avoid any appearance of partiality.
The same applies, of course, to the Parliamentary Elections Act, where section 102 reserves the power to the Minister to make regulations regarding the Act. I think that we have no issue with this during the term of Government because the voters have clearly given their mandate.
But there is this particular issue arising between the time when Parliament is dissolved and until when the new Parliament first sits.
Sir, the Government must be seen to have a clear mandate to make decisions on behalf of all Singaporeans. I am not criticising the integrity of the Government or of Members here today. But this is a law for the future. We would hope that future generations would act with integrity, we hope they would act exactly as we would. But should we write laws that depend at critical moments on future officeholders acting only in the best interests of the country? I share with this Government the view that our laws should be written in the long-term interest of the country. On balance, I expect the Bill will achieve that objective, but I hope the Government will be able to address some of these concerns.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I start my speech, may I, with your indulgence, offer my congratulations to Assoc Prof Walter Theseira for making his maiden speech. In the same vein, and I am sure the other Members of the House would agree, we look forward to the contributions from the other Nominated Members of Parliament who have just been sworn in and will make their speeches in this House.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the aims of this Bill which are focused on improving the conduct of the Parliamentary Elections and to deal with contingencies that may arise during an election. The overriding aim is, of course, to uphold the integrity of the process, and make sure that public confidence in the election process is always high. And I use the word \"process\" in its widest sense, from the processes involving the Electoral Register to the processes involving Nomination, conduct of elections and, of course, elections expenses as well.
I have three points to make.
The first one, Mr Speaker, Sir, is in relation to deposits by candidates. I note that under clause 4(e) of the Bill, it is proposed that the deposit must be made through electronic funds transfer system, or bank draft, or certified cheque. Legal tender is removed.
Presumably, it is part of the Government's push to make Singapore go cashless. This lies in contrast with section 10(3) of the Presidential Elections Act. Members would note that the Presidential Elections Act was revised just last year. I do appreciate the Government's push to convert our society to a cashless one. I half suspect that the hon Minister Ong Ye Kung, who is in charge of this initiative, may even advocate payment using PayNow.
At this point, though, a significant part of our society still uses cash. Why is it necessary in these circumstances to remove deposits by legal tender? Would it be better not to hurry this until our society has really become cash-free, which is not the case now?
With reference to the usage of certified cheques, how is this mode impacted by the Government intent that our society stops using cheques by 2025? Would the Elections Department anticipate making further changes to this payment mode then?
I also note that there is no process outline on how the deposit would be returned. So, if you are pushing for cashless transactions, then perhaps we should provide for end-to-end such that the deposits may be contemplated to be returned to a specified account provided by the candidates via the electronic funds transfer system.
Second, on the recounting of votes, I note that clause 14 of the Bill provides that the Returning Officer must conduct a recount where the difference between candidates with the most number of votes, and the next candidate is 2% or less.
I support this amendment. In fact, in the last Elections, I had the chance to invoke the previous process as a candidate for Aljunied GRC when the candidates had to decide whether a recount was necessary. And Mr Speaker, Sir, it was almost like an episode from \"The Amazing Race\" because we had to make our way from the assembly area to the principal counting centre. We had to drive there and, through the process, we were not sure whether we would be too late to meet the Returning Officer. And finally, when we met the Returning Officer, we asked for a recount. Then, he took out a paper and read from the script, agreeing to our request. So, there were quite a lot of moving parts in the old process. This process is much better because the rationale behind the recounting is solely to ensure the accuracy of the vote count, given the close margins. So, it makes sense for the Returning Officer to be reposed with the power to initiate the process.
The final point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is on Parliamentary expenses. Clause 25 proposes a different system where a candidate does not have to provide supporting documents, meaning bills and receipts. Instead, a statement would suffice.
May I please ask: what is the shortcoming of the current system of requiring the candidates and the election agents to provide supporting bills and receipts to the Returning Officer? The current system, in my respectful view, has good accountability. There can be public access to the bills and receipts. They can check whether the election expenses regulations have been observed by looking at the source documents and not just the statements. If there is any discrepancy or shortcoming, then there is the ability to deal with it, then and there, close to the holding of the elections. Under the proposed system, I fear that there could be unintended consequences, for example, loss of documents during the one-year period that the candidate or the election agent is supposed to hold on to these documents. So, this perhaps may loosen the form of accountability and may impact on the integrity of the process. Save for that, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the initiative to introduce amendments to improve the administration of elections. I have a few suggestions and clarifications.
Firstly, I have a query about the proposed amendment to abandon the vote count at a polling station where a sealed ballot box has been lost or destroyed before the ballots can be counted. This amendment is unpalatable to many voters who strongly believe that every vote is sacred. Why should all the votes at the affected polling station be nullified due to a single loss, damaged or tampered box? This is a recommendation which a number of constituents are uncomfortable with and find difficult to accept. Why can we not proceed with the counting of the votes from the unaffected, sealed ballot boxes?
Secondly, it was proposed that should the number of votes from the affected polling station be enough to sway the electoral result for that constituency or division, voters of the affected station would be required to go through a fresh poll. However, I think that a re-poll of the affected electoral division does not necessarily ensure a fair and equitable election. This is as good as holding a by-election, especially when the national results have already been announced.
Perhaps it would be better that the re-voting exercise be held only in the event that the votes in the affected boxes could potentially sway the election result.
I would like to ask how many such incidents, including tampering of ballot boxes, had been reported since Singapore gained Independence and what other types of complaints pertaining to ballot boxes had been received? What were the measures taken to ensure the transparent and indisputable transfer of ballot boxes from polling stations to counting centres? One of the doubts raised was the possibility of ballot boxes being replaced during transfers. I would also like to ask for details about how ballot boxes from overseas are organised.
Next, I would like to ask whether the Elections Department can provide the ballot paper sample which uses black as the base colour. My concern is that it may affect voters' ability to identify the candidates or the party logos on the ballot papers. Elderly voters may have difficulties reading the ballot papers. Has a consultation been done with different age groups about the design of the ballot paper to ensure clarity of design and readability?
In addition, how would the Elections Department ensure that the Assistant Returning Officers or polling staff provide indisputable guidance to voters at polling stations? Had there been reports or complaints made in past elections, such as those about assistants prompting voters to tick for certain candidates while addressing their queries at the polling stations?
One of the amendments is that elections deposit will be based on an elected Member of Parliament's monthly allowance, rounded to the nearest $500. Will the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) consider reducing the deposit required further, such as by pegging against the median gross monthly income for full-time work, which is currently $4,232? This will further strengthen the efforts by the Government to ensure the building of an inclusive society. The deposit should preferably be set at a level that will not discriminate against those who have less wealth but have the qualities and willingness to serve.
Will the Elections Department consider further automating the nomination forms to make it largely system-enabled for potential nominees/candidates as well as for proposers and seconders?
I welcome the use of maps to show the boundaries to enable the electorate to know their constituencies prior to the GE. This will provide greater ease of viewing and clarity.
Mr Speaker: Minister Chan Chun Sing.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first thank all the Members for speaking on this Bill.
I will address the specific points raised. These can be grouped into three broad sets of issues. The first set of issues has to do with the provisions related to election candidates. The second set of issues relates to management of contingencies. The third set of issues has some unrelated issues which the Speaker has reminded us that are not relevant to this Bill, but nevertheless, I will make a few short remarks, in particular, on the NCMP scheme.
Let me begin with the provisions related to election candidates.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested reducing the election deposit. The purpose of the election deposit is to ensure that only those who are serious in contesting in the elections step forward. I agree with him that we should not set the amount so high that it becomes a barrier to entry. But we also need to strike a balance. Setting at the current rate of one month of a Member of Parliament’s allowance has worked reasonably well since we first had elections in Singapore. And under the law, candidates who contest and gather more than one-eighth of the votes will have their election deposits returned to them after the election.
Mr Murali Pillai suggested that we continue to allow cash payment of election deposits. We agree. The amendments will increase the options, not decrease the options in the mode of payment. We are encouraging candidates to use electronic funds transfer to make it more convenient for aspiring candidates so that they no longer need to withdraw cash or visit a bank to purchase a bank draft and go to the Accountant-General’s Department to make the payment. The Elections Department will also return the election deposits using electronic funds transfer, and it is as per the current process, the candidate has the choice to which method of refund that they would like to use. As for cash, this is something the Returning Officer may allow when there are technical issues with the electronic funds transfer system. So, we have increased the number of choices, rather than narrow it.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh also suggested automating nomination forms. The Elections Department is looking into expanding its range of e-Services to candidates and election agents, and we will consider Mr Gan’s suggestion as part of their study.
Mr Murali Pillai spoke about possible unintended consequences from removing the need for candidates to submit supporting documents, such as bills and receipts, in their returns on election expenses. As there have not been any issues with these returns in the past, we propose to remove the need to submit these supporting documents to improve administration efficiency. But we are only doing away with supporting documents. The rest of the submissions are still required. This will not dilute accountability. The process for public inspection remains. Candidates are also required to keep these supporting documents for a period of one year, and the Returning Officer may require these documents for checks, where needed. So, the candidates still need to submit the necessary declarations and it is just that the supporting documents need not come with it, unless there is a public enquiry, a public interest in this.
Mr Leon Perera and Mr Dennis Tan asked why some of the issues are moved out of the Act. That is because, in our review, we made a distinction between operational matters which can be done in the subsidiary legislation, and the legislative matters which are required in the Act. So, we are not removing the clauses that the Members have mentioned, but we are shifting them into the subsidiary legislation, so that we simplify the Act itself.
On the issue of the number of polling agents required, we have simplified this so that it is according to the number of voters, rather than the number of polling places. There is no intention to decrease or increase the number of polling agents overall, but this will allow us to better match the number of polling agents with the number of voters, and it would be an easier way for everyone to understand the processes.
The third issue raised by Mr Leon Perera is the issue of notifications. It will be done simultaneously via the Gazette and also available on the Elections Department website, so that it is easily available for everyone to check when there is an announcement to be made by Elections Department.
Next, let me touch on the management of contingencies. Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira spoke about the proposed procedures should a ballot box be lost or destroyed. Let me state that if ballot boxes go missing or are destroyed, the proposed new sections 56DA and 56DB spell out the processes to handle such contingencies to maintain the integrity of the election.
Fresh polls will be conducted if the number of votes affects the election results for the electoral division. All voters assigned to the affected polling station will then have to re-cast their votes. And now, this is key. This is because when voters drop their ballot papers into the ballot boxes in any polling station, they have a choice. It will not be possible for us to ascertain which voters cast their votes in the affected ballot box. So, that is why it goes by the polling station, rather than the individual voter. And this will only be done if, as I have explained, it affects the polling results for the electoral division.
And how do we know whether the affected votes might affect the election results? This is when the sum of the total number of affected voters and the total number of overseas voters from the affected electoral division are equal or more than the difference between the votes already counted for the top two candidates. The procedure we are proposing is not new. This contingency procedure has been in place for Presidential elections. Now, what is new is the proposal to apply the same contingency procedures to Parliamentary elections as well.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira suggested to minimise the need for fresh polls by changing the polling procedures in the polling station. There is a downside to that because the current procedure is designed to allow voters to drop their ballot paper into any ballot box, so that voters can be assured of voting secrecy, as an added check. So, this has served us well, and I think we will continue this current arrangement.
There are also contingency provisions and procedures that we want to put in place. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira observed that if there were lost or damaged ballot boxes in an SMC, chances would be higher for a fresh poll to be conducted. Let me assure Members that there has been no instance in past elections of lost or damaged ballot boxes prior to the votes being counted. Consequently, there was no instance of re-polling as a result of loss or destruction of ballot boxes. And, if, indeed, ballot boxes get lost or damaged, the amendment in today’s Bill would lay out clearly in the law the steps to take to deal with such a scenario to ensure the integrity of the election process.
Members have also asked has there been any event that triggered us to review the current existing procedures. The answer is that this has always been part of our ongoing work in the Elections Department to make sure that our processes are kept afresh. As Assoc Prof Walter Theseira said, we need to think long term, we need to anticipate what may happen even though it may not have happened yet.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked if providing the Minister with powers to decide how a re-poll is to be done will be a conflict of interest. Now, let me assure Members that the new section 56DA spells out clearly the procedures to be undertaken by the Returning Officer when a ballot box is lost or destroyed after the close of polls in Singapore. This includes informing the candidates of the affected electoral division, publishing a notice in the Gazette that the Returning Officer has abandoned the counting of the votes cast at the affected polling station and, if there is a need for a fresh poll, to specify the date, hours of the poll and location of the polling station. The provision in section 56DA(8) is to provide the Minister with the powers to prescribe other operational details in the regulations, if required, such as the notice to be placed outside the polling station.
In response to Member Mr Dennis Tan, we are thinking ahead of possible contingencies, rather than being triggered by any recent or past occurrence.
Mr Dennis Tan also asked for the grounds of rejection. The Registration Officer will reply to the claimant, and if the claimant so chooses, he or she may make public the reasons for the rejection. So, it will not be the Registration Officer who makes public the reasons for the rejection, but it is made available to the claimant, and he or she can make the necessary public announcement if they so choose to.
I will now touch on other points raised by Members.
On the design of the ballot paper, we share Mr Png Eng Huat’s and Mr Gan Thiam Poh's concern for the elderly. And this is, indeed, the reason why we have recently refreshed our polling paper design. The use of black as the base colour was introduced at GE2015 to help focus voters’ attention on the box to mark their voting choice. The background for the parts containing the candidate’s photograph and symbol remain white, so that these parts are clearly visible, and in clear contrast to the voters. The Elections Department took in the views of voters of different age groups when coming up with the new ballot paper design.
Mr Png Eng Huat asked about the adjudication process. We have very clear adjudication rules and process set up, and the Elections Department routinely conducts training for all the Assistant Returning Officers (AROs), the Group Assistant Returning Officers (GAROs), so that they can do their job professionally. But we should also put in context, such as how many of these votes actually go into adjudication. Actually, the answer is very few, but notwithstanding that it is very few that really require adjudication, we constantly make sure that training of our AROs and GAROs are all done systematically and professionally. And they are not partisan to any particular party. They will adjudicate based on their professional judgement on how best this is to be done.
Election officers are trained to adjudicate based on whether the voters' choice is clear, according to the law. Now, with the amendment to only consider markings in the demarcated area of the ballot paper, we will remind voters to mark their choices with an \"X\" for the candidate, or, in the case of a GRC, the group of candidates they are voting for, in the demarcated area of the ballot paper. And Mr Png Eng Huat may like to help us to remind voters to mark the \"X\" in the demarcated area, rather than to exercise their artistic talent in the polling station.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked if there had been previous cases of tampering with ballot boxes during an election. The answer is no. There is a rigorous process to ensure that there is no break in the chain of custody of the ballot boxes from the polling stations to the counting centres, and from the counting centres to the Supreme Court where the ballot papers are retained in safe custody for a period of time before they are subsequently destroyed. For transparency, the process is open to observation by candidates and their agents. When sealed ballot boxes are transported from polling stations to counting centres, candidates and their polling agents may also board the buses to observe the process.
For overseas votes, there is similarly a secured chain of custody. Sealed ballot boxes are transported back to Singapore by two election officials and they are kept at the Supreme Court. They are then transported from the Supreme Court to the counting place to be counted. After counting, the ballot boxes are then transported back to the Supreme Court to be kept together with the local ballot boxes for six months before they are destroyed.
On Mr Gan Thiam Poh’s and Mr Png Eng Huat’s comments on election officials, let me first emphasise that the elections are administered by public officers who have been trained to do their election duties according to the law, in an impartial and transparent fashion. Election officials are not allowed to influence voters on who to vote for. Each voter decides for himself who to vote for. Where election officials have to communicate with voters, for example, in the case of visually handicapped voters, to guide them on using the stencil, they do so in an audible voice so that candidates, agents and other election officials around them can hear the conversation.
I thank Mr Gan Thiam Poh for welcoming the use of maps to show the boundaries of polling districts. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked if the move to an online-only publication of polling districts will adversely affect historical records and, hence, future research. I would like to assure Assoc Prof Theseira that the Elections Department will maintain a proper archive of the boundaries of polling districts and electoral divisions. Members of the public can also continue to view electoral boundaries interactively using the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) OneMap. They can also inspect or purchase these maps in hardcopy at the offices of SLA and the Elections Department. As with other public records, the maps would also be kept with the National Archives in due course.
Mr Speaker, Sir, with your indulgence, let me just make a few comments that are not entirely relevant to today's debate, and that is the issue of the NCMP. We have gone through this debate previously in this House. We had also debated this during the Constitutional amendments.
May I make a humble suggestion? If the Workers' Party feels that it is not in its Party's manifesto or beliefs to support the NCMP scheme, then we have two choices in front of us. One, it is for the Workers' Party candidates, during elections to publicly declare that he or she will not take up the NCMP seat even if offered. The second option is for the Workers' Party to impose a rule on all its Members to not take up an NCMP seat even if it is offered and this will be the Workers' Party's guideline. I think with these two options, the Workers' Party can take its pick on what it wants to do. But it would be rather disingenuous to say that we oppose the NCMP scheme and, at the same time, to take up the NCMP seats. So, I leave it to the Workers' Party on the choice that it wants to make going forward, and I am sure that enlightened Singaporeans will understand why and what the Workers' Party wants to do.
Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, this Bill makes changes to improve the administration of Parliamentary elections while ensuring the secrecy of the vote and the integrity of the election process. They are part of the continuous improvements to strengthen election administration and to improve services to voters and candidates.
With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. I urge all Members to give your support to the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a point of clarification. On the response of the hon Minister in relation to the payment of deposit, Members of the House will recall that the hon Minister said that in legal tender is in addition to the other modes prescribed. I just want to point out that in relation to the amendment Bill, under the old section 28(2), it reads the deposit may be paid but \"Any sum required to be deposited under subsection (1) shall be paid in legal tender or by a bank draft or a certified cheque\". That has been deleted and replaced by the new proposed provision, which reads \"The deposit of the sum required under sub-section (1) must be made through an electronic funds transfer system designated by the Returning Officer for that purpose, or by a bank draft or a certified cheque, or in such other form or manner as the Returning Officer allows\".
So, may I seek a clarification from the Minister, is the hon Minister relying on the catch-all provision at the end that the Returning Officer would allow legal tender as well? If that is so, then my concerns will be addressed.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The answer is yes, the Member's interpretation is correct.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. Actually, my clarification is on the similar point that Mr Murali Pillai raised. Because I think earlier, the Minister in his round-up speech, said that the Returning Officer could allow the election deposit to be paid in cash if, for example, the electronic transfer failed. So, is that the only circumstance when cash would be accepted, meaning that there were some problems with the Internet or electronic transfer? Because it does seem to set another barrier for candidates who may be raising money up to the very last minute and may not be able to do the funds electronically. So, I would ask the Minister to give some indication that the Returning Officer should accept cash, unless there is a very good reason why – and I cannot think of any – why cash should not be accepted.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, in answer to both Mr Murali Pillai's and Ms Sylvia Lim's questions, yes, we would hope that the primary mode would go towards e-payment and transactions. But in extenuating circumstances, as the Member has mentioned whereby the electronic payment system failed, then we are able to accept cash. Or if you are talking about last-minute crowd-sourcing, so if there are extenuating circumstances, I think candidates can let the Returning Officers know and they will exercise the discretion.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Meaning that actually the failure of the electronic transfers is not a prerequisite, that means to say, there could be other circumstances why they could not do the electronic transfer?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Yes.
Mr Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat, is your question pertaining to the NCMP?
Mr Png Eng Huat: No.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Png Eng Huat: Sir, I want to ask the Minister just a question. Would the Minister, in the interest of transparency, make the adjudication process training public, so that at least we, as candidates, would know how AROs adjudicate such invalid votes?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the training is best done by the Elections Department. I do not think that there is anything secret about it. We train thousands and thousands of public officials on how to do it. There is nothing that we need to hide. The rules are very clear.
So, with today's amendments, it will be even clearer because, first, we have improved on the layout of the ballot paper, where it is black contrasted with white, and the white boxes where people are supposed to mark are clearly contrasted against all the other areas that are printed in black. And I think the Elections Department would be happy to share with Mr Png Eng Huat how we train our officers.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Chan Chun Sing.] (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":"Gas (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan Wu Meng) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Industry, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Gas Act was passed in 2001 to establish a regulatory regime to ensure a competitive, secure and reliable gas supply to the industry and the public. The Gas Act was last amended in 2007 to enhance market access and strengthen safeguards for critical infrastructure.
Singapore's energy markets have evolved significantly since. Our reliance on imported natural gas has grown, with over 95% of our electricity generated from natural gas, up from 77% in 2010. To meet this demand in a secure and competitive manner, we have built a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal to supplement our piped natural gas (PNG) supply. The LNG terminal has also enabled new business opportunities in a variety of ancillary services, such as trading, bunkering and break-bulking, which have enhanced the dynamism of our gas market.
Against the backdrop of these developments in our energy markets, it is necessary to update the Gas Act to ensure that it remains effective and relevant. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and the Energy Market Authority (EMA) are, therefore, proposing to update the Gas Act in four key areas: first, to enhance gas supply security and the regulation of safety of gas-related activities; second, to enhance protection of critical gas infrastructure and deterrence for serious offences; third, to facilitate competition in the gas market; and fourth, to clarify and improve procedural and technical provisions in the Gas Act.
In finalising these amendments, MTI and EMA sought feedback from industry stakeholders and members of the public through a public consultation in June earlier this year. MTI and EMA have carefully considered all feedback received and incorporated them where relevant.
Mr Speaker, let me now elaborate on the key amendments in this Bill, starting with the first area, which is to enhance gas supply security and the regulation of safety of gas-related activities.
Singapore relies heavily on imported natural gas as fuel for power generation and as industrial feedstock, and any gas supply emergency can adversely affect our economy. The first amendment, in clause 14 of the Bill, introduces a new part VIIIA to the Gas Act, where in the event of an imminent or actual severe gas shortage, EMA, with the Minister's approval, is empowered to issue directions to require any person to take measures specified by EMA to address or alleviate the severe gas shortage, or prevent it from occurring or continuing. These directions may include empowering EMA to reallocate gas from users who can use alternative fuels to those who have no alternative fuel supplies. These directions may also include requiring relevant parties to enter into, modify or terminate contractual agreements. Persons who comply with the direction will be protected from legal liability, if doing so results in breach of an existing contractual obligation.
The Bill further defines that a \"severe gas shortage situation\" occurs when there is a shortage of natural gas imported into Singapore that results in gas importers being unable to fulfil their contractual obligations to end-users and where the extent, and likely duration or uncertainty of the period, of the gas shortage is likely to threaten the security or stability of gas or electricity supply in Singapore or result in a severe loss of industrial or economic output.
Mr Speaker, in moving this amendment, I am mindful that the power to issue any direction is broad and can affect the commercial arrangements of the parties concerned. The amendment is worded as such to provide EMA with the flexibility to react to the wide range of potential threats that may emerge. I would like to assure this House that before exercising this power, EMA would have explored alternative solutions to prevent, address or alleviate the severe gas shortage, such as procuring gas from alternative sources and leveraging existing market mechanisms and other regulatory levers. In addition, parties can seek compensation for losses or damage suffered as a result of complying with EMA's directions. The compensation will be determined by an independent panel set up under the Gas Act.
The second amendment, in clause 3 of the Bill, amends section 3 of the Gas Act to enhance EMA's regulation of gas-related activities. Presently, EMA's regulatory functions under the Gas Act include \"protecting the public from dangers arising from the production, processing, storage, conveyance, shipping, supply or use of gas\". To cover the broader value chain of gas-related activities, clause 3 of the Bill expands these regulatory functions to include protecting the public from dangers to health arising from such gas-related activities, including the import of gas, which is presently not included. This strengthens regulation over a broader spectrum of gas-related activities and expands EMA's regulatory control over technical requirements for gas imports to include thresholds for harmful substances, such as sulphur compounds and heavy metals.
The third amendment, in clause 8 of the Bill, expands the scope of \"designated gas licensees\" under Part VIIB of the Gas Act. These are licensees who require EMA's approval for changes in ownership, and board and chief executive officer appointments, in view of their strategic importance to our gas system. Presently, the only designated gas licensees are the gas transporter licensee, that is PowerGas Ltd, which is responsible for the operation of the gas transmission system, and its agent licensee, that is, SP PowerGrid Ltd. We are including the LNG terminal operator, that is, Singapore LNG Corporation Pte Ltd, as a \"designated gas licensee\", in view of its critical role in ensuring energy security. To allow flexibility to designate gas licensees as the gas industry evolves, the amendment will also empower the Minister to specify other gas licensees as \"designated gas licensees\", going forward if the need arises.
The fourth amendment, in clause 22 of the Bill, amends sections 33 and 34 of the Gas Act to expand the scope of the Special Administration Order (SAO), to provide EMA with greater flexibility to deal with unforeseen emergency scenarios.
Presently, an SAO can only be issued in relation to the gas transporter and LNG terminal operator licensees. The amendment will expand the scope of the SAO to cover any gas licensee. This will bring the SAO provisions in the Gas Act in line with those in the Electricity Act.
MTI and EMA have also incorporated feedback from the industry to make it clear that the SAO can be issued in relation to some, and not necessarily all, of the affairs, business and property of licensees. This will enable the SAO to be tailored to the gas-related business of licensees whose business include non-gas related parts, as may be appropriate in the circumstances.
The fifth amendment, also in clause 22 of the Bill, amends section 34(6)(b) of the Gas Act to allow licensees to apply for a Judicial Management (JM) order under Part VIIIA of the Companies Act once EMA's consent is obtained. The Gas Act currently prohibits a gas licensee from applying for a JM. The intent is to ensure that critical licensees are not unilaterally placed under JM and dissolved. However, this restricts non-critical licensees from applying for a JM even though their restructuring or exit would not adversely impact our energy security and system stability. Hence, the amendment allows JM of a licensee if EMA's consent is obtained.
Mr Speaker, let me now elaborate on the second key area of update – enhancing protection of critical gas infrastructure and deterrence of serious gas-related offences.
The sixth amendment, in clause 6 of the Bill, introduces a new section 32B to the Gas Act that makes it an offence to damage any submarine gas pipeline. Submarine gas pipelines within Singapore's territorial waters convey imported natural gas to our gas network. Damage to these pipelines can disrupt Singapore's gas and electricity supply and result in high economic losses. Presently, damage to any submarine gas pipeline is an offence under the Merchant Shipping Act that carries a maximum fine of only $50,000 and/or imprisonment of up to two years upon conviction. This is too low to effectively deter damage to submarine gas pipelines. In view of the higher costs of repairing submarine gas pipelines vis-à-vis land-based gas pipelines, a higher maximum fine of $2 million and/or imprisonment of up to five years upon conviction will be imposed. This is a calibrated increase compared to the $1 million fine and/or imprisonment of up to five years for damage to land-based gas pipelines.
The seventh amendment, in clause 5 of the Bill, amends section 32A of the Gas Act to rationalise the different offences currently provided in the section, which include offences relating to damage to land-based gas transmission infrastructure. Such infrastructure is critical in ensuring the flow of gas to businesses and households. The amendment also seeks to extend the reach of the section by making a person who causes or permits another person to damage land-based gas transmission infrastructure guilty of an offence. There is no need for the former to have any particular relationship with the latter.
Finally, the distinction between damage in earthworks and non-earthworks related situations is removed as it is strictly not relevant to assessing culpability. The penalty for offences under this section remains unchanged as a maximum fine of $1 million and/or imprisonment of up to five years upon conviction.
Beyond enhancing protection of critical gas infrastructure, there is a need to effectively deter the dishonest consumption of gas and tampering of gas meters. The dishonest consumption of gas presently carries a maximum fine of $50,000 and/or imprisonment for a term of up to five years upon conviction. However, in cases where the dishonest consumption of gas is carried out on a large scale and the value of gas dishonestly consumed is substantial, the existing penalty can be disproportionately low compared to the value of gas consumed and ineffective as deterrence.
Hence, the eighth amendment, also in clause 7 of the Bill, amends section 47 of the Gas Act to mandate that the Court imposes an additional fine equivalent to three times the value of gas dishonestly consumed, on conviction for dishonest consumption of gas and meter tampering offences. This amendment takes into consideration that the cost of the gas that is dishonestly consumed is borne by all paying consumers. This enhances deterrence by ensuring proportionality between the penalty imposed and the value of gas dishonestly consumed.
The ninth amendment, also in clause 7 of the Bill, expands section 47 of the Gas Act to specify that it is an offence to do anything that compromises or affects the ability of a meter in registering the quantity of gas supplied to any person or premises. This amendment will enable EMA to prosecute persons who use novel or unconventional methods to tamper with meters, with a view to dishonestly consume gas.
Mr Speaker, let me move on to the third key area of update to the Gas Act that aims to facilitate competition in the gas market.
Part IX of the Gas Act presently empowers EMA to regulate anti-competitive practices and conduct in the Singapore gas market. To facilitate competition in the gas market, the 10th amendment, in clause 15 of the Bill, introduces a new section 72A to the Gas Act that enables EMA to issue guidelines to inform the gas market regarding practices and conduct that are anti-competitive. This amendment is consistent with the Competition Act, which similarly allows the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) to publish guidelines to guide market behaviour. To ensure that the industry’s views are incorporated, EMA will consult the industry when formulating these guidelines.
Mr Speaker, the final key area of update seeks to clarify and improve technical provisions in the Gas Act.
First, clause 20 of the Bill amends section 93 of the Gas Act to enable regulations to be made to specify the procedures for submission of appeals to and consideration of appeals by the Minister regarding EMA’s regulatory decisions. This will enable regulations requiring the facts, issues and grounds of appeal to be set out clearly when appeals are made and enable the Minister to reject appeals that do not meet these requirements. Confidential and sensitive information submitted in appeals will also be safeguarded. This will facilitate consideration of appeals by the Minister and bring the Gas Act in line with existing appeal provisions in other Acts, such as the Telecommunications Act.
Second, to better reflect EMA’s functions in ensuring the security and reliability of our gas supply, clause 3 of the Bill amends section 3 of the Gas Act to clarify that EMA’s regulatory functions include arranging for the secure operation of the gas transmission system, which EMA already performs.
Third, clause 21 of the Bill amends section 96 of the Gas Act to broaden regulations that may be made under section 96(2)(o) relating to the conversion of a gas pipeline network to convey natural gas. The broadened regulations will enable EMA to require relevant parties, such as building owners or managers, to submit updated plans and other information to the licensees carrying out the conversion works. It will also allow regulations to be made to provide for termination of supply of gas to any premises if the conversion is not carried out successfully, on safety or other grounds. Clause 21 also amends section 96 to enable EMA to recover costs for services provided in connection with its regulatory functions, without having to prescribe the costs as fees.
Last, clause 19 of the Bill inserts a new section 92A to provide for various moneys collected by EMA under the Gas Act to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
Mr Speaker, in summary, the proposed amendments to the Gas Act that I have elaborated on in my speech are necessary to ensure that the Gas Act remains effective and relevant against the backdrop of changing energy markets and business models. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Mohamed Irshad.
Mr Mohamed Irshad (Nominated Member): Hon Speaker Mr Tan Chuan-Jin and hon Members of Parliament, I support this Bill as it strengthens and tightens the Gas Act to safeguard our future.
Today, I wish to speak on three areas, mainly, energy security, energy sustainability and energy resilience. On energy security, almost every Singaporean knows that we are a vulnerable and small nation with almost zero natural resources. But not as many may realise the extent to which we rely on imported fuel to meet our energy demands. Imported natural gas account for 95% of our energy generation. For our security, I feel it is important that we should not be beholden to any country to meet our energy needs.
So, we have to take this Bill very seriously for now and our future generations as, without the natural gas, our power generation will be disrupted and Singapore will be in total darkness.
All this while, Singapore has been buying gas and piping it from Malaysia and Indonesia through our strong bilateral relationship, and we have enjoyed this facility for a very long time. That dependence has been reduced over the years from 100% to 77%. And with the opening of the Singapore natural gas terminal in 2014, I am glad to see Singapore diversifying our sources of supply to include LNG. This is an important step in reducing our reliance on PNG and I would like to congratulate the executives for their far-sightedness to build the terminal to strengthen our energy security.
And, from what I understand, the existing six contracts for PNG from our neighbours will expire between this year and 2029. In this regard, could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share with us if these contracts will be renewed or will we make the switch to LNG upon expiry of these contracts?
Also, with the expected increase in worldwide demand for LNG, how are we looking to stabilise the market price fluctuations and deliver a reliable and stable service and, more importantly, keep an affordable price point for Singaporeans?
On a related point, I commend the Singapore LNG Corporation on expanding its capacity over the years. I understand that there will be a second terminal that will strengthen Singapore’s position. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary when this second terminal will be ready.
Singapore is in a unique situation, located in the Straits of Malacca, with important shipping access that serves all major shipping lines. Singapore’s strategic geographical location allows for easier access to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Southeast Asian countries. Globally, Singapore is also well-known as the financial and commodity trading hub of Asia.
I would like to make a proposal that our Government consider making Singapore an important LNG hub of Asia to attract gas producing countries to utilise Singapore as their storage farms for Asia and to establish an LNG hub for Asia in Singapore as how Rotterdam is for Europe.
On energy sustainability, in my work with Singaporean youths, I have met many who feel strongly in preserving the environment. As part of this, many support switching from fossil fuel to renewable energy. Towards this, I commend good initiatives, such as the JTC's SolarRoof project, Treelodge@Punggol, deployment of Solar Photovoltaics (PVs) in reservoirs across Singapore and building Singapore’s first micro-grid living lab in Pulau Ubin. I believe we should make a stronger push about going into solar energy. I would like to seek further understanding on the timeline to go into large-scale implementation for solar PVs.
We should also encourage more green practices. For example, in Japan, Toyota has come up with a green coating to coat buildings to keep them cool by as much as 30%. Such green innovation ensures the efficiency of cooling down our buildings which will translate into great cost savings in electricity bills for the consumers.
I would like to laud the proposal to expand EMA’s functions under the Gas Act to deal with dangers to health concerns arising from the import of gas.
On energy resilience, our world is unpredictable. Our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew reminded us repeatedly that we have to take the world as it is, and not as we wish it to be. We are not immune to cybersecurity attacks or major energy disruptions. About two weeks ago on 18 September, we faced a major blackout that affected over 146,000 residential and commercial customers. The incident emphasised the need for Singapore to be energy-resilient. Although the disruption was due to a partial loss of electricity supply from two power generation companies, we cannot take it lightly.
In that light, it is important that all Singaporeans are equipped with the skills and knowledge to remain calm and resilient in any such emergencies. Perhaps carrying out an awareness campaign or public education drive is something that can be considered. It is a strength to know what to do if the lights are out.
At the core of that resilient spirit, Singaporeans must not take our energy supply for granted and must give credit where it is due and to commend the Government, MTI and EMA for ensuring the energy supplies of Singapore and for taking all possible steps to mitigate any shortage or disruptions over the years.
Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill and the wider efforts to strengthen our energy security and resilience.
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the queries and support for the Bill. Let me address Nominated Member of Parliament Mr Mohamed Irshad's questions on our energy supply, sustainability and resilience.
As a small country without any natural resources, Singapore imports nearly all of our energy needs. This makes us vulnerable to supply risks. Prior to 2013, we were completely reliant on Malaysia and Indonesia for our natural gas supply, which is transported to us via pipes.
As the Member has noted, our piped gas contracts are set to expire over the next decade or so. As all of our gas supply is handled commercially, whether our piped gas contracts are renewed will depend on commercial negotiations. And we welcome renewals or new contracts for piped gas. In October 2017, EMA lifted its moratorium on new piped gas contracts to facilitate this.
To enhance our energy security and competitiveness, the Government has pursued diversification of our gas sources as a strategy. To that end, the Government has built an LNG terminal, which has enabled us to procure natural gas in the form of LNG from a wider range of sources, such as Australia, the United States (US) as well as Trinidad and Tobago. We have also adopted a Competitive Licensing Framework to procure LNG on a tranche-by-tranche basis. This will provide Singapore with the flexibility to take advantage of opportunities in the global gas market, including more competitive price indexation and contract terms, while diversifying our gas sources to reinforce our supply security.
To further strengthen our energy security, we have also added capacity to the LNG terminal ahead of demand, providing us with spare capacity to cater for any potential disruption in our piped natural gas supply. The terminal today has a peak throughput capacity of 11 million tonnes per annum, sufficient to meet demand for the near future. The Government will continue to plan ahead for our next phase of LNG infrastructure development. We are currently exploring several options to see which best meet our long-term LNG needs and further improve our energy security.
As I have highlighted earlier, the proposed amendment in clause 14 of the Bill will further enhance EMA's ability to deal with a wide range of potential risks that may emerge. It empowers EMA to issue directions to require any person to take measures to address or alleviate the severe gas shortage or prevent it from occurring or continuing.
Beyond meeting our domestic energy requirements, we have been taking steps to capitalise on our strategic location to develop Singapore as a regional gas hub. Our LNG terminal can conduct storage and reloads, and we have spare capacity available for trading. We have also been working with the industry to build a strong supporting ecosystem, with players, such as consulting firms, law firms, shipbrokers, price reporting agencies and other services providers. All these and more have established their presence in Singapore, adding to the depth of the ecosystem. Thanks to the efforts of Enterprise Singapore in building the LNG trading community, there are now more than 45 companies with an LNG trading or business development presence here. And to further increase dynamism in our gas market, EMA has also formalised the spot LNG import framework in October 2017. So, interested parties can now import spot LNG, subject to a market-wide cap of 10% of our long-term contracted gas sales agreements. In summary, there is actually a whole-of-ecosystem approach to looking at our energy resilience.
Let me now address the Member's queries on our energy sustainability. Singapore is exploring other ways to broaden our energy options. Among the renewable energy options, solar PV has the greatest potential for wider deployment in Singapore. But even then, there are challenges to adopting solar energy at scale, for example, competing uses for limited land, and the intermittency of the electricity generated by solar PV due to high cloud cover and urban shading.
Despite these challenges, we have grown the amount of solar PV deployed from 10 megawatt peak (MWp) in 2012 to more than 160 MWp today. This is just a start. We are planning to raise our solar generation capacity to 350 MWp by 2020 and to one GWp beyond 2020.
We are also investing in research and development to increase the efficiency of solar PV and the accuracy of forecasting solar power output in our tropical climate. This includes testbeds on utility-scale energy storage systems that could facilitate greater deployment of solar PV in Singapore while ensuring that our power system's security, reliability and stability are not compromised.
Let me now address the Member's queries on our energy resilience, including his question on the safeguards we have for critical services. My colleague, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon, had spoken about this during question time, but if I may just share again.
In the design of any electricity grid system, we have to balance redundancy and assurance with cost imposed on consumers. The higher the degree of redundancy, the smaller the probability of disruption, the higher the cost at the system level. So, we have to find the balance, and we have adopted a calibrated approach in our system planning certain level of redundancy at national grid level, together with a higher level of redundancy for critical systems at the local level. Critical services and infrastructure, such as lifts and traffic signalling systems, have contingency plans for power outages that might happen on the national grid. For example, passenger lifts must be installed with an Automatic Rescue Device, so that if there is a power failure, the lift will be parked at the nearest floor and open its doors. For lifts in very high-rise residential buildings or those serving both residential and non-residential uses, a standby generator is required to provide emergency power to resume at least one lift's operations.
As for our public hospitals, these are provided with dual supply sources. So, if one of the supply sources fails, each is able to provide backup to the hospital. In addition, if there is any disruption from the main power source, there are backup power systems, such as diesel generators and Uninterrupted Power Supplies (UPS) systems, and these will automatically kick in to support critical equipment and critical facilities. And our public hospitals also carry out preventive maintenance, regular maintenance, to ensure that both their electrical installations and power system backups are in good working condition. During the power outage on 18 September, hospitals in the affected areas activated their backup power supply immediately, and this prevented disruptions to their operations and patient care.
The Member also spoke on the importance of having a well-equipped public to respond to emergencies, and this is well-noted. EMA is working with the industry to review processes for handling events, such as the recent power outage, to ensure they remain satisfactory. During the blackout, SP Group officers were immediately activated and deployed at key substations and control centres. SP Group also provided the public with progressive updates on its social media channels and concurrently informed the media of updates as well. But as with every incident, we will review carefully to see how we can further improve our responses.
Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Member who spoke on this Bill and the valuable comments he provided. In summary, this Bill will ensure that the Gas Act continues to remain effective and relevant in enhancing gas supply security and strengthening safeguards for such critical infrastructure. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Tan Wu Meng.] (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":"Electricity (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan Wu Meng) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Industry, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Electricity Act was passed by this House in 2001 to establish a competitive electricity market framework and provide for the safety, technical and economic regulation of electricity generation, transmission, supply and usage. The Electricity Act was last amended in 2006, mainly to enhance the regulation and licensing of the transmission of electricity.
Since then, the electricity sector has evolved with the increased proliferation of new technologies and business models. There is a need to update the Electricity Act to ensure that it continues to remain effective and relevant amidst the changing energy landscape. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and the Energy Market Authority (EMA) are, therefore, proposing to update the Electricity Act in four key areas: first, enhancing the security, reliability and competitiveness of our electricity supplies; second, enhancing protection of critical electricity infrastructure and safety of electrical works; third, clarifying procedural and technical provisions in the Electricity Act; and fourth, aligning regulatory provisions in the Electricity Act with similar provisions in the Gas Act for consistency.
Similar to the Gas (Amendment) Bill, in finalising these amendments, MTI and EMA sought feedback from industry stakeholders and members of the public through a public consultation in June earlier this year. MTI and EMA have carefully considered all feedback received and incorporated them where relevant.
I will now outline the key provisions of the Bill, starting with the first area of update, which is to enhance the security, reliability and competitiveness of electricity supplies.
The first amendment, in clause 6 of the Bill, introduces a new section 20A, which allows EMA to direct the electricity transmission licensee and an electricity licensee to effect a connection between their respective electrical equipment, if this is necessary for network expansion in the public interest or to ensure the security and reliability of electricity supply to the public.
The transmission licensee operates the grid that transmits electricity generated by electricity generation licensees to consumers. When installing new transmission infrastructure to meet electricity demand, the transmission licensee may, in certain situations, need to connect its electrical equipment to that of other electricity licensees, to increase transmission capacity and supply for the entire system.
The direction will, in the first instance, require the transmission licensee and the electricity licensee to effect the connection and then agree on terms for maintaining the connection, including compensation to be paid by the former to the latter for loss suffered by the latter resulting from the connection. If both parties are unable to come to agreement on the terms, they can request the Minister to appoint an Appeal Panel under the Electricity Act to determine the terms, including compensation. The terms determined by the Panel will become effective and binding on both parties as an agreement from the date of the determination.
Mr Speaker, I would like to assure this House that before a direction is issued, EMA will seek to meet with the licensees and explain the need for the connection. EMA will also facilitate discussions to reach mutual agreement on the terms of connection. A direction will only be issued if both parties cannot agree on the terms of connection despite these efforts.
The second amendment, in clause 3 of the Bill, amends the regulatory and licensing provisions in section 6 of the Electricity Act to enable the Minister to specify other electricity-related activities that need to be regulated and licensed, beyond the activities presently stated in that section. This aligns with similar regulatory provisions already in the Gas Act.
The third amendment, in clause 8 of the Bill, will allow licensees to apply for a Judicial Management (JM) order under Part VIIIA of the Companies Act once EMA's consent is obtained. The Electricity Act currently prohibits an electricity licensee from applying for a JM. While the intent is to ensure that critical licensees are not unilaterally placed under JM or dissolved, this restricts non-critical licensees from applying for a JM even though their restructuring or exit would not adversely impact our energy security and system stability. Hence, this amendment allows JM of a licensee if EMA's consent is obtained. This is similar to the amendment to the Gas Act.
The fourth proposed amendment, under clauses 5 and 15 of the Bill, amends the Electricity Act to reflect the right of small contestable consumers, that is, consumers whose average monthly electricity consumption for the preceding continuous 12-month period is less than four megawatt hours, to revert to purchasing electricity at the regulated tariff if they cannot, or do not wish to purchase electricity from electricity retailers or directly from the wholesale electricity market, or if their electricity retailer is unable to retail electricity to them for any reason. This is currently not clearly stated in the Act.
Mr Speaker, I now move on to the second key area of update to the Electricity Act – enhancing protection of critical electricity infrastructure in Singapore and the safety of electrical works.
The fifth amendment, in clause 23 of the Bill, amends section 85 of the Electricity Act to rationalise the different offences currently provided in the section, which include offences relating to damage to land-based electricity transmission infrastructure. Such infrastructure is critical in ensuring the flow of electricity to businesses and households. The amendment also seeks to extend the reach of the section by making a person who causes or permits another person to damage land-based electricity transmission infrastructure guilty of an offence. There is no need for the former to have any particular relationship with the latter. This is similar to the amendment to the Gas Act.
The amendment further prescribes a maximum fine of $1 million and/or imprisonment of up to five years for all offences under the section, regardless of the type of electricity infrastructure involved and whether or not the damage is earthworks-related. This is in line with the penalty provided in the corresponding section in the Gas Act and will allow the Courts broader scope to determine appropriate penalties for such offences by considering such matters as the seriousness of the damage and its effects, and the circumstances in which the offence was committed.
The sixth amendment, in clause 22 of the Bill, amends section 82 of the Electricity Act to expand enforcement against persons carrying out electrical works without valid electrical worker licences, to include firms that provide electrical work services to consumers using workers who are not licensed electrical workers. This will better protect the interests of consumers when they engage firms to carry out electrical works at their homes or premises and enhance safety by ensuring that only licensed electrical workers are employed to carry out electrical works.
Mr Speaker, let me now move on to the third key area of update – amendments to clarify and improve procedural and technical provisions in the Electricity Act.
Clauses 9 to 14 of the Bill amend Part IVA of the Electricity Act to bring controls on ownership, acquisition and divestment over electricity licensees in line with those in the Gas Act. This includes enabling the Minister to specify other electricity licensees as \"designated electricity licensees\" if the need arises.
Clause 21 of the Bill amends section 80 of the Electricity Act to harmonise the scope of duties of persons carrying out earthworks with those in the Gas Act, which are currently broader.
Clause 29 of the Bill amends section 103 of the Electricity Act to enable EMA to recover costs for services provided in connection with its regulatory functions without having to prescribe the cost as fees.
Clause 28 of the Bill inserts a new section 100A to provide for various moneys collected by EMA under the Electricity Act to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
Mr Speaker, finally, on the last area of update, let me highlight the key amendments to align specific provisions in the Electricity Act with similar amendments to the Gas Act, for consistency. As the justifications for these amendments have already been mentioned in the Second Reading speech for the Gas (Amendment) Bill, I will only mention them briefly here.
First, clause 16 of the Bill amends the Electricity Act to enable EMA to issue guidelines to signal to the market certain practices and conduct that are anti-competitive.
Second, clause 24 of the Bill amends the Electricity Act to make it an offence for any person to damage any submarine electricity cable belonging to, or under the control or management of an electricity licensee. Similar to the Gas Act amendments, the offence will carry a maximum fine of $2 million and/or imprisonment of up to five years upon conviction.
Third, clause 25 of the Bill amends section 87 of the Electricity Act to mandate that the Court impose an additional fine equivalent to three times the value of electricity dishonestly consumed, on conviction for dishonest consumption of electricity and meter tampering offences. It will also be an offence to do anything that compromises or affects the proper operation of a meter in duly registering electricity supplied to any person or premises. These are similar to the amendments to the Gas Act.
Last, clause 27 of the Bill amends section 98 of the Electricity Act to enable regulations to be made to specify the procedures for submission of appeals to and consideration of appeals by the Minister regarding EMA's regulatory decisions, similar to the amendments to the Gas Act on this.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the proposed amendments to the Electricity Act are necessary to update the Electricity Act and ensure that it continues to remain effective and relevant, going forward. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, there has never been a time when our world is more dependent on electricity as our world is today, and it will become even more so in the future when we become a Smart Nation. The massive power outage we experienced earlier this month is a reminder of how we should not take electricity for granted and how critical it is to secure and protect our power supply and transmission connections. The Bill will empower EMA to direct the expansion of the electricity transmission network to ensure the security and reliability of supply when necessary, including for emergency situations like this. However, the recent blackout highlighted how centralised our operations are and the associated vulnerabilities.
I urge the Ministry to consider expediting the setting up of independent sources of electricity island-wide to provide backup power for critical installations, such as water pumps, elevators, traffic and street lights. In the event of a prolonged outage, these power sources will ameliorate hardships and reduce accidents.
I am aware that EMA is looking into the potential of micro-grids. These are small electricity networks which are usually connected to a centralised national grid but that can also operate independently. So far, these are only being tested at the Singapore Institute of Technology and Pulau Ubin. Would MTI and EMA make it a priority to extend these testbeds to more areas and institutions?
In different parts of the world, the building of micro-grids is gaining momentum as governments realise their potential in adding to energy security. They can be found in Amsterdam in The Netherlands, California and New York in the United States (US), Higashi Matsushima in Japan, just to name a few. A network of small, independent electricity grids also offers an alternative in the event of cyberterrorism targeting the national grid. In the US, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation confirmed earlier this year that state-sponsored hackers had infiltrated the electricity grid. A leading cybersecurity firm had also cautioned about cybercriminals posing a threat to utility operators. Hackers had caused an equipment shutdown at a Saudi Arabian oil and gas plant and a smelter in a German steel mill to overload and destroy itself.
Next, I would like to request that EMA draws up guidelines to guide staff on how to disseminate information and updates to the public in the event of outages. During the recent blackout, hotlines were inundated and some people were unable to get their calls through. Good communication is important in reducing anxiety and panic among members of the public who have no idea how long the outage would last.
Finally, may I ask the Ministry how are the rates of the regulated tariffs decided upon? It is not easy for consumers to decide which electricity retailers to choose from. The Open Electricity Market is a very new concept for most Singaporeans and many of my elderly residents may get quite confused. They cannot understand how a retailer can sell electricity at a more competitive price than the wholesale market. Would MTI be able to provide them advisory services as this would be very useful for the senior citizens to make an informed choice? Sir, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the queries and support for the Bill. Let me first address Ms Joan Pereira's suggestions regarding our communication and contingency plans during a power outage.
We had discussed this earlier during the round-up speech for the Gas (Amendment) Bill and we very much agree that we can continue working on ways to improve by learning from best practices around the world, as well as experiences near and far.
Let me also address the Member's question on microgrids and cybersecurity. As the Member rightly noted, microgrids can operate independently during an emergency. And we are also studying various aspects of microgrids, because these can allow for easier integration of various energy technologies. So, for example, the upcoming microgrid at the Singapore Institute of Technology's campus in Punggol will be the first urban microgrid in Singapore that will integrate various types of energy technologies, including renewable sources and energy storage. There is also an ongoing microgrid testbed at Pulau Ubin which is studying the real-world impact of renewable energy on grid system stability and reliability. These testbeds will provide useful insights to help EMA in planning for future grid designs, as well as the main grid to ensure resiliency. We will continue to explore where such microgrids would be suitable for deployment in Singapore.
As for cybersecurity threats to our electricity transmission system, I would like to assure the Member that the Electricity Act already gives EMA the mandate to address such threats, and EMA takes such threats very seriously. For example, under the Electricity Act, EMA is able to go after persons who hinder or prevent the grid from being used or operated in the manner in which it is intended for. The amendments to the Electricity Act make clear that this includes through wireless means, in addition to physical means. Furthermore, the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act also includes offences relating to cyberattacks or hacking, such as the unauthorised access to computers or computer systems, and unauthorised use or interception of computer services.
We have also formulated a cybersecurity governance framework for the energy industry in close partnership with the Cyber Security Agency (CSA). The energy industry's Critical Information Infrastructures (CIIs) also adopt best practices in security management. So, for example, the computer systems in CIIs are isolated from the Internet. In addition, there are regular industry-wide exercises and sharing sessions to ensure the sector's resilience and readiness in emergency responses to cyberattacks. We will continue to work with CSA and the industry to ensure the robustness and relevance of our cybersecurity governance framework.
I will now address the Member's queries regarding contestability and the Open Electricity Market (OEM).
The Member asked about how the regulated tariff is determined and why retailers can charge less for their electricity packages. The regulated tariff, charged by SP Group and approved by EMA, is set based on a fixed formula that reflects the long-term costs to produce and deliver electricity in Singapore. SP Group is required to supply electricity to all consumers and has to bear the risk of an uncertain consumer base as it does not tie down its customers to any contract or impose early termination charges.
On the other hand, retailers are able to set their prices based on their own business strategies to adapt to shorter-term factors, such as prevailing market conditions and level of competition.
We do share the Member's concern over ensuring that all households, including our senior citizens, and small businesses are able to make an informed choice on their electricity supplier.
To this end, EMA uses regulatory measures, as well as community outreach.
As the regulator, EMA requires retailers to present and seek households' acknowledgement of the Consumer Advisory and Fact Sheet on the key contractual terms, such as payment terms, contract duration, security deposit and early termination charges. EMA also requires retailers to safeguard all security deposits collected from households.
For community outreach, EMA will also embark on education and awareness campaigns to inform consumers about the OEM and what to look out for when switching to a retailer. EMA is also working closely with various grassroots organisations to ensure that senior citizens are kept informed as well, especially seniors who are not so literate or not literate. This is one of the reasons why the nationwide rollout of the OEM from 1 November 2018 will be done in zones, so that EMA and retailers can focus their resources to help consumers better understand their options before making a decision.
Mr Speaker, I would like to emphasise that consumers who do not wish to switch to a retailer can remain with SP Group and continue buying electricity at the regulated tariff. As a consumer, you do not need to switch, there is no deadline to switch, and you can take time to consider your options and whether to switch.
The proposed amendment to the Electricity Act today also clarifies the right of small contestable consumers to revert to buying electricity at the regulated tariff, if they cannot, or do not, wish to purchase electricity from a retailer. This amendment covers all households.
Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Member who has spoken on this Bill, and the valuable comments provided. In summary, this Bill will ensure that the Electricity Act continues to remain effective and relevant in ensuring the safe and reliable supply of electricity, amidst the changing energy landscape. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Tan Wu Meng.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.40 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.20 pm until 4.40 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.40 pm
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, Singapore's debt restructuring and insolvency laws have undergone significant changes in the last three years, guided by the recommendations of two expert committees: firstly, the Insolvency Law Review Committee in 2013, which conducted a holistic study of Singapore's insolvency and restructuring landscape; and secondly, the Committee to Strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Restructuring in 2016, which focused on strengthening Singapore's debt restructuring ecosystem.
The Committees, together, made close to 150 recommendations. On top of these recommendations, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) also conducted further studies and received extensive stakeholder feedback proposing other reforms.
In view of the large number of complex legislative changes required to give effect to the recommendations and other reforms, a phased approach to implementation was adopted.
Prior to this Bill, in 2015, the Bankruptcy Act was amended to create a more rehabilitative discharge framework for bankrupts, encourage institutional creditors to exercise financial prudence when granting credit, and facilitate better utilisation of public resources by requiring institutional creditors to appoint private trustees in bankruptcy.
In 2017, the Companies Act was amended to enhance our corporate rescue and debt restructuring processes to strengthen Singapore as a forum of choice for debt restructuring. The reforms introduced features adapted from Chapter 11 of the United States (US) Bankruptcy Code, and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.
I am pleased to report that the amendments to the Companies Act that came into effect on 23 May 2017 have made a positive impact. In a little more than a year, close to 100 applications under the new provisions have been filed with the Singapore Courts, which is a significant number within a short period of time. It is heartening that parties are taking advantage of the new provisions to seek better outcomes for creditors, debtors and other stakeholders, like the employees of financially distressed companies.
Our reforms have also garnered attention internationally, including Singapore being recognised as the \"Most Improved Jurisdiction\" at the inaugural Global Restructuring Review Awards in June 2017.
This Bill is the last phase of this current round of reforms, and builds on the foundation laid by the earlier amendments. Taken together, these reforms ensure that our insolvency and restructuring laws remain progressive and modern. This Bill achieves this aim through three specific objectives.
First, to promulgate a new single Act, which consolidates the corporate and personal insolvency and debt restructuring laws into one place. They are currently found in two separate statutes. This has numerous benefits, including setting out common principles and aligning procedures across the regimes under a single law, rationalising existing inconsistencies and minimising current uncertainty due to cross-referencing across the various pieces of legislation, and enhancing the clarity and accessibility of the laws for advisers and the parties involved. This will be welcomed as it removes the need to refer to multiple primary and subsidiary legislation.
Second, the Bill establishes a regulatory regime for insolvency practitioners. This will professionalise and raise the quality and standards of insolvency practitioners.
Third, the Bill also enhances our insolvency and debt restructuring regimes. In particular, the reforms continue the enhancement of Singapore's corporate rescue and debt restructuring framework that commenced under the Companies Act amendments last year. The latter introduced US Chapter 11 concepts into our English law-based schemes of arrangement regime, such as worldwide moratoriums, super-priority rescue financing, prepackaged restructurings and cram-downs. This Bill will further enhance the restructuring regime, with new provisions, such as a restriction on ipso facto clauses, which I will touch on in a minute.
Taken as a whole, these reforms benefit local businesses experiencing financial difficulties by providing them with more robust tools to rehabilitate, to get back onto their feet; position Singapore as a forum of choice for foreign debtors to restructure, creating new and greater opportunities for our professional services, such as the legal, accounting and financial services; create value for our economy, by supporting Singapore’s position as an international legal, financial and business centre through a strong restructuring regime.
With that, Mr Speaker, let me now take Members through the key provisions of the Bill.
The Bill introduces a new legislation that consolidates the personal and corporate insolvency and debt restructuring laws that are currently in the Bankruptcy Act and in the Companies Act into a single Act.
If the Bill is passed and comes into force, the Bankruptcy Act will be repealed in its entirety; the provisions in the Companies Act relating to corporate insolvency and restructuring will be repealed; and necessary consequential and related amendments will be made to about 70 other Acts of Parliament.
The repeals, however, will not affect existing cases and pending applications that are now before the Courts under the current Bankruptcy Act and Companies Act, as long as they are before the date of commencement of the Bill. The relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Act and Companies Act will continue to apply to those cases and applications.
I will go over some of the key provisions relating to personal bankruptcy. Clauses 273 to 437 relate to personal bankruptcy. These provisions have been ported over from the existing provisions in the Bankruptcy Act and remain largely unchanged. Given the significant amendments that were made in 2015, the present amendments are less substantial.
Of these, one of the changes is to make the administration of bankruptcy cases more efficient.
Currently, secured creditors do not need to indicate an intention to claim interest on debts owed by the bankrupt. Under clause 327(4) of the Bill, secured creditors are required to notify the trustee administering the bankruptcy, within 30 days after the bankruptcy order, if they intend to claim interest on the debt for the period after the making of the order.
Given that secured creditors are in most cases paid out fully from their security, this change allows the trustee to have a more complete picture of the full extent of the bankrupt’s assets and liabilities early on. This facilitates greater certainty and transparency in projected returns to the relevant stakeholders and also facilitates a more efficient administration of the bankruptcy.
Next, I turn to liquidation which appears in clauses 119 to 250. These provisions have also been ported over from the Companies Act with various amendments. The key changes include the reforms made to the appointment of the Official Receiver as liquidator, the introduction of a new early dissolution procedure, and also a new wrongful trading provision. Let me deal with these.
Clause 135 sets out the circumstances where the Official Receiver may be nominated as liquidator in a Court application to wind up a company. Currently, the Official Receiver is the default liquidator where there is no liquidator appointed by the Court, or there is a vacancy in the position of liquidator in a Court-ordered winding up.
This is undesirable because there is no obligation imposed on the applicant to attempt to appoint a private liquidator, even where the company may have sufficient assets to pay for such liquidators. This amendment thus refocuses the Official Receiver’s role on overseeing the conduct of liquidation and cases.
Under clause 135(3) of the Bill, the Official Receiver may only be nominated to act as liquidator if the applicant for a winding up has taken reasonable steps but is unable to obtain the consent of a licensed insolvency practitioner to be appointed as liquidator, and the Official Receiver then consents to such nomination.
Second, clauses 209 to 211 introduce a new procedure for the early dissolution of a company in liquidation. In the present regime, there is no summary procedure that caters to cases where companies may have insufficient assets to pay for the administration of their own winding up.
The impetus for this new procedure is to streamline the use of public resources and funds in administering cases where there are insufficient assets to fund even the administration of the liquidation. There is a sizeable number of such cases and, to give Members a sense of the scale, as of 31 August 2018, there were more than 100 companies undergoing winding up by the Official Receiver, with estimated realisable assets of less than S$1,000 in each case.
Without the new provision, a significant number of man-hours and public resources will need to be expended to liquidate such companies, with little or even no return to creditors.
The early dissolution procedure may be utilised by the Official Receiver and by private liquidators who have obtained the prior consent of the Official Receiver. It may be used where the liquidator has reasonable cause to believe that (a) the realisable assets of the company are insufficient to pay even for the expenses of the winding up; and (b) where the affairs of the company do not otherwise require further investigation.
In such cases, the liquidator may give notice to the creditors and contributories that the name of the company will be struck off the register and the company will be dissolved at the expiration of 30 days from the date of the notice. Relevant stakeholders who oppose the early dissolution may appoint a replacement liquidator or apply to the Court for relief. So, there is the option if one does not agree with the proposal.
Third, clause 239 introduces a new \"wrongful trading\" provision that replaces the old insolvent trading regime in sections 339 and 340, in particular, sections 339(3) and 340(2) of the Companies Act. The current regime is unsatisfactory as criminal liability must first be found as a prerequisite before the making of an application to impose civil liability against the officer of the company, and has not, as far as we are aware, been used in any reported case in Singapore.
Under clause 239, therefore, a company trades wrongfully if the company incurs debts or liabilities without reasonable prospect of meeting them in full when the company is insolvent, or becomes insolvent as a result of the incurrence of such debt or liability. The new clause 239 empowers the Court to declare that any person who was a knowing party to the company trading wrongfully shall be personally liable and responsible for those debts or liabilities of the company.
Clause 239(10) further provides that a company or any person party to, or interested in becoming a party to, the carrying on of business with a company, may apply to the Court for a declaration that a particular course of conduct, transaction or series of transactions would not constitute wrongful trading.
I now turn to deal with the licensing and regulatory regime. Clauses 47 to 60 establishes a new licensing and regulatory regime applicable to all persons acting as “insolvency practitioners”, as defined in clause 47.
Currently, such practitioners are regulated, if at all, under the professional regimes to which they belong. For example, public accountants are regulated by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA). However, there is no specific regime applicable only to and for insolvency practitioners. This has led, in some cases, to undesirable situations where either a liquidator or a judicial manager whose conduct has fallen short of standards could not otherwise be punished besides or beyond looking at that individual’s professional licensing regime. So, it is a narrower framework.
To raise standards and improve accountability, the Insolvency and Public Trustee’s Office under MinLaw will regulate more than 300 insolvency practitioners, who will fall under this new regime. Its key features include: first, the licensing of insolvency practitioners, who must meet minimum qualifications and prescribed requirements to obtain and renew their licences under clauses 50 to 51. In particular, clause 50 provides that a “qualified person” means any person who is an advocate or solicitor, a public accountant, a chartered accountant or possesses such other qualifications as the Minister may prescribe; and second, the investigation and discipline against insolvency practitioners for breaches of their conduct as insolvency practitioners under clauses 56 to 60.
I turn next to touch on the enhancements made to our debt restructuring regime. A successful debt restructuring avoids liquidation and allows the company to get back onto its feet, to continue its business as a going concern. Compared to liquidation, this provides a better return to creditors, and also benefits stakeholders, such as employees who get to keep their jobs, and trading counterparties who rely on the company's businesses.
When the Companies Act was amended last year to strengthen Singapore’s debt restructuring regime, it was noted during the Second Reading that, “[t]he need for debt restructuring is on the rise globally”, referring to high profile cases, such as Hanjin Shipping, and Singapore-listed businesses like Swiber and Ezra.
Since the passage of those amendments, several more high-profile cases, illustrating the need for an effective debt restructuring and rehabilitation scheme, have been in the news, including well-known names like Toys \"R\" Us in the US, Noble, our own Hyflux and Nam Cheong.
This Bill further strengthens our debt restructuring regimes for the rehabilitation of companies in financial distress, while including appropriate safeguards to balance the interests of stakeholders.
With this in mind, I will touch on the amendments to schemes of arrangement first, followed by judicial management and, finally, the new restrictions on ipso facto provisions.
In respect of schemes of arrangement, the Bill makes two amendments.
First, clause 64 re-enacts section 211B of the Companies Act, with a new subsection (12)(b). Clause 64(1) gives the Court the power to make one or more orders restraining certain actions and proceedings against the company on an application by a company that has proposed a compromise or arrangement with its creditors or intends to do so. Clause 64(8) provides for an automatic moratorium of not more than 30 days to apply upon the making of an application under clause 64(1).
The new clause 64(12)(b) provides that neither an order made by the Court under clause 64(1) nor the automatic moratorium under clause 64(8) affects \"the commencement or continuation of any proceedings that may be prescribed by regulations.\" This amendment empowers the Minister to prescribe by regulations that the commencement of specified proceedings, or the continuation of specified proceedings, or both, is not affected by the moratoria. The intention is to apply this power in a targeted manner where necessary, in particular, with respect to writs for an action in rem against a vessel. The current practice, as I understand it, is that for urgent cases in rem, writs and applications for leave are to be filed simultaneously, and the Supreme Court registry accepts such filings with the Court thereafter deciding if the claim may proceed. The power under clause 64(12)(b) will be used to provide that the first step of the filing of an in rem writ is not itself impeded by the moratoria, and this is in order to preserve the claims against the vessels because time stops running when you have filed the claim. However, leave of Court under clause 64(1)(c) or (8)(c) will still be required to continue with such proceedings. A similar provision is also inserted at clauses 65(7)(b), 95(3)(b) and 96(5)(b).
Second, clause 70 empowers the Court to approve a scheme of arrangement despite there being dissenting classes of creditors, provided that the scheme is fair and equitable to the dissenting class. This re-enacts section 211H of the Companies Act, but with one key difference at clause 70(4)(b)(ii)(B), that persons subordinate in priority to the dissenting class must not receive or retain any property “of the company”.
So, the insertion of the words \"of the company” clarifies and confirms the position outlined in Parliament last year when this provision was introduced in the 2017 amendments, that the cram-down provisions introduced were “not concerned with adjustments to shareholder interests\".
Turning to judicial management, clause 94 is a new tool which seeks to allow a company to place itself into judicial management provided that creditors agree to it and support it in doing so. Currently, a company may only enter judicial management by a Court order. Clause 94 provides an alternative mode of entry into judicial management in cases where creditors are supportive. The aim of this new provision is to minimise the expense, formality and delay in such cases, and the expedited procedure will allow the company to focus its resources on rehabilitation. It must be emphasised that once the company is placed into judicial management, the judicial management process will then continue in the same manner and under the supervision of the Court, regardless of how the judicial management was started. That is obvious because it is a judicial management with the Court having oversight.
Clause 99 and the First Schedule provide for the powers of the judicial manager, including a new power at paragraph (f) of the First Schedule, to assign, in accordance with the prescribed regulations, the proceeds of an action set out in that paragraph.
Judicial managers are provided certain powers under those provisions set out in paragraph (f) to bring an action in Court to unwind prejudicial transactions and avoid acts detrimental to creditors, for example, where errant directors have entered into a transaction to transfer assets of the company to a third party for no value or no valuable consideration. Currently, a majority of such actions may not be pursued due largely to there being a lack of financial resources.
These new provisions allow the judicial manager to assign proceeds from such an action to a third party, in exchange for funding of the action. This new avenue of funding may increase the likelihood of such an action being pursued. This will, in turn, benefit stakeholders by providing higher recoveries, if such actions are successful. This new power is similarly provided to liquidators in clauses 144(1)(g) and 177(1)(a).
To avoid doubt, these new provisions are only intended to provide for the assignment of proceeds from such an action brought by the judicial manager or liquidator. This is not intended to affect other funding arrangements that are allowed under common law, such as funding for causes of action that belong to the company as its property, and funding for the investigation of potential causes of action for financially distressed companies.
Clause 102 re-enacts section 227I of the Companies Act, which provides that the judicial manager of a company is deemed to be the agent of the company, but in clause 102, it omits the imposition of personal liability on the judicial manager. Let me explain.
The present regime imposes personal liability on judicial managers for contracts entered into or adopted by the judicial managers, although the judicial manager is allowed to disclaim personal liability, and usually does so. The availability of such a disclaimer of personal liability ensures that the judicial manager is not otherwise discouraged from entering into or adopting contracts that would be beneficial to the company. However, the net effect of this practice is that it renders the imposition of personal liability quite academic in the first place. Therefore, at clause 102 of this Bill, the provision imposing personal liability on judicial managers has not been re-enacted.
I turn now to clause 440 which introduces a new restriction on the operation of certain types of ipso facto clauses. \"Ipso facto\" or, in English, \"without more\" clauses in contracts allow one party to terminate or modify a contract upon a specified event occurring to the other party. In the restructuring and insolvency context, such clauses typically allow one party to terminate the contract upon the occurrence of a specified insolvency-related event affecting the other party, such as an application for a judicial management order or an application for a scheme under the Companies Act.
Currently, there is no restriction on the operation of ipso facto clauses. If a company's business relies on key contracts and such contracts contain ipso facto clauses, that company will have difficulty commencing or entering into a debt-restructuring process because of the risk that counterparties would, simply by that reason alone, be able to terminate those key contracts.
This new provision, therefore, facilitates the attempts of such a company to restructure by protecting its valuable commercial contracts from being terminated by reason only that the company has embarked on restructuring efforts, under certain specified circumstances. The concept of restricting the application of ipso facto clauses is also found in the laws of jurisdictions, such as the US, Canada and Australia. The language in clause 440, in particular, takes reference from section 34 of the Canadian Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.
Clause 440(1) provides that no party may by reason only that any restructuring proceedings as defined in clause 440(6) are commenced or that the company is insolvent and thereafter (a) terminate or amend, or claim an accelerated payment or forfeiture of the term under, any agreement with the company; or (b) terminate or modify any right or obligation under any agreement with the company.
This restriction, if applicable, operates from the commencement of those restructuring proceedings, that means, from the commencement of the judicial management proceedings or the restructuring by schemes until their conclusion.
At this juncture, it is necessary to make it clear that clause 440 only limits a certain specific subset of ipso facto clauses, those I have just outlined above, in other words, by reason only of the restructuring efforts of the company. It does not affect ipso facto clauses that are triggered on any other contractually provided grounds.
So, let me illustrate. In a case of a developer and a main contractor entering into a contract for the construction of a building, where the contract contains ipso facto clauses that may be triggered either on the commencement of restructuring proceedings, or the failure to meet construction milestones, which is not untypical in such a contract.
If the main contractor is in financial distress and files an application to Court to place the company into judicial management, the developer will be restricted by clause 440 from relying on the ipso facto clause, because it is triggered by the filing of the application for a judicial management order, which is one of the specified restructuring proceedings in clause 440(6).
If, however, in addition to the filing of the restructuring proceedings, the main contractor also fails to meet construction milestones and timelines which are built into the contract, the developer may use the ipso facto clause to terminate the contract or for a variety of other reliefs as specified in the contract. So, it is only by reason of the restructuring efforts set out in clause 440 alone that these ipso facto clauses are restricted.
To balance the interests of the counterparty and other stakeholders, safeguards have also been included in clauses 440(4) and (5).
First, certain types of contracts are exempted from this provision. These exemptions recognise that restricting the application of ipso facto clauses in certain categories of transactions or contracts would have a disproportionately adverse impact on markets, while balancing the efficacy of the restriction. These include prescribed eligible financial contracts and prescribed contracts that affect the national interest or economic interest of Singapore.
Second, a counterparty may apply to Court, nonetheless, for relief on the basis of significant financial hardship. This provides an additional safeguard for relief in certain specific individual cases.
Sir, in conclusion, this Bill ensures that our debt restructuring and insolvency laws remain modern and progressive. In particular, it strengthens our corporate debt restructuring regimes to better support companies, creditors and other stakeholders who seek to rehabilitate local and foreign companies here, balancing the commercial interests of all concerned.
This Bill would not have been possible without the extensive consultation over the years with the industry bodies, with leading industry practitioners, academics and other stakeholders in the insolvency regime, such as the Courts. We received many helpful suggestions. These have been carefully considered in detail and incorporated into the Bill, where appropriate, and this makes the Bill far more robust.
This Bill is part of a wider concerted effort to enhance Singapore's debt restructuring ecosystem. For example, just last week, the Supreme Court of Singapore concluded two Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. This follows from the MOU with the Seoul Bankruptcy Court in May earlier this year. These MOUs with key commercial and insolvency jurisdictions bode well for the future and will facilitate efficient cross-border restructuring and insolvency proceedings between the Courts.
With this Bill, and our collective efforts, we will create a world-class restructuring and insolvency ecosystem in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. This Bill seeks to facilitate the restructuring of distressed companies and benefit local businesses experiencing financial difficulties. Indeed, companies are under pressure from rising costs, a shrinking workforce and rapid disruption in an increasingly protectionist global environment. Many of our businesses are also restructuring their operations in a bid to stay ahead of the game. As restructuring intensifies, it is inevitable that some businesses in Singapore may end up distressed or in financial difficulties. While this Bill seeks to strengthen the regimes in place to facilitate the rehabilitation of distressed companies, we must not forget to ensure that the interests of workers are taken care of as well.
Without a doubt, workers are the lifeblood of the company. In times of difficulty, the company stands little chance of rehabilitation without its workers. Yet, workers often have little bargaining power vis-a-vis the company and stand to lose the most when the company is unable to pay their wages. Wages, generally, form a sizeable portion of workers' wealth and means to sustain their dependants. When the employer defaults, workers are left with limited options to fall back on.
Unlike other creditors that the business deals with, the majority of workers would not have factored in the risk of entering into an employment relationship by looking at the financial health of the employer before they accept employment or minimise their exposure by taking a security. Workers would also not have negotiated into the price of their labour any compensation for the risk of non-payment. Thus, the worker is placed in a position of self-insurance, but without adequate power or compensation to absorb the loss of unpaid wages when the employer becomes unable to pay them.
I have come across various cases where workers continue to work without pay while the company is in judicial management, in the desperate hope that the company will turn around and they can keep their employment with the company.
For example, in February 2015, Vela Diagnostics came under judicial management in Singapore. Staff were informed that they could not be paid until new funding from investors was secured. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) had stated that they were unable to assist employees for a firm under judicial management as the Assistant Commissioner for Labour at MOM was not able to inquire into salary claims of employees covered under the Employment Act while the statutory moratorium was in force, except with the consent of the judicial manager or with leave from the High Court.
One former employee, owed about $13,000, quit in April 2015 to start a new job because he could not afford to keep waiting for his salary to come in. Others struggled with their financial commitments while staying with the company in the hope that investors could be secured. Vela Diagnostics was eventually brought out of judicial management in September 2015, and thereafter, settled all salary claims. By this time, the workers who had stayed on with the company would have worked for almost six months without pay.
Unfortunately, not all workers in such situations get paid their outstanding salaries or at all. From 1996 to 2000, and 2001 to 2010, there were only 52 successful judicial management cases, where all the debts were paid, out of 194 cases in total. That is something like 26.8%, and this was reviewed by the Insolvency Law Review Committee in 2013.
In unsuccessful cases, workers would be left with little or no recourse for outstanding wages, except to await distribution of assets upon the winding up of the company in accordance with the priorities of debts in insolvency. Depending on the assets available for distribution, they may receive a few cents for each dollar owed, or nothing at all.
With the introduction of rescue financing in 2017, the company may apply to Court for an order that debt arising from any rescue financing obtained or to be obtained by the company to have priority over some or all of the preferential debts or to be secured by a security interest, pushing unpaid wages further down the priority of debts.
In the case of Re Attilan Group Limited [2017] SGHC 283, the High Court rejected the company’s application for super priority for rescue financing, finding that the company had failed to show that it had expended reasonable efforts to secure other types of financing. The judge also added that the grant of super priority should not be ordinarily resorted to and the Courts would be slow to do so, unless it is strictly necessary, given that it reorders the priorities on winding up and allows the rescue financier to get ahead of the queue for assets. It remains to be seen how the case law on super priority rescue financing will be further developed. While rescue financing can certainly give the distressed company a timely boost toward rehabilitation, I urge companies and rescue creditors to give considerable thought to the interests of worker-creditors when mounting this application.
In conducting their review of the insolvency regime in Singapore, the Insolvency Law Review Committee received feedback that in many cases where the Official Receiver was appointed as liquidator, typically of a company with no or little assets, the Official Receiver received almost no remuneration for the fees incurred in conducting the liquidation and the costs of such liquidations were borne by public funds.
The Committee also found that a sizeable number of companies wound up by the Court had insufficient or no assets to fund the administration of the liquidation. As at 31 December 2012, the number of cases with estimated realisable assets of less than $1,000 administered by the Official Receiver stood at 320, constituting 42% of the 768 live cases administered that year.
Under section 328(1)(a) of the Companies Act, the fees of the liquidator enjoy priority over all other preferential creditors but share that priority with two other categories of debts within the same \"class\" ranking pari passu, that is, the taxed costs of the applicant for the winding up order and the costs of an audit carried out pursuant to section 317 of the Companies Act. This is followed by wages and salaries owed to workers.
The Committee recommended that section 328(1)(a) of the Companies Act be amended to confer priority on the Official Receiver's fees vis-a-vis the other debts identified in that section. This recommendation has been accepted and reflected in clause 203(1) of the Bill and unpaid wages of workers are now ranked fourth amongst the preferential debts. Given that the Committee had found that there were already insufficient funds to pay the Official Receiver, at the top of the list of preferential debts under section 328(1) of the Companies Act, the implication will be that workers who have not been paid their wages, have even smaller chances at recovering any monies owed to them.
I would like to ask the Minister if there are any statistics available on the incidence of claims for unpaid wages in insolvent companies and the amount of wages claimed by workers.
In cases where workers had received some payment toward their unpaid wages, how long did it generally take for these workers to be paid?
How many workers were paid up to the monetary limit imposed under section 328(2) of the Companies Act for wage and retrenchment benefit claims pursuant to sections 328(1)(b) and (c)? Under the Bill, the same monetary limit now applies to claims for wages, retrenchment benefits and remuneration in respect of vacation leave or employee's death pursuant to clauses 203(1)(d), (e) and (h).
We must ensure that there are avenues available for workers to seek help when they are claiming for unpaid wages when the company is under judicial management or insolvent. I have four possible interventions and suggestions.
First, currently, workers with claims for unpaid wages can make a claim at the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) by first submitting a mediation request at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM). For workers claiming for unpaid wages against companies under judicial management or insolvent companies, TADM should share with these workers information about the implication of judicial management and insolvency on their claim for unpaid wages against the company and connect them to employment facilitation support and resources.
Second, the short-term relief fund targeted at the bottom 20th percentile of the workforce funded by MOM and operated by TADM for workers who have successfully made ECT claims against their company but fail to recover payment, can also be expanded to assist all worker groups, including professionals, managers, executives (PMEs) who have not been paid wages by insolvent companies and the amount of help increased to commensurate with the salaries of those affected.
Third, MOM can also advance money to pay part of the workers' unpaid wages and stand in place of the workers as a preferred creditor of the same level of priority the workers would have had for a claim of unpaid wages to recover the advanced monies upon distribution of the insolvent company's assets. This will reduce the waiting time for workers to be paid and eliminate the hassle and stress of having to take additional administrative steps within the insolvency framework to recover their unpaid wages.
Finally, there should also be exceptions to the statutory moratorium. MOM could be allowed to investigate and take action against unlawful labour practices under the Employment Act without having to seek the consent of the judicial manager or obtain leave of Court. Unions should also be allowed to refer cases to the Industrial Arbitration Court for arbitration and not having to resort to industrial action.
To conclude, much as we now have consolidated and promulgated a mammoth and laudable piece of insolvency legislation which I support, I submit that a worker's basic rights to his day's wage should not be diluted nor denigrated. Workers should not be bearing the manpower cost of rehabilitation efforts of the company. A better insolvency regime is one that facilitates the rehabilitation of distressed companies while providing sufficient safeguards for workers. In short, I hope this Bill will not just be an omnibus Bill, but also omnipotent to ensure both businesses and workers survive.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to declare my interest as a practising lawyer whose work includes insolvency-related matters.
I support the consolidation into one single piece of legislation existing separate statutes pertaining to personal and corporate insolvency laws and the laws to debt restructuring. I hope this will allow a more unified approach to be taken by the Courts, the Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office and the insolvency practitioners.
While much of the provisions in this colossal omnibus Bill are taken from existing provisions in the Companies Act and the Bankruptcy Act, the Bill also introduces some new regulations.
In particular, the Bill will introduce a new regulatory regime for insolvency practitioners acting as officeholders in insolvency and restructuring proceedings. This follows the practice in some other countries, for example, the United Kingdom and Australia.
I have a few questions regarding this new regulatory regime. One, besides having the right qualifications, such as being a solicitor, public or chartered accountant, which are provided in clause 50, and besides the conditions stated in clause 56(b) to (l), what are the other conditions which the Government intends to impose on all insolvency practitioners?
I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State, whether in the past, say, 10 years or so, there has been instances of misconduct by any insolvency practitioner or where any such practitioner has committed any acts which would have run afoul of the provisions under the new regulatory regime if this had been introduced earlier. Perhaps the Senior Minister of State can elaborate on what are some of these acts or misconduct complained of.
Next, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, with the new regulatory regime, what are the expected costs of compliance by practitioners, and will that lead to increased business costs for companies involved in insolvency proceedings one way or another?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that the Bill today represents the final part of a three-phase process to implement the recommendations from the Insolvency Law Review Committee as well as the Committee to Strengthen Singapore as an international Centre for Debt Restructuring. In 2015, as part of the first phase of this process, the Bankruptcy Act was amended to create a more rehabilitative discharge framework for bankrupts. Provisions of the existing Bankruptcy Act have now been incorporated into this Bill. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether he can provide any statistics for the past few years to show that the intentions and objectives behind the more rehabilitative discharge framework have been achieved or at least that we are well on the way to achieving such objectives?
According to data I have found on the MinLaw website for the number of bankruptcy applications for the past two years after the new bankruptcy threshold was increased from $10,000 to $15,000, the number dipped in the first year and then rose again. Has the Government conducted any studies to find out the reasons behind the increase? What is the expected trend that the Government expects in the next two to three years?
Finally, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State for an update of Singapore's development as an international debt restructuring centre so far. How much success have we had in terms of attracting regional or international restructuring work?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, this Bill will further strengthen Singapore's position as an international debt restructuring centre. With this Bill, there is now no need to extensively cross-reference the Companies Act and Bankruptcy Act to see how the latter is adapted to suit corporate insolvency. By being located in a single statute, the law becomes clearer and much more accessible. This allows some who are less familiar with our laws to consider utilising our debt restructuring regime. It is advantageous.
Notwithstanding the focus is on companies – hence, the title Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution – the Bill also contains personal bankruptcy law. This decision to keep the two bankruptcy laws within the same statute recognises that there are common principles in both situations. Both involve a balancing of the myriad of interests in a situation where a debtor cannot repay his or her or its creditors. Such concerns may include giving the bankrupt another chance, a trade creditor's own need for cash flow, and employees getting paid and keeping their jobs, as eloquently put forward by Mr Patrick Tay moments ago. Nevertheless, the very nature of a company gives rise to separate concerns. As a separate legal personality, its owners experience limited liability and it may be dissolved. Therefore, there are different regimes for each kind of bankruptcy.
A main feature of this Bill is the licensing regime for insolvency practitioners in Division 3 of Part 3. It seeks to govern liquidators, judicial managers, receivers or managers and those appointed to those positions in the interim. The requirements are more stringent than previously. Previously, it was a blanket ban against anyone who had \"been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty punishable on conviction by imprisonment for three months or more.\" The Bill expands the inquiry to having a judgment in civil proceedings involving a finding of fraud, dishonesty or breach of fiduciary duty; or conviction of an offence in Singapore or elsewhere of any offence involving fraud, dishonesty or moral turpitude.
Sir, allow me now to declare my interest that I am a practising lawyer whose practice includes insolvency.
With regard to this regime, what is the purpose of specifying 30 June as the date on which a valid licence that is not renewed would expire? For that, see clause 53(2), especially since it seems as though the renewal for licences would all come at the same time. Also, since it seems as though a written direction can convert a condition into a criminal offence if the condition was not complied with, what sort of conditions are envisioned that a licensing officer may specify under clause 52(2), especially those applicable to a specified licensee only? I would be very open to hearing the Senior Minister of State's clarifications on these points.
There are also some amendments that alter contractual rights. The first is that affecting secured creditors of personal bankrupts. Under clause 327(4)(A), a secured creditor is required to notify an intention to claim interest in respect of his or her debt after a bankruptcy order is made. Secured creditors enjoy proprietary interest such that the security is, in the context of a company, not considered part of the company's assets. What safeguards are there to ensure that the secured creditor's interests in having a security are not unfairly prejudiced, even as this amendment seeks to ascertain assets and liability early for a more efficient administration of the bankruptcy?
The second is clause 440, which restricts ipso facto clauses in relation to judicial management and schemes of arrangement. I heard the Senior Minister of State expound quite fluidly on ipso facto clauses when he first read the Second Reading speech. Allow me to share my views on it.
Ipso facto clauses allow termination or modification of the contract upon the occurrence of a specified trigger event. In principle, this provision is important because it ensures that the objectives of an attempted rehabilitation of the company are achieved. However, this is not without consequences. It may alter risk-allocation and also may increase uncertainty. The Revised Report of the Insolvency Law Reform Committee stated, \"ability of the insolvent company to cherry-pick contracts would disrupt the rules on set-off and netting by making it difficult to isolate which contracts should be eligible for set-off or netting.\" Nevertheless, this is not something novel for Singapore. Other jurisdictions have looked into having a similar provision before, for example, my research shows the US, Canada, France and Australia. Having said so, I seek a clarification from the good Senior Minister of State, how is clause 440 calibrated to balance between these different considerations and reduce possible negative market impact?
Moving on, Sir, regarding the proof of debts, was it intended for the law on provability of debts to change its reference point from the making of the winding up order to the making of the application for winding up? Allow me to explain. Clause 218(2) provides that \"the following are provable where a company is in judicial management or an insolvent company is being wound up: (a) any debt or liability in which the company (i) is subject at the commencement of the judicial management or winding up, as the case may be.\"
The next paragraph also references the commencement of judicial management or winding up. Clause 126(2) defines commencement of winding up as “the time of the making of the application for the winding up.” In contrast, the current section 87(1) of the Bankruptcy Act on which clause 218(1) is based reads “the following are provable in bankruptcy: (a) any debt or liability to which a bankrupt (i) is subject at the date of the bankruptcy order; or (ii) may become subject before the bankrupt’s discharge by reason of any obligation incurred before the date of the bankruptcy order.”
Therefore, as seen by the current section 59 of the Bankruptcy Act, the bankruptcy order and bankruptcy application are different.
Whether or not the reference point for provable debts is from a winding up order or from commencement of winding up, that is, the winding up application, has practical implications. Halsbury’s Laws of Singapore point out “if the legal position is such that a person cannot prove for a debt incurred after he has knowledge of a winding up application, a company’s business would effectively be paralysed by the filing of a winding up application… since a prudent businessman is unlikely to deal with a company which is the subject of a winding up application.” As not all applications for winding up end in an order for winding up and since not all judicial management cases will end in winding up, was it intended for the law on provability of debts to change its reference point from the making of the winding up order on the one hand to the making of such applications on the other? I seek the Senior Minister of State's clarification on this one.
Besides some major amendments, Sir, this Bill also continues to refine the relevant regimes. For instance, clause 102 omits personal liability for judicial managers. Clause 250(1) and clause 186 address issues that have arisen before our Courts. Even as this Bill is a capstone to the preceding amendments which strategically positioned Singapore to be an international debt restructuring centre, it is important, just as these amendments have done, to continue to refine the processes for clarity, better calibration and balancing of interests. Essentially, it is a work-in-progress.
In conclusion, Sir, just as the shift in name signifies a symbolic change in our bankruptcy law, from Bankruptcy to Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Bill, this Bill also fortifies Singapore’s resolve and positioning as an international debt restructuring centre. Therefore, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer practising insolvency law from time to time.
Sir, I fully support the aims of the Bill. It finally introduces the omnibus legislation covering personal and corporate insolvency laws, widely awaited by practitioners in the insolvency sphere. As the learned Senior Minister of State mentioned, it follows two reports, the 2013 Report of the Insolvency Law Review Committee as well as the 2016 Report issued by the Committee to Strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Restructuring co-headed by the learned Minister Ms Indranee Rajah and the Hon Justice Kannan Ramesh.
There was also an earlier report, the 2002 report by the Company Legislation and Regulatory Framework Committee, which made a clarion call at the outset for the introduction of a consolidated new insolvency Act. I applaud MinLaw for leading the consultative process over such a long period of time, getting feedback from the players in this industry and implementing the recommendations that have been made. It is a long process. But it is worth the wait because we can see the complexities involved: 70 amendments through various statutes, about 150 recommendations have been provided to the Ministries for consideration.
I would, however, make a point that in providing for these provisions to basically enhance Singapore's status as a premier debt restructuring centre, we must also need to balance against the creditors' interest. Tilting against the creditors, especially banks, would result in higher business cost and it being more difficult for the banks to conduct the business, particularly given the regulatory requirements that it has under Basel III to ensure better ability on their part to liquidate collateral in a timely manner. This may, in turn, impact Singapore's attractiveness as a financial centre or, if the cost of lending goes up, then the cost will be passed on to the businesses. As we all appreciate, the vast majority of companies in Singapore are solvent, so we must ensure that we do not have a situation of the tail wagging the dog.
We note that in 2017, a number of pieces of legislation have been passed making inroads into the rights of creditors, for example, the more extensive moratoriums, the possibility of rescue financing with the consequent super priority afforded to the rescuers. Also, in relation to judicial management, it is now easier to get judicial management orders and the rights of the secured creditors have been watered down consequently. It is in this context that I wish to seek an explanation from the learned Senior Minister of State: how do we strike a balance between the need to maintain our reputation as a financial centre and our intent to build Singapore as an international centre for debt restructuring?
And it is in that context that I wish to seek a fuller explanation on the proposed section 440 of the Bill. My Parliamentary colleague, Mr Christopher de Souza, spoke eloquently about it a few minutes ago. From my sensing, there is some level of nervousness on the impact of this provision. Take, for example, a bank or securities company that provides margin financing to a company trading in listed securities. The bank or securities company is exposed to the stock exchange or clearing house when putting through trade transactions of a company that is distressed. The securities company has itself to place margins with the clearing house or stock exchange. If it cannot enforce through exercise of the ipso facto clause to terminate facilities, there is a potential exposure to them. This may affect the bank’s practice which may become more conservative in providing margin facilities and this, in turn, may have some far reaching or unintended consequences.
In an economic situation where providing liquidity becomes important to keep companies afloat, this becomes an even greater issue. There are carve-outs in other jurisdictions. For example, in the European Union, there are the financial collateral directives.
The hon Senior Minister of State mentioned that there could be carve-outs in relation to eligible financial contracts. I seek clarification as to what are the exceptions that may apply in relation to section 440 and, in that regard, I note section 440(5) contemplates a carve-out for eligible financial contracts.
I would also like to ask whether the industry has been consulted on this provision and, in particular, because both in the 2013 and 2016 reports referred to earlier, this provision was not specifically recommended.
Another potential effect would be in relation to the private wealth management business. Would private banks rather use offshore Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), as opposed to Singapore SPVs, because of the potential for Singapore insolvency laws applying to these offshore SPVs or, alternatively, minimise the transactions such that there would not be a substantial Singapore connection between the foreign SPVs and Singapore? This substantial connection test is the basis upon which Singapore Courts can exercise jurisdiction over a foreign SPV. Notwithstanding what I have said, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Let me invite the hon Senior Minister of State to respond to all the comments.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir. Sir, I thank the Members for speaking up with their comments and also the various suggestions that have been made. These are very thoughtful, considerate comments and I will do my best to respond to them.
I will do so, grouping them into five different topics. The first relates to the consolidation of personal and corporate restructuring and insolvency laws into one single legislation. It is omnibus, not omnipotent. Second, the new licensing and regulatory regime which regulates all insolvency practitioners. Third, the proof of debts during winding up. Fourth, the availability of third-party funding in judicial management and liquidation. And finally, the need to safeguard the interests of creditors and employees, a point that Mr Patrick Tay spoke very passionately about.
Both Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Christopher de Souza commented on the benefits brought about by the Bill, which consolidates the personal and corporate insolvency provisions into one. Indeed, having them in a single piece of legislation will bring greater clarity and access, as well as expediency, cost-effectiveness and certainty through the reduction of numerous cross-referencing that we now see between the Companies Act and the Bankruptcy Act.
I take this opportunity to highlight that the Bill also sets out common principles that run across the different regimes, where possible. So, for example, Part 9 introduces new provisions that are generally applicable to both judicial management and winding up. Currently, this is given effect to in judicial management and winding up by way of cross-referencing provisions in the Bankruptcy Act. In the Bill, these regimes now have provisions specific to themselves, with the necessary refinements to ensure that they are worded in the terminology consistent with the judicial management and winding up regimes. These include the provisions relating to proofs of debt in clauses 218 to 223, and the adjustment of prior transactions in clauses 224 to 229.
Second, the Bill also introduces new provisions for disclaimer of onerous property, for judicial management and winding up in clauses 230 to 233, and personal bankruptcy in clauses 373 to 376. In particular, clauses 230(4)(a) and 373(4)(a) are new provisions that require the judicial manager, liquidator or Official Assignee, as the case may be, where the property is subject to any written law under the Second Schedule, to give notice of the intention to disclaim the property to the relevant regulatory authority. This written notice must be given before the officeholder may give the notice of disclaimer under clauses 230(1) or 373(1). This ensures that the relevant regulatory authority has the opportunity to address any issues relating to the property under the relevant environmental legislation.
On the new licensing and regulatory regime, a point that both Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Christopher de Souza spoke about, Mr Christopher de Souza, in particular, noted that the new requirements to act as a practitioner are more stringent than the previous ones. To develop and strengthen Singapore as a restructuring forum of choice, a robust licensing and regulatory regime forms an integral and necessary part of the ecosystem. It is necessary to ensure that professional standards are maintained and upheld by all insolvency practitioners. This is also necessary to ensure that only \"fit and proper\" persons who are qualified are granted such licences to allow the licensee to undertake the spectrum of restructuring and insolvency work, as described in clause 47(1).
Mr Dennis Tan also asked about what the conditions that might be specified are. If Mr Dennis Tan looks at clause 50(2), it provides for certain categories of persons who are qualified to act and to administer such insolvencies. Whilst the provisions are being developed, Mr Dennis Tan can take it from me that it will be along the same vein to ensure that the relevant expertise and proper experience befit the person to manage such restructurings and insolvencies.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the purpose in clause 53(2) specifying 30 June as the date on which a valid licence that is not renewed would expire, given that the renewal for licences would all come at the same time. This is the point that Mr Christopher de Souza made. Under clause 50, a “qualified person” who is eligible to hold an insolvency practitioner’s licence means any person who is an advocate or solicitor, public accountant, chartered accountant or possesses such other qualifications as the Minister may prescribe. That is really not different from the scenario that we have today in terms of the qualifications.
Currently, the registration of a public accountant or chartered accountant is valid from 1 January to 31 December of each year, whilst the practising certificates for advocates and solicitors run on a different time scale. They are 1 April to 31 March each year. So, the specified date of 30 June provides sufficient time for applicants for an insolvency practitioner’s licence to produce the required evidence of such registration or practising certificate.
Mr Christopher de Souza also asked, and I think he said: \"[Since] a written direction can convert a condition into a criminal offence if the condition is not complied with, what kind of conditions are envisaged that a licensing officer may specify under clause 52(2)?” Let me clarify.
Clause 58(3) provides that it is the failure to comply with the requirement specified in the written direction issued under clause 58(1) that constitutes the criminal offence, and not the failure to comply with the condition of the licence per se. So, one is a criminal offence which Mr Christopher de Souza has in mind and the other is a regulatory breach. Such written direction may require the licensee to comply with, or cease the contravention of, any provision of Part 3 Division 3 or any condition of the licence, or make good any default arising from the contravention, or both. So, if there is contravention or if there is a non-compliance, the direction would specify that such compliance has to be provided. And it is a subsequent failure to comply with that written direction that constitutes the offence, and not the initial failure to comply with the condition of the licence.
Second, regarding the type of conditions that is envisaged to be specified, one example would be for the practitioner to comply with all the relevant statutory requirements under the Bill. MinLaw will take reference from other professional licensing regimes when formulating the licensing conditions, a point in response to Mr Dennis Tan's query.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked, in the context of a winding up, if it is intended for clause 218 on provability of debts to change its reference point from the making of the winding up order to the making of the application for the winding up. The answer is no. In the case of a winding up pursuant to a Court order, the reference point is the making of the winding up order itself.
Mr Christopher de Souza also referred to clause 218(2)(a)(i) and (ii), where the phrase \"commencement of the judicial management or winding up\" is used. A similar phrase \"commencement of the winding up\" is also used at clause 218(1)(a)(i) and (ii). And the meaning of those phrases must be ascertained in the context of the provision itself. In other words, the phrase used in this clause is not defined in Part 9 and, considering the context of this clause in the manner described above, the plain and ordinary meaning of these words would apply. These are for the words the \"commencement of the judicial management”, it means the time when the appointment of a judicial manager takes place. And the words the \"commencement of the winding up” means the time when the winding up order is made or the passing of the resolution for a voluntary winding up, if it is done out of Court.
Where the phrase is intended to bear a technical meaning, other than the plain and ordinary meaning, a separate definition is used to provide for that technical meaning. In the context of clauses 224 to 229, where it is intended for a technical meaning to apply, clause 217(1) sets out the definition for that technical meaning, which applies only for the purposes of clauses 224 to 229.
Further, Mr Christopher de Souza also asked if the technical meaning of \"commencement of winding up” in clause 126 applies to clause 218. Clause 126 in Part 8 Division 2 applies to applicable provisions in that Division, such as clause 130, which requires the technical meaning provided under clause 126. The technical meaning in clause 126 does not apply to clause 218, which is in Part 9.
I turn now to Mr Murali Pillai's comment about how the Bill enhances the availability of third-party funding that allows the judicial manager or liquidator to pursue claims against parties on behalf of the company. I earlier mentioned the new option which allows the judicial manager or liquidator to assign proceeds from an action set out in those provisions to a third-party, in exchange for funding of the action.
Where the company is in winding up, I would like to point out an enhancement to an existing option for funding by creditors under section 328(10) of the Companies Act, which is re-enacted with modification at clause 204, and it is as follows.
Currently, the main drawback of section 328(10), as Mr Murali Pillai might be aware, was as stated by the Insolvency Law Review Committee and I quote, \"the Court may make an order only after the relevant assets have been recovered, protected or preserved, or after the relevant expenses have been recovered. At the point of providing the funds or the indemnity, the funding creditors at that stage will have no assurance that the Court will make an order giving them an advantage over other creditors in consideration.\" That is a limitation to the current regime in section 328(10) of the Companies Act.
To address this, the new provision in clause 204(2) allows the Court to make such orders prior to the creditor providing the funding or indemnity.
In summary, these two options will increase the availability of third-party funding to facilitate the judicial manager or liquidator pursuing claims against parties on behalf of the company.
Next, various Members spoke up about safeguarding the interests of creditors and I will turn to this point now. Mr Murali Pillai, in particular, commented that there is a need to balance the interests of creditors against those of companies, and I agree entirely. I would like to assure Mr Murali Pillai that the overall regime will continue to balance the interests of all stakeholders carefully, including creditors, while strengthening Singapore as a forum of choice for debt restructuring. Specifically, in relation to Mr Murali Pillai's query on how the balance between a financial centre and being an international centre for debt restructuring should be struck, I should say that these two objectives are not mutually exclusive. In fact, in many ways, they are complementary. We want businesses to be set up here, thrive, function and operate. But when they fall into difficult times, given the impact it has on various stakeholders, in terms of the creditors, employees and other counterparties, we want to provide them with the best possible tools and the best regime possible in this forum to restructure and get back on their feet. Being an international centre for debt restructuring, in fact, augments our attractiveness as a global financial centre. It enhances our capabilities to provide a comprehensive end-to-end suite of options for businesses and transactions.
I turn now to the ipso facto clauses which several Members spoke on, on clause 440. Both Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Murali Pillai commented on the potential consequences of clause 440 in exposing creditors to greater risk and uncertainty and have asked how it is calibrated to address these consequences and balance the different considerations.
To start, let me reiterate the reasons for introducing the restriction. And Mr Murali Pillai is right. He has read both of the committees' reports. Both committees obviously had the ipso facto provision before it but, at that stage, chose not to recommend it as being as one of the options. That is why it did not make it into the 2017 amendments.
But the restriction that we have in mind in clause 440 supports a company's restructuring efforts. It prevents the other party to the contract from unilaterally exercising his or her rights against a company to terminate or modify the contract solely because of the commencement of restructuring proceedings. In other words, solely when a company applies to Court, or voluntarily takes a restructuring step, it is in that limited scenario that the ipso facto clauses are being sought to be restricted. Such actions undermine the prospects of achieving a successful restructuring. As Mr Christopher de Souza has pointed out, having this restriction will give the company necessary time and room to restructure, by protecting the company's valuable commercial contracts from termination or modification. In other words, if one is about to restructure and get the company back onto its feet, the last thing it wants is for valuable counterparty contracts to be terminated for no reason other than that it has now sought protection from the Courts. These restrictions allow a company to continue with the key commercial contracts to generate revenue, or which enable the company to continue operations itself and thus preserving and enhancing the value of the company itself.
Take the example of Hyflux, a recent case. Shortly after filing for a moratorium under the current regime to support its restructuring proceedings, certain creditors declared an event of default had occurred because of the moratorium filing. So, no other breach of that underlying provision, but because of Hyflux's filing of the moratorium protection and the application to Court to protect and enhance its restructuring efforts. Based on this event of default, the creditors exercised their contractual rights, such as the acceleration of repayment terms and set-off rights in respect of debts owing by the creditor to Hyflux. So, the moment that happened, some creditors, exercising contractual rights under the ipso facto provisions, provided for accelerated repayments to be made when it was otherwise not yet due or provided for set-off rights that they could not exercise immediately. So, all of these steps diminish and restrict Hyflux's cash flow. And that is not an untypical situation that happens. And this thereby further exacerbated the financial position of the company.
Now, if a similar situation arises in the future, clause 440 would restrict creditors from exercising such rights solely on the basis of the filing of a restructuring moratorium. This would allow the company to continue with its business operations while restructuring its debts, provided there are no other events of defaults which are triggered outside the scope of clause 440.
As Mr Murali Pillai noted, a successful restructuring benefits its creditors, as it preserves the ongoing value of a company. I would go beyond that to say that a successful restructuring will, in fact, maximise the benefits to the company's stakeholders as a whole, including, as Mr Patrick Tay knows, its employees and also its trading counterparties.
Finally, the introduction of such a restriction would also align Singapore with key jurisdictions, such as the US, Canada and Australia, which do offer debtor companies seeking to restructure their business interests such similar forms of protection. Although the Insolvency Law Review Committee had not recommended at that time restricting ipso facto clauses in its report – this was about five years ago – this amendment is now being introduced because of further industry feedback which continued after both Committees had completed their work. The feedback received would be that such restriction, on balance, would be beneficial to a company's rehabilitation efforts.
Having said that, my Ministry is mindful that the restriction on the operation of such clauses must also balance the interests of all stakeholders, including the counterparties. And what has been done is to calibrate clause 440 as well to introduce the ability to deal with different considerations, and I wish to just highlight and reiterate the following notable features.
First, the restriction is suspensory in nature, meaning it is only for the duration of the period when the company has embarked on and continues the restructuring proceedings, so from the time it commences until the time it gets out of the restructuring proceedings, either successfully or unsuccessfully. It does not seek to terminate or extinguish the other party's contractual rights. So, there is no change in the rights altogether. It is only suspended during a period of time.
Second, the scope of this restriction is limited. The exercise of contractual rights is only restricted if restructuring proceedings are commenced, or the company is insolvent. The creditors may still exercise their rights where there is another contractual ground to terminate the contract. So, in the example that Mr Murali Pillai spoke about, the securities company would be entitled to terminate the margin facilities where the company has failed to maintain sufficient collateral with the securities company, if this is otherwise a contractually provided for ground for termination.
Third, clause 440(5) provides that the restriction does not apply in respect of any legal rights under the types of contracts set out in that paragraph. These exemptions reflect the fact that there are situations where the restriction of such clauses may have a disproportionately adverse impact on markets and also introduce uncertainty into markets which depend on established systems and norms.
Mr Murali Pillai did speak on certain classes of financial contracts that would be eligible for such an exemption and the scope of the exemption. We will work with the relevant stakeholders to ensure that the prescribed exemptions will strike the appropriate balance amongst the interests of stakeholders. The exemptions will be finalised after we have obtained and studied feedback from stakeholders as well as the experience in other jurisdictions which have introduced the ipso facto restrictions ahead of us. At this juncture, I can say that it is likely that the definition of \"eligible financial contracts\" that will be exempted would include repurchase agreements, swap agreements and forward contracts, which is similar to the position in the US.
To the extent that certain contracts will fall within the exemption as an \"eligible financial contract\", this will ameliorate any potential negative impact on the industries that rely on such contracts for various commercial reasons. This includes, no doubt, the wealth management industry that Mr Murali Pillai spoke about, which is also an industry that we will consider as we take feedback on what would constitute an eligible financial contract.
Next, clause 440(4) contains a further safeguard for creditors by allowing any affected creditor to apply to Court on the basis of significant financial hardship. This builds in a degree of flexibility, depending on the impact that it may have in a particular situation or on a particular creditor. And this can be determined by the Court on the basis of facts and context in that case and on a case-by-case basis.
As highlighted above, whilst the Bill facilitates the rehabilitation of distressed companies, we have taken efforts to ensure that the overall regime does strike a sufficient balance to ensure that the interests of all stakeholders in this ecosystem are fair and balanced. Moving forward, we will continue to study developments, both locally and also abroad, so as to ensure that the regime continues to balance the interests of all stakeholders.
Next, I turn to the point Mr Christopher de Souza raised about clause 327(4), which requires a secured creditor to notify the Official Assignee within 30 days after the date of the bankruptcy order of the intention to claim interest on the secured creditor’s debt. Mr Christopher de Souza expressed some concern that such a requirement might be prejudicial to a secured creditor’s interest and asked if there are safeguards in place.
I would like to emphasise that this provision only affects the secured creditor's entitlement to any interest in respect of the secured creditor’s debt after the making of a bankruptcy order. So, it is for a period of time post the making of the bankruptcy order. To avoid doubt, this does not in any way affect the secured creditor’s security interest. The intention of this change is, as Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned, to facilitate a more efficient administration of the bankruptcy by ensuring all stakeholders, including the Official Assignee, are on the same page with respect to the bankrupt’s total liabilities and, consequently, the value of the assets in the bankrupt’s estate that would be available for distribution.
In addition, the subsidiary legislation under the Bankruptcy Act currently requires a bankruptcy order to be gazetted and advertised no later than 21 days after the bankruptcy order is made. A notice requirement will likely be re-enacted in the subsidiary legislation under this Bill. These requirements ensure that sufficient notice is provided to all stakeholders, including secured creditors. Secured creditors would thus be notified of a bankruptcy order and, in turn, allow the secured creditor to notify the Official Assignee of the intention to claim interest under clause 327(4).
I now want to move on to Mr Patrick Tay's points, his very passionate points, on the interests of the employees, a point that Mr Tay has raised several times and I would like to turn to those points now. Essentially, Mr Patrick Tay's points focus on the need to protect the employees' claims for unpaid salaries in the context of insolvency and Mr Tay touched on this issue in two different scenarios. The first, where the company is in a restructuring proceeding and, second, where the company is in a liquidation proceeding and the difference between those two is obviously that, in a liquidation scenario, it is terminal, there is one outcome.
The approach and treatment of such claims under those situations are different consequently, with good reasons for this.
In a restructuring situation, such as in a judicial management, the impetus is to facilitate the company restructuring its debts and, hopefully, rehabilitate its business to its former position or better. For there to be a meaningful rehabilitation, employees are an important group of stakeholders. As Mr Patrick Tay mentioned, and I agree, \"workers are the lifeblood of the company… [i]n times of difficulty, the company stands little chance of rehabilitation without its workers\". I agree with that.
Given that there are various types of debts incurred during the course of judicial management, including employees' wages, clause 114 contains new provisions that clearly provide for the priority of such a debt incurred by the judicial manager on behalf of the company ahead of other expenses incurred or the remuneration of the judicial manager.
Under this new provision, employees' wages that are incurred in the course of judicial management would fall under clause 114(1)(b) as, and I quote, \"any sums payable in respect of any debts or liabilities of the company incurred during judicial management\". This will rank second in the order of priority, behind only any super-priority debt arising from rescue financing obtained pursuant to an order under clause 101(1)(b).
Such super-priority rescue financing is integral and fundamental in most corporate restructuring cases. New money and injection of new capital is really the lifeblood of a successful restructuring. And without the injection of rescue financing to aid the company during the restructuring process, the restructuring may not get off the ground. Therefore, any potential prejudice to employees, which Mr Patrick Tay mentioned, must be balanced against the benefits of a successful restructuring, such as the potential continuation of employment and higher rate of repayment of outstanding wages, as compared to a scenario where the company goes into liquidation.
Mr Patrick Tay mentioned the grant of super-priority rescue financing cases under clauses 67 and 101 and whether they are subject to safeguards. And, in particular, Mr Patrick Tay mentioned the case of Re Attilan Group Limited, a 2017 decision of the High Court. The Courts would, generally, be slow to allow super-priority financing unless it is strictly necessary. That said, as I mentioned, given that new monies and new injection of capital and, in some cases, super-priority funding, in the appropriate circumstances, it will be allowed.
I turn now to a scenario where employees' wages are not paid in an insolvent liquidation scenario. As I mentioned earlier, this procedure is terminal. It leads to the dissolution of the company and it is so because there are insufficient assets to meet the myriad competing creditors’ claims. In this context, the order of priority provided under clause 203 strikes the appropriate balance in according such priority, taking into consideration the nature of the varying claims against the company.
The costs and expenses of liquidation and the expenses of the applicant for the winding up order are paid out first under clause 203(1)(a) to (c) before any of the other preferential debts under clause 203(1), a point that Mr Patrick Tay mentioned earlier. Removing the priority for these categories of claims would deter insolvency practitioners from undertaking liquidations because they would have little assurance of recovering the costs and expenses of such liquidations. This would severely undermine an orderly liquidation and distribution of dividends, to the detriment of all stakeholders, including employees. So, we are dealing with the costs and expenses of undertaking the liquidation in the first place.
Mr Patrick Tay then mentioned that because of the provisions, what used to be ranked No 2 for the employees' claims is now ranked No 4. Let me deal with that. Immediately after the preferential debts mentioned in clause 203(1)(a) to (c), clause 203(1)(d) and (e) provides that employees’ claims enjoy the next highest priority as among all the preferential debts of the company in liquidation. This clearly and unequivocally affirms the importance of employees by providing such debts priority over all other lower-ranked preferential debts and all other unsecured debts.
Mr Patrick Tay mentioned that whereas currently employees’ wages are ranked second under section 328(1)(b) of the Companies Act, clause 203(1)(d), however, provides that unpaid wages are ranked fourth amongst preferential debts. Let me clarify that the new 203(1) has no material impact on the relative priority. That is because the debts mentioned under the new clause 203(1)(a) to (c) are currently placed together under section 328(1)(a) of the Companies Act. So, in other words, what went into section 328(1)(a) of the Companies Act would be clause 203(a), (b) and (c).
So, what clause 203 has sought to do is to break up what otherwise used to be a group of priority or preferential claims, all of which already ranked ahead of employees' wages, and parcel that out into three separate portions to deal with it in (a), (b) and (c) of clause 203(1). Those debts that were previously under section 328(1)(a) have been set out in those three provisions which I have mentioned and there is, therefore, no change from the existing position under section 328(1), in relation to the relative position of the employees’ claims.
Lastly, Mr Patrick Tay asked for some statistics. They are not available, but I thank Mr Patrick Tay and also Mr Dennis Tan for raising some suggestions on the avenues. Mr Patrick Tay also talked about having MOM make those claims first and then to stand in queue. That is probably better addressed to MOM because it is a burden you are asking them to take on and then wait in queue for the claims. But Mr Patrick Tay has our assurance that the structure of the preferential payments will continue to place the employees high up on the scale and behind really only the provisions that deal with expenses of the liquidation so that we can be assured that the liquidation will be properly proceeded with.
I want to deal with a couple of points raised by Mr Dennis Tan. Mr Dennis Tan asked me about the rehabilitative framework, the Differentiated Discharge Framework (DDF). The scheme came into force on 1 August 2016. At present, it is still somewhat early to comment on the impact of the scheme because bankrupts whose bankruptcies commenced after the amendments came into force will only begin to be eligible for discharge in 2019. To date, we have not commenced any studies on whether the DDF objectives have been met or otherwise as the scheme, given what I had said earlier, is still new. But I thank Mr Dennis Tan for that suggestion and certainly we will look into studying the impact of DDF at the appropriate time when more data becomes available and there is a greater runway after the implementation itself.
I think Mr Dennis Tan also asked about what has been the type of typical misconduct cases in the past 10 years or so. Typically, when you have and when you appoint an insolvency practitioner, you are looking for the level of professionalism that is commensurate with what you might see from an advocate and solicitor, chartered accountant or a public accountant. So, those are the criteria we have set out. And as I said earlier, the prescribing criteria will largely follow the same lines. On the types of misconduct in cases, we have looked up some. I think Mr Dennis Tan might be familiar with some because they had been reported. One example will be Mr Ewe Pang Kooi. Mr Ewe was a public accountant. He acted as a liquidator for 21 companies and he was on trial earlier this year for allegedly pocketing more than $40 million from those companies. Not that having the new licensing regime or having a set of rules would necessarily mean that there will be no fraud, but what we want to do is to ensure that the bar or the barrier is higher so that there will be proper regulation just for insolvency practitioners and that we avoid the type of conflicts that we see, as in Mr Ewe's case, which may well be an extreme example. But we also want to ensure that other professional misconduct-type cases like acting in conflict of interest or having unnecessarily high remuneration can be something that will be controlled. So, those are some of the examples.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I just wish to conclude now by making the point that we have come some way, as speakers have mentioned, since the two Committees sat. To recap, in 2015, significant amendments were made to the Bankruptcy Act, including the introduction of the DDF, which gave bankrupts a clear target to work towards in order to be eligible for discharge. This promoted a more rehabilitative regime where bankrupts would be given a chance to start over again. Changes were also made to require institutional creditors to appoint private trustees in bankruptcy when making a bankruptcy application. This change encouraged greater engagement by such creditors in the insolvency process and drives such creditors to exercise greater financial prudence when granting credit.
In 2017, the amendments to the Companies Act introduced new features to strengthen the schemes of arrangement and judicial management regimes. This put in place a bespoke debt restructuring regime that incorporated the best features of the world’s leading regimes and these features included, one, super-priority for rescue financing in schemes of arrangement and judicial management, to encourage injection of fresh funds to assist the debtor through the restructuring processes; two, enhanced moratoriums in schemes of arrangement to provide breathing room to the debtor that is seeking a compromise or arrangement with its creditors; three, pre-packaged schemes of arrangement to fast-track pre-negotiated restructuring plans; and four, cram-down provisions that prevent a minority class of creditors from preventing a restructuring which has otherwise the support of the majority of its creditors.
Mr Dennis Tan asked for an indication of how successful this has been. As I mentioned at my opening speech, we had about 100 applications made following the amendments in 2017. We have put the tools in place for this to be successful as an international restructuring regime. So, we have used UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, which is a cross-border mechanism. We have the Judiciary Insolvency Network (JIN), where Courts in Singapore can now, in real-time, link up with and also speak with courts of other jurisdictions and, so far, the US, Korea and Australia are jurisdictions that have signed up for the scheme and that allows our Courts here to be very global and very cross-border in the kind of work and the kind of cases that they see.
And, finally, Members also heard me say that the Supreme Court has also signed up with the US courts on two MOUs which would cement their relationship and also take the platform on which such cases can appear or be heard in Singapore that much further.
This Bill is the culmination of the concerted efforts undertaken by the Government and other stakeholders in the insolvency ecosystem to transform and modernise our insolvency regime. And that is with the view to cementing Singapore's position as a forum of choice for debt restructuring.
The Bill also harmonises the different provisions from the Bankruptcy Act and the Companies Act, including the earlier amendments that have been made, into a single statute.
The Bill contains reforms, such as the introduction of a new licensing and regulatory regime and amendments which further strengthen our debt restructuring regime, such as the introduction of judicial management by resolution of creditors and a new restriction on the operation of ipso facto clauses. These modern and progressive reforms signal our ambition to become an international centre for debt restructuring.
We have achieved quite remarkable progress on the various legislative reforms on this topic over the past three years or so. My Ministry will continue to work and ensure that the legal regime remains balanced, robust and, perhaps most importantly, responsive to the needs of the stakeholders in the system, be it debtors, creditors or other stakeholders. Beyond the legal regime, we will continue to develop and enhance Singapore’s ecosystem for restructuring and insolvency so that Singapore remains efficient, effective and consistent in achieving outcomes that are in the interests of all stakeholders.
I would add in closing that all of this has really only been possible because of the efforts of all the stakeholders, all the people we have consulted, the feedback we have received. Mr Murali Pillai asked if we had received feedback on ipso facto clauses, in particular, that, as you know, was not in the report but subsequently we continued with the engagement of stakeholders. So, we are here today largely because of what we have been told, and the efforts of all the interested parties in making this happen.
We look forward to maintaining and extending those existing partnerships and fostering new collaborations as we continue to build on bold and exciting developments.
I conclude by thanking the Members for their suggestions. Those that I have addressed, I have addressed today. Those that we have not yet been in a position to deal with, I have taken onboard and we will continue to monitor them as we look at refining these in the near future. Sir, with that, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai.] (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":"Variable Capital Companies Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Variable Capital Companies Bill provides a legislative framework for the incorporation and operation of a corporate structure tailored specifically for investment funds. The introduction of this corporate structure, known as the variable capital company, or \"VCC\", will be a game changer for Singapore’s fund management industry as it will allow us to capture value from the full fund management value chain. The VCC regime will strengthen our position as the Asian hub for fund domiciliation and management.
Singapore is already recognised as a leading Asian fund management hub. Assets under management (AUM) have grown by an average of 15% per annum over the past five years, reaching S$3.3 trillion at the end of 2017. Almost $7 in every $10 under management are invested into the Asia-Pacific region, reflecting Singapore's role as a key node for global fund managers and investors to invest in the region’s growth opportunities.
The Industry Transformation Map (ITM) for financial services has set out Singapore’s strategy to be an Asian hub for fund management and domiciliation. Besides the introduction of VCC to encourage fund domiciliation activities in Singapore, we are deepening fund management capabilities in specialty and alternative investments to complement our strengths in portfolio management, trading and research. We are also building a deeper and more diverse capital pool for investment into Asia from Singapore.
The VCC structure will complement and expand the existing suite of fund structures available in Singapore, such as the company, the limited partnership and unit trust structures. Taken together, this will provide a comprehensive range of investment fund vehicles and structures to support investors’ needs.
The Bill takes reference from similar corporate fund structures available in other global investment fund centres, such as Ireland, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom (UK). The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has consulted on the VCC framework and the Bill and has engaged extensively with the industry and the public over the past 18 months. There was broad industry support for the VCC framework and the Bill. MAS has considered all the feedback received and taken it into account where appropriate.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me first elaborate on the rationale for introducing the VCC framework, before taking Members through the key areas of the Bill.
Today, fund managers already conduct a good range of their fund management activities in Singapore – portfolio management, trading and research. The VCC framework will encourage fund managers to domicile their funds in Singapore, adding domiciliation activities to the fund management activities. This, in turn, will establish a full-service fund ecosystem in Singapore.
The fund management industry is an important component of Singapore’s financial sector, contributing 12.4% of the overall financial sector’s nominal value-add last year. Besides the direct value-add contribution, it has significant spillovers to other financial sector activities, such as the trading of foreign exchange, as well as to other service providers, such as lawyers and accountants.
There is potential for Singapore to capture a greater share of the full value chain of fund management, particularly in the fund servicing space. A substantial proportion of investment funds that are managed by fund managers in Singapore are domiciled elsewhere, for example, in Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands, owing to the flexible corporate structures that are available there. As a result, most of the economic benefits generated by service providers to these investment funds accrue outside Singapore.
Singapore-based fund managers who domicile funds locally as VCCs can look forward to significant cost economies and fewer cross-border administrative and compliance hurdles through the use of local service providers operating out of just one country. In contrast, funds domiciled overseas but sold in Singapore typically incur additional costs from having to use multiple service providers across different countries. VCCs would also be able to avail themselves of Singapore’s competitive tax regime.
Beyond fund managers, the VCC framework will create new business opportunities for lawyers, accountants, tax advisors, fund administrators and custodians in Singapore. In practice, VCCs will operate from an office in Singapore and employ Singapore-based corporate secretaries, engage Singapore-based lawyers, fund administrators and so on to facilitate their operations. MAS has estimated that the VCC framework could create over 1,000 new jobs for service providers in the first two years of its introduction.
Singapore is not the only jurisdiction in this region that has introduced VCC equivalent structures. We need to keep pace with other international fund management centres if we are to capture the additional economic benefits of fund domiciliation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me now take the Members through the key areas of the Bill.
The VCC is a body corporate incorporated under the VCC Bill. This can be likened to how companies are incorporated under the Companies Act (Cap 50). The sole object of a VCC is to be a structure for investment funds. The shareholders in a VCC are the fund investors. The board of directors owe duties to act in the best interests of the VCC, and a fund manager must be appointed to manage the VCC.
I will now highlight several features of the Bill that will specifically address the needs of investment funds.
The Bill caters to an investment fund’s need for flexibility in the use of its capital. Unlike companies under the Companies Act (Cap 50), VCCs are able to vary their share capital, without having to seek investors’ approval. This is a common feature in investment funds and allows investors the flexibility to exit their investments in the fund when they wish to do so.
To safeguard the interests of creditors, VCC shares must generally be issued and redeemed at their net asset value. This is so that liabilities will always be accounted for in the price of issuance and redemption.
In addition, VCCs will be able to pay dividends using capital. In contrast, companies under the Companies Act (Cap 50) can only pay dividends out of profits. This feature is important, as it allows investment funds to meet their dividend payment schedules which may have been agreed upon with investors.
The Bill allows a VCC to be established as a standalone fund, or as an umbrella fund with multiple sub-funds. The umbrella with sub-funds structure creates economies of scale, as the sub-funds can share a common board of directors and use the same service providers, including the same fund manager, custodian, auditor and administrative agent. This would benefit fund managers, who may, for example, wish to group their funds, such as their Asian bond fund together with their European equities fund, under a single umbrella VCC.
Certain administrative functions can also be consolidated, such as the holding of general meetings and preparation of prospectuses.
A sub-fund will have separate assets and liabilities, distinct from other sub-funds. As the sub-funds will not have separate legal personalities, there is the possibility that the assets and liabilities of one sub-fund could be commingled with that of another sub-fund. As a safeguard for VCC shareholders and to enhance creditor protection, the Bill requires the assets and liabilities of each sub-fund to be segregated, such that the assets of one sub-fund cannot be used to discharge the liabilities of the umbrella fund, or of another sub-fund. Under the Bill, any agreement to use the assets of one sub-fund to discharge the liabilities of the umbrella fund, or another sub-fund, would be void.
The rule on the segregation of assets and liabilities of sub-funds will also apply during insolvency. To ensure ringfencing of a sub-fund’s assets and liabilities in the event of an insolvency, each sub-fund has to be wound up separately.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore is home to a vibrant and diversified group of over 700 global and local fund managers, spanning both the traditional and alternative space. Alternative funds, such as private equity and real estate funds, are typically structured as closed-end funds. This means that the fund has a fixed number of shares that cannot be redeemed at the election of shareholders, except in limited circumstances, where permitted, by the fund. In contrast, traditional funds are often structured as open-ended funds, where investors can exit their investments by redeeming their investment units or shares in the fund.
VCCs are flexible structures, in that they may be constituted as open-ended or closed-end funds, providing a suitable corporate structure for both traditional and alternative strategies. This caters to the diverse needs of the Singapore-based fund management community, which comprises both traditional and alternative managers.
Given the growth in the alternative space, it is also important that the VCC structure can be used by alternative managers. Alternative AUM in Singapore grew by 20% per annum over the past five years, led by the venture capital and private equity sectors. In comparison, traditional AUM grew by 13% per annum over the same period.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill also incorporates features to ensure that VCCs are subject to appropriate governance and regulatory oversight.
Corporate structures can and have been used around the world for unlawful purposes. To mitigate against such risks for VCCs, VCCs must appoint a fund manager that is regulated by MAS to facilitate supervisory oversight on the use of the VCCs for investment funds.
Like companies, VCCs will be required to set up Boards. As mentioned earlier, VCC directors will owe fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of the VCC, similar to those owed by a director of a company to the company.
VCCs offered to retail investors, or that have sub-funds offered to retail investors, will be subject to an additional requirement to have at least three directors on their boards, at least one of whom must be independent. The requirement for an independent director is an additional safeguard to help ensure good governance of retail VCCs.
VCCs will have to prepare financial statements that must be audited. To cater to the needs of global investors, VCCs will be allowed to prepare their financial statements using not just Singapore accounting standards and principles but also International Financial Reporting Standards and the US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
The register of VCC shareholders need not be made public, but must be disclosed to public authorities for regulatory, supervisory and law enforcement purposes upon request. This arrangement takes into account investors’ need for privacy and is consistent with the practice in other major fund jurisdictions, such as the UK and Ireland.
VCCs will also be subject to, and supervised for, anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism requirements, in line with international standards.
To facilitate fund domiciliation in Singapore, the Bill will provide a re-domiciliation mechanism for existing overseas investment funds constituted as corporate structures similar to VCCs. This means that the business opportunities and jobs created for the fund services industry will stem not only from the creation of new funds structured as VCCs, but also from existing overseas funds re-domiciling into Singapore as VCCs. In addition, existing funds domiciled in Singapore as companies, limited partnerships or unit trusts can also restructure to take advantage of the VCC structure.
The Bill provisions relating to the insolvency of a VCC and its sub-funds are adapted from the Companies Act (Cap 50). The VCC Bill will be amended in 2019 to align the VCC insolvency regime with those of other corporate structures under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Bill which has just been debated. The tax framework for VCCs will be separately set out in legislative amendments to the relevant tax legislation.
The introduction of the VCC framework will enhance our fund ecosystem and the value proposition Singapore offers to fund managers. The benefits of the VCC are not solely confined to fund managers, but will also extend to local service providers. It will benefit the Singapore economy, strengthen Singapore’s position as a full-service international fund management centre and create good jobs for Singaporeans. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"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 Deputy Speaker: For the new Nominated Members of Parliament who have just been sworn in today, this is basically to ask for Parliament to continue sitting after the moment of interruption at 7.00 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Variable Capital Companies Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore has established itself as a vibrant and leading international fund management centre. We have seen impressive asset under management (AUM) growth over the years. AUM has more than doubled in five years, from S$1.6 trillion in 2012 to $3.3 trillion in 2017. As the Second Minister of Finance recapped just now, we are now home to 700 asset managers.
The introduction of the VCC Bill is timely. It further strengthens Singapore’s position as a full-service international fund management centre. Close to 80% of AUM managed in Singapore are still domiciled overseas. So, this new corporate structure, tailored for investment funds, should spur co-location of fund managers and fund ancillary services in Singapore by enabling cost economies, ease of administration and compliance for fund managers.
However, attracting funds to be domiciled in Singapore will not be an easy task. Other established fund centres, such as Cayman Islands, Republic of Ireland, Luxembourg and recently Hong Kong, come with their own distinct history and value propositions, offering a whole suite of incentives, ranging from tax-free regimes, flexible legislation, accounting flexibility and a real commitment to serving the international fund industry.
Whilst the proposed Singapore VCC structure compares reasonably well against its international peers, catering to investment funds for traditional and alternative strategies, both on an open-ended and closed-ended basis, there will always be inertia to try out a new structure. We must, therefore, ensure Singapore's VCC framework offers a unique value proposition. We must actively promote the structure to drive adoption and consider incentives that may be necessary to spur action amongst fund managers.
So, Deputy Speaker, Sir, to overcome the initial inertia to adopt the VCC structure, including the cost hurdles for adoption, the Government should consider some \"sweeteners\", perhaps in the form of cost subsidies, when setting up a VCC structure in Singapore. Conversions to VCC should be allowed to take place with no Singapore tax consequences and should be granted automatically to encourage transition to VCC. Re-domiciliation incentives could also be provided to encourage fund managers with funds domiciled in offshore jurisdictions to co-locate fund domiciliation with their fund management activities in Singapore.
The Government should work closely with local champions, such as Dymon Asia, Lion Global Investors, to lead the way for the adoption of VCC for new funds. We should drive adoption starting from home base and support early adopters with \"early bird\" incentives.
The proposed framework allows funds domiciled overseas to be re-domiciled in Singapore as VCCs by registration with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA). However, the industry has given feedback that more needs to be done to refine policies to better support the conversion of local funds to VCC. Many industry players find the process for converting existing domestic collective investment structures into VCC cumbersome. Rightly or wrongly, some actually feel that the restructuring of local funds as VCC appears more difficult than re-domiciliation.
Being a relatively late comer, we should design our VCC framework with a distinct advantage to serve the rapidly growing alternative sector AUM, comprising hedge funds, venture capital, private equity, real estate and infrastructure. This would be an excellent window to establish ourselves as a vibrant financing hub to support the next generation of Asian growth companies.
With two-thirds of Singapore’s AUM invested in the Asia Pacific and 40% in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the VCC framework should be operationalised to enable us to compete strongly as a choice location for setting up fund management operations focused on investments in Asia and ASEAN. This will require a nuanced understanding of the web of varied local regulations and international tax developments.
For example, one of the issues raised by the industry is the legal identity of sub-funds under the VCC umbrella entity. Even with safeguards put in place to ensure segregation of assets and liabilities, market players view that giving sub-funds a legal identity would be a more straightforward and effective way to ringfence sub-funds' assets and liabilities in order to facilitate flexible sub-fund set up and closure, or exit. Importantly, there is a need to cater to structural issues which feed into taxation matters, for example, investments into India via a sub-fund where a Certificate of Residence (COR) is required for claiming tax benefits. The lack of a legal entity status of sub-funds could potentially hinder fund managers to flexibly structure an umbrella entity with multiple sub-funds with distinct investment objectives.
Sir, the very purpose of the VCC structure is tailored for investment funds and dispenses with aspects of existing company law that are not conducive to investment funds. Thus, one of the VCC’s selling points is its flexibility to pay dividends and redeem shares versus companies with fixed capital. The notion of variable capital provisions is, therefore, critical to the operations of an investment fund. Yet, the closure of a VCC's sub-fund seems to mirror the process under the Companies Act, requiring a liquidator to be appointed and involve more formal company liquidation procedure. Would the Second Minister consider lightening the unwinding process for sub-funds, such as allowing a strike-off if the sub-fund satisfies all the criteria for striking off? This will improve operational flexibility to promote the usage of a VCC structure.
I applaud MAS for structuring VCC with a robust governance and oversight framework. Unlike other fund domiciliation centres, VCCs in Singapore require the appointment of a fund manager regulated by MAS to be based in Singapore and subject to anti-money laundering (AML) obligations, in line with international standards. This will help prevent VCCs from being abused for unlawful purposes and prevent Singapore from becoming an offshore centre without actual investment management activities conducted in Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore's success in positioning itself as a fund domiciliation hub is expected to create a thousand new jobs in the first two years of introduction for ancillary service providers. These will include lawyers, fund administrators, fund custodians, tax professionals and accountants, all attractive jobs for Singaporeans. We must invest strongly to nurture a vibrant local ecosystem of fund service providers to enhance the sophistication of our overall system for the long term. We must ensure that the expertise required to operate the VCC framework does not constrain our growth. One particular area that the industry has concerns about is the availability of qualified professionals, including fund directors. I would like to ask the Second Minister to elaborate on the talent development plans being developed in conjunction with the VCC framework.
In conclusion, the proposed VCC framework, coupled with Singapore’s strong reputation for political and economic stability, transparency, sound and predictable rules and regulations, will position Singapore well as a compelling hub for both fund management and domiciliation activities. It could be a game changer for asset management in the Asia Pacific. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the VCC Bill aims to create another option for fund managers for structuring investment funds, besides traditional entity models, such as unit trusts and investment companies. In so doing, it aims to enhance the competitiveness of Singapore as a fund management hub.
For example, a Singapore VCC will be able to issue and redeem shares without shareholders' approval, enabling investors to exit their investments in the investment fund when they wish to and pay dividends using capital. Another way of looking at this is that the capital of a VCC will always be equal to its net assets, offering flexibility in the distribution and reduction of capital. This is in contrast to the company structure that has restrictions on capital reduction and can only pay dividends out of profits.
The VCC will also allow for a wider variety of accounting standards to be used in preparing financial statements, which may attract more global funds to be domiciled in Singapore. VCCs will be able to use International Financial Reporting Standards and US GAAP, in addition to Singapore accounting standards and recommended accounting principles.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents a step in the right direction and I do not oppose it. I do, however, pose the following questions and requests for clarification.
Firstly, it would appear that VCCs would be allowed to offer non-traditional strategies to more sophisticated investors, such as accredited investors, but will VCCs be allowed to offer products to retail investors if they pursue mutual fund-type strategies? If so, what safeguards would protect retail investors from the risk that the fund manager would deplete capital by paying dividends from capital rather than profits, a trend that has not been unknown in other jurisdictions that allow VCCs?
No doubt retail investors would receive explanations about the nature of these funds and they would have visibility of a declining net asset value (NAV), and the matter could thus be left to market forces. But would regulations impose a duty of care on VCC fund managers to explain this possibility to retail investors?
Secondly, the VCC consultation paper did not treat the issue of tax in great detail. The MAS consultation paper in 2017 stated: \"MAS recognises that tax treatment is one of the considerations for deciding on the domiciliation and management of funds. In this regard, MAS is studying the tax regime for VCCs, including exploring the feasibility of extending the current fund vehicle tax schemes to VCCs, and welcomes feedback on the VCC tax regime.\"
I would like to ask if VCCs would be eligible to receive the current Government tax incentives available to investment companies. For example, will VCCs be eligible for Singapore fund tax incentive schemes currently provided for under sections 13R, 13X and 13Y of the Income Tax Act and the Financial Sector Incentive (FSI) scheme? Another example, would stamp duty be imposed on transfers of shares in VCCs?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. When investment managers are deciding where to house their funds, they look for three key things: privacy for their investors, flexibility in their operations, and tax exemptions from the Government.
Until now, we have had no corporate structure providing all of these features. This means that asset managers based in Singapore have been overseeing funds mostly domiciled in offshore jurisdictions like Cayman Islands.
I am happy to say that this Bill plugs the gap. It allows investment funds to use popular global accounting standards rather than just the Singapore standard. It allows non-disclosure of the fund’s investors and financial statements. It allows investors to exit their investments easily. And as the Second Minister clarified in his 2018 Budget Statement, existing tax exemptions will be extended to this new company type.
I commend the MAS for taking a consultative approach on this issue. In 2017, it held a public consultation on the issue. Industry observers and interested citizens provided feedback, and the MAS responded by tweaking its proposal. The final product blends sensible Government with industry expertise. That said, I have some clarifications to make.
The first point relates to the investigation of VCCs for misconduct. Can the Second Minister clarify in what circumstances would the Ministry investigate the affairs and ownership of a VCC? What are the processes that the Ministry has in place to ensure that VCCs conduct themselves in a lawful manner?
I appreciate that the Second Minister has shared some information about this in her opening speech. My concern stems primarily from the fact that unlike regular companies in Singapore, VCCs do not need to disclose their list of shareholders or their financial statements to the public.
While this is consistent with how unit trusts are already treated and with what investors expect from an investment fund, it nonetheless limits the level of public scrutiny and places the sole responsibility on the Government to spot and uncover misconduct.
We have learnt from the leaks of the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers that highly secretive company structures can hide unlawful activities. These leaks have triggered worldwide investigations and toppled governments.
If this Bill succeeds in its goals and investment funds re-domicile from offshore jurisdictions to Singapore, the gaze of the world will inevitably turn towards our nation. How will we distinguish ourselves from places like the Cayman Islands?
We should be concerned about the risks to Singapore's international reputation. Fairly or not, Singapore is already widely labelled as a tax haven.
In 2016, UK charity Oxfam labelled Singapore the \"fifth worst\" corporate tax haven in the world. This year, Tax Justice Network, a global non-government organisation (NGO), ranked Singapore fifth on its Financial Secrecy Index. A 2018 research paper by economics professors from Berkeley and Copenhagen also branded Singapore as a tax haven.
The risks come amid a sustained global push against tax havens. Entities like the European Union (EU) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have moved to blacklist tax havens, though neither has included Singapore on their lists. But researchers, reporters and NGOs namedrop us when reporting on this issue nonetheless.
Our reputation as a clean, fair and transparent financial hub takes a hit with every mention. Not to mention that the legitimate concerns about money laundering and fraud, and an ever-pervasive problem in a world of complex financial and corporate arrangements.
Currently, the Bill provides little guidance on the scenarios in which the Government would investigate VCCs, their managers and their shareholders. It states that any investigations would be in the interest of the public, creditors or the shareholders, or based on allegations of misconduct. It would be good if the Second Minister can further outline the practices, principles, policies and systems it has in place to safeguard against misconduct related to VCCs.
Sir, my second point relates to the average Singaporean. In 2016, then Senior Minister of State, and now Second Minister Indranee Rajah, said at a conference of investment management professionals that the introduction of VCCs would create more \"good jobs\" in the professional services sector, including in accounting, legal, compliance, marketing and information technology. That was quite some time ago.
The MAS' public statements in more recent weeks have not addressed similar topics and have instead tailored its message to investment managers.
In addition to what Second Minister Indranee said, VCCs will surely contribute to the Singapore economy by paying corporate registration fees, name registration fees, annual filing fees and legal fees. This direct impact can be measured in dollars and cents.
Can the Second Minister provide an estimate or outline of the benefits that the establishment of VCCs in Singapore would bring for the average Singaporean? Sir, clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the new corporate structure under the VCC Bill is a significant addition to our financial services industry. Given the advantages that come with it, I foresee we will experience a substantial growth in the number of local and international portfolios. Certainly, it will be a major boost to our status as a regional and international financial hub.
Currently, investment companies impose a number of restrictions. For example, shareholders' approval is needed for the issuance and redemption of shares and this can result in delays, especially when there are many shareholders. Furthermore, for company structures with restrictions on capital reduction, dividends may only be paid out of profits. For VCCs, investors have the flexibility to exit their investments when they wish to, and they can pay the dividends using the fund's capital. Such freedom would encourage more fund managers to base their investment activities in Singapore.
However, I am concerned about whether this may give rise to situations where we see more disruptions as a result of investors changing their minds and trying to move in and out of their investments. We have to consider how it may affect our financial system in terms of systemic risk, and as what hon Member Mr Louis Ng has mentioned, either due to misconduct or market risk, or counterpart risk and its related impact into systemic risks as well.
Will too much freedom lead to a more volatile economy? Perhaps the Secod Minister can share her views with the House on this. For example, in the current global economic climate, and with the volatile political environment in the West, the big movement of funds in an out of an instrument cannot be underestimated. The current volume may be small as we proceed with the VCC Bill, if it is approved, but as we build depth and breadth in this sector, its impact on our financial account flows can be substantial in the future.
Thus, the implementation of the VCC Bill could possibly see a larger number of portfolio inflows. Additionally, there is also potential for foreign corporate entities that were initially established as collective investment schemes to be re-domiciled as VCCs here. Hence, fund managers in Singapore who have their funds domiciled in offshore jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands may consider co-locating their fund domiciliation with their fund management activities.
Our stable economy, our political stability, with our pro-business environment and good governance, we already have an edge over many other countries in the provision of financial services. With the VCC, I am confident that many funds will be happy to move their fund management activities to Singapore. All these could mean jobs for Singaporeans in the support sector or ancillary services. Will the Government proactively engage these foreign corporate entities to make the conversion? We also need to train a talent pool of people when this sector of the business expands.
I also note that the VCC Bill allows for the accommodation of a wider scope of accounting standards in the preparation of financial statements. Aside from local accounting standards, International Financial Reporting Standards and the US GAAP can also be used by VCCs. This brings to mind the possibility of rejuvenating the accounting industry in Singapore, which is in danger of being edged out by technology. Can we make use of this opportunity to upskill our accountants? When new accounting standards are incorporated, it is inevitable for discrepancies to arise. So, perhaps local accountants can get acquainted with the new standards and serve as bridges. Being equipped with professional financial knowhow, they will also be in a better position to support our endeavour to become an exemplary global fund management centre. I believe our Finance Ministry and MAS would be working with the universities to address this new demand for people in a specialised area, from accounting to fund management and to custodian services. Could the Second Minister confirm if this is being addressed?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the VCC Bill will breathe new freshness into our financial industry and it has the potential to create more jobs for Singapore. We must make use of this opportunity to make the most out of it. I am looking forward to its implementation. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice. I support the aims behind this Bill, which is really to propel Singapore as a premier international fund management centre. I fully agree with the hon Second Minister's characterisation of this Bill as a game changer.
Like the hon Member Mr Louis Ng, I also applaud MAS' move in conducting public consultation on the proposed framework for the draft Bill over 18 months and incorporating feedback into the Bill where appropriate before this Bill was tabled. Singapore's ability to attract and domicile funds is significantly advanced. Hitherto, there were three vehicles for fund set-up, as the hon Second Minister mentioned: trusts, limited liability partnerships (LLPs) and companies. However, only companies, as compared to trust and LLPs, have access to Singapore's network of avoidance of double taxation agreements (DTAs). Off the top of my head, I believe about 100 countries have DTAs with Singapore.
There are significant restrictions in using companies as structures for funds, however. The hon Member Mr Sakitiandi Supaat mentioned about it. There are limitations with redemption of shares without shareholders' approvals where returns are to be via shareholders and limitations with respect to redeeming shares using capital. This is because of the need to satisfy the solvency requirements which are, on the whole, entity based. Also, there is a limitation in relation to not being able to maintain the confidentiality of investments.
All these problems would be addressed directly by the introduction of the VCCs. VCCs are recognised under the DTAs as corporations that can benefit from the DTA agreements. And this is a unique and significant advantage that funds domiciled in Singapore will get.
At the same time, there are safeguards in that only MAS-regulated fund managers might operate the funds under the VCC corporate structure. In particular, well-established regulations dealing with prevention of money laundering and terrorism financing apply to regulated fund managers.
I do note, though, that there are two exempted classes of managers, namely, managers operating family offices and managers operating real estate assets. The funds via VCCs themselves are regulated for AML via the proposed Part VII of the Bill. What steps can be taken to ensure that the level of supervision on these exempted managers is also comparable to regulated fund managers? This is because AML risks exist, vis-a-vis family office and real estate managers, too.
I further seek clarification on the following. In relation to the re-domiciliation of funds, what would be the criteria to allow the migration? I gather that, for companies, it is provided that there must be more than 50 employees, profits of more than $15 million or revenue of more than $50 million.
What are the corresponding criteria for VCCs? Recognising that fund vehicles have a long timespan, it is not unusual for fund vehicles to be operating for 10 years or more. So, what is the structural value proposition that Singapore can offer to fund managers to migrate their existing funds to Singapore? And I believe this is a point that was made by the hon Member Ms Foo Mee Har as well.
Next, does the Government also intend to extend the corporate structure currently only usable for collective investment schemes to other spaces, for example, the insurance space, because the insurance companies also have segregated funds dealing with various insurance policies? They may find the VCC structure attractive. Or the securitisation space, because Singapore is also seeking to promote securitisation under the approved Special Purpose Vehicle Scheme. Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker, the new corporate structure VCC is attractive as it will provide greater flexibility for fund management companies. Before I go on, let me declare my interest. Currently, I am an employee of a local financial institution (FI).
As the VCC structure allows it to issue and redeem shares without needing to seek shareholders' approval, investors may enter and exit from their investments freely. It will make it easy for the fund manager to facilitate change of investors to meet business needs and keep pace with market practices. This will encourage fund managers to have the domicile of their investment funds here.
I am pleased to note that the Bill will be requiring the assets and liabilities of different sub-funds to be segregated so that the assets of one may not be used to discharge the liabilities of the others. This is a vast improvement in addressing the problem of contagion risk. This is due to the issue of sub-funds having their own set of investors but the same legal personality, leading to the risk of assets and liabilities commingling.
I have some clarifications to seek.
Will the FIs be responsible for the KYC (Know your Client) process and SOW (Source Of Wealth) verification for each of the investors of that VCC or investors in the sub-funds? If so, it may be necessary to allow FIs to have access to the information of the investors and shareholders if the authorities expect FIs with whom the account is opened to be compliant.
I would also like to ask what had been the number of disputes received so far from investors against fund managers in each of the last 10 years. Singapore has a strong reputation as a safe, stable and well-regulated financial centre. What measures are in place to eradicate scams and Ponzi schemes? I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Second Minister for Finance.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken on the Bill and for their support for its introduction.
Let me address their questions in three parts. First, competitiveness of the VCC framework as well as clarifications on its features. Second, opportunities for local fund service providers and how we are working with them to capture these opportunities. And third, the potential impact on Singapore from a financial stability, risk and reputational standpoint.
As Ms Foo Mee Har has highlighted, Singapore is, relatively speaking, a newcomer, competing with long-established fund domiciles, such as Luxembourg and Ireland.
Being a newcomer, though, has its advantages. We are able to take reference from tried and tested features of comparable structures, such as the UK and Ireland, so that our VCC framework is on par intentionally, and tailor the features to meet the needs of our industry. For instance, the key advantage of our VCC framework is its enhanced flexibility to be used for both open-ended and close-end funds, and which are suitable across traditional and alternative investment strategies. This may not necessarily be available in other jurisdictions.
Ms Foo Mee Har raised feedback that giving sub-funds legal identities would be a more straightforward and effective way to ringfence their assets and liabilities. MAS did, in fact, consider this, but decided against it. Internationally, corporate fund structures with cellular cells are structured either as protected cell companies (PCCs) or incorporated cell companies (ICCs). The key difference between the PCC and ICC is whether sub-funds are accorded separate legal personalities. The PCC does not; the ICC does.
While the ICC structure provides legal certainty over the status of its sub-funds, it has significant limitation in allowing umbrella funds to reap economies of scale and is, therefore, not conducive to the operation of investment funds. For this reason, the PCC structure adopted by the VCC framework is also used in most international fund domiciles, such as the UK, Ireland and Luxembourg, whereas the ICC structure is only adopted in Guernsey.
Notwithstanding the lack of separate legal personality, VCCs are required under legislation to segregate assets and liabilities of sub-funds. This will mitigate cross-cell contagion among sub-funds under the umbrella structure and, at the same time, ensure proper ringfencing.
I would also like to reassure Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Leon Perera that VCCs, including their sub-funds, can avail themselves of Singapore's competitive tax regime. As announced by the Ministry of Finance (MOF) in its 2018 Budget Statement, a VCC will be treated as a company for tax purposes and will be allowed to enjoy our tax incentives for funds.
Mr Leon Perera asked about sections 13R, 13X and 13Y of the Income Tax Act. The tax exemptions under sections 13R and 13X of the Income Tax Act will be extended to VCCs. However, section 13Y is not applicable as that is for prescribed sovereign entities and approved foreign government-owned entities.
The 10% concessionary tax rate under the Financial Sector Incentive – Fund Management Scheme will be extended to approved fund managers managing incentivised VCCs, and the existing Goods and Services Tax (GST) remission for funds will be extended to incentivised VCCs.
We intend for VCCs that are tax residents to access Singapore's tax treaties. Tax residence of VCCs and their sub-funds are determined based on facts and circumstances. To demonstrate that a VCC and its sub-funds are tax residents of Singapore, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) will issue a Certificate of Residence (COR) in the name of the VCC, with the names of the relevant sub-funds in the COR. Singapore will allow a sub-fund, being part of a VCC resident entity, to access Singapore's tax treaties. More details on the tax treatment for VCCs will be released by the end of this year.
Ms Foo Mee Har has also noted the importance of operational flexibility in closing down sub-funds. However, operational flexibility must be balanced against other considerations, including creditor protection. As sub-funds have assets and liabilities attributable to them, we need a fair, orderly and robust procedure to deal with the legal issues and practical difficulties that may arise in the course of liquidating a sub-fund and distributing its assets. Importantly, the legal obligations of parties in respect of a sub-fund's assets and liabilities must be clear.
The laws in general principles on corporate liquidation under the winding up provisions of the Companies Act (Cap 50) provide an established framework to ensure that the assets and affairs of sub-funds are dealt with in a fair and orderly manner. Insolvency practitioners in Singapore are also familiar with the winding up regime under the Companies Act (Cap 50) and would be well-placed to act as liquidators of sub-funds.
Ms Foo Mee Har has mentioned there could be room to further streamline processes and enhance operational efficiency with regard to the procedure for closing down sub-funds. MAS will study this and consider if there is a need to make further changes in subsequent legislative amendments.
Mr Murali Pillai has asked whether it was intended for information relating to a particular sub-fund to be accessible by all shareholders of the VCC, including those who may not have interests in that sub-fund.
Under the Bill, a VCC's financial statements are required to be made available to all VCC shareholders. As Mr Murali Pillai pointed out, this would mean that financial information of individual sub-funds in an umbrella fund would be made available to all shareholders of the same VCC.
One of the main benefits of the VCC framework is its ability to be used as an umbrella fund with multiple sub-funds. By not restricting shareholders' access to financial information of sub-funds within an umbrella VCC, this brings about economies of scale, as sub-funds within the umbrella fund would be able to consolidate certain administrative functions, including the preparation of financial statements.
For the same reason, a VCC will also be able to provide its financial information to prospective investors. Such transparency will allow and encourage existing and prospective investors to monitor and assess the VCCs ' financial performance. They will be more informed and be able to hold fund managers to account.
In terms of shareholder privacy, a VCC is not required to provide a shareholder with information relating to its other shareholders. An investor in a particular sub-fund will not have the right, under the Bill, to obtain information, such as the identity and shareholding of another investor in the same sub-fund.
Mr Murali Pillai has also asked about the criteria for overseas fund structures to re-domicile as VCCs. The VCC framework will adopt similar requirements as the inward re-domiciliation regime under the Companies Act (Cap 50). We will, however, not require re-domiciling entities to be of a certain minimum size in terms of assets, revenue and employees, as investment funds are inherently different from operating companies. Moreover, imposing such minimum criteria for re-domiciling entities would restrict the entry for smaller funds, such as those investing in venture capital or those used to seed or launch a new strategy. MAS will provide further details on the operational process for re-domiciliation in the subsidiary legislation.
Ms Foo Mee Har has asked whether more can be done to facilitate the adoption by local funds of the VCC structure. Existing local funds which are companies, unit trusts or LLPs can restructure to adopt the VCC structure, for example, by incorporating a new VCC and transferring the assets to the VCC. MAS will also study whether and how statutory mechanisms to facilitate the adoption of the VCC structure can be provided for in subsequent reviews. The tax framework will be studied in tandem.
One of the key features of the framework is that the VCC may pay dividends using capital.
Mr Leon Perera asked whether there are safeguards to make sure retail investors understand that the VCC may deplete its capital when paying such dividends. Let me assure Mr Leon Perera that the regulations under the Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289) require offering documents of funds to contain all information necessary for investors to make an informed assessment. In particular, funds that pay dividends out of capital are expected to disclose that dividends may be made out of capital and the implications of such dividends for investors. MAS will, as part its review of the funds’ documentation, check that such disclosures are made. The Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289) requirements will apply to VCCs as well.
Looking ahead, Mr Murali Pillai has suggested that some of the features of the VCC framework, such as its ability to segregate assets and liabilities and avoid contagion risks between sub-funds, may benefit other financial activities, such as insurance-linked securities, insurance captives, assets securitisation and family offices.
The VCC framework today is intended and designed for use as a corporate structure for investment funds. But I agree that some of the features could be useful for other applications. MAS will consider widening the scope of the VCC framework with appropriate modifications for applications in other sectors, in subsequent reviews.
Next, I will touch on the opportunities that the VCC framework will bring to Singapore. The introduction of the VCC framework will encourage fund managers to domicile their investment funds in Singapore. In turn, this will increase the pool of serviceable clients and create new work for local service providers, such as lawyers, auditors, fund administrators and fund custodians. For example, a new fund setting up as a VCC in Singapore will need, first, lawyers to draft the fund's legal documents; second, fund administrators to assist with the day-to-day operations of the fund; and third, accountants to prepare and audit the financial statements of the fund. The economic benefits rising from fund domiciliation will accrue to our local service providers and industry professionals.
Over the past year or so, MAS has worked closely with industry associations, local service providers and consultants to familiarise them with the value proposition and features of the VCC framework. The fund management industry associations – Investment Management Association of Singapore (IMAS), Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA) and Singapore Venture Capital Association (SVCA), as well as industry consultants, have provided useful feedback on the VCC framework. They have partnered MAS to reach out to their members and clients through industry briefing sessions. MAS will undertake more engagement sessions in the lead-up to the introduction of the VCC framework.
MAS is engaging local fund service providers as well as training providers to identify potential competency gaps and develop training programmes to ensure that industry professionals have the requisite skills to cater to the needs of VCCs.
Specifically to Mr Saktiandi Supaat’s point about upskilling accountants, MAS has also been working with the auditing firms, as accountants will need to have the relevant competencies to support the preparation of financial statements of VCCs using either local or global accounting standards and principles. MAS will be issuing industry guidance notes prior to the launch to further support the practical implementation of the VCC framework.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether the Government will proactively engage foreign firm managers to come to Singapore. Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Murali Pillai also asked if we can incentivise fund managers to set up VCCs here.
To attract global fund managers and deepen their investment capabilities here, MAS has taken the lead to foster and promote a conducive environment for fund managers. Global asset managers, such as AIA Investment Management, which set up its first group-wide regional investment hub in Singapore, continue to anchor activities locally.
The VCC will play an important role in enhancing Singapore’s value proposition which includes a robust regulatory regime. We believe foreign fund managers will find Singapore an attractive location to set up their operations and enjoy economies of scale from domiciling their funds in Singapore. Nonetheless, MAS will monitor the adoption and take-up of the VCC structure and consider whether specific incentives are needed to encourage more fund managers to set up funds as VCCs.
Finally, let me address the points on the potential risks of the VCC framework and the mitigating measures and safeguards that have been put in place.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether the flexibility accorded to investors to exit their investments in a VCC could cause disruptions or volatility to our economy. This flexibility is not unique to VCCs and is available to fund investors today. We have recognised it is important for investors to have the flexibility to enter into or exit their investments at any point in time. MAS is very much aware of the risks and have taken steps to address them at the system and fund levels. MAS closely monitors systemic risks to the economy, including those that may be caused by capital flows through investment funds.
Risks posed by the Singapore fund management sector to our financial markets are currently contained. A large part of assets under management in Singapore are invested outside Singapore, in the Asia Pacific region. The VCC provides an alternative structure of fund vehicle. But is not likely to significantly affect the investment behaviour of fund managers and investors.
Money invested in investment funds constituted as VCCs are therefore expected, in large part, to continue to be invested in assets overseas.
At the fund level, all regulated fund managers, including those managing VCCs, are expected to put in place effective liquidity risk management frameworks and practices to ensure that their funds remain capable of fulfilling redemption requests in a timely manner when there are significant fund withdrawals.
Fund managers may also use liquidity management tools, such as suspension of redemptions and redemption gates, under exceptional circumstances, to pace out redemptions and help minimise the risk of transacting at-fire sale prices.
Mr Louis Ng has queried how we will safeguard against misconduct by VCCs and protect Singapore's international reputation. Mr Murali Pillai has also asked how MAS can ensure risks relating to money laundering and financing of terrorism are managed, in particular, for certain managers that are not regulated by MAS.
Safeguarding the integrity of our financial system against illicit funds and activities is paramount in ensuring that Singapore continues to be a financial centre trusted by international investors and global FIs. Singapore is committed to the global fight against money laundering and financing of terrorism. We remain vigilant to the risk of abuse of our financial system as it grows in scale and sophistication.
In crafting the policies for VCCs, we have considered these risks and put in place two levels of safeguards to address them, taking reference from international standards. First, we will impose anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) requirements on VCCs, essentially requiring them to conduct due diligence checks and monitoring of all VCC shareholders, including looking through any nominees to the controllers behind them. This will help to ensure that the VCC shareholders are bona fide and will deter criminals from attempting to abuse the VCC for illicit purposes, including tax evasion.
In practice, being primarily an investment vehicle, the VCC can choose to outsource this function to its fund manager or distributer, such as a bank. However, MAS will require VCCs to delegate the performance of AML/ CFT controls to an FI that is regulated and supervised by MAS for AML/CFT purposes, to be assured that VCCs are leveraging well-qualified firms to do these important checks.
The FIs to which these AML/CFT requirements are delegated will be required to obtain information on the VCC shareholders to the extent necessary for them to perform the delegated responsibilities. MAS will consider providing further guidance on the eligible AML/CFT-regulated FIs which a VCC can delegate its AML/CFT requirements to.
I should highlight that the VCC is ultimately responsible for its own AML/CFT obligations, regardless of which FI the VCC outsources these functions to. MAS will adopt a risk-based supervisory approach, and higher-risk VCCs will be subject to closer scrutiny. MAS will not hesitate to take firm action against any VCC if AML/CFT controls are found to be inadequate.
Second, to ensure that VCCs are set up for legitimate purposes, there are requirements in the Bill as to who can manage them. VCCs must appoint fund managers regulated by MAS and directors who are fit and proper to manage and give directions on its activities. ACRA may direct the removal or replacement of a director who it is satisfied is not fit and proper, where it is necessary in the interests of the VCC, the VCC’s shareholders, or the public, to do so.
I agree with Mr Louis Ng that Singapore should not be perceived as a tax haven. Fundamentally, Singapore is a substantive economy, built on actual economic activities. The requirement for VCCs to be managed by fund managers regulated by MAS means that substantial fund management activities are already conducted in Singapore. Singapore works closely with the international community to deter the abuse of financial systems for the laundering of illicit funds, including proceeds of tax crimes.
We have also implemented international standards to combat base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS). Under our laws, profits taxed in Singapore must comply with the international arm's length principle to ensure that profits commensurate with the actual economic activities conducted in Singapore. Singapore exchanges financial account information with a wide network of tax authorities in other jurisdictions.
As regards Mr Gan Thiam Poh’s concerns about scams and Ponzi schemes, I would like to assure him that MAS continually renews its regulatory framework to safeguard the interests of retail investors. For example, to enhance investor protection, amendments to the Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289) were passed by Parliament last year to provide MAS with greater flexibility and powers to bring non-conventional investment products within MAS’ regulatory parameters. This was after MAS had observed that a number of non-conventional products, such as buyback arrangements involving gold or silver and plantation schemes, were deliberately structured to fall out of MAS' regulatory framework.
It is an offence to operate a fraudulent or deceptive scheme. There are many channels by which MAS and other law enforcement agencies receive information on such suspicious investments, such as from members of the public, the financial industry, and other regulatory and enforcement agencies, local as well as overseas. Where the information received suggest a breach of laws, the relevant authorities will investigate and will take appropriate action.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked about the number of complaints against fund managers. The number of complaints has been relatively low, on an average of 13 complaints per year against fund managers over the past five years. These complaints generally relate to the closure of funds, fund performance or service matters, such as short notice given for submission of voting, collection of personal information, failure to receive statements of holdings.
We recognise, however, that no amount of regulation can prevent fraud. Ultimately, investors still need to exercise caution and evaluate the risks and features of any investment product or schemes offered, taking into account information available on these products or schemes, before making an investment decision. I strongly encourage investors to deal only with entities regulated by MAS, and to consider the additional potential risks of dealing with investments and entities which are not regulated by MAS.
MAS aims to safeguard the interests of consumers by ensuring that they are provided with adequate information to make more informed investment decisions and are dealt with fairly by financial intermediaries. MAS has developed a number of resources on its website and through MoneySENSE, the national financial education programme, to share with the broader public common red flags of investment scams and that investors should be alerted to. MAS will continue to work with industry, schools and other Government agencies to enhance financial literacy among Singaporeans so that they can make sound financial decisions.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. The new VCC corporate structure is a game changer which will help position Singapore to be a fund domiciliation hub and enhance the value proposition to fund managers. It will attract more funds to domicile here, and provide new business opportunities for lawyers, accountants, fund administrators and fund custodians. It will enhance our international competitiveness as a leading fund management hub and financial centre, while providing safeguards to maintain Singapore’s reputation as a clean and trusted hub. Mr Deputy Speaker, 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 Indranee Rajah.] (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 at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to 12.30 pm tomorrow.\" – [Mr Desmond Lee.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Towards a Plastic-lite Singapore ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, 1.8 not million, not billion but trillion. A recent study found 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic, weighing a total of 80,000 tonnes, currently floating in a stretch of ocean between California and Hawaii. And researchers estimate that humans dump eight million tonnes of plastic in the ocean every year. The facts and statistics are beyond horrifying. As I looked into the problem further, I found video after video of people diving in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) waters full of plastic trash. It was truly disheartening.
Sir, I believe that we have reached a turning point for this issue of plastic waste. If we do not do anything about it, there will be more plastic than fish in our ocean by 2050. The plastic does not just stay in the sea. It breaks down, releasing greenhouse gases that worsen global warming. It chokes and kills a million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals every year. And ultimately, it breaks down into microplastics and is eaten by fish, crabs and mussels. This comes back to us on our plates, in our food. It comes back a full circle and our own plastic trash harms us directly. Plastic can no longer be seen just as an environmental problem. It is also a danger to our own health. It must be addressed as an urgent public safety issue.
Speaking at the Group of Seven (G7) Summit earlier this year, the United Nations (UN) Secretary General told world leaders that we are facing a \"global emergency\" over the plastic in our oceans, and that \"leadership is needed now, more than ever\" to protect \"our collective future and security\". Thus, I am heartened to see that Singapore is taking the initiative in organising international cooperation on this issue, through the 13th East Asia Summit. This November, Singapore will host officials from ASEAN countries along with several non-ASEAN countries, to discuss several issues, including a Statement on a Regional Plan of Action on Combatting Marine Plastic Debris.
Sir, many of the nations who will gather for this Summit have already demonstrated a firm commitment to action against plastic waste. Indonesia has pledged US$1 billion per year to various initiatives targeting plastic consumption and pollution. Malaysia has just announced their zero-waste plan that aims to abolish single-use plastic by 2030. The whole country or some cities in the United States, India, Myanmar, Australia, South Korea, Cambodia and China have either implemented some form of plastic bag charge or banned plastic bags or other single-use plastic items. Soon, Brunei and New Zealand will join them.
Given that much of the world’s ocean plastic originates from here, in this region, our actions can have a truly global impact. Singapore's platform as a regional leader and host of the East Asia Summit gives us the ability and responsibility to step up our own plastic reduction efforts at home and call on every member nation to do the same. Sir, Singapore is doing our part, but I feel we need to, we can and we must do more. We are doing well at tackling the symptoms of the problem. Singapore’s efficient waste management system ensures that litter in our waterways is removed with litter traps before it reaches the sea.
But oceans do not follow national borders. Whether the marine litter comes from us here in Singapore or other countries, it still ends up in our food and still washes up on Singapore's shores. And there is a lot of it. Just two weeks ago, Jo Teo shared on Facebook about her experience at an International Coastal Cleanup organised by Little Green Men: \"Today was an eye-opening experience for me. Having done beach cleanups with students, I’ve always thought that our beaches were ok. Not too dirty, maybe an odd piece of litter here and there. Perhaps we’ve always gone to 'cleaned' stretches of beaches.\"
\"Today, we were at a small stretch of Chek Jawa that is a little away from the boardwalk area where people typically visit. At first glance, it seemed to be fairly clean, yet in less than two hours, 30 plus of us collected well over 200 kilos of plastic! Plastic is really a HUGE problem! Imagine! We were only cleaning a tiny stretch of coastline perhaps just 50 metres long! What about those still in the water?”
We can continue cleaning our shores and continue trapping litter before it enters our waters. But we need to move beyond addressing symptoms of the problem. In August, at the Foreign Ministers' meeting in advance of the East Asia Summit, the Ministers noted that one of the root causes of marine plastic debris is the excessive use of plastic bags. That is the root of the problem, which we must tackle in order to successfully combat marine plastic debris. If every country just focuses on trapping waste before it enters the waters, we will be combating marine plastic debris problem forever. We need to tackle the excessive use of plastic and I hope that Singapore will take the lead in this.
In 2016, Singapore discarded 27 billion plastic bags, an average of 13 bags per person per day. This throwaway culture is so deeply ingrained. Even when I bring my own reusable bag to the supermarket, the cashier sometimes puts my groceries first into a plastic bag, and then into my reusable bag. We really need to start thinking about our plastic bag use. Senior Minister of State Amy Khor previously said, \"Unlike many of the countries that have imposed a ban or mandatory plastic charge, plastic bag charge, we do not directly landfill our plastic disposables but incinerate them. As such, we do not face the land and water pollution issues that plague those countries.\"
But, Sir, is it okay to waste so much plastic, simply because our waste will be burned or removed from sewage discharge into the ocean? Or phrased differently, is it alright to litter just because someone else will clean up after us? Burning the excessive number of plastic bags we throw away is again addressing the symptoms of the problem. Again, we need to tackle the root of the problem. And we all agree on this. As Senior Minister of State Amy Khor has stated, we must \"adopt a holistic approach and tackle this upstream\".
We should go to the source of the problem and cut plastic waste by cutting plastic use. Minister Masagos has also recently pointed this out, \"the issue with plastic waste here [is] not about improper disposal, but about reducing the demand\", and \"everyone [should work] together instead of waiting for someone else to take action\".
There are lots of people taking action in Singapore. Sir, many people have formed groups like Plastic-Lite SG, Zero Waste SG, Tingkat Heroes, and Straw-Free Singapore, organising campaigns and outreach efforts to educate others about how to fight our throw-away culture. This groundswell has also rippled through the private sector. Multinational brands like Hyatt Hotels, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) and IKEA, as well as local businesses like Unpackt, The Green Collective, Plain Vanilla, and Muthu's Curry, have taken the initiative to reduce or eliminate plastics in their operations. And just last month, the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS) launched \"#recycle more, waste less\", a nationwide campaign to discourage the use of single-use plastics.
In the public sector, the Government is engaging stakeholders to voluntarily reduce all types of packaging waste and cut the use of single-use plastic items. Soon, we will mandate businesses to report on the type and amount of packaging they put on the market and their plans for reduction.
We also have the Singapore Packaging Agreement, which encourages businesses to minimise packaging waste.
At our new hawker centres, we have also disallowed the use of disposables for dine-ins. And lastly, the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) will be developing an inaugural Zero Waste Masterplan to be released next year.
But the Government can and should do more. Sir, I propose two policy changes.
Firstly, we need to review the public sector’s own waste generation practices. In our Public Sector Sustainability Plan 2017 to 2020, the word \"plastic\" is only mentioned once, in the paragraph on recycling. The plan does talk about waste reduction. But I hope we can add the word \"plastic waste reduction\" to be more specific. I hope we can put a stronger emphasis on the reduction component rather than the recycling. Otherwise, we are again focusing on the symptoms of the problem.
The Senior Minister of State had previously stated that we ought to consider encouraging all Ministries and agencies to eliminate single-use plastics from their catering and events. This is really what our Government ought to do in order to walk the talk and lead by example.
And I hope we start this practice at Singapore's biggest party, our National Day Parade (NDP). This year's NDP fun pack contained many plastic items individually wrapped in plastic, and even an NDP 2018 plastic bag for each person to bag their waste. If NDP 2019 next year were to use only reusable items with minimal packaging, it would send a strong signal that our nation is committed to building a sustainable world.
Secondly, we must cut down the demand for single-use plastic bags by implementing a charge for single-use carrier bags of all materials. As Senior Minister of State Amy Khor had recently pointed out, substituting plastic bags with paper or other biodegradable plastic bags may have negative environmental outcomes, as the latter have higher carbon footprints. I agree with the Senior Minister of State that we should ensure consumers do not substitute carrier bags but, instead, make the switch to bringing their own reusable bags. Using one reusable bag a year can save 125 plastic bags from being littered or incinerated and the reduced demand for plastic would drastically decrease plastic production.
Let me stress that this is about reduction and not replacement. This Motion is about a plastic-lite Singapore, not a plastic-free Singapore.
And I do understand the public concern that plastic bags are necessary to bag household trash. I, too, use plastic bags to throw my rubbish down the rubbish chute.
To make sure that the plastic bag charge policy is tailored to Singapore's unique situation, bags used to carry fresh produce should be exempted from this charge. Using reusable bags to carry fresh produce, raw meat or seafood may be unhygienic, so plastic bags should be given out for free for such items. I understand that Hong Kong is already doing this. In this way, people can still obtain some free bags to bin their trash, maintaining the cleanliness and safety of our rubbish chutes and waste disposal system.
There are, of course, critiques of what Hong Kong is doing, how people are gaming the system because of this free bag exemption, how enforcement is difficult – and if I may add, the media asked me about this yesterday – and how the compliant rate is only about 50%. But, at least, Hong Kong is trying and I rather be optimistic and say, \"Not bad, 50% of retailers are compliant; good start!\"
A plastic bag charge has proven to be effective in Singapore. After implementing a 10-cent plastic bag charge in 2017, lifestyle brand Miniso reported that customers’ plastic bag usage dropped by 75%.
As IKEA Singapore demonstrated, this charge can also be a stepping stone to comprehensively eliminate use of all disposable plastic items. In 2007, they implemented a 10-cent plastic bag charge; in 2013, they stopped offering disposable bags entirely. Today, they are working to remove all single-use plastic products from the IKEA range and restaurants by 2020.
Based on the survey by zero-waste Singapore, many Singaporeans have responded positively to the possibility of a plastic bag charge. This may benefit retailers as well as customers. When we receive plastic bags from shops, we often think we are getting them for free. But, in fact, carrier bags may be a significant cost to retailers. Yi Hong Minimart spends $2,000 to $3,000 on plastic bags each month, or one month alone. These costs are obviously passed on to consumers, raising product prices. Hence, we are already paying for these plastic bags.
A shift towards a plastic-lite practice throughout the retail industry will give customers more choice in whether to pay for plastic bags and also help retailers save money and the environment. As such, while a plastic bag charge looks like it will increase cost for everyone, in fact, it will do the opposite and might help to bring cost down for everyone.
Sir, in conclusion, environmentalist Robert Swan said, \"The greatest threat to our planet is the belief that someone else will save it\".
Let us not play the waiting game. Although we live on this planet as if we had another one to go to, we do just have this planet we call home and we all need to save it, together and urgently.
Sir, just two days ago, my daughter Ella and I were at the opening of the Turtle Hatchery on Sisters' Island. On the boat ride there, Ella exclaimed, \"Look daddy, there is so much rubbish in the sea, we need to pick them up to save the animals\".
There really was so much plastic trash. It was shocking and painful to see so many plastic bags and bottles in the oceans, in Singapore waters. I shared this on Facebook on Saturday night and you can see over 80 plastic bottles in the oceans in one of the photos I took.
Sir, a four-year-old knows that this wrong. A four-year-old knows that we must do something to combat this plastic problem. Surely, we, as the Government, should take the lead and do more.
Singapore has done a lot. But I hope the Senior Minister of State's reply to my speech will not focus on what we have done and what we are currently doing. Those are already publicly available. I hope her speech will focus on what more we can do, beyond incinerating the plastic, recycling plastic waste, trapping the waste before it enters our waters, the packaging agreement and the mandatory reporting.
Lastly, Sir, I hope the Senior Minister of State can address these questions.
One, will we be putting more emphasis on plastic waste reduction in our public sector's sustainability plan?
Two, will the Public Service be eliminating single-use plastic from their catering events?
Three, will NDP 2019 use only reusable items with minimal packaging?
Lastly, and four, will the Government implement a charge for single-use carrier bags of all materials and not just plastic bags?
Sir, this Wednesday, Ella and her schoolmates will be doing a coastal clean-up. I am sure she is going to find lots of plastic on our shores. I sincerely hope that when my two other daughters Katie and Poppy grow up, there will no longer be a need to do coastal clean-ups.
The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Mr Deputy Speaker, managing plastic and packaging waste is one of the key priorities of my Ministry. I thank Mr Louis Ng for speaking in support of my Ministry’s work and encouraging everyone to strive for a plastic-lite Singapore.
My Ministry believes the long-term approach is to engage Singaporeans on the importance of sustainability. Quick fixes address the symptoms but not the root of the problem.
Hence, our aim is to build a national consciousness to care for the environment so that Singaporeans and businesses will take action, even beyond what the regulations require. This process may take longer, but that is the right way; the positive effects will go beyond plastic bags, beyond packaging, beyond waste management to areas, including climate action.
We can succeed. We see growing numbers of businesses and Singaporeans who go the extra mile to care for the environment. Mr Louis Ng himself is one such example. He has also cited many other examples and I notice that many of them are in the House today.
Let me share with Members the holistic approach my Ministry is undertaking to reduce plastic use and manage plastic waste. This goes beyond plastic bags to include packaging, such as bottles and containers. One third of domestic waste comes from packaging.
Even as we seek to reduce plastic usage, we recognise that plastics have their uses; substituting them with other materials may not be more environmentally friendly, as some may perceive. For example, the British Government estimated that a cotton tote bag must be used 173 times before its greenhouse gas emission impact improves beyond the plastic bags we use to line our bins. Our lifecycle assessment of common carrier bags had the same conclusion. Hence, our approach is to reduce excessive consumption of all types of packaging, including plastics used by businesses and individuals.
We started the Singapore Packaging Agreement in 2007. This voluntary initiative is well-supported by companies and has collectively reduced some 46,000 tonnes of packaging.
We are now moving to a regulatory system to tackle packaging waste systematically on a large scale.
Hence, we brought forward the requirement for businesses to report the type and amount of packaging they are putting on the market and their plans for reduction, by one year, to 2020. This will focus management’s attention on the amount of packaging used and raise awareness of the potential to reduce packaging.
We are also studying the feasibility of adopting the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) approach for packaging waste. This will impose collection targets on businesses who use or produce packaging. It incentivises businesses to reduce their packaging upstream and ensures the proper recycling of packaging downstream.
We will publish the details of these initiatives to address packaging waste, and other measures for e-waste, food waste and so forth in the inaugural Zero Waste Masterplan to be launched next year. We will not hesitate to legislate where necessary. But we will do so by taking a pragmatic and considered approach that suits our local context.
While we will always seek to learn from others, it is never our practice in policymaking to simply follow what other countries have done.
Our efforts to address plastic waste go beyond our borders. We take the issue of marine plastic pollution seriously. Singapore participates actively in regional and international discussions to address marine litter and microplastics. We also contribute to international capacity-building efforts. For example, under the Singapore-Norway Third Country Training Programme, the National Environment Agency (NEA) partnered experts from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and our Norwegian counterparts to share our expertise on waste management and pollution control, as well as the management of plastic waste and microplastics.
We are heartened by the efforts of various countries to tackle marine plastic pollution, as highlighted by Mr Louis Ng. Singapore is also doing our part. We have strict anti-littering measures and dispose of most general waste at our waste-to-energy plants to prevent marine pollution from land-based sources. Any litter that enters our waterways is removed using litter traps and flotsam removal craft before it reaches the sea.
Let us be clear. Marine pollution is caused by the improper disposal of plastic waste, and not the use of plastics per se. A 3 March Economist article entitled \"The known unknowns of plastic pollution\" reached the same conclusion. Hence, our measures deal with the root cause of marine pollution and are not merely addressing symptoms, as Mr Louis Ng posited.
The result is that Singapore is acknowledged as one of the smallest contributors to marine plastic pollution in the world, according to studies, including a 2015 University of Georgia study on \"Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the Ocean\" and the UN Environment’s 2016 report on marine plastic debris and microplastics.
That notwithstanding, we will continue to address the issue of marine plastics pollution through our stringent anti-littering measures, educating the public against littering and excessive consumption of plastics and introducing regulatory measures to minimise plastic and packaging waste upstream.
The public sector is also doing its part to promote green practices among its agencies. We have published a Best Practice Guide to guide agencies to organise environmentally friendly events. For example, we avoid the use of plastic bottled water and disposables by providing water dispensers and reusable crockery and cutlery where possible. We will also continue to improve our Public Sector Sustainability Plan, where waste reduction is a key thrust, and I will try to make sure that \"plastics\" is mentioned more than once. Under the plan, we require large buildings to report the amount of waste disposed and will set waste reduction targets for the public sector.
I am happy to share that my Ministry is definitely taking the lead. We do not serve bottled water for meetings. Our staff bring their own plates and cutlery for events to avoid the use of disposables. We are encouraging other public sector agencies to do the same for their meetings and events, such as the NDP as well as community activities, to minimise the use of plastics.
Beyond what the public sector is doing, I am encouraged that many passionate groups and individuals like Plastic-Lite SG, UnPackt and Tabao Girl are moving the ground in their own ways. Companies, such as KFC and IKEA, have similarly done so. I welcome more to join them. NEA will support them if required, such as through the 3P Partnership Fund.
Last year, NEA supported Zero Waste SG’s Bring-Your-Own Campaign that brought 430 retailers and food and beverage (F&B) companies together to incentivise consumers to bring their own reusable containers and bags. Not only did it raise awareness, it also averted the use of two million pieces of plastic disposables. This shows how we can multiply our impact if we all work in partnership.
On the proposed carrier bag charge, we will continue to monitor developments in this area. Mr Louis Ng referred to the Hong Kong system of giving free bags for hygiene purposes. This addresses the issue of providing some bags to households for bagging their waste. But as he also noted, this complicates the system, making enforcement even more difficult. I understand from reports, as Mr Louis Ng also pointed out, that the non-compliance rate in Hong Kong is about a third to half.
The Singapore Environment Council's latest survey showed that two-thirds of respondents use their plastic bags for bagging waste. An equal proportion of respondents ranked a plastic bag charge as their most and their least preferred option.
There is still more we can do to persuade consumers not to take more than they need, and to bring their own reusable bags. As the same Economist article puts it, even though plastics is not at the top of environmental ills, it is highly visible, and I would say, emotional. This gives us the opening to encourage Singaporeans to form the right habits.
I believe this is one area where we can work with our 3P partners to engage and educate Singaporeans and change their habits.
Sir, to sum up, the key shift my Ministry is working on is to develop in Singapore a national consciousness to care for the environment. Let us give the policies that we have and will be putting in place time to take effect and for people to change habits. I would like to thank as well as urge the many passionate individuals like Mr Louis Ng, and the passionate groups, including the many who are here today, to continue to partner us to shape our nation's values. Only then will our efforts be sustainable.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng, you have some clarifications?
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Sir, I have three clarifications. I think the Senior Minister of State mentioned about encouraging, but can I confirm whether the Public Service is planning to eliminate single use plastic in our catering of events?
Same for NDP, I think the Senior Minister of State mentioned that we are going to encourage, but I think planning would have probably started for 2019. So, can I confirm that NDP 2019 will only use reusable items with minimal packaging?
Lastly, for the proposed carrier bag charge, can I ask whether MEWR can at least do a study on this issue and whether they can report back to this House once the study is completed?
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his further clarifications.
Firstly, in terms of getting the public sector to reduce its use of disposables, as I have said, we have a Best Practice Guide, and actually in the Best Practice Guide, we mentioned \"plastics\" many times. So, we have encouraged them to reduce the use of plastic bottles, plastic bags, as much as possible, as well as reduce packaging of their collaterals. And what we can say is that we will encourage them to do this as much as possible because, for some events, including NDP and major events, it may not be possible to entirely do away with bottled water, and just use water dispensers, because of the large number of people. So, as far as practicable and applicable, we will encourage them to do so.
With regard to NDP 2019, we will encourage the NDP organisers to do this also as much as it is practicable.
With regard to the study, actually we have already done an extensive study on single-use carrier bags and disposables, and we have shared in this House and with the Member, too, the results of the study where it showed it is not necessarily true that using other types of disposables versus plastics will give you a better environmental outcome or impact. As I also noted earlier in this speech, even the British study has shown that for a reusable tote bag to benefit in terms of greenhouse gas emission reduction, you have to use it 173 times.
So, what you really want to do is to go upstream. And I suppose I will be disappointing the Member by reiterating and repeating what I have said in this House before and what I will be saying again on the same issues that the Member has also raised in this House that, really, what we want to do is move upstream. And we will not hesitate to implement and take regulatory measures to manage waste and to protect the environment where we think it is practicable, effective and useful to do so. So, we will be implementing carbon tax, as well as EPR on e-waste, as well as mandatory reporting for packaging waste and the reduction plans.
As far as carrier bags are concerned, we think that it is more practicable, more sustainable, to take the long-term approach. It may take a longer time, but it is really to change habits, educate and encourage the public to reduce the use of disposables and all types of packaging.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng, you have only two more minutes.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I will use the two minutes, Sir.
I know we have the guidelines; I know this will not happen overnight as well. Malaysia has announced that they are going to do it by 2030. So, I am just wondering if MEWR has a long-term plan of eliminating single-use plastics in public sector events. Can we at least commit to, say, we will eliminate this by 2030? So, maybe not NDP 2019, but NDP 2030? Can we do this?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State, you have only one and a half minutes.
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: We will leave it to whoever the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources is at that point in time to decide on NDP 2030.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 8.04 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":"Evaluation Process for Approving Citizenship Applications by PR Spouses of Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how does ICA ensure fairness, transparency and consistency during the evaluation process in approving citizenship applications by PR spouses of Singaporeans; and (b) what are the reasons for not stating the grounds for rejection of citizenship applications, especially if spouses of Singaporean are involved.
Mr K Shanmugam: Applications for Singapore Citizenship (SC) are assessed on a range of criteria. The applications are put through a few layers of checks. The same approach is adopted for appeals and subsequent applications.
On the Member's second question, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) evaluates applications from foreign spouses married to Singaporeans on a range of factors, including the ability of the Singaporean sponsor to support the foreign spouse, the length of marriage, and whether they have any children from the marriage. These general factors are shared openly with the public.
However, we do not share the specific criteria or grounds for rejecting applications.
One, information about detailed assessment criteria can be abused to inflate an undeserving applicant's chances of success. Some people could then try and game the system.
Two, those whose applications have been rejected may also use the reasons for rejection to try and arouse sentiments in other countries, with potential diplomatic implications. This is not in Singapore's interests.
That said, I assure the Members that if they raise specific deserving cases to our attention, we will reassess them carefully.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Review Alumni Priority Admission Scheme for Primary 1 Registration","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the alumni priority admission scheme for Primary 1 will be reviewed; (b) whether a higher proportion of admission places can be reserved for non-alumni related students in primary schools; and (c) whether in the current system, parents who are alumni members and active contributors have priority over parents who are just dormant alumni members.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The current Primary 1 (P1) Registration Framework reflects a careful consideration of factors, such as siblings already studying in the school, parental ties to the school, proximity between the school and homes, various forms of voluntary contributions to the school and the community. Each is a valid justification for admission on a priority basis.
Like all other policies, the Ministry of Education (MOE) reviews the P1 registration framework periodically and has refined the system over the years after taking into account feedback. The last significant change was for the 2014 P1 Registration Exercise, when we reserved 40 places in every school for registrants in Phases 2B and 2C. This ensures that all schools remain open to children with no prior connections to the school. We will monitor the effects of these changes before deciding if further refinements should be made.
MOE will continue to resource all our schools with well-trained teachers, invest in suitable education facilities and provide support for good school programmes, so that all students can receive a good quality and holistic education, regardless of the school which he or she attends.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiatives to Ensure Compliance with Advisory Guidelines for NRIC and other Identification Numbers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Communications and Information in light of the updated Advisory Guidelines issued by the Personal Data Protection Commission for NRIC and other national identification numbers (a) what are the initiatives that will be taken to ensure organisations review and implement the necessary changes to their business practices and processes to be aligned to the guidelines; (b) how will enforcement be carried out to check on organisations which continue to inappropriately collect NRIC numbers and ensure those who had previously done so dispose of these sensitive data in a proper manner; and (c) what is the platform and process for consumers or members of the public who wish to make a report on organisations which inappropriately collect NRIC numbers.
Mr S Iswaran: The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC), recently updated its Advisory Guidelines on the collection, use and disclosure of National Registration Identity Card and other national identification numbers. In summary, the Guidelines set out that organisations are allowed to do so only if it is required by the law, or if it is necessary to accurately establish or verify an individual's identity to a high degree of fidelity.
PDPC, together with the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), is adopting a two-pronged approach to help organisations align their practices with the Guidelines.
Firstly, PDPC is increasing awareness among organisations of the Guidelines through its outreach activities. For example, PDPC has briefed trade associations on the Guidelines. PDPC will also be carrying out additional briefings and producing collaterals for distribution to companies.
Secondly, PDPC and IMDA are providing organisations with technical support to make the transition. These include a technical guide on alternatives to NRIC numbers for websites and public facing computer systems; a template to notify customers of the organisation's efforts and timeframe to comply with the Guidelines; and pre-approved solutions that organisations can adopt, such as visitor management and customer management systems. Organisations can reach out to PDPC or PDPC's panel of Data Protection Advisors for assistance.
To allow organisations adequate time to review and refine their existing business practices and processes to comply with the Guidelines, they will take effect on 1 September 2019. Thereafter, individuals who encounter non-compliance can lodge a complaint with PDPC. PDPC will review each complaint and take appropriate actions, such as directing non-complying organisations to dispose of the data and imposing financial penalties.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Term Financial Assistance for NSFs that were Supported by Commanders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Defence (a) whether the figure of 80% of applications approved for Term Financial Assistance (TFA) for NSFs refers only to the applications supported by commanders; and (b) if so, what percentage of applications by NSFs for TFA were not supported by their commanders in the past five years.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Eighty per cent of all applications for Term Financial Assistance were approved and include applications that were not supported by the commanders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alternative Remedies to Reinstatement for Those Seeking Mediation for Unfair Dismissal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to persons undergoing mediation by the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) for alleged unfair dismissal (a) whether there are remedies other than reinstatement that are provided in the law, given that the complainant may prefer other forms of redress instead; and (b) if so, in what proportion of alleged unfair dismissal mediation cases have non-reinstatement remedies been applied in each of the past five years and what have been these remedies.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Employment Act empowers the Minister for Manpower to direct an employer to reinstate an employee who has been wrongfully dismissed in his former job and to pay the employee for the loss of income, or direct the employer to compensate the employee.
An average of 200 employees sought assistance for wrongful dismissal each year in the past five years. Following mediation, slightly more than half of the cases came to an amicable settlement with payments to the employee. Another 10% of cases were settled through other mutual agreements between employer and employee, such as converting the employee’s dismissal into a resignation or the employer providing the employee with a service testimonial. A further 20% of the cases were withdrawn by the employee. These cases account for about 80% of the cases.
The remaining 20% of the cases were escalated to the Minister for Manpower for a decision. Where an employee is found to have been wrongfully dismissed, compensation is generally preferred to reinstatement at this stage because the employer-employee relationship would have been strained and reinstatement would not be practical. In the last five years, where wrongful dismissal is substantiated, the Minister has ordered compensation instead of reinstatement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monopolising of Hospital Cleaning Contracts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current total number of cleaning service providers that are contracted by the different hospitals under the Ministry; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure that other cleaning companies have the chance to build their capacity in this sector and prevent the hospital cleaning contracts from being monopolised.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Our three public healthcare clusters – National University Health System (NUHS), National Healthcare Group (NHG) and Singapore Health Services (SingHealth) – are currently served by four different cleaning providers.
All three clusters adopt an open process in selecting cleaning providers. Tenders are open to all cleaning companies, including those that are not currently contracted, and bidders can submit bids for consolidated contracts or sub-components of contracts. This arrangement enables smaller and newer vendors to participate in the tenders.
Submitted tenders are evaluated for both price and quality, so as to ensure that the cleaning providers have the operational capabilities to meet our healthcare institutions' requirements in a cost-effective way.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Elderly Suicide and Isolation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health whether any new and additional measures will be taken to (i) address the increase in elderly suicides and (ii) prevent or minimise elderly isolation.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: While the number of elderly suicides has increased in recent years along with our ageing population, the suicide death rates among our elderly have, in fact, declined over the past decade. The suicide rate among Singapore residents aged 60 and above fell from 22.4 per 100,000 residents in 2007 to 16.4 in 2017.
However, each suicide is one too many. Government agencies and partners in the health and social sectors work together to prevent suicides by promoting upstream prevention, proactively reaching out to pre-empt social isolation and providing support to those at-risk.
Prevention. First, in the area of prevention, it is important to build mental resilience in our population, increase awareness of the importance of good well-being and share information on available community resources for mental health support. For example, the National Council of Social Service recently launched a new Mental Health Public Education Campaign that aims to destigmatise mental health issues and encourage help-seeking behaviour. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) helps older adults learn more about mental well-being and resilience through the National Seniors' Health Programme in the community and at workplaces.
Proactive Outreach and Support. Second, we need programmes to pre-empt social isolation, especially for seniors who live alone or have weak social support. For example, we are building communities of care through the Community Networks for Seniors (CNS), which will be progressively expanded to achieve nationwide coverage by 2020. CNS will connect seniors, identified by the Silver Generation Ambassadors, who are single or live alone to a befriender. To date, there are over 1,000 befrienders serving more than 3,200 seniors. This complements the efforts of Senior Activity Centres that reach out to seniors in the community. Seniors living alone can also be referred to \"Care Line\", a pilot one-stop 24/7 hotline that provides tele-befriending services to those with medical or emotional conditions or facing difficulties in coping. Over 2,100 seniors have enrolled with Care Line to date. We plan to expand Care Line nationwide to reach out to more seniors across Singapore through partnerships with CNS and other community partners.
Identifying At-risk Seniors. Third, we have established services and programmes to support seniors identified to be at higher risk of suicide. The Agency for Integrated Care’s (AIC’s) Community Resource, Engagement and Support Teams (CREST) programme reaches out to seniors at risk of dementia or depression and teaches them and their caregivers basic socio-emotional skills and coping strategies, including where to seek help if needed. Seniors with mild to moderate depression may be referred to counselling and therapy services. Family Service Centres (FSCs) also provide counselling and support services to families with seniors to help them with relationship problems, as well as financial and emotional difficulties.
Crisis Interventions. Lastly, services are in place to support persons facing a crisis and who require urgent assistance. The Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) operates a 24-hour hotline to counsel persons in distress. Similarly, the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) operates a 24-hour Mental Health Helpline to assess and triage cases and activate home visit teams if necessary. For cases of attempted suicide, the Police may engage the next-of-kin to link them up with support or refer the individual to IMH for an assessment and treatment, if needed.
The causes of suicide are complex and multifaceted. An interaction of factors, such as family, social and mental health issues, may sometimes trigger suicidal behaviour. Individuals, the community and the Government can all play a part in identifying and caring for seniors who may exhibit signs of distress or require emotional support. We will continue to strengthen our interagency and multi-pronged efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Retirement Age","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Manpower whether there are plans to review the retirement age and push it up to 65 automatically without any disruption to salary or benefits in light of Singaporeans living longer.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Earlier this year, I announced the formation of the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers (TWG-OW). Among other things, the Workgroup will review the longer-term relevance of the retirement and re-employment age and consider the next steps that will best address the needs of our economy and society.
TWG-OW held its first meeting last month. It has started to gather views from different groups and will consider the matter holistically, taking into account the perspectives of workers, employers and other stakeholders. The Ministry of Manpower hopes to share the Workgroup's initial set of findings at the Committee of Supply debate next year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sectors That Have Successfully Used Professional Conversion Programme to Recruit Mid-career Jobseekers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) which are the top three sectors that have successfully used the Professional Conversion Programme to recruit mid-career jobseekers; and (b) what are the success factors.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Under the Adapt and Grow initiative, the Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) provide training and salary support to companies to hire and train individuals who are switching into new jobs or sectors. Workforce Singapore (WSG) currently offers over 100 PCPs in about 30 sectors.
In 2017, about 3,800 individuals were placed through PCPs. The top three sectors were Early Childhood Care and Education, General Manufacturing and Marine. These three sectors accounted for about one in three placements last year.
The success of PCPs depends chiefly on the participation of progressive employers who adopt a \"plug-train-play\" mindset. The employers on our PCPs are prepared to hire and train Singaporean workers who may not have the full set of skills and experience preferred for the job but have the potential to do the job with some effort in training.
In addition, about 500 of the PCP placements in 2017 came from PCPs where employers partnered WSG to retrain existing staff whose jobs were being phased out and redeploy them into new job roles within the same company. Redeployment PCPs are a new area of focus, given the increasing pace of technological disruption and company transformations. This requires companies to plan ahead for their workforce needs and work closely with WSG and the economic agencies on suitable retraining to be able to redeploy staff into new job roles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiting Time for Applicants for Heavy Vehicle Season Parking in Nee Soon GRC","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development in view of the 370 applicants on the waitlist for heavy vehicle season parking spaces in and around Nee Soon GRC (a) how long will the waiting time be; and (b) what is the Ministry doing to expedite the waiting process.
Mr Lawrence Wong: As of mid-July 2018, there were 339 applicants on the waitlist for the 845 public heavy vehicle parking (HVP) spaces in and around Nee Soon. The waiting time will vary depending on how many drivers give up their parking spaces, the length of the waitlist, and the number of spaces for each parking lot. Besides the public HVP spaces, applicants can also take up private HVP spaces in the area, where there are vacancies available.
On a nationwide basis, as of mid-July 2018, the 42,372 HVP spaces far exceeded the 33,500 heavy vehicles registered with the Land Transport Authority (LTA). All registered heavy vehicles are required to have a designated overnight HVP space. Those who prefer to remain on the waiting list for public HVP spaces should continue to park at their designated parking lot or explore alternative spaces via LTA's one-motoring website. Business owners should also work out the appropriate transport options for their HVP drivers to commute to and from work.
While HVP drivers would like to park near their homes, we have also received feedback from local residents about noise and safety concerns arising from the heavy vehicle traffic. Land near residential areas is also needed for housing and community needs. It is, therefore, difficult to continue meeting the demand for HVP spaces in residential areas. Instead, if and when existing public HVP spaces in residential areas are phased out due to development plans, we will introduce HVP spaces in industrial sites sold through the Government Land Sales programme near the area, where possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Imported Fresh Durians Found Tainted with Excessive Chemical Agents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether there have been any imported fresh durians that have failed the food safety check or found to be contaminated or tainted with chemicals or excessive chemical agents that were not allowed to be imported for the past three years.
Mr Lawrence Wong: As part of its food safety regime, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) inspects and takes samples from imported fruits, including durians, to ensure that they comply with our standards and requirements. Samples are tested for the presence of pesticide residues and other non-permitted chemicals. Imported fruits that fail AVA's inspection and food safety tests will not be allowed for sale.
Over the past three years, all the durian samples tested have met our food safety standards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requirement for Prepayments Collected by Businesses in Sale of Goods and Services to be Deposited into Escrow Account","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry will introduce a law to require all pre-payments collected by businesses in the sales of goods and services to be deposited into an escrow account that is free from encumbrances and creditors' claims and which account is strictly for use by the affected consumers for goods and services that have yet to be rendered or consumed.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Today, it is not unusual for businesses to collect monies from consumers before they provide their goods and services to consumers. Consumers bear the risk of not being able to recover their monies in the event that a business suddenly ceases operations. This has resulted in public concerns on how companies should handle the monies they receive from consumers and the Member’s suggestion to require all businesses to deposit advance monies collected from consumers in an escrow account.
Let me first set out a few broad scenarios under which businesses may collect monies from consumers before they provide their goods and services to consumers. These are not exhaustive.
First, a business which is acting as an agent for its clients may need to hold monies in trust for its clients. We have rules that specify how such agents should handle monies that are held in trust. An example of this is for conveyancing transactions. Under the law, lawyers are not permitted to receive and hold conveyancing monies unless such monies are deposited in special conveyancing accounts opened with appointed banks, the Singapore Academy of Law or in an escrow account.
Second, businesses may, as part of their loyalty programmes and promotions, come up with their own stored value facilities and offer consumers a better deal when they purchase using these facilities. For example, a business may give consumers a discount off their purchases if they choose to pay using their stored value cards. There are also businesses which offer stored value facilities for payment of goods and services offered by various merchants. These are commonly known as multi-purpose stored value facilities.
Third, businesses may also decide to offer consumers a variety of payment options for their services, such as prepaid packages and coupons. Businesses usually offer a lower unit price for these options. For example, an operator may charge consumers $100 for each session of their service but may offer consumers a better price of $90 per session if they choose to prepay for 10 sessions.
Fourth, businesses may also require consumers to make full or partial payment before they deliver the goods and services to consumers in full. Businesses may do this to ensure that the consumers are committed to the purchase before they put in time and resources to engage their own suppliers.
Fifth, businesses may also collect security deposits from consumers. The purpose of collecting such deposits is usually to cover the cost to businesses in the event of consumers' damage of rented goods or consumer default in payment for post-paid services.
As illustrated, there are many different scenarios under which businesses may collect monies from consumers before they provide their goods and services. Different scenarios carry different risks and require different controls to manage those risks. A mandatory requirement for businesses to ringfence all prepayments in an escrow account would stifle growth and innovation of legitimate businesses and affect the operations of small and medium enterprises in particular. Broad-based regulatory measures would inevitably raise the cost of doing business which would be passed on to consumers. In some cases, this may even undermine the commercial viability of an industry.
Instead of imposing broad-based regulatory measures, the Government has taken the approach of assessing the need and scope for specific regulatory measures for each sector. For instance, the Committee for Private Education (CPE) has imposed requirements on private education institutions to protect students’ course fees through fee collection caps and insurance schemes. The Singapore Tourism Board (STB) requires travel agents to offer consumers the option to purchase travel insurance that includes protection of their prepayments in the event of the travel agent’s insolvency. The Monetary Authority of Singapore has oversight of stored value facilities under the Payment Systems (Oversight) Act. The Act requires large multi-purpose stored value facilities holders that hold stored value exceeding S$30 million to seek approval from the Monetary Authority of Singapore to operate and appoint a bank to guarantee the outstanding stored value.
Besides regulatory measures, the industry also plays a role in uplifting standards. The Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) has worked with industry associations to develop CaseTrust accreditation schemes for specific industries. A number of these schemes, including those for spa and wellness, renovation, motor vehicles and school bus services have prepayment protection requirements. We encourage consumers to patronise CaseTrust-accredited businesses.
Consumers can also manage potential risks by making informed decisions. In this regard, CASE has issued several consumer tips on prepayment protection to help consumers. There are some questions that consumers can ask a business before committing to a prepayment. For example, \"Can I choose to pay for the cost of goods or services in parts over a period of time rather than pay for the full cost upfront?\"; \"What is your refund policy?\"; and \"Does your business provide any protection on consumer prepayments?\" By asking such questions and also comparing what different businesses offer, consumers will be empowered to make informed decisions.
In conclusion, we need to strike a balance between safeguarding consumers and enabling business innovation and growth. The risks and controls would be different for different scenarios and while the Government has put in place regulatory measures to safeguard consumers' interests, the industry and consumers also have a role to play. The Government will continue to monitor developments and consider additional sector-specific prepayment protection requirements as necessary, taking into consideration the cost impact on businesses and consumers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cost Savings with Liberalisation of Electricity Market for Jurong Region","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with liberalisation of the electricity market for the Jurong region since 1 April 2018 (a) how many eligible households have opted to switch from buying electricity from SP Group; and (b) what is the average cost savings experienced by these households who chose the alternative providers.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Energy Market Authority (EMA) introduced the Open Electricity Market in Jurong in April 2018, providing around 120,000 households and small businesses with the choice to buy electricity from a retailer with a price plan that best meets their needs. Consumers who do not wish to switch to a retailer can remain with SP Group and continue buying electricity at the regulated tariff, and there is no deadline for switching.
This soft launch has gone well. As of mid-September 2018, more than 30% of Jurong households have switched to a retailer. These households are paying an average electricity rate that is 20% lower than the regulated tariff. EMA will progressively extend the Open Electricity Market to the rest of Singapore from 1 November 2018.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Protect Private Hire Vehicle Drivers against Harassment from Commuters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry can introduce measures to better protect private hire vehicle drivers against harassment from commuters.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA), it is an offence to use any threatening, abusive or insulting words, or behave in such a manner that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to the victim. Commuters who contravene an offence under POHA may be liable upon conviction to fines and/or imprisonment.
We will continue to work with the National Private Hire Vehicles Association and the private hire car (PHC) booking service operators to ensure that PHC drivers can work in a safe environment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategy and Sustainable Actions to Handle Drug-related Problems in Geylang","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the strategy and sustainable action to handle the drug-related issues in the back lanes and coffee shops in Geylang, in particular Lorong 22 to Lorong 40.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police, Central Narcotics Bureau and Health Sciences Authority adopt a coordinated and multi-agency approach to tackle illicit activities in Geylang. This includes frequent joint patrols and enforcement operations.
These efforts are augmented by the deployment of Auxiliary Police Officers, who also perform high-visibility patrols and enforce against a wide range of regulatory offences.
The Police have also installed more cameras and improved the lighting in Geylang to enhance the deterrence and detection of illicit activities, especially at the back lanes. There are now close to 300 cameras in Geylang, six times more than in 2014.
With these sustained efforts by the law enforcement agencies, including at Lorong 22 to Lorong 40, the crime, drug and illegal medicine situation in Geylang remains under control. We will continue our tough enforcement approach and further step up as necessary. We will also continue to work closely with the local grassroots, residents, business operators and other Government agencies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deter Taking of Voyeuristic Photos or Videos with Hidden Cameras","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is being done to deter the taking of voyeuristic photographs or videos involving hidden cameras; and (b) whether there has been an increase in the number of Police investigations and prosecutions related to this offence.
Mr K Shanmugam: We encourage victims of voyeurism to make a Police report as soon as possible. It gives us a better chance of apprehending the culprit. Under our current laws, those found guilty of taking voyeuristic photos or videos are liable to imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine, or both.
The Penal Code Review Committee (PCRC) has made recommendations to strengthen deterrence against voyeurism. It has recommended introducing new offences relating to the making, distribution, possession and accessing of voyeuristic recordings. PCRC has also recommended that offenders who make such recordings be liable to imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine, or both, and caning. The penalty will be enhanced if the victim is below 14 years of age.
The Government has just completed its public consultation on the PCRC's recommendations and will take the public feedback into consideration when making our decisions.
The number of voyeurism cases involving hidden cameras investigated by the Police has increased in the last few years. This is partly because more people are willing to step forward to report the cases. Between 2013 and 2017, the number increased from about 150 to about 230 per year. About a quarter of these cases resulted in Court prosecution.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requests for More High Sheltered Linkways Across Roads and Crossings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update and findings on the pilot for high covered linkways across roads and crossings; and (b) when is the expected rollout for some of the long pending requests.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Under its Walk2Ride Programme, The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has completed 200 kilometres of covered linkways last month. These include around 900 high covered linkways across roads of up to three lanes wide.
LTA has also received requests for high covered linkways over roads with four lanes or more. As these linkways are longer and span across roads more frequently used by faster vehicles, they need to be properly reinforced to prevent a collapse of the linkway should a vehicle hit its supporting columns. The additional reinforcements take up more space and require more civil works and diversions. As a result, these linkways are more expensive to construct, costing around $550,000 each. This is six times more costly than high covered linkways over two- or three-lane roads.
LTA will need to carefully assess and prioritise the construction of such linkways, taking into account inputs from the local communities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prosecutions, Convictions and Investigations Carried Out against Human Trafficking Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether he can provide an update on the number of prosecutions, convictions and investigations carried out against cases of human trafficking in the last three years; and (b) what is the Government's response to Singapore's position in Tier 2 of the 2018 Trafficking in Persons Report published by the US Department of State.
Mr K Shanmugam: Since the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act (PHTA) was enacted in 2015, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Singapore Police Force (SPF) have received information on and investigated 177 cases of alleged sex and labour trafficking. Eight were found to be substantiated as trafficking cases, while the other 169 were not. Of the eight trafficking cases, four cases have been concluded with four persons convicted under PHTA, fined up to $30,000, and sentenced to imprisonment terms ranging from 38 to 80 months. The remaining four cases are still undergoing Court proceedings.
The United States (US) Department of State’s ranking of Singapore in Tier 2 of the 2018 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report means that, in their view, we do not fully meet the \"minimum standards\" for the Elimination of Trafficking in Persons under the US Trafficking Victims Protection Act 2000, but we are making \"significant efforts\".
We do not share the US' view. Our laws are tough and fair, and our approach to human trafficking is, like our approach to any other crime, uncompromising. The report misrepresents ground realities.
For example, the report alleges that \"large numbers\" of migrant workers experience conditions indicative of labour trafficking in Singapore but provides no statistics to back this claim. On the contrary, MOM surveyed about 1,000 foreign domestic workers in 2015 and found that approximately 97% of them were satisfied with working in Singapore, and approximately 80% said that they would recommend Singapore to their friends and relatives as a place to work. The results were similar to an earlier survey done in 2014.
The report also claims that the Police did not consistently screen for trafficking indicators among women apprehended in law enforcement operations. On the contrary, all persons found to have been engaging in vice activities are interviewed and assessed by the Police to ascertain if they might be TIP victims. Frontline officers from MOM, SPF and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) are issued with a \"TIP awareness card\" containing the key elements and indicators of TIP to aid their identification of possible victims. They are then referred to specialised TIP units in MOM or SPF for follow-up investigations.
Singapore takes a serious view of TIP. We have in place robust laws and processes, as well as a committed and competent law enforcement system, to ensure that we are not a destination for human traffickers. We have achieved several significant milestones in our efforts against TIP, such as the enactment of PHTA in 2015, which prescribes severe penalties for such crimes. This includes a mandatory prison sentence of up to 10 years. For first-time offenders, the Court may also impose a fine of up to S$100,000 and caning of up to six strokes. For recalcitrant offenders, the law prescribes mandatory caning of up to nine strokes.
In addition to investigating and prosecuting trafficking cases under PHTA, Singapore also adopts a proactive approach to detect and deal early with cases that have the potential to become TIP cases. Our wider legal framework comprises various pieces of legislation to protect women and workers in Singapore, such as the Women's Charter and Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. Under this framework, enforcement agencies like SPF and MOM conduct regular operations to detect and deter illegal activities that may be indicative of human trafficking, such as vice activities and illegal labour. Our pre-emptive enforcement stance has helped to keep the number of TIP cases low.
PHTA also provides measures for the care of TIP victims to encourage the reporting of trafficking activities. These include mandatory in-camera Court proceedings for child victims, media gag-order for all proceedings involving sexual exploitation, and protection for informers to incentivise the reporting of TIP activity.
In addition to the enactment of PHTA, Singapore acceded to the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (UN TIP Protocol) in 2015. The UN TIP Protocol lays out international standards for the elimination of TIP, and seeks to prevent, suppress and punish TIP perpetrators while protecting victims and promoting cooperation among State Parties to meet these objectives. Singapore is fully in compliance with the Protocol.
The Singapore Inter-Agency Taskforce on Trafficking in Persons (TIP Taskforce), formed in 2010 and comprising six Ministries, the Police, ICA and the Attorney-General's Chambers, actively engages various stakeholders, including Civil Society Organisations, embassies and academics, to co-develop our strategy to combat TIP. The TIP Taskforce conducted its annual stakeholder engagement session in July 2018, which was attended by over 40 stakeholders.
The TIP Taskforce also regularly engages the US on TIP-related matters. We have consistently clarified the misrepresentations set out in this and previous annual reports but, regrettably, the misconceptions remain. We strongly urge the US to seek clarification and better understand Singapore's actual ground situation and approach to combat TIP and not make unsubstantiated claims.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Basis for ICA's Blacklisting of Ms Clare Rewcastle-Brown","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the basis for ICA's blacklisting of Ms Clare Rewcastle-Brown; (b) what is the reason given to our Government for the blacklisting request; (c) who requested the blacklisting; and (d) whether the Ministry or ICA has (i) a policy of objective review of the bona fides of all blacklisting requests from a foreign state or leader and (ii) a system of regular reviews of existing blacklistings.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) decides on a foreigner's right to enter into Singapore, taking into account a variety of factors, including our national interests and security, based on our own information and assessment, as well as that provided by foreign partners. We also do not, generally, confirm or deny whether a person has been blacklisted.
Ms Clare Rewcastle Brown was granted entry into Singapore on 14 September 2018. She was not stopped or questioned.
On 15 September 2018, Ms Brown left Singapore. When she was leaving, she was interviewed by ICA officers as part of the immigration clearance process. Our records showed that she completed her immigration clearance and interview in 16 minutes. Many travellers are subjected to additional checks or interviews as part of the immigration clearance process.
Ms Brown was not denied entry into Singapore. She was allowed to enter Singapore. Members can assess for themselves how credible it is – to assume that a person had been blacklisted because she was asked some questions when she was leaving the country – when she had not been denied entry into the country in the first place.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Advice for HDB Flat Applications on Eligibility for HDB Loan and Instalment Amounts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB flat applicants are given detailed advice on their eligibility for an HDB loan, including the appropriate quantum, to ensure that applicants will not over-commit and be unable to secure a loan after being successfully allocated the flat.
Mr Lawrence Wong: New flat buyers who wish to take up a Housing and Development Board (HDB) housing loan are required to apply for an HDB Loan Eligibility (HLE) letter before they book a flat. The HLE letter provides them with useful information for financial planning, such as the loan amount, interest rate, repayment period and monthly instalment payable.
During the flat booking appointment, HDB conducts financial counselling to help home buyers understand the costs involved in their flat purchase, the different financing options, for instance, how they can finance the flat by using their Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings, housing loan and/or cash, and the implications of these options.
HDB will continue to remind home seekers to exercise financial prudence and buy a flat within their budget.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Traffic Lights in Bad Weather Conditions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport (a) over the last five years, how many incidences of traffic lights breaking down as a result of short circuits during heavy rain have occurred; and (b) what is being done to ensure that our traffic systems remain in working condition during bad weather.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Since 2009, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has installed automatic circuit re-closer devices in all traffic lights, which serve to safely restore traffic light operations in the event of power trips. This has drastically reduced the number of traffic light breakdowns during heavy rain from over 800 a year to an average of 35 a year. LTA also works closely with Singtel and SP Group to ensure smooth communications and power supply to our traffic light systems.
LTA monitors Singapore's road system round the clock. When traffic lights break down, LTA responds within 20 minutes at high-priority locations, and 30 minutes at other locations. Where necessary, LTA and the Traffic Police will work together to assist in traffic management at affected junctions while the traffic lights are being repaired.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Job Creation and Economic Value-add from Opening of Changi Airport’s Jewel","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport with the impending opening of Changi Airport's Jewel (a) what, and how many, jobs will be created; (b) what is the economic value of the jobs created; and (c) how will the Ministry help to place Singaporeans into these jobs.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Jewel Changi Airport (Jewel) is targeted to open in the first half of 2019. It will increase Changi Airport's capacity by three million passengers a year and enhance Changi Airport's attractiveness as an air hub. Its offerings include airport facilities, a 130-room hotel, gardens, shopping and dining facilities, and play attractions.
Jewel is expected to create close to 3,000 jobs. While the new jobs will mainly be in the retail and food and beverage sectors, there will also be jobs in hospitality, customer service and horticulture. We expect the manpower productivity and value-add of each employee at Jewel to be enhanced through leveraging technology and working closely with partners and retailers.
Most of the recruitment will be driven by the individual retailers and companies operating in Jewel. Nevertheless, in the lead-up to the opening of Jewel, Changi Airport Group will link up with Workforce Singapore and the Employment and Employability Institute to enable job matching between these retailers and companies and suitable Singaporean applicants.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accidents Involving Children under Age of 12 at Commercial Playgrounds, Carnivals, Fun Fairs and Amusement Parks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the last five years, how many accidents involving children under the age of 12 have occurred at commercial playgrounds, carnivals, fun fairs and amusement parks; (b) what measures are in place to ensure child safety; and (c) whether the Ministry has plans to review and update safety requirements at such venues.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Since 2013, there have been 17 reported incidents on amusement rides involving children under the age of 12 which required medical treatment beyond basic first aid. Of the 17 incidents, 16 were due to user behaviour, and only one case in 2014 was due to a safety lapse on the ride operator's part. The Building and Construction Authority (BCA), which regulates amusement rides in Singapore, took enforcement action against the ride operator, and the safety lapse was rectified before the ride was reopened to the public.
Under the Amusement Rides Safety Act, amusement rides have to be designed, maintained and operated according to internationally recognised safety codes and standards. Rides that are low-powered or battery-operated, including rides in playgrounds, are excluded from the regulatory framework, as they pose relatively lower risk.
The ride operator is responsible for the safety of amusement ride operations. Amongst other measures, the operator is required to appoint a Ride Manager to manage and supervise the daily operations and routine maintenance of the ride. For example, the Ride Manager needs to ensure that a thorough inspection is done before the ride is opened for public use each day, and that only trained persons operate the ride.
Some rides have restrictions, for instance, that patrons must be above a specified height, or within a specified weight. This is due to the design of the ride seats and safety restraints. Operators are required to inform patrons if rides have such restrictions, and to conduct checks to ensure compliance.
BCA also conducts inspections on the operation and maintenance of amusement rides. If safety issues are detected, BCA will take action as required, such as suspending the operations of the ride. This year, BCA has conducted more than 250 inspections of amusement rides in Singapore as of August 2018.
We will continue to work closely with the industry to ensure that amusement rides are designed, maintained and operated according to prescribed safety standards. Ride users can also play a part in creating a safe and fun experience for themselves and their families by adhering to the safety guidelines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigation into Data Register Pte Ltd for Passing Off as Government Agency","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the directors of Data Register Pte Ltd (previously known as Company Register Pte Ltd) will be investigated for any offence of cheating or deceiving companies/businesses by representing that they are a Government agency; and (b) whether contracts entered into by companies/businesses due to such deception can be voided.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police have received several reports against Data Register Pte Ltd in 2018. The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority and law enforcement agencies are looking into the reports and consulting the Attorney-General's Chambers.
In the meantime, businesses should seek legal advice if they are of the view that they had been misled or deceived into entering into contracts with Data Register.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Eligibility of Unemployed Single Person above 35 years old with Disability for Additional and Special CPF Housing Grants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development whether an unemployed single person above 35 years old with a disability is eligible for the Additional CPF Housing Grant (AHG) and Special CPF Housing Grant (SHG) when the person wishes to buy an HDB flat under the Singles Scheme.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The purchase of a flat is a long-term financial commitment. Hence, it is important for flat buyers to have steady employment to ensure that they are financially able to service the housing loan and sustain ownership of the flat over the long term.
The Housing and Development Board (HDB) provides the Additional CPF Housing Grant (AHG) and the Special CPF Housing Grant (SHG) to help low- to middle-income households buy their first homes. To assess the household's income fairly, we require at least one applicant to have worked continuously for at least 12 months prior to the flat application and remain working at the point of flat application.
A person who is unfit for work due to disability may apply for the grants with eligible family members, or other eligible singles under the Joint Singles Scheme.
For cases where a person is unfit for work due to a disability and would like to buy a flat under the Single Singapore Citizen Scheme with the help of grants, he/she may approach HDB for assistance. HDB will assess such requests, taking into account whether the appellants are able to produce a medical certification that they are unfit for work due to illness or disability and whether they are able to sustain the flat purchase over the long term without employment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Precautionary Measures for Fruits from Australia after Poisoned Fruit Scare","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development in view of the recent incidents of fruits sabotaged with needles in Australia, what precautionary measures are in place for fruits imported from Australia.
Mr Lawrence Wong: As part of its food safety regime, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) regularly inspects and conducts sampling of imported fruits to ensure that they comply with our standards and requirements. Imported fruits that fail AVA’s food safety inspections will not be allowed for sale.
Following the reports of needles found in Australian strawberries, AVA has been in close communication with the Australian authorities, which have implemented additional export control measures. From 19 September 2018, exporters have been required to provide assurance, such as evidence of metal detector or x-ray screening, to Australian authorities that their consignments of fresh strawberries are free from metal contaminants prior to export.
AVA will continue to closely monitor the situation and take action where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Brexit on Trade between Singapore and EU","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of Britain's membership of the EU lapsing in about six months, what is the impact on (i) trade between Singapore and the EU (ii) the Singapore-EU Free Trade Agreement and (iii) Singapore companies operating in Britain.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The United Kingdom (UK) is an important economic partner of Singapore as the second largest economy within the European Union (EU) and the fifth largest globally. Brexit is expected to take place on 29 March 2019. What happens after will depend greatly on the terms negotiated between the UK and the EU.
A soft Brexit scenario will include an \"Implementation Period\" from the day the UK formally leaves the EU to 31 December 2020. This scenario offers the greatest predictability and stability. This is because during the Implementation Period, the UK will continue to be functionally treated as an EU member state and remain a party to EU international agreements. This will include the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) when it is ratified by the European Parliament as targeted in 2019. Disruptions to trade and investment flows would be minimised and business continuity would be preserved while the UK irons out its future trade and investment relationships with other partners, including Singapore.
In the event of a hard Brexit where there is no deal between the UK and the EU, the UK will cease to be a party to the EU’s agreements with third countries when it formally leaves the EU. This would mean that the EUSFTA will not apply between the UK and Singapore even after its ratification. This, in itself, would not impact our trading relationship with the UK as the current tariff and non-tariff regime for Singapore companies are based on World Trade Organization (WTO) terms, pending EUSFTA ratification, which will continue to apply.
The UK Secretary of State for International Trade Dr Liam Fox and his officials have affirmed that the UK's priority post-Brexit is to ensure that its bilateral trade ties, as well as companies operating in the UK, are not disrupted. The Ministry of Trade and Industry's (MTI's) assessment is that trade between the UK and Singapore, as well as companies invested in the UK's domestic sectors, will not be structurally affected. Nonetheless, as Brexit is a major development, some volatility is to be expected. In addition, companies based in the UK, which use the UK as a gateway to access opportunities in the EU single market, will be impacted. The magnitude will depend on where the UK and the EU land on their future trade and economic relationship where it pertains to their common market today. Access to talent and general labour supply could also be impacted if immigration conditions are more stringent between the UK and the EU.
MTI and Enterprise Singapore have continued to work closely with Singapore companies that remain keen to expand in the UK. The UK is home to a diverse range of Singapore companies from sectors, such as engineering, infrastructure, medical technology, digital, transport, lifestyle, real estate and hospitality. In some sectors, Singapore companies1 have made new investments in the UK even after the referendum in 2016, after careful assessment of the UK's continued potential alongside the attendant risks despite the imminence of Brexit, pointing to our companies’ continued confidence in the UK economy. Pending the final post-Brexit arrangements with the EU, MTI is in close discussions with the UK Department of International Trade on how we can strengthen our strong and multifaceted bilateral relationship.
Meanwhile, work on the EUSFTA is on track. The EUSFTA will deepen our robust bilateral trade and investments with the EU. Even as the UK prepares to leave the EU, British leaders have continued to reaffirm their support for the EU's free trade agenda, including for the EUSFTA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Examples include property management company, Centurion Corporation Limited, which recently announced its proposed acquisition of a student accommodation asset in Nottingham on 1 September 2018, and Sembcorp Industries, which completed its acquisition of UK Power Reserve, an independent operator of mini-gas powered plants in June 2018."],"footNoteQuestions":["66"],"questionNo":"66"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Disputes between Neighbours Linked to Cigarette Smoke","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past year, how many disputes between neighbours have been reported to HDB; (b) how many were because of cigarette smoke; (c) how many were mediated successfully; and (d) whether there have been any disputes that were escalated to Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals or other channels.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In 2017, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) received 3,493 instances of feedback regarding disputes between neighbours. Of these, 216 instances, or about 6%, were related to smoking.
It is natural that disagreements arise between neighbours from time-to-time and, in general, it is best for such disputes to be settled informally between the parties involved. Where mediation is required, residents can approach the Community Mediation Centre (CMC), which provides trained neutral parties to help neighbours arrive at mutually acceptable solutions. In 2017, 24 cases involving disputes arising from cigarette smoke were registered with CMC, of which two proceeded to mediation. Both cases were successfully mediated.
For intractable cases where parties are unable to resolve their disputes, aggrieved parties can file a case with the Community Disputes Resolutions Tribunals (CDRT) as a last resort. The CDRT judge can order parties to attend mandatory mediation in the Courts or at the CMC, to attend counselling, or to fix the case for hearing by the Courts. There were no cases pertaining to cigarette smoke filed with CDRT in 2017.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Compensation Payable to Flat Buyers Who have to Cancel Their Purchase due to Divorce or Nullity of Marriage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can review the amount of compensation payable to purchasers of flats who have to cancel their purchase due to divorce or nullity of marriage.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The financial forfeiture for cancellation ensures that flat applicants are committed to their purchase. This is necessary as the Housing and Development Board (HDB) sets aside flats for successful applicants and has to turn away other applicants as a result. The forfeiture also covers the holding and administrative costs incurred by HDB as a result of the flat cancellation.
Flat buyers who cancel their application after signing the Agreement For Lease but before key collection will receive a partial refund of the downpayment made for the flat, if the downpayment was more than 5% of the flat price.
As for flat buyers who return their flat to HDB after they have collected their keys, they may receive substantial compensation of up to 95% of the flat price.
In cases where the cancellation of the flat purchase is due to a change in family nucleus, for instance, due to divorce, HDB can allow one of the parties to retain the flat by including another eligible person into their flat application, subject to the outgoing party's consent. There is no financial forfeiture involved for such cases.
If they are unable to retain the flat, HDB will look into their individual circumstances and can exercise flexibility if they have extenuating circumstances, such as financial hardship.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Actual National Bonus and Annual Variable Component Paid to Cabinet Ministers Yearly from 2013 to 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister in each year from 2013 to 2017 (a) what has been the actual National Bonus (in months) paid to Cabinet Ministers; and (b) what has been the actual Annual Variable Component (in months) paid to Cabinet Ministers.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: This Question for Written Answer has been addressed by oral reply to Question No 1 taken on 1 October 2018. [Please refer to \"Salary Components of Prime Minister and Ministers\", Official Report, 1 October 2018, Vol 94, Issue 83, 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":"Progress on Thomson-East Coast MRT Line","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Transport whether he can provide an update on the progress of the Thomson-East Coast MRT Line.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Works on the Thomson-East Coast Line (TEL) are progressing well. TEL is on track to open in five stages from next year.
Structural works for Stage 1 were completed in 2017, and architectural, electrical and mechanical works are now about three-quarters complete. We will complete the construction of the TEL Mandai Depot and commission it ahead of the opening of TEL's first three stations (Woodlands North, Woodlands and Woodlands South) by end next year. To meet this schedule, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has commenced integrated testing between the Depot's Operation Control Centre and the various systems in the three stations.
Separately, the first TEL train has arrived at the TEL Mandai Depot, and two more trains will soon be delivered. The remaining 88 TEL trains will be delivered in batches between now and 2023.
LTA will continue to work closely with the contractors to ensure that works on Stages 2 to 5 of the TEL remain on track, with the TEL, our sixth Mass Rapid Transit Line, expected to be fully completed by 2024, linking Woodlands to Bedok.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Motor Insurance Protection for Innocent Third-party Victims of Drink Driving Accidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport how are innocent third-party victims of drink driving accidents protected by motor insurance.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act requires all drivers of vehicles to be insured against third-party claims on bodily injury or death before they can drive their vehicles on our roads. Insurance policies cannot be restricted from paying out for such liabilities incurred from drink driving. This protects innocent third-party victims of drink driving accidents. Neither do they prevent the insurer from recovering the sum paid out from the insured.
Drivers who contravene the above requirement may on conviction be fined up to $1,000 and/or be imprisoned for up to three months. They may also be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months from the date of conviction.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals for Financial Assistance on NSmen’s Exit Permit Bond Amounts from 2008 to 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Defence in each of the last 10 years (a) how many appeals for financial assistance have been received from parents who experienced difficulty putting up the bond amounts for their sons' exit permits; (b) how many parents have failed to put up the bond amount; (c) how many have defaulted on their bonds; and (d) what measures are available to assist parents who are unable to afford the full amount of the bonds.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: National Service-liable males who intend to reside overseas for an extended period – two years or longer for those aged 13 to 16.5 years, and three months or longer for those aged above 16.5 years – will be required to furnish a bond of S$75,000 or 50% of the combined annual gross income of both parents for the preceding year, whichever is higher.
On average, about 40 cases each year are granted concessions to reduce the bond amounts or provide other measures in lieu of a bond, on compassionate grounds. About five cases per year had their bonds forfeited when they failed to return.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Assist Singapore Citizens Who Have to Serve Two Stints of Military Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Defence for a child born to a Singaporean parent and a parent whose country also implements compulsory military service (a) what measures are there to assist these children who may have to serve two stints of military service or national service; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing its policies to take into account time already spent serving compulsory military service in another country.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The Enlistment Act is applicable to all Singapore Citizens even if they have chosen to hold foreign citizenship concurrently. It recognises rightly that all male citizens must perform their National Service duties to defend Singapore even as they enjoy privileges and benefits as citizens.
Their obligations from other citizenships they have chosen cannot exempt them from the obligations and responsibilities as a Singaporean.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Accidents at Zebra Crossings in 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past year, how many accidents have happened between motorists and pedestrians at zebra crossings; and (b) whether cameras can be installed at zebra crossings with high accident rates.
Mr K Shanmugam: In 2017, there were about 60 road traffic accidents involving pedestrians at zebra crossings. Three resulted in fatalities.
To enhance safety, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has put in place warning signs, such as \"Pedestrian Crossing Ahead\", zig-zag lines and flashing beacons near the crossings, so that motorists are more alert as they approach. LTA has also installed at selected locations raised zebra crossings, which serve as speed humps for vehicles.
We will also continue to educate the public on the safe use of zebra crossings. For example, as part of the \"Use Your RoadSense\" campaign in 2017 and 2018, the Singapore Road Safety Council launched online videos on how pedestrians should use zebra crossings.
For now, we think these measures are adequate and cameras need not be deployed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help for Residents Who Received Unsolicited Text Messages from Loansharks and Finance Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs how can the Police help residents who receive unsolicited text messages from loansharks and finance companies, threatening them to pay up though they have no dealings with them whatsoever.
Mr K Shanmugam: Members of the public who receive unsolicited text messages from moneylenders should not reply to these messages.
Those with information on unlicensed moneylenders can call the Police hotline at 1800-255-0000 or the National Crime Prevention Council's X Ah Long hotline at 1800-924-5664. All information given to the Police will be kept confidential.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Top Three Reasons for Drug Consumption by First-time Offenders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs for first-time offenders in Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs) (a) what are the top three reasons they consume drugs; and (b) what is their median per capita household income.
Mr K Shanmugam: The most commonly cited reasons for drug consumption by first-time offenders include (a) to cope with stress, (2) out of curiosity, and (3) due to peer pressure.
Based on the data provided by first-time offenders admitted to Drug Rehabilitation Centres in 2017, the median monthly individual income is about S$1,600. We do not track the household income of drug offenders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Cyclists on Non-power Assisted Bicycles Caught for Traffic Offences between 2008 and 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs between 2008-2017, what is the number of cyclists on non-power assisted bicycles who have been caught each year while riding on the road for each of the offence of (i) beating red lights, (ii) cycling against the traffic, (iii) cycling in the dark without front white lights and/or rear red lights/reflectors and (iv) cycling on the right side of a motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction when not overtaking the motor vehicle.
Mr K Shanmugam: For traffic offences committed by cyclists, we do not track the data for power-assisted and non-power-assisted bicycles separately.
Over the past 10 years, the average annual number of summonses issued against cyclists were about:
(a) 40 for beating red lights;
(b) 450 for disorderly riding without due regard for the safety of others on the road. This includes riding against traffic, amongst others;
(c) 295 for riding in the dark without a front light or rear reflector; and
(d) one for riding abreast of a motor vehicle.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Total Value of Assets Misappropriated for Economic Crimes from 2014 to 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each year from 2014 to 2018 (a) what is the total value of assets misappropriated or gained by offenders who have been convicted for committing economic crimes in Singapore; and (b) what is the total value of assets recovered by the enforcement authorities.
Mr K Shanmugam: We do not track such data.
As to the number of commercial crimes reported, this has remained stable over the last three years from 2015 to 2017.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Notices at Public Locations to Guide Members of Public on Use of AEDs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether notices providing guidance on the use of AED or highlighting the option of calling 995 to get help on the use of AEDs can be put at all public locations where AEDs are installed to assist members of public needing to use the AEDs but have not received training on how to use them.
Mr K Shanmugam: Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) are easy to operate. The user simply needs to turn on the machine and follow the voice prompts. Callers to the 995 Operations Centre will also be guided on performing chest compressions and applying the AED.
In addition, every AED cabinet installed in Housing and Development Board blocks under the Singapore Civil Defence Force's Save-a-Life initiative comes with a quick response (QR) code that links to an online instructional video. A new sticker, with clear step-by-step instructions on how to handle suspected cardiac arrest cases, will also be affixed to the bottom left of the AED cabinet by July 2019.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Additional Financial Support to Mothers Who Require Healthcare Due to Pregnancy Complications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health whether the Minister will consider extending additional financial support for (i) couples who experience pregnancy complications and require inpatient and outpatient healthcare and mental wellness support and (ii) expectant mothers who find it difficult to obtain maternity insurance from private insurance companies due to previously-experienced pregnancy complications.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: All Singaporeans, including expectant mothers, receive up to 80% subsidy for inpatient treatments in public hospitals, and up to 70% subsidy for subsidised treatments at specialist outpatient clinics.
Over the past three years, about eight in 10 expectant mothers who received inpatient treatment for a pregnancy or delivery complication in B2/C Class wards had an out-of-pocket payment of less than $500, after subsidies and MediSave. Couples who face financial difficulties with their medical bills may approach medical social workers at our public hospitals for assistance, including tapping on MediFund.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) recognises that some serious pregnancy complications could result in large bills. MOH is currently reviewing how MediShield Life can help to cover inpatient treatments for serious pregnancy and delivery complications. We will provide details when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Safety and Efficacy of Vaccines Made by Changsheng Biotechnology","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) whether any vaccines made by Changsheng Biotechnology are used in Singapore; and (b) if so, what measures are being taken to ensure that these products are safe and medically efficacious.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: No vaccines produced by Changsheng Biotechnology had been approved for use in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Result of Introduction of Open Electricity Market in Jurong","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) since the introduction of the Open Electricity Market in Jurong, what is the total number of residents who have made a switch to purchase their electricity from a retailer of their choice; (b) whether there is a poll or study done to gauge the awareness level of the new electricity retail options and, if so, what is the outcome; (c) whether there is a poll or study done to gauge the satisfaction level of customers who have switched to purchasing their electricity from a retailer and, if so, what is the outcome; and (d) whether there were any issues raised by residents who have switched to purchasing electricity from various retailers.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Energy Market Authority (EMA) introduced the Open Electricity Market (OEM) in Jurong in April 2018, providing around 120,000 households and small businesses with the choice to buy electricity from a retailer with a price plan that best meets their needs. This soft launch was well-received. As of mid-September 2018, more than 30% of Jurong households have switched to a retailer.
To better understand the public's reception towards the OEM soft launch, EMA conducted a survey involving the Jurong residents about three months after the soft launch started. The survey results showed that the Jurong residents generally felt positive about the OEM, with very high awareness of the OEM and their electricity purchase options. About nine in 10 of the survey respondents indicated that they were aware of the OEM and the electricity purchase options available to them. Of those who had switched to a retailer, about eight in 10 appreciated the benefits of the OEM and indicated that they found the switching process easy.
A small number of residents highlighted that they experienced higher electricity bills after switching to a retailer. There are a few possible explanations:
(a) SP Group reads electricity meters once every two months. On alternate months when the meters are not read, the consumer’s bill is based on estimated consumption. Any underestimated readings will be carried over to the next bill, which would make the next bill higher.
(b) Depending on when a consumer switched, his first bill may not cover a full month. The following month's bill will be relatively higher as it will cover a full month of electricity consumption.
(c) Another possible reason for higher electricity bills is that electricity usage could be higher during certain periods of the year, for example, school holidays or hotter months of the year.
With the zonal rollout of OEM starting from 1 November 2018, EMA will continue to ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place to protect consumers. EMA will also continue to work closely with SP Group and the retailers to inform and educate consumers about the OEM.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extras for Home Improvement Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) can include replacements of windows for older flats and to provide aircon ledges to prevent the hazard of falling aircons for public safety; (b) how many households have opted for deferred payment instead of full settlement by cash under HIP so far; and (c) whether HDB has ensured that prospective buyers of such resale flats whose existing owner opted out of HIP is aware of this for fair sale purposes.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Residents are responsible for regular maintenance of the windows to ensure that they are safe and secure at all times. Most residents install custom-made windows based on their preference, and these are of varying sizes, colours, different configurations and designs. It would thus be best to leave the replacement of these windows to flat owners.
External air-conditioner ledges were provided in Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats from the early 1990s onwards. For flats without air-conditioner ledges, the Building Control Regulations stipulate that residents need to install stainless steel brackets to support any external air-conditioning units. This is to ensure public safety. There is, therefore, no need to provide air-conditioner ledges under the Home Improvement Programme (HIP).
As at 31 August 2018, about 90,000 households have been billed for the HIP. Of the households billed, 11.5% of households have opted for deferred payment and 88.5% of households have made full payment. Amongst those who made full payment, about half of them paid by cash.
The status of flats undergoing upgrading programmes, such as HIP, is published on the HDB InfoWeb. Prospective flat buyers can, therefore, check the status of the flat they are interested in. Upon ascertaining that the flat is undergoing HIP, they would need to check with the sellers on the HIP components, that is, Essential/Optional that the sellers have opted for and factor these into their price negotiation with the sellers before committing to the purchase.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Result of Latest Round of Property Cooling Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the latest round of property cooling measures have achieved the intended objectives; (b) what is the rationale for tightening the loan-to-value (LTV) limits for first-time property buyers; and (c) what is the overall impact on the first-time property buyers in view of the latest cooling measures.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The property cooling measures implemented on 6 July 2018 are intended to moderate the residential property market cycle and keep price increases in line with economic fundamentals. Loan-to-Value (LTV) limits were tightened across all housing loans, including those taken by first-time buyers, as the price increases prior to the measures were broad-based across the market, reflecting demand from all types of buyers. However, we maintained the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) rates for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents buying their first residential property.
As the measures were only introduced recently, it is premature to conclude whether they have been effective. Nevertheless, there are early signs that the measures may have kept the pace of price increase in check. Based on the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA's) latest flash estimate of the Property Price Index, prices increased by 0.5% in the third quarter of 2018, compared to 3.9% and 3.4% in the first and second quarters of 2018 respectively.
The Government will continue to monitor trends in the property market and adjust our policies as necessary, to maintain a stable and sustainable property market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend of Successful Tender Bids for Religious Sites over Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for National Development over the last 10 years (a) what has been the trend of successful tender bids for religious sites; and (b) what are the plans to intensify land use for such sites.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Over the past 10 years from 2008-2017, seven Place of Worship (PW) sites were launched and successfully awarded.
In June 2012, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) relaxed the allowable Gross Plot Ratio (GPR) and storey height controls for PW developments. This has allowed for intensification of some PW sites, subject to local site conditions, and whether the proposed intensification would adversely affect surrounding uses.
In September 2018, the Ministry of National Development (MND) announced the revised tender process for PW sites to ensure that only religious groups that actively contribute to the community and have a genuine need for worship space are allowed to bid. Under the revised framework, MND will also be releasing land for PW hubs, which can house multiple religious organisations belonging to the same religion, in a multi-storey development. Smaller religious organisations which find the standard PW sites too large for their own use can band together under one PW hub. Through co-location and sharing of facilities, such as car parks, Singapore’s limited land resources will be better optimised.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate of Funding Support for Initiatives to Reduce Plastic Packaging","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in respect of funding support for initiatives to reduce plastic packaging (a) what is the current take-up rate of the 3R Fund and 3P Partnership Fund; and (b) how popular are these schemes among the food delivery and food and beverage industries.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Reduce, Reuse and Recycle (3R) Fund is a co-funding scheme that supports companies to reduce waste and encourage recycling. As of July 2018, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has disbursed $1.4 million for 19 completed projects and committed another $2.5 million in support of 22 ongoing projects.
The People, Private and Public (3P) Partnership Fund supports ground-up environmental initiatives. Over the past three years, about $3.2 million was disbursed in support of more than 3,000 projects, with about three quarters of funding going towards waste minimisation activities.
We supported the Zero Waste SG's Bring-Your-Own Campaign which has averted the use of two million pieces of plastic disposables and packaging waste. Four hundred and thirty retailers and food and beverage (F&B) companies came together to encourage consumers to bring their own reusable containers, bottles and bags. We also supported Fraser and Neave (F&N) to work with retailers and tertiary institutions to raise awareness of recycling plastic bottles and aluminium cans.
We are heartened that some food delivery companies are discouraging the overuse of plastics on their own accord. Foodpanda and Deliveroo provide options for customers to exclude disposable cutlery in their orders. We welcome more of such initiatives from the food delivery and F&B industries and are prepared to support companies' efforts to reduce plastic packaging and plastic waste through the 3R and 3P Partnership Funds.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Water Bodies in Singapore Open for Fishing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) which are the water bodies in Singapore that are open for fishing; and (b) whether there are plans to open more such water spots for fishing.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Since 2004, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) has progressively opened up its reservoirs and waterways for water sports and activities, such as kayaking, dragon boating and fishing, under the Active, Beautiful and Clean (ABC) Waters Programme. This is to bring the community closer to water, so that they can better cherish and appreciate this precious resource.
Today, the public can fish at designated areas within 10 reservoirs and five waterways, such as Kolam Ayer ABC Waterfront, Geylang River, Rochor Canal, Bedok Reservoir, Lower Seletar Reservoir and Pandan Reservoir. The full list can be found on PUB's website. Popular fishing locations, such as Bedok Reservoir, Pandan Reservoir and Kolam Ayer ABC Waterfront, are frequented by recreational users, including families and anglers, especially on weekends. The designated fishing areas are located a safe distance away from water activity zones, footpaths and park connectors. As reservoirs are key sources of water supply, ensuring the water quality in our reservoirs is of utmost importance. Nevertheless, PUB will continue to assess and open up suitable new sites for water sports and activities.
Exercising a little consideration goes a long way in making our reservoirs and waterways a safe and pleasant environment for all to enjoy. PUB appeals to the public to adopt responsible fishing practices, such as fishing only at designated areas, casting lures with care to avoid injuring others, and discarding unwanted fishing lines and hooks properly. Members of the public are encouraged to call the PUB hotline at 1800-2255-782 should they spot any illegal and unsafe fishing activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Commercial or Retail Buildings Providing E-waste Recycling Bins","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources to date, what is the total number of commercial or retail buildings that provide e-waste recycling bins.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: To promote the environmentally sound management of e-waste, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has worked with industry partners to set up voluntary e-waste recycling programmes which provide recycling bins at public locations for consumers to recycle their e-waste. Examples of these programmes include StarHub's Recycling Nation’s Electronic Waste (RENEW), Singtel x SingPost ReCYCLE and the M1 Drop-off Point Campaign. There are currently more than 500 such voluntary e-waste recycling bins across Singapore, and around 170 of them are found in commercial or retail buildings. In 2017, these bins collected about 140 tonnes of e-waste in total.
Building on these voluntary initiatives, my Ministry will implement a national e-waste management system based on Extended Producer Responsibility by 2021. The mandatory system will scale up our e-waste management efforts and consumers can expect greater convenience when recycling their e-waste.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-subsidised Foreign Students Admitted into Universities and Private Tertiary Institutions in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Education (a) in the past three years, how many non-subsidised foreign students have been admitted into our universities and private institutions that offer degree and above programmes respectively; and (b) whether the Ministry will continue to make education an engine of economic growth to attract non-subsidised foreign students to study here.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Like all reputable universities around the world, our publicly-funded universities admit international students to enrich the education experience.
Today, they form about 10% of the undergraduate intake. Of these, there is a mixture of full-fee paying students, and those on the Tuition Grant scheme, who have a service obligation to work in Singapore for three years after graduation.
At the postgraduate level, unsubsidised international students currently make up around one-third of the total intake. International students in Private Education Institutions do not receive Government subsidies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Usage of SkillsFuture Credits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Education (a) how many Singaporeans have used up their SkillsFuture credit; (b) whether he can update the House on the review for the next phase of the national SkillsFuture Credit Scheme; and (c) whether there are plans to top up SkillsFuture credits.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As of end 2017, around 50,000 Singaporeans have fully utilised their Credit. This is about 2% of the total eligible pool.
When reviewing the top-up to SkillsFuture Credit, we will take into account factors, such as the SkillsFuture Credit utilisation rate, the Government's fiscal position, and the overall training participation rate of Singaporeans.
While SkillsFuture Credit has enthused Singaporeans to embrace lifelong learning, it is only one part of a larger system of support. The Ministry of Education provides funding for a wide range of SkillsFuture programmes. Programmes, such as SkillsFuture for Digital Workplace, are delivered to the community at highly subsidised fees of $501. SkillsFuture Advice is also a free workshop for residents to better understand their training needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Singaporeans and Permanent Residents who are NTUC union members pay $10 following subsidy from the NTUC Education and Training Fund (NETF)."],"footNoteQuestions":["22"],"questionNo":"22"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans Receiving Training in Continuing Education and Training Modules in IHLs under SkillsFuture Series","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Education (a) how many Singaporeans would have received training in Continuing Education and Training (CET) modules in Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) under the SkillsFuture Series by the end of 2018; (b) what is the profile of the Singaporeans by age group and highest educational attainment; and (c) what are the expected Government expenditure and revenue for each IHL.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: SkillsFuture (SSG) Series focuses on emerging and critical skills and is a subset of the Continuing Education and Training (CET) programmes offered by the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). Demand has been increasing since its launch in October 2017. By end 2018, we expect more than 16,000 participants would have completed training under the programme. SSG subsidises up to 70% of the course fees for programmes under the SkillsFuture Series and expects to spend, on average, $25 million a year on the programme for the first three years.
In 2017, about 30% of those who attended CET programmes were aged below 30, about 40% were aged 30 to 49 and about 30% were aged 50 and above. In 2017, in terms of educational attainment, about 15% of individuals who attended CET programmes had up to primary qualifications, and close to 35% had secondary qualifications. About 30% of the individuals had diploma or post-secondary qualifications and about 20% had a degree.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend of Illegal Foreign Worker Dormitories Discovered over Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower over the last three years (a) what is the trend of illegal foreign worker dormitories being discovered; (b) how many instances of illegal housing have occurred in HDB flats; (c) how has the Ministry worked with HDB to tackle illegal housing issues; and (d) what are the plans to ensure proper housing and fire safety in worker housing and dormitories.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The number of housing cases where foreign workers (FW) were housed illegally, in contravention of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA), has been stable for the last three years. In 2017, 24 of these illegal FW housing cases were found in Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and HDB investigate all complaints of HDB flats being used illegally to house foreign workers. If the employer is culpable, appropriate enforcement action will be taken, such as debarment from employing FWs, fines or prosecution. The employer will also be ordered to relocate the FWs. HDB may also take enforcement actions against flat owners who have breached HDB's rental regulations, such as revoking their approval for the flat owners to rent out their flats.
MOM works closely with partner agencies, such as HDB, the Urban Redevelopment Authority and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), to regularly review FW housing standards, including fire safety and hygiene. Inspections are carried out by both MOM and SCDF. Between 2015 and 2017, MOM took 3,900 employers and dormitory operators to task for a range of infringements. The enforcement actions taken included financial penalties and prosecution in egregious cases. Although the proportion of severe infringements has fallen, MOM will continue to adopt a strict enforcement stance and monitor the situation closely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Percentage of Eligible CPF Members Making Withdrawals from Age 55 in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the number and percentage of eligible CPF members who made withdrawals from age 55 in the last five years; (b) what was the average amount withdrawn; (c) how many withdrew to the limit; (d) how many were eligible to withdraw up to $5,000 only; and (e) how many withdrew the full $5,000.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Upon turning 55, all Central Provident Fund (CPF) members can make a withdrawal of $5,000, subject to available balances in the Ordinary and Special Accounts. In addition, those with savings above the Full Retirement Sum (FRS) can withdraw all the monies above that amount. Those who own a property can withdraw monies above the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) using property charge or pledge.
For the three cohorts of 186,000 CPF members that turned 55 from 2014 to 2016, around 109,000 (59%) members made a withdrawal within a year of their 55th birthday. These included both active as well as infrequent contributors to CPF. The average amount withdrawn was about $34,000. Of the 109,000 members, 62% of them or around 68,000 withdrew the maximum allowable amount. Of the 105,000 members who could withdraw up to $5,000, 57% or around 60,000, did so.
Through schemes like the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) and Silver Support (SS), the Government continues to provide additional retirement support to lower-income Singaporeans as well as seniors who could not build up much CPF in their working lives. Based on the latest available data, 424,000 Singaporeans received $667 million in WIS in 2016 and 152,000 seniors received SS payouts totalling $333 million in 2017.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Age Profile When Single Unwed Parents Had Their Child in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in each of the past five years, how many single unwed parents were at the point of the birth of their child (i) below 35 years old, (ii) between 35 years old and 36 years old and (iii) 36 years old and above respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: The age profile of citizen mothers with non-marital births, at point of birth registration, is as shown in the table below.
27 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development when is the next review of the Public Assistance scheme.
Mr Desmond Lee: The ComCare Long-Term Assistance (LTA) scheme, which is commonly known as the Public Assistance (PA) scheme, provides a package of support for individuals and families who are permanently unable to work due to illness or old age, and lack familial support. Households on the LTA scheme receive monthly cash assistance for their daily living expenses. Additional assistance is provided for those who have recurrent medical needs, such as consumables, or specialised one-off needs, such as medical equipment. LTA clients also receive free medical and dental treatment at the polyclinics and Government hospitals and have access to Government-funded social services, such as Senior Activity Centres and befriending services.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) regularly reviews the scope and coverage of our ComCare assistance schemes to ensure that they meet the needs of low-income groups. The last enhancement to the LTA scheme was in 2016 when the cash assistance rates were raised. We are in the midst of our latest review.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":2,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181001/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"OA","file":null},{"annexureID":3,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181001/annex-Annex 2.pdf","fileName":"Annex 2.pdf","sectionType":"OA","file":null},{"annexureID":4,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 3","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181001/annex-Annex 3.pdf","fileName":"Annex 3.pdf","sectionType":"OA","file":null}],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}