1 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry is aware of any employers in the healthcare sector which at any time in the past three years have specified or indicated to their employees that their taking of medical leave may affect performance assessments or bonuses; (b) what is the Ministry’s assessment of such practices given the COVID-19 pandemic; and (c) what recourse is available to workers who encounter such practices.
2 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Health with regard to the discharge of COVID-19 positive patients who required oxygen supplementation or were warded in intensive care units in August and September 2021, what is the proportion of such patients who (i) have fully recovered and (ii) suffer from long-term health consequences, with the breakdown according to patients who were unvaccinated and partially vaccinated or fully vaccinated respectively.
3 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Health what further measures are required to reduce the number of serious cases and deaths from COVID-19.
4 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the reason for the increased number of deaths due to COVID-19 over the last two months; and (b) what more can be done to reduce deaths among both vaccinated and unvaccinated residents.
5 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Health what percentage of vaccinated patients who died from COVID-19 have underlying conditions which are actually well-controlled.
6 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the percentage of staff in our public healthcare facilities who will not be able to clear their accumulated annual leave for 2021; (b) whether this is a significant increase as compared to 2020 and 2019; and (c) whether there are plans to help frontline healthcare workers take a break from the prolonged fight against COVID-19.
7 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the main underlying conditions that resulted in the COVID-19 fatalities; and (b) whether individuals with underlying conditions are monitored and treated separately when they are infected.
8 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) how many days of leave have been taken by hospital healthcare and allied staff each month since January 2020; (b) what steps will be taken to minimise and reduce leave being cancelled for such staff due to capacity issues; and (c) whether there can be mandated mental well-being off days for healthcare staff such as that announced by Tan Tock Seng Hospital recently.
9 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health in light of recent reports about manpower crunch in healthcare due to increase in COVID-19 cases (a) whether he can provide an update on the current healthcare manpower crunch; (b) what is being done to protect healthcare workers' physical and psychological well-being; and (c) what are the plans to provide relief to healthcare workers if the current situation is prolonged.
10 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry tracks the average number of hours worked monthly by nurses in public hospitals (excluding those who are required to self-isolate) and, if so, what is the data for the past month.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 1 to 10 as part of a Ministerial Statement delivered on behalf of the Minister for Health later in this Sitting?
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Thank you, Sir.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Industry and Consumers Given Higher Electricity Prices and Recent Exit of Electricity Retailers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the current state of the retail electricity market; (b) what are the reasons why iSwitch Energy decided to exit the energy retail business; (c) what will be the impact to consumers and businesses; and (d) how can electricity be kept affordable for households and businesses.
12 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the impact of the energy supply crunch in China and India on electricity prices in Singapore; (b) what are the Energy Market Authority’s strategies to cushion the impact of the international energy supply crunch on the stability of energy supply and electricity prices in Singapore; and (c) whether additional assistance will be given to low-income families to cope with the rise in electricity prices from 1 October 2021, if such rates increase were to continue beyond 31 December 2021.
13 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Trade and Industry following the recent collapse of several electricity retailers (a) what is the Ministry’s assessment of the business viability of the remaining electricity retailers; and (b) what steps will the Ministry take to maintain a competitive electricity market in Singapore.
14 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Trade and Industry given the recent pull out of iSwitch Energy from the open electricity market (a) what is the Ministry’s current risk assessment of more retailers exiting the market due to the increases in the price of gas; (b) whether the current recourse options for consumers are sufficient and satisfactory should more retailers exit; (c) whether the Ministry is considering a longer notice period for retailers when they choose to exit the market so that consumers are better safeguarded; and (d) what are the critical success factors to ensure the continued success of Singapore’s open energy market.
15 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether any steps will be taken to prevent or make it more difficult for electricity retailers to avoid their obligations to customers by withdrawing when the energy markets move against them.
16 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether electricity retailers are required to report their financial status regularly; (b) whether the Ministry monitors their financial health to ensure operational viability; (c) whether there will be a review on the number of energy retail licences needed to sustain the open electricity market; and (d) what are the plans when Singapore’s long-term piped gas contracts with Indonesia start expiring beyond 2023.
17 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with the recent rise in electricity prices and the exit of two electricity retailers (a) whether there will be support for consumers especially lower-income households given the increase in reliance on digital and work-from-home arrangements; and (b) what measures are in place to ensure that Singapore’s power supply remain stable and reliable.
18 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the causes of the sharp fluctuation in the spot prices of electricity since July 2021; and (b) based on the experience since inception of the Open Electricity Market (OEM) to date, what is the Ministry's assessment of the continued viability of the OEM for households.
19 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Trade and Industry regarding the exit of some suppliers from the retail electricity market (a) what assistance will be provided to affected households and companies which will face unexpectedly higher tariff rates; and (b) whether the SP Group can honour the rates for which affected customers had contracted with the electricity retailers.
20 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the Government’s assessment of the vulnerability of the current model of electricity retailing; and (b) what measures can the Government take to help moderate the impact of higher energy prices on residents.
21 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the discontinuation of electricity retailers from the open electricity market (a) whether the Ministry will review the requirements for licensing electricity retailers, such as assessing their paid-up capital, financial means, risk management and compliance measures; (b) what is the recourse for consumers and whether retailers are legally obliged to compensate consumers for early termination; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider licensing financial institutions as electricity retailers as they have the resources and are under strong governance and supervision by the authorities.
22 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the recent exits of iSwitch Energy, SilverCloud Energy and Ohm Energy due to the volatile global electricity market are a sign that the Open Energy Market (OEM) retailers have been too aggressive in their pricing to attract customers; (b) whether the Ministry will be doing a review to determine the optimal number of retailers in the Open Energy Market; and (c) whether there are plans to include more measures to better protect consumers from sudden exits by the OEM retailers.
23 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Trade and Industry given the recent withdrawal of electricity retailers (a) whether the future business model of electricity retailers will be reviewed to ensure that they are sustainable; (b) whether the Ministry will consider different selection criteria for new electricity retailers; and (c) whether the Ministry will assist families who may be impacted by the increase in electricity prices when helping them transit to more energy efficient appliances.
24 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the SP Group will continue to honour the prices and terms of existing contracts between the private electricity retailers who recently quit the Open Energy Market and their affected users until the contracts’ expiration; and (b) how will this series of exits affect the intended liberalisation of the energy market in Singapore.
25 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) with the rising cost of energy worldwide, what are the measures taken to secure the country’s access to energy; and (b) what are the measures taken to ensure that energy remains affordable to businesses and households in Singapore.
26 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the root cause of energy retailers’ exit from the market; (b) what is the impact to businesses and households; and (c) what are the additional measures taken to ensure a stable energy market.
27 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) amid the current global fuel supply crunch and price volatility, what are its near- and longer-term implications on our energy security and affordability; (b) what are the measures and contingency plans in place to ensure energy supply reliability and resilience; and (c) whether current generating capacity can meet the electricity demand in the coming years.
28 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many electricity retailers are currently left in the market; (b) what measures will the Ministry put in place to ensure that there is a viable business left for the remaining retailers and the market remains competitive; and (c) whether there will be assistance provided to affected household and companies who may now face higher tariff rates.
29 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Trade and Industry regarding the recent exit of several electricity retailers from the open electricity market (a) how many households are expected to have their contracts transferred back to SP Group in the next few months; (b) what is the expected increase in electricity prices they will face with this change; and (c) how is the Ministry assisting households negatively affected by these changes.
30 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the reasons for the recent curtailment of piped natural gas (PNG) from West Natuna; (b) what other disruptions to PNG supplies have been experienced in the past six months; (c) whether Singapore has had to use its reserves of liquified natural gas; (d) how long will these reserves last under current conditions; and (e) how is the Ministry exploring alternatives to natural gas for power generation.
The Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 11 to 30, as well as Parliamentary Questions (PQs) by Dr Lim Wee Kiak1,2, Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Lim Biow Chuan3 and Mr Alex Yam4 that have been scheduled for a subsequent Sitting?
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tDr Tan See Leng: Thank you. Mr Speaker, the global energy market is facing a conflation of four shocks: first, an unexpected surge in demand as economies begin to recover following the easing of COVID-19 restrictions; second, unusual weather events have impacted the generation of wind and solar power in Europe; third, lower than expected coal production, notably in China; and fourth, a series of gas production outages around the world.
The shocks have been most intensely manifested in the market for natural gas, which is a fallback fuel for electricity generation in many, many countries. As a result, spot gas prices have risen by around five times, since March 2021.
Many major economies across Europe and Asia have low inventory levels and are moving quickly to secure sufficient fuel supplies for the winter. These have compounded the impact on prices of fuel and electricity around the world.
Members of this House are understandably concerned. We have received 28 PQs on energy-related matters. Let me bucket them into three groups: (a) energy security; (b) electricity retailers; and (c) electricity prices.
First, on energy security. Singapore relies on imported natural gas for almost all our electricity production and is therefore highly exposed to global supply and demand shocks.
Over the years, we have put in place measures to secure Singapore’s access to fuel supplies.
Since 1999, we have had long-term supply contracts for Piped Natural Gas (PNG) from Malaysia and Indonesia. Negotiations to renew some of these contracts are ongoing. By and large, the supply of PNG has been relatively stable. However, due to an incident at the upstream gas production facility in July this year, West Natuna’s gas supply to Singapore has been affected resulting in a fall in overall gas supply by about 3% since September 2021. This is likely to last until the end of 2021 as the facility undergoes repair and upgrading. Gas pressure of the supply from South Sumatra has also been affected due to higher demand from gas users upstream. The Energy Market Authority (EMA) is working with the gas importers to stabilise the PNG supply.
In 2013, we supplemented PNG with Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) by building an LNG terminal. This allows us to tap gas sources further afield and is part and parcel of our diversification strategy. The LNG terminal has sufficient capacity to meet all of Singapore’s gas needs should PNG be unavailable. Earlier this year, EMA also appointed two new term LNG importers, bringing the total number of term LNG importers in Singapore to four. Gas users in Singapore now have more options to procure the gas they require.
We also require power generation companies, or gencos, to stockpile at least 60 days of fuel reserves, in the event of disruptions to our natural gas supply. The stockpile remains intact.
In addition, EMA ensures that there is sufficient generation capacity to convert the fuel to electricity. Taking into account planned and unplanned outages, we need to maintain spare generation capacity or reserve margin of at least 27% above peak electricity demand. Today, the reserve margin stands at 52% – still significantly above 27%. Over the last 10 years, the excess capacity had been higher, mainly due to over-investment by private gencos in the early 2010s. Going forward, we cannot always assume that the private sector will put in sufficient investments to build new generation capacity, even as the margin narrows over time. I will touch on how we intend to address this though the Energy (Resilience Measures and Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill tomorrow.
In short, we have sufficient fuel supplies and generation capacity today.
However, given the unprecedented scale of this energy crunch, we are leaving nothing to chance. EMA has been working closely with industry stakeholders on pre-emptive measures to further secure Singapore’s fuel and electricity supply and ensure energy resilience and reliability.
First, we have established standby fuel facilities which gencos can draw upon if needed to generate electricity. This will bolster the gencos' reserves.
Second, to complement the standby fuel facilities, EMA has informed gencos to contract sufficient fuel to at least meet their customers’ demands.
Third, in the extreme event that gencos are not willing to draw on gas reserves to generate electricity – perhaps due to risk aversion – EMA will engage the gencos directly to generate electricity using fuel from the standby facilities.
Details of these measures are in EMA’s press release on 19 October 2021.
Members of the House, these pre-emptive measures are extraordinary, but they are also necessary to secure our fuel and electricity supply during this extraordinary period. EMA will review if these measures are still needed by 31 March 2022.
Mr Speaker, over the longer term, we will continue to diversify our energy sources, where possible.
We have announced that we will quadruple our solar deployment by 2030, to generate at least two gigawatt-peak (GWp) of electricity.
We also announced last week that we will be importing up to four gigawatt (GW) of low-carbon electricity by 2035. While this was primarily a move to decarbonise the power system, it will also reduce our reliance on natural gas.
Beyond this, we will continue to explore other low-carbon alternatives like hydrogen and geothermal energy.
Collectively, these measures will make our power system more resilient and less susceptible to price and supply risks.
I will now touch on the electricity retailers. Since the 2000s, EMA had progressively liberalised the electricity retail market. Electricity retailers buy electricity through the wholesale electricity market (WEM) to sell to consumers. They were generally able to offer prices which were priced lower than the regulated tariff in the last few years, because wholesale electricity prices were depressed below the long run marginal costs due to overcapacity in generation, and oversupply of gas. The Electricity Futures Market (EFM), set up in April 2015, also enabled retailers to hedge their price risks through electricity futures. Retailers can also offlay their risk to gencos through financial hedges such as Contracts for Differences (CfDs). These have worked well in a stable market environment. With the nationwide launch of the Open Electricity Market (OEM) in 2018, household consumers were able to benefit from greater choice, competitive pricing and innovative offers with no change to the reliability of their electricity supply.
However, market conditions today are significantly more volatile than in 2018. Some market participants had not anticipated this and were not sufficiently prepared. Over the last three weeks, five electricity retailers – iSwitch, Ohm Energy, Best Electricity, UGS, SilverCloud Energy – have announced their plans to leave the market. These five retailers supply to about 9% of all electricity consumers.
Members are understandably concerned about why retailers are exiting the market. Let me explain.
First, several retailers were under-hedged when the global energy shocks and disruptions to our PNG supply caused wholesale electricity prices to spike. These retailers now find themselves having to buy the unhedged portion of electricity at the high wholesale electricity prices and sell them at much lower contracted rates to consumers.
Second, liquidity in the electricity futures market has also been affected. Given the huge volatility, market makers were not prepared to take on significant positions. This is similar to the situation in other commodity markets.
As a result, some electricity retailers are no longer able to sustain their operations in this challenging environment and thus, have chosen to exit the market.
Mr Speaker, the entry and exit of retailers are features of an open and competitive retail market. The unusually high number of exits reflects the severity of the global energy shock. We have observed the same phenomenon in other countries, such as the UK as well as Spain.
The key is to have a fair and robust system to ensure a smooth transition for customers affected by exiting retailers.
Retailers who wish to exit the retail electricity market are required to first approach other retailers to take on those consumers at the same terms and conditions. Failing which, the consumer will be transferred to SP Group. As of end October 2021, about 140,000 households and 11,000 business accounts will either be transferred to another retailer, or back to SP Group. Consumers who are transferred to the SP Group can choose to purchase electricity from another retailer.
Security deposits from household consumers are safeguarded and will be refunded after offsetting outstanding charges. Retailers are not allowed to charge customers an early termination fee.
There will be no disruption to electricity supply. EMA will direct consumers who wish to seek compensation or file claims under their supply contracts with the retailers to the available channels.
Given the current challenging circumstances, EMA is open to allowing retailers facing challenges to suspend their operations by transferring their customers to SP Group while they strengthen their business. In exchange, these retailers commit to provide an ex gratia payment to ease their customers' transition. Best Electric, Ohm Energy and UGS Energy have joined this arrangement.
EMA is working closely with the remaining nine retailers who are still operating in the Open Electricity Market (OEM).
EMA is facilitating their efforts to hedge against future price volatility. These include facilitating the sale of electricity futures contracts between retailers that are exiting the retail market to those that are staying.
EMA is also working closely with SGX to incentivise more market makers to participate in the electricity futures market.
Some Members of Parliament have asked if SP can continue to honour the prices and terms of the existing contracts that affected customers had contracted with their electricity retailers. The transferred households will need to pay the same regulated tariffs as all the other households and small businesses. This reflects the price SP pays to the gencos for the electricity. Thus, for the transferred customers to pay less, the other consumers with SP will have to pay more than the regulated tariffs to cross-subsidise them.
A few Members have asked what the recent exit of retailers portend for the OEM. Allow me to make three points.
First, the benefits of the OEM remain. Notwithstanding the recent exits, the OEM has benefited and continues to benefit many Singaporeans. Since it was launched in November 2018, consumers have been able to enjoy increased choice and flexibility when buying electricity, ranging from fixed-price plans, discount-off-tariff (DOT) plans, or even wholesale electricity price plans. More importantly, consumers who switch to retail price plans have been able to enjoy savings of up to 30% off the regulated tariff. To date, about half of all households, or about 746,000 households accounts, have switched to buying electricity from electricity retailers.
Second, the viability of OEM remains. There are currently nine remaining retailers in the OEM. Depending on the severity and the duration of this energy crunch, more retailers may either exit or they may re-enter the market. Members have asked whether EMA will be reviewing the number of electricity retail licensees needed to sustain the OEM. Mr Speaker, the answer is that there is really no magic number. There is sufficient competition in the OEM today and EMA is committed to ensuring this.
Last but not least, the foundations of the OEM will need to be strengthened. Today, OEM retailers are vetted and have to satisfy a stringent set of requirements before they are licensed to serve OEM consumers. For example, retailers have to demonstrate that their management team possesses the relevant experience in energy retailing or trading, they have to consistently hedge at least 50% of their wholesale electricity price risk and they have to submit financial statements to EMA, which allows EMA to monitor their financial health.
In hindsight, these are necessary but for a severe stress test such as this, the measures were insufficient. This is the current crisis that we are facing today. Some retailers were ill-prepared to weather the storm. Members have raised useful suggestions on how we can further strengthen these requirements and the futures market. We will consider them carefully. Thank you.
Mr Speaker, let me now turn to the third key issue, and that is on the electricity prices. I wanted to thank the Members for giving us more suggestions. But now on electricity prices.
Mr Speaker: I thought you were teasing us!
\tDr Tan See Leng: Singapore imports our energy needs and cannot be fully insulated from developments in the global energy market.
Most consumers in Singapore have been cushioned somewhat so far. Ninety-nine percent of household consumers are on standard price plans with retailers or the regulated tariff rate and about 96% of businesses are on fixed price or discount-off-tariff plans. These have risen by far less than the price of gas or wholesale electricity.
However, the sustained high fuel prices will eventually feed into our electricity bills to reflect the cost of electricity production.
Many Members of this House have asked what the Government will be doing to help affected households and businesses. The Government will provide focused and targeted assistance to eligible groups of consumers. Eligible households will continue to receive U-Save rebates to support them with their utility expenses. MTI will also work with MOF to monitor the situation and study whether further assistance is required for affected households and businesses.
At the same time, we are also conducting programmes to raise awareness of electricity conservation and facilitate efforts by households and businesses to reduce their utility bills. For example, SP Services has been progressively replacing households’ analogue electricity meters with advanced electricity meters which allow them to track their energy consumption through the SP Utilities mobile app. This will help households better understand their electricity usage patterns and encourage them to be more energy efficient.
NEA has also launched other energy saving initiatives such as the Climate Friendly Households Programme to encourage households to switch to more resource-efficient appliances. Eligible households are given vouchers to offset the costs of these appliances. We urge all consumers to use energy prudently and adopt energy conservation as a way of life.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, our energy market has served us well for the last 20 years. Amongst major cities, our electricity supply is one of the most reliable and price competitive. Our market is now being tested by an unprecedented storm in the global energy market. While most consumers will not see an immediate increase in electricity prices, they may see an increase next year with increasing energy prices globally. Our commitment to this House is this: we will secure our energy supply. We will help vulnerable consumers weather the storm. And we will continue to make our energy sector even better.
Thank you and I look forward to your continued support.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I want to thank the Minister for his reassuring reply on how we are going to deal with the ongoing energy crunch and volatility. My question is going to be on the electricity retailers.
In the light of the current disruptions, as the Minister said, some retailers are ill-prepared for this current volatility, would the Government still recommend consumers to switch to the retail price plan? That is my first question.
The second question is, while the OEM has indeed brought significant savings to households in the last few years – having discounts over the regulated rates and so on – does the Government see the need to review this, review the regime, given the situation that we are facing now, perhaps to have fewer, but stronger and more regulated retailers? Or just having one, Singapore Power, but offering different price plans so that they can benefit from the scale efficiency.
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his question. The OEM provides choices to consumers, notwithstanding the recent volatility, electricity retailers continue to offer competitively-priced retail price plans to interested consumers. Affected consumers who have switched back to the regulated tariffs, actually still have the option of choosing from other retailers that are able to suit their needs. And we encourage all consumers to study carefully, deliberate over which electricity price plan would best suit their needs.
On the viability on the OEM, in my main reply, I think it still remains but we will need to continue to explore ways and means to strengthen the foundations. My Ministry will study how we can further strengthen the safeguards for the OEM, so as to better protect our consumers' interests.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San. If I can request Members to keep their questions short and no more than two supplementary questions, please.
\tMs Poh Li San (Sembawang): Thank you, Speaker. I thank Dr Tan for his comprehensive reply. I have one question: if the supply crunch continues to worsen over the next few months, in the longer term, then, what is MTI's strategy to reduce the national consumption, the demand, especially from industries, the sectorial angle.
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Ms Poh for her question. I think we have been constantly engaging the industry. Earlier and through the past year, I have mentioned that underlying the four switches of what we have been preparing for, underlying it is energy conservation. We also want to encourage industry to consider using energy in a more efficient manner, because obviously there are peak demands and there are off-peak demands. And we hope that the industry will work closely with all of us in making sure that we can space out the peak demand versus the trough.
What is important is that as we look at securing our supply – I think it was announced in the 19 October press release by EMA – in terms of the supply, we have sufficient supply. In terms of how we procure the gas prices, we are also looking at means of exploring other longer-term measures: importing low-carbon electricity, importing from the regional grid are some of these strategies. We are also exploring, as a much longer-term strategy, to reduce our reliance on importation and that would be to look at our solar power generation capacity.
At the same time, we are also looking at working with academia, the different institutions, as well as industry leaders in how we can access low-carbon hydrogen, carbon capture utilisation and storage as well.
So, we have a combination of all these measures to reduce our reliance on any one particular supply of energy.
On top of that, we are also exploring the use of energy storage systems in the form of batteries to see how we can provide a more stable power supply to reduce the intermittence from solar energy. I hope that answers the question.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
\tMs Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a related supplementary question for the Minister in terms of energy stability as well as security. Today, 95% of Singapore's electricity still comes from natural gas. The Minister talked about the pre-emptive measures of stockpiling as well as enabling the standby fuel facilities for gencos to be able to use this capacity. But from the high prices that we have seen for natural gas, how sustainable is this measure? I know that it sounds like supply is sufficient, but how sustainable is this, given the consumption and the heavy reliance on electricity?
At the same time, my second supplementary question is on the status of the genco supply and generation capacity. Does EMA monitor this and what is the current status of this capacity as well as that supply?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Ms Jessica Tan for her questions. All generation companies will need to comply with our requirements to have a fuel stockpiles that will last at least 60 days of operation. Generation companies should utilise their own fuel supply to meet electricity demand and only tap on the standby fuel facilities when needed. The standby fuel facilities are necessary to ensure we have sufficient fuel in Singapore to meet our electricity demand. Hence, we took the pre-emptive step in mid-October to secure this.
EMA will continue to review the need to maintain this facility once the global energy situation stabilises. So, to reassure Ms Jessica Tan and Members of the House, our generation capacity is sufficient.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
\tMs Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker. Minister has noted that the regulatory requirements for our Open Electricity Market (OEM) are probably inadequate to withstand a severe stress situation such as the current one. He identified four key things that are culminating to a perfect storm.
I would like to ask Minister two supplementary questions. First, how will the Government address the vulnerability of the current regulatory framework for the long-term sustainability of the OEM? I guess this was designed and I guess we did not expect this perfect storm. So, specifically, what is the time frame you will be rolling out a new enhanced framework; anything on the hedging strategy, anything about the financial strength of the OEM?
The second question is whether the Government will consider, in the meantime, special support to the remaining electricity retailers for their continued operations and also most importantly, their commitments to the consumers. So, how are those who are still surviving, including SP, going to manage the influx of the new customers, which it will now have to serve?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member, Ms Foo, for her very pertinent questions. Indeed, there is a cost to regulation and this cost ultimately would be borne by consumers. If the requirements are too onerous, then fewer retailers may be willing to participate in the market. Therefore, if there are fewer retailers, there will be less choice and there will be less competitive plans for consumers.
Prior to the current energy crunch, our prudential requirements were largely adequate. We put in place safeguards to protect consumer interests, such as safeguarding the deposits of households and also the minimum hedging requirements of 50%. In addition, retailers and their shareholders know that if they should exit without regard for their customers' interests, they may not be granted retail licences henceforth.
Thus, over the last decade, up to 2020, only five other retailers have left the market and many of them cited the intense market competition as the main reason for their exit. This demonstrates that our safeguards in the past would have probably sufficed not just in our market, but in most market conditions. This episode, this unprecedented crisis, has highlighted some learning points for us.
EMA will enhance the licencing requirements for the OEM retailers and strengthen protection even more for consumers moving forward. However, we have to be also practical and realistic when instituting safeguards because it would be neither feasible nor economically prudent for us to institute safeguards that can cover every potential possible eventuality. Doing so would lead to significant costs for consumers.
On the measures that SP is taking to manage the influx of new consumers which it must now serve, the objective of shifting consumers back to SP is to ensure that there is no break in electricity provision. SP has put in place measures to make the transition for affected customers and consumers as seamless as possible. This transition back to SP is fully automated and the affected consumers do not have to take any action. SP will also follow up with consumers, post the transition, with an email or letter notification, informing them of the transfer. Affected consumers who wish to remain with SP, do not need to take any further action. Consumers are also free to switch out to other retailers thereafter.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I have one supplementary question for the Minister concerning whether he has any interim data to share on the customers who have been affected by the exit of the independent retailers? What I mean is, since the exit of iSwitch and others, their customers would have to make certain decisions. From those announcements till now, can Minister share whether most customers who are displaced have decided to stay with SP for time being or have they switched to the larger retailers who are also generators called gen-tailers? Or have they actually taken the plunge to go with another independent retailer? I wonder if he has that data.
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for her question. I think the short answer is that I do not have the data because it happened quite recently. But I think we will monitor her question as posed. In fact, we have every intention to do so. And perhaps at the subsequent Sitting, if she can file another PQ, we would be quite happy to update her.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
\tMr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Related question under the Code of Conduct for retail electricity licensees, retailers are required to approach other retailers to attempt to novate their customers on the same contractual terms. I hear from the previous answer to the hon Sylvia Lim that you do not have the current numbers on how many would possibly be able to novate. But a follow-up question is, how would the regulator EMA, in this case, ensure that the code is adhered to by those retailers who are exiting the market, so that these negotiations do carry on and benefit the end consumer.
The next is related to the ex gratia payment that Minister had mentioned and which was also in the EMA press release. Details are a bit scant on this. How would the retailers be getting in touch with their customers, in terms of possible ex gratia payment to ease the transition? Those are my two questions.
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Alex Yam for his two questions. In part of my earlier reply, I said the retailers will work with EMA and they will, of course, work with other retailers. And as a last resort where SP comes in to take over that, in the form of a regulated tariff, there is a sequence and a mechanism to it.
Suffice to say, today, that what EMA will do is that they will continually work with existing retailers to ensure that the transfer is seamless and to also ensure that there is a fair code of practice being adhered to. Thus far, the novation has happened fairly seamlessly. There are existing retailers that are still in the business and I think that everyone is watching the situation quite carefully as well. So, the storm continues to evolve. I think the stability that we have provided is that very pre-emptive move to make sure that the supplies have been fortified. We have made sure that the supply of gas for the generation of electricity is actually ensured, so that our reliability and our resilience is preserved. Tomorrow, I would be also putting up a Bill, the Energy (Resilience Measures and Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. We probably would have more points put in there to ensure that our resilience continues to be reinforced.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
\tMr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Thank you, Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister if there are instances, where OEM retailers elected to pre-terminate contracts, despite partially hedging purchase prices – and I think Minister mentioned 50% – and by doing so, walk away with a larger windfall by selling the hedge prices in the current wholesale market at the expense of consumers? And if so, what powers does EMA have to ensure consumers are fairly treated?
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Chia for this question. Thus far, EMA has not received any complaints from consumers about the OEM retailers pre-terminating their contracts. I would like to assure this House that in awarding a retail electricity licence, as I have alluded to earlier on, EMA would first need to be assured that the licensee has the requisite management experience and track record in electricity retailing, and they are not some fly-by-night companies out to make a quick buck and walk away when the prices of electricity or prices move against them. This applies even to the retailers that have already exited.
This round, the crisis was unprecedented and there are significant challenges to retailers because they were not sufficiently hedged. While they may have some existing hedges which can be unwound, some of the retailers have suffered significant losses this round over the last few months. Because, the hedging is, I think we require them to maintain 50% hedge, so, because they were not fully hedged, therefore, that swing, the huge volatility swing has resulted in them suffering significant losses.
We will learn from this particular episode. Ostensibly, we cannot possibly predict and pre-empt every single episode as I have shared earlier on in my answer to Ms Foo's PQ. If we covered every single instance of volatility, up to the different standard deviations, it would be very, very costly for us and not tenable. But we will make use of this opportunity to learn from it and also study how we can further strengthen and tighten it. I hope that gives the Member the reassurance.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I have two supplementary questions: one on energy security and another on electricity prices. How much leverage does EMA have over foreign gas suppliers to ensure that disruptions and low pressure do not become a regular occurrence, for example, through the imposition of liquidated damages? And have these levers being exercised so far?
Secondly, a larger proportion of customers who never switched electricity retailers are from the lower-income households. About 79% of 1-room to 2-room households versus just 40% of landed property households. This is from data from a PQ I asked in January. This means that the lower-income group has been paying elevated regulated tariff prices for several months already. Will the Government consider a special one-off additional electricity rebate to assist these lower-income households during this difficult period?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Giam for his questions. Let me try and answer his second question first. For the lower-income households, we have the vouchers for the U-Save rebates which effectively help them in terms of the utility bills. I have shared also in my earlier statements, either during Committee of Supply 2021 or in some of my earlier Parliamentary speeches that, the 4-room HDB flats and for the 3-room HDB flats, the rebates amount to about six months of rebates per year, and I think for some, four months per year. So, the low-income households are the ones that we are also very, very concerned about.
Notwithstanding the rebates that are already in existence, we are also exploring with MOF further means to help. I am not at liberty at this particular point in time to release further details, because obviously, we are still working out the details with MOF.
So, to summarise, the low-income households get a higher proportion of the U-Save vouchers compared to other types of households.
In terms of the global gas situation, the Member asked about what kind of leverage we have. There are contractual obligations, if they are not able to supply the agreed amount of gas, there are compensation benchmarks. In terms of other negotiations, as to how we talk to other suppliers and so on, I think because it compromises our energy security and it also compromises our negotiation powers, at this particular point in time, I am not at liberty to share them and I hope you understand.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, thank you. I thank the Minister for his answers earlier. I have got two supplementary questions. First, the Minister mentioned just now about trying to enhance consumers' reduction of their energy consumption to manage their costs while also allowing us to achieve our climate goals. What more can the Ministry do to enhance this even further, in terms of letting consumers manage their costs through reduced energy consumption?
The second question is related to what Member Mr Gerald Giam asked. I am very concerned about the affordability of electricity prices. Consumers can no longer enjoy the very competitive prices under OEM, compared to the regulated tariffs. So, the question is, in the worst-case scenario of retailers falling to zero – we do not want that to happen, but if it falls to zero from nine currently – do we have to go to U-Save rebates for vulnerable families going forward many times, given the volatility of the markets? And if it is triggered, what more can we do to other groups, rather than just the vulnerable groups? Are there certain segments that we can help, beyond the vulnerable segments, to weather the storm?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Saktiandi for his question. The regulated tariffs reflect the long-run marginal cost of generating electricity. For a period of time, the electricity retailers were generally able to offer prices lower than the regulated tariff because the wholesale electricity prices were depressed below cost due to the over capacity in generation and oversupply of gas. And I think I did intimate to Members of the House, in fact, I gave a very strong point earlier this year that that low prices are not sustainable and that it will go. What we can try to do, very, very hard, is to try to mitigate and manage the gradient of that growth.
We import all of our electricity, 95% of our electricity, more than that is through natural gas, which is imported. Even if we do go into low-carbon electricity, we will still have to import, because geographically, we are naturally disadvantaged. Even if I were to cover all the rooftops of the HDB flats, the JTC buildings with solar panels – we use vertical solar panels today and we cover our floating reservoirs, all the vast expanse of space – we probably can generate maybe at peak, well not at peak, but probably between 4% and 5% or 6% of our needs. So, we still have to import the rest of it.
So, I think the Member's point about how do we — I mean, the way I have underscored it is really about energy conservation. The Government will continue to support the low-income households through all these vouchers and rebates and so on. But I think whether we like it or not, as the demand and supply situation continues to tighten, the gap between the open electricity market and the regulated tariffs will continue to narrow.
The OEM is not just simply about offering our consumers discount off regulated tariffs. More pertinently, it offers a variety of fixed price plans and variable price plans to our consumers so that they can select the plan that best suits their needs.
In fact, the only sustainable way looking forward and one of those things that I have been preaching constantly is that we would strongly encourage all Singaporeans to adopt energy conservation as our way of life. We can start small. We can turn the lights off when we are not in the room. We can opt to use the fan more often rather than using air-conditioning. We can, in air-conditioning rooms, push the temperature up by a few degrees, we do not have to bring it down so low and wear a sweater. And switching to more energy-efficient appliances where possible. And I think that NEA has worked very well with us to put the ticks for appliances. Minister Grace Fu is here. The more ticks, the more efficient the appliances in terms of conservation of energy.
So, I hope that with every single bit, we can all come together and help. We are also committed to a low carbon footprint moving forward. I think you have read in the news today about what is happening in Glasgow and UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) and how this global warming is going to create catastrophic disastrous consequences for us if we do not lower our carbon emission. So, I hope that with that collective effort, we can all come together and make this a greener and a lower energy-requiring environment to live in.
\t\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many households and businesses are affected by the recent exit of electricity retailers; (b) how many electricity retailers remain in business; (c) how will the current circumstance impact the continuity of the open electricity market; and (d) whether EMA anticipated such a scenario and, if so, what is the contingency plan to cope with electricity price increases to consumers.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry with regard to SGX electricity futures contracts (a) whether and how the recent spike in electricity prices for consumers has caused any impact; (b) whether there is a price limit imposed for each trading session to prevent uncontrolled volatile share price escalation; and (c) how many SGX market makers have been recruited at its launch and continue to make prices for daily trading.","3 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what measures can be taken to protect consumers when the electricity retailers exit the market; and (b) whether there are complaints about electricity retailers not honouring their commitment in the electricity supply contract with consumers.","4 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) with the exit of three energy retailers from the market, what protection is available to consumers who are now faced with higher tariffs with new electricity retailers as compared to their previous contracts; and (b) how confident is EMA in the robustness of the industry under the current volatility in energy prices."],"footNoteQuestions":["11","12","13","14","15","16","17","18","19","20","21","22","23","24","25","26","27","28","29","30"],"questionNo":"11-30"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Conditions in Migrant Worker Dormitories following Incident at Westlite Jalan Tukang Dormitory","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"31 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) why was a foreign embassy able to respond more quickly than the dormitory operator or the Ministry with the provision of aid and support to foreign workers residing at the Westlite Jalan Tukang Dormitory; (b) what acts can be ascribed to the dormitory operator or other stakeholders that resulted in the unsatisfactory conditions at the dormitory; and (c) whether there are sufficient resources deployed to ensure minimum standards of hygiene, food quality and medical support at all foreign worker dormitories in Singapore.
32 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower given the recent issues highlighted at the Westlite Jalan Tukang Dormitory, how will the Ministry be holding the dormitory operators and their corporate clients even more accountable for delivering an acceptable level of care to our foreign workers.
33 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the findings on the allegations of poor living conditions at Westlite Dormitory at Jalan Tukang; (b) what actions has the Ministry taken to rectify the issues; and (c) what are the measures taken to prevent similar issues in other dormitories.
34 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the overall vaccination rate for all dormitory residents; (b) what is the vaccination rate at the Westlite Jalan Tukang Dormitory; and (c) what proportion of Chinese workers living at the Westlite Jalan Tukang Dormitory have been vaccinated before they arrived in Singapore.
35 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower (a) with regard to the Westlite Jalan Tukang Domitory, whether there is non-segregation of workers who tested positive for COVID-19, substandard quality of food provided and lack of access to medical support; and (b) if so, who will be held responsible for these lapses in the migrant workers’ living conditions.
36 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what were the main reasons for the unhappiness of foreign workers at the Westlite Jalan Tukang Dormitory leading to the unrest on 12 October 2021; (b) what measures have since been taken by the Ministry to ensure that conditions have improved and that the previous conditions will not recur; and (c) whether any action will be taken against the dormitory operators, employers of the workers or service suppliers for any neglect or omission.
37 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Government will review its current stay-in requirements for workers in dormitories who are infected with COVID-19, bearing in mind that such accommodation typically requires a number of workers to live in close proximity when sharing dormitory rooms and common facilities like toilets, bathrooms and wash basins; and (b) whether such accommodation may allow for easier virus transmission as well as promoting anxiety and fear of infection among those sharing the same rooms.
38 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the reasons for the delays in isolation and treatment of COVID-19 infected workers, the extensive cross infection of workers, the serving of food unfit for consumption and the relatively low vaccination rate of workers at the Westlite Jalan Tukang dormitory; (b) what enforcement action will be taken against the operators, employers or food caterers; and (c) whether the Ministry has received and acted upon similar complaints from workers in other dormitories.
39 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is being done to monitor and evaluate the quality of food catered for migrant workers, including nutritional value and cultural appropriateness, food hygiene and safety standards; (b) on average, what is the time gap between production and consumption of such food; and (c) what enforcement actions have been taken against employers who fail to comply with the requisite food standards.
The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, Sir, several Members have filed questions relating to the situation at Westlite Jalan Tukang Dormitory and with your permission, Sir, may I ask to take Question Nos 31 to 39 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Let me first explain the healthcare and recovery protocol for the dormitory residents to set the context. In line with the shift to the Home Recovery Programme in our community, the dormitories have phased in a Dormitory Recovery Programme since 2 October in the transition towards \"living with COVID-19\". Ninety-eight percent of dormitory residents are fully vaccinated and most are below the age of 60. A vast majority of recent infections are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.
Forty-five larger dormitories now have dedicated blocks or rooms set aside within their compounds as Dormitory Recovery Facilities (DRFs). COVID-19-positive vaccinated workers who are asymptomatic or only mildly symptomatic can recuperate and be monitored in DRFs while being segregated from other workers. Additionally, we have set up three Centralised Recovery Facilities (CRFs) in the larger dormitories to cater for workers who do not have access to the 45 DRFs. The 45 DRFs and three CRFs together have a total of 11,000 recovery beds. We will expand these recovery capacities if needed.
We have also aligned testing protocols in the DRFs and CRFs with the rest of our community. Workers who test negative on their supervised Antigen Rapid Tests (ARTs) after 72 hours of isolation can be discharged. Workers are given thermometers and oximeters to monitor themselves three times a day and report these numbers. A recovery buddy is designated in each room to help with the dissemination of information and to monitor the health of fellow migrant workers. The dormitory operator also checks on them regularly.
So far, over 17,000 workers have gone through the Dormitory Recovery Programme and have safely recovered. The majority were discharged by Day 7 and about half of them were discharged by Day 4. The small minority who developed symptoms continued to have access to medical support through daily sick parades at our regional medical centres or telemedicine consultations which are available 24/7. Mobile Clinical Teams may also be deployed to DRFs or CRFs with high report sick rate to augment access to primary care. In fact, fewer than 0.2% needed to be admitted to the hospital.
The workers appreciate the convenience of dormitory recovery since they can return quickly to their rooms on discharge and resume work very rapidly.
\tLet me now give an account of the events at Westlite Jalan Tukang Dormitory. This dormitory has about 3,000 residents. About half of them are employed by Sembcorp Marine and almost all of them are newly arrived workers from China in the last three to four months. These workers were offered vaccination under our national vaccination programme, with a small number taking it up. The employer has since clarified that these workers had been vaccinated in their home country before arriving in Singapore. The vaccination status of these workers needed to be verified through a serology test and WHO-EUL vaccination documentation before we can register them as being vaccinated in Singapore. MOM has been working with the employer to expedite the verification. Progress has been made. To date, about 60% of the Sembcorp Marine workers have been verified to have received WHO-EUL-approved vaccines, while a number have not been vaccinated with WHO-EUL vaccines and we encourage them to be vaccinated in Singapore for their own protection.
Following the implementation of the Dormitory Recovery Programme on 2 October, the dormitory operator began adjusting to these new protocols. On 10 October, there were 174 newly detected Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and Antigen Rapid Test (ART) positive cases. However, the dormitory operator had difficulty processing the sudden surge of workers that needed to be conveyed. The next day, on 11 October, some key members of the dormitory staff did not come to work as they themselves had tested positive. The Assurance, Care and Engagement Group or ACE officers on the ground stepped in on that day to assist the operator.
In response to the sharp increase in the number of COVID-19 cases on 10 October, Sembcorp Marine and ACE carried out a mass testing exercise on 12 October at the worksite and dormitory which yielded another 278 COVID-19-positive cases that needed to be conveyed from the dormitory to a CRF if they were vaccinated, or to another appropriate isolation facility if they were unvaccinated. This happened while the team was trying to process the previous surge, and the dormitory operator struggled to process the high volume. While ACE officers tried to assist the operator between 11 and 12 October, it, too, did not put in enough resources during this time to triage, process and convey the COVID-19-positive workers before the second surge on 13 October.
Sir, following the incident on 13 October, ACE took swift actions since that afternoon to stabilise the situation.
First, we doubled the number of officers to manage the conveyance of all infected workers from the dormitory such that, by the evening of 13 October, about 70% of the workers needing conveyance had been sent to the appropriate recovery or isolation facilities. By the next day, on 14 October, the backlog was cleared.
In addition, ACE officers, together with the employer and dormitory operator, engaged the workers and assured them that their feedback would be looked into and there would be timely conveyance of infected individuals. The workers calmed down and returned to their rooms.
ACE also deployed a mobile clinical team to the dormitory to augment the existing medical services that were already available to the residents at Westlite Jalan Tukang Dormitory through the regional medical centres and telemedicine. All those who wanted to seek medical attention were seen by the medical team on site on the same day. This helped to reduce the waiting time and allay much of the fears and anxieties that the workers experienced.
The situation has been calm in the dormitory since 13 October. Over the following days and weeks, ACE officers, together with the employer and dormitory operator, continued to be at the dormitory every day to engage the workers. In fact, over the last two weeks, ACE has introduced more videos and infographics to better explain Singapore’s strategy for dealing with COVID-19 and the recovery process in our dormitories, in view that the newly-arrived workers at the dormitory were used to a different COVID-19 management strategy in their home country. In particular, there are now videos of migrant workers sharing their recovery journey and assuring their fellow migrant workers, as well as videos of doctors answering common questions from migrant workers in their own native languages.
So, I urge employers and dormitory operators to do more to help our workers adjust to the new normal, communicate changes that will affect workers’ well-being and actively address potential knowledge gaps of their workers and residents. We also call on workers who are not vaccinated or not verified – if they are vaccinated overseas – to complete their vaccination or verification as soon as possible as this will protect them from serious illnesses. MOM and sector agencies will monitor this progress.
We also saw many of our partners coming in to support the workers after the incident on 13 October. We are very grateful and encouraged by the outpouring of support by the Chinese business community, the Chinese Embassy, NGOs like HealthServe, Migrant Workers' Centre and the wider community. This is testimony to the civic-mindedness and big-heartedness of our community here in Singapore. Thank you so much for your help!
This is similar to how, at the height of the pandemic last year, MOM worked with the High Commissions of India and of Bangladesh, as well as various NGOs to support our migrant workers, including celebrating festive occasions with them. We thank all parties for their contributions and donations, and we will continue to work together to care for our migrant workers.
Workers also raised concerns about the quality and hygiene standards of food provided by Sembcorp Marine. We take this very seriously and have asked the employer to address the complaints. The employer has reported that they have made improvements to the food and the feedback from the workers has been positive. The Ministry will not hesitate to take actions against any errant employer who fails to ensure workers' access to safe food. The Singapore Food Agency is also investigating the food safety practices of this particular caterer.
Sir, in summary, there were shortcomings by all parties. On the employer's part, workers were upset and had raised issues about food quality and hygiene. On the dormitory operator's part, they struggled to cope with the surge in numbers. On ACE's part, we stepped in but did not put in sufficient resources in time to resolve the problem.
Following the incident, all parties have diligently addressed the issues, restored calm to the dormitory and to the workers. We have also conducted a thorough review and tightened up the processes, especially for escalating and calling in more resources to deal with a surge in cases that need to be conveyed. ACE has also tightened up coordination and communication with dormitory operators and employers when handling mass testing exercises and a surge in cases. Investigations into failures to fulfil regulatory obligations, for example, in food safety and hygiene issues, are ongoing.
All parties across our more than 1,300 dormitories, whether it is dormitory operators, employers and ACE officers on the ground, play important roles to support the recovery of our migrant workers. More than 17,000 migrant workers have recovered under the Dormitory Recovery Programme with the support and hard work of all these partners. We will learn from this episode and continue to strengthen the partnership with all stakeholders and community partners to ensure the well-being of our migrant workers as we transit into endemicity.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive reply to my Parliamentary Question (PQ). I have a question pertaining to MOM's ACE Group, which was a new division set up last year, taking over from the inter-agency task force, and it pertains to the deployment of forward assurance and support teams. It would appear from the Senior Minister of State's chronology that, between 10 and 12 October, there were gaps. Can I seek confirmation from the Senior Minister of State as to the manpower situation within ACE itself, whether there are enough individuals and teams to cover not just this particular dormitory but the vast number of dormitories in Singapore?
My second question pertains to the first part of what the Senior Minister of State shared with regard to the Dormitory Recovery Programme. I would like to seek an update from the Senior Minister of State as to what is the situation with the various pilots that I believe were launched to allow workers to reintegrate into the public space and whether this can actually be moved along in a more deliberate manner. I understand from individuals in HealthServe that mental health concerns are becoming more noteworthy.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, the Member asked two questions. The first one is on whether we have enough ACE officers to cover the number of dormitories we have. The reality is that we have 1,300 dormitories, big and small. There will never be enough to go around on a regular basis, to plant people in all 1,300 dormitories. How we go about doing this is to leverage the partnership we have with our stakeholders: the dormitory operators, the employers and, of course, we have volunteers within the migrant worker community, the friends of ACE, where they are also ambassadors, where they are migrant workers themselves who have been here for some time. They are trained and equipped with some of the basic knowledge to share information with their fellow workers, to help spread the message and also to help to collate feedback and channel this upwards to all of us. So, in a way, it is about leveraging the multiplier effect of everyone pitching their hands in and working together.
As the Member will appreciate, to have operations within 1,300 dormitories, big and small, with different phases perhaps of infection, of liberalisation of going to the community or going to work. The work necessary to coordinate across all the different stakeholders as well as to ensure that when a case is detected; documentation of the COVID-19-positive result; churning out a nominal roll, a name list; communicating the need for conveyance and then for the team to arrange for the necessary transportation; having also the receiving party at the other end, at the dormitory recovery facilities (DRFs) or the centralised recovery facilities (CRFs), for example, is a necessary complex process that involves quite a bit of communication and coordination.
So, we do make sure that our ACE officers are prioritised in terms of going to the dormitories that need help rather than have them spread thin over all the many places. In a way, it is about risk-strategising and prioritisation. At this moment, we are working with what we have. When there is a need to, if there is a real major surge in demand that we need to augment our numbers, we will look at increasing the number of ACE officers that we need to deploy.
The second question pertains to how much more we can do in liberalising community visits for our dormitory workers. I must say that our dormitory workers have been very, very patient and they have actually gone through a lot in the last one and a half years or so.
In the past month or so, we have started a community pilot: visits for workers to go into the community. We started with about 500 and then, with the success of that pilot, you will see in today's newspaper that an announcement has been made over the weekend. Minister Tan See Leng himself visited one of the Hindu temples with many of our migrant workers. And we are going to increase that number to 3,000 workers a week, especially with this festivity of Deepavali coming along, many of them will be looking forward to community visits as well.
Progressively, as we stabilise the dormitory recovery process, as the community also gets adjusted to Home Recovery Programme, as we move more and more into the endemic state, I believe that we can gradually reopen with a lot more numbers to allow our workers to access more community facilities.
We are also liberalising the number of times our vaccinated workers in the dormitories can go to the recreation centres as well. So, there are less restrictions going to recreation centres. That, again, offers another outlet for them to access services, to also have the necessary interactions that they need at the recreation centres, on top of the community visits that we are liberalising.
\t
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Thank you to the Senior Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions. The first one is, MWC has been working with MOM to help the management of dormitories. For this particular incident, why were the other agencies or NGOs not brought on board to support ACE for that few days? Is it linked to certain critical priorities that MOM might have?
The other supplementary question is on the vaccination of these workers. I know there is a requirement to bring in only vaccinated workers. So, in this instance, why were certain numbers of workers not vaccinated? How can we prevent and enhance the arrival of such unvaccinated workers for future batches?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Desmond Choo for these two questions. On the first question relating to why the NGOs were not brought in earlier, let me explain that when the surge in cases occurred, the topmost priority in the minds of our ACE officers who went in on 9 and 10 October was to augment the dorm operators, the topmost priority was really to do the processing and to do the triaging of those who may have need for medical care. On 9 October, a mobile clinical team was deployed onsite to help cope with the load of increased number of residents who might need medical attention or seek consultation. So, the priority there was very clear. It is about making sure that our team on the ground focused on what is the most urgent need and that was to take care of the medical conditions – make sure they are well, make sure they are safe medically, first.
The next priority then was to ensure that we can stitch the logistics together and make sure there is enough conveyancing capacity to bring these workers to the necessary isolation facilities.
That situation with COVID-19 cases going up in the dorm, it would not be appropriate to allow NGOs to be exposed to the risk of infection in a dorm like this. Because the work then was about medical care, was about conveyancing. It is not necessarily something that the NGOs have the capability to provide as well.
Therefore, that is the reason why in the first few days, our ACE officers were working with resources we have with the dorm operators to make sure that these important needs are met.
When the situation had calmed down – after 13 October, by that night, as I said, 70% had been conveyed; and by the next morning, by 14 October, all the rest of the backlog had been cleared – this was when the rest of the NGOs came in. In fact, the Embassy came in only on 14 October, for example, to also provide some of these supplies like masks, hand sanitisers. These were useful as a psychological boost for our workers; but by themselves, they would not be able to address the medical needs. So, it is quite clear from the sequence of events, the team was on the ground early on to try and manage the medical situation.
As to the second question of why there were so many so-called unvaccinated workers coming to Singapore, you must remember that this happened when the workers came in three, four months ago. The earlier batches came in at about mid-July and then, another bulk of them came in at around August. At that time, we were still in the \"zero COVID-19\" situation. We were trying to contain the numbers., but we had imposed Not to Land (NTL) on some of the high-risk countries. For low-risk countries, we did not impose NTL for them. China is one of those countries where they have very low COVID-19 numbers and we did not impose NTL on China workers coming in at that time.
At that time also, our dorms were not into the endemic posture, and so, even if the workers turned out not to be vaccinated, there was a way to keep them safe. But in this process, by October, we were transiting to more of an endemic posture. Those workers, who came in earlier on when we were still pursuing a zero-COVID-19 type of strategy, were therefore caught in that transition if their vaccination status was not up to the mark in terms of personal protection.
That is why we are encouraging both the workers and employers to get this thing sorted out as soon as possible and for those who are yet to be vaccinated, to get them vaccinated.
Members would also have read from our previous announcement that from today, 1 November onwards, only work pass holders who are fully vaccinated will be allowed to enter Singapore for work. This would be an adjustment that we are making from today onwards, in line with our endemic posture to make sure that anybody who is applying for a work pass, we make sure that they are vaccinated before allowing them to come in.
So, this is a gap that will gradually narrow over time. We are now digesting the group of people who came in just before that, who may then have a certain vaccination gap that we need to fill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers. I have two supplementary questions just on food quality. I know SFA is investigating the food quality claims around this particular incident. But in general, on food quality for migrant workers, there have been concerns about this going back for years. There was a survey, for example, in 2015, that talked about how the majority of workers felt the food was unsatisfactory, unclean and so on. There have been improvements since then.
Two questions. Firstly, SFA has regulations that govern the quality of catered food supplied locally to Singaporeans and I know there were revisions to these rules in March 2020 to require food establishments providing catering services, to have CCTVs to keep retention samples of the food and so on. So, do those SFA guidelines for catered food supplied to Singaporeans also apply to catered food supplied to migrant workers? Is that applicable, is that enforced?
Secondly, what is being done, in general, to look at the standards of food supplied to migrant workers beyond just the Jalan Tukang incident; in particular, around what you hear and frequent reports about the food being prepared the day before and there can be a long period of time that elapses between when the food is prepared and when it is consumed by the migrant workers?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I do not know how the Member can get the feedback from these workers for years and years when they all just arrived in July this year. So, I am not sure whether such a claim is absolutely correct that this complaint has been going on for years and years. These workers have been here for less than four months.
Regulations that apply to dorm caterers, yes, I think it is a standard that we apply across to all catering, whether it is to the dorms or for other public consumption.
Regarding feedback for standards of food hygiene, there are various avenues in which the workers can feed back. First, we have now the FWMOMCare app, which is an app that all foreign workers can download onto their smart phones. Through this app, they can feedback directly to MOM, to ACE, for example, on any issues relating to their dorm conditions, including food. So, that is something through which workers have direct access to our agencies. The second thing is that there are volunteer groups, NGOs who are in regular contact with our workers – what we call Friends of ACE – when they are organising activities, when they interact with the workers, this is again another channel of feedback.
I must say our NGOs are very, very much pro-workers. They will not hesitate to tell us when there is any feedback that they receive regarding sub-standard accommodation or food.
The third is that the Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC) has established a network of what we call Migrant Worker Ambassadors who are scattered throughout all the different dormitories. These are foreign workers themselves, staying in the dormitories, who have been here in Singapore for many years; some of them, even for a decade. They are quite familiar with the setting, they are quite familiar with the standards that are to be expected on a day-to-day basis and they again, form another channel of feedback to the relevant authorities and to the NGOs as well, if standards were to drop.
The final one is that MWC runs a hotline where all foreign workers who face challenges and they cannot get through to the employers or to anyone else, can call this hotline where they can directly give feedback to MWC as well as the ambassadors who speak their native languages to collate all the feedback.
So, I think there is no shortage of feedback. Clearly, some of these things, if there were language barriers, we need to look into that. In this case, I think they were very much newly arrived workers, they may not be exactly familiar with many of these resources opened to them. This is where we need to communicate to them that there are avenues they can seek redress from. We will also take this chance to impress on all employers that it is their responsibility and their obligation to make sure that they provide food of decent quality and hygiene standard that their workers can consume.
If there are investigations that show that employers have actually violated any of these obligations, we will take them to task.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deployment of Riot Police at Jalan Tukang Westlite Dormitory on 13 October 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"40 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) which Singapore Police Force (SPF) units were activated in the Jalan Tukang Westlite Dormitory incident; (b) what are their roles; and (c) whether any enforcement actions were taken at site by these respective units.
41 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) over the last five years, how often and under what conditions have the riot police been deployed to respond to an active situation in Singapore; and (b) whether the situation at the Jalan Tukang Westlite Dormitory on 13 October 2021 warranted their deployment.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 40 and 41 together, please.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Desmond Tan: On 13 October 2021, the Police responded to a call for assistance at the Jalan Tukang Westlite Dormitory. The information was that a group of workers were behaving aggressively, with potential for violence.
Patrol officers from Jurong Police Division were dispatched to the dormitory. Officers from MOM were already engaging the workers. The officers from Jurong Police Division together with the dormitory staff and officers from MOM managed to resolve the situation. While the Jurong Police Officers were engaged, they also assessed that it was necessary to have other Police units on standby, in the event the situation became violent. And additional units were placed on standby. However, these additional units were not needed to be deployed. No arrests were made by the Police during the incident.
The Police do not track the number of times that its contingency forces have been activated to respond to public order incidents. Such activations may take place in a variety of situations, including management of large crowds that may turn disorderly, protests or riots.
As a reply to Ms He Ting Ru’s question on previous deployments to active situations in the last five years, officers from the Special Operations Command (SOC) were activated in response to public order incidents on two occasions: at the Singapore Boys' Home in September 2016 and September 2018.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
\tMr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. I would like to thank the Minister of State for the reply from MHA. I just want to know whether apart from the SOC, what are the other units being deployed, as I had asked in my Parliamentary Question?
\tMr Desmond Tan: I thank the Member for the question. The Police deploy their forces based on the nature and the scale of the incident. Different units will be activated and deployed for different purposes depending on the situation for each case. We generally do not disclose the kind of units and any other details that are related to the operation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Vaccinated Travel Lane Arrangements with More Territories","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Ang Wei Neng –
42 To ask the Minister for Transport whether Singapore is considering accelerating Vaccinated Travel Lane (VTL) arrangements with more territories, especially those with lower COVID-19 infection rates such as Australia, China, Hong Kong and New Zealand.
43 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider increasing the quota for passengers from Vaccinated Travel Lane (VTL) flights given that VTL flights are from countries with similar risks and that the adult passengers are already vaccinated and tested multiple times prior to entry.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your indulgence. My reply would take a little bit longer than the allotted time.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, carry on.
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 42 and 43 on the vaccinated travel lane, together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr S Iswaran: I also would like to address similar questions on this subject that have been filed by Mr Saktiandi Supaat1, Mr Louis Chua2, Mr Gerald Giam3, Mr Shawn Huang4 and Mr Dennis5 Tan for subsequent Sittings.
I want to start by taking stock of where we are in terms of border reopening.
Members would be aware that MOH has established a risk-based categorisation of countries and regions. This framework is based on its public health assessment of a country or region’s COVID-19 situation, including its infection rate and vaccination coverage.
Countries and regions in Category I are of the lowest risk. Currently, this includes Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. These are countries and regions which continue to adopt a \"zero-COVID\" approach, and which therefore continue to have very low COVID-19 incidence rates. To Mr Ang Wei Neng’s question, we have already opened our borders to all travellers from these countries unilaterally. They can enter Singapore quarantine-free and only need to undergo an on-arrival PCR test. To Mr Gerald Giam’s question, we do not require the visitors who arrive from these Category I countries and regions to be vaccinated.
Countries and regions in Category II are of a similar incidence rate to Singapore or lower. Since 8 September 2020, we have reopened to vaccinated travellers from some of these countries in a cautious and calibrated manner through the Vaccinated Travel Lanes (VTLs). We started the VTL scheme with two countries, namely Brunei Darussalam and Germany, and have since extended it to eight others. We have also announced the commencement of VTLs with Australia and Switzerland from 8 November, and with the Republic of Korea from 15 November. In total, we have launched VTLs with 13 countries, which is a fraction of the countries that Changi Airport was connected to pre-COVID-19. Collectively, they accounted for about 15% of Changi’s annual passenger arrivals pre-COVID-19.
Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Louis Chua have asked about the quota and designated flights for the VTLs, and how these are distributed.
We set an overall quota for the VTL scheme as a safeguard to manage the public health risk. The quota is allocated to airlines operating flights to and from VTL countries based on the plans they submit. The allocation for each country and airline can vary based on demand, but the total will be kept within the overall quota. The airlines can only carry eligible passengers on the designated VTL flights. The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) monitors the airlines closely to ensure their adherence to the stipulated measures and allocated quota.
The quota for the first 10 VTL countries is 2,500. When the VTLs with Australia, Switzerland and the Republic of Korea commence later this month, the total daily quota for all 13 countries on the VTL scheme will be increased to 4,000. This is about 5% of the total daily arrivals at Changi pre-COVID-19. There will be about 19 daily VTL flights from these 13 countries, with an average VTL quota of 200 per flight.
We will monitor the incidence rate and the proportion of imported cases closely, review the demand, before deciding on any further increases in the quotas.
Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Shawn Hwang and Mr Dennis Tan have asked about our plans to extend the VTLs to more countries and our criteria for doing so.
We are in discussions with several partners, including our regional neighbours, to reopen safely to each other. We hope to conclude these discussions soon and restore our connectivity with them. We will announce details when ready.
I would like to emphasise that in these early stages of reopening our borders, it is more important that we do it well rather than scale up fast.
We have therefore expanded the VTL scheme step-by-step, informed by the public health assessment of the country's or region’s COVID-19 situation, and also the operational risks and implications. This includes whether key safeguards under the VTL scheme can be effectively implemented, such as whether travellers from the VTL countries can present digitally verifiable and authenticated proof of vaccination as a precondition for entry. We work closely with MOH to regularly review safeguards such as the testing protocols based on the latest scientific evidence and testing technology. Even as we seek to reopen our border and restore connectivity with the rest of the world, safeguarding public health is our utmost priority.
Mr Saktiandi has asked whether the VTL approach is transitory and what my Ministry’s plans are for reopening our borders thereafter. Sir, the VTL scheme is a pathfinder to restoring general air travel, enabling us to establish the protocols for safe reopening to vaccinated travellers. We will progressively expand the scheme as we gain experience and confidence in reopening our borders safely.
Ultimately, our goal is to restore safe two-way quarantine-free travel with countries and regions from around the world. As part of \"Living with COVID-19\", we must be resolute and press on with the reopening of our borders, while staying vigilant with the essential public health safeguards. It is crucial to rebuilding and reclaiming our status as an international aviation hub. Much obliged, Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement on behalf of the Minister for Health. Senior Minister of State Dr Janil Puthucheary.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 49-51, 53, 56-57, 63-64, 66-68, 70-72, 74, 76-77, 79-88, 92-97, 99-102, 104-105, 107-113, 115-119, and 121-122 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 44-48, 52, 54-55, 58-62, 65, 69, 73, 75, 78, 89-91, 98, 103, 106, 114 and 120 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 2 November 2021.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Transport (a) what factors will be considered in future adjustments to the quota of Vaccinated Travel Lane (VTL) travellers entering Singapore; and (b) if the VTL approach is transitory, what are the Ministry’s plans to eventually reopen without any country differentiation and with measures for vaccinated residents to travel overseas and return with or without quarantine.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Transport for the 11 countries currently under the Vaccinated Travel Lane (VTL) (a) what is the total number of designated VTL flights per month and the average daily seat capacity on such flights based on current flight schedules registered with the CAAS; (b) what is total number of flights per month and the average daily seat capacity on all flights from these countries regardless of VTL designation; and (c) what are the factors and thresholds that the Ministry will consider before raising the designated VTL capacity.","3 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Transport (a) whether all visitors, including those from countries with Air Travel Pass arrangements, are required to be fully vaccinated prior to arrival in Singapore; (b) which groups of visitors are excluded from this requirement; and (c) what are the reasons for these exclusions, if any.","4 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Transport (a) what are the Vaccinated Travel Lane (VTL) assessment criteria; and (b) which other countries are expected to be included in the VTL list.","5 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Government is working on establishing Vaccinated Travel Lanes for all ASEAN member countries; (b) if so, whether an update can be provided; and (c) what are the conditions which will be conducive to allow such access."],"footNoteQuestions":["42","43"],"questionNo":"42-43"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on ICU and Hospital Capacity","subTitle":"Statement on behalf of the Minister for Health","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to deliver this Statement on behalf of the Minister for Health.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Thank you, Sir. Sir, from today's Order Paper, I will address Oral Questions Nos 1 to 10 and Written Question No 40, as well as questions filed by Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Mr Liang Eng Hwa1, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Ms Mariam Jaafar2 as well as Mr Murali Pillai for future Sittings. Members may wish to withdraw the questions filed for future Sittings if they have had their questions addressed.
Sir, it has been five weeks since we entered the Stabilisation Phase. We had tightened restrictions to slow the growth in the number of cases and to further expand and stabilise our healthcare system. I would like to explain to the House the current situation in the Intensive Care Units (ICUs) and hospitals and address questions about deaths and severe cases from COVID-19. I have been meeting the clinical teams that run the ICUs, visiting them on site to go through operational details and speaking to their staff to understand the challenges that they face. These discussions and the insights shared are vital in helping us plan ahead should infection rates climb and severe cases increase.
As of yesterday, we have 1,672 COVID-19 patients admitted into our acute hospitals and they take up about 18% of hospital beds in our acute public hospitals. The occupancy rate of all our general ward beds is currently at about 90%. For isolation beds, it is now at 85%.
Of the COVID-19 patients who are hospitalised, the more serious cases will need oxygen supplementation. This number of cases continues to increase, with 284 cases currently needing oxygen support in the general wards.
The most serious cases need ICU care. The proportion of COVID-19 cases requiring ICU care is at about 0.3% today. Even though this is a small proportion, it translates into a large absolute number of ICU patients when case numbers are high and will place a serious strain on our ICU capacity.
There are currently 130 patients who are critically ill in the ICU. Some are intubated and require a mechanical ventilator. All of these patients require the continuous care of the ICU team. They occupy around 60% of the 219 ICU beds currently reserved for COVID-19 patients. These patients stay for an average of 11 to 15 days in the ICU and some stay for up to a month in the ICU.
Besides COVID-19 cases, there are also non-COVID-19 patients with life-threatening medical conditions who require ICU care, adding to the sustained load that our hospitals have to bear. Our public hospitals currently operate about 163 adult ICU beds for these patients, with an average occupancy of close to 80%.
In comparison, in 2019, before COVID-19 struck, we had 298 adult ICU beds, and the average occupancy rate was 63%. So, we have been reducing the non-COVID-19 ICU beds, in order to cope with more COVID-19 patients. This is one of the key trade-offs when we increase the number of COVID-19 ICU beds.
We have had to increase the total number of ICU beds to 382 for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients over the past two months. And the need to increase the capacity of our healthcare system is a heavy burden carried by the staff, our healthcare workers.
Already, our hospitals are feeling the manpower crunch. Signs of fatigue can be seen amongst our healthcare workers. It has been over 20 months of continuous daily battle against the pandemic. A large proportion of our healthcare workers have not had the opportunity to take leave since 2020 and over 90% of them will not be able to clear their accumulated leave for 2021. This is clearly a much higher proportion compared to the past two years. Our healthcare workers have gone and continue to go way beyond the call of duty to care for their patients. The hospitals are trying to minimise having staff work overtime. For the month of September, our nurses worked for an average of 160 to 175 hours per month.
I received a WhatsApp message from a senior member of the clinical teams. It says, \"We are getting increasingly stretched, overworked and fatigued... We are uncertain how long we can keep this up. Morale is slipping.\" Another colleague sent me a WhatsApp message and it goes: \"It feels like what started as a 2.4km run became a marathon and just as we are reaching the finishing line, we have to run a second marathon. Our people are exhausted physically, mentally, emotionally – whether they will admit it or not.\" I know this person as a professional colleague. I know both of them. Their roles to look after ICU patients also extend to looking after their staff, managing their teams, making sure that people are in a position and have the ability to perform at their best. So, when people like them say words like these, \"exhausted physically, mentally, emotionally – whether they will admit it or not\", I take it very, very seriously.
It is therefore not surprising to find resignation rates going up this year. About 1,500 healthcare workers have resigned in the first half of 2021 compared to about 2,000 annually pre-pandemic. Foreign healthcare workers have also resigned in bigger numbers, especially when they are unable to travel to see their families back home. Close to 500 foreign doctors and nurses, healthcare workers, have resigned in the first half of 2021, as compared to around 500 in the whole of 2020 and around 600 in 2019, about double the usual rate. These resignations were mostly tendered for personal reasons, for migration, or moving back to their home countries.
But it is also in such trying circumstances that we find stories of inspiration, stories of commitment to public service. On a recent visit to a COVID-19 ICU, I met a nurse who had been redeployed from her usual job in the Orthopaedic Department into the COVID-19 ICU. In the Orthopaedic Department, they look after bones, joints, muscles and she was now redeployed into a COVID-19 ICU. She had had a short training and orientation course, and then subsequently on-the-job training from her ICU colleagues. She is senior, she is a Nurse Clinician and an Advanced Practice Nurse, with many, many decades in public service. And although it is a challenge to work in a new environment and with a new set of equipment, drugs and protocols, because of her excellent fundamentals and her experience and resolve, she demonstrated confidence and competence in delivering care that the ICU patients need.
On the day I visited, she was looking after her first ever obstetric patient. After many years, this is her first ever obstetric patient, a young lady who had to have her baby delivered prematurely because of COVID-19 and was now needing treatment in the COVID-19 ICU, not in a post-natal ward. An orthopaedic nurse, deployed to a COVID-19 ICU, now looking after an obstetric patient. And there are many others like her, doctors, nurses, therapists, social workers – re-deployed to do what is urgently needed. And despite having to do difficult work in unfamiliar environments they have kept the clinical outcomes excellent, through hard work, professionalism, dedication and resilience.
But this is taking a toll. They are getting tired. They are carrying a burden of care that is sometimes unimaginable. Having to hold a phone for a patient so that the family can say their last goodbyes. Holding their patient's hand, to keep them company, on behalf of the relatives. They need all the support we can give them.
At MOH, we are redeploying manpower, to serve as healthcare or patient care assistants at our institutions. We are reaching out to more volunteers to join the SG Healthcare Corps and support this important work. We are collaborating with private hospitals to ease some of the load on our healthcare workers in our public hospitals. We are stepping up the recruitment of healthcare workers from overseas.
Our public healthcare institutions have also stepped up their outreach to staff to support them through measures that will safeguard their well-being, including counselling services, staff helplines and peer support programmes.
To Dr Tan Wu Meng's question about hospital departments factoring in sick leave as one of the indicators of work performance, there have previously been isolated incidents, but this practice has ceased. Healthcare workers who are concerned about the way sick leave affects their performance appraisals can approach their union, MOM or MOH for assistance.
Besides addressing the issues of manpower, we have also been working with public, community and private hospitals to set aside more beds for COVID-19 patients. We have also stood up COVID-19 Treatment Facilities (CTFs), which have close to 2,000 beds with an occupancy of 50% or less. We are continuing to add further capacity to our CTFs, with a view to reach around 4,000 beds in November.
We will expand our ICU capacity further, in preparation for a potential rise in severe cases. We are currently working with our hospitals to ramp up from 219 to 280 ICU beds for COVID-19 patients. These can be ready this week. If needed, our next expansion will be to 350 beds. We have been repurposing existing hospital wards, such as single rooms and isolation rooms, into additional ICU beds. We have been augmenting ICU manpower by deploying previously trained ICU staff to help with patient care. Non-ICU staff have also been brought in, as I described earlier, and they work under the supervision of ICU-trained staff. The shift pattern of nurses may have to be adjusted in order to cater to these needs and this has already started to happen in some hospitals. At the same time, we are also asking the private hospitals to set aside ICU beds to assist in managing both COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients who are critically ill.
Increasing ICU beds takes time and it affects regular hospital operations. Converting non-COVID-19 ICU beds for use by COVID-19 patients who need intensive care has a limit, as it diverts resources from non-COVID-19 patients who also need care.
The most important limit is the manpower required to staff ICU beds. Patients in ICU need trained staff, who must be able to provide individualised care, including round-the-clock monitoring and continuous care. So, any increase in ICU bed capacity must be supported by an increase in manpower, which has to be diverted away from non-COVID-19 ICU duties. Any redeployed staff or new hires would also have to undergo training to operate the specialised equipment and medical devices in the ICU to care for their COVID-19 patients.
Logistically, we can keep stepping up our ICU beds. We have ventilators, we have equipment, consumables, all the things that are needed, but not enough people. As a result, if we keep increasing our beds, we stretch and stretch our healthcare workers. We will come to the point that they will no longer be able to provide that continuous excellent care. Our nurse-to-patient ratio will also be lower, which means each nurse will have to take care of more patients than they do today. In a normal ICU – peacetime, pre-COVID-19 – one nurse would look after one or two patients. If she has to look after four, she will not have enough hands or time to provide the same level of care.
There will come a point where even as the healthcare professionals are doing their very best, they are trying their hardest, more patients will die.
And this will affect both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. As more healthcare resources are diverted to support COVID-19 services, our hospitals' ability to sustain regular non-COVID-19 services will be reduced.
So, while we may have plans to step up to a certain number of ICU beds, the real situation on the ground, the operational considerations, are not straightforward. We do not want to go anywhere near to this theoretical limit. If we do, the situation can easily get out of hand. It will affect the unvaccinated disproportionately, but it will also affect all the rest of us.
MOH has strategies to restrict the number of cases, not only to try to shield our healthcare workers and hospitals from the large surges, but also to protect all of us. We will continue to need care for heart disease, diabetes and cancer. We will have accidents and broken bones, and all of the patients, all of us, will need care, comfort and healing.
Our ICU staff have been stretched to their limit in the last two weeks. At its peak, we had 171 COVID-19 cases in ICU. But the situation has eased a little. Today, this has come down to 130. The booster doses have helped in reducing severe illnesses among vaccinated seniors, but the unvaccinated continues to be at risk. That is why we continue to monitor the situation very closely, especially the number of unvaccinated seniors who get infected. Every day, there are about 60 of them and six are likely to end up in the ICU. We need to keep this group as small as possible to ensure everyone who needs care can receive it.
Thankfully, because of our high vaccination coverage, almost all cases, about 99%, have had no or mild symptoms. We have also managed to keep our fatalities very low. But sadly, we have seen 407 deaths so far. Each death is a tragedy and a loss felt by the family, the patient's loved ones and the care team. Of these, 395 of them passed away in a hospital, eight at home and four in a care facility. The number of deaths has increased in the past two months as the overall number of cases increased.
Seniors who are unvaccinated and have underlying medical conditions are at much greater risk of severe illness and death. Close to 95% of those who died in the last six months were seniors aged 60 and above, and 72% of all deceased cases had not been fully vaccinated. Almost all of the remaining 28% who were fully vaccinated, suffered from underlying medical conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer and heart, lung, or kidney diseases. Underlying conditions add risks, even if the conditions are well controlled before the patient encounters COVID-19, especially if the patient is elderly.
There is not yet conclusive information about the long-term health consequences of COVID-19. An NCID study found that one in 10 COVID-19 patients who recovered after the initial infection continued to display symptoms such as coughing or breathlessness six months after recovering from the acute illness. A study in the UK found that those who are vaccinated are half as likely to continue having symptoms about a month after COVID-19 infection as compared to those who are unvaccinated.
While most of our cases recover fully from COVID-19, we do see instances of re-infection. Up to mid-August, we had detected 32 re-infected cases and all of them were unvaccinated.
The risks of being unvaccinated are high. Compared to the vaccinated, someone who is 60 years old and above and unvaccinated, is six times more likely to need oxygen, eight times more likely to become critically ill and need the ICU and 17 times more likely to die.
So far, we have had one of the lowest fatality rates in the world. At the beginning, it was because we had such tight restrictions, rapid contact tracing and low total number of cases in the community. But with cases rising fast, the case fatality rate remains low now because we have reached such a high vaccination rate and because all those who have become sick have been able to receive the care that they need. Our healthcare system is stressed, but it has not been overwhelmed, unlike many countries last year, where patients had to be turned away and doctors had to choose amongst many patients whom to save.
These other countries experienced what is known as excess mortality, as the pandemic spread rapidly through the population and hospitals were overwhelmed. Excess mortality is when a lot more people die in a year than you expect.
We are trying very hard to avoid that, by keeping restrictions tight last year when our population was vulnerable to the disease and then cautiously opening up after we vaccinated the vast majority of our population. Even then, we have to accept there will be some deaths. Our goal is to make sure that there are no significant excess deaths, as a result of an inability to provide adequate medical care. And so far, that is something that we have been able to do and that we want to keep doing.
Up until recently we kept the absolute number of deaths small by ensuring that few people caught COVID-19 and also that those who were infected got good treatment and care. Now that we have to live with COVID-19, we will continue to protect people from getting infected through vaccination and safe management measures, but this protection is not complete. And that is why much larger numbers will get infected. But we will continue to make sure that those who are infected get good treatment and care, and so keep the death rate from COVID-19 as low as possible. Hence, we are doing everything we can to expand our ICU capacity and protect our healthcare system.
These efforts have succeeded. Our death rate is 0.2%, compared to 3% or more in countries that experienced a surge in cases before vaccination. This rate of 0.2% is comparable to catching pneumonia – pre-COVID-19. But it does mean that over time, the absolute number of deaths from COVID-19 will rise despite the best possible medical care. We could have, perhaps, 2,000 deaths per year from COVID-19. Most of these will be the elderly and those who are already unwell.
In comparison, every year, in peacetime, pre-COVID-19, about 4,000 patients pass on as a result of influenza, viral pneumonias and other respiratory diseases. These are also mostly the elderly and the unwell. That is why we keep emphasising the importance of vaccination and boosters. We must make sure that everyone who is infected with COVID-19 will receive proper medical care by our healthcare workers and hospital system and be given the best possible chance to fight the disease.
We have got to this point in our fight against COVID-19 without excess mortality. We have managed to continue to provide excellent healthcare for all COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. I am extremely proud of my colleagues, co-workers and friends who man the wards, clinics, and many other sites where they perform their duties and we should place a high value on maintaining the standard.
What we are trying to do has not yet been done by any other country. We are trying to get to the point where the combination of high vaccination rates, booster jabs and even more boosting from mild infections means that COVID-19 will no longer spread as an epidemic in Singapore. And we are trying to get there without excess mortality. But no other country has done that before. In other words, though we will have fatalities as a result of COVID-19, we will not see more overall deaths than we would in a normal non-COVID-19 year. Nearly every other country that has arrived at that destination has paid a high price in lives.
I hope my explanation has helped Members understand why although we say we are living with COVID-19, we cannot just open up and risk having the number of cases shoot up, because more and more cases will translate into more and more ICU beds used. Beyond a certain point, that will force us to accept a lower standard of care, and hence, have more deaths that could have been prevented.
Despite our best efforts, events may overtake us and we may have no choice in the matter. If, despite our caution, ICU cases rise sharply, we will still do our very best to look after every patient. But at what level of care? I would strongly prefer if we can avoid that dreadful scenario. We need to continue to manage the overall number of cases in our population, even as we continue to increase our hospital capacity.
In all of this, there is hope. The main reason why we got to this point in the fight with COVID-19 with such low mortality rates is our people. I have spoken at length about the staff that I met at the ICUs and this applies to all our healthcare workers in the emergency departments, the clinics, the PHPCs, our swabbers, our contact tracers. Across every sector, everyone has given their all, together with an ongoing commitment to excellence in service.
MOH and the healthcare teams will continue to train staff, increase beds and expand ICU capacity. My MOH colleagues and I will keep working directly with the ICU directors and clinical leads to help them. They know better than me how to manage the patients, to provide clinical care, but they need support, resources and policies that allow them to optimise their outcomes. We will help to look after them and their staff.
All of us can continue to play our part. Vaccination remains critical, every single extra person who gets vaccinated makes a difference, to themselves and for all of us. Getting your booster shot as soon as you are eligible makes a difference. Following the safe management measures makes a difference. Regular testing makes a difference. Using the right healthcare resources appropriately makes a difference.
The current situation will not last forever. We will eventually come out of this. Eventually, enough of us will be vaccinated or will have been infected, that we will see the case numbers come down and the situation stabilise. But in getting there we should try to keep the number of deaths as low as possible.
That we got to this point, where after nearly two years of fighting a pandemic, I can explain our hope to maintain one of the lowest case fatality rates in the world, is a small miracle. It did not happen by chance. It happened because Singaporeans stood together, looked out for each other, did their duty and put the interests of others ahead of their own. And the healthcare workers of Singapore have done all this and much, much, more, caring for us all.
I received another message from a colleague: \"we are one of the few countries in the world where ICU teams don't have to worry about resources and equipment – very grateful for that. Healthcare workers have given everything in the last two years, we have held ourselves up to the highest standards; we have the lowest mortality in the world; our people are still pushing on\". Our people are still pushing on!
The healthcare workers we are worried about are also the same healthcare workers who are committed to doing what is needed to look after all their patients. They will do their duty, do their best and try their hardest. Words will never be enough, but I express our gratitude on behalf of this House. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarity about the COVID-19 situation in Singapore in the Ministerial Statement.
Given that seniors, especially those who are not vaccinated, are most susceptible to severe illnesses due to COVID-19, can there be initiatives to identify, isolate and protect these seniors? And thus, if we can implement such measures to protect seniors in an effective way, is the Ministry prepared to consider loosening safe management measures for the rest of the population?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank the Member for the question. In a way, that is what we are trying to do with our vaccination-differentiated measures: expose some people to a lower level of risk while allowing other parts of our population to do the things that make life a bit more bearable.
But there is only so far that we can go. If you are a senior and you are unwell and, for some reason, unvaccinated, you cannot be isolated completely. You need fresh air, food, contact with other people.
So, I understand what the Member is asking. The question is, how far can we go and we do not think we can go much further than where we are today, with vaccination-differentiated measures.
But there is another dimension to this question. Because it supposes that the seniors and the vulnerable are a different segment of the population from the rest of us, who are younger, healthier and vaccinated. The truth is, we interact and we meet and we pass infections on to them.
I think the experience of the last two years, in a way, has demonstrated just how much intermingling and interconnectedness there is between all kinds of networks and communities here in Singapore. It is part of our human response. Our grandparents want to see their grandkids. We want to go and look after our parents. Each of those interactions poses a very small but measurable risk to them as well.
So, I think we have to assume that whatever it is that we are doing, we must treat the whole population as one. We will try with the vaccination-differentiated measures but there is only so far that we can go.
Mr Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to raise two supplementary questions. Let me thank the Senior Minister of State for the Statement just now.
The first supplementary question is about whether we can make vaccination mandatory since the vaccine now has been fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). I filed a Parliamentary Question asking when will HSA make the vaccine not used under emergency use, which means it can be fully licensed to use for normal times. That is the first supplementary question.
The second supplementary question is regarding the Senior Minister of State's observation about the immense stress and pressure on our healthcare workers and what they are shouldering, especially over the last past few months. I would like to ask whether MOH will be planning for more support and recognition awards to healthcare workers, given the amount of stress and the work they have shouldered through the pandemic.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, making COVID-19 vaccination compulsory is a significant move. It should be carefully considered. We would have to consider a number of factors: vaccination coverage, international practice and the availability or performance of fully registered COVID-19 vaccines.
The introduction of the vaccination-differentiated measures, in a way, is to try and get around some of that problem, to expose the different segments of the population to different risks. But in terms of making vaccination compulsory, it is also quite difficult in terms of the execution.
You can imagine that for something like childhood vaccines, you may say that without it, you cannot have access to play groups or school. There is a specific thing that you want to do and for that, you are getting the vaccine. But here, we are talking about all the normal activities of life and so policing it, executing it, implementing it is not without challenges. And the question is, how much benefit will there be?
So, I think it is something to consider but there are a whole lot of complications associated with that. Sir, the Minister for Health has indicated that he will answer the second question.
The Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank Dr Lim Wee Kiak for asking the question on recognition for healthcare workers.
Many people contributed to this fight against COVID-19. We have the people who do all the swabs, supervise our self-swabs, the people who run our vaccination centres, people who make sure the vaccines arrive on Singapore shores, the people who do conveyancing every day – hundreds, thousands of trips to and fro, hospitals to treatment facilities – all our officers on the ground, safe distancing ambassadors, our vendors who disinfect places that we have been to, teachers who kept schools going for past 20 months, preschool teachers included, social workers, our community volunteers who help out those who are in need. We all owe a debt of gratitude to all of them for collectively putting up this fight.
But as Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary has very vividly and, in a very heartfelt way, described, I think the role of healthcare workers is especially important. They are not like the other frontliners, they are also our last line of defence.
So, while the rest of Singapore try to get back to a normal life, we try to get back to work, to travel for work or study, they bear that disproportionate responsibility. If something goes wrong, they are the ones who carry the burden and are literally the last line of defence, while the rest of us can continue our work and life.
So, I know that monetary award is not everything but I think it is probably appropriate and the least we can do to recognise their commitment, their dedication and all the physical, mental, emotional stress that they are going through. So, thank you for that suggestion. It is something that we are seriously looking into.
Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the Senior Minister of State for the Statement on ICU capacity.
I would like to refer to a report which is found on the SingHealth website. It is carrying a Straits Times article on ICU capacity. This is dated 13 August and I think this number has been quoted by individuals online as well as when the Minister for Health said that up to 1,000 ICU beds can be made available for critically ill COVID-19 patients, if needed.
I think what the numbers suggest, and what the numbers we have now insofar as ICU capacity is concerned, is that there is yet sufficient potential for upscaling the number of ICU beds. Of course, the assumption being that this remark that was made on 13 August refers both to the bed itself, the ancillary equipment needed and the manpower needed to manage 1,000 beds.
Sir, I would just like to ask a question pertaining to this number of 1,000. Is this still the operating parameter or have things changed quite significantly?
The second point is somewhat connected but it is with regard to the measures introduced vis-a-vis the Stabilisation Phase.
I think there has been some pushback in terms of retaining the number of two individuals in a dining capacity. There is significant public feedback that this should be increased to five, especially for vaccinated individuals, particularly since the Government is also opening up more Vaccinated Travel Lanes (VTLs) and lifting travel bans. At least, for the South Asian group of countries, this was lifted very recently.
So, there is a view that cannot quite connect why dining capacity cannot be opened up in view of the number of vaccinated individuals who actually are not imposing on the ICU capacity as much as non-vaccinated individuals. So, I hope there could be some clarity provided insofar as what is holding the Government back on this number, on opening up at least for dining for up to five individuals.
My third question really – and this is the last one, Mr Speaker – follows up on the numbers the Senior Minister of State shared with regard to the resignations in the healthcare system. One thousand five hundred for the first half of 2021 and I believe an additional 500 were foreign healthcare professionals.
Can I just confirm what have been the recruitment numbers over the same period? The Senior Minister of State said in his Statement that the recruitment of healthcare workers from overseas is continuing. So, it will be helpful to have the numbers that are coming on board as well and not just the numbers that are leaving.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I will take the first two questions and maybe Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary can also comment on the first question and answer the third.
I remember quite vividly that we talked about the possibility of ramping up to 1,000 beds. I spoke about it at a press conference illustrating how if cases doubled every week, in five weeks, the beds will actually be exhausted. It is the illustration that even with that kind of capacity, if infections run away from us, it will be of no use. We would just get overwhelmed in a matter of weeks.
I also remember vividly – do not even get near that – not even near the 1,000 limit.
Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary is a lot more experienced in this and he knows it inside out. I think he had explained that we have all the logistics and all the consumables to set it up but I think manpower will be a serious constraint. Can they handle 1,000 ICUs? I think not without a major degradation of care.
So, I think it is not a black-and-white kind of situation. With every step up in the number of beds, there is degradation of care and there is a trade-off.
The second question on whether we can increase dining to five for vaccinated diners. We wish to get there too. We were there before. We were even at eight at one point. It is important to the F&B industry, it is important to Singaporeans, it is important for families to get together.
But I think the time is not here yet. I think we will get there. Because when you meet with five, as explained by Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary, you do increase the risk of transmission. If it is transmission within vaccinated individuals, it may not be that serious. But we also live with older people, with seniors who may be unvaccinated. And we can inadvertently bring the virus to them.
I have a neighbour, an unvaccinated senior and she has streams of visitors coming to visit her, persuading her to get vaccinated. So, I was persuading their visitors maybe stop coming to persuade her, just give her a call. But this is life in Singapore. So, we do have to pay attention to that.
There is always a comparison with why is it that we can open for travel but not for dine-in. The difference is this, that in the initial stage, Singapore has very low infections and the world around us has very high infection rates. So, when you open up borders at that time, you are opening up the floodgates. Today, the situation is entirely different. Our infection rates and the rates outside are similar. In fact, they may have lower infections than us because they went through huge waves and we are still going through ours. Furthermore, we limit travel or SHN-free travel to only vaccinated individuals and at the border, you are subject to tests.
So, theoretically, if you can have an event, like a wedding, a bigger wedding, everybody is subject to a test, you can sit in fives. So, it is actually a similar concept. This also present possibilities for the MTF to think about in future, whether through testing, through vaccination, we can allow gathering that is a bit less restrictive. These are all possibilities that we will continue to think about.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I do not have the specific numbers of recruitment figures for the different clusters and organisations. We can get them.
But I think one of the challenges we have to appreciate is that even if we recruit from overseas, anybody coming into that environment is new, they are inexperienced. By definition, they are inexperienced with the environment, our healthcare protocols, but they may actually be literally new in terms of their training as well. So, their role is going to be quite different. It is going to be augmenting manpower where, perhaps, that level of acuity and that level of complexity does not exist.
So, while we are recruiting – and we have been actively and I will get the numbers – operationally, I cannot see that that is going to make a huge difference in the ICUs. It will make a difference in other parts of our ecosystem. We hope that can displace a little bit of the manpower into some of the higher acuity areas and then release a few people to go and help in the ICU. But I think this is a bit more of a medium-term strategy rather than something that we can rely on as an urgent fix to our current problem.
If I may make a comment on the first part that Minister for Health talked about, some of the uncertainties are about how long we have to carry a certain load or a certain number of patients within the ICU. If you have a terrible disaster, mass casualty, a very bad accident, you may have many times the number of patients that we currently have in the ICU. But as a one-off incident, the patients will not stay as long.
What we have today is the equivalent of a low-intensity conflict and having to be on readiness and high alert for weeks and weeks, and months and months. Your surge capacity at the start of a low-intensity conflict is very, very different after two years or after one month. Even this current surge when it started, there was really no way to know or model how long it was going to last and what the peak of peaks would be.
So, what the Minister talked about is the logistical planning parameter. If you do not have 1,000 bed spaces, you know that you cannot get there. But if you do, that is physically where you can locate people. If you need the equipment and, thankfully, as a system over the last two years – but it started long before the last two years, through emergency planning and resilience preparedness – we actually have the stocks of equipment that we need: the consumables, the little parts to drive the machines as well as the drugs, in order to cater for many, many more patients than we have today. So, as the colleague of mine said, we are not resource-constrained at the moment.
The manpower issue is not something that we can do a simple calculation for. As I said, it depends on how long this goes on for, how long the peak goes on for. Crucially, today, coming to the end of 2021, the amount that we can reduce business-as-usual is really quite different from where we were, let us say, six months ago; in fact, where we were, even three months ago. That is an additional factor that we have to take into account. So, the number is something that we have to think about in a fairly dynamic way.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I just want to thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Sir, I am just concerned that over the past week, the number of deaths had been in the double digits. We had 13 yesterday, 14 the day before; 16, 15, 10, as compared to the end of September, where the deaths were two, three, four.
Can the Senior Minister of State explain why has the number of deaths increased by such a large number? Is it due to the relaxation of rules? Is there anything else we can do to cut down on the number of deaths because every life lost is a tragedy.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. Why are deaths rising? The proportion of deaths has not changed. Of people who get COVID-19, the risk of dying, the proportion of them who go on to need the ICU and then, subsequently succumbed actually has not changed.
There are two major reasons why we are starting to see the absolute total numbers rise now. The first is that the base number of our population that is being infected with COVID-19 has risen very, very significantly compared to the time period that he was talking about.
The second is that although some patients with COVID-19 who pass on, will pass on very soon after getting the infection, most will take a long time to get seriously ill and may take some time before they succumb, which is a testament to the care that we have put in place and their attempts to fight the infection.
So, there is a lag. The deaths that we are seeing now are not necessarily the same people who are being infected this week. There are people who are infected, perhaps, two weeks ago, maybe even a month ago. After you get the infection, it takes time before you develop the need to go on oxygen support. And then, once you are on oxygen, not everybody will go on to the ICU or succumb, but it takes time for conditions to worsen to the point where then you need further care.
So, there are two main reasons why the deaths are rising in total number: baseline has increased and it is that effect of the lag. But I stress, the proportion of patients who then succumb has not changed.
How to prevent the deaths? Well, vaccinations, as I have explained; booster jabs, as I have explained. But even if you have had those, you may have other underlying illnesses and the underlying illnesses need to be well-controlled. So, if you have diabetes, control your diabetes well. If you are requiring medication, take your medication regularly, comply with all the usual prescriptions around maintaining good health.
For those of us that are fortunate not to have health problems, all the usual rules apply: eat better, sleep better, get more exercise and reach out to your loved ones. And if you are a smoker, stop smoking. If you get a lung infection with COVID-19 and you have knocked out some of your lung function through smoking, you are not off to a good start. These are the ways in which we can prevent mortality and morbidity in COVID-19.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State Janil for a comprehensive explanation. Like him, I am very much grateful for the efforts that our healthcare workers and frontline workers have put in.
I have two questions to follow up on pre-empting infrastructure. One has to do with ICU beds. I would note that just before this discussion about increasing COVID-19 coverage to 1,000 ICU beds, our ICU beds per 100,000 population was about six. This is half that of the OECD average. And only Japan, among those that have lower ICU beds per 100,000 of the population has a significantly larger elderly share of the population. So, the question here is: if we know, as we did in the earlier half of this year, that we were going into an endemic surge, why is it that during this lull period, there was not a more concerted effort in increasing our capacity and this, of course, includes bringing in relevant manpower, as Senior Minister of State Janil mentioned was the big challenge?
My second question builds on this issue of manpower. Given the global nurse shortage, WHO actually estimates that by 2030, there will be nine million needed worldwide and 370,000 just for the US. My question is whether looking forward, Singapore would be competitive in attracting these foreign nurses, and if not, what steps are being made to expand our local nursing and doctor workforce to ensure that we are able to meet our future needs?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Assoc Prof Lim for the question. Sir, as I have explained, pre-COVID-19, peacetime, we had about 300 ICU beds for the country; 298 to be precise. And the average occupancy was about 63%. So, it is not that we did not have spare capacity pre-COVID-19. But as I have already also explained, if you wanted to open up more of this capacity and keep it empty, it would have an impact on resources that could have been applied elsewhere.
So, I do not know if that addresses his first question about why we did not do more before we knew about COVID-19. I think comparing with other countries is fraught in this situation because the number does not reflect, for example, clinical practices, the demographics in terms of the health patterns that they have. So, I do not think one can take the view that there is a certain number of ICU beds that you must have per population. I think what we are most interested in is what the ICU system and the healthcare system is able to deliver in terms of clinical outcomes. I think if the Member dove into those details, he would find that our clinical outcomes and our ICU outcomes are much more than comparable to any of those countries that he has listed, with perhaps less total beds per population.
Some of these also rest on what counts as an ICU admission. It is quite different from country to country because of the way in which the nurses are licensed, the way in which drugs are licensed, the way in which doctors practise.
He then asked about a more concerted effort to increase capacity. Well, it is not that we stood still and waited to see what happened. We were indeed doing the cross-training. As I had explained, the cross-training and the cross deployment of nurses, that was a concerted effort. The reduction in elective work to free up resources, that was a concerted effort during the lull.
But the thing about ICU manpower, you cannot stand it up and have it lying around waiting. If a year ago, we said we needed to increase our manpower by three times or by four times, what would those nurses have been doing in the ensuing 12 months or six months? They certainly would not have been getting experience at ICU care because you need to look after ICU patients in order to become an ICU-trained staff.
So, you can see that what we have been doing is opening up capacity ahead of the curve, but not so far ahead of the curve that we are having people sit around idle, while other services are undermanned or unmanned. But ahead of the curve, so that we can do some of that training and redeployment training and redeployment.
Intensive care, critical care, whether you talk about the doctors, the nurses, the respiratory therapists, the social workers, the pharmacists that are deployed in there, it is a clinical practice. It is not something that you can learn and be ready for by reading textbooks and doing online courses. You have to be mentored and precepted into looking after patients with your hands, eyes and senses. So, it is not something that you could have gone five X, four X, in vacuo in peacetime and held everything ready in abeyance. It would have been a waste of resources but it also would not have been effective in terms of changing the outcomes currently.
I stress again that while the healthcare system is under stress and our healthcare workers are tired, they are delivering excellent outcomes. And I say this not as matter of hyperbole but that lowest mortality rate in the world is matched by any number of other patient care and clinical quality indicators which I think we and our healthcare workers should be justifiably proud of.
Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his explanations. I have a supplementary question related to ICU bed capacity. Sir, the Senior Minister of State gave the data on ICU bed capacity and utilisation for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 beds and clarifying the limiting factor, that is, manpower.
I have a question because based on the data provided, we have currently, I think, 382 total ICU beds and he also said that 163 non-COVID-19 ICU beds are running at 80% utilisation today, an increase from 63% pre-COVID-19. So, I think, my supplementary question really is, despite this increase, how do I benchmark 80%? Is it something that we are still being too conservative about and part of the increase to 350 ICU beds will still be able to come from this pool? Or is it really something we should be really quite concerned about, because if my Math serves me right, 63% occupancy of 298 beds in 2019 means a 188 non-COVID-19 ICU beds being occupied versus 130 today that you are saying 80% of 163? Are we just putting less people in ICU today? And is there really no impact or no deterioration on patient outcomes?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank the Member for her question. Maybe I can start with the last part first, which is, is there no impact and no deterioration? Actually, I would say, firstly there is an impact. And I think the statements and quotes from my professional colleagues, what I have described as the conditions under which they are working and their concerns for themselves, that is the impact.
But there has not been a deterioration, that is the outcomes.
So, it is through their heroic efforts, their resolve, their resilience and, frankly, the excellence of the people that we have in our healthcare system, that in these conditions, as a result of this impact on our manpower deployment, they have been able to deliver excellent clinical outcomes. I think the uncertainty is how long do we expect them to do this for? Do they know and do we know? And there is some uncertainty with this.
I think in this issue of being too conservative or do we have the right number of beds, maybe I can try to phrase it the other way around.
First, let me assume that she agrees with me that actually we cannot over-divert resources from non-COVID-19 patients to stand by for COVID-19 patients that have not arrived yet. People will have heart attacks, people will have accidents and they will need care; and if you have nurses, doctors, beds ready only to accept COVID-19 patients and not to accept all these other conditions, we will see an increased death rate, we will see excess mortality not from COVID-19, but from all these other conditions.
So, we must increase slowly step by step trying to be just ahead of the curve. Ultimately, as I say, we may end up having to accept a lower standard of care, but we will want the lower standard of care, as it were, to be evenly spread across so that no part of the system breaks, that everybody is under some degree of strain and going through this together.
But in terms of maybe understanding where we are, the 63% of certain number of beds, 280 beds, it is a bit hard to grasp in terms of the proportions because we keep changing the denominator. We keep increasing the number of ICU beds. So, when you had 100 ICU beds, you may have 60% occupancy; now, we have got 280 ICU beds, you are still at 60% occupancy.
So, it sounds as if it is not too much of an issue, but if we try to think of it in terms of workload; so, currently, we have about 160 ICU beds set aside for non-COVID-19 patients. Not all of them are occupied. We will come to that in a minute. But they are there. There is an administrative and logistical load keeping those beds on standby.
We also have, by the end of this week, 280 beds set aside for COVID-19 patients in the ICU. That is a total of about 440. So, 440 beds, currently set aside in ICU. What does that compare to in 2019? It is exactly 298, but let us say 300; so, essentially, the hospital system is carrying a logistical and administrative load of about 140%, 145% compared to peacetime, just on standby.
But if you look at the actual number of patients that we have in the ICU, the actual number of patients that our care teams are working on, it is about between 130 and 140 non-COVID-19 ICU patients, what we would call the business-as-usual patients; and today, it is about 130, a few days ago is 139 for COVID-19. So, let us say about 135 each, about half-half, that is 270 ICU patients across the hospital ecosystem that our teams have to manage. Pre-COVID-19, 2019, we had about on average in the hospital system 180 ICU patients across the across the landscape.
So, that is a workload increase to 150%. You can sustain that for a short period of time. Can you sustain that for a prolonged period of time?
So, I hope that answers the Member's questions in terms of are we being conservative or are we planning ahead. What we are hoping to do is chart a middle path, ramp up capacity just ahead of demand, with enough time to give the staff some degree of orientation, training and be ready for when the surge comes in, but not so much that we end up sacrificing the rest of our healthcare system. That would be the inappropriate thing to do. We are trying to tread a middle ground.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. I join the Minister and Senior Minister of State in expressing my deepest gratitude to our healthcare workers for fighting this battle on the frontlines and holding the fort in very trying conditions.
I have two clarifications.
First, based on the situation that Senior Minister of State outlined, it appears the number of healthcare workers is the limiting factor for further reopening. Since healthcare human resource capacity cannot be easily ramped up and our vaccination coverage is almost maximised, what prospect then is there for a further reopening anytime soon?
Secondly, while the Sinovac vaccine has been added to the national vaccination programme, I understand it is still not available to those who can take mRNA vaccines. Others can register their interest but are not guaranteed the booking. So, in the interest of maximising vaccine coverage and minimising hospitalisations, can MOH make Sinovac generally available to all those who have not been vaccinated but simply prefer to get that vaccine, whatever the merits of that preference are?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. I think he has misunderstood. The availability of healthcare workers is not what will decide whether we reopen or do not reopen. It is how many with severe illnesses and how many deaths we are prepared to tolerate in that controlled process of getting to the point whereas a combination of vaccination, boosters and mild or asymptomatic infections, our overall population is much, much more resistant to COVID-19. Getting there is not a function of how many healthcare workers we have. How many deaths we have on the road to that destination is a function of how many healthcare workers we have and how many cases we can manage at a time.
So, as I have said and as many other people have said, this will pass, this will get better. We do not know exactly when but we are building up our entire society's immunity and resilience against COVID-19. And as we do so, every day that passes, every extra time that we can hold the situation, we are more likely to be able to open up safely. When we do lighten restrictions, you can expect there will be more cases and there will be more waves.
But if our immunity and our resilience is built up, each wave will be less threatening, there will be less cases than the last. And hence, our restrictions do not have to be anywhere near as tight. So, I do not know that I have answered his question directly, but I disagree with the way he has framed it. And I hope he understands the explanation that I have given.
For Sinovac, I think we have to remember that the proportion of people who prefer Sinovac and who need Sinovac is very, very small. It is 1% or 2% of our total base. But also that its effectiveness with the Delta variant has not been demonstrated to the same degree as all the other vaccines. And what we are concerned about is what happens if you get the infection despite having had the vaccination.
With our national vaccination programme, if you get the infection even though you have had the vaccination, having had the vaccination converts it to a mild illness, a mild illness you may not even be aware of, an asymptomatic infection and, potentially, rest at home as a result. We do not have such data for Sinovac and so, given that is the case, we feel it is our clinical responsibility to recommend that if it is possible, our population take the mRNA vaccine. Sinovac is available as an option when that is not possible. And so, it is better than nothing, but it is not what we would see as the most appropriate, given that it is the Delta variant that is spreading through our population and given that we are trying to avoid serious illnesses and convert this infection into a mild infection.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also want to join the rest of the Members here to salute the efforts put in by the healthcare workers for doing such a wonderful job so far.
Meanwhile, I would like to raise the issue of ICU beds from the other perspective. We note that one of the most important indicators as the Senior Minister of State and Minister have said that MOH is watching, is the utilisation rate of the ICU beds. So, I would like to clarify the following: if the utilisation of the ICU beds is acceptable, that is, not overly stretched and even the daily cases are about two, three thousand a day, does it mean that we are prepared to live with this high number for the next one, two months? If so, are we prepared to remove some of the restrictions or lessen some the restrictions of COVID-19?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank the Member for his question. Mr Ang Wei Neng is correct that the high total number, because 99% are asymptomatic, does not in itself mean whether we can lift or not lift restrictions. What we have to look at is the number of cases that require assistance and help from our healthcare system and make sure that we are able to provide for that.
But it is not the case that only looking at the ICU utilisation rate will we then make the decision. The reason is we have a much larger group of people who require oxygen. Not all of them require ICU care but you cannot entirely predict which of them will end up requiring ICU care. So, if we have a very large base of people requiring oxygen, you have to be ready that some of them will deteriorate and so there is a forward projection for ICU care that we have to take into account in terms of our decisions to open up or loosen or lighten. Because as the total number of patients increases, the total number of patients requiring oxygen will also increase in proportion.
So, he is right but there is a little bit more nuance to the consideration. And so, this is why in the previous MTF press conference, they talked about the doubling rate or the expansion rate of the ICU care. It is not the number. It is whether we think it is going up and how fast we think it is going up or coming back down here. So, these are some of the factors we have to take into account, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what exactly caused the infections in our country to suddenly surge to the thousand cases level, around about the end of September? What are the various routes of infection, especially for the seniors? Because that is the base where the subsequent fatality comes about, which the Senior Minister of State has shared just now.
For example, there are some rumours, unconfirmed information in the public arena, that a lot of these seniors, those who are living alone, come from the nursing homes and those who are infected in their own homes, together with their children — how many of them are actually having another COVID-19 patient inside the home, under the Home Recovery Programme? So, these various routes of infection would be something that, I think, we hope to get more information from the Senior Minister of State.
Second is that, while we are saying that the fatality had gone up, are there changes in our treatment protocols for the seniors in the hospital? And then, is there a possibility that we have some preventive treatments for seniors and also for other citizens or other residents in our country, to lower the risk of COVID-19? So, in other words, are there potential treatments that we can introduce? So far, there has not been a lot of information on that from the Government.
And thirdly, of course, the most sensitive topic right now in our society is that: is there a justification to impose vaccination differentiation on the whole group of unvaccinated people? Because the unvaccinated group consists of: one, the 70,000 seniors who are still unvaccinated and probably, like just now, one of the Members had raised the issue, maybe we should isolate them a bit more, or rather pay attention specially to them so that we cut down on their infection rate. But these 70,000 had come down from 200,000 in August. So, maybe there is very little leeway that we can actually convince them to get vaccinated. So, we have to isolate them and special care has to be given to them and more volunteers may be assigned to look after them and all that.
But there is also another group of unvaccinated people in our country, 240,000 of them, between 13 years old and 59 years old, relatively healthy, but they chosed not to be vaccinated for various reasons. They are healthy and so, is it appropriate to also impose the vaccination differentiation policy on them, especially the latest MOM advisory which actually may affect their livelihood? Is it fair to impose something that destroys a livelihood of a person who chooses not to be vaccinated? Thank you. Sorry for the long explanation.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: I thank Mr Leong for his questions. I would point out that his questions have some contradictions. He asked if there was a change or some treatment which could prevent COVID-19 for seniors who either get sick or get unwell. I presume that by asking that question, he then requires us to use a preventive treatment. If I propose to him that there is a preventive treatment which is 10 times effective, it would reduce your risk by 10 times, he may even then ask me to mandate it and require it. We have one; it is called vaccination. If you are above the age of 60, you are 17 times more likely to pass, if you are unvaccinated than if you are vaccinated. So, a vaccination answers Mr Leong's second question.
Hence, when he then asks, \"How do we justify our vaccine-differentiated measures and how do we justify imposing something on people who chose not to get vaccinated?\" Our justification is that we are trying to save their lives, we are trying for their loved ones and their family not to lose a family member. We are trying to prevent them from becoming sick and overwhelming our healthcare system so that them and the rest of us, then do not lose the ability to have good care for heart disease, diabetes and cancer, and all the other things we need healthcare for.
So, his second and third questions seem to me to contradict each other and I think he needs to decide does he believe that we should be fairly liberal about this and choose to allow people to take on for themselves a really unacceptable degree of risk and impose the consequences of that risk on all of us? Or does he want us to go and tell people exactly what to do and constrain their lives in a way that protects all of us? He seems to, in his two questions, choose extremes at one end of the other. We are trying to tread a middle path and trying to get the best of both.
He asks then what caused the infections in our country and what are the routes of infection for seniors who are living alone, in their own homes. The route of infection is largely from human-to-human contact. That is how people get this infection. If you were truly isolated and you were entirely living alone, with no human contact, you could maybe get away without this. But I think, people find that sort of life is also fairly unbearable. So, whether you are living alone as a senior or in a nursing home or in your own home, usually there is some form of human contact. And that is precisely why we cannot think of our population as the seniors and the rest of us, the unvaccinated and the rest of us. We intermingle and we meet each other and we pass on the infection to each other.
Our vaccine-differentiated measures are trying to make the risk lower for one than the other, but it is not about separating us out into completely separate populations and that would not be possible.
Mr Speaker: Dr Shahira Abdullah.
Dr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his clarification on the situation. I know that you have said that patients with underlying conditions, even if well-controlled, will still be at a higher risk of death; and that not being vaccinated will put Singaporeans at an even higher risk.
Could I ask if currently MOH has any data on the percentage of vaccinated patients who have died from COVID-19 who have underlying conditions that are actually well-controlled; and if not, would MOH consider tracking this?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank the Member for her question. It is not straightforward to answer. Because the definition of well-controlled will vary and the way in which you see the impact of good control of the disease when you get COVID-19 will also be quite different. Let me give some examples.
Let us just use diabetes for example. If you have had diabetes for many years, diagnosed young, struggling with it, living with it, but you have had it kind of controlled. Do you have a lower risk than someone who perhaps had it diagnosed only one or two years ago, but really has not had it well-controlled yet? I am not entirely sure what the answer to that question is. And when you then encounter COVID-19, even if you had it well-controlled, because your body is fighting another illness, now COVID-19, your diabetes control goes out. So, do you then look at well-controlled at the point that you got infected, or the point that you got into ICU?
The data that we have does not help to inform us to the point where we can make a recommendation and we can say, \"Well, if you have diabetes and your blood sugar is like this, you are okay; if your blood sugar is like that, it is not okay\". We are still at the point where we say, \"If you have diabetes, control it as best you can. Whether you have COVID-19 or not, that is a risk. Now that COVID-19 is present, you need to really make sure you take care of yourself.\" And this then applies to a wide variety of conditions.
So, it is quite clear that poorly controlled diseases do increase the risk very significantly. But there are some patients even with well-controlled diseases, it appears that having that disease means that they handle COVID-19 poorly even if the disease was well-controlled when they get COVID-19. I hope that adds some clarity to the Member's question.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive Statement. I would like to shift the focus to the welfare of our healthcare professionals. According to the Director of Medical Services, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a significant backlog of follow-up visits and elective operations, and it will take the hospitals many months to catch up and clear this backlog. The Senior Minister of State also earlier mentioned that 90% of our healthcare workers were not able to clear their annual leave.
I would like to ask which hospitals have the greatest backlog and how will this affect the amount of leave that its staff will be allowed to take, given the immense pressure faced to clear the backlog. As there are clear challenges mentioned by the Senior Minister of State to quickly increase staffing to alleviate the manpower situation, what are the hospitals planning to do to allow our healthcare professionals to at least take a break during this period?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I do not have the data in terms of specific hospitals or clinical sites which have backlogs and which do not. Part of that is because we do operate as one system and where there is a little bit of capacity here or there, there is some load balancing and different sites work together. So, that is going to be dynamic, they are working to try to clear this as best they can.
We are also uncertain how long this will go on for, so it is a bit hard to predict where we will be in terms of this – the rest of the healthcare system's duties and responsibilities once COVID-19 starts to wane – because we do not quite know when that will happen. So, there is a stress on the healthcare system, it will persist for some time after COVID-19 starts to come down, precisely for the reasons the Member has identified.
Will this affect leave? Possibly. But the hospitals and the staff, the leadership are going to try to find ways to give their teams some rest and I do not think this is something that we can settle on a policy basis, it is very granular, it depends on the size of your team and the various other duties, when is your lull time, when is your up time. And I suspect what will happen is that the different teams, the different departments, the different divisions will allow rotating leave in different patterns to suit their acuity levels. And probably, you may have some people who are on leave but have a relatively short notice to be present, or they may be on local leave and another proportion which are allowed overseas leave and so forth.
I think these are operational parameters and you have to let the clinical teams make these decisions on their own. We need to try to support them at a more systemic level.
Mr Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to make a comment but also to go back to two questions that were raised earlier. One is by the Member, Mr Gerald Giam, who asked about Sinovac. As the Senior Minister of State mentioned, it is now available as an option under our National Vaccination Programme. So, it is generally available in some clinics and also at the Raffles City Vaccination Centre just nearby. So, if you are 60 and above, cannot take or just do not want to take mRNA, you can walk in to take your Sinovac. Yesterday, I think a few hundreds did so, covered by Zaobao. If you are below 60, you have to make an appointment, but it is generally available.
The second point I want to mention is what Mr Leong Mun Wai raised, where he talked about some rumours. I am not sure you can repeat rumours in this House; I will leave it to the Leader. But he mentioned something about \"nursing home\", something about \"home transmission\".
Nursing home infections are a small percentage of the total senior infection. The last I calculated, it is not the most updated but it is about 6.4%. So, it is a small percentage. The large majority is actually transmission within the community. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister for Health\", Official Report, 1 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue No 41, Correction by Written Statement section.]
He asked about transmission in households. We have been tracking this. Within a household, if somebody is positive, approximately 10% of household members will subsequently get infected. So, about one in 10. But out of that 10%, 8% get it very early on. That means at the point of entry into quarantine or into Health Risk Warning (HRW), you are tested and you are positive; suggesting that actually, they got it at the same time as the index case. Then, during the subsequent days, another 2% then got transmitted.
Therefore, I think from the evidence that we have been tracking so far, the incidence of transmitting at home, so long as you take the precautions, is actually not high. The high transmissions still happen within the community, through person-to-person interaction.
I want to just maybe make some general comments after hearing all the questions.
Dealing with COVID-19 is quite different from business or organisation planning, where you know that this season or this month, if it is coming to Christmas, business is going to go up, so, let us plan for it, make sure we have manpower and capacity.
But we are looking at a crisis of a generation, a global pandemic crisis, not something that we plan year-to-year based on seasons or a five-year plan. It hits you and it overwhelms the healthcare system all over the world.
You look at the papers today on the G20 meeting and in France and Italy, life seems to be normal, but we forget what they went through last year. Go back, dig up the papers last year on how the whole healthcare system was overwhelmed.
Regardless of what you say about their ICU provisions and all that, or their healthcare workers' provisions, when COVID-19 hit those societies, they were totally overwhelmed. Doctors had to choose who got the hospital bed, who did not, who they had to save and who does not get saved. Those were the painful human tragedies that happened and the big human price that they paid to get to where they are today. Do not forget that.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked, how do we prevent and minimise death? We prevent and minimise death by making sure we do not go through that, of what other countries have gone through. You name it. Whether it is the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy. They all went through that. Near home – Indonesia, Malaysia. They all went through that.
We avoid excess death by avoiding that, by preventing that totally. How do we do that? By not being dogmatic.
There are two camps in the world. One says zero-COVID-19 strategy is the right way to go. One says, no, you have to have living-with-COVID-19 strategies and maybe even Freedom Day. We say, we do both.
Last year, before we had vaccinations, when we were vulnerable to the disease, we took a zero-COVID-19 strategy. Everything was tight. Borders were closed as a result. Quarantined everybody. We kept incidences very low. We kept deaths very low. That was last year.
Then, we went on to a national vaccination programme, got ourselves to about 70% to 75% by National Day. Then, we said, zero-COVID-19 is over, we need to start opening up. But yet, we do not take another dogmatic approach to say we must go for Freedom Day and open up all at once. But we take the middle path: not total lockdown, neither is it Freedom Day, but we open up gradually.
And what is the limiting factor? It is our healthcare system. Making sure that it can cope, given the infection rate and how that translates into ICU cases and to people who fall severely ill.
That is how we have been proceeding. As Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary said, with each passing day, with more vaccinations and some people recovered well and built up natural immunity, we accumulated antibodies and resilience within our society.
I know Members of this House, including myself, all wish that life goes back to normal, that we can have dining in five or more, we can have our proper wedding dinners and events, go back to our grassroots functions and community functions. We all wish we can all do that. We do not have to sit up there in the Gallery anymore. Everybody can sit in the Chamber, engaging each other.
We all wish to do that and I think we will get there. We get there by continuing this path, building up our antibodies day by day. I do not know how long it would take. The Prime Minister said maybe three months, maybe six. We wish it is shorter rather than longer. But many countries have gone through the process and reached there, and we shall reach there too.
Mr Speaker: End of Ministerial Statement. We have a Personal Explanation from Ms Raeesah Khan.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Health (a) what is the number of reinfection COVID-19 cases so far; (b) how many of these persons are unvaccinated and vaccinated respectively; and (c) whether there are severe reinfected cases that require ICU or oxygen treatment.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Health (a) what is the total number of intensive care unit (ICU) beds that are not currently allocated for COVID-19 cases; (b) what is the occupancy rate of such beds in the past week; and (c) what is the total number and occupancy rate of ICU beds prior to the COVID-19 pandemic."],"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Personal Explanation by Member","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Ms Raeesah Khan (Sengkang): On 3 August, I spoke in this House on the Motion on Empowering Women. During my speech, I had shared an anecdote of a survivor of sexual assault. I was not present with the survivor in the Police station as I described. The anecdote was shared by the survivor in a support group for women, which I was a part of.
I did not share that I was a part of the group as I did not have the courage to publicly admit that I was part of it.
I attended the support group because I, myself, am a survivor of sexual assault. I was sexually assaulted when I was 18 studying abroad. That assault has traumatised me till this day. The fear and shame accompanying sexual assault is extreme and long lasting, as it has been and still is for me.
Unlike the survivor whose anecdote I shared in this House, I did not have the courage to report my own assault. Yet, as a survivor, I wanted so deeply to speak up and also share the account I had heard when speaking on the Motion without revealing my own private experience.
I should not have shared the survivor's anecdote without her consent, nor should I have said that I accompanied her to the Police station when I did not. It was wrong of me to do so.
To survivors of sexual violence, I hope that this does not deter you from reporting your assaults. In sharing an anecdote without consent, I disregarded the principle of consent in discussions around survivors' consent and sexual assault. As a survivor myself, I feel this failure deeply.
It is important for me to take responsibility for my actions, for my error of judgement and to set the record straight.
I wish to correct the record by retracting the anecdote that I shared on 3 August and I wish to apologise to the Singapore Police Force.
LastIy, I want to apologise to the survivor whose quote I used, to the House, to my constituents, to the Workers' Party, its members and volunteers, and to my family, especially to my parents. To the residents of Sengkang, I will work even harder for you. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to seek some clarifications from the Member?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I would like to start by saying to the Member that I am very sorry to hear that she was a victim of sexual assault. I can understand that that must be very difficult and I hope that she will have the courage to be able to come through this and to be stronger as a result.
However, as the Member's statements do also disclose some rather startling disclosures – a bit of a bombshell, I might say – I do have to seek some clarifications because I need to know what exactly should follow from this disclosure. So, I hope the Member will understand and bear with me as I seek these clarifications.
The Member, as I understand it and see if I have noted what she said correctly: she said that she had shared an anecdote but in fact, she had not gone down to the Police station as she had previously described. Is that correct?
Mr Speaker: Ms Raeesah Khan.
Ms Raeesah Khan: Thank you, Leader of the House. Yes, it is correct and hence, why I am making this apology today.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Yes, I understand.
That means, can I check, because I think the Member had spoken on the Workers' Party's Motion on Empowering Women on 3 August and the Member had made this statement, \"Three years ago, I accompanied a 25-year-old survivor to make a Police report against a rape that was committed against her. She came out crying. The Police officer had allegedly made comments about her dressing and the fact that she was drinking.\"
Hence, in the light of what the Member has just told us, that statement, at least the part about her accompanying the survivor to the Police station and what the Member allegedly saw, that part is untrue. Can the Member confirm that?
Ms Raeesah Khan: Yes, I confirm that. That was not the whole truth.
Ms Indranee Rajah: And, because later in that day, the Minister of State Desmond Tan had sought some clarifications from the Member and the Member, in her response, said, \"Like I mentioned, it was three years ago and I do not wish to re-traumatise the person that I had accompanied.\"
Can I ask the Member to confirm that that statement: \"the person that I had accompanied\", was also untrue?
Ms Raeesah Khan: Yes, that was untrue. That was not the truth.
Firstly, I want to say that when I was questioned subsequently, what was going through my mind was that I wanted to protect the survivor and the people who were in the group.
Secondly, like I mentioned, it is really difficult to share a traumatic experience like this and to share that I was a part of that group in the first place.
So, I just wanted to clarify that these were the things that were going through my mind when I was answering these questions. Thank you.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I understand. I am just trying to establish the facts so that we all know exactly what transpired and then we can think a bit further of what should follow from that.
About two months later, I believe, the Member was asked by the Minister for Home Affairs for further clarification in this House. So, that would have been on 4 October 2021. This was the exchange that took place.
The Minister for Home Affairs had asked her for details. The Member had said she would like them to remain confidential and the Minister for Home Affairs had said this, \"Sir, I do not understand this point about confidentiality. Can I ask through you, Sir, for Ms Khan to confirm in the House that everything she told us is accurate, that she did accompany such a person and such an incident did happen?\"
And Ms Khan's answer was \"Yes\". Can I ask the Member to confirm that that statement when she said yes, was untrue?
Ms Raeesah Khan: It was not the truth. Yes.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you. I have a few more clarifications. Please bear with me.
If I understood the Member correctly earlier, she had said that the reason and the thinking behind what she did was that she did not want to disclose publicly that she was a member of the survivors' group. Is that correct?
Ms Raeesah Khan: Yes, I did not want to disclose publicly that I was a part of a women's support group.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I understand. I want to understand from the Member why it was necessary, actually, to say those untruths because the Member could easily have related the anecdote by saying that she heard from someone who had this experience. That was all that would have been necessary to do. The Member would not have had to refer to the support group or even disclose its existence; and there would certainly have been no need to reveal that she was part of the support group.
Sir, I would like to ask the Member this: does the Member agree that it would have been possible to tell the story without reference to the support group or telling the untruth?
Ms Raeesah Khan: Thank you for those clarifications. I have been really reflecting on this episode and why I told the anecdote the way it was, and I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that I did not have my own courage to report my own assault. So, I felt very compelled to ensure that other survivors who do get the courage to report the assault to have that process done with respect and dignity.
But I recognise the Leader of the House's comments and I do recognise that it was not the right way to go about it. That is why I am here today, admitting that it was a mistake and here making a very frank apology. Thank you.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I understand that. So, I do completely empathise with the reason why the Member felt it was necessary to speak up. All I am asking is this and I am not sure that I had a response. But my question was simply this: it would have been possible to tell the story without the untruths and without referring to the survivors' group. Would the Member agree?
Ms Raeesah Khan: So, if I was unclear, I apologise. Yes, I do feel like it would have been possible. But in my haste and in my passion to advocate for survivors like myself, I did a mistake.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Right. Then, the other thing I am a bit puzzled about is this: I can understand the mistake on the spur of the moment. But the only thing is that on 3 August, I had specifically stood up in this House to remind Members of the need to substantiate allegations made. And I had said this: \"I just wanted to remind Members of the House that when assertions and allegations are made, Members must be prepared to substantiate them. This is just a reminder to Members so that in future, they will understand.\"
So, I said that on 3 August. Two months later, when the Member was asked by the Minister for Home Affairs about this incident, which is two months' time to reflect, why did the Member then repeat the untruth?
Ms Raeesah Khan: Thank you. Like I mentioned before, I think there were two things that were going through my mind. The first was that I really wanted to protect the identity of the survivor and the survivors in the women's support group. And secondly, a lot of people did not know about this assault until very recently including my family. So, I was not ready at that point to come forward with this information. But after being able to have discussions with my family, with my friends and also informing the relevant people, it was it was clear that I wanted to make this apology; I wanted to make this personal explanation like I have done so today.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you. I have to check another matter. Although the Member has retracted and apologised and, indeed, that is the correct thing to do given the circumstances that she has explained, the Member has also said that she was relating another survivor's story. This means that there still is an allegation against the Police – not the Member accompanying somebody and going down, but there is a survivor there with an allegation against the Police, which has been related to this House. That means there is still an issue of the need to substantiate the allegations.
A withdrawal and an apology do not purge or wipe out a previous failure to substantiate the allegations. What I am trying to understand and this is very important, I need to understand what the Member knew at the time the allegation was made. Is this a case where, based on what the survivor said, the Member — or let me backtrack a bit. Because when the Member was asked about it, she said, \"With regard to confidentiality, I would not like to reveal any of the information.\" So, is this a case where, based on what the survivor said, the Member actually knows the details but did not want to disclose them because of confidentiality? Or is this a case where the Member actually does not know any of the details?
Ms Raeesah Khan: Thank you. I do not know any of the details. All I knew was what I shared in my speech on 3 August and that was an account from the survivor. I understand that it is not going to be able to be verified and hence, I have withdrawn my anecdote and apologised to the Singapore Police Force as well.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you. On the confidentiality point, if I heard the Member, say, let me just check my notes for when the Member was speaking. Yes, the Member said, on confidentiality, that she should not have shared the survivor's story without her consent.
Can I ask the Member why she said that? Is it because the story was shared in confidence, that is, on the understanding that it would be kept confidential?
Ms Raeesah Khan: Yes, one of the principles of being in a women's support group is that the details should remain confidential. And that is something that I shared in my speech that I feel this failure deeply. Because I, myself, am a survivor, so, I understand what it feels like to have information out there that that I did not consent to. This has been a lesson of consent for me. And yes, like I said, it is a failure I take very deeply.
Ms Indranee Rajah: So, when the Member was asked for details in Parliament, she said that she did not want to disclose because of confidentiality. But based on what the Member has just said, actually, by that time, because the story had already been recounted, it means the Member had already breached the confidentiality to the survivor. Is that not correct?
Ms Raeesah Khan: That is correct, yes.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Just one last couple of clarifications. I think the Member ended by saying that she promised the residents of Sengkang that she would work even harder for them.
About a year ago, the Member made this promise also to the residents of Sengkang. I think this was what was reported in The Straits Times, dated 17 September 2020. The Member had said, \"From these interactions, I have also learnt that as a leader, I have the power to start difficult conversations and that it is vital to frame these conversations in a considerate and accountable manner. As an MP, I hope to use the appropriate platforms to speak out on matters concerning my constituents\". That was the promise made last year to the residents of Sengkang.
The Member, in the Motion on Women's Empowerment, had the platform to speak here about women's issues. The Member had the power to use her position as an MP (Member of Parliament) to advocate. Can I ask the Member that having regard to the fact that the Member has not been truthful to Parliament and not able to substantiate the allegations because the Member had no details, will the Member regard that promise last year to the residents of Sengkang to have been kept?
Ms Raeesah Khan: Thank you. Yes, I do because I am here today and I am accountable for my actions. I have apologised to the House. I have retracted the anecdote that I made and I have also apologised to the Singapore Police Force. I recognise that there was a lapse of judgement, but I am here today to apologise for it. And I think that goes back to the spirit of what I initially said a year ago.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I understand. There is a distinction, though. The Member is apologising for not having kept the promise. My question was this: that means that the promise was not kept, is that not correct?
Ms Raeesah Khan: I think one of the important parts of that post was that I would remain accountable. And I think today, here standing in Parliament, I am remaining accountable to my voters and to myself and to the principles that I wish to uphold.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for that. That was not quite the way it was framed, but that is all right. The way that it was framed was that it was vital to frame conversations in an accountable manner. But I thank the Member for her clarifications.
These are all the clarifications I have, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Member. But in light of what has been disclosed, it is not possible for me to leave the matter as it is and I have to raise a point of order.
I wish to raise a point of order under Standing Order 100(7)(b). The point of order is this: the Member has, by her own admission, lied to the House three times: in her original speech, in the clarifications arising from that speech, and two months later, in her response to the Minister for Home Affairs.
The Member has also confirmed that when she made the statement, she did not really have any details. That means that she was, at the time of making the statement, not able to substantiate her allegation and in fact had very little basis for doing so.
What this means is that, as a result of that, there is a cloud hanging over the Police. The Police had to go and do investigations and a lot of time and resources were spent on that. It is unfair to the Police and I think the Member has acknowledged that.
But most of all – and this really is the most distressing part – what has happened does a great disservice to the survivors of sexual assault and rape victims. The reason is this: because it is hard enough for such women, who are victims, to tell their stories and they have great difficulty in getting people to believe them sometimes. So, when relating their stories – and that is based on a lie and an inability or unwillingness to substantiate the story – it makes it that much more difficult for these women to come forward and to tell their stories. Because it is like ink in water; it spreads throughout and it casts doubt and suspicion on the stories. And it makes it that much harder for women to be believed. It undermines what we are trying to do and, especially in this year, of trying to advance women's development.
As I have said before, as Members of Parliament, we are granted privileges. One of those privileges is to be able to speak in Parliament with immunity. Unlike other people, we can do so without fear of prosecution because of the underlying public policy interest, which is, to be able to raise things. And it is very, very important when we do so, that we must be able to speak truth in this House and when we assert or make allegations, to be able to back them up.
I wish to say to the Member that I do hope that, given her past experience and what she has described and shared, she will heal. I hope that she will have time to recover from her issues on a personal level and repair relationships which, she has acknowledged, have been strained.
But the Member is also a Member of Parliament and, therefore, subject to duties and responsibilities which everyone in this House is also subject to. One of these, of course, is that when you have parliamentary privilege, you must neither breach that privilege nor abuse it.
I have great reluctance because I have sympathy for the Member's personal circumstances. But as Leader of the House, I also have a responsibility and that is: to ensure that, in this Chamber, all Members of Parliament discharge their duties faithfully and accountably and responsibly; and also that, if there are any breaches of privilege, that that has to be dealt with. I have to ensure the integrity of our Parliament because Parliament is a platform that other people look at. Singaporeans look at what we discuss here. They believe what we say. When there is untruth, it undermines the trust. Other people, the international forum and other countries look at what is discussed in this platform. What we say and what we do must be based on truth and integrity, because, again, if we do not do that, it undermines the reputation of our Parliament, our institutions and the faith that our people have in us.
Therefore, given what we have heard today, I really have no choice but to raise a complaint, under section 100(7)(b) of the Standing Orders, for breach of privilege suddenly arising based on: firstly, the disclosure by the Member that she has not been truthful or has lied to Parliament, not once, not twice, but three times; and also because she has been unable to substantiate an allegation that has been made.
These are matters which, prima facie, affect the privileges of Parliament and I, therefore, reluctantly, have to ask the matter, Mr Speaker, to be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr Speaker: I am satisfied that the matter complained of, prima facie, affects the privileges of Parliament. So, pursuant to Standing Order 100(7)(b), the matter shall stand referred to the Committee of Privileges. Leader.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, as I am a Member of the Committee of Privileges and as I am the complainant in this case, I would wish to recuse myself from the Committee of Privileges. Also, on behalf of Minister K Shanmugam, who has sought leave of Parliament to be absent today as he is outstation, because his Ministry is involved, he would seek to be recused from the Committee of Privileges as well.
Mr Speaker: Noted. Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monetary Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act and the Government Securities Act in connection with reserves management\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam) (on behalf of the Prime Minister); read the First time; to be read a Second time at the first available Sitting of Parliament in January 2022, 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":"Prisons (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Prisons Act, to validate certain appointments under that Act, and to make a related amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs) read the First time; to be read a Second time at the first available Sitting of Parliament in January 2022, 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":"Intellectual Property (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Geographical Indications Act (2014), the Patents Act, the Plant Varieties Protection Act, the Registered Designs Act and the Trade Marks Act to facilitate certain changes to the processes for registration of intellectual property rights, standardise certain provisions across these Acts and make certain other amendments to these Acts, as well as to amend the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Act for fines and composition sums to be paid into the Consolidated Fund\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) read the First time; to be read a Second time at the first available Sitting of Parliament in January 2022, 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 Profession (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Legal Profession Act\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) read the First time; to be read a Second time at the next available Sitting of Parliament in January 2022, 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":"Corporate Registers (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Companies Act and the Limited Liability Partnerships Act in relation to registers of controllers of companies, foreign companies and limited liability partnerships, registers of members of foreign companies, registers of nominee directors of companies and registers of nominee shareholders of companies and foreign companies, to give effect to certain recommendations relating to the prevention of money laundering and the financing of terrorism adopted by the intergovernmental body known as the Financial Action Task Force\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) read the First time; to be read a Second time at the first available Sitting of Parliament in January 2022, 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":"Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Women's Charter, to make related amendments to certain other Acts and to repeal the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures for Solemnisation and Registration of Marriages) Act 2020\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development) read the First time; to be read a Second time at the first available Sitting of Parliament in January 2022, 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":"Gambling Duties Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to consolidate the law on levy and collection of duties on lawful betting and lotteries and to make related amendments to the Casino Control Act regarding casino taxes and casino licences, to repeal the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Act, and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time at the first available Sitting of Parliament in January 2022, and to be printed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Mr Speaker, the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill is linked to the next Bill on the Order Paper, which is the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill 2021. Both the Bills support our senior workers. With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to propose that the substantive debate on both Bills take place together.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Dr Tan See Leng: Yes. This will allow a more holistic debate. We will still have the formal Second Reading of the CPF (Amendment) Bill to ensure that procedural requirements are dealt with. So, thank you.
Singapore’s labour market is adapting to an older workforce, in tandem with demographic needs. With the support of the tripartite partners, between 2010 and 2019, we have made necessary adjustments to our employment and retirement policies, so that senior workers can continue to work beyond 65 if they wish. We started promoting the concept of re-employment in 2007 and, after extensive outreach, established the re-employment age to be 65 in 2012. We then raised the re-employment age to 67 in 2017.
These innovations in our labour market have helped allow our seniors to remain economically active. By 2020, about a quarter of our resident labour force was aged 55 and above. This is up from 16.5% a decade ago. This has helped more of our senior workers earn more and save more. With CPF LIFE, they have added assurance of a perpetual monthly income in their retirement years.
In 2018, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) called for a fresh effort to prepare Singapore's ageing workforce for the future. In response, we formed the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers (the Workgroup) to: one, review the longer-term relevance of the retirement age and re-employment age and consider our next moves; two, to examine the CPF contribution rates for senior workers and their impact on retirement adequacy; and three, to promote an inclusive workforce and progressive workplaces that value senior workers.
The Workgroup consulted extensively and presented its recommendations to the Government in 2019. One of its key recommendations was to retain the statutory retirement and re-employment age framework. Under this framework, employers cannot terminate an employee on grounds of age before the statutory retirement age. Workers have the assurance of continued employment up till the statutory re-employment age if they are able and if they wish to do so. At the same time, businesses have sufficient flexibility to adjust re-employment terms, enabling them to continue providing employment opportunities to our senior workers while remaining competitive. It was also observed from other countries' experiences that doing away with the statutory ages does not necessarily lead to higher employment rates.
The Workgroup went on to recommend increasing both the retirement age and re-employment age by three years to 65 and 70, respectively, by the end of the decade. The Workgroup had assessed this to be a realistic goal, considering improvements in health and life expectancy, the better-educated and higher-skilled workers today, as well as enhanced organisational capabilities and capacity to manage our senior workers well. Achieving this by the end of this decade also provides time for employers to adjust.
Another key recommendation of the Workgroup was to raise the CPF contribution rates for workers aged 55 to 70 over the next decade, to boost retirement adequacy for our seniors, even as we provide them with the flexibility to continue working for longer. The increases are to be phased in gradually, taking into account prevailing economic conditions. When completely implemented, the full CPF contribution rates will apply to senior workers up to age 60, compared to 55 today. The rates will step down gradually for workers above 60.
In addition, the Workgroup recommended that employers undertake complementary changes to their policies, processes and practices. Employers should engage mature and senior workers in structured career planning sessions at certain age milestones to plan their future career trajectories as well as training requirements. To encourage more age-friendly workplaces, employers should also embark on job-redesign, as well as provide more part-time re-employment opportunities.
The Government has accepted all of these recommendations.
The Bill today amends the Retirement and Re-employment Act to establish the maximum possible statutory retirement and re-employment ages at 65 and 70 respectively. This reflects the recommendations of the Tripartite Workgroup. The prevailing retirement and re-employment ages will continue to be prescribed by notification in the Gazette. In line with the consensus of the tripartite partners, the Government will prescribe the statutory retirement age and re-employment age to be 63 and 68 respectively. This will be effective from 1 July 2022, that is, next year.
Naturally, employers who wish to move faster are free to do so. In fact, the public sector has already taken the lead, by implementing a retirement age of 63 and a re-employment age of 68 one year earlier on 1 July this year.
Other recommendations of the Workgroup are also being implemented. In particular, the first increase in senior workers' CPF contribution rate will take effect from 1 January 2022. Employees aged 55 to 70 will see an increase in total CPF contribution rates of up to two percentage points. This increase was deferred by a year from the original announced timeline of 1 January 2021 as a nimble move to help employers manage costs amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The deferment was also supported by the Labour Movement which viewed this as a balanced approach to help senior workers keep their jobs. Our ability to shift gears and to jointly focus on tackling the immediate challenges at hand while not losing sight of our longer-term vision, is a true reflection of the strength of Singapore's tripartism model. We will continue to engage our tripartite partners at each phase of rate increases over this decade.
The Government is also doing our part to help employers adjust to these changes. We introduced the $1.5 billion Senior Worker Support Package in 2020 and, through this package, we provide offsets for senior workers' wages and the additional employer CPF contributions. There are also grants to encourage employers to go one step further and raise their internal retirement and re-employment ages above the statutory ages, and to provide more part-time work options for senior workers.
Let me assure Members that raising the retirement and re-employment ages provides the flexibility for older workers to work longer, but does not compel them to do so. Those who do not wish to continue working need not do so and can enjoy their retirement. To be clear, these changes will not affect existing CPF withdrawal policies and ages. At age 55, you can still withdraw at least $5,000 and you can still start your CPF payouts from age 65 onwards.
Mr Speaker, if I may now move on to the CPF (Amendment) Bill. The Bill makes various amendments to simplify the CPF system for members.
First, we will make it easier for members to receive retirement payouts. For members who receive payouts through the Retirement Sum Scheme, some have fully drawn down their Retirement Account but still have funds in their Ordinary or Special Account. We will automatically draw down from these accounts to continue providing them a monthly payout.
For members who receive payouts through CPF LIFE, some have subsequent inflows into their Retirement Account. We will convert them into higher CPF LIFE payouts. For members turning 65 from 2023, we will give them greater flexibility to decide on when their Ordinary or Special Account savings will be transferred into their Retirement Account.
Allow me to elaborate. There are over 250,000 members currently receiving payouts under the Retirement Sum Scheme. These are members who had not opted into CPF LIFE.
Under the Retirement Sum Scheme, members stop receiving payouts once their Retirement Account is depleted. However, many members still have funds in their Ordinary or Special Account, the OSA accounts, because they continue to receive CPF inflows, such as contributions from employment. Some members are not aware that they can transfer these funds into their Retirement Account and continue to receive a monthly payout.
With this amendment, we will make it easier for them. To minimise the disruption to payouts, we will automatically stream out the Ordinary and Special Account savings of these members. This change will take effect by the first quarter of next year and will benefit about 83,000 members.
Let me illustrate with an example.
John has been receiving monthly Retirement Sum Scheme payouts of $700. He has now completely depleted his Retirement Account, but he still has $2,500 in his Ordinary and Special Account. Under current rules, this $2,500 will remain in his Ordinary and Special Account unless he comes forward to withdraw it or apply to transfer it to his Retirement Account.
With this amendment, John will continue to receive his monthly payout of $700 automatically, drawing from his Ordinary and Special Account savings. After the $2,100 has been paid out in three tranches – remember that John has $2,500 in his Ordinary and Special Account – the remaining $400 in John's Ordinary and Special Account will be disbursed to him as the final payout. If John is still working, the continued contributions to his Ordinary and Special Account will allow him to receive payouts for longer and fuss-free. John will receive the payouts when his CPF savings have accumulated to at least $250, or at least once a year if less than $250. John can also approach CPF Board or visit the CPF website to check how he can withdraw the remaining amount.
About 75,000 members are currently receiving CPF LIFE payouts. For subsequent inflows into their Retirement Account, members currently need to apply to add these inflows to their LIFE payouts. Again, we will automate this process by this month, making it easier for members to enjoy the higher payouts for life.
These changes will make it easier for members to tap on their CPF savings. It is worth mentioning that besides CPF, many of our seniors have access to other assets, such as housing, private savings and investments. For seniors who had low incomes during their working years and now have less in their retirement, the Silver Support Scheme was recently enhanced to broaden the eligibility criteria and to increase the quarterly cash payouts by 20%. As a result, almost 250,000 seniors aged 65 and above will benefit from Silver Support payouts in 2021, and this is up from 150,000 previously.
Finally, we will give members greater flexibility to decide on when their Ordinary or Special Account savings are to be transferred to their Retirement Account. Today, members already have some flexibility over when they start receiving payouts. Members who choose to defer the start of payouts can benefit from payouts that are up to 7% higher for each year deferred.
For members turning 65 from 2023, we have announced previously that we will transfer their Ordinary and Special Account savings into their Retirement Account, up to their cohort Full Retirement Sum, when they are eligible to start payouts. To provide greater flexibility to members, we will make this transfer when they choose to start receiving payouts instead. This will also be the point when we automatically include eligible members in CPF LIFE. Members who are not automatically included can still opt in to join CPF LIFE. Members can still voluntarily transfer Ordinary and Special Account savings into their Retirement Account up to the current Enhanced Retirement Sum at any time.
Let me also reassure all members that there are no changes to the rules for lump sum withdrawals of CPF savings. Members can continue to withdraw based on the current rules.
Next, we will also make it easier for members to build up their retirement nest egg.
The CPF Board has several schemes which members can tap on to grow their CPF savings. We accept Voluntary Contributions to MediSave. We also allow CPF members to make cash top-ups or CPF transfers to their Special Account or Retirement Account. They can also do so for their loved ones.
The year 2020 saw a record amount of top-ups via the Retirement Sum Topping-Up scheme. This amounts to about $3 billion across 140,000 members. To make it easier for members to build up their CPF savings through these schemes, we will refine the relevant tax relief and top-up limit rules.
Let me elaborate further. Currently, members can enjoy tax relief when topping up via these schemes, but the rules in place are different. To align the rules for both schemes, tax relief for Voluntary Contributions to MediSave Account for employees will be provided to the giver, instead of the recipient. From 1 January 2022, givers can also look forward to an annual tax relief cap of $8,000 when they make cash top-ups to their own CPF accounts and another $8,000 when they do so for their loved ones, up from $7,000. This cap will be shared between the Retirement Sum Topping-Up scheme and Voluntary Contributions to MediSave Account for employees.
To facilitate planning for members, we will also simplify the top-up limit for Voluntary Contributions to MediSave Account. Today, the limit for employees depends on two sets of figures – the Basic Healthcare Sum and the CPF Annual Limit, which is the maximum amount of mandatory and voluntary contributions a member can receive in a calendar year. As members can only know whether they have reached the Annual Limit at the end of each year, this creates some uncertainty for members. Therefore, going forward, the top-up limit for employees will be simplified to depend only on the Basic Healthcare Sum. Let me illustrate again.
The Basic Healthcare Sum in 2021 is $63,000, while the Annual Limit is $37,740. If you assume that Jane currently has $50,000 in her MediSave Account. Assume also that her total mandatory contributions for 2021 will amount to $35,000 and that she makes no voluntary contributions. Based on the new rule, she instantly knows that she can contribute up to $13,000. This is the $63,000 limit on the Basic Healthcare Sum minus the $50,000 which is currently in her MediSave Account. She can contribute up to $13,000 to her MediSave Account – and this is the headroom between the Basic Healthcare Sum and her current MediSave Account balance. Under the current rules, however, she also needs to be mindful and to consider the Annual Limit. So, that means that only at the end of the year will she know that she can contribute up to $2,740 which was the original $37,740 minus $35,000 – because this is the headroom between the Annual Limit and her contributions for the year. So, we will simplify this for our members.
The Bill also makes various amendments to streamline the administration of CPF schemes, thereby increasing efficiency for members. These are mainly technical changes to refine existing policies. Please allow me to give you three examples.
First, the CPF Act will be amended to refine how beneficiaries receive CPF assets, both un-nominated and nominated, upon members’ passing. This is in line with ongoing efforts to disburse such assets more quickly.
Let me elaborate. Depending on whether such CPF assets are nominated or not, they are disbursed via different routes.
Un-nominated CPF monies are transferred to the Public Trustee’s Office for disbursement. The Public Trustee’s Office then has to trace and verify each and every rightful beneficiary to disburse the monies to. The Public Trustee’s Office will streamline this process, to enable an eligible beneficiary to receive unnominated CPF monies as a Beneficiary Representative on behalf of all other beneficiaries with their consent, for amounts not exceeding $10,000. With this change, the application and verification processes will be simpler for eligible cases. Beneficiaries can expect to receive their monies sooner. The process will still remain unchanged for amounts that exceed $10,000.
Nominated CPF monies are disbursed by CPF Board. Since 2011, the Board has made automatic disbursements to qualifying nominees without requiring them to make an application. Over the years, CPF Board has continuously relaxed the qualifying criteria to allow more nominees to receive their bequeathed monies without application, which can be particularly helpful for those who need to tap on bequests to defray post-mortem expenses. As of this year, there is no longer any threshold for the amount of nominated monies that can be automatically disbursed.
We want to extend this automatic disbursement to nominees with bequeathed discounted Singtel shares which are purchased under the Special Discounted Shares scheme. Currently, such nominees are unable to benefit from this convenience as CPF Board has to wait for nominees to instruct whether they wish to have these shares transferred to their own CDP accounts, or liquidated. If the shares remain unclaimed after seven years, CPF Board will liquidate them. With the CPF Act amendments, unless otherwise instructed, such shares will be liquidated six weeks after the Board is notified of a member’s death. CPF Board will exercise discretion for cases where more time is required to trace beneficiaries. The sale proceeds will then be automatically disbursed, together with other nominated CPF monies, to the nominees. I would like to point out that, today, when claiming bequests, most nominees already choose to liquidate these shares, rather than have them transferred to their own CDP accounts.
With the improvements in automatic disbursement arrangements, about 93% of deceased members have their nominated CPF monies fully disbursed within six months of death. With the shortening of the holding duration for discounted Singtel shares that I have just mentioned, this percentage is expected to increase further as more can then benefit from automatic disbursement. This leaves behind a very small group of nominees who have chosen to delay the disbursement of bequests, which could result in the deceased member’s CPF monies remaining in his CPF accounts for up to seven years today.
Given these developments and the convenience of automatic disbursement, there is no longer a need to allow for the retention of unclaimed CPF monies over such a long period of time. We will, therefore, shorten this duration from seven years, to six months after the Board is notified of the member’s death. This timeframe should be more than sufficient for beneficiaries to make arrangements to claim nominated monies from CPF Board. Should a nominee choose not to make claims within six months, the monies will be transferred out of the deceased member’s CPF accounts, and no interest will be payable from then. However, nominees continue to have the right to claim the nominated monies at any time.
We will, similarly, adjust the disbursement process for assets in dormant CPF accounts, which form the minority and likely belong to deceased members. Specifically, once a member’s account is deemed dormant, we will liquidate the member’s discounted Singtel shares and stop retaining the monies, including accrued interest, in the account. I want to reassure all members that if CPF Board subsequently learns that a dormant member is alive, the Board will restore the monies to the member’s original accounts with interest.
The new durations will apply from 1 April 2022, to give some transition time. Again, let me reiterate that there is no change to CPF beneficiaries’ right to make claims at any time.
We recognise that a small percentage of monies remain unclaimed, despite CPF Board’s efforts to reach out to the beneficiaries. In fact, over the last five years, about 98% of CPF monies have been distributed to beneficiaries. Nonetheless, CPF Board will continue its efforts to reduce the incidence of unclaimed monies, via a multi-pronged approach. This includes regularly reminding nominees to make claims if they have not done so via letters, email, SMS and WhatsApp, educating and reminding members to make nominations, and making the nomination process as easy as possible.
Mr Speaker\t: Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Speeches","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Dr Tan See Leng's speech?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Deputy Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) in respect of Minister Tan See Leng's speech.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Dr Tan See Leng: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Deputy Leader.
Second, amendments will be made to streamline how the Government recovers grants from members.
Specifically, the amendment is a technical update to cater for grants automatically issued to eligible members but who, subsequently, choose not to meet continuing eligibility conditions. This is to be fair to the majority of other members who maintain their eligibility.
To be clear, this amendment is not about allowing the Government to recover grants provided erroneously to ineligible individuals. That can already be done. Let me give an example.
The Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS) was launched in 2021 to encourage top-ups to eligible seniors with lower balances by providing one-for-one Government matching for eligible top-ups up to $600 per year. The continuing condition here is that members do not reverse the top-ups that had qualified them for the matching grant. However, a minority of members may choose to appeal for such reversals despite knowing that the accompanying grant will also be reversed. This amendment allows the CPF Board to recover the accompanying grant should such appeals be approved on a case-by-case basis.
Finally, I would like to mention that we are simplifying the CPF Act itself.
Members of the House may find that the CPF Act can be quite complicated. In particular, section 15 on withdrawal from the Fund has 43 subsections. We have simplified this section for better readability while continuing to provide flexibility to cater to members' evolving needs. Let me assure all of you here that this does not change any existing withdrawal policies.
This sums up the key amendments under the CPF (Amendment) Bill. Allow me to conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir.
The Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill supports seniors in working longer should they wish to and choose to. The CPF (Amendment) Bill simplifies the CPF system. The various amendments will help members build up their retirement nest eggs and receive retirement payouts smoothly while streamlining administration of CPF schemes.
Together, these Bills will support Singaporeans to earn more and to save more as we continue to enhance our employment and CPF policies. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is currently facing two major trends. First, our life expectancy continues to rise, from about 78 years old 20 years ago to 84 years old today and is expected to continue to rise. Singaporeans are not only living longer, but also more energetic and spending more years in a healthy stage. This is a good thing.
There are many factors contributing to this, mainly because of our better quality of life and better healthcare amenities, and that people are more aware of the importance of healthy living and live a more fulfilling life.
Second, because of the rise in life expectancy of Singaporeans, we are also facing a second major trend, which is a major shift in our demographics. We have now entered a phase of rapid ageing.
These two trends mean that, first, Singaporeans are now healthy enough to work longer and stay active in the workforce if, they choose to do so. They extend their active working lives, earn more, save more and enhance their retirement adequacy.
Second, employers can also tap on a wider manpower pool available to continue employing experienced workers to cope with the current manpower crunch. This is also the main objective of the Bill today, which is to legalise and operationalise the implications brought forth by these two trends.
The most important thing is to give employees appropriate legal protection so that they can remain in the workforce until the statutory retirement age. For those who have yet to reach the statutory retirement age, employers cannot stop employing these workers simply because of their age.
Of course, we must also give the employers some flexibility and allow them to adjust the nature of work, role in the company and working conditions for that employee.
Mr Speaker, while this legal mechanism provided by the Retirement and Re-employment Bill is important, it will take some time to achieve a win-win situation where there is no age barrier in the labour market, where manpower resources are used more flexibly and effectively, and where both employers and employees alike have the open mindset.
There are a few issues that we have to deal with.
First, have the employers adjusted their mindset regarding age discrimination and adopted a more positive attitude, and proactively utilised manpower supplement brought about by the increase in the retirement age?
Second, re-employment is a rather new concept. Have employees fully grasp its core meaning? For example, how to adjust their expectations and manage changes in employment terms which can be based on part-time re-employment or time-based employment? In terms of the employment contract, has the employee and the employer come to a consensus?
Third, in terms of job redesign, there is more work for the Tripartite partners to come work together to redesign jobs that are more suitable for older workers so as to attract more older Singaporeans to join the workforce and help companies raise productivity.
Fourth, with the extension of our work-life, we should also make the necessary policy adjustment when we plan employee training. For example, can middle-aged employees be allowed to further their studies in our Institutes of Higher Learning to upgrade their knowledge and skills and improve their re-employment opportunities. We need new thinking on this front and I hope that the Government can reconsider this when formulating policies.
Finally, I would like to ask the Minister, with the increase in retirement and re-employment age, will the CPF withdrawal policy remain unchanged? We must clarify this so that Singaporeans do not misunderstand the intention of this Bill.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek a few clarifications from the Minister.
Firstly, to seek the Minister's view on his assessment on the readiness and willingness of employers to raise the retirement and re-employment age to 65 and 70 respectively. Does he see uneven readiness among the bigger and smaller companies, among the different industry segments, global versus local companies and employees of different wage profiles? Does he see different levels of readiness in employers adjusting to the rise in retirement and re-employment age?
Secondly, has MOM surveyed the attitudes of workers on higher retirement and re-employment age and what are their major concerns? I mentioned in my Chinese speech there are some concerns about contractual terms and whether the workers are prepared for those changes.
Thirdly, to what extent can we reduce the dependence on foreign manpower with the raising of the retirement and re-employment age, especially for the PMETs, as there will be a bigger pool of experienced workers for businesses to tap on?
Fourthly, following the progressive raising of the retirement age, will there be further measures to counter age discrimination and importantly, to step up monitoring of undesirable employment practices?
Fifth, with the employment runway of workers extended, will the Government institute new policy measures to help workers stay employable? Among others, would the Government see the need to introduce, for example, mid-career sabbatical leave so that workers can take a longer break during their mid-careers and to stay charged up for a longer working career? Or to allow mature students to become students again by allowing them to admit to the Institutes of Higher Learning to pursue new disciplines and to acquire new professional expertise? Or whether there will be further SkillsFuture support for senior workers?
Finally, a very important part to clarify again with the Minister is whether notwithstanding the raising of the retirement and re-employment age, to clarify that the Government would continue to delink retirement age and CPF payout eligibility age.
I think this is important, especially for today's Second Reading. We are debating both Bills together and members of the public may be confused and think that could be linked together: retirement age and your CPF withdrawal age. I hope that the Minister can clarify this so that there will be no misunderstanding on this part. Sir, notwithstanding that, I support both the amendment Bills.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I wish to speak on the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill.
Sir, in view of longer life spans and more golden years, allowing an individual to work to an older age is a sensible and responsible thing to do. For the individual, it enhances financial security, independence and for some, provides a sense of purpose. This also benefits society as active seniors are more able to provide for themselves. This would enable the state Budget to be allocated to other areas of need.
The intent of this Bill as I understand it is to enable the Government to raise the minimum retirement age and re-employment ages by the year 2030. The minimum retirement age will go up progressively from 62 to 65 while the re-employment age will be raised progressively from 67 to 70.
This is a step in the right direction, which I support.
However, Sir, if we truly believe in active ageing, it is worth reviewing whether there should be a prescribed minimum retirement age at all.
At the outset, I would note that there are many employees in the private sector who are not subject to a mandatory retirement age. The prescribed retirement age applies more to the public sector and unionised employees.
However, continuing to have a minimum retirement age set out in law has a signalling effect on society as to the value workers above that age. This needs serious reconsideration. Singapore should review its stance.
I would like to highlight four points in support of removing the prescribed minimum retirement age and re-employment age.
First, life expectancy in Singapore has increased by approximately three years every 10 years. According to a 2019 Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review, Singaporeans' life expectancy is among the highest in the world at 81.4 years for men and 85.7 years for women. These ages are merely averages and do not take into account many who live far longer.
To illustrate how longevity impacts retirement decisions, I would like to share a conversation I had some months ago with a cousin of mine, a retired engineer now in his mid-80s.
He shared that when he and his wife retired 30 years ago, they had no idea that they would live this long. He lamented that had they known that they still had so many more years to go, they would have worked longer. If an octogenarian can reflect on his life span in this manner today, what about us or younger cohorts who are likely to live longer?
Even when the retirement age goes up to 65, the prospect of having insufficient savings to fund another 30 years of living expenses and medical costs is real.
Second, we have a national manpower shortage. We often hear that foreign manpower is needed to supplement our local workforce. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us a very painful lesson about how we have managed our low-wage foreign workers. Poor conditions in our crowded foreign worker dormitories have contributed to the spread of the virus.
The Government mantra has always been that Singapore needs to continue improving productivity instead of relying on increases in labour inputs. In our push towards leveraging on technology, it is likely that more jobs in different sectors will be redesigned to be less reliant on physical strength, making them suitable for senior workers to fill.
Third, we must ask whether having a prescribed minimum retirement or re-employment age is sensible for the parties concerned.
The fact is that the universe of employees is very diverse. Each person ages at a different rate. Those with health problems may not be able to work when they reach 60 years old while others can go on for much longer.
Finally, it has been said in certain quarters that removing the retirement and re-employment ages would disadvantage workers and give the upper hand to employers. To this, I am not clear how far having a prescribed minimum retirement age protects the worker from being dismissed on account of age.
Our labour market is one of the freest in the world with hiring and dismissal happening efficiently. Most employment contracts have a termination clause with either employer or employee being able to walk away from the contract by giving just one or two months' notice or payment in lieu of notice. No reasons need to be given for the termination of service in such situations.
Sir, I am fortified in arguing for a removal of the prescribed retirement and re-employment ages as there is now some certainty that workplace guidelines issued by the Tripartite partners will have the force of law. This change in policy has the potential to give employees protection against ageism in the workplace.
At this year's National Day Rally, the Prime Minister announced that workplace anti-discrimination guidelines would be enshrined into law. The Workers' Party has argued for anti-discrimination legislation previously and we welcome this announcement. We believe that the proposed law should proscribe discrimination based on age and we look forward to the opportunity to contribute to that debate.
Sir, in making these points, I wish to clarify that I am not advocating that everyone works till they drop dead. To most people, that would not be a life well-lived. Seniors may well decide to reprioritise their time and devote themselves to their grandchildren or charitable causes. Society could very well be better off if they did so. What I am advocating is that instead of having a decision forced on them at a certain age, we empower our seniors to make their own choice in this matter.
In closing, it will be appropriate to quote from a Singaporean who has advocated that there be no retirement age, none other than our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In 2010, on the 30th Anniversary of the Singapore National Employers Federation, Mr Lee spoke at a dialogue with senior managers, Government officials and unionists. He told them that there should be no retirement age for workers. He called on older workers to change their mindsets and to continue working, even if for less pay or for a younger boss. He said, and I quote, \"Many of our workers have a preferred retirement and then they die early. If you start saying, 'Oh, I am old', and you start reading novels and playing golf or playing chess, well, you are on the way down\", unquote.
Sir, not many of us would dare to put it in such stark terms but there is a bigger point for society as a whole. If we are truly non-ageist, we should leave retirement and re-employment ages to choices made by individuals. As a safety net, we should enact an anti-discrimination law that prohibits employment decisions based on age.
Sir, even as I support this Bill, I ask the Government to reconsider this issue of legislating the retirement and re-employment ages.
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of both Bills. The Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill seeks to raise the retirement age and re-employment ages in Singapore to 65 years and 70 years respectively by 2030. The first move is to commence from 1 July 2022, increasing the retirement and re-employment ages to 63 and 68 respectively.
The Retirement and Re-employment Act came into force in 2012, because of three main factors, namely, a longer life expectancy of the current population, a tightening labour market with a shrinking citizen population and the need for talent management and retention.
Today, the abovementioned needs continue to exist and underscore the importance of the Act. Although COVID-19 has challenged the labour market, the Tripartite Partners agree that “the important work to enable older employees to continue working if they are able and willing to do so, must continue.”
While I am heartened that the Tripartite Partners remain committed to supporting the re-employment of older workers, I am concerned of more companies not re-employing existing older workers in view of the uneven and uncertain outlook.
I know of some companies who have resorted to making payouts under the Employment Assistance Payment, EAP for short, as an easy and cost-efficient way of circumventing their re-employment obligations. Indeed, this situation is in some way exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
As the life expectancy of individuals increase over the years, together with the mounting pressures on the sandwich generation, it is crucial that we ensure that all older workers who are keen and able to work, can continue to do so, with reasonable adjustments to their re-employment terms. Accordingly, the EAP should not be used as an easy way out to avoid re-employing older workers. Instead, it should only be offered after a thorough review, as a last resort – if the employer cannot find any internal vacancy.
To that end, I would like to raise six suggestions for consideration.
First, with the increase in median wages and the cost of living in Singapore, it is submitted that the existing one-off payment equivalent to 3.5 months' salary, subject to a minimum of S$5,500 and maximum of S$13,000, needs to be reviewed and increased.
If there is a sizeable increase in the minimum and maximum EAP payable, this might serve to deter companies from cursorily reviewing internal vacancies with a view to letting go of older workers. Companies may have a greater incentive to find suitable internal vacancies for older workers to work at and be paid for.
If push comes to shove and employers genuinely have no other options but to let go of older workers, at least the increased EAP amount would serve to tide them through a longer period of unemployment. We need to ensure that the EAP sum provided is sufficient. We do not want our older workers to be living from hand to mouth.
I, therefore, submit that the Tripartite Partners continue to work at and review the mutually agreed increment in both the minimum and maximum EAP sums, to cater to the increased median wages, changing employment landscape and increased cost of living in Singapore.
Second, additional tiers of unemployment income support for Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) who are involuntarily unemployed.
The findings of the NTUC-SNEF PME Taskforce Report show that mature PMEs are particularly precarious when retrenched during the current downturn due to higher costs of living as they provide for both older and younger dependants; longer time periods taken to find a new job in view of their age and lack of relevant skillsets; and increased propensity to suffer from wage loss on re-entry to employment.
PMEs shared that an unemployment income support could provide some breathing space for them to retrain, upgrade their skills and look for suitable employment, while helping to alleviate their anxieties and ensure that those who are unaware of avenues of help do not fall through the cracks. I, therefore, suggest that the Government consider an unemployment income support coupled with active labour market policies for all workers, including mature PMEs, who are involuntarily unemployed, and for the Tripartite Partners to study this carefully in greater detail.
Third, the PME Taskforce Report also found that despite being active in their job search and undergoing training, mature PMEs who were retrenched had difficulties in securing a job.
To assist mature PMEs, the Government could consider providing a short-term salary support, for example, up to 50% salary funding, capped at S$3,800 per month for six months, for companies who hire mature PMEs who are unemployed, to lower the cost and risk for companies to hire this group of PMEs with relevant skills.
If a new company takes on another company’s re-employment obligations, the short-term salary support from the Government would be particularly useful in easing its re-employment obligations with respect to the mature worker transferred.
Fourth, while the current framework provides flexibility in job negotiations for re-employed employees, we need to safeguard against companies’ exploitations of such flexibilities.
Bearing in mind that older workers have performed satisfactorily and been employed in that role over the years, we could require employers to justify in writing, inter alia, any material changes in the re-employment terms of older workers and/or sudden lack of internal vacancies for the said role, when these employees have been employed in that role over the years. This is to avoid a situation whereby companies unilaterally offer significant pay cuts or reduction of employment benefits to the mature worker, under the guise of having re-negotiated the employment terms with the mature worker, while expecting the same standards and deliverables from the mature worker.
Further, with the requirement for written justifications on material changes to the employment terms or sudden lack of internal vacancies, the company bears the burden of justifying that such changes are reasonable. The company cannot simply state that the employee rejected its reasonable re-employment offer as a basis for not paying EAP.
Fifth, even as we embrace digital transformation, we urge employers to continue training and upgrading older staff to acquire the necessary skills to minimise the digital and tech inequality. Where there are incentives and support schemes, to tap on these support schemes and send older workers for training and skills upgrading.
Lastly, through the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen many changes in the work environment. Just to name a few: businesses have pivoted to online platforms, employees have been working from home and international conferences are held online. These non-exhaustive lists of examples show us collectively that Singaporeans are agile enough to adapt to various changes and curve balls that the pandemic has thrown at us.
As Singapore marches towards the \"next normal\", I would like to encourage employers to consider how various jobs can be redesigned and re-examined to allow for older workers to continue working.
In so doing, companies may consider the relevant skill sets the employees have and their experiences gleaned over the years, to match any needs that the business may have. For instance, if a person was employed in a marketing role, a job redesign could involve not just marketing work to external parties, but possibly internal communications, usage of digital platforms and social media and/or pitching of ideas to senior management. Crucially, older workers may also take on the role of mentoring younger employees.
I would like to call on employers not to view older workers as \"slow\", \"backward\" or \"expensive to hire\". Instead, I urge employers to adopt a change in mindset. There is a Chinese saying, “家有一老，如有一宝”. This is loosely translated to mean that having an elder at home can be likened to having a treasure at home.
I believe this is also applicable in the work context as well. Older employees have amassed a wealth of experience over the years in their specialised areas of work and it would be our loss if we do not tap on this treasure while still available. There is something about decades of work experience, tenacity, soft skills and accumulated knowledge that cannot be quantified, much less deemed as irrelevant for the purposes of re-employment.
Mr Speaker, the Central Provident Fund Bill is put before us for amendment, with the key objectives of: making it easier for members to receive retirement payouts, making it easier for members to build up their retirement nest egg and streamlining the CPF system.
These are all laudable objectives, consistent with the overarching mission of the CPF, which is \"to enable Singaporeans to have a secure retirement through lifelong income, healthcare financing and home financing.\"
While I am fully supportive of the amendments, I have the following questions from an employment perspective for the Minister.
The \"Contribute-As-You-Earn\" Scheme, the \"CAYE Scheme\" for short, helps self-employed persons, SEPs for short, contribute to their MediSave as they earn. Under the CAYE Scheme, Government agencies will deduct and transmit a portion of payment due to SEPs into their respective MediSave accounts, for convenience. At present, the CAYE Scheme is only applicable to public sector contracts.
First, I understand that take-up of the CAYE in the public sector is very encouraging. In view of that, would the CAYE Scheme be expanded to include the private sector? If so, does MOM foresee any resistance from the private sector? How else may the CAYE Scheme be expanded to help freelancers? If expanded, it would help more freelancers, particularly those who render services to companies in the private sector, keep up with their MediSave contributions and provide greater financial protection against health issues.
Second, under the CAYE Scheme for Government projects, the Government essentially deducts a portion of monies due to the SEPs and transmits it to the SEPs' MediSave Accounts.
As this House would know, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a decimating effect on the lives and livelihoods of SEPs. With the circuit breaker measures that were implemented last year, together with the existing restrictions on social gatherings, the events and performing arts sector has almost come to a standstill. Their current earnings are a far cry from their earnings prior to the pandemic.
In view of the above, would there be possible circumstances in which SEPs can opt out of the CAYE Scheme, as they may need the monies to tide through this rough patch? If so, what are some examples of such circumstances?
Third, in the context of employment relationships, both the employers and employees make CPF contributions. Even as the distinction between SEPs and employees is increasingly blurred, with some countries recognising SEPs as \"workers\", perhaps service buyers could be required to make CPF contributions for SEPs too?
To be clear, the existing CAYE scheme applicable in the public sector only requires the Government to take a portion of the fees belonging to the SEP, to be credited to the SEP's Medisave account. What I am proposing is one step further, that the service buyers from both the public sector and private sector, make additional contributions to the SEP's CPF account; which mirrors the employer's CPF contributions under normal employment relationships.
If accepted, this would mean that practically, service buyers would be making CPF contributions consisting of both the SEP's portion under the existing CAYE scheme, as well as additional sums being the service buyer’s contributions too.
Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions, I stand in support of both Bills.
Mr Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of both Bills put forth today. As a member of the People's Action Party (PAP) Seniors Group, I am delighted to participate in this debate.
Amidst the pandemic, I am heartened that our Government has chosen to stay the course and continue with the planned increase of retirement age from 62 to 63, and re-employment age from 67 to 68. I also hope we can increase the retirement age to 65 and re-employment age to 70, sooner than later, ahead of our target in 2030.
Beyond adjusting the re-employment and retirement age, I also like to make three suggestions for MOM to improve our senior’s livelihood and retirement adequacy, namely: increasing our seniors’ CPF contribution rate, fighting ageism through the upcoming anti-discrimination legislations and exploring new ways of helping seniors above 60 to find and hold on to jobs.
In January 2019, the PAP Senior Group put forth a position paper to empower our seniors to live with purpose and dignity. One of the key recommendations called for a gradual increase in our seniors CPF contribution rate, given that their rate is currently less than that of younger workers. That same year, the Government agreed to this proposal. However, when the pandemic struck, our Government froze this specific commitment for seniors, so as to help as many companies as possible stay afloat.
While I understand and support this necessary action, I hope the Government can resume the planned increase at the earliest possible time. We are seeing an uneven recovery. Some sectors are doing well, some are staying afloat and some are frankly struggling. One way that the Government can consider doing, to balance both the interest of both our senior workers and our struggling sectors, is to: push for the contribution rate for all seniors to increase, as long as the broad majority of our economy has made a recovery, and encourage the National Wage Council to adopt even more overall wage flexibility depending on the performance of the sector and the firm.
My second point is that I hope the Government can put in anti-ageism clauses in the upcoming anti-discrimination legislations. This is something that many of our colleagues from PAP Senior Group would like to see.
Over the next few months, my fellow colleague from the senior group, Deputy Speaker Jessica Tan, will spearhead an intense effort to engage our senior workers and to solicitate their feedback. We hope to identify win-win solutions for both senior workers and employers. We hope to help seniors to not just improve their employability, but also the equality of their employability.
Even before the start of our consultation, I have already heard a number of useful suggestions, including disallowing companies from asking the last drawn salaries or the age of applicants. We will share what we have heard from our senior workers in good time.
Last, I hope our Government continue to find new ways to help our seniors workers, especially those in their 60s. I note that NTUC and SNEF have recently submitted some excellent ideas to the Government to help matured Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs). These ideas will go far to support workers in their 40s and 50s.
However, even if we get our upcoming anti-discrimination legislation right, even if we continue to raise our retirement age and re-employment age, our senior workers above 60 will still be very vulnerable to being displaced. And if they are displaced, it will be very hard for them to find the next full-time job.
As such, we would need to explore and accelerate new employment models such as micro-jobs and job-sharing for seniors above 60. And we may need the Government to spearhead this effort, to demonstrate its full potential to the private sector. I have spoken about micro-jobs on several occasions in Parliament and I think it is time for us to seriously look into that.
And to extend our seniors employability as long as possible, it will be helpful if MOM can convene a panel of medical experts to advise our industries to determine how long our senior professionals and skilled workers can work for in specific industries. For example, the panel can advise companies on how to maximise work opportunities for surgeons, without compromising on patient safety. The panel can advise companies on how long pilots can continue flying a plane and whether that length depends on the number of passengers sitting on the same plane?
Why must the Government get involved? Because without an evidence-based decision-making process, the employment outcome in many industries will be driven by supply and demand for workers and a number of industries will adopt an unnecessary conservative approach. This means that a number of our senior workers, especially those above 60, could prematurely lose the chance to work, even with the Retirement and Re-employment Act in place.
Let me now conclude. For many of our seniors, work creates a sense of mission. It is critical to empower our seniors to age with purpose and dignity. The Bill discussed today is an important step to strengthen senior employability.
MOM has done a lot, but there is a lot more to do. And even as we manage to safeguard the health of our vast majority of seniors through this pandemic, a number of seniors today feel a sense of despair, more than in recent years. Because our seniors are more impacted by social distancing measures compared to the rest, because our seniors have reduced opportunities to interact with others and to stay relevant, and because our seniors feel a deep sense of isolation amidst the pandemic.
Once we get past this stabilisation phase, which we will, we must step up more to increase our seniors' employability. I hope the Government can consider the ideas raised and start preparing for that day.
With that, I stand in support of both Bills put forth in this debate.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, this latest set of amendments to the Retirement and Re-employment Act build on the number of positive amendments to the Act that were passed in 2017, which increase the re-employment age by two years to 67 and also strengthened the position of senior workers vis-à-vis their re-employment options while also removing the option of employers to reduce their wages after the age of 60.
The amendments tabled this time propose to further raise the re-employment age to 70, while affording some additional modest protection for dismissals on the grounds of retirement age. This move follows the trend evident in many other advanced economies.
Next year, the United States will raise the age where one is able to draw a full public pension or Social Security benefits, what is typically referred to as the Full Retirement Age, to 67 for those born in 1960. France has sought, with limited success, to raise this retirement age of 62, by two years. Earlier this year, Japan raised its retirement age to 70, while Australia and Spain will gradually hike the retirement age to 67 in the years ahead.
Since Singapore does not have a pay-as-you-go system, the usual justification for countries raising their retirement ages to ensure that their state pension systems are able to remain financially viable in light of an ageing and longer living population, does not apply here. What is instead relevant is the legally mandated age where one's employer is able to request that one retires. Hence, the relevant motivation for us choosing to raise the retirement age is different as it should be. It is a recognition that the nature of jobs in the modern economy are often dramatically different from those of yesteryear.
Most of the menial back-breaking jobs of the past have now, been replaced with machinery and technology. Accordingly, many jobs are now far less physically demanding, thereby permitting the modern worker to continue performing these jobs at a very high level, regardless of their age. Indeed, a number of hard and soft skills, such as technical, oral or interpersonal skills may, like fine wine, even improve with age. Moreover, most of the more sophisticated jobs in the modern economy often require an extended period of education and training, especially if they pursue graduate degrees or endure mid-career retraining and reskilling. This is, of course, coming from an over-educated individual who only completed his formal educational journey the year he turned 30.
While such an extended period of human capital formation is both valuable and positions the worker well for their subsequent career, it also implies that they begin their formal employment journey later than usual. It seems unfair to cut the employment work life's short just by dint of their extended education and training.
Finally, such a move would also be consistent with the tsunami of demographic changes that will unfold over the course of the next decade. Singaporeans are living longer and the number of those entering their 60s and 70s will also swell. By 2030, the number of Singaporeans, aged 65 or older, will be close to a million. It is therefore imperative that we accommodate and extend the work horizon to allow these individuals to continue to participate in meaningful productive activity. If they so wish, such engagement can also positively impact the mental and physical health and delay the onset of memory loss, depressive symptoms and even physical disability.
Mr Speaker, if we may take the arguments I have made above to their logical conclusion, it will suggest the total abolition of any official retirement age. This is the official position of the Workers' Party and one reiterated in this House most recently, by Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, when he was a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) in the 13th Parliament.
To be clear, this is not a call for our workers to continue working themselves into the grave, nor is it a call to postpone the official age of access to CPF savings, a point I will return to later. Rather, this is a call to permit workers the freedom to continue to choose to work at any advanced age as long as they are able and willing to and are able to secure a job. This call should also be seen as an implicit call to remove discrimination in the workplace on the basis of age, a position that the Workers' Party has likewise championed.
With no clear retirement age, employers can no longer use the excuse that hiring a worker with a short runway before they are officially forced to retire, would be an inferior business decision, compared to hiring a younger worker with no such retirement constraint. Indeed, there is evidence that anti-discrimination laws have been effective at boosting the employment of older workers, to the extent that we subscribe to non-discrimination in the workplace; then, the abolition of the retirement age is an essential complement to a richer set of legislative provisions to that effect.
One natural concern with such a proposal is that doing so could inhibit the renewal of the workforce, as the elderly take up jobs that would otherwise be filled by younger workers. Notwithstanding the fact that there are no legal impediments to replacing senior workers with junior ones, regardless of the retirement age, we should not rely on legal crutches to do what managers ought to be doing, which is to make the difficult decision of firing workers if and when necessary. If anything, the solution requires a realignment of cultural practices that keep unproductive workers in their positions, rather than keeping an artificial legal retirement age in place. Indeed, the economy where this issue is most chronic, Japan, does have an economy-wide retirement age. Clearly, its presence has not alleviated the problem of displacement, which suggests that the solution to excessive youth unemployment lies clearly lies elsewhere.
The other counter-argument, which is almost the opposite of the first, is that a clear retirement age prevents frivolous firings since employers cannot use the excuse that an employee is, generically speaking, too senior, if they are 57 as opposed to 67.
But this argument fails to hold up to theoretical scrutiny. Why would an employer wait for an underperforming employee to reach any level of seniority before they replace them? It will be far more straightforward to simply grant such workers a severance package and release them, regardless of age.
Nor does this argument actually work in practice. I have many residents who approached me and shared with me how they were, indeed, let go a number of years before retirement and how they subsequently faced difficulty securing a job because employers deemed them too close to retirement.
Hence, if anything, a fixed retirement age operates to the detriment of workers and does not appear to have inhibited the retrenchment of workers themselves.
Mr Speaker, what abolishing the retirement age emphatically does not mean, however, is that we should, concomitantly, raise our CPF payout eligibility age. Indeed, the Workers' Party has also repeatedly called for the lowering of this age to 60. This amounts to decoupling the retirement decision from the retirement savings decision.
I am heartened that Minister Tan has made this point clear in his speech earlier. Singaporeans should be empowered to make their own informed choices about the manner by which they wish to draw on their hard-earned retirement savings. Doing so also permits those nearing retirement to be more creative in the manner by which they balance their employment and retirement choices.
For instance, a 60-year-old banker may wish to shift gears towards consultancy or adjunct teaching on a part-time basis but, nevertheless, wish to supplement his or her income with a modest CPF payout.
This does not mean, of course, that we do not design incentives to encourage our seniors, especially if they remain in the workforce, to postpone their CPF withdrawals to benefit from the compound interest and, thereby, allow for larger payouts when they eventually make their withdrawals.
Regardless, such delayed withdrawals should be a purely voluntary scheme. To my mind, nudges of this form are a far more palatable approach to encouraging individually beneficial retirement choices.
Taken together, Mr Speaker, these changes will permit our people to exercise far greater agency, individual self-responsibility and freedom to choose their desired course of employment in their senior years as well as weigh their various retirement options in an informed and unconstrained manner.
In other words, it will allow our people to retire after a long struggle with dignity. This is something that all in this House would wish for those who have blazed the trail before us and for this reason, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Prof Hoon Hian Teck.
Prof Hoon Hian Teck (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak on the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill.
This Bill empowers the Minister to specify the prescribed minimum retirement age applicable to any class of employees who must be at least 62 years but not more than 65. Employers cannot dismiss the employees on the ground of age before they reach the prescribed minimum retirement age. Similar provisions are made for the re-employment age.
The need to make such legislative provisions arises from the fact that life expectancy has vastly increased and, along with it, people can make choices on how to divide the gains in the number of years between work and retirement. The Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers recommended that the retirement age and re-employment age be raised to 65 and 70 respectively by 2030, with the first increases to 62 and 68 in 2022.
Evidence from several developed economies shows that an increasing fraction of people in their 60s have chosen to remain active in the labour force since the mid-1990s.
Data from the Singapore Yearbook of Manpower Statistics 2021 show that for those in the age group 60 to 64 years, the male labour force participation rate increased by more than 10 percentage points from 2010 to 2020. For the age group 65 to 69 years, the male labour force participation rate increased by more than 15 percentage points.
Corresponding figures for the female labour force participation rate for these corresponding age groups showed even bigger percentage point increases, although they remained below the male labour force participation rate. For the age group 55 to 59 years, there was also a significant increase in the female labour force participation rate.
The question: what factors account for the rise in labour force participation rate of older workers in recent decades?
First, improved health, by itself, does not explain the rise in labour force participation. This is because data of today's developed economies shows that while the mortality rates at older ages have steadily declined during the past several decades, the labour force participation rate, especially for men, exhibited a U-shaped curve, declining before steadily rising since the mid-1990s.
Instead, changes in the eligibility ages for retirement benefits and rules on disability insurance in the social security system in these countries seem to better explain variations in the labour force participation rate. As health has improved, along with the increased life expectancy, people might choose either to work or to engage in meaningful activities that do not necessarily generate an income.
Second, across education groups, those with more years of education have higher labour force participation among older workers. Those with a more rewarding career in the earlier phase of their life cycle are more likely to choose to work when they are older. As the share of our older population with tertiary education increases, this is likely to lead to higher labour force participation.
Third, various factors, including labour-saving technological improvements in the household sector, such as household appliances, and more years of education have led to a steady rise in labour force participation among women. The rise in labour force participation rate for women in many of these developed countries occurred earlier, earlier almost by a decade, in many of these developed countries.
By the early 1980s, there was a relentless, steady increase in labour force participation rate among women. This rise in labour force participation among women may have the effect of causing higher labour force participation among men if the couples agree to retire at the same time – the so-called \"working wife effect\".
However, if women bear the additional responsibility of providing care to their much older parents, this may discourage them from working in their late 50s to their mid-60s.
So, on the whole, there are factors that clearly had been at work, not just in Singapore but in many developed countries, tending since the 1990s, to raise the labour force participation rate. The main point, though, is that people now have an ability to choose how to divide the additional years of their life between retirement and work.
Finally, apart from the supply-side factors, which I have described, demand-side factors will also contribute to the ability of the economy to create good jobs for older workers that will boost their job satisfaction and their participation rate. So, Singapore's continued growth as a mature economy will be important in order to generate the demand for the skills of our older workers.
Mr Speaker, Sir, as our life expectancy has increased, people have the ability to choose how to divide the added years of their lives between work and retirement. This is a very good thing, however, people finally make their choices. It is likely that the prescribed retirement age and re-employment age encapsulated in our legislation will need to change to reflect people's preferences. I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How.
The Senior Minister of State for Defence (Mr Heng Chee How): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. I support both Bills and I will speak on the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill.
Sir, I declare my interest as NTUC's representative in and a member of the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers whose report was adopted by the Government. That report was titled \"Strengthening Support for Older Workers\".
The Report itself contained 22 recommendations and, of the 22, the three most prominent recommendations pertained to the progressive raising of the statutory retirement age from 62 to 65 by the end of the decade, the corresponding raising of the re-employment age ceiling from 67 to 70 over that same timeframe, and also the progressive improvement of CPF contribution rates for both employers and employees for workers aged 55 to 70. That is the subject of the amendments today.
The two Bills before us today, the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill as well as the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill, they are to give legislative effect to these recommendations so that they can be implemented to the benefit of both workers and companies.
Sir, I think there is a good analogy between what we are trying to do to address the oncoming needs of our ageing local workforce as well as the needs of companies employing these workers when compared with our national efforts to address the equally serious challenges that are being brought about by climate change. I wish to draw that similarity to frame it in such a way that I think will make it easier for all of us, inside and outside of this House, to see what it is that we are trying to do.
The first similarity is that both these challenges – ageing population and ageing workforce, locally and climate change – is that they are both very damaging if they are not properly addressed.
In the case of climate change, one specific known threat to Singapore would be that of global warming leading to rising sea levels. In that scenario, if we do not build up sufficient defences early and well enough, the result will be a loss of coastal areas as the sea level rises.
This is why the Government, as announced by the Prime Minister and has begun to be put into budgets, will invest heavily to raise the foundation level of critical infrastructure to be well above current sea levels and to build sea walls in order to increase our coastal protection.
So, we must do likewise to help our ageing local workforce so that they are not only better protected but would also continue to be a valuable contributor to our economic dynamism.
Sir, ageism exists throughout the world. I think we all agree it is not right. It is not good. It is not fair. But it is there, to a greater or lesser degree. On this journey that we all want to be on to reduce it, if possible, to eliminate it someday, we continue to have to deal with the reality that while it exists, and it does now, what is it that we must do to accord the necessary protection for our workers?
And it was for this reason, that the Tripartite Workgroup on older workers debated long and hard as the first terms of reference that was set for it, on whether that statutory retirement age for older Singaporean workers is still relevant and needed, at least for the coming decade. It concluded that, that was needed. I hear several Members speaking about the need for that. I just want to give a little bit of background as to the thinking when we debated this within that workgroup.
The basic question we ask ourselves is supposing there is no ageism in the workplace and therefore, employers are more than happy and will always employ older workers who are willing and able to work. Then, it is okay with these companies and it does not matter if we have a statutory retirement age because the company will just continue to employ. They are not in any way, held back by a statutory retirement age.
But in the opposite scenario, where you have companies whose practices are ageist, then it is not so simple in the absence of some strong signal from the tripartite partners, from the Government, in law, I think we can understand that these tendencies will become more pronounced.
As it is, we hear examples already cited that residents come to us and say that some of them might have been let go of even as they get into middle age. And they find it more difficult to get a new job and when they do get a new job, the chance of not matching the old terms is quite high. So, we ask ourselves, if indeed there is no ageism anywhere around and age equals experience, equals value and is fully appreciated, then why are we having this scenario? And if you are having this scenario, why is it therefore, not good for us to continue to put in the necessary protections?
So, it was along those lines that we discussed. In summary, if there is no ageism, having a statutory retirement age does no harm. You just carry on employing. If there is, this gives you a strong signal to think again and do not resort to ageist practices so easily.
So, beyond the legality of it, it sends a clear signal to employers on what tripartite partners want businesses and organisations to focus on, namely, to find and put in place effective ways to keep our older workers sharp on the job and not cause them to become a liability prematurely.
Therefore, I certainly support further efforts to protect older workers against ageist workplace practices. And in this regard, I look forward to the outcomes of the Tripartite Workgroup on workplace discrimination that MOM has initiated a few months ago.
Sir, coming back to my analogy of coastal protection. If you look at it that way then, statutory retirement age and re-employment age are like a pair of sea walls, built for our older workers. They stand as visual reminders of our nation's commitment to protecting our older workers as an asset.
This is not merely done to achieve some philosophical ideal, but it is done for a very practical reason. It affects the lives of our people, it effects the livelihoods of our older workers and their retirement.
Sir, the first move to improve the CPF contribution rates was originally to take place in January 2021, as Minister Tan See Leng reminded us just now. That was to be followed by the increase in the retirement and re-employment ages by one year each in 2022.
But as we know, last year, COVID-19 hit us. As a result, the tripartite partners discussed how do we do this in a way that does not derail the entire intent, but take into account the serious circumstances that we have to face. And as a result, we agreed to delay the implementation of the increase of the CPF rates by a year, hence, January 2022, but to keep in place the planned increased in the re-employment and retirement ages in July 2022.
This safeguards the longer-term resilience while tending to the immediate challenges faced by both companies and their workers. I hope that companies and workers alike would draw comfort and confidence from observing this move, knowing that our Government and tripartite partners will always act in the overall best interest of both our workers and companies.
Sir, I would also like to seek a clarification from Minister. I might have missed it. It is with regard the transition offset package. This was mentioned in previous speeches that when you increase the CPF contribution rates, that Government will consider a transition offset for part of the cost that the employees would have to bear. So, in other words, the Government is co-paying with the employers for the improvement for our workers. This would certainly make it easier for the employer's to also implement this and to benefit the workers. So, I hope to seek this clarification from Minister whether that package would be put up.
Sir, I return now to the coastal protection analogy. Building sea walls are necessary but they are not sufficient to ensure key infrastructure can keep above the waves of change, which is why it is necessary to raise the foundation level well above sea level, so that these places can stay dry longer.
And in this light too, I say, it is similar to what we must continually do in order to shore up the employment and employability of our older workers for the journey ahead.
Over the years, the Government has introduced numerous hiring and training incentives that favour the older worker. I thank the Government for that. Examples would include the Senior Employment Credit, the Senior Worker Early Adopter Grant, the Part-time Re-employment Grant and various others as well.
These financial incentives have indeed been very helpful in lowering the cost of hiring of older workers and therefore increase the numbers hired. I am glad that the efforts of the tripartite partners and the responsible actions by the vast majority of firms have kept the employment rate of older workers stable despite COVID-19's onslaught. In fact, according to figures released by MOM, the employment rate for workers 65 years and older actually showed a small increase in the year 2020, compared to the year 2019. The Government has also provided preferential subsidies for the training of older workers for many years now.
While wage subsidies serve to lower the cost of hiring of older workers and they would certainly help, they are actually also not the longer-term safeguard that is needed. They are necessary, helpful but they are not the longer-term safeguard that is needed.
For analogy again, you can imagine that they are very, very good sandbags and flood barriers that you can mount right at local level and that helps. But what they do not do is that they do not reduce the inherent vulnerability of that premises to flooding, if the premises itself is too low.
Therefore, we must still continue to undertake the hard work of raising the foundation levels. This is the ultimate way to keep the premises above the rising tides, and in like manner, effective improvement in the employability of older workers is the ultimate way to help as many of our older workers as possible stay above the rising tides of skills obsolescence and workplace value depreciation.
There are very clear signs that we need to pay close attention to this area and to act on it. I said earlier that the employment rate of older workers has held steady and even improved slightly between 2019 and 2020, despite COVID-19. I would qualify it that this was so for workers aged 55 and above.
NTUC and SNEF co-led a task force – we call it the PME's Taskforce – to examine the needs, hopes and anxieties of PMEs. This was done over the past year. Their report was recently submitted to the Government. It is clear from the report that the anxiety over job insecurity among those aged 40 to 60 is palpable.
To be sure, this anxiety was already there before COVID-19 and it came about partly as a result of business model changes, partly as a result of delayering of middle management and also technological changes. COVID-19 accelerated and intensified the factors.
Sir, safeguarding the employability of the mature worker from early middle age must now be a central focus of policy research, planning and formulation. We must not wait until these folks are near retirement age. This must go hand in hand with ensuring a level playing field for Singaporeans in being considered for job openings. This is so that middle aged local workers would not be too easily or prematurely rendered unemployable and have to exit the workforce. Otherwise, legislative improvements, such as the ones that we are considering today, to increase the retirement and re-employment ages would be rendered moot, because they would not even be there. So, we must help them carry on and then with this extension, they will also benefit.
Equally importantly, we must know that policy and incentives themselves are necessary again, but not sufficient to ensure the required outcomes. Effective last mile implementation is critical to ensuring real and sustained outcomes. So, what needs to be done? Sir, I would suggest three areas for consideration.
First, let us invest even more to further boost the capacity and effectiveness of job retraining and employment facilitation mechanism. We must give due credit to the work of WSG, NTUC e2i, SSG and NTUC's Company Training Committees (CTCs) and the Job Security Council (JSC) for each year helping thousands of jobseekers retrain and find new jobs. And many amongst them would be older workers.
At the same time, we must recognise that the size of the mature local workforce will grow rapidly in the coming years because of demography and changes in the business environment will only accelerate. Therefore, we must consider whether our current mechanisms in facilitating retraining and career guidance and job matching on an individual, inter-company as well as inter-industry transfer level, do we actually have anticipated capacity and effectiveness, the swiftness of that switching to tackle the heavier loads that we can anticipate that are oncoming. So, we got to do a study on this and investment what is necessary to expand ahead of that curve.
For if we do not get this right, then we will have to face up to a growing pool of displaced, disillusioned and disgruntled older workers in society. Sir, as I emphasised earlier, effective implementation of the last mile is the key to actual results.
Second, let us factor in more episodes of displacement and to configure the help for that in-between. Every worker now must expect multiple episodes of employment through his working life. This means that it will not be lifelong employment for most. This in turn means that workers will need more help in between jobs to tide over as they job-search, and as they retrain. This is especially so in the cases where the job lost was not voluntary.
While it remains true that we must not encourage pickiness when it comes to jobseeking, but we must also recognise the real downsides of being forced by circumstances to repeatedly take jobs that pay worse or under-utilise ability, without reasonable alternatives. And the latter, if that happens, will come back to haunt society in weakened retirement adequacy and frayed social fabric.
Thus, we must review and strengthen the social support to target the breaks in income that will inevitably affect more people and reduce the cost of their active retraining, job search and job conversion.
Thirdly, let us review the structuring and conduct of CET or Continuous Education and Training. It is common to hear training being divided into two phases – PET or Pre-employment Training, generally the \"schooling years\", as most people understand it, as well as CET, which is the working years, as many people would understand it. So, PET and CET.
I think it would be quite obvious to all of us that investments in Pre-employment Training (PET), over the decades have been immense. This correctly reflects the Government's recognition of our people as our most important asset, who must be developed and who must be tapped to their fullest potential.
Government funding for CET, that is the employment part of it – during the working years – has also grown very substantially over the years, via course fee subsidies, absentee payroll, paid internships and conversion programmes for mid-career workers. There are also the SkillsFuture credits granted to all Singaporeans aged 25 and above for self-initiated skills development. So, a lot of money is also being invested in those areas, especially in more recent years.
The fast-changing environment creates a serious uncertainties that confound both workers and companies over what training would be purposeful and for whom. This generates inertia at the level of the company and the individual. In other words, I hold back training because I am not very sure what am I supposed to be trained at? And after I get the training, am I headed for something meaningful? As a result, time is lost.
Or sometimes, it might actually result in, instead of inaction, it goes into aimless training; train for the sake of chalking training hours, for example, which is not the point, because it does not help keep your skills sharp. And when that happens, you still face a progressive loss of employability. The risk is therefore that more and more of our nation's human potential can be wasted this way if the uncertainty continues.
To tackle that problem, we cannot tackle it just by introducing more schemes or more subsidies. The current operating landscape may be too fragmented and cannot offer pervasive and sound guidance that links training to ops, future planning in companies. Therefore, more structure, more anchoring, consideration of shared services and periodic check-ins at the company and individual levels – as Minister has also alluded to just now – in terms of what you should be doing with your mature workers, would be needed to produce the required last mile outcomes for the majority of mature workers, starting in their 40s. This must be carefully and seriously studied, so that the current ecosystem can be reshaped to help mid-career mature workers hone and update their skills and strengthen their value and their employability as well as their adaptability.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government and tripartite partners have worked hard over the years to strengthen support for our older workers. We must continue to do so, especially given our ageing local workforce. We must fight ageist workplace practices and give our older workers a chance and a choice to continue working.
To do so successfully, we must not only extend the working ages by law or help make hiring cost-effective through wage subsidies – though these are important – but we must also tie our policies, resourcing, partnerships and implementation more tightly together. This is so that mature workers and their companies will update their skills more rapidly and purposefully. This will then help mature workers grow with their companies and be more able to quickly move into new jobs and into new sectors if they are displaced. This will be crucial in helping mature workers keep their value and sense of security, and view the future with optimism.
Mr Speaker, before I end, I just wanted to make a point about something I heard just now as shared by the hon Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim when he recounted what some of his residents shared with him that after they lost their jobs in their mid-50s and they approach employers and the employers told them that \"Well, you know, if I employ you then I can't keep you for very long because then you are too near the retirement age.\"
Earlier, the Minister had clarified that having a statutory retirement is not to force any worker to work beyond what he or she wants to. It is to protect him or her from an ageist employer who cites no other reason than age, to say bye bye to him or her. So, it is that way and not the other way. Employers should not misinterpret this to workers.
So, in that particular example that was cited, for that employer to tell Assoc Prof Lim's resident that, \"Actually, I would like to employ you but, you know, you are too near the retirement age\", would suggest that the employer is actually saying that, \"Well, I am prevented by law from employing you beyond the statutory retirement age\" which is false.
So, I hope that we should also make this point very, very clear to employers and to workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bills.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Mr Speaker, I will be touching on the CPF (Amendment) Bill. As the CPF is one of the key financial resources for most Singaporeans, it is imperative that any changes to be introduced are properly communicated and due care be given to enable the public to understand what these changes mean to them.
Given there are a number of amendments to be made and a few areas where the specifics to the conditions laid out are not entirely clear, I wish to seek several clarifications.
Under clause 4 section 15AA, allowing CPF to make automatic disbursements to the member if he or she is suffering from a specified significant condition.
First, can more details be shared on the significant condition that entails this exception? Does it refer to a health condition, and if so what kind, or does it refer to a financial situation of the said member?
Second, if the member is currently covered under a social assistance programme, will the CPF disbursement impact his or her eligibility from continued assistance under the current social assistance scheme? I hope that these discretionary disbursements based on the member’s situation is meant to help supplement their situation and does not have the unintended consequence of putting them in a worse position, should they be relieved of any social assistance programmes or the support scheme being significantly reduced after the lump sum disbursement is made.
Under section 13, lifting the cap annual limit for certain types of voluntary contributions to the Medisave account. I believe this move is a welcome one, especially for those self-employed, better enabling and ensuring that their healthcare needs are taken care of.
Does the Ministry have any projections on the implications of these changes in the form of retirement adequacy and to what extent will it help the self-employed or those working in the gig economy? These voluntary contributions can be paid either by the member or from their family members’ contribution.
With an ageing population in Singapore, whilst the younger generation helps to contribute to their parents' or grandparents’ MediSave accounts and will bridge the immediate support for their healthcare needs, have we considered what are the correlated effect that would be on the family members assisting to top up the CPF of their loved ones? Will the same issue of healthcare MediSave sufficiency be an issue for the next generation if they do not have sufficient cash set aside for medical purposes or are without additional medical insurance? I think it will be more beneficial for the younger cohort of the working population to be offered financial literacy on how to better manage their retirement needs and in the process learn to balance their own needs versus providing for their parents or the elderly.
Another area is providing a new and simplified process for the distribution of unnominated CPF monies on a member’s death. This is certainly an applauded move. As in February this year, it was just shared that only more than two in five CPF members have made a nomination with those among 65 and above higher at three in four having done so.
Tying this point to the earlier note I made about the discretionary automatic disbursements to the member, if he or she is a beneficiary or nominee of the CPF account from another person, would there be a specified limit that prevents them from receiving any future social support?
And, Sir, going beyond the amendments of the Bill, I would like to raise two other points for further consideration.
First, on the special needs community. Caring for the special needs community and having them included in the scheme is something that I feel passionately about. I had previously raised in this House regarding the creation of micro jobs to ensure that these individuals when they become young adults, are able to gain some independence and be a part of the workforce.
Thus, against the backdrop of changes to the CPF in allowing more relaxation on the withdrawal of CPF monies, I would like to suggest that we also consider how best to safeguard this community and by extension to their families and caregivers in times of need. For example, the simplification of processes for them to access the funds when their caregivers are no longer around or to apportion more funds for their medical needs as they are more likely to require that on the long run.
Next, rethinking the CPF’s current allocation rates design. With the landscape of work changing and more choosing to embark on flexi work or self-employment, perhaps it is timely in the near future for us to review the CPF’s allocation rates to the three different buckets – the Ordinary Account (OA), the Special Account (SA) and the MediSave Account – to better provide for retirement adequacy whilst ensuring we meet our housing, education and healthcare needs.
With the current design categorised according to age groups, perhaps it might be worth rethinking if more nuances are required in the current allocation principle and rates. Maximising contribution to the OA during the active income years before increasing the allocation to the SA from 35 to 55 years of age and subsequently for the MediSave to be raised through the SA and OA after a specific age and in line with medical costs during that time period. This is especially so as the nature of work is fast evolving, more are seeking self-employment. The definition of job security and stability do not have the same representation as before. There are also individuals who could be taking on more than two jobs at different stages of their life. Hence, I suggest that a review be undertaken and more holistically ensure that we are able as a nation to better cater for retirement adequacy for all.
Sir, notwithstanding what I have raised, I rise in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong,
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the two Bills, in particular, the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill, which seeks to increase the statutory retirement and re-employment age to 65 years and 70 years respectively by 2030.
Sir, the amendments to the statutory retirement and re-employment ages are a timely one, as Singaporeans are living much longer than ever before. We currently have the world’s third highest life expectancy, with the average Singaporean expected to live till about 83 years old. With better healthcare, this is projected to increase to over 85 in 2040.
As our lifespan increases, it becomes vital that we pay attention to the longevity of our careers. Long gone are the days when it was the norm to join a company and work in the same company for the entirety of one’s career. There is a new saying, “Career mobility is the new career stability”, and I know that many of our younger workers, particularly the PMETs, live by this axiom.
But how mobile are the careers of our mature workers? Statistics and ground feedback suggest that it is much harder for mid-career and mature workers to find a new job after being displaced. Among the 34,000 jobseekers who sought career coaching help from Workforce Singapore and the Employment and Employability Institute in 2020, 60% were above the age of 40 years old. Of these, four out of 10 were unable to find jobs within six months. On the ground, we hear of the deep anxieties that mature workers have if they are displaced, particularly if they are close to the retirement age.
It is therefore important that we place emphasis on our late-stage career mobility when we are young. As we prepare Singaporeans for a longer career, I hope that the Government’s public education campaigns about retirement adequacy can go beyond financial terms, but also on how to secure fruitful and meaningful work when they reach their silver years.
Mr Speaker, I am heartened that the Government has put in place many incentive schemes to boost the employability of our seniors. The Minister for Manpower himself touched on them during the Parliamentary Sitting last month, where he gave a breakdown of the schemes under the Senior Worker Support Package.
Schemes such as the Senior Employment Credit, the Senior Worker Early Adopter Grant, the Part-time Re-employment Grant and the CPF Transition Grant have helped to keep the employment rate of those aged 55 to 64 years old at over 67% and the employment rate of those above 65 at 28.5%.
While these schemes have helped Singapore to maintain relatively high levels of senior worker employment rates, the underlying assumption behind these schemes reflects the societal stereotype – that we need to subsidise employers to hire mature workers. As we extend our retirement and re-employment ages, combined with a rapidly ageing workforce, this will not be sustainable.
We should therefore strive to think of new solutions to encourage companies to view senior workers as assets and not liabilities. Perhaps we could provide corporate tax incentives to companies that significantly invest in senior workers, for example, those that actively hire and train over 30% of its workforce above the age of 55. Perhaps we could provide co-funding for companies that wish to revamp their workspaces to be more inclusive, especially to the needs of senior workers. Having schemes that go beyond wage subsidies would encourage companies to pay serious attention to investing in their silver workforce.
Mr Speaker, as we debate the issue of retirement, it is also important to place an emphasis on retirement adequacy. According to the Mercer CFA Institute Global Pension Index, Singapore has the best retirement system in Asia and ranks 10th in the world. This reflects the strength of our CPF system, particularly the CPF LIFE scheme which ensures that seniors beyond the age of 65 will receive a monthly payout no matter how long they live.
However, the latest Household Expenditure Survey conducted in 2019 found that retiree households living in public flats require more than just their CPF payouts and most receive money from their children and family members. While CPF LIFE can help to close the gap in retirement adequacy, the scheme is meant to cover a basic level of costs during retirement and may not be sufficient for those who do not properly plan for their retirement needs.
A study published by AIA Singapore in July 2021 reported that 60% of Singaporeans face an uncertain future by not prioritising their retirement planning. This is a worrying trend and we certainly need to focus on improving the financial literacy of Singaporeans, so that they understand the importance of building a nest egg for their silver years while they are still young.
To help families better plan for their retirement years, the NTUC launched a social enterprise, MoneyOwl, to provide reliable and competent financial advice. MoneyOwl’s financial advisers do not operate on commissions, which means that they do not have an incentive to sell consumers products that they do not need.
Sir, in conclusion, the amendments to the Retirement and Re-employment Act are timely as Singaporeans are living longer than ever before. We must strive to help Singaporeans work longer more meaningfully, if they wish to, by changing the narrative of hiring senior workers into a worthwhile investment instead of a hire that comes with hefty Government subsidies.
With that, I support the two Bills.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.10 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.48 pm until 5.10 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.10 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Ms Janet Ang (Nominated Member): Let me start with a quote by Pope Francis: \"Work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal fulfilment.\"
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the privilege to join in the debate on the subject of retirement and re-employment.
Singapore is faced with an increasingly tight labour market due to the rapidly ageing population. This, coupled with a shrinking working-age population caused by Singapore’s declining fertility trend which hit a low of 1.1 resident TFR in 2020, will further exacerbate our tight labour market situation. Hence, keeping seniors in the workforce for as long as they are willing and able, will help ease the manpower situation somewhat.
Life expectancies have risen to such levels that many people think that they do not have sufficient savings to meet post-retirement living and healthcare expenses, and therefore want the option to work for longer so as to improve their financial adequacy for retirement.
I support the raising of the statutory retirement age and re-employment age, and that our senior workers have the option to stay employed longer if they so choose.
Legislation will help to ensure consistent fair treatment of senior workers by all employers and deter possible senior worker abuse.
Equally, if not more important than legislation, are the structural changes needed at the workplace, the support needed to help mature workers to better prepare for retirement in addition to the all-important CPF adequacy and MediShield Life, and above all, the need for mindset change on everyone’s part.
Whilst there is general support by both retired and retiring seniors as well as by companies, some of the key questions linger in their minds include: seniors thinking, \"Will there be a change in CPF withdrawal age resulting from this amendment?\" Well, everyone should be quite glad to hear the Minister confirm that there will be no change to the CPF withdrawal date, which incidentally is a sacred cow, a sacred milestone, not to be touched.
Another question is that if they are re-employed to do the same job, will they get the same compensation? How can seniors, even the so-called retired ones, continue to contribute their experience and skills in building and strengthening Singapore?
As for employers, some of the questions they have on their minds may include: how will this impact the cost of doing business? Will senior workers be able to pick up the skills and competencies needed for today’s competitive market? Will they be able to cope with digital disruptions? How do I implement succession planning without being misconstrued as having an ageism attitude? And with millennials in search for meaningful roles, should seniors not be making way for them?
All these are very good questions, and many Members in this House have already touched on quite a few of them.
For me, I am part of the retiring/retired cohort. I consider myself very blessed to be reasonably prepared for my second half. When I was in my 40s, I was recommended the book \"Half Time\" by Bob Buford and that got me thinking. Before I turned 50, I attended Cenacle Sister Linda Lizada's retreat on mid-life transition and that started me planning and praying. Finally, at 60, I said \"yes\" to retirement.
I have been preparing myself for a meaning and purposeful life beyond the IBM employee pass, which I carried for 33 years. Admittedly, however, it was still a moment of truth to be reckoned with when the day actually came. So, for the many who were less prepared than I, and for some who were even caught by surprise, I empathise with them.
I would dare say that most in my generation are generally ill-prepared and cannot quite cope with the drastic physical and physiological change at the point of retirement. We are the Baby Boomer generation, with strong work ethics and most have given their all to their jobs and growing Singapore's economy. So, transitioning from active employment to retirement, for many, is like dropping off a cliff. This experience often leaves the individuals frustrated.
There is a need, therefore, for companies and the communities supported by the Government and civil society to better prepare our senior workers for what I will call the \"shoulder season\". Apparently, this is a travel industry term indicating the time between the high and low travel seasons of a specific destination between the peak and off-peak months. So, I advocate that companies begin a gentle off-ramp programme spread over five years for their employees between 55 and 65 – maybe even 70.
With a longer expected lifespan, even the seniors who do not choose re-employment after having worked for almost 40 years, I advocate that, collectively, we start a new focus on the shoulder season. Let us coin a new life stage. Ringfence this age demographic, define the benefits, including, perhaps, CPF, especially for this life stage, and build a whole new economy with ancillary services and so on around this social tribe. Make it a stage of life that people look forward to.
And, seniors, we need to help ourselves. In a brainstorming session with Singapore Human Resources Institute (SHRI), we came up with some ideas for the Public Service and private sector employers to consider.
Firstly, not everyone wants to continue on full-time basis till the end of their re-employment age. So, organisations will need to be flexible and redesign jobs for part-time work, for shared roles and even cater for permanent work-from-home jobs.
Secondly, organisations could consider offering internal gig jobs, which are skills-based and projects-based. Such gig jobs may already be contracted out today but, if they are offered to employees, will help the employees in this age group to apply the skills that they may have decided to pick up and prepare for their shoulder season. This will also benefit the company as they will be building up their contractual fringe, as termed by Charles Handy in \"The Age of Unreason\", with trusted employees who may, over time, transition to become external associates paid not by wages but by fees for results produced.
Thirdly, more companies could join the career trial for mature workers, which gives both parties a trial period before contracting.
Organisations could also facilitate seniors to transition from their functional roles to be advisors, coaches, trainers so as to pass on their wisdom and experience to the next generation.
Government and the industry could also consider investing in a platform to identify and help match the available supply of senior resources to demand, both paid and voluntary.
Another idea includes, besides restructuring jobs, there is also a need to rethink job positioning, separate seniority, job skill levels and the management span so that it will allow senior civil servants and senior functional heads to continue to contribute in areas where their skill level and experience can be utilised without them feeling that they have been demoted.
Along with these structural changes, the need to step up retraining cannot be over-emphasised.
One other idea is that of reverse-mentoring. SBF Foundation's Employability Fund supports such initiatives and I thought to share this story of one of the companies in this programme.
The mentee, a trans-shipment manager in his late 60s and who has been with the company for three years, is learning how to use technology – the system and the platform of the company – to do his job. Despite his age, he is willing to try and learn. The mentor, a much younger but senior executive who has been with the company for two and a half years, has been helping the mentee to do this virtually due to COVID-19. She scheduled time from her very busy schedule to help the mentee and he has definitely benefited from it. This intergenerational type of engagement is also good for the soul.
For the senior workers, we do need to help ourselves by recognising that performance and attitude are still the best ticket to a mutually satisfying re-employment contract. The senior worker does have to acknowledge their own energy level, their strengths, their ability to contribute, their attitude and mindset, and recognise that compensation should be tied to the job role and not to their seniority.
The executive director of the Singapore National Employment Federation (SNEF) shared with me that Singaporean companies, generally, support the proposed legislation and are open to hiring senior workers.
Many companies, however, do not have the systems and capabilities to execute and are, therefore, very appreciative of the Government's Senior Worker Support Package and the Senior Worker Early Adopter Grant, which are targeted to help companies accelerate enhancement of their company HR policies to support re-employment of mature workers for both full-time and part-time work.
There is also the idea of shared HR services which can serve to enable and support our SMEs to better support the implementation of the legislation and the structural changes needed to achieve the desired outcomes.
Preparing our workers for their shoulder season begins with preparing them through their careers. I would like to advocate a key structural change that needs to be considered in the system.
One, promotion should not be by seniority but, rather, by the individuals' performance and capabilities as demonstrated by their work portfolio, including perhaps a willingness to have short working stints in ASEAN markets and elsewhere.
A second change could be on succession planning. Succession planning is critical for the sustainability of every organisation. So, there should be fair practice policies to embrace diversity and inclusion and not be the excuse for discriminating against older employees to make way for younger staff. So, we should look out for ageism mindset not to set in.
I am also advocating that our tripartite partners and companies provide a different kind of career counselling and coaching for their staff aged between 45 and 55 years of age during the pre-retirement phase.
At this stage of their life, they ought to be enrolled into a mid-career transition programme. This programme should provide the workers with mid-career strategies to help them think about their physical health and financial health, adequacy for retirement, think about their strengths and what keeps them motivated, think about their skills gaps for future jobs with the company or the industry.
It is heartwarming for me to know, when I spoke to quite a few HR officers, that there are a good number of Singapore companies which already, on their own, have HR policies that support keeping their mature workers for as long as they are healthy, able, positive-minded and willing to work. These companies find that mature workers who have been with the company for more than 10 to 15 years are more loyal, job hop less, are more appreciative of having the opportunity to work and more productive because of their experience and skills built up over the years.
I would like to close with a shout-out to all our senior workers who are serving tirelessly in our community in one way or another. To quote Martin Luther King, \"No work is insignificant. All labour that uplifts humanity has dignity.\" I support both Bills.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, retirement is a word that means so many different things to each of us. For the lucky ones amongst us, it brings with it notions of freedom and leisure, golden years where one is no longer a wage slave. On the other end of the spectrum, it brings with it negative connotations of decline, withdrawal and fears about whether the money in the bank account would be enough to stretch to the end of the month.
It is to address this financing of our retirement that prompted the formation of the CPF system in the first place.
Our CPF system was introduced in 1955, before the time when some of our present retirees today were born. Its official mission is to be the bedrock of our social security system, with a strong emphasis on self-reliance.
This is something that we cannot disagree with and, indeed, most of the residents we do meet tell us that they would love to be in a position to help themselves and their families.
Yet, over the years, the changing structure of our economy, demographics and, indeed, the world we live in has meant that many Singaporeans find themselves in a difficult position today, where no matter how hard or fast they run on the treadmill of life, they find themselves unable to keep up and end up falling off and find it next to impossible to get back on again – and not for want of trying.
Our CPF system, as the expressed bedrock of our social security system, has to be sensitive and cognisant of these difficulties experienced by our fellow residents.
Our CPF policies have, as a response to our changing economy and society, evolved and expanded in an attempt to cover functions beyond merely a savings for retirement, to be used to pay for many of lives' expenses – from the funding of the purchase of our homes to paying for medical expenses for ourselves and our family members.
Yet, at the core of it is the notion that our CPF funds must be kept locked up with a special key and that they would only be unlocked at a certain time and in a certain manner. This may be laudable but it is little wonder that many of our residents do approach us for assistance with CPF matters.
I am sure that most of us here in this House have come across cases where a loved one, often the sole breadwinner of the family, either passes away unexpectedly or suffers from a condition that results in them being unable to carry on earning an income.
When such unexpected events happen, family members, more often than not, struggle to process the shock and have to make changes to their daily lives. At the same time, they often find themselves having to deal with the additional stress and paperwork to unlock CPF funds to tide them through difficult times, which not all are well-equipped to tackle even when not dealing with the grief or shock that colours everything in the overwhelming aftermath of such an unfortunate event.
From this perspective, the amendments proposed by clause 50 of the Bill, which allow for greater flexibility and efficiency for disbursement of unnominated monies in the event of a member's death are welcome. These changes allow the Public Trustee to reimburse reasonable funeral expenses incurred by a beneficiary out of the unnominated monies. It also allows the Public Trustee to pay a sum of money up to a specified limit to be released directly to a beneficiary representative for disbursement in accordance with intestacy laws.
However, I would like to request the Minister to clarify what the specified limit would be and how the amount is, ultimately, to be determined. Would it be an amount that changes like the Retirement Sum Scheme?
We also welcome the removal of the ceiling for voluntary contributions to MediSave. This does help to prepare us in an ageing society and gives more flexibility to those who are able to do so to better plan for retirement and care needs while still active in the workforce. However, could we please have further clarity on whether CPF Board has an estimation of how many people would be affected by this?
Moving on to some of the other proposed amendments, I have further comments and would like to seek some more clarifications.
First, we welcome the flexibility introduced in clause 5, allowing a member to withdraw funds from his Retirement Account, subject to the condition that they must be receiving an approved annuity stream that is outside of the CPF. However, I would like to ask for greater clarity on how such other annuity streams are assessed and, ultimately, approved.
Likewise, the same clause introduces automatic withdrawals if the Board is satisfied that the member is suffering from a significant condition, without the need for the member to apply for such withdrawals. The explanatory note further clarifies that this only relates withdrawals from the Ordinary and Special Accounts and not the Retirement Account. If this is on the understanding that the member is extremely ill or incapacitated, it would mean that it would ease the financial and administrative burden on family members who might need to, otherwise, apply through the Courts or otherwise find additional funds to pay for medical bills or living expenses. Could the Minister confirm this is correct?
Would the Minister also please clarify if automatic disbursements would take place in all cases when a member has a significant condition? This may not be necessarily desirable in cases where the financial circumstances of a member could mean that immediate disbursement of funds is unnecessary. Such an automatic disbursement then may deprive the member of interest on these released funds which would be challenging to obtain in other savings accounts.
The final point relates to CPF nominations. The current position is that any nominations for recipients of CPF funds upon a member's death is automatically cancelled upon a member's marriage. Does this remain unchanged with the amendments being proposed?
Mr Deputy Speaker, my clarifications, notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill.
In 2010, 9% of the Singapore’s population was aged 65 years and above. Singapore was then considered as an ageing society. In 2020, 15.2% of our population is above 65 years old. Singapore has transited from an ageing society in 2010 to become an aged society in 2020, just within a span of 10 years. By 2030, it is projected that more than 20% of our population will be 65 years old and above. That is, we will become a super-aged society like Japan. Many economists consider this as a silver tsunami. But how do we turn the silver tsunami into a silver lining?
Well, we need more of a whole-of-Government approach to tackle the issue of a super-aged society. Meanwhile, I would like to make some suggestions over three broad areas.
First, to allow more senior Singaporeans to work as long as possible, where health permits and Singaporeans willing.
Second, have flexible housing arrangements to allow as many elderly people as possible to age at home.
Three, to create a National Volunteer Registry to encourage as many seniors as possible to volunteer when they can. I would suggest to name this programme as the Orange Compass and I would elaborate on the programme later.
Many of us would agree that with better nutrition, better medical advancements and better living conditions in Singapore, Singaporeans live longer. Today’s 65 years old is like 55 years old decades ago. Hence, I totally agree with the amendment in the Retirement and Re-Employment Act to increase the retirement and re-employment age progressively from next year.
Currently, almost 60% of the Singapore’s workforce is in PMET jobs. When they turn 55 years old, their productivity is less likely to decline as compared to the blue-collar workers. Even for the blue-collar workers, many are still fit and healthy at 55 years old, their productivity is unlikely to deteriorate significantly when they turn 55 years old. Hence, it is arbitrary to start reducing the employer’s CPF contribution rate at 55 years old.
I propose that MOM and the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers consider, at the right time and, hopefully, earlier, to reduce the employer’s CPF contribution rate only at 60 years old and not 55 years old. If that is a reality, the employer’s CPF contribution rate for those below 60 years old would remain at 17% before reducing to 14% for those between 60 and 64 years old, and 10% for those between 65 and 69 years old, and 8% for those who above 70 years old.
To mitigate the financial impact on the employers, we certainly hope that MOM will strengthen the senior worker support package to ease the transition.
Next, I support the NTUC’s efforts to urge the employers to redesign work scope, use automation to reduce manual works so that more seniors can continue to work till 70 years old or beyond. Before I continue, I would like to declare my interest as the CEO of ComfortDelGro Taxi.
As part of the efforts to create more jobs for those above 70 years old, I would like the Government to consider increasing the retirement age of taxi drivers to 78 years old progressively, up from the current 75. The retirement age of taxi drivers was last changed and revised in 2012. With more intelligent safety features like autonomous emergency brake and lane departure alert becoming a norm for taxi, it will be safer for older taxi drivers to drive, provided they pass the stringent annual medical screening. Thus, the time is ripe to review the retirement age of taxi drivers.
During my weekly house visits in the past decade, I find that more and more elderly people are staying alone. This is not the most desirable situation. With the successful launch of Community Care Apartments in Bukit Batok, I hope HDB can accelerate the launch of Community Care Apartments in more HDB estates, especially the older towns. To encourage more seniors to take up Senior Housing Bonus scheme, I would like to urge HDB to waive the resale levy. This will also encourage the seniors to monetise their flat for better retirement adequacy.
While waiting for HDB to build more Community Care Apartments, I would like to suggest that MOH and MSF further fund the Senior Activity Centres or SACs at the HDB studio apartments to provide similar services that are planned for the Community Care Apartments. For example, the SACs can provide care and support services as well as simple home fix services to the existing HDB studio apartments.
As we become a super-aged society, it is not tenable to employ more and more foreign workers to take care of the less mobile seniors. The average life expectancy of Singaporean is 84 years old but many are expected to be in poor health in the last 10 years of their life .
Henceforth, it is important to encourage seniors, near retirement age or for those who just retired to remain active and volunteer to help other seniors who are less mobile or in a poorer health situation. In view of the above, I would like to recommend the Government to start a National Volunteer Registry which I would name \"Orange Compass\". The Orange Compass could have the following benefits.
It could encourage more abled seniors to volunteer to earn points and the points earned would be able to be kept in the central registry, preferably using block chain technology.
If we can find sufficient sponsors, the points accumulated can be converted to food vouchers, taxi vouchers and so on to mitigate the cost of living for the seniors that volunteer.
The points earned can also be kept for the future to exchange for services when the seniors become less abled. For example, seniors can volunteer when they are in their 60s and 70s, that is, when they are more abled. When the seniors are in their 80s, they can use the points accumulated in the registry to exchange for services provided by future volunteers to bring them to the hospital for medical check-ups, for example.
The Orange Compass can provide the direction for more abled seniors to volunteer. When the seniors are assured that their volunteer efforts will be recognised, more will volunteer. When the seniors know that their volunteer efforts can be stored securely in the registry and redeem for services in the future, they are more likely to volunteer as well. Let me continue in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, according to the UN definition, a senior is someone who is above 65 years old. In 2010, 9% of our population was aged 65 and above. In 2020, the figure was 15.2%. By 2030, it is projected that more than 20% of our population will be 65 years old and above. In other words, our population is ageing rapidly. Economists often describe an ageing society as a silver tsunami or a silver crisis. Is that really the case?
I believe that with good planning and Singaporeans working together, we will have the opportunity to turn a silver tsunami into a silver lining and we can truly \"see an elder at home as a treasure\". Raising the retirement and re-employment age is the first step, so I support this Bill.
However, legislation is one thing. The more important thing is how Singaporeans treat older workers. Prof Tommy Koh has called on Singaporeans not to discriminate against older workers. Hence, NTUC and SNEF have been working together to accelerate mechanisation and automation, so that blue-collar workers will still be able to do their jobs beyond the age of 65.
In recent years, autonomous driving technology progressed by leaps and bounds. Many taxis are equipped with automatic emergency brake and lane departure alert. Hence, I urge the Government to raise the retirement age of taxi drivers to 78 years old. Of course, older taxi drivers have to go through health checks every year because safety comes first. This way, more older Singaporeans can continue to work beyond the retirement age.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans are better educated over the years and more are using their brain power rather than their physical strength, to contribute to the economy. At the same time, Singaporeans are living longer with medical advancement and accessibility to medical care.
Thus, we need to create an environment for Singaporeans to work as long as possible and as long as they are willing, to meet the requirements of the growing economy, rather than tapping more on the foreign manpower.
Increasing the retirement and re-employment age progressively is definitely the right step in the right direction. Concurrently, we also need to tap on the silver generation for volunteerism as they prepare for retirement. If coordinated well, the Orange Compass can also help to mobilise the untapped resources to turn the silver tsunami into a silver lining.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Singaporeans are living longer, continue to be mentally active, can and want to remain relevant. Relevant to their families, community and society.
Although we have an ageing population, our talent resource in Singapore remains strong. With a more senior and active workforce, we have a strong foundation of capabilities, experience and knowledge for the next generation of workforce to build upon.
A strong baseline of core capabilities coupled with decades of experience can enable our senior workforce to become more agile and acquire new skills quickly. But to do this, we need to better map and acknowledge skillsets so that relevant skills can be transferred and applied in a different and dynamic context.
We must continue to have an open mind to understand the relevance of past experiences and the transference of related skills in different operating context. To view individuals for their strengths and how their strengths can be relevant and accretive. At the same time, the workforce must continue to adopt a lifelong learning attitude, more so with the objective of being relevant for life.
The move to increase the retirement and re-employment age, further removes the barriers and antiquated mindsets of being senior. However, we must also be pragmatic in our implementation, there are realities with getting on with age. But given the speed and depth of digitalisation, the working environment can be highly inclusive.
This is a step in the right direction, but there is much work left to be done. We must make sure that we work hard to unlock this potential.
With changes to the retirement and re-employment age coupled with the tweaks to streamline the CPF system, I look forward to continued employment with more secure retirement outcomes. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support both the Retirement and Re-employment and the CPF Bills.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bills moved by the Minister for Manpower
First, the Bill on Retirement and Re-employment. The proposed amendments give older workers the flexibility and choice, not obligation, to continue working for a longer time if they are willing and able, in line with increases in life expectancy and our ageing population. It gives older workers the opportunity to increase their retirement savings.
Older workers bring invaluable experience to any organisation. We all know colleagues, friends and family members who can, want and do contribute, long past the current retirement age. But it is also true that as a person gets older, sometimes, you lose a little in terms of physical ability but also, mentally, you start to lose a bit of sharpness, speed, drive and other priorities become more important.
So, let us face it, for a number of our older Singaporeans, they just do not want to have to keep working at the same pace or keep having to reinvent themselves, because work can be a grind, especially if you are in an industry that is being disrupted, especially when there are younger co-workers who are eager to move ahead, who are all too happy to, as we say, \"chiong\". And on their part, companies need to be able to create space for these workers to move up the ranks faster.
The re-employment framework has always been given flexibility to employers to adjust re-employment terms and roles. As the pace of change and disruption in industry only continues to grow faster, more effort will be needed, as called out by the Tripartite Workgroup, to promote more inclusive and progressive workplaces, including redesigning jobs and reskilling, providing more part-time re-employment opportunities. Some companies are also looking into how to fractionalise jobs.
When doing these, I urge organisations to engage retiring workers on how best to do this; they are often in the best position to propose the most optimal ways. Indeed, retiring workers can and should also plan and propose it themselves, rather than wait for their employers to do it.
But whether it is redesigned jobs, part-time or fractionalised jobs, more and more older workers may not stay in the same roles when they enter into re-employment contracts. I believe, by and large, older workers will accept that there may be commensurate adjustments to their employment terms – wages or benefits.
In a previous response to Parliamentary Questions, then-Minister for Manpower Mrs Josephine Teo shared that the vast majority of re-employed workers in the same job did not experience any cuts to wages and benefits.
This is comforting, suggesting that the majority of employers are playing ball, in line with the spirit of re-employment. However, many of us would have also received appeals from residents, that this is not always the case, such as for my resident Mdm L. Mdm L had worked for 20 years for her company and had recently retired and been re-employed on a re-employment contract. When COVID-19 forced the company to undertake a retrenchment exercise, like her colleagues, she felt anxious. But that anxiety turned into dismay when she learnt that her retrenchment payouts considered her not as an employee who had served for 22 years as she had, but as an employee who had served for two years, because the re-employment contract reset the clock on retrenchment benefits. Mdm L felt incredibly let down, given her loyalty to the organisation.
Having deemed that a given employee continues to be able to contribute to the organisation by offering re-employment, is it not unfair for retrenchment benefits not to recognise his/her full length of service, especially if nothing else has changed in their roles, but even if the roles have been adjusted a bit?
Mr Deputy Speaker, allowing businesses flexibility to make adjustments when offering re-employment contracts continues to be very important. But it cannot be at the expense of long-serving employees.
As the number of older workers on re-employment contracts increases, as a number of re-employment workers who do not stay in the same jobs but are reassigned to different jobs, redesigned jobs, or other adjustments to their roles, or move to part-time status, more attention and protection should be focused on the fair and dignified treatment of re-employed employees, during moments of truth such as retrenchment exercises, which will remain a feature of the landscape, as technology and other disruptions continue. So, I hope this will be given attention in the implementation of any legislation.
At the same time, we should continue to review the social safety nets afforded to older workers, lower-income ones especially, so that today’s retirees and future generations get the dignified retirement that they have earned.
Notwithstanding the above, I support this Bill.
Now, the CPF Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposed amendments to the CPF Act provide welcome simplification and streamlining of various CPF processes.
I would like to focus only on the proposed amendments related to the disbursements of unnominated monies to a beneficiary representative. The disbursement process today can take a long time and feel quite complex to family members. This is especially the case when there are large families with a claim to the CPF monies.
Recently, I had a Meet-the-People Session (MPS) appeal where the case had been in limbo for more than a year, with several back and forth queries with the Public Trustee Office. The proposed amendments would allow more families to receive payouts sooner, during a difficult time.
The increased efficiency, however, should not come at the expense of the next-of-kin deserving of a share of the funds, particularly in situations where there are family disputes. I would like to clarify with the Minister for Law the following.
What recourse does a next-of-kin have in the event that they do not agree with the appointment of the beneficiary representative, or with how the beneficiary representative disburses the CPF monies? Does it automatically become a private matter to be settled among the beneficiaries, which may or may not result in a Court process or do they continue to have recourse to a public agency which may be more trusted to administer the disbursement process in accordance with the relevant Acts.
Regardless of whether they are named as nominees or the account is un-nominated, what efforts are made to contact and facilitate disbursements to Singaporean family members who are overseas, which is now not an insignificant number, especially in light of continued travel restrictions that may make it difficult for them to come back to settle the affairs?
Notwithstanding the above questions, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I shall speak on the topic of the CPF first. The CPF Fund is central to Singaporeans of all ages. From prospective home buyers to retirees, the CPF is the joint result of the blood and sweat of Singaporeans and their firm trust in our Civil Service. More importantly, it is a crucial safety net that Singaporeans rely upon to support themselves and their loved ones when the unfortunate strikes – the loss of livelihoods, be it due to economic circumstances, age, infirmity or permanent disabilities.
The proposed amendment follows closely to this matter and I welcome two main changes to this Act: first, minimising disruption of the Retirement Account with the use of auto top-up; second, the simplification of the language of the Act to inch it closer towards the common everyday person.
First, the Retirement Account. It takes conscientious effort to maintain and keep track of one's own bank account and this is especially the case for our senior citizens. In our pursuit of the bigger, better and faster, Singapore has rapidly morphed itself into a Smart Nation. The flipside of which is that we risk detaching some of our citizenry as we shed the cocoon of a developing nation. It is an uphill battle for many working adults to help their parents navigate finances, and the myriad of accounts at their disposal only complicates the matter. The auto top-up mechanism streamlines the decision-making process of many retirees, some of which could really benefit from this help. I believe this to be an important first step towards a more user-friendly and accessible CPF.
Second, the simplifying of the language of the Act. Streamlining the headers and process to align the practices with MediSave, for instance, makes the CPF Act more approachable and thereby more effective. Previously, I have raised the issues of the disconnected – both in terms of digital skills and language for the residents in my constituency – and this step signposts an important direction to make the word of the Law the word of our people.
In this simplification, however, it is important that we do not lose nuances that protect the same people we have set out to look out for with these changes. As more complicated terms are stripped down, merged or simplified, we need to be clear the intention behind certain changes, as they are not simply a matter of semantics, but whole matters of inclusion and exclusion.
More specifically, I am concerned with the new definition of \"significant conditions\" in inclusion for the purposes of section 15 and the new section 15AA. It is explained in the Bill that this criterion would be \"similar\" to that of the previous language of \"mental and physical incapacity\". I welcome the new lexicon, foremost because it differentiates a disability from one’s identity better than the previous set of language, but I can imagine this new definition, to which the Minister interprets, might prove to be rather ambiguous until tested by real life cases.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not a matter of mere semantics. Rather, there are two issues from this change I am concerned about.
First, if any existing beneficiaries would be left out because of the change in wording. On this matter, it would be ideal if the Minister can confirm that the new criteria of \"significant condition\" is broader and includes those previously counted under incapacity.
Second, this shift in language can send the wrong message to those who are excluded from withdrawing from their CPF because they cannot meet the criteria. Previously, not being able to withdraw funds, as outlined in section 15AA, would simply mean that they cannot prove that their disabilities incapacitated them. This does not discredit or make light of the condition that they do have; we simply mean that this condition, as bad as it is, does not disempower our residents completely. It is a positive message for those who are rejected, one that affirms that they still have some means to fend for themselves.
By changing the language to turn this into a matter of \"significance\", someone rejected in their application for withdrawal may be misled to believe that the Board and, by extension, the Government, think their condition \"insignificant\". In such matters, sensitivity, reason and flexibility must be applied in the first few cases under this amendment and the process may be messy. It is my responsibility to raise a word of caution on this matter and it is with time that I trust this interpretation will bring about clarity and trust.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I wonder if you have discussed with your parents on the issue of savings. For many senior residents, the best bank for them is called \"under the bed\" and the most reliable retirement fund is called \"secret stash\". I believe that we all have conflicted feelings towards modern finance.
However, for uncles and aunties who are not familiar with ATMs, many are not resentful or fearful towards CPF. This is not because it is easier to navigate the CPF system or because it is more reliable than the banks. On the contrary, for many people, the complexity of CPF can be daunting and this is something that we should improve on.
However, for them, the difference is that CPF is trustworthy. They trust in the character, integrity and commitment of the Government. What is contained in CPF is not just money, but also the blood and sweat and trust of the people. This amendment Bill provides provisions for automatic top-ups so that it is more user-friendly for the uncles and aunties. However, we cannot stay stagnant. We must quicken our steps and allow CPF to become the pillar of a dignified and less stressful retirement life.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, in English. In all, this amendment is in line with what I stand for. It brings law to the ground where it matters, it makes the law easier to understand, it makes the content of the law more useful to the people it is to serve. With time, I trust that the initial ground messiness will be resolved with sensitivity, caution and flexibility of ground issues. These concerns notwithstanding, I support this Bill.
Now, onto the Retirement and Re-employment Act (RRA).
In a country like ours with no natural resources and hinterland, our source of pride and success has always been our people. In a world where seniors begin to comprise a growing proportion of society as people live longer and healthier lives, the continued success of our country hinges on the ability to leverage on the experience and expertise of our older countrymen and women.
This is why the Labour Movement welcomes the impending changes to the statutory limits for the prescribed minimum retirement and re-employment ages, as the Government looks to adapt to our changing demographics in accordance with the recommendations by the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers.
The emerging generation of seniors is perhaps the most well-educated, healthy and capable of their age group in history. They are a diverse, dynamic group with varying interests and passions. Furthermore, medical and technological advancements of today provide the prospects of a full and enriched life even as our seniors continue to age. As people live longer, lives must be viewed through a different set of lenses. Indeed, we are now looking at a 100-year life. Instead of the conventional way of thinking about life in three phases: education up to the early 20s, working life until the 60s and then a long retirement. We must now be prepared for a multi-stage life, perhaps a more flexible life structure where the end goal is no longer retirement and stopping of work, but one where time as a resource is redistributed differently.
Therefore, approaching our silver years in life need not be merely confined to the idea of retirement and fading off into career obscurity, but rather be seen as an opportunity to live meaningful and happier mature years as we continue to contribute to society while staying active and healthy.
At this juncture, I would like to share an inspiring story of my constituent, Mdm Lucy Ho, who is 71 years young. Lucy worked in SIA Engineering for 39 years. After her first retirement, she took a security course from the WDA and is now working in the Singapore Cruise Centre as a security officer. Lucy believes that her continued journey in the workforce not only allows her to be independent, but also empowers her with a sense of self-worth has she is still able to contribute actively to society.
It is for this reason that the RRA remains relevant, as these age requirements serve not to determine the retirement age of Singaporeans, but to protect eager workers from being retired earlier without taking away their choice as to when they wish to stop working. If the RRA no longer exists, there is nothing to stop a company from choosing to reimpose or reintroduce an earlier company retirement and re-employment age. Furthermore, the ongoing pandemic undoubtedly has depleted the life savings for some and the guarantee of employment for our senior employees provides a longer runway to build up their nest egg once again. Therefore, the changes to the statutory limits to increase the RRA thus is a welcomed move as we look to protect our older Singaporeans who desire to work as it gives them a greater sense of job security and clarity while also providing I would say, businesses the opportunity to continue to tap on a pool of experienced workers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, although these changes to the RRA provide greater employment protection for our older workers, I am concerned that such measures might not necessarily hit the nail on the head. There is no doubt that raising the statutory limits further advocates for senior employment. Yet, raising the statutory retirement and re-employment ages may not be meaningful if senior workers are unfairly displaced even before they reach retirement age. Similarly, raising the statutory ages may not translate to more offers of re-employment.
The point I am driving at is that these changes ultimately do not address the fundamental problem of a negative perception towards ageing. Misperceptions about older workers and persistent ageist attitudes regrettably still exist within our social fabric, as many employers worry about being stuck with workers who are unable to adapt to remain competitive and become an increasing liability for their business.
Yet, ageing does not have to always be associated with deteriorating health, disempowerment and dependency. Instead, we can be a society where seniors are empowered, skilled, healthy and active contributors to society. I recall in the early 2000s as Singapore was establishing her strength in the biotechnology field, we tapped on the expertise of cancer researcher Yoshiaki Ito, who at age 63 was then facing forced retirement from a university in Japan. Prof Ito made the move to Singapore in 2002, and along with him, he brought his laboratory members and became a mentor to many other fine researchers who are now part of Singapore's valuable scientific research community. The experience and know-how of seasoned experts like Prof Ito in the early years were crucial building blocks in helping Singapore achieve her status as the regional biotech hub.
The successful integration of senior employees would require a shift in mentality in the workplace that requires a partnership between both employers and senior employees. Employers have to be willing to take the leap of faith and utilise the current Government schemes to hire and retrain mature workers for the benefit of their companies. Likewise, older employees have to be willing and committed to learning and adapting in an ever-changing workplace. Learning does not cease in our teens or early 20s, and as we have longer lifespans, our society must reconcile with the notion that midlife reskilling and upskilling is not merely a passing phenomenon, but a consistent feature in our 100-year lives.
As such, if reskilling and upskilling is to be a mainstay in our workplaces, then I call on the Government to provide greater support and leadership in providing greater and better career guidance to our older workers in order to extend their work life lifespan. Although the Government has provided various avenues through SkillsFuture Singapore and others, more can be done to engage mature workers in their career plans and provide counsel for those navigating these uncharted waters. If we are to extend the productive years of our seniors, we must look to increase the employability of our seniors and provide them with the proper job fits.
Just as we drew on the experience of Mdm Lucy Ho and Prof Ito, we must now look for opportunities to allow Singapore to use the skills of our senior employees despite potential physical or technological limitations.
In conclusion, while this amendment Bill advances our desire to provide greater protection for our older workers, we must also take measures to ensure that our older workers are well supported in this endeavour for lifelong learning as we seek to ensure that our seniors remain employable. These concerns notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Abdul Samad.
Mr Abdul Samad (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, unions have advocated for a raise in retirement age and also re-employment age to provide older workers the opportunity to continue working, only if they wish to do so. On behalf of my fellow union leaders, I would like to put on record that such appeal is not about requiring our workers to work longer, but more so providing the platform for our workers who still want to continue working, not forcing them as it may be perceived.
We believe our older workers can continue earning an income to help meet ongoing living expenses and also strengthen their retirement adequacy. NTUC believes that \"having a job is the best welfare\". Workers still have the choice to retire early if they decide to do so.
I would like to share with this House on some of the works that our union leaders and NTUC had started much earlier. If I recall correctly, back in the 2018 Budget debate, NTUC had called for tripartite discussion to review the long-term retirement and re-employment ages. Thereafter, a Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers was convened in May 2018 to review the retirement and re-employment ages and also to consider adjustments to the CPF contribution rates for Older Workers. NTUC then engaged close to 500 union leaders across the services, industrial and public sectors over multiple focus group discussions to hear not just the aspirations that workers have but also their concerns. After several engagement sessions with leaders, our NTUC representatives, Deputy Secretary Gennerals Heng Chee How and Ms Chiam Hui Fong, and my fellow Central Commitee leaders Brother Phillip and Sister Eileen relayed our collective views to the tripartite workgroup.
The workgroup also studied overseas models of retirement and re-employment to analyse best practices that may aid in their tripartite discussion. From their studies, the workgroup then proposed several recommendations prior to raising the retirement and re-employment ages progressively starting in 2022 and not later than 2030. In addition, they also recommended that CPF contribution rates for our older workers from age 55 to 70 have to be raised accordingly.
Notwithstanding the two factors above, the key to successfully raising the retirement and re-employment ages is creating an inclusive and progressive workplace. This means that employers proactively discuss and apply a structured career development plan with their older workers. This will then allow for training and job redesign to raise productivity and longevity at the workplace. Employers must also be encouraged to provide more re-employment opportunities to retain these experienced workers.
Sir, I would like to highlight some recommendations from the workgroup and share some ground feedback.
Our workers cannot be terminated on grounds of age, assurance for continued employment up to the statutory re-employment age and not forgetting allowing our employers to redesign jobs. The role of our fellow workers will have to be reviewed not just with age but also emergence of new technology. This conversation has to start early for our fellow workers, not limiting to just at age of mid-50s. The job redesign is critical so that our fellow workers go for training early and as they age, they can be less physical but more productive with use of technology in their course of work. NTUC can offer our Company Training Committee, or in short CTC, as the platform to train and prepare our workers for re-employment, company by company.
Sir, currently there are already several support measures provided by Government to employers to offset the cost to re-employ our fellow old workers. Measures such as Senior Worker Support Package and the Early Adopter Grant. Employers should be using such schemes to provide re-employment opportunities to workers. Employers should no longer cite cost of hiring or business needs as an expense of having an experience worker at the workplace. Hopefully, such grants terms can be further enhanced to encourage more employers be early adopters and not wait till 2030.
I would like to urge employers to continue to do their part in helping our fellow mature Singaporean workers to continue working if they want to and tap on their experience to guide and mentor the younger workforce.
Sir, I would like to reiterate that unions calling for this raising of RA and REA is not about us wanting our fellow Singaporeans to work longer but, doing our part as unions to ensure our fellow workers that are able and wish to work longer can continue to do so. There will also be workers who may not want to continue working, and hence that is another beauty of this Bill as it does not enforce workers to work longer, but instead, make employers exercise their responsibility to allow older workers to work longer if they want to. Sir, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Raising age limits under this Act is a measure taken by the Government following several recommendations by the Tripartite Workgroup in 2019. As a worker there are some points that I would like to raise.
First, employers need to conduct early planning for employees by reviewing their jobs. Employers should accept that early planning is important to give their workers confidence that they can still contribute and continue to work longer. I urge employers to make early preparations for their employees and avoid waiting until the employee approaches the retirement age. Employers should also realise that there are many assistance grants to help them continue employing their workers. Avoid focusing too much on the financial cost of retaining your employees, who have been with them from the beginning.
Secondly, this Act does not compel a worker to work until old age. Instead, it is available only for those who wish to continue working for their own reasons.
The unions and the Labour Movement will continue to serve by giving recommendations to employers and the Government only for those workers who wish to continue working. For those who do not wish to continue working, you can carry on with your retirement plans.
This brings me to my last suggestion for those who opt to retire early. We know that the amendments to this Act are also related to the Central Provident Fund Act. I would like to appeal to the Government to study whether the workers' CPF monies can be withdrawn much earlier for those who choose to retire before the statutory age. This can help ease their financial burden so that they can have a life using the money they had earned when they were working.
Mr Speaker, as this Act does not compel a person to work longer, I would like to ask that the Government consider my appeal for an earlier withdrawal of the CPF, instead of having to wait until they are 65 years old.
(In English): The journey post retirement for a worker always requires some thought. From my engagement with retired workers, it is a real stigma to wake up the next day with no employment and wondering what is next. I remind myself and fellow workers to have a plan early on what to do upon retiring. We should avoid working actively, if possible, at that age, and spend time catching up with our hobbies and what we may have missed or not able to do so earlier.
On this ground, I hope the Government can be flexible to allow CPF LIFE payout to be earlier at the time when the worker decides to retire. I am also aware that more Singaporeans are even topping up their CPF to earn better interests and payout. However, not many are fortunate to be in this condition. Hopefully, the Government can consider this appeal for our workers to enjoy their retirement years with a steady income.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the above, I support this Bill and appeal to all employers to exercise this Bill with improved benefits to reflect your appreciation to our older workers.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill. I would first like to declare that I am a practising lawyer.
Since last year, CPF members have been able to log in to the CPF portal and nominate their beneficiaries using Singpass. Earlier in February this year, the Minister had, in response to my written Parliamentary Question, shared that more than two in five CPF members have made a nomination as of 1 February 2021. I believe and I am confident, that we can do better to improve this figure.
Many Singaporeans may still be unaware that making their CPF nominations before their passing will benefit and bring much convenience to their loved ones.
If a person does not nominate a CPF beneficiary before their own demise, the CPF Board will instead take up to three weeks upon the member's passing to transfer the monies to the Public Trustee Office (PTO) after accounting for transactions such as MediSave deductions for hospital bills. The PTO will then begin searching for eligible beneficiaries under the law after that. Furthermore, I understand that the PTO will then typically disburse the un-nominated CPF monies within four weeks after the eligible beneficiaries submit the required documents and pay an administrative fee.
I am therefore glad to learn that one of the amendments brought about from this amendment Bill aims to achieve more expeditious payouts by allowing the PTO to disburse un-nominated CPF monies to a beneficiary representative.
In this regard, can the Ministry share how the amendment will assist in shortening the timeframe for issuing the un-nominated CPF monies to the eligible beneficiaries?
Apart from streamlining and expediting the release of funds for the un-nominated cases, I believe that we can do more to encourage Singaporeans to make their CPF nominations, as that will allow their CPF monies to be distributed to preferred beneficiaries faster and without incurring fees.
In the past year, it has been heartening to see the efforts made by the Government in raising awareness in this aspect through short skits featuring the famous Liang Xi Mei character and estate planning workshops organised by various Community Clubs (CCs) with partners such as The Law Society of Singapore.
Apart from these efforts to raise awareness amongst Singaporeans regarding the importance of making CPF nominations, I believe that we should also introduce more tangible benefits to encourage more people to do so.
Currently, the Registry of Births and Deaths would notify the CPF Board upon registering a member's death, who would then distribute nominated CPF monies, typically within a month of the member's passing.
During the Budget debate earlier this year, I stressed on the importance of releasing the funds expeditiously to the deceased's family and subsequently shared with the CPF Board several anecdotes about my Woodgrove residents who became financially strapped and approached me for assistance when their pillar of support passed away unexpectedly.
Making life easier for a deceased's loved ones should be approached as a practical pushing factor for one to make their CPF nominations during their lifetime.
I hope the Ministry can look into revising the existing SOPs such that upon the passing of those who have made their CPF nomination, the CPF Board will automatically trigger a notification and an immediate upfront payout of $10,000 will be transferred to the nominee via PayNow to the nominee's bank account. The nominee can then use this sum to defray the funeral expenses of the deceased.
Next, the CPF Board should target to release the remaining sum to the nominee within seven days after that, which will come just in time to alleviate the family's financial burden. Typically, the family will, after completing the deceased's funeral and cremation, begin to discuss how to resolve the other estate-related issues pertaining to the deceased, such as the need to expend more costs in engaging a lawyer to apply to the Court for either a Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration.
In the Homes-Rahe Stress Scale, the death of a loved one, particularly a spouse or parent, is ranked as the most stressful life event, while a divorce is ranked second.
Mavis Hetherington, a renowned professor of Psychology, and a leading researcher on the impact of divorce on children's development, once stated that \"divorce is not a single event, but a process of transitions affecting the entire family\". Such stressful periods may cause a grieving family member to overlook certain vital matters, such as the remaking of one's CPF nomination.
During the series of law awareness talks on estate planning that I have conducted over the years in the community, I have held numerous polls to determine if residents are aware that marriage automatically revokes CPF nominations while divorce does not. What I learned was that majority of the participants actually knew that marriage automatically revokes CPF nominations. I believe the credit of such high awareness should go to the dedicated CPF team for diligently sending out written notifications to remind members to make fresh nominations upon their marriage. However, most of the residents were surprised to learn that divorce does not automatically revoke the nomination made previously upon their marriage.
I am assuming that the CPF Board's rationale could be that the nominations made during the marriage may have been meant to benefit the children from the marriage and thus, need not be automatically revoked.
But to avoid such unnecessary controversial family disputes from arising between the estate of the deceased with the nominated beneficiary, perhaps the Ministry can consider adopting the same approach by sending a notification to a member upon their divorce to remind them about a possible need to consider making a new nomination. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many Singaporeans may not know that CPF nominations made before marriage will lapse immediately after marriage, but nominations made after marriage will not lapse after divorce.
In the event of a divorce or loss of family members, people often feel helpless and forget the need to amend their CPF nominations.
Therefore, I hope that the relevant authorities can consider giving a gentle reminder to CPF members upon knowing that their nominated beneficiaries are divorced or have passed away, to consider nullifying their previous nominations and make a new nomination.
(In English): In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my requests for clarification and suggestions, I stand in support of this amendment Bill.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments to the Retirement and Re-employment Act which will pave the way for our retirement and re-employment ages to reach 65 and 70, respectively, by 2030. This will offer more protection to older workers who are able to and want to continue working, whether it is for financial reasons or to remain meaningfully engaged in the economy and community.
However, some residents had shared their concerns with me about the potential impact on the CPF withdrawal age. I hope that the Ministry will continue to reassure CPF members through public education and outreach programmes that this amendment Bill will not change the CPF withdrawal age.
Most of us will experience some changes to our health and stamina as we age, and this will affect the intensity and type of work which we can take up for re-employment jobs. I would like to ask the Ministry to share an update, with data and information on the numbers, percentages and gender of seniors who have been re-employed. What sectors are they in? Are they working in large corporations or SMEs, local or foreign companies? What about the nature of their work? How many of these are flexible arrangements, part-time and full-time positions? Does the Ministry have a breakdown of the salaries across sectors, occupations and genders?
I appreciate the various incentive schemes to encourage companies to hire senior workers such as the Part-time Re-employment Grant and the Senior Worker Early Adopter Grant.
Would the Ministry share with the House how has the response been to these programmes so far? What are the take-up rates and how many senior workers have benefited from the scheme? What is the breakdown of the various sectors and type of companies which had applied for the grants?
Would the Ministry also share updates on the Senior Worker Support Package, which includes the Senior Employment Credit and CPF Transition Offset?
As our SMEs employ so many Singaporeans, will there be additional measures to incentivise and support them in our collective effort to keep our senior employees in the workforce?
Although we are improving in our drive to be more embracing of older workers, age discrimination continues to persist in some pockets of our economy. What more can be done to minimise this?
Finally, I would like to conclude with my support for the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill as well.
Among the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers' recommendations is the raising of CPF contribution rates for senior workers aged above 55 to 70. This will certainly help with providing greater assurance of retirement adequacy, as will the changes to the CPF Act, which will make it easier for members to build up their CPF savings and receive retirement payouts. Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the CPF must provide Singaporeans with a home, old age support, social safety net and protection. Under the home ownership policy, Singaporeans can purchase a HDB flat using their CPF. In addition to providing retirement payouts, CPF also allows residents to have a health insurance.
Singaporeans born after Independence would have a certain amount of CPF fund to help them live through their old age. It is only the older generation that needs the Government's and their families' support to thank them for their efforts in nation building.
What is worrying now is the new jobs and industries that have emerged in the new digital age. Workers in these industries may not have sufficient CPF protection and this will have a far-reaching impact on their retirement security in the future.
Here, I would like to ask the Minister the following questions.
First, how many workers in related industries are currently not covered by CPF?
Second, how many people have insufficient minimum retirement deposits in their CPF but have homes that can be monetised with the assistance of Lease Buyback Scheme or other schemes to provide old age security?
Third, how many people can continue to mortgage HDB flat or private properties to CPF to reach the minimum retirement sum?
Fourth, how many people would like to make more CPF deposit or contributions personally but had been rejected? Can the Government consider allowing them to increase their deposits?
Fifth, can the Government consider allowing and encouraging donations to third-party CPF accounts to promote a caring society?
Sixth, can the Government provide more incentives to mothers' CPF to encourage fertility?
Seventh, can the Government allow children to not ask their parents to refund payments made from their children's CPF when purchasing the HDB flat?
Eighth, can parents allow their children to return education fees paid from their CPF account without any deadline?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, CPF is an important institution to help Singaporeans prepare for their retirement. It affects Singaporeans in a direct and tangible way.
I support the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill, which grants greater flexibility in CPF rules and simplifies various CPF processes. This will allow CPF to better support Singaporeans at various milestones in their lives.
That said, I have three points of clarification to make.
First, I seek clarification on what will be considered a \"significant condition\", particularly in relation to auto-immune diseases.
The new section 15AA allows withdrawals to be made by members who have not reached 55 years of age but are suffering from a significant condition. Additionally, the amended section 77 will provide that the Minister may make regulations, including to provide that a condition is a significant condition only if approved by the Minister and causes disability of a description or to an extent specified by the Minister.
Can the Minister confirm that this is not intended to limit all significant conditions to only conditions that cause disability and that the Minister retains broad discretion in determining what conditions are deemed significant conditions?
Can the Minister also clarify if serious auto-immune diseases, such as those included under the Chronic Diseases Management Programme (CDMP), will be considered and included as significant conditions?
Early withdrawals will ease the burdens on these patients by giving greater liquidity to manage their finances. The increased financial support and flexibility by allowing CPF withdrawals before reaching 55 years of age would be immensely helpful to patients of auto-immune diseases.
My second clarification relates to the reimbursement of funeral expenses on the death of a member with no CPF nomination. The new section 25A provides for the reimbursement of reasonable funeral expenses but only to a beneficiary, which would be persons entitled to the CPF monies under various rules.
In reality, funerals are often arranged expediently upon a person's death. Loved ones may not know how much CPF funds are available, how much they can use and, indeed, whether they are even beneficiaries at all. This may lead to confusion and stress over funeral arrangements.
I have three suggestions that would help.
One, can the Ministry publish guidelines or a framework to help beneficiaries understand how much funeral expenses will the CPF Public Trustee typically agree to defray?
Two, can the Ministry expedite the process of informing beneficiaries of their nomination and of the CPF funds available upon a member's death?
Three, can the Ministry allow the Public Trustee to reimburse reasonable funeral expenses to a wider class of beneficiaries who have incurred these expenses in good faith?
The death of a loved one is always painful. I am glad this Bill helps soften the blow and I hope the CPF Board will consider my suggestions to take further steps in that direction.
My third clarification relates to the option to apply for a refund of money transferred to top up Retirement Accounts before 1 November 2008.
Currently, I understand that Retirement Account top-ups before November 2008 are returned to the giver when the recipient passes away. The repeal of section 19A changes this and such top ups are no longer returned to the giver. What are the reasons for this change?
Members who made top ups before 1 November 2008 would have done so based on their understanding of the rules at that time. Certainty of the rules is important for members to have confidence in our CPF system. By changing the rules and allowing a period for refunds, could this lead to a risk of an exodus of funds from Retirement Accounts as members choose to exercise this option?
Will exceptions be made to allow for the prior rules to apply to members with valid reasons?
Next, the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill proposes to give our older workers the option to work longer if they choose to do so. Our older workers are treasure troves of experience and our younger workforce has much to learn from them. I support this legislative move to allow them the flexibility to work longer should they wish to do so.
In line with this short Bill, I have three short points of clarification to make.
My first point is about the minimum retirement age. Section 4 of the Act is being amended to constrain the minimum retirement age the Minister can prescribe. Currently, the Minister can prescribe a minimum retirement age of anywhere between 62 and 67 years. With the new amendment, that range shrinks to between 62 and 65 years.
Can the Minister clarify why this range has been reduced? I understand the Government's current plans are only to raise the minimum retirement age to 65 by 2030. Is the amendment merely to align the new law with the Government's stated plans or is there some other reason for legislatively tying the Minister's hands on this matter?
My second point is about differentiated retirement and re-employment ages. The Bill appears to tweak the Minister's power to specify retirement and re-employment ages.
The Bill empowers the Minister to prescribe each age to \"any class of employees\". This is new language not present in the current Act. The term \"class of employee\" is not defined in the Act or in the Bill.
Can the Minister share whether this change is meant to give the Minister the power to apply a differentiated retirement age and re-employment age to different types of employee?
Can the Minister share if the Ministry has plans to apply differentiated retirement and re-employment ages to employees in different sectors?
My last point is close to my heart. Today's Bill is about senior workers but I would also like to emphasise the importance of senior volunteers, which I know is outside the scope of the Bill. Specifically, I would like to emphasise the importance of not discriminating against seniors who serve in volunteer roles.
We have made a strong stand on discrimination at workplaces based on age. We are now proposing to increase the retirement and re-employment ages to give people the opportunity to work longer.
Can we also ensure that there is no discrimination based on age when it comes to volunteerism? It seems contradictory to say that someone is not too old to work but is too old to volunteer.
Volunteers may start their community involvement only late in their lives. They should be given the opportunities to serve for an appropriate amount of time. I do agree in leadership renewal but restrictions on leadership tenure should be based on time served and not age.
It is clear that volunteers help to shape our society and country into a better place. They make time, despite their busy schedules and out of the goodness of their heart, to help others. If a senior volunteer's age does not hinder his or her performance in any way, there is no reason why they should be discouraged from continuing their good work.
We should be rewarding them instead for their kindness and desire to give back to our society. In the same spirit of this Bill, senior volunteers should not be discriminated against and we should similarly take a strong stand on this.
Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of both Bills.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our workforce is ageing rapidly. There is an urgency to review our retirement and re-employment, or R&R, framework to prolong our workforce's longevity. This is important to drive economic activity.
As our seniors live longer and healthier lives, their expectations for living standards will increase. Raising the R&R ages makes it possible for seniors to stay productive and enjoy greater financial independence.
However, it is not uncommon to hear stories of seniors facing difficulties seeking employment in their silver years. I have five issues to raise.
First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must ensure that senior workers are employed in meaningful roles. These would be jobs that match their skill sets, experiences or interests.
It is heartening to note that the employment rate of those aged 65 and above has increased from 27.6% in 2019 to 28.5% in 2020 despite a pandemic-ravaged economy. However, we need to go beyond numbers to get more insights into the employment landscape for seniors.
Can the Minister share data on the types of professions and roles that seniors are employed in? How many were successfully re-employed in different sectors from their previous roles? How many were re-employed in the same sector but in different roles?
From my conversations on the ground, I understand that many employees who have reach the retirement age are actually not re-employed. Others were constructively dismissed by employers who deliberately reduce their working hours, responsibilities and consequently, their salary and benefits without prior consultation. This indirectly pressurised the senior to leave on his own accord.
One Yio Chu Kang resident who was in a managerial position shared that he was asked to relinquish his position so that the company could groom a younger employee to take over. He thought this was a fair intention but he expected to take on a mentorship role. Instead, they offered him an entry-level position that was completely unrelated to his previous job scope, skill set and interest. Feeling insulted, he decided to resign and accept the Employment Assistance Payment (EAP). It was worth noting that his HR manager did not even ask why he rejected the re-employment offer.
When re-employment does not work out, getting a new job after 62 can be a tall order due to the misconceived notion that older employees are less productive, amongst other things.
In a February 2020 survey on ageism in the workplace, older workers were stereotypically ranked lower in alertness, ambition, productivity and so on. They were ranked higher in susceptibility to accidents and resistance to innovation and change.
These findings are not true across the board. They can severely dampen seniors' employability. Such beliefs may likewise ingrain ageism. They may lead seniors to sense that age, by default, limits opportunities. This stiffens their morale and desire to retrain or upskill for career advancement.
It is interesting to note that a highlight of the MOM Labour Force Report 2020 was the increased number of discouraged workers concentrated in older residents. If employers do not change their mindsets, we will lose precious human capital.
Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, both employers and employees need to adjust their mindsets and expectations about re-employment. Many companies still use a seniority-based wage system, translating to the belief that wages should rise annually. Correspondingly, older employees are perceived by employers to be more expensive. Last year, middle-aged and senior residents who have lost their jobs would tell me that they were more than willing to accept a pay cut for their new job. However, prospective employers have assumed otherwise, simply because of their age.
The mindset that a wage system is necessarily based on age needs to be phased out. This is especially so in this era, where we expect to change careers multiple times in a lifetime. When we start a new job in a different industry with fewer responsibilities and relevant skills, we, generally, do not expect to command a similar salary to our previous job. Likewise, if a re-employment contract stipulates fewer job responsibilities, it is fair for the salary and benefits to be reduced correspondingly. Basically, we should pay an employee based on his worth.
On the other hand, changing someone’s responsibilities without consulting them in advance may result in unnecessary misunderstandings and misconceptions. Companies should be upfront and discuss such issues with employees who are due for re-employment and ask about their plans and aspirations moving forward. The employee should also be consulted on his or her ability to cope with the demands of the position. If the company would like to offer the employee a different role, clarifying their intentions would go a long way to reduce misgivings and increase retention rates. There must be a way to implement and promote these conversations for all our employers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my third point pertains to the timeline for raising the retirement age. The timeline from now until 2030 appears to be unnecessarily prolonged. Many things can happen in 10 years. The decision to raise the retirement age to 63 was deferred once because of COVID-19. How can we ensure that the plans to raise the R&R ages will not be affected yet again? As many companies will look to the Government to take reference, what is the timeline for the Civil Service to implement the raise?
Furthermore, what is next beyond 70 years old? Will we raise the ages again? Or will we abolish the retirement age altogether? A number of countries, including Australia, Canada, the UK and the US, have no mandatory retirement age, with exceptions made for certain professions.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my next point is on the impact of COVID-19 on workforce transformation. This has an impact on the R&R framework. One such change is the acceptance of flexible working hours and arrangements. Some seniors may choose to work less or work from home more, because they want to spend their retirement years with their family or to pursue their own interests. Others may no longer be fit to work long hours at a stretch, but are still willing to contribute. We should capitalise on workforce transformation to encourage and support employees who have job-sharing and flexible working hours as part of their re-employment options. Have such workforce changes been taken into account for the R&R framework revision?
The pandemic has posed a threat to senior workers in some ways. Some elderly frontline workers have resigned from their jobs as they were afraid to contract COVID-19. We have to press on to leverage more on technology to redesign jobs, so that they are less labour-intensive and can be done remotely. This will increase job inclusiveness, so they can be done with reduced risks and lower demands physically or mentally. I am pleased to note that redesigning jobs at the workplace is among the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers recommendations. Can the Minister share more details about this? Specifically, whether there is a specific timeline for the expected progress and what can employees expect from the redesigned jobs?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my last point is on CPF payouts and contributions. Many of my senior residents are concerned about the impact of raising the retirement age on CPF payouts and Silver Support. They worry that if the retirement age was to go up further, so, too, will the CPF withdrawal age and Silver Support Scheme eligibility age. This worries the lower-income residents, who have less confidence in achieving the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) by 65. Will the Government increase the BRS? The current recommendations only mentioned the BRS until 2022. What will it be in 2023 and beyond? Furthermore, what are the Government’s plans to assist lower-income Singaporeans to achieve the BRS?
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, raising the R&R ages must be accompanied by policies and mindset changes. This is to support Singaporeans to stay in the workforce for as long as they desire. In Yio Chu Kang, I spoke to two residents, both 62 years old and currently employed. Mdm A would consider putting off retirement plans, if her working hours can be reduced. She wants to spend more time with her family and her grandchildren and pursue her interest in calligraphy. The additional income from her part-time work would supplement her retirement savings. On the other hand, another resident, Mr B, wants to continue working full-time to accumulate more retirement funds. He is concerned that his employer would not re-employ him on the same terms as before. He works in an office and does not believe his workload should be reduced or changed because of his age.
The difference in attitudes between both seniors is a reminder that there is no one-size-fits-all policy. As a progressive society that strives for a senior-friendly workforce, we must avail more employment options so that seniors like Mdm A would not have to choose between working full-time and leaving the workforce completely. Meanwhile, seniors like Mr B, should be able to contribute their fullest potential to the workforce for as long as they wish. This would be facilitated by raising the R&R ages. Their fears and anxieties about age discrimination are valid. We must continue to engage employers, with the goal of eradicating ageism. Employers, too, must communicate with their employees to understand their wishes and to bring out the best in their senior workers.
Finally, as our workforce becomes older and more age-diverse, we need to encourage Singaporeans to continue working and to contribute meaningfully to society for as long as possible. We need to keep the support structures and the assurance that they will receive their CPF payouts. Retirement should not become a problem but, rather, a milestone to look forward to. I support the Bills.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order No 2(5)(d), I propose to extend the time of this day’s Sitting beyond the moment of interruption for a period of 30 minutes. Ms Ng Ling Ling.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of both amendment Bills.
I would first like to start by affirming the efforts of MOM in introducing the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill to prohibit dismissal of employees on the grounds of age by legislating the minimum retirement age at 65 and increasing the statutory limits for re-employment age from 67 to 70 years old.
Given Singapore’s demographic shifts towards an ageing population and the longer life expectancy of Singaporeans, it is inevitable that many of us will have to continue working for a longer period. According to MOM’s Comprehensive Labour Force Survey, as of 2020, 25.7% of our labour force is 55 and older. This is a 9.2% increase from a decade ago. As Singapore moves towards a more inclusive workforce that recognises the increased contributions of our older workers, I would like to make three clarifications to ensure that our older employees are safeguarded from unfair employment practices when offered re-employment.
Firstly, MOM released the Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-Employment of Older Employees, which took effect on 12 October 2020. On wage adjustment, the tripartite guidelines stated that \"Upon re-employment, any wage adjustment should be based on reasonable factors, such as productivity, duties, responsibilities and wage system”. Although the tripartite guidelines allow for “the wages to be adjusted down to the level of a younger employee with the requisite experience and competency for the same job\", I would like to clarify what are the safeguards in place to prevent employers from disincentivising older employees by overtly reducing their salary, knowing that they need to be re-employed. Continued employment may remain an important channel for older workers to meet their expenditure needs, especially the lower-income earners. Having contributed their years before retirement in an organisation and hoping to be valued for their contributions, older workers should not be expected to be short-changed in re-employment terms and benefits to continue their service with the employer.
Secondly, I understand the Bill has set forth in section 8A a conciliation process for employers who have re-employment disputes. I would like to clarify, to date, how many employees with re-employment disputes have been directed to an approved mediator for conciliation and how many of these conciliations are successful. I would also like to clarify what is the average timeline expected for such conciliation between employers and employees. It is important that the timeline for these conciliations be short, with amicable solutions reached by both parties, so as not to overtly bring hardship to employees seeking re-employment, especially those who require the job for their livelihood.
Third, one of the main eligibility criteria for re-employment set out in section 7, subsection(1)(b)(ii) of the Bill is that the employer will assess the employee as \"being medically fit to continue working\". With increased retirement age, there would be a proportional increase of those with multiple chronic diseases. The \"Transitions in Health, Employment, Social Engagement and Intergenerational Transfers in Singapore\" study showed that, in 2017, around 37% of respondents reported three or more chronic health conditions, up from 19.8% in a 2009 study.
Given the higher prevalence of chronic illnesses in an older workforce, I am concerned that irresponsible employers can use it to disadvantage older workers and justify not to offer re-employment on the grounds of medical fitness when they are having common chronic illnesses. Although subsection (2) of the Bill states that the employers have to prove on a balance of probabilities that the employee is not medically fit, I would like to clarify what are the safeguards to assure that chronic illnesses would not be used to unfairly disadvantage older workers from being regarded as medically fit.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I strongly believe the importance for our seniors to age gracefully and with dignity. Our seniors remain important contributors of our economy and society, sharing their wealth of experiences and valuable skillsets while mentoring younger employees. Thus, legislation is critical to prohibit dismissal on grounds of age and safeguarding their re-employment rights if they wish to continue with their employment. This amendment is an important step in sending out the right signals to the employers that diversity of age at work remains an important driver to increase productivity and allow their business to grow, especially when older employees possess subject-matter expertise and are observed to have lower turnover rates.
Now, on the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill, since its inception in 1955 as a compulsory retirement savings programme, our CPF system has been the bedrock of our social security system, which ensures that the seniors can retire comfortably and be financially independent during their golden years.
I would like to raise three clarifications about the Bill relating to the disbursement of CPF monies, voluntary contributions to the MediSave account, and payment by the Public Trustee to beneficiary representatives.
Firstly, I understand that the amendment Bill will allow CPF Board to make automatic disbursements to members after being satisfied that the member is suffering from a \"specified significant condition\" by regulations made under the new section 77(1) of the amendment Bill. Currently, CPF Board already allows members to apply for withdrawals if they are certified to have a reduced life expectancy or severe medical conditions that cause members to be permanently unfit for work or lack mental capacity. I would like to clarify if there can be more specificity on how the \"significant conditions\" will be decided in the proposed amendment Bill to be adopted.
I have an encounter with one of my residents, Mdm A, who suffers from a rare and incurable disease characterised by progressive problems with movements and may shorten life expectancy. Mdm A approached me for assistance because she has been using her CPF monies to support her only son's studies, and as she is suffering from this medical condition, she hopes to appeal for the waiver of her son’s repayment. As a mother myself, I can fully understand the intention of Mdm A to support her son through his studies while she is able to, without expectation of repayment.
I would like to know whether the examples like the encounter I have mentioned will constitute as a \"specified significant condition\" and whether flexibility can be given to waiver of repayments under some of the CPF schemes, such as the CPF Education Loan Scheme, if the CPF member suffers from such \"significant condition\". In addition, can the Ministry also clarify if CPF Board will be conducting periodic reviews of the type of specified significant conditions, in order to keep up with newer medical conditions that would be eligible for such withdrawals?
Secondly, the amendment Bill proposed the removal of CPF annual limit for certain types of voluntary contributions to the MediSave account. This means that CPF members can make greater voluntary contributions to their MediSave account to prepare them for the \"rainy days\", where they may face the possibilities of medical emergencies and can use their MediSave to cover a significant portion of medical costs and hospitalisation bills.
However, I have also come across elderly residents in my constituency who are healthy and raised concerns over the underutilisation of their MediSave balance, requesting if their MediSave funds can be reallocated into their Retirement Account. It is understandable that individuals who have made excess voluntary contributions to their MediSave account during their productive work life, but do not have much health issues or incur much medical costs, would want to use that money for their retirement living expenses instead. Thus, I would like to clarify if after lifting the CPF annual limits for voluntary contributions made to the MediSave account, will CPF Board also allow CPF members to reallocate their additional voluntary contributions into other accounts, such as their Retirement Account (RA), if they so choose to in the future?
Lastly, the amendment Bill also provides for a new and simplified process for the distribution of un-nominated CPF monies by the Public Trustee on a member's death to a \"beneficiary representative\" for distribution to the beneficiaries, in accordance with the Intestate Succession Act or section 112 of the Administration of Muslim Law Act. It allows a beneficiary of the deceased member to apply to the Public Trustee to become a beneficiary representative.
Although the application will be subject to the approval of the Public Trustee, I am concerned that there is a lack of recourse if the beneficiary representative fails to exercise fairness in distribution of the CPF monies according to the Acts. I am also concerned that the beneficiary representative may unreasonably withhold the monies from some beneficiaries. Thus, I would like to seek clarification on: one, how the application process will be done to identify the beneficiary representative and two, how the Public Trustee intends to ensure that the welfare of the remaining beneficiaries will be taken care of.
Mr Speaker, with the expected increase in retirement age to 65 and re-employment age to 70 by the end of the decade, periodic review of the CPF system is crucial to ensure that the key pillar of our social security system is kept up-to-date. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the amendment Bills.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the life expectancy of Singaporeans has increased to almost 85 years, compared to 76 years back in 1990. According to MOH's action plan for successful ageing, about 25% of our population will be over 65 by 2030 and the United Nations projects this percentage to be almost one in two by 2050. The ageing population narrative is not an unfamiliar one.
Our leaders saw it as an eventuality that happens to most developed countries. Due to a multitude of factors, people are living longer and having fewer children. One of the differences between Singapore and the rest of the developed world is the speed at which it has happened, along with the other limitations we have, such as, our reliance on our people as a main resource. The challenges of an ageing population are multi-faceted, spanning from retirement adequacy, healthcare readiness and, with relevance to this Bill, their place in the workforce.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while I stand in support of this Bill, I would like to also make the point that seniors work for a variety of reasons, some to keep active and meaningfully occupied, but not every senior who works wants to work. Some do it out of necessity due to financial, familial and a variety of other circumstances too numerous and too personalised for us to paint broad strokes over.
Having said that, I lend my support to this Bill in the spirit of protecting the seniors who make up an important part of our workforce and who want to continue to work. In cultures like Japan, seniority is looked upon with a reverence both in and out of the workplace. Honorifics are given to the elderly as recognition of the experience that time has given them. While it may not be practical to fully adopt the same cultural dynamics, we would do well to remember that both in and out of the workplace, our seniors bring much value, mentorship and expertise.
This Bill keeps our seniors' options open if they want to work and protects against wrongful dismissal, giving our older workers some security and clarity. There is no magic switch which flicks when you turn 63 or 65. Your experience continues to be valuable and the skills accumulated over the years remain yours. I have three broad points of clarification.
My first point is on ensuring that seniors not just have employment, but gainful employment, which is appropriate for them with commensurate salary. We know that some seniors may choose to work to keep busy, but there are also seniors who need to continue working due to economic needs. The outcome of this shift has to be meaningfully accompanied by job redesign and early career structuring. For example, a mature PMET should find opportunities in the same or related roles or roles they are keen on exploring and can be trained for, rather than be shifted to menial or labour-intensive roles, which may be counter-intuitive as he or she hits retirement age.
As we continue to raise this age to 65 by 2030, we also need to ensure that our employers actively re-scope job roles and backend processes to unlock the true value of our seniors. Sometimes, this could mean scoping down roles with appropriate salaries, if older workers do not wish or are unable to continue with the same job at the same pace.
Other than the efforts by the union, which I recognise and applaud, does the Government have any further plans to assist employers and employees on reaching an agreement for fair terms should their role be scoped down? Would the Government consider providing incentives for companies that actively re-scope roles for seniors and have age-friendly workspaces? How else can the public sector take the lead in embracing an age-diverse workforce and enhance the culture of workplaces? Can opportunities for older workers be better consolidated and made accessible for this demographic, together with more tailored support, for them to move on into new roles?
Companies that are unable to retain their senior employees or find alternatives, may offer a one-off employment assistance payment, with the recommended sum being 3.5 months worth of salary. While useful for our seniors, I would like to ask if there are any plans for the Government to increase this level of support who do not get re-employed. It is already difficult for anyone to look for a new job in this climate, let alone for older workers.
While our overall re-employment statistics are improving, the rate for our seniors do not seem to be as buoyant. The proportion of retrenched residents aged 60 and above who re-entered re-employment six months post-retrenchment, is 43.8% for the second quarter of 2021. This is lower than the fourth quarter of 2020's 46.7% and the first quarter of 2021's 55.7%.
On an annual basis, the statistics in our second quarter is also lower than nine out of 10 of the previous second quarters. What are the implications of this trend? And considering that the recommended EAP is only for 3.5 months of salary, are there plans for additional support to improve this figure as we navigate our way out of the pandemic?
My second point, the main dispute resolution platform to resolve workplace-related disputes is the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management, or TADM. TAFEP's annual report for the annual year 2020 to 2021, showed that the proportion of complaints related to ageism rose to about 12.5% higher than the 10% reported in the year before. TAFEP and TADM have been very valuable at resolving some of the complaints employees have. The announcement of future anti-discrimination legislation as well is encouraging. However, while employers cannot forcibly retire elderly workers based on age, it remains that unfair dismissals may happen under the guise of other benchmarks.
Is the Government considering additional measures to improve the implementation of this policy and how successful has TAFEP been in working with firms to ensure that they no longer practise such ageist company policies?
The final point I wish to make is that, while we all have a role as employees in a society in embracing this shift, the majority of the efforts and costs to ensure all seniors continue to have an important role in the workplace will fall on our employers. They are the ones who face not just the monetary responsibility of wages and CPF, but also the responsibility of creating an inclusive workplace designed for our seniors. The CPF Transition Offset, Senior Employment Credit scheme, as well as the Senior Worker Early Adoption Grant have all been helpful in supporting progressive employers in maintaining older workers.
However, during this transition period, employers may still find difficulties sustaining long-term employment for seniors. The Senior Employment Credit scheme is also set to expire at the end of next year. Would the Government consider extending some form of wage offset scheme to support firms to increase their re-employment age policies along with the increase in the statutory cap?
Furthermore, there are also members of our Pioneer Generation who still face further difficulties in saving for their retirement, even beyond 70. Will the Government consider extending further assistance to employers who are specifically supporting workers over 70 who choose to work, instead of only supporting based on internal retirement and re-employment ages?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the demographic shift we are facing is one that is significant. The unique socio-cultural context of Singapore makes the task of ensuring our workforce is ready for this move is a difficult one. I am heartened by the Government's move to support the seniors who make up an important part of our workforce and I do have residents to tell me they still feel young at heart and want to continue working. I am glad we are looking to support those who make this choice. I also hope that our employers, employees and workspaces are also ready to be open to transform in tandem with our policies and appreciate the value of an inclusive and age-diverse workplace.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Deputy Leader, would you like to move that the debate be now adjourned?
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\"
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad] (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.
","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 11.00 am tomorrow.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am keenly aware that seven o'clock in the evening, or seven o'clock in the morning or, for that matter, anytime really, is hardly an opportune time for a dry lecture on economic matters. But I will speak on the issue of taxes on capital because such taxes matter not only for the sustainability of our public purse, but also because their just application could reshape the landscape of rising inequality in income and wealth, matters which matter enormously to the common man and woman.
My speech will first lay out the case for and against taxes on capital. I will then explain why our Government's revenue mix can potentially benefit from attention to a richer slate of objectives and how wealth taxes can play a role in meeting those expanded objectives. I will then discuss a menu of possible taxes on capital, before closing with a specific proposal for wealth taxation in the modern world.
I will begin by declaring that I am the Chief Economist (Emeritus) of Thirdrock Group, a homegrown asset and wealth management advisory, and am still occasionally invited to speak at various academic and industry events to audiences that serve high networth individuals.
It is useful to clarify, first, what I mean when I speak of taxes on capital. This is a tax applied to any form of productive assets. The most common form is the corporate income tax levied on profits for a company. Another common form are allowances for expenditure on plant and machinery; and since these are write-offs, they are negative capital taxes.
Truth be told, discussion on capital taxes seldom focus on these routine forms, which are widespread and uncontentious. Rather, they centre either on capital gains taxes, which are applied to receipts through the ownership or sale of financial property, or intangible assets, along with wealth taxes, which are charged to the outstanding value of an individual's assets.
While the issue of capital gains is important, it is best left for another day. Today, I will only focus on wealth taxes.
The most common objection to capital taxes in general is that this entails a double taxation of income, since capital holdings typically result from saved income, which had already been taxed previously. As such, it could discourage savings behaviour.
But we can still make the case for a separate taxation of capital if we accept that taxes are always due whenever they are productive gains. In such instances, taxes reflect a host of indirect benefits, such as a well-functioning legal system and financial infrastructure or initial tax breaks the individuals and firms receive when they first invest.
Since the risks of providing such benefits are borne by society, it is reasonable to recoup these after gains are realised.
Another common objection is that taxes applied to wealth may be excessive because by eroding the principal, it could kill the very goose that laid the golden eggs.
However, there is actually little difference in principle between taxes on the flow of profits versus the stock of wealth so long as the latter also generates income. Indeed, for an asset that generates 5% returns, an entirely pedestrian capital gains tax of 20% is fully equivalent to a wealth tax of 1%.
MOF has often stated that it maintains a diverse revenue mix to finance its Budget. To a significant extent, this is correct. In a typical year, MOF draws around a quarter of revenue from taxes on corporations, another quarter from those imposed on consumers, another quarter from fee and investment income and the rest from various other sources.
Such a broad range of contributions is important because it ensures that Government spending needs are not threatened by declines in any single source. In that sense, the revenue mix has a certain robustness and resilience built into it.
From another perspective, however, this revenue mix is rather imbalanced. While our overall tax system may be progressive – that is, the effects are felt more keenly by the rich than the poor – a quarter of our taxes remain regressive, even with the current Voucher Scheme.
The Goods and Services Tax (GST), for instance, affects lower-middle- and middle-income families disproportionately more than the wealthy while only contributing around 11% of revenue. Moreover, fees and charges, especially the fines that our little red dot is so infamous for, also hit the poor disproportionately harder than the rich.
To be clear, there is no correct revenue mix when it comes to financing Government expenditure. Even so, we can aim for objectives that go beyond efficient collection and diverse sources.
In particular, one laudable objective is that we should seek to minimise, as much as possible, the number of regressive components in the tax regime rather than just being content that the system happens to be progressive overall.
Recent global developments also make the case that the time is ripe to re-examine our traditional tax mix. The recently concluded OECD-led agreement for Global Minimum Tax could weaken our nation's attractiveness as a location for siting headquarter operations, which in turn could erode the incomes we currently receive from the corporate sector.
This is where wealth taxes come into play. Such taxes will shore up the diversity of our revenue sources, especially the contribution from capital. Wealth taxes also help fulfill additional objectives of lowering regressivity, as I mentioned, in our current revenue mix since they are progressive by design.
Wealth taxes also offer an additional potential benefit. It is a tool that can help reduce the overall level of inequality in society. Why should we care about disparities in income and wealth?
Mr Deputy Speaker, a sizeable academic literature points to how rising inequality undermines economic growth, worsens health outcomes, conditions divergence in educational attainment and even alters political stability. For economic, social and moral reasons, therefore, countries cannot afford to allow inequality to continue its inexorable rise.
That said, is inequality in income and wealth a problem in Singapore? Many measures suggest that it is. The most popular measure of inequality is known as the Gini coefficient. This metric captures in a single number the extent to which existing distribution of income or wealth departs from the theoretical ideal of perfect equality. The higher the number, the more unequal the distribution.
Because different countries scale this coefficient differently, a direct comparison between countries is challenging but not impossible.
Using comparable measures, Singapore's Gini, prior to taxes and transfers, actually compares favourably to many major developed economies, including those of famously egalitarian Scandinavian nations such as Denmark, Sweden and Norway.
However, after taking redistribution into account, Singapore's inequality metric jumps to the top of the range, comparable to that of the United Kingdom and the United States. Moreover, Singapore's post-tax Gini also fell significantly to 0.375 from 0.398 during the COVID-19 crisis, even as pre-tax Gini remains unchanged.
This implies that pandemic-related assistance and tax relief, which surged in 2020, was responsible for the improvement in equality outcomes rather than any disproportionate drop in income from the rich.
Other metrics of income inequality tell a similar story.
Similarly, despite the massive drop of close to 6% of gross domestic product (GDP) growth last year, household wealth actually went in the opposite direction, expanding by around 15%. As a consequence, the share of total wealth held by the top 1% grew to around 34% and the number of those with assets of $40 million or more rose by 10% to more than 3,700 ultra-high net worth individuals.
Notably, this wealth Gini at 0.783 by one estimate is much higher than that of comparable neighbouring economies such as Japan, Korea or Taiwan.
Taken together, these facts suggest that inequality is a real and pressing issue and our nation's effort at redistribution has been far more restrained than in other advanced economies, including that of our immediate neighbours. We can do more to address our inequality problem.
Sir, it turns out Singapore is no stranger to taxes on capital and wealth. Between 1929 and 2008, Singapore taxed inheritance via an estate duty. The Estate Duty Act was amended in 2005 to apply only to estates of those that passed prior to 15 February 2008.
During the debate on the abolition, Members explained that wealth was now being generated by other means, thereby rendering the inheritance less impactful. The duty was also viewed as a tax that affected mostly the middle class as the wealthy had generally been able to shelter the estates from such taxes.
Stamp duties and Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) are also currently applied to properties in Singapore. The Buyer's Stamp Duty is applied progressively up to a marginal rate of 4% for property values in excess of $1 million. ABSD is payable on additional properties and by most non-Singaporeans and it is likewise progressive.
Both taxes play triple duty by not just raising revenue and enhancing progressivity, but also by helping contain speculative pressure, especially from wealthy international buyers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, so, in thinking about taxes on capital, we have several options.
We could consider reintroducing the inheritance tax. The major strategic reason for eliminating taxes on inheritance was to provide greater ballast for Singapore as it sought to position itself as a globally competitive wealth management centre. Singapore has since indeed emerged as a leading cross-border wealth management hub managing $1.2 trillion in worth, just behind Switzerland and Hong Kong.
The fear is that in reintroducing an estate duty, even a limited one, could weaken our value proposition as a wealth centre. This may also seem unnecessary, given the small amounts that will be raised by the reintroduction of such a tax.
Or we could weave in greater progressivity into our estate duty. The top marginal tax rate for properties above $1 million is currently set at 4%. We could introduce another tier for higher value properties – at 5% for properties valued above $5 million or for owners of multiple properties that cumulatively exceed $5 million. The suggestion was recently raised by my Sengkang GRC colleague, Louis Chua, in his speech to this House on the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill.
As he shared, with a relatively high threshold, the aspiring middle class would not be penalised by such a tax. This option has the additional benefit of tempering increases in house prices even in public housing because private housing prices have a spillover effect on public markets in Singapore.
Or, alternatively, we could introduce a progressive net worth tax. While wealth taxes could, in principle, be applied to any amount of asset holdings, most proponents have in mind only the highest tier of wealthy individuals such as those in the top 1% or, more likely, in the top 0.1% of the wealth distribution. The wealth tax can itself be progressive with different marginal rates for various income tiers.
The key advantage of such wealth taxes is that it ensures that the large and growing asset basis of ultra-high net worth individuals, which is typically held in non-property form, would not be inadvertently exempt.
In choosing the target tax base, we should strike a balance between raising revenue and effecting redistribution versus heightening the incentives for avoidance and evasion.
One way to minimise evasion is to make such taxes one-off. However, one-off taxes are best when there is no prior announcement since doing so will impose the least distortion due to tax avoidance behaviour.
However, sudden major policy announcements are seldom infeasible in the real world. Furthermore, the significant amount of work in the run-up to implementation, legislative design, asset valuation, collection mechanisms will only be drawn on once. Any revenue gain, redistributed benefits and impact on inequality will also be temporary.
A practical solution to this is to require one-off assessment but have payments rendered over time.
Another strategy to limit evasions is allow the wealthy some agency in the deployment of their tax contributions.
For instance, a wealth tax could be directed to foundations, which by mandate will be required to spend a fixed amount of the endowment each year on approved causes until depleted. Alternatively, the tax can be levied annually and collected amounts automatically channelled to the foundation.
This is not such a novel concept. Indeed, legal instruments such as charitable trusts or foundations already exist. All that is required is for us to pair the wealth tax with these entities.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe the time has come for a more explicit tax on wealth. This tax should be designed in a manner that takes into account current realities, including the inherent mobility of capital and wealth but also the importance of not just taxes but other non-monetary motivations for why high net worth individuals may choose Singapore as a home for asset and wealth management.
While I have mentioned a number of possibilities, my simple proposal is to introduce a tax of 0.5% on net wealth in excess of $10 million, 1% above $50 million and 2% above $1 billion.
This tax may be designated to a special-purpose foundation mandated to exhaust its entire endowment on an accrual basis over time with some flexibility in terms of the allocation of payouts toward Government-approved uses that are consistent with national priorities.
We could even permit tax loss harvesting for up to two years or restrict taxation to only instances where net wealth gains are positive.
In either case, the returns on wealth in any given year would typically significantly exceed these tax rates. Otherwise, they should get rid of their wealth manager. So, the ultra-rich should generally not expect to see any decrease in the principal on the asset.
The natural reservation to doing so would be that it would threaten our competitive position as a global wealth management centre, especially relative to our closest competitors, Hong Kong and Switzerland.
But circumstances have changed. Recent geopolitical developments in Hong Kong are a reminder that political stability and respect for property rights are far more important determinants for factors for siting one's immobile wealth. And all but on canton of Switzerland – the world's leading wealth centre – maintain progressive estate taxes, and the canton of Zürich – the beating heart of Swiss wealth management – applies wealth taxes even more aggressively, starting at CHF 77,000 for singles and CHF 154,000 for households, with the top bracket of a little more than CHF 3 million.
International developments have also pointed to a greater appetite for cross-country cooperation on tax regimes, such as the OECD deal on the global corporate taxes I mentioned earlier. It is therefore not inconceivable that similar agreements on wealth taxation could be in the offing.
More generally, we need to disabuse ourselves from the mistaken notion that low taxes offer the most competitive advantage for our status as a global financial centre. Indeed, taxes feature so little in such decisions that in a recent PWC report that listed 12 factors that made Singapore \"best in class within the region\" for asset and wealth management, not one of these was \"low taxes\". Tax competition is a mindset more suited for the 20th, rather than the 21st century.
Wealth taxes can improve the diversity of our Government's revenue sources and help manage the societal dislocations that result from rising inequality. We already have experience with other forms of wealth taxation in the past, and we need not fear the competitive position for the future, because other jurisdictions have already moved ahead with similar taxes on capital.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in Christopher Nolan's masterful Dark Knight trilogy, Bruce Wayne – a billionaire playboy – rediscovers his life's purpose in the mountains, dons a suit and cape, and returns to bring justice to a fallen city. Gotham was dank, crime-ridden and deeply unequal, but Mr Wayne, like his philanthropic father before him, chose to expend his own enormous wealth to redress the very imbalance that he had been such a beneficiary of.
My heartfelt belief is that all of us, the ultra-wealthy included, want to live in a world where we can all contribute our fair share to make it a better place, both today and for our children. That is how I view wealth taxes: it is another salve for our imperfect world, an opportunity to create new opportunities for Singaporeans, and an idea whose time has come.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Indranee Rajah.
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his suggestions and speech. What we have in Singapore today is one of the most progressive system of taxes and transfers in the world.
This is possible because we have a competitive, fair and sustainable tax system, painstakingly built up by the Government over the years, which not only raises revenue, but keeps our economy dynamic, builds an inclusive society and enables a greener future.
Consider this. Almost half or 50% of our workers do not need to pay any Personal Income Tax. Of those who pay, the top 10% of individuals account for about 80% of the total revenue.
At the same time, real income has grown over the years.
Over 60% of the net GST from households and individuals is estimated to be collected from the top 20% of resident households, foreigners residing in Singapore and tourists.
And when we consider the entire system of taxes and transfers, for every dollar of tax a Singaporean household around the middle pays, they will receive around twice the amount in benefits. Lower-income households receive even more – about $4 in benefits for every dollar paid.
The redistribution in taxes is done pursuant to our goal for a fair society. This compares favourably with other jurisdictions, such as the UK and Finland, where middle-income households receive only $1.25 of benefits for every dollar of tax paid.
Our overall tax burden is low. Our taxes as a percentage of GDP are only 13%, much lower than the OECD average of 34% and the Asia Pacific average of 21%.
This matters. Why?
It keeps the tax burden on our people and businesses low, letting them retain most of what they earn.
It keeps the economy dynamic and thus creates good jobs for our people.
It is not easy to keep the overall tax burden low, as any Government will tell you. But we have been able to do so because we manage our spending effectively and get as much value as we can out of the tax dollars collected for the benefit of Singaporeans.
We have achieved good outcomes in many areas, including healthcare and education, for every dollar of spending. Perhaps most uniquely of all, we have the Net Investment Return Contribution (NIRC) to supplement our revenue.
The NIRC is already our largest revenue source – around 3% of GDP in revenue a year on average and in fact, for every dollar we spend, 20 cents comes from our NIRC. Because of NIRC, Singaporeans pay lower taxes than they would otherwise have to. This is unlike many developed countries which, not having something like the NIRC, have to borrow to meet their spending needs and use tax revenues worth 2-3% of GDP each year to service their national debt.
In addition, we have the reserves as a failsafe in times of crisis.
This is where our tax system is today. But we cannot and will not stand still. We are continuously reviewing our tax system, not only to meet the needs of today but the challenges of tomorrow.
What are these challenges? We have many but these are the three most pressing, structural ones.
First, a rapidly ageing population. About one in four will be 65 and above by the end of this decade. We can expect Government healthcare spending to rise significantly, from 2.2% of GDP in 2019 to 3% of our GDP by 2030. Three percent of GDP is comparable to what we currently spend, as a proportion of GDP, on defence.
Second, climate change. We must redouble our efforts to make sustainable investments to green our economy and mitigate the impact of climate change. Protecting our coastlines against rising sea levels alone will cost about $100 billion.
Third, renewing our social compact. This means more investments to reduce inequality and promote social mobility, for instance, in building more preschools and improving opportunities for lifelong education.
Yet, even as our structural spending needs continue to increase, our revenue streams are becoming increasingly uncertain.
We cannot be constantly depleting our reserves. Our investment returns from our NIRC will face significant headwinds in a more challenging global investment environment. Global tax developments under the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, or BEPS, will have an uncertain impact on our tax revenue streams.
Clearly, we cannot be status quo. But whatever we do must strike the right balance among raising sufficient revenue, maintaining competitiveness and progressivity, and being sustainable.
We have a concrete revenue plan to achieve this. We have already made some changes and have announced others.
First, we have continually been raising and enhancing the progressivity of our income taxes. We also tax wealth and have been raising asset-related taxes like property tax, stamp duty and additional registration fees for higher-end cars or residential property. We will continue to review these.
Second, we are currently reviewing the carbon tax. We will update at next year's Budget the carbon tax level for 2024 and what can be expected up to 2030.
Third, we have indicated the need to raise the GST rate sometime between 2022 and 2025, subject to economic outlook. This will raise revenues of around 0.7% of our GDP. But even as we raise the GST rate, we are committed to cushioning the impact for Singaporean households, including the middle-income.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, I think, has focused today on wealth taxes. Broadly, we are not in disagreement in the sense that we are constantly looking for ways to be able to supplement our revenue but to do that in a way that strikes the right balance.
So, on wealth taxes, it is not about having more types of wealth taxes per se. Rather, what matters is having wealth tax policies that work in the context of each jurisdiction.
Take, for example, Switzerland, which has a net wealth tax, estate duty and property-related tax. In total, their wealth tax revenue is about 1.9% of GDP. This is comparable to Singapore's wealth tax revenue at about 1.8% of our GDP.
As mentioned, we will continue to review the wealth tax. The question has never been one of whether we want to tax wealth but a practical one, of how to do so effectively such that it cannot be avoided easily.
At the end of the day, I think we do not have any issue with wealth taxes per say. We just want to make sure that whatever we put in place actually works.
I think the Member suggested that companies may no longer look at the tax rates and that it is not one of the factors that they take into account. But it is not something that can be discounted completely because businesses and individuals will still look at tax rates.
It must be remembered that wealth can move. Talent, both Singaporean as well as foreign, can move. Companies can move.
So, we have to tax in a way that is competitive; that allows people and companies to generate revenue in order to encourage them to stay here; and that revenue can then be used, reallocated and redistributed.
Just one last point – the Member spoke about GST and said that it affects the lower- and middle-income disproportionately more. I think that is something, a line, which the Workers' Party repeats very often.
That standalone line in itself is fair enough. But what must always accompany that line, and I do hope the Assoc Prof Lim and his colleagues will remember, the accompanying balance to that line is that in Singapore, the way we have designed our GST system is that we tilt it more in favour of helping the middle-income and the lower-income.
What we have said is that as and when GST has to be raised, we have set aside an assurance package of $6 billion and this will be able to see through the middle-income for the GST increase for five years and the lower-income for the next 10 years.
We also have in place the GST voucher system as well as a comprehensive social support system that is targeted at meeting those most in meet.
We have also said that as and when GST is increased, we will absorb the GST on publicly subsidised healthcare and education.
So, I just want to reinforce that. When talking about GST, one must not talk about the impact on middle-income and lower-income alone but to be fair, it is very important to also look at what we do to support and buffer the middle- and lower-income in order to take away any of the additional burden that falls on them as a result of GST.
In that way, we make it a fairer system.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me just wrap up by saying this: today, we have a tax system that is fair as everybody contributes to meet our collective spending needs.
Those who have more contribute more. The Government reallocates the revenue to support those who have less. It is also fair across generations and can withstand the test of time
It is dynamic as it places a low tax burden on workers and businesses and allows them to retain the fruits of their labour. We care about competitiveness not for the sake of competitiveness but to promote growth for the benefit of all. It is sustainable, both fiscally and environmentally.
This is what a well-designed 21st century tax system should look like and we will continue to refine it to make it even better.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.45 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":"PSLE Grades of Students Affected by Special Circumstances due to COVID-19 Situation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the number of students who either could not take the 2021 Primary School Leaving Exams (PSLE) or had to take their PSLE in special circumstances due to the COVID-19 situation; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure that the grades allocated to students who could not take their exams is a fair and appropriate one.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Thirty-nine thousand, two hundred and eighty-one students registered for the 2021 PSLE written examinations that were held from 30 September 2021 to 6 October 2021. The overall attendance rate was 99.5%. About 430 (1.1%) students missed at least one paper due to COVID-19 related reasons.
About 840 (2.1%) students who were on Quarantine Orders (QO) sat for the examinations under special arrangement as they had tested negative for COVID-19 in accordance with MOH’s requirements. Of these, about 690 students (about 82%) managed to sit for all written papers.
Similar to previous years, students who miss any national examination paper(s) with valid reasons (including COVID-19, medical leave or compassionate reasons) can apply for special consideration. Special consideration is a well-established procedure, used by many international examination boards, which awards students with projected grades through a fair and rigorous evidence-based methodology. In awarding a grade for these affected students, SEAB will consider multiple sources of data, such as the student’s performance in the other papers for that affected subject in national and school-based examinations as well as the school cohort's performance in national and school-based examinations, to ensure a fair assessment for all students. All special consideration applications are assessed on each case’s merit, to ensure that the grades awarded are as accurate and fair as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Entry Requirements for Migrant Workers in Critical Sectors with Posture of COVID-19 as Endemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will be reviewing the entry quota of migrant workers for critical sectors like construction and migrant domestic workers (especially critical caregivers) given Singapore's latest endemic position and our external assessment of higher risk countries having higher natural immunity due to earlier waves of infection.
51 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider granting entry approval for construction workers who are fully vaccinated, similar to the acceptance of new entry applications for vaccinated migrant domestic workers from 15 October 2021, for their entry into Singapore from 1 November 2021.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) recognises that many firms in the Construction, Marine-Shipyard and Process (CMP) sectors, and many families have been severely affected by the restrictions on worker inflows since May to reduce the risk of COVID-19 importation.
With the COVID-19 situation improving globally, we have resumed approvals on 15 October 2021 for both CMP migrant workers (MWs) and migrant domestic workers (MDWs) to enter Singapore from 1 November 2021. We have also started approving entries of CMP workers from Bangladesh, India, Myanmar and Sri Lanka.
In order to manage entries in a safe and calibrated manner, all work pass holders, regardless of their travel history, must be fully vaccinated when they enter Singapore from 1 November 2021, unless they have been given prior exemption. Due to high demand, workers may have to wait around three to six months to enter Singapore. We will review the situation regularly with a view to meet the needs as much as possible.
Firms in the CMP sectors who need their workers urgently may consider ongoing initiatives in their industries to bring in workers safely with tightened end-to-end safe management processes. Workers can enter without proof of vaccination provided they complete the full vaccination regime within two months after arrival. Nonetheless, we strongly encourage companies to bring in workers who are vaccinated or have recovered from COVID-19, as they will be better protected from falling seriously ill. Similarly, families who need their MDWs urgently can consider similar initiative by the Association of Employment Agencies (Singapore) (AEA(S)).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Drivers for Inflation Over Next 24 Months and Impact on Singapore's Economy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the expected inflation over the next 24 months; (b) what are the key drivers of the inflation; and (c) what is the impact on Singapore's economic recovery and performance over the next 24 months.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: CPI-All Items inflation picked up to 2.5% on a year-on-year basis in the third quarter of 2021, from 2.3% in the second quarter. The rise in domestic inflation came largely on the back of higher external inflation due to increases in global energy and food commodity prices, and persistent supply bottlenecks in key global industries and transport hubs.
On the energy front, crude oil prices have risen to above US$80 per barrel since early October on account of the decision by Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries Plus (OPEC+) to keep supply increases modest, even as oil demand continues to pick up due to the global economic recovery and the rally in global natural gas prices. Higher oil and gas prices will translate to higher electricity prices domestically. About 95% of our electricity is currently generated using natural gas.
On the food front, global prices for food commodities such as cereals and vegetable oil have risen due to supply constraints arising from weather-related disruptions, manpower shortages and export restrictions in key food-producing countries, amidst rising global demand. Higher global food prices will in turn exert upward pressure on domestic food prices.
Meanwhile, supply bottlenecks for goods such as semiconductors, and congestion at ports around the world have contributed to a rise in the prices of imported consumer goods in Singapore.
Domestically, we expect labour costs to rise as the labour market continues to recover and border restrictions limit non-resident worker inflow. We also expect to see inflation in accommodation to persist due to strong rental demand for housing amidst construction delays caused by labour shortages in the construction sector. Against this backdrop, CPI-All Items inflation is projected to come in at around 2% this year and average 1.5% to 2.5% in 2022.
Despite the rise in inflation, Singapore’s economic recovery for the year remains on track. Barring a major setback in the global economy, GDP growth is expected to come in between 6% and 7% for the full year, mainly supported by outward-oriented sectors, such as the manufacturing, finance and insurance, and information and communications sectors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Migrant Domestic Workers Allowed to Enter Singapore under Pilot Programme Since July 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many migrant domestic workers (MDWs) granted in-principle approvals are currently awaiting entry permits to start work in Singapore; (b) how many MDWs have been permitted to enter Singapore via the MDW pilot programme introduced in July 2021; and (c) whether the Ministry will be expanding the numbers and sources of MDWs allowed to enter Singapore in the pilot programme should border restrictions continue.
Dr Tan See Leng: MOM recognises that there are still many families waiting for approval for their migrant domestic workers (MDWs) to enter Singapore. As the regional COVID-19 situation improves, MOM is able to give more entry approvals. From 15 October 2021, we have opened up new applications for the entry of fully vaccinated MDWs, for entry from 1 November onwards. Households that require MDWs urgently may wish to consider the commercial programme by the Association of Employment Agencies (Singapore) (AEA(S)). As at end October 2021, AEA(S)’s initiative has facilitated the entry of more than 1,000 MDWs from the Philippines, Indonesia and Myanmar. AEA(S) and its partner employment agencies will adjust the programme according to demand to complement the entry of MDWs through the existing channel.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Indicative Dates of Arrival for Employers of Migrant Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry is able to provide an indicative date to employers of migrant domestic workers (MDWs) on the possible dates for the MDWs’ entry into Singapore instead of leaving the employers uncertain and unable to plan.
Dr Tan See Leng: MOM recognises that there are still many families waiting for approval for their migrant domestic workers (MDWs) to enter Singapore. As the regional COVID-19 situation improves, MOM is able to give more entry approvals. From 15 October 2021, we have opened up new applications for the entry of fully vaccinated MDWs, for entry from 1 November onwards. For those employers who are not successful in getting entry approvals, they may wish to access the application portal in subsequent weeks as entry slots are periodically made available. Households that require MDWs urgently may wish to consider the commercial programme by the Association of Employment Agencies (Singapore) (AEA(S)).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Forgery of Witness Statements and Dependence on Single Police Officer's Submission of Witness Statements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs in relation to the decision of the State Coroner on 18 October 2021 to reopen eight coroner’s inquiries that were earlier concluded as a result of an allegation that the investigation officer who handled the cases had forged statements from relevant witnesses, what systemic steps will the Singapore Police Force take to ensure that there is no over-dependence on a single officer’s representation that material witnesses have been interviewed by the same officer.
Mr K Shanmugam: I will answer this Parliamentary Question (PQ) with another PQ filed for a later sitting by Mr Lim Biow Chuan1 on a similar issue.
Mr Murali Pillai asked how we ensure that there is no over-reliance on a single officer during investigations and Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about the safeguards in place to prevent forgery of statements by investigation officers.
Statements recorded by an Investigation Officer (IO) are required to be reviewed by his/her supervisor as part of the overall assessment of the investigations. IOs are required to keep records of investigative steps such as the recording of statements in their field book. Supervisors will perform regular checks of the field book to ensure that investigations are properly carried out.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) also acts as an additional layer of checks to ensure that all relevant evidence has been obtained and that any evidence relied upon is, on the face of it, credible and reliable. We are also implementing technological solutions to reduce errors and further safeguard the process. For example, some statements can already be signed electronically in real-time by the interviewee. When the investigation process is fully digitalised, statements will be recorded electronically by default and the statements will be locked at relevant junctures to prevent tampering of statements.
These are generally effective, but as Members will understand, sometimes an errant officer may try and bypass these safeguards. However, Members who are lawyers will understand that the nature of the Court process and the examination of evidence means that such errant behaviour is unlikely to affect a matter in a substantive way.
In every investigation, all relevant evidence, including forensic evidence, and CCTV footages are likely to be followed through. AGC will review the evidence, documents and interview relevant witnesses. A key witness’ statement would have been examined by the AGC and examined against other evidence. Accused persons, victims and witnesses are generally also required to testify during a Court trial. All such evidence will be considered holistically by the Court. So, documents or evidence that is not real is likely to be picked up if it is material.
For the specific affected cases under the Coroner’s inquiries, AGC has reviewed them and is satisfied that the forged statements had no material impact on the outcome of the cases. In all these cases, there was other direct and relevant evidence (for example, CCTV footage, witness statements and forensic reports) that supported the eventual outcomes. The forged statements were not central to the matters. In fact, the Coroner has already completed his hearings for seven of the eight reopened Coroner’s inquiries and re-confirmed the findings that the deaths in all those cases were caused by unfortunate traffic misadventures. The remaining case has been adjourned pending further investigations into issues that did not arise from the forged statements.
Our public officers have to carry out their functions professionally, and with integrity. We cannot completely prevent individual acts of misconduct; it may still happen from time to time. But what is important is that we act firmly and swiftly against any such misconduct whenever we discover them, including charging the offending officers in Court.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : To ask the Minister for Home Affairs what safeguards are taken by the police to ensure that police investigation officers do not forge or fabricate witness statements which may affect accused persons."],"footNoteQuestions":["63"],"questionNo":"63"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Government Social Assistance Payouts Given Recent Study on Minimum Income Standards for Households in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of the findings in the recent study by the National University of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) on the Minimum Income Standards for Households in Singapore (2021), whether the Ministry will be reviewing the various social assistance scheme payouts, in particular that of the Public Assistance Scheme.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government provides multiple lines of assistance to support individuals and families in a holistic manner. These range from broad-based subsidies in housing, healthcare and education, to more targeted forms of support like ComCare financial assistance for those who require additional support for their basic living expenses. Our taxes and transfers are progressive. Low-income households receive the highest level of transfers. We keep the tax burden as low as possible for the middle-income, so that they get to keep more of their pay and have the freedom of choice in spending, including to give back to those with less. Together, this complements family support and the generosity of the community as key pillars of our Social Compact to uplift those in need.
ComCare Long-Term Assistance (LTA), also referred to as Public Assistance, is provided to those who are permanently unable to work due to old age, illness or disability and have little or no means of income and family support. Households that require help to tide over temporary financial difficulty are provided with ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA).
When assessing ComCare applications, our Social Service Offices (SSOs) work with the family to understand their needs holistically and the streams of support that they have. ComCare beneficiaries receive comprehensive support that includes cash assistance to help the family meet the income shortfall for their daily living expenses on basic needs, such as food, transport and communications. Depending on the household’s needs, they may also receive free medical treatment at public healthcare institutions and be referred to relevant Government agencies or our community partners for further support.
MSF reviews the ComCare cash assistance rates regularly to ensure that it keeps pace with the cost of living to help recipients meet their daily needs and that ComCare objectives are being met. In our reviews, we look at daily living expenditure data of low-income families collected by the Department of Statistics. We also consider input from stakeholders such as social workers, frontline officers, and beneficiaries. We last increased our ComCare cash assistance rates in July 2019.
The \"Minimum Income Standards for Households in Singapore\" study published by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and NTU, like other studies and reports, offers an additional data point for Government on Singaporean households’ expectations and aspirations in terms of their well-being. When considering such studies, it is important to understand their strengths and limitations in their design, methodology or conclusions, so that we draw the right learning points.
For instance:
(a) The study was done through focus group discussions that involved around 200 participants across 24 focus groups, with most of them having post-Secondary education and about 15% living in private properties. Therefore, the study and findings are: firstly, not representative of the opinion of the national population; secondly, not just merely reflective of the opinions of what low-income families see as basic needs.
(b) The study’s estimates include discretionary expenditure items such as private enrichment classes, overseas holidays and jewellery and perfumes. For lower-income families, there are alternatives to some of these items, such as Government-subsidised student care centres or enrichment and tuition classes provided by self-help groups at low cost.
(c) The level of subsidies and social transfers received by lower-income families may not be fully reflected, as the study did not factor in non-cash assistance such as rebates for Service & Conservancy Charges. It also would not be able to reflect the flexibility that agencies exercise to provide greater assistance to families with extenuating circumstances.
Every study has inherent limitations as assumptions must be made which do not always pan out in reality. However, studies like the recent MIS study are useful in encouraging conversations on the kind of society we desire and how to get there collectively. The Government will certainly continue to strengthen social support and the delivery of social services to help those in need. At the same time, we hope that greater awareness of the various needs in our society will lead many individuals, groups and corporates who care to also step forth to play an active part in meeting these needs and help to build a more caring and inclusive society.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Children whose Parents or Caregivers are Embroiled in Drug-related Offences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the available support or intervention programmes for children whose parents or caregivers are embroiled in drug-related offences; and (b) whether the children’s mental health, physical needs and academic outcomes are tracked and followed up by these programmes.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: A whole-of-society approach is taken to support families in need, including those impacted by offending or incarceration. Such families can access a range of social support, including ComCare financial assistance from MSF and socio-emotional and educational support from community partners.
At the point of arrest, law enforcement agencies will check if the accused person has any children who require immediate childcare arrangements and ensure that suitable caregivers are identified to care for the children where needed. If there are child protection concerns (for example, abuse or neglect), the law enforcement agencies will alert MSF’s Child Protective Service who will step in as needed to ensure the safety and welfare of the children.
If the investigators identify other social needs, such as the children’s emotional distress or lack of supervision due to the absence of the parent/caregiver, a referral will be made to the Family Service Centres (FSCs). The FSCs will coordinate intervention and support across different agencies, including the schools and youth centres, depending on the family’s needs. The support provided could include counselling the children, helping them develop problem-solving skills and keeping them meaningfully engaged in their studies or work. Mentoring can also provide the children with positive role models in the absence of an adult/parental figure.
Where financial assistance is needed, law enforcement agencies, FSCs and any touchpoint agencies whom the family is known to can link up with the Social Service Offices so that the families can be provided financial support for their basic living expenses.
Schools provide a nurturing and supportive environment where students (including those facing family stressors due to parental offending) are provided with social, emotional and learning support. Students can share their concerns and problems with their teachers or school counsellor and seek help. The teachers would look out for any change in the behaviour of the students and follow up with the students or parents when there is a cause for concern. Those without a conducive home environment are supported through after-school care and engagement, with Student Care Centres at every Primary school and the GEAR-UP programme in Secondary schools.
The Singapore Prison Service has also put in place measures to support inmates and their families. New inmates are encouraged to participate in the Yellow Ribbon Community Project where volunteers reach out to and support their families and link them up with various social support and community programmes such as study programmes for the children.
Prisons also collaborates widely with community partners specialising in children’s work. For instance, The Salvation Army, Industrial & Services Co-operative Society Ltd and The Singapore Children’s Society run initiatives like Kids-in-Play, Fairy Godparent and Project Relate, which are targeted at inmates and families-in-need, especially those involving children. The children are also supported through counselling, bursary awards, tuition assistance and family bonding programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of New Scoring System on Setting of PSLE Papers and Students Who Could Not Take PSLE Papers due to COVID-19 Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Education (a) how different were the PSLE papers set for 2021 as compared to 2020 considering the new scoring system implemented this year; (b) what measures are taken to ensure fairness in the questions set for this year as compared to last year; (c) how will the Ministry assure parents that the PSLE results this year reflect students’ true capabilities; and (d) how many students have to sit out PSLE due to COVID-19 issues.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The PSLE is aligned to the Primary cchools’ syllabuses, and the standard of the examinations is comparable to past years. The new PSLE Scoring System does not affect the syllabuses nor the standards of the PSLE. In setting examination questions, a panel of test developers, comprising assessment specialists from the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) and curriculum specialists from MOE, adheres to a test blueprint and well-established test development protocol that ensure this.
MOE and SEAB recognised that the Primary 6 students may encounter disruptions to their learning as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, Common Last Topics were removed from the 2021 PSLE.
Parents are understandably concerned about how their children’s performance would be affected under the new PSLE Scoring System. When the scripts are marked, all answers that demonstrate the relevant knowledge and skills will be given due credit. In addition, SEAB has processes in place to take the disruptions caused by COVID-19 into consideration to ensure that this cohort of students will not be disadvantaged by the exceptional circumstances.
Thirty-nine thousand, two-hundred and eighty-one students registered for the 2021 PSLE written examinations that were held from 30 September 2021 to 6 October 2021. The overall attendance rate was 99.5%. About 430 (1.1%) students missed at least one paper due to COVID-19 related reasons.
Similar to previous years, students who miss any national examination paper(s) with valid reasons (including COVID-19, medical leave or compassionate reasons) can apply for special consideration. Special consideration is a well-established procedure, used by many international examination boards which awards students with projected grades through a fair and rigorous evidence-based methodology. In awarding a grade to these affected students, SEAB will consider multiple sources of data, such as the student’s performance in the other papers for that affected subject in national and school-based examinations as well as the school cohort's performance in national and school-based examinations, to ensure a fair assessment for all students. All special consideration applications are assessed on its merit, to ensure that the grades awarded are accurate and fair.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Financial Viability of Construction Firms with Government Contracts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for National Development in view of construction firms continuing to face immense cost pressures and COVID-19 uncertainties (a) what is the assessment of the financial position and viability of construction firms with Government contracts today compared to 2020 and whether there is an increased risk of default; and (b) whether any additional measures are considered by the Government to reduce this risk and ensure the viability of the industry.
Mr Desmond Lee: Since last year, the Government has put in place a wide range of support measures to help construction firms cope with the cost pressures brought about by COVID-19. This includes the $1.36 billion Construction Support Package to help firms in the construction industry cope with the cost of implementing safe management measures at worksites, as well as to co-share prolongation costs for public sector projects. Firms have also received support for their manpower costs through the Jobs Support Scheme and Foreign Worker Levy waivers and rebates. The Government has also put in place unprecedented legislative mechanisms through the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act to provide relief for contractors and to enable equitable co-sharing of increased costs by project parties due to the pandemic.
These measures have helped the construction industry tide through the crisis. The number of contractors deregistering from BCA’s Contractors Registration System (CRS) due to financial reasons has remained stable at less than 1% of the total contractors registered in 2020 and 2021. However, for some firms which were already experiencing financial difficulties prior to the pandemic, the prolonged impact of COVID-19 has further weakened their financial positions.
BCA will continue to closely monitor the financial health of contractors and will continue to work with the relevant trade associations and chambers to provide the necessary support for the construction industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps to Curb Spread of Misinformation through Social Media and Closed Messaging Systems on COVID-19 Treatments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health what steps have been taken by the Ministry to (i) curb the spread of misinformation through social media platforms and closed messaging systems on the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for purportedly treating COVID-19 infections and (ii) monitor the import of these drugs into Singapore, especially through online sales, for the period of the COVID-19 pandemic.
71 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Health whether he can provide an update on the progress of the Government’s intended purchase of an anti-viral drug to treat COVID-19.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Singapore has been closely tracking the progress of COVID-19 therapeutic options under development globally, and actively engaging key pharmaceutical companies. As a result, we have procured in advance a portfolio of COVID-19 therapeutics.
Our current treatment options consist of five classes of drugs: Steroids, Anti-virals (Remdesivir), Monoclonal Antibodies (Sotrovimab and Regeneron), IL-6 inhibitors (Tocilizumab) and JAK inhibitors (Baricitinib). The use of these drugs is guided by the Treatment Guidelines for COVID-19 published by National Centre for Infectious Diseases and Chapter of Infectious Disease Physicians, College of Physicians, Singapore.
MOH recently signed an agreement with MSD Pharma (Singapore) Pte Ltd to purchase Molnupiravir, an oral anti-viral for treating COVID-19 patients. Molnupiravir will be available for use if MSD submits its data to the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) and obtains authorisation for use in Singapore. The timeline for approval is dependent on the company’s submission of data to HSA.
Doctors are allowed to prescribe drugs on an off-label basis if it is in the patient’s best interest, there is sufficient clinical evidence to suggest clinical benefit to using the drug, the patient has an appropriate and justifiable medical indication, the benefits of such use have been assessed to overcome the risks associated with the medication, and the patient’s informed consent for such use has been obtained. These principles are part of the Singapore Medical Council’s Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines.
All prescription medicines require approval by HSA before they can be legally supplied in Singapore. Companies licensed to import or distribute prescription medicines are regularly audited by HSA. This is to ensure their compliance to the regulations and international standards and minimise the risk of illegal supplies.
HSA works closely with the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority to monitor and stop illegal imports of health products, including prescription medicine such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine that are brought in by unlicensed importers. HSA conducts regular joint operations with local enforcement counterparts at hotspots. With the rise of e-commerce, HSA also monitors various local online sales platforms to detect illegal sales of prescription medicines. HSA takes a serious view against those engaged in the illegal import, sale and supply of these products, and will take strong enforcement action against such persons. Anyone who contravenes this law can be fined up to $50,000 and/or jailed for up to two years under the Health Products Act.
MOH is aware of misinformation on websites and social media platforms, including online chatgroups, on the safety and effectiveness of ivermectin in treating COVID-19. The misinformation is based on unverified studies. MOH and HSA have put up consumer advisories on their websites and issued media statements to debunk misinformation on COVID-19 treatments. For example, MOH has clarified on its website that evidence to date suggests the use of these agents is associated with serious risks to the health of the patient. On 15 October, MOH also issued a media statement to call out these websites and platforms and to counter the misinformation found there. On 24 October, a Correction Direction order was issued to the Truth Warriors website for false statements of fact and misleading information it had published. Clarifications and facts have also been published by the Government.
Ivermectin is a prescription-only medicine for the treatment of parasitic worm infections. It is not approved by HSA for use in the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. HSA has advised against self-medicating with ivermectin and to consult a doctor for the proper treatment of COVID-19.
The Pharmaceutical Society of Singapore has been publishing consumer advisories on their website. The public can also approach healthcare professionals, such as community pharmacists, to find out more about these medications.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment Criteria for Sinovac and Sinopharm COVID-19 Vaccines for Inclusion in National Vaccination Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will provide more details about how the Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccines are being evaluated through its evaluation process under the national vaccination programme; and (b) in order to meet the criteria to be included in the programme, what further form and type of safety and efficacy-related data will the Ministry require.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I will address oral questions related to COVID-19 vaccination together.
For a COVID-19 vaccine to be authorised for use in Singapore, HSA will first have to evaluate the vaccine under the Pandemic Special Access Route (PSAR), where detailed safety, efficacy and quality control data have to be submitted and examined. Second, for vaccines approved under PSAR, MOH will consider if it should be included under the National Vaccination Programme (NVP). In the case of the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine, MOH decided to include it because we did not have a non-mRNA vaccine in the NVP, the vaccine had demonstrated efficacy against severe disease and its safety profile was consistent with other registered vaccines against other diseases.
We have no plans to evaluate Sinopharm and AstraZeneca vaccines under PSAR at this juncture. Our Expert Committee is also monitoring vaccines developed based on other platforms, and studying the possibility of a heterogolous strategy, that is, using a booster vaccine of a different technological platform from the primary series. If this is proven to be safe and effective, we will consider including other vaccines into the PSAR and NVP.
For children aged 12 years and above, HSA has authorised the use of Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty Vaccine. HSA is in discussions with the company to facilitate the regulatory submission for vaccination in those aged five to 11 years.
Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Yip Hon Weng had asked about mandating COVID-19 vaccination. Making COVID-19 vaccination compulsory is a significant move and should be carefully considered. Factors that need to be considered are the COVID-19 situation in Singapore, vaccination coverage of the whole population and amongst vulnerable groups, international practice and availability of fully registered COVID-19 vaccines, bearing in mind that current approval is still under pandemic special access.
Introduction of vaccination-differentiated safe management measures (VDS) and workplace requirements had allowed fully vaccinated persons to participate in more community and economic activities, while protecting persons who are not vaccinated. This has led to more coming forward to get vaccinated. We have also made progress in reducing the numbers of unvaccinated among our elderly population from 200,000 in July this year to fewer than 70,000 currently. For those who remain unvaccinated, we will continue to reach out and provide detailed information on the benefits of vaccination against the risk of disease to address their concerns and convince them to be vaccinated.
We take note of the Members' suggestion, that perhaps the unvaccinated should also be responsible for part of their medical bills should they be infected. We have been receiving similar suggestions from members of public and will consider this carefully. We should be clear that the objective is not for collecting revenue and cost of treatment will still be heavily subsidised. Instead, this serves as a strong signal for the unvaccinated to get their jabs.
MOH continues to strive to expand the portfolio of COVID-19 vaccines that we bring in under the NVP, so that there is a suitable vaccine for everyone. We strongly encourage all medically eligible persons to take the vaccine and booster once they are eligible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Workfare Income Supplement to Singaporeans and Permanent Residents Who Work as Food Delivery Riders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider extending Workfare Income Supplement to Singaporean and Permanent Resident workers who are engaged in food delivery.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Workfare Income Supplement scheme tops up the incomes of Singaporeans who earn lower wages, to encourage them to work regularly and build up their CPF savings. It covers both Singaporean employees and self-employed persons, regardless of occupation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Revenue, Profit before Tax, Chargeable Income and Effective Tax Rate of Multinational Enterprises in Singapore in Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Finance in each of the last 10 years, for the 1,800 multinational enterprises (MNEs) in Singapore that meet the 750 million euros revenue threshold under OECD’s Two-Pillar Solution, what is their annual (i) total revenue (ii) accounting profit before tax (iii) chargeable income (iv) corporate income tax paid and (v) average effective tax rate respectively.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Chua has asked for data on the 1,800 multinational enterprise (MNE) groups likely to be affected by the ongoing international discussions on Base Erosion and Profits Shifting (BEPS), specifically the global minimum effective tax rate under Pillar 2.
Presumably Mr Chua’s intention is to ascertain the tax revenue we can gain from raising taxes for the companies affected under Pillar 2. But the current available data does not permit an easy estimate for the impact of Pillar 2.
In particular, Pillar 2 is meant to be applied on a group basis, not on an entity basis. The group-level data will not be the simple sum of the data of entities within a group. Much of the group-level data needed for ascertaining the impact of Pillar 2 are not present in our current corporate tax returns.
More importantly, the ongoing BEPS project is a challenging development for small economies like Singapore. Let me explain why.
First, under Pillar 1, 25% of the residual profits, defined as profit in excess of 10% of revenue, will be allocated away from where the economic activities are conducted to where the markets are. This means that Singapore will suffer corporate tax revenue losses. The magnitude of fiscal impact would only be clear after international negotiations have been concluded and after companies in due course adapt their business decisions.
Second, Pillar 2 of the multilateral consensus includes a global minimum effective tax rate of 15%. This means that in whichever jurisdiction a MNE group operates, the group’s effective tax rate in that jurisdiction cannot be lower than 15% or there will be additional taxes levied by other jurisdictions elsewhere. Pillar 2 will therefore limit the effectiveness of tax incentives as a tool for attracting investment.
MOF has earlier explained that we will adjust our corporate tax system to preserve our taxing rights in response to Pillar 2. This may yield some additional revenue. But the final impact on our fiscal position must include the expected adverse revenue impact under Pillar 1. Furthermore, in a post-BEPS world, we must expect competition for jobs and investment worldwide will be more intense. So even if we were to get additional tax revenue from Pillar 2, we will need to use these resources to strengthen our capabilities and stay competitive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Updated Protocols for COVID-19 Patients, Vaccination for Children and Delays in Response Time by Government COVID-19 Teams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Health (a) how many COVID-19-positive individuals or households have complained or given feedback about poor response times and delays from the authorities with regard to (i) their unique COVID-19 queries and (ii) arrangements for their transmission to a hospital or a community care facility; and (b) how many cases of such delays in transmission eventually resulted in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) hospitalisation and death respectively of COVID-19-positive patients.
79 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry is aware of cases of significant delay in transporting symptomatic COVID-19-positive persons to hospitals under the current COVID-19 management arrangements; and (b) whether such persons should instead contact SCDF ambulance services for more efficient transportation to hospitals.
80 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the justification behind the latest vaccination-differentiation measures and how long will these measures last; (b) whether the Ministry intends to reclassify those who choose not to take booster vaccine shots as unvaccinated; (c) how many unvaccinated Singaporeans are there currently in the respective categories of (i) 13 to 59 years old and (ii) over 60 years old; and (d) whether the same justifications apply to the 13 to 59 years old category.
81 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health whether the Government will allow better access for outside dining, grocery shopping in supermarkets, malls and other public places in respect of adults who have not received full COVID-19 vaccination due to medical reasons and in the interest of their mental health.
82 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Health whether the Government will consider exempting children under 12 years of age from the prevailing dining-in group size limit provided that they are dining-in with only family members residing in the same household.
83 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the epidemiological situation for COVID-19; and (b) what is the effectiveness of the Home Recovery Programme with regard to easing the strain on the healthcare system.
84 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the daily call volume to the National Care hotline; (b) what is the typical waiting time for a call to be answered; and (c) whether there are cases of call spamming that may prevent Singaporeans from receiving critical assistance.
85 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Health whether there are special provisions and safety nets under the Home Recovery Programme for people who are living alone, in particular seniors and special needs adults should they exhibit symptoms and are unable to call for help independently.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I will address questions on the implementation of the latest Vaccination-Differentiated Safe Management Measures (VDS), vaccination booster programme, and the expanded Home Recovery Programme (HRP). I will also be addressing questions on these topics filed by Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong for the next sitting on 2 November, and Mr Chong Kee Hiong1, Ms Yeo Wan Ling2 and Mr Saktiandi Supaat3 for the future Sitting on or after 3 November.
With the exception of a few days with unusual surges, our daily case numbers have largely stabilised for over three weeks now. We have observed that close to 99% of cases continue to have mild or no symptoms. The vast majority are fully vaccinated persons who are able to recover well at home. Of the cases with severe illness, a disproportionate number were unvaccinated. Today, unvaccinated seniors comprise only 1.2% of our population, but as of 29 October, they accounted for two-thirds of the individuals who are critically ill in ICU care and a similar proportion of those who have recently passed away.
Our national vaccination and booster programmes are integral to protecting the population from severe illness and death. We have been administering boosters under our National Vaccination Programme (NVP) since September 2021, starting with the elderly and the immunocompromised. We have progressively expanded the booster programme to persons aged 30 years and above, healthcare and frontline workers, and those working or residing in institutionalised settings.
To date, 84% of our population has completed the full regime of vaccinations and 15% have received boosters. While the percentage of unvaccinated persons in our population is small, in absolute number there remains a sizeable group of individuals who are vulnerable and can fall very sick if infected with COVID-19. As of 29 October, there are approximately 233,000 unvaccinated Singapore residents aged 12 to 59 years and 66,000 unvaccinated Singapore residents aged 60 years and above.
Mr Yip Hon Weng had asked whether the proportion of those issued Health Risk Warnings (HRWs) who subsequently tested COVID-19-positive varied according to their vaccination status. We do not track the precise data. However, a September NCID study of close contacts found that 11.3% of vaccinated household close contacts subsequently tested COVID-positive, but the proportion was more than doubled for unvaccinated household close contacts at 25.8%. This is further evidence showing that vaccination accords protection against infection.
As announced by the MTF Co-chairs, should our hospital and ICU situation remain stable and the weekly infection growth rate drop below 1, we will consider some calibrated easing of measures, such as resuming team sports at selected facilities in small groups, or allowing members from the same households to dine together at F&B establishments.
Meanwhile, VDS will better protect the unvaccinated while enabling social and economic activities to resume for fully vaccinated persons. This will be a key feature of our reopening strategy in the coming weeks and months. We have expanded VDS to cover entry into shopping malls, attractions, hawker centres and coffee shops from 13 October, given that these were found to be common transmission settings.
We recognise that there is a small group who are medically ineligible for both the mRNA and Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccines. From 1 December, as a special concession, we will exempt them from VDS for certain settings and details will be announced by the MTF shortly.
This concession will also be given to those aged 12 to 17 years who are medically ineligible for Pfizer vaccines and who have not opted to take the Sinovac vaccines under the dedicated public health programme set up under the NVP.
Several Members have asked about further VDS differentiation for those who have not received a booster. Currently, VDS do not differentiate between those who are fully vaccinated and those who are boosted because we have not set an expiry date for the vaccination status after two doses. This is something which the Expert Committee on COVID-19 (EC19V) is studying.
Ultimately, while the intent of VDS is to protect individuals with poorer protection against COVID-19, particularly the unvaccinated, from infection, individuals must exercise personal responsibility and keep ourselves safe. Even as we have extended the special concession to those who are medically ineligible, they remain at greater risk of COVID-19 and, if infected, face a higher risk of severe illness. They should thus limit their activities. Similarly, studies have shown that over time, persons who do not receive a booster have lower protection against COVID-19 and severe illness if infected. Getting boosted will keep us and our loved ones safe.
We have also adopted more sustainable healthcare protocols, so as to differentiate medical care based on the needs of each patient. This is necessary in order to safeguard our healthcare capacity and was the impetus behind the Home Recovery Programme (HRP) launched on 15 September.
As of 29 October, nearly 80,000 individuals have gone on the HRP, of whom more than 58,000 have recovered. Since 10 October, we have progressively opened the HRP to unvaccinated individuals from five to 49 years old and fully vaccinated individuals from 12 to 79 years old. Subject to clinical assessment, children aged one to four and fully vaccinated pregnant COVID-19 patients who are below 35 years and less than 26 weeks pregnant may also be eligible for HRP.
Members had asked about the likelihood of those on the HRP transmitting COVID-19 to their household members. Where homes are not conducive for HRP, such as due to being too crowded, we will convey the patient to a Community Isolation Facility (CIF). Having said that, transmission within households is more dependent on the behaviour and interactions of the household members, rather than the physical characteristics of the home. Between 1 April and 30 September this year, 13.8% of household contacts of COVID-19 positive cases eventually tested positive for COVID-19, compared to 1.1% for non-household close contacts. But about eight in 10 household transmissions were detected very shortly after the first household member was confirmed to be COVID-19 positive, which suggests that the household members were infected at the same time, or infection within the household happened even before HRP started.
Once HRP starts and precautions are taken, it can actually be a safe model of care for infected persons and their household members, especially if they are also fully vaccinated. Individuals can better protect themselves and their household members by getting vaccinated to lower their risk of onward transmission. It is for this reason that we had launched the HRP only after a significant majority of the population had been fully vaccinated.
Persons on the HRP can further reduce the likelihood of onward transmission to their household members by taking health precautions, including maintaining good personal and respiratory hygiene, wearing masks, avoiding face-to-face contact with the rest of the household and frequent cleaning and disinfection of shared spaces. There is no need for deep cleaning during or after going through the HRP. Soap water can kill the virus. Should households engage cleaning services, the cleaning businesses should ensure that appropriate SMMs are in place and provide workers with adequate Personal Protective Equipment. MOH and NEA have jointly published a set of cleaning and disinfection guidelines for households that are on the HRP.
The HRP has been instrumental in safeguarding our healthcare capacity as cases are high. We have taken steps to improve the HRP over the past month. First, we have reduced the time between the initial notification of a COVID-19-positive test result and the follow-up call from MOH. Today, more than 90% of COVID-19 patients are contacted within 24 hours of submitting their details via FormSG. The small minority who are uncontactable will be engaged via a house visit.
Second, we have expanded our call centre capacity significantly to improve the responsiveness of the Home Recovery Buddy (HRB) helplines. Through the Interactive Voice Response System, which diverts calls to the appropriate agencies, our HRB helplines have been able to respond to over 95% of the daily calls.
Third, we have improved telemedicine support throughout patients’ home recovery journey. The Telemedicine Allocation and Reconciliation System (TMARS) pairs adhoc consultation requests with available doctors more efficiently. We have also stepped up telemedicine support for vulnerable groups on the HRP to include regular follow-ups.
Seniors, persons with special needs and those who rely on informal carers may require additional support when on the HRP. While such persons should remain isolated to reduce their risk of onward transmission, their household members may assist them as needed, while taking the necessary health precautions. General information on precautions is available in the COVID-19 FAQs on the MOH website. We have also assigned dedicated care managers for vulnerable groups identified during the onboarding call for the HRP. The care managers regularly check in on patients to help and coordinate medical and social support during patients’ home recovery journey. They also work closely with the People’s Association and the Agency for Integrated Care to provide these patients with daily essentials and other forms of caregiving they require.
Individuals who are unsuitable for home recovery may also be conveyed to recover in CIFs or COVID-19 Treatment Facilities (CTFs), depending on their medical needs. We will continue to ensure that there is sufficient transport capacity to convey these individuals in a timely manner. MOH has also ramped up the capacity of CTFs to provide care for higher-risk patients who do not need to be hospitalised. This will help to ensure that there is sufficient hospital bed capacity and facilitate efficient conveyance.
In the initial phase of HRP implementation, there were many complaints and queries, as we encountered many teething issues. These were swiftly resolved. With the improvements we have made to protocols and procedures, the number of queries and complaints has dropped significantly. We thank Singaporeans for their patience during this period.
We recognise that there is still room for improvement. Between 15 and 24 October, MOH received 125 complaints regarding response times, of which 13 were on delays in conveyance to a hospital or other care facility. Over the same time period, MOH facilitated the conveyance of more than 8,200 individuals to hospitals and other care facilities. Majority of the COVID-19 patients who were ineligible for the HRP were conveyed to the appropriate care facilities within 24 hours of confirmation of their COVID-19 status.
We will continue to prioritise those at higher risk of developing complications for conveyance. Patients have access to telemedicine consultations should they need medical attention while waiting to be conveyed. They are advised to call 995 for urgent conveyance to a medical facility should they experience emergency symptoms such as chest pains and shortness of breath. To ensure that SCDF 995 Emergency Medical Services can provide responsive conveyance for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients with emergency conditions, those with mild symptoms should first seek medical help via their designated telemedicine service provider or their regular primary care provider. We will continue to review and refine the support we provide to patients on the HRP, to ensure that everyone has a smooth home recovery journey.
Even as we forge ahead with the HRP, we recognise the need for psychological and emotional support during this difficult period. These needs can often be urgent and require timely and effective responses.
To this end, we set up the National CARE Hotline (NCH) to provide psychological first aid and emotional support to COVID-19 patients and their household members, including those who are distressed by the stigma that they face, or experiencing emotional strain during recovery. Should the need arise, we will assist in conveying these patients to a care facility where they can safely recover.
The NCH has managed over 50,000 calls from members of the public since it commenced operations in April 2020. From 1 to 19 October, the daily call volume typically averaged 119 calls and the average waiting time for a call to be answered was 14 seconds. Typically, spam call incidents are sporadic and do not disrupt operations. We urge members of the public to refrain from spamming Government hotlines as this might hinder us from providing urgent assistance to those who need it. We take a serious view of such actions. Any deliberate attempt to disrupt the operation of Government hotlines through spamming will be referred to the Singapore Police Force for investigation and taken to task.
With the increasing uptake of boosters and increasing familiarity with the HRP, we are slowly but surely making progress towards a COVID-19 resilient nation. We will continue to monitor the incidence of severe illness and deaths due to COVID-19 and adjust our process to protect our healthcare system and ensure that we are able to provide timely and effective support to those who need it. At the same time, we seek the public’s cooperation to exercise personal responsibility in utilising the support systems available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : To ask the Minister for Health in view of the normalisation of home-based recovery programmes for infected COVID-19 patients (a) how will the Ministry address the issue of stigma they face; and (b) what assistance will be provided to those suffering from strained relationships in their residences while they are recovering, especially if they are not part of the family unit, such as tenants.","2 : To ask the Minister for Health during the period where a COVID-19 patient is on the Home Recovery Programme, how will the Ministry protect the cleaners in discarding and cleaning household wastes.","3 : To ask the Minister for Health whether there will eventually be any further differentiated treatment for those who have not taken the COVID-19 booster shot in the future as the efficacy of the two vaccinated doses wanes."],"footNoteQuestions":["77","79","80","81","82","83","84","85"],"questionNo":"77-85"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number Placed on Various Quarantine Orders in Past Three Months and Number of Travellers Allowed to Serve Quarantine in Own Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) in the past three months, how many people were placed on Quarantine Order, Health Risk Warning and Health Risk Alert; and (b) among Singapore residents who travelled overseas and returned, how many have been allowed to serve Stay-Home Notice (SHN) in their own homes.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In the past three months, over 179,000 persons were placed on Quarantine Order (QO). More than 106,000 were issued with Health Risk Warning (HRW) and about 111,000 persons were issued with Health Risk Alert (HRA). These protocols have been simplified and streamlined, with emphasis on personal responsibility, since 11 October 2021.
Among Singapore residents who travelled overseas and returned over the same time period, close to 14,000 of them had served their Stay-Home Notice in their own place of accommodation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans and Targets to Expand Day and Home Care Capacity to Promote Ageing-in-place","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the plans and targets to expand day care and home care capacity to promote ageing-in-place in the community; and (b) what are the plans to mainstream the new varieties of care pilot programmes such as night respite care for dementia patients.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Since 2015, MOH has added 4,600 day care places and 3,100 home care places to ensure that we have sufficient capacity of home and day care services to support ageing in place in the community.
Beyond capacity, we also focus on enhancing the quality and coverage of our community-based services to support ageing in place. For example, we had rolled out the Eldercare Centre (EC) service model since May 2021. This provides seniors with convenient access to a common suite of active ageing programmes, befriending as well as information and referral services in the community. We will on-board more than 200 centres onto this model by 2024.
MOH develops new community initiatives through pilots to broaden the range of options for our seniors and their caregivers. MOH reviews various factors, such as the programme’s cost effectiveness in meeting seniors’ care needs and its scalability, before deciding whether to mainstream a pilot. The pilot on night respite care for dementia patients has been extended as it was suspended for a period of time due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Bulk Purchase Programme to Allow Households to Purchase Antigen Rapid Test Kits More Competitive Price","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"88 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Health whether the Government will consider establishing a bulk purchase programme to allow households who require more antigen rapid test kits to purchase them at a more competitive price from the Government rather than from retail pharmacies and shops.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Both MOH and commercial retailers are already buying in bulk, to replenish our stock and supply their stores respectively.
MOH has also taken further steps to make antigen rapid test kits as available and affordable to the public as possible. We sourced and approved affordable and effective kits, have distributed a round of free kits to all households, and are currently doing a second round of distribution. Individuals on Health Risk Warning can also withdraw free kits from 200 vending machines around the island.
We also monitor the overall supply levels and are prepared to release Government stocks to retailers when there are shortages.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Reduce Packaging Waste Generated from Increase in E-commerce","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"92 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the projected growth in plastic and packaging waste arising from the explosive growth in e-commerce in recent years; and (b) what are the measures that are being taken to reduce such waste.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: NEA publishes Singapore’s annual waste and recycling statistics. Plastic waste generated declined in 2019 and 2020, but paper and cardboard waste, which are common packaging materials, increased in 2020. This is likely due to the spike in e-commerce activities since the circuit breaker period. We do not have a breakdown of paper and plastic packaging waste arising from e-commerce.
Dealing with packaging waste is a priority for my Ministry. From this January, producers of packaged products and retailers with an annual turnover of more than $10 million are required to collect packaging data and develop plans to reduce, reuse or recycle packaging, and report the information to NEA by the first quarter of 2022. Companies covered by these Mandatory Packaging Reporting (MPR) requirements include Singapore-registered e-commerce companies, local companies that list their merchandise on e-commerce platforms and online retailers and supermarkets.
MPR focuses companies’ attention on the packaging that they place onto market and the potential for reducing packaging use in their operations. It lays the foundation to put in place an Extended Producer Responsibility framework to manage packaging waste by 2025.
To encourage companies to adopt more sustainable packaging practices, the Singapore Manufacturing Federation and NEA launched the Packaging Partnership Programme (PPP) in March. This industry-led programme facilitates the exchange of best practices in order to develop industry knowledge on the sustainable management of packaging waste. Some companies have already started taking measures to reduce packaging. For example, PPP member KrisShop, which also operates in the e-commerce space, recently employed a new light-weighting packing method to reduce the amount of packaging used. Through the PPP, online supermarket RedMart has shared its sustainable packaging practices, such as how it collects delivery carton boxes for recycling and reuse. More of such capability-building initiatives will be implemented to support industry to move towards sustainable packaging.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Accuracy Given Different Brands of Antigen Rapid Test Kits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Health given the latest protocol on increased testing for COVID-19 using self-procured antigen rapid test (ART) kits and that many different brands of ART test kits are now sold online and offline (a) how does the Ministry ensure that the quality and accuracy of ART kits are maintained among the different brands sold; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure that the manufacturers are transferring the benefits from the economies of scale to the consumer and not overly profiteering from the sale of ART kits.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: All self-test ART kits currently available legally in the local market have to be authorised by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) under the Pandemic Special Access Route (PSAR). MOH and HSA have put together a robust process to ensure that the self-test ART kits introduced into our local market meet and maintain stringent quality standards.
MOH conducts analytical and clinical validations of the test kits, supported by our healthcare institutions and the Diagnostics Development Hub. Only tests that meet our stringent validation requirements are authorised under PSAR by HSA.
After tests have been authorised and are in use, MOH continues to monitor the performance of these ART kits. HSA also ensures that only ARTs authorised by HSA are being sold for self-testing purposes.
To ensure adequate market competition and diversification of supply, MOH continues to evaluate ART kits and to bring those of good quality into the local market. We also keep a close watch on prices, but to date, we have not observed nor received reports of businesses profiteering from the sale of ART kits.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Reduce Costs of PCR Tests for Entry into and Exit from Singapore through Changi Airport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"94 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Transport (a) what efforts are made to reduce the costs of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for entry into and exit from Singapore through Changi Airport; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider more regular antigen rapid tests or other less costly alternatives prior to departure and upon arrival into Singapore as a means of lowering the cost of travel and to support the revival of the aerospace sector in particular.
Mr S Iswaran: The Changi Airport Group (CAG) has established a dedicated facility at Changi Airport to support the on-arrival testing (OAT) requirements for travellers coming to Singapore. The facility has to cater to large volumes of travellers arriving during peak hours and also has dedicated manpower deployed around the clock to accommodate the arrival times of travellers throughout the day.
The service standard for OAT results is within 12 hours from the time of testing. Based on CAG’s experience thus far, travellers typically receive their results sooner, usually within eight hours.
CAG conducts regular cost reviews to ensure that the pricing for the OAT is competitive. Since OAT was introduced in June 2020, CAG has lowered the testing fee twice, from the initial cost of S$300 to the current cost of S$160.
As part of its latest cost review, CAG has called for and awarded a new tender for the provision of lab testing services. With effect from 18 November 2021, CAG will lower the OAT fee further to S$125. More details are available on CAG’s website.
We continue to work with the MOH and other agencies to review our border measures and testing protocols for travellers, including the number and type of tests required, to facilitate the safe resumption of international air travel while safeguarding public health.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulations for F&B Establishments to be Charged Less by Food Delivery Platforms to Cope with Reduced Dine-in Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"95 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether regulations can be made to require food delivery platforms to lower commissions charged to food and beverage establishments every time dining restrictions are tightened as such establishments are suffering losses with dining-in capped at two diners and delivery is an important channel of revenue.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Many F&B establishments have adapted to changing consumer preferences and the safe management measures on dining in by making food delivery a regular part of their business operations.
Last April, Enterprise Singapore introduced the Food Delivery Booster Package to encourage F&B businesses to offer food delivery services, by defraying commission and delivery costs. To date, more than 10,000 F&B establishments have benefited from the package. Apart from support for food delivery costs, F&B businesses also received enhanced levels of wage support under the Jobs Support Scheme during periods of tightened restrictions.
The food delivery platform market is a relatively competitive one. F&B establishments can choose from a range of food delivery platforms and third-party logistics providers, with different business models and commission fee structures. Some food delivery platforms have, at times, removed onboarding fees or commissions to attract more F&B businesses.
Regulating the commission rates of food delivery platforms at this point will not be helpful. The price mechanism reflects the demand and supply of food delivery services. Keeping the commission rates artificially low could result in longer delivery times, reduce earnings for food delivery personnel and inadvertently hurt F&B establishments through reduced business.
Nonetheless, I would like to assure the Member that the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore will continue to monitor the food delivery sector for any anti-competitive practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessed Risk of COVID-19 Transmission to Individuals Living or Going to School Near Nursing Homes Repurposed Into Community Treatment Facilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"96 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Health regarding the first COVID-19 stepped-up community treatment facility (CTF) repurposed from the nursing home at 1 Tampines Street 22 (a) what is the assessed risk of COVID-19 transmission to students and staffers at the nearby Angsana Primary School; (b) what are the considerations for choosing the nursing home which is near to residential areas and schools; and (c) how has the Ministry worked with the MOE to reassure the parents and students in the nearby schools.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: COVID-19 Treatment Facilities (CTFs) are an important part of our COVID-19 response strategy. By providing care for patients who are stable but at higher risk of serious illness, CTFs alleviate the burden on our public hospitals, allowing them to focus on patients who are more seriously ill.
CTFs are located in different parts of Singapore, with the first one set up in Tampines. We would like to thank residents for their understanding and support as we ramp up more of these facilities in our community to ease the strain on public hospitals.
CTF facilities are subject to stringent infection control measures. Further, the COVID-19 virus typically transmits through modes such as close interactions, sharing of food or items, or prolonged exposure in an enclosed space. It is not known to spread airborne from one premise to another.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimated Cost of Damage due to Fire at Residential Premises, Non-residential Premises and Non-building Places","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"97 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs regarding fires (a) to date in 2021, what are the estimated costs of damage due to fires at residential premises, non-residential premises and non-building places respectively; (b) whether certain households or flat types are more vulnerable to fires; and (c) if so, whether regular inspections, counselling and targeted public education programmes can be provided.
Mr K Shanmugam: SCDF does not conduct quantitative assessments of the damage sustained arising from fires, thus we are unable to provide the Member with an estimated cost.
Between January and September 2021, there were 778 fires at residential premises, of which 89% (or 693 cases) involved public residential premises and 11% (or 85 cases) involved private residential premises. We are unable to draw any conclusions whether a particular household or flat type is more vulnerable to fire. Fire incidents may happen due to various reasons, such as unattended cooking or indiscriminate disposal of lighted materials such as cigarette butts, and these are independent of the type of household or flat.
After a fire incident at public residential premises, SCDF will conduct door-to-door engagements with residents of the affected blocks to share fire safety tips and assuage concerns. SCDF has also been raising public awareness about fire hazards and sharing fire safety tips with the public through targeted outreach and community events. This includes working with grassroots committees to organise community-level engagement events, which provide hands-on training on the use of fire extinguishers as well as to disseminate fire safety educational materials.
Although the ongoing pandemic situation has disrupted many of the community events, SCDF is working towards resuming these safely. One such event is the Community Resilience Day. A pilot was recently held on 30 October 2021 at the Queenstown constituency, in the form of a hybrid event, with a small number of participants present physically and others joining in virtually.
We strongly encourage members of the public to sign up for these events when they resume on a wider scale.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recalibrating Existing Population Strategies Given COVID-19's Negative Impact on Singapore's Population Numbers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"99 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Prime Minister in light of the Government’s annual Population in Brief report and the registered dips in our population numbers due to COVID-19 last year (a) what is the full or expected impact of COVID-19 on our long-term population trends; (b) whether COVID-19 has resulted in any setbacks to our existing population strategies thus far; and (c) whether the Government will consider re-calibrating our existing population strategies in view of the uncertainties caused by COVID-19 and, if so, in which areas.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): The COVID-19 pandemic affected our 2020 and 2021 population figures, but its long-term effect remains to be seen.
Our Singapore Citizen (SC) and Permanent Resident (PR) populations decreased by 0.7% and 6.2% respectively between June 2020 and June 2021. This was mainly because more SCs and PRs remained overseas continuously for more than a year due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. The numbers may recover as travel restrictions ease. Similarly, while the Non-Resident (NR) population decreased by 10.7% over the same period, this was largely because of a decrease in foreign employment in Singapore, which is expected given uncertain economic conditions and widespread border restrictions.
However, it remains to be seen if there has been a long-term impact on marriage and parenthood trends. There were 12.3% fewer citizen marriages in 2020 than 2019, largely attributable to the pandemic. There were also 3.1% fewer citizen births over the same period. As most of the births in 2020 would have been conceived prior to the pandemic, we will have to further assess its impact on parenthood decisions.
While our fundamental population approach remains sound, the pandemic has brought about added impetus to push ahead with our key strategies.
For example, supporting marriage and parenthood is a longstanding priority. To reassure couples and encourage them to proceed with their marriage and parenthood plans, the Government introduced the one-off $3,000 Baby Support Grant in 2020. COVID-19 also showed that flexible work arrangements are feasible. We are working with employers and stakeholders to lock in the gains in the shifts in mindsets and implementation of good work-life practices, which help parents better fulfil their aspirations both at home and in the workplace.
Economic disruptions during the pandemic have also accelerated Government and industry efforts to strengthen our local workforce. The pandemic has resulted in a manpower crunch felt keenly by our businesses, bringing to light the risks of relying on lower-skilled foreign workers. In addition to helping workers and businesses to tide over the difficult times, the Government has enhanced and extended grants focused on upskilling our local workforce and helping our companies to transform. Many businesses are also accelerating their efforts to transform business models, go digital and improve productivity.
The full impact of COVID-19 on our longer-term population trends remains to be seen. The Government will continue to monitor this closely. Meanwhile, we will continue to review our initiatives and strategies to ensure that they remain relevant to our needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workplace Safety and Health Act Proceedings Commenced against Worker, Employer or Both","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"100 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Manpower in respect of fatal workplace accidents over the past five years involving alleged negligence by workers, in how many instances were Workplace Safety and Health Act proceedings commenced against (i) a worker (ii) the employer and (iii) both worker and employer, respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: Since 2016, MOM has prosecuted 34 persons for negligent acts that resulted in a workplace fatality. In 26 of those cases, charges were also preferred against the employer, the occupier, or the principal. As Workplace Safety and Health Act (WSHA) cases usually originate from negligent acts of individuals, we investigate each case carefully before making our recommendation to the Public Prosecutor. Ultimately, the Public Prosecutor decides which party should be prosecuted.
Ensuring workplace safety and health remains a concerted effort by both employers and workers. While employers have a duty under the WSHA to ensure that their employees work safely, workers also have a duty to ensure that they do not negligently endanger the workers around them or under their charge.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Collaboration for Duke-NUS Medical School","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"101 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) since the establishment of Duke-NUS Medical School, how many doctors have graduated; (b) how many graduates stayed on to do medical research; (c) whether the objective of this collaboration between Duke University and NUS to develop a world-class medical institution has been achieved; and (d) whether NUS will be able to run this post-graduate medical school without collaboration with Duke University School of Medicine.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Duke-NUS Medical School was established in 2005 and admitted its first batch of students in 2007. A total of 558 students have graduated with Doctor of Medicine (MD) or MD-PhD degrees since its establishment. Close to 10% of the MD students enrol in the combined MD-PhD pathway and the majority of the graduates undergoing post-graduate clinical training are engaged in research.
As the first batch of MD students only graduated in 2011, currently only 79 (14%) of its graduates have fully completed their post-graduate clinical training. Among the School’s graduates, 30 held or currently hold appointments as Adjunct Research Fellows at Duke-NUS. To date, Duke-NUS graduates have published more than 540 research papers in peer-reviewed journals and presented more than 450 presentations at local and international conferences.
The Duke-NUS project is strategically important to the development of the medical science and healthcare landscape in Singapore. It has met the objectives for which it had been established, including injecting capabilities and diversity into the healthcare system, to realise the synergies between clinical service, research and education.
MOH therefore fully supports NUS’s commitment to continuing its close collaboration with Duke University.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations for Allotting Foreign Manpower Quotas to Companies that Employ Part-timers who May Work for Different Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"102 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the considerations for allotting foreign manpower quotas to companies which share with other companies, CPF contributions to a local staff; and (b) whether there has been an increase in workers part-timing with more than three employers.
Dr Tan See Leng: A firm’s foreign worker quota determines the number of Work Permit (WP) and S Pass holders it can hire. The quota is computed based on the number of locals, meaning Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, that it hires.
To ensure that employers do not hire locals on token salaries just to increase its foreign worker quota, locals have to be paid at least the Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) of $1,400 per month to count toward the firm’s foreign worker quota. As an allowance for firms hiring part-time workers, local employees who earn at least half of the LQS ($700 to below $1,400) will be considered as half a local employee for the foreign worker quota.
We recognise that some locals may work in more than one job across different companies. To avoid disincentivising employers from hiring these workers, we allow a local worker to count towards the foreign worker quota for up to two firms. These workers will count as one local employee if they are paid at least LQS by the firm, or half a local employee if paid at least half of the LQS. We cap the number of firms at two, as there is a natural limit to the number of full-time jobs a local can work in a month.
However, we will not allow an employer to split the salary of its employee across its different business entities, in order to get foreign worker quota for each business entity. This is an abuse of the rules and employers will be investigated for breach of the work pass regulations.
It is not common for locals to work in three or more jobs. The number of locals working in three or more jobs, has remained very low from 2016-20201, at around 0.2% of our resident employees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Before 2018, data on multiple job holders was collected every two years. Hence data for 2017 are not available."],"footNoteQuestions":["102"],"questionNo":"102"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Class 4 Licence Driving Courses under SkillsFuture Framework to Facilitate Mid-career Transfers into Public Transport Driver Roles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"104 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider incorporating the Class 4 licence driving courses under the SkillsFuture framework which will facilitate mid-career Singaporeans to transit into transportation drivers amidst the current labour shortage due to border restrictions.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: We recognise that Class 4 driving licences are a regulatory requirement before individuals can take on jobs that involve the driving of certain heavy motor vehicles. Given this clear employment-related outcome, SkillsFuture Singapore would be prepared to support courses related to attaining Class 4 driving licences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help for Less Digitally Savvy Singaporeans to Use Community Development Council E-vouchers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"105 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how is help being given to Singaporeans who are less digitally savvy to utilise the $100 Community Development Council (CDC) e-vouchers; (b) what are the number and percentage of merchants who have participated in the previous round of accepting CDC paper vouchers; and (c) how is the Ministry helping to “onboard” more heartland merchants and coffee shop stallholders to take advantage of the CDC e-vouchers, especially when SG Digital Ambassadors usually pay less attention to assist merchants not operating in NEA wet markets and hawker centres.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The five Community Development Councils (CDCs) launched Tranche 1 of the CDC Vouchers Scheme in June 2020 to help defray the cost of living for lower-income families and at the same time, to support hawkers and heartland merchants who were affected by the pandemic.
Tranche 1 was well-received by residents and participating hawkers/heartland merchants. The five CDCs then rolled out a second tranche of CDC Vouchers Scheme in January 2021. About 8,000 heartland merchants and hawkers participated in the scheme which saw residents using the vouchers islandwide across the two tranches.
The new CDC Vouchers Scheme, which was announced at Budget 2021, provides for $130 million CDC vouchers to be distributed to all Singaporean households.
The new CDC Vouchers Scheme is designed to be as easy to use as possible. It will be provided via an end-to-end digital solution designed to provide users with a convenient and seamless way to receive, accept and redeem the CDC vouchers. The improved concept and system were developed in response to feedback and suggestions from users, as well as hawkers and merchants who had participated in the earlier tranches of the scheme. This included having faster pay-outs and to avoid having to collect, count and submit paper vouchers. In addition, this move towards e-vouchers is also aligned with the Government’s Smart Nation initiative and drive to reduce our carbon footprint, with less printing and use of paper materials.
The CDCs, together with the help of Govtech, have gone through several rounds of trials to test the system with different hawkers and merchants, as well as residents of all ages and walks of life, taking on board their views as appropriate.
Following this, in October 2021, the CDCs started the onboarding of hawkers and merchants on the new CDC Vouchers Scheme. In this effort, we are working closely with associations like Federation of Merchants’ Association, Singapore (FMAS), Heartland Enterprise Centre Singapore (HECS), as well as various merchant and hawker associations. We are also working with other key partners such as Enterprise Singapore (ESG) and the SME Centres, Infocomm Media Development Authority / SG Digital Office (IMDA/SDO), Government Technology Agency / Open Government Product (Govtech/OGP) and MOF, in order to reach out to a broad cross section of users and merchants alike. This approach will help the smooth implementation of the scheme.
To support hawkers and merchants to get onto this scheme, experienced ambassadors from the CDCs and SDO have been trained and are being deployed ahead of the launch to the HDB estates and heartlands to reach out to hawkers and merchants about the CDC e-vouchers and their participation. The ambassadors will visit hawkers and heartland merchants to introduce the CDC e-vouchers and guide the hawkers and merchants on how to download and use the RedeemSG Merchant app. Business Advisers from ESG and representatives from the merchant and hawker associations will also be assisting in this outreach to hawkers and heartland merchants.
To ensure that the needs of the less digitally-savvy are also met, resources and manpower have been prepared to assist special segments of the population like the seniors, the vulnerable and those without smart devices, in accessing and redeeming their e-vouchers.
Those who are less digitally-savvy may also approach the Community Club/Centre (CC) for guidance and assistance on the CDC e-vouchers. There will be staff and volunteers at hand to personally guide them on how to download and use their digital vouchers. They will also have the option of requesting for a printed voucher in appropriate cases. Dedicated mobile counters to assist seniors will be set up at selected Residents’ Committee (RC) / Residents’ Network (RN) centres located in areas with a higher concentration of elderly population. Furthermore, the SDO’s Digital Ambassadors in SG Digital Community hubs found in selected CCs and libraries islandwide will also provide such assistance. More help will also be available on the ground through Silver Generation Office Ambassadors who will assist with any queries or request for assistance during their house visits to seniors.
To help Singaporeans including seniors, familiarise themselves with the process and steps to receiving and redeeming the vouchers, a step-by-step video guide and infographics produced in English and the vernacular languages will be distributed widely and be available on the CDC website as well as social media channels. We will announce more details closer to the launch date in a few months’ time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of COVID-19-related Movement Restrictions on Mental Health of Migrant Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"107 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has studied the impact of movement restriction on the mental health of migrant workers who have not been allowed into the community since March 2020; (b) if not, why not; and (c) if a study has been done, when will the results be released.
108 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what proportion of frontline officers, dormitory operators, employers and Forward Assurance and Support Team officers have been trained in identifying migrant workers with mental health symptoms; (b) how have the capabilities and capacities of para-counselling and counselling services available to migrant workers been strengthened since the announcement of Project Dawn; and (c) what is the average wait time between identification of a migrant worker with poor mental health and referral to a trained professional.
Dr Tan See Leng: Two Members have filed questions related to the mental well-being of our migrant workers.
We are committed to support the mental well-being of our migrant workers and are sparing no efforts to strengthen the mental health support ecosystem for migrant workers. Since last November, the Project DAWN task force has worked with our Non-Government Organisations (NGO) partners, healthcare partners, employers and dormitory operators to develop such a support ecosystem approach to look out for migrant workers, listen to their concerns, identify those who need more support and link them with the appropriate care channels. We are doing this in three ways.
First, we are raising awareness of mental health issues and broadening outreach of training in basic mental health and psychological first aid (PFA). All new frontline officers who are part of the Forward Assurance and Support Teams (FAST) undergo basic PFA as part of their induction programme. To date, more than 500 personnel have undergone such training. We also hold regular Community of Practice sessions between FAST and our consultants from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). These sessions address common scenarios officers may face in their daily work and are attended by about a third of our officers at each run. All dormitory operators and employers receive materials on basic PFA, which are also readily available on a dedicated page on MOM’s website. Webinars are arranged periodically to strengthen awareness of mental health issues for employers and dormitory operators.
Second, we are working with our NGO partners to make counselling and para-counselling more accessible. Besides existing counselling hotlines with the Migrant Workers’ Centre (MWC) and HealthServe, MOM also co-funded and supported the expansion of HealthServe’s 24-hour counselling service which has been operational since August 2021. To deliver culturally attuned care, HealthServe had ensured that more native-speaking para-counsellors were hired to deliver this service. The Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) had also lent their expertise to build up HealthServe’s capabilities in operating this round-the-clock service. This 24-hour service has been publicised widely to employers, dormitory operators and migrant workers, including through MOM’s channels.
Beyond helplines, the Project DAWN taskforce is also strengthening community peer support through the training of Friends of ACE (FACE) volunteers in basic PFA and para-counselling skills. To date, about 150 peer support leaders have been trained and we are working towards training up to 600 peer support leaders by end 2022. We will continue to assess the effectiveness of the training and consider expanding this to more volunteers beyond 2022.
Third, mental healthcare has been made even more accessible. Any migrant worker identified to benefit from mental healthcare will be linked up with the appropriate service, including counselling hotlines. For those who prefer to undergo physical consultations, our healthcare teams at MOM’s regional medical centres are also trained to identify, care for and refer those who require further medical care. An escalation pathway with IMH has also been developed to ensure timely care for more severe cases, when necessary.
An earlier study conducted by Yale-NUS on migrant workers’ mental health from June to October 20201 showed no notable difference in stress, anxiety and depression levels among locals and migrant workers, although there were indications of higher levels of stress amongst migrant workers with movement restrictions. Nonetheless, any easing of movement restrictions will need to be done in a careful and calibrated manner, so as not to trade one stress for another – in particular the stress of overwhelming our healthcare system. Since August last year, we have allowed dormitory residents to visit Recreation Centres (RCs). We recently increased the frequency of RC visits to thrice a week, up from once a week. We also removed pre-visit testing requirements for vaccinated migrant workers, which benefits more than 98% of the dormitory population. Concurrently, we are working with RC operators and community partners, to introduce programmes and new offerings to make RC visits more engaging.
Last month, we piloted community visits for vaccinated workers to Little India. To ensure these community visits have broader appeal to more migrant workers, we recently expanded the visits from 500 to 3,000 vaccinated migrant workers per week and included Geylang Serai/Joo Chiat. We also extended the visit duration to eight hours.
We remain committed towards caring for our migrant workers’ mental well-being through a good support system, as well as to continue to ease the measures safely. MOM will continue to monitor the mental health of migrant workers by working closely with our partners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Saw, Y. E., Tan, E. Y., Buvanaswari, P., Doshi, K., & Liu, J. C. (2021). Mental health of international migrant workers amidst large-scale dormitory outbreaks of COVID-19: A population survey in Singapore. Journal of migration and health, 4, 100062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmh.2021.100062."],"footNoteQuestions":["107","108"],"questionNo":"107-108"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Making Available More Affordable or Subsidised Treatment for Mental Health Given Likely Increase in Cases during COVID-19 Pandemic Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"109 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Health whether more affordable or subsidised treatment for mental health can be made available to those who need it given the likely increase of mental health issues during this COVID-19 pandemic period.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In anticipation of the increase in mental health needs in our population, the Government and various agencies have expanded and introduced a range of mental health-related initiatives.
Mental health is supported through the existing framework of subsidies and support that apply to all health issues.
Eligible patients can receive up to 75% of subsidies for mental health services at polyclinics and public specialist outpatient clinics (SOCs). All Singaporeans are also eligible for means-tested subsidies under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) at GP clinics for the treatment of mental health conditions under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP). They receive subsidies up to an annual limit of $500 depending on income.
Patients can use their MediSave – up to $500 per year for simple chronic conditions and $700 per year for complex chronic conditions under the CDMP – to further lower their out-of-pocket costs. In 2019, about seven in 10 patients who withdrew from MediSave for the treatment of mental health conditions under the CDMP did not reach the yearly $500 withdrawal limit.
For inpatient treatment, patients receive up to 80% subsidies at our public hospitals and can use MediShield Life and MediSave up to the prevailing limits. Singaporeans who are unable to afford their mental health treatments can apply for MediFund. No Singaporean is denied access to appropriate treatment due to an inability to pay.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals to be Eligible for HDB’s Proximity Housing Grant when Resale Flat Changes Hands between Members of Same Family","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"110 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development regarding parents who bought and moved into HDB flats previously owned by their children, and these children moving into another flat within four kilometres where the parents now live (a) for the past three years, what is the number of appeals filed by these parents who were deemed ineligible for HDB’s Proximity Housing Grant (PHG); and (b) whether HDB takes into consideration that these transactions are based on latest fair market valuation in such PHG appeals.
Mr Desmond Lee: From September 2018 to September 2021, there were only two appeals for the Proximity Housing Grant (PHG) from parents who bought or intended to buy their child’s flat, while the child moved to another property within four kilometres.
The PHG was introduced in 2015 to encourage more families to live with or close to each other for mutual care and support. All Singaporeans buying a resale flat with or near their parents or children can receive the PHG once, regardless of whether they had previously owned a property.
Parents who buy their child’s flat are not eligible for any housing grants, including the PHG. This is because such buyers are likely to end up with a larger flat, contrary to our objective of supporting seniors to right-size to a flat that better meets their retirement needs.
That said, HDB will consider extending the PHG to parents who are buying over their child’s flat on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration factors such as whether the parents are right-sizing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Military Camps that Tap On Renewable Sources of Energy to Generate Power","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"111 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Defence (a) what is the percentage of military camps that currently tap on renewable sources of energy such as solar energy to generate power; (b) whether it is feasible to install solar panels in military camps; and (c) if so, whether there are plans to do so.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: MINDEF and the SAF will do our part to contribute towards the Singapore Green Plan 2030. We will meet the national targets set, without compromising operational effectiveness. On the use of renewable energy sources, we have plans to tap on solar energy.
We have begun installation of solar panels in suitable areas within military camps. By April next year, about one in four of our camps will have solar panels installed. These solar panels will deliver approximately 20 mega-watt peak of electricity, equivalent to the consumption of about 5,000 four-room households. By 2025, the adoption will expand to close to two-third of our military camps, generating 50 mega-watt peak of electricity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 Impact on Home Visits and Interventions by IMH Community Health Team and Community Dementia Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"112 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Health how have home visits and interventions by the IMH Community Health Team and community dementia services been affected as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing safety precautions.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we continued to make available our community mental health and dementia services, with added precautionary measures. Intervention and counselling are conducted through telephone or video consultations as far as possible for patients who are assessed to be suitable. For interventions that cannot be delivered effectively online or for patients who are not suitable to receive intervention remotely, service personnel meet patients at community sites or their homes, with safe management measures (SMM) in place.
While certain high-risk activities such as group activities, mask-off activities and door-to-door outreach services have been curtailed, in-person service is allowed to support patients with severe conditions, inadequate family support and intensive care needs, such as those at risk of injury or who are at high risk of relapse of their psychiatric conditions.
Patients may also seek support through helplines such as the Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) 24-hour crisis hotline, Institute of Mental Health’s Mental Health Helpline and the Senior Helpline operated by SAGE Counselling Centre.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Blanket Waiver on Need for Ex-spousal Consent to List Children as Occupiers in HDB Flat Applications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"113 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will waive the requirement for ex-spousal consent on who can list the children as occupiers in a HDB flat application if the ex-spouse has already purchased a private property or a HDB flat following the divorce rather than reviewing this on a case-by-case basis.
Mr Desmond Lee: Divorcees with shared care and control of children have an equal right to list their children in their flat application. At the same time, any individual is only allowed to be listed in one HDB flat application. We therefore require divorced parents to come to an agreement before either party lists their child in a flat application. This ensures fairness to all parties, as HDB is not in a position to determine which parent should exercise the right to do so.
For cases where the ex-spouse has bought a private property or HDB flat after the divorce, they may still wish to list the child in a future flat application. As such, HDB will have to consider the circumstances of each case individually and will not be able to waive the mutual agreement requirement as a blanket policy.
We understand that is not always possible for divorced parties to reach an agreement on who can list the child in a flat application, especially if the divorce was acrimonious. Those who are unable to reach an agreement with their ex-spouse can approach HDB to discuss their options. HDB will review each case and is prepared to exercise flexibility to ensure that both parties have options to provide housing for themselves and their children.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Mandatory Foldable Benches and Seat Belts at Back of Lorries that Ferry Passengers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"115 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry will consider making it mandatory for lorries that are used to ferry persons in the rear decks to be fitted with foldable benches and seat belts similar to those used in the SAF three-tonners; and (b) what studies have been done into the cost and safety benefits of such a requirement.
Mr S Iswaran: The issue of custom fitting commercial lorries, be it to install seat belts and/or foldable benches, requires detailed study. Unlike the SAF trucks that are designed and built to specific military requirements, the lorries on our roads are standard commercial vehicles. The original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) must first ascertain that any customisations are safe and do not inadvertently create more safety risks. In the 2008 tripartite review on lorry transportation, the OEMs had shared with Government agencies that fitting seat belts in the rear decks of lorries could result in safety risks, as their commercial lorries are not designed with suitable anchorage points to be fitted with seat belts.
We recognise that vehicular construction and technologies have evolved since. Therefore, LTA has been engaging the industry on the feasibility and safety of customising new lorries with seat belts in the rear deck and we will share more details once ready.
","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 Diabetes Screening in Singapore in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"116 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the breakdown by age range of individuals (including those below the age of 40) who have undergone diabetes screening in the past three years; (b) whether there are plans to improve the take-up rate of screening to detect diabetes and pre-diabetes, especially among the younger or lower income demographic groups; and (c) whether the Government will consider requiring Singaporeans to undergo diabetes screening at key stages of their lives, such as national service enlistment and pre-employment.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Diabetes screening is recommended for individuals aged 40 years and above once every three years and for younger individuals with high risk. From our National Population Health Survey, the overall diabetes screening participation among residents aged 40 to 74 within the past three years was 78.5% in 2020. The screening participation rate was 75.2% for those aged 40 to 49 and rose progressively to 87.8% for those aged 70 to 74 years. Amongst residents below the recommended age of 40 years, 57.6% of those aged 18 to 39 participated in diabetes screening within the past three years. The risk of developing diabetes is low for this age group.
Diabetes screening is voluntary and based on personal responsibility for one’s own health. MOH and the Health Promotion Board (HPB) have been putting in measures to encourage diabetes screening participation, such as offering subsidised screening for eligible residents under the national health screening programme, Screen for Life (SFL). Younger individuals aged 18 to 39 assessed to be of higher risk by the Diabetes Risk Assessment tool available on HealthHub are also eligible for subsidised screening under SFL. MOH and HPB collaborate with Regional Health Systems, Social Service Agencies and self-help groups such as the Malay-Muslim Organisations and SINDA to reach out to many communities and groups, to improve the uptake of screening.
Routine screening for gestational diabetes during antenatal follow-up at public hospitals and postnatal screening for diabetes for women with gestational diabetes are examples of leveraging on key life stages to enhance screening and detection of diabetes. There have also been efforts to promote workplace screening and follow-up such as HPB’s Workplace Outreach Wellness (WOW) Package, and efforts focused on workplaces with low income workers. We will continue to broaden the network of healthcare providers and the appropriate touchpoints to increase accessibility and encourage diabetes screening.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Volume of Trade Turnover on Singapore Exchange and Measures to Make Trades on Singapore Exchange More Attractive to Foreign Investors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"117 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Government tracks retail investors' monthly fund outflows from Singapore that are invested into stocks and derivatives traded on overseas exchanges; (b) if so, what is the data for the past 12 months; (c) whether the Government has conducted any survey of the top three overseas exchanges used by Singaporeans to trade; (d) what is the Government's assessment of the volume of trade turnover on the Singapore Exchange (SGX); and (e) what is being done to improve the turnover and make Singapore more attractive to investors.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): MAS does not have data on retail investors’ monthly fund outflows to overseas exchanges or where they are deployed, as many trade directly on overseas exchanges without going through retail brokerages based in Singapore. Of those who trade on overseas stock exchanges through such Singapore intermediaries, we estimate1 that approximately half of retail investors’ fund flows remain in Singapore, while the other half flows overseas, with the US, Hong Kong and Thailand being the top three overseas stock markets.
Financial institutions in Singapore offer a range of investment options in both local and overseas markets for market participants here, including retail investors. From an investor point of view, it is not undesirable to diversify investments across markets and types of assets, including through instruments offered on SGX, as long as investors understand the nature of the risks and benefits of doing so.
Turnover on SGX has increased in the midst of COVID-19, although it has been outpaced by competitor exchanges. SGX’s total equity monthly turnover has grown by about 20% since early 2019. SGX has traditionally had more active volumes in less volatile, income-generating investments, such as REITs, compared to other growth-focused exchanges, such as NASDAQ2.
To narrow the gap with other exchanges and help drive turnover growth, SGX has introduced new and more flexible listing pathways to cater to new economy companies. These include listing frameworks for companies with dual class share structures, and more recently, the special purpose acquisition companies framework. SGX is also working with regional exchanges to build linkages and expand investor pools, as well as broaden its equity product shelf. To support secondary market trading, SGX has been building its ecosystem of market makers and liquidity providers.
Government agencies are supporting SGX’s efforts to increase the attractiveness of our equities markets for local and international investors. I will highlight a few recent initiatives.
The Government and Temasek are co-investing in a S$1.5 billion fund called \"Anchor Fund @ 65\", to provide late-stage pre-IPO funding and to attract and anchor new listings of growth companies on SGX.
EDBi, the investment arm of EDB, is establishing a new \"Growth IPO Fund\" to invest in future market leaders and technology innovators that are two to five years away from a public listing, with a view towards having them list on SGX.
MAS defrays listing costs for companies looking to list on SGX and encourages more equity research on smaller and less covered Singapore-listed stocks through its Grant for Equity Market Singapore (GEMS).
These steps are part of a continuing strategy to develop depth and breadth in our capital markets, including strengthening our role as a capital-raising venue for promising firms in the region and beyond. This is ultimately what will draw retail and institutional investors alike to our capital markets.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Estimates are based on revenue that local retail brokers derived from various securities markets.","2 : According to the latest available data from the World Federation of Exchanges, turnover for NASDAQ grew by 42% over the same period."],"footNoteQuestions":["117"],"questionNo":"117"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Social Services and Plans to Keep Seniors Meaningfully Engaged Despite COVID-19 Restrictions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"118 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Health given the precautions to protect seniors from COVID-19 and reduction in their activities (a) what are the plans to keep seniors meaningfully engaged; (b) how will social services agencies for seniors and their volunteers be supported to shift their engagement strategies to minimise service disruptions; and (c) what is the timeline for these plans.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As the number of COVID-19 cases in the community remains high, seniors are advised to stay home as much as possible, except for essential activities, during the stabilisation phase. This is to protect them from the virus. Nevertheless, MOH recognises that reduced social interactions can negatively impact one’s socioemotional well-being, especially seniors living alone who may be at risk of social isolation. Hence, we will need to strike a balance in our approach. To this end, the MOH is working with our partners to ensure that our seniors remain meaningfully engaged during this challenging period in three ways.
First, we are pivoting our engagement strategy and supporting our partners to leverage virtual platforms to engage seniors, where it is practically feasible and meaningful to do so. For example, the Council for Third Age (C3A), Health Promotion Board (HPB), Sport Singapore (SportSG) and People’s Association (PA) have pivoted some of their activities and talks onto the various social media platforms so that they remain accessible, rather than being entirely held off. Several Eldercare Centres (ECs) have also converted their activities to online sessions, in order to reach more seniors.
Nonetheless, we recognise that there may be hurdles preventing some seniors from accessing services online, especially if they are unfamiliar with the platform. Therefore, to complement this, the SG Digital Office under the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) actively trains seniors in basic digital skills so that they are able to use digital platforms and participate in these virtual activities, and use online communications to keep in touch with their family and friends. More than 100,000 seniors have been benefited from this initiative to date.
Second, the Silver Generation Office has also introduced tele-engagements since April 2020 to ensure that vulnerable seniors requiring care and support can continue to receive assistance. Seniors experiencing loneliness or mental distress can reach out to The Seniors Helpline, which provides tele-befriending and tele-counselling services. Seniors and their caregivers can also call AIC’s hotline if they require more information on the various eldercare and caregiving support services.
Third, for seniors who require face-to-face interaction, MOH has put in place safe management and infection control measures so that partners may continue to provide essential services to keep them engaged. Such services include social, recreational and cognitive activities at the Senior Care Centres and Active Ageing Care Hubs located within the community. Befriending services are also available to provide vulnerable individuals, such as those with limited family or social support and are at greater risk of social isolation, with psychosocial support.
Even as the Government and our community partners expand our efforts to engage our seniors, this ought not to diminish or replace the role of family support. In Singapore, families are a key pillar of our Social Compact. They form the core of our society and are our first line of support. Family members have shared responsibility in providing care for one another, including our seniors, through the ups and downs of life, as a stable anchor of support, complementing other forms of Government and community support. As a society, together, we can all play our part to engage our seniors and to keep them safe during this pandemic.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Likely Changes to Government's Bus Contracting Model","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"119 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Transport with several bus contract packages up for renewal in next five years (a) whether there are likely impending changes to the bus contracting model; and (b) whether the electrification plans of public buses will affect the existing contracting model and on-demand bus services.
Mr S Iswaran: The bus contracting model was introduced in 2016 to make bus services more responsive to commuter needs and introduce more competition in the bus industry.
We have made good progress in achieving these goals. The number of public transport operators increased from two to four. This increased competition has spurred operators to improve their efficiency, with average tender prices falling by 15% after five rounds of competitive tendering by LTA. We have also seen an improvement to bus service quality and shorter waiting times for commuters. Bus satisfaction levels have improved from 7.2 out of 10 in 2015 to 7.8 out of 10 in 2020.
We have been refining the bus contracting model over the years. For example, as operators became more proficient in running bus packages, we raised the baselines of the Bus Service Reliability Framework to spur operators to become even more efficient. In 2019, we tendered out two packages together to allow operators to offer more competitive pricing. LTA will continue to review service levels and contractual provisions for future bus tenders to ensure that they remain relevant and sustainable.
With the transition to cleaner energy public buses, such as hybrid and electric buses, LTA will be including the necessary provisions in the contracts for each bus package. Transition to cleaner energy buses can be smoothly integrated into the bus contracting model as we progressively retire our diesel bus fleet.
The decision on whether to operate on-demand buses is a separate matter that will depend on the commercial viability of such a model. This is separate from the decision to switch to cleaner energy buses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation Rate for Category D COEs and Proportion of Successful Bids by Commercial Entities and Individual Buyers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"121 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the utilisation rate for Category D COEs from January to September 2021; (b) what percentage of successful Category D COE bids are made by commercial entities and individual buyers respectively; and (c) what consideration has the Ministry given to setting a fixed quota of COEs solely for individual buyers to bid.
Mr S Iswaran: For temporary Certificates of Entitlement (TCOEs) secured from January to April 2021, which have since expired, the utilisation rate is 99.9%. The TCOEs secured after April 2021 have not expired since they have a validity of six months.
While 96% of the successful Category D COE bids are made by commercial entities, including motor dealers, most of these COEs are subsequently used to register motorcycles belonging to individuals. This is because many owners prefer to obtain their COEs through their dealers. Doing so allows the motorcycle buyers to benefit from being able to get their motorcycles immediately, by using the TCOEs that the dealer has already secured.
The high TCOE utilisation rate suggests that the higher Category D COE prices are a result of higher demand for motorcycles. There is no evidence that it is caused by allowing both dealers and individuals to bid. To set a quota for individuals would be arbitrary and the smaller quotas in the COE sub-categories will likely result in greater market volatility and potential increases in COE prices.
The Ministry understands the concerns on the impact of COE prices on motorcycle owners who ride for a living. I would like to assure the House that we are monitoring this situation closely and will take the appropriate measures, if warranted.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress on Development of Proposed Polyclinic at Junction of Serangoon Central and Upper Serangoon Road","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"122 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he can provide an update on the development of the proposed polyclinic at the junction of Serangoon Central and Upper Serangoon Road; and (b) whether there will be any changes to the projected completion date.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Serangoon Polyclinic was first announced during the 2019 Committee of Supply debate. The development site is currently undergoing demolition works and construction works are expected to commence next year. The Polyclinic is on track to open by 2025, barring any unforeseen circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Protect Individuals and Raise Awareness on Multitude of Financial Scams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs amidst the COVID-19 pandemic when many people are struggling financially, whether sufficient protection measures are in place to protect individuals and to raise awareness on the multitude of financial scams which includes investment scams, job scams, e-commerce scams and loan scams.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of scams has been on the rise. In the first half of this year, there were 8,403 scam cases reported, up 16% from the same period last year. Loan scams, e-commerce scams, investment scams and job scams made up about half of all the scam cases reported.
We have adopted a multi-pronged approach to tackle scams. This is led by the Inter-Ministry Committee on Scams (IMCS).
First, we are strengthening enforcement. We have set up specialised units in the Singapore Police Force (SPF) to disrupt scammers’ operations, such as the E-Commerce Fraud Enforcement and Coordination Team to tackle e-commerce scams, and the Anti-Scam Centre to serve as the nerve centre for investigations into scam-related crimes. The SPF has also stepped up collaboration and conducted joint operations with foreign law enforcement agencies. For example, in August 2021, the SPF worked with the Royal Malaysia Police to cripple a transnational job scam syndicate based in Malaysia that was believed to be responsible for more than 188 cases of job scams reported in Singapore.
Second, we are partnering stakeholders outside of the Home Team. In addition to drawing on the expertise and resources in other Government agencies, we also work closely with private sector stakeholders such as banks, digital platforms and telecommunications companies. For example, SPF works with financial institutions to swiftly freeze bank accounts suspected to be involved in scammers’ operations and to weed out money mules. SPF has also worked with telecommunications companies to block spoof calls used by overseas scammers.
Third, we are strengthening public education and awareness, as the best defence against scams is a discerning public. For example, we have been working with partners such as the National Crime Prevention Council to disseminate advisories through various media and online platforms. Our anti-scam public education campaign, called \"Spot the Signs. Stop the Crimes.\" is in its second year. These outreach and engagement efforts cover a variety of scam types, including loan scams and job scams, which seek particularly to exploit those who are struggling financially. Other scam public outreach campaigns include the \"Beware! Investment Scams Campaign\" led by the Monetary Authority of Singapore in April 2021, and the \"SG Cyber Safe Seniors Programme\" launched in June 2021 by the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA), Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), and SPF.
Combatting scams requires a whole of society effort. MHA will continue to collaborate with Government agencies and industry partners to this end.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Ex-offenders Who Secured Employment through Yellow Ribbon Singapore in Past Three Years and Incentives for Employers to Hire Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Abdul Samad asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) for each year in the past three years, what is the number of ex-offenders who have secured employment through the Yellow Ribbon Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry is considering to provide incentives for employers to hire ex-offenders.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of ex-offenders who secured employment through Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) is shown in the table below. Many others secure employment on their own.
As of September 2021, more than 6,000 employers have registered with YRSG to offer jobs to ex-offenders. YRSG helps employers understand the support ex-offenders need at the workplace. For example, YRSG’s career coaches work with both ex-offenders and their employers to set behavioural goals, resolve work-related issues and develop ways to create and sustain an inclusive work environment. YRSG and the Institute for Human Resources Professionals will be running a Project Beyond Hiring initiative to develop the coaching competencies of employers and workplace supervisors.
YRSG also works with other public agencies to encourage employers to hire ex-offenders. For example, YRSG has collaborated with Workforce Singapore since 2019 to offer the Career Trial programme to employers and ex-offenders. This allows both ex-offender jobseekers and employers to try out work opportunities for up to three months and assess if there is a job fit. While on the trial, the jobseekers will receive a training allowance, and those employed for at least three months after the trial will receive a retention incentive. As of September 2021, the Career Trial has supported around 70 employers and benefited more than 280 ex-offenders.
Amidst the uncertain economic conditions posed by COVID-19, additional measures have been introduced to encourage employers to continue hiring local workers, including ex-offenders. Employers who hired ex-offenders through YRSG, the Industrial and Services Co-operative Society (ISCOS), or halfway houses engaged by the Singapore Prison Service, will automatically receive the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) if they meet the eligibility criteria. Employers hiring ex-offenders receive the higher tier of support of up to $36,000 per hire. Between September 2020 and May 2021, the JGI has supported around 1,000 ex-offender hires by 380 employers. The JGI has been extended by another six months and will cover eligible hires until March 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Efforts towards 2030 Targets for Generating Electricity with Solar Energy and Encouraging Private Property Owners to Install Solar Energy Systems","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what has been the progress of Ministry’s efforts to meet the target of generating at least two gigawatt-peak (GWp) of electricity through solar energy by 2030 with a view to power about 350,000 households; and (b) what steps will the Ministry be taking to encourage more private and commercial property owners to install solar energy systems in their premises.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore is on track to achieving our solar panel deployment target of at least 2 gigawatt-peak (GWp) by 2030. Solar installed capacity increased over eight-fold from 2015 to over 500 megawatt-peak (MWp) in the second quarter of 2021.
The Government has taken the lead in accelerating rooftop solar deployment through programmes such as the SolarNova programme, which aggregates demand for solar systems across the public sector. In addition, we are also exploring innovative ways of deploying solar systems on spaces such as water bodies, temporary vacant land and sheltered walkways. For example, we recently commissioned our first large-scale floating solar system at Tengeh Reservoir, which at 60 MWp, is one of the world’s largest inland floating solar farms.
To facilitate the deployment of solar energy, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) has enhanced its regulatory framework to make it easier for solar adopters to sell excess solar electricity back to the grid. For example, EMA’s Simplified Credit Treatment Scheme or Enhanced Central Intermediary Scheme allows consumers to register their solar installations with SP Group and be paid directly through their monthly bill.
To facilitate solar deployment in commercial and industrial facilities, JTC Corporation (JTC) works with their lessees and the industry to promote the adoption of solar energy systems through their SolarRoof and SolarLand programmes. For example, JTC’s SolarRoof Programme allows lessees to solarise their roof with zero upfront capital outlay. Lessees can also tap on renewable energy from JTC’s SolarLand to meet their renewable energy targets. In addition, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has been encouraging the adoption of solar panels by recognising higher levels of solar deployment under the new Green Mark 2021 scheme.
Solar energy is the most viable renewable energy in Singapore. The Government will continue to work with all stakeholders to maximise solar energy adoption in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Compensation when Electricity Retailers Exit Market and Plans to Increase Power Generation Capacity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Trade and Industry how the Ministry is assisting households with obtaining compensation from their electricity retailers which have terminated their contracts as they exit the market, leading their customers to face substantially higher prices.
5 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what has been the annual (i) reserve margins over the last 10 years in the electricity market (ii) the projected reserve margin over the next four years and (iii) average supply cushion year-to-date compared to the last five year’s averages; and (b) whether there are plans to step up the increase in power generation capacity to provide adequate buffer to rising electricity demand.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I thank the Members for their questions. They have been addressed in my reply to Question Nos 11 to 30 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 1 November 2021. [Please refer to \"Support for Industry and Consumers Given Higher Electricity Prices and Recent Exit of Electricity Retailers\", Official Report, 01 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 41, 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":"Monthly Consumption of COVID-19 Antigen Test Kits and Plans to Increase Capability to Produce Test Kits Locally","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) over the past three months, what is the monthly consumption of COVID-19 antigen rapid test (ART) kits in Singapore; (b) what proportion of ART kits are domestically manufactured; and (c) given the current key role of ART testing in the community and at many workplaces, what measures are being taken to ensure supply chain resilience for ART kits.
7 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry is monitoring the market for inflation and profiteering due to increased demand for antigen rapid test kits; (b) what are the Ministry’s strategies to ensure a reliable and affordable local supply of test kits to meet demand; and (c) whether there are plans to ramp up manufacturing capabilities in Singapore to produce our own supply of test kits.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Antigen Rapid Tests (ARTs) are an essential tool in our safe transition to a COVID-19-resilient nation. Over the past three months, around 83 million ART kits have been distributed or sold in Singapore. These include the ART kits that MOH has distributed to households and companies, free kits for those who have received Health Risk Warnings and those sold in retail outlets and on e-commerce platforms.
MTI works closely with retailers, manufacturers and distributors to ensure a reliable supply and healthy stock of ART kits in Singapore. Today, there are eight ART self-test kits approved by Health Sciences Authority for sale at major retailers and e-commerce platforms, and an additional two locally-manufactured ART kits for use within a clinical setting with professional guidance. The availability of more options for retail and professional use will keep the prices of ART kits competitive. To date, MTI has not received reports of businesses profiteering from the sale of ART kits.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of 11% Reduction in Non-resident Population on Singapore’s Economy and Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what is the impact of the 11% reduction in non-resident population on Singapore’s economy and business.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As at June 2021, the non-resident population in Singapore was 1.47 million, 10.7% lower than in June 2020. This reduction was largely due to non-resident workers as a result of uncertain economic conditions and border restrictions amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of non-resident workers fell across all pass types, with work permit holders in the construction, marine shipyard and process sectors accounting for the largest drop.
The fall in non-resident workers, coupled with a pick-up in demand for workers amidst the ongoing economic recovery, has increased the number of seasonally adjusted job vacancies in the overall economy to an all-time high of 92,100 in June 2021. The number of vacancies is especially acute in sectors which rely most on non-resident workers, such as construction and manufacturing. The seasonally adjusted job vacancy to unemployed person ratio increased to 1.63 in June 2021, exceeding 1 for the first time since March 2019.
The labour shortages have raised business costs, reduced profit margins, and contributed to higher consumer prices in finished products. The labour shortages have also slowed the recovery of some sectors, particularly those that are more reliant on non-resident workers, such as construction and marine and offshore engineering.
To help affected sectors and firms, the Government has provided foreign worker levy rebates and helped companies retain and hire new work permit holders. The Government is also facilitating the safe inflow of new workers to alleviate the manpower crunch.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Illegal Car-pooling Services Caught in Past Two Years and Whether Facilitation of Such Services on Online Platforms is an Offence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of cases of illegal car-pooling services that have been caught in the past two years; and (b) whether the Ministry considers those who have facilitated in arranging for such illegal services on online platforms to be an offence.
Mr S Iswaran: Commercial car-pooling services are prohibited during periods of tightened safe management measures such as the current Stabilisation Phase. Outside of these periods, drivers without vocational licences are allowed to provide commercial car-pooling services through licenced car-pool platforms, such as Grab and Ryde. The platform operators are required to ensure that drivers do not conduct more than two car-pool trips a day and that fares are charged on a cost recovery basis.
It is illegal for these drivers to offer commercial car-pooling services through online communications platforms such as the Telegram app. The LTA has caught five drivers for providing illegal car-pooling services in the past two years. Members of the public may report persons who have conducted or facilitated illegal car-pooling activities to LTA for investigation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Plans to Build Cycling Paths at Bukit Batok SMC","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport whether he can provide an update of his Ministry’s plans to build cycling paths at Bukit Batok SMC.
Mr S Iswaran: The Government remains committed to tripling our cycling paths to around 1,300 kilometres by 2030, under the Islandwide Cycling Network programme. This will provide our towns, including Bukit Batok, with a wider active mobility network to support the uptake of active mobility in a way that is safe and convenient for all path users.
For Bukit Batok, LTA aims to provide better connectivity to transport nodes such as Bukit Batok MRT station and the future Jurong Region Line Bukit Batok West MRT station, and amenities such as West Mall and Bukit Batok West Shopping Centre.
More details will be shared when confirmed. LTA targets to call an engineering consultancy study by the end of this year to develop and evaluate the planned cycling paths in the Western region of Singapore, including Bukit Batok.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Significant Difference in LTA Fees when Transferring Vehicle Registration Number to Used Car Compared to New Car","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Transport what are the reasons for the significant difference in LTA fees when transferring a vehicle registration number to a used car compared to a new car.
Mr S Iswaran: LTA provides system-generated vehicle registration numbers (VRN) at no cost to vehicle owners. Most vehicle owners (66%) accept these numbers.
In response to requests, LTA decided in 2003 to allow existing owners to retain an existing VRN on used vehicles. The fee to transfer a VRN to a used car is pegged to the minimum bid amount of $1,000 for a new vehicle registration number and a replacement fee of $300. This ensures parity between retaining and bidding for a VRN which are both discretionary services.
We acknowledge the difference in fees for existing car owners to retain their VRN on used cars as compared to new cars. We are considering a review of the fees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation Rate of Vaccinated Travel Lane Flights and Plans to Increase Number of Designated Flights","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Transport (a) what has been the utilisation rate of Vaccinated Travel Lane (VTL) flights since the start of the revised VTL requirements; and (b) what is the plan for increasing the number of designated flights.
Mr S Iswaran: Currently, there are on average 10 daily Vaccinated Travel Lane (VTL) flights from the 10 VTL countries we are already opened to. The current average load factor of these VTL flights is about 45%.
Based on the airlines’ booking data, we expect the load factors to increase towards the end of the year. We are monitoring the demand and will make further adjustments if needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Category D COEs Sold and Utilised in 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Transport (a) what percentage of Category D (motorcycles) COEs were sold to dealers in 2021; (b) what percentage of Category D temporary COEs (TCOEs) were utilised to register the motorcycles within two months of the successful bids in 2021; (c) over the past six months, whether any dealer has been found to stockpile TCOEs to sell it later at a higher packaged price; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider reducing the validity period of Category D TCOEs from six months to two months.
Mr S Iswaran: I thank the Member for his questions. I have addressed them in my reply to Question No 121 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 1 November 2021. [Please refer to \"Utilisation Rate for Category D COEs and Proportion of Successful Bids by Commercial Entities and Individual Buyers\", Official Report, 01 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 41, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts and Measures to Detect and Prevent Desecration of Tombstones in Cemeteries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether NEA conducts inspections of tombstones in cemeteries to detect desecration and, if so, how often; (b) what are other measures to prevent the desecration of tombstones in (i) cemeteries maintained by NEA and (ii) private cemeteries not managed by NEA; and (c) in view of Regulation 9(c) of the Environmental Public Health (Cemeteries) Regulations, whether there are plans for NEA to bear a similar responsibility to prevent vandalism in cemeteries it maintains including liability for the vandalism damage.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: NEA manages the Choa Chu Kang (CCK) Cemetery, as well as some closed cemeteries. CCK Cemetery is the only cemetery in Singapore currently open for burials. Similar to other public spaces, the CCK Cemetery is a large open space accessible to the public. Grave monuments, including tombstones, are maintained by the deceased’s next-of-kin (NOK). NEA officers conduct regular checks on cleanliness as well as to detect public health and site safety issues such as fallen trees, obstructions to burial blocks or dry vegetation that could cause bush fires.
Private cemeteries owned and managed by private entities are no longer open for active burial and these entities are required to continue maintaining the premises.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Offering Plant-based Meals or Meals Derived from Sustainable Sources at Government Events","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Government has considered offering plant-based meals or meals derived from sustainable sources for Government events by default to show its commitment to making sustainability more mainstream.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Green Plan 2030 is our commitment towards making sustainability a priority for Singapore. Under the GreenGov.SG initiative, the public sector will embed environmental sustainability in our core business areas, including our procurement practices. For greater impact, we are starting with our main products and services in our review of sustainability metrics.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Provide Peer Support and Emotional Comfort to Teachers Struggling with Mental Health and Workload","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education what is being done to create a warmer culture and community among teachers so as to provide peer support and emotional comfort for those struggling with mental health and workload.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: MOE supports schools to build a positive culture where teachers collaborate in teaching and support one another in well-being.
School Leaders are committed to developing a culture of care and to support their staff. They seek feedback from their teachers and take follow-up actions on survey findings about their schools’ staff engagement and well-being. Every school also has a Staff Well-being Committee to look into staff welfare and bonding, and these committees are supported by MOE HQ with resources, programmes and regular platforms to share best practices.
Schools also have structures that promote collaboration among teachers in their work. For instance, teachers come together in Professional Learning Teams to design lessons for their students. They can also approach the Teacher Leaders or Instructional Mentors in their schools for support pertaining to and beyond teaching and learning.
Beyond their school, teachers can participate in Networked Learning Communities (NLC), where teachers from different schools come together to focus on specific needs identified by them. Master Teachers work with teachers in these NLCs to design, enact and enhance lesson plans that they co-create.
To strengthen peer support for well-being, MOE introduced a Wellness Ambassador initiative in September 2021, which will be rolled out progressively with two officers in each school nominated to receive training. These Wellness Ambassadors are not expected to counsel colleagues but will help direct their peers on how to seek help.
For counselling support, teachers have access to iCARE, which offers in-house professional counselling, as well as to the 24/7 Whole-of-Government (WOG) Counselling Hotline, which offers external professional counselling should teachers wish to speak to someone outside of MOE.
MOE is committed to looking after the well-being of all teachers and will continue to explore ways to enhance the support given to our teachers in this area.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Resources to Guide Teachers in Changing Teaching Methods and Provide Support to Teach-from-home","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education what schemes are in place to aid teachers in guiding them through rapid changes in teaching methods and regulations amidst the COVID-19 pandemic so as to provide support to those who struggle to teach-from-home and engage students via online platforms.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: MOE supports teachers by providing a wide range of learning resources through the Singapore Student Learning Space (SLS) online platform. The SLS also guides teachers to apply the appropriate pedagogies in designing technology-enabled lessons both in class and online.
In addition, MOE provides teachers with a range of professional development programmes that build their capacity to use these tools and resources effectively. These programmes range from bite-sized modules on designing effective online lessons to workshops on how to seamlessly link classroom teaching with home-based learning.
Besides professional development programmes, teachers also build new capabilities through sharing and collaboration. In schools, time is set aside for teachers to work in teams to share ideas and develop online lessons and resources. Teachers can also connect across schools via MOE’s learning communities. One example is the Singapore Learning Designers Circle online group, where more than 19,000 teachers share lesson ideas and best practices.
While online learning is an effective tool when students cannot attend school in-person, MOE also guides teachers to balance online teaching with non-technological teaching methods such as the use of textbooks, worksheets and simple hands-on activities.
MOE will continue to support teachers as they navigate the fluidity of the current situation to ensure that learning continues effectively for our students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Students with Mental Illness or Psychiatric Issues Made Known to Schools or Institutes of Higher Learning in Past 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education for each year in the past 10 years, what is respective number of students in (i) Primary schools (ii) Secondary schools (iii) Institutes of Technical Education (iv) Junior Colleges (v) Polytechnics and (vi) Universities, with mental illness or psychiatric issues that were made known to the schools or Institutes of Higher Learning.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Students who require mental health support seek help from different avenues, including teaching staff and counsellors in schools and the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). Over the years, we have observed more students seeking counselling support including for mental health-related issues. This could be due partly to a growing willingness to seek help and the increased availability of support and resources. During counselling sessions, students typically share about a range of issues and may not say that they have been diagnosed with mental illness or have psychiatric issues.
Students dealing with mental health issues, as well as their parents, often prefer to keep their situation and the support they are receiving confidential and private. They may not share such information with the school or IHL. We are also mindful to treat any information shared with sensitivity and confidentiality, and hence, do not have detailed statistics nor share the information publicly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Minimise Home-based Learning and Allow Vaccinated Secondary Schools Students to Mix and Receive Support amidst COVID-19 Endemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education in view of most students from secondary schools and above having received their vaccination, whether home-based learning can be minimised to allow students to mix among their peers and receive support and friendship which are critical for youths amidst an endemic.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: MOE’s approach has been to keep schools safe so that they can remain open as far as possible. We recognise home-based learning (HBL) cannot be a full substitute for the school-based learning experience. If HBL is prolonged, it hampers learning and reduces opportunities for students to build relationships with their peers.
With high vaccination rates among students from Secondary schools and above, we can minimise the need to place them on HBL. Throughout the Stabilisation Phase which began on 27 September 2021, school-based learning continued for older students in Secondary schools, Junior Colleges and Centralised Institute under strict safe management measures (SMMs).
As we transit to living with COVID-19 and community cases stabilise, we plan to resume more activities for students at Secondary school levels and above with appropriate safeguards. This will include co-curricular activities (CCAs) and larger school events. Our hope is that by next year, important inter-school experiences for our students such as the National School Games could also be held, subject to the prevailing national situation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tier Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty and Selling Deadlines for Development Projects of Different sizes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider adjusting and tiering the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) and selling deadlines for development projects of different sizes to reflect better equity.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Today, housing developers purchasing residential sites can qualify for upfront ABSD remission of 25%, if they meet specified conditions for the commencement and completion of development, and sale of all units within the residential development.
These conditions for the ABSD remission for housing developers ensure the timely commencement and completion of development, and sale of residential units, and encourage developers to bid for land prudently.
The existing conditions for the ABSD remission already differentiate between licensed housing developers (developing five or more residential units) and non-licensed housing developers (developing four or less residential units). As part of these conditions to qualify for the ABSD remission, licensed housing developers and non-licensed housing developers need to sell all units within five years and three years from the site acquisition date respectively.
The Government regularly reviews the ABSD framework. The ABSD sale timeline of five years for licensed housing developers and three years for non-licensed housing developers remain relevant. For licensed housing developers, about 85% or more of developments met the five-year ABSD sale deadline in 2019 and 2020. For non-licensed housing developers, about 90% of developments met the three-year ABSD sale deadline in 2019 and 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Taxable Personal Income Earned by All Persons in Each Decile for FY 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Finance (a) what is the total taxable personal income for FY 2019; and (b) what is the total taxable personal income earned by all persons in each decile.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The total Assessable Income for personal income tax for Year of Assessment (YA) 2020 is S$208.3 billion. The total Assessable Income earned by all persons in each decile for YA2020 are as follows:
22 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether in the children's best interests, the Ministry will consider requiring divorce rulings that award shared care and control to also state which party is allowed to list the child as an essential occupier in their application to buy a subsidised HDB flat as the ability to list the child has a direct impact on each parent's eligibility to purchase a HDB flat.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: We have considered the suggestion to require the Court order to state which parent is allowed to list the child as an “essential occupier” for the purposes of applying for a HDB flat, in shared care and control cases. After careful consideration, we do not intend to make this a requirement. Orders pertaining to a child are made with the overarching principle of the child’s best interests. When determining issues pertaining to a child’s welfare, the Court order focuses on the rebuilding and restoration of relationships, and for parents to focus on a shared future, instead of specific orders laying down conditions such as the one referred to.
As far as possible, we want to encourage divorced parents to work through issues co-operatively and harmoniously, outside of the Court system. This is especially pertinent in cases where there is shared care and control of the child as it is not ideal for parents with shared care and control to seek or rely on Court orders to lay down all matters and details pertaining to care of their children and arrangements after divorce. Instead, they should be working on co-parenting co-operatively, in the child’s best interest.
Nonetheless, we recognise that there may be cases where parents are unable to reach an agreement despite their best efforts. In such cases, they can approach HDB to discuss their options. On a case-by-case basis, HDB is prepared to exercise flexibility by waiving the requirement for the ex-spouse’s consent, in the interest of ensuring that the child has a stable housing arrangement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Parental Alienation Cases Reported in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what has been the number of parental alienation cases reported in the past three years.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: There is no specific definition or classification of parental alienation. Thus, the Social Service Agencies that work with families do not collect such data and the Ministry is unable to provide the number of such cases in the past three years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Domestic Violence Cases Linked to COVID-19-related Mental Health Issues and Protocols for Reports by Healthcare Frontliners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there are any statistics of domestic violence cases arising from underlying mental health issues due to COVID-19 uncertainties; and (b) whether there are protocols in place for mental health frontliners to report early warning signs to prevent violence from occurring.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: MSF does not have data on the number of family violence cases arising from underlying mental health issues due to COVID-19 uncertainties. It is challenging to collect such data, as perpetrators and survivors of family violence may not be forthcoming with MSF or community agencies regarding information on their mental health concerns. Some may also not be willing to be assessed for mental health conditions.
Notwithstanding the above, MSF and the National Council of Social Service’s Intergenerational Transmission of Criminality and Other Social Disadvantages study found that about 14% of persons in Singapore who applied for personal protection orders (PPOs) or who had PPO applications made against them had diagnosed mental health conditions prior to their first PPO episode. While international literature suggests that symptoms related to a perpetrator’s mental condition may result in family violence, mental health conditions, on their own, do not necessarily cause family violence. Also, a majority of persons experiencing mental health concerns do not experience or perpetrate family violence.
There are guidelines and protocols for our frontline professionals in MSF’s Adult and Child Protective Services and our partner community agencies, including those that deal with family violence, to guide them in referring clients suspected of having mental health concerns to the Institute of Mental Health or local restructured hospitals for further assessment and treatment.
It is important for individuals with suspected or diagnosed mental health issues to seek assessment and treatment early, and for persons around them to encourage them to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Investigation of Deviant Teaching and Expected Date of Completion for Investigation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) whether he can provide an update on the investigation of the deviant teaching; (b) when is the expected date of completion for this investigation; and (c) whether MUIS is aware of any ongoing activities by the alleged individual or his group of followers.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: On 9 November 2020, the Straits Times reported the case of an individual who allegedly promulgated deviant teachings. The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) and its Fatwa Committee then reopened this case for investigation as there was new information reported. The Fatwa Committee has concluded its internal investigations on this case and lodged a police report.
MUIS is unable to provide further details as the matter is currently under Police investigation. The authorities will make its findings public once investigations are completed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Easing of COVID-19 Restricted Measures for Friday and Daily prayers at Mosques","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs when can the COVID-19 restricted measures for Friday and daily prayers at mosques be further eased.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) takes reference from the medical advisory considered by the Multi-Ministry Taskforce on capacity limits for worship services and safe management measures (SMM) to be implemented for religious activities. The Friday prayer capacity at mosques have gradually increased from 6,400 places in June 2020 to about 40,500 places currently. More worshippers are also able to walk-in to the mosques now to perform their individual and congregational daily prayers.
MUIS will continue to ensure a safe environment for religious activities during this pandemic, especially for our seniors who also attend services at the mosques, by adjusting to the relevant national guidelines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement Action against Singapore-based Company Fined for Making False Claims about Its Health Supplements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health with regard to the recent incident of a Singapore-based company fined for making false claims about its health supplements (a) whether HSA takes into account the company's profits from the sale of the products and the number of customers involved, in determining the penalty to be meted out; (b) whether the regulatory action serves as a proportionate and appropriate deterrent; and (c) why is the company not penalised earlier when its false claims have come to light since 2016.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Anyone who publishes advertisements on health supplements which contain prohibited claims that the product will prevent or cure diseases such as cancer or diabetes can be fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed up to two years under the Medicines Act. This case is the first prosecution of this offence to date. Although the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) generally adopts a light-touch approach for first-time offenders who are remorseful, firm prosecution action was taken in the present case in light of the company’s persistent disregard of the advisories issued.
In prosecuting the company, HSA had also considered that the offences were committed with the knowledge that the publicity materials would be used to reach out to a wider audience through the company’s product distributors. However, the company’s profits from the sale of the products were not factored into the sentencing as there was insufficient evidence to establish a link between the publication of these advertisements and the company’s earnings. In line with HSA’s submissions, the Court ultimately imposed a $3,000 fine out of the maximum prescribed fine of $5,000 on the single proceeded charge. Apart from the penalty imposed by the Court, HSA has also publicised this case on its website and published advisories to educate and warn consumers against falling prey to the company’s misleading claims.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Data on Patients with Mental Illness or Psychiatric Issues in Private and Public Health Institutions by Age Range","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Health for each year in the past 10 years, whether the Ministry has data on the number of patients with mental illness or psychiatric issues in our private and public health institutions and, if so, what is the number of patients who are aged (i) under seven years (ii) seven to 12 years (iii) 13 to 16 years (iv) 17 to 21 years and (v) 22 to 30 years.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Data prior to and after 2013 are not comparable due to changes in data collection from 2013. Between 2013 and 2019, 72,668 unique Singapore residents aged 30 years and below sought care for a psychiatric condition at public or private healthcare institutions. These numbers indicate an increasing trend in the number of Singapore residents who sought care for mental health issues over this period. The breakdown of the annual number of Singapore residents who sought care is summarised in Table 1.
29 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health amongst the vaccinated patients in Singapore who (i) required ICU stay or (ii) died respectively, how many got a mRNA vaccine and how many had a non-mRNA vaccine.
30 Mr Cheng Hsing Yao asked the Minister for Health (a) of the vaccinated COVID-19 patients who have developed serious symptoms, how are they distributed across the different vaccines; and (b) whether there is data that suggests which vaccines are more effective in preventing the development of serious COVID-19 symptoms.
31 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health whether the Government will allow people to choose a different vaccine, including a non-mRNA one, for their COVID-19 booster shots.
32 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health regarding all the COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in Singapore, including those available under the Special Access Route, what is the effectiveness, based on real-world data in Singapore or elsewhere, against the Delta variant for each of these vaccines against (i) infection (ii) symptomatic infection (iii) severe infection requiring oxygen supplementation and/or ICU care (iv) death and (v) transmission.
33 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) of the deaths of fully vaccinated persons from COVID-19, what is the breakdown by vaccine type; and (b) what is the number of breakthrough COVID-19 deaths per 10,000 fully vaccinated persons for each vaccine type.
34 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry or the Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination (EC19V) has studied the research on the effects of using different vaccines for the initial and booster doses and the efficacy of taking different booster vaccines.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Members are interested to know how different COVID-19 vaccines compare in terms of their protection. As we roll out our vaccination and booster programmes, MOH and HSA have continued to collate and analyse data on the effectiveness and safety for different vaccines. The following are what we have found out so far.
First, there is a big difference between being vaccinated and not vaccinated. Between 1 May 2021 to 30 September 2021, the COVID-19 mortality rate was 7.5 per million persons among those vaccinated with the two mRNA vaccines. In contrast, the mortality rate among those who were unvaccinated or partially vaccinated was 92 per million persons. In the same period, the risk of severe disease, including the need for intensive care and/or oxygen supplementation, was 86 per million persons for those vaccinated with the two mRNA vaccines, and around 530 per million persons for those who were unvaccinated or partially vaccinated.
Second, both mRNA vaccines in our National Vaccination Programme work very well. Both mRNA vaccines protected infected persons against severe disease by around 90%. The mRNA vaccines also reduced the risk of infection by around 40% and halved the risk of onward transmission.
However, a comparison with the non-mRNA vaccines cannot be made at this time, as the number of persons vaccinated with them is much smaller. Less than 2% of the population was fully vaccinated with Sinovac-CoronaVac as of 30 September 2021. Further, in Singapore, a very small proportion of seniors aged 60 years and above chose to be vaccinated with Sinovac-CoronaVac, as the take-up has been mostly in younger people. In a recent study in Chile, Sinovac-CoronaVac was found to confer 58% protection against symptomatic infection compared to 88% for Pfizer. The corresponding figures for protection against severe illness requiring ICU care were 90% and 98% respectively.
Current evidence shows that persons vaccinated and boosted with the PSAR-authorised mRNA vaccines develop the strongest boosting in antibody levels and protection against infection and severe disease, compared to other COVID-19 vaccines.
The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) closely monitors the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. As of 18 October 2021, the rates of reported Severe Adverse Events for Sinovac-CoronaVac and the mRNA vaccines were similar, at around 0.005%. Management of adverse events from vaccines, as with other conditions, is evidence-based and takes into consideration local and international data as well as the patient’s medical condition.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Moves to Prevent Unapproved Antigen Rapid Test Kits from Being Sold to Public","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) how did the SG Diagnostics Antigen Rapid Test kits become available in the market when they are meant for professional use in a professional healthcare setting; (b) how many of such kits have been purchased by the public before the recall notice; and (c) how will processes be further tightened to avoid unapproved test kits from being sold in the market.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) is currently investigating the unauthorised distribution and supply of SG Diagnostics’ Antigen Rapid Test kits, which are meant for use by healthcare professionals only in a healthcare setting. Appropriate enforcement action will be taken against the responsible parties.
Based on the sales and distribution records by the company, approximately 1,800,000 pieces had been sold by the company from January to September 2021, which includes distribution to professional users and the general public. The number of test kits sold only to the general public is not yet known.
HSA has required SG Diagnostics to issue print advertisements in all four languages to communicate to consumers that its test is not licensed for consumer use and has not been validated for this use, and that all kits purchased should be returned to the company. HSA has also published a list of all COVID-19 tests that have been authorised for self-testing purposes on the HSA website. HSA will continue to work to communicate this list of authorised ART self-test kits and also step up its surveillance of these test kits sold in the market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Managing Confidentiality of COVID-19 Patients' Identifying Particulars","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health whether the identifying particulars of COVID-19 patients are considered confidential under the Infectious Diseases Act or other written laws and, if so, how is such confidentiality managed.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The personal data of COVID-19 patients is treated as sensitive personal data and is protected accordingly.
The management and protection of personal data held by public sector agencies, including those of COVID-19 patients, is governed under the Public Sector (Governance) Act (PSGA) and the Government Instruction Manuals. The Infectious Diseases Act (IDA) imposes additional requirements for the protection of patient information. This includes the limited grounds on which disclosure of such information may be made, such as to prevent the spread or possible outbreak of infectious diseases. Non-government entities receiving such information for delivery of public services and care to COVID-19 patients are obliged to comply with the IDA restrictions, as well as the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) and further data protection safeguards stipulated in Government contracts.
Data that has been anonymised can be disclosed without breaching confidentiality restrictions over personal data. There are safeguards in the PSGA, IDA and PDPA which make it an offence for authorised individuals who re-identify anonymised information in a knowing or reckless manner. These safeguards are a further layer of protection to maintain the confidentiality of patients’ personal data.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Types of COVID-19 Vaccinations Received by Doctors and Other Healthcare Professionals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current percentage of doctors vaccinated with (i) mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and (ii) non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines respectively; (b) what is the current percentage of other healthcare professionals vaccinated with (i) mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and (ii) non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines respectively; and (c) how is the Ministry ensuring that those on the frontlines are vaccinated for their own safety as they encounter many patients who may have COVID-19.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Within the public healthcare institutions1 (PHIs), approximately 99% of all staff were fully vaccinated2 with either mRNA or non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines3 as of 22 October 2021. About 99% of doctors, dentists, nurses and pharmacists are vaccinated. About 98% of staff in all other groups are vaccinated (see Table 1).
Vaccination was prioritised for healthcare workers when the mRNA vaccines were first made available in Singapore. COVID-19 vaccine booster shots were also extended to the healthcare workers after first being introduced for the seniors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Includes public acute hospitals, medical and specialty centres, polyclinics, and cluster-run community hospitals.","2 : An individual is considered vaccinated if he/she (a) has been fully vaccinated, that is, received the appropriate regimen of World Health Organisation Emergency Use Listing (WHO EUL) vaccines including their respective duration post-vaccination for the vaccine to be fully effective and (b) had their vaccination records ingested in MOH’s IT systems. Nonetheless, the figures reported for public healthcare institutions were based on clusters’ self-reported and unaudited data as of 22 October 2021, 12 pm.","3 : Data for the breakdown of percentage of healthcare professionals vaccinated with mRNA and non-mRNA vaccines are not available. However, majority of the staff would have been vaccinated with mRNA vaccines."],"footNoteQuestions":["37"],"questionNo":"37"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 Positive Cases Classified by Housing Type","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health since the start of the pandemic (a) what is the number of COVID-19 positive cases, broken down by the different categories of housing type; and (b) what is the proportion of this number against the total number of residents from all households within each category of housing type.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Please refer to the table below on the number and proportion of community cases and residents by housing type.
39 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Health whether enforcement action will be taken against chat groups spreading anti-vaccination misinformation on medicines such as Ivermectin.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question has been addressed in my reply to Question Nos 70 to 71 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 1 November 2021. [Please refer to \"Steps to Curb Spread of Misinformation through Social Media and Closed Messaging Systems on COVID-19 Treatments\", Official Report, 01 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 41, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Number of COVID-19 Fatalities and Place of Demise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health to date, of the number of people who have passed away as a result of COVID-19 infection, how many passed away (i) in a hospital (ii) at home or (iii) at a care facility respectively.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The question for written answer has been addressed by the Ministerial Statement delivered by Senior Minister of State for Health, on behalf of the Minister for Health on 1 November 2021. [Please refer to \"Update on ICU and Hospital Capacity\", Official Report, 01 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 41, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Differentiated Treatment for Vaccinated Persons Declining Booster Dose","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health in light of the natural waning immunity from COVID-19 vaccination over time, whether it is anticipated that there will be differentiated treatment for vaccinated persons who have decided not to proceed with the booster dose and, if so, what is the period after which such persons are considered and treated as having the same risk profile as those unvaccinated.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question has been addressed in my reply to Question Nos 77 to 85 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 1 November 2021. [Please refer to \"Updated Protocols for COVID-19 Patients, Vaccination for Children and Delays in Response Time by Government COVID-19 Teams\", Official Report, 01 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 41, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Doctors Administering Repurposed Drugs to COVID-19 Patients on Off-Label Basis","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health whether doctors are allowed to administer repurposed drugs on an off-label basis on patients who are or are suspected of suffering from COVID-19.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question has been addressed in my reply to Question Nos 70 to 71 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 1 November 2021. [Please refer to \"Steps to Curb Spread of Misinformation through Social Media and Closed Messaging Systems on COVID-19 Treatments\", Official Report, 01 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 41, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assisting Lower-income Groups to Remain Connected through Reliable and Affordable Telecommunications Plans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Communications and Information how is the Ministry assisting members of the lower-income groups with (i) owning digital devices and their replacements which are sufficiently updated so that they operate well and can guard against malware and (ii) remaining connected through reliable and affordable telecommunications plans.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Infocomm Media Development Authority’s (IMDA) Home Access, NEU PC Plus and Mobile Access for Seniors schemes support lower income groups with subsidised Internet connectivity and digital devices. The out-of-pocket expenses to beneficiaries of the IMDA’s schemes are kept affordable. For example, subsidised fibre broadband under Home Access starts from $6 a month for two-year plans and mobile data plans under Mobile Access for Seniors are available at $5 per month for two-year plans.
MSF also provides comprehensive support to ComCare beneficiaries, which includes telecommunications items such as mobile data plans. To facilitate seamless access, eligible ComCare beneficiaries without existing broadband plans will qualify for IMDA’s Home Access scheme.
Personal computers provided under IMDA’s schemes have pre-installed anti-virus protection, while smartphones come with Mobile Security service. Devices provided under IMDA schemes are also covered under warranty for manufacturer defects.
The fibre broadband, mobile data plans and digital devices provided under the Government schemes are sufficient to support daily activities for productivity and leisure. We regularly review the schemes, to consider what is available on the market while ensuring that our offerings keep pace with the digital needs of citizens.
In addition, it is also the responsibility of all users to adopt good cyber hygiene measures. This includes downloading software updates promptly to ensure their systems function optimally and are protected against malware. Users would also need to take steps to prevent the risk of malware, such as avoiding dubious websites and opening suspicious attachments.
To educate users on cybersecurity, the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) conducts awareness campaigns and programmes, including webinars, for different groups such as the young and elderly. Resources that offer practical tips are available on CSA’s website. Seniors can also go to SG Digital community hubs to learn cybersecurity tips. These public education efforts complement the Government’s schemes to ensure that users are empowered with digital skills and have the means to access the benefits of digital safely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Increase Transparency and Accountability of Companies Providing and Purchasing Surveillance Advertising","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the policy on surveillance advertising; and (b) whether there are plans to increase the transparency and accountability of companies providing and purchasing such services.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Government supports online commercial activities that use personal data for legitimate purposes. However, there must be accountability and transparency to safeguard individuals’ interests. Organisations which collect, use and disclose personal data for serving relevant advertisements are required to notify individuals clearly and obtain their consent. Organisations cannot obtain this consent through misleading or deceptive practices and cannot require consent from individuals beyond what is reasonable to provide a service to them. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) has set out its position in advisory guidelines which highlight the data protection measures organisations need to put in place. These include obtaining individuals’ consent for the collection of personal data through cookies for targeting advertisements.
The PDPC is monitoring international regulatory developments, as well as recent developments in the advertising technology industry such as the advent of privacy preserving means for targeted advertising. The PDPC will put in place additional measures, where relevant, to strengthen accountability of organisations and to ensure that the terms of consent are communicated clearly.
Consumers can also do their part. They may wish to withhold consent if they consider the request to be excessive, or suspect the legitimacy of the organisation and the manner in which consent was sought.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimated Backlog of Delayed Ongoing HDB Neighbourhood Renewal Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for National Development (a) to date, how many ongoing HDB neighbourhood renewal projects have been delayed by more than six months; (b) what is the estimated backlog of these projects; (c) how long will it take to clear this backlog; and (d) whether support for raw material prices will be extended to contractors working on these projects to ensure that they can complete these projects within budget.
Mr Desmond Lee: Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) projects are implemented by Town Councils from announcement to completion of the projects. This includes calling and awarding tender for the projects, and monitoring project progress. There are currently 32 NRP projects under construction.
The COVID-19 pandemic has posed severe challenges for the construction industry. With the introduction of stringent safe management measures at worksites and tightening of border controls for foreign workers, many private and public sector construction projects have been delayed. To date, 18 out of the 32 NRP projects under construction have been delayed by more than six months, in part or in full, due to the COVID-19 situation. All 18 projects have resumed construction works progressively since October 2020 and are estimated to be completed within the next two to three years.
Support for raw material prices is applicable for HDB Build-To-Order (BTO) projects which have a contractual provision for protection of price fluctuation of certain materials. As NRP project works are generally not as complex or extensive, we understand that Town Councils do not include such a contractual provision for the contractors in their tenders. The support measure for raw material prices will thus not be applicable.
Nonetheless, NRP contractors affected by COVID-19 can tap on other relief measures provided under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act (COTMA), and Town Councils will assess if the relief measures (for example, prolongation and manpower costs) are applicable to their NRP contracts. In addition, BCA had announced on 3 November 2020 the universal Extension of Time (EOT) of 122 days for public and private sector construction contracts affected by COVID-19. Town Councils can also review further EOT periods with the contractors accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Application for Purchase or Rental of HDB Flat by Applicants Having Shared Custody of Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development for each year in the past 10 years (a) how many applications with applicants having shared care and control of their children were received by HDB to purchase or rent a flat respectively; and (b) of these, what is the number of applications that were (i) rejected as applicants were unable to obtain mutual consent from their ex-spouse to list their children for the application and (ii) approved without requiring the mutual consent of their ex-spouse.
Mr Desmond Lee: Divorcees with shared care and control of their children have an equal right to list the children in their application to buy or rent an HDB flat. As any individual is only allowed to be listed in one HDB flat application, we require divorced parents to come to an agreement before either party lists their child in a flat application.
Similar to other families, divorced parents who have obtained their ex-spouse’s agreement to list their children in the flat application may buy or rent an HDB flat if they meet the prevailing eligibility conditions. HDB does not specifically track the number of such applications.
Those who are unable to reach an agreement with their ex-spouse can approach HDB to discuss their options. HDB will review each case and is prepared to exercise flexibility based on individual circumstances, such as financial hardship and lack of family support, to ensure that both parties have options to provide housing for themselves and their children.
From January 2016 to September 2021, HDB received 20 appeals from divorcees without ex-spousal consent to buy an HDB flat with their children, of which 13 were approved (see Table 1). HDB also approved seven such cases to rent a flat from HDB from January 2018 to September 2021 (see Table 2). Data on such appeals to buy or rent an HDB flat in prior years is not available, as HDB did not specifically track such appeals previously.
47 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development since 2013 (a) what is the 25th percentile, mean, median and 75th percentile mortgage servicing ratio among HDB resale flat buyers on an annual basis; and (b) what is the 25th percentile, mean, median and 75th percentile total debt servicing ratio among HDB resale flat buyers on an annual basis.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB and MAS impose caps on the mortgage servicing ratio (MSR) and total debt servicing ratio (TDSR) on HDB borrowers, to encourage financial prudence when making property purchases. The MSR is capped at 30% and applies to housing loans granted by both HDB and Financial Institutions (FIs) for the purchase of a HDB flat, or an Executive Condominium (EC) unit that is within the minimum occupation period. The TDSR cap is 60%1 and only applies to housing loans granted by FIs, including those extended to HDB flat buyers.
The MSR and TDSR for HDB flat buyers are generally well below their respective limits in the period from 2013 to 2021 (till Q3), and the figures are shown in Table 1.
48 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for National Development (a) when can construction companies expect the manpower supply crunch to improve and be restored to pre-COVID-19 levels; and (b) what are the measures taken to restore the manpower supply.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Government has implemented several measures to alleviate the tight manpower situation for construction firms. First, we have made it easier for firms to retain their existing workers. MOM has allowed Work Permit Holders (WPHs) whose work permits are expiring between July and December 2021 to renew their permits for up to two more years. This includes WPHs who are reaching their maximum age and/or maximum Period of Employment. MOM has also partnered the Singapore Contractors Association Ltd (SCAL) to introduce a retention scheme to match interested employers with experienced construction WPHs whose work passes have expired or been cancelled, but who are willing to continue working in Singapore.
Second, we have helped firms to bring in new workers. BCA has worked with MOM to temporarily allow new construction WPHs from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to obtain their skills certification in Singapore instead of at Overseas Testing Centres in the PRC, from 7 May 2021 until the end of this year. This temporary flexibility has been extended to other approved sources of construction WPHs, on a case-by-case basis.
The industry has also taken the lead through an Alliance for Action (AfA) approach to bring in more workers safely through a tightened end-to-end process. This involves protocols such as a stringent COVID-19 testing regime over a 14-day period for workers in source countries before they depart for Singapore, to minimise the risk of importing COVID-19 cases. From 1 November 2021, the industry can also apply to bring in vaccinated WPHs from countries such as India and Bangladesh. However, longer waiting time for this latter channel should be expected due to high demand.
We will continue to work with the construction industry to bring in more workers safely to meet the needs of key ongoing projects, such as HDB’s BTO projects, in the coming months. However, the industry will also need to reduce its reliance on migrant workers and move decisively away from labour-intensive construction methods for new projects, rather than reverting to pre-COVID-19 norms of building. We encourage firms to take this opportunity to transform, and tap on available incentives such as BCA’s Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF) and Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) to improve their productivity, so that the construction industry can be more resilient.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ongoing Efforts on Engaging Elderly and Youths to Mitigate Stress and Loneliness from COVID-19 Safety Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth what are the current and future efforts to mitigate stress and loneliness levels amongst our elderly and youths due to existing COVID-19 safety measures which reduce meaningful physical social engagements.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Government recognises the stress brought about by COVID-19 and is committed to supporting the mental well-being of Singaporeans.
Our youths are digital natives, and we are reaching them online and offline. MCCY and NYC have partnered youth sector organisations such as Campus Psy and the Happiness Initiative to curate resources and programmes where youths can learn tips on self-coping and resilience. These resources can be found on Youthopia, NYC’s first-stop portal providing resources and content for youths.
MCCY and NYC are partnering with organisations such as The Smart Local to raise awareness on mental well-being and support avenues that youths can turn to. We have also partnered with Calm Collective Asia on dialogues to provide youths with the opportunities to speak openly about mental health, and to share self-care tips such as stress management strategies. In addition, our partners such as Friendzone run online community events where youths can meet up with their neighbours to talk about issues that concern them, thus allowing them to maintain social interactions.
Youths can also take part in meaningful volunteering activities organised by Youth Corps Singapore and the People’s Association (PA) Youth Networks. Youths can meet fellow peers and contribute to their communities together. In doing so, they are expanding networks that are vital for social resilience. Youth Corps Singapore has also launched a Community Peer Supporter Programme in collaboration with HPB, which provides youths with the platform to seek support from trained peer supporters.
MOE’s approach is to keep schools safe so that they can remain open as far as possible. MOE recognises that Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs) and other interpersonal activities are important for student development and overall well-being and has adopted a calibrated approach to resume student activities, taking reference from the national posture. MOE hopes to resume these activities when it is safe for the students to do so, in order to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 safety measures. Meanwhile, MOE continues to strengthen students’ mental well-being and resilience through Mental Health Education lessons in the revised Character and Citizenship Education curriculum, and early detection and intervention efforts for students in need. This is complemented by additional support measures such as teachers conducting check-ins to monitor students’ well-being and using classroom time to teach students how to cope with the pandemic.
To keep our seniors meaningfully engaged and connected from home during the period of tightened measures, our partners, such as the Council for Third Age (C3A), Health Promotion Board, Sport Singapore and PA have also pivoted their activities and talks onto various social media platforms. The Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) has been working with community partners to provide persons at risk of mental health conditions or dementia, with related information and link them to community resources. Befriending providers and volunteers make regular home visits and check-in calls to seniors needing support, while the Silver Generation Office actively reach out to vulnerable seniors at risk of social isolation, such as those with inadequate family or social support.
In addition, the SG Cares Volunteer Centres have been working closely with the partners in the SG Cares Community Networks to channel support towards community mental wellness initiatives in respective towns. For example, SG Cares Volunteer Centres @ Toa Payoh and Woodlands have been running Neighbour Cares, a community befriending programme aimed at reducing the risk of social isolation amongst seniors living in those towns. In partnership with AIC, SG Cares Volunteer Centres have also channelled volunteers to call seniors to check on their well-being. As part of the Alliance for Action (AfA) for Emerging Needs and Volunteerism, the SG Cares Volunteer Centre @ Jurong East leads efforts to equip volunteers with skills and knowledge on mental wellness to reach out to residents in the Yuhua community who require support. The SG Cares Volunteer Centres have also partnered with Youth Corps Singapore where youth volunteers reached out to low-income families and isolated seniors in the community.
To support seniors in staying fit, active and socially engaged, PA will pilot the resumption of selected activities in 20 Divisions from 1 November 2021 for fully vaccinated seniors aged 60 and above. The activities will be organised in a safe environment for these seniors, as well as those seniors who have fully recovered from COVID-19. The activities will include a range of recreational classes from sports and fitness, health and wellness to lifestyle and leisure.
For those who need help, including youths and elderly, they can do so through a range of channels in the wider community, such as 24-hour hotlines run by the Samaritans of Singapore and the Institute of Mental Health, as well as counselling services and social-emotional support provided by community mental health teams and Family Service Centres. Some of these services have pivoted online during COVID-19.
The Interagency Taskforce on Mental Health and Well-being co-led by MOH and MSF and chaired by Dr Janil Puthucheary, Senior Minister of State for Health, is bringing together the capabilities and capacities of different agencies to develop an overarching national strategy and action plan on mental health and well-being beyond COVID-19. This will include measures to strengthen support for youths as well as elderly.
We need a whole-of-society effort to tackle the issue of mental well-being. Beyond the Government’s efforts, as citizens, we should encourage one another to be open about our challenges and extend kindness and support for those who need help. We encourage those who are interested to help to approach any SG Cares Volunteer Centre or download the SG Cares App to choose from an array of opportunities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training Programmes to Educate Migrant Domestic Workers from Falling Prey to Cyber Scams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower whether more training can be given to migrant domestic workers to educate them against falling prey to cyber scams.
Dr Tan See Leng: As part of the Settling-In-Programme (SIP) which all first-time Migrant Domestic Workers (MDWs) are required to attend, MDWs are educated on the appropriate actions to take in order not to fall prey to scams in Singapore. For example, MDWs are taught not to share their personal information or bank account credentials with anyone. They are also informed to seek help from the Singapore Police Force (SPF), MOM, or Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) such as the Centre for Domestic Employees (CDE) when needed.
Beyond the SIP, reminders on scam alerts are also regularly disseminated to MDWs and their employers to raise awareness and reinforce key messages. For example, MOM has disseminated infographics in the MDW’s native languages in recent times to caution MDWs of calls impersonating as bank staff or Government officials; as well as to seek the assistance of employers to inform their MDWs not to divulge their personal details through text messages, calls or emails when performing online transactions.
Other agencies have also undertaken efforts to reach out to the MDW community. For example, the SPF works closely with the NGOs and embassies to share anti-scam advisories whenever trends of online scams emerge. Where relevant, these advisories are translated into native languages for a more targeted outreach. The SPF also conducts talks to the MDW community to raise awareness on scams.
MOM will continue to work closely with SPF, NGOs and other relevant agencies and community partners to educate MDWs against falling preys to scams.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Halting Work Transfers as Preventive Measure to Stabilise Rising Salaries of Migrant Construction Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Manpower whether the current practice effected on 1 March 2021 to allow existing migrant construction workers who meet the requirements to transfer to a new employer, can be halted to stabilise the churn and the potential for rising salaries.
Dr Tan See Leng: Given the manpower disruptions due to COVID-19 border restrictions, MOM has been reviewing our policies to strengthen support for employers and facilitate the retention of migrant workers in Singapore, while balancing the needs of employers and workers.
To retain experienced migrant workers in Singapore, MOM and Singapore Contractors Association Ltd (SCAL) introduced a Retention Scheme in September 2021. Experienced workers whose previous employment has been terminated but wish to continue working in Singapore are placed on the scheme and matched with prospective employers. Such transfers are facilitated by SCAL with safeguards in place, such as disallowing workers who job-hop frequently from accessing the scheme.
More recently, MOM announced adjustments to the period during which construction work permit holders can change employers without the original employer’s consent. Where there is mutual agreement between the employer and worker, the work permit may be extended for a 30-day period after its original expiry date. The worker may use this 30-day period to search for another employer without the need for the original employer’s consent. In return, the original employer is able to retain the worker in employment for another 30 days. Should there not be agreement from the worker or employer to extend the work permit by 30 days, the worker will be enrolled in the Retention Scheme where SCAL will have 30 days to facilitate a job-match with a new employer. This change will facilitate the retention of experienced workers and foster greater manpower stability in the construction sector.
MOM is in close contact with SCAL and will continue to hear their feedback and proposals and make appropriate adjustments to our policies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures in Place to Ensure Adequate Breaks for Retail and Frontline Workers in Ageing Workforce","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Manpower what measures are in place to ensure adequate breaks for retail and other frontline workers who are on their feet for hours during their shifts especially in consideration of our ageing workforce.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Employment Act establishes some rules on working hours to protect employee well-being. For example, workmen or employees covered under Part IV of the Act should have at least one rest break for every six consecutive hours of work.
Besides legislation, the Government also promotes the provision of proper rest areas for employees. The tripartite partners have also issued an advisory on the Provision of Rest Areas for Outsourced Workers and there is a Workcare grant for early adopters of this advisory. Tripartite partners will also soon introduce a Tripartite Standard to recognise employers who advance the well-being of lower-wage workers, including by providing them with adequate rest areas.
In a tight labour market, workers will also not be attracted to jobs which are unnecessarily onerous or burdensome. We encourage employers to redesign jobs to better support the needs of their employees. This includes improving the physical work environment, adopting technology and implementing more efficient work processes. Potential benefits to employees include shorter shifts, reduced physical exertion and improved well-being. This in turn boosts productivity and benefits employers. The Tripartite Standard on Age-Friendly Workplace Practices recognises progressive employers who adopt such age-friendly workplace practices. As at 30 September 2021, close to 4,000 employers collectively employing more than 500,000 workers have adopted this Tripartite Standard.
Senior workers are not less capable than younger workers. Our focus on improving working conditions is to benefit all workers and not just on account of an ageing workforce.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment Status of Foreign Spouses of Singaporeans and Support Available for Lower-income Households","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current employment status of foreign spouses of Singaporeans; and (b) what is the support given to these foreign spouses to find employment especially for those from lower-income households.
Dr Tan See Leng: Employers can apply for a Letter of Consent (LOC) for foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens on a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or LTVP+ to work in Singapore. In addition, since December 2018, foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens on an LTVP/LTVP+ who wish to work are granted Pre-Approved LOCs (PLOC). With the PLOC, their employers are only required to notify MOM before the start and end of their employment. As at June 2021, about 13,500 foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens on an LTVP/LTVP+ (or slightly over half) are working on an LOC or PLOC.
The LOC and PLOC facilities enable foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens on an LTVP/LTVP+ to seek employment so as to support their families and integrate better into Singapore. Such foreign spouses on an LOC or PLOC are not subject to foreign worker quotas, levies or qualifying salaries. Those who need employment assistance can approach Workforce Singapore’s Careers Connect, NTUC-e2i’s career centres or any of the 24 SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres to receive basic career advisory and job search assistance.
Foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens who are from lower-income households that face financial difficulty can approach our Social Service Offices (SSOs), who will look into ways to support the family. Depending on the family’s needs, our SSOs may refer them to other Government agencies and community partners for support, including employment assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inspections Targeting High-Risk Activities and Sectors and Enforcement Actions Taken for Non-compliance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"54 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) from 2019 to 30 September 2021, how many regular routine inspections have been conducted by the Ministry targeting high-risk activities and sectors, broken down by year; (b) what has been the number of non-compliances observed during the inspections; and (c) how many stop work orders, fines and notices of non-compliance have been issued during the same period.
Dr Tan See Leng: Each year, MOM carries out about 15,000 inspections, of which about 5,000 target higher risk sectors. Apart from 2020, where suspension of workplace activities reduced the necessity for inspections, the level of inspections has been stable.
More than 9,000 non-compliances are detected in the course of these inspections. MOM has employed data analytics to better identify higher risk workplaces in high-risk sectors. In line with this, we detected slightly more non-compliances per inspection (1.95) compared to in 2019 (1.74).
The majority of the non-compliances are not major. In about 60 cases annually, the unsafe practices are sufficient to warrant a stop work order. In another 700 cases annually, we issue composition fines. For the remainder, MOM issues notices of non-compliance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Probe into Recent Fatal Accident at Tuas Incineration Plant and Enhancement of Safety Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there will be a public inquiry on the fatal accident which occurred at the Tuas Incineration Plant on 23 September 2021; (b) what are the existing measures to protect workers at incineration plants; and (c) whether there is a need to further enhance safety measures at incineration plants.
Dr Tan See Leng: The nature of the accident at Tuas Incineration Plant on 23 September 2021 concerned work at the electrical switch room. The relevant safety measures are therefore those that apply to working in that context, and not on the operation of incineration plants per se.
Prior to the commencement of any works involving electrical installations or equipment such as high voltage switchgear, a proper risk assessment of the work must be carried out. Associated control measures and safe work procedures that are reasonably practicable must be implemented. Such measures include, but are not limited to: (a) ensuring that only competent and trained personnel are allowed to carry out or supervise the works; (b) ensuring that electrical equipment are isolated, where possible, from the electricity supply before any work on the equipment is carried out; (c) adhering strictly to the engineering controls and safe work procedures recommended by the equipment manufacturer; and (d) ensuring that workers involved in the works don the appropriate personal protective equipment. These measures, if adequately taken, remove or minimise risks faced by persons working with electrical installations.
The Workplace Safety & Health Act allows the convening of an inquiry committee to ascertain the causes and circumstances of an accident, dangerous occurrence or occupational disease. We do so when the accident is of a catastrophic or serious nature and is technically complex. Past examples include the Nicoll Highway collapse in 2004 and the fire explosion in Stars Engrg Pte Ltd in February 2021.
Not every fatal accident of a serious nature warrants the appointment of an inquiry committee. For example, no inquiry committee was convened for the PIE viaduct collapse in July 2017 which killed one and injured another 10 workers, nor for the SMRT case in March 2016 where two workers died when they were hit by a train while working on the track. In both cases, despite the multiple causalities, the causes of the accident were not technically complex. The Ministry investigated both accidents thoroughly and liable parties were subsequently taken to task in the courts for their failures.
With respect to this tragic accident in Tuas Incineration Plant, investigations so far do not indicate that it is of such a complex nature that warrants the appointment of an inquiry committee. Nevertheless, the Ministry will investigate the case thoroughly as we have always done so.
Lastly, I would like to express my condolences to families of the two deceased and wish speedy recovery to the injured worker. I hope our investigation will eventually help to provide some closure for the affected families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Entry to Fully Vaccinated Workers from ASEAN Countries to Mitigate Labour Crunch in Construction and Renovation Industries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"56 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider allowing fully vaccinated workers from ASEAN countries, other than domestic helpers, to enter Singapore to join the construction and renovation industry to mitigate the labour crunch.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Member may be aware that since he filed the question, MOH has lifted travel restrictions on countries which have provided the workers for the construction industry.
MOM resumed approvals on 15 October 2021 for migrant workers (MWs) from the Construction, Marine Shipyard and Process (CMP) sectors who are arriving from 1 November 2021.
While we are allowing more workers to enter Singapore to meet the needs of industries and families, we need to do so in a safe and calibrated manner. All work pass holders, regardless of their travel history, must be fully vaccinated when they enter Singapore from 1 November 2021 unless they have been given prior exemption.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Steady Supply of Migrant Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"57 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Manpower what are the measures taken to ensure that there is a stable and predictable supply of migrant domestic workers to ensure that households are not unduly affected by rising costs due to a restrictive supply.
Dr Tan See Leng: MOM recognises that there are still many families waiting for approval for their MDWs to enter Singapore, after the temporary tightening of entry approvals for migrant domestic workers (MDWs) in May 2021.
As the regional COVID-19 situation improves, MOM is able to give more entry approvals and has scheduled the entries postponed in May. From 15 October, we have opened up new applications for the entry of fully vaccinated MDWs, for entry from 1 November onwards. More MDWs will be able to enter Singapore in the coming months if the COVID-19 situation continues to stabilise locally and regionally.
Due to the high demand for entry approvals, we will continue to prioritise families with more urgent care needs. For those employers who are not successful in getting entry approvals within the immediate period, they may wish to access the portal in subsequent weeks for more entry approval slots.
MOM will also continue to facilitate the commercial programme by the Association of Employment Agencies (Singapore) (AEA(S)) to bring in more MDWs safely to meet the demand. AEA(S)’ pilot has benefited more than 1,000 families since its introduction. AEA(S) and its partner employment agencies will progressively expand the scheme according to demand.
In the longer term, MOM will continue to diversify the sources of MDWs for better resilience of MDW supply.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Vaccine Hesitancy among Work Pass Holders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"58 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how does the Ministry plan to manage vaccine hesitancy among work pass holders from 1 November 2021 when they will all be required to be fully vaccinated prior to arrival in Singapore; (b) whether exceptions will be granted to those with contraindications to COVID-19 vaccines; and (c) whether the Ministry will require all work pass holders who are already in Singapore to get vaccinated.
Dr Tan See Leng: From 1 November 2021, MOM will only allow work pass holders who are fully vaccinated to enter Singapore. This is important to support Singapore’s reopening in a safe and calibrated manner. Those who are medically ineligible for vaccination may appeal for exemption from the vaccination requirement, supported by a doctor’s memo, before applying for entry approval. Upon arrival in Singapore, they will have to get a medical exemption from a Singapore medical practitioner or complete the full vaccination regimen if they are eligible for any COVID-19 vaccine under the National Vaccination Programme.
To date, 96% of MOM work pass holders are fully vaccinated. With effect from 1 January 2022, only fully vaccinated employees or employees who have recovered from COVID-19 within 270 days can return to the workplace. We expect more workers, both local and foreign, who have yet to be vaccinated, to be fully vaccinated in the coming months. We will continue to monitor the vaccination rate of the local and foreign workforce, and take appropriate measures to ensure and sustain one of the highest workforce vaccination rates in the world.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protocols to Ensure Threshold of Vaccination Levels among Workers in Dormitories and Verification of Vaccination Status of New Arrivals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"59 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the percentage of fully vaccinated migrant workers residing in dormitories remains at \"over 90%\" as communicated in September 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of unvaccinated migrant workers by dormitory; and (c) whether there are protocols in place to ensure no dormitory has vaccination levels under a certain threshold.
60 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many migrant workers living in dormitories have arrived in the last three months; (b) how many of the migrant worker arrivals have been verified as fully vaccinated in Singapore’s registry; (c) what is the average number of days taken for the verification process for all migrant worker arrivals from the date of arrival; and (d) what is the maximum time taken for such verification.
Dr Tan See Leng: Ninety-eight percent of migrant workers in the dormitories have been fully vaccinated, so there is greater assurance that they are protected against the risk of severe illnesses in the event of a COVID-19 infection.
MOM also tracks the vaccination rate of the migrant workers across all dormitories closely. Ninety-six percent of the migrant worker dormitories have more than 80% of their residents vaccinated. For workers who have yet to be vaccinated under our national programme, MOM has been working with the relevant sector leads, such as BCA and EDB, to proactively engage the employers and encourage their workers to be vaccinated; or if the workers had been vaccinated overseas, to verify the vaccination status.
The vaccination process has been made easy for the migrant workers. MOM currently facilitates by scheduling the vaccination appointments on the workers’ behalf. Workers and their employers can also reschedule the appointments. For migrant workers who may have been vaccinated overseas, their employers would also receive a step-by-step guide to get their workers’ vaccination records verified and updated accordingly. Verification comprises a serology test and evidence of vaccination with a PSAR or WHO EUL vaccine. The vaccination verification by the private healthcare providers is usually completed within a week.
In the past three months, over 6,200 workers have arrived in Singapore and reside in the dormitories. Of these, more than four in 10 or over 2,700 have already been registered as fully vaccinated in the National Immunisation Registry (NIR), while another 900 have at least taken one dose. MOM continues to follow up with the remaining workers – about 2,600 – to ask them and their employers to come forward for vaccination under our national programme if unvaccinated or verify their overseas vaccination.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister for Health","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statements were in the reply given by the Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung) during the Ministerial Statement on “Update on ICU and Hospital Capacity” at the Sitting of 1 November 2021: (proc text)]
The Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Nursing home infections are a small percentage of the total senior infection. The last I calculated, it is not updated but it is about 6.4%. So, it is a small percentage. The large majority is actually transmission within the community. [Please refer to “Update on ICU and Hospital Capacity”, Official Report, 1 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue No 41, Ministerial Statement section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Ong Ye Kung circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
After the Ministerial Statement on “Update on ICU and Hospital Capacity” at the Sitting of 1 November 2021, Mr Leong Mun Wai asked about the infection rates of seniors in nursing homes. My reply should read as follows:
The Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Nursing home infections are a small percentage of the total senior infection. The last I calculated, about 6.8% of the cases who were critically ill, in ICU or died, were cases from nursing homes. The large majority is actually transmission within the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4721,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Liang Eng Hwa","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20211101/vernacular-Liang Eng Hwa Re-employment 1Nov2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Liang Eng Hwa Re-employment 1Nov2021-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4722,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Ang Wei Neng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20211101/vernacular-Ang Wei Neng Retirement 1Nov2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Ang Wei Neng Retirement 1Nov2021-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4723,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Yeo Wan Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20211101/vernacular-Yeo Wan Ling Retirement 1Nov2021 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Yeo Wan Ling Retirement 1Nov2021 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4724,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Abdul Samad","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20211101/vernacular-1 Nov 2021 - Mr Abdul Samad - R and R (A) Bill.pdf","fileName":"1 Nov 2021 - Mr Abdul Samad - R and R (A) Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4725,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hany Soh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20211101/vernacular-Hany Soh Retirement 1Nov2021 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hany Soh Retirement 1Nov2021 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4726,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20211101/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh Retirement 1Nov2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh Retirement 1Nov2021-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}