1 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Manpower in the last five years, what are the statistics for persons with disabilities with regard to (i) their general employment rates, (ii) their employment rates by 10-year age groups and (iii) the main sectors employing them.
2 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of programmes to help companies employ and train persons with disabilities (PwDs), including the current number of companies and PwDs involved; and (b) whether there are long-term studies to monitor the effectiveness of these programmes in integrating PwDs.
\t
Mr Speaker: Would you like to take the two questions together?
The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Yes, Mr Speaker. I will take Question Nos 1 and 2 together.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, MOM recently started collecting data on the employment outcomes of persons with disabilities (PwDs) through our annual Comprehensive Labour Force Survey, with data available from 2018 onwards.
Among PwDs in the working ages of 15 to 64, the resident employment rate was 28.6%. Another 4.2% of PwDs in this age range were without a job and actively looking for one, translating to a resident unemployment rate of 12.9%. The remaining two-thirds of PwDs aged 15 to 64 were outside of the labour force, with most of them citing poor health or disability as the main reason.
The Member also asked for a breakdown of employment rates by age bands. The resident employment rates for PwDs were 27.6% for those aged 15 and 39; 37.8% for those aged between 40 and 49; 26.1% for those aged between 50 and 64; and 5.9% for those aged 65 and above.
The sectors employing the most resident PwDs are Community, Social and Personal Services, Food Services, Administrative and Support Services and Manufacturing, which together account for more than half of PwD employment.
Besides Mr Chong, Dr Intan had also filed a Parliamentary Question* for the next Sitting on the effectiveness of Government schemes in helping companies or employers to hire adults with disabilities. In particular, she cited the Special Employment Credit (SEC), Open Door Programme (ODP) and Workfare. I would like to take this opportunity to address Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar’s1 question as well.
To enable more PwDs of working age to be active in the labour force, the Government provides support in several ways. In 2012, MOM extended SEC to employers that hire Singaporeans with disabilities of all ages earning up to $4,000 a month. SEC provides an automatic wage offset of up to 16% of the employee’s monthly income for PwDs aged below 67, and up to 22% for PwDs aged 67 and over. Last year, more than 5,700 employers hiring over 8,600 Singaporeans with disabilities benefited from SEC. This number has increased from 2012, when SEC was paid to around 3,200 employers hiring about 5,000 Singaporeans with disabilities.
Employers and PwDs can tap on the employment support services and programmes under the Adapt and Grow initiative. This includes the ODP and Career Trial. ODP, which is administered by SG Enable with funding support from Workforce Singapore (WSG), provides job placement and job support services for PwDs and their employers, and grants for training and job redesign. The ODP Training Grant provides a subsidy of up to 90% of course fees to support the training of PwDs and their co-workers. The ODP Job Redesign Grant provides employers with funding of up to 90% of the job redesign costs, capped at $20,000 per employee with disability, to help integrate PwDs at the workplace.
Some employers and PwDs may have reservations about job fit and the suitability of the work environment. To address these concerns, Career Trial provides an opportunity for jobseekers and employers to try out each other and assess job fit through a trial. During the trial – which can be up to three months – jobseekers receive a training allowance from the Government.
From January 2016 to June this year, close to 780 companies have hired more than 2,000 PwDs with support from the Adapt and Grow initiative. At least 60% of these PwDs remained employed for after six months.
Finally, the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) and Workfare Training Support (WTS) were extended to lower wage PwDs of all ages in 2012 and 2017 respectively. WIS tops up the salaries and CPF savings of lower-wage PwDs, with up to $3,600 in cash and CPF contributions annually. WTS provides support such as course fee subsidies, monetary awards and training allowances to encourage lower wage PwDs to upgrade their skills. Last year, more than 6,400 Singaporeans with disabilities benefited from WIS, up from more than 3,500 in 2012. The number of Singaporeans with disabilities who benefited from WTS training also increased last year to about 860, up from about 640 in 2017.
There are also on-going efforts to help PwDs integrate into the workforce. Earlier this year, MOM and SG Enable launched the Job Redesign Guide for Inclusive Employers. The Guide provides step-by-step information for companies on how they can redesign jobs to suit PwD workers – for instance, through changes to the workplace or working arrangements. SG Enable also runs disability management workshops and a biennial Inclusive Business Forum to equip employers with knowledge and skills on how to recruit PwDs and integrate them into the workforce.
Inclusive employment requires collaboration amongst the public, private and people sectors. In March this year, MSF announced the formation of a new workgroup under the Third Enabling Masterplan to look at preparing PwDs for the future economy by enhancing access to lifelong learning opportunities and employment pathways. The workgroup is co-chaired by Minister of State for Social and Family Development Mr Sam Tan and Mayor Denise Phua. The workgroup is engaging PwDs and their care-givers, social service agencies and other disability stakeholders to better understand the needs, challenges and aspirations of PwDs. The workgroup aims to release their recommendations early next year.
Mr Speaker: Dr Intan.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for sharing the data regarding employment of persons with disabilities. I just have two supplementary questions. First, would the Ministry consider extending even more incentives, such as enhanced corporate tax relief for employers, or even instituting some form of affirmative action to ensure that they employ persons with disabilities or those with special needs. Secondly, would the Ministry also consider setting up a one-stop portal to help persons with disabilities and special needs gain employment. That is, the Ministry consolidates all the job vacancies from different employers so that persons with disabilities know that there is a one-stop portal that they can go to, to look for employment or even training opportunities; likewise, for the employers to do so.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for her questions. I would just like to clarify on the first supplementary question: is she asking for more schemes or just putting in place affirmative action?
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar: Both.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: As I had mentioned, today, we have the Special Employment Credit (SEC) which already subsidises the salaries of PwDs. Other schemes, such as the Open Door Programme, help with job redesign and so forth. From the perspective of implementing schemes, I think we are quite well resourced. More can still be done to encourage employers to think about having more PwDs and being more inclusive. That is an effort that we are working quite closely with MSF and even MOE for the SPED schools, to see how we can make pathways more available. That is an area that the new workgroup that I mentioned earlier would be looking into. It is a bit premature to be talking about what upcoming policies we would need to shape. But clearly, we can do better in terms of employment outcomes. It is one area we can look at.
On the second question with regards to a one-stop portal, that is something we can study. Today, we have something like a Jobs Bank that Workforce Singapore already has. SG Enable enables the employment of PwDs. That is one area we could potentially study. Let me speak to the workgroup to consider your suggestions.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I thank Minister of State Mr Zaqy for that reply. It was reported that just five in 100 persons with disabilities here have jobs. Could the Minister of State please shed some light on the difference in the numbers that he has just cited, versus what was reported in the newspapers?
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his question. I had said that today's employment rate for those between the ages of 15 and 64 was 28.6% which is different from the 5% that was cited by The Straits Times in 2017. This was erroneous because the incorrect data was derived by The Straits Times using different sources of publicly available data. Back then, PwD data from our comprehensive labour force survey was not ready. Therefore, understandably, they had patched together from different sources. For example, for the number of employed PwDs, The Straits Times had used the number reported by MSF in a Parliamentary Question (PQ) reply which is a composite of PwDs in the private sector who are eligible for the SEC, as well as PwDs in the Public Service. So, they patched that together. This was an underestimate, as SEC does not cover PwDs earning $4,000 and above a month. At the same time, there were also others who were not registered with SG Enable. So, some numbers were missed out.
For the total number of PwDs in our population, The Straits Times applied the estimated prevalence rate from a NCSS survey of 2,000 persons. This is different from what we have for our comprehensive labour force survey which covers about 100,000-plus persons from 33,000 households. So, it is a lot more accurate view of what the population is.
And given the small sample survey, there is a higher margin of error in estimating the true prevalence rate. Some a small difference in the estimated and true prevalence rate would result in a significant numerical difference in the derived PwD population.
At the same time, The Straits Times used NCCS' estimated prevalence rate for PwDs aged 50 and over compute the population size for PwDs aged 50 to 64. This is inaccurate as the estimate is affected by PwDs aged above 64. For those above 64, you will find a higher prevalence of disability, not just because of conditions which you were born with, but also because of old age and so you have deterioration of health, stroke and other conditions that also add up to disability.
Therefore, if you look at some of these composites that were put together, there is a difference in the numbers that came out. So, we have now used the comprehensive labour force survey which is more comprehensive. Last year was the first year for which we have available data.
Mr Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister of State. I have two questions. The first is, we have tracked the number of differently abled people who are employed. Do we know how long these employed people are in their employment? My personal experience is that I almost get a request for employment every other day at Hush TeaBar from the deaf community. I am wondering, as much as they are employed, how long do they actually stay in employment. The second question is, do we have any plans to commit to a national target? I want to qualify that I am not asking for an employment quota for employers, but I am asking if we as a country is committing to a national target in terms of inclusive employment, particularly for people with disabilities.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Earlier, I mentioned that for those PwDs who came through our Adapt and Grow initiatives, at least 60% remained employed after six months. Certainly, from a settling in perspective, we also provide support through the Job Redesign Grant. It is not just to support the placement but also to support the education and cultural awareness education of fellow employees as well, to help them settle in.
At the same time, it is a lot of work – having spoken to members and workers from SG Enable and other VWOs who are doing this, there is quite a lot of work to do as well, to help a PwD settle into some of the workplaces. They may not be easily settled in but I think we can do better.
Overall, in terms of a national target, it is something we have considered but I do not think we are prepared to do it at this point, given that we have just got some good visibility on how the situation is. I think our commitment for now is that our employment rates can be improved and this is something for which we need to get more employers onboard in order to improve employment rate and placements for our PwDs. I hope that through greater awareness, though Members like Ms Anthea Ong and other VWOs around, we can certainly do better to bring employers onboard, create awareness and help our PwDs to be more gainfully employed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : To ask the Minister for Manpower how successful have schemes such as the Special Employment Credit, Workfare and Open Door Programme, been in helping companies or employers employ adults with special needs."],"footNoteQuestions":["1","2"],"questionNo":"1-2"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Midges Outbreak at Pandan Reservoir and Long-term Preventive Measures Planned","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the factors contributing to this year's midges outbreak at Pandan Reservoir; (b) how different is this outbreak compared to previous ones; (c) how experience from previous outbreaks has helped PUB to stay ahead of the curve in fighting the midges issue; and (d) why PUB has not been able to find a permanent solution to the occasional midges outbreaks.
4 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the interventions used by PUB to counter the current midges outbreak at Pandan Reservoir; (b) how effective\thave these measures been in controlling the midges population and mitigating its impact to the surrounding living environment; and (c) what additional new measures are being contemplated to help the community affected by the outbreak.
5 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether there are other water bodies in Singapore experiencing a midges outbreak like that at Pandan Reservoir; and (b) whether PUB is able to predict, prevent and overcome such outbreaks.
6 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources regarding the persistent problems created by swarms of midges from Pandan Reservoir (a) what measures are being implemented to reduce the population of these chironomids; and (b) with rising temperatures, whether the Ministry will be considering long-term measures to prevent similar occurrences at this and possibly other reservoirs in the future.
7 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what expertise and resources does PUB have to understand, monitor and prevent midges outbreaks at reservoirs; (b) what are the key indicators that PUB uses to predict and pre-empt an outbreak; and (c) how can residents living near reservoirs be better protected from the outbreaks.
\tThe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, can I take Question Nos 3 to 7 together.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Thank you. Non-biting midges, also known as chironomids, are a type of flying insect that thrive in water bodies such as ponds, rivers and reservoirs. Midges are part of natural aquatic eco-systems and they are food for fishes and birds.
Midges can multiply very rapidly with each female adult midge laying up to 500 eggs in the water bodies. The eggs take a few days to hatch and become larvae which live at the bottom of the reservoir. After about two weeks, they develop to become pupae, swim to the water surface and emerge as adults. The adult midges live for only one to two days during which time they remain above water bodies to mate and lay eggs to continue their life-cycle.
Midges emergence occurs from time to time in several reservoirs including Pandan, Bedok, Punggol, Serangoon, Poyan, Tengeh and Marina reservoirs, as well as Punggol Waterway. Midge emergence has been known to occur at Pandan Reservoir since the late 1970s. Each emergence can be as brief as two weeks or as long as five months. There are several factors that determine the scale and duration of each emergence including the specific midge species and the environmental conditions such as rainfall, temperature and water chemistry at time of the emergence. We have just experienced a period of hot weather, with July being the second warmest July recorded since 1929. This unusual hot spell hastened the midges' growth process, resulting in the situation at Pandan Reservoir. With climate change, we will experience more extreme weather, which will have a corresponding response from nature.
Midges neither bite nor spread diseases. But they pose a nuisance to the public when they swarm in large numbers and, being weak flyers, get blown by wind into the surrounding residential estates. PUB takes a comprehensive suite of measures to mitigate this nuisance factor as far as is feasible. PUB monitors for midge emergence at reservoirs with known emergence by conducting frequent checks for larvae in samples of reservoir sediments or adult midges trapped around the reservoir vicinity. At Pandan Reservoir, PUB observed an increase in midge larvae since mid-June 2019. PUB kicked in mitigation measures swiftly when the midge emergence began in mid-July 2019.
Similar to what I explained to this House previously in 2016, PUB's mitigation measures for midges include increasing the frequency and dosage of the application of biological liquid larvicide within the reservoir to kill midge larvae; and increasing the frequency of fogging and misting around the reservoir dyke and surrounding vegetation to kill adult midges. These methods have been proven to kill midges at the relevant stages of their life cycle. PUB has also installed bright spotlights at the Pandan Reservoir pumping station and turns them on at night to attract the adult midges as they emerge from the reservoir. By keeping the midges within the reservoir area, PUB can then carry out targeted and effective measures such as fogging at these spots.
Unlike the midge emergence at Pandan Reservoir in 2016, the current dominant midge species is considered a rare one that has not been studied in great detail. This species exhibits different behaviours from other species. For example, they hide in drains and culverts in the day and swarm above the drains in the evening.
PUB has adapted by adding to the usual suite of measures. They have greased the drain walls to trap the midges when they land to rest and have targeted these areas for fogging. PUB has explored the use of free-moving oily paper within drains to increase the capture rates of adult midges, which have worked very well according to feedback from residents. PUB has also extended the existing 0.5 km of netting on the reservoir dyke by an additional 1 km. This netting acts as a barrier to trap adult midges and reduces the number of adult midges that would otherwise be blown to the residential estate.
PUB has worked closely with West Coast Town Council to engage affected residents through multiple channels such as dialogues, daily walkabouts and distribution of flyers and has advised affected residents on the actions they can take within their premises, such as, switching off their lights when not in use, as midges are attracted to light, as well as installing insect screens at their windows or drawing their curtains, if necessary.
But at the end of the day, we have to recognise that man cannot control nature. Midges cannot be eradicated as they are part of the natural aquatic ecosystem and will emerge to breed, especially when aided by favourable environmental conditions. Climate change, as mentioned, will further complicate our efforts.
Our reservoirs supply drinking water to the population and we have to be careful to ensure that – and this is important – PUB's mitigation measures, both short- and long-term, do not end up compromising water quality. However, PUB remains committed to working with the Town Councils and advisors to minimise public inconvenience caused. While PUB will continue to find more effective mitigation measures, we also seek residents' understanding and tolerance, should they find these insects in their homes.
\tMs Foo Mee Har (West Coast): I thank the Minister for his response. Before I raise my supplementary questions to the Minister, I would like to thank PUB and Town Council teams for the very very hard work in tackling the mass midge outbreak. Speaker, since July this year, residents living near Pandan Reservoir, have suffered greatly from the mass emergence of midges. Their homes have been invaded by the midges. Corridors, lifts and bus stops have been swamped. Cars, buses, bicycles and motorbikes have been affected. The midges stick to our clothes, really stick to your clothes, your hair, fly around your eyes, get into your nose, get into your food and they are everywhere.
This year's outbreak is the most severe we have had witnessed yet and also persisted for the longest time impacting the daily lives of our residents. Some of likened it to being in a horror movie. Seriously, if you have visited, it is really scary. I thank residents who took time to join the dialogue sessions we have organised with PUB on the midge issues, there are some really great ideas that have been shared and I would like to raise some for the Minister's consideration in my supplementary questions.
Speaker, I have four supplementary questions. First, whilst I appreciate that fogging has been proven to be an effective way to kill adult midges, there are concerns among our residents about the health risk from exposure to chemicals from sustained fogging, particularly, as the outbreak has lasted for an extended period. I would like to ask the Minister if PUB can find more effective fogging method to target midges at the reservoir as they emerge and keep them away from residential areas.
Second, as the Minister shared, the midges issue cannot be solved or eradicated permanently. I would like to ask the Minister, how can residents be supported with insect screens for their flats as installations of such features are costly as well as other methods that PUB would consider to protect HDB flats and bus stops from the nuisance of midges?
Third, the most effective way to deal with midges is to eliminate them at source. I know PUB uses biological larvicide, BTI, and using tonnes of it this time, at the reservoir, by injecting the larvicide into the reservoir's sediment. But, you know, despite all that, the problem appears to persists. I get constant questions, that I would like to ask the Minister, how PUB determines the effectiveness of BTI in controlling larva population at the reservoir. How can the injected BTI be expected to zero in on the midge larva given the vast area of the reservoir sediment?
Fourth, besides installing nets at the reservoir to serve as barriers to midges flying towards the housing estate, I would like to ask if more trees and shrubs can be added to also serve as barriers and places for the midges to congregate, so that they do not go into people's homes.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I thank the Member for the questions. I think this is a great opportunity for us to go back to our biology lessons. Like I mentioned before, this problem is really man versus nature – the kind of war man has never been known to win. Indeed, we can only suppress, we can only do our best, but we have to live with nature. In fact, we are the ones, who are intruding into their living spaces.
Specific answers to the question on fogging. The pesticide we use is called Permethrin. This particular pesticide that we use in fogging has undergone WHO's pesticide evaluation scheme and has been certified safe and suitable for use. In addition to using a safe pesticide, we also dilute it, dilute it a lot, so that, in addition to just thinking about killing these pests, we also do not want to harm the workers who are using them. So, they are used in a way, in a frequency that is known and recommended by WHO – safe for human, safe for the operators, as well as for the people that we are trying to help.
Secondly, on the insect screens, I think this issue of what you do to help yourself in your home has been well understood. Once you own your property, you own your home, you have to do what you can to protect yourself. Sometimes, we have residents who came to get help, for example, on their leaking pipes or issues which are more pertinent to their own home living conditions. Technically speaking, they should be taking care of these issues, but I think there is no harm, we can see what we can do to help, certainly, from the advisors themselves. We can come together and look at what we can do, because, this situation does not come all the time, not every year. So, to put in something which would become a permanent fixture, this may also affect the kind of image that the reservoir or the places around the reservoir should be. So, I think we have to be very careful about the kind of solutions we want to implement with or for them.
On BTI, the larvicide that we use to put into the water is a safe biological larvicide. It is actually a naturally occurring bacteria – soil bacteria – which produces spores, which are toxic, specifically to the digestive system of midge larvae. As we put in the larvicide, we also monitor the quality of the water. We cannot put so much to kill, just because there are more midges in the river. In the end, the quality of the water gets compromised. So, there is a trade-off between killing enough, or killing too much and we end up killing ourselves. We cannot do that either. There is a limit to which these measures can mitigate the issues that residents are facing.
Finally, on trees and shrubs, we can work with NParks to see first, whether these are actually effective ways to prevent the midges coming in. It is a more beautiful way, definitely, than putting screens, but is it an effective way to prevent the midges from coming into people's homes? We do not want to, in the end, create new problems – people having different kind of pests because of the kind of trees that we plant near their homes or around the reservoirs.
\t
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I noticed that Lower Seletar Reservoir was not mentioned by Minister among the water bodies that have the problem of midges. My residents have been bringing up this issue on midges and mayflies. So, I would like to ask the Minister, will PUB carry out preventive measures for Lower Seletar Reservoir before it becomes, like my Parliamentary colleague mentioned, a \"horror movie scene\". So, I hope something can be done for the Lower Seletar Reservoir area.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: We do monitor for every reservoir and we take the appropriate measures. We do not want a sledgehammer for a small problem or small hammer for a big problem. So, appropriate measures.
\tDr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Minister for the clarification. Just one clarification. Part of the problem is climate change and something we cannot alter. I was wondering whether we have looked at ways of changing the micro climate around the reservoirs. Because this only happens in certain reservoirs and I agree that it is because of the water, but there have been some studies that looked at the vegetation and the micro climate around the banks of the reservoirs. Can we look at that?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I think we will study all these. Thank you.
\tMs Foo Mee Har: I thank the Minister for his response to my supplementary question. I understand that this is part of nature, but I think for the community that is impacted by that, it is really bad. So, I would like to propose, for the Minister's consideration and collaboration with, maybe, HDB and other agencies – given that this phenomenon cannot be eradicated, in fact, PUB says that this may happen more regularly given the climate change, I think we should really seriously consider helping residents with protection against the nuisance created by midges, whether helping, especially vulnerable families with screens, or HDB nets or definitely in public areas like bus stops, so that it is bearable for people to be in those places to take public transport. So, I urge the Minister to seriously consider this.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: We will study how we can help residents. We must also take this into consideration for the kinds of things we have to spend, for when we try to tackle bigger issues in years to come, when climate change is upon us. We have not really understood properly how it will affect Singapore. What the Prime Minister has mentioned are only those things that we know can happen and should start working on from now. Issues around pests, are in fact more dangerous and I will mention it in my next Parliamentary Question (PQ) reply, around mosquitoes. They present a more imminent danger than perhaps what midges will present to us, and not to just particular areas around the reservoirs, but in fact, to the whole of Singapore.
So, in consideration of all those issues, yes, we will study them. We will see what we can do for localities but we also should know that our resources are limited; we have to put focus on important areas and not over promise on other areas, but rather, to over deliver.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Dengue Cases and Measures to Contain Its Spread ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether he can provide an update on the number of dengue cases observed nationally and in Woodgrove constituency in the 2nd quarter of this year; (b) what are the reasons for the high number of cases; and (c) what are the latest efforts to contain the spread of dengue.
9 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will consider expediting the trial of Project Wolbachia in the top dengue clusters given the high success rate of this project in eradicating the Aedes mosquito populations.
10 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the NEA can consider allocating more resources to step up efforts in eradicating mosquito breeding habitats through surveillance and inspections.
11 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what are the reasons for the continuing increase in the number of dengue cases this year despite the increase in mitigation measures such as fogging and inspections that have been taken in reported dengue clusters.
12 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the measures taken to reduce the instances of dengue fever have been yielding results; and (b) whether there are other reasons for the high number of cases so far.
\tThe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, can I take Question Nos 8 to 12 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Thank you. Based on NEA's surveillance, the surge in dengue cases this year is attributable to three key factors – an increase in mosquito population; the relatively warmer weather; and lower herd immunity in our population.
NEA's gravitrap surveillance system has shown an increase in the Aedes aegypti mosquito population by almost three times, since the last major dengue outbreak in 2013. This persistently high Aedes aegypti mosquito population increases the risk of transmission of the dengue virus. In addition, the mean temperature for the first half of this year was 0.7 degrees higher than the same period last year. Warmer temperatures result in higher transmission of dengue due to the accelerated development of the Aedes mosquito and shorter incubation period of the dengue virus. Due to our past successes in dengue prevention, the proportion of adults who have had dengue before has progressively decreased from 59% in 2004, to 51% in 2009, and 41% in 2017. This results, however, in lower herd immunity among our population, and a large proportion of Singapore's resident population remains susceptible to dengue.
NEA, together with agencies in the Inter-Agency Dengue Task Force and Town Councils, have stepped up housekeeping measures and inspections of common areas to eliminate potential breeding areas. In the first six months of the year, NEA has conducted more than 442,000 inspections island-wide and uncovered about 8,200 mosquito breeding habitats. Sixty percent of the breeding habitats detected were found in residential premises. If we look at dengue clusters, the proportion of breeding habitats detected in residential premises is even higher at 70%. This points to an urgent need for home and premises owners to step up their efforts to eradicate mosquito breeding habitats. NEA will enforce against premises owners found with mosquito breeding and has taken about 1,200 enforcement actions against households between January and June.
Since the launch of the National Dengue Prevention Campaign in April, 89 divisions across Singapore have organised more than 1,000 dengue prevention events and activities. Mayors, grassroots advisers, community leaders and dengue prevention volunteers have been visiting homes to share dengue prevention tips, including information on how to identify potential mosquito breeding habitats. To heighten the public's awareness and vigilance against mosquito breeding and dengue, dengue cluster alert banners, posters and notices have also been strategically placed around the estate in dengue cluster areas. Poster walkers have been deployed and dengue prevention advertorials have been displayed at high footfall areas within clusters. NEA has also reached out to the public through TV and radio commercials, as well as digital and social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram.
We are seeing positive outcomes from these collective efforts. As of 24 August, we have closed 863 of the 1,021 clusters formed in 2019. This weekly number of dengue cases has also come down from a high of 664 cases in the second week of July to the current 478 cases in the third week of August. Some of the largest clusters in Woodlands, Upper Thomson, Chai Chee and Pasir Ris, have closed. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all our stakeholders, including the grassroots advisers, grassroots leaders, dengue prevention volunteers, Town Councils and residents, for your efforts.
NEA will continue to work with our partners to enhance the efforts in dengue control. From the second half of 2019, NEA will progressively deploy an additional 14,000 Gravitraps to new HDB blocks and landed estates. This will augment NEA's current network of 50,000 Gravitraps, and enhance our surveillance capabilities. The Gravitrap surveillance system allows NEA to prioritise its resources and deploy officers to focus on areas with high mosquito population.
In addition, since 25 August, NEA has partnered with People's Association (PA) to step up dengue outreach. Five thousand volunteers from PA grassroots organisations and Community Emergency and Response Teams (CERTs) will work hand in hand with dengue prevention volunteers to conduct house visits and distribute dengue prevention leaflets.
Another new initiative by NEA is the sharing of information on areas with relatively higher Aedes aegypti adult mosquito population on its webpage, to facilitate targeted action by key stakeholders, community partners and residents. The information aims to increase awareness of dengue risk in areas with high mosquito population which might not yet be dengue clusters, so that stakeholders can pre-emptively take measures to reduce potential mosquito breeding habitats and avoid the formation of new dengue clusters.
While the results from Project Wolbachia field studies have shown promise, the Wolbachia technology has only been tested in small study sites in Singapore, and remains under research and development. It is important for NEA to evaluate the technology rigorously before deploying it on a larger scale. NEA's approach to Project Wolbachia is aligned with the World Health Organization's (WHO) and International Atomic Energy Agency's guidelines on developing sterile insect technologies using a phased approach.
Each phase of Project Wolbachia has a clearly defined objective, to progress the study and evaluate the technology systematically. The project is now in Phase 3, which aims to determine if the Aedes aegypti population suppression achieved thus far can be sustained in larger areas. The release area covers 84 blocks in Yishun and 60 blocks in Tampines and is 3.7 times larger than the release area when Wolbachia first started. It also focuses on the development of automation for male Wolbachia-Aedes mosquito production and release, to ensure scalability of the technology. As field studies require prior systematic design, preparation and historical data for comparison, they are not suited for reacting to current dengue clusters, which are very dynamic.
Wolbachia technology is also not a silver bullet. It will not replace the community's efforts to ensure good house-keeping, which is still needed to keep our homes and estates free from mosquitoes and dengue. Comprehensive mosquito surveillance, source eradication of mosquito breeding habitats, and spraying of insecticide where necessary to control the adult mosquito population, continue to be Singapore's key strategies for dengue prevention and control.
Mr Speaker, we are still in the peak dengue season, which stretches from June to October. The region around us is similarly seeing an upsurge in dengue cases this year. We need to remain vigilant, and continue to work as a community to suppress the Aedes mosquito population and keep dengue cases in check. I urge everyone to join in the collective effort to stop the dengue transmission cycle, by regularly doing the five-step Mozzie Wipeout and to remind your family members, friends and neighbours to remove stagnant water from within and around their homes.
\tMr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, there was a death due to dengue in my ward this year. Many of my residents are understandably very concerned and many of my residents have asked why fogging is being carried out infrequently as opposed to the past. I would like to ask the Minister if he can clarify, whether fogging is still an effective method to combat the Aedes mosquitoe and if Ministry will continue to use it as a tool.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As I mentioned just now, in areas where there are higher incidences of dengue fever, 70% of the breeding is found in homes. So, even if we carried out more fogging, residents will usually close their windows anyway. Therefore, the best way to prevent dengue from proliferating is to destroy their habitats and most of them are within homes. But do we do fogging? Yes, we can and we must, to kill the adult mosquitoes outside. There is no silver bullet in whichever method we choose and we cannot just use one method to stop this problem.
\t
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Speaker, supplementary question for the Minister. Earlier, he talked about lower herd immunity and attributed it to the fact that the dengue prevention efforts of the past years have shown some effectiveness. I would like to ask him whether there has been observed to be a change in the serotypes, the strain of dengue that is now predominant in Singapore, and whether that contributes to the higher incidence of cases?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: There is no known significant switch in serotype of dengue strains found in Singapore. So, as I have mentioned, the three factors, among which is the low herd immunity, is one major factor which is causing the spike in the number of dengue cases in Singapore, rather than serotype switch.
\tMr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): I have two follow-up questions. First, is there any discernible difference in terms of breeding sites and residents contracting dengue for private estates and HDB estates? Secondly, a lot of residents and Singaporeans travel overseas. Are there incidents of them contracting dengue overseas because they let their guards down or they are not aware that the regions that they visit are also experiencing a dengue outbreak?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: There are clear differences between breeding places in private estates and public housing. For public housing, some of them are found in common areas and the Town Councils must and should take all precautions possible to prevent breeding and mosquitoes. Some of these places are really hard to access. Whereas for private housing, most of the breeding places, in addition to being found within homes, are also found in their gardens, usually in pots which are not probably treated or pots which collect water.
For cases of dengue contracted overseas, as I had mentioned, our region is now suffering from a spike in the number of dengue cases. Therefore, as we travel, please take the necessary precautions, put on insect repellent on yourselves and especially on your children, so that they do not get bitten by mosquitoes and inadvertently, contract dengue.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I would like to ask the Minister, does NEA face any difficulties in accessing individual homes, whether in private estates or HDB estates? What measures are being taken to deal with this issue?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Generally speaking, it has not been difficult to access homes. When our NEA inspectors knock on doors, they would open the doors. But sometimes, there is nobody at home, or sometimes, it could be an elderly at home. So, we try very hard to work with the neighbours to find out how we can get access. Particularly for areas which are dengue clusters, we do not wait long. We will try to gain entry and NEA has the powers to do so.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I want to commend the very diligent NEA ground staff and, of course, the volunteers who walk the blocks and flats with them to educate and to warn residents about dengue prevention. As the Minister mentioned, most of the mosquito-breeding habitats are in-house. We found that, on the ground, many of the NEA staff and the volunteers are very helpless when residents refuse to let them gain entry, sometimes, out of non-cooperation, but a lot is also out of fear of the fine, the stick; thinking that when they open the doors, if they would be punished.
I was wondering if NEA could consider to, first, issue a severe warning, get entrance to the flat, check the premises and then, install the fine only from the second time that they visit. There is a lot of worry, fear and anxiety about someone coming to your house, inspecting your premises and then, punishing you straightaway, when you are not yet educated or aware.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I am quite sure if you go through some Hansard reports, this question had been asked before – can we first give a warning, then issue the fine later, be kind? I think if dengue does not cause death, we probably could do that. But dengue is known to cause death and these could be our loved ones. I think everyone has to be responsible and accountable to take care of their homes, to make sure they do not breed mosquitoes. When NEA officers and dengue volunteers go in to check their homes, they are trying to help, and also point out where possible breeding habitats could be found; and then, if found, they fine them. That sends a strong signal to everybody to take this seriously. We never know which breeding habitat will produce the mosquito that may kill somebody we love.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Hiring, Developing and Strengthening Singaporean Core","subTitle":"Role of Tech@SG for hiring of tech talent","sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of the current economic conditions and our focus on hiring, developing and strengthening the Singaporean Core, whether there is a need for the Tech@SG programme which facilitates technology firms in the hiring of foreign talent.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, deep tech industries and companies are the lynchpin for the future economy. Digital technologies have transformed the way we work and live. Today, technology companies are among the fastest growing in the world and occupy an increasing share of the Fortune 500 list. Singapore must develop our tech ecosystem and ride this growth, to create more opportunities for Singaporeans.
Talent is critical in this effort. Tech companies require experts with specialised skills. Increasingly, companies are basing their investment decisions on the availability of talent instead of traditional factors such as the cost and availability of land. Unfortunately, there is a global shortage of tech talent, and competition is intense. France overhauled its French Tech Visa six months ago to make it easier for tech talent to work in France. Closer to home, Thailand introduced a SMART visa programme this year to attract highly skilled tech professionals.
If Singapore sits back and does nothing, we will almost certainly be left behind. We have only a small window to build a critical mass of high-end professionals, start-ups and companies. There will only be a few such nodes globally. How we do today will decide whether we make it as a tech hub, or not. We must move fast and move now.
It is not only companies which are facing a shortage of tech talent. Our Government is also using technology to transform our public services and serve businesses and citizens better. The Government is therefore tapping on the same limited pool of local tech professionals as our companies. We need to urgently expand this pool.
We are accelerating our efforts to develop our tech talent while ensuring that Singaporeans remain at the core of our efforts. The first prong of our talent strategy, ever since we achieved Independence, has been to develop our local workforce. Our people are our most important resource and we spare no effort in nurturing them. In our efforts to widen our tech talent pool, we have been rapidly scaling up our local pipeline of tech professionals. Today, more than 74,000 training places have been taken up or committed under the TechSkills Accelerator (TeSA) and this will amount to about one-third of our ICT professionals across the country.
Our Institutes of Higher Learning offer around 200 full-time tech-related courses today. In Academic Year 2018, there was an enrolment of more than 63,000 locals in these tech-related courses, which received about $1.1 billion in Government funding. We are also investing significantly in building new capabilities such as cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. Together, these efforts will increase our baseline of tech skills and capabilities.
As we develop our base, we must also stretch the top of our Singaporean crop. We have connected Singapore to the world to secure frontier opportunities for Singaporeans through programmes such as the Global Innovation Alliance (GIA). The GIA is a global network connecting Singapore to leading innovation eco-systems and key markets around the world. Singaporeans and businesses will be able to gain overseas experience, and connect and collaborate with their overseas counterparts through the GIA.
But even these efforts are insufficient because the demand for tech talent is far outstripping the local supply. This is not just a Singapore issue; it is a global challenge. The Straits Times recently reported that recruiting firm Michael Page said that the demand for technology jobs in Singapore rose by 20% in the last 12 months but there is a shortage of supply. Companies have also given our agencies feedback that we lack experienced software engineers and product managers. They are looking for people who can take charge of the development and roll-out of digital products at a global scale, instead of only working on specific components of the product. These are often people that can marry both technical leadership and commercial acumen, manage larger tech teams in the hundreds and thousands, and are highly valued because they are in short supply.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the reality which we will have to face or we risk diminishing our competitive edge. We need to complement our local pipeline with skilled workers from all around the world to meet the surging demand from companies that are already in Singapore and companies that we want to bring to Singapore. The presence of workers from other countries and nationalities also provides opportunities for Singaporeans to work in globally competitive teams and advance the frontiers of innovation together. In a world where multi-sectoral, cross-discipline and cross-cultural teams are increasingly common, Singaporeans must learn how to work with people from all around the world. This will increase their competitiveness as individual employees and make them more attractive to employers.
Alibaba, Grab, SAP and Taiger are examples of some companies which have plans to expand significantly in Singapore. Many of these companies have shared that the ability to complement their local workforce with global talent is essential for them to quickly scale their operations in accordance to their plans.
This is why we launched Tech@SG to help fast-growth tech companies, both local and foreign, to grow in Singapore. This programme is intended for companies with the commitment and ability to build teams and products in Singapore. They will have to be incorporated in Singapore, have a digital or technology offering or have a business model built around proprietary technologies, research or hardware. Companies would also need to have secured more than US$10 million in Venture Capital (VC) funding cumulatively and have received funding from a Programme-recognised VC in the past 36 months. This will ensure the companies would have sufficient resources and readiness to internationalise and compete.
Tech@SG will enable such companies to put together globally competitive teams to develop their products and internationalise quickly. In addition, Tech@SG will raise the quality of tech talent in Singapore and create more opportunities for our tech experts to team up with the best from around the world.
We must be prepared for these fast-growth companies to recruit the skills they most require. In the short term, these skills may come from global professionals. But, we must take a strategic view on this to reap the long-term rewards for Singaporeans. We did so for the semi-conductor industry in the 1960s. At that time, many multinationals in the industry came here and set up their core team which comprised mainly foreigners. Over time, as these companies anchored themselves in Singapore, they began to rapidly grow their local pool of employees. In a span of just three years, the first three semiconductor companies in Singapore – National Semiconductor, Fairchild and Texas Instruments – created more than 7,000 jobs. They have also grown an entire generation of specialists and professionals in this area that enabled the semi-conductor industry of Singapore today.
Today, we have a similar opportunity to create a vibrant and dynamic tech sector, generating new and exciting job opportunities for yet another generation of Singaporeans – but time is running out.
\t
I would like to highlight some examples where we can already see the benefits to Singaporeans. Visenze, an AI and image recognition company founded by four Singaporeans, now hires more than 60 tech professionals to form multinational teams that develop and improve their AI technology. Abel Lim, a recent graduate from NUS' School of Computing, learns about applying machine learning to real-life problems from colleagues in his team who come from around the world. Together, their team makes improvements to Visenze’s algorithms.
Another example would be Mastercard. Mastercard is an MNC currently spearheading the creation of new digital technologies in payment solutions and smart mobility in Singapore, powered by artificial intelligence. These innovative activities require new capabilities that would need to be built up in the Singapore team. To that end, the company introduced the Mastercard Graduate Programme that offers Singaporean employees a structured programme of rotations, international work experience and mentorship opportunities. These equip them with new skills and allow them to work alongside senior experts from around the world. Seliyan Silvarajoo is one such Singaporean who has undergone this programme. He started out as an intern at Mastercard and is now a senior digital product specialist. Seliyan counts his experience learning from and working with a global and diverse team as critical to preparing him for his role in developing new and exciting products.
Besides companies like Mastercard and Visenze, we have a good stable of companies like the digital giants Google and Facebook that create good opportunities for Singaporeans. We need to be able to create an environment for Singaporeans to learn from the best and to thrive. We need to grow our tech ecosystem and create exciting opportunities for all Singaporeans. This is what Tech@SG is about.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to assure the House that we are deeply cognisant of the fact that this topic can be easily stirred up because of the emotions involved and because it concerns the jobs and the kind of society we want to build in Singapore.
At the same time, this is a Government that has always sought to be honest with Singaporeans and has never shied away from explaining our challenges and sharing what needs to be done in order for us to grow and adjust to changing realities. We will never stop putting Singaporeans at the heart of everything we do and will continue to develop every Singaporean to their fullest potential so that they can fulfil their aspirations and seize opportunities in Singapore and beyond.
However, we must not go down the path of other countries who have started to put up barriers and take an inward-looking, protectionist approach, not just to trade but including talent. Doing so, we will only hurt Singapore whose success over the last 54 years has been built on our openness and courage to do what is necessary for our country. To this end, we will continue to do our best for each and every Singaporean while continuously building on our efforts to take Singapore into the next lap with the world as our hinterland for trade and talent.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): I thank the Minister for his response and the rationale of Tech@SG. I have three supplementary questions for the Minister.
Firstly, whether such companies in the Tech@SG programme will still be subjected to the Fair Consideration Framework as well as the triple-weak scrutiny which the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) by MOM is rolling out.
The second question: whether the agencies concerned – rolling out Tech@SG – considered leveraging on MOM's Capability Transfer Programme to roll out some of these knowledge transfer, skills transfer and capability transfer to Singaporeans?
Thirdly, amidst this sense of uncertainty and quite dismal outlook in terms of the employment and job market, I think our focus is on helping, supporting and assisting fellow Singaporeans. I just wonder whether there are controls in place or will there be controls that will be instituted on Tech@SG to make sure that our local PMEs are not compromised or prejudiced against?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me respond to the three questions.
The answer to the first question is a definite yes. We are working closely with MOM, the Fair Consideration Framework applies to everyone and every firm in Singapore.
The second question: did we consider the Capability Transfer Programme? Yes, that is one of the various instruments that we use to level up our own professional knowledge. We will continue to do that and where there are opportunities, we will even step up our gear to do that. But having said that, as I have explained, even though we are churning out as many people as we can, as fast as we can, it is still not sufficient to meet the growing demand. We must make sure that we do not miss the boat by losing the professionals, the start-ups and the companies for us to form a critical mass quickly.
On the third point, it is precisely because of the uncertainties with the economic outlook that we have stepped up our gear to make sure that we build the next generation of companies in this sector. At this point in time, I would say that this forms part of our overall surgical measures to help our companies transform and expand their market presence. At this point in time, the average of the economy may be about 0% to 1% percent growth but that does not mean that every sector is between 0% and 1% percent growth. We know that the current numbers are dragged down by the global electronics downturn, the wholesale and retail trade, and some of the precision engineering sectors.
On the other hand, our economy is growing well in the financial services, the ICT and many of the high-tech industries. This is why we must make sure that while we try to lift the bottom, we must never cap the top. We must make sure that we can do all we can to help those companies that are growing the fastest at this point in time, suffering from the global shortage of tech talent, including many of our ICTs and AI companies, to make sure that the Tech@SG programme will give them the best chance possible to succeed and will not make them lose out to other companies from other countries who are competing for the global talent at this point in time.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: I would like to ask the Minister for a clarification. Now, we are doing Tech@SG for the tech sector. Will MTI consider or is it in the works to considering other sectors as well? Because it is not just the ICT sector that needs foreign expertise or even data analytics, data science expertise; it could be the financial sector or many other professional services, and all these contribute quite significantly this year and, moving forward, to the economic growth of Singapore.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: The answer is yes. We are open to considering how we can work with the other sectors who are short of these talent at the global level. But I want to clarify. We are not talking about S Pass holders, we are not even talking about the average EP holders. We are talking about people who can manage programmers by the hundreds and thousands. These are the people who know and have the expertise to manage global teams of the hundreds and thousands of people, and these are in critical shortage.
Just to put in context how tough this competition is – China, the most populous country in the world, even China has a 千人计划 to attract the best from around the world to go back to China and help. If China, France and Thailand are all doing this, we can understand how critically short we are at the global level. So, while everybody is trying to churn out as many as they possibly can within the time, everyone is also fighting for the available talent at this point in time.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Just one supplementary question for the Minister. A few years ago, there was an initiative to increase the number of Singaporeans or work towards increasing the number of Singaporeans in leadership positions in the financial sector. Is there a similar parallel initiative that the Government has in mind for Tech@SG? I think the Minister raised some numbers about the number of students in our Institutions of Higher Learning. But more upstream, in terms of taking on roles, since this is a long runway that we are looking at, does the Government have any plans in that regard?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: I thank Mr Pritam Singh for raising the financial sector. In fact, that is a very good example of how we do business. When we grew our financial sector, there will obviously be areas where we initially lack the expertise. We brought in people and experts who are globally attuned and have the exposure. Over time, we progressively make sure that those expertise is localised and we have achieved much in the financial sector, under the leadership of MAS. We will continue to do this because we will never stay static and we will never say that we have done enough to get our locals into the top leadership positions.
This is exactly the same spirit that we intend to do for all the new sectors. That is why, just now, in answering Mr Patrick Tay's question, I talked about the Fair Consideration Framework – what Mr Patrick Tay called the \"triple-weak\". We want to make sure that every company, as they grow, are conscious of their responsibility to localise the talent and also to build up the capabilities within Singapore. That is how, progressively, we are not shy to learn from the best in the world. But as we learn from the best in the world, we want to make sure that our people have the best opportunities to learn from them, acquire those skills and maybe even go beyond. This must continue to be the Singapore way. This was how we built up the semi-conductor industry in the 1960s and 1970s and that will not change.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mother Tongue Language Exemption for Special Educational Needs Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Education with regard to the new PSLE scoring system (a) what is the rationale of assigning the lowest three levels of the eight Achievement Levels in Mother Tongue Language (MTL) for Special Educational Needs (SEN) students who are granted exemptions; (b) what is the impact on PSLE results, course eligibility and school choices between the current and new scoring system for MTL exemption; (c) whether the Ministry will consider delaying the implementation of the MTL exemption scoring changes for the current cohorts who will be affected; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider an alternate PSLE aggregate scoring system for SEN students who are granted MTL exemption.
15 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry will address the concerns of families and educators that Special Educational Needs (SEN) students deemed not suitable to take Mother Tongue Language (MTL) as an examinable subject, are being further disadvantaged at an early age; and (b) whether more inclusive mainstream secondary schools can be developed by modifying the Secondary 1 Direct School Admission system to allow more admissions of SEN students affected by the MTL exemption scoring changes.
16 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Education (a) whether students granted exemption from studying mother tongue languages on medical grounds may be exempted from the new PSLE scoring system taking effect from 2021; (b) what is the number of currently enrolled primary school students who have been exempted from studying mother tongue languages and will now be subject to the new PSLE scoring system from 2021; and (c) what is the rationale for applying the new PSLE scoring system to these students who received exemptions from studying mother tongue languages under the prevailing system.
17 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Education with regard to the application of the PSLE scoring system to those students exempt from studying Mother Tongue Languages (a) what are the guiding principles to determine which Achievement Level (AL) the student will score; and (b) whether there is an assessment of how the new scoring system will impact students with learning disabilities or special needs.
18 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the rationale and principle behind according a student an exemption from Mother Tongue Language (MTL) in national exams; and (b) whether this principle aligns with the new PSLE scoring system for MTL exemption.
\tThe Second Minister for Education (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister of Education): Mr Speaker, may I take Questions 14 to 18 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Today, more than 95% of our students take the MTL examination at the PSLE, at either the Standard or Foundation level. This reflects the centrality of MTL learning in our education system. Learning the MTLs allows us to connect with our communities, and draws on our rich ethnic heritage and culture to build our unique Singapore identity.
At the same time, we recognise that for a small group of students, such as those with special educational needs (SEN) or who have been away from Singapore for prolonged periods, it may be challenging for them to study one of our MTLs. Hence, upon application, we may grant them exemption from MTL. However, there are many students with SEN or who have been away and who still take MTL, notwithstanding the difficulties they encounter.
In any given year, on average, about 4.5% of our students are exempted from MTL. This group of students will take three examinations at the PSLE – English, Mathematics, and Science. Hence, they will receive only three subject scores on their results slip. The question then is how to use these scores for posting to the next course of study, given that the vast majority of their peers have a score summed up from all four subjects.
That is why for purposes of posting, we assign an MTL score for these students by referencing the MTL scores of other students with similar English, Maths and Science scores, including those offering Foundation MTL. This basic approach will not change when we move from the T-score system to the new Achievement Level (AL) scoring system in 2021.
Ms Denise Phua asked about the underlying principles of this practice. The new AL scoring system is based on the level of attainment by the student himself, and moves us away from the approach of the T-score system where a student has to outperform his peers to register a high score. However, when it comes to Secondary school posting, the student still needs to use his PSLE score to compete with other students in order to be admitted into a school of his choice.
\t
Our treatment of students exempted from MTL is aligned with these principles. For purposes of deriving AL scores, he was exempted from MTL, so no assessment of his standards took place and he has no score. But for the purposes of Secondary school posting, he needs to be compared with other applicants and so we will assign him an MTL score by referencing his peers.
We can and must strike a balance between competition amongst students and self-mastery, but realistically, we cannot remove competition totally, and it is also not a reflection of the real life that we are preparing students for.
What is specific to the AL system is that the assigned MTL score will range from AL6 to AL8. We have done this considering the vast majority of students who offer an official MTL either at the Standard or Foundation levels.
This includes a significant number with SEN or those who have returned to Singapore after prolonged periods overseas. Currently, about 90% of our Returning Singaporean students study an official MTL, with our schools providing support for their language learning. Seventy percent of students with SEN in mainstream schools also take MTL at PSLE. Many of them take Foundation MTL. As the score range for those taking Foundation MTL is AL6 to AL8, it would be difficult to justify to those offering it why another student who did not sit for the examination could be assigned a higher score.
Ms Denise Phua asked about the implications of the new scoring system on course eligibility and school choices. Any student who scores 22 or below will qualify for a Express course. Under the current T-score system and the new AL scoring system, the outcomes are similar.
Our simulations using the most recent PSLE results show that a similar proportion of students with SEN and are exempted from MTL, would qualify for the Express course under both scoring systems. In any case, by 2024, Express and Normal streams will be phased out. In terms of school choices, if we held choice patterns constant, about 60% of them would secure their first choice Secondary school, under both scoring systems.
For those concerned about the chances of success to be admitted into specific Secondary schools, we have over the past few years, significantly expanded places in the Direct School Admission (DSA) pathway to better recognise talents and achievements across different domains beyond general academic abilities. Most schools can now admit 20% of their Secondary 1 intake via DSA, up from 10% in 2017, and many schools have yet to reach this proportion.
Schools are also admitting more students with different strengths and backgrounds, including those with SEN. For example, we see students with SEN who are talented in Mathematics, Science, sports and performing arts, and admitted via DSA into the schools of their choices. MOE and schools will support existing MTL-exempt students affected by the new scoring system in their transition by providing advice on their school choices, and to also explore DSA as an option.
We also recognise that our students with SEN put in tremendous effort to cope with their learning. MOE has increased the resources to help students in SPED schools, and students with SEN in mainstream schools will also benefit from learning support programmes as well as allied educators for learning and behavioural support. MOE is committed to continue working with schools in providing the support needed to prepare our students for the PSLE changes.
Members also asked if we could delay the implementation of the scoring changes for current cohorts or consider an alternative PSLE scoring system for students with SEN. Given that we are changing the national examination scoring system, it would not be feasible for a small group to remain under the T-score system or to use an aggregate score of three scores, as their scores would not be comparable with the aggregate scores of other students for purposes of Secondary school posting.
Ultimately, in grading, scores have to reflect standards, instead of effort or circumstances. Those are relevant factors, but we should exercise that judgement during admission mechanisms like the DSA, instead of compromising the consistency and integrity of the assessment and grading system.
Mr Speaker, performance at the PSLE is just one checkpoint in a child's education journey and it is not the final judgement of a child's ability or potential. The changes to the PSLE scoring, expansion of DSA and journey to Full Subject-Based Banding (SBB) aim to shift our education system away from an over-emphasis on academic results and encourage our students to focus on their own learning. Fundamentally, we want an education system with multiple pathways and opportunities, so that every child can maximise his or her potential and be placed in good stead for the future.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I thank the Second Minister for the comprehensive response. I totally understand the importance of MTL and that requests and approvals for exemption of Mother Tongue studies must not be taken lightly.
But for students who are medically certified with special education needs (SEN) and especially those in special schools taking the PSLE, those who are visually impaired, those who are deaf or autistic SPED students, the PSLE score is the main currency by which they are admitted – they have a chance to go to a mainstream Secondary school and education. Cut-off points is still what many Secondary mainstream schools use to admit these students unless one is exceptional enough to qualify for Direct School Admission (DSA). And, hence, there are genuine concerns by the families and parents of these students. So, I have two supplementary questions to ask.
One, to ask the Minister that if the reason for exemption is valid, is medical, then will MOE consider an exemption as an exemption with no conditions attached? To the layman, the definition of exemption is that it is not conditional and therefore, there is no excitement of the lower score if you are exempted. And there are some who actually fear that the students are further disadvantaged by putting them back into a pool after recognising and after all the good work that MOE has done for SEN, that by now putting these students back into the pool to compete with the rest of the others. So, that is one – can an exemption be an exemption with no conditions attached?
The second is to do with informed choices. So, for those who are currently already in the Primary 1 to Primary 4 cohorts, so-called, in-flight, the families had not made informed decisions at the time when they appealed for Mother Tongue exemption or language studies exemption, whether under the old or the new system now. So, would MOE please consider delaying the implementation for this group and grandfathering the current P1s to P4s, start the new system preferably full and not conditional exemption from the 2020 Primary 1 cohort onwards. I know these are deep issues and that MOE has done a lot of thinking about this. But I ask you not to say \"no\" to me first but to take the time to consider these several options and let us work together to see what is the best balance decision for this group.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for her questions and, in fact, I think the Member has reflected the concerns of parents who are genuinely worried about their children especially those with special education needs. Perhaps, what I can do is put it in perspective and give the reassurance to those parents that even under the new system, their children will be treated fairly. And let me just outline and explain it.
I will take the second question first because Ms Phua asked whether those who are already in-flight might have chosen otherwise if they had known about this, and whether the current system can remain in place for them so that only the new cohorts coming in for Primary school will be under the new system.
The thing is this: the new PSLE AL scoring system will come into effect for the PSLE cohort in 2021. So, the students with SEN who are exempted and who are taking PSLE in 2021, they too, as part of that cohort, will need to be posted to a Secondary school. When you post, the posting has to be done in comparison with other students. So, all the students in that cohort will be posted under an AL system and you cannot remain under a T-score system. It is not possible to do comparison or to delay it. And that is the reason why you have to do it together. But recognising that you have to do it together, then this is the thought process that MOE went through and we hope that the parents will see that this does not actually disadvantage their children.
The first thing to remember is that actually, more than 95% of our students take MTL. It is 4.5% who are exempted, out of which about 3% includes those who have SEN. Then, out of the ones who have SEN in the mainstream schools, as I mentioned earlier, 70% actually do take MTL at PSLE. So, the ones who are exempted are actually a very small percentage. And for the SEN students who take MTL at PSLE, about 40% of them offer Standard MTL and 30% offer Foundation MTL. So, there is actually already a very large group of students with SEN who do MTL and they compare together with the others.
Then, for those who are exempted, I think Ms Phua asked: can an exemption be an exemption? The exemption is an exemption because if we followed the existing rule, what it would mean is that the student who, for medical reasons or otherwise, if you held very strictly to the rule, it would mean that that student has to take MTL. And we have given the exemption in recognition of the fact that such students may, because of SEN or for medical reasons, have great difficulty in coping with MTL and, therefore, have been exempted. So, an exemption is given and they do not have to do MTL.
But the difficulty comes, as I explained, with posting, because with posting, it is necessary to see how that child compares with other children. And, if you apply it very strictly, then given that you did not take MTL, the correct score should actually be zero, meaning that you have the worst possible score, and we did not want to do that. So, to be fair, we have to assign a score, and we do that by taking reference from their peers, including those who take Foundation MTL.
So, actually, the range of scores for those who take Foundation MTL, by and large, falls within AL6 to AL8. And AL6 is actually not a low score. It translates to up to 64 marks. So, do not be mistaken: AL6 is not a low score and it is still possible for these children to be able to get a place in the Express stream. Receiving an AL6 for the fourth subject does not automatically disqualify a student from accessing a particular course or his first choice Secondary school. For example, a student obtaining two AL5s and two AL6s will get a PSLE score of 22 and will still be eligible for the Express/Normal (Academic) option band.
So, when we did the simulations, they indicate that, by and large, whether under the current system or whether under the new system, a similar proportion of all MTL-exempt students will be able to qualify for Express or the Express/Normal (Academic) option band and that is about 40% of these students. So, by and large, it would not be very different. Even now, you do have to assign them a score because there are MTL-exempt students today. I think at the end of the day, the key thing for the parents to ask is: some parents may be concerned about their children who do very well. They may get one for English; one for Mathematics; one for Science and then you get six for your MTL. You are well within the Express range. So, for those who are at the margins, when it comes to the choice of a particular school, there is always the DSA option. And I would ask, at the end of the day, for the parents to work with the teachers to consider what is the best thing for the child because we do want the best pathway, the best option for the child and especially children with SEN. That, MOE will certainly not compromise on because we want to make sure that whichever path they take, they have good opportunities in order to be able to achieve their aspirations.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 19-20, 23-25, 29-31, 35-39, 42-47, 51-54, 56-63, 65 and 70-71 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 21-22, 26-28, 32-34, 40-41,48-50, 55, 64 and 66-69 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 6 August 2019.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maintenance of Religious Harmony (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Chapter 167A of the 2001 Revised Edition), and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts to deal with religious intolerance\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Income Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 2014 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the Stamp Duties Act (Chapter 312 of the 2006 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a second time.\"
Population ageing is a global phenomenon. For Singapore, the good news is that we are living longer, and many of our seniors live fulfilling and active lives, well into their silver years.
However, ageing also comes with related illnesses and disability. To enable more of our seniors to age well with dignity and purpose, we need to prepare ahead of time. We need to look at how we can better organise social and health care, how we can enable our seniors to stay healthy, age-in-place, and continue to contribute to the community, and how we can support them in their medical and long-term care needs.
We have made significant progress in these areas over the past few years.
In 2015, we implemented MediShield Life to provide universal health coverage, with better protection for all, so that all Singaporeans have peace of mind for their hospitalisation bills, and for life, so that older Singaporeans are covered too, regardless of their age.
That year, we also developed the Action Plan for Successful Ageing with various stakeholders, which now has over 70 initiatives underway to empower our seniors to live well, even as we live longer.
Earlier this year, we announced the Caregiver Support Action Plan to strengthen the support for care-giving for our seniors. These include the Home Caregiving Grant, respite care services, and care-giver empowerment and training.
More recently, we introduced the Merdeka Generation Package, to thank the Merdeka Generation for their contributions to Singapore and provide more support for their healthcare and long-term care needs in their silver years. This follows the Pioneer Generation Package that was introduced in 2014.
One important area we need to address is long-term care financing. In 2016, the ElderShield Review Committee was set up to look into how we can provide greater financial support for Singaporeans who become severely disabled during old age. After rigorous deliberation and extensive public consultation, the Committee submitted its report to the Government last year with the following key recommendations.
First, universal insurance coverage for Singaporeans born in 1980 or later, regardless of their health, disability and financial status, so that our future generations will have basic protection against the costs of long-term care.
Second, higher payouts that increase over time and are for life, so that Singaporeans are better supported for as long as they remain severely disabled; and simpler claim processes, so that severely disabled Singaporeans and their care-givers can apply for claims more conveniently.
The Government accepted the recommendations made by the Committee and the report was debated in Parliament in July last year. We announced our plan to introduce CareShield Life. The risk-pooling approach through the universal insurance coverage for CareShield Life reflects our desire to nurture an inclusive and caring society. I am glad that it had received support from Members of this House. Once again, I would like to thank the Committee for their work.
Financing our long-term care is a shared responsibility. We come together as a society to pool our risks through insurance, CareShield Life and ElderShield, to address the variability of long-term care costs. Individuals and their families also play a part through their own savings; and the Government provides significant support through subsidies and assistance schemes, particularly toward the lower income.
All these three pillars are essential – insurance, savings and Government support – and achieving the right balance among them is crucial in keeping our system inclusive, affordable and sustainable. Therefore, in addition to strengthening insurance, we have concurrently reviewed how other financing sources of long-term care can complement CareShield Life and ElderShield to better support Singaporeans with disability.
We will enhance Government support for long-term care through the establishment of ElderFund in January 2020. ElderFund will be a discretionary Government assistance scheme for low-income, severely disabled Singapore Citizens who are aged 30 and above. It will provide up to $250 per month especially to those who are unable to join CareShield Life, have low MediSave balances and face financial difficulties in meeting their long-term care needs.
This is in addition to existing subsidies of up to 80% for long-term care services, such as nursing homes, and various other Government disability assistance schemes.
Around mid-2020, we will also be extending the use of MediSave by allowing Singaporeans to withdraw cash from their own and spouses' MediSave for their long-term care needs. Severely disabled Singaporeans who are at least 30 years old will be able to make cash withdrawals of up to $200 a month, from their own and their spouses' MediSave Accounts to support their long-term care needs.
This CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Bill provides the legislative framework for the establishment, governance and administration of the CareShield Life Scheme, and also facilitates the implementation of other long-term care financing measures for the severely disabled I mentioned earlier.
Mr Speaker, I shall now highlight the key provisions of the Bill.
First, clause 5 of the Bill provides for the establishment of the CareShield Life Scheme. It provides for the CPF Board to administer CareShield Life and be responsible for the issuance and servicing of the insurance policies, premium collection, payment of benefits and management of the CareShield Life and ElderShield Insurance Fund.
I will talk about the Fund in a short while.
We will also be appointing the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) as the Administrator. AIC will be responsible for the assessment of an individual’s eligibility for the claim by ascertaining his or her disability status. This division in administrative roles between CPF Board and AIC allows us to tap on the expertise of the respective agencies. In particular, as AIC administers all of MOH's disability schemes, AIC will be the natural touchpoint for seniors. They are best placed to advise disabled seniors and their care-givers on the various forms of long-term care services and financing schemes they can tap on.
Clause 6 of the Bill defines the groups of individuals that will be covered under the CareShield Life Scheme.
In line with our vision for inclusivity, the Scheme will apply to all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents born on 1 January 1980 or later. Those who are at least 30 years old will be covered when the Scheme is launched. Subsequent cohorts would be covered on their birthday when they turn 30 years old. This provides universal coverage for future generations of Singaporeans, ensuring CareShield Life coverage for them regardless of their health, pre-existing disability or financial status.
However, the Scheme will be optional for older cohorts of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents born in 1979 or earlier, and they can join the Scheme if they do not have pre-existing severe disability. The ElderShield Review Committee had recommended to keep the scheme optional for them because their circumstances and their needs could vary widely.
To encourage participation of younger cohorts of this group, we will auto-enrol those born between 1970 and 1979, who are ElderShield policyholders and are not severely disabled. This makes it more convenient for them to join and they can still choose to opt out before 31 December 2023, if they wish to do so. So, they will be auto-enrolled, but they have the option to opt out of the Scheme and they can do so up to 31 December 2023.
The new CareShield Life Scheme will be launched around mid-2020 for Singaporeans born in 1980 or later, and we aim to progressively launch the Scheme for Singaporeans born in 1979 or earlier, from mid-2021, about a year later.
The Bill also provides for CareShield Life to cover all individuals who become Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents after the Scheme commences. These are the new Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents. This way, all new Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents will participate in this national scheme and benefit from better support for their future long-term care needs, just like all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents today. The only exception is if they are born in 1979 or earlier, the older Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, and are severely disabled. Like Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents in those cohorts who are already severely disabled at the launch of CareShield Life, they will also not be able to join the scheme.
Next, let me touch on ElderShield. Part 3 of the Bill provides for Government administration of the ElderShield Scheme. As announced earlier this year, we are transferring the ElderShield scheme, which is currently administered by private insurers, to the Government. This will be done in mid-2021, together with the launch of CareShield Life for older Singaporeans born in 1979 or earlier.
The transfer allows ElderShield to be administered on a not-for-profit basis, with CPF Board and AIC as the Government's key administrators. This will facilitate a smooth upgrading from ElderShield to CareShield Life for those who choose to do so. This Bill will dis-apply the Insurance Act to the transfer, as otherwise the ElderShield portfolios cannot be transferred to the Government because the Government is not included in the definition of \"transferee\" in the Insurance Act. However, in practice, we will take reference from the requirements MAS has put in place, in governing the transfer to protect policyholders. This includes appointing an independent external auditor to audit the transfer and providing MAS with the full audit reports.
Those who choose not to upgrade to CareShield Life will remain covered by their existing ElderShield policy. I would like to assure ElderShield policyholders that the terms and conditions of their ElderShield policy will remain. In addition, they will also benefit from the improvements to the claim process that will be implemented for CareShield Life.
Now, let me move on to the benefits and payouts of the schemes. CareShield Life and ElderShield will remain as basic schemes to benefit severely disabled policyholders, as provided in clause 12 of the Bill. This keeps premiums affordable, which is crucial for a national scheme like CareShield Life that caters to a broad segment of Singaporeans.
Policyholders who prefer higher coverage or better benefits can buy Supplements from private insurers. Existing Supplements administered by the private insurers will not be transferred to the Government.
Clause 16 of the Bill provides for claims to be made for CareShield Life or ElderShield payouts. We recognise that being severely disabled can be a stressful situation for policyholders and their care-givers. Hence, we want to make the claim process more convenient. To this end, we plan to double the number of disability assessors to about 300 by the launch of CareShield Life, and we are working with healthcare institutions to progressively expand the types of disability assessments that can be accepted for claims, so that policyholders need not undergo another disability assessment if we already have similar data on their disability status.
To further provide convenience to policyholders, Part 8 of the Bill will enable CPF Board and AIC to access an individual’s disability-related health information and allow the information to be disclosed to authorised persons approved by the Minister, for the administration of prescribed public schemes, or provision of support to disabled persons for prescribed purposes. These provisions allow us to proactively reach out to disabled individuals to inform them of their eligibility for claims, not just for CareShield Life and ElderShield, but also for other Government disability schemes, using disability assessments already performed at our healthcare institutions.
These provisions also allow us to access and use disability assessments already done at healthcare institutions to assess the eligibility of those born between 1970 and 1979 for the auto-enrolment exercise into CareShield Life without having to get them to be assessed again.
Nonetheless, individuals can opt-out from the access and disclosure of such disability-related health information, and we will release more details on how individuals can do so nearer the launch date. But I should point out that if they do so, if they do opt out of the access and disclosure, they will lose some convenience. For example, severely disabled individuals will not receive any proactive outreach to apply for claims because we do not know their disability status, and they may need to go for a separate disability assessment even if they had been assessed for disability recently at a healthcare institution. In addition, individuals born between 1970 and 1979 will not be auto-enrolled and may need to go for a disability assessment in order to join CareShield Life.
Part 8 of the Bill also enables CPF Board and AIC to access, subject to certain safeguards, an individual’s confidential information in the possession of another Government department or public authority for the administration of CareShield Life, ElderShield and prescribed social or healthcare-related public schemes. Again, this is meant to increase convenience for policyholders.
The Bill makes the wrongful access, use, or disclosure of any information collected an offence. If convicted, a person may be liable for a fine of up to $5,000, or imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both.
Overall, we want to strike a careful balance between facilitating access and convenience for Singaporeans with the safeguarding of health and confidential information.
Mr Speaker, another key feature of CareShield Life and ElderShield is that payouts will be in cash. This gives claimants the flexibility to decide on their preferred care arrangement, so that they can remain at home or in the community if they wish and still receive the cash payouts. However, it is important that these cash payouts are safeguarded. We will balance between such flexibility and the need for safeguards in several ways.
First, some severely disabled policyholders may lack mental capacity and are unable to manage their cash payouts, or even apply for claims in the first place. In this case, a donee or a deputy can act on their behalf to apply for claims and receive and manage the payouts.
In the absence of a donee or deputy, clause 16 of the Bill allows certain family members or care-givers to be authorised applicants to make claims on behalf of such policyholders, and receive payouts as approved payees so as to support the care of the policyholders.
However, to safeguard against the risk of misuse or fraud, the classes of persons who can make or receive claims will be a tight list approved by the Minister, and generally limited to those who are care-givers for the policyholder. They can only receive the payouts for a limited period of one year, subject to appeals for an extension, if necessary, to give them time to apply to be appointed as a deputy for the policyholder.
Second, we will allow policyholders or their authorised applicants to nominate healthcare institutions caring for the policyholders, such as nursing homes, as approved payees under the Bill. This will ensure the continuity of their care.
Third, we will require third-party payees to first apply the payouts for the policyholder’s care, as provided in clause 50 of the Bill. Not doing so without reasonable excuse is an offence. If convicted, the penalty is double that for the offence of false declarations or wrongful access of information under clause 48 of the Bill, given that these are offences against vulnerable persons. This ensures that payouts are prioritised for the care of the policyholder.
Further, we will protect the payouts from creditors. Clause 20 of the Bill protects CareShield Life and ElderShield payouts from creditors, with two tight exceptions. First, the Bill allows premium debt to be netted off from the payouts, and we will use this only in the case of wilful defaulters who do not pay CareShield Life premiums, but have made claims to benefit from the Scheme. We will do so in a calibrated manner and will cap the amount of debt netted off from the payouts each month to ensure that policyholders will continue to receive the bulk of the payouts to meet their long-term care needs. The second case is where there are monies owed by the policyholder to a healthcare institution, for instance, a nursing home, arising from the care provided to the policyholder, if the policyholder or authorised applicant has already directed the payouts to this institution. This ensures that healthcare institutions providing care to the policyholder can continue to be adequately resourced to do so.
Sir, I will now move on to premiums.
Clause 14 requires that CareShield Life and ElderShield policyholders pay their premiums in a timely manner. This is so that the schemes will remain solvent and sustainable, and to be fair to other policyholders who have dutifully paid their premiums.
For those who need help with their CareShield Life premium payments, we will put in place measures to ensure premiums remain affordable. There will be means-tested premiums subsidies of up to 30% to help lower to middle-income Singaporeans with their premiums. Transitional subsidies will be given to Singapore Citizens born in 1980 or later for the first five years from CareShield Life’s commencement to ease their transition into the Scheme. For Singapore Citizens born in 1979 or earlier, they will be given participation incentives of up to $2,500, if they join CareShield Life in the first two years after the Scheme is available for sign-ups from mid-2021. This is to encourage early participation in the Scheme. In addition, seniors from the Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation will receive additional participation incentives of $1,500, so that they receive a total of $4,000 in participation incentives. The participation incentives will be netted off their premiums payable over a period of 10 years, thereby reducing the amount of premiums that the policyholders will need to pay.
Policyholders who need further help with their CareShield Life premiums even after premiums subsidies and support measures can receive Additional Premium Support. This is similar to MediShield Life, and is the Government’s commitment to ensure that premiums remain affordable and that no one loses CareShield Life coverage due to his or her inability to pay.
However, there may be a small group of wilful defaulters who refuse to pay their CareShield Life premiums despite having the means to do so, even after reminders have been sent to them.
Any CareShield Life premiums defaulted that cannot be recovered is a burden that will be shouldered by other policyholders in the form of higher premiums eventually. To be fair to the other policyholders, we need to take a strict stance against these wilful defaulters. Therefore, Part 7 of the Bill provides for a premium recovery framework that is similar to the approach for MediShield Life. Penalties and interest can be imposed on outstanding premiums, and we intend to similarly appoint IRAS as a recovery body to recover outstanding premiums. Let me reiterate that for those who genuinely need help, we will help them with the premium payments.
For ElderShield policyholders who do not pay their premiums, their ElderShield cover will lapse after the grace period, similar to their current terms and conditions.
Premiums collected under CareShield Life and ElderShield will flow into the CareShield Life and ElderShield Insurance Fund that will be established by clause 35 of the Bill. The insurance fund will be a self-sustaining fund, supported by the premium collected under both schemes.
The CareShield Life and ElderShield Insurance Fund will be managed by CPF Board in a not-for-profit manner, for the benefit of policyholders. The Fund moneys can only be used for policyholders’ benefit and scheme administration. The Government or CPF Board as the Fund administrator cannot remove any Fund moneys for its own use, except for the cost of operating the schemes.
Let me now touch on the issue of governance.
I want to assure Singaporeans that there are safeguards in place to ensure proper scheme governance for both CareShield Life and ElderShield. These include safeguards over the scheme parameters and administration, the collection of premiums and payment of claims, and management of information. Let me elaborate.
First, the governance of scheme parameters and administration will be overseen by an independent CareShield Life Council, to be appointed by the Minister under clause 37 of the Bill. The Council will review and make recommendations on policy and scheme parameters, to ensure that the schemes provide protection for Singaporeans in an affordable and sustainable manner. This includes reviewing CareShield Life's premium and payout increases beyond 2025. For the first five years of CareShield Life's implementation, until 2025, both premiums and payouts will increase at 2% per year. Adjustments thereafter will be reviewed by the Council.
In addition, the Council will review the administration of the schemes and advise on matters related to the investment of the CareShield Life and ElderShield Insurance Fund.
The Council will be appointed by the time the CareShield Life Scheme takes effect. It will comprise members with various professional expertise and a wide range of experience to perform the key functions of the Council. We are in the midst of setting up the Council, and will share more information later.
Second, the Bill aims to ensure proper collection of premiums and payment of claims to protect the interest of policyholders. Clauses 48 and 49 of the Bill make false declarations and fraudulent disability assessments offences, with penalties to deter such offences.
As mentioned earlier, the Bill will also enhance the role of personal and family savings, and Government support in helping the severely disabled with their long-term care costs. These measures will help older Singaporeans who are not covered under ElderShield or CareShield Life.
Severely disabled Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who are at least 30 years old will be able to make cash withdrawals from their own and their spouses’ MediSave Accounts to support their long-term care needs. Clause 66 of the Bill will amend the CPF Act to allow for this.
To ensure that members have sufficient MediSave balances for other medical treatments, the amount that can be withdrawn for long-term care will be based on their prevailing MediSave balance, and up to $200 a month for each severely disabled individual. These cash withdrawals will supplement the CareShield Life or ElderShield payouts that they may be receiving. This will enhance the role of personal and family savings in supporting long-term care needs.
Like CareShield Life and ElderShield, similar safeguards will be in place for those who lack mental capacity.
Apart from allowing withdrawals from MediSave for long-term care, the Government will also play a part in helping Singaporeans with their cost of long-term care. The Bill provides for the establishment of a Government fund called the Long-term Care Support Fund in clauses 38 and 39. This Fund will be administered by MOH; $5.1 billion will be set aside in this Fund, as announced by the Deputy Prime Minister during Budget 2019. Monies in the Fund will be used to fund premium subsidies and participation incentives for the CareShield Life Scheme and to provide financial support for severely disabled persons under prescribed public schemes, such as Elder Fund, which I mentioned earlier.
ElderFund is a new discretionary Government assistance scheme that will be implemented in January 2020.
The Long-Term Care Support Fund is in addition to existing Government subsidies for long-term care services such as nursing homes, home care and centre-based care services, existing Government assistance schemes, as well as the new Home Caregiving Grant.
I would like to emphasise that the Long-Term Care Support Fund is a completely separate fund from the CareShield Life and ElderShield Insurance Fund. The Long-Term Care Support Fund, or the support fund, holds the $5.1 billion of Government monies and is used to provide Government support, while the CareShield Life and ElderShield Insurance Fund – we call the insurance fund – holds the premium monies collected and are used for CareShield Life and ElderShield payouts and expenses. So, just to repeat, the support fund holds the Government funding to help the Scheme through premium subsidies and so on, whereas the insurance fund holds the monies from premium payments which is used to fund payouts from the schemes. So, the two Funds are separate. Both Funds will be accounted for and managed separately and the accounts of each Fund will be made public.
Mr Speaker, let me conclude. Our society is ageing and we need to prepare for this ahead of time. CareShield Life is a major step in expanding the role of insurance in the long-term care financing landscape. But the CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Bill goes beyond long-term care insurance. The Bill also enables enhancements to be made to the other two pillars of our long-term care financing system through the withdrawal of MediSave for long-term care and ElderFund. With the strengthening of the roles of insurance, savings and Government assistance, Singaporeans can have better protection and greater assurance for their long-term care needs. This way, Singaporeans can live long and with greater peace of mind. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill, and my views are essentially unchanged from those I expressed during the debate on CashShield Life in this very House in July last year.
I thank the Ministry for accepting most of the recommendations that were put forward by the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Health in our paper on Enhancing ElderShield, which was presented to Minister Gan Kim Yong in January last year. I am also reassured by some of the additional provisions in this Bill, such as ElderFund, which seek to strengthen the framework of long-term care in Singapore, because although CareShield Life aims for universal coverage, there are necessarily some situations where it is not scoped to address.
But now that we are here at the business end of things, I have several clarifications for the Minister:
CareShield Life will be mandatory for all Singaporeans born in 1980 and later, but will be optional for those who are born earlier. I understand that enrolling older Singaporeans into the expanded benefits schedule of CareShield Life would be costly, but would the Government consider further measures to financially support older cohorts to encourage them to either enrol or switch over from ElderShield to CareShield Life?
And how will the Government support older Singaporeans who are unable or unwilling to enrol in CareShield Life, should they become significantly disabled in the future? For instance, how can disbursements from the soon to be established ElderFund be calibrated to support these disabled seniors and will payouts from ElderFund be also adjusted according to medical and cost of living inflation.
To quote from the GPC's recommendations on CareShield Life, we noted that, and I quote, \"a careful balance has to be struck between increasing and expanding benefits so that the programme remains relevant and useful, and yet keeping the scheme both affordable and sustainable for the long term.
If ElderShield is to be universal with mandatory enrollment, then the GPC believes that the Government will have to provide targeted financial assistance to ensure that all Singaporeans will be able to participate in this social security programme, which is designed to increase peace of mind in the event of severe disability.\"
Hence, I would appreciate clarifications from the Ministry as to how it intends to maintain premium affordability for CareShield Life, while ensuring that Singaporeans are suitably buffered against rising long-term care costs, particularly when they are only either mildly or moderately disabled and thus requiring financial support?
What are the criteria for granting additional premium support?
I note that the Minister just mentioned that the criteria would be the same as for MediShield Life Additional Premium Support. But my question is should the criteria be the same, given the fact that the operational circumstances for CareShield Life and MediShield Life are fundamentally different?
The GPC also supports that Supplemental Plans from Private Insurers continue to be offered for CareShield Life and I am glad that a mechanism is built to provide for that as it was the case for ElderShield. This will certainly grant flexibility and meet the needs of Singaporeans who feel that they would be willing to purchase additional coverage.
Would the Ministry be able to comment whether private insurers will indeed be prepared to provide such Supplements for additional coverage for CareShield Life, and whether Singaporeans will be able to use their MediSave to purchase or to cover such additional coverage?
I would also like to ask if the Ministry is aware of any of the private insurers is currently planning to introduce a Supplement whereby, perhaps, payouts can be activated at a lower threshold, specifically when a policyholder has two instead of three affected ADLs. This was the feedback that has come up here and there, and there were questions on why three instead of two ADLs. The GPC actually felt that there could be scope for private insurers to meet these gaps. And if not, what are the reasons that this is not being considered by the private insurers?
Finally, I have several clarifications regarding the administration of CareShield Life itself. I am happy that the Ministry is taking steps to facilitate functional assessments in regard to qualification for payouts. There has been some feedback in the past about the claims process for ElderShield, that the pool of disability evaluators was limited and the process of evaluation and re-evaluation was both onerous and unwieldy. For instance, there was feedback that for claimants, the requirements for re-evaluation could be too frequent.
So, I would appreciate clarifications regarding how the claims process for CareShield has indeed been streamlined, while at the same time I would also like to know how we can guard against fraudulent claims and ensure that the payouts actually reach their intended targets.
The proposed introduction of a National Electronic Health Records system and, of course, the recent incidents of data leaks and hacks, notably the hacking of SingHealth's IT system have thrown the issue of data integrity and security into sharp focus.
And so I would like to ask how would the administrators of CareShield Life safeguard policyholder data that is being collected and also that is being used for the purposes of the scheme?
The GPC has acknowledged in our paper that there were concerns regarding the adequacy of payouts, related to uncertainties regarding the pace of cost of living increases and also medical inflation. Thus, we had urged that the quantum of payout be reviewed at fixed intervals, and revised according to a formula that takes into account both general consumer and medical inflation. We had further proposed that there be a framework for periodic review of the premiums, to ensure that the scheme remains both sustainable and affordable.
The Minister has touched briefly on how this would be done but I would like to understand a little bit better as to exactly how and how often, does the Ministry intend to review and adjust payouts and premiums.
In concluding, I would like to ask the Ministry to what degree information will be released to the public regarding the administration of CareShield Life, and whether the Ministry would be transparent about how the fund is managed and how the premiums are priced and how payouts are disbursed. For instance, in the early years of ElderShield, it was found that claims were in fact below what was essentially projected, and rebates were, of course, duly given back to policyholders as a result. This should certainly be happy news to policyholders at that time, but it also led to questions about whether the premiums and calculations were in fact overly conservative, and secondarily, whether this could have led to excessive profits gained by the private insurers who were then underwriting the scheme.
I look forward to the clarifications from the Ministry and I support the Bill.
Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Bill. This Bill is timely because one in two healthy Singaporeans aged 65 today could become severely disabled later in their lifetime; family units are becoming smaller; life expectancy is increasing; and population is rapidly ageing.
I view the CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Bill as the finishing piece of an encompassing \"medical safety net\" that includes the CHAS, MediShield Life and MediFund. This Bill has its good points but also some minus points in several areas which I shall elaborate.
I shall start with this Bill’s plus points.
One, the lifetime pay-out is welcome as severely disabled individuals require life-long assistance with their daily living.
Two, the setting-up of the Long-Term Care Support Fund (LTCSF) which sets aside monies for premium subsidies and incentives, capital injection and other public schemes that provide support for disabled persons. This fund will ensure that the CareShield life premiums will be affordable for the majority. May I ask the Minister if there are any postulation calculations done on the amount required for subsidies and long-term care support and how long will the $5.1 billion last to serve its intended purpose?
Three, those eligible severely handicapped presently will receive CareShield Life payout immediately for life after paying their first premium. It is rightly so that we can show benevolence to this group of Singaporeans with this immediate payout.
I consider the following as minus points for this Bill.
One, the monthly payout of $600 is inadequate for severely handicapped individuals in long-term care basic costs. While I can understand that higher payout will require higher premiums, the purpose of insurance is to give peace of mind on future unforeseen needs. In view of its inadequacy, there is a need to depend on personal savings or family help should the need arises. For better piece of mind and coverage, individuals can take extra insurance for higher payouts with private insurers. May I ask Minister whether Government can administer these \"riders\" for those who want better payouts, rather than dependence on profit-orientated private insurers?
On MediSave withdrawals for Long-Term Care of $200 per month for the severely disabled who are above 30 years old and subject to a minimum MediSave balance of $5,000, can they tap their children’s or siblings’ MediSave once their own MediSave have been exhausted?
New assistance scheme from 2020 will provide lower income Singaporeans who are severely disabled and need additional support for Long-Term Care costs of up to $250 per month. May I ask Minister what is the income eligibility for this assistance scheme? May I also ask whether they are still eligible for this assistance if they are tapping on their MediSave accounts or on their home care-giving grants of $200 per month in lieu of Foreign Domestic Worker Grant?
For Pioneers, can they also receive this assistance on top of the $100 per month PG Disability Assistance Scheme and the use of MediSave of $200 per month?
May I ask Minister whether the Home Caregiving grant of $200 can be made less onerous in its criteria of disbursement, such that, the assessment requirement can be done by applicants’ own doctors, instead of stipulated stringent assessors, for convenience and easier access? Can the criteria be made less stringent, for example with two ADLs instead of three ADLs to qualify?
Two, the three ADLs criterion for CareShield Life eligibility claim is challenging. While I agree that there will be a lot more claimants with two ADLs instead of three ADLs, thus resulting in higher premiums, my contention is that many, if not all, afflicted with two ADLs cannot continue to work as before. They would need to depend on personal savings or family members. Thus, better awareness on long-term care financing and long-term care insurance should be raised so that people can better plan ahead for possible eventualities.
Three, claimants of CareShield Life payouts must go through the stringent assessment by stipulated assessors. May I how many of such assessors are available presently and how many more will be required going forward? May I ask how often are claimants required to go through assessments to enjoy confirmed payouts? Will Minister exempt those newly discharged from hospitals from assessment by stipulated assessors once specified by their own public hospital doctors to be having three ADLs? Can public doctors looking after their own patients endorse the three ADLs, since they know their patients well? This will greatly convenience the claimants.
Will the Minister consider setting up a one-stop assistance channel or centre for mobility afflicted Singaporeans to tap on the various available schemes – for example, patients on discharge from hospitals can be assisted to claim for Home Caregiving Grant, MediSave withdrawal, Elderfund, Pioneer Generation Disability Scheme, Senior Mobility Fund, ADAPE and so on? The reason is that many Singaporeans do not know the various schemes available or how to apply for them. This is especially useful and convenient for those low-income patients who are already applying Medifund to pay for their hospital bills. They have already given all the eligibility information to hospitals for Medifund assistance.
Will the Minister make it easier for relevant Ministries to share information, so that claimants do not need to submit the same documents multiple times for various subsidies? Many seniors with three ADLs living in the community will also benefit from the one-stop assistance channel for referrals to various Ministries to claim insurance or to apply for subsidies. Will the Minister assist in identifying and facilitating this group of Singaporeans?
Sir, many Singaporeans shared that they would prefer to live at home with their families as they grow old. Home care is an important component of Long-Term Care services. It is a good alternative to institutional care setting for many reasons. But our home care in Singapore is presently inadequate. This is worrying with our fast-ageing population and the fast increasing need of home care. May I ask Minister how does he plan to expand and better equip on the availability of home care?
May I request Minister to prioritize home care for seniors, especially those living alone at HDB rental flats? The number of Singaporeans aged 65 and above living alone, or with their spouse but without children, has grown by more than 50% from 2010 to 2015 or from 94,000 to 148,400. This number may increase in future. Could Minister expand home care quickly with the tenets of prevention of further deterioration of physical frailty and mental disorder such as depression? Ageing Gracefully at Home programme at Chin Swee supported by Agency of Integrated Care (AIC) is a good home care programme. This home care provides the seniors living alone at HDB rental flats with medical, social and daily needs, nursing care, mental wellness and so on.
I hope MOH will continue to support this programme and to expand it to other constituencies. This home care programme emphasizes on prevention of further deterioration of medical conditions or frequent visits to hospitals.
We also need to expand other home care programmes for complex long-term care needs in the community. I hope Minister can look into the requirement and supply of personnel for such home care as soon as possible to expand this sector. This will facilitate many Singaporeans to age gracefully with their loved ones in the comfort of their own homes.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Mr Speaker, anyone who has aged parents or loved ones to look after would know that providing long-term care for the elderly, especially those who need help with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), is a very daunting task. In a small family environment, the burden of care for the elderly would fall squarely on one or two members of household. For a family with no children, such burden would exacerbate rapidly when the couple grows old and neither one of them is able to care for one or the other.
At our Meet-the-People Sessions, we would have heard stories of the struggles and challenges faced by our residents in looking after the elderly, while trying to raise a family of their own and having to make ends meet all at the same time.
We heard in this Chamber last year that this Government intends to focus on building an inclusive society where no Singaporeans, young or old, healthy or sick, gets left behind. The CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Bill is a step in that direction.
In the debate on the motion on ElderShield and CareShield Life in the middle of 2018, the Workers' Party Members spoke in support for the rationale to strengthen our social safety net for the long-term care needs of Singaporeans. CareShield Life, as the Minister had stated then, would be a basic protection scheme for Singaporeans against severe disability during their old age and the scheme would be inclusive, affordable and sustainable.
On the point of inclusivity, I would like to ask the Minister what would happen to the fate of Singaporeans who are currently disabled, mild or severe, when CareShield Life kicks in?
Under Clause 6 Subsection (4)(b) of the proposed bill, the CPF Board may determine that an individual who is severely disabled currently may be covered under CareShield Life, but only if the individual satisfies such conditions as may be determined by the Minister in any particular case where the Minister considers appropriate. Such case by case basis assessment at the sole discretion of the Minister does not provide any assurance that CareShield Life is going to be inclusive for Singaporeans who need the basic protection most. And what about Singaporeans who are unable to do one or two out of three ADLs currently? Would they be able to enrol into CareShield Life or be assisted by Elderfund only as highlighted by the Minister earlier?
Sir, there are also Singaporeans who withdrew from ElderShield not by choice but by the fact that they had nothing left in their MediSave accounts to service the premiums and they had no ability to pay the premiums in cash. I happy to note that the Minister will find ways to enrol these vulnerable Singaporeans into CareShield Life since the scheme is going to be made compulsory for all over time.
Next, on the point of affordability, I would like to ask the Minister to share with the House on the impact of the introduction of CareShield Life on the adequacy of the MediSave accounts for future cohort of Singaporeans who would be enrolled into the compulsory scheme upon attaining the age of 30.
Take the case a young father who is servicing the MediShield Life premiums for his children and himself, and perhaps, even his spouse, using his MediSave account. Would this person have enough in his MediSave account to pay for CareShield Life as well or when the transitional subsidies for the scheme expires?
The affordability of CareShield Life needs to be considered in context with MediShield Life, since both schemes are made compulsory for Singaporeans. Is there any impact study done on the adequacy of the MediSave accounts of our young working class Singaporeans with the introduction of such mandatory insurance schemes?
On the same issue of affordability, may I ask the Minister again, are the premium calculations for CareShield Life heavily influenced by the MOH estimates that one in two Singaporeans aged 65 and above could become severely disabled in their lifetime? If we were to strip away the international data from the MOH estimates, how would the percentage look like?
Sir, the international data cited by the Minister that 52% of Americans turning 65 in 2016 would develop a disability serious enough to require long-term care – does not even apply in the context of CareShield Life as these people may not even qualify to claim under the scheme unless they cannot do three out of six ADLs. Would the Minister not agree that, using data that may not even trigger a claim under the proposed scheme to help calculate the corresponding premium to pay for an insured person would not be meaningful to begin with?
So, in the interest of transparency on the affordability and sustainability of the scheme, would the Minister be able to publish a brief of the factors and assumptions made in the premium pricing model for CareShield Life? The Senior Minister of State had mentioned some of these factors in passing his speech on the subject last year. Factors such as the disability mortality rate, recovery rate, disability incidence and risk profile for various cohorts, to name a few, are important information for the public, not just to determine whether Singaporeans are being charged baseline premiums or way above it, but to spur them to make informed choices to live healthy.
Mr Speaker, this Government should also see considerable savings in the administration cost for CareShield Life when it takes over the respective pool of insured persons from the three private ElderShield insurers. What is the projected savings from this exercise and did the Ministry work this savings into the premium calculations? And what would be the projected profit and loss for the CareShield Life scheme under the sole administration of the CPF Board assisted by AIC?
Although this is a not-for-profit insurance scheme, it does not mean that there is no profit generated. I am sure the Ministry would have crunched the numbers in the run-up to the introduction of CareShield Life. It is in the public interest that the Ministry should release such information. I am also sure that the Ministry can easily illustrate the technical details of the actuarial model for CareShield Life in simple graphics or something easy for the general public to digest.
Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defines long-term care as \"the care for persons needing support in multiple facets of living over a prolonged period of time\". Sustainable long-term care requires the following three elements: first, financing; second, delivery and this is where we need the three \"Cs\" – capacity, capability and coordination; and thirdly, regulation of some form.
In many countries today, the distribution of care is shared between the public, private and people sectors. In Singapore, co-sharing between the Government, the individual and the family; and it is a model that we are quite used to.
Essentially the following four modes of funding are utilised for healthcare: (a) Government subsidies in different forms; (b) MediSave; (c) Basic healthcare insurance, which is our Medishield Life; and (d) Medifund for those who really cannot afford and have no other sources of assistance.
For long-term care, ElderShield is the scheme and now, with migration to CareShield. The demands for long-term care will increase significantly with the ageing population, the coming of age of our baby boomers and of course, the population and others who may develop complications of chronic illnesses which we have a lot of. Financing will always put a high demand on governments on various platforms. In this aspect, I have a few queries and clarifications pertaining to the Bill.
Firstly, starting off with a fundamental question. The CareShield Life Scheme, which is a migration from the ElderShield, is compulsory for all citizens and PRs of Singapore born on or after 1 January 1980 and are at least 30 years of age. Can the Minister explain on the decision and rationale for the cut off at 30 years? There is because, with ElderShield, we earlier saw that it started at 40 years. This is a difference of 10 years and it would be useful for us to understand the difference of 10 years and why we are starting a lot earlier with CareShield Life. From a medical perspective, I can certainly understand that, but, perhaps, maybe from a financial perspective and an administrative perspective, we can get a better understanding of this.
Secondly, what happens with a person who is eligible for CareShield Life but lives or works long-term overseas? What type of processes do they have to go through? Can the Minister also outline the steps and requirements for those who are alone and in nursing homes and for those with no next-of-kin support? Pertaining to the disability assessment, on what grounds can the assessment fees be waived? Are there steps or application forms, that the applicants will have to pay for such waiver? Please also review the process and make sure that it is simple enough because many of them can be illiterate or they may not be able to understand what is being asked. They may not even have next-of-kin.
On the same matter of assessment, some of these people with disability are still in the process of review. That means that disability has not reached a stable stage and they will need regular review in our healthcare institutions to make sure that it is not progressing further.
The Minister did mention that we can have data obtained from our healthcare institutions for those people who need regular reviews, but then, again, is this sufficient or would they have to pay every time they need to have an assessment done by one of the appointed assessors? So, that part is something that most elderly, those with disability and members who have disabled in their families are concerned about.
One new change is that, with effect from 2020, there is a possibility of withdrawal of $2,400 per year from the MediSave Account, subject to having a minimum of $5,000 in the account. The Minister did mention that patients or the disabled person himself as well as the spouse's account can be used. How about parents, siblings and children's accounts? Can these also be tapped on because I think most family members would want to support the disabled member in their family?
Can I also ask the Minister on: what are our plans moving forwards, for long-term care at home? We can do so much more in this area, which is an option besides institutionalisation. What kind of further support at home, in terms of training, respite for care-givers at home who need a break from the care-giving process – are we able to assist families with?
Also, on the issue of capacity, even in the step-down care area, whether it is at home or in institutions, how are we planning to cope with the supply of manpower? Today alone, we are highly dependent on foreign nursing and care-giving workforce in this area. So, how sustainable is this and what are the supplementation and injections we are planning, moving forward?
Finally, with the definition of disability in this Bill, it does not really categorically cover mental and psychological incapacity and disability. We know that for people who have very severe psychological or psychiatric problems, they may not even be able to perform their activities of daily living (ADL). Therefore, perhaps, there is also a need to review and align this with MSF and other Ministries and see how we can assist these families as well, because the number of people with psychological disability and severe forms of psychological and psychiatric disabilities are increasing and bound to increase further.
There has been some issues raised about the number of activities of daily living (ADL) that we can actually include under our consideration for certain schemes, whether it is one, two, three or four. Perhaps, I would like to urge the Ministry to consider, even for people who have less than three, perhaps two activities of daily living (ADL) that they cannot fulfil, perhaps, we can give them a case-by-case consideration because, in considering ADL, it is a spectrum. It can be from the most minor to the more severe. Therefore, perhaps, for those with two disabilities, but they are relatively severe, at the most severe end of the spectrum, we could consider giving them the assistance or enrolling them in the scheme as well. Sir, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In 2016, the WHO stated that long-term quality care is related to two factors; first, the type of care provided and, second, the lack of integration between different healthcare services.
Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister whether we can focus on these aspects in the forward planning for this sector because this sector is a very important one.
Until today, although there are many schemes administered by the Government and the Ministry, in terms of long-term care, many people are still unfamiliar or unsure about what these schemes are. So, even more messages, educational information and advertisements are needed. Therefore, we had to conduct more dialogue sessions and discussions, such as case studies, where we can show our families, especially those from the low-income groups, how to obtain assistance from the good schemes made available by our Ministry.
CareShield is a scheme that can provide help to families and the amount is not insubstantial because it starts at $600 per month and will increase gradually. Therefore, if we know how to make use of this assistance, we should use the grants and scheme for our needs as well as our families' needs, because the expenditure for long-term healthcare is certainly high.
Finally, I would like to ask the Minister, in Budget 2019, it was announced that $5.1 billion will be provided for the Long-Term Care Support Fund. How long is this amount expected to last to meet the needs of Singaporeans? On that note, I support this Bill.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. When a friend of mine turned 40, she received a letter informing about the ElderShield scheme. She shared some thoughts that crossed her mind when she first saw the letter. Soon, CareShield Life (CSHL) scheme will be compulsory for those turning 30. I can imagine what many at that age would be thinking as they read the collaterals. Why the need for such scheme at this age? They are healthy, have an active income and ageing is certainly a distant concept for them. But, what many fail to think of is health issues can take many forms and impact anyone regardless of age, in particular, when one suffers disabilities as a result of illness or become mentally incapacitated. The real challenge is what happens if one is not financially prepared or does not have the means to take care of themselves in the long term. This burden inevitably falls on the family and not on themselves.
Take dementia as a classic example. Dementia does not impact only the elderly. One can be physically normal, not disabled, but simply fails to get about their daily activities once dementia sets in. I came across a resident who, unfortunately, suffered dementia at the age of 52. Fifty-two years old in today's context is not old age, especially not so given the longer life expectancy. However, this resident who had dementia will have to depend on another person to manage his daily activities for the rest of his life. Having to care for him not only raise concerns about the cost of care on the long run, but also whom in the family would become the primary care-giver from then on.
In other encounters with people who needed long-term care, it is those children or youths who are born with physical disabilities or lack the mental capacity to care for themselves. Parents that I met with children of special needs are genuinely concerned. The parents are worried that if they themselves grow older, physically and financially taking care of their children will become a significant task. It is a worry they grapple with constantly. What more can they do to have a peace of mind that their children will not be left to fend for themselves when they are unable to care for them in the long run. Thus, I believe the CareShield Life and Long-Term Care fund will play a pivotal role in bridging at least some aspects of the care-giving.
While the Bill provides details around the implementation and governance of the funds in the interest of the beneficiaries, I wish to raise a few areas for consideration and some questions for further clarification.
First, for those who are automatically covered under CareShield Life from 2021 onwards, is there a concurrent requirement for them to also apply for the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)? Whilst the financial aspect of their care-giving may be taken care of through CareShield Life, but if they do not have an LPA in place, in the event that they become unable to make decisions for themselves, there presents a risk that their family members will have to fork out additional legal fees to act on their behalf. While clause 16 provides option for the family members to act on their behalf if a donee or a deputy is not in place, but would it not be better if they have a LPA from the onset of joining the scheme? This would mean less likely a potential lapse in their coverage if the family is unable to afford the legal fees.
Second, under clause 6(b), it specifies that for all Singaporeans and Permanent Residents born before 1980 who are not severely disabled before becoming citizens or PRs will automatically qualify for CareShield Life. I would like to ask if the Ministry can consider including coverage for all individuals in this age group, who by birth, have physical disability and/or lack the mental capacity to function in their daily activities. This group of individuals in Singapore are not the bulk of the population. However, a universal insurance coverage of this nature will form a necessary and central support for them and, financially, it is more manageable for their families.
Earlier in the speech, the Minister just mentioned about the Long-term Care Fund that will provide them the access to their own MediSave or that of their spouses. But we should also be cognisant that these individuals may unlikely to have worked by that age or they might not even have sufficient funds in their CPF to have this coverage and may not even have a spouse or a spouse who have that fund to help them.
Third, when a compulsory insurance scheme is implemented, it is understandable for low-income families to be anxious about whether they can reasonably afford the annual premiums. Since details of the premiums are not yet announced by MOH, can the Minister share how and what may be done to address the concerns of these low-income families, as the CareShield Life premium adds on to other premiums like MediShield Life that the individuals must afford.
Fourth, for schemes that look into the long-term needs of individuals, it is judicious for strong governance process to be established. This Bill addresses several aspects and clause 50 seeks to focus on preventing the misuse of funds. However, clause 20 does indemnify the healthcare institutions or service providers to those with disabilities, wherein they can have access to their patients' funds after providing the service. On this note, I hope more clarity can be offered if any audit process will be instituted to verify the sums charged by the healthcare institutions or service providers are within affordable range. Also, that their services rendered are duly monitored to ensure the vulnerable is receiving proper care, especially if the vulnerable does not have a next-of-kin.
Fifth, when the need arises for an assessment of an individual's condition of disabilities, it is stated that the charges will be based on per type of disability assessed. Will the Ministry then provide the public with a reference cost range for each disability assessment service and are there any requirements that prevents an individual from being fully assessed by the same doctor for all conditions on activities of daily living (ADL)?
And lastly, apart from those who are turning 30 and would be automatically enrolled in CareShield Life scheme, there are Merdekas whose age is between 60 to 65 that hope to enrol for CareShield Life as well. Can the Minister provide more information on how the Merdekas can enrol for CareShield Life and what are the criteria for them to qualify if they had previously opted out of the ElderShield scheme?
Sir, having these long-term care scheme and funds are a progressive step forward in ensuring that our population will have a safety net. It is pertinent that we implement the schemes well and provide reprieve for families who may face untimely and unfortunate health conditions in any of their family members. I look forward to more details on the scheme and clarifications on the points raised.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as the CEO of an international research consultancy that undertakes studies in the field of products and services for the elderly, among other industries.
Sir, the CareShield Life and Long-term Care Bill seeks to establish the CareShield Life scheme and the ElderShield scheme under Government administration to provide long-term care financing support for severely disabled persons. The Bill also amends the CPF Act to make provisions for CPF withdrawals for long-term care. Most of the key provisions for this Bill were debated in this House last year as part of the debate on the White Paper expressing recommendations for the ElderShield Review Committee.
Subsequent to that debate in the House last year, the Government announced the ElderShield scheme will be administered by the Government from 2021 and not-for-profit basis. The insurers will transfer to the Government the liabilities and corresponding assets backing these liabilities to for all policies under the ElderShield scheme.
During Budget 2019, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat announced that a total of $5.1 billion will be earmarked for the Long-term Care Support Fund.The Bill also establishes this Fund.
Sir, all these changes are steps in the right direction. Worker's Party Members debated most of these provisions in the House last year and supported the general move towards risk-pooling for financing elder disability while raising a number of questions and suggestions. I shall make a number of points at this stage to reiterate the views we had expressed earlier.
Firstly, we reiterate our call that premium should be set at equal levels for men and women as the advantage of sending the signal of gender equality in major public policy formation are ways to disadvantages explained by the Government.
Secondly, will the Government publish the actuarial model behind the setting of premiums such that Singaporeans can assess these assumptions and can be aware of how these assumptions track against future realities as the years go back. This kind of transparency will ensure greater public buy-in by providing some assurance that premiums have not been set at too high a level that will tend to over reserve funds that may either need to be disbursed by way of future premium rebates or which may be retained for the benefit of future cohorts. Such transparency will also pre-empt the spread of misinformation and ill-informed speculation about the CareShield Life scheme, as Member Mr Pritam Singh argued last year.
Thirdly, will transparent policy guidelines be given to the CareShield Life Council to determine the extent to which excess funds, if any, are to be disbursed via premium rebates as opposed to reserving those funds for future cohorts so that the system can be seen to be inter-generationally fair?
The ElderShield Review Committee Report in the context of the existing Eldershield scheme states that the premium rebate as a feature that provides for the three insurers that administer ElderShield return 50% for the accumulated surplus to existing ElderShield policyholders, if the actual claims experience turns out to be better than what was projected. Premium rebates are considered once every five years. CareShield's acceptance would benefit from similarly transparent guidelines binding on the CareShield Life Council rather than the Council simply having discretion to make such decision and inform the public after the fact.
Fourthly, will the Government consider reducing the onerous three ADLs test to two ADLs test using the Long-term Care Fund to administer premium subsidies to defray and defer increment hikes that may be necessitated by this change.
Next, moving on from points made in the 2018 debate in this House, I would like to raise several new points and questions.
Firstly, holders of ElderShield supplements will continue to be served by their existing ElderShield supplement insurers. Does the Government envisage that a competitive CareShield LIfe supplement scheme market will emerge providing competitive premiums and supplements in exchange for higher or less onerously determined payouts? And, if so, are there any steps being taken to facilitate this?
Secondly, clause 15 states that in the event of premium rebates been given, refunds for grant will be recovered. Just to clarify the mechanism for this – does this mean that if the state has provided the grant to reduce the premium and future premium rebate is given to that CareShield Life policyholder, the grant plus interest will be deducted from the premium rebate and returned to the Long-term Care Fund?
And, lastly, because the changes to this Bill concretise the optimum effects of our ageing society, we should work towards the creation of a vibrant eco-system that supports many different pathways for the rising number of Singaporeans embarking on their ageing journey. In the past, the mantra for ageing was that the family members should take care of their elderly, but with our demographic pyramid looking the way it does now, where the ratio of younger people supporting elderly people in more or less every family is much lower than it was, say, 30 years ago, it is no longer possible to view the question of an ageing society solely through the prism of family responsibility alone.
What would such a vibrant eco-system look like? It should, of course, include employment for those who want to continue to work. This group has the right to employment opportunities unscarred by the stigma of ageism. And it should include social support for high levels of activity and social engagement for all older Singaporeans, whether working or not. The eco-system we strive for should include strong capacity for institutionalised care in nursing homes and step-down care facilities to provide care at harmonised and high levels of quality, not to mention elder-friendly facilities in existing and new HDB flats where some progress has been made. It should include pathways for ageing in place – home-care and day-care should be widely available geographically, with a variety of providers offering an environment that is competitive and rich in variety and experimentation.
Fifthly, it should include options for assisted living. Facilities which allow a high degree of autonomy for residents, with shared activity programmes, round-the-clock medical support available on demand, and proximate mixed facilities catering to various age groups so that older Singaporeans do not feel cut-off.
How does the system living differ from nursing homes? Please allow me to quote a short passage from Atul Gawande's moving book \"Being Mortal\", where he talked about one of the founders of assisted living Keren Brown Wilson in the US state of Oregon in 1980 in a concept she championed. I quote, \"The services were in most ways identical to the services that nursing homes provide, but here the care-providers understood they were entering someone else's home and that changed the power relations fundamentally. Her philosophy was to provide a place where residents retained their autonomy and privacy of people living in their own homes including the right to refuse strictures imposed for reasons of safety or institutional convenience.\"
For all pathways, financial assistance should be available that is means-tested and also automatically inflation-indexed based on inflation trends and fiscal resources. Facilities catering to a range of budget should be nurtured. The Korean Silver Town model, which I have spoken about in this House, includes a range of facilities, offering different prices and the different degrees of government support from government-run facilities to purely private profit-driven facilities. The facilities in such an eco-system should be provided by companies, not-for-profit VWOs and where necessary government agencies. Not all Eldercare services should be provided by or paid for by the government.
Where fiscal cost is required, it should be seen in the context of not providing such assistance. It could lead to elderly people living alone, becoming cut-off and gaining access to medical services only when it is too late when catastrophic conditions set in, for example. And this could have amount to a far greater drain on the state's coffers downstream in terms of hospital subsidies, MediShield Life, premium subsidies, Medifund disbursements and so on.
The cost of providing financial assistance should also be seen in the context of the opportunity cost of not providing it. If older Singaporeans lack help to age with purpose and dignity, we could lose out in the vital role of elderly Singaporeans as contributors to the workforce and to the economy as employees, entrepreneurs and customers. Let us not forget the significance of older Singaporeans as role models, mentors, counsellors and care-givers, even when not working. When elderly Singaporeans cannot afford to leave the house because he or she cannot afford a mobility device, for example, he may be unable to work, he may be unable to be a customer for a neighbourhood business, he may be unable to help his family.
As we move towards a future where one in four Singaporeans will be aged over 65, let us strive for successful ageing, both for older Singaporeans and those of us not yet old.
Having said this, I have a few questions and suggestions regarding our whole-of-society approach towards successful ageing, that is of indirect but nevertheless unmistakable relevance to the concerns that underlie this Bill.
Firstly, what is the progress towards launching assisted living facilities? It seems that other countries are far ahead of Singapore in this respect to the concept dates back to the 1980s. During the COS Debate this year, Minister Lawrence Wong said \"typically, in such assisted living apartments, there will be more communal and shared spaces for residents to interact with each other. As the assisted living model is new, we will conduct focus group discussions to seek views on the proposed concept for assisted living in public housing. We will take in feedback and views from the discussions and I am sure seniors will welcome such an option where the model will be sustainable for the service providers. We will work towards a launch for an assisted living pilot site for public housing in Bukit Batok next year.\"
Sir, the assisted living model is new to Singapore but far from new abroad. In advanced countries like Finland and Japan, assisted living facilities (ALFs) are growing faster than nursing homes. A 2016 survey by the Lien Foundation and Income found that nearly 50% of almost 1,000 respondents were willing to stay in ALFs. I would urge the Government to accelerate the launch of new sites. Assisted living at its best and to be sure not existing ALFs in the world present that best, by any means, but at its best, assisted living promises to marry autonomy with good quality medical care and social connectedness. It could be a key pillar for successful ageing. In building this pillar, we have the opportunity to work with local enterprises and start-ups to develop know-how in operating ALFs in the Southeast Asian cultural context. Know-how that could be exported to the region in future – where ageing is a major challenge in countries like Thailand and Malaysia – to the benefit of our economy.
And, secondly and lastly, eldercare is a field that has seen a good deal of innovation through the application of technology and new business models to increase choice, reduce cost and raise productivity. In fact, productivity is a key challenge for this traditionally labour-intensive sector. Social robotics, wearable technology and other innovations are being used in the eldercare sector globally including in some countries in the region like Japan, Korea and China. What efforts are being made by the Government and non-governmental players to study these innovations and aim to bring them to Singapore by way of engagement with companies and not-for-profits, both at home and abroad.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1994, Prof William Kissick defined the set of three trade-offs that any health care system faces: cost, access and quality. We all want a health system that is low-cost, grants timely access to all who need care and ensures that healthcare is of high quality. But all three at once is impossible to achieve, so we need to choose between difficult trade-offs.
We have, by international standards, solved the health system problem better than most. In 2000, the World Health Organization ranked Singapore sixth in the world in overall health system performance. Because this ranking was so controversial – the United States ranked 37th behind all the Western European countries – the WHO has never updated the ranking since. But if you look at more up-to-date figures we are doing well. The most recent WHO World Health Statistics 2019 reported that Singaporeans enjoy a healthy life expectancy at birth of 76.2 years – the best in the world. We also have a correspondingly high total life expectancy at birth of 82.9 years. And our healthcare is delivered efficiently. Health expenditure as a percentage of GDP was 4.5% – in the bottom quartile of countries worldwide by expenditure.
But there are still gaps. The CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Bill will create a universal, prefunded long-term care insurance plan, at least for younger cohorts. Because CareShield Life is universal and will be supported by subsidies for low-income Singaporeans, I believe this will provide genuinely universal access to long-term care if we become severely disabled. A mandatory universal plan is particularly important because the likelihood that we will become severely disabled is quite high. As the ElderShield Review Committee Report states, one in two Singaporeans aged 62 today could become severely disabled within their lifetime.
So, CareShield is not really an insurance scheme in the sense of protecting Singaporeans against a low risk, high cost event. It is really a pre-funding scheme for care needs that are part and parcel of old age. The mandatory nature of CareShield Life will ensure that no Singaporean – or their families – will be in desperate want for financial assistance to cope with care needs in old age. Cost effectiveness and quality will also be important, but they will have to be addressed another day.
I wish to examine how we propose to use the MediSave system to pre-fund CareShield Life and what the implications are for our broader health care financing system.
Sir, at the risk of exaggeration, let me suggest the chief concern among many Singaporeans if they were to get sick is how they will manage their medical expenses. This is ironic, given our excellent health outcomes and our comprehensive medical financing system. Our top healthy life expectancy ranking worldwide is surely not a sign of a people who cannot afford quality healthcare. But it is not so difficult to understand once we appreciate that a fundamental policy lever we have used to manage the cost, access and quality trade-off is to emphasise individual responsibility whenever possible. It appears Singaporeans have internalised this policy principle of individual responsibility quite well. And individual responsibility has been made practical through our MediSave medical savings scheme which gives Singaporeans a nest-egg to spend on their future medical needs.
Mr Goh Chok Tong, then Second Minister for Health, said in the debate on the MediSave Scheme in 1983, and I quote: “We must therefore save when we can, put a few dollars aside every month when we are working, save as an individual, save as a nation. This is the basic idea of MediSave – to provide funds for our citizens to pay for their future health needs, for them to buy an umbrella when it rains; and even before it rains.”
But MediSave has a policy objective that extends beyond pre-funding. If the policy problem was only pre-funding for future healthcare costs alone, it would not matter whether MediSave was collected as individual accounts or whether the Government created an endowment fund for future healthcare spending. The policy objective of MediSave was also to encourage efficiency in healthcare utilisation. MediSave achieved this by giving each Singaporean an individual financial stake in their healthcare decision-making.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in the book, \"Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going\", said of MediSave, \"My major objective in the early days was to make sure that nobody derails the idea of having individual accounts for CPF and MediSave. Whatever you earn, it is yours. It is yours and if you don't use it, you can leave it to your children or relatives or whoever you like. Why should you put it into a common pool and everybody draws out at your expense, which is what is happening in some Western countries. The system has collapsed.\"
As in many other matters, Mr Lee was prescient. I suspect many Members dealing with appeals from constituents feel that the problem with individual accounts is holding the line against requests to use MediSave for all types of personal medical and other expenses.
Since 1983, there have been dozens of Parliamentary Questions and \"cuts\" that appeal for the use of MediSave to be extended to many non-hospitalisation healthcare expenses. For example, when Mdm President was a Member in this House, she filed cuts in the Budget 2006 debate to call for greater flexibility in the use of MediSave, particularly for long-term chronic illnesses. The Government has generally held the line, although MediSave's scope has generally been expanded.
In isolation, I think holding firm to the policy is admirable provided that Singaporeans who appeal to access their MediSave funds are given other means of financial assistance. But if you were to read Mr Lee’s statement on MediSave carefully, you will see that the other problem with individual accounts is holding the line against the Government itself. The risk is that policymakers will appropriate the funds in MediSave to finance healthcare expenditures on a universal basis, or indeed, meet any other healthcare expenditure need.
Sir, we have expended considerable effort to ensure that individuals cannot use their MediSave as they please, because we want to protect them against the risk of exhausting their medical savings prematurely. Yet the same discipline that the population is expected to exercise in using MediSave wisely, must also apply to the policymaker. The policymaker has tended increasingly to see the MediSave account as a convenient source of healthcare financing. And why should she not? As of the first quarter of 2019, the CPF Board reported that aggregate MediSave balances stood at $97 billion dollars, or about $25,000 on average, per CPF member's account. This is enough to fund the operating expenses of MOH for about 10 years.
What will be the impact of CareShield Life on our MediSave system? The illustration given in the ElderShield Review Committee report states that total estimated premiums, paid from age 30 to 67, for a non-subsidised 30-year-old male policyholder, will be about $11,300. If you take this as a lump sum premium, this would amount to nearly half of the aggregate MediSave balances currently existing.
Of course, the plan is for CareShield Life to be funded over the decades, through premium payments amounting to a few percentage points of a member's monthly MediSave contribution. But the total amount collected under CareShield Life – and paid out – will be staggering over the next few decades, just as the sums collected and paid out for MediShield Life have been.
The problem I have outlined goes beyond just the creation of schemes such as MediShield Life and CareShield Life, which have greatly improved access to healthcare. The MediSave account has become a source of funds that the policymaker can use to adjust the balance of subsidies in healthcare financing. As average balances in MediSave increase, it will become more feasible to propose higher basic rates of coverage in MediShield Life, and in CareShield Life, with the accompanying higher premiums. Hospitalisation and long-term care subsidies as well, can be adjusted if MediSave balances are robust.
The ElderShield Review Committee report states that the Government today plans to subsidise about 60% of the cost of nursing home care for a lower middle income severely disabled Singaporean. But of course, this subsidy level could fall in the future if CareShield Life payouts became more generous. I think there is nothing sinister in this. It is just a matter of whether payment is taken through the MediSave pocket or the taxpayers' pocket. But we may come to a point where we can reasonably ask if the individual ownership of the MediSave account remains a meaningful policy principle.
Mr Speaker, Sir, a hallmark of this Government is the willingness to solve problems pragmatically rather than ideologically. I respect this principle tremendously, but as we adapt our healthcare policies to address the challenges of an ageing society, we should take a hard look at some of the ideological principles behind healthcare financing. I would urge that we examine carefully our assumption that individual responsibility through paying from MediSave and cash, actually reduces moral hazard – the excess consumption of healthcare.
As a matter of health economics, this is an empirical and not a theoretical question. It is true in theory that when healthcare coverage is provided free at the point of treatment, there will be increased demand and over-consumption. But the extent and magnitude of these effects are not settled, and the policy question is often too narrowly framed as one of medical cost management only. An array of studies from healthcare insurance coverage experiments in the United States suggests that other social outcomes matter as well, such as financial and psychological stress, and early detection and management of chronic diseases.
Second, I would urge that we also recognise that the MediSave account must be protected from the policymaker, just as it must be protected from the account owner. The issue, I think, is not the misuse or abuse of MediSave funds. I am quite sure that this Government poses no such risk. The issue, rather, is the use of MediSave to alter how healthcare financing is structured without a full and frank examination of how we should be balancing payments between pre-funding and current payments, between the individual and the taxpayer. CareShield Life, while a great innovation that will substantially increase access to long-term care, has changed the structure of healthcare financing in Singapore. We should not let this policy decision pass unexamined. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, sickness and death comes to all. Old age too, but only to those who are lucky enough to see old age.
This Bill establishes and provides for the CareShield Life scheme and other measures to provide for long-term care financing support for severely disabled persons. CareShield Life will feature higher payouts that increase over time with no cap on payout duration, to provide better protection and assurance against the uncertainty of long-term care costs if a person becomes severely disabled.
Over the recent years, I noted that both MOH and CPF have allowed more flexibility on the withdrawal of CPF funds to assist with the care needs of the elderly or disabled as well as provide additional assistance for their maintenance.
I applaud the move to allow cash withdrawals of up to $200 per month from MediSave accounts to pay for expenses for the severely disabled. This allows greater flexibility for those who may have informal care arrangements. CPF members can also apply to withdraw their CPF savings on medical grounds.
I would also like to acknowledge the designation of the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) as a one-stop agency to assist families on matters relating to our seniors. The work of the AIC is wide and diverse and often very difficult. These include coordinating the work of the Silver Generation Office to assigning subsidised nursing home vacancies and assessing the need for motorised wheelchairs.
One aspect which I especially like to highlight is the provision of a monthly cash grant of $120 to families which need to hire a foreign domestic worker to take care of a family member who requires permanent assistance with three or more activities of daily living.
Mr Speaker, Sir, while much has been done to help families which need to take care of their elderly, I would think that families that need to hire a foreign domestic worker or put their parents in a nursing home will still face substantial financial pressure. While CareShield Life addresses this problem going forward, as Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents born in 1980 or later automatically join this scheme in 2020, most of the elderly today are not even enrolled in ElderShield and thus have very little financial support when it comes to their long-term care needs.
As such, I hope MOH can do more to help this group. As our population ages and long-term care costs continue to rise, we will face increasing challenges to tackle these issues in the future. I noted that the ElderFund will be set up to provide cash payouts of up to $250 per month but this is unlikely to be sufficient for the hiring of a foreign domestic worker or to put an elderly in a nursing home.
Over the past few years, we have seen the introduction of the Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation packages which are cohort-based and not means-tested. It is my suggestion that if the Government should have sufficient fiscal surplus in future, it should move away from cohort-based packages, to set up a long-term care package which will provide low to middle income families with additional assistance to take care of their elderly. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, with our ageing population, long-term care support cannot be just a luxury for some; it is a must for all. When our loved ones are cared for well, we enjoy the peace of mind to contribute productively to the economy and country.
However, this Bill must not leave out or undervalue significant groups of people as that would go against its policy intent of being universal and inclusive. Besides urging for a for a critical change in how we define disability as I have in the past, I would also like to highlight the need to better support our younger Singaporeans who may have disabilities or are in need of long-term care, and also how the current policies discriminate against women. This Bill can and must go further to strengthen our social fabric and safety nets so that we truly walk the talk of being an inclusive society.
The Bill defines \"severe disability\" as when an individual is unable to perform three or more of the following physical activities of daily living (ADLs): washing, dressing, feeding, toileting, walking and transferring. I commend the ElderShield Review Committee in recommending that the impact of cognitive impairments on functional ability be explicitly considered in the disability assessment framework for claims, and am glad that MOH has accepted this recommendation.
However, \"severe disability\" remains too narrowly defined, as it excludes people with mental health conditions. This is especially troubling as MOH has announced that in FY2017, we have 12.4% of Singaporeans aged 18-74 who suffer from minor psychiatric morbidity, for example, anxiety, depression and related disorders, which is estimated to rise to close to 14%, or about 315,000 Singaporeans, in FY2019. These are numbers specifically for this age group, and only counts Singaporeans who suffer from minor mental health conditions. According to IMH's latest nationwide study, \"One in seven people in Singapore has experienced a mental disorder in their lifetime\". Given the number of Singaporeans who will be affected, there is an urgent need to examine how long-term care costs for people with mental health conditions are supported.
While people with mental health conditions may be able to perform the physical ADLs, our current policies fail to recognise that they may struggle with other ADLs which are just as essential to everyday life. These may include cognitive ADLs like communication or simple problem-solving, aspects which are not recognised within our current definition but are captured in internationally-recognised assessment tools like the Functional Independence Measure Instrument (FIM).
Furthermore, there is already precedence in our public policy which considers the impact of mental health conditions on daily living, like how the intake assessment for nursing home residents includes aspects of psychiatric conditions, thereby recognising that people with mental health conditions may require support as much as those who have physical disabilities. I therefore urge the Government to take a more inclusive approach in the definition of disabilities, both nationally and in this Bill.
To be inclusive, we should ensure our policies and schemes provide coverage and support for long-term care for people with mental health conditions, and we can start doing so with CareShield Life. We should consider how specific mental health conditions that are highly prevalent are recognised and supported by other long-term care schemes, eventually moving to a more universal and explicit recognition of all mental health conditions in our long-term care policies.
A critical start could be in how we explicitly consider mental health conditions when defining and assessing disabilities. For instance, we can include assessment of equally critical but non-physical ADLs like cognitive ADLs in functional assessments, or as doctors have advocated for regarding disability assessments, assess and score what patient actually does rather than what patients can do. This important differentiation between capacity and performance is crucial because it is what we do which actually determines care needs and hence care-giver burden.
Currently, multiple schemes ranging from Interim Disability Assistance Schemes for Elderly (IDAPE), Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance scheme, Foreign Domestic Worker Grant or its replacement, Home Caregiving Grant, ElderShield or its replacement CareShield Life, withdrawal of MediSave savings and ElderFund require severe disabilities in its eligibility criteria for people to benefit from it.
Take an elderly who lives alone in a rental flat – I will call him Marcus. He is terminally ill and unable to perform two physical ADLs, on top of his mental health condition which affects his cognitive ADLs. Despite his condition, Marcus will not be eligible for this network of schemes designed to support people like him. In the eyes of our system and policies, Marcus will be considered to be moderately disabled rather than severely disabled, and the result is that he will lose out on close to $1,250 worth of support, which would have been a lifesaver financially, as that would allow him to consider a broader range of options like employing a helper or engaging private nursing services that will enable him to pass away at home peacefully with dignity as he would have preferred. Instead of enjoying support, Marcus had to agonise over the financial difficulties, which creates stress and anxiety which adds to his mental health condition. For both Marcus, who is already suffering from multiple conditions, and his care-giver, their journey in seeking care and support and his last days were unnecessarily difficult.
When we adopt such an extreme definition of severe disability, we inevitably exclude and prevent support from reaching those with more moderate or milder forms of disabilities who are inadequately covered in terms of financial support.
An on-going research conducted by AWARE of family care-givers reveals that their care recipients who are moderately rather than severely disabled, could spend close to $866 after subsidies, or 22% of their monthly household income, on average, on care-related expenses. This is 35% more than what the average household in Singapore spends on similar items, according to data from the 2017/2018 Household Expenditure Survey. I am concerned how this may affect retirement adequacy of family care-givers, or foster inter-generational transfers of long-term care costs.
To prevent the cliff effect created when many schemes concentrate on severe disability as the eligibility, I urge the Government to consider pursuing two areas of improvement.
First, we can organise existing schemes such that those with less severe forms of disability would still retain eligibility to some of the support schemes so that their needs can be better-met. For example, the criteria for MediSave withdrawal for long-term care needs could be relaxed to allow those with mild disabilities to start withdrawing, while the other schemes continue to have a higher bar.
Second, we can learn from existing schemes like MediFund and ComCare such that the level of financial support provided is tiered against the extent of care need – which in this case could be approximated by the extent of disability. For instance, CareShield Life payouts can start progressively when one is unable to complete one ADL independently, albeit with a smaller payout. Failing to do so means that CareShield Life in essence acts as a severe disability insurance, rather than the intended long-term care insurance.
In addition to relieving some financial burden, receiving financial resources earlier in a graduated approach may also allow more Singaporeans to better access rehabilitation services that could reduce the worsening of their condition, or even prevent further conditions or disabilities from developing. Furthermore, supporting these families at an earlier stage relieves care-giver stress and anxiety and allows them to focus on other aspects of life like work, parenting and more. All of these are likely to create downstream cost-savings and more importantly enhances the well-being of Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker, inclusivity needs to and must extend along the lines of gender. I understand that CareShield Life premiums are gender-differentiated due to actuarial assessments, but our society surely should not be defined by these numbers solely, just like how our other social and health policies are not defined along these lines. Both men and women receive fair and equal treatment regardless of statistical differences – they receive the same amount of healthcare subsidies and benefits despite the greater susceptibility of women to chronic illness and disabilities. This similar treatment for all, regardless of gender, should be continued in the payment of CareShield Life premiums especially since the point of insurance, as we know, is to risk-pool.
Women may live longer than men, but they also live with less financial resources. In 2017, the average net CPF balance for females aged 60 years and above was $69,732, which was about 24% lower than that of males. In the same year, about four in 10 active CPF members who turned 55 in 2017 did not hit the Basic Retirement Sum, or BRS, of $83,000 in their Retirement Accounts. Among women, only 53% were able to reach the BRS as compared to 66% of men. Every year, many more women than men drop out of the labour force to care for their loved ones. In the 2018 Labour Force Survey, 75,000 women are outside the labour force to provide care-giving to relatives and families. This does not include children. In other words, 80% of family care-givers who are outside the labour force are women. They suffer from loss in income, affecting their ability to save for their own retirement and healthcare needs.
Moreover, when comparing with international practices, it is helpful to consider how the European Union's highest court banned the practice by insurance companies of gender-differentiated premiums. An EU Court of Justice Grand Chamber case ruled that multiple EU legal instruments which mandate equal treatment between men and women do not allow for the use of sex as an actuarial factor in differentiating individuals’ premiums and benefits. Article 12 of our Constitution provides that \"all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law\". The government has acknowledged in its latest Convention for Elimination of Discrimination against Women, or CEDAW, state report that the principle of equality for women is entrenched under this Article. Surely then, women deserve equal protection and their premiums not be differentiated through actuarial factors.
I believe that designing a mandatory and national long-term care insurance scheme with a framework that discriminates based on gender will set us back a long way in pursuing gender equality. According to the \"Care Where We Are\" report by Lien Foundation, Singapore spends only 0.19% of GDP on long-term care, compared to the OECD average of 1.7% of GDP. I would like to suggest therefore that we are certainly in a position where we can afford to spend slightly more to pave the way for a more equal society.
We must not forget the unaccounted value of how much women have contributed since the Independence of Singapore. Instead of recognising and compensating the vastly unequal amount of unpaid work they do, it may appear that we are now proposing to further penalise them. I believe this is not the kind of social compact we aspire to build.
In a national scheme that aims to meet the needs of all in Singapore, Mr Speaker, I urge that premiums pricing be made gender-neutral.
Let me move from gender to age. Our policies apply to those who are aged 30 and above. While I understand and appreciate the need for these schemes to support our ageing population, I must ask why do we discriminate against those who are aged below 30 because illnesses and disabilities can hit at any age.
CareShield Life covers pre-existing disabilities for all future cohorts which is laudable. But it leaves a huge gap for those who are severely disabled and requires long-term care support before 30. This is even more so for children who are diagnosed with life-limiting diseases. Studies have estimated that we have around 2,000 children with life-limiting conditions in Singapore, who would potentially be in need of long-term care should they continue to stave off the threats on their lives brought by their conditions.
My understanding from the ground is that these children and their families face immense long-term care costs, which include but are not limited to: hospitalisation, surgery, rehabilitation, special school, special transport, specific aids and machines, specialised milk powder and other consumables. For example, the Enhanced Seniors’ Mobility and Enabling Fund allows for seniors to apply for up to 90% subsidies for consumables like milk and diapers, but no such policy is in place for our young ones who may be similarly disabled, where their families face similar financial pressures for long-term care costs.
Mr Speaker, we should consider allowing children and youth to be enrolled into this national long-term care insurance, with premiums paid by their parents either through their MediSave accounts, or through Government hand-outs like Baby Bonus. Other than CareShield Life, amendments to the CPF Act to allow MediSave withdrawals for long-term care should allow all to do so regardless of age. For children and youth who may not have CPF savings to tap on, we should also extend flexibility in allowing parents to tap on their MediSave accounts to support the long-term care needs for their children. While I understand that we may want to ensure that parents themselves retain adequate CPF savings for their own retirement and healthcare needs, at the end of the day, the money must come from somewhere. If it is not from their CPF MediSave account, it is likely that it has to be out of their own pockets. While we have good social safety nets, we must also consider that many of these schemes take into account the savings and assets possessed by the household. As such, retirement adequacy and savings for healthcare costs in future will remain affected.
Moreover, allowing parents to tap on their CPF MediSave savings for their children is in line with our policy of family as the first line of support. This would also ensure consistency in policy, as current rules allow for parents to pay for the hospital bills of their children using their MediSave savings.
In this vein, I am glad to see that the Home Caregiving Grant would not be age-restricted. However, it only provides $200, and given the care needs and costs of our younger ones who may be equally ill or disabled, we ought to ensure that our other schemes support them adequately rather than discriminate against them. It would be sad for us to take good care of our seniors and forget about our younger generation.
Given the lower prevalence of terminal illness and disability amongst our children and youth, we can afford to provide the same support we do for our seniors but at far less significant budget expansion and I hope that we will do the right thing and stand in solidarity with all Singaporeans regardless of age.
Finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to raise the issue of accessibility to an expanding and extensive web of policies and schemes, especially for the very people we designed them for. The community practitioners who work with vulnerable seniors, differently-abled and low income communities on the ground have spent countless hours trying to grasp the increasing complexity and fragmentation of our health, social and care systems and policies.
In a recent mapping exercise conducted by the Cassia Resettlement Team, they found there are at least a total of 22 schemes, including the new schemes and excluding those which will be phased out, relevant to Singaporeans with long-term care needs. Most of these schemes have an average of three eligibility criteria and these criteria differ across schemes in terms of age, extent of disability, household monthly income and more. Many of these schemes requires application through a social worker or directly to the relevant Government agency, or alternatively requires a disability assessment to be conducted.
On the ground, awareness of these schemes is understandably an issue, and the concern will surely be for people who are severely disabled but may not have accessed touchpoints like hospitals or social service offices such that they could be directed to access this web of schemes. Even with the support of these touchpoints, applications often take up significant portions of time for either care-recipients and/or their care-givers, as well as the social service or healthcare professional assigned to support them. The sheer number of schemes, accompanied by the number and variance in eligibility criteria and the amount of supporting documents required for the application, makes it overwhelming and exhausting for all involved. Even with the Silver Generation Office Ambassadors' work, limitations remain, especially in ensuring timely access to these schemes for those who desperately need support.
One of the cases that was shared with me is an elderly Singaporean male, let us call him Michael, who is married to a foreign spouse and resides in a 1-room rental flat. Michael suffered from global aphasia and a stroke, and he was also diagnosed to suffer a permanent loss of mental capacity, ability to communicate and needed help in all ADLs. When the volunteers met the family after Michael was discharged, they found that the family had insufficient money to put food on the table, and was also struggling to find money for transport to the hospital for the required medical care and proposed rehabilitation services. The subsequent days was a chaotic navigation of our systems for both the family and the volunteers attempting to support them. They alerted, made referrals and continued to work closely with around 10 stakeholders, including the FSC, RC, AIC, SSO, HDB, ICA, CPF, the regional hospital and other service providers.
The volunteers had to help facilitate or lodge applications related to ElderShield, ComCare financial assistance, renewal of rental flat tenancy, medical escort and transport services, application to withdraw CPF savings, and extension of the wife’s social visit pass for her to continue as the full-time care-giver. The entire process was made even more difficult because many of the applications required the doctors to provide their professional input on issues related to mental capacity, functional status and details on the medical condition. Michael passed on earlier this year. Without citizenship, his wife and his three children moved back to her home country.
Mr Speaker: Can you wrap up in the next few seconds?
Ms Anthea Ong: Yes, I am just finishing up. It is clear that we need to urgently do more in providing care planning, navigation and coordination services. I also urge for more centralisation and consolidation of existing schemes to provide support in a more streamlined manner.
Mr Speaker, I used my full 20 minutes because I feel strongly —
Mr Speaker: Any more?
Ms Anthea Ong: Yes, I know. Thank you for that. I feel strongly that this Bill tells of the social compact we aspire towards, beyond the technical policy details. \"Cheaper to be dead than to be sick in Singapore\" still hangs off the lips of so many ordinary Singaporeans, especially the elderly and those who struggle to make ends meet.
While actuarial fairness and sustainability of the schemes are important considerations, we must not forget that public long-term care insurance are often designed on the bedrock of social solidarity. I believe that solidarity of all Singaporeans – regardless of age, gender or extent of disability – should be important guiding principles for a care system in a country which now ranks among the wealthiest in the world. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence.
Mr Speaker: Mr Chen Show Mao.
Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, in helping Singaporeans prepare for long-term care, the CareShield Life Bill that is being discussed today is a step in the right direction.
People say that you have children to prepare for old age. In Singapore today, just depending on our children for old age is not enough. In future, as the population ages, preparing for old age will be increasingly challenging. Last year, during the Parliamentary debate on the CareShield Life Committee Report, I said that the programme itself is self-sustaining but the implementation details need to be actively planned out. For example, how do we assist those who cannot afford the premiums and include them in the programme, so that no one is not left behind? The Bill tabled today has addressed this.
Mr Speaker, why do I say that the CareShield Life Bill is a step in the right direction? What is the right direction for our social policies? What is our vision?
There is an ancient saying that in great harmony the aged are provided for till their end, the disabled are cared for and people treat each other like their own kin. By pooling risks we are able to pool resources together to assist the elderly and the disabled who are unable to care for themselves. By pooling risks we can pay relatively low and affordable premiums to get comparatively high and meaningful payouts when needed.
The Bill today has provided a partial framework that is feasible and reasonable for our vision to care for the aged and disabled. But aside from the Bill, the entire package should be carefully planned out. For example, if an elderly is unable to carry out three out of six daily activities due to old age, stroke or dementia, including bathing, taking medicine, changing, going to the toilet, moving around and moving from bed to chair or to a wheelchair, they can file claims and they will be able to receive $600 in cash every month for the rest of their lives to pay for long-term care until they are fully recovered.
However, Mr Speaker, how much can $600 buy in terms of life-term care – be it home care, full-time domestic helper, nursing homes, community day-care or other arrangements? If you have $600 in your pocket, do you have enough suitable options? Are the fees affordable for those who require long-term care? Mr Speaker, Sir, that is why I say that we can move another step forward.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.25 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.06 pm until 4.25 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.25 pm
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, disability can occur at any time to anyone, young or old. None of us can anticipate when we could be hit by a sudden illness or sustain an injury that could affect our ability to go about essential daily activities and to work. If we are not financially prepared, this will have serious impact on our life and our families. While we would not wish for anyone to be severely disabled, we cannot predict when and who it will impact.
I have a resident who in his early 40s suffered a stroke. He was severely disabled as a result of the stroke. Before the stroke, he was gainfully employed and the dual income that he and his wife made was more than sufficient to comfortably support his family and their three young children. Not only has the stroke rendered him unable to be work, he needs to be assisted in his daily living activities. His wife’s single income is now supporting his on-going care needs as well as their children. His family does also receive financial assistance. However, financing his on-going care needs as well as supporting their family's expenses has been and continues to be financially challenging for his wife and the children. If he had had coverage similar with benefits like CareShield Life, while it would not cover all the cost required for him, the monthly payout of $600 a month for as long as he is severely disabled would have provided some financial relief.
I have also had several residents seek financial assistance for the long-term care needs of their parents who become severely disabled and need to stay in a nursing home. For some in the lower middle-income group, even with Government subsidies they still have to pay about a $1,000 a month for their parent's nursing home care. For middle income families that do not qualify from Government subsidies, the cost is a few thousands monthly. I have witnessed many families that are not financially prepared for such expenses and face difficulty in making these payments. If their parents had coverage for the disability similar to that of CareShield Life, the monthly payout would help alleviate some of the cost.
I am supportive of the Bill to provide long-term care financing support for severely disabled persons, but I do have some clarifications and feedback on CareShield Life and Long-Term Care.
The Bills seeks to make CareShield Life compulsory for those born on or after 1980 and those 30 years old on or after 2020. Those in this age group are in their 30s to 40s and are at the stage of their life when they have many responsibilities and financial demands, for example, if they are married and have children, they would need to support their young families, pay the mortgages on their homes. They may also have to take care of an aged parent.
As enrollment into CareShield Life is compulsory and not an option for this group, how can they be assured that CareShield Life Premiums are fair and competitive as compared to premiums of other similar insurance covered by private entities? With the scheme being compulsory, the risk pool will be large and it would be expected that premiums will be affordable. What assurance is there for Singaporeans that premiums will be kept low and affordable? As it has been stated that payouts will increase about 2% each year to adjust for the higher cost of long-term care in future, premiums will be expected to increase in tandem. So, will the transitional subsidies and means-tested subsidies be sufficient to keep premiums affordable?
Can MOH assure them that for our people and these age group that taking on long term care coverage at a young age, that they would be better off than delaying that to a later time? Given that the various healthcare coverage plans and schemes that are already in place, more information should also be shared to show how CareShield Life complements and is not a duplication. Feedback from the ground, is that there are so many schemes and eligibility criteria for these schemes and understanding the various schemes and objectives can be quite confusing.
While MediSave funds can be used to make payment for CareShield Life premiums, with the changing employment trends and disruption in jobs and employments, income contributions to MediSave may be affected. This may impact ability to make payout for CareShield Life and other premiums like MediShield Life and Integrated Shield Plans. So, what are the implications if an individual loses his job and will his coverage lapse, if he is unable to pay for his CareShield Life premiums? What help, if any, can he get to assist him during this period when there is disruption?
In terms of qualifying for payouts and disability assessment, the First Schedule in the Bill outlines the definition of a person with severe disability to be his or her inability to perform three of the six Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) set out for CareShield Life. Feedback, as we have heard from many other Members in this Chamber, is that the criteria for at least three ADLs may be somewhat strict. But, regardless, when one is already in the unfortunate position of being afflicted with disability, what help will there be to ensure that the process for disability assessment and eligibility will not be onerous? For those with two ADLs on the CareShield Life scheme, who do participate in the CareShield Life Scheme and they are not eligible for the claim payouts when they do get disabled, do they need to continue to pay future premiums for CareShield Life if they are unable to work or to continue to work? This will affect their ability to afford premiums in the future if they are already unable to do the two ADLs. Could Minister share how this group would be treated if they do have ADLs but are not able to qualify for the payouts?
For older Singaporeans born in 1979 or earlier, CareShield Life is not compulsory and they have a choice to decide on whether they wish to participate. I am going to ask some operational and procedural or practical questions with regard to CareShield Life. Can MOH share how and when this cohort of older Singaporeans will be informed of the details of eligibility and the amount of premium they need to pay to participate in CareShield Life, if they choose to do so? The reason why I am asking is that, during the briefings that I conducted with our Merdeka Generation (MG) seniors, it was quite interesting because many expressed interest to participate in CareShield Life. They do, however, need to have more information to help them understand CareShield Life, most importantly to assess if they can afford it and how to participate. Some of the MG seniors I met – unfortunately, I have to say this – but many that I met were not sure whether they are on the ElderShield or not, because they said \"I do not know whether I opted in or whether I opted out\". So, they do need some help to also check on that.
I do want to take the opportunity at this point to also give feedback because the information online with regard to CareShield Life has been actually quite comprehensive. At the same time, the Online Calculator for CareShield Life premiums is very easy to use and very simple. The only problem is you need to have certain information, like whether you have ElderShield or not. So, for some of our seniors, they could answer all the other questions except that, so they could not estimate. I think these are very practical but important matters that I hope more clarity can be provided to our seniors soon.
With regard to the definition of disability, I also want to touch on the point of mental health condition because CareShield Life's definition of severe disability today is based on the Activities for Daily Living (ADLs) with emphasis on physical disabilities. How will mental health conditions and dementia, for example, be assessed? Mental illness and dementia can significantly impair cognitive and behavioural functioning and interfere with normal activities and relationships. These can be as disabling as any other physical disabilities. Dementia and mental illnesses are sometimes called invisible disabilities and may impact an individual's ability to do essential daily activities. So, I hope that we can look at how mental illness and conditions like dementia could be treated or would be assessed together with the ADLs.
Based on the report on \"The Burden of Disease in Singapore between 1990 to 2017\", Singapore faces a challenge shared by many developed countries. While life expectancy has increased, the number of years that is spent in poor health has not decreased. Lifestyle and habits increase the risk of disabilities. The leading risk factors affecting health in Singapore in 2017 were dietary risks, tobacco, high blood pressure and high blood sugar. The leading causes of Years Lived with Disability (LYD) in Singapore were musculoskeletal disorders, mental disorders, unintentional injuries and neurological disorders.
So, it is important that we leverage on the data that we have on our healthcare trends, assess the risks together and also encourage regular health screening as I believe that this will help support early detection and enable appropriate and timely interventions. This may help mitigate some of the risks of severe disability associated with chronic diseases and enable Singaporeans to live better quality lives. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications and comments, I support the Bill.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the establishment of the CareShield Life Scheme and the ElderShield Scheme under Government administration is an excellent and necessary move. We can expect the centralisation of expertise in the management of the schemes to yield the benefits of economies of scale, consistency and reduce running costs. The schemes are intended to provide long-term care financing support for severely disabled persons. With our rapidly ageing population and longer lifespans, many of our frail elderly will tap upon this assistance towards the end of their lives.
The Bill also seeks to establish the Long-Term Care Support Fund (LTCSF). MOF had announced in March this year that the $5.1 billion fund will provide Government support for CareShield Life premiums and support various long-term care financing schemes for disabled persons, such as ElderFund.
May I ask the Minister about the eligibility criteria for LTCSF and measures to increase publicity and awareness of this scheme? My concern is that some elderly and their families may not be aware of such assistance and do not know how to apply for help. We need to reach out to this group of vulnerable Singaporeans.
Next, I would like to comment on a related amendment to the CPF Act, which is to make provision for MediSave withdrawals for long-term care for severely disabled persons. I would like to ask if this would be sustainable in view of longer lifespans as well as shrinking family sizes with more and more elderly depending on fewer younger family members. Would this result in the latter's MediSave being depleted, leaving them little for their own use when they themselves become older? Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to ask about the eligibility criteria for the Long-Term Care Assistance Fund and its publicity measures. The department in charge must ensure that vulnerable Singaporeans know how to apply for assistance.
Another concern for me is that MediSave can be used to pay for long-term care for people with severe disabilities. As life expectancies increase and family sizes shrink, would the younger generation's MediSave accounts be depleted such that they would not be able to tap into the funds in their own old age?
(In English): I am also concerned about the security of personal data in MOH's electronic databases. Would the Minister share an update on the measures to fortify protection of this information?
Finally, may I take this opportunity to ask the Minister to consider allowing popular non-generic drugs to be subsidised. For those commonly reported to be more effective than their generic cousins, please kindly review the demand for these drugs and consider subsidising them. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the average lifespan of Singaporeans is on the rise. According to a study by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, average lifespan would be 85.4 years in 2040. But the number of years spent in poor health would also correspondingly increase. The Government has been enhancing policies and investing in resources to promote active, healthy living among Singaporeans. This should help to prolong the duration of healthy years. On this note, I would like to thank HPB for bringing in all kind of exercises – Zumba Gold, stretchband, yoga and so on – free of charge to our community, all the parks, pavilions and condominiums. The residents not just keep themselves healthy; in the process, they also improve their bonding. I have residents who go to exercise and later they arrange overseas trips together – one-day Batam trips, three-day Malacca trips and so on.
Nevertheless, chronic health and mobility problems are inevitable for most who are in old age. It is important, therefore, for one to be self-sufficient. This is especially so when one is retired or unable to work.
Looking at current global trends, more people are likely to stay single or choose not to have children. So, relying on the younger generations for financial support is not always an option. In fact, those who have children would typically not wish to burden them. Hence, we have CareShield Life to help Singaporeans to be self-sufficient with the support from the Government. Moreover, it is not only the elderly who may find themselves with mobility impairment. Younger people, too, may require long-term care due to illness or accidents. Hence, it is a good move to have citizens and permanent residents automatically enrolled into the scheme once they reach 30 years old.
I note that those born before 1970 will not be automatically enrolled and those born from 1970 to 1979 are only automatically enrolled under certain conditions.
My question is: how many would not qualify for automatic enrolment and how would we get them onboard? This is quite worrying because some within this group would be those who do not have ElderShield or any form of insurance coverage. There are additional subsidies for Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation citizens. However, I have spoken to older residents and they are unmoved by the subsidies. They are retired or do not have a full-time job and the idea of having to commit a sum of money each month to an intangible concept is daunting to them.
Unfortunately, many healthy, mobile people have the \"it will never happen to me\" mentality. So, they do not see the necessity of making a small investment to insure themselves against possible severe disability. In fact, there is a sizeable percentage of young people, adults included, who still do not understand how MediShield works. And they would only call up CPF to ask for clarifications when they are hospitalised.
So, when one does not understand the full benefits of a scheme, they are far less likely to put faith and their money in it. We have to go beyond subsidies to encourage a wider take-up rate. Otherwise, the people who stand to benefit most from the scheme will be left out. Thus, hopefully, the Ministry would have some education campaign to reach out to this group to explain the different schemes so that people fully understand the schemes and they can reap the benefits when they need them. In Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] CareShield Life will look after people with disabilities. However, those born before 1970 will not be automatically enrolled and those born from 1970 to 1979 are only automatically enrolled under certain conditions. How do we encourage these people to join this scheme?
Although there are additional subsidies for Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation citizens, however, many citizens told me that they are retired and there is no need to commit a sum of money each month to prevent something that is unlikely to happen. They also do not know whether they will be eligible for claims even if they, indeed, develop some kind of disability.
In addition to subsidies, I urge the Government to do more public education so that people know the benefits of this scheme and more Singaporeans will be protected.
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for this timely Bill as we prepare ourselves for the silver tsunami.
The introduction of the new $5.1 billion CareShield Life as universal healthcare insurance to ensure lifetime coverage and higher monthly payouts is definitely moving in the right direction.
While I understand that CareShield Life aids to subsidise the cost of long-term care for adults above age 30 with severe disability, what about patients below than 30 years old, such as paediatric patients with severe disability?
Though I am aware that the topic of differential premium for men and women introduced for CareShield Life was widely debated previously, I would still like to state my stand and hope that MOH can review its position. The principle underpinning insurance is risk pooling. Hence, I do not agree that our society should go the route of differential premium by gender, causing gender divide. Otherwise, we may start the trend of potentially differentiating premiums in future by race or other genetic risk factors as we advance into precision medicine.
Lastly, as the Nominated Member representing the professional bodies in Singapore, I hope to bring awareness to the House, the Singapore Actuarial Society, a governance body for the actuarial profession in Singapore. The Singapore Actuarial Society (SAS) was established in 1976. Fellows of the SAS are in most cases Fellows of the Society of Actuaries in the USA, the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (UK) or Institute of Actuaries of Australia.
Like other professional bodies, the SAS requires Fellows to maintain and disclose annually a minimum level of continuing professional development. An actuary with a statutory role such as the Appointed Actuary of a Life Assurance Company or the Certifying Actuary of a General Insurance Company is also required to have a Practicing Certificate awarded after attending relevant courses run by the SAS locally.
Hence, with regards to section 37 of the Bill regarding the CareShield Life Council, can I propose that when the Minister appoints the Council, can the Minister consider to include a Fellow of the SAS who is conversant with the financial management of long-term care insurance in the Council?
The viability and sustainability of the CareShield Life Scheme is highly dependent on the appropriateness of the premiums and the adequacy of the assets in the CareShield Life and the ElderShield Fund to support the benefits promised under the scheme.
CareShield Life is a long-term insurance programme. There may be uncertainties in how the experience will unfold and there is a lack of long-term care historical experience to guide an actuary in pricing and valuations.
To carry out the work, the consulting actuary has to transfer and adapt experience from other countries and draw up assumptions of future experience such that the likelihood of having to adjust the premiums to be kept at an acceptable level, keeping in mind frequent adjustments to premiums leads to loss of confidence by the public in the scheme
While I understand that MOH has appointed an actuarial consultancy to compute the premiums and in time to conduct an evaluation of the liability of the scheme, having an independent actuary on the CareShield Life Council can help by evaluating the robustness of the actuarial analyses and computation methodology in light of this scarcity of data, validating the conclusions drawn from the analyses, probing for the safeguards the consultant actuary has built in to avoid having to change premium rates too frequently.
As the proposed Council member will be providing actuarial advice, a Fellow of the SAS, who is governed by the standards and code of conduct of the SAS, will be most appropriate for this role. Notwithstanding the clarifications and proposal above, I stand to support the Bill.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, this Bill does not just implement the CareShield Life scheme, it also enables the ElderShield scheme to be administered by the Government instead of private insurance companies, it provides for the withdrawal of MediSave funds of persons who are severely disabled, it establishes the Long-Term Care Fund and puts in place offences and penalties. I will speak in favour of all these four aspects of the Bill successively.
Firstly, this Bill transfers the ElderShield scheme from private insurance companies to Government administration, similar to how CareShield Life is also Government administered. This has several advantages. The not-for profit administration increases the affordability of premiums. The centralisation of administering the scheme will streamline the application for payout process. It also allows for smoother transition for those who choose to shift from ElderShield scheme to CareShield Life scheme. It also allows for the funds to be combined into a single CareShield Life and ElderShield Insurance Fund. This allows for more flexibility in investing. Even as the monies are consolidated into a single fund, how will the Minister ensure inter-generational equity in how the schemes are administered? That is one question I have.
In relation to the transition from ElderShield to CareShield Life, will the Minister provide an indication as to when and how sign-ups can begin? Also, will Supplement Schemes for ElderShield be affected by the transfer of ElderShield to become Government-administered and change of coverage to CareShield Life instead of ElderShield should the policy-holder choose to shift over to CareShield Life?
Secondly, Sir, clause 66(5) provides for the withdrawal of MediSave funds of persons who are severely disabled. Because healthcare can come in many forms, this flexibility is valuable for families to have yet another place of resources to tap into to care for the severely disabled. But even as there is increased flexibility, it should not deplete from MediSave funds to the extent that MediSave is no longer useful for its intended purpose. This is especially acute where a child’s MediSave funds is used to pay for a parent's medical expenses, and the child has his or her own medical expenses to cover and, as a result of not marrying, the child does not have anyone else’s MediSave account to tap onto in the future.
Therefore, would the Minister address these concerns? Furthermore, the new section 16B(1)(a) of the Central Provident Fund Act found in clause 66 indicates that there is a minimum sum in the member’s account in order for cash withdrawals for long-term care to be allowed. From news reports, the minimum sum that is being looked at is $5,000. Would the Minister explain how this figure was derived such that it ensures that the account-holder still has money to pay for other healthcare needs?
Thirdly, part 10 establishes the Long-Term Care Support Fund which is used for premium subsidies and other long-term care related assistance as set out in clause 39. Would the Minister share with us what are some of the plans that the Ministry has in utilising the Funds for purposes other than subsidising CareShield Life premiums? In particular, what kind of assistance will there be for those who are severely disabled but have utilised the six years under the ElderShield scheme, those who were unable to purchase the ElderShield scheme because they had been severely disabled, and those who are low-income and do not have much in their MediSave account? How does the Minister seek to address these perceived gaps?
Fourthly, this Bill introduces offences and penalties for the administration of this scheme. Clause 49 criminalises the act of an assessor making a fraudulent disability assessment. As the integrity of the administration of CareShield Life and ElderShield schemes rests primarily on the disability assessor, this offence places a safeguard against fraudulent claims facilitated by disability assessors.
Clause 50 criminalises the act of not applying the funds for the insured person first. The new section 16B(10) of the Central Provident Fund Act also has a similar offence. This offence ameliorates the risk of cash payouts being misused. Because the person directly harmed by the act criminalised by this offence is the insured person or member, why is it that a portion of the penalty be returned to the insured person himself or herself instead of having the whole penalty be paid into the CareShield Life and ElderShield Insurance Fund?
Because the penalty is possibly more than the amount misused by a four to eight times, requiring the offender to pay the insured person or member would not remove the punitive quality of the penalty.
An exception to the offence is reasonable excuse. Because different households structure their expenses differently such that it may not be very clear whether the payout was used for the insured person or member first, would the Minister give some examples of what a reasonable excuse might be?
Even as this Bill seeks to provide some financial support for long-term care, financial support is only one side of the equation to ensuring that long-term care remains affordable. Another side of the equation is to expand the supply of long-term care services. This is especially important as the number of persons who are severely disabled is projected to increase to 69,000 in 2030 compared to 29,000 in 2014. That is about 140% increase in demand for long-term care services or long-term care care-giver training.
Would the Minister elaborate on the plans to ensure that we have sufficient personnel and facilities for this increase in demand?
Because technology can help caring for severely disabled persons less physically demanding, how has Singapore been investing in such technology to reduce the reliance on foreign manpower and to allow those who work in this physically demanding field to enjoy a longer, meaningful career? Also, what efforts have been made to make certain assistive technologies more accessible to families who may need it to care for their loved ones?
Sir, during this debate, there have been a number of broad criticisms against our healthcare system. In my view, however, we have, in broad terms, a good system in place. Is there room for improvement? Sure. But let us also acknowledge the merits.
Where the provision of fiscal measures to support a sustainable healthcare model is concerned, where good quality doctors are concerned, where professional and hardworking nursing population is concerned, I think Singapore ranks well and does well. Singapore has been independently assessed as being second in the 2018 Bloomberg study on most efficient healthcare systems – that is good outcomes but reasonable costs. So, I hope we can put things in perspective in this debate.
In conclusion, Singaporeans have been fortunate, some may say blessed, with long lives, with our life expectancy one of the highest in the world. But often with long lives, though not necessarily so, comes with it some loss of the kind of life as we knew it. Needing to rely on others to carry out activities of daily living does not just affect the elderly but also affects people from all ages. Through it all, the recipient of help is still valued and valuable.
This CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Bill helps support them and their families. By pooling the risks among many in society, they may be able to receive more than they would have in their savings otherwise. By allowing spouses to tap onto each other's MediSave account, another resource to support each other through the difficult time is opened. By setting up the Long-Term Care Support Fund, there can be more support for those who need more help in financing long-term care options, whether it be through subsidising premiums or through other schemes. Because this Bill implements and commits to the caring for those who are severely disabled, and for the reasons I have stated, I support it.
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have spoken on the importance of CareShield Life in 2018. Today, I renew my support for it and I am glad that this Bill does not focus solely on CareShield Life but long-term care as well. CareShield Life has to be viewed within the frame of Singapore's long-term care plan.
Sir, we all know that Singapore has an ageing population and we need to be ready for it. But how ready are we, really?
The Government invested significant amount of resource and effort to build up our system, policies and infrastructure to cope with the needs of a rapidly ageing population, strengthening them as we progress. Government spending has also increased by multiple folds. Public healthcare expenditure, for instance, more than doubled in the past six years, and will continue to increase. How we can sustain this is serious business.
Ageing is a multi-faceted issue, covering physical, financial, psychological and social aspects of our lives. Given the growing silver population and longer lifespan, it is imperative that we have in place a comprehensive and effective long-term care system for Singaporeans. In fact, we need a good eco-system to do so.
The Government cannot monopolise the care for our seniors. We will need community partners and Singaporeans too to address the challenges and needs of an ageing Singapore successfully. We will also need to plan early and act pre-emptively.
Some of the challenges faced in our old age may have their roots in our younger days. Likewise, what we do right in our youth can also offer ourselves better protection when we become old. One such instance is insuring ourselves against calamities such as severe disabilities in our old age
Today, one in two healthy Singapore residents aged 65 could become severely disabled in their lifetime, not that rare after all. The number of severely disabled Singapore residents aged 65 and above is expected to increase from 29,000 in 2014 to 69,000 in 2030, more than double.
Severe disabilities can also be long drawn. The median duration for which Singapore residents remain in severe disability is about four years. Yet, about three in 10 can remain in severe disability for a decade or more.
These are not insignificant numbers, especially since severe disabilities can seriously strain one's psychological, physical and financial well-being. Yet, not everyone is protected.
Therefore, similar to the philosophy underpinning MediShield Life, it is important that we consider and support CareShield Life. Through a public insurance such as CareShield Life, we pool our risks and money to help fellow Singaporeans in need, sustainably. We are a society that believes in compassion and inclusivity. Schemes, like CareShield Life, translate such beliefs into real actions.
Despite the clear imperative for CareShield Life, it is, nonetheless, a very complex scheme to understand, even for younger Singaporeans. Different age groups start in different years and even within the same cohort, there can be sub-groups. For example, there are those who enrol in CareShield Life and those who remain in ElderShield. If one thought MediShield Life was complex, CareShield Life topped it.
Hence, effective communications to address the \"why\" and \"how\" are critical to a successful implementation of CareShield Life.
In the first part, I would like to talk about the \"why\" – persuading the young. From 2020, all Singaporeans born in 1980 or after will automatically be enrolled into CareShield Life, regardless of pre-existing conditions or disabilities.
Despite the high probability, our young today question the need for the scheme to be made mandatory for all. This is, understandably so. Many, who are still in the prime of health, do not anticipate severe disabilities when they age. Many also do not see the urgency in planning for the possibility of age-related disabilities at this point. Hence, they want to preserve their autonomy in choosing whether and when to enrol themselves in a universal public insurance scheme.
Furthermore, the sense of importance for risk pooling is diminished when they observe that the total claim of $100 million is only a small fraction of the total premium collection of $2.6 billion as at end 2015. \"What happens to the huge sum of money remaining in the pool?\", they ask. \"Who pockets the rest?\", the more cynical amongst them may also ask.
To be fair, these concerns were answered before. But such concerns remain today. Perhaps, people missed it and the message bears repeating. But I think it is also because there are too few stories of \"success\" in the case of ElderShield and too many stories of difficult claims that breed scepticism. Hopefully, with CareShield Life to be managed fully by the Singapore Government, Singaporeans' confidence in the scheme will be boosted.
Interesting to note, private life insurance hardly needs persuasion, despite events qualifying for claims being relatively rare. As at 2018, life insurance sales grew at 7%. Yet, the total claim amount due to deaths and disabilities in 2018 was about 0.1% of the total sum insured. There is strong awareness of the need for life insurance, and credit goes to the army of insurance agents who actively educate the population on the ground face-to-face – a point worth pondering.
Next, talking about supporting women. Women policyholders are expected to pay a higher premium than men. This stands out starkly. The main reason articulated was that women have a longer life span on average and risks being disabled for a longer period of time.
Arguably, however, the idea of a public insurance plan is to pool risks and resources to help one another. Thus, should women not be allowed to pay the same amount of premium as the men in their respective cohort?
Moreover, women tend to \"lose out\" to men in earnings and savings, in part due to them exiting from the workforce early to care for their families. Many sacrificed their prime years to stay home and care for their loved ones. The years away from work mean they may have little or significantly less savings in their MediSave. These women may also not come from well-to-do families, who have little to contribute to their MediSave even if they wish to. There is also no guarantee that their spouse or children, if they have any, will pay for their extra premiums.
How then we ensure fairness and equity in the system? For women who may have lost out to their male peers at work or who have made financial sacrifices for their families, what help can they look to receive? Could older and lower-income women receive more premium rebates so that they do not lose out even more?
Next, I would like to talk about communicating the \"how\" – \"customer\" experience. CareShield Life will see different years of commencement and impact on different age groups. Premium payments also differ across age groups and possibly within cohorts. These different ways of \"slicing\" ensure as many people are covered as possible, but it can be highly confusing and soliciting buy-in will also be much harder. So, again, well-planned and targeted communications are imperative to a successful implementation.
If the scheme cannot be simplified, the claim experience must certainly be simplified, and it must not disappoint. A straightforward claim process comprising a one-stop solution without the need to approach different agencies for different documents will be useful and avoid the accusation of CareShield Life being a sinister plan that takes money from the people without the sincerity of giving back when needed. More importantly, when a person is already severely disabled, he or she cannot withstand complex processes.
Overall, we could benefit from communicating how our Long-Term Care works in Singapore better and clearer. This Bill specifically covers the establishment of the Long-Term Care Support Fund. This is useful but we know Long-Term Care is more than just a fund. As we improve the Long-Term Care system over the years, we have been making announcements in piecemeal fashion. This is understandable as we communicate whenever a new initiative becomes available. But the general public may not remember every initiative and consciously piece everything together.
Therefore, may I humbly suggest the Government consider the following.
Firstly, consistently educating and publicising how we deal with ageing in Singapore, specifically the principles and mechanics of our Long-Term Care system. This could be done in schools as part of national education, through common touch-points in the course of our lives and, of course, the usual mass media.
Second, high touch method of engaging target groups when implementing and communicating complex schemes such as CareShield Life. For example, akin to how insurance agents make complex insurance schemes easy to understand, could there be a network of trained policy agents who would reach out to Singaporeans at the workplace or at home to explain complex schemes to them? Even the most well-meaning policies can fail if we fail to help Singaporeans understand and solicit their support.
Finally, discussions so far focused on passively dealing with the challenges of old age and severe disabilities. We should also explore prevention and ways to minimise the risk. In a 2015 report by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, it stated that there is a growing body of research literature underscoring the importance of fostering good health and habits in life to prevent or postpone the onset of morbidity at older ages. This should apply to age-related disabilities as well.
Therefore, we must continue our efforts in encouraging healthier lifestyles and to do so from young. Healthy outcomes are not just important from a financial burden perspective, but because we love life. And therefore, for those who have proven to engage in healthy activities and maintained good health past, say, 60 years old, could their premiums be reduced or could rebates be given as a way of encouragement to reinforce this very positive behaviour?
Next, may I please continue in Mandarin?
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, in 2014, we had a vigorous debate on MediShield Life in Parliament and passed the Bill. The purpose of passing that Bill was to provide universal healthcare insurance coverage so that all Singaporeans can enjoy basic healthcare protection. Besides Government subsidies and our own MediSave savings, MediShield Life can help us cope with unforeseeable circumstances. The concept behind it is risk-pooling whereby everyone’s money is pooled together to allow people in need to pay for massive medical expenses. Everyone has an equal chance.
In principle and theory, CareShield Life and MediShield Life are the same.
Our population is now ageing rapidly. Our family size is also shrinking. It is inevitable that Singaporeans must support each other through thick and thin. Moreover, statistics show that one in two Singaporeans aged 65 years and above will become severely disabled later in life. This is a very high probability. Therefore, the implementation of MediShield Life and CareShield Life is to prepare people not just for their own but others' future as well.
I am sure we are all clear about the importance of CareShield Life after last year's and today's debate. In my view, the key to the successful implementation of CareShield Life lies upon whether the Government can communicate it well, how it can explain the scheme in a targeted manner and address queries from different groups. When MediShield was introduced, many people felt that it was a very complex policy. In truth, CareShield Life is even more complicated. Therefore, we must communicate it well. Otherwise, if people do not understand, they would not support it. If they do not support it, unhappiness may occur.
Hence, I hope that while we promote CareShield Life, we must also focus on communication and engage the people wholeheartedly. And this should not be limited to CareShield Life alone. We must let Singaporeans, young and old, to understand the concepts and methods of our eldercare system within the overall picture of the long-term care framework.
Here, I have some humble suggestions.
Firstly, the Government can consider using the various mass media channels to publicise the concepts and mechanisms of our long-term care system. For example, we can, through civic education or ways that do not require exams, allow Singapore students to understand how we cope with the challenges of ageing and how we care for the aged, so that they are prepared at a young age.
Secondly, the Government can also consider setting up a network of volunteers who are familiar with public policies to reach out to workplaces and the community to explain complicated policies to Singaporeans. Through such face-to-face in-depth explanations, I believe Singaporeans will be able to understand those important but not necessarily popular policies.
Frankly speaking, the Government has taken a great deal of pain to look after the elderly. We all can see that. In the past, the Government has introduced many eldercare schemes and programmes, including CareShield Life. Earlier this year, we introduced the Caregiver grant worth $200 every month; and in the Pioneer Generation Package, we provide additional support to the disabled among the Pioneer Generation worth $100 per month. All these various subsidies and support packages are aimed at better looking after the elderly and giving them long-term care.
Earlier on, the esteemed Member Mr Chen Show Mao mentioned that the care given under CareShield Life is not enough and that $600 can only pay for part of the expenses of the severely disabled. I am curious to learn from Mr Chen in what way can the Government do better. On a macro level, we have many different packages and subsides, I would like to know from Mr Chen what are the areas that we can improve on.
In fact, there are many suggestions raised in Parliament, not just from Mr Chen, for the Government to consider. However, when we raise these suggestions, we must be aware that after all, someone will have to pay for it. The government need to allocate precious resources to the things we ask for and it must balance different interests and trade-offs to formulate the best possible policies to help Singaporeans. The efforts that the Government has made is not simple at all.
Lastly, when we are looking at issues pertaining to long-term care and ageing, we tend to be a bit passive. We should adopt more proactive measure, such as encouraging Singaporeans to pay attention to their diet when they are young, stay fit, so that they can have a healthy foundation as they grow old and be able to enjoy a happy retirement life. To encourage people to stay healthy, can the Government consider emulating private insurers and offer CareShield premiums rebate or discount to those who actively exercise and stay healthy after 60?
(In English): Sir, in English. Sir, there is a real need for Singapore to get ready for the consequences of an ageing population. My sincere hope is that we will all enjoy good health, lead a full and fulfilling life, and rather than having to spend on our care needs, are able to spend on things that we enjoy. But we can never be sure of what will happen to us in the years to come.
It would be too late if we only start to worry or find ways to finance our care needs later in life when our familial obligations intensify; or worse, when we suffer disabilities. It is also unsustainable and unfortunate if we have to burden future generations – which is by the way shrinking because of our ageing population – to fund our own care needs.
Very importantly, CareShield Life provides better long-term care and protection for all Singaporeans. This does not mean that the Government can cut back its support; this does not exonerate individuals from exercising personal responsibility, but this does enable us to pool our risks and help our fellow countrymen through times of need. In a society that expounds the importance of compassion and inclusion, all of us will need to contribute, in ways big or small, in one way or other. With that, I support the Bill.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Senior Minister of State's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Deputy Whip. Senior Minister of State Ms Sim Ann.
The Deputy Government Whip (Ms Sim Ann): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present 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 the Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong's speech\".
Mr Deputy Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Deputy Whip have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
\t[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
\t[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
\t[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong's speech.\" – [Ms Sim Ann]. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Mr Edwin Tong.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the various Members in this House for having spoken up in support of the Bill – Members from all sides of this House. I will round up this debate on behalf of Minister Gan.
As Minister Gan has outlined, Singaporeans are living longer and healthier. However, many of us will face the risk of severe disability and require long-term care at some point in our lives. Therefore, it is important that we protect ourselves and our families. I would like to assure Members that even as we enhance our long-term care financing system, implement the CareShield Life Scheme, we are and have been enhancing existing infrastructure and the eco-system for care. We have been rolling out services to support Singaporeans in old age and we have more than doubled in this respect the home care and day-care places since 2011. We continuously look at key aspects of ageing and also the related issues around successful and active ageing, including, as Mr Perera has exhorted, the use of technology.
I thank the Members for the various suggestions, questions and queries in the course of this debate. I will like to use the opportunity to round up the debate and address those queries by focusing on the core principles behind the design of this financing scheme. I will anchor the response around the key principles of inclusiveness, affordability and sustainability.
Let me start with inclusiveness. An inclusive long-term care financing system is one that supports all Singaporeans and enables them to afford essential basic long-term care. The design architecture of the Scheme must be to achieve that goal – to support Singaporeans and be able to do so while keeping premiums affordable.
First, in terms of coverage, the Bill reinforces and strengthens inclusiveness by making CareShield Life universal for future cohorts of Singaporeans born in or after 1980. Such a design is essential to protect vulnerable groups, such as the lower income and those with pre-existing disability.
For older existing cohorts of Singaporeans, which are those born in 1979 or earlier, we have kept CareShield Life optional for them as we acknowledge that the profile of this cohort, this group, is a lot more diverse. Many have previously decided to opt out from ElderShield, or may have made other long-term care financing arrangements of their own. In addition, the older cohorts would also have fewer economically active years left to spread out their premiums, and hence face higher entry premiums. Given that the Scheme remains optional for these cohorts, members of these cohorts will need to assess their own preparations, their own provisions for long-term care, when deciding whether or not to join CareShield Life.
To address Dr Chia Shi-Lu's point, we will provide ample Government support and incentives to encourage their participation in CareShield Life.
I would also like to assure Mr Png that those who are not severely disabled in existing cohorts can still join CareShield Life when it is launched in 2021. Mr Png also sought clarifications on clause 6(4). Let me explain that. This clause is used to cater for exceptional situations such as when someone had submitted an application for CareShield Life and it is being processed but, in the interim, fell into disability before the Scheme was effected or valid for this person. This clause allows the Minister to use flexibility to still provide CareShield Life cover on compassionate grounds. So, it is used in those limited exceptional circumstances and certainly not to be used arbitrarily.
As CareShield Life remains optional for existing cohorts, we will not be able to cover those in the existing cohorts who are already severely disabled, and I think Mr Png understands this point. Miss Cheryl Chan had raised this as well and I also hope that this addresses the point because if you cover everyone who is already severely disabled, that has an immediate impact on the premium that has to be borne by the remaining persons who subscribed onto the Scheme at that stage.
These individuals with pre-existing severe disabilities will be able to make claims immediately under the Scheme and so it is going to impact on the way in which you price the premiums for the rest of the members and also have an impact on whether their peers decide to join the Scheme or not. This is not a sustainable insurance scheme design. However, we will assist these Singaporeans with pre-existing disability in other ways and I will elaborate on them.
Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Christopher de Souza asked how ElderShield and ElderShield Supplement coverage will be affected. As Minister Gan has explained, ElderShield policyholders who decide not to join CareShield Life will remain covered by their existing ElderShield policy. I would also like to clarify that ElderShield Supplements will continue to be administered by the private insurers. ElderShield Supplement policyholders will remain covered by their existing Supplement policy, regardless of whether they upgrade to CareShield Life or not.
Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about encouraging existing cohorts who would not be auto-enrolled onto CareShield Life to join CareShield Life. I will reiterate what Minister Gan has shared, individuals born between 1970 and 1979 who are ElderShield policyholders and are not severely disabled will be offered the convenience of auto-enrolment. For those born in 1969 or earlier they will not be auto-enrolled, as their individual circumstances are far more varied, as I have explained.
In particular, there is a significant number of ElderShield 300 and uninsured individuals in the older existing cohorts, who will have to pay a catch-up component to join and get onto CareShield Life. They may thus prefer to have the option to choose to join CareShield Life at their instance instead of being auto-enrolled and that is the thinking behind the scheme mechanism.
Nevertheless, I agree with Er Dr Lee’s point that it is important to outreach to these groups too to help them understand, to raise awareness and certainly we are of the view that if we design a scheme that is good and well, it is of no use if people do not understand it and do not know it. So, I accept Er Dr Lee's point and I also in return urge all Members of this House to use opportunities that you have on the ground in your events to explain the policy, to explain the scheme design and to reach out and explain and deal with queries that your residents may have.
Ms Irene Quay and Ms Anthea Ong have asked about the schemes available to help younger severely disabled Singaporeans, in fact below the age of 30, including newborns and whether it is possible to extend CareShield Life to these people. CareShield Life is primarily designed to provide financial support for Singaporeans who become severely disabled during old age, which is when Singaporeans are most likely to need long-term care and support.
Notwithstanding that, we have other schemes available which are outside the scope of the current Bill but let me just outline some of them to help the younger severely disabled Singaporeans.
First, MediShield Life will help to support their bills for inpatient and selected outpatient treatments. They can also benefit from other assistance schemes such as the Assistive Technology Fund and the new Home Caregiving Grant, which I think Ms Ong mentioned, which does not have an age criterion. In addition, hospitals such as KKH and NUH offer programmes such as subsidised therapy services to help parents with children who need that specialised care. Finally, Government-funded safety nets such as MediFund and ComCare will also continue to provide additional assistance to needy Singaporeans.
On that score, I would like to assure Prof Fatimah that overseas Singaporeans can avail themselves of CareShield Life. They will be able to file CareShield Life claims from abroad wherever they may be, and to receive payouts to support their care costs in those chosen countries.
The second aspect of inclusiveness lies in making the claims process accessible and as seamless as possible, which several Members have raised queries and concerns about. Let me give Members a broad sense of the measures that we will be taking or have taken.
Beyond what Minister Gan has mentioned about increasing the number of accredited disability assessors to about 300, progressively expanding the types of disability assessments that can be accepted for claims and also proactively reaching out to disabled individuals to inform them of their eligibility for claims, we will also be waiving the first assessment fee for CareShield Life claims to further reduce any hesitation or reluctance that an individual policyholder might have in making the claim.
I would like to also assure Miss Chan that only one assessment is required, and furthermore, the same assessment can then be made for other schemes as well; other different multiple schemes.
In addition, policyholders need not pay for assessment fees for periodic disability reviews. Such periodic reviews are, however, important to ensure that we continue to make payouts only to policyholders who are and remain severely disabled, but to address Dr Neo's concern, we will be adopting a more targeted approach for periodic disability reviews. For example, policyholders who have been assessed to be clearly permanently disabled may then be exempted from further reviews.
I would like to assure Ms Ong that we understand and we accept her suggestion that we should indeed be assessing what an individual does, instead of what an individual can do. So, the focus is on the ability or inability to do something.
In particular, we have been working with experts to improve the disability assessment framework, to explicitly recognise the impact of cognitive impairment on physical ability. This is in line with requests from a number of Members for CareShield Life to also assist those who may have that mental condition or the cognitive impairment.
To elaborate on this, a policyholder may well be physically able to perform the various Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), but requires significant prompting or reminding as he is unable to remember what those steps might entail or how that is to be done. Under the current framework, assessors who may not be sure how to assess this policyholder might well classify him as not being disabled, being able to perform the ADLs since he can physically complete them.
Under the new framework and revised training curriculum, assessors will be guided with more information, more teaching and learning, and will be more explicitly guided on the aspects that should be taken into consideration if a policyholder is suspected to be cognitively impaired, including whether the policyholder's problem-solving ability and memory impacts his or her ability to actually carry out the physical acts of the ADL. This will result in cognitively impaired policyholders being able to more consistently qualify for CareShield Life claims.
Members have expressed concerns about vulnerable Singaporeans who may not be able to navigate the long-term care financing and social support landscape on their own. Again, as I said earlier, we understand this and we want to ensure that Singaporeans know and understand the schemes well – know how to make the claims, know when it applies to them and know what kind of claims to make.
AIC, which administers all of MOH's disability schemes, and in particular the Silver Generation Office under AIC, will be our key partner in providing Singaporeans with guidance on the disability schemes they are eligible for, and also how to apply.
To embed more touch-points in the community, we will create four more AICare Link touch-points co-located at Silver Generation satellite offices, and this will be done by end-2019.
At the same time, we will improve our coordination with the Social Service Offices and other Government touch-points within the community, so that our support for vulnerable Singaporeans is more cohesive and also resides more closely to where the residents and the policyholders might be. We will also continually review our various initiatives to consolidate and, as far as possible, simplify them. We encourage Members to continue to refer needy individuals – and I think we heard some stories earlier – refer them to us, give us some specifics and we will reach out and see how we can assist.
Third, we recognise that not everyone can afford or will be covered by ElderShield or CareShield Life. Members have asked for more to be done to help such seniors who need financial support for their long-term care needs.
The CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Bill facilitates this by providing for cash withdrawals from MediSave for long-term care. That is a more recent advent and one which we believe strikes the right balance.
The Bill also sets up the Long-Term Care Support Fund, which the Minister for Finance has committed to set aside $5.1 billion to service this Fund. ElderFund, the discretionary scheme for the lower income who are severely disabled, will be supported by this Long-Term Care Support Fund. Dr Lily Neo asked for more details on the eligibility criteria.
As Minister Gan has explained, this Scheme is targeted especially at Singaporeans who are unable to join CareShield Life, have low MediSave balances and also face financial difficulties in meeting their long-term care needs.
We recognise that individuals' circumstances from person to person may vary widely, and hence ElderFund is a discretionary scheme designed to take into account different circumstances as being applied to different persons. Singaporeans who are unable to meet their long-term care needs even after relying on other sources of financing can be considered for ElderFund.
In response Dr Chia's query on how we review ElderFund, we will review the adequacy of ElderFund payouts over time as we have more experience and we will also look at it in conjunction with several other factors that we determine the adequacy of the payout.
These new schemes and initiatives provided by this Bill should, however, not be seen in isolation, but instead, should be seen as complementary to the existing Government subsidies and assistance schemes. I have outlined a few such as ComCare and MediFund earlier.
Our system is designed to support all Singaporeans, regardless of their income levels. So, it is that to which I now turn on the question of affordability, the second key principle behind the design architecture of the Scheme.
Affordability involves keeping CareShield Life premiums affordably priced, whilst at the same time also providing premium assistance to those Singaporeans who need it.
There are several points. First, to ensure that CareShield Life premiums remain affordable, the ElderShield Review Committee had recommended that the CareShield Life Scheme focus on providing basic coverage for Singaporeans’ long-term care needs.
One of their recommendations was to keep the existing ElderShield claim criteria, which is the inability to perform at least three out of six activities of daily living (ADLs), a point that we have heard many Members touch on earlier.
Ms Ong, in particular, asked if CareShield Life payouts could be tiered based on the extent of disability. We have previously considered this. I think Ms Ong would also know that lowering the claims criteria to two ADLs would immediately increase the CareShield Life premiums of a 30-year-old policyholder by about one-third. That is anything in the order of 25% to 33% of increment, just by dropping down to two ADLs.
The premium increase for CareShield Life would likely be significantly and also exponentially higher if the claims criteria is then further lowered to one ADL, given the higher incidence and length of disability. Not only will there be more persons with one or two ADLs, as opposed to three, but the period of support, which is for life, will also be for longer. Both will have an impact on the amount of premium that will have to be collected.
The Committee had also recommended that CareShield Life payouts start at $600 per month, and increase over time. Dr Neo asked, and I think many others as well, such as Mr Chen Show Mao, if the payouts could be higher.
CareShield Life payouts already start at an amount which is, at present, significantly higher than the current ElderShield scheme. Increasing the starting payouts from $600 to, say, $800 a month would also increase premiums for a 30-year-old policyholder by around a third. So, recall I said at the start that we have to find a design architecture for the Scheme that is affordable and that meets the interest of basic long-term care of Singaporeans.
In addition, as Members would know, CareShield Life payouts are set to increase at 2% per year for the first five years of scheme implementation. Assuming a continued increase of 2% per year after that – so that is 2% thereafter after the five years – a 30-year-old joining the Scheme in 2020 may receive around $1,200 per month should he become severely disabled at age 67 or later. So, that is the projection that we take into account and also to keep up with the value of money over time.
So, for those reasons, we have kept the focus on basic long-term care needs, and looked at other ways to provide additional support. And I urge Members to remember that the payout from CareShield Life is intended and it is designed to be complementary. It complements the other pillars of financing support, not replace and not take over, and also not put in place and reduce others; it is to complement as an add-on. Lower and middle income Singaporeans, including those with moderate disabilities, will be supported with subsidies of up to 80% for residential and non-residential care services, and can also receive other disability grants.
For example, the existing Pioneer Disability Assistance Scheme and the new Home Caregiving Grant, which will be launched at the end of this year, will provide support for persons with moderate disability. So the threshold will be different from what is otherwise required in the CareShield Life Scheme.
In response to Dr Neo's query on the disability criterion and assessment process for the Home Caregiving Grant, I should explain that the Home Caregiving Grant is targeted at precisely that, the moderately disabled Singaporeans who require some assistance with at least three ADLs. This is less stringent than the severe disability claims criteria for CareShield Life and the current ElderShield, where a higher level of dependence is required for each ADL.
Dr Chia and others in this House asked about the type of Supplements that will be offered by private insurers and whether MediSave can be used to purchase the Supplements.
Singaporeans can purchase Supplements from the private insurers which currently provide coverage starting from two ADLs, and also a higher payout. So you can choose either one or both of these Supplements.
As with ElderShield Supplements, Singaporeans can use up to $600 of their MediSave annually, per insured person, to pay for CareShield Life Supplement premiums.
Dr Neo asked if the Government could administer these Supplements. As I explained earlier, our approach for the Government in this Scheme is to provide basic coverage, whilst at the same time allowing the private sector to innovate in the provision of supplementary coverage. We believe that there are benefits to be reaped, for instance, in the diversity and type of products that are being offered, by allowing private insurers to compete in this space beyond the basic tier.
Second, in response to Prof Fatimah's query, we keep premiums affordable by starting earlier. So, that is one principle behind why 30 and not 40, which is ElderShield. A 30-year-old would have been working for some years at that age, and starting premium payment at that stage lengthens the payment duration and also reduces the annual premium payable, making CareShield Life premiums more affordable and more within reach, including for a person who has started work for some time at around 30.
Third, we allow the use of MediSave for CareShield Life premiums, similar to the approach for MediShield Life and ElderShield today.
In response to Prof Walter Theseira's point, we allow the use of MediSave but judiciously, because we recognise that it may be difficult for individuals to save and plan ahead for long-term care.
We facilitate them starting these preparations early, by allowing individuals to tap on their existing savings in MediSave as another financing source, instead of requiring them to use only cash which, as the Member knows, will cause a strain in their cashflow. This also helps to buffer individuals against the vagaries of life, sometimes from unintended or temporary unemployment.
As a safeguard, we only allow MediSave to pay fully for basic healthcare and long-term care insurance. For additional coverage, we have set withdrawal limits to protect MediSave adequacy. This is in line with the discipline that Professor Theseira spoke about in the way in which we use MediSave to fund these schemes.
Mr Png also asked whether permitting MediSave uses for CareShield Life premiums would affect adequacy. The current MediSave contribution rates allow most working households in future cohorts and auto-enrolled existing cohorts to pay for CareShield Life, MediShield Life premiums and other healthcare needs from their monthly MediSave contributions.
Fourth, I would like to assure Members that the Government is committed to keeping the premiums affordable through the provision of subsidies. This includes permanent premium subsidies for lower and middle income policyholders. Ms Jessica Tan, Miss Cheryl Chan and Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked some questions about this. In addition, we will also provide incentives to encourage existing cohorts to join the scheme, and these incentives are netted off against their premiums. Younger cohorts will also receive transitional subsidies.
While at Mr Leon Perera's point, I would like to clarify clause 15 of the Bill that allows the offsetting of premium subsidies from premium refunds, for administrative ease. So, let me just illustrate it with a scenario. For example, if an auto-enrolled policyholder decides to opt out before the deadline of end 2023, which Minister Gan outlined, the premiums he had paid will be fully refunded and the mechanism that is being used is designed in clause 15. Any premium subsidies and incentives he received previously will then, of course, also be offset from this refund. So, you do not retain the subsidies whilst at the same time choosing to exit from the Scheme.
Separately, if the Council considers at its regular adjustments to consider premium rebates, for instance, in that situation, if there is a premium rebate to be paid to a policyholder, the rebate computation will not take into account the subsidy that has been given. So, if part of what you have been paying as a premium is assisted through the subsidy, then, the rebates that are given will not take that into account in giving the rebate to the policyholder. Instead, the rebate will be retained in the fund, for the benefit of all the other policyholders; and that, we believe is the fairest arrangement.
Mr Png also asked if the savings from Government administration have already been reflected in the CareShield Life premiums. Let me confirm that the CareShield Life premiums from existing cohorts are based on the expected expenses under Government administration and would thus have also reflected the savings that we expect to see from such administration.
In any case, any further savings will be fully returned to policyholders such as in the form of higher payouts or the premium adjustments that I just spoke about. In short, the Fund is not for profit and should there be any surpluses, it will be put back into the Fund for the benefit of all policyholders.
Next, I would like to assure Members that no one will lose coverage due to his or her inability to pay, but it has to be a genuine inability to pay, not just a refusal.
The Government will provide Additional Premium Support to Singaporeans who cannot afford CareShield Life premiums even after premium subsidies, MediSave and family support.
Dr Chia had a question about Additional Premium Support criteria for both CareShield Life and MediShield Life and whether we intend for it to be the same. An individual's additional premium support status will be shared across both CareShield Life and MediShield Life so that an individual would not be put through the task of having to apply for Additional Premium Support twice over.
Let me turn now to the third key principle which is that of sustainability. I think Members would agree that we must ensure that the long-term care financing system that we put in place must remain sustainable and must work in the long term. This is so that our children and the generations beyond that will not be unnecessarily and unduly burdened by the needs of the current generation. Let me elaborate with reference to a few points.
First, CareShield Life and ElderShield are designed to be self-sustaining schemes. So, that again is in the policy design. It is in fact hard wired when into the design of the schemes. So, as a result, these schemes are heavily pre-funded, with CareShield Life premiums payable until age 67 or spread over 10 years for older existing cohorts, and ElderShield premiums payable until age 65. This means that each cohort saves up for their own long-term care needs, and taps on these savings in their senior years, thereby minimising inter-generational transfers across cohorts. CareShield Life and ElderShield premiums are set based on this pre-funding principle, and in line with internationally-accepted industry standards and principles.
Several Members – Ms Anthea Ong, Ms Irene Quay and Ms Tin Pei Ling – have asked about gender-differentiated premiums. In particular, Ms Quay expressed concern that gender-differentiated premiums could start the trend of potentially differentiating premiums in future by reference to other factors, such as race and so on. We have explained this previously the actuarial basis for this feature, but we do recognise there are other factors at play. Let me just quickly recap it and address the points raised by Members.
Actuarially, it is recognised that women live longer, are more likely to experience severe disability, and live longer in severe disability. Let me just outline this with reference to some statistics and numbers using Singaporean-based profile and information.
In 2017, the average life expectancy at birth for women is 85.2 years as compared to 80.7 years for men. As individuals are more likely to become severely disabled in old age, women have a higher probability of becoming severely disabled in their lifetime. Three in five healthy women at age 65 are expected to become severely disabled, compared to two in five healthy men at age 65.
In addition, when disability happens, women are also likely to remain in disability for a longer period of time than men. Women aged 60 are expected to spend 7.8 years requiring assistance with any of the ADLs, compared to 2.6 years for men. And those are based on a study done in Singapore of Singaporean numbers. This means that women stand to receive more benefits from CareShield Life if you look at it across the spectrum, and hence, their actuarially priced premiums are higher.
We could average out the premiums across genders. I think some Members have alluded to that. But this only works if it was a fully universal scheme where there is no option.
As CareShield Life is optional for existing cohorts, gender-neutral premiums could well encourage male policyholders to stay on ElderShield and buy gender-differentiated Supplements from the private insurers, which may now then appear cheaper. As Members know, the ElderShield premiums are gender-differentiated. Conversely, female policyholders would now find CareShield Life a much better deal than the existing gender-differentiated ElderShield. This increases the risk of gender skewing in the risk pool as more women than men would join the CareShield Life Scheme. The gender-neutral premiums would become increasingly unsustainable and premiums would have to increase, possibly approaching the level women would have had to pay anyway under a gender-differentiated scheme, but without covering a significant proportion of men.
In response specifically to Ms Irene Quay's query, I should explain that actuarial differences in claims experience by gender is well-established both locally as well as globally. However, there is limited data to support such differences based on other factors such as race or genetic factors, which is why we look at this as an actuarial factor. So does ElderShield and ElderShield is supported by a series of other private insurers. In addition, I would also like to note that ElderShield Supplement premiums are not differentiated by race or genetic factors, the same factors that Ms Quay has outlined. And my Ministry will not allow insurers to do so. Hence, the concerns I have just explained with regard to gender would not apply, and there is no impetus for us to differentiate CareShield Life premiums using these factors.
Nonetheless, Members have raised fair concerns about affordability for women, and I think those are fair points, and the need for greater inclusiveness for a national scheme. But let me explain it this way. If you have seen the numbers that I have outlined, I would suggest that greater inclusivity also means ensuring that the actuarial integrity of the scheme in itself should be the proper basis for designing the scheme's terms and that in the long term ensures a fair long-term sustainable outcome.
We will, however, address affordability separately, including the points raised by Members, through the provision of means-tested premium subsidies and Additional Premium Support. The means-tested premium subsidies are intentionally designed to be based on a percentage of premiums so that lower and middle-income women will receive larger dollar quantum. So, in absolute dollar terms, the Government subsidises women more compared to the men in their age cohort and of the same income levels.
I would also suggest to Members in this House that a gender-neutral premium, or gender-neutral scheme design, might at first blush appear inclusive. But if you take into account the factors that I have outlined, looking at that in terms of the payouts and the expected payouts and for the period of those payouts, then in the longer term it would likely lead to women from existing cohorts opting into CareShield Life, and men choosing to stay away. We would then have a gender-skewed coverage, and this would have the unintended effect of further worsening national solidarity over the Scheme, in the longer term.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Mr Png Eng Huat and Mr Leon Perera amongst others asked what information about the administration of CareShield Life, the management of the insurance fund, and the premium pricing methodology – what information will be available. Let me assure Members that the Scheme will be transparent. Minister Gan has explained earlier, the accounts of the CareShield Life and ElderShield Insurance Fund will be made public. We will also publish relevant information on the premiums collected and payouts made for the CareShield Life and ElderShield Insurance Fund on an annual basis. The public can be assured that the information shared will be similar to that for MediShield Life, and the CareShield Life Council will also consider what other information might be useful having regard to industry norms.
As we explained in Parliament in July last year when we debated the White Paper, premium pricing is an extremely complex exercise, and, in coming up with a scheme design, MOH has engaged professional actuarial consultants to construct an actuarial model to do so. For example, underlying assumptions include mortality and morbidity assumptions, and how these change over time and over age for the population. Given these complexities, instead of just publishing a large number of actuarial tables, it is a lot more meaningful to release relevant information in a manner that can be easily understood and reviewed by a layperson.
I think Mr Png had a query on the US numbers; he had the 52% numbers. The query, I think, centred on the statistic that in the US, 52% of elderly would require long-term care assistance and asked whether this was taken into account. This along with information coming out from the UK and Japan was not taken into account in computing the premium in this case. On the assumptions backing one in two that was shared previously – and I think that was the point Mr Png also raised – MOH had engaged the professional advice of actuaries to compute this estimate, using the assumptions, parameters and the model that I spoke about earlier.
The projections are based on ElderShield claims experience but also draw information from a wider range of cross-sectional and longitudinal sources, given the limited experiences at older ages. As shared previously, the actuarial pricing data we look at includes insurance schemes in the US, Taiwan and South Korea. It does not mean we used their data wholesale. It looks at the models they have there, looks at our claims experience with ElderShield, draw them together, use the models and get the expertise of the actuaries and provide the scheme design.
At the end of the day, I should emphasise that if the actual claims experience was better than expected – in other words to take Mr Png's point – if we were more conservative with designing the scheme, that if the premiums collected are more than what is needed, then any surpluses from any of these excess premiums will be fully returned to policyholders, for their benefit. The Council could recommend for the surpluses to be returned in a number of ways such as higher payouts over the years, reduced premium increases over the years, or premium rebates. We intend to give the Council the flexibility to study factors and to make recommendations so that they adequately respond to changing circumstances and the needs on the ground.
I should also outline that there is a publication by the Singapore Actuarial Society that is now available publicly. It provides a broad explanation of the key pricing assumptions and risks for long-term care insurance, the challenges for pricing long-term care insurance, the concept, the thinking behind the models and also, advantages of pre-funding for long-term care insurance. If Members are interested, this technical paper was recently released by the Singapore Actuarial Society.
Mr de Souza asked about inter-generational equity given that monies for both CareShield Life and ElderShield schemes will be placed in the same insurance fund. Let me assure the Members that moneys for the schemes are placed in a common insurance fund for capital and administrative efficiency. For example, Government capital injections into the insurance fund, which are meant to support tail-end risks, can benefit the capital needs of both schemes. However, monies maintained for CareShield Life and ElderShield will be tracked and accounted for separately. I would like to emphasise that monies collected for one scheme will not be used to fund the other scheme.
Secondly, we will establish the CareShield Life Council as a key safeguard over scheme sustainability in the long term. The CareShield Life Council will be independent and will review and make recommendations for both the CareShield Life and ElderShield schemes.
As Minister Gan had explained earlier, one key role of the Council will be to make recommendations to the Ministry on the adjustments to CareShield Life premiums and payouts to ensure sustainability. In response to Dr Chia’s question on how often the premiums and payouts will be reviewed, let me assure Dr Chia that the Council will monitor the disability trends and claims experience of the schemes closely and on a regular basis. Let them decide how regular they feel they need to and it is possible that the review regularity may be more in the earlier years, as we start the administration of the scheme. We will then determine the exact cycle for the adjustments thereafter, in consultation with the Council.
To enable the Council to perform its functions, the Council will comprise individuals with different, diverse backgrounds, ranging from healthcare practitioners, medical social workers, auditors, investment professionals, union members and also, an actuary who is a Fellow of the Singapore Actuarial Society, as Ms Quay has suggested. The Council will also be supported by independent, external actuarial consultants.
Third, again similar to MediShield Life, the Bill also includes provisions for premium payment enforcement to enable us to take action against wilful CareShield Life premium defaulters.
The principle behind this is clear. You have to be fair to all policyholders and individuals do need to play their part by keeping up with and paying the CareShield Life premiums. Enforcement provisions are therefore necessary to ensure that wilful defaulters pay their premiums, instead of having their premiums unduly borne by other policyholders.
Fourth – and Mr de Souza raised this point – we intend to take a strong hand against fraudulent assessments and misuse of payouts. The Bill provides that maximum fines and penalties for the offences of fraudulent assessment and misuse of payouts will be twice the maximum fine and penalty for the offence of false declaration. This is commensurate with the more severe nature of these offences and also having regard to the fact that a nominated payee is acting on behalf of someone who is disabled.
To Dr Chia’s query on how we can further guard against fraudulent claims, let me assure Members that regular audits will be conducted. No audit will be 100% foolproof, but audits will be done, patterns will be studied, to sieve out potential fraudulent claims. So, for instance, we might look at cases where a claimant who was assessed to be severely disabled and then subsequently assessed not to be not disabled at all, within a short period of time. These markers will allow my Ministry to look into further cases and investigate them.
To Miss Chan’s query on whether we will audit nursing homes or service providers who have access to their patients’ payouts, let me first clarify that these providers generally only have access to the payouts if the policyholder or the care-giver had nominated these providers to receive the payouts on their behalf.
Where the policyholder lacks mental capacity to do so or/and is destitute, the nursing home can act on his behalf to apply for payouts, but this will be on very exceptional circumstances. Let me assure Miss Chan that we will audit providers who receive these payouts to ensure that they are using the payouts in the interest of the policyholder and towards the policyholder's care.
We would like to make clear that the audit and enforcement framework is not intended to penalise bona fide assessors or care-givers. Sometimes, genuine bona fide mistakes are made, and sometimes, to answer Mr de Souza, what might be a reasonable position. One could consider a situation where a care-giver living with a policyholder who uses part of the benefits for household expenses of the policyholder’s family, when the policyholder's needs are already well taken care of. So, in other words, part of the same household, needs are already taken care of, and the funds which are fungible are applied for another reason when the basic needs of the policyholder are already taken care of. So, in those situations, we do not intend to penalise the care-giver.
To Mr de Souza's other query, it is indeed our intent to return payouts to policyholders in the event of misuse.
The fines and penalty structure meted out under clause 50(2) of the Bill is to be paid to the Consolidated Fund – the fines go into the Consolidated Fund. However, clause 50(3) provides for the Courts to order the errant payee to refund payouts he or she has received into the CareShield Life and ElderShield Insurance Fund. So, those wrongfully received payouts will be put back into the Fund for the administrators to consider giving to the proper payee.
These monies can then be paid to that person or a nominated payee at the directions of the policyholder or the policyholder’s care-giver.
Like Ms Joan Pereira and Dr Chia, we do take a serious view on data confidentiality and the safeguards in the Bill reflect this, as Minister Gan has elaborated upon earlier. Some Members were concerned about the security of the CareShield Life IT system. We will design and build the system to stringent security standards, for example, by restricting system access to only approved users, encrypting data sent across organisations, and also monitoring and tracking system activity.
Fifth, we must ensure that MediSave monies remains adequate to meet an individual’s healthcare needs in old age. We all want to do a lot; we all want more payouts; we all want less premium, and we want there to be lower ADLs. That I think is a summary of the debate that we had today. But remember what I said at the outset, it must be designed for a broad majority of Singaporeans and kept affordable, and I think that has to be the design intent. I would also like to borrow Prof Theseira's point, so eloquently put, that we do have to use these schemes judiciously, we have to have an internal discipline to what can or cannot be used out of MediSave.
Members have raised several queries on the withdrawals from MediSave for long-term care. And some have also asked for the criteria to be relaxed and so that we can extend the withdrawals to that of severely disabled children, parents or siblings. And yet others in this House have expressed concerns over the sufficiency of MediSave, given the increased flexibility.
It is important to remember that MediSave's primary purpose is to help Singaporeans save up during their working years for their healthcare needs in the old age. As a general broad proposition, I think that would find no quarrel. Expansions or increases in MediSave usage will obviously impact adequacy for other healthcare needs, and they have to be considered carefully, as Prof Theseira has outlined.
As a first step, MOH has extended MediSave cash withdrawals to the severely disabled in view that their care needs are typically higher – more intensive and higher. As we recognise that the amount withdrawn can be significant depending on the length of the disability, we have started by proceeding cautiously by limiting the use of MediSave withdrawals for long-term care to the member or the member’s spouse only. This ensures that the MediSave adequacy of the severely disabled member’s children and their ability to afford current and future healthcare expenses are not impacted. So, that is also a cross-generation issue that Mr de Souza alluded to earlier.
Singaporeans who are in financial need and have low MediSave balances may apply for other Government schemes, such as ElderFund, to obtain additional support for their long-term care costs.
Mr de Souza, I think, asked about $5,000 – why $5,000 as a floor for MediSave withdrawal. It has been set to ensure that Singaporeans have some savings to help pay for their other healthcare bills, whilst at the same time allowing immediate access to MediSave for long-term care needs. It is really about striking the right balance between the two competing interests.
Next, we have planned ahead, with the Minister for Finance, setting aside the monies for the Long-Term Care Support Fund in advance.
Let me just respond to Dr Neo's and Prof Fatimah's question on how long the monies in the Long-Term Care Support Fund is designed to last for. I would like to explain that the majority of the monies in this Support Fund will be directed to existing cohorts as they are older and they are expected to form the majority of CareShield Life policyholders at the start. The majority of ElderFund beneficiaries are also expected to be in these cohorts given the higher prevalence of disability in old age.
This Support Fund is sized to be more than adequate for these cohorts as they age into their silver years. So those are the parameters, and this is the cohort that we intend to look after with this Fund. Nonetheless, as we progress and as there are more information and more claims experience, we will review the adequacy of the Long-Term Care Support Fund on a regular basis.
Sir, I have covered the three key principles undergirding the design of our long-term care financing system and the various safeguards and supporting provisions in the Bill. All three principles are essential for us to deliver a financing support system that can benefit all Singaporeans, regardless of income levels or disability status, for generations and, we hope, generations to come.
Let me turn now to the last topic on communication and outreach efforts. Members have asked about our communication and engagement efforts on the new schemes, and our efforts to explain the importance of planning ahead for long-term care.
Since May 2018, we have in fact been busy engaging the public on these enhancements to our long-term care financing system.
The Ministry has held over 60 public briefings and engagement sessions to-date and will continue to do more and spread information on this and educate the public, explain queries and help them with looking at their own landscape and deciding whether or not CareShield Life is suitable for them. This is on top of the numerous briefings which I am sure all of us in this House would have diligently done at our grassroots events over the weekends and so on. And I ask as I did earlier, that this continue.
As the Minister has mentioned earlier, CareShield Life will be launched around mid-2020 for Singaporeans born in or after 1980. Given that these cohorts are younger, our engagement efforts for them will also have to be tailored to media platforms that are typically used by that generation of people. So, social media, for instance.
We aim to progressively launch CareShield Life for existing cohorts born in 1979 or earlier from mid-2021.
We will commence engagement efforts for these cohorts closer to the launch in 2021.
Other than mass outreach in this fashion, the Silver Generation Ambassadors will also conduct face-to-face engagement with older Singaporeans in the existing cohorts. I hope this assures Members that the Ministry's efforts to ensure that Singaporeans from the existing cohorts are aware of the scheme’s benefits and will be able to make a considered decision on whether to join CareShield Life.
Of course, in all of our engagement efforts, we will not just be explaining the features of CareShield Life.
As Ms Tin pointed out, we will need to address the \"why\", and that I think is equally important. We have to explain why this is useful, and why planning for long-term care is important.
We also need to set out holistically how the different pillars of long-term care financing support work together so that people, just as Members in this House have, will have a holistic view of the different schemes, the different support structures that exist in this space.
We should also explain how different types of basic insurance schemes such as MediShield Life, the Dependants’ Protection Scheme, and CPF LIFE – they all serve a different aim and purpose, and perhaps a different constituency of people, but they are all complementary in this landscape.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. As Singaporeans live longer, our healthcare system has to evolve to better serve the needs of Singaporeans.
We have put in place measures to help Singaporeans remain healthy for as long as possible, and on that I thank Dr Lee for so warmly embracing HPB's efforts. They will continue to do so. We do believe that going upstream to ensure that we keep the healthy well for as long as possible, should be the next bar.
At the same time, we will continue to invest in infrastructure and the services, as I outlined in the start of my speech, to support those who fall into disability. At the same time, we have built up our long-term care financing eco-system, with the introduction of various new schemes, based on the key principles of inclusiveness, affordability and sustainability.
The CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Bill contributes to that effort, strengthens the landscape in that space and enables the key pillars of this financing framework to be put together. As we continue to build on those efforts, I would like to urge the Members of this House to give your support to the CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, on that, I beg to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong. You are raising a clarification, right? This is for clarifications only.
Ms Anthea Ong: I am not going to make a long speech; do not worry. Thank you for the reminder. I thank the Senior Minister of State Mr Edwin Tong for his response. I appreciate that that was very comprehensive.
Could I just ask a very simple question regarding the gender-differentiated premiums? He mentioned earlier that the concern is that if we do it as gender-neutral premiums, then we are going to be worried about men not wanting to come on the scheme. I am finding it a bit of a struggle to understand how do we know that that would be the case? Maybe we should do a dip test here, but I just find that hard to understand. Could you please clarify that?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: If you follow the numbers that were outlined earlier – and that is one set of numbers and there are others that support this proposition as well – then, you would know that women, generally – I do not want to say specifically – generally will live longer, longer life expectancy. They fall into disability and require support for a longer period of time.
So, if you look at the scheme design, if you fall into serious, severe disability. You will make the qualification and the payouts are then given. For a typical woman, that payout will last for a longer period of time, and so the assets of the common fund will be depleted more quickly as regard a woman than it is for a man. Over time, that will have a bearing on the premium that will be payable.
When that happens, if you pay the premium in equal proportions between a man and a woman, and the man depletes the resources in the pool at a lower or slower rate than the woman, then you can see that there will be a differentiation. And over time, that differentiation will result in the man effectively paying for part of what the woman enjoys in the context of this scheme, which is why we made the point earlier – I think in the previous debate, last year, Minister Gan also made the point – that we try as far as possible to keep the scheme design and the terms of the scheme actuarially consistent. We look at what insurance typically do. Calculate it on the same basis, but at the same time, outside of the scheme, we look at ways and means to assist. And it is not just for the gender-differentiated premium. We assist also those at the lower income.
It is not built into the scheme's terms because that is not part of the actuarial calculations. But at the same time, we use that which makes the integrity of the scheme actuarially correct, but at the same time using additional support mechanisms to support those and help those who may not be able to afford it. So, I hope that answers the Member's question. But she may want to look at the paper that I can share with her that looks at this and looks at what impact this has on the way in which premiums are calculated.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the really wonderful wrap-up speech. But while I agree with him that adverse selection is going to be a problem if you have gender-neutral premiums in the private market, I wonder what are his views on whether this would be an issue in the mandatory component of CareShield Life. Because with the mandatory component, the Ministry is, in fact, free to have gender-neutral premiums without incurring any sort of adverse selection there. I think the issue, really, is although I generally believe prices must be right, there is an element of equity here and obviously many learned Members believe that it is important for there to be some kind of cost-sharing between the genders here. So, equity also is a consideration besides just prices being right, here.
Deputy Speaker: May I request that both clarifications and answers be kept short? We still have two more Bills after this.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Yes. The Member's point concerns the impact that a universal scheme might have. If the scheme was universal, there might well be different considerations, but this scheme, the way it is designed as the Member would know, is not universal. There is an option for the existing cohorts. And that is where the differentiation will result in there being an imbalance.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: I thank the Senior Minister of State for the round-up. I would just like to ask him clarifications fir the question I asked earlier, which is, if someone does not qualify because of the three ADLs, but with two ADLs or even one ADL, is somewhat unable to continue to work and earn an income and therefore has difficulties paying for the premium, is he or she still expected to continue to pay the premiums, in those kinds of situations?
The second area – and I seek the Deputy Speaker's indulgence on this – I did not want to speak about the gender aspect because I had read the report, but after hearing the Senior Minister of State's round-up speech, I have to ask some questions. Just as it is an actuarial view of the risk factors, it is also a lens that we all put on to look at which risk factor or which differentiated factor we look at. Last night when I read the report again on the burden of disease, I actually looked at it from a gender differentiation lens. And therefore, I came to the same conclusion that, actuarially, it is a fair system to have that differentiation. But having heard this and hearing the point about the fact that this is a partial universal system and all that, if we took from an actuarial standpoint another factor, that is the risk factors affecting the disease burden or the disability, and I go back —
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Tan, please do not make an advocacy for that point.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: Okay, sorry. On the point about the health factors that affect Singapore in 2017, it is really dietary risk, tobacco, high blood pressure and high blood sugar. A lot of these are due to lifestyle and also genetic factors. If we took that view and we put the same actuarial lens on it, then we would come to a different conclusion on the differentiation to be used for premium. I will leave it at that point.
I will ask the Senior Minister of State, with better experience, can we, at some point in time, with the experience of CashShield Life, as he has said it many times in his speech, can we re-look, with that data, the experience and the trends, to see if premiums could be adjusted, at that point in time with better knowledge and intelligence from the data?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I think the short answer to the second question is certainly yes. With more claims history, with the progress of the Scheme and with more information and obviously more studies done, all those will be taken into account as adjustments are made; and maybe even the design architecture of future schemes considered.
But for now, I think the Member will remember that I have cited the paper which says that the period of time that a woman is living in disability is about three times – 2.6 and 7.8, I think it was. And I think that is the type of number that actuaries would use to look at the calculations.
On the first point, if one is not at the severely disabled stage, then yes, the premiums do continue until the three ADLs is hit. But if the policyholder is unable to support it, then, she has heard from the Minister and myself, the whole series of support mechanisms will kick in to ensure that this person will not suffer a dropout from the policy, only because he is unable to pay his premium. And particularly, as the Member Ms Tan has mentioned, if it arises from the one or two ADLs and he has lost his job, then I think a case can be made for support to be given to this policyholder.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh. Clarifications; no more advocacy please.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just a quick question. Earlier on, there was a comparison about how high premiums could rise if we drop the qualifying criterion from three ADLs to two ADLs: that premiums will go up by one-third. Is there a similar calculation the Ministry has done if indeed there were gender-neutral premiums? How much more would men have to pay?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: We have not done this calculation simply because when we looked at it and when the Scheme was designed with actuaries, that was the component that was put in. This was the recommendation of the actuaries. When you look at the way in which the current ElderShield policies are designed as well, that is no different. I will make one other point, that when we look at the – the Member's earlier point was on the way in which we designed the Scheme?
Mr Pritam Singh: No, just this question.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Just that? Okay.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yee Chia Hsing. Last clarification.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing: Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask about additional support for those families who are currently struggling with senior care, and who need to hire helpers or to put their seniors in nursing homes, for MediFund, the trigger at present is when the families cannot pay their hospital bills. The medical social worker will then be triggered. But for these families, since they put the seniors in nursing homes or since they need to hire a helper, what is the trigger point to let the agencies know that these families actually need additional help?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: That is a broad question and I would say that we have a broad number of options available. When the Member said \"trigger point\", I am not sure I follow. But obviously when a family is in need of assistance, there is a whole series of schemes that can be invoked – and I do not want to repeat them but I have outlined them and the Minister has outlined them. The Member mentioned a helper, the Home Caregiving Grant does serve that need as well. And the criteria there is, of course, as I have mentioned earlier, the threshold is lower than the current CareShield Life ADL criteria.
So, I hope that addresses at least a part of the Member's question. If there is a specific point that the Member wishes to follow-up on, I am happy to do so offline.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Gan Kim Yong]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment) Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
This Bill is linked to the next Bill on our Order Paper – the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments (Repeal) Bill or the RECJA Repeal Bill. Sir, may I therefore propose, with your permission, that the substantive debate on both Bills take place now. Members would be welcome to raise questions or express their views on both Bills during the debate. We will still have the formal second reading of the RECJA Repeal Bill to ensure that procedural requirements are dealt with. However, this proposal to have the substantive debate for both Bills take place now, will allow for the substantive arguments to be captured cogently in a single debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please proceed.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir. Sir, over the past few years, MinLaw has been working on strengthening Singapore's position as a centre for international dispute resolution. To this end, we have built up a suite of well-regarded international dispute resolution services – the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) as well as the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC). We have also bolstered our infrastructure significantly to support the growing demand for these services. Most recently, the opening of the Maxwell Chambers Suites has tripled Maxwell Chambers' size in terms of offerings for venues for dispute resolution, meeting places and also working spaces.
Integral to effective international dispute resolution is the ability to enforce judgments, awards and settlements – not just in the countries where they were obtained but also in the countries where the parties' assets are located. For businesses and investors, enhanced frameworks for cross-border recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, awards and settlements would increase legal certainty and reduce the costs and uncertainties associated with cross-border dealings and disputes.
Singapore actively participates in and supports the development of appropriate multilateral frameworks for the enforcement of judgments, awards and settlements resulting from international dispute resolution. We are parties to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Just last month, we signed and hosted the signing ceremony of the Singapore Convention on Mediation – the first United Nation's Convention to be named after Singapore – which will complete the picture by filling in the long-standing gap in the enforcement of cross-border mediated settlements.
In terms of foreign court judgments in civil proceedings which fall outside of the Hague Convention framework, Singapore's existing legislative framework consists of two Acts – the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act or RECJA, and the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act or REFJA. These Acts have not been updated since their enactment under the British colonial administration and the number of jurisdictions under Singapore's reciprocal enforcement of judgments regime is very low.
Further, only money judgments from superior courts of recognised jurisdictions may be enforced by registration. Money judgments from other foreign jurisdictions may still be enforced by common law, but this would entail commencing a fresh action in Singapore to enforce a debt, which may then be costlier and also more time-consuming. This route would obviously not be desirable for foreign litigants.
Singapore has a vision to be the premier dispute resolution hub in Asia, if not the world. As mentioned earlier, we have developed a comprehensive range of institutions and infrastructure. In terms of our legal regime, we have entered into a network of international agreements so as to enhance the recognition and enforcement of judgments, awards and settlement agreements from Singapore. It is therefore timely, that we supplement the existing regime, to further strengthen Singapore's value proposition for litigants considering where to resolve their disputes.
Comparable Commonwealth jurisdictions, such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand, have already expanded their regimes to cover more types of civil judgments, or civil judgments from more tiers of courts. This Bill seeks to bring our legislation in line with international developments. It will give us the flexibility and the framework to expand our network of bilateral arrangements.
This Bill, together with the RECJA Repeal Bill, will consolidate our statutory regime on the reciprocal enforcement of foreign judgments into a single framework. Let me now explain the main features of the reconstituted regime.
First, the new framework expands the scope of reciprocal arrangements that Singapore can enter into with foreign countries, by allowing more types of judgments to be covered by these arrangements. As mentioned earlier, currently, the scope of judgments that such arrangements can cover is limited. Only two main types of judgments are covered – and I think the legal practitioners in this House will know – that the Act covers final money judgments given by foreign superior courts in civil proceedings, which would in this case, include foreign judgments that might be based on a right of action conferred by a regulatory statute but otherwise provides for compensation. So, it is the compensatory aspect that would also be caught in the current regime.
Secondly, final judgments given by foreign superior courts in any criminal proceedings for the payment of damages or compensation to an injured party. Penal orders, punitive fines and confiscation or forfeiture orders made in criminal proceedings do not fall within the present or the proposed – if this Bill is passed – scope of the REFJA.
The Bill will expand and modernise the framework by adding four types of judgments given in civil proceedings. So we will bring in four more types of judgments in civil proceedings into the fold recognised by REFJA.
First, non-money judgments. This will enable litigants to realise a fuller range of remedies granted by the Courts. Non-money judgments include:
(a) Freezing orders, injunctions which prevent a party from dealing with assets, to ensure that assets remain available to satisfy an eventual money judgment. So if a party has assets in Singapore, there is a freezing injunction that is ordered in the foreign country, if it is under REFJA, this will then be brought into the fold as well;
(b) It also includes injunctions which require a party to do or to refrain from doing an act; and finally
(c) Orders for specific performance which require a party to perform the obligations under a contract, usually to complete a sale and purchase or some other matter where the proceed or the item that is sought is of intrinsic value.
Ordinarily, the judgment creditor of a foreign non-money judgment seeking recognition and enforcement of this judgment requires the Singapore Courts' assistance so that the orders in the foreign judgment may be effected in Singapore. There may, however, be practical difficulties, or issues of policy and convenience in recognising and enforcing foreign non-money judgments, especially if given by a court from a different legal system. The Bill therefore gives our Courts the discretion to only register a non-money judgment if it is satisfied that the enforcement of the judgment would be just and convenient. If the Court is of the opinion that such enforcement would not be just and convenient, then the Court may order the registration of such amount as it considers to be the money equivalent of the relief.
Let me just explain that. If a Court considers that the recognition of an order which requires the doing of an Act or the refraining from doing of an Act is not just and convenient, then the Court would consider what is an equivalent monetary value and order that in its place.
For instance, where the Court finds that it would not be just and convenient to grant specific performance or an injunction, it may then grant damages in lieu of the relief. Damages may be assessed on a compensatory or restitutionary basis, in accordance with established principles on assessment of damages, so as to arrive at a fair equivalent of what is lost by the refusal of the non-money relief. In doing so, the Court would consider the value of the foreign non-money relief being effected in Singapore, given that what the judgment creditor seeks is for the non-money relief to be effected in Singapore. So the assessment tenet is based on the performance in Singapore.
Second, lower court judgments. This Bill will also allow for the recognition and enforcement of judgments from both lower and higher courts. This will also open the doors for judgments from our State Courts to be enforced overseas, the Bill being reciprocal in nature.
Third, interlocutory judgments. This will strengthen the enforceability of judgments, including by ensuring that assets are not dissipated before a final judgment is obtained so that the successful claimants are not left with only a \"paper\" judgment. This ties in with my earlier point, where injunctions sometimes, instead of being final in nature, are also interim or interlocutory in nature. This Bill also contemplates the recognition of this type of judgments. The ability to enforce Singapore interlocutory judgments in foreign jurisdictions – in other words, the converse – will enhance the attractiveness of Singapore Courts to litigants.
Fourth, judicial settlements, consent judgments and consent orders. Arrangements between parties concluded before a Court to end the Court proceedings should equally be recognised and enforced like a judgment so as to afford parties certainty of finality in their disputes and to respect the parties' binding commitment. This amendment will also bring the regime under the REFJA in line with that under the Choice of Court Agreements Act, which recognises and enforces judicial settlements, consent judgments and consent orders.
These reforms provide the broad statutory framework for Singapore to negotiate reciprocal enforcement agreements or arrangements with foreign countries. However, the precise scope of enforceable judgments will be decided and negotiated with each foreign country individually. So, the fact that we have the Act or the Bill being passed into the Act, does not automatically mean that there will be a whole series of countries that will come on board. What will happen thereafter is, armed with these amendments, we will then proceed to negotiate with foreign countries, and decide in the case of each country, what is suitable, what is appropriate and obviously, on a reciprocal basis.
The factors that will be taken into account will include factors, such as the compatibility of our respective court systems – Singapore's and the foreign courts' – the needs of users of our Court systems and, of course, our countries' respective interests. This means that while the reformed REFJA will provide a broad menu of options available for negotiation, Singapore might enter into an agreement or arrangement with Country A for the reciprocal enforcement of only a limited category of judgments, whereas with Country B, there could be reciprocal enforcement of the full range of judgments under the REFJA. It really depends on what is also being negotiated and what is also being offered by the reciprocal country.
Second, to ensure that the requirement for reciprocity is not circumvented or bypassed, the Bill provides that some types of foreign judgments will not be recognised. For example, if a judgment is given by a recognised court, on appeal from a court that is not a recognised court, in other words, it is an appeal, but it originates from a court that is not a recognised Court, then this will not be recognised under the framework. Or, conversely, where a judgment registered or enforced in a recognised court but which originated from a court that Singapore has no reciprocal enforcement arrangements with, will also fall outside the scope of the framework.
Third, to reduce fragmentation of the different regimes – and I think lawyers in practice will know, that for a long time, we have had to contend with the REFJA and then the RECJA – the RECJA Repeal Bill provides for the repeal of RECJA on a date to be stipulated by the Minister. Reciprocating countries currently recognised by the the RECJA are expected to be transferred over to the REFJA regime before the RECJA Repeal Bill comes into force, so it will be consolidated into one common Reciprocal Enforcement Act.
In conclusion, this Bill will:
(a) expand the scope of reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments that Singapore can offer to, and also at the same time receive from, other jurisdictions;
(b)\tin turn, further boost Singapore's status as an international dispute resolution centre and hub; and also
(c)\ttogether with the RECJA Repeal Bill, streamline the process and statutory regime for reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments into a single statute.
Mr Deputy Speaker, with that, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, this Bill furthers justice. How? By facilitating the realisation of judgments into real, tangible benefits even if these need to be realised overseas. This is especially important in a world where cross-border business transactions frequently occur and where assets and goods may be dispersed around the globe.
Enforcement via a registration of judgment is a regime that allows for cost-savings and greater certainty when an overseas judgment is being enforced. It is based on reciprocity, that is, that Singapore's judgments will be recognised and enforced in their jurisdiction and that that jurisdiction's judgment will be recognised and enforced in Singapore except for a few exceptions. This reciprocity is based on executive action, namely, through the Minister making an order under section 3 of the Act. At this stage, Sir, allow me to declare that I am practising lawyer at the Singapore Bar.
This Bill streamlines and broadens the regime, furthering Singapore's position as a dispute resolution hub. Because our judgments will be more easily enforced overseas, parties will have greater reason to choose Singapore to resolve the dispute. As more cases in Singapore are heard, Singapore's jurisprudence will develop. With more established jurisprudence and greater familiarity with Singapore law, more contracting parties will choose Singapore law as the choice of law and Singapore as the place with exclusive jurisdiction.
This Bill streamlines the regime by removing the distinction between commonwealth and non-commonwealth countries. Although they operated in generally the same way, there were a few minor differences. For example, the tests for setting aside registration of a judgment on grounds of public policy are slightly different in section 5(a)(v) of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Act and section 2(f) of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgment Act.
This streamlined statutory regime supplements other processes by which foreign judgments are enforced in Singapore. The Choice of Court Act implements the Hague Choice of Court Convention, a multilateral treaty with 32 contracting parties currently. However, it does not include recognition and enforcement of interim measures. The statutory regime as amended by this Bill will allow such reciprocal recognition if and when such bilateral agreements are entered into.
Besides formalised statutory procedures, there are also non-binding memoranda between countries that help facilitate this process of recognition and enforcement. As of September 2018, the Supreme Court of Singapore had entered into Memoranda of Guidance as to the Enforcement of Money judgments with five courts in various jurisdictions. One such example is the Memorandum of Guidance Between The Supreme People's Court of The People's Republic of China and The Supreme Court of Singapore on Recognition and Enforcement of Money Judgments In Commercial Cases signed on 31 August 2018.
Relevant to how the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Act supplements and does not affect other existing regimes, would the Minister explain the rationale behind the retention of section 7(1) of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Act which says that \"no proceedings for the recovery of a sum payable under a foreign judgment, being a judgment to which this Part applies, other than proceedings by way of registration of the judgment, shall be entertained by any court in Singapore\"? Does this mean that if a judgment could be enforced via the Choice of Court Act instead of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Act that the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Act must be resorted to and not the Choice of Court Act? That is a question.
As this streamlined statutory regime supplements existing regimes, this Bill also broadens the scope of the Act, making it more useful.
Firstly, it broadens the kinds of judgment that can be registered under this Act. Although retaining the limitations of certain kinds of judgments in section 2(2), clause 2 includes non-money judgement as a type of judgment. This is very helpful even for commercial matters. For instance, in cases involving intellectual property rights, the remedy may be to transfer property or to destroy infringing material. Coupled with the inclusion of interlocutory judgments as a type of judgement recognised by the Act in clause 2, global mareva injunctions can be registered and enforced without commencing a separate action. Because there may be differences in legal remedies available or some other reasons where it may be just and convenient not to strictly enforce a non-money judgment, the new section 4(3A)(b) gives the court discretion on how to enforce non-money judgments.
Secondly, clause 3(1) allows the minister to recognise judgments coming from courts besides superior courts. The previous blanket ban against recognition of subordinate courts prevented Singapore's state court judgments from being registered overseas due to the need for reciprocity.
Because of the increase in jurisdictional limit of the State Courts, cases that need to be enforced overseas have to be enforced overseas have to be transferred to the High Court. This has disadvantages. The party who needs overseas enforcement may not get High Court costs from the other party, incurring greater unrecoverable costs. So, this change to make it possible for Singapore to enter into bilateral agreements that recognise judgments from our state courts directly is ideal.
Even while this Bill expands the possibilities for enforcing judgments and interim measures from other jurisdictions, this Bill also puts in safeguards to prevent abuse. Firstly, the new section 3(4) ensures that the judgment originates from the court recognised, preventing the requirement of reciprocity from being circumvented.
Secondly, clause 4 adds another ground for setting aside a registered judgment, that is, if the judgment was discharged. According to the Explanatory Statement, an example of this is in the event of a bankruptcy. This prevents the bankruptcy regime from being circumvented.
Thirdly, the new section 4(3B) allows Singapore courts to register a judgment for the amount of compensation but not for punitive or exemplary damages. Unlike section 16 of the Choice of Court Agreements Act which provides the court the discretion to refuse to recognise or enforce the part of a judgment that exceeds compensation for the actual amount of loss or harm suffered, the position for such judgments are unclear under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act and the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. In this way, this Bill makes the position under the statutory regime of registering reciprocal judgments certain and accommodates differences in legal remedies available in different jurisdictions. This is a major advantage.
With more possibilities albeit with in-built safeguards, there will be greater flexibility to negotiate bilateral agreements on the recognition and enforcement of court judgments. No changes seem to have been made to the list of countries under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act and Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act at least since 1999. Hopefully, more bilateral agreements to this effect would be entered into following this Bill. This would boost dispute resolution in Singapore as the ability to enforce a judgment in multiple countries can be valuable for certain commercial disputes. Would the Minister share with us any plans to negotiate and conclude such bilateral agreements, especially for interim measures which the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Courts does not cover?
In conclusion, Sir, this Bill opens a lot of opportunities for negotiating bilateral agreements such that Singapore's court judgments can be enforced overseas, furthering Singapore's position as a premier dispute resolution hub. And therefore, I support the Bill.
","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":"Business Motion","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 up to 30 minutes. Mr Dennis Tan.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":" Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer. Sir, I support the consolidation of the laws under the current RECJA and and REFJA under a revised REFJA pursuant to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments (Repeal) Bill and the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment) Bill. Though I cannot help but notice the slight tinge irony that the well-used REFJA is being repealed in our bi-centennial year, nevertheless, for a good reason, I guess.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I also welcome the expanded categories of judgments and court orders under the proposed amendments which will lead to greater applicability and more opportunities for enforcement.
I would like to seek a few clarifications from the Senior Minister of State.
One, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, after the passing of the Bills, what are the Government's plans to increase the number of countries under the revised REFJA. How it intends to proactively reach out to other countries to obtain agreement on reciprocal and recognition and enforcement of each other's civil judgments, for the purposes of the consolidated REFJA?
Two, I would like to ask specifically what are some of the countries which Singapore expects to bring on board the new REFJA regime in the near future.
Three, may I also ask the Senior Minister of State, based on past experiences, what are the common factors preventing Singapore from reaching agreement with other jurisdictions on reciprocal recognition and enforcement of civil judgments? And, if so, how does the Senior Minister of State expect that the Government will work towards overcoming these difficulties?
Four, in view of the desire for greater ASEAN integration and perhaps, not entirely distinct from some of the ideas or the spirit behind the modelled ASEAN extradition treaty, does the Government have any plans to work towards having reciprocal enforcement of civil judgments for all ASEAN countries? If not, does the Senior Minister of State think that this is something that is workable at some point? And what will be some of the challenges anticipated?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, aside from the clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice. These two Bills are presented after public consultation. The move on the part of MinLaw to consult before introducing these two Bills is to be commended.
The stated aims of these Bills are to streamline the statutory regimes for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments into one under the REFJA and to take the necessary steps to ensure the recognition of Singapore's civil judgments overseas on the basis of the reciprocity principle between countries.
I welcome and support these aims. As mentioned by the hon Senior Minister of State, Singapore is already a well-recognised dispute resolution hub, with the SIAC, SICC and SIMC.
In the context of the litigation in courts, the set up of SICC was a game-changer. The SICC, a division of the High Court, consist of top international jurists, in addition to the Singapore Supreme Court judges, who all have deep expertise, skill and experience to try complex international commercial disputes.
Singapore's ratification of the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, a point that the hon Member, Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned, allows judgments issued by the Singapore Court pursuant to exclusive choice of court agreements to be recognised by signatory countries. This was a big step in achieving the policy aim of ensuring the wide recognition of Singapore judgments.
It is proposed under the REFJA (Amendment) Bill that the statutory base for recognition of a foreign judgment be enlarged. The effect of this is to allow a Singapore judgment to be similarly recognised by competent authorities in foreign jurisdictions through the reciprocity principle.
Subject to the comments that I will shortly make, I support the enlargement of the statutory base.
Before I deal with my comments on the Bills, I would like to make some suggestions on steps that can be considered to increase the attraction of Singapore's courts judgments and Singapore as a dispute resolution hub.
I had previously suggested in this House that Singapore consider the viability of entering into the Apostille Convention which deals with certification of a document's validity for legal purposes in signatory states. There are currently 117 countries which are parties to this Convention.
This would significantly cut down the costs and labour involved in legalisation of documents. I understand that the Ministry of Law is looking into this matter and would appreciate an update.
In the same vein, I would suggest that the Government consider the viability of Singapore signing the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, in other words, the Hague Service Convention which currently has 75 countries as contracting parties.
This will enable easier service of process commencing legal action on parties situated in Convention countries. Otherwise, it may take an inordinate amount of time through the usual consular routes to serve process. And this may take between three to five years, depending on the countries involved.
Returning to the Bills, I would like to ask about the scope of recognition and enforcement of an interim and non-money judgment under the proposed amendments to the REFJA.
I note from the hon Senior Minister of State's speech that injunctions are considered. Also, orders for specific performance. May I ask, how many search orders? How about declarations?
Specifically, in the context of interim injunctions, I am heartened to note that the Bill does allow for recognition of interim freezing orders, targeting assets of a defendant in Singapore issued by a foreign court so as not to make a subsequent final judgment of the foreign court nugatory.
This is to be welcomed because previously, in my view, there was a \"black hole\" which a defendant can exploit because the individual may be situated in one country and have assets in another country.
The current legal position in Singapore is that the local courts may not necessarily grant an injunctive relief purely in aid of a foreign proceedings.
In an interconnected world, this makes less sense and certainly, it is not the case in respect of arbitration proceedings. Under the International Arbitration Act, the Singapore court may issue interim relief in respect of arbitration proceedings overseas. So, with this amendment, we can potentially resolve this anomaly.
And through the principle of reciprocity, I hope that the Singapore interim judgments will similarly be recognised overseas so as not to render a subsequent final judgment of the Singapore courts nugatory.
I now turn to civil forfeiture action taken by sovereign governments. There are certain jurisdictions which assert wide jurisdiction over assets wherever it may be situated. For example, we have the unexplained Wealth Orders issued by the UK courts aimed at assets overseas. These proceedings are civil in nature.
But if you look at it carefully, in reality, these Orders may be viewed as penal in nature and may not be too different from a tax judgment or a fine or other penalty which is not covered under the REFJA.
And this may also be seen as a sidestep from what would otherwise be subject matter of an mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) request between countries.
There could also be issues vis-a-vis bona fide third parties who may have to deal with assets that are ordered to be forfeited by a foreign court.
May I ask how the proposed amendments would deal with foreign civil forfeiture orders?
In this regard, it may be useful to consider how other jurisdictions deal with such orders. For example, in New Jersey, there is a separate piece of legislation dealing with civil asset recovery orders made by foreign courts. It does not confer automatic recognition of such orders. It will involve the Attorney-General who makes a decision in his discretion whether or not to make an application to freeze and confiscate the assets which are subject matter of the foreign civil asset recovery order.
Finally, I welcome the safeguard that is sought to be introduced in form of the proposed section 4(3A) of the REFJA under which the court may only register a non-money judgment if it is satisfied that the enforcement of the judgment would be just and convenient.
I seek an elaboration on the factors the Court is supposed to consider before deciding it is just and convenient to recognise a foreign non-monetary judgment, or if it is not, what are the circumstances in which the judge would then decide to convert it into a money judgment.
Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bills.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members for supporting the Bill. I will just address the clarifications directly.
Mr de Souza asked about section 7(1) of the REFJA. Section 7(1) states that a foreign judgment to which the REFJA applies, may only be enforceable by way of registration under the REFJA. The rationale for having and retaining this provision is to preclude judgment creditors from seeking to enforce such foreign judgments, which are contemplated and covered by the REFJA, under the common law route. So, if you have a judgment that fits within REFJA's framework, then do it by way of registration and not take up Court time and seek to deploy the common law recognition.
As for foreign judgments that may be recognised and enforced under the Choice of Court Agreement, these will continue to be excluded from the reformed REFJA under section 2A of the REFJA.
The Choice of Court Agreements Act and the reformed REFJA are mutually exclusive enforcement regimes, with the Choice of Court Agreements taking precedence if it is applicable. So, if the parties have chosen by agreement a Court, the convention applies, and you use the Choice of Court Agreements Act to recognise those judgments.
Mr de Souza also asked about plans to negotiate new reciprocal arrangements. I think Mr Dennis Tan also asked several questions in this regard.
The purpose behind the amendments is to first level up in terms of the options that we have, the availability of non-money judgments, for example, to be recognised. Based on this, what will happen is we have to look at the regimes in other countries. Having regard to what Singapore's business interest would be, what serves Singapore lawyers, Singapore business community and our interest, as a whole, best in looking out for the countries that we might want to have an arrangement with, that will be the driving consideration when we look at how we negotiate and with whom we negotiate these reciprocal arrangements.
We will study their systems and we will look at them in the context of whether their system is also something that fits with what we regard as a proper legal system, and also look at the nature and type of remedies and, therefore, judgments that they have, and the grounds and principles on which they arrive at those judgments.
Ultimately, we have to remember that we have to serve the public interest in Singapore, what I mentioned earlier, and those will be the principle considerations as we do so. So whether, as Mr Tan says it is with ASEAN or with any other country in the world on this, those will be the considerations that we will have.
In terms of Mr Murali Pillai's questions on the scope of recognition and the enforcement, I think there were two questions on this. The first is what kinds of interim and non-money judgments are contemplated to be recognised. I outlined earlier the types that are considered, so freezing orders, Mareva injunctions and so on, to preserve, on the interim basis, sometimes it is also a final injunction – the parties' assets. Injunctions requiring a party to do something, which is a mandatory injunction, or to refrain from doing something else. Orders for specific performance could also be considered. Mr Pillai raised this point about declaratory judgments, those can also be recognised. We also contemplate that orders for delivery up or the recovery of property can be recognised.
But one has to also be clear that this only applies to civil judgments. So, if one is looking at delivery up or enforcement on the property, in the context of a regulatory, penal regime or in a criminal matter, then those will not be covered by this Bill.
In that context, Mr Pillai also asked about civil forfeiture actions taken by sovereign governments. The present framework, which is pre-amendment, does not cover confiscation or forfeiture orders by which assets are seized by a foreign government. The reforms that we propose in this Bill do not change that.
Even if some of these foreign proceedings may be classified, as a matter of labelling, as \"civil\", they are effectively in substance the enforcement of the foreign country's penal, revenue or public criminal laws. Those would not be caught under this Act and would not be enforced in this way.
This is indeed in line with the common law position that Courts will not enforce a foreign judgment if this results in whether a direct or indirect enforcement of that country's penal, revenue or public laws. However, if a regulatory action is taken for the purpose of compensating persons deprived of those funds, the resulting judgment, that means the judgement arising from that claim for compensation, would be enforceable to the extent of its compensatory nature.
As Mr Pillai also pointed out, in Singapore, the enforcement of foreign confiscation orders is dealt with under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MACMA), which has the necessary safeguards in place for such requests. Under the MACMA, requests for enforcement of foreign confiscation orders have to be made through the appropriate foreign authorities to the Attorney-General, and dealt with in accordance with the Act. So, that has not changed.
Mr Pillai asked what is a \"just and convenient\" test in the context of the Bill, and also for an elaboration on the factors that a Court might consider before deciding that it is just and convenient to recognise a foreign money judgment.
As I mentioned earlier, we frame the way in which this would work without prescribing the factors to the Court, to leave some room for discretion. The “just and convenient” test has itself been developed judicially in the context of enforcement under the RECJA. The Courts, in that context, have looked at factors such as whether there was a delay and whether the delay had caused any prejudice to the judgment debtor, for instance; whether the judgment creditor could give a reasonable explanation for the delay in applying to register the judgment; whether the judgment creditor had been reasonably diligent in seeking to enforce it; and what is the conduct of the judgment debtor as well, has he been obstructive, and so on. These are factors that are taken into account but those would not be the only factors.
The overarching question and consideration for the Court to determine was, where did the interests of justice lie, having regard to the factual matrix of the case. The Member will be familiar with judicial authorities that espouse those principles and elaborate on them.
In addition, we anticipate that a likely scenario where it would not be just and convenient to recognise a foreign money judgment, would be possibly an injunction which applies only to within the territory of the country of the foreign court. If a judgment practically only applies to that country, then it would not be just and convenient to also enforce it in the context of Singapore.
Another scenario would be the enforcement of the non-money judgment where that scenario could expose a person to the risk of committing an illegality or to an action for breach of a rule of privilege, for example. In other words, there is an unintended but consequential impact in terms of the enforcement. Those might also be circumstances where it is not just and convenient.
There could also be potentially situations where the non-money judgment has got no equivalent in Singapore. It will then, of course, not be just and convenient for the local Court to enforce it, given that such remedy either does not exist or is not recognised in this form from the foreign courts.
So, those are some examples but I hasten to add that the categories are not closed, and we leave the Court some room to decide, whether in the context of the appropriate case and the parties, and the background circumstances of the case, whether it is just and convenient to recognise the foreign court's judgment and enforce it.
Sir, the new framework that is being proposed will enhance and streamline the regime. It focuses it into one recognised format, rather than have to deal with two different statutes. On Mr Tan's point, yes, it is the Bicentennial year but we have never let history get in the way of good efficient governance.
The Bill also provide us with more flexibility and scope to enter into new treaties, and I think the ability to recognise a variety of different non-money judgments and also a broader breadth of types of judgments, will be helpful.
In addition, and I think Mr Pillai raised two other points which he has raised in the past, the Apostille Convention and also the Hague Service Convention, those are valid points. What I can say is that we are not averse to it, we continue to study them closely, and there are several factors which go behind consideration of those conventions. We have been busy with some other convention but when there is an appropriate update on this, we will let the Member know.
Overall, I believe that this Bill strengthens our position as a centre for international dispute resolution by recognising foreign judgments, by allowing litigants and giving them more confidence to litigate in Singapore, knowing that there will be reciprocity in other parts of this world, and particularly in cases where the judgment debtor may well have assets in other parts of the world. So, on that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments (Repeal) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
This Bill is linked to the previous Bill on our Order Paper, the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment) Bill. In the debate that we have just had on the REFJA Amendment Bill, I have already explained the amendments proposed in both Bills. Members have already raised their questions and expressed their views on both Bills during the earlier debate, although they are still welcome to do so now if there are any. Sir, on this basis, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: No speakers?
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That, at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to 12.00 noon tomorrow.\" – [Mr Desmond Lee]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Providing Housing for Single Unwed Parents and their Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, for over 20 years, the voices of the single unwed parents have been heard in this House. Members have spoken with passion about the challenges facing single unwed parents and their children. Members shared their concerns about how it is the innocent children who would suffer from their continued exclusion from society by discriminating against single unwed parents.
We all agree that intact families are ideal, but as Members have previously raised, we live in an imperfect world. The single unwed is very often a victim of circumstance. In examining the inequality faced by a single unwed parent, Members, including myself, are not advocating for any extra assistance above and beyond what a couple receives. We merely ask that we not discriminate against a single unwed and his or her child, and that we treat them equally and with dignity.
Members have shared that a 2004 Cornell study concluded that children of single parents can do as well as children of dual parents, if the single parent is able to provide a sufficiently supportive environment. Withholding support from an unwed parent could end up disadvantaging the child.
Eight years ago, a Member asked and I quote, \"Is the Government looking at the unintended negative consequences that result from the policies affecting single unwed parents? Are we examining the policies to see if there is an effect on the health, development and social mobility of the child?
Are we looking to see if inter-generational poverty is more likely to result? Do we care more about a set of stated principles or do we care more about the effects on our citizens?
If the Government wants to discourage the incidence of single unwed parents, there are much better ways that do not have such negative consequences.\"
What about housing for single unweds? Sir, 13 years ago, another Member already raised concerns stating that this policy of not allowing single unweds to rent HDB flats on their own is an outdated policy.
Twenty-two years ago, another Member posed this question in this House, \"Does it therefore become morally justifiable to deny an unwed mother and her child public housing, say, a rental flat? Unwed mothers are not criminals. If denied public rental flat, what is their choice? The problem really is that unlike, say, London or New York, there is no large stock of affordable private housing for those who are deemed ineligible to qualify for public housing.
There is no real free market in the supply of public housing. We therefore have to really be careful when we turn people out and ask ourselves where they will live.\"
Twenty-two years later, I am glad that things have improved significantly. The Government has listened and responded positively. Just like married mothers, unwed mothers now have the full 16 weeks of Government-paid maternity leave and their children also qualify for a Child Development Account (CDA).
These are significant steps forward to level the playing field but this playing field remains unlevelled as, amongst several other issues, we have not resolved the issue of housing. Single unweds and their children need a roof over their heads. We should look especially at single unwed parents under 35 years old. Those 35 years old or above can qualify for public housing under the Singles Scheme so we know they have a way out there.
I also understand that in 2017, single unwed parents age 35 years old have a median salary of $3,100 and those 36 years old and above have a median salary of $3,500.
In stark comparison, single unwed parents under 35 years old have a median salary of only $600 in 2017. Their median salary has hardly changed over the years. It was $500 in 2013, $600 in 2014, $700 in 2015 and $600 in 2016.
We need to ask ourselves what options does a parent with a newborn and earning only $600 a month have? They clearly cannot afford alternative housing options and they are then left with one last option, which is to stay with their family members. I agree with that and we all wish that it happens.
Last month, I filed a Parliamentary Question asking the Minister for National Development whether HDB will, deciding not just on a case-by-case basis and without receiving an appeal, allow a single parent and his/her child to get a HDB rental flat when the duo cannot afford alternative housing options and will otherwise have to share a bedroom with existing family members in the family's home or stay in the living room because there is no spare room available. The reply was yes, they qualify.
I left Parliament elated that evening. Happy that single parents with no other available options could qualify for a rental flat. The happiness was short-lived. At my Meet-the-People Session (MPS) that evening, Mary, not her real name, came to see me. She is a single unwed with a five-year old child. Both her parents have passed on and she was staying with her daughter in the living room of her sister's flat. She was able to earn only about $300 a month as she had to look after her daughter.
She called HDB. She was told she and her daughter do not form a family nucleus and as such she did not qualify for a rental flat. They did tell her that she can apply but imagine the amount of anxiety a person desperate for a roof over their head faces when told that you are ineligible for a rental flat. I have sent HDB an appeal letter for her and I hope we will consider the appeal favourably.
Sir, Mary is not alone. Only about a third of rental applications submitted by single unwed parents to HDB are approved.
MND had previously said that \"In relation to meeting the housing needs of children with single parents, a range of Government agencies work together to ensure that no child is without adequate housing, regardless of whether his or her parents are single or married\".
I am glad that HDB has provided housing to single unweds under 35 years old and their children. But this is only on a case-by-case basis. Why? We all understand the rationale of a case-by-case review. We want to be careful. But what we are doing is adding stress for people who already feel they are at the end of the road.
Let me share another story of a single unwed whose extreme struggles were worsened by the stress and uncertainty of our housing policy.
I met Ema, not her real name, at my MPS last year. She is a single unwed mother and when I met her, her daughter was only two months old. They were both living in a shelter when they came to me for help.
Ema is one of the most resilient person I have met. She had to be. She is a living example of how housing has been a stress for all her life.
From the age of five to 15, she grew up in a children’s home. She was returned to her father for a short time before he disappeared from her life. She managed to stay with some relatives, but eventually had to move out because of tensions that come with staying in a home that does not belong to you.
At the age of 27, Ema had a child out of wedlock. Ema tried to apply for a rental flat and was told to see an Member of Parliament for help. She also got help from her social worker. Even her baby's doctor wrote a letter for her stating that, \"As she (the baby) is currently staying in a shelter, she is frequently in contact with other residents who are unwell and hence predisposed to recurrent infection. As such, it will be greatly appreciated if the application for the HDB rental flat can be expedited.\"
Ema did not shed a tear when she told me her story and I asked her why. She told me that she no longer had any tears left. She was not asking for sympathy. She was simply looking for a roof over her head and her baby's head. I appealed to HDB to allow her to rent a flat and I am glad the appeal was successful. HDB replied that, \"We are pleased to inform you that we have obtained special approval for you to rent a 1-room flat with your daughter on compassionate grounds.\"
I am glad the appeal was successful but the whole process was extremely stressful for Ema who had a newborn, had no income, had no family members to help her, was living in a shelter, which made her baby sick frequently. And she had to seek help from three separate sources.
Should cases like this not be a straightforward yes for a rental flat application rather than on a case-by-case basis? I think single unweds and their children will also face a strong stigma attached to them when they can only get a roof over their heads through special approvals on compassionate grounds.
As a Member had previously raised, I too question the logic where a divorcee with a child, a widower with a child and even two orphaned siblings can be considered as eligible to apply for a flat from the HDB, but not a single unwed parent with his or her child. Why?
Sir, surely there is some set of objective standards by which we can say, \"Yes, you qualify for a public rental flat.\" Is there really a case where an unwed parent with no income, no assets and no family support should not qualify for a public rental flat?
And so, this is my first request: we should create and publish a set of eligibility criteria under which a specific group of single unwed parents under 35 years old can apply and get a rental flat without needing a case-by-case review or approval.
Since 2014, 380 single unwed parents have been successful in their application for a rental flat. This means that HDB should have enough data to identify clusters of people like Mary and Ema who undeniably need rental housing. For other cases, we can still rely on a case-by-case review. But let us start by providing a sure \"Yes\" to those who we know definitely need our help.
My second request is about the language we use. When single unwed parents do get approvals, I hope that HDB will no longer state that the decision was a \"special approval\" based on \"compassionate grounds\". Can we like all other applications, simply state that their application has been approved?
My third request is that we specifically state on the HDB website that a \"Single unwed and his or her child\" can apply, not guaranteed, but can apply for a rental flat.
My fourth request is that our frontline officers be updated and no longer tell single unweds that they are ineligible for a rental flat. Instead, they tell them like all other Singaporeans, they can apply if they meet the eligibility criteria stated on the website and HDB will access their application like all other applications.
Let us make sure they do not feel discriminated against.
My fifth request is that we introduce a scheme for \"Single unwed under 35 years old and his or her child\" to buy a 2-room flexi flat from HDB similar to other schemes like the Orphans Scheme or Joint Singles Scheme where there is a set of criteria one has to fulfill to apply for a flat. In the past four years, there were 121 requests from single unwed parents under 35 years old to apply for purchase of a 2-room flexi flat. Only 28 requests were accepted. The other applicants were assessed to be able to stay with family members.
Sir, if we told any other Singaporean that they were not allowed to buy a HDB flat as they could stay with their family members, I am quite sure there would be a huge public uproar. Why then do we do this to single unwed parents?
Sir, I understand that MND is mindful \"not to undermine the prevailing social norm of parenthood within marriage\" when helping unmarried parents. But this current housing policy does not prevent children being born out of wedlock. I understand the intent of the policy but we really need to question whether it works.
I have met a lot of single unweds and many did not plan to have a child out of wedlock. It was the heat of the moment and they got pregnant. In the heat of the moment, just before they have sex, nobody would stop and think, \"Wait if we do this and get pregnant and don't get married, we won't be able to get a HDB flat. Let's not have sex.\"
All of us sitting here know that this will not happen. We have a policy that will not work. The only time when an unwed parent feels the impact of the policy is when he or she has a child and is looking for a roof over their heads.
The message that we are telling the single unweds is that they should get married. But do we want to force a couple to get married so that they can get a roof over their heads. What kind of a marriage would that be? Is this really in the best interest of the child?
There is another way out for the single unwed, which is to get married and then file for a divorce subsequently and get sole care and control of the child. They would then qualify for HDB housing. This really does not make sense. In fact, the single unwed and his or her child who previously did not qualify for public housing, will now not only qualify for public housing but might get priority to get a flat under the ASSIST scheme.
I know the Government is also concerned that if more help is given to single unweds, we will have a sudden increase in the number of single unweds. But this has not been the case, since we provided the 16 weeks of maternity leave and the CDA to single unweds and their children, there has not been an increase in the number of single unweds. In fact, there has been a decrease. There was also no public uproar when we extended these benefits to single unweds and their children.
Lastly, there might be concerns that people will have a baby just to get an HDB flat. Honestly, while there might be some who would do this, Members of this House will agree with me that the vast majority of people will not have a child out of wedlock just to get an HDB flat.
Our policies should cater to the majority and we should not let the majority suffer because of what we feel the minority might do to game the system. At the end of the day, we need to remember that there are children involved here. There might be arguments about what the single unwed should or should not have done and how they should face up and bear the consequences of their actions.
But the child is innocent and the child needs a roof over his or her head and the child needs a parent who is less stressed.
Sir, I have spent the last four years speaking up for single parents, filing Parliamentary Questions (PQs), during Bill speeches, filing Budget cuts and filing a parliamentary petition. Honestly, my wife is getting a bit worried as people now come up to me on the streets to ask if I am a single parent. At a recent meeting with a social worker to discuss about help for single parents, the social worker was so sure that I was a single parent since I spoke up so much about this issue.
Let me assure everyone that I am happily married with three beautiful kids and I do not intend to become a single parent. But I do not need to be a single parent to understand the difficulties they face, the stigma they endure and the struggles they go through each and every day. Single unweds are not asking for more benefits. They are asking that they and their child, all of whom are Singaporeans, be treated equally.
In conclusion, I hope that:
One, we can publish the criteria under which a specific group of single unwed parents under 35 years old can get a rental flat.
Two, specifically state on the HDB website that \"Single unwed and his or her child\" can apply for a rental flat.
Three, update all our frontline officers that single unweds can apply for a rental flat.
Four, no longer state in letters that single unweds obtain housing based on special approvals on compassionate grounds.
And five, have a scheme for single unweds under 35 years old and his or her child to buy a 2-room flexi flat from HDB.
Let me end with a quote as always. Being a single parent is twice the work, twice the stress and twice the tears, but also twice the hugs, twice the love and twice the pride.
I am here to stand up for single parents and salute them for all that they are doing for their children. I hope Members of this House will join me and us, and that our policies will continue to change.
Sir, I am not the first Member to speak up about this, but I certainly hope that I will be the last Member who has to fight to level the playing field for single unwed parents. It is 2019; it is time to level this playing field.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Member, Mr Louis Ng, for his efforts in representing the voices of single unwed parents. He has provided useful perspectives for us to factor in, in our continuous review of existing policies. In his speech, he has provided useful feedback on how our policies are implemented, and also shared the experiences faced by single unwed parents when applying for a flat.
I understand that there may be single unwed parents with us here today in the public gallery and I would like to unequivocally state in their presence that single unwed parents and their children are valued citizens in our society, and like all parents, they are respected for the love and care they provide for their children. They are no less a mother or a father, just because their child was born outside of marriage.
Their children, like any other child in our society, are precious. And every parent, regardless of their marital status, ought to be treated with respect.
I acknowledge that in the past, the Government was fairly strict in limiting public housing access to married couples. However, over time, this position has evolved. For single unwed parents, we hope to facilitate their efforts to build a stable environment for their children.
At MND, we recognise that having a roof over their heads is a key concern. We are thus committed to ensure that no child is left without adequate shelter to grow up in. I believe Mr Ng can attest to the fact that most of the cases that he has shared with HDB have been helped by HDB. He shared earlier the case about Mary. If this is the applicant and the case that I am aware of, I would like to update that her appeal for a rental flat was approved 11 days after she first contacted HDB.
I would like to first explain our approach towards public rental applications. We believe home ownership provides long-term stability and progress for all Singaporeans. This is why HDB reviews every application for public rental individually, to see whether the applicant can purchase a flat or stay with their family. This means working out each family’s housing budget and engaging them further to understand their situation, together with social workers if need be.
Such an individualised approach is taken for all public rental applications and not just for single unwed parents. HDB receives about 7,000 public rental applications per year. But we continue to take an individualised approach towards rental applications, as each of our applicants may have unique and complex backgrounds and circumstances, which would benefit from a more in-depth look.
Mr Ng suggested that HDB should have some clear criteria for when single unwed parents can get a public rental flat. I agree with Mr Ng that there may be some common and objective factors we can identify, for example, income. But I would like to add that income is but one indicator of the needs of the applicant. We do not rely on a few predetermined metrics to understand the applicant’s circumstances. These are guidelines, and from HDB's perspective and experience, applicants can have more differences than similarities in their circumstances.
For instance, the applicant could have medical conditions, which could impede his or her ability to live independently at the point of their application to HDB. This may be highlighted to HDB by the applicant’s social worker. In such cases, once there is a new assessment by the social worker that the applicant is ready to live independently, HDB would proceed to allocate the applicant a rental flat.
So, HDB does not apply a one-size-fits all policy. Where appropriate, HDB will work closely with social workers to assess the best option for the applicant at that point in time.
Next, I will touch on home ownership flats. Mr Ng has suggested a dedicated scheme to allow single unwed parents under 35 years old to buy a 2-room flat from HDB. I appreciate Mr Ng’s intent and understand where he is coming from.
We will study Mr Ng's suggestion carefully, bearing in mind that HDB also has to meet demand for new 2-room flexi flats from other applicants such as singles above 35 years old and seniors who are looking to right-size or buy a short-lease flat.
The number of single unwed parents who apply to HDB for rental or purchase flats every year is not large. We take a holistic approach for every application, as our concern is to safeguard the best interests of the child, especially in situations where the parent is single, young, not working or drawing a low, or perhaps irregular income.
I want to assure Mr Ng and Members of this House that HDB will not outright turn away any single unwed parent who approaches us to seek housing assistance. In every case, HDB will engage the parent to understand more about their circumstances, including their financial and family situation. When purchasing or renting a flat of their own does seem to be the best arrangement for the parent and the child, HDB will support their application.
Finally, Mr Ng raised a few suggestions on how we can better communicate with and engage single unwed parents on their housing applications. He emphasised that single unwed parents should not be made to feel discriminated against. I wholeheartedly agree that we should review our communications and avoid unintentionally causing additional anxiety to single unwed parents, who may already feel tremendously stressed by their circumstances.
I have discussed this with the HDB Team, and there are a few that we will do.
First, we will conduct a comprehensive review of the various touch-points which single unwed parents may encounter in their housing journey, from the e-applications system to our HDB branches, to improve and align our communications. Second, we will review HDB's website to explicitly state that single unwed parents may approach HDB to apply to buy or rent an HDB flat, and how they can go about submitting their requests to HDB. Third, we will also look at the inclusion of a dedicated section in HDB’s website to address common housing queries from single unwed parents.
We hope that these measures will help allay the anxieties from single unwed parents. Single unwed parents and their children are our valued citizens. We are committed to do better and to engage with them better.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when I came into politics, I was determined to always interact with my residents with respect and empathy. I am not sure if I have succeeded as much as I would like to have, but I feel that I have tried my hardest. I believe that similarly that HDB's frontline staff do their best, but I suspect that the customer experience may not altogether be even.
Further, policies may not always be able to cater to every single citizen’s needs, which can result in frustration on both sides. But there must always be empathy in our interactions and this works both ways. I hope that when our citizens interact with HDB staff and officers, there is also mutual respect on both sides.
I have spoken with the HDB. They are working hard to improve their frontline services for every citizen. They handle a large volume of queries and feedback, around 2 million queries over the phone, walk-ins and emails every year. They have told me that they are committed to do their work well and uphold high service standards.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sun Xueling, under the Standing Order, the Adjournment Motion must end within 30 minutes. You have only two more minutes. Could you round up, please?
Ms Sun Xueling: Thank you. HDB will continue to improve their processes in engaging single unwed parents and in helping them find the best environment for their child to grow up in.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that we accept all applications from single unwed parents who approach HDB to apply to purchase or rent an HDB flat and will consider their applications holistically. We will review the various touch-points, experience and process of the housing journey for single unwed parents.
HDB is committed to doing better. I would like to assure Mr Ng and this House again that applicants will not be rejected merely due to their status as a single unwed parents. HDB will approach each and every single unwed parent who puts in an application to better understand their circumstances.
We seek everyone’s understanding and patience. At the heart of it, I want every single unwed parent to know that we share their desire to ensure the well-being of their children, and we will try our best to support them to this end.
Lastly, I thank Mr Ng for his suggestions and his work, and I hope that we can continue to work together to support our single unwed parents.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The time allowed for the proceedings has expired.
[(proc text) The Question having been proposed at 7.15 pm and the time allowed having expired, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. (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":"Upcoming Increase in Subsidies for Pre-school Education","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in view of the upcoming increase in subsidies for pre-school education, how will the Ministry guard against undue fee increases from operators that will negate the effectiveness of such subsidy support to parents.
20 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what measures will the Ministry put in place to prevent pre-school operators from taking advantage of the recently announced higher subsidies to parents by raising their pre-school fees.
Mr Desmond Lee: Today, MOE Kindergartens1, Anchor Operators and Partner Operators provide slightly over half of all pre-school places. Anchor Operators and Partner Operators are subject to fee caps stipulated by the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA), and are required to ensure that any fee increase is moderate and their fees do not exceed the caps. In fact, the fee caps for Anchor Operators and Partner Operators have been maintained at their current levels since 2014 and 2016 respectively. Each year, some Anchor Operator or Partner Operator centres that charge below the fee caps may make some moderate fee adjustments to maintain sustainability. However, the fee caps help to moderate any increase in fees for a significant proportion of the pre-school sector.
The remaining half of pre-schools are provided by private and not-for-profit operators. Like childcare centres that are under the Anchor Operator and Partner Operator schemes, families whose children attend these private and not-for-profit childcare centres also receive the Basic Subsidy and means-tested Additional Subsidy.
But these operators are not subject to fee caps and have flexibility in setting their fees. We recognise that fees may be adjusted from time to time in response to market conditions and operational costs. By and large, most pre-schools seek to ensure that their fee increases are not excessive, in order to remain competitive and attractive to parents.
All preschools are required to inform parents and ECDA of any increase in fees by 1 September of the preceding year, so that parents can make an informed choice about their child's pre-school.
Over the next few years, parents will increasingly have more affordable and quality pre-school options to choose from, as we increase the number of Anchor Operator and Partner Operator preschools and add a few more MOE kindergartens. By around 2025, the share of Anchor Operator, Partner Operator and MOE pre-school places will rise to 8 in 10.
In the medium term, as Government-supported pre-schools grow, we will lower their fee caps so that parents will pay around the equivalent of primary school fees plus after-school student care fees for full-day pre-school, before means-tested subsidies.
Already, Government-supported operators have helped to stabilise pre-school fees in the sector. Median full-day childcare fees fell for the first time in 2016 when the Partner Operator scheme was introduced, and have been maintained since. We expect median fees to be brought down further when we expand the Partner Operator scheme to bring in more pre-schools in 2021, along with a lowering of their fee cap from the current $800 (before GST) per month for full-day childcare.
Increasingly, parents will enjoy more access to affordable and quality pre-schools for their children. This ensures a good start for every child and strong support for parents in raising their families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : There are 24 MOE Kindergartens today, and the number is projected to increase to around 60 by 2025. "],"footNoteQuestions":["19","20"],"questionNo":"19-20"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals in Past 10 Years for HDB Rental Flats on Grounds of Dispute with Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development in the past 10 years, (a) what is the total number of appeals for HDB rental flats which cite reasons of disagreement with children, disowned by children or got chased out/abused by children; (b) what is the number of such cases wherein the children live in (i) HDB flats or (ii) private property; (c) how many of such appeals have been successful; and (d) what are the conditions for such approval.
Mr Lawrence Wong: HDB only started tracking data on such cases from 2016 onwards. From 2016 to May 2019, HDB received about 2,600 public rental requests from parents with children who should have been able to provide housing for them. The common reason cited for their rental request was conflict with their children. About 560 requests were acceded to, based on the specific circumstances of each person. HDB does not track whether their children were living in HDB flats or private residential properties.
We encourage rental applicants who face conflict with their children to first seek mediation assistance from a Family Service Centre. If they are still unable to reconcile, and if the children have no means to provide alternative housing for their parents, HDB will help such seniors with a public rental flat.
Seniors whose children have the means to provide for them can also consider making an application for maintenance at the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lowering Minimum Age for HDB Lease Buyback Scheme for Owners Needing Long-term Medical Treatment for Chronic Illnesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government will consider lowering the minimum age requirement for the HDB Lease Buyback Scheme for flat owners who need long-term medical treatment for chronic illnesses.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The qualifying age for LBS is set at the CPF Payout Eligibility Age of 65 to allow seniors to receive their monthly CPF payouts immediately after they take up the LBS. Nevertheless, HDB is prepared to and has exercised flexibility on the age requirement for those with long term medical expenses.
We thank the Member for his feedback and will take it into consideration as we continue to review our schemes.
25 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current number of households with persons with disabilities (PwDs); and (b) what measures are available to assist them financially and with respite care.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) currently does not have data on the number of households with persons with disabilities. We are working with the Department of Statistics to include this and other disability-related questions in the next population census to be conducted in 2020.
There is a range of financial support and subsidies for persons with disabilities across different life stages. Depending on their household income and financial circumstances, they may qualify for financial assistance schemes, such as ComCare Long-Term Assistance, Short-to- Medium-Term Assistance and Student Care Subsidies. Low-income persons with disabilities and their families are also eligible for various disability schemes across life stages.
At the pre-school stage, all Government-funded centres that offer the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) have schemes in place to help families subsidise EIPIC fees. There is also another subsidy scheme, the Enhanced Pilot for Private Intervention Providers (PPIP), for parents with children enrolled in selected private intervention centres (PICs).
Financial subsidies are also available to caregivers of students in Government-funded Special Education (SPED) schools. This includes the SPED Financial Assistance Scheme to help eligible students get a full waiver of school fees, free textbooks and free school attire. SPED schools are also given a grant for Discretionary Financial Assistance (DFA), to be given out by the school. Like all other students, Singaporean students with disabilities in mainstream schools can also qualify for financial assistance based on their family's financial circumstances.
After graduation, persons with disabilities may enrol in government-funded services such as Day Activity Centres (DAC) and Sheltered Workshops. While DAC fees may vary based on the programme that the client is enrolled in, low income families are given more subsidies to keep the fees affordable. Care-givers can also tap on the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Concession and the Foreign Domestic Worker Grant for persons with disabilities to defray the cost of employing a foreign domestic worker to look after family members with disabilities. Working care-givers may also qualify for tax reliefs if they are supporting spouses, children, parents or siblings with disabilities.
There are also several schemes administered by SG Enable to financially support persons with disabilities to live independently in their homes and the community. For instance, the Assistive Technology Fund subsidises up to 90% of the cost of buying, replacing and repairing assistive technology devices that help them to live independently. These schemes also include various transport subsidies such as the Public Transport Concession Scheme for persons with disabilities, Voluntary Welfare Organisation (VWO) Transport Subsidies, Taxi Subsidy Scheme, and the Disabled Persons Scheme to support persons with disabilities who are unable to use public transport and require a vehicle to earn a living.
Low-wage Singaporeans with disabilities can also benefit from two Workfare schemes to increase their wages and enhance their skills. The Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) tops up the salaries and CPF savings of low-wage workers, with up to $3,600 in cash and CPF contributions annually, while the Workfare Training Support (WTS) scheme provides support to encourage low-wage workers to upgrade their skills. SG Enable also helps job-ready persons with disabilities to look for employment.
Respite care services are currently provided by nine Adult Disability Homes and three Children Disability Homes. These services are offered to families of persons with disabilities who may need short-term assistance in providing care for their loved ones. Caregivers seeking respite care services should approach SG Enable if they require information or support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monies Wrongly Credited into Bank Accounts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Prime Minister (a) whether there is an increasing number of cases of monies wrongly credited by a person to a bank account of an individual; and (b) whether our banks are required to freeze such monies and return them to the rightful sender and, if not, why.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): With the growth in electronic funds transfers, there have been some reported cases where monies were transferred by bank customers to unintended recipients. This can happen when a person makes typographical errors while setting out the e-payment instructions, but such instances are rare.
When such an erroneous transfer occurs, the bank should help by engaging the recipient's bank, so that the recipient is informed and a refund can be initiated. It is an offence under the Penal Code for the recipient to retain or use the funds when he has been informed that it was sent by mistake. If the wrongful recipient refuses to return the erroneously transferred monies, the sender should make a police report.
Er Dr Lee asked whether banks are required to freeze and automatically return monies to a sender when a sender says the monies were wrongly transferred. It would not be appropriate to impose such an automatic requirement on banks. First, a bank cannot be sure that the sender made a mistake. Second, automatically returning the monies to the sender will run the risk of abuse, and does not encourage more careful use of e-payment and transfers.
For example, a person who pays for an online purchase could subsequently ask his bank to reverse the payment upon receipt of the goods, claiming that the transaction was in error, and the banks are none the wiser.
To address the concerns relating to erroneous transfers, MAS has issued a set of guidelines to protect e-payments users. Under the guidelines, consumers will need to play their part and be responsible for accurate payments. On the banks' part, they have to make reasonable efforts to assist the sender, as I have mentioned. And in the case of fraud, consumers should report to the Police promptly.
MAS will continue to work with the industry to raise consumer literacy and awareness on how to minimise wrongful e-payments. As in the case of cheques, the banks' role is to ensure that all properly authenticated payment instructions are processed effectively and efficiently. And as customers, we all know we have to write our cheques accurately and properly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Withdrawal of Market Access Rights to EU on Singapore's Financial Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Prime Minister (a) what will be the impact of the withdrawal of market access rights to the European Union on our financial institutions; (b) what is the Government doing to mitigate the impact; and (c) how rigorous is our regulation of crediting ratings agencies as compared with that of the EU.
31 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the implications of the European Commission's decision to withdraw some market access rights of Singapore; (b) how may this affect investor confidence; and (c) what may be the interpretations of this move against the broader developments around the world.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Some media reports might have given the impression that the European Commission (EC) is reducing its market access to financial institutions in Singapore. This is not true. There continues to be no impediment, for financial services provided out of Singapore to customers in the European Union (EU). There has also been no impact on investors’ confidence in Singapore.
Let me explain. The EC's decision covers only Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) and does not extend to any other financial services. Further, the EC recognises CRAs in a third country through two approaches:
First, deeming the third country's CRA rules as equivalent to EC rules. This is called the equivalence decision;
Second, an endorsement approach, where the CRAs in the third country rely on their related entities in the EU to endorse their ratings.
CRAs in Singapore have been using the endorsement approach, and the EC has confirmed that it will continue to recognise Singapore-based CRAs using this approach.
Having said that, equivalence is the highest form of market integration, which CRAs in Singapore, like those in several other jurisdictions, no longer enjoy. The reason has to do with the different approaches taken by major regulators internationally. Dr Lim asked how MAS’ regulations on CRAs compare to those in the EU. Mr Leon Perera also raised a similar question for the next Parliament Sitting.
MAS' CRA regulatory regime is based on, and consistent with, standards promulgated by the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), which is the global standard setting body. The EC has assessed MAS' CRA regulatory regime to be less prescriptive than EU rules in certain areas, such as in defining specific situations in which a conflict of interest for the CRA arises. MAS takes a more principles-based approach. It nevertheless requires conflicts of interest to be effectively addressed, and is fully in line with international standards and appropriate to our context and needs.
Singapore is in good standing with the EU. We have EC recognition on a broad range of other financial services, including for over-the-counter derivatives trading venues and central counterparties. In July 2019, we were one of the first two jurisdictions to obtain EC equivalence for financial benchmarks regulation. MAS will continue to closely engage our EU counterparts in reviewing our rules to ensure that financial institutions in Singapore continue to have access to the EU market in various financial services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provisions for Singapore Government Vessels, Aircraft and Resources to Assist Malaysian Authorities in Search and Rescue Operations in Malaysian Territorial Waters Near Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether there are provisions for Singapore Government vessels, aircraft and resources to assist Malaysian authorities in search and rescue operations in Malaysian territorial waters near Singapore; (b) if so, to what extent; and (c) whether such provisions will be reviewed in light of the recent case of two Singaporean kayakers lost at sea near Mersing, Malaysia.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I would begin by expressing our deepest sympathies to the families of the two Singaporeans, Mdm Phua Geok Tin and Mr Tan Eng Soon, who were the victims of a tragic incident while kayaking in the sea near Mersing, Malaysia on 8 August 2019.
The group leader informed the Malaysian authorities that Mdm Phua and Mr Tan were missing on the morning of 9 August 2019. When MFA was informed later that afternoon, we immediately contacted the relevant Malaysian authorities to also seek their urgent assistance for the search and rescue (SAR) operations as the incident took place in Malaysia's territorial waters. We also immediately alerted members of both families of the incident and offered our assistance.
An intensive SAR operation was coordinated by the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) over the next 10 days. MFA officers were deployed on the ground to coordinate with the Malaysian authorities and to provide consular support to the families, at the search site. Their kayak was found on 13 August, and the body of Mdm Phua was subsequently found on 14 August. Unfortunately, the search for Mr Tan has been inconclusive. While the SAR operations have ended, the Malaysian authorities have asked vessels and fishermen to continue to look out for Mr Tan. We also remain in contact with the families in case they require further assistance in the wake of this tragic incident.
There are long standing existing arrangements for Singapore to assist the Malaysian authorities (and vice versa) in such SAR operations, subject to the permission of the country responsible for the maritime search and rescue region. MPA, who coordinates Singapore's maritime SAR operations, reached out to its Malaysian counterpart to offer Singapore's assistance. MPA also alerted its Indonesian and Thai counterparts to look out and report any sightings, and initiated a Maritime Safety Information broadcast to the shipping community to be on the lookout.
While our offer of assistance was not taken up, Malaysia conducted an intensive SAR operation lasting 10 days. This is beyond the usual period of their SAR operations. Malaysia deployed 5 aircrafts, 11 naval vessels and patrol boats and 155 ground personnel in very challenging conditions. They covered a vast area of waters off the Malaysian states of Johor, Pahang and Terengganu. We are especially grateful to the Malaysian government and all Malaysian agencies and personnel who were involved in the SAR operations. We were also heartened by the support and assistance of ordinary Malaysians from all walks of life, especially the fishermen in the area who played a critical role in the recovery efforts. I called Malaysian Home Affairs Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin shortly after the end of the SAR operations to personally express Singapore's deep appreciation. He also assured me that Malaysia will follow up if there is any significant new information on the search for Mr Tan.
Malaysia's efforts in finding the two Singaporeans is a reflection of how, as close neighbours, we have always come to the assistance of each other in such unfortunate incidents. We will continue to work closely with our foreign counterparts to maintain these strong ties at all levels.
I need to remind Singaporeans participating in outdoor leisure activities overseas to e-register with MFA and be mindful that certain sporting activities, especially in open seas, may carry risks. Appropriate safety and contingency plans should be prepared. When in doubt, Singaporeans should consult the relevant professional bodies or sporting associations for specific advice.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recent Spike in Typhoid Fever Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health regarding the recent spike in typhoid fever cases (a) whether this was a local outbreak or from imported cases; (b) whether the patients were returning Singaporeans, residents, foreign workers or visitors; and (c) what measures are being planned to address the situation other than heightened surveillance.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Between 26 July and 29 August 2019, MOH was notified of 26 typhoid fever cases, comprising of 21 local and five imported cases. The local cases did not have recent travel history. Preliminary genetic analysis conducted on available typhoid bacteria samples from 18 of the local cases showed that they were similar, which suggest that the cases could be linked to a common source.
MOH and the Singapore Food Agency have been working together to investigate the cases. We have conducted checks at food establishments and caterers where the cases had consumed food from, traced food sources, collected food and water samples for testing, and screened food handlers to try to identify the source of infection. Thus far, none of the food and water samples tested, or food handlers screened, tested positive for Salmonella Typhi. No common food establishment or upstream source has been identified to date. Investigations by MOH and SFA are ongoing.
MOH has alerted the medical community to remain vigilant and report typhoid fever cases. We have also screened household members of the affected cases, and advised them to seek treatment if they develop symptoms.
Typhoid fever, like other food-borne diseases, can be prevented through general hygiene measures, including proper hand hygiene, and safe handling, cooking and consumption of food.
MOH and SFA will continue with investigations, and are closely monitoring the situation. Should the source of the outbreak be identified, MOH and SFA will provide an update and issue a public advisory on any additional precautions that members of the public should take.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Non-medical Care Related Admissions into Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current number of non-medical care related admissions into public hospitals; (b) what are the common conditions for which patients are admitted for non-medical care; and (c) whether a review will be carried out to ensure parity between outpatient and inpatient MediSave/Approved Integrated Shield claimable limits for these conditions so that hospital beds can be more efficiently utilised for cases requiring urgent medical attention.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Patients are hospitalised at the public hospitals only when they have a clear clinical need for admission. There have been a very small number of admissions due to non-medical circumstances. Examples include new-born babies who are well but are admitted as their mothers remained unfit for discharge after delivery, or patients who are well but unable to be discharged as they lack a caregiving arrangement. The number of these non-medical admissions have remained low at between 0.01% to 0.03% of all admissions in the past five years.
With advances in medical science and changes in care models, some medical treatments that previously required patients to be admitted can be delivered effectively in an ambulatory or outpatient setting. As some of these treatments may remain costly, MOH will review and consider them for MediShield Life and MediSave coverage, as appropriate. As an example, MediShield Life and MediSave can now be claimed by multiple myeloma patients who continue their autologous bone marrow transplants in the outpatient setting, potentially allowing these patients to shorten their hospitalisation stays by up to three weeks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on CAD's Investigation of Chairman and Management of Swiber Holdings and Related Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) has now completed its investigation of the chairman and management of Swiber Holdings and its related companies; (b) if so, whether CAD will proceed with any charges for any offences; and (c) if not, when is the investigation expected to complete.
Mr K Shanmugam: Police investigations into Swiber Holdings Limited and its subsidiaries are still ongoing. It is inappropriate for me to comment further.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures Taken to Ensure Early Detection and Efficient Deployment of Resources to Handle Vegetation Fires","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs in view of the increased frequency of vegetation fires in 2019, what intermediate and long-term measures are being taken to ensure the early detection and efficient deployment of resources to handle such fires.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of vegetation fires has increased in recent years due to factors such as drier and hotter weather. The number in the first half of 2019 increased by 56% to 555, from 356 in the first half of 2018.
The inter-agency Wildfire Task Force Committee led by SCDF coordinates measures to minimise the risk of vegetation fires. During the dry season, members will step up patrols of hotspots to enable early detection, as well as adopt preventive measures such as removing dead leaves more regularly.
For example, NParks has increased patrols and inspections of nature reserves, parks and other vegetated areas to look out for possible fire hazards such as dry leaf litter, and signs of incipient fire. In addition, it is exploring the use of video analytics and drones, and has constructed fire breaks to hinder the spread of fires in nature reserves.
SCDF educates members of the public on steps that they can take to prevent and counter such fires. For example, extinguish embers properly if they have started a controlled fire, and don’t discard refractive materials like broken glass into the vegetation, which could focus the sunlight and start a fire. Smokers should not dispose of their cigarette butts illegally.
In fact, those who illegally discard cigarette butts can be charged not only under the Environmental Public Health Act for littering, but also under the Penal Code for negligent conduct, should there be a major fire thereafter. The amended Penal Code, which will come into force in 2020, will empower the Police and SCDF to take even firmer action, by introducing a new offence of causing or contributing to the risk of a dangerous fire, and a presumption clause. In future, should a fire happen within 60 minutes at the place where someone had illegally disposed of a cigarette butt, the person would be presumed to be culpable for the fire and duly charged. This makes it harder for offenders to escape justice.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Time for Selection Process for Applicants Given Ballot Number for HDB BTO flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development what is the average length of time for the selection process involving all applicants who have been given a ballot number following the balloting exercise for HDB BTO flats and what steps may be taken to accelerate the process.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Since the May 2019 BTO exercise, HDB has reduced the balloting time for BTO flats from six weeks to three weeks. This means that three weeks after the sales exercise, applicants will be notified of their queue number. Thereafter, they will be invited to select a unit in sequence. It takes around four to six months for the flat selection to be completed. This is because HDB has to schedule individual appointments for every applicant, and take the time to engage them, and assist them in making their flat selections. HDB will continue to explore ways to streamline and expedite the selection process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Surge in Chinese Developers in Residential Property Market in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for National Development whether the surge of Chinese developers in the residential property market in the past five years has caused problems in property speculation, over-pricing of land sales and poor construction quality.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The private residential property market has largely been stable over the last five years. But there was a brief surge in property prices from 2H2017 to 1H2018 as market sentiments improved. Developers, both local and foreign, were bidding more aggressively for land. So this bidding behavior was not limited to Chinese developers, who accounted for less than 10% of the private residential sites sold via the Government Land Sales programme and en-bloc sales during this period. In terms of prices, the winning bids by Chinese developers were also comparable to those of other developers.
In terms of construction quality, one objective measure is the Construction Quality Assessment System (CONQUAS) administered by the BCA. The average CONQUAS score for private residential projects has been increasing over the years, and has remained high over the last five years. The average CONQUAS score for projects by Chinese developers is comparable to that of the national average.
The Government will continue to monitor trends in the property market, and adjust our policies as necessary, to provide good quality homes, and maintain a stable and sustainable property market.
44 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for the past three years (a) how many persons with disabilities have benefited from the Assistive Technology Fund (ATF); (b) what is the total amount disbursed under ATF; (c) whether there have been appeals for further disbursements beyond the $40,000 cap; and (d) if so, what is the total number of appeals.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Assistive Technology Fund (ATF), administered by SG Enable, is a subsidy scheme to help persons with disabilities to defray the cost of buying, replacing, upgrading and repairing assistive devices. The Fund covers devices used for rehabilitation, education, employment, early intervention, training and independent living.
In the Financial Year 2018, a total of 2,037 persons with disabilities benefitted from the ATF, an increase from 1,450 and 1,808 persons with disabilities in FY16 and FY17 respectively. The total amount disbursed over the past three years was $10 million. Thus far, MSF and SG Enable have not received any appeals for further disbursements beyond the $40,000 individual cap under the ATF.
Persons with disabilities who require information and advice on the use of assistive technology can also visit Tech Able, an integrated assistive technology space at the Enabling Village. They can view a range of assistive technology solutions, as well as receive services such as assessment and advice by on-site specialists.
MSF is committed to support the adoption of assistive technology among persons with disabilities as this can help to maintain and improve the functional capabilities of the individual, and allow them to better integrate into society. We have set up a cross-sectoral workgroup under the 3rd Enabling Masterplan this year, which will further look at how technology and design can be leveraged to support independent living for persons with disabilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Measures to Address Rise in Youth Suicides","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in view of the rise in youth suicides, whether the Ministry will consider shifting the current strategy or introducing additional measures to address this trend.
Mr Desmond Lee: The number of suicides involving 10- to 19-year-olds fluctuates year-on-year, ranging from 12 to 27 cases in the past five years. While there is no discernible trend, MOE, MOH and MSF are very concerned about youth suicides and we are monitoring this closely.
The underlying causes of suicide are complex, so a multi-pronged approach has been taken to prevent suicide. This includes:
(a) building resilience and supporting mental well-being among young people;
(b) raising awareness on mental health issues;
(c) reducing stigma and encouraging youths to seek help if they are experiencing mental health difficulties;
(d) identifying and supporting those at risk of suicide; and
(e) intervening in crisis situations where urgent help is needed.
MSF works closely with agencies such as MOE, MOH, MHA, the Institute of Mental Health, the Health Promotion Board, the National Council of Social Service, and with community partners such as the Samaritans of Singapore on these inter-agency efforts. For example, the Health Promotion Board partners schools on psycho-emotional programmes to equip students with skills to manage stress and emotions, and build supportive relationships with peers. Students may also be referred to school counsellors and mental health professionals such as the Child Guidance Clinic, where necessary. Beyond schools, the Samaritans of Singapore or SOS conducts programmes to teach teenagers how to identify suicide warning signs and where to seek help. SOS also runs a 24-hour crisis hotline, manned by trained adult volunteers, to counsel persons in distress.
In addition, an Inter-Agency Research Workgroup for Youth Suicides has been set up as part of the recommendations by the NurtureSG Taskforce. The Workgroup, led by IMH, has been studying the issues surrounding youth suicides, and facilitates deeper collaboration between the various agencies. The Workgroup seeks to deepen its understanding of risk factors as well as protective factors surrounding suicides, and consider ways to better raise awareness and support for our youths.
More recently in May this year, Parliament passed the Criminal Law Reform Bill to amend the Penal Code to decriminalise attempted suicide, because the threat of prosecution and the labelling of persons who attempt suicide as \"offenders\" may worsen their emotional state and the stigma they face. At the same time, the abetment of attempted suicide remains an offence, and the Police will continue to be able to intervene in suicide situations.
Every life is precious, and each suicide is one too many. We will continue to work together to strengthen our national response for suicide prevention.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Electricity Retailers Take All Necessary Safeguards to Protect Consumers' Identities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what measures will be put in place to ensure that electricity retailers take all necessary safeguards to protect consumers' identities; and (b) what recourse do consumers have when they find that their identities have been used to sign up for electricity accounts or their identity details have been compromised.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: All electricity retailers must comply with the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) when collecting, using and disclosing personal data. This includes making reasonable security arrangements to protect their data. There are additional safeguards in EMA's Code of Conduct for Electricity Retail Licensees. For example, when signing up consumers, retailers are required to obtain the consumer’s consent or proper authorisation before entering into a contract. EMA carries out Mystery Shopper Audits to assess if retailers are in compliance with the Code of Conduct.
Consumers who find that their identities have been compromised, or used to sign up for electricity accounts without their consent, should first approach the retailer to resolve the issue. In the event of an unauthorised switch, consumers will be able to terminate the contract without incurring early termination charges. Consumers who encounter errant retailers can contact CASE or EMA. EMA will take action against any retailer that is found to have breached the Code of Conduct. Such retailers could be suspended from signing up new customers and can be subjected to financial penalties.
Consumers who have reason to believe that their personal data has been used or disclosed by a retailer in violation of the PDPA can report it to the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC). Retailers who breach the PDPA may be subject to financial penalties of up to $1 million.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulatory Licensing of Point-to-point Transport Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the new regulatory licensing of the point-to-point transport sector, whether the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore assesses whether the current taxi and ride hail operators are of the right market size and that there exists a robust competition between operators within the ride hail business and street hail business as well as between the two businesses.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Land Transport Authority's (LTA) regulatory framework for the point-to-point (P2P) transport sector will take effect from June 2020. The framework contains provisions to keep the market open to new providers of P2P services. For example, licensed operators will not be allowed to offer exclusive arrangements to \"lock in\" drivers that in effect prevent them from driving for other operators.
The new P2P framework does not restrict the ability of the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) to monitor for anti-competitive behaviour in the P2P sector, and initiate investigations where it has reasonable grounds to suspect that the Competition Act prohibitions have been infringed. We will also work with LTA to ensure businesses compete on a level playing field and that consumers' interests are protected.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps Taken to Increase Variety of Part-time Work Options for Mothers Returning to Work","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower what steps are being taken to increase the variety of part-time work options for mothers who are wanting to return to work after having children.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Based on a 2016 Marriage and Parenthood survey conducted by the Prime Minister's Office, women with children below six years have strong preference for \"full-time work with flexible work arrangements (FWAs)\" rather than \"part-time work\"1. For every woman who would prefer part-time work, there are around two to three women who would prefer full-time work with FWAs.
The Government supports working mothers through (i) promoting FWAs, (ii) providing more affordable childcare support, and (iii) providing employment facilitation services including for part-time work.
Firstly, to encourage more companies to meet their employees' FWA needs, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) increased the Work-Life Grant budget from $30 million to $100 million, and will continue to actively promote the Tripartite Standard on FWAs with tripartite partners. Through the concerted efforts by tripartite partners, FWAs are now more common. More than nine in 10 employees today work in companies that provide some form of work flexibility2. Among those who need FWAs, more than eight in 10 employees have access to the FWA that they need3.
Secondly, the Government has also improved the accessibility, affordability and quality of pre-school services, to provide parents with greater assurance that their children are in good hands. We have doubled full-day pre-school capacity, from around 90,000 in 2012, to almost 180,000 places today. We will increase pre-school subsidies significantly from next year. These moves help working mothers4, including those on part-time work, as subsidies are provided for those who work at least 56 hours a month.
Thirdly, mothers who have left the workforce for longer periods of time may need additional help to find jobs, including part-time work options. To support the return of women back into the labour force, the Adapt and Grow initiative offers a suite of employment facilitation services and programmes to help jobseekers enter new jobs and overcome mismatches in skills, wages or job expectations. One of these programmes is Career Trial, which provides an opportunity for jobseekers and employers to try each other out and assess job fit. During the trial, which can be up to three months, jobseekers receive a training allowance from the Government. To allow those who prefer to work part-time to access more job opportunities, the Career Trial was enhanced in May this year to include part-time jobs. Jobseekers who need career assistance can visit WSG's Careers Connect and NTUC-Employment and Employability Institute's (NTUC-e2i's) career centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The 2016 M&P Survey commissioned by NPTD surveyed 2,861 married Singapore residents aged 21 to 45 years. One of the questions asked was \"what would your ideal work arrangement be, at the different stages of your child’s life?\".","2 : Conditions of Employment survey 2018.","3 : Labour force supplementary survey 2018, a biennial MOM survey.","4 : Non-working mothers who are looking for a job may also apply to receive these subsidies."],"footNoteQuestions":["51"],"questionNo":"51"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Cases of Illegal Rental in Illegally Partitioned Apartment Exceeding Occupancy Cap","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many cases of illegal rental in illegally partitioned apartment units that exceed the occupancy cap have been caught in the past three years; and (b) what are the penalties for parties involved in the abetment of such offences.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The occupancy cap for private residential properties was tightened from eight to six persons in 2017. Since then, URA has detected and enforced against approximately 800 such infringements.
The penalties for exceeding the occupancy cap are calibrated according to the severity of the offence. For example, for marginal breaches, URA may issue a composition fine of up to $5,000. For more serious cases, URA will seek stiffer penalties through prosecution. Any person found guilty can be fined up to $200,000 or face imprisonment of up to 12 months.
In situations where property agents are involved in abetting the offence, URA and CEA will take action, which could include debarring the agent for a period of time. Similarly, MOM will also take enforcement action against errant employers and foreign workers involved in such offences.
53 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many first-timer applicants for HDB flats have not been successful in getting a flat at each of the last four quarterly sales exercises; and (b) what are the components behind the algorithm that assigns the computerised ballot number for flat buyers.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The number of unsuccessful applicants for the 2019 Build-To-Order (BTO) exercises in February and May are not available as flat selections are still ongoing. For the two BTO exercises in August and November 2018, about 990 and 4,200 first-timer families respectively were unsuccessful in their attempt to apply for a flat. Demand for some of the BTO projects in November 2018 was particularly strong due to their good location and shorter waiting time.
First-timer families who have been unsuccessful in two applications in non-mature estates will receive one additional ballot chance per subsequent application in non-mature estates. As a result, over the past two years, among the first-timer families who applied for a BTO flat in non-mature estates, all have been successful by their third attempt.
The balloting process essentially selects a certain number of flat applicants based on the number of flats on offer and assigns them a queue number. The process is randomised but will take into account various factors, including the ethnic quotas for the various buyer groups, the applicants’ household status, and the priority schemes the applicants are eligible for. The balloting process is audited to ensure that it is fair to all applicants.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategic Plan to Develop Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprises in Singapore and Overseas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the strategic plan for the development of social entrepreneurship and social enterprises in Singapore; (b) what support do local social enterprises (SEs) have for expanding overseas; (c) whether there are plans to work across Ministries and leverage on Enterprise Singapore's resources to create a special scale-up programme for SEs; and (d) whether SEs will continue to be positioned as an extension of social service agencies or is the sector now ready to be seen as businesses in the private sector.
Mr Desmond Lee: Social enterprises play an important role in our social service landscape, in providing impactful and innovative solutions to address social needs. As business entities with clear social goals, they lie between for-profit businesses and charities, by pursuing the double bottom line of both financial performance and social impact. Hence, they are entities distinct from social service agencies, which are non-profits or charities.
Recognising that social enterprises require support and encouragement, MSF set up the Singapore Centre for Social Enterprise, or raiSE, in 2015, with the strategic aim of nurturing social enterprises. As a sector developer, raiSE provides capacity building and funding support for social enterprises to grow both their businesses and social impact. The VentureForGood (VFG) grant under raiSE, which is funded by MSF, aims to support social enterprises that are starting up or expanding their operations, with up to $300,000 in grants. As at end-FY2018, raiSE has supported more than 120 social enterprises with committed funding of over $11 million under VFG. There are no plans to create another separate scale-up programme for social enterprises, as social enterprises are able to leverage existing grants and support under raiSE and Enterprise Singapore to accelerate growth and scale. raiSE will continue to provide advisory services to guide social enterprises in navigating the available resources and support.
In addition to funding support, raiSE is also building up an ecosystem of support for social enterprises, and equipping social enterprises with the requisite skills, knowledge and capabilities. To this end, raiSE has launched masterclasses, mentorship programmes, and provided strategic coaching in collaboration with industry partners and like-minded individuals who support social enterprises. They have also provided networking platforms for social enterprises to engage industry experts and increase understanding of social issues to co-create impact. Regionally, raiSE is exploring the formation of an informal network of social enterprise sector developers, to facilitate the exchange of ideas between social enterprises within ASEAN, and eventually support our social enterprises in gaining access to markets outside Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Savings in Electricity Bills for Households That Switched to Open Electricity Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the average savings in electricity bills for households that have switched to the Open Electricity Market; and (b) whether the Ministry has observed an increase in average household electricity consumption arising from the cost savings.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Households that have switched to a retailer in the Open Electricity Market (OEM) have enjoyed between 20% to 30% savings compared to the regulated tariff.
Given that the OEM rollout was only completed recently in May 2019, it is too early to determine whether the cost savings have resulted in any changes to households' electricity consumption patterns. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and Energy Market Authority (EMA) intend to conduct a study on this at an appropriate time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Eligibility and Selection Criteria for National Day Awards Nomination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the eligibility and selection criteria for nominations for National Day Awards; (b) who can nominate and what is the end-to-end award process; (c) whether there is a fixed number of awards given out for each category every year and, if yes, what are they; and (d) what is the total number of awards given to grassroots leaders every year.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The eligibility criteria for National Day Awards are governed by the various gazetted medal rules. Individuals who have rendered outstanding public service or distinguished themselves in the field of arts and letters, sports, the sciences, business, the professions and the labour movement are eligible for National Day Awards. We also have awards that recognise public and military officers for gallantry, distinguished service or long service. The type of award which individuals may be eligible for depends on their achievements, contributions and service.
Every year, the Prime Minister's Office invites nominations from the public and non-public sector through Ministries, Organs of State and Advisors of Grassroots Organisations. The nominations are then evaluated by various committees. The final shortlist is submitted for the President’s approval.
The medal rules do not cap the number of awards except for the Medal of Honour, which is limited to four in any one year, the Certificate of Honour which is limited to six in any one year and the Order of Temasek (With High Distinction) which is limited to 12 recipients. Notwithstanding this, to ensure the prestige of the other awards and that only the most deserving are awarded, we cap the number that agencies can put up where practical. The caps vary depending on the pool of eligible candidates and the awards.
The total number of awards given to grassroots leaders ranged from 189 to 191 between 2016 and 2019.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Income Ceiling Under Public Rental Scheme to Ensure Relevance to Household Incomes and Expenditure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will review the income ceiling under the public rental scheme for HDB flats given that the latest Household Expenditure Survey shows that the average monthly expenditure in 1-2 room flats is now $1,545, which exceeds the present public rental income ceiling of $1,500; and (b) what expenditure studies, surveys, or other evidence are used to determine whether the income ceiling under the public rental scheme remains relevant to contemporary household incomes and standards of living.
Mr Lawrence Wong: HDB takes a needs-based approach for households applying for rental flats. $1,500 is used as an indication of income, because first-timer households with this income are able to buy a new flat with the help of our generous housing grants, and we want to encourage them to own their own homes. But this income figure is a guideline, and not a hard cap. Households with income over $1,500 can still apply for rental flats. HDB will consider their individual circumstances to assess their housing budget and options.
At the Committee of Supply earlier this year, MND shared that from 2016 to 2018, 590 households with incomes above $1,500 were assisted with public rental housing. Since then, from January to July 2019, about 170 more households have been assisted. HDB will continue to review the Public Rental Scheme regularly to ensure that it meets the housing needs of Singaporeans who are not able to purchase their own homes.
59 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the prolonged social tensions in Hong Kong, what are the near and long term impacts to Singapore's economy.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Hong Kong is an important business and financial centre in Asia, and shares close trade and investment ties with many regional economies, including Singapore. For Singapore, Hong Kong was our fifth largest trading partner in 2018, and fourth largest investment destination as at end-2017.
We are monitoring developments in Hong Kong with concern, as continued disruptions to Hong Kong's stability will have negative spillover impact on Singapore and the region given these close linkages.
To-date, Singapore's economy has not been significantly affected by the developments in Hong Kong. MTI estimates that the total value-added that Singapore derives from Hong Kong's final demand amounts to 1.2% of Singapore's GDP. However, businesses with strong dependence on Hong Kong may see a greater impact. For instance:
(a) Some of our trade-related services such as wholesale trade as well as transportation and storage are more exposed to the developments in Hong Kong, as Hong Kong is a significant exports destination for Singapore. Thus far, feedback from the companies in these sectors indicates that they have not been severely affected.
(b) Some Singapore businesses with operations in the lifestyle and retail sectors in Hong Kong have been more directly affected by the developments in Hong Kong. Our economic agencies are in touch with these businesses and monitoring the situation closely.
Over the longer term, if the current situation in Hong Kong persists and adds to global economic uncertainty, investor confidence will likely be adversely affected. This will in turn weigh on investments and economic activities in the region. Singapore, as well as other regional economies, benefit from a stable and predictable operating environment. With increased uncertainty, the impact on Singapore's economy is likely to be larger.
As Hong Kong is an important market and economic partner for Singapore, we hope that there will be a peaceful resolution to the situation in Hong Kong soon.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Jobs Bank in Getting Employers to Give Fair Consideration to Local Job Applicants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the last three years, how many employers hired locals instead of employment pass holders after advertising through the Jobs Bank; (b) how does the Ministry monitor the effectiveness of the Jobs Bank in terms of (i) helping Singaporeans make informed career choices (ii) pointing employers to suitable local talent; and (c) whether the Ministry has taken any further action against employers who advertise in the Jobs Bank without giving fair consideration to local job applicants.
Mrs Josephine Teo: To find suitable candidates, employers advertise job openings through a variety of channels, including print advertisements, online job portals and recruitment agencies. Likewise, jobseekers may apply to jobs advertised through multiple channels. It is therefore unlikely that an employer or jobseeker relies on any single portal, including MyCareersFuture.sg.
MOM and Workforce Singapore's (WSG) efforts to help Singaporeans to find jobs also go beyond MyCareersFuture.sg. Under the Adapt & Grow (A&G) initiative, WSG and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (NTUC's e2i) offer a suite of career matching services including career coaching, employability workshops, job fairs and job matching through their career centres. Together with MyCareersFuture.sg, our career coaches help jobseekers to make informed career choices.
There are also programmes that help jobseekers overcome mismatches in skills, wages or job expectations. For example, there are over a hundred Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) providing wage and training support for employers to re-train workers to take up new jobs or careers. The Career Support Programme (CSP) encourages employers to give opportunities to mature retrenched or long-term unemployed PMETs by providing wage support for a period of time.
Through A&G programmes and services, we helped about 30,000 Singaporean jobseekers find new jobs in 2018. In the first half of 2019, we helped about 18,000 jobseekers secure jobs, about 9% more than in the same period last year. MyCareersFuture.sg contributes to these placement results. Neither employers nor jobseekers are obliged to inform WSG of the outcomes of their job postings or searches. However, since it was launched in April 2018, its monthly visitorship has risen from about 214,000 in April 2018 to about 511,000 in June 2019. As a gauge of the portal’s attractiveness to employers, fewer than 20% of the job postings were to fulfil the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF)'s advertising requirement. This suggests that employers are coming on board MyCareersFuture.sg voluntarily because they find value in doing so.
Under the FCF, MOM takes action against employers with unfair hiring practices, including those that place job advertisements without fairly considering applicants. For instance, we have withdrawn work pass privileges from employers that pre-selected foreign applicants and went through the motions of advertising on the Jobs Bank without applying their evaluation criteria consistently across all candidates. We investigate cases where employers are suspected to have such practices and will not hesitate to sanction them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Employment Pass Criteria and Applications in View of Increasing Citizen Unemployment Rate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the slowing growth of Singapore's economy this year and increasing citizen unemployment rate which stood at 3.3% as at June 2019, whether the Ministry will consider (i) tightening the Employment Pass (EP) criteria last reviewed in 2017 and (ii) reviewing EP applications by companies for permanent positions which are at the same time offered only on a fixed time contract basis to Singaporeans.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Based on preliminary data for the second quarter of 2019, total employment has continued to grow, although at a slower pace compared to the previous quarter and a year ago. At the same time, retrenchments have not picked up and remained fairly low at 2,300. Unemployment inched upwards but also remains low. This suggests that most employers are not laying off existing workers, but exercising greater caution in hiring.
MOM and our tripartite partners are closely monitoring the economy and labour market, and stand ready to step up support for companies and workers through the Adapt and Grow (A&G) initiative. This includes employment facilitation services and Professional Conversion Programmes offered by Workforce Singapore (WSG) and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i).
Employment Pass (EP) holders typically renew their EP every two to three years, and all new and renewal applications are subject to the prevailing EP salary thresholds at that point. The EP criteria were last reviewed in 2017, with higher salary thresholds imposed, not just at entry level, but also for older EP holders. The increased salary thresholds reflect local salary progression, so that employers do not substitute local PMETs with cheaper EP holders, and that EP holders are of the right calibre to complement our local workforce. We will continue to monitor wage levels of local PMETs, and will revise the EP salary thresholds if necessary.
The scenario that the Member outlined, where for the same job, an EP holder is offered a permanent position, but a local offered a fixed term contract, would appear to be a breach of the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP). So far, MOM and the Tripartite Alliance for Fair & Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) have not received reports of this nature. We urge members of the public who are aware of such cases to report them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Companies That Voluntarily Restored CPF Contribution Rates for Employees Aged 55 Years and Above","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Manpower to date, how many companies have voluntarily restored the CPF contribution rates for employees aged 55 years and above and how many employees have benefitted.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Today, employers can make voluntary CPF contributions on top of mandatory CPF contributions for all their employees. The three ways are through the Additional MediSave Contribution Scheme, Retirement Sum Topping Up Scheme and Voluntary Contribution to all three CPF Accounts Scheme.
In 2018, about 1,000 employers made voluntary contributions for about 13,000 employees aged 55 and above. However, as these are private arrangements between the employers and their employees, CPF Board does not have sight over the basis for voluntary contributions and if they are due to voluntary equalisation of CPF contribution rates for employees aged 55 and above.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Retirement and Re-employment Act to Include Care-givers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Manpower whether there are plans to amend the Retirement and Re-employment Act to include those who have been out of the labour force for care-giving reasons but who may wish to rejoin the labour force after their care recipient passes on.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Under the Retirement and Re-employment Act (RRA), it is an offence for employers to dismiss workers on grounds of age before the minimum statutory Retirement Age of 62. Additionally, employers are required to offer re-employment contracts to eligible employees from 62 up to the Re-employment Age of 67.
The RRA covers persons who rejoin the workforce if they meet the same criteria as those who remained in the workforce. The priority should therefore be to help them return to employment. They are likely to need some training or reskilling. Through Adapt and Grow, they can access a suite of services and programmes to facilitate employment matching and overcome mismatches in skills or wages.
65 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Defence in respect of the training accident death of Corporal First Class Liu Kai (a) whether the Ministry or the AGC has found that any persons should be held responsible for their conduct during the training; and (b) if so, whether any decision has been taken to institute any disciplinary or legal proceedings or criminal prosecution.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: As the Police investigations into the death of Corporal First Class Liu Kai have not been concluded, MINDEF is unable to provide a reply to the Member's specific queries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps Taken to Secure and Invest in Singapore's Long Term Food Security","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what steps are being taken towards securing and investing in Singapore's long-term food security even as the world faces climate change and urbanisation.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Food security is a national security issue that is closely linked to human life and health. Given that we import over 90% of our food, Singapore is vulnerable to volatilities in the global food market and disruptions in our food supplies. This vulnerability will become more acute in time, as global crop yields are estimated to decline by up to 25 percent by 2050 due to climate change impacts. With such challenges in mind, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) was formed in April 2019 with the mission to strengthen and ensure Singapore’s food security. SFA does so by pursuing three broad strategies, which we call our three \"food baskets\" – \"Diversify Import Sources\"; \"Grow Local\" and \"Grow Overseas\".
For our first food basket, SFA works with stakeholders such as food importers to diversify our food import sources. This ensures that we are not overly reliant on a particular country, and reduces the impact of a disruption in food supply from any one source country. To support this, SFA is accrediting more farms across different countries and geographical regions for food safety to enable them to export to Singapore, and brings importers on food sourcing trips to facilitate import tie-ups. SFA has also introduced requirements for importers of key food items, such as eggs, to adopt plans to mitigate the impact of any supply disruptions.
Our second food basket, \"Grow Local\", will help Singapore reduce our reliance on imports and buffer the impact of overseas supply disruptions. At the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year, I announced that my Ministry has set out to achieve \"30 by 30\", to develop the capability and capacity to locally produce 30% of Singapore's nutritional needs by 2030. This is a significant jump from our current local production of less than 10%. As SFA works with our agri-food industry to adopt new solutions to raise productivity, these solutions need to also adopt circular economy approaches, to overcome our resource constraints, such as for water and energy. This way, Singapore also becomes more climate resilient.
SFA is committed to partnering our food producers in this journey. New farm plots have been tendered out to those with the best concepts instead of the highest bid prices. Through the Agriculture Productivity Fund (APF), SFA supports farmers in their efforts to modernise and harness innovative, sustainable technologies and advanced farming systems. For example, APF supported Singapore Aquaculture Technologies, an existing coastal fish farm, to adopt a closed-containment aquaculture system. In a closed-containment system, the water to culture the fish is separated from the sea water, enabling fish production to be resilient to fluctuations in external environmental conditions.
Furthermore, as announced in March this year, funding of up to $144 million will be allocated from within the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2020 (RIE2020) Plan to the Singapore Food Story Research & Development Programme. The programme was jointly developed by SFA and A*STAR to grow a vibrant and forward-looking agri-tech and food ecosystem, with one of the focus areas being sustainable urban food production. Under this, SFA partners the research community to find solutions for the gaps that current technologies cannot solve. Potential research areas include the use of smart sensors in climate-resilient farming systems in tropical aquaculture and urban agriculture.
This exciting vision will require us to continue to innovate. One area that is gaining interest is urban farming in alternative spaces such as vacant multi-storey carparks. This involves innovative use of spaces in the urban environment to farm, brings local produce closer to the community, reduces carbon footprint and raises awareness on the importance of food security by involving the community directly in food production.
For our third food basket, SFA works with ESG to support our companies to expand and grow overseas. These overseas-based Singapore companies will be able to overcome land and manpower constraints, and access new and bigger overseas markets. This will allow them to bring down costs through economies of scale, and reduce the price of exports to Singapore.
SFA will continue to work with agencies, industry and the community to strengthen Singapore's food security.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore as Thought-and-industry Leader on Solutions to Tackle Effects of Climate Change","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether Singapore can be a thought-and-industry leader in how to tackle the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels; and (b) if polders are a solution for Singapore, how can the spaces above the polders be used as work, live and play spaces.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Climate change brings new and existential threats to our country. We are already experiencing impacts such as warmer temperatures, more intense rainfall and prolonged dry spells. Sea-level rise, in particular, poses significant challenges to our city state. Just like how we have tackled our other existential challenges in the past, we are planning decades ahead to overcome the effects of climate change. Building on our \"water story\" of resilience and innovation, we will seek to turn constraint into strategic advantage for Singapore.
We must first ensure that our adaptation planning is based on robust science. We have made an early start, with the setting up of the Centre for Climate Research Singapore (CCRS) in 2013 to build up knowledge and capabilities in climate science. CCRS is one of the few dedicated climate research centres in Asia Pacific focusing on research in tropical weather and climate. CCRS works closely with our neighbours to study in detail how climate change is affecting Southeast Asia and actively organises programmes to build regional capability in understanding climate science. To deepen our understanding of sea levels around Singapore, CCRS will be launching a $10 million National Sea Level Research Programme (NSLP) over the next five years. We will continue to develop CCRS to be a leading research centre in tropical weather and climate research in the region.
Sound climate science will guide us in developing robust solutions to tackle the effects of climate change. This includes learning from other countries and adapting relevant approaches and technologies to our needs. For example, learning from the Dutch, the Housing & Development Board (HDB) has embarked on Singapore's pilot polder project at Pulau Tekong, which when completed, will be used for military training. We are closely monitoring the implementation of this pilot. The lessons drawn will guide agencies on the feasibility and approach to implementing polders as a coastal protection option.
As a small island city state with limited resources, we face unique challenges but can turn these challenges into new opportunities and growth areas. We are working closely with industry and academic partners to develop innovative technologies and resource-efficient solutions that not only address our local challenges, but can also be applicable to other urban centres.
Finally, even though we contribute only 0.11% of global emissions, we must continue to do our part. Singapore has adopted forward-looking domestic mitigation measures, including early actions such as implementing a carbon tax; improving industrial energy efficiency; increasing adoption of solar energy; growing our public transport network; and adopting a circular economy approach to resource management. But the Government cannot do this alone – everyone must play his or her part. Only then can we be a credible partner in contributing to and shaping global agreements on climate change; and importantly, our collective efforts will ensure that we pass on a liveable and sustainable Singapore to future generations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Creating Honorary Citizenship for Those Who Have Invested in Singapore and Created Quality Jobs for Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider creating honorary citizenships (without benefits and grants/subsidies that Singaporeans are entitled to) for those who have invested in Singapore and created quality jobs for Singaporeans.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): The Government already confers the Honorary Citizen Award to recognise foreigners who have contributed extensively and significantly to Singapore and its people. Honorary Citizens must be individuals who have a strong affinity towards Singapore, and are highly respected for their professional accomplishments. This is the highest form of national recognition for a foreigner.
Honorary Citizens are accorded privileges, such as the right to reside and work in Singapore. However, they do not receive grants and subsidies that Singaporeans are entitled to.
Since 2003, 21 individuals have received this national award.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures Taken by MAS in View of IMF's Financial Sector Assessment Programme Findings for Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister in view of the findings in IMF's Financial Sector Assessment Programme for Singapore, what resources and preparation are being applied by the MAS division that supervises payment systems to manage the broad scope of supervisory duties that it undertakes.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The International Monetary Fund (IMF), in its recent assessment of the Singapore's financial system under its Financial Sector Assessment Programme, reaffirmed Singapore's financial sector oversight to be \"among the best globally\".
Specifically, it concluded that the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) supervision of payment systems, namely – MAS Electronic Payment System (MEPS+), Fast And Secure Transfers (FAST), Inter-bank GIRO, Singapore Dollar Cheque Clearing, and the NETS Electronic Funds Transfer at Point of Sale (EFTPOS) – was in line with international standards, and appropriate and effective.
Notwithstanding, in anticipation of evolving systemic risks in the payments landscape, the IMF had recommended that MAS increase its resources for the supervision of payment systems. MAS' thinking is the same as the IMF's on this matter. MAS has indeed been allocating additional resources for supervision of payment activities and implementing enhancements to its supervisory programme. These include leveraging data analytics capabilities, and applying appropriate standards to retail payment systems in line with their changing systemic importance. MAS will continue to watch developments in the payments landscape and ensure its capabilities and supervisory approaches are appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Early Stage Venture Fund Initiative","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Prime Minister (a) whether he can provide an update on the Early Stage Venture Fund initiative which started in 2008; and (b) how successful has the initiative been in helping to incubate and grow enterprises since its inception.
Mr Heng Swee Keat (for the Prime Minister): Startups are an important catalyst and driver of innovation and enterprise in our economy. The Government has put in place a range of schemes to catalyse funding into Singapore startups across different stages of their development.
One such scheme is the Early Stage Venture Fund (ESVF), which aims to catalyse venture capital (VC) funding for early-stage Singapore-based high-tech startups. The scheme has evolved over the past decade in line with the needs of our startups, as our eco-system developed.
The scheme catalysed the formation of 10 early-stage venture capital (VC) funds and four Corporate Venture Funds, and has invested in more than 60 Singapore-based high-technology startups
More recently, the ESVF scheme supported the formation of the National Research Foundation Singapore (NRF)-Temasek IP Commercialisation Vehicle, announced at Budget 2018, to co-invest in startups underpinned by intellectual property generated from publicly-funded Research and Development (R&D).
Of the startups that received investments catalysed by ESVF, about two-thirds have progressed significantly, in that they have either crossed $250,000 in revenue, raised more than $250,000 in third party investments, or increased their valuation by at least 20%.
Aslan Pharmaceuticals and De.Mem are two such startups which have benefitted from the ESVF scheme:
(a) Aslan Pharmaceuticals is a biotechnology company that develops therapies for cancer tumour types prevalent in Asia. Having received more than $4 million in investments catalysed by ESVF, it has listed on both the Taipei Exchange and NASDAQ, raising more than US$75 million in the process. Aslan is headquartered in Singapore, with offices in Taiwan and Shanghai.
(b) De.Mem is a company providing solutions for drinking water generation, municipal sewage treatment and industrial wastewater treatment in decentralised applications. It is a spin-off from the Nanyang Environment and Water Research Institute (NEWRI) at NTU, having licensed Forward Osmosis and Nanofiltration membrane technologies from NEWRI. De.Mem, which had received around $3.5 million in investments catalysed by ESVF, has now achieved a S$25 million (A$27 million) market capitalisation and has operations in Singapore, Australia and Vietnam.
Besides the ESVF, NRF has also co-invested in high-technology startups since 2008 through two other schemes – the Technology Incubation Scheme (TIS) in partnership with startup incubators, and the Distruptive Incubator Scheme (DIS), which operated as an incubator investment fund. Then-SPRING also invested in startups through the SEEDS Capital, which was started in 2001. Collectively, these schemes have made investments into more than 400 startups. Beyond funding support, the Government has taken other steps to grow a conducive environment for startups. Startup SG, administered by Enterprise Singapore, has consolidated all the startup-facing support from the Government into a one-stop shop. This includes providing startups with access to mentorship, talent, local and global networks, co-innovation platforms and infrastructure, in order to build their capabilities and grow.
Through these efforts, Singapore's startup ecosystem is becoming more vibrant. We have seen positive growth in the local tech startup eco-system. A decade ago, less than 70 VC investments were closed in Singapore in a year. This has grown to more than 350 last year. The Government will continue to grow an enabling, pro-enterprise environment for startups.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Singaporeans Born Between 1950 and 1959 Not Eligible for Merdeka Generation Package","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the number of Singaporeans who are born between 1950 and 1959 but are not eligible for the Merdeka Generation Package (MGP); (b) what is the number of such Singaporeans who have appealed to be included in the MGP; and (c) what is the number of such appeals that have been successful to date.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: In terms of the age criteria, the Merdeka Generation Package (MGP) applies to Singaporeans born from 1950 to 1959, as well as those born in 1949 or earlier and who did not receive the Pioneer Generation Package. Among them, there are about 16,000 who did not meet the citizenship criteria because they became citizens after 1996.
As of end-July 2019, there were close to 400 citizenship-related appeals, and the Appeals Panel has reviewed about half of them. We are working with the remaining appellants to obtain more information in order to better understand their circumstances. Close to 120 appeals (or about 60% of the cases reviewed) have been successful. These are Singaporeans who have just missed the citizenship cut-off, but have good grounds to be counted among the Merdeka Generation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Top Three Causes of MRT Train Delays Not More Than Five Minutes in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the past three years, what are the top three causes for the incidences of MRT train delays of not more than five minutes; (b) what measures have been put in place to prevent or minimise such delays; and (c) whether LTA has set any goals for the MRT operators to prevent or minimise such delays and, if so, what are the goals set.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The top three causes of minor MRT delays are passenger actions, train faults and signalling system faults.
Such delays are monitored and addressed by the rail operators and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) through identifying their root causes and remedial measures, including timely renewal of ageing assets. LTA is also working with the rail operators to install more condition monitoring devices to support the early detection and pre-emptive rectification of faults.
Our priority is to closely monitor and benchmark performance against other operators using the Mean Kilometres Between Failure (MKBF) metric, an internationally recognised measure of rail reliability. As overall rail reliability and MKBF improves, short delays would come down too.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Frequency of Platform Screen Door Faults in MRT Stations Between 2015 and 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) for each year from 2015 to 2019, what has been the frequency of platform screen door faults in MRT stations for both below and above ground stations; (b) how frequently are the screen doors serviced; and (c) how long are the screen doors expected to last before replacements are due.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: From 2015 to 2017, there were 10 Platform Screen Door (PSD) faults causing delays of more than five minutes. In the past 19 months till July 2019, there were no such PSD incidents.
The rail operators have a monthly preventive maintenance regime for PSDs. This includes component inspections or functional tests on the different mechanical, electrical and pneumatic systems. Servicing and component replacement are done when required.
PSDs are replaced when they become unreliable or more difficult to maintain. They can be used for many years as long as their mechanisms are well maintained.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring of Shared Personal Mobility Devices Deployment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) how will LTA monitor whether shared personal mobility devices (PMDs) that are deployed on private land end up entering public spaces and the effects arising thereof; (b) how will LTA detect the illegal deployment of shared PMDs for hire at public places and what are the penalties for this offence; and (c) whether shared-PMD companies are required to submit their plans for deploying their fleet at private premises to LTA.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Under the Parking Places Act, operators are required to obtain a licence to offer dockless PMD-sharing services that operate in a public place. This is to prevent indiscriminate parking of shared devices.
While the licensing regime does not cover PMD-sharing operators who deploy their devices solely on private land, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) engages these operators proactively to understand their deployment plans and advise them on our regulations. LTA's enforcement officers conduct regular patrols based on these plans and at known hotspots to detect illegal deployment.
Operators who operate illegally without a licence may be fined up to $10,000 and/or be imprisoned for up to six months. LTA will also impound shared PMDs that are illegally deployed, and take all contraventions into account if the operator decides to apply for a device-sharing licence.
All device-sharing operators, regardless of whether they operate on public or private land, must do their part to ensure users ride safely and park properly. We are also considering additional regulations to ensure that all shared devices are used safely, and will continue to monitor this space closely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Bus Shelter Advertisement Boards Causing Blind Spots Leading to Accidents Between Pedestrians and Personal Mobility Device Users or Cyclists","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Transport whether bus shelter advertisement boards placed perpendicular to roads are causing blind spots leading to accidents between pedestrian commuters and personal mobility device (PMD) users or cyclists.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) does consider the safety factor when placing advertisement panels at bus stops. The panels should not obstruct the views of bus commuters, path and road users.
In any case, cyclists and personal mobility device users should go behind the bus stop where possible, instead of riding through the bus stop. LTA is progressively building cycling paths and widening footpaths behind bus stops with high commuter traffic. LTA will continue to highlight safe riding practices, such as \"slow down when approaching bus stops\" in its public education campaigns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Lifts Built at Pedestrian Overhead Bridges Near MRT Stations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) of the lifts that have been built at pedestrian overhead bridges (POBs), how many are near to an MRT station; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider building a lift at the POB near Block 350 Jurong East Avenue 1.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: To date, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has installed lifts at 47 pedestrian overhead bridges (POBs). Twenty out of these 47 POBs are located near major MRT stations. The remaining POBs with lifts are located near amenities, such as bus interchanges and healthcare institutions. The lift retrofitting programme will be expanded to around 50 more POBs, including the POB near Block 350, Jurong East Avenue 1.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Conditions or Circumstances to Allow Requests to View Traffic Accident Footage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) under what pre-conditions or circumstances will the Traffic Police show traffic accident footage from CCTV cameras to victims, their next-of-kin, potential claimants or potential offenders; and (b) at which stage of investigations or proceedings will requests to view such footage be considered or acceded to.
Mr K Shanmugam: CCTV footages of traffic accidents are part of the evidence of investigations and criminal proceedings.
Police therefore do not generally share such footages with victims, their next-of-kin, potential claimants or alleged offenders while investigations are ongoing. A witness may tailor his evidence after seeing what is captured in the footages, resulting in inaccurate gathering of information regarding the accident.
Should the alleged offender be charged in Court, the defence will generally be able to view such footages on request. The footages, however, are generally not shared with victims, their next-of-kin, and potential claimants while criminal proceedings are ongoing.
Upon conclusion of the criminal proceedings, evidence tendered in court will generally be on public record and a person who needs to have access to them may apply to the Court.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Retirement and Re-employment Ages and Plans to Review Retirement and Re-employment Ages for Officers under Uniformed Services Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs in view of the impending extension of the retirement and re-employment ages (a) how many civilian officers in the Ministry will benefit from this extension; and (b) whether there are plans to review the retirement and re-employment ages for officers under the uniformed services schemes.
Mr K Shanmugam: There are about 3,800 civilian officers in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), and 5,200 officers under the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority scheme of service, whose retirement and re-employment ages follow the national framework.
As for Home Affairs uniformed officers, MHA last increased their retirement age from 50 to 55 in 2013. MHA periodically reviews it to ensure that we are able to meet the manpower requirements of the Home Team, taking into consideration changes in life expectancy and years of healthy living, as well as the ability and desire of our officers to work longer. MHA is in the midst of such a review, which will be completed in the next several months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Policies on Permanent Residents Owning Landed Residential Property in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Law (a) what are the policies on permanent residents owning landed residential property in Singapore; and (b) whether there is any upper limit on the size of the land that they can own for such landed residential property.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Government takes a strict approach towards ownership of landed residential property in Singapore by foreigners, including Permanent Residents, to ensure that they remain the primary preserve of Singapore Citizens, given their scarcity.
Foreign ownership of landed residential properties in Singapore is restricted under the Residential Property Act (RPA) and foreigners who wish to purchase such properties must seek the approval of the Minister for Law.
Applicants are assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration factors such as their economic contribution to Singapore. Foreigners that are granted approval are allowed to own only one landed residential property, and the property must be used for their own occupation.
There are more stringent qualifying criteria for landed residential properties that are larger than 15,000 square feet, and those situated within a good class bungalow area.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exemption of Bankrupt Persons' Income from Creditors' Claims for Use in Insurance Premium Payments for Home Protection and CPF Insurance Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Law whether the income of bankrupt persons can be exempt from creditors' claims and be used in priority for the payment of insurance premiums such as that of HDB's Home Protection Scheme and all CPF insurance schemes to protect the bankrupt and his family.
Mr K Shanmugam: After a Bankruptcy Order is made, a bankrupt has to make monthly contributions to his bankruptcy estate during the period of the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy estate will then be distributed to the creditor(s) upon the bankrupt's discharge.
In determining the monthly contribution, the Official Assignee (OA) or the Private Trustees-in-Bankruptcy take into consideration the bankrupt's current income, relevant work experience and age, as well as reasonable expenses which the bankrupt and his family may incur. In general, a monthly personal deductible of $1,100 is allowed, and additional deductibles may be allowed depending on the bankrupt's specific circumstances. These deductibles can be used to pay for the insurance premiums for the Home Protection Scheme and other CPF insurance schemes so as to protect the bankrupt and his family. Where allowed by CPF rules, CPF members can also use their CPF contributions and savings to pay for these insurance premiums.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Personal Protection Order Applications Rejected from 2015 to 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Law (a) for each year from 2015 to 2018, how many applications for Personal Protection Orders have been rejected by the Family Justice Courts; and (b) what are the main reasons for rejection.
Mr K Shanmugam: Applications for Personal Protection Orders (PPOs) can either be rejected at the point the complaint is made or at the conclusion of a hearing.
A very small fraction of applications for PPOs is rejected at the point the complaint is made. Generally, these applications are rejected if the allegation(s) averred are, on the face of the complaint, insufficient to satisfy the definition of \"family violence\" under s 64 of the Women's Charter.
The vast majority of applications for PPOs proceed for a hearing. Whether the application for a PPO is granted or not depends on the facts of each case. An application for a PPO may, for example, be dismissed if the respondent shows that the force used was lawfully used in self-defence. Applications for a PPO may also be dismissed if the court is not satisfied that a PPO is necessary for the protection or personal safety of the applicant.
The statistics are as follows:
15 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) how many Singaporean nurses have resigned in the past 10 years; (b) what are the top three reasons underlying this group of nurses leaving service; and (c) how many Singaporean nurses retire annually in the past 10 years.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Based on available data from 2013 to 20181, an average of about 850 local nurses resigned from the public healthcare sector each year. The average resignation rate for this period was 6.0%.
Over the same period, around 0.1% or 20 local nurses retired each year.
The most common reasons cited by local nurses when they left the public healthcare sector include family commitment, further studies on their own accord and desire for a change in work environment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : MOH began collecting attrition, resignation and retirement data in greater detail from public healthcare institutions from 2013. "],"footNoteQuestions":["15"],"questionNo":"15"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of People Using MediSave to Pay for Parents' Healthcare Cost in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Chen Show Mao asked the Minister for Health for each year in the past five years (a) what is the number of people using MediSave to pay for their parents' healthcare cost; and (b) what is the median withdrawal value.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Over the past five years, about 6% of all MediSave withdrawals were for the MediSave account holder's parents' healthcare expenses, which include inpatient, day surgery and outpatient expenses. The details are in Table 1 below.
17 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth what are the strategic plans of the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) to achieve its goal for Singapore's national football team to qualify for the FIFA World Cup in 2034.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth welcomes our Team Singapore athletes and sports associations to strive for excellence, and supports them in realising their goals.
We look forward to hearing from the FAS on their plan to achieving their stated goal, and how the football fraternity, community and the Government can support them in their efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of First-Owner Households Eligible for HDB's Home Improvement Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for National Development what percentage of households that are eligible for HDB's Home Improvement Programme are owned and lived in by Singaporeans who are their first owners.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Home Improvement Programme was recently extended to flats built between 1987 to 1997. Currently, about 40% of these flats are owned by Singapore citizens who are the first owners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Illegal Short-term Rental of Private Properties in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development regarding illegal short-term rental of private properties in each of the last five years (a) what is the number of owners who have been issued warnings and charged respectively; (b) what is the profile of these owners in terms of their age groups, nationalities and number of properties owned; and (c) what is the number of recalcitrant property owners.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In the past five years, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) investigated an average of about 600 suspected cases of illegal short-term accommodation (STA) per year. Where an offence was established, URA has taken appropriate action against the perpetrators.
These offenders include both property owners and tenants. They come from a wide range of age groups, and are mostly Singaporeans. URA has found that while some offenders are responsible for a large number of STA listings, they typically do not own those properties, but instead rent from the owners and then sublet them illegally to short-term occupants. For such cases, property owners will also be held liable for the infringements occurring in their properties, even if the offending use was carried out by the tenant.
For those renting out homes on a casual basis, and caught for the first time, URA will impose a composition fine, of up to $5,000. Since May 2019, URA has issued 14 composition fines.
For recalcitrant offenders and those who undertake STA operations on a commercial basis, URA will prosecute them in Court and seek significantly higher penalties. To date, URA has charged 10 such individuals, comprising a mix of Singaporeans and foreigners on work passes. Four of them have been fined between $13,000 and $70,000 by the Court. The remaining six individuals together face a total of more than 80 charges, and their cases are currently before the Court.
URA will continue to step up its investigations and enforcement efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for HDB BTO Flats and Executive Condominiums Rejected in Last Three Years Due to $10,000 and $12,000 Income Ceilings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past three years, how many applications for HDB BTO flats and executive condominiums have been rejected due to failure to meet the $10,000 and $12,000 income ceilings respectively; and (b) whether HDB is prepared to increase the respective income ceilings.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) is committed to helping Singaporeans, particularly first-timers and lower to middle-income families, own a home. The income ceiling helps to ensure that housing subsidies are prioritised for those who need them most.
At the current income ceiling of $12,000, about eight in 10 Singaporeans are able to buy a subsidised flat. Households earning up to $14,000 may buy an Executive Condominium (EC) unit from property developers. There is no income ceiling restriction for the purchase of a resale HDB flat on the open market.
From 2016 to 2018, HDB turned down an average of about 360 applications per year for new flats and ECs due to the income ceilings.
We will continue to review our public housing policies to ensure that they remain relevant.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures Taken to Minimise Impact of Recent Indonesian Forest Fires","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in view of the recent Indonesian forest fires, what measures are being taken to minimise the impact on Singapore and what is the update on the cooperative actions with neighbouring countries under the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP).
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government adopts a multi-pronged approach to reduce the risk and impact of transboundary haze on Singapore. In Singapore, the National Environment Agency (NEA) continuously monitors the ambient air quality and has been issuing daily advisories to the public on the haze situation since 4 August this year. NEA also chairs an inter-agency Haze Task Force to monitor the haze situation closely during dry seasons and to implement action plans to mitigate the effects of haze should Singapore be affected.
Within the region, Singapore works closely with other ASEAN member states to monitor hotspot activities and undertake measures to reduce forest fires. The ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Centre (ASMC), which Singapore hosts, shares meteorological and hotspots forecasts with ASEAN member states. ASMC has also set aside $5 million over the next five years to help ASEAN member states. In addition, the lack of haze in Singapore over the last two years is in no small part due to Indonesia's extensive and continuous efforts to minimise the number of hotspots within the country.
Nevertheless, we have been observing persistent hotspot activities in the surrounding region in the past few weeks. Singapore is currently in the Southwest Monsoon season and the NEA is forecasting drier conditions in the coming weeks. These conditions can lead to an escalation of hotspot activities and an increased risk of transboundary haze in Singapore and the surrounding region.
At the recent 21st meeting of the Sub-Regional Ministerial Steering Committee (MSC) on Transboundary Haze Pollution in Brunei on 6 August, Singapore and other member countries (Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand) noted the report by the ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Centre about the potential escalation of hotspot activities in fire-prone areas and increased risk of transboundary haze due to drier and warmer weather. These countries also noted that transboundary haze pollution remains a major concern for the region, and reaffirmed their readiness to enhance cooperation and coordination to address land and forest fires. Singapore has offered technical firefighting assistance to Indonesia and is ready to deploy them, as we did so in 2015, if requested by Indonesia.
At the same meeting, MSC member countries also reaffirmed our commitment to the objectives and principles of the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution and the Roadmap on ASEAN Cooperation towards Transboundary Haze Pollution Control with Means of Implementation. The Roadmap serves as a strategic framework to implement collaborative actions to achieve a vision of \"Transboundary Haze-Free ASEAN by 2020\". In October 2019, Singapore will be meeting other ASEAN Member States in Cambodia to take stock of the implementation of the Agreement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints Received of Pet Owners Not Cleaning up after Their Pets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) in the past year, how many complaints regarding pet owners not cleaning up after their pets have been received; (b) how many pet owners have been identified and penalised; and (c) whether there are plans to introduce more measures.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Not cleaning up after one's pet is irresponsible behaviour that dirties our environment and inconveniences others. In 2018, the National Environment Agency (NEA) received some 800 instances of feedback concerning pet owners not cleaning up after their pets in public areas. NEA has been investigating these cases and engaging with pet owners where possible. In the past few years, five enforcement actions were taken against errant pet owners.
Our main approach to tackling this issue has nonetheless been to foster a culture of responsible pet ownership. To this end, the NEA and the National Parks Board (NParks) have been working hard with community leaders and Town Councils to educate pet owners accordingly at community events, school talks and roadshows. In residential estates where there are cleanliness issues, standees reminding pet owners to clean up after their pets are also placed at prominent locations.
Pet owners ought to clean up after their pets in public areas. I urge all pet owners to be considerate and play their part in keeping Singapore clean.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Systems in Place to Assess Indoor Air Quality Standards in Public and Work Places","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether there are systems in place to assess indoor air quality standards in public places and work places; (b) whether there are measures to enforce certain standards of indoor air quality in public places and work places; and (c) what measures are in place to ensure that materials used in building construction are safe and do not contribute to indoor air pollution.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: There are measures in place to manage the indoor air quality (IAQ) in buildings. Under the Building Control Act and Regulations, building designs are required to comply with the performance requirements for fresh air intake and ventilation rate as specified in the Singapore Standard Code of Practice for Air-conditioning and Mechanical Ventilation in Buildings (SS 553). Building developers are encouraged to use green building materials, such as low emissions building products certified by the Singapore Green Building Council or Singapore Environmental Council. Indoor environmental quality and the use of green building materials are an integral part of the assessment of a building's environmental performance, to be certified under the Building and Construction Authority's (BCA) Green Mark schemes.
Building owners and facility managers should also take guidance from the Singapore Standard Code of Practice for Indoor Air Quality for Air-Conditioned Buildings (SS 554), which specifies good practices in managing IAQ as well as the standards and limits of IAQ parameters. Supplementing the SS 554 are the Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines on Management of Indoor Air Quality in Air-Conditioned Workplaces published by the Workplace Safety and Health Council, which provides guidance to building owners and facility managers on the implementation of IAQ management programmes in workplaces.
The National Environment Agency (NEA) conducts IAQ surveys in public places and monitors public feedback on IAQ. The surveys show that most of the causes of poor IAQ are linked to factors, such as the use of furnishings or products with high volatile organic chemicals, and inadequate design and maintenance of the building air ventilation system. Hence, NEA has been working closely with relevant agencies to conduct educational sessions on IAQ for building owners and facility managers, to highlight the importance of building ventilation maintenance and raise awareness on choosing low-emissions furnishings or products to maintain good IAQ. NEA also assists building owners and facility managers in identifying the sources or causes of indoor air pollution in their premises, and providing advice on measures to improve IAQ.
Building owners, facility managers and occupants all have a role in maintaining good IAQ. Occupants can provide feedback on IAQ to building owners and facility managers to take mitigation measures. Building owners and facility managers should adopt best practices to ensure the buildings are clean and well-ventilated.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Education of Young Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Education regarding the education of young persons with disabilities (PwDs) (a) what is the current percentage of PwDs in special schools and normal schools respectively; (b) whether there have been any changes in the proportion of PwDs among our young in the last 10 years; and (c) what are the programmes to integrate young PwDs with other students in their communities.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Education (MOE) takes a broader definition of students with Special Educational Needs (SEN). It includes students with learning difficulties, such as dyslexia and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or with Autism, physical and sensory impairment, who are enrolled in mainstream schools or study in Special Education (SPED) schools like Pathlight using the national curriculum. Those with moderate-to-severe SEN are enrolled in specialised SPED schools, with more assistance and customised teaching and learning approaches.
As at December 2018, there were about 32,000 students with reported SEN, with 80% in mainstream schools and 20% in SPED schools. The proportion of students with SEN has increased from about 5% in 2014 to 7% in 2018. The rise in students with SEN is a worldwide trend. Part of this is due to increased awareness and reporting, and better identification by hospitals and schools.
Mainstream schools educate students on inclusivity through classroom lessons, as well as school-based programmes that build up peer support. Through these, schools emphasise the importance of values such as respect and care for others, and promote empathy and acceptance of differences. But it is not without challenges and the system is still improving.
SPED schools have established partnerships with mainstream schools to provide social mixing opportunities between the students. An example is the combined community service and co-curricular programmes for students of Bowen Secondary School and AWWA School.
MOE, schools and partner organisations also work together to promote inclusivity in the arts and sports. For example, the Play Inclusive programme brought together student-athletes from several SPED and mainstream schools to share sports experiences. SPED students also participate in the National School Games, the Singapore Youth Festival Arts Presentation and the National Day Parade.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Operating Expenditures of Libraries in Autonomous Universities and Polytechnics in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Education for each of the last three years, what are the operating expenditures of the libraries of each of the Autonomous Universities and Polytechnics, broken down by (i) electronic database/electronic journal subscription costs (ii) physical book/journal/media acquisition costs and (iii) staff/administration costs.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The expenditure on libraries varies across Institutes of Higher Learning (IHL), depending on the volume and type of research they undertake, the range of academic disciplines they offer, the size of the student and faculty body, and other factors.
Over the past few years, operating expenditure on libraries ranged between $1 million to $6 million per year, across each Polytechnic. For the Autonomous Universities (AU), their library expenditures ranged from $1 million to $32 million per year. This works out to be between one percent to four percent of the total operating expenditure for each of the IHLs.
Table 1 shows the breakdown of the library operating expenditures for AUs and Polytechnics.
The IHLs have put in place measures to share resources across institutions through inter-library loans, so that students can have access to more library materials than those in their own institutions. For example, the AU libraries are studying the possibility of joint subscription of e-resources. The IHLs will continue to work together to enhance such efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Utilisation Rate of Flexible Work Arrangements by Employees in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Manpower in each of the last three years, what is the average utilisation rate of flexible work arrangements (FWAs) by employees broken down by (i) whether their employer receives the Work-Life Grant and (ii) type of FWA utilised disaggregated by gender and age.
Mrs Josephine Teo: We do not collect utilisation rate of Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) because it does not show if employees require more FWAs or not. A low FWA utilisation rate could be due to employees not requiring FWAs at the point in time. A more useful indicator is the accessibility of FWAs for employees who need it. Among employees aged 25 to 64 who required FWAs in 2018, more than eight in 10 had access to the FWA that they needed, an increase from seven in 10 in 2016.1 The percentage is broadly similar across age and gender.
The Work-Life Grant (WLG) is only disbursed to companies after their employees have regularly utilised the FWAs. The amount disbursed depends on the number of employees who utilised the FWAs, up to $105,000 per company. We do not track the utilisation of FWAs by all employees in each company. However, as part of the WLG conditions, every beneficiary company must adopt the Tripartite Standard on FWAs, which includes informing all their employees on the types of FWAs offered and outcomes of their applications, and engaging them on alternatives if their requests cannot be granted. To provide greater support to companies to implement FWAs, the budget for the enhanced WLG was recently increased to $100 million, up from $30 million. We strongly encourage employers to tap on the grant to offer FWAs to their employees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : A biennial MOM survey. "],"footNoteQuestions":["26"],"questionNo":"26"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training Participation Rate of Unemployed Persons and Their Utilisation of SkillsFuture Credits in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Manpower in each of the last three years (a) what is the training participation rate of unemployed persons, broken down by gender; and (b) what is the utilisation rate of SkillsFuture credits amongst unemployed persons, broken down by gender.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The breakdown of training participation rates of unemployed persons by gender, in each of the last three years, is provided in Table 1. The training participation rate of unemployed males increased significantly from 2016 to 2017, but dipped slightly in 2018. The training participation rate of unemployed females has steadily increased from 2016 to 2018.
We do not have the breakdown of utilisation rate of SkillsFuture Credit by employment status. Since the roll-out of the SkillsFuture Credit in January 2016, its utilisation between genders has been relatively balanced.
28 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Manpower regarding the cases dealt with by the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) since it was established in April 2017 (a) how many and what proportion of employee-claimants obtained judgments or orders for monetary payments in their favour; (b) of the cases in (a), how many involved scenarios where the employers had abided by the terms of the employment contracts but yet were ordered by the ECT to pay additional sums to the employees; and (c) of the cases in (b), what were the typical grounds that led the ECT to order the employers to pay sums over and above what was contractually agreed.
Mrs Josephine Teo: About 1,600 employees have filed salary claims at the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) between April 2017 when it was established and December 2018. Two-thirds of the claims filed resulted in money orders issued to employers to settle the salary claims, and the remaining were mostly withdrawn or dismissed.
The ECT does not order employers to pay sums beyond the employees' statutory or contractual entitlements. If an order has been made against the employer, it is usually due to two reasons: (a) the employer did not abide by the terms of the employment contract; or (b) the employment contract although observed, was contrary to the Employment Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Employers Opening POSB Payroll Account for Prospective Foreign Workers When Applying for Work Permits in 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in 2018, what is the percentage of employers who have selected the option to open a POSB Payroll Account for their prospective foreign workers when they apply for their work permits; and (b) whether the sole POSB branch at Kaki Bukit Recreation Centre is adequate to serve the banking needs of foreign workers.
Mrs Josephine Teo: In 2018, 63% of employers selected the option to open a POSB Payroll Account for their prospective foreign workers (non-domestic work permit holders) in their work permit applications.
Currently, foreign workers have to visit the POSB branch at Kaki Bukit Recreation Centre to collect their bank cards. POSB is aware that more foreign workers are visiting the POSB branch at Kaki Bukit Recreation Centre, and is working with the Ministry to explore ways to reduce the need for foreign workers to visit the POSB branch. For example, POSB has plans to pilot an initiative to allow foreign workers to receive their bank cards through the mail.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adoption of Eight Tripartite Standards by Employers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current number of employers, broken down by the number of employees and industry type, who have adopted the eight Tripartite Standards, namely Age-Friendly Workplace Practices, Contracting with Self-employed Persons, Employment of Term Contract Employees, Flexible Work Arrangements, Grievance Handling, Procurement of Services from Media Freelancers, Recruitment Practices, and Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs; and (b) what plans does the Government have to encourage more widespread adoption of these Standards.
Mrs Josephine Teo: In July 2017, MOM launched the Tripartite Standards to encourage companies to adopt fair and progressive workplace practices. Employers who adopt the Tripartite Standards are publicly recognised as progressive employers. This helps them to attract and retain jobseekers and their current workers. Adoption is voluntary.
Two years on, we have seen significant progress. As of July 2019, about 2,700 employers, including public sector agencies, covering about 670,000 employees, have adopted at least one Tripartite Standard. This means that one in five workers can be assured that their employers have committed to implementing fair and progressive employment practices such as recruiting based on merit, setting out clear terms of engagement, and providing flexible work arrangements.
Table 1 below provides a breakdown of the number of employers who have adopted each Tripartite Standard and workers covered. The top three industries with the most adopters of the Tripartite Standards are (i) Infocomm Technology and Media, (ii) Professional Services, and (iii) Wholesale Trade.
MOM and the tripartite partners have been working hard to encourage companies to adopt the Tripartite Standards. For instance, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair & Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) has been reaching out to companies, including through promotional campaigns, event roadshows, and briefings to members of Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs). TAFEP also organises clinics on Tripartite Standards to help companies better understand the specifications, so that they can confidently implement those practices before adoption.
These concerted MOM and tripartite efforts have led to good progress in the adoption of the Tripartite Standards. We will press on with these efforts.
31 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for each year in the past five years under the Government-Paid Child Care Leave (GPCL) Scheme (a) what percentage of working mothers took (i) four days of childcare leave (ii) five days of childcare leave or (iii) six days of childcare leave respectively; and (b) what percentage of working fathers took (i) four days of childcare leave (ii) five days of childcare leave or (iii) six days of childcare leave respectively.
32 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for each year in the past five years under the Extended Child Care Leave (ECL) Scheme (a) what percentage of working mothers took exactly (i) one day of childcare leave or (ii) two days of childcare leave respectively; and (b) what percentage of working fathers took exactly (i) one day of childcare leave or (ii) two days of childcare leave respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: Working parents with citizen children below seven years of age are provided with six days of paid child care leave. Employers absorb the cost for the first to third days, and the Government reimburses employers for the fourth to sixth days under the Government-Paid Childcare Leave (GPCL) scheme. Utilisation of these Government-paid leaves has been slowly rising. The estimated percentages of eligible working mothers and fathers who took four, five and six days of GPCL respectively in the past three years are in Table 1 below.
Introduced in 2013, the Government-Paid ECL provides working parents with two days of paid extended childcare leave per year if they have a citizen child aged seven to 12 years. The estimated percentages of eligible working mothers and fathers who took one or two days of ECL respectively are in Table 2 below.
Breakdown of data on the take-up of GPCL and Extended Childcare Leave (ECL) is not available before 2016.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Persons with Disabilities in Institutional Care in Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in the last 10 years, what is the number of persons with disabilities in institutional care, broken down by 20-year age groups; and (b) whether there has been an increase in these numbers.
Mr Desmond Lee: Persons with Disabilities (PwDs)1 who are receiving institutional care reside in the Children Disability Homes (CDH), Adult Disability Homes (ADH) and Welfare Homes (WH).
CDHs admits PwDs below the age of 16 years old. As at June 2019, there were 40 children residing in CDHs. This number has been relatively stable in the last 10 years.
The ADHs and WHs provide institutional care for PwDs aged 16 and above. As at June 2019, there were about 890 PwDs from age 16 to 642 residing in ADHs and WHs, compared to 780 PwDs in 2009. Another 110 PwDs aged 65 and above were residents in the ADHs and WHs. The age profile of these PwDs is as follows:
Seniors who require assistance in activities of daily living and/or daily nursing care needs, as well as have little or no family support may be cared for in nursing homes. As at end-2018, there were about 12,000 subsidised nursing home residents, compared to 8,000 in end-20143.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Refers to persons with Hearing Impairment and Visual Impairment conditions, Physical Disabilities, Intellectual Disabilities and Autism Spectrum Disorder, below the age of 65.","2 : We used this age range to compare with 2009 as the data in 2009 did not include PwDs age 65 and above. ","3 : The earliest comparable figure to end-2018 is as of end-2014, as there was a change in the data collection system in 2014."],"footNoteQuestions":["33"],"questionNo":"33"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Suggestion for President to Issue Congratulatory Notes to Singaporean Centenarians on Their Birthdays","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether he can provide an update on his Ministry's study of the suggestion made in the House on 8 March 2017 that the President of Singapore issue congratulatory notes to Singaporean centenarians on the occasion of their birthdays.
Mr Desmond Lee: We thank Mr Pillai for his suggestion, and agree that the birthday of a centenarian is a significant occasion. It would be most meaningful to celebrate such an occasion via grassroots-led ground up efforts, where we celebrate not just the birthdays of centenarians, but the kinship and community bonds forged with family, neighbours, and the broader community. Grassroots and community leaders would be well-placed to organise such celebrations in an organic manner. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and other agencies, such as the Silver Generation Office, would be happy to support these efforts, for example, through sharing of information on centenarians whom the agencies come into contact with and who would like be involved in these celebrations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Options for Residential Home Residents Needing Additional Acute Help","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what options are available for those who stay at residential homes but who may still need additional acute help, for example when dealing with mental health issues.
Mr Desmond Lee: MSF's residential homes1 provide care and support to vulnerable individuals who have limited or no family support. These include low-income frail seniors, destitute persons, and adults with disabilities.
The Homes are run by Social Service Agencies (SSAs) and funded by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), providing support to the residents in meeting their daily care needs through a team of in-house care staff and other professionals such as social workers, therapists and nurses.
All Homes actively identify residents who may have mental health issues, so that appropriate support can be provided. In addition, some Homes partner external agencies, such as hospitals, Agency for Integrated Care, and Singapore Association for Mental Health (SAMH) to (i) diagnose and assess the severity of the residents' medical and psychiatric conditions, and (ii) provide physical, mental wellness, rehabilitative and re-integrative programmes, to improve well-being of the residents. Residents who require acute care treatment for physical or mental health conditions are sent to hospitals or the Institute of Mental Health. The Residential Homes staff work closely with the hospitals on post-discharge care and monitoring after the residents return to the Homes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Residential Homes include Sheltered Homes, Welfare Homes and Adult Disability Homes. "],"footNoteQuestions":["35"],"questionNo":"35"}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":3227,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Prof Fatimah Lateef","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190902/vernacular-2 Sept 2019 - Prof Fatimah Lateef - CareShield Life.pdf","fileName":"2 Sept 2019 - Prof Fatimah Lateef - CareShield Life.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3228,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Chen Show Mao","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190902/vernacular-Chen Show Mao CareShield 2Sep2019 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Chen Show Mao CareShield 2Sep2019 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3229,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190902/vernacular-Joan Pereira CareShield 2Sep2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira CareShield 2Sep2019-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3230,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190902/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah CareShield 2Sep2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah CareShield 2Sep2019-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3231,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Tin Pei Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190902/vernacular-Tin Pei Ling CareShield 2Sep 2019 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Tin Pei Ling CareShield 2Sep 2019 -Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}