Mr Speaker: Order. I wish to inform Members that pursuant to Standing Order No 102, I have on 12 September 2017 nominated the Minister for Social and Family Development and Second Minister for National Development Mr Desmond Lee to be a Member of the Public Petitions Committee, to fill a vacancy that has arisen in that Committee.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Surveillance of Maritime Traffic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Mr Vikram Nair asked\tthe Minister for Defence following the two recent incidents of ship collisions in our territorial waters, what is the Maritime Security Task Force's assessment of (i) our capabilities for surveillance of maritime traffic and (ii) our ability to respond to scenarios where commercial vessels that are in or entering Singapore waters can be used by terrorists.
\tThe Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Speaker, ensuring maritime security for our ports and surrounding waters is of high priority to Singapore. This is because disruption to sea traffic along the Singapore Strait will impact not only our local economy but also globally as half of the world’s total annual sea-borne trade and 70% of Asia’s oil imports pass through our waterway. As the Member also highlighted, terrorists can target ships in our waters or attack from the sea, as they did in the Mumbai incident in 2008.
In dealing with terror threats at and from the sea, Singapore adopts a whole-of-Government (WoG) approach to ensure a comprehensive coverage of varied scenarios as well as coordinated responses. This approach led to the setup of the Singapore Maritime Crisis Centre (SMCC) in 2011, which brings together the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN), the Police Coast Guard, the Singapore Civil Defence Force, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA), and Singapore Customs. SMCC maintains a comprehensive maritime situation picture, shares information among the agencies and coordinates responses to deal with potential threats.
SMCC leverages technology to analyse information, detect suspicious patterns, and cue relevant agencies to investigate and take action. Let me provide two examples. In 2015, for example, SMCC detected a potential Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) sympathiser who was on board a tanker calling into Singapore. That individual was barred from entering Singapore. In another case in 2016, SMCC received information about a hijacked tanker. This information was shared with the Indonesian authorities as the vessel was in their waters. This led to the ship’s rescue, and, in that case, the hijack was not linked to any terror intent.
Also, as part of the WoG efforts, the RSN's Maritime Security Task Force (MSTF), which the Member asked specifically about, feeds its information to SMCC. This information is obtained from monitoring close to a thousand ships passing through the Singapore Straits each day, through a network of sensors, such as coastal surveillance radars, electro-optic devices and RSN ships on patrol. This surveillance is continuous both in the day and at night.
The MSTF's key focus is on potential threats to Singapore. This is what Mr Vikram Nair alluded to, while the MPA watches over the navigation of ships in our waters. For both purposes, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea mandates the use of the Automatic Identification System (AIS) to identify ships at sea. This AIS, however, does not apply to warships. For ships that are not required or have not complied with vessel identification, their presence can still be detected via our network of coastal surveillance radars and electro-optic devices.
On a daily basis, MSTF conducts threat evaluation for every vessel calling into Singapore's ports or transiting through the Singapore Straits. MSTF does this by deploying analytic tools to build profiles of each vessel based on attributes, such as their voyage, owners, crew and cargo, as well as additional data shared by Government agencies. MSTF would then decide the appropriate operational responses, which include, for example, closer monitoring, escorting or even boarding the ship to mitigate the threat.
Let me now move on specifically to the two recent incidents asked about by the Member. With regard to the two recent incidents which resulted in collisions, our sensors had detected and identified the vessels involved in both the collisions. In the case of the USS John S McCain and the Alnic MC, both were detected in our waters off Pedra Branca. The RSN vessel RSS Gallant, which was patrolling our waters, had also established communications with the foreign warship as part of standard procedures. Likewise, for the case of the dredger JBB De Rong 19 and tanker Kartika Segara, both were detected and identified prior to their collision that took place within Singapore waters off Sisters’ Island.
In both these incidents, none of the ships was designated as potential threats to security, and correctly so. As such, in compliance with standard protocols, they did not require close monitoring by MSTF. And by the rules of navigation under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, the master and crew of the vessels involved were responsible to guide their ships safely through. The various parties involved in the collision will now have to investigate what went wrong and what remedial actions to take, if necessary. The Transport Safety Investigation Bureau is also conducting an investigation and has announced that it will make the findings public.
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
\tMr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): I thank the Minister for the reply. In relation to the two collisions, I understand that we were able to detect the ships, but they were not subjected to a higher level of security and, therefore, additional steps were not necessary. What would the measures be if, for example, there was hostile intention detected on the paths of one of the vessels? Would that have been different?
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: Those are very pertinent questions and not theoretical at all. We saw what happened in the Mumbai attack, and there are many scenarios. If we had, for example, pre-emptive information that a particular ship was carrying either illegal cargo or had malignant intent towards Singapore, it could amount to boarding the ship or keeping it under close surveillance.
There are various scenarios played out. This is what MSTF does in its exercises, if you have kept up with the number of exercises that we have had at sea, various scenarios are played out, whether it is cruise ship, whether it is cargo, and what kind of scenarios may result, including hostage-taking. They are varied to the extent possible. The planners, our security agencies and, together with the other agencies under SMCC, do play out these scenarios.
We have, over the years, stepped up the level of exercises, and there is a certain level of competency. I do not want to give the false impression that all attacks can be mitigated. If there are suicide attacks, sometimes, it is difficult to stop them. But this is a situation where we continue to look at the scenarios, continue to exercise, continue to anticipate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviews on Vessel Traffic Information System to Enhance Navigational Safety","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Ms Joan Pereira asked\tthe Minister for Transport with regard to the two recent collisions of ships in our territorial waters (a) whether there will be reviews carried out on our Vessel Traffic Information System to enhance the navigational safety and security in our waters; and (b) whether the Ministry will be checking for weaknesses in our sea defence against potential attacks by terrorists in this area.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to answer part (a) of the question, as part (b) has been earlier addressed by the Minister for Defence in his reply to Question No 1.
The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) operates the Vessel Traffic Information System (VTIS), which integrates data from various sources, including radars, the Automatic Identification System, closed circuit television system, Very High Frequency Communications System and ship databases, to provide an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the traffic in the Singapore Strait and Singapore port waters. With the capability to concurrently track more than 10,000 vessels, VTIS enables MPA to provide timely information and advice to help vessels transit safely through the Singapore Strait, as well as manage traffic within our port waters, where there are some 1,000 vessels at any one time.
Enhancing navigational safety is an important priority for MPA. MPA carries out regular enhancements to its VTIS which was installed in 2011 and upgraded early this year.
Beyond technical capabilities, MPA also seeks to improve the practice of good seamanship and advocate a safety-first culture at sea. MPA established the National Maritime Safety at Sea Council to drive such efforts. MPA also organises conferences, workshops and briefings on navigational safety under its Safety@Sea campaign.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Decisions to Build Bukit Panjang LRT System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Pritam Singh asked\tthe Minister for Transport (a) whether the Bukit Panjang LRT system was built as an afterthought; and (b) what were the political pressures faced by the Government when it decided to build the Bukit Panjang LRT system.
\tThe Second Minister for Transport (Mr Ng Chee Meng) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, in the 1990s, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) was exploring a pilot Light Rail Transit (LRT) network to bridge the last-mile gap from the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system and ease vehicle congestion within housing estates where population growth had stretched the road capacity. Bukit Panjang was identified in 1994 for the pilot, even though it was planned and built without LRT in mind.
To accommodate the existing developments, the LRT had to take sharp turns over undulating terrain. Over time, we discovered that this made the LRT prone to faults, especially power trips at the sharp bends, where the trains' collector shoes often dislodge from the power rail. LTA and Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) have put in significant efforts to improve system reliability, including detailed power rail checks, hotspot replacement and installation of an additional power source. They are also exploring extending engineering hours to address these additional works.
As the LRT is coming to the end of its design life, we will be calling a tender at the end of this year to overhaul the LRT.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I thank the Second Minister for the reply. I know it does not answer the question; I can understand why because the Minister is not here. But just to confirm: this issue of the topographical constraints of Bukit Panjang was raised by the former Minister for Transport Mr Lui Tuck Yew in 2015 as a reason why it is not feasible to rebuild the entire line, because of these constraints. The former Chief Executive Officer of SMRT Ms Saw Phaik Hwa was also quoted as saying, \"LRTs are meant to be simple lines and are not meant to make many turns and go up and down hills.\"
It would appear that a design issue is at the heart of the problems affecting the Bukit Panjang LRT Line. And to that end, can I just ask, would this be a correct characterisation of the problem with the Bukit Panjang LRT Line and, if so, who was responsible for the design of that particular Line? Was it LTA or the winning tenderer?
The second question I have is with regard to tender selection when the Line was awarded to Keppel Integrated Engineering (KIE). It was reported that KIE was the lowest bidder and its price worked out to about $35 million per kilometre. This was significantly lower, compared to similar LRT Lines made around that period or tendered around that period in Malaysia and Thailand. So, was that an issue?
\tMr Ng Chee Meng: Mr Speaker, the primary issue with the Bukit Panjang LRT is that the LRT design was adapted from an airport system, primarily, to a housing estate. As I have stated in my reply, this straight-line design of the LRT was adapted to undulating terrain and sharp turns, and this caused the power collector shoes to dislodge from the power rail. We have taken a look at the design considerations and this will be addressed in the upcoming tender to improve the reliability of the whole system.
So, in the initial implementation of the LRT, we adapted a system that is usually for straight-line travel into a housing estate. This had caused some of these power dislodge problems.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Reliability of Bukit Panjang LRT System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked\tthe Minister for Transport what are the Government's plans to improve the medium- to long-term term reliability of the Bukit Panjang LRT system and what are the immediate- to short-term plans to improve commuter service and experience when there are breakdowns and stoppages in the LRT system.
\tThe Second Minister for Transport (Mr Ng Chee Meng) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, the Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit (BPLRT) is our next oldest rail line after the North-South and East-West Lines. The system is nearing the end of its design life and is due for renewal.
Most of the disruptions on BPLRT have been due to power-related faults. In the immediate term, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) are carrying out detailed checks of the Light Rail Transit's (LRT's) power rails and performing hotspot replacement works where needed. LTA will also install a new power source at the Ten Mile Junction substation to provide a back-up to the existing system at Choa Chu Kang. Both exercises will be completed by year end. In the meantime, LTA and SMRT are looking to extend engineering hours to cater to these additional works. This would mean shorter operating hours and we hope to have commuters’ understanding on this.
In addition, SMRT is forming a quick response team to rectify train faults and shorten service recovery times. The proximity of the new Bukit Panjang Integrated Transport Hub will also allow SMRT to deploy buses rapidly to ferry commuters during a service disruption.
In the first half of 2018, LTA will be awarding a contract to renew BPLRT. When completed, reliability will improve substantially.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank the Second Minister for his commitment to fix the LRT problem with both long-term and short-term solutions. The feedback I have received from my residents in Bukit Panjang Town is that while they are unhappy with the frequent disruptions of BPLRT, they still find that the LRT serves their commuting needs and hope that the LRT will continue as another mode of transport in Bukit Panjang Town.
My first question to the Second Minister is: with this revamp, is there any indication of the timeline, what are the different phases involved and whether there will be disruptions in the process as the operator tries to fix the longer-term problems?
Secondly, in the meantime, when these are in progress, can the bus resources be increased to serve as a back-up whenever there are stoppages, and also to provide alternatives, especially during the crowded peak periods?
\tMr Ng Chee Meng: Mr Speaker, there were good engineering lessons learnt from BPLRT over the years and we are intending to up the engineering hours to provide LTA and SMRT to have more time on the tracks. Though this will cause short-term disruptions, we will be providing bus services to bridge any of the inconveniences for the commuters.
In the upgrading process, there will be requirements to secure different parts of the BPLRT. Likewise, where we can, SMRT will provide the bus services to alleviate commuters' inconveniences. But because Bukit Panjang is a relatively mature estate, there are limits to how many buses we can put on the roads without causing further congestion. So, we ask for commuters' understanding while we do the short-term and the longer-term upgrades.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions. The fact that there will be another tender called to revamp the BPLRT means that it is useful. My question is: will there be an LRT plan for Yishun Town?
Secondly, Yishun is served by the North-South Line, which is the oldest, even older that Bukit Panjang LRT. What plans does the Ministry have to reduce the breakdown rate because, recently, there are still a lot of breakdowns?
\tMr Ng Chee Meng: Mr Speaker, as usual, I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the question. I regret to inform the hon Member that the LRT is not in the works for Yishun Town. But for the North-South Line, there have been a lot of engineering works done on two fronts. One, on the maintenance front, we have upped the reliability to almost 400,000 kilometres before failure. This is for the maintenance regime upgrade on the North-South Line. In parallel, we have been doing a signalling upgrading on the North-South Line. Things have gone on relatively well, short of a couple of major breakdowns in June and July. But we are fixing the software issues and, by year-end, we hope to have the new signalling system operating on the North-South Line. That will bring better service and conveniences to the hon Member's residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Findings on Improper Payments in Auditor-General's Report","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Png Eng Huat asked\tthe Minister for Finance based on the findings in the Report of the Auditor-General for FY2016/17, whether AGO will direct all the entities in the Report to investigate all improper payments made and determine the amount of money to recover.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, the Auditor-General's (AG's) report reflects its findings in respect of two types of audit conducted every year on Government agencies. The first concerns whether the accounts of the Government are reliable and prepared in accordance with the law. The second concerns the rules and procedures in individual public agencies, for example, whether the rules and processes are adequate and have been complied with.
On the former, the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) has given the Government's Financial Statements this year an unmodified audit opinion, as has been the case in previous years. In other words, in the AGO’s opinion, the Financial Statements have been presented, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework. This means that the accounts of the Ministries, departments and Organs of State have all been found to be reliable and prepared in accordance with the law. On the latter, AGO has highlighted in its report some areas in which there have been procedural lapses and where the Government agencies can do better. We take these findings seriously.
Let me address Mr Png's question on investigating all improper payments and its recovery. I should clarify at the outset that there is no indication in the AGO report of any payments due to fraud, misfeasance or dishonesty. The cases highlighted by AGO this year largely concerned overpayments and payments made without prior approval, arising from human error, negligence or failure to follow established procedures.
In each of these cases, agencies have been taking prompt actions to recover any monies which might have been erroneously paid out. AGO noted that the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) has recovered the overpaid amounts. The Economic Development Board (EDB) has completed the remedial action for all payment related lapses, including recovery of monies in the two incidences of overpayments. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) is also taking corrective actions to make good under-reimbursements and to recover over-reimbursements for the Government-paid Paternity Leave scheme. The Ministry of Health (MOH) also completed its review of the claims by its agents and service providers. There is no overpayment as the additional sums claimed by its agents have not been paid out. MOH will only be reimbursing its agents for the correct amount due to them.
The Government agencies are taking the necessary corrective actions in respect of the lapses highlighted in the AGO report.
Mr Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
\tMr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have a question because, in the AGO Report, there is also, for example, language used, such as \"there is no assurance that the Ministry exercised financial prudence\" and also “there is a risk of fraud”. Can any entity whose lapses are highlighted in the AGO report come to the conclusion that there is no fraud because the AGO report is not forensic in nature? That is my question.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Png referred to \"the Ministry\" in his clarification. May I enquire which Ministry?
\tMr Png Eng Huat: MOH.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: MOH. Mr Speaker, I think what the hon Member is really asking is whether an AGO report can prove a negative. You cannot prove a negative. One does not go around looking to see whether I can disprove or show that there is no fraud. An audit, by its nature, selects samples. It looks at the samples and it considers whether the system as a whole is robust and, if it picks up a point that the system, in itself, has got inefficiencies or deficiencies, it will highlight it.
An audit, by its nature, also, if it encounters a specific lapse or error, such as overpayment or under-reimbursement, it will also highlight that. So, what an audit does really is that it does sample checks, sees whether the system as a whole is robust and efficient, and it highlights specific lapses that it may encounter. That is the nature, not just of an audit by AGO, but of all audits.
Mr Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
\tMr Png Eng Huat: Mr Speaker, Sir, just one last clarification. Although the AGO or audit is not forensic, so, technically, you cannot detect fraud. But in the aftermath of the report, when it was released, MOH, in its statement, said that, \"Based on the AGO report, there was no indication of fraud or corrupt practices\", which the AGO report did not say. Then the statement went on to say that \"that warrants no further investigation required\".
Would the Senior Minister of State comment on it because I think no one should take the AGO report as an endorsement that there is no fraud. The AGO only highlights lapses. Like what the Senior Minister of State said, it is selective audit. As such, the AGO report, when it came out, the language they used is quite similar to what was also used previously. We have encountered it before. It is not forensic. So, no Ministry should take for granted that, because it is not mentioned that there is no fraud, and if there is no fraud, it does not warrant any further investigations.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, the hon Member may have misunderstood the nature of an audit. An audit will highlight or precipitate forensic inquiry if there is reason to do a forensic inquiry. So, if you go in and if you find there is conflict of interests, for example, payments to related third-parties or that your system as a whole enables the same person to approve a payment, submit a request for payment and sign a cheque for payment, that would require a forensic investigation.
But if you go in and you find that there is, in MOH's case, a possibility of an overpayment which actually has not even occurred and you point it out and you can rectify it, and if the nature of that is because, as I have explained earlier, human error, negligence or non-compliance, that, in itself, does not trigger a forensic audit.
What you have to do is you have to look at the nature of the lapse. Is it something that requires a further and deep investigation, or is it something that does not?
In this case, as I have explained earlier, the Financial Statements of the Government are fair and accurate. They are reliable. So, you can take the statements as reliable. Then, the second part of the audit is that you look to see whether or not the rules and processes are adequate and have been complied with. In this case, it would appear that the rules and processes are adequate, but, in some cases, they were not complied with that does not necessitate a forensic investigation.
So, it is quite correct for MOH to say that the audit did not, in this instance, disclose evidence of fraud.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review and Publish Results of Government's Measures to Reduce Socio-economic Inequality","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will regularly review the Government's commitment to reduce socio-economic inequality and publish the results of such reviews in light of recent findings from a study by Oxfam and Development Finance International that ranks Singapore in 86th placing in the world in this regard.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, the Government is concerned about inequality and takes serious efforts to address it. Our concern underpins the design of many of our policies and schemes.
Our key strategy for tackling inequality is to ensure that all Singaporeans, especially those who are less well off, are able to access good opportunities, earn higher incomes and enjoy a higher standard of living. We do this by providing the necessary support to our citizens at various stages of life, with more support going to the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups.
We invest heavily in education so that every child, regardless of socio-economic background, can have access to a good education and develop to his full potential. A child who attends primary and secondary school receives around $11,000 in educational subsidies per year. Children from lower-income families receive even more support through the Ministry of Education's Financial Assistance Scheme and bursaries. Students with more needs receive additional support through various support programmes. These ensure that we preserve social mobility for our next generation.
For workers, we introduced the SkillsFuture movement to support skills upgrading so that they can take on better jobs. We also have the Progressive Wage Model to help lower-wage workers upskill and earn better wages, and Workfare to supplement their income. We have seen encouraging results so far. In the last five years, incomes of lower-wage workers have grown in tandem with median income growth.
For those in their silver years, we have introduced the Silver Support Scheme to provide additional support to seniors who have low incomes through life and have little family support.
Our means-tested health and long-term care subsidies also ensure that those with lower income receive more assistance, while the Goods and Services Tax Voucher scheme supports lower-income families with their day-to-day expenses.
All these schemes add up to a system that is highly progressive. All in all, low-income households receive almost $4 of benefits for every dollar of tax paid, while the middle-income households receive almost $2 for every dollar of tax paid.
Mr Perera referred to the ranking by Oxfam and Development Finance International. The rankings were based on the absolute amount of social spending, with the assumption that the higher the level of spending, the better will be the situation, regardless of whether the spending leads to effective outcomes. The authors have acknowledged the limitations of their study in representing the different circumstances of individual countries. This is the case for Singapore, where we target our subsidies and assistance to those who are more needy. This focused approach to reducing inequality enables us to keep our tax burden low while ensuring our social expenditure is prudent, fair and progressive.
Our approach has served us well so far. We have kept inequality in check, even as income gaps widen elsewhere. Our Gini coefficient has moderated over the last five years. Our people have also seen good income growth with the lower income seeing their real per capita household income grow by close to 20% over the last five years.
Such indicators are published every year in the Key Household Income Trends report by the Department of Statistics, and every two years in the biennial Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review (SPOR) by the Ministry of Finance. The Government has been and remains committed to addressing inequality.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the detailed and comprehensive answer. I have two supplementary questions.
Firstly, in light of the fact that our Gini coefficient, which the Senior Minister of State alluded to, is still among the highest among developed countries in the world, and given the fact that even though the Gini coefficient refers to inequality of outcomes and the inequality of outcomes can impact inequality of opportunity, how confident is the Government that it is keeping abreast of international best practices in the field of ameliorating and mitigating inequality of opportunity? This is a field where I think the policy is evolving worldwide; there are different innovations. So, how confident is the Government that it is being done?
And to link to that, my second question would be: would the Government consider publishing at regular intervals a report which measures the state of equality of opportunity, looking at indicators – not just the indicators that the Senior Minister of State mentioned like absolute incomes – but also measures like social mobility which are more infrequently measured at the current point. Could the Government consider that kind of regular measurement publication and public debate on this issue, given the importance of the issue and how it cuts across so many other areas of policy?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, our approach on this matter has not been to say that once in every few years, we will do a review and do a check and see where we are on social mobility. For this Government, our entire approach and, in fact, the raison d'être on which Singapore was founded on in 1965, was really to be a place where everybody can progress.
In fact, if we look at the proclamation of Singapore's Independence, it said that this would be a country founded on the principles of liberty and justice, and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society.
What that means is that from Day 1, this Government is committed to the progress of its people, and that includes reducing the gap among people who have unequal situations. That is the reason why every year, during Budget, we review what we can do better. It is part of each Ministry's duty and responsibility to see where the gaps are. The report is actually, as I indicated earlier, shown in the SPOR report. We also publish the socio-economic indicators and outcomes every year in the Key Household Income Trends report by the Department of Statistics.
So, in other words, this is not something we do every five years or every 10 years. It is part and parcel of the day-to-day work of the Ministries, and we look at it every Budget as well. Occasionally, we may have bigger reviews but it is really something that is done each and every day of the Ministries' work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging Production Companies to Use Facilities at Mediapolis@one-north","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Ganesh Rajaram asked\tthe Minister for Communications and Information what steps has the Government taken to encourage more production companies to utilise the state-of-the-art facilities at Mediapolis@one-north.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mediapolis@one-north has grown to be a vibrant infocomm-media cluster and is home to many media companies, including Lucasfilm, Mediacorp and Infinite Studios. Many of the facilities in Mediapolis are privately owned and the owners are promoting the use of their facilities for media productions. For example, Infinite Studios offers a diverse range of media activities, such as soundstages for filming, visual effects and production services. The soundstages have been well-utilised by local and regional large-scale television productions. Several Hollywood films have also used the soundstages in their filming, for example, \"Hitman: Agent 47\", as well as \"Equals\", that were both filmed in 2014. In June this year, Warner Brothers' \"Crazy Rich Asians\", starring Hollywood and Singaporean actors, utilised Infinite Studios’ facilities as well.
The main facility in Mediapolis under the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA’s) purview is PIXEL Studios. IMDA launched PIXEL Studios less than a year ago in November 2016 to provide shared content production facilities for online content creators and game developers to experiment with and create innovative digital media content. In addition, development space is available to incubate promising local games startups and there are currently 15 of them incubated at PIXEL. IMDA also organises a slate of programmes for content creators to learn from experienced local and international industry leaders. Since the launch of PIXEL Studios, more than 4,200 participants have attended over 150 events. These events range from networking sessions and video production clinics to workshops and talks on immersive media trends and technologies.
IMDA has also opened up PIXEL Studios for independent digital content creators to use the facilities for free. Some examples of the facilities available are audio and video recording suites, post-editing suites, thematic areas and backdrops, as well as filming equipment. All these facilities serve to meet the basic production needs of content creators. So far, the response from industry users has been positive. Over the past six months, about a dozen productions by content creators have taken place at PIXEL Studios.
In addition, the Singapore Film Commission within IMDA has launched the Filming Friendly Zone at one-north. Obtaining permissions to film at some locations in Singapore may be a challenge for some production companies. Thus, IMDA has established agreements with various building owners in the one-north precinct for a higher level of openness towards production companies which may be interested to use some locations for their filming. This supports small-size film productions by helping them gain easier access to film at these areas.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring Use of Telecommunication and Internet Services for Online and Phone Scams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Murali Pillai asked\tthe Minister for Communications and Information whether the Ministry plans to impose on telecommunication and Internet service providers operating in Singapore a requirement to proactively monitor the use of their services for online and phone scams, take all necessary steps to deter such usage and promptly provide all relevant information to enforcement agencies.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Mr Speaker, combating online and phone scams requires a multifaceted and holistic approach, including in cases where scammers operate from overseas, and working with our international counterparts. Regulators, law enforcement agencies, service providers and even members of the public, all have an important role to play in combating scams.
Today, mobile and Internet service providers already monitor their networks for scams based on complaints from consumers and assist enforcement agencies by providing information for investigations on suspected scams.
However, scammers' tactics have become more sophisticated. Technological solutions are necessary but not sufficient. Improving public education and individual vigilance are, therefore, key to combatting scams. To this end, Government agencies, including the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and the Singapore Police Force, work with the National Crime Prevention Council to conduct public education and outreach programmes, especially to groups which are more likely to fall prey to scams. All of us must also do our part by helping to educate our loved ones about scams so that they will not become victims of scams.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive answer. I have a few supplementary questions. First is whether the Ministry is contemplating any regulation to be put in place for the telecoms companies (telcos) operators and the infocomm service operators to proactively monitor the space for scammers.
Secondly, in relation to the cost of compliance, whether there would be any measure to ensure that the cost of compliance is not passed on unreasonably to consumers.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, managing this issue and managing the space have their challenges, given the many different types of platforms and services that are offered, as well as the fact that many of the scammers operate overseas. So, there is a necessary consideration on how we will interface with other telecommunications regimes and services. We continue to study the matter and there is, at this point in time, no regulations that are being planned.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Success of Direct School Admission (Sports) Programme and Singapore Sports School","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Ganesh Rajaram asked\tthe Minister for Education (Schools) with regard to nurturing sports excellence in schools (a) whether the Ministry can provide statistics on the success of the Direct School Admission (Sports) programme and the Singapore Sports School; and (b) how many of the students accepted into either of these programmes have represented or are representing Singapore in their chosen sporting fields after they have left school.
\tThe Minister for Education (Schools) (Mr Ng Chee Meng): Mr Speaker, since its inception in 2004, the Singapore Sports School has produced eight Olympians, 10 World Champions and 65 Asian Games competitors. To date, about 400 Sports School students and alumni have represented Singapore at various international competitions.
For students who are admitted to mainstream schools via Direct School Admission, the Ministry of Education does not track whether they go on to represent Singapore in their chosen sporting field after they have graduated.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications from International Students for Local Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked\tthe Minister for Education (Schools) how many applications from international students for our local schools have been rejected in 2017 and whether the Ministry will consider increasing the percentage of international students in local schools to above 5% to better accommodate the education needs of children of resident workers who actively contribute to our economy.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Education (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Education (Schools)): Mr Speaker, the presence of eligible international students helps to cultivate a global orientation and intercultural skills in our students and enrich the overall educational environment in Singapore schools.
For the 2016 Primary 1 Registration Exercise, around 1,800 applications from international students to enter Primary 1 in 2017 were rejected.
Our public school system is designed to cater to the needs of Singaporeans. While the Ministry of Education (MOE) values the diversity that international students bring to our schools, our priority is to serve the educational needs of Singaporeans. Thus, we only offer a limited number of places to international students each year.
While MOE continues to make available places in our mainstream schools for international students, we will not be able to meet the demand entirely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthen Recruitment and Hiring Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked\tthe Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will consider regulations to (i) strengthen recruitment and hiring practices by employers; (ii) ensure employers acknowledge and inform job applicants on whether they are successful in their job applications; and (b) whether the public sector can take the lead in this.
\tThe Second Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, all employers are already expected to adhere to the principles of fair employment practices, as set out in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, and that includes recruitment and hiring. For example, the guidelines make it clear that job advertisements should not be discriminatory and interviewers should confine questions to those relevant to the job requirements. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) looks into complaints about unfair recruitment and hiring practices and works with non-compliant companies to improve their practices. Where warranted, cases are referred to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for investigation.
To further encourage employers to adopt progressive workplace practices, the tripartite partners will develop a series of Tripartite Standards that companies can voluntarily adopt. The Standards detail verifiable progressive actions that companies commit to undertake. Jobseekers will also be able to identify progressive companies and organisations which publicly adopt the Standards. Therefore, employers have an incentive to adopt the Standards even if there are no regulations which require them to.
One of these Standards is on Recruitment Practices, and public sector agencies will take the lead in adopting the Standard when it is launched. One of the specifications in the Standard is for employers to inform all shortlisted applicants who attend their job interviews about the outcome. On the question of whether applicants should be notified even if they are not shortlisted for interviews, the tripartite partners assessed that it would place an onerous burden on some companies, particularly small and medium enterprises, which have not fully automated their recruitment processes to deal with the large volumes of online applicants. However, the tripartite partners agree that the Standard can be updated over time as companies make progress.
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): I thank the Second Minister for that reply. For the acknowledgment of the application, I have received feedback, particularly for those who are taking up public sector positions through Careers@Gov and so on, one suggestion would be at least provide acknowledgement that they have received the application of the curriculum vitae. I have been meeting many of these interested Singaporeans who are wanting to take up public sector positions, applying through online platforms, such as Careers@Gov, and they say they do not get a formal reply whether they are even shortlisted for interviews or even rejected. So, I think it would be a good practice for the public sector to take the lead on this.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his feedback and I agree with him that it is a matter of good practice and I do believe that employers who have automated their application systems are, indeed, able to do so. So, I think this is a matter of work in progress. We certainly encourage more employers to come on board.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I would like to ask a supplementary question with regard to the Second Minister's answer just now about TAFEP. In following up on this question, are there any specific plans to provide more teeth, such as regulations with regard to TAFEP, over the next five years? As the Second Minister mentioned, there might not be a need to have regulatory changes. I was wondering what are the plans for MOM in terms of teeth for TAFEP, enhancements of TAFEP, to have actually actions being taken by TAFEP, of course.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, may I ask Mr Saktiandi whether he is talking specifically about recruitment practices or TAFEP's ability to enforce in general?
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat: It is with regard to recruitment practices and TAFEP's ability to take action in future if there are any changes to regulations.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, TAFEP is an organisation that relies on a number of methods to encourage and support employers who are able and willing to adopt progressive workplace practices. One of it, of course, is by making them more aware of the benefits of doing so. Another is that it is able to look into complaints that are levelled against certain employers and refer them to MOM for investigations if warranted. Through this process, TAFEP will either work with the employers to change their practices and, if the employers are not cooperative, to find other means of pushing the employers to change their practices.
There are tools within MOM's available resources. For example, if the companies truly are unwilling to comply, in some instances, we may blacklist them. If we blacklist them, then their work pass privileges may be curtailed. It is something that we will continue to explore better ways of doing.
But bear in mind that, firstly, there are laws in existence. In addition to the laws which employers must comply with, we also have tripartite guidelines and, over and above that, there are tripartite advisories. We are introducing the Tripartite Standards as an additional measure to make the adherence to progressive workplace practices more attractive for the employers to do. So, all of these measures are available to us. It is not always the case that you have to come down hard on the employers. In some cases, a combination of persuasion and finding the right incentives for them to do so may work better.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection for Self-employed Persons who Offer Delivery Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked\tthe Minister for Manpower what are the specific challenges in ensuring that self-employed persons who provide delivery services on their own bicycles and personal mobility devices enjoy similar and adequate workplace safety protection as employees working for delivery companies, including insurance coverage in respect of injury, death and property claims arising from accidents while working.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, employees and self-employed persons (SEPs), enjoy similar protection under the Workplace Safety and Health Act (WSHA). Companies are required to take reasonably practicable measures to ensure the safety and health of both their employees and SEPs they have a contract with. So, whether as employees or as SEPs, delivery riders on bicycles or personal mobility devices should have the proper equipment, protective gear and also sufficient training to ensure that they can do the job properly and safely.
Companies can also be prosecuted under WSHA for failing their duty of care to SEPs, as well as to their own employees. And the maximum penalty upon conviction is up to a S$500,000 fine for companies, or up to a S$200,000 fine and a two-year jail term for individuals.
Companies are not required to buy Work Injury Compensation insurance for SEPs. This is because their relationship is one of client-contractor and not the employer-employee relationship. However, to help SEPs get adequate insurance coverage, a Tripartite Workgroup has been formed to look into this matter as well as to address other main concerns of SEPs. This was announced by the Ministry in the Committee of Supply debate this year.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have one clarification. I would like to ask the Minister of State, in respect of SEPs, how does the study group intend to look into the issue of insurance that the SEPs should take when they take on such jobs, including insurance that provides for third-party claims, for example, when they run into a pedestrian or when they hit another vehicle on the road and possibly when they are in the wrong?
\tMr Sam Tan Chin Siong: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for two important questions.
First, with regard to insurance for SEPs, this is really not a very straightforward issue because individual SEPs may have contracts with many companies, multiple service buyers and some of which, their contracts may be just one-off and some may just last a few times. So, it is not really prudent to require all companies to purchase the insurance for every SEP because if we were to require companies to do so, then obviously, the cost for the companies will be quite high and, eventually, the cost will be passed down to the consumers. So, in our view, this is not the most prudent way of requiring companies to buy insurance for SEPs.
However, there are other ways that the Workgroup is looking into now, for example, whether it would be useful for the SEPs themselves to buy the insurance since they are already in the service to provide services, programmes and activities to companies.
As to third-party insurance claims, if a member of the public is injured by the employees of a company, then the third party can obviously take legal actions against the company for the injury that the third party sustains. But if the third party is injured by an SEP contracted by a company, then the situation is a little bit complicated. The Court will have to decide whether the service buyers have taken the necessary practicable measures to ensure that the SEP under their contract has the relevant expertise, has attained the training, has worn a protective gear and also taken all the necessary precautions in carrying out the duties. If the companies, the service buyers have not done this, then there is a reason for the Court to rule that the WSH Act was breached.
However, if the company has taken all the necessary precautions, and it is solely the fault of the SEP, then the company is not liable for the SEP's actions. Then the third party would have to take up the legal action against the SEP himself or herself. This is currently how the framework works.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I thank the Minister of State. Just a quick clarification. Would the study group be looking into the possibility of making it mandatory for SEPs to have some form of third-party insurance? A second question would be: how long is this review likely to take?
\tMr Sam Tan Chin Siong: I thank the Member for the further questions. Yes, the Workgroup will look into various aspects. We have just formed the Workgroup. So, we have to allow the Workgroup to consult all the tripartite partners and also the stakeholders. So, it would take a while. When it is ready, we will make the announcement.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Hin Kee.
\tMr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): I would like to seek a clarification from the Ministry whether or not, in the Minister of State's experience, were there cases whereby the SEP deployed by the company or the services purchased by the company were people who were disguised contract-for-service? What I mean is basically that these companies should have hired them. Instead, they purchased their services under this contract-for-service, therefore, making them self-employed. What has the Ministry's experience been like?
\tMr Sam Tan Chin Siong: So far as we know, we have not come across any cases of such disguised incidents. But if the Member should have any actual reports or information, I would appreciate it if he can let us know so that the Ministry will look into it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Declarations by Town Councils of Secretaries who Fall under New Disqualification Criteria","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Ms Sylvia Lim asked\t the Minister for National Development (a) to date, how many Town Councils have declared to the Ministry that their secretaries or relevant key officers as defined by section 20 of the Town Councils Act come under the new disqualification criteria spelt out in sections 20(1A) and 20(3) of the Act; and (b) which Town Councils have made such declarations to the Ministry.
\tThe Second Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, the Town Councils Act was amended this year to disqualify a Town Council's Managing Agent and its auditor from being appointed to key roles in a Town Council, such as the Secretary, the General Manager, the Finance Manager and their deputies, to minimise the risk of conflict of interest.
The amendments took effect from 1 May 2017. The disqualification criteria in sections 20(1A) and 20(3) of the Act apply to an individual who is an auditor of the Town Council, or an owner, a substantial shareholder or an executive decision maker of the Town Council's Managing Agent firm. An executive decision maker includes C-suite executives, such as the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or Chief Information Officer, but does not include regular employees of the Managing Agent who carry out their duties under the direction of their employer.
In May 2017, the Ministry of National Development (MND) had requested all Town Councils to inform MND if any of their existing key appointment holders fell within the new disqualification criteria set out in the Act. All Town Councils have informed MND that their key appointment holders do not fall within the new disqualification criteria.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Batch 10 of Estate Upgrading Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai asked\tthe Minister for National Development in respect of Batch 10 of the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) (a) what was the closing date for the nomination of these projects; (b) when will these nominations be evaluated and decided upon by the EUP Committee; (c) when will the successful nominations be implemented; and (d) on average, what is the time lapse between the close of nomination of an EUP project and the evaluation of nominations by the EUP Committee.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, we will invite the Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) to make nominations for Batch 10 of the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) when we have a firm implementation timeline. There are currently 17 ongoing EUP projects from various Batches island-wide, including nine of the most recent Batch 9 projects that have just been approved. We would like to complete some of these ongoing projects first before calling for new nominations. This will allow us to devote more requisite resources to better manage current projects and to ensure that new projects will be well-managed as well.
Typically, it takes about eight to 10 months to evaluate nominations before announcing the selected estates. But the exact duration depends on the number of nominations that we receive and the completeness of each application. Using Batch 9 as an example, we received 55 nominations that took us about eight months to evaluate. During this time, the Ministry of National Development (MND) and agencies assessed the scope of the potential upgrading works, conducted site visits to assess the on-ground conditions, and considered how best to dovetail the works with the agencies’ other improvement plans.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Marine Parade): I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have two follow-up questions. The first is that I understood from the answer that Batch 10 nominations have not been done. Can the Senior Minister of State please confirm that because my understanding is that Batch 10 nominations had been submitted previously?
My second question is for the EUP Programmes. As the Senior Minister of State knows, the private estates do not have support from either Town Council Upgrading Programmes, Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) or Housing and Development Board (HDB) Upgrading Programmes. So, to that extent, private estates really rely on EUP Programmes to upgrade and renew the facilities, including drains, culverts, sidewalks, roads and so on.
Given that the EUP Programme for Batch 9 has been suspended and there is no timeframe for Batch 10, would the Ministry consider accelerating the programme, expediting it and, perhaps, giving more priority to constituencies which are either substantially or wholly private estates?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, let me just address the Member's concerns. For private estates, I understand that the Member faces those constraints that he has described. But actually, if there are any existing issues that require emergency attention, for example, drains that are not in good order, then we can look at how we can best address these as emergency repair works in the meantime.
The Member is right to say that Batch 10 has previously asked for nominations, and I remember we did send a letter to notify the Advisers of each of the wards that have previously been asked to do so, that there has been a review of public sector projects to be implemented, so that we can make sure that the demand for construction workers and also the total number of workers in Singapore can be better managed. In that sense, Batch 10 has been deferred somewhat. But in May this year, we have actually just approved all the Batch 9 projects. So, the Batch 9 projects are currently undergoing consultations and they will be implemented over the next couple of years or so.
So, we are trying to pace out some of these works to make sure that we have a good completion of Batch 9 projects, together with some of the existing projects from Batches 6 to 8 that have rolled over as well. In existence, there are 17 projects to be managed on the ground. Once we have a clearer idea of when these projects are nearing their completion, we can then look at how we can reactivate nominations for Batch 10 again.
But in the interim, if there are really areas that the Member feels that need to be repaired urgently, do let the agencies know and we will see how best to manage those at the moment.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Speaker, a supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State regarding EUP.
I would just like a confirmation that there is actually no prohibition from the Government for the CCCs to work with the Member of Parliament (MP) of the area, even if the Member is not from the ruling party.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I believe this question has been asked by the same Member in a previous Sitting and I will just repeat the key points, that the CCC is involved in ground engagement, because the Working Committee comprises members of the Neighbourhood Committee, who are residents within the estate themselves, as part of the ground consultation. And I did reply to the Member in the previous Sitting that when the works and the timeline have been settled, we will also notify the MPs for the area to tell them of the existing plans.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: Sir, actually, I remember that exchange rather well. But I think, at that time, the Senior Minister of State did not answer my question, which was that, at the idea stage, whether the MPs can work with the CCCs to provide ideas because we also have feedback, we are also on the ground.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, the whole concept of EUP is meant to be largely a ground-up kind of initiative where residents within the estate actually give the inputs as to how they want to see their estates developed. So, regardless of the mechanism, the idea is that the current working mechanism comprising a working committee largely made up of the residents who are staying there, who are members of the Neighbourhood Committee, who know the estate very well, working closely with the implementing agents, as well as the consultants to walk the ground, to give feedback. That is the reason why the whole entire consultation process can take up to several months before actual groundbreaking starts.
Just for my own estate, over the last few weeks, we have been walking the ground with the various agencies to understand the concerns of residents and take in their feedback as well. So, regardless of the mechanism, the present-day mechanism where ground feedback is taken into account, really is a good way in which residents' concerns are taken on board.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increase in ComCare Assistance Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked \tthe Minister for Social and Family Development whether there has been an increase in ComCare assistance cases compared to last year.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) disbursed ComCare assistance to about 39,200 unique households in financial year (FY) 2016, a slight decrease from around 39,500 unique households assisted by ComCare in FY2015.
Mr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. Some clarifications.
First, the slight drop, it goes against the revised criteria where the ComCare Assistance has been tweaked. In fact, the criteria have all gone up. So, I am a little bit surprised that the numbers have come down somewhat.
I would also like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the Social Service Offices (SSOs) which have been in operation for some time, whether the fact that they do not operate during weekends, is that something which should be reviewed as a way to reach out to the people who may need help, particularly during weekends?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank Mr Seah for the supplementary questions.
Let me answer the second question first. The SSOs which have been developed over the years have come to a situation whereby the numbers have stabilised and we are able to reach out to be more accessible to fellow Singaporeans. If we look at the trends, there seem to be indications that because of the increase in accessibility and because of the nature that we work where it becomes pervasive, the numbers that we have seen, in fact, not only stabilised, but have decreased this year.
And even though we made some changes to the criteria, nevertheless, there are areas whereby, because of the changes in the criteria, such as student care, the help that we give, there was an increase in the number of those who received help. Also, because of the increase in numbers as well as the criteria that are given, we are happy to be able to help our fellow Singaporeans.
With regard to the issues that the Member asked relating to weekends, again, the Member will realise that because of this SSO availability, and also we see more and more grassroots organisations able to reach out to residents better, and we also received residents calling our ComCare number 1800-222-0000, it is something that I want to encourage every Member here to memorise and see how we can facilitate the process, just give a call and see how we can help fellow Singaporeans. So, while the numbers have decreased, it also shows that we have come to a situation whereby we are able to reach out and the numbers have stabilised in terms of the number of SSOs.
We are in a position to be able to help Singaporeans when they need it. Also, we want to make sure that the lifestyle of caring becomes pervasive and it is a norm among Singaporeans. When I look at the figure, I feel very happy because while in terms of the situation that we have here, but yet we are able to reach out to fellow Singaporeans and make sure those who cannot find a job, we help them to find a job, and those who need help, we get not only our ComCare avenues to help, but get the community to help each and every one Singaporean.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Just a quick supplementary question. In the same vein, when we talk about making sure ComCare is available to everyone who needs it, will the SSOs work with applicants or potential applicants to overcome issues, like they are not able to go down and bring documentation, because that is usually one of the steps in the process that they have to go down to the SSOs with documentation. Some of them, of course, are not very mobile or have chronic conditions. Some of them have to take leave from work to do so. So, would the SSOs try to overcome that by, for example, having a phone conversation and exchange of documents some other way, by mail or email, or will they consider even making house visits in certain cases where it is absolutely necessary?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the question. It is a very important question because, like what I have shared with Mr Seah earlier, it is not only the role of the SSOs, I am happy to see community leaders, grassroots leaders, working together with Government agencies to help our fellow Singaporeans. Let us, say, in my area, if there are residents who have issues, who even cannot go to the SSO, my grassroots leaders and fellow residents will come and assist in the process. And SSO officers also do house visits. It is something that I want to assure the House that we will do all we can to help fellow Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reported Domestic Violence Cases against Women","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked\tthe Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in the past three years, how many domestic violence cases against women, especially those above 50 years, have been reported; (b) what is the Ministry doing to reach out to those who may be suffering in silence; and (c) whether the Ministry will look into ways to raise public awareness and work with grassroots groups to reach out to the silent victims.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, over the last three years, the Family Justice Courts received a yearly average of about 2,800 applications for Personal Protection Orders (PPOs) against an abusive family member. Around 75% of the applications were made by women. Of these women, about 20%, or about 450 applications, were from those above 50 years of age.
No one should suffer alone in silence. A strong partnership among Government agencies and community partners is necessary to ensure that those affected by violence receive the needed help and receive it early. The National Family Violence Networking System (NFVNS) was established more than 20 years ago for victims to be assisted by touchpoints, such as Family Service Centres and Family Violence Specialist Centres.
Family violence is not a private matter. That is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember that you had launched the \"Break the Silence Against Family Violence\" campaign for the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) last year. This campaign raises awareness about family violence through platforms, such as social media and community roadshows. It also involves collaboration with community and corporate partners to equip bystanders with resources and skills to safely step in to help victims.
We train partners and grassroots organisations to understand family violence and, importantly, to identify families experiencing violence early. Recently, MSF facilitated a conversation with Taman Jurong Citizens’ Consultative Committee (CCC), Fei Yue Family Service Centre, Jurong West Neighbourhood Police Centre and SSO@Taman Jurong on ways to prevent and intervene in family violence situations together. This saw participation from grassroots leaders, schools, arts and sports groups, corporate bodies, self-help groups, the Ng Teng Fong General Hospital and the Police. Such initiatives deepen the awareness of family violence and enable more people to break the silence and reach out to seek help for those affected.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister. I have two supplementary questions. Recently, I had a meeting with three voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) in my constituency and all the three reported that there is an upward trend in the cases that they handle on violence against women who are above 50 years old. All the three consistently said the same thing. So, I would like to ask, nationally, is this the trend? Is this an upward trend?
The second question: will there be a study commissioned to see what the root cause is and how we can intervene for these violence cases against elderly women?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Sir, I thank the Member for her keen concern about violence against elderly women. Based on the available statistics, the number of PPO applications by women above the age of 50 has remained relatively stable over the last three years. There were 480 in 2014, 430 in 2016. But every case is one case too many and we remain concerned about addressing the key issues that lead to violence in families, especially violence against women and violence against seniors.
MSF did a survey in January last year to uncover a little bit more about the problem of family violence. About 40% feared reporting family violence because they felt it was a private matter. About half feared that reporting the matter will break up the family. Slightly more than a third was unsure exactly what family violence was and how to get help.
So, it is an invisible problem. But family members, relatives, neighbours, colleagues, community leaders, friends can help to spot what would otherwise be an invisible problem and help alert the many touchpoints that are available that would allow us to intervene. In situations where people do not seek help but we are alerted to family violence, the Member would know that MSF is working on a Vulnerable Adults Bill with laws that would allow us to intervene in such instances. I thank the Member for her supplementary question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore-based Companies that have Invested in Government's Overseas Industrial Park Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) how many Singapore-based companies have cumulatively invested in the Government's overseas industrial park projects that enjoy G-to-G support, such as the Suzhou Industrial Park and Tianjin Eco-City; (b) how many of these are GLCs, SMEs and MNCs respectively; and (c) what evidence has been accumulated by the Ministry as to the spin-off benefits to the domestic economy and local SMEs of these Government-supported overseas industrial parks.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, internationalisation remains an important strategy to sustain Singapore’s growth by helping our companies develop beyond our domestic market. Government-to-Government (G-to-G) projects, such as the Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP), Tianjin Eco-city (TEC), Chongqing Connectivity Initiative and the Amaravati Capital City project in Andhra Pradesh, play an enabling role in paving the way for Singapore companies to enter and scale up in fast-growing markets, such as China and India.
Over the years, many Singapore companies have tapped on these G-to-G platforms to go abroad. In the case of SIP, about 340 Singapore companies have established their presence there as at the end of 2016. Of these, approximately 70% are small companies with registered capital of up to S$1 million. Cumulative contractual investments by Singapore-based companies in SIP amounted to S$9.4 billion by the end of last year. The National University of Singapore has also established a research institute, the NUS (Suzhou) Research Institute (NUSRI), in SIP which has served as a springboard for Singapore startups to incubate and scale up in China. NUSRI is currently incubating 37 Singapore and international technology startups.
Just to give Members an example of a company that has benefited from SIP and scaled successfully is PatSnap, founded in 2007, a Singapore company that offers innovative patent data analytics solutions. So, to overcome the small domestic market constraints, they scaled up by first going overseas to SIP and today their software has been sold in over 40 countries to more than 1,300 clients. In March this year, the company announced its plans to invest S$22 million in a research and development (R&D) centre in Singapore to further develop its intelligence platform. To date, the centre has hired more than 10 data scientists.
The TEC project was established in 2008, against the backdrop of rapid urbanisation and heightened focus on sustainable economic development in China. As of June this year, 42 Singapore companies are registered in TEC, with a total registered capital of more than S$220 million. Companies include small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in a range of sectors, such as environmental services, property, education, urban solutions and logistics.
Singapore’s newer G-to-G projects continue to bring our companies to new regions and markets to help them gain a first-mover advantage. The Chongqing Connectivity Initiative project, which was launched in 2015, has opened up business opportunities in the less developed western region of China, and facilitates the participation of Singapore companies in sectors, such as financial services, aviation, transport and logistics, and information and communications technology.
Similarly, the Amaravati project to build a new capital city in Andhra Pradesh will give Singapore companies the opportunity to export our expertise in urban solutions and other domains. With our early involvement in the initiative, our companies, including SMEs, will be well-positioned to offer their services and participate in projects within the state of Andhra Pradesh as well as in the broader Indian market.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for his response. Just two follow-up questions. One is on the Tianjin project. Of the 42 companies, would the Minister have the proportion which are SMEs? And then the second question is really on whether the Ministry of Trade and Industry has studied the issue of the impact of these investments on domestic operations and what is the positive feedback loop? So, to what extent are domestic operations impacted and in what way, from these investments overseas, whether there is any study or any data in that regard?
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, may I ask the Member to repeat his first question, I did not quite hear it clearly.
Mr Speaker: Kindly speak up in future.
\tMr Leon Perera: I am sorry. Just wanted to know the 42 companies in TEC. What proportion are SMEs, if the Minister has that data?
\tMr S Iswaran: I do not have the data on that offhand. But I would imagine and, indeed, our experience in general has been there is no reason to think it is terribly different from what we have had in SIP and other places, which is about 70% or two-thirds. In general, when companies go overseas, they do not just do it on their own. They go because there is a larger opportunity arising from whether it is a G-to-G project or some other element that is initiating it, such as one of their large clients going overseas and then they go with them. So, I would say it is not unusual to see about two-thirds, but I do not have an exact answer for the Member.
The larger question is whether there is a value proposition back to Singapore. This is where what I have emphasised earlier and which is worth repeating, whether it is through G-to-G projects or through other initiatives to take our companies overseas, or free trade agreements and other initiatives to help our companies internationalise, what is the fundamental objective? First, it is to help our companies grow beyond our domestic market; second, with that skill, it allows them to undertake a broader range of initiatives and invest more in their capabilities; and third, it allows us to also create good opportunities for Singaporeans, not just in terms of pursuing opportunities in these other markets, but also in developing capabilities here. So, I gave Members the example of the patent company where they are doing R&D in Singapore that creates 10 new jobs which were not there before.
So, there are ways to track it, and we look at it. Certainly, when our agencies extend assistance to companies when they go overseas in terms of grants and so on, this becomes an important key performance indicator.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Streamlining Grants, Funding Support and Assistance Schemes with Merger of SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mr Teo Ser Luck asked\tthe Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) whether there are plans to streamline the grants, funding support and assistance schemes of SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore within the merged entity of Enterprise Singapore; and (b) how will this affect the SMEs that have applied for funding support.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) Singapore and International Enterprise (IE) Singapore have helped companies build up capabilities and access overseas markets through a suite of assistance programmes. The proposed new agency Enterprise Singapore will build on the good work that has been done by both agencies.
To help companies access assistance programmes more easily, the Government has already been streamlining existing grants to minimise overlaps across agencies and simplify the application process. So, in other words is, we are not waiting for the formation of the new agency to do this. One example of our efforts is the Business Grants Portal (BGP) which consolidates commonly used grants, such as SPRING’s Capability Development Grant and IE Singapore’s Global Company Partnership, in a one-stop application portal. With this portal, which was officially launched in January 2017, companies can now apply for grants without having to approach multiple agencies.
With the merger of SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore to form Enterprise Singapore, companies can look forward to a comprehensive suite of support from a single agency for capability building and overseas market access. Enterprise Singapore will also study how the various schemes and grants can be enhanced to develop integrated solutions that meet the needs of our companies in the new phase of growth. This will put us, we believe, in good stead to grow a strong cohort of Singapore companies for our future economy.
In the transition period, support for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) will not be affected, and companies can continue to apply to SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore for assistance under the existing programmes. The two agencies will also continue to work with companies which have already applied for or received business grants. A smooth transition is our top priority.
Mr Speaker: Mr Teo Ser Luck.
\tMr Teo Ser Luck (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. May I know if the SMEs can still continue to apply for their grants now and in the future through the SME Centres? The second question is, when the merged entity of Enterprise Singapore exists, would the account management be one single point of contact for all the SMEs?
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. As we have emphasised, the formation of the new agency Enterprise Singapore is just one aspect of our overall effort to strengthen our economy and prepare for some of the challenges we anticipate. And in that regard, the role of the Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs) and, in this case, the specific reference the Member made was to the SME Centres, that remains a very important part of the architecture that we have in our economy. So, the answer is yes, companies can continue to approach the SME Centres. In fact, we expect the SME Centres and TACs to play an even more significant role as we move forward with various initiatives.
The second point, on account management, as the Member would be aware and, indeed, for the information of all Members, the accounts are managed by the different agencies today. We have already had an effort to streamline the account management so that there is a principal agency managing a particular relationship with a company, whether it is the Economic Development Board, IE Singapore or SPRING Singapore and others, will then work through that principal relationship. With the formation of Enterprise Singapore, we expect this process to become even more efficient and effective. Certainly, one of Enterprise Singapore's priorities will be to see how it can better interface with the business community and specific enterprises.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 2013 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workplace Safety and Health (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Workplace Safety and Health Act (Chapter 354A of the 2009 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by\tthe Second Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Massage Establishments Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Massage Establishments Act (Chapter 173 of the 2013 Revised Edition) to provide for the licensing and control of establishments for massage, and to make a consequential amendment to the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 2013 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by\tthe Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act (Chapter 309 of the 2011 Revised Edition\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong); 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":"Travel Agents (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Travel Agents Act (Chapter 334 of the 1998 Revised Edition) and to make a related amendment to the Singapore Tourism Board Act (Chapter 305B of the 1997 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by\tthe\tSenior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Sim Ann) on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry); 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":"Sale of Food (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Sale of Food Act (Chapter 283 of the 2002 Revised Edition) and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by\tthe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Dr Koh Poh Koon) on behalf of the Minister for National Development; 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":"Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Health and Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The port is a strategic national infrastructure. It is not just a facility where we import most of our daily necessities. More importantly, the port provides the global connectivity that drives our economy, helping to fuel the growth of sectors, such as logistics, manufacturing and wholesale trade. Hence, the Government has made, and will continue to make, significant investments in developing port infrastructure; for instance, in the development of a new container terminal in Tuas with a capacity of up to 65 million Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units (TEUs). Our investments in the port over the years have paid off. Today, Singapore is the world’s largest transhipment hub, recognised for our reliability and efficiency. We have won the Asian Freight, Logistics and Supply Chain Best Seaport (Asia) award for 29 years in a row.
Given the strategic interests at stake, it is important for the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) to have oversight on changes in substantive equity control in licensees that provide essential services at the port. The intent is not to control the day-to-day operations of these licensees, but rather to require MPA’s approval to be sought for transactions in equity interest that would materially change the equity control of these licensees.
This Bill thus seeks to amend the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Act to give effect to this proposal. Let me highlight the key provisions of the Bill.
Clause 8 gives MPA the powers to reject an acquisition or disposal of equity interest in key designated entities if it deems the acquisition or disposal to be detrimental to the interests of the port. These designated entities include designated public licensees, designated business trusts and designated equity interest holders.
Under the Bill, designated entities will be subject to three key controls relating to changes in equity interest in the entities. First, any person acquiring interest that would result in the person holding 5% or more of the total interest in a designated entity will be required to notify MPA.
Second, any person intending to acquire 25% or more, or 50% or more, of the total interest in a designated entity, will be required to obtain prior approval from MPA.
Third, any person intending to dispose interest that would result in that person’s shareholding falling below 75% or 50% of the total interest in a designated entity will be required to obtain prior approval from MPA.
The Bill will amend the MPA Act in two other areas.
Today, vessels operating in the reservoirs of Singapore are licensed by the Public Utilities Board (PUB), taking into account MPA’s technical inputs on safety requirements. As the authority for the safety standards of marine vessels, MPA should set the safety standards for vessels operating in reservoirs and other inland waterways.
Clauses 4 and 9 of the Bill grant MPA the power to set such safety standards. MPA will work with PUB to develop and implement these safety standards. This will enhance the overall safety in reservoirs and inland waterways for all.
Finally, clause 3 removes the cap on the number of MPA Board members. This will provide greater flexibility for the Minister to appoint more members as he deems appropriate to bring in the relevant experience and expertise as needed onto the MPA Board. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, a major part of the amendments in this Bill is none other than the introduction of a new part 12 relating to the control of designated public licensees, designated business trust and designated equity interest holders. The new part 12(a) which includes section 86 A to L is being introduced, notwithstanding the existing provisions in, say, sections 81 to 89. The existing sections 81 to 89 already provide guidelines on conditions to be set upon grants of public licences. For example, section 81A provides that conditions in the public licence may contain control and restriction directly or indirectly on the creation, holding or disposal of shares in the public licensee.
The new part 12(a) sets up new, detailed and onerous requirements, including an obligation for a person becoming a 5% controller of a designated entity to notify the authorities and a person needing to seek prior approval before becoming a 25% or 50% or 75% controller or an indirect controller of a designated entity. There are various remedial directions which can be given by the authority when there is a breach. There is a very detailed section on what it means to be an associate or subsidiary for purposes of determining direct or indirect control of a designated entity.
I would like to understand more about the rationale for the introduction of these requirements, specifically because the change is very substantial and the requirements that are now in place in the draft provisions are very onerous. So, I would appreciate if the Senior Minister of State can explain a little further as to why such onerous requirements from the licensees are in this Bill.
Mr Speaker, I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether there was any incident in the recent past relating to the change of control of existing public licensee or business trust which might have had some adverse implications on the operations of any licence or services in question or on our ports or the security of our ports, for that matter, which may have spurred the Government to introduce these new onerous requirements. If so, I would appreciate if the Senior Minister of State can share with the House the details of any such past incident.
Under the existing provisions, if there is any contravention of the conditions for a public licence, the authority may cancel or suspense his licence or require the payment of a fine as he thinks fit. I am referring to section 84(1). I am not in favour of any fine that can be decided at the complete discretion of the authority, which is the existing law. Unfortunately, section 84(1) will remain. What is worse, in my view, is that under the proposed section 86(i), the proposed punishments, including fines, is not exceeding $500,000 or $1,000,000 and imprisonment of three years, or both fine and punishment, are very heavy penalties, indeed. I would be grateful if the Senior Minister of State could explain the need for such heavy punishments.
Mr Speaker, the new section 86E empowers the authority to designate public licensee, the relevant business trust managed by a trustee manager who is a public licensee or a person who holds equity interest in any public licence or business trust, as a designated public licensee, designated business trust or designated equity interest holder. Such designation may only be made by the authority after consultation with the Minister if he considers that it is necessary in the public interest.
Mr Speaker, in respect of this section, I would like to seek the Senior Minister of State's clarifications. One, I would like to know why there is a provision for designated public licensee, business trust and equity interest holders. Two, what qualifies for, as I quote from the Bill \"necessary in the public interest\"? Will the Senior Minister of State please elaborate on the considerations which will be taken into account when the authority is making such designations? Will the Senior Minister of State be able to share any examples? Next, why are the considerations not set out expressly in section 86D? Finally, would such a bare provision not affect the consistency and certainty of this application or even be subject to abuse?
Next, Mr Speaker, the proposed section 86E requires that if a person becomes a 5% controller of a designated public licensee holder, designated public trust or designated equity interest holder as a result of an increase in the holding of equity interest or in the voting power controlled by that person or any associate of that person, he must notify the authority in writing. Again, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what is the rationale for this. Would the new provisions in section 86F requiring persons to seek prior approval before becoming a 25%, 50% or 75% controller of designated entities be sufficient?
Next, I move on to the regulation of inland craft. This is another important change. What the Bill seeks to do is to have MPA regulate inland watercraft, a role which will be taken over from PUB. Under the new part 13A of this Bill, MPA will take over the regulatory roles relating to construction, maintenance, safe operation and navigation and the crew manning requirements and other aspects of inland craft. Permits for use on inland waterways and reservoir remain under the authority of PUB, and rightly so. This is a change in the right direction as MPA is the more appropriate authority for water borne vessels and craft.
Mr Speaker, I would like to seek some clarifications from the Senior Minister of State. Operationally, how will MPA ensure that, on the ground, all vessels or inland crafts operate safely and in compliance with all regulations governing safe operation and navigation in the reservoirs and inland waterways? Will PUB still be working with the MPA in this area? If so, what will be their role on the ground? Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the clarifications I am seeking, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, our waterways are our precious assets. They are our iconic tourist spots, venues for sports and our sources of drinking water.
Hence, I believe any amendments to the MPA Act must augment the way the MPA governs and administers matters in relation to the responsible and safe use of our precious assets. While I congratulate the Ministry on this well-drafted Bill, I hope to obtain some clarifications.
First, I agree that the expansion of the functions and duties of the Authority by including the regulation of the operation and safety of inland craft is necessary. After all, we wish to ensure that our waterways will be used responsibly. But since possible regulations have not been announced to the public, I wish to seek some clarifications.
Can the Senior Minister of State clarify if any regulations on the use of engines for vessels in reservoirs are in the pipeline? According to Eugene Heng, the Founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Waterways Watch Society, “We are currently permitted to operate vessels with four-stroke engines, battery-operated electric vessels, or solar-powered vessels. We hope this will continue.” Eugene explained that a blanket change to battery-operated or solar-powered vessels would increase costs significantly for smaller operators.
Further, many operators do not have access to the required charging facilities at their jetties. Any arrangement for such charging will invariably lead to higher operating costs. He added that changing nine vessels that are of four-stroke engines to battery or solar-powered ones will cost at least $300,000 to $400,000. Installation of charging facilities at jetties, after obtaining the relevant permission from the authorities would cost another $50,000.
In view of the cost concerns that operators may face in possible regulations of engines, I hope that extensive consultations will be made with Waterways Watch Society and other non-government organisations (NGOs) and companies, and that any regulations will be done gradually. If such changes are necessary, I also hope the Ministry will provide some grants to the NGOs to help offset the costs.
Next, as it stands, all powered harbour craft must be installed with either a Harbour Craft Transponder System (HARTS) or Automated Identification System (AIS). I have also received some feedback from the Waterways Watch Society in relation to this. They have requested that this requirement should be reserved for vessels that are operating in the seas only. They explained that vessels are easily identified in reservoirs since these water bodies are not large. Hence, can the Ministry clarify the rationale for this requirement for vessels in reservoirs or water bodies of similar sizes?
Lastly, being precious assets of Singapore, I believe that it is of paramount importance that our waterways remain free from pollution.
Taking a leaf from the European Code for Inland Waterways, Chapter 10 therein provides for the prevention of water and disposal of waste generated on board vessels. The articles in Chapter 10 make explicit prohibitions on discharging and dumping, collection of waste, and places obligation on the boatmasters and crew members to exercise care to avoid polluting waterways and to restrict the amount of waste generated on board the vessels.
I understand that something similar to Chapter 10 of the European Code exists in Parts 2 and 3 of the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act. However, it appears that there is no requirement in the MPA Act and the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act, for the boatmaster and crew members to exercise the said care. In view of this, can the Ministry consider making such regulations or amendments in the future?
I am supportive of placing such obligations on such users of the waterways who are likely sources of pollution, in order to protect our waterways for the benefit of the environment and other stakeholders. Hence, I hope that the Ministry will seriously consider making such regulations.
Sir, the proposed amendments of the Act are definitely welcome. I trust that the amendments have been drafted with the best intentions to ensure that our waters will be used responsibly and safely.
I hope that extensive consultations with the stakeholders will be done before any regulations take effect and that changes, again, will be gradual. With that, I stand in support of this Bill.
Nr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min.
Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Louis Ng for their comments and support for the Bill. Let me address the points raised.
As I mentioned in my speech earlier, our port is a national strategic infrastructure. The Government has made significant investments in developing the port. And we will make even greater investments, especially in building up Tuas Terminal, over the next few decades.
The intention of the equity control requirements is not to interfere with the day-to-day operations of the designated entities or restrict its commercial flexibility, but rather to require MPA’s approval to be sought for transactions crossing stipulated significant thresholds in equity interest.
Mr Tan also asked how MPA decided on the 5%, 25% and 50% acquisition thresholds, and the 50% and 75% disposal thresholds. Under the Companies Act, a 5% shareholder is considered a substantial shareholder. Although a 5% shareholder typically does not have significant powers to drastically influence the direction of a company, it is still important for MPA to be informed of any new substantial shareholders of its designated public licensees.
Shareholders with 25% or 50% interest, however, wield significant voting power in a company’s decisions. A shareholder who has more than 25% equity interest can veto special resolutions under the Companies Act. A shareholder with more than 50% equity interest can pass ordinary resolutions. These are the reasons why MPA should have some regulatory oversight on shareholders seeking to reach 25% and 50% of the equity interest respectively.
On the other hand, a shareholder will lose its ability to control special resolutions if its equity interest falls below 75%. It will lose its ability to control ordinary resolutions if its equity interest falls below 50%. As these are important corporate decisions that could impact the overall direction of the company, MPA should maintain oversight on whether it is in our national interest for any incumbent shareholders to relinquish such voting powers.
I would like to add that the disposal and acquisition of controls are not duplicative. The acquisition controls enable MPA to have oversight of single persons becoming a new major shareholder of a designated entity. The disposal controls grant MPA oversight of existing shareholders from selling interest in a designated entity, whether to a single or multiple persons.
Mr Dennis Tan also asked whether the thresholds set are too onerous. But, in fact, we are at most on par with those with similar legislation for other sectors, and they are not more stringent.
Currently, vessels operating in reservoirs of Singapore are regulated and given permits to use the inland water bodies by PUB. MPA is the authority for safety standards for marine vessels and thus has the relevant expertise and experience and is in a good position to assume the responsibility for setting the safety standards for vessels operating in reservoirs and inland waterways. This will further enhance safety of navigation in these water bodies. PUB will continue to be the authority to issue permits to vessels for use in reservoirs and inland waterways for the purpose of water quality control, protection of reservoir infrastructure, controlling the types of activities in these water bodies and preventing social disamenities.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether the Bill will require inland vessels currently fitted with four-stroke engines to switch to other engine types, such as battery or solar-powered ones. PUB, which remains as the overall manager of reservoirs and inland waterways, will continue to allow vessels with four-stroke engines to operate in these water bodies.
Mr Louis Ng also asked if MPA intends to require inland water vessels to be fitted with AIS transponders. I agree with Mr Louis Ng that there is no need at this point to require inland water vessels to install such equipment.
I share Mr Louis Ng’s concern for the environment. PUB already has existing measures to safeguard against the pollution of our waterways from vessels. For instance, PUB’s regulations prohibit inland water vessels from discharging wastewater and other pollutants. These measures have been effective in keeping our reservoirs and waterways clean. Hence, there is no need to amend the MPA Act or the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act to preserve the pristine conditions of our water bodies.
Lastly, on the question by Mr Dennis Tan about why we are legislating the equity interest holders as well as the business trust. In many instances, it is the parent company that would have the power to control key decisions of the licensee. So, for the legislation to be effective, MPA must have the powers to go beyond just the public licensee to the shareholders as well.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the maritime sector is, and will continue to be, a key pillar of Singapore’s economy. This Bill not only better positions MPA to safeguard our strategic port interests but also enhance the overall safety in reservoirs and inland waterways for all. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Mr Speaker, I just want to ask the Senior Minister of State to clarify. I think he may have missed out my question. Regarding section 86D, designating public licensee, my questions include (a) I would like to know why there is a provision for a designated public licensee and what would qualify as necessary in the public interest. Will the Senior Minister of State be able to share any examples and, if not, why are the considerations not set out in the section itself? Would the consideration be set out in any subsidiary legislation?
Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for the supplementary question. MPA will have to decide which are the public licensees that are to be designated. At this point in time, we are looking at the port operators, the terminals. But, of course, if we deem that there are certain other areas within the maritime sector that require the designation of being the designated public licensee, we will put in measures to ensure that as well.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Lam Pin Min.] (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":"Infrastructure Protection Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”
Members of the House will be aware, as it appears on the Order Paper, that the hon member Mr Christopher de Souza has filed a Motion on fortifying Singapore’s resolve against the rising threat of terrorism. This Bill is also about fortifying Singapore, specifically to protect our critical infrastructures and certain buildings.
Today’s terrorists typically target crowded places or iconic buildings, so that they can take out as many lives as possible and make a huge statement with their acts. Their aim is to create fear and upend our way of life in the ideological battle between their and our values. There are already many horrifying attacks.
In August this year, vehicle-ramming attacks in Catalonia, Spain, killed 16 people. The terrorists behind the attacks had also planned to bomb iconic buildings in Barcelona.
In 2011, a car bomb exploded in front of government buildings in Oslo, which included the Prime Minister’s office. It killed eight people and significantly damaged several buildings.
In 2008, the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad was targeted by a massive truck bomb. It was stopped by the hotel’s vehicle security barrier 40 metres from the front of the hotel, which blunted the attack. But it was not enough; the blast left a huge crater outside the hotel and 54 people dead.
These incidents testify to the importance of adequately protecting our infrastructure. Despite heightened alert and best efforts by the security agencies, the attacks had still succeeded to varying degrees.
Singapore is not immune to such threats. We have been cited as a target in jihadist publications and videos. Attacks have been plotted against us, such as the one involving Marina Bay Sands last year. There has been a significant rise in the number of radicalised individuals detained. Terrorist attention on this region is also growing, fuelled by conflict in areas like Marawi.
Realistically, we cannot expect to uncover and foil every terrorist plot. That is why our response has to be comprehensive, covering not just pre-emptive action by the security agencies, but infrastructure protection as well, to mitigate the consequences of a successful attack.
Over the past two years, the Government has expanded closed-circuit television (CCTV) coverage, enhanced border protection, upgraded the response capabilities of our security forces and mobilised the community, among other measures. The Public Order Act was amended in April to require organisers of large-scale events to take necessary security measures to protect the public.
This Bill is a continuation of our counterterrorism efforts. It has to be seen against the backdrop of the evolving and worsening threat, and the cognisance that no single approach can effectively deal with it. The Bill aims to protect key infrastructure against attacks. Indeed, measures like vehicle barriers and hardening of structures and of glazing, are a key line of defence. They can both deter attacks and blunt the force of an attack. They can save lives.
Building security is the responsibility of building owners, and it will remain so. They know their needs and operations best and are responsible for the safety of their tenants and the public who visit their buildings.
But for certain buildings, the risk and impact of an attack are much more significant, for example, those with high public footfall, or are iconic of our society and way of life. In these cases, it is in the public interest for the Government to be proactive in ensuring that appropriate security measures are put in place to safeguard lives and property.
Today, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) already works with owners of critical infrastructure and selected commercial buildings, to take security into account upfront in the development process, by integrating into the building design. This is called security-by-design.
Current laws, however, do not provide us with the authority to mandate such infrastructure protection; we have relied on engagement and persuasion.
While such an approach has worked reasonably well so far, given the worsening threat environment, the Government has assessed that we should establish a clear regulatory framework to more systematically protect Singapore’s infrastructure. This will also provide more transparency and clarity about the requirements and processes for building owners and developers.
The Infrastructure Protection Bill sets out such a legal framework. It aims to achieve three things.
First, the Bill will ensure that critical infrastructure, as well as buildings with high public footfall and iconic buildings, are designed with security in mind. It is impractical to turn the whole of Singapore into a fortress. In deciding which buildings to regulate, we have to consider the risk to the public, the national interest and the cost to businesses.
A successful strike on critical infrastructure will disrupt essential services, such as power, water or transport. An attack on large buildings with high public footfall could result in mass casualties. Iconic buildings are also attractive targets for terrorists because of their international reputation or significance to Singapore. The Bill will require such infrastructure to undergo a security-by-design process before they are built or renovated.
Second, the Bill will allow the authorities to issue directives and orders to protect other buildings in Singapore against terrorist attacks. While any building could be a target, it is clearly not practical to require every building in Singapore to undergo security-by-design.
For buildings that need not undergo security-by-design, the Bill enables MHA to introduce or to issue directives for owners to put in place appropriate security measures against the risk of a terrorist attack. If an attack is imminent, emergency orders may also be issued to protect these buildings.
Third, the Bill will enhance powers to protect sensitive locations. These locations are currently declared under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act (PAPPA). Most of them are critical infrastructure or military areas. The Bill will address gaps in the PAPPA. It will give the owners of these locations enhanced powers to address threats and implement heightened surveillance in the area surrounding the facility.
I will go through each of these three aspects covered by the Bill in some detail.
First, on security-by-design. Security-by-design is a process to ensure that security is designed into the building design. It attempts to mitigate security risks through good building design and incorporates security measures upfront into the building features. Examples of such security measures include: (a) hardening of structural elements, such as walls and columns, to resist bomb blast effects; (b) providing for a stand-off distance using security barriers to prevent unauthorised vehicles from coming close to the building; and (c) combining security technology with operational processes, such as monitoring CCTVs, operating access control systems, or implementing security procedures.
A key benefit of security-by-design is that security is effectively incorporated into the building without overly compromising other factors, such as the form and function of the building. It is generally more cost-effective because good design can reduce or even eliminate the need for some security measures. It also avoids costly retrofitting later on.
Security-by-design will be made a legal requirement under the Bill.
Clause 5 will empower the Minister for Home Affairs to appoint a Commissioner of Infrastructure Protection. The Commissioner will be responsible for the administration of the Bill, including security-by-design requirements.
Part 4 of the Bill, or clauses 32 to 48, details the security-by-design requirements.
In Part 5, clauses 51 to 53 allow the Commissioner to issue directives to address non-compliance with security-by-design requirements.
The Minister will designate the buildings that need to undergo security-by-design in the interests of public safety and public security, or national interests. Under clause 34, such new buildings that have not yet been built will be designated as Special Developments. They will need to undergo security-by-design before construction starts. Under clause 41, existing buildings will be designated as Special Infrastructures. They will need to undergo security-by-design when they undertake major renovations.
The Minister will designate two groups of buildings as Special Developments or Special Infrastructures: first, critical infrastructures, which are vital to the delivery of essential services, such as water, power and transport; and second, large or iconic buildings, which face a higher level of threat either due to high public footfall, or because of their prominence or symbolic significance.
All critical infrastructures, whether existing or new, will be designated under the Bill. Owners of such infrastructures would already be familiar with security-by-design. In the past decade, MHA has worked closely with Government agencies to identify critical infrastructures and incorporate security into their design. This will continue under the Bill.
As for the second group of buildings, new developments that have potential of high public footfall will be designated as \"Special Developments\". They will be identified based on objective criteria, such as gross floor area, whether they are zoned for commercial, community or mixed use, and whether they are in certain planning areas. In clause 34, the Bill makes clear that we will publish the criteria which will be used to designate a class of Special Developments under a gazette order. The order will require any new developments that meet the criteria to undergo security-by-design.
We may also designate new developments that do not meet the high public footfall criteria but are iconic as Special Developments.
For existing buildings that meet the high public footfall criteria, they will generally be designated as Special Infrastructure. MHA will engage each owner and assess the need for security measures, taking into consideration the building’s actual land use and profile. Any further requirements to be imposed will be reasonable and practical, taking into account the fact that these are existing and not new buildings.
We will be as transparent as possible about the buildings that we will designate as Special Developments or Special Infrastructures and inform the building owners as early as we can.
Clause 32 describes who will be the responsible person of a Special Development or Special Infrastructure.
After a new development or existing building is designated, clauses 35 and 42 require responsible persons to submit a security plan to the Commissioner for approval, before specified works can be carried out.
The term “specified works” is defined in clause 2. For Special Developments, specified works refer to key construction works, such as those affecting the foundation, retaining structure, substructure or super structure. For Special Infrastructures, specified works refer to an extension of the premises, or major renovation works.
Clause 33 explains what the security plan should cover. It should include the risk assessment and necessary security measures for the designated premises and must be prepared by a competent person approved by MHA.
For Special Infrastructures, a security plan to be approved by the Commissioner is required for major renovation works. The term “major renovation” is defined in clause 2 and broadly refers to works that may introduce new security risks, for example, works at publicly accessible areas, the perimeter, or involving critical assets. A security plan to assess the risks, adjust existing security measures or add new measures will be required.
The security plan may be required to cover areas outside of the specified works, so that security risks to the designated premises may be addressed adequately. The scope of such security measures will be reasonable, for example, to install or upgrade access control or video surveillance systems.
It will be an offence to commence specified works without an approved security plan. The penalty is a fine of up to $200,000 or two years’ jail, or both.
Under clause 51, the Commissioner may direct the responsible person to stop any specified works and take actions to comply with the requirement to submit a security plan for approval. This requirement will also be incorporated in the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA’s) conditions when granting provisional permission to developers to carry out works.
After the Commissioner approves the security plan, works can commence and the security measures in the approved security plan must be implemented. Clauses 38 and 45 describe this.
Clauses 39 and 46 require the responsible person to submit a Certificate of Works Completion (CWC) and obtain the Commissioner’s approval. The CWC certifies that required security measures have been implemented by the time specified works are completed. The CWC must be prepared by an approved competent person. Clause 40 explains that Special Developments become Special Infrastructures once the CWC is approved.
If the specified works require a Temporary Occupation Permit or Certificate of Statutory Completion from the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), these cannot be obtained without an approved CWC.
After the CWC is approved, clauses 40 and 47 require the responsible person to implement the rest of the security measures and maintain every security measure in accordance with the approved security plan. Failure to do so will be an offence punishable with a fine of up to $20,000 or two years’ jail or both.
Clauses 38 and 45 allow flexibility through regulations for security measures in the security plan to be modified after the CWC is approved, for example, due to changes in the owner’s operational needs, or if existing measures need to be adjusted because of new specified works.
Under clauses 52 and 53, the Commissioner may direct the responsible person to take actions to rectify non-compliance with the approved security plan.
The second key aspect of the Bill is the introduction of directives and orders to protect buildings against terrorist attacks.
The Commissioner may issue security directives to Special Developments and Special Infrastructures. Under clause 54, the Commissioner may direct the responsible person of a Special Infrastructure to implement and maintain specific security measures, if it is necessary to address any security risk. This could be because the Special Infrastructure does not have any approved security plan, meaning that it did not previously undergo security-by-design, or because the approved security plan does not address emerging or new security risks.
Under clause 55, the Commissioner may issue security directives to publicly accessible premises which have not been designated as Special Infrastructures. The purpose is to be able to direct persons to implement specific security measures to address the risk of a terrorist attack. Such measures could include installing vehicle security barriers, or improving CCTV coverage and allowing the Police to view the feeds in order to protect the building against a terrorist attack. These measures will also not include the strengthening of structural elements against blast effects, which typically involve major structural modifications.
Clause 56 makes non-compliance with security directives an offence. For directives under clauses 49 to 54, which is applicable to Special Infrastructures, this is punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 or imprisonment of up to two years or both. For directives under clause 55, which is applicable to buildings not designated as Special Infrastructure, this is punishable by a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment of up to two years or both. It is also an offence if the person continues not to comply with the security directive even after he is convicted.
Security directives are intended as a last resort. Where a building is assessed to be at risk, MHA and the Police will first engage building owners to develop practical security measures and encourage them to undertake those measures voluntarily. But if the building owner is resistant and there is a potential risk to public safety and security, directives will be used.
To address any imminent risk of a terrorist attack, clause 58 empowers the Minister to issue an order to any premises to take immediate actions against that risk. The order can require security measures, such as preparing and implementing contingency plans, installing temporary security measures, and deploying security guards to restrict access of people and vehicles.
The order can also require the temporary closure of a part or the whole of the premises, allowing state forces to access the premises, or for the owner to provide any information relevant to protecting the premises, for example, their building plans, visitor and car park records, or CCTV feeds.
Clause 60 makes non-compliance with the Minister’s orders an offence, punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 or five years’ jail or both. Under clause 65, if the Minister’s order is not complied with, the Commissioner may enter the premises to carry out the directions in the order and recover the costs from the owners.
Part 7 provides for appeals to the Minister against certain decisions of the Commissioner. During security-by-design, if the Commissioner rejects the security plan of a Special Development or Special Infrastructure, the responsible person may appeal to the Minister. Persons issued with security directives under Part 5 may also appeal to the Minister. In cases where independent technical advice is needed, the Minister may refer the appeal to an Appeal Advisory Board, comprising relevant experts, and appointed under clause 63.
The third and final key aspect of the Bill is to enhance powers to protect sensitive locations. These are locations currently declared under PAPPA. Most Singaporeans would be familiar with the red warning signs. These are sensitive facilities where the movement and conduct of persons need to be controlled for security reasons, for example, border checkpoints, military training camps, and critical infrastructure delivering essential services.
The difference between a Protected Area and a Protected Place is that a Protected Place is not accessible to the public without approval from the owner of the place. Let me use the airport as an illustration. The transit facilities are Protected Places. So, only persons with a valid boarding pass or other authorisation may enter those places. On the other hand, the departure halls are Protected Areas and are accessible to the general public. But in both locations, the movement and conduct of people are controlled for security reasons.
The purpose of PAPPA is to provide powers to authorities in charge of sensitive locations and their guards to protect their premises. The key provisions of PAPPA remain relevant today. The Bill will repeal PAPPA, enhance the provisions, and port them over to Part 3, or clauses 8 to 31 of this Bill.
Most provisions remain unchanged. Protected Areas and Protected Places declared under the current PAPPA will remain under the new Act. So will existing powers for guards to control movement in the Protected Area or Place, conduct searches of persons and property, remove persons and property, and arrest persons by force, if necessary.
Clauses 12 and 18 make explicit the responsibilities for authorities in charge of Protected Areas and Places. Where guards are deployed, they must be authorised officers to ensure that they have the proper training and authorisation to exercise the powers. The boundaries of Protected Areas and Places must be clearly marked. For Protected Places, measures must be put in place to prevent unauthorised access.
To address today’s threat environment, the Bill will make two enhancements to the powers for Protected Areas and Protected Places.
The first enhancement is to prevent terrorists from carrying out pre-attack surveillance of their targets. Images of Protected Areas and Places can threaten public safety, if used for unlawful purposes. They can reveal details of security measures, the flow of people and the movement of the guards.
To address this, clause 29 will make unauthorised photography of the whole or any part of a Protected Area or Protected Place an offence. This means that photos can only be taken if the authority in charge of the Protected Area or Protected Place gives its permission. This will apply to land-based, as well as to aerial photography. Clause 29 also empowers authorised officers to direct persons to stop taking photos and delete any photos taken. Signs will be displayed at the perimeter of the Protected Area or Place to indicate that unauthorised photography is prohibited.
Clause 30 deals specifically with photography by unmanned aerial vehicles. Similar provisions exist in the Air Navigation Act and the Public Order Act. Unauthorised photography of Protected Areas and Places by unmanned aerial vehicles is an offence. Authorised officers designated by the Police under clause 30 will have powers to address such instances of unauthorised photography, such as assuming control of the unmanned aerial vehicle to land it safely and quickly.
The second enhancement is to deter and detect persons in the surrounding area who pose a security threat to the Protected Area or Protected Place. This could be a person who carries a suspicious bag or parks a truck near the perimeter or loiters near the Protected Area or Place without good reason. Such persons could be carrying dangerous items. They could also distract the attention of authorised officers.
Potential attacks overseas have been stopped by vigilant guards in the surrounding area of a sensitive facility. In April this year, police in the United Kingdom (UK) arrested a man near the Prime Minister’s Office on suspicion of preparing to commit an act of terrorism. It turned out that he was carrying three knives in a rucksack.
Clauses 27 and 28 provide authorised officers with powers to identify and deal with potential security threats in the surrounding area. When engaging a person in the surrounding area, authorised officers may request for his personal identification and reason for being there. If the person fails to comply, or does not give a good and lawful reason to be there, the authorised officer may direct him to move on. The authorised officer may also inspect belongings and vehicles, if he reasonably suspects that the person is carrying dangerous items.
Clause 26 makes clear that the powers in clauses 27 and 28 apply only if the surrounding area is specified in the order of the Protected Area or Place. Signs will be displayed at the perimeter of the Protected Area or Place to indicate that the powers apply.
MHA has consulted stakeholders in developing the Bill, including from the built environment sector, such as real estate developers, architects and engineers, as well as owners and operators of critical infrastructure. Security industry professionals were also consulted. We recognise that the new infrastructure protection framework would require more expertise and resources in the area of building security.
MHA and the Professional Engineers Board will establish a new category of specialist Professional Engineers in Protective Security [PE (PS)] scheme to recognise and develop local expertise. It will be launched in 2018. In the longer term, we will consider making the involvement of PE (PS) in the security-by-design process as a legal requirement.
MHA will also publish updated Guidelines for Enhancing Building Security in Singapore. This will guide building owners on conducting security risk assessments, designing secure buildings and selecting appropriate security measures. The Centre for Protective Security Studies will conduct training and outreach on the guidelines. Mr Speaker, please allow me to conclude my speech in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Today, MHA works with selected buildings to integrate security into their design. We have thus far relied on engagement and persuasion rather than the law. But given the heightened threat environment, the Government is of the view that there is a need to establish a regulatory framework to more systematically protect Singapore’s infrastructure.
With the Infrastructure Protection Bill, key buildings will be required to incorporate security into their design. These include critical infrastructure delivering essential services, as well as large or iconic buildings that face a higher threat due to high public footfall, or their prominence or symbolic significance.
Other buildings which we deem to be at some risk of terrorist attacks, but which we have not designated as Special Infrastructures, may also be required to put in place security measures, if directed to do so.
But while infrastructure protection measures can mitigate the terrorist threat, they cannot eliminate it. We need to step up efforts on all fronts. The Bill must thus be seen as part of a comprehensive national counterterrorism framework. This includes CCTV coverage, border protection, response capabilities of the security forces, as well as the role of the community.
Indeed, no single initiative or legislation alone can tackle the multifaceted threat of terrorism. Every Singaporean must stand up to be counted and play our part to safeguard Singapore’s safety and security.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Infrastructure Protection Bill is necessary in view of the rising terrorism threat to Singapore. According to the Singapore Terrorism Threat Assessment Report, we are facing the highest level of threat in recent years.
Under this Bill, the Government will be able to require selected new and existing buildings to put in place features to strengthen their security. Naturally, owners and occupiers designated as the responsible authorities of protected places are concerned with higher costs associated with such designs, installations and measures. These may include special materials for protection against blast effects, vehicle barriers, CCTV and security guards.
MHA has given the assurance that it will continue to rely on engagement with such facilities' owners or occupiers before turning to legislation for enforcement. However, while the penalties for non-compliance have been listed clearly in the Bill, information about Government funding and resource support for identified facilities is lacking. The owners and occupiers of protected places will want more clarity about the burden and apportionment of costs for enhanced security. I would like to ask if the Ministry will be issuing guidelines on how it will work with businesses to manage such costs.
Next, another equally important component for infrastructure protection is the personnel involved. Besides the security staff, non-security personnel at these facilities should also be trained in how to act to reduce risks and respond in the event of emergencies. All staff should be trained with regular drills, and processes must be in place to ensure that the necessary steps and compliance measures are adhered to.
Last, I would like to request that hospitals be considered for the list of selected protected areas. Hospitals are a very important part of our infrastructure, along with other more obvious facilities, such as our airports, ports, checkpoints and military installations. They provide an essential service and experience high human traffic daily, which make them potential targets for terrorists. In the event of a terror attack, the provision of medical care could be severely disrupted. Furthermore, medical personnel and equipment are very difficult to replace. Therefore, I hope that our hospitals will be accorded greater protection. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to protect selected areas and buildings against security risks. These threats are not merely terrorism-related but include threats from crime and accidents. It goes without saying that appropriate security measures can safeguard lives and property and minimise disruptions to essential services. Thus, this Bill should be supported.
Having said that, it should also be borne in mind that we should also not go overboard and have the country in perpetual lock-down mode. We must be able to go about our daily activities efficiently. If we cannot live normal lives, the terrorists have already won.
This Bill has several Parts. While I am in general support of the Bill, I have some queries and concerns to raise.
First, on Part 3: protected areas and protected places. The Bill repeals the current Protected Areas and Protected Places Act and re-enacts the same provisions but includes some new provisions as well. At the same time, the maximum fines for offences have been drastically increased, from $1,000 to $20,000. I assume that this is due to the heightened security environment and inflation over the years, but I appreciate the Minister's clarification on this.
Next, clause 29 introduces a new provision to make it an offence to take photographs or videos of protected areas and protected places. While it is perfectly reasonable to prohibit such actions inside or above the protected area or protected place, the section makes it an offence to take a photograph or make a recording from outside the protected area and protected place. Is it reasonable to punish someone taking a picture from outside, when he is standing in a public area, and the photograph is simply capturing what is already visible publicly? Maps available on the Internet, such as Google Earth, already show such information publicly anyway.
Next, I move on to Part 4: special developments and special infrastructures. This Bill introduces new provisions that certain developments and buildings will be required to have security plans approved by the new Commissioner for Infrastructure Protection.
What constitutes a \"special development\" or \"special infrastructure\"? According to the Ministry's press release on 11 September and also the Minister’s Second Reading speech, these buildings would be those which \"house essential services, are iconic, or with high human traffic\". Clause 34 states that the Minister will be the one designating \"special developments\" and \"special infrastructures\" that need to comply with the Act. Could there be further elaboration on the types and extent of buildings that would need to be designated? For instance, will all shopping malls be designated? What about hospitals? As for Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, clause 2 of the Bill states that Town Councils would be considered owners of common property for the purpose of the Bill. Which part of HDB estates would be deemed \"special infrastructures\"?
Next, as far as developments are concerned, the intention is to have security embedded into the facility at the design stage. Clause 35 makes it clear that key structural works cannot commence until the security plan is approved. From a security management perspective, such early emplacement of security concerns is recommended and likely to achieve better outcomes. At the design stage, security professionals can work with architects, engineers and facility owners to ensure that security features do not disrupt the overall building aesthetics or the facility's operational needs.
Clauses 33 provides that the security plans must be prepared by a person approved by the Commissioner for Infrastructure Protection in connection with those works. I would like to know whether it is intended that the Commissioner pre-approves a list of security practitioners who would be acceptable, or would the Commissioner be open to case-by-case approvals of security consultants, depending on the project or the building at hand? Will the Commissioner accept a security professional who is an employee of the owner or occupier?
Lastly, Sir, clauses 37 and 44 talk about amendments to approved security plans. The amendments can be initiated by either the building owner or the Commissioner for Infrastructure Protection. In other words, after the Commissioner has approved the security plan, he can change his mind sometime later and require additional measures to be included. What if the new measures result in wasted costs, for example, if they require undoing of systems or structures already put in? It seems that, according to clause 80, the owner has to bear such wasted costs. Whether clause 80 is fair will depend on why the amendment to the plan at a later stage was needed. If the amendment was due to the negligence of the authorities in the first approval, should the owner be forced to bear the additional cost?
Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Singapore has so far managed to prevent a terrorist attack on our soil, but given the extreme ease with which acts of terror can now be committed using a runaway truck or with a knife easily bought from a supermarket, we cannot afford to be complacent. On 1 June 2017, MHA released the Terrorism Threat Assessment Report that highlighted the persistent risk of attack that Singapore faces, and the recent video released by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) media centre featuring a Singapore-born terrorist further brings home the point that security is our collective responsibility.
With the launch of SGSecure to sensitise, train and mobilise the community in the event of an attack, it is highly relevant that we now take a hard review at the adequacy of our safety protocols and put in place networks, structures, systems and processes to support our nation's effort in the constant battle against terrorism. While I am most supportive of this Bill, I would like to raise some points for the Minister's consideration. Perhaps, some of these points have already been covered to some extent by the Second Minister in her very thorough opening speech, but I hope that she will be open also to considering the points raised over the next few minutes or so.
I would like to start off with talking about clause 5 which talks about the Commissioner of Infrastructure Protection. The Bill, when passed, will vest the Minister with the authority to appoint, among public officers, a Commissioner of Infrastructure Protection, and a team of Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners that administer the Act. This reinforces the importance given to securing our key installations and properties against possible incursions.
While the appointment of a coordinating Commissioner and his/her team is a step in the right direction, the question of how coordination can be done across multiple agencies needs to be addressed. For example, what are the criteria for the Commissioner's appointment and what will be the extent of his/her power? Would he or she be vested with authority to coordinate the activities of different agencies that are now responsible for infrastructure protection? And is the Ministry considering setting up a dedicated Agency for Infrastructure Protection to execute the duties of the role?
I would like now to move on to clause 8 which states that the Minister will be vested with wide-ranging power to declare any premises in Singapore as a protected area if it is deemed necessary to control the movement and conduct of persons on the premises. While I appreciate that exigencies might require swift responses from the Government, would the Government consider building in safeguards to protect against potential compromise of stakeholders' interests?
In its current form, the Bill clarifies only the purpose and intent of the protected area but does not specify the criteria that would be used to determine if a premises should come under protection. As opposed to the current broad interpretation that an area can come under protection upon application of its owner and by volition of the Minister, would the Ministry consider publishing guidelines that lay out the framework to determine whether an area will be put under protection, and also, how would the scope of protection relate to the strategic importance of the asset and level of threat?
On a related note, if a designated protected area incorporates a mix of residential and commercial interests, such as, say, the Marina Bay Financial Centre, how would the designation of the protected area impact the interest of residents and businesses in that area?
Clause 18 of the Bill highlights that only \"authorised officers\" are to be deployed to guard protected places. A closer reading of the Bill reveals that \"authorised officers\" are interpreted broadly to encompass personnel from various divisions of the Home Team and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), as well as Auxiliary Police Officers and security guards.
I believe, Mr Speaker, that we need to ensure that \"authorised officers\" who are protecting the installations are adequately and adeptly trained to spot, manage and neutralise potential terrorists. While the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and SAF have specialised personnel who are trained to protect key installations, it would be hard to reconcile that an Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officer, though with due respect, or security guard deployed by a commercial security firm would possess that same level of training to be a deterrent for would-be terrorists.
Would the Ministry consider implementing a training curriculum and a certification process to ensure that all personnel deployed to guard key installations have the right level of competence and skill to discharge their duties? This would differentiate a casual security guard from a specialised officer that has been trained and prepared for guarding protected places.
Finally, I support the Bill’s provision that new developments can be designated as special developments where developers are legally obliged to construct and build the relevant safety structures to ensure the safety of the building’s occupants. Some of these devices, as mentioned by the Second Minister herself earlier, would include video or surveillance devices in the vicinity of the building, barriers to prevent vehicular threats to crowds or building structures, specially-reinforced concrete walls that do not collapse easily, and fireproof claddings. While these features can be incorporated with relative ease into new developments, they are much more difficult to be implemented in existing buildings.
It was reported in April 2016 that an interagency working team has been put together to study security guidelines for existing buildings and the results of the study will be made available. Can the Ministry shed some light on the outcome of this study? Does the Ministry intend to conduct a safety audit, as it were, on existing buildings to ensure that building owners are compelled to rectify security shortcomings to mitigate collateral damage from terrorist attacks? Also, would there be guidelines for public agencies, such as Town Councils and HDB, on enhancing public safety in HDB estates, as well as guidelines for owners of commercial properties on what they could and, perhaps, should do to deter would-be attacks? The Second Minister talked earlier about \"security-by-design\". I was wondering if this concept could be expanded to include perhaps the notion of \"security-by-redesign\" for existing buildings and properties.
The threat of terrorism is real and persistent, Mr Speaker. Recent sectarian violence in Southeast Asia is not only the result of violent extremism and fundamentalism originating from the Middle East, it also provides the recruitment platform for the extremism and fundamentalism to be fuelled further. This is a vicious cycle that will have potentially grave consequences as returning fighters from the conflict in that part of the world come back to this part of the world in Southeast Asia.
The reading of this Bill is thus timely and we certainly need to strengthen our resolve to combat extremism and terrorism, not only in terms of being more vigilant, reinforcing our social ties, boosting our paramilitary competencies, but also in protecting our buildings and infrastructure as well. Mr Speaker, Sir, I conclude my speech in firm support of the Bill.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, the 9/11 attacks ushered in an era whereby terrorist attacks are an unfortunate norm. While we have avoided terrorist attacks on Singapore soil thus far, we must not stop enhancing our defence against terrorism.
Terrorists evolve their tactics quickly to stay one step ahead of security and law enforcement agencies. Cars and lorries are now used just as effectively as explosives to cause carnage, fear and deadly divisions in many countries. We saw these in Finland, the UK and Spain. The broad-ranging terrorist arsenal meant that our security agencies cannot be the only active agents in preventing terrorism.
This Bill seeks to ensure that our key infrastructures are well guarded against threats. Infrastructure owners will be required to adopt measures against security threats. These will involve additional costs and resources for businesses and may result in some inconvenience as well. The concern about cost is understandable. Yet, a successful attack involves a far graver cost, and not just for businesses, but for everyone. This Bill is not alone in its bid to strengthen Singapore’s line against terrorism. The Counter-Terrorism Committee under the United Nations has similarly called for greater partnership between the public and private sectors to secure critical infrastructure.
We can understand the concerns on costs because there can be a long tail of them. The costs involved will include consultancy, implementation and long-term maintenance and replacement. How would the Ministry better help our businesses to manage these costs effectively so that it will not be passed down to tenants and customers? In fact, the Ministry’s regulatory costs could also increase to ensure that the security measures are in working condition. How can the Ministry itself better manage such longer-term costs?
Because the measures that might be needed can be extensive, there is value for a prescribed code, much like a building code. This allows companies to know what is expected of them as part of forward business planning. Yet, this might then become an ironically useful guide for terrorists. We need to strike a balance. Could the Minister share more on how the selection of infrastructure is made, and how many buildings will be affected? What is the timeline given for affected buildings to comply with all the requirements set out in the Bill?
Mr Speaker, skilled manpower along the value chain is needed for these measures to work. For example, there must be sufficient consultants and capacity in the Ministry to ensure that building owners are not unduly delayed in seeking approvals. We need to ensure that security officers are kept updated on these new measures. Would new forms of training be required and refresher training be introduced to help existing security officers? There is also a consequential need for a pool of capable and well-trained staff in facilities management who can ensure that the new security measures implemented are in good working order. We will also need the security agencies to have sufficient resources to audit the buildings, the list of which perhaps will only grow with time.
The powers to stop unauthorised photography are needed to stem terrorist surveillance and reconnaissance. This is an important first counterterrorism measure. Do the powers also extend to publishing of such photos? What measures or education efforts will be taken to increase awareness?
Mr Speaker, this Bill improves the security in Singapore. However, laws alone will not solve all our security issues. There will still be many buildings holding thousands of people and of iconic and important value but not included within the guidelines. Yet, we know it is unwise to barricade every building and line every street with bollards. We must secure whatever we can, prudently and effectively. This is another ring of defence to complement our SGSecure work. The best defence is still an engaged and resilient citizenry. With this, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. Enhancement of security measures to buildings and provision of powers to security personnel to better protect Singapore’s infrastructure against security risks is timely, in light of the prevalence of indiscriminate terror attacks carried out globally.
Further, I applaud the initiative to rope in the business community as part of the shared effort to keep Singapore safe. There are two clarifications I seek.
Firstly, clause 22 describes the circumstances which allow the authorised officers of protected areas or places to use such force as is reasonably necessary to remove any person or, without warrant, arrest a person who enters or is about to enter such protected areas or places.
These circumstances include a catch-all provision prescribing if that person, in the opinion of the authorised officer, does not have a good and lawful reason to enter or to be in that protected area or place, or is acting in a suspicious manner.
The presence of the global threat of terror is very real, and the need to empower our officers is much needed. However, can the Minister clarify if these powers given to the authorised officer in clause 22 are subject to guidelines?
I believe there are less concerns when these powers are given to Police Officers, but there is concern that this Bill indicates that such powers can be given to security officers. The training a Police Officer receives is very different from the training a security officer receives. Can the Minister provide further clarifications on the need to provide security officers with such powers? In addition, there is now a stronger focus on the role of security officers in our fight against terrorism. Will MHA be devoting resources into developing this industry and reviewing and improving the training provided to these officers?
Secondly, I appreciate that ensuring the security of Singapore’s infrastructure should be a joint responsibility. This duty ought to be shared by all, including businesses, premises owners and developers. However, as shared by Members who have spoken before me, there have been concerns by building owners on rising operational costs when additional security measures have to be put in place.
There is less concern for new buildings or those undergoing major renovations since they can factor in such costs during the initial stages, but more so when we issue directives or orders for existing buildings. I do appreciate that this is necessary. But perhaps the cost of not implementing such measures against terrorist attacks would be greater than the cost of installing CCTVs, deploying security officers and barriers.
But I hope the Minister can address some of the public concerns with regard to the availability of grants in exceptional cases where the building owner is unable to afford the costs of implementing the directives or orders.
Sir, I applaud the efforts of the Ministry thus far with the SGSecure movement. I also applaud their focus on the “Security-by-Design” process, and I understand we are one of the first few countries in the world to legislate the need for such a process.
I believe it is important and necessary to include the entire community in efforts to keep Singapore safe. By working together, we can keep Singapore secure. Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Infrastructure Protection Bill. However, to ensure that the desired outcomes of the Bill be achieved, it is important that other aspects related to the implementation of the Bill be looked into as well.
Firstly, I think we need to look at the quality of our security officers, especially those engaged by the private security agencies. The effectiveness of the Bill will depend on the capabilities and competency of the security officers which, currently, vary widely. Our ICA and SPF officers are well-trained and equipped with relevant training, such as the Threat-Oriented Person Screening Integrated System (TOPSIS) profiling and Red-Team simulations, to ensure that they always maintain their edge in executing their duties.
For private security officers today, the 42,000 of them on the ground are treated as a common group. I seek MHA to review this approach. The 42,000 officers diverge on demographics, education and capabilities. At the risk of over generalising things, may I propose that we categorise them into three separate groups?
On the one hand, we have officers who are fit and highly competent. Bouncers, event security officers fit into this category, which is not unlike the APO (E) scheme currently available for APOs who do not need to carry a weapon. For this group, we should treat them as APOs and they should command a premium salary. They would have to undergo annual refresher courses and physical fitness tests.
On the other hand, based on our ground engagement, about one-third of the 42,000 officers today are near retirement or post-retirement. For these officers, taking every extra module subjects them to undue stress because of language difficulties. These officers should be allowed to serve as security officers at sites deemed low risk, and we thank MHA and the Police Licensing and Regulatory Department (PLRD) for taking the first step towards this consideration, as reflected in the proposed Bill. It is important to note that my recommendation does not discriminate this group of workers. Should any of these officers like to upgrade themselves, by all means they can do so.
In the middle, we have a group of officers who, though not as fit, may be able to take on other duties, like first aid, lift rescue and firefighting. Buyers today already expect them to do so, without properly prescribing them in the contracts, nor paying for it. I would like to propose that for every skillset they are expected to have, these officers must be given an extra pay equivalent to the value of that skillset. This should sit on top of their basic pay.
I firmly believe that if we variegate the jobs in the security industry in this manner, we will create a proper career path for our security officers with meaningful pay. After all, none of us would like to work in an industry where everyone has the same job scope. Afterall, we are talking about 42,000 officers.
Related to this is the need to have better working conditions and employment terms and benefits for our private security officers which can lead to better work performance. Currently, the security industry is plagued by issues, such as long working hours, lack of proper rest areas, and officers are given only basic employment statutory benefits.
Unless a decisive effort is made to improve the working conditions and mandating better employment benefits, it will be difficult to attract younger workers into the industry. Hence, I would like to ask MHA what are the plans to improve working conditions of the security officers and to consider my proposals above to attract younger people to be security officers.
Second, I would like MHA to consider having basic security requirements in residential areas, such as condominiums, that will require the use of technology to improve security with less reliance on headcount. Even though a set of guidelines on enhancing building security by MHA and BCA is available, the take-up rate can be further improved if some of these requirements are made mandatory in these residential developments.
Some of these mandated security requirements should involve the use of technology, such as next-generation visitor management systems, using more smart cameras with surveillance software and smart analytics, perimeter detection that would reduce the need for patrolling, cloud-based reporting for incident reports to be sent to key decision-makers at short notice and having a remote command centre that could optimise manpower deployment on the ground. All these could reduce the overall demand for private security officers to allow for shorter working hours which are currently at 12 hours a day for six days a week.
As a start, by properly assessing the security needs of a site, suitably hardening first before prescribing security manpower will definitely go a long way in enhancing security outcomes for any site and also increase productivity almost instantly. In short, I would like to propose MHA mandating some of these security risk assessments for residential areas as well. Alternatively, MHA could also allow building owners not under the select building scheme to opt-in to meet the requirement or standard of the security measures under the category of Selected Buildings. Would MHA be able to provide the support they require to conform to the prescribed security standards?
In conclusion, security is everyone’s responsibility. I have made some suggestions that would complement the efforts undertaken by the Infrastructure Protection Bill as these areas would have a direct impact in achieving the desired outcome under this Bill. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Infrastructure Protection Bill. It is timely that we are stepping up security for key buildings and places with high human traffic to counter threats and keep Singapore and Singaporeans safe and secure. However, I would like to seek some clarifications on the Bill.
Under the new law, does the Ministry foresee a sizeable increase in demand for security officers? If so, how is the Ministry planning to address the supply shortage whilst ensuring the quality of new APOs? Like my fellow Labour Member of Parliament (MP), Mr Zainal Sapari, I am concerned with the manpower shortage, which does have a negative impact on our security officers, including fatigue. I would, therefore, like to ask how the Ministry plans to attract more Singaporeans into the sector.
The manpower crunch, coupled with the projected increase in demand for security officers, makes it clear that we must turn to technology to fill the gap. For example, the use of smart video technology and motion sensors can help reduce labour-intensive patrol work. Smart video technology and motion sensors can pick up movements at the perimeter and analyse if they present a threat to the building. In my constituency, the Orchard Road Business Association has been encouraging hotels, retail buildings and offices to harness technology, such as AI-enabled facial recognition, when upgrading their security systems. However, the cost of implementing such advanced security technologies may be prohibitive for some building owners.
Mr Speaker, as highlighted by Members who have spoken before me, the cost of implementing additional security measures under the proposed Bill, be it traditional or advanced measures, will not come cheap. While new developments can incorporate the new security requirements into their design, older buildings may face a far heftier price tag if retrofitting works are extensive. These costs will be passed down to the tenants, many of whom are small and medium enterprises (SMEs), and eventually trickle down to consumers. Hence, I would like the Ministry to consider extending co-funding support to older buildings seeking to comply with the Bill and incentivise building owners to adopt more advanced technologies by providing higher funding support.
The introduction of advanced technologies will also mean that existing security officers must upgrade and upskill themselves to remain relevant. I understand that such concerns have already been raised to the Security Industry Transformation Committee, and an Industry Transformation Map (ITM) for the Private Security Industry is due by the end of this year. I would like to propose a review of the mandatory training modules under the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) so that security officers are better equipped to handle the new technologies and the new responsibilities accorded by the new provisions.
Mr Speaker, a crucial component of any security plan is the evacuation route once a building is targeted or compromised. I am sure that Members of this House have all taken part in a fire drill before and, indeed, it is essential for all buildings to have their own evacuation plans. However, such evacuations are often planned in insolation by the building’s management. When I was a Police commander and asked to see the fire evacuation plans of buildings in the city centre, I was surprised to find that every building had designated the same small grass patch in the vicinity as its assembly area. Surely, the space would not be enough if everyone from every building gathers there at the same time. That is why coordination, sharing of information and joint exercises are important.
I would like to suggest that the Ministry consider having sector-wide, integrated evacuation plans for buildings around key installations or have high human traffic, such as the Central Business District.
In closing, Mr Speaker, I am strongly in favour of the Bill’s intent to safeguard our nation’s key areas and buildings from terrorist threats. However, we cannot think of infrastructure protection in isolation. We must consider the cost of complying to the new laws and whether our security officers are well-equipped to protect our infrastructures. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, it has often been said that prevention is better than cure. The Infrastructure Protection Bill is, indeed, all about pre-emptive measures to protect critical infrastructural facilities against the increasing threats of terrorism.
However, I am concerned about how we are going to achieve the balance between our security needs and public convenience. If we overdo it, we may end up with protected areas which are operated like a prison. On the other hand, if our protection measures are insufficient, such lapses could invite exploitations by terrorists.
I would like to suggest that we invest more in and leverage on technology to boost security. This could be a better solution than relying heavily on hardware, such as physical protective installations, which are also necessary. The use of big data analytical digital techniques, for example, would be useful.
The recent attempt by terrorists to fire a rocket from Batam is a clear example of terrorists exploring all means to cause casualties and instill fear. We have been fortunate in that our neighbouring countries have been working closely with us to cripple such attempts. In such cases, the scope for infrastructure defence will be limited due to the destructive powers of such weapons. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] It is said that “As virtue rises one foot, vice rises 10”. The enemies are in the dark but we are in the open. Hence, we must take pre-emptive measures to protect our infrastructural facilities. It is always wise to play safe. Only by doing this can we effectively prevent and fight against terror.
(In English): Hence, early detection of self-radicalised individuals, their education and rehabilitation are important countermeasures as well. We must stay united and harmonious as a community in order to deter extremism, intolerance and terrorism. All races must keep constantly reminding one another that our religions and ideologies promote peace and love for our fellow men. Our fight is against terrorism, not against any religion nor any race.
We should leverage upon our well-trained, multiracial, multi-religious National Service (NS)men, active and reservists, and update them regularly with counterterrorism skills to expand on security measures on the ground.
Finally, I would like to voice my support for making it an offence the unauthorised photography and videography, including with the use of drones, of protected places listed under the existing PAPPA under this Bill. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Second Minister Josephine Teo.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, let me thank all the Members who have spoken up in support of the Bill. They raised many useful points which I shall address.
Let me start by talking about the cost of the security measures, which Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Melvin Yong highlighted concerns about.
Terrorists have imposed many costs on society. I think Members agree that all of us bear a share of that burden.
Much of the cost of strengthening protection and enhancing security response is borne directly by the Government. Members will agree that safety and security are not only in our collective interest, they also impact the bottom line interests of businesses. Therefore, businesses must also contribute.
In this high threat environment, building owners and developers recognise that ensuring the security of their buildings is part and parcel of carrying out business. A recent survey by the World Economic Forum found that business leaders in Singapore see terrorist attacks as their top global risk. Their concerns are not misplaced.
They know that if the security of the building is breached, the damage to property could be much more costly. This is why even without the Bill, many buildings today already put in place security measures, like CCTVs and vehicle barriers. Most of these security measures do not involve complex systems and are maintained as part of the buildings’ other facilities.
In fact, security-by-design can offer cost savings to businesses in the longer term. When security measures are properly planned and seamlessly integrated into the design of the building, the use of technology, such as CCTV and access control systems, coupled with the appropriate processes, can help save on manpower cost. The flow of vehicles can be designed to reduce the risk of an attack to crowded areas and minimise or even eliminate the need for bollards.
The security requirements under the Bill also apply only to designated buildings, and not all buildings. Based on the proposed criteria, we expect a handful of new developments each year to be affected.
In past projects where security-by-design was implemented, the cost of security measures was between 0.2% and 3% of the total construction cost. But I should add that not all of this cost is attributable to the design process per se, since all buildings have to be fitted with some security measures in any case. Also, given that MHA will try to make known as early as possible which buildings need to undergo security-by-design, developers will likely factor in the cost of security measures in their bid price for the land.
Mr Darryl David is right to point out the need to ensure that buildings which are not designated as Special Developments and Special Infrastructures are also protected. Directives and orders offer a calibrated way to safeguard these buildings when a specific security risk has been identified, without having to impose security-by-design on all buildings. They can be used to require security measures, such as those mentioned by Mr Darryl David, including security checks and bollards.
To help manage the costs, MHA will engage building owners on what security measures would be effective and practical. Directives will be issued only as a last resort where owners refuse to take action and there is a risk to the public.
Let me now provide some clarifications on Special Developments and Special Infrastructures. Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Desmond Choo asked about the kinds of buildings that would be designated Special Developments and Special Infrastructures.
It is fair that building owners and developers know, as early as possible, whether security-by-design requirements will apply in their own cases. This is why we intend to publish the criteria in the Gazette on the types of new developments that will be designated as Special Developments.
What are these criteria based on? Essentially, we look at indicators that signal the high likelihood of public footfall being very large. So, that will naturally include the size, location and the type of the developments. For a start, we will include developments with a gross floor area of over 100,000 square metres, are located in specific planning areas, and there is a list which will be identified in the Gazette. And apart from the gross floor area of 100,000 square metres, and also the location being in specific planning areas, these buildings ought to be designated by URA for commercial, community and mixed use. So, it will be quite clear through the Gazette which buildings are going to be designated Special Developments. Existing buildings that meet the criteria will generally also be designated as Special Infrastructures so that security can be incorporated in their design during renovation.
By publishing the criteria in the Gazette, developers and building owners will, therefore, have a good sense if they are affected and those who are unsure can approach MHA for clarification.
As for the timeline, we will inform the building owners as early as we can. Along with the high public footfall criteria, the details of the security-by-design review process will also be provided to the industry. We will also be reasonable in the amount of time given to developers and consultants to comply with the requirements under directives and orders.
Mr Darryl David asked about the Commissioner of Infrastructure Protection. This person would be a senior public servant in the Ministry of Home Affairs who has the necessary professional expertise to make assessments and to coordinate with relevant Home Team agencies. MHA has been working with selected building owners over the past decade on security-by-design. So, there is already a team in place and we will make sure the team is adequately resourced to implement the new requirements. But no new agency needs to be set up for now.
Ms Sylvia Lim also asked about competent persons who need to be approved by the Commissioner to prepare security plans. The Commissioner will make an assessment for each project, after assessing the person’s relevant qualifications, past experience with security-by-design projects, and the nature of the project. There is no pre-approved list, and we will provide broad guidelines on the requirements that competent persons should meet. Inhouse experts may also be included. But all will need to be approved for each project because some projects may require special expertise or may be of a sensitive nature.
Developing industry capabilities in security consulting and infrastructure protection is also one of our key priorities. There are security and blast consultants, as well as other built environment professionals like architects, who are well-versed with security-by-design. In other words, it is not an idea that is completely new in Singapore. Over the last decade, a number of projects have already gone through this process. As the Bill extends security-by-design to more new developments, we will build up the pool of competent persons with the new scheme for PE (PS). We will also work with the security industry to develop security consulting capabilities as part of the Security Industry Transformation Map.
Ms Sylvia Lim also asked about the Commissioner requiring amendments to the security plan after it has been approved and complied with. This will only be done if warranted by a security risk. Given the evolving nature of security threats, the Commissioner must be in a position to order a review of the security plan so that new risks assessed to warrant attention can be mitigated. I think Mr Darryl David referred to this as security-by-redesign. He is very right. Will there be abortive costs as a result? We will try to avoid this as much as possible, but it may not always be possible. We have to weigh it against the value of the enhanced security protection.
It is important for us to talk about Developing Industry Capabilities and, in this section, I shall do so. Mr Melvin Yong asked whether the demand for security manpower will increase as a result of the Bill. As I mentioned earlier, the key benefit of security-by-design is that it can mitigate security risks upfront in the design of the building and offer cost savings in the longer term. A building that is well-designed for security, with the use of technology, such as CCTV and video analytics integrated upfront, will actually require less manpower to guard.
Not only do we get to save on manpower, this is an opportunity to create new, higher skilled jobs and thereby attract new entrants to the sector. For example, guards with an integrated command centre can focus on analysing and responding to incidents over a much larger area, as compared to if they just patrolled on foot.
Mr Zainal Sapari, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Melvin Yong spoke about the need to train security officers and uplift the industry. Indeed, the security industry is a key partner. MHA is working closely with industry stakeholders and tripartite partners to develop an Industry Transformation Map. This process has been ongoing for some time.
Among other initiatives, the Industry Transformation Map will identify ways to enhance the skills of security officers. Currently, security officers guarding Protected Areas and Protected Places must go through a counterterrorism course. The course was updated earlier this year to be more relevant. MHA and SPF are working with stakeholders in the Security Tripartite Cluster to make this counterterrorism course a licensing requirement for more security officers and incorporate this in the Progressive Wage Model.
Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Melvin Yong also pointed out rightly that technology is a key enabler to improve productivity and alleviate manpower challenges in the security industry. The Member spoke passionately and also suggested enhancing training and job roles and recognising security officers with additional skills. The ITM will look into this, together with other important related issues they raised, such as attracting more Singaporeans into the industry.
Mr Zainal Sapari suggested mandating that all residential buildings carry out security risk assessments. There are thousands of such buildings and the general threat assessment does not yet warrant a blanket requirement on all of them. Nonetheless, the residential building owners can take reference from the criteria used to designate special developments or infrastructures and implement the appropriate security measures themselves. They can also refer to MHA’s Guidelines on Enhancing Building Security in Singapore (GEBSS). In addition, if they join the Safety and Security Watch Group, a Police Liaison Officer can help their premises undergo a security assessment. Mr Darryl David asked for an update on the interagency review of the guidelines. This is ongoing and we hope to publish the revised guidelines by early 2018.
Let us now turn to safeguards for the enhanced powers at Protected Areas and Places. Mr Darryl David asked about the criteria used to declare Protected Areas and Places. The PAPPA has been in place since 1948. Typically, the declaration is made at the application of the owner in charge of the sensitive location. Examples of such locations are military areas and critical infrastructures. They would generally not involve residential or commercial areas.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether powers given to the authorised officers are subject to guidelines, and the need to provide security officers with such powers. Mr Darryl David also mentioned the need to ensure authorised officers are properly trained.
The private security industry supports the Home Team in ensuring the safety and security of Singapore. Under the current PAPPA, security officers and APOs can already be deployed to guard Protected Areas and Places and exercise appropriate powers. They must, however, first undergo compulsory training, which is mandated by the Police. This already includes the counterterrorism course which I mentioned earlier.
Under the Bill, security officers and APOs will have to undergo additional training on how to exercise their proposed new powers. They need to become clearer about that. The Police will also develop rules of engagement on how these new powers are to be exercised so that the security officers and the APOs know the boundaries within which they operate.
There are other safeguards. For example, authorised officers will have to carry a map showing the specified surrounding area where they can exercise the proposed powers. And because they carry a map, there can be no dispute. Another safeguard: clause 26 provides that if the specified surrounding areas include private property, powers may only be exercised with the consent of the owner or occupier of that private property. Clause 31 further provides that when exercising such powers, authorised officers must identify themselves and state their authority to do so, if asked.
Unauthorised photography, some clarifications there. Mr Gan Thiam Poh supported making unauthorised photography of Protected Areas and Places an offence. Ms Sylvia Lim asked whether such a prohibition was reasonable.
The purpose of this prohibition is to deter would-be attackers from carrying out pre-attack surveys of their targets. Today, while many Protected Areas or Places have \"No Photography\" signs outside, authorised officers are not able to stop persons from taking photos.
On the ground, the authorised officers will have to exercise some judgement. If photos were taken inadvertently, they would typically warn and ask the person to delete the photos. Further action would be taken if the person does not comply, or if there are security reasons to do so. The Bill will limit the availability of more recent and detailed photographs of Protected Areas and Places. Such photos can threaten public safety and security by facilitating the planning of attacks. Making it clear that unauthorised photography is prohibited will also have a deterrent effect, allowing security resources to focus on areas that are more likely to be a real threat.
Mr Desmond Choo asked how many people have been charged or warned against taking photographs or videos of Protected Areas and Places, and how awareness will be increased.
Currently, because this is not an offence – though some of our Protected Areas and Places like our checkpoints have rules to disallow it – no one has committed an offence since it is not an offence. The Bill will make unauthorised photography an offence punishable with a fine of up to $20,000 or imprisonment of up to two years or both, and signs will be displayed at the perimeter of the Protected Area or Place.
Ms Sylvia Lim had asked what were the reasons for the increase in fines under Part 3. Our consideration is as follows. The PAPPA has not been amended since 1959. The existing offence provisioned under section (7) of the Act is a fine of $1,000 and two years' imprisonment or both. That is clearly relevant in 1959. It serves as a sufficient deterrent. But we are now in 2017. So, under the Bill, the fine for offences relating to Protected Areas and Places is increased to $20,000. How is this benchmarked? Well, it is benchmarked to similar and more recent offences, such as those in the Public Order Act. For example, remaining in the special event area without authorisation and contravention of move-on orders. Those are the benchmarks that have been looked at.
Turning now to other counterterrorism efforts. Mr Gan Thiam Poh spoke about the need for other counterterrorism efforts to complement infrastructure protection. I share his views that we need to step up on all fronts, including regional cooperation and strengthening religious harmony which we will debate in Mr Christopher de Souza's Motion. Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Melvin Yong mentioned the importance of preparing members of the staff and public so that they know how to respond in the event of emergencies.
Just last week, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean spoke about the important role of the corporate sector. Businesses can help raise the preparedness of their workers, for example, by briefing employees on emergency escape routes and places to hide, and equipping them with firefighting, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)/automated external defibrillator (AED) as well as first-aid skills. The SGSecure Guide for Workplaces was also launched recently and will be made available to all companies. We urge all companies to study the guide and take steps to raise preparedness.
As for Mr Melvin Yong's suggestion on coordinated evacuation plans, I think he talked about sector level plans. The Police and the Singapore Civil Defence Force conduct annual exercises with the Watch group members to enhance joint responses to crises and incidents. Some of these exercises are conducted with a cluster of buildings located in the same area. So, that is, indeed, what has happened.
Ms Joan Pereira, and I believe Ms Sylvia Lim, spoke about protecting hospitals since they provide essential services. Let me assure Members that MHA works very closely with the Ministry of Health on this. The efforts include building security measures, patrols by the Police, and also engagement through the Safety and Security Watch Group scheme. Each hospital has put in place preventive security measures, physical security operations and contingency plans to deal with different scenarios, including terrorist incidents.
Mr Speaker, I hope I have addressed Members' concerns. The Infrastructure Protection Bill is an important step forward as we fortify Singapore's resolve against the threat of terrorist attacks. With the support of the House, 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. – [Mrs Josephine Teo.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker : Order. I propose to take a break now. You will be glad to know that we will have 20 minutes this time. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.30 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.10 pm until 4.30 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.30 pm
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Audit (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) (on behalf of the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Finance, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Auditor-General's Office (AGO) is a key institution in the overall framework of public accountability and financial governance of the Government. The Auditor-General (AG) is empowered to audit public entities or bodies that administer public funds. The AG conducts independent audits of Government finances, checks for financial irregularities and ascertains whether there has been excess, extravagance or gross inefficiency in the use of public funds. These audits give assurance to the President and Parliament on the proper accounting, management and use of public resources.
However, the work of the Government has expanded and become more complex over the years. The Government is increasingly involving a wide range of non-government entities in public service delivery, such as restructured hospitals, autonomous universities, voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), charities, preschool operators, Town Councils and outsourced contractors. Substantial public funds are also disbursed to non-government entities for various purposes, such as for economic or social development for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans. Collectively, this amounts to several billions of dollars.
Hence, there is a need to enhance the audit powers of the AG. The Audit Act will thus be amended to allow the AG to conduct \"follow-the-dollar\" audits on any non-government entities that receive public funds.
This is not unique, as other countries around the world see the same trend in terms of involving more non-government entities to deliver public services. Jurisdictions, including Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, Denmark, Sweden and Finland all empower their national auditors to conduct \"follow-the-dollar\" audits.
The audits under this Bill are limited in scope to only whether the entities' use of public funds is in accordance with the terms and conditions specified by the Government agency that provided the funds. The audits will not extend to non-government entities' use of their own funds or funds from other sources.
I wish to emphasise that it is not the intention in this Bill for the AG to take over the role of private sector auditors who will continue to audit these non-government entities as they are now doing. The AG will only be called upon to undertake the \"follow-the-dollar\" audit if the Minister for Finance is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. This is a similar approach to a range of other local statutes, where the Minister responsible for the subject matter – in this case, public finances – has the power to direct that certain things be done in order to protect the public interest.
An example would be when, let us say, a VWO has been appointed by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) to disburse public funds to the needy. However, there are reasons to suspect that the VWO has used the funds for staff benefits instead of channelling them to the needy as intended.
Or take another example: an autonomous university (AU) is given a sum of money by the Ministry of Education (MOE) which is meant to be disbursed as education bursaries for students. However, there may be reasons to believe, whether from MOE's ordinary checks or otherwise, that the money is being used for other purposes instead, such as the recruitment of academic staff or for the purchase of research equipment.
In these cases, the Minister for Finance can direct that a \"follow-the-dollar\" audit be conducted on the VWO or the university. The AG will be empowered to audit whether the public funds given to the VWO or the university have been used according to the terms and conditions set out by MSF and MOE respectively.
In short, \"follow-the-dollar\" audits will apply to recipients of public funds, and only undertaken in cases where it is in the public interest to do so, and the audit will only be limited to whether the funding terms and conditions have been complied with.
In order for a \"follow-the-dollar\" audit to be conducted, the AG will need to have the necessary powers to discharge his duty. The Audit Act will, therefore, be amended to provide the AG with additional powers to search and obtain all necessary documents or information which he requires to conduct a \"follow-the-dollar\" audit.
In line with the powers granted to the National Audit Organisations in other jurisdictions, such as Australia and New Zealand, the AG and his authorised representatives will be empowered to enter and remain in any premises occupied by the subject of the audit, or premises occupied by someone who holds custody of the required information. AGO will also be able to search for and inspect documents, information and records. Such powers are already given to officers of the Energy Market Authority (EMA) or the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) when they need to perform enforcement functions.
To conclude, the amendments to the Audit Act will provide powers to the AG to conduct \"follow-the-dollar\" audits on non-government entities' use of public funds. This is to ensure that public funds are used for the purposes for which they are intended and to enable accountability of public spending. The amendments keep the powers of the AG updated and relevant in an operating context where non-government entities are increasingly receiving public funds to help deliver a range of services. This will enable the AG to fulfil his role of strengthening financial governance and ensuring accountability for the use of public resources. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, the way the public sector delivers its services has changed significantly over the years. Besides direct service by public agencies, increasingly, much of the public services and public goods are contracted out to private sectors and the not-for-profit sectors. The Government also disburses a substantial amount of public money in the form of grants and subsidies to a wide range of organisations, such as restructured hospitals, VWOs and the Town Councils, amongst others. In addition, the Government also provides performance guarantees to help finance infrastructural projects and undertake utility payments in public-private partnership (PPP) projects. Going forward, there will be more varied, more complex and more innovative arrangements where public money will go to non-government sectors, which could be multi-layered and multi-dimensional.
This is unavoidable as the Government seeks to carry out its public functions and specific policy executions in the most efficient, most effective and optimal way, drawing on the strengths and expertise of the private and non-government sectors. In addition, the Government also used its budgetary resources to subsidise services and programmes. For example, the Government kept the costs of municipal services affordable by giving cash grants to Town Councils to help keep down the costs of estate maintenance. Another example, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) also injects funds to the public transport operators (PTOs) to help reduce the capital costs of enhancing public transport, such as the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP). And there are increasingly more of such programmes as the Government intervenes to improve public services, to build economic and security capabilities or to increase its social spending.
This would continue to be the modus operandi in the way the future whole-of-Government would work. We know that as the delivery of services and its accounting on the use of funds are further away from the direct view of Government audit, the risk of improper or corrupt conduct would increase. Under current law, some of the entities that receive such public funding are not accessible for audit by the public auditors. Hence, there is the need to equip AGO with the powers to audit the non-government entities and to ensure that public funds are, indeed, properly used.
The current laws, therefore, need to be updated to keep up with the times. I support the changes to the Audit Act which allow the AGO to conduct \"follow-the-dollar\" audit. The amendments would also enhance the powers of the AGO to obtain documents, information, records or equipment which are necessary to establish the proper use of the fund against its public intent and to ensure full accountability.
Mr Speaker, Sir, while we seek accountability and increase trust in public finance, we must be mindful that the enhanced powers of the AGO would not add a heavy regulatory burden to businesses seeking public sector contracts and that the new changes would not be so onerous that it discourages businesses wanting to seek public sector contract. That would work against public interest.
Hopefully, a balance can be struck with the provision under section 4A where the Finance Minister's approval must be sought on the basis of public interest to carry out the \"follow-the-dollar\" audit and for the Minister to set limits on the scope of the audit. There may be instances where public money may need to be disbursed to non-government sectors or agencies to carry out emergency tasks, such as in a disaster recovery situation. It is hence appropriate to have some executive leeway. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) should also monitor the impact of these changes to private sector companies who are receiving public funding.
Many countries have empowered their National Audit Offices to audit on the \"follow-the-dollar\" basis. Overall, I believe that it will reduce the possibility of improper conduct and strengthen trust in public finance. Sir, with that, I support the amendments.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. Enhancing the AG's powers to ensure public accountability of public monies is welcomed. I have just one clarification to seek.
The new section 6A states that an individual cannot rely on the common law privilege against self-incrimination to refuse to provide an explanation, information, document, record or answer a question required under section 6.
This is subject to a carve-out that any such explanation, information, document, record or answer provided cannot be used as evidence against an individual in civil or criminal proceedings and can only be used in proceedings under section 177 of the Penal Code or an offence relating to the falsity of the answer.
The Audit Act, as it currently stands, includes a broad obligation in section 6(3) where an individual called upon for any explanation or information is \"legally bound to furnish such explanation and information\". On a literal plain reading, this suggests that section 177 of the Penal Code would already apply if this section 6(3) obligation was contravened by an individual, even without the amendments in this Bill.
On a comparative note, another legislation, which confers such a broad obligation, is the Prevention of Corruption Act. Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau officers have the power to require a person to \"give any information on any subject\" relating to corruption cases and the person so questioned is \"legally bound to give that information\".
In the Prevention of Corruption Act, there is no specific provision excluding the common law privilege against self-incrimination.
In this context, given that such a broad obligation exists to compel an individual to furnish explanation and information, with the relevant penalty provision in section 177 of Penal Code already in place, can the Minister clarify the intent of specifically excluding this privilege against self-incrimination in this Bill?
I understand from the Explanatory Notes that this new section 6A will help ensure the efficiency of the audit process is not diminished by the AG and his officers having to engage in time-consuming negotiations about the provision of privileged documents. However, the nature of inquiries by the AG does have potentially wide and severe implications.
Can the Minister clarify how this new section 6A will allow the AG to better carry out its primary work of ensuring public accountability of the Government to Parliament, in the event that an explanation, information, document, record or answer obtained under section 6A does, in fact, raise concerns which ought to, in public's interest, lead to civil or criminal prosecution? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Louis Ng for their observations and their support of the Audit (Amendment) Bill.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa highlighted the need to ensure that we do not add to the regulatory burden of companies and that there should be some executive leeway given for situations where public money may be given to non-government entities to carry out emergency tasks.
We agree that the right balance needs to be struck and will be mindful that the scope and the extent of the audit should be commensurate with the circumstances of the case. The amendments have been designed to avoid adding to the regulatory burden of companies. The \"follow-the-dollar\" audits are not meant to replace the normal audit processes. As I explained in my speech, \"follow-the-dollar\" audits will not be activated lightly. The threshold for triggering such audits is high. It can only be directed by the Minister for Finance and only if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. The audits will also only be limited to whether the funding terms and conditions have been complied with.
Mr Louis Ng asked about the intent of specifically excluding the privilege against self-incrimination in this Bill, given that there exists a broad obligation to compel an individual to furnish explanation and information to the AG.
The insertion of this clause is to make explicit what is already in practice, that a person cannot rely on the common law privilege against self-incrimination to refuse to give documents or information or to answer questions from the AG. By stating this clearly, we can avoid time-consuming negotiations to clarify the obligations on the provision of privileged documents which will diminish the efficiency of the audit process.
This is consistent with the drafting approach adopted for legislation in the recent years, for instance, in the recently passed amendments to the Town Councils Act, the Banking Act and the Securities and Futures Act.
Mr Louis Ng also asked what would happen if information obtained from the individual under the claim of self-interest does raise concerns which ought to lead to civil or criminal prosecution. In situations where the information provided contains evidence of a more egregious matter than an audit breach, the AG may report and bring the matter to the Police or other relevant enforcement agencies. These agencies would have access to more extensive powers of investigation, which would then allow them to obtain the necessary evidence to proceed with the civil or criminal prosecution.
Mr Speaker, Sir, once again I would like to thank the Members for their thoughtful comments and support for the Bill.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Finance, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”
The Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill 2017, or the GST Bill in short, provides for amendments to improve tax administration, ease business compliance or clarify existing legislation.
A public consultation exercise on the draft bill was held from 12 May to 4 June this year. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has evaluated the feedback received and, where relevant, incorporated them in the final Bill.
The Bill contains three key amendments to improve tax administration. These are:
(a) the extension of customer accounting to prescribed supplies commonly used in GST fraud;
(b) the requirement for electronic record keeping and additional invoice details for selected businesses; and
(c) the provision for the monthly penalty of $200 for late submission of GST returns to commence immediately after the due date for filing.
I will deal with each of these in turn.
First, we will extend customer accounting to prescribed supplies commonly used in GST fraud. Currently, GST-registered businesses charge GST on taxable supplies when they sell to other businesses. This is the output tax. Businesses which purchase such supplies consequently pay GST on those purchases. This is known as the input tax. They are allowed to offset the GST they pay for their purchases against the GST they collect on their sales and pay the net difference to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS).
The way it works is as follows. Let us, say, we have a GST-registered business \"A\". \"A\" sells taxable supplies at a price inclusive of GST of $8 to another GST-registered business \"B\". \"B\" sells the goods to customers like you and I at a higher price because he needs to make a profit and charges us GST of $9. In this situation, \"A\" must pay to IRAS the $8 output tax which he collected from \"B\". \"B\", in turn, must pay IRAS the output tax of $9 which he collected from us, but he can offset that against the $8 input tax which he paid to \"A\". So, at the end of the day, \"B\" only needs to remit to IRAS the difference between his output GST, what he charges his customers, and his input GST, which is what he paid \"A\", and that net is $1. So, this means that at the end of the day, IRAS collects a total of $9 GST from the entire transaction: $8 from \"A\" and $1 from \"B\".
However, IRAS has come across cases where \"A\" absconds with the GST collected from \"B\", and businesses like \"B\" further along the supply chain continue to claim the input tax. When that happens, IRAS is now short by the amount of tax which \"A\" has absconded with. So, using the example above, if \"A\" absconds with the output tax, but \"B\" continues to offset his input tax, it means that, at the end of the day, IRAS only receives $1 instead of the $9 which should rightfully have been paid to it.
The proposed amendments seek to avoid this scenario from happening by introducing customer accounting. Under customer accounting, GST-registered sellers like \"A\" will no longer charge GST on the sale of prescribed supplies to GST-registered business customers like \"B\". Instead, the GST-registered business customers, that is, \"B\", will self-account to IRAS for the GST chargeable, as output tax and, at the same time, claim input tax on these purchases, which will exactly offset the output tax. This will deter fraud schemes, such as the scenario described earlier.
Customer accounting will not apply to all goods and services. At this stage, customer accounting will be applicable for supplies of mobile phones sold without mobile subscription plans, memory cards and off-the-shelf software. These goods are commonly used in GST fraud. We will monitor the situation and assess if there is a need to prescribe more goods or services, taking into consideration the impact on businesses. Clauses 2 to 4 of the Bill provide for the changes.
Second, we will amend the Act such that the Comptroller can require selected businesses to maintain an electronic inventory system with details of sales and purchases. The Comptroller can also require additional details, such as the model and serial number of the goods, to be provided in invoices. These additional requirements will facilitate the identification of goods in the event of a GST audit and apply to selected businesses identified on a risk assessment basis. These businesses will be informed in writing of the requirements, and sufficient time will be given for implementation. Clauses 5 and 7 of the Bill provides for the changes.
Third, to deter late filing, we will provide for the monthly penalty of $200 for late submission of GST returns to commence immediately after the filing due date. Currently, a penalty of $200 is imposed for each completed month that the return remains outstanding. A GST-registered business is not penalised even if it is late in filing its return after the filing due date, as long as it files within one month of the due date. This is unfair to businesses which respect the due date as the due date and file on time. A $200 penalty imposed at the point of the GST filing due date will deter late filing. Clause 9 of the Bill provides for the change.
Another administrative change will provide for the basis to implement an opt-out approach for digital GST notices. As digital tax notices for property tax, GST and income tax will be rolled out in phases, starting with property tax, I will elaborate on this change in my speech on the Property Tax (Amendment) Bill. The remaining legislative changes are intended to ease business compliance or clarify existing legislation. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, easing business compliance is one of the keys towards encouraging business development and startups in Singapore, and I am pleased to note that the authorities are constantly trying to clarify and simplify procedures to make the process a smoother one. Additionally, as we strive towards our goal of a Smart Nation, with digitalisation as one of the keys to achieving this, we should encourage and empower businesses to make use of existing technologies for administrative procedures.
The Prime Minister’s National Day Rally speech has sparked much interest and discussion about going cashless. This reminds me that, years ago, we started our pursuit for a paperless society when consumers were encouraged to switch to receiving their bills in digital formats. This was not only to support environmental conservation, but also to make retrieval of records and transactions much easier for both consumers and business entities. Today, numerous apps have been created for the convenience of checking bills and even paying them.
If consumers can benefit from going paperless, certainly, so can businesses. Having tax notices in digital formats will make record keeping more secure and manageable. Meanwhile, businesses may still opt out of receiving their tax notices in digital formats if they prefer hardcopies. This offers flexibility for those who may require time to adapt to the technology. Understandably, making physical copies an opt-out option is a move to push businesses towards the digital format.
However, I have reservations for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and microenterprises. Some of these firms hire administrative employees who wear several hats. And some of these employees are elderly, or even foreigners, and they may not be tech-savvy or know enough English to manoeuvre the digital options or choose to opt out. With many other administrative matters to cope with, they may then overlook the matter of paying taxes. Another concern is that with the rise of scam and fraudulent activities on cyber platforms, such as emails, this could lead to another problem among those who are less informed.
This then brings me to the next matter – the monthly penalty of $200 for late submission of GST returns. Previously, this penalty was imposed on outstanding returns starting from a month after the filing due date. With the amendment, the penalty will commence immediately after the filing due date. I would like to ask for the rationale behind this enhanced penalty, especially together with the change to an opt-out system. What are the companies that have been falling behind payment?
If they are mainly SMEs and microenterprises, this will become an undue burden for them. Aside from higher penalty, we should find out the reasons for the late payments and see what can be done to help companies improve on this aspect. These companies may be facing financial challenges, for example.
Having worked with as well as interacted with employers and employees in many SMEs, it is quite apparent that they have to deal with many challenges in these rapidly changing times. From the labour crunch to digitalisation to administrative matters, these companies are facing pressures from multiple angles and they are struggling to stay afloat, let alone make profit. For all the schemes that are available, some companies continue to be left behind. To create an inclusive and welcoming business environment, we really have to do more outreach and display more empathy. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This amendment will make digital notices as the default mode of notification and, at the same time, take away the one-month grace period for late submission. As a result, will some SMEs overlook the notices from IRAS and end up being fined? Can the Minister tell us whether SMEs account for the majority of companies that have late submission over the years?
Before taking away the grace period, can the authority adopt other means to help SMEs submit their tax returns on time?
(In English): Ultimately, the amendments are clearly designed for greater convenience of businesses with their long-term interest in mind. I believe that many of the affected businesses would eventually ease into the changes and, hence, Sir, I support the amendments.
Mr Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Speaker, Sir, it is, indeed, commendable that the Government conducted public consultations prior to debating the Bill in this House and I welcome the Bill in its entirety. Of the 41 suggestions received, 30 of which were accepted with consequential revisions made to the draft text of the Bill. I applaud the consultative effort that went into proposing a well-calibrated amendment.
I support the move towards electronic notifications as changes to the framework for such tax notifications to be digitalised allows for alignment towards the National Smart Nation goals and aspirations. Having said that, it is imperative for us to recognise that not the whole of the society will be ready for a total transformation to digitalisation and, therefore, no one in the society should be left isolated and helpless.
As such, it is good that the options for physical copies are still made available, especially for those who face challenges with the digital medium or are unable to catch up with the changes and can still have the traditional form of notification. For this, I would like to suggest a deeper engagement with the community and also with the unions so as to assist in communicating the opt-out plans for less tech-savvy residents to continue to receive hardcopy notifications. This may minimise or prevent further administrative delays resulting from late tax returns should the less tech-savvy residents be unaware that the notices had been sent.
Sir, though I welcome the Bill, I would like to seek the following clarifications.
Firstly, if GST treatment for sale of Government land is to be based on approved use of land and not building, does this translate into higher cost for businesses and individuals? How would property prices be invariably affected? Is there any mitigating plan if property prices were to rise as a result of this change?
Secondly, if the Government were to extend customer accounting to counter fraud, particularly for mobile phone retailers, would this drive up business cost for such SMEs? Will there be any form of transitional grants to help these companies to ready them for adoption of standards/technology to counter the impact of this change?
Thirdly, on clause 9 of the GST Bill to amend section 60 for the monthly penalty of $200 to kick in if GST is not filed within one month after the end of accounting period, instead of two months, to be equitable to taxpayers who pay on-time, perhaps consideration can be made for the filing period to be two months after the accounting period as SMEs may have lesser resources and more difficulty in meeting the deadline. Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, notwithstanding this, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I recognise the efforts in this Bill to improve our tax system, particularly to ease burdens on all fronts – for business compliance, for administration by IRAS officers and for the experience of the taxpayers.
The move towards further digitalisation is also a laudable one, in line with our Smart Nation initiative. The changes are also great examples of how the Government should take the lead in going paperless for the environment. I am in support of the \"opt-out\" system for the digital tax notices and the move towards electronic recording keeping. I believe and hope that we will do the same for other Government services and functions. Sir, I have a few clarifications to seek.
Firstly, the Bill seeks to remove the grace period of one-month before the $200 penalty is imposed. As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has raised, this can be a hefty sum for SMEs, particularly as companies may require time to get used to digital notices reminding them to file their taxes. More importantly, I would like to ask for the reasons behind this change, given that tax compliance in Singapore remains high. According to IRAS, tax arrears in 2016 were kept at 0.68% of net tax assessed, and that this was due to a focus on maximising voluntary compliance.
Secondly, on the amendment to deter GST fraud schemes involving the supply of mobile phones and other goods, while I understand the importance of deterring fraudsters, these black sheep may represent only a small percentage of the entire industry.
These sweeping changes proposed by this Bill may cause disruptions to the majority of businesses, which are largely compliant. I would like to ask the Ministry if they have received suggestions about this during the public consultations and whether other alternatives were considered.
Lastly, I understand that with the rise of e-commerce, some countries, such as South Korea, Japan and Australia, have amended legislation to collect GST on goods purchased online from foreign companies. Most recently, in September 2017, Malaysia also announced plans to tax foreign digital service providers, such as online shopping sites.
As we propose this round of amendments to the GST Act, I would like to ask if the Ministry is also considering making similar changes in Singapore.
A report by Temasek Holdings and Google showed that e-commerce in Singapore was valued at S$1.4 billion in 2015, with a projected hike to S$7.6 billion by 2020. This means that a tax on cross-border goods could represent a sizeable revenue stream for the Government.
Industry-watchers have proposed changes, such as requiring foreign e-commerce companies to register and charge GST for these cross-border transactions or reducing the current GST exemption on the import of goods worth $400 or less.
Members of the public have been talking about this and imposing this tax may not sit well with consumers. However, a tax on discretionary spending may be less painful than alternative measures to collect additional tax, such as a blanket increase in GST.
Sir, Singapore’s tax system has always been well-regarded. IRAS has been operating efficiently with the cost of collecting taxes remaining at a steady low, and tax compliance in our country remains high. I believe our tax regime will only be further strengthened through this variety of changes, and I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I wish to thank the Members who have spoken on the Bill and for their support. Let me now address their comments.
On the issues raised for the proposed amendment concerning digital tax notices, as this runs across all three tax Bills, I hope the Members would not mind if I address this in the following Bill, that is, the Property Tax (Amendment) Bill, which actually sets it out in more detail. And I believe these three Members are also speaking on that Bill.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Ms Thanaletchimi and Mr Louis Ng spoke on the difficulties that SMEs and microenterprises might face on the submission of the GST returns. The change is part of our periodic review of the GST system to improve tax compliance and to be fair to businesses that respect the due date and file on time.
SMEs and microenterprises are unlikely to be adversely affected by this change for two reasons. First, 94% of GST returns are filed on time, which shows that the majority of GST-registered businesses do not have problems complying with the filing due date.
Second, most SMEs are not liable for GST registration. Compulsory GST registration is only required for businesses that have annual turnovers of more than $1 million. For those who choose to volunteer for GST registration, we encourage them to be compliant with our tax rule. Businesses which face financial difficulties can contact IRAS to discuss alternative payment arrangements.
Mr Louis Ng and Ms Thanaletchimi noted that the amendment to deter GST fraud might cause disruptions and increase business costs to the majority of businesses which are largely compliant. Mr Louis Ng asked if we received suggestions about it during our public consultations. Of the 41 suggestions that we received on the Bill, 30 suggestions or 73% were on customer accounting. We accepted 24 of these 30 suggestions.
We understand the disruption and increased compliance cost to businesses and have studied the practices in other countries before proposing this change. The type of GST fraud that we seek to deter has been encountered in the European Union (EU). In response, many EU countries have applied customer accounting, or what they call domestic reverse charge, to similar supplies of goods.
To help businesses cope with the change, we have postponed the implementation date of customer accounting from 1 January 2018 to 1 January 2019. This will provide more time for businesses to adjust. We also raised the threshold for customer accounting to apply from $5,000 to $10,000. What this means is that the supplier will continue to charge GST to GST-registered customers on sales of prescribed goods that are $10,000 and below, and customer accounting will only apply if these sales are above $10,000. This will reduce the compliance burden on retail businesses, including mobile phone retailers, to carry out checks on small purchases. Further, mobile phones sold with subscription plans will be excluded from customer accounting to reduce the impact on affected businesses.
IRAS has also published an e-tax guide and will reach out to businesses trading in such goods. To help businesses with system changes, IRAS will work with standard accounting software vendors on upgrading their software to cater for customer accounting.
Ms Thanaletchimi also asked whether the change in the sale of Government land with existing buildings to be demolished would affect property prices and translate into higher cost for businesses and individuals. The change is a minor amendment to clarify existing policy. If a building on a land to be developed is demolished, the GST treatment on such sale should follow the same GST treatment of the vacant land rather than the approved use of the building. There will be minimal impact to businesses and individuals. In cases where such sales of land would now attract GST, GST-registered developers can claim the GST paid from IRAS as input tax.
We note Mr Louis Ng's comments on GST and e-commerce. The Minister for Finance, in the Budget this year, mentioned that with increasing digital transactions and cross-border trade, some countries have taken steps to adjust the GST system to ensure a level playing field between their local businesses which are GST-registered and foreign-based ones which are not. We are studying how we can do likewise. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Property Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Second Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Second Minister for Finance, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Property Tax (Amendment) Bill 2017 comprises three amendments to the Property Tax Act to update the legislation and introduce new powers to improve tax administration.
A public consultation exercise on the draft Bill was held from 4 May to 25 May this year. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has evaluated the feedback received and, where relevant, incorporated them in the final Bill.
The Bill has three amendments. First, amendments relating to the Valuation Review Board; second, amendments to clarify and enhance information gathering for tax compliance purposes; and third, amendments relating to digital property tax notices.
First, we will amend the Act to allow the Valuation Review Board, in the absence of any member of the Board due to resignation, illness or any other cause, to continue to hear and determine the appeal if the parties consent and there are at least two remaining members.
This change will provide greater convenience to appellants, and mirrors existing provisions for the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Board of Review. Similar provisions will also be enacted for the Income Tax Board of Review through the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill. The amendment will apply to all appeals held before the Board after the Bill is gazetted, and also to appeals, the hearing of which has begun before the gazette date.
Second, we will amend the Act to provide clarity and enhance the information gathering powers of the Comptroller of Property Tax, the Chief Assessor and the officers authorised by them. The amendment will allow the Comptroller of Property Tax, the Chief Assessor and their authorised officers to require persons to attend personally before them, to provide information at a time and place specified by them. The change will allow the Comptroller of Property Tax, the Chief Assessor and their authorised officers to require any person to be examined orally and provide information for investigation, if the person appears to know of the facts or circumstances concerning the person’s or another person’s properties. The change will also allow the Comptroller of Property Tax, the Chief Assessor and their authorised officers to reduce to writing any statements provided by persons who are required to provide information. Moreover, the change will enhance the penalties for failure to comply with a request for information.
Lastly, we will amend the Act to provide a regulatory framework to implement an opt-out approach for digital property tax notices. The current provisions of the Act require taxpayers to provide specific consent before the Comptroller can issue them with digital tax notices instead of hardcopy notices. The widespread use of computers and mobile devices allows taxpayers to receive digital instead of hardcopy tax notices. The use of digital notices gives taxpayers greater convenience, security and timeliness of alerts. This is part of our move to being a Smart Nation. To enable more taxpayers to benefit from digital channels, the Act will be amended so that digital notices can be sent to taxpayers who have either consented to receiving digital notices, or who have not opted out after having been given notice that they will be issued with digital notices. Taxpayers who wish to continue receiving hardcopy notices can opt out. Taxpayers will thus have the flexibility to manage their preference for hardcopy or electronic (e)-copy at any time. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. However, I have a few concerns. One of these is the use of digital notices by taxpayers. It is on an opt-out basis, meaning people will have to specifically choose to receive paper notices. I foresee several potential hurdles. I presume the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) will send hardcopy notices to everyone, telling them what is about to happen.
The first potential hurdle is if the notices are not in our four official languages. The second potential hurdle is how to opt out. Surely, people will be able to opt out not just online. That would be a real catch-22 situation. People should be able to opt out over the phone, counter, snail mail and so on, and in multiple languages, too.
Let us imagine someone, let us call her Mrs Lim, who does not understand English. If she does not understand the notice or does not know how to go online to opt out, then we automatically stop her hardcopy notices, obviously she will miss her payments. If we then penalise her for it, it will be grossly unfair. I hope IRAS will contact users, maybe those above a certain age who have not used digital notices before, to confirm with them whether they want digital or paper notices.
Even for users who use the Internet, there are issues. Where does the onus lie if a Notice for Payment from IRAS lands in the spam folder or the recipient is not aware of it, or just simply did not receive it? Just to give an example. Recently, an officer from the Land Transport Authority asked me, \"Dr Lee, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) officers sent you three emails, you did not reply at all. Was it because you were not happy with them?\" But when I checked, I really did not receive three emails from URA. Not a single email. That is why I changed my email lately. So, a missed notice can result in a fine. But should the taxpayer be held responsible in this instance?
Lastly, how does one know when receiving a notification that it is a genuine notice from IRAS, and not sent by someone to commits fraud? Through the media, IRAS has highlighted attempts by people to commit fraud, to infect computers with virus through fake notices. In fact, this is a problem not only with IRAS, but there are many other agencies, too, as well as telecom companies like Singtel. We want to be a Smart Nation. But we need to have a system in place to be smart enough to allow our computer systems to differentiate the fake from the real. Can the Minister advise on this, please? Mr Speaker Sir, in Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] IRAS is going to make digital notices the default mode of notification whereby Singaporeans must choose to opt-out in order to continue to receive hardcopy notices. If IRAS only sends out one letter, or the letter is only in English, some Singaporeans might overlook it. I hope that when dealing with the elderly, IRAS can confirm with them first before changing the notification into digital notices.
Even Singaporeans who use the Internet regularly may encounter problems. If the digital notice goes into their spam folder and ends up being automatically deleted after one month, will they be fined?
Another question is whether this will result in more fraudsters pretending to be from IRAS. If we want to move towards a Smart Nation, can the Government step up efforts to protect Singaporeans' online safety?
Mr Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. This amendment Bill seeks to refine the appeals process and protect our tax base by strengthening enforcement and information gathering powers and digitising the communications between IRAS and our taxpayers.
While I support the Bill, I would like to flag out some concerns regarding the third objective of the Bill, which is the serving of notices via electronic means. As Members of Parliament (MPs), we all know about the presence of the aged, frail and the vulnerable among our communities. They frequently do not speak English, let alone read English or access the Internet. Some of them are also in a poor state of mental health. And some of them live alone without close family support. They do not form a large part of Singapore, but they do exist. Also, as MPs, from time to time, we sometimes write appeals for residents who face legal issues because they do not pay their bills or fines to the Government in time due to their misunderstanding of the Government's communications, or their inability to use digital channels effectively. Once they get themselves into such difficulties, they face additional fines and even legal worries.
Going into the details of execution, I could imagine some of my frail and vulnerable residents from Kebun Baru running into difficulties. In theory, they could continue to receive hardcopies of the bills if they opt out. But this is only if the opt-out process is properly designed. My concern is if they are asked to opt out electronically or if the opt-out instruction is buried in the small prints in the property tax notices. And worse comes to worst, if the process is not noticed by their caregivers.
So, I would like to ask IRAS to clarify on their proposed framework for implementing this. Will it be implemented immediately to all property taxpayers? Will there be an educational effort to help property taxpayers understand that? In short, is IRAS considering ways to strike a balance between efficiency and inclusiveness, not just for the Property Tax Bill's amendments today, but also for the other tax Bills put forward today?
I would also like to make a broader point about our move towards a Smart Nation. While I share the Government's goal in doing so, it is important we do so in an inclusive way. By \"inclusive\", I hope our Government actively creates alternatives that are cheap, efficient and simple to use. Let us talk about a particular scenario. If a retiree or a low-income individual is expected to use his or her smartphone to do an electronic transaction, then, (a) he or she must be able to afford a smart phone, even if it is a second-hand one. But unfortunately, this cost is not always factored into our social assistance framework; (b) he or she must be able to afford the data-plan, because free wi-fi signal is not always present in all public places and the sign-on process is currently cumbersome.
I am sure that once we implement Smart Nation, we will think through all these applications and these executional bottlenecks, but I hope that our Government can consider all these issues about digital inclusiveness because we must leave no Singaporeans behind as we move towards a digital future. One way the Government can do so is for the Smart Nation Office to closely consult the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the various voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) during the design phase while embarking on the digitisation process. Notwithstanding these concerns, I support this Bill as a necessary step to improve our tax system. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I again support ongoing efforts to go green with the amendments for an opt-out scheme for an electronic service. This Bill also provides IRAS with further enforcement powers to do their duties, but some of which may be considered slightly intrusive. To address this issue, allow me to seek some clarifications on this Bill.
This Bill makes bold amendments to provide IRAS with stronger enforcement powers. I refer particularly to the new section 64A which gives IRAS “full and free access to all houses, buildings, lands, documents, computers, computer programmes and computer software”.
This gives IRAS the ability to gain access to a wide variety of resources, as it will now be able to acquire any devices and documents it requires. These are powers which some might consider to be excessive and a breach of privacy. People who are under investigation or those who have information regarding the investigation will also be obliged to be personally examined.
I understand that section 64A is similar to the new section 65B in the proposed Income Tax (Amendment) Bill. However, commentators have raised the point that while authorities may need to conduct in-depth investigations on cash transactions of businesses, the case is very different for property tax investigations, where data is widely available.
I would like to ask if we have seen an increase in property tax offences which warrants such an increase in powers for IRAS. Can the Minister provide some justification for the empowerment of IRAS, specifically for property tax investigations?
Further, could we also then anticipate similar enforcement powers for all other forms of taxes in the future?
I also refer to the amendments of section 56 to increase penalties for hindering or obstructing the Comptroller, Chief Assessor or IRAS officers. The increase from the current maximum fine of $2,000 to $10,000, and an imprisonment term from a maximum of three months to 12 months, is a significant jump.
I understand that this increased figure is benchmarked against the GST Act. I do support the increase in penalties to act as deterrence, but can the Minister clarify if these increases are due to an increase in cases of hindering and obstructing?
Finally, I understand that the proposed amendments relating to the exemption of machinery from property tax was not included in the Bill following the public consultation. Can the Minister provide more details on why this was not included and whether it will be conducting further public consultation on this? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their speeches and for their support for the Bill.
It is clear that all four Members support digitalisation but, at the same time, are concerned that people should not be left behind, especially those who are not very IT-savvy or able to deal with digitalisation, and this does the Members credit.
Mr Henry Kwek had asked whether there will be a staged rollout for the opt-out approach for digital tax notices. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah had also asked whether the elderly group will be targeted by the opt-out approach for digital tax notices, and Ms Thanaletchmi has suggested that options for hardcopy tax notices be available, especially for the less IT-savvy residents. All these are valid concerns and they are concerns which IRAS and MOF looked at as well.
In this journey to Smart Nation, we will move forward in ways that make transacting with the Government more convenient for our citizens. But we will also help those who are less digitally ready. As Mr Henry Kwek suggested, what IRAS would do is that it intends to adopt a phased approach to its implementation and start with Property Tax notices for individuals first, then followed by Property Tax notices for businesses. The reason for this is because individuals are familiar with transacting digitally with IRAS. Currently, 97% of individuals who file their income tax returns do so electronically through the IRAS My Tax Portal.
So, let me now deal, first, with the individuals and the residential property owners. Specifically, IRAS will start with individuals who own residential properties and who have provided their mobile numbers to IRAS, such as through IRAS' My Tax Portal typically. So, what this means is that we will start with people who are already transacting with IRAS on the digital platform. Such residential properties make up over 55% of residential properties.
In October 2017, these taxpayers will receive hardcopy letters notifying them of IRAS' plans to issue digital tax notices for property tax payable from 2018. They would also be aware of this initiative through IRAS' educational efforts to publicise this opt-out approach for digital tax notices. These individual owners of residential properties would be requested to indicate if they wish to opt out of digital tax notices and thus continue receiving hardcopy tax notices. If they do not opt out from receiving digital tax notices, then IRAS will notify them via short message service (SMS) from November 2017 when the digital tax notices of Property Tax are ready for viewing on the IRAS My Tax Portal. The SMS will also indicate the amount of property tax due in 2018 and the payment due date. These individuals can log in to their accounts on the IRAS My Tax Portal to view their digital tax notices.
For individuals who have opted out of digital tax notices in October 2017, they will continue to receive hardcopy tax notices from November 2017 for their 2018 property tax. As with previous years, IRAS will be sending SMS reminders around mid-January 2018 to taxpayers if payment has not been received. These SMS reminders apply as well to individual owners of residential properties on digital tax notices. If an individual owner of a residential property on digital tax notice has still not paid by the payment due date, IRAS will issue a hardcopy tax notice then and give the taxpayer sufficient time for payment.
I move on now to those who have not provided their mobile numbers to IRAS. In other words, they currently do not transact with IRAS digitally. Individuals who own residential properties and who have not provided their mobile numbers to IRAS will continue to receive hardcopy tax notices. They will thus not be receiving the hardcopy opt out letters in October 2017. Instead, as per previous years, they will receive the hardcopy tax notices from November 2017 for the property tax payable in 2018.
In addition, IRAS will exclude one- and two-room Housing and Development Board flats and individual residential property owners who are aged 70 and above this year. This is because they either do not have to pay property tax or are less likely to have their mobile numbers registered with IRAS. IRAS will continue to increase the mobile number database by complementing IRAS current database with the mobile numbers of SingPass two-factor authentication-ready taxpayers to extend the benefits of digital tax notices to other taxpayers in subsequent years. So, in other words, phased approach, we take into account those who are elderly and, as the years move on, we will try to add more and more on to the digital database.
In the next phase, IRAS will roll out the digital property tax notices for businesses, including small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and microenterprises. These businesses can also opt out of digital tax notices. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah had expressed concern about the ability of SMEs and microenterprises to cope with digital tax notices. Digitalisation is not new to businesses. For example, GST-registered businesses are already required to e-file the GST returns which are usually filed every quarter through IRAS' My Tax Portal. E-filing of corporate tax returns will be made compulsory, again in a phased approach, from the year of assessment 2018 to 2020. All companies, including SMEs and microenterprises, also e-file their annual returns to the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority. If businesses have been using agents to handle their accounting and tax matters for them, the agent will be able to handle the digital tax notices as well.
Er Dr Lee asked where the onus lies if a notice for payment from IRAS lands in the taxpayer's email spam folder. She also asked how taxpayers can be assured that the notifications and digital tax notices are, indeed, from IRAS.
As explained earlier, the digital tax notices and the notice for payment will not be sent to the taxpayer's personal email account. Instead, this document will be accessible through IRAS' My Tax Portal. Thus, taxpayers can be assured that the notices are, indeed, from IRAS.
We appreciate Members' feedback for the opt-out approach for digital tax notices, and IRAS will continue to provide support for taxpayers who are less digitally ready.
With more specialised buildings being developed in Singapore, properties' specific data which is required to effectively assess the property tax may not be widely available. With increased incidents with uncooperative taxpayers, IRAS requires more powers to properly assess property tax due. The amendments will allow IRAS officers to more effectively deal with uncooperative taxpayers and further strengthen the culture of compliance. The amendment will enhance the information gathering powers under the Property Tax Act, align the information gathering powers under the Property Tax Act with existing information gathering powers under the Income Tax Act, GST Act and Stamp Duty Act. This will make it operationally easier for IRAS officers who might have to carry out a joint investigation involving different tax types.
Further, while data may be perceived to be more widely available for property tax assessments as opposed to other tax types, such as income tax or GST, criminal investigations require investigators to gather adequate evidence, including direct and circumstantial evidence. Investigation powers are, therefore, required under the Property Tax Act to equip IRAS investigators to do their job properly. The enhancement and penalties are in line with the penalties for other tax types and will send a clear signal to the taxpayer community on IRAS' stand against hindering and obstructing.
Mr Louis Ng asked about the proposed amendment on exemption of machinery from property tax. This was not included in the Bill as we are still studying the feedback and we will, in due course, make a decision on the feedback received. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Income Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Second Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Second Minister for Finance, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2017 covers eight income tax changes announced in the 2017 Budget Statement as well as 28 tax changes arising from the periodic review of our income tax regime. Of the 28 non-Budget proposed tax changes, 16 changes are proposed refinements to the income tax regime while the remaining 12 changes are technical amendments to remove obsolete provisions or to provide clarification on the law.
We sought views from the public on the draft Bill from 19 June to 10 July 2017. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has evaluated the feedback received and, where relevant, taken the suggestions in.
Sir, the Minister for Finance had, in his Budget 2017 Statement, introduced several tax measures to help companies and individuals cope during a period of economic uncertainty. The tax measures have already been debated in this House, but I will highlight the key ones.
First, the existing Corporate Income Tax (CIT) rebate for Year of Assessment (YA) 2017 is enhanced by raising the cap from $20,000 to $25,000, while keeping the rebate percentage unchanged at 50%. The CIT rebate will also be extended to YA2018, at 20% of tax payable, capped at $10,000. This will help companies navigate through the economic uncertainty and continue with restructuring. Clauses 39 and 40 of the Bill provide for the change.
Second, to ease compliance, taxpayers will be able to claim a tax deduction for the full amount of payments made under Cost Sharing Agreements for qualifying research and development (R&D) projects without the need to provide a cost breakdown from YA2018. Clauses 11 and 14 of the Bill provide for the changes.
Third, to provide relief to individuals who pay income tax, a Personal Income Tax rebate of 20% of tax payable will be granted to all individual tax residents for YA2017, capped at $500 per taxpayer. Clause 46 of the Bill provides for the change.
Sir, as mentioned, MOF also regularly reviews and refines the income tax regime. I shall now outline two key changes arising from MOF’s periodic review of the tax regime.
First, we will require businesses to maintain Transfer Pricing Documentation (TPD). Transfer Pricing refers to the pricing of transactions among related parties, which, in turn, determines the allocation of profits among these parties. TPD are records kept by businesses to show that they have priced their transactions with related parties at the equivalent of what they would have transacted with unrelated parties in similar circumstances. This arm’s length principle is an internationally accepted tax standard.
Since 2006, under the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore's (IRAS’) guidelines, IRAS has been encouraging businesses to maintain TPD. Many businesses currently do so. With effect from YA2019, businesses will be required to maintain TPD. Jurisdictions, such as Canada, China, Germany, Korea and the United States (US) also have such requirements.
Requiring businesses to maintain TPD demonstrates our commitment to uphold international standards and ensures that the profits taxed in Singapore are commensurate with the functions, assets and risks undertaken by businesses in Singapore.
When transactions between related parties are appropriately priced, profits are correctly attributed to the jurisdictions involved in the transactions. Domestically, TPD ensures that we are collecting the due taxes which are attributable to Singapore. Internationally, TPD serves as useful evidence to other tax authorities, which our businesses can use to show that they have complied with the arm’s length principle for cross-border related party transactions. TPD will help our businesses minimise and manage cross-border tax disputes as they go global.
To limit the compliance burden for smaller businesses, this requirement will apply to businesses only if they have gross revenue exceeding $10 million and significant related party transactions. We expect this requirement to apply to fewer than 5% of companies, many of which have already been maintaining TPD. Clause 21 of the Bill provides for the change.
Second, with effect from 1 January 2018, the Government will raise the maximum amount that an employer can voluntarily contribute to his employee’s MediSave account under the Additional MediSave Contribution Scheme from $1,500 to $2,730 per year. Accordingly, we will increase the maximum amount of tax-exempt voluntary contributions made by employers to employees’ MediSave accounts, and the tax deduction allowable to the employer for these voluntary contributions. Similarly, for eligible companies that make voluntary contributions to the MediSave accounts of the self-employed persons they work with, we will increase the maximum tax deduction allowable to $2,730. Self-employed persons will receive tax exemption on such contributions up to the same limit.
These changes for voluntary contributions to the MediSave accounts of employees and self-employed persons are in line with the Government’s efforts to promote portable medical benefits. All other conditions for granting tax benefits in respect of such voluntary contributions remain unchanged. Clauses 4, 6 and 10 of the Bill provide for the changes.
The remaining legislative changes are mostly technical in nature or relate to improvements in tax administration. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, life expectancy in Singapore is relatively high, thanks to good medical standards and access to affordable healthcare for the masses. As our Prime Minister mentioned in his National Day Rally speech, Singaporeans live up to the age of 82 on average. However, some of us may also experience an average of eight years of ill-health in old age.
There are a number of reasons that would lead to ill-health. While having poor lifestyle choices is a major reason for poor health in old age, some factors are inevitable, such as hereditary conditions or even accidents. As some of these problems can be unexpected, it is important to have sufficient savings in old age in case there is a need for medical services and treatment. This is where MediSave comes in.
This national medical savings scheme has helped to address the basic medical expenses for hospitalisation, surgeries and outpatient expenses for many Singaporeans and their loved ones.
I am, therefore, pleased to note that with effect from 1 January 2018, the maximum amount that an employer can contribute to his employee’s MediSave account that is not treated as income of the employee under the Additional MediSave Contribution Scheme will be raised from $1,500 to $2,730 per year, and the tax deduction allowable will also be raised accordingly. Hopefully, this will encourage more employers to increase contributions to their employees’ MediSave accounts. This will certainly go a long way to safeguarding the employees’ futures. This is also an attractive staff benefit that serves as a source of motivation for employees.
However, while all this sounds good on paper, I wonder how many employers would make such voluntary contributions. Aside from tax deductions, can we explore other ways to encourage employers to do so? Outreach and awareness could be one way to do so. As it is, Government schemes like MediShield are complex and not fully understood by all. Some employers may not even be aware that there is such an option, or they may be dismissive of it as an additional expense. I hope more can be done to engage employers on this aspect. Perhaps highlight and showcase those employers who support this scheme, just like what has been done for those employers who support National Service. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] It is a good idea to allow employers to top up their employee's MediSave account voluntarily. However, I wonder how many employers would make such voluntary contributions. Aside from tax deductions, can we explore other ways to encourage employers to do so? Perhaps some employers may not even know there is such an option. How can the authorities step up the publicity?
Mr Speaker: Mr Thomas Chua.
Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng (Nominated Member): (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, this amendment Bill provides the legislative basis for the various tax incentives announced during this year’s Budget Statement. I support the amendment.
I would like to share my views on three points: corporate income tax rebate, tax deduction for R&D projects, and tax incentives for specific business hub activities.
The first pertains to corporate income tax rebate. The Government has raised the corporate income tax rebate cap from $20,000 to $25,000, with the rebate rate unchanged at 50%. The rebate will also be extended by another year till YA2018. This measure aims to help businesses cope with the challenges of economic uncertainties and the ongoing economic restructuring.
In order to upgrade, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) would need capital in different areas. Recently, I had a chat with a boss in the food and beverage (F&B) and food processing industry. He said that in the current business environment, it is not enough to just have tasty food. F&B business also need to set up a central kitchen or adopt automated production and compete on who has better selling points, such as a robot chef. Companies need to invest more in R&D. However, where does the money come from?
Based on the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s (SCCCI's) “Annual Business Survey” this year, amongst the 700-plus respondents, two-thirds indicated that this year’s business revenue remained stable or witnessed slight improvement, compared to last year and 55% said profits were either maintained or increased. There are more areas where money is needed than areas from which money can be generated. Therefore, the corporate income tax rebate this time is very timely. SMEs can continue to work hard and plough the tax rebate into improving their business processes and uplifting their competitiveness.
My second topic is tax deduction to encourage collaboration in R&D. After amendment, the Government will adopt the “safe harbour rule for expenditure covered by cost sharing agreements”. With this amendment, the Government will liberalise the tax deduction process for R&D projects involving cost-sharing agreements.
Last year, the SCCCI undertook a study that looked into the innovation efforts of SMEs. Less than one-third of SMEs committed resources into innovation. Amongst these, close to 40% rely on their internal resources to innovate. Collaborating with external research institutions is rare. Between businesses and research institutions, one understands the market, while the other specialises in deep technical research. Each should play to its own strengths, complement each other and achieve a win-win situation. SMEs lack research talents. Hence, they need to leverage external resources to strengthen their R&D abilities. I believe that liberalising the tax deduction process for R&D projects will encourage more SMEs to actively collaborate with research institutions.
In this area, trade associations can play a leading role to encourage their member companies to collaborate on undertaking innovation and R&D. For example, the Singapore Food Manufacturers’ Association (SFMA) initiated the “Great Singapore Food Gifts Award” three years ago, encouraging local enterprises to develop innovative food concepts and improve in their creative packaging. Recently, the SFMA also launched the “Food Innovation Product Award”, enabling food manufacturers and tertiary students to collaborate and co-create new and innovative food products. This is a good initiative worthy of being emulated by other trade associations.
My third topic is specific business hub activities. Amongst the 25 tax measures that have undergone changes in this Bill, quite a number are refinements to the existing tax incentives for specific business hub activities, including infrastructure financing, project financing, commodity trading, maritime, finance, insurance and aircraft leasing. The booming development of these industries can also push the development of the other sectors.
The hottest topic these days is the “One Belt, One Road” initiative, the key of which is the interconnectivity of infrastructure, finance and trade. Being the major transportation, financial and trade hub for the region, coupled with its superior geographic location and favourable tax incentives, Singapore has attracted many foreign businesses and multinational corporations to invest in Singapore and use Singapore as a base to offer their products and services to reach an even larger regional market. This is the trend and I hope local companies can grasp these opportunities. Since local businesses are familiar with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) markets, and have extensive connections, they can, therefore, work with Chinese companies and explore third-party markets together.
Mr Speaker, Sir, these are times where opportunities and challenges co-exist. In the new economic order, our local businesses need to leverage on their strengths and incorporate external resources. It was with this positioning that our Pioneer Generation successfully created an economic miracle. Today, we can leverage the same positioning and open new doors for Singapore’s future economy.
Mr Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.
The amendments relating to third-party voluntary contributions to the MediSave accounts of private sector employees and self-employed persons (SEPs), is a much-anticipated move. The increase in the maximum tax deductible amount for both employers and self-employed persons would encourage voluntary contribution towards MediSave. This is essential for the self-employed persons to build up their MediSave account as well as to encourage companies to make voluntary contribution for their contract employees. One of the several concerns that the Labour Movement has on freelancers who are on contract for services is the long-term savings adequacy of these individuals, especially for their medical care and retirement.
These amendments are timely as we see a gradual statistical increase in self-employed and freelance numbers. These will surely encourage employers and companies, especially larger organisations, to help their employees and self-employed professionals, like taxi drivers, insurance agents and freelancers, to build up their MediSave and help these individuals build better safeguards for future healthcare costs.
This is also certainly in line with the Government's move to place greater emphasis on health management and healthcare. I, indeed, hope that there will be regular reviews of the adequacy of the long-term MediSave savings and such tax reviews to allow for tax exemption, if required, so as to encourage more of such categories of individuals to top up their MediSave accounts. This is essential as the healthcare cost continues to rise with the rising demands of an ageing population.
As for clause 12 in the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill to amend section 14DA, tax-exemption for R&D is important in encouraging innovation even in a slowing economy to empower the continual transformation of our industries and economy. We cannot afford to put off or delay development in R&D. Instead, we need to do all we can to encourage such efforts in the hope of making great breakthroughs.
While I welcome the proposed changes to both corporate and income tax rebates despite and in light of economic uncertainties, I would also like to take this opportunity to suggest further review and consideration of the following.
Firstly, I would suggest additional tax rebates for vulnerable groups, such as caregivers, as the last review was done in YA2015. This would be of great financial relief to those caring for the aged and persons with disability, in addition to the relief that comes from the setting up of the Disability Caregiver Support Centre, as planned in Budget 2017.
Secondly, to also consider a review and increase, of course, fee relief, which is at $5,500, as well as to review the type of approved courses, possibly linked to those approved under SkillsFuture. In addition, I would like to urge the relevant Ministry to allow for courses not directly related to current employment or profession to be allowed course fee relief for the purpose of them obtaining new skills and embrace lifelong learning for future jobs, future skills and future career.
Thirdly, consider increasing parental relief to better reflect rising cost of care and reduced family size. Though our median wage has risen beyond $3,000, it is imperative to note that as the population continues to age, the burden on children in smaller families grows exponentially, even more so, as our average lifespan increases beyond 80. I suggest we consider increasing the annual income criterion set at $4,000 for individuals with dependants to be reflective of cost of living and rising healthcare cost.
Fourthly, working mothers' child relief to be similarly extended to the fathers in recognition of shared parenting responsibility. If we are true to the values and culture of shared parenting, then the whole-of-Government policies should demonstrate the essence of cultivating such behaviours, attitudes and values of both parents caring for their children with equal responsibilities, both emotionally and financially, and, thus, the tax structure should also support such values to grow.
Lastly, the personal income tax rebates should continue as long as the Government's fiscal position remains strong. A review of the corporate income tax rebates will certainly help to offset cost of restructuring which is much needed for industries to transform. Sir, notwithstanding this, I welcome the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. The Income Tax Bill amendment is a timely refresh to our tax administration. In particular, I would like to support IRAS' push for strengthening regulations on related party transactions.
The world is changing quickly. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries are facing tremendous fiscal and economic pressures. This pressure results in increased scrutiny over the tax policies from lower tax jurisdictions, or even existing trade agreements.
Singapore today has an excellent reputation as a responsible tax jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it is important that we stay vigilant. We must not give others real or perceived reasons to cast doubts on the integrity of our tax system. The new provision to strengthen related party transaction shows that IRAS is ahead of the curve, and it strengthens Singapore's reputation as a responsible tax jurisdiction.
Some businesses might get affected with added regulations. But I have looked at this Bill's detailed implementation and I am satisfied that it is done in a measured and targeted way. As such, this amendment Bill is worthy of support.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I welcome the amendments introduced by this Bill and, in particular, the shift from a guidance-based approach to a formal transfer pricing regime with the introduction of a mandatory TPD requirement.
This is a significant step in deterring and addressing profit-shifting behaviour, and would align our practices more closely with international tax developments under the OECD's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative.
I have a number of clarifications to seek on the application and penalties of the proposed legislative regime.
Section 34D has been expanded to clarify how IRAS will determine whether transactions are conducted at arm's length. In practice, such determination may be difficult as there may be different interpretations when applying the principle to specific facts and circumstances of multinational enterprises' operations. There may be legitimate commercial and risk management reasons for conducting business activities within different affiliates. In addition to the guidance provided in the TPD Guidelines, will IRAS be providing reasons where it makes the determination that a transaction was not conducted at arm's length?
I understand that to assist companies in complying with the arm's length principle, IRAS has introduced an indicative margin for related party loans obtained or provided from January 2017. Would the Minister also consider prescribing a safe harbour margin for guarantees since, conceptually speaking, returns on guarantee represent the credit risk premium in a borrowing arrangement?
Next, the new section 34F(8) deems the failure to meet certain TPD requirements as offences and provides for a fine of up to $10,000. As the TPD requirement only applies to businesses with gross revenue exceeding $10 million, a fine of up to $10,000 may not represent a significant cost. How was the quantum of the fine determined, and how does it compare with similar provisions on reporting requirements?
Under the same section, the company as an entity, would be guilty of the offence of failing to meet TPD requirements. Has personal liability for officers of the company been considered as a more effective method for ensuring compliance with TPD requirements?
Finally, the failure to prepare contemporaneous and adequate TPD, the failure to submit TPD within 30 days' notice, and the failure to retain TPD for five years attract the same maximum fine as submitting false or misleading TPDs. However, the latter act arguably should attract higher culpability because of the element of dishonesty. For comparison, the offence of falsification of accounts under section 477A of the Penal Code may attract imprisonment for a term of up to 10 years, or a fine, or both. Would it be appropriate to impose higher penalties for providing false or misleading TPDs to reflect the higher degree of culpability? Can the Minister provide some clarification on this?
Notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I stand in support of these amendments which signal Singapore's commitment as a responsible member of the international tax community and deter profit-shifting behaviour that undermines the integrity of the tax system, erodes tax revenues and distorts the incidence of tax burden.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill.
We note the various queries raised by Mr Louis Ng in respect of the TPD requirement. Singapore subscribes to the international principle that profits should be taxed where the economic activities giving rise to the profits are done. In line with this, we have adopted the international principle of arm's length pricing in our law. The arm's length principle is not new to Singapore. Under the Income Tax Act, businesses are required to transact with related parties at arm's length.
The new requirement for businesses to maintain TPD further strengthens the implementation of the arm's length principle by businesses in their tax affairs. The documentation will help them, especially when they venture overseas.
IRAS already has guidance on how it determines whether transactions are at arm's length. We will continue to revise the guidance periodically in consultation with the industry.
Under the guidance, there are various measures that IRAS has in place to minimise compliance burden for businesses to prepare TPD, such as safe harbour margins. We also note Mr Louis Ng's suggestion for introducing a new safe harbour margin for guarantees. IRAS will take this into account in its periodic review for the transfer pricing guidelines.
The arm's length principle ensures that our tax space is duly protected. As a responsible international tax jurisdiction, we firmly subscribe to the arm's length principle for cross-border transactions.
Therefore, in introducing this new requirement for TPD, the penalties for failure to comply with such requirements are in line with our clear and strong support of the arm's length principle. These penalties are higher than the existing penalties under the record keeping requirement and also comparable with the range of penalties imposed by jurisdictions with similar requirements.
While we note Mr Louis Ng's suggestion to impose personal liability on employees for failure to meet the TPD requirement, we will monitor businesses' behaviours first after the implementation of this requirement and evaluate the effectiveness of these penalties. If need be, we will strengthen them.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah had earlier asked how many employers make voluntary contributions to their employees' MediSave account. In 2016, more than 640 companies made voluntary MediSave contributions, an 11% increase from the 580 companies that did so in 2015. In addition, 28,000 employees benefited from those contributions in 2016, a 6% increase from the 26,500 employees who did so in 2015.
Er Dr Lee has also mentioned the need for the Government to engage and encourage employers to voluntarily contribute to employees' MediSave accounts. We would like to assure Er Dr Lee that the tripartite partners have been encouraging more employers to offer voluntary portable medical benefits through making additional contributions to employees' MediSave accounts. This was included in the Tripartite Guidelines on Re-employment of Older Employees released in May 2016.
With the increase in the maximum amount of voluntary MediSave contributions that a company can make under the Additional MediSave Contribution scheme and a corresponding increase in tax deduction allowable with effect from 1 January 2018, the Ministry of Manpower and Central Provident Fund Board, together with the tripartite partners, will further reach out to all employers through website, emails, letters, seminars and talks to both raise awareness of the scheme and communicate the change and limits.
We thank Mr Thomas Chua for his support for the enhanced treatment for R&D Cost-Sharing Agreements and agree with his suggestions that companies could leverage external resources, such as research institutions and trade associations, to strengthen their research capabilities and embark on innovation and R&D activities.
We also note Ms Thanaletchimi's suggestions to enhance the various tax relief schemes for individuals as well as to extend the tax rebates for businesses and individuals. We will take the feedback into consideration in the periodic reviews of our income tax policies. Our income tax reliefs are intended to provide recognition to taxpayers rather than offset the actual expenses incurred by taxpayers. Any revision made to our reliefs will still need to ensure that our income tax regime as a whole remains resilient and progressive.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to 12.30 pm, tomorrow.\" – [Mr Chan Chun Sing] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preserving Green Spaces and Heritage in Jalan Kayu Constituency ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Government Whip (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on Preserving Green Spaces and Heritage in Jalan Kayu constituency, which is the area I help take care of.
Jalan Kayu constituency is a misnomer, really. It is not just made up of Jalan Kayu private estate, which is the only area in Singapore with the name Jalan Kayu. In fact, the constituency comprises three Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates – Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 and Avenue 10, Serangoon North Avenue 3 and Avenue 4, Buangkok Crescent, Buangkok Link and Buangkok Green. It is also made up of four private estates, one of which is Jalan Kayu private estate, the other three are Gerald-Mugliston, Luxus Hills and Seletar Aerospace Park.
Jalan Kayu may be known for its prata and its eateries, but what not all of us may know about the constituency is that this is where you can find the last kampung on Singapore mainland, that is, Kampong Lorong Buangkok. The only other kampung left in Singapore is on Pulau Ubin.
Under the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Masterplan 2014 (Revised), Kampong Lorong Buangkok will make way for a three-lane expressway and the construction of two schools, presumably a primary and a secondary school. With your permission Mr Speaker, may I display some slides and photos on the light-emitting diodes (LED) screens?
Mr Speaker: Please do. [Some slides and photos were shown to hon Members.]
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar: Thank you. Members can see from the URA Masterplan that Kampong Lorong Buangkok is the small little purple square that is now sitting on what is planned to be a highway and two schools.
Mr Speaker, while I understand the need for urban redevelopment, surely, we can still find space in our urban areas to preserve part of our heritage, not simply for sentimental value but for the purpose of heritage, historical and environmental education.
I would like to propose for the preservation of Kampong Lorong Buangkok as a Conservation site or Heritage Education site. Under the URA Masterplan, the land where the kampung is, will be made into two schools – like I said earlier, presumably one primary and one secondary school, and another highway. Is there really a need to displace the kampung residents, tear down the kampung in the name of urban redevelopment? Surely, we can explore ways where the kampung can co-exist and, in fact, enhance and bring value to urban life.
This is the last kampung we have left on our mainland, situated on a land of about 1.22 hectares. There are 26 families or households living in Kampong Lorong Buangkok, each paying a monthly rent of between $6 to $30 to the landlady, a 65-year-old lady named Ms Sng Mui Hong. Some have lived here for more than 50 years and would not live elsewhere even though their children are living in HDB estates and HDB flats and can house them comfortably in their flats.
The neighbours all know one another very well, and each time I join my grassroots volunteers and residents there, the children visiting the kampung would have lots of fun chasing the kampung chickens, learning about the different fruit trees – rambutan, banana, noni, cocoa, you name it – and marveling at the homes that look like they are frozen in time in the 1960s. Our Jalan Kayu grassroots have done several community projects with the Kampong residents, one of which is the drain redevelopment project. Another one is where we gravelled the main entrance of the kampung and we put up signages for the kampung, because back then in the past, the only signage we could see was one that was handwritten in paint.
This was me with Ms Sng, the landlady, and Members can see this is the new signage we put up a few months back. And the old name of the kampong was Kampong Selak Kain. \"Selak kain\" in Malay means you fold up your sarong or your kain – because in the past, the kampong always used to flood, that is why we did the drainage project; so, you selak your kain. These are some of the houses in the kampong; quite grand. I think this is the biggest house in the kampong out of the 26 available. It is two-storey, all made of wood, and this is what you can see in the kampong now. Members can see in the background that there are Build-To-Order (BTO) flats sprouting all over. This is another look at the kampong.
The neighbours all know one another very well, and each time I join them, they will always be talking about how they want to continue living in the kampong and, even though some of the children may not want to live there, they want to retain the kampong for as long as possible.
It is fascinating to see this kampong, which exemplifies racial and religious harmony. The kampong is owned by a Chinese lady, but the majority of the residents are Malay, living harmoniously with their Chinese neighbours. There is a Muslim surau, a small mosque, within the kampong, and there are altars that adorn the homes of the Chinese residents. Many of our Jalan Kayu residents have expressed their support to preserve the kampong, and one of them, a resident artist, Mr Vincent Seet, has held numerous exhibitions showing his numerous paintings of the kampong. These are some of the paintings by Mr Vincent Seet, a resident living in Buangkok HDB estate.
I am also embarking on a community documentation and preservation project with my colleagues from the Singapore Institute of Technology to compile a photo-journal and oral history accounts of the residents living in the kampong, in a bid to preserve the experiences and memories of our residents who have lived there for many years, from before our Independence, to this day. The changes they have observed and experienced over the years make for good case studies and rich learning for us and, for me, it is useful for the Change Management module I teach my students, which includes topics on urbanisation and gentrification and managing societal change.
I would like to propose for the following to be considered for Kampong Lorong Buangkok. We should retain the kampong as a conservation or heritage education site, where we can educate our younger generations about how kampung living was like and, more importantly, what the kampung spirit is about. The kampong can be integrated within the two schools that are planned under the URA masterplan. The kampong and its residents should be allowed to carry on their lives, but it can play the additional role of a community living lab for our students to learn about our shared history, culture and traditions, race relations, and experience for themselves values-in-action, such as communal living, the spirit of neighbourliness and community activism.
In addition, our students can embark on community nature programmes to learn from and work with the residents on how they can grow plants and vegetables, or take care of animals, such as chickens, cats and dogs, in a more natural environment. On top of that, our kampong residents are exemplary in re-using and repurposing items in their farming and gardening methods. This is useful in helping our young ones be more environmentally friendly and increase their environmental awareness.
I hope that the Ministry of Education can consider this, particularly in creating an authentic learning experience for values-in-action and for heritage and history education for our students. I understand there may be concerns regarding the maintenance and upkeep of the kampong. I would like to propose that once the current generation of residents have passed on, and their children are not keen to continue living there, then maybe the People's Association (PA) or the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth can consider taking ownership of this kampong.
Singaporeans who are keen to experience what it is like to live in a kampung can do so here, as part of a resilience or community leadership training programme. So, instead of having overnight camps at PA or the Outward Bound campsites, this can be done at Kampong Lorong Buangkok in future. In addition, our own school children can have school leadership or training camps at Kampong Lorong Buangkok, too, for them to learn, to live with basic necessities, working and living with nature, and what the kampung spirit is all about.
The second part of my speech is on the strip of green land parcel parallel to Gerald Drive, next to Seletar Springs condominium, that has been planned to be converted to a three-lane highway, which is known as Buangkok Drive extension. Many residents living along Gerald Drive and in Seletar Springs Condominium do not want this strip of land to be converted to a highway, citing a loss of natural flora and fauna. This is the actual strip of land that you can see from a height where the planned expressway or highway is supposed to be.
As Members can see, this is really a green belt for both HDB and private estate residents living here. The strip of green is quite narrow and I can imagine that if URA were to proceed with the road construction here, the roads will come up close, very close to the HDB blocks and the private estates. I have had several dialogues with my Gerald-Mugliston residents to listen to their concerns and to assure them I will work closely with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to ensure that only if the road is needed will it be built. The need to build this road must be contingent on the use of other surrounding roads – Buangkok Drive, Buangkok Crescent, Buangkok Link, Buangkok Green and Yio Chu Kang Road – in terms of traffic volume that these other roads are not able to support. I have requested LTA to carry out a study of the usage of the roads mentioned above to justify the need to build the Buangkok Drive extension highway.
However, I beseech the Ministry of National Development (MND) to consider if we can shelve the plans to build this road. I would instead propose making the strip of land as a linear nature park, with proper footpaths to connect Fernvale HDB estate and Gerald-Mugliston estate, and to put in place cycling tracks, while retaining the flora that is growing there naturally. I hope MND can consider this favourably.
Mr Speaker, our green spaces and places of heritage are precious. Once gone, they are almost impossible to replace. We can, I suppose, create artificial green spaces or traditional setups to showcase our heritage, but they lack the character and soul of what has grown organically for many years.
Once again, I iterate that I understand the need for urban development. But it is not a zero-sum game. Urban development and the preservation of green spaces and our places of heritage cannot be mutually exclusive. There are ways in which we can harmoniously integrate the two.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Lee.
The Second Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Member for her speech on Kampong Lorong Buangkok and the future Buangkok Drive Extension.
Kampong Lorong Buangkok is, as she has identified correctly, one of two remaining traditional kampungs left in Singapore, and the other is on Pulau Ubin. The Member may be aware of the work we are doing on Pulau Ubin, together with the Friends of Ubin Network, to enhance the rustic, nostalgic and authentic feel of the island. This includes the heritage and the living community in the kampung. In July this year, we launched the multi-year programme to restore and repair vacant kampung houses on the island and will be looking into how we can breathe new life into these returned homes. We are also studying how we can work with the community to better support the villagers still living on the island.
So, the Member will know where my personal inclinations lie on an issue such as this. But for today's purposes, allow me to set out the position as it currently stands.
Sir, the Master Plan, which the Member referred to in her speech, guides Singapore's physical development over the medium term. It is regularly reviewed every five years to take into account the changing needs of Singaporeans, which may affect our future land use. In the 2014 Master Plan, Kampong Lorong Buangkok straddles four land parcels. Two of the land parcels have been safeguarded for a primary school and a secondary school. Another land parcel will form part of a park, and the last portion of the kampong site has been earmarked for a major road to Seletar, as the Member has indicated in the map earlier.
However, I must emphasise that there is no intention to implement these developments in the near future. For instance, we will look into the need for the planned road only when we are ready to proceed with the longer-term development of Seletar. This is likely to be several decades later.
Sir, when the time comes for us to finalise our plans for the entire area, the Government of the day should work closely with relevant stakeholders to ensure that developments are carried out in a holistic and coherent way. And this must involve deep engagement with the kampong families living there at that time, to understand and consider their needs and interests. Some may not want to move away from the kampong. But they may also not want their community to be turned into an educational or heritage attraction, drawing crowds of curious visitors. We will also consider the wishes of Singaporeans who want the heritage and educational value of kampung life to be properly documented, retained and celebrated. And yet, we cannot simply develop the surrounding areas around the kampong, isolating it from the rest of the community.
Sir, I wish to put on record our appreciation for the Member's initiative to compile visual and oral history accounts from the kampong residents. Indeed, kampung life can impart valuable lessons to Singaporeans about living together in gotong-royong. We should all continue to foster and encourage this spirit of cooperation, bonding, neighbourliness and mutual help in our community.
MND has considered the Member’s proposal in consultation with the relevant agencies. HDB and LTA have assessed that there is a critical need for this road because almost 10,000 new homes will be completed in Fernvale, Sengkang West and Hougang between now and 2022, which is very soon. This road will serve as a vital connection across Sungei Punggol and help relieve potential traffic congestion problems for Singaporeans living there in Sengkang and Hougang Towns, where the existing road network cannot support the higher resident population in the future.
Moreover, there is already a provision of green space for residents in and around Gerald Drive, including existing HDB common greens and neighbourhood parks. The Park Connector Network also runs along Sungei Punggol, linking the Gerald Drive area to Sengkang Riverside Park, which is a large town park.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Member for her suggestions. If she has further queries or concerns, she can raise them to us, and we will get URA and all relevant agencies to take her through the plans in detail.
Mr Speaker: Dr Intan, we have some time. Is there anything you would like to raise?
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar: No.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 6.34 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":"Traffic Accidents on Causeway in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of traffic accidents on the Causeway in the past three years; (b) how many of these accidents involve jay walkers; and (c) what plans does the Ministry have to ensure road safety on the Causeway for both vehicles and pedestrians, especially during peak hours.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2014 and 2016, a total of eight traffic accidents on the part of the Causeway within Singapore's jurisdiction were reported. None of these accidents involved pedestrians.
The part of the Causeway within Singapore's jurisdiction has been designed such that there is no need for pedestrians to cross or walk on any vehicular roads. Traffic Police work closely with the relevant agencies to ensure safe traffic flows. For example, during periods of high traffic volume, Woodlands Checkpoint has special support teams to augment the deployment on the ground.
We urge pedestrians to use the footpaths and refrain from walking on the roads. Motorists should also drive safely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requirement for Traditional Chinese Medicine Shops that Sell Herbal Teas to Obtain Foodshop Licences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what is the justification for requiring Traditional Chinese Medicine shops that sell herbal teas to obtain foodshop licences with effect from 1 October 2017.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Environment Agency (NEA) regularly reviews its licensing regime as part of a continual process to improve the hygiene standards of food and drinks sold in Singapore. We recognise that many Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) shops have been preparing and selling herbal tea within their premises. Such food preparation activities, if not done hygienically, can pose risks to public health, such as giving rise to food poisoning. We have, therefore, engaged the Singapore Chinese Druggist Association and TCM shops on the proposal to license premises with onsite preparation of herbal tea and food so as to ensure the hygienic preparation of these products, strengthen food hygiene standards and give consumers greater assurance when purchasing such products.
The details of the enhancements to the food hygiene regime will be released in due course. The implementation date of the enhancements has not been decided and we will continue to engage the industry to ensure that the TCM shops have sufficient lead time to get ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Promoting Competitive Cycling","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in light of the cycling team's good showing at the 2017 Southeast Asian Games (a) whether the Ministry will give more support and attention to promote cycling on a competitive basis; and (b) what is the outcome of the 2014 feasibility study to evaluate the building of a velodrome in Singapore.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Our Team Singapore athletes in cycling did well at the recent Southeast Asian (SEA) Games and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Para Games (APG). For the SEA Games, we won one gold, one silver and one bronze, which included our first-ever medal in women's track cycling, and our first gold medal in men's cycling in 20 years. At the APG, we won one gold, five silvers and eight bronzes, which included Singapore's first-ever gold medal in APG cycling events. I would like to congratulate our cycling athletes for flying the Singapore flag high.
Sport Singapore (SportSG) works closely with the Singapore Cycling Federation on its plans to develop cycling in Singapore. Funding has been provided for four full-time staff and two coaches, the use of facilities, as well as overseas training and competitions. Campaign funding was also provided for additional training in preparation for the SEA Games. One of the cyclists is currently receiving the spexScholarship. SportSG also supports the sport through the Singapore Sports Institute, in the areas of sports medicine and sports science. Specialists from the Singapore Sports Institute regularly assess the progress of our Team Singapore cyclists and helped them to prepare for the recent SEA Games.
SportSG's feasibility study on the velodrome is ongoing. As the development of a velodrome involves significant investments, such a project needs to be carefully assessed relative to other sports infrastructure needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Closer Monitoring of Schools to Minimise Fights among Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Education (Schools) following the recent fracas among students in a secondary school (a) whether the Ministry will consider installing CCTVs along school corridors and other areas for the staff to monitor the students' activities; (b) what is the psychological and social profile of these students; and (c) how can the Ministry minimise such incidents in schools.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Most students are well-behaved and are able to interact well with one another. However, some may, from time to time, make mistakes in the process of growing up. Some students may act inappropriately to express their unhappiness or resolve conflicts in an aggressive way. Our schools do not tolerate physical aggression. When such incidents occur, school staff will step in to defuse and manage the situation. Schools also check on the physical and emotional well-being of the victims, discipline and counsel the aggressors, and educate the bystanders.
Our schools impart social and emotional skills, such as emotional regulation and conflict management through Character and Citizenship Education (CCE). Positive values, such as respect and harmony, are also emphasised. Teachers use teachable moments, including the recent incident, to educate our students and reinforce the relevant skills and values. Schools also actively create a positive and supportive environment for all our students.
All schools have been equipped with closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems to enhance safety and security within their premises. The cameras are installed to cover critical areas in schools, like gates, access routes and blind areas. This is mainly to deter crime and detect willful intrusions.
Shaping the character and behaviour of our students is an ongoing process. It requires the collective effort of the school, the family and the community to educate and support our students as they learn from their mistakes and strive to become better persons.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Sales, Content and Cost of Milk Products and Supplements for Adults","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Health whether there are plans to review and assess the sales, content and costing of milk products and milk supplements for adults, especially for those who are on dietary supplementation and tube feeding.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The safety of milk products and supplements is regulated by the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) under the Singapore Food Regulations. Food manufacturers and importers must ensure that they are safe and suitable for consumption.
There is a variety of adult milk products and supplements for different needs and at different price ranges available in the market today. There are no plans to regulate the sales and prices of adult milk products and supplements for now. Seniors who require such products and are in need of financial assistance can apply to the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF) for means-tested subsidies to defray the costs of such products. More than 4,000 beneficiaries have received subsidies for milk products and supplements from SMF to date.
We will continue to monitor the situation to support seniors who are in need.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Help Freelancers and Workers in Gig Economy with Medical and Retirement Adequacy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry can provide an update on the efforts to help freelancers and workers in the gig economy with their medical and retirement adequacy.
Mr Lim Swee Say: Individuals working in the gig economy can be employees or self-employed persons, commonly known as freelancers.
For those who are employees, they and their employers are required to make Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions for their healthcare and retirement needs. The Government also helps those who are in the lower-income group to build up their CPF savings through Workfare top-ups.
As for those who are self-employed, they are required to save for healthcare through mandatory MediSave Account contributions. They can also save for retirement by making cash top-ups to their Special and Retirement Accounts and enjoy tax relief for doing so. Lower-income self-employed persons may also be eligible for Workfare top-ups from the Government.
In view of the changing employment profile driven by technology and new business models, as announced at the Committee of Supply 2017, the Ministry of Manpower has formed a tripartite workgroup to study and holistically address the key issues that self-employed persons face, including saving for healthcare and retirement. The workgroup is currently studying the issues and consulting stakeholders and will provide an update on its findings in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Books Bought by NLB and Costs Incurred","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) over the last five years, what is the number of books purchased by NLB; (b) what is the total cost incurred; (b) what is the number of books condemned by NLB over the same period; (c) what is the total number of books currently in NLB's collection; and (d) if he can provide an update on the National Reading Movement that was launched a year ago.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The Member of Parliament Miss Cheng Li Hui has asked about the status of the National Library Board’s (NLB's) collection and the National Reading Movement (NRM).
Let me first give an update on the National Reading Movement. The Movement was launched last year to get Singaporeans to read more, read widely and read together. It aims to reach out to adults and seniors, promote reading in mother tongue languages and galvanise the community to build a vibrant reading culture in Singapore. I am happy to report that the Movement is doing well. This year, more than 120,000 participants took part in reading-related activities in the lead-up to the National Reading Day on 29 July, which is a third more than NLB's target of 88,000 participants.
The Movement includes the Read@Work programme, to promote reading in the workplace. More than 30 organisations have come on board NLB's Read@Work programme so far and actively contribute to the Movement by publicising the National Reading Day activities and sponsoring reading events like Read for Books. NLB remains on track to reach out to their target of 50 organisations by March 2018.
To encourage reading among seniors, reading corners have been set up at 17 Senior Activity Centres (SACs) which serve around 4,700 members in total. Examples of SACs are the Thye Hua Kwan Senior Services at Taman Jurong and the Tembusu Senior Activity Corner. NLB also provides a toolkit for volunteers who conduct regular reading activities with the seniors in SACs and even rental flats. In addition, NLB is also doing more for young children. NLB has provided bulk loans to about 248 preschools, including many which serve children from lower-income families, as identified by the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) and the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) First Campus HQ and under the Early Childhood Development Agency's (ECDA's) KidSTART Enhanced Support to Preschool programme.
NLB has also expanded its programme offerings in mother tongue languages. As a strategy to increase readership, NLB has embarked on an approach to help readers and participants of NLB’s programmes establish meaningful connections via one’s cultural background. This includes a lecture series by experts on Malay arts and culture that was started for adults. As an example, local music legend, Ramli Sarip, was invited as a guest lecturer for the series. Five such sessions had been organised since the start of NRM, with at least 30 participants per session. In addition, 28 mother tongue reading clubs have been set up – 17 for children and 11 for adults. These are encouraging signs that show more are interested in and are reading in the mother tongue languages.
Besides NRM, NLB has improved its collections, services and programmes to drive a reading culture in Singapore. Currently, NLB spends about $14 million each year to maintain a collection of over 6.6 million books. Over 800,000 new books are purchased annually for the lending and reference collections. At the same time, a similar number of books which are damaged or outdated are taken off the shelves. Many of these books which are still useable are donated to charities and community organisations for their own community libraries. Mobile reading is also on the rise since the NLB App was launched last October, which gives users access to 600,000 eBooks anytime, anywhere.
NLB will continue to ensure that Singaporeans enjoy affordable access to information through our Next Generation Libraries. The two newly reopened libraries – Sengkang and Bukit Panjang Public Libraries – have seen at least a doubling of loans and visitorship compared to the similar period last year. The Tampines Regional Library, which just reopened on 5 August 2017, saw more than 220,000 visitors in August, almost three times the number of visitors in the same month last year. NLB's digital visitorship has also risen 11% since 2016. NLB also works closely with the community, co-creating programmes with patrons and engaging volunteers to run its library programmes. For example, the Volunteers Corner in the Tampines Regional Library is run entirely by volunteers. We are very thankful for the continued support of our partners and volunteers, which is essential to NLB's success.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving IT Skills of Mature Workers for Smart Nation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Communications and Information in view of Singapore's push to be a Smart Nation, how is the Ministry equipping mature workers with IT skills to leverage technology in their workplaces.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Singapore's move towards a digital economy and a Smart Nation will bring many new opportunities and good jobs for all Singaporeans. To ensure that every Singaporean will be ready to take advantage of such opportunities, we will help all workers, including our more mature workers, upskill and reskill themselves in digital and technological skills, regardless of which sector of work they are in.
We have developed many programmes to assist the mature workers in the infocomm technology, or ICT sector, to improve the currency and relevance of their ICT skills through the TechSkills Accelerator, or TeSA in short. The Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) launched TeSA last year, recognising the need for a concerted national effort to train, upskill and reskill professionals in ICT skills. Coordinated by the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and partners, such as SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) and Workforce Singapore (WSG), TeSA is a tripartite initiative between the Government, industry and the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC). I am happy to update that since the launch, we have made good progress, with about 12,000 workers across the economy having benefited from TeSA courses. Of these 12,000 workers, nearly half are mature workers 40 years old and above, though they form about one-third of our ICT workforce. This also reflects that, proportionately, more mature workers have been able to benefit from the Government’s training initiatives.
Beyond courses, TeSA also provides a coordinated career support ecosystem for workers looking to join or develop their careers in ICT. TeSA Integrated Career Services is a collaboration among WSG, the Singapore Computer Society (SCS), NTUC and the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) to provide, for example, group and technology mentoring sessions to help guide workers in information technology trends and skills needed. To date, 350 workers have participated in these sessions, and more than half of them are mature.
As we move towards a Smart Nation, other sectors beyond the ICT sector will also have to digitalise and rely more heavily on technology. We are thus collaborating with other lead agencies to help their sectors upgrade and reskill their workers. Currently, about 30 different skills frameworks are also being developed across these sectors. IMDA and SSG are working on harmonising technical competencies across these different skills frameworks to better assist workers in various sectors upgrade themselves in the necessary technological skills.
For our workers who are least familiar with technology, we will help them build up foundational digital technology literacy. To this end, SSG will be launching a national programme called SkillsFuture for Digital Workplace to help individuals gain confidence in the use of data, innovation and technology, and to engender a mindset for change, innovation and resilience. The programme aims to build foundational digital awareness and literacy and enable individuals to perform functional tasks using digital platforms. More details will be announced by SSG.
Helping our workers become digital-ready is an integral part of our digital economy and Smart Nation roadmap. I will speak more about our future plans in the upcoming months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Tenured and Tenure-track University Faculty Members who are Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) what is the current proportion of tenured and tenure-track faculty members who are Singaporeans in NUS, NTU and SMU; and (b) what was the proportion 10 years ago.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Ten years ago, in 2007, 46% of the tenured and tenure-track faculty members at the National University (NUS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and Singapore Management University (SMU) were Singaporeans. In 2017, the proportion is about 40%. The Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) and Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) do not have a tenure system but the proportion of Singaporeans among faculty is much higher in SIT and SUSS.
We must ensure there is a strong core of Singaporean academics in our autonomous universities (AUs), even as they strive to recruit the best talents from Singapore or overseas, based on merit, to deliver world-class education and conduct high-quality research.
To do so, our AUs actively look out for Singaporean academics who are working overseas. We launched the Singapore Teaching and Academic Research Talent Scheme in 2015 to encourage more young Singaporeans to pursue an academic career. Under this scheme, we have awarded close to 80 undergraduate and postgraduate scholarships to Singaporeans who are interested in academia. The three AUs awarded 260 Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) scholarships from 1990 to 2014.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Food in School Canteen Aligned with Overall Strategy to Fight Diabetes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (Schools) what measures are being taken, and what else is being planned, to ensure that the food served to students in our schools is in line with the Ministry's overall strategy to manage the rise of diabetes among our population.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Since 2014, the Ministry of Education and the Health Promotion Board (HPB) have worked closely with schools to serve healthy meals as part of the Healthy Meals in Schools Programme. Under the programme, school canteens serve set meals which are lower in fat, sugar and salt, and incorporate food from the four main food groups – whole grains, meat, vegetables and fruits – and lower sugar beverages which contain no more than six grammes of added sugar per 100 millilitre. Since January 2017, all mainstream schools have come on board to implement this programme.
All canteen stallholders in schools attend the training commissioned by HPB on the use of healthier ingredients and healthier food preparation methods. The training involves nutrition education, where the food service guidelines are explained by a nutritionist, on food preparation, where a chef demonstrates and provides tips on how popular dishes can be prepared more healthily, and a hands-on segment for canteen vendors to put into practice the knowledge learnt. With this training, our school canteen stallholders are well-placed to deliver healthy food to the students. Enhancements to the training are being made to include elements of taste, appearance and cost management to further improve the skills of the canteen stallholders.
HPB also conducts assessments for all schools annually to ensure that the food and beverages served at school canteens and vending machines meet the guidelines. A report is provided to the school after each assessment to help canteen stallholders better meet the guidelines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Updating of Company Address within Stipulated Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Finance (a) how does ACRA ensure compliance by business establishments to update their registered address within 14 days of any change in their office address; (b) how many business owners have so far been fined for non-compliance; and (c) what are the measures ACRA has put in place to encourage compliance.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The law requires all business entities that are registered with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) to update their registered office addresses through ACRA's filing system. The updates must be made within 14 days of the change in address, except for foreign companies which have 30 days to do so. It is convenient for business entities to update any change in their addresses which can be done online, such as through ACRA's filing system or ACRA-On-The-Go mobile app. Filing such updates is also free.
The penalty for late filing is up to $350. In addition, if a company fails to update its registered office address, the company and its directors can be prosecuted and be liable on conviction to a fine of up to $5,000 and a penalty for each day of default after conviction of the offence. Furthermore, if a business entity is found to have deliberately not updated its address or used a false address to avoid contact with creditors or regulators, ACRA will not hesitate to prosecute the business entity and its directors or owners in Court. Under the various ACRA-administered Acts, it is an offence to provide false information to ACRA. For instance, an offender is liable, on conviction, to a fine of up to $50,000 or to imprisonment of up to two years, or to both under the Companies Act.
From January to August 2017, around 64,000 business entities updated their registered office addresses within the stipulated timelines. Over the same period, 640 business entities were late in doing so and had to pay late filing penalties.
To encourage compliance by business entities, ACRA has put in place various measures. First, ACRA conducts regular onsite inspections to check the validity of registered business addresses. Second, ACRA will write to a company director or business owner at his residential address if ACRA's official correspondences with the business entities are returned undelivered or ACRA receives feedback on an outdated registered office address. The business entity has to update its registered office address before it is allowed to carry out any other filings with ACRA. Third, ACRA conducts outreach programmes, such as ACRA@The Heartlands, to inform business owners, directors and interested members of public of the various obligations of running a business.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Automatic Filing of Tax Returns for Drivers of Private Hire Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether there is a timeline to putting in place the arrangement with ride-hailing firms on the automatic filing of tax returns of their drivers; and (b) what will be the process to consider tax deductibles so as to ensure fairness of treatment for the drivers.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) is in discussion with Uber and Grab to provide drivers' data to IRAS. The data can then be automatically pre-filled in the drivers' income tax returns to ease their tax filing compliance. IRAS hopes to finalise the arrangement as soon as possible with Uber and Grab.
Deduction of expenses incurred for a car is not allowed for tax, unless the taxpayer is carrying on the business of hiring out cars or providing driving instruction. This treatment is in line with our national policy to curb the car population and is applied consistently to both corporate and individual taxpayers.
Ride-hailing drivers are, therefore, not allowed tax deduction on expenses incurred in relation to the car, including the purchase cost of the car. These drivers can, however, claim deduction for other expenses. Such allowable deductible expenses include commission paid to third-party operators, administrative charges imposed by third-party operators, and the proportion of expenses for mobile phones used in the course of providing their services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Compelling Myanmar to Remedy Human Tragedy in Rakhine State","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether Myanmar can be compelled to remedy the human tragedy facing the Rohingya people under Articles 4 and 39 and other relevant articles of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD); and (b) what other kinds of diplomatic pressures can be applied on Myanmar to curb the alleged discrimination of the Rohingya people pursuant to Article 22 and other relevant articles of the AHRD.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: In Myanmar’s Northern Rakhine State, a humanitarian disaster has unfolded in the aftermath of a terrorist attack on 25 August 2017 and subsequent related acts of violence. The conflict has resulted in loss of lives, destruction of homes and the displacement of large numbers of people. The situation in the Rakhine State is a complex inter-communal issue with deep historical roots, dating back more than half a century. There are no quick fixes.
The immediate task at hand is for all the parties involved to cease actions that will further worsen the situation on the ground, so that humanitarian assistance can reach those desperately in need, regardless of ethnicity and religious affiliation. We urge the restoration of peace, stability and the rule of law in the Rakhine State. It is the responsibility of every government to protect every civilian and to restore law and order. Comprehensive, long-term and sustainable solutions must also be found to address the underlying challenges and build trust among the different stakeholders and communities and define the legal status of everyone in Rakhine State. As a close friend and neighbour, Singapore stands ready to support the Myanmar government in whatever way we can to make a positive contribution.
Given the scale of the humanitarian needs, the Singapore Government will be offering bilateral humanitarian aid to both Myanmar and Bangladesh. We hope to contribute to the efforts to help all affected communities on both sides of the border, regardless of ethnicity and religion. For Myanmar, we will be offering an aid package comprising approximately S$100,000 worth of supplies from the Singapore Government. For Bangladesh, given that it is experiencing a more severe refugee crisis, we will be offering two humanitarian loads comprising approximately S$200,000 worth of supplies from the Singapore Government.
Our community organisations have also launched fundraising drives for the affected communities in Rakhine State. I would like to highlight three such organisations in my reply.
The first is the Singapore Red Cross (SRC), which has been providing humanitarian assistance in Rakhine State since 2012. SRC has launched a month-long public fundraising appeal and committed S$27,150 worth of relief items to be distributed in Rakhine State. This is in addition to an earlier contribution of US$50,000 in shelter items to the Rakhine State. SRC will work with the Myanmar Red Cross and the Bangladesh Red Crescent to ensure that the relief items reach the affected communities.
The second is the Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation (RLAF), a community-based charity, which has raised more than S$300,000 thus far. RLAF will work with the United Nations (UN) High Commission for Refugees to distribute aid to the refugees in Bangladesh. Earlier in December 2016, RLAF and our local communities had also channelled more than S$180,000 of humanitarian aid to affected communities in the Rakhine State.
Mercy Relief will also raise funds and is planning to deploy a team to conduct aid distribution in Bangladesh. Mercy Relief will work with Action Aid International, an established international non-governmental organisation in Bangladesh, as well as the Bangladesh Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief, to distribute S$100,000 worth of items, including solar lamps, blankets and shelter for affected communities.
The funds raised will be used to provide humanitarian aid to all affected communities in that region, regardless of ethnicity or religion.
Members have also asked about the role the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) can play. Mr Christopher de Souza asked specifically if Myanmar can be compelled under the relevant articles in the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD). The AHRD reaffirms ASEAN member states' common interest and commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the purposes and the principles enshrined in the ASEAN Charter. Although the AHRD does not impose legal obligations, we expect all ASEAN countries to uphold the spirit and principles set out in the document.
The situation in Myanmar affects all ASEAN countries as well as the wider international community. It is in our common interest to work with the Myanmar government to support its efforts to restore peace and stability, and to find long-term solutions to this complex communal problem in the Rakhine State. While the principle of non-interference is enshrined in the ASEAN Charter, the Charter also calls for enhanced consultations on matters of common interest of ASEAN.
The ASEAN Foreign Ministers recently held an informal meeting, which Minister Vivian Balakrishnan attended in New York on 23 September 2017 to discuss the issue of the Rakhine State. The meeting began with the Myanmar Minister of State for Foreign Affairs U Kyaw Tin’s briefing on the developments in the Rakhine State, followed by a frank and robust exchange of views among the Foreign Ministers.
Following the meeting, the Philippines issued an ASEAN Chairman’s Statement on the Humanitarian Situation in the Rakhine State, which condemned the recent acts of violence and welcomed Myanmar's efforts to resolve the situation on the ground. The Chairman’s Statement also reflected the undertaking by all ASEAN member states to support Myanmar’s humanitarian relief effort, and to activate the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance (AHA Centre) on disaster management to work with the Myanmar Government-led mechanism, in cooperation with the Red Cross Movement, to deliver humanitarian assistance to all displaced inhabitants without discrimination. This was in line with the Foreign Ministers’ recognition of the need for increased humanitarian access to all affected communities.
The Myanmar government has acknowledged that they need to address this crucible of inter-communal tension in the Rakhine State. One year ago, State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi established a commission led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to make long-term recommendations to address the challenges facing the ethnically and religiously divided Rakhine State. The Advisory Commission on Rakhine State has submitted its final report and recommendations. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has expressed her government’s determination to implement them fully and \"within the shortest time possible\". A 15-member inter-ministerial committee has been formed to look into the recommendations. Myanmar has also welcomed the offers of the international community to contribute towards the government's humanitarian assistance programme. We hope that these efforts will be fruitful.
There is an urgent need to restore peace, stability, harmony and reconciliation among all the communities in Rakhine State. As ASEAN member states, we are all committed to abide by the principles set out in the ASEAN Charter to enhance good governance and the rule of law. ASEAN has conveyed its hope and support for a long-term solution to a complex inter-communal issue with deep historical roots. While responsibility to resolve the complex issues involving the peoples of the Rakhine State ultimately rests with all the parties concerned in Myanmar themselves, Singapore and our fellow ASEAN member states can do our part to support efforts by all parties to work towards a viable solution, so that affected communities can rebuild their lives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Role as 2018 ASEAN Chair to Address Humanitarian Situation in Rakhine State","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs with Singapore assuming the ASEAN chair in 2018, whether there are plans for more concerted efforts to compel the Myanmar government to stop the discrimination and humanitarian catastrophe of the Rohingya people.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: In Myanmar's Northern Rakhine State, a humanitarian disaster has unfolded in the aftermath of a terrorist attack on 25 August 2017 and subsequent related acts of violence. The conflict has resulted in loss of lives, destruction of homes and the displacement of large numbers of people. The situation in the Rakhine State is a complex inter-communal issue with deep historical roots, dating back more than half a century. There are no quick fixes.
The immediate task at hand is for all the parties involved to cease actions that will further worsen the situation on the ground, so that humanitarian assistance can reach those desperately in need, regardless of ethnicity and religious affiliation. We urge the restoration of peace, stability and the rule of law in the Rakhine State. It is the responsibility of every government to protect every civilian and to restore law and order. Comprehensive, long-term and sustainable solutions must also be found to address the underlying challenges and build trust among the different stakeholders and communities and define the legal status of everyone in Rakhine State. As a close friend and neighbour, Singapore stands ready to support the Myanmar government in whatever way we can to make a positive contribution.
Given the scale of the humanitarian needs, the Singapore Government will be offering bilateral humanitarian aid to both Myanmar and Bangladesh. We hope to contribute to the efforts to help all affected communities on both sides of the border, regardless of ethnicity and religion. For Myanmar, we will be offering an aid package comprising approximately S$100,000 worth of supplies from the Singapore Government. For Bangladesh, given that it is experiencing a more severe refugee crisis, we will be offering two humanitarian loads comprising approximately S$200,000 worth of supplies from the Singapore Government.
Our community organisations have also launched fundraising drives for the affected communities in Rakhine State. I would like to highlight three such organisations in my reply.
The first is the Singapore Red Cross (SRC), which has been providing humanitarian assistance in Rakhine State since 2012. SRC has launched a month-long public fundraising appeal and committed S$27,150 worth of relief items to be distributed in Rakhine State. This is in addition to an earlier contribution of US$50,000 in shelter items to the Rakhine State. SRC will work with the Myanmar Red Cross and the Bangladesh Red Crescent to ensure that the relief items reach the affected communities.
The second is the Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation (RLAF), a community-based charity, which has raised more than S$300,000 thus far. RLAF will work with the United Nations (UN) High Commission for Refugees to distribute aid to the refugees in Bangladesh. Earlier in December 2016, RLAF and our local communities had also channelled more than S$180,000 of humanitarian aid to affected communities in the Rakhine State.
Mercy Relief will also raise funds and is planning to deploy a team to conduct aid distribution in Bangladesh. Mercy Relief will work with Action Aid International, an established international non-governmental organisation in Bangladesh, as well as the Bangladesh Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief, to distribute S$100,000 worth of items, including solar lamps, blankets and shelter for affected communities.
The funds raised will be used to provide humanitarian aid to all affected communities in that region, regardless of ethnicity or religion.
Members have also asked about the role ASEAN can play. Mr Christopher de Souza asked specifically if Myanmar can be compelled under the relevant articles in the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD). The AHRD reaffirms ASEAN member states' common interest and commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the purposes and principles enshrined in the ASEAN Charter. Although the AHRD does not impose legal obligations, we expect all ASEAN countries to uphold the spirit and principles set out in the document.
The situation in Myanmar affects all ASEAN countries as well as the wider international community. It is in our common interest to work with the Myanmar government to support its efforts to restore peace and stability, and to find long-term solutions to this complex communal problem in the Rakhine State. While the principle of non-interference is enshrined in the ASEAN Charter, the Charter also calls for enhanced consultations on matters of common interest of ASEAN.
The ASEAN Foreign Ministers recently held an informal meeting, which Minister Vivian Balakrishnan attended in New York on 23 September 2017 to discuss the issue of the Rakhine State. The meeting began with the Myanmar Minister of State for Foreign Affairs U Kyaw Tin’s briefing on the developments in the Rakhine State, followed by a frank and robust exchange of views among the Foreign Ministers.
Following the meeting, the Philippines issued an ASEAN Chairman's Statement on the Humanitarian Situation in the Rakhine State, which condemned the recent acts of violence and welcomed Myanmar’s efforts to resolve the situation on the ground. The Chairman’s Statement also reflected the undertaking by all ASEAN member states to support Myanmar's humanitarian relief effort, and to activate the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance (AHA Centre) on disaster management to work with the Myanmar Government-led mechanism, in cooperation with the Red Cross Movement, to deliver humanitarian assistance to all displaced inhabitants without discrimination. This was in line with the Foreign Ministers’ recognition of the need for increased humanitarian access to all affected communities.
The Myanmar government has acknowledged that they need to address this crucible of inter-communal tension in the Rakhine State. One year ago, State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi established a commission led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to make long-term recommendations to address the challenges facing the ethnically and religiously divided Rakhine State. The Advisory Commission on Rakhine State has submitted its final report and recommendations. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has expressed her government's determination to implement them fully and \"within the shortest time possible\". A 15-member inter-ministerial committee has been formed to look into the recommendations. Myanmar has also welcomed the offers of the international community to contribute towards the government’s humanitarian assistance programme. We hope that these efforts will be fruitful.
There is an urgent need to restore peace, stability, harmony and reconciliation among all the communities in Rakhine State. As ASEAN member states, we are all committed to abide by the principles set out in the ASEAN Charter to enhance good governance and the rule of law. ASEAN has conveyed its hope and support for a long-term solution to a complex inter-communal issue with deep historical roots. While responsibility to resolve the complex issues involving the peoples of the Rakhine State ultimately rests with all the parties concerned in Myanmar themselves, Singapore and our fellow ASEAN member states can do our part to support efforts by all parties to work towards a viable solution, so that affected communities can rebuild their lives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Treatment and Confinement of Mentally-ill Residents who Destroy Neighbours' Properties or Display Signs of Violence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health with regard to the mentally ill who harass their neighbours, destroy properties and display signs of violence (a) whether their treatment and confinement at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) can be expedited; and (b) what criteria have to be met for their release from IMH.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: We have been strengthening our community mental health services to better support persons with mental health conditions in the community and enhance their access to care services. For persons who display disturbing behaviours in the community, the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) will serve as a first touchpoint to coordinate care and a link to healthcare and social service agencies. AIC can be contacted at careinmind@aic.sg for assistance and referral.
In cases where a person is behaving in a manner that is dangerous to self or others, members of the public can call 999 for urgent Police assistance. Under section 7 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act (MHCTA), persons who are at risk of harm to self and/or others and are reported to be mentally disordered, can be brought by a Police Officer to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for mental health treatment. The person will be warded, if assessed to require management in an inpatient setting.
Patients will be discharged from the IMH inpatient ward when the doctors assess that their acute psychiatric condition have stabilised and improved. Longer-term recuperation at home amongst supportive family will be better for the patients’ full recovery and reintegration with society.
IMH monitors the patients discharged to ensure that they remain compliant with their follow-up appointments and medication. IMH also works with families and community-based organisations on care coordination, case management, caregiver support and education, and other forms of social support, for the discharged patients. Overall, in supporting the patients’ recovery and reintegration, families, community and social and healthcare organisations all have a part to play.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Restrict Distribution of Food and Beverage Products with High Glycemic Index","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Health what measures can be taken to restrict or control food and beverage products with a high glycemic index (GI) so as to reduce the risk of diabetes among our population.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Consuming large amounts of high glycemic index (GI) food is one of the risk factors for diabetes. Common high GI foods consumed in Singapore include refined staple grain products, such as white rice and white bread, and sugar-sweetened beverages like soda.
From 2007 to 2016, the Health Promotion Board's (HPB's) efforts to work with beverage manufacturers have resulted in a 30% reduction in the median sugar level of sugar-sweetened beverages sold in Singapore. More recently, seven leading beverage manufacturers whose products comprise 70% of Singapore's beverage market, have committed to limit the sugar content of their beverages sold in Singapore to 12% or less. This is the first time major beverage companies have made such a public commitment, as part of their move towards healthier offerings for consumers.
These efforts are a good start, but we are not stopping here. The Ministry of Health (MOH) is studying additional measures to further reduce sugar consumption in Singapore, taking reference from experiences in other countries. These include the use of warning labels and advertising restrictions on prepackaged beverages with high sugar content.
For refined staple grain products, MOH will invest $20 million over the next three years under the Healthier Ingredient Development Scheme to support food manufacturers to innovate and produce healthier ingredients, such as wholegrain noodles and brown rice bee hoon, which have lower GI but taste just as nice as the original versions.
In addition, HPB's Healthier Dining Programme encourages consumers to choose wholegrain, low GI and lower-calorie meal options. As of August 2017, there are over 3,100 food and beverage stalls across 67 hawker centres and 450 coffee shops offering at least one healthier option in their menus. Our target is to increase this to 40% of stalls across all hawker centres and coffee shops by mid-2019.
These are part of HPB's efforts to help Singaporeans choose healthier food options and lead healthier lives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Refresher Courses for Drivers with Demerit Points","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether drivers who chalk up demerit points can be made to attend short lectures and undergo tests so that their skills can be refreshed, for the safety of all road users.
Mr K Shanmugam: Drivers who have accumulated demerit points can attend the Driver Improvement Points System (DIPS) Retraining Course or the Safe Driving Course.
The DIPS Retraining Course is a two-day course for motorists whose licences have been suspended because they have accumulated a certain number of demerit points. These motorists are required to pass theory and practical tests at the end of the course, whereupon they can have their suspension periods shortened.
The Safe Driving Course is an early intervention measure that provides corrective education to motorists, even before they become liable for suspension. Participants go through a three-and-a-half-hour classroom session and a 30-minute practical session before taking a quiz. Upon the successful completion of the course, three demerit points will be expunged from the participant’s driving record.
These courses are not mandatory. They offer an opportunity for motorists to come forward to correct their driving behaviour and refresh their driving skills. This will foster greater ownership of their driving behaviour.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Private Residential Developments Encouraged to Accommodate Barrier-free Link-bridges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development what policy incentives and measures are currently in place to encourage building owners of existing and upcoming private developments to accommodate barrier-free link-bridge connectivity to adjacent HDB precincts, especially precincts with a significant elderly population.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) works closely with public and private stakeholders to plan and implement seamless walking networks between housing estates, major facilities and transport nodes. This is undertaken through various initiatives.
First, since July 2016, developers of large shopping malls, offices, business parks and educational institutions are required to submit a Walking and Cycling Plan (WCP) to URA and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) as part of their development applications. Through WCP, developers will be required to provide a mix of elevated, at-grade and underground barrier-free linkages, so as to facilitate convenient and direct pedestrian access to neighbouring developments like Housing and Development Board (HDB) precincts. URA and LTA will work closely with the developers to ensure that WCP improves residents’ accessibility to surrounding amenities and services.
Second, to incentivise developers to construct barrier-free linkages, URA has excluded the floor area of linkages that fulfil minimum width requirements, and remain accessible 24/7, from the maximum permissible gross floor area allowed for developments.
Third, for developments released under the Government Land Sales programme, URA stipulates requirements for developers to provide barrier-free linkages between adjoining developments within the land sales tender conditions.
Fourth, since 1990, all buildings must comply with the Building and Construction Authority's (BCA's) Code on Accessibility, which specifies the minimum design and construction requirements on basic barrier-free design needs of the elderly and persons with limited mobility. For older private developments built before 1990, building owners may apply for BCA's Accessibility Fund, which provides grants of up to $300,000 for owners to upgrade their buildings with accessibility features.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Shared Common Space to Facilitate Informal Interactions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development (a) how HDB plans for the provision of shared common spaces, such as pavilions and void decks, in new precincts; (b) whether common space provisions have declined over the years in terms of (i) venues per resident and (ii) area per resident; and (c) how will HDB ensure future adequate venue space for (i) informal interaction, (ii) community gatherings and (iii) bereavements or funeral wakes.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) actively plans for common spaces where the community can gather in the design of HDB towns and estates. The approach has evolved over the years, along with the design of HDB blocks. Compared with older slab blocks with long corridors, newer blocks are generally taller and more compact, with fewer units per floor. While this optimises land use and provides residents with greater privacy, the trade-off is a smaller void deck space under each block.
With this shift in block design, HDB has embedded a variety of purpose-built facilities and amenities in newer precincts to serve as common spaces and create opportunities for community interaction and bonding. For example, since the 1990s, precinct pavilions have been provided in new developments to provide space for community activities. HDB has also progressively introduced other amenities in newer precincts, such as 3G playgrounds, sky parks and gardens on rooftops of multi-storey carparks, to facilitate interactions by residents of all ages.
HDB continues to explore how to maximise community interactions with the smaller void deck spaces in new developments. For example, HDB introduced Community Living Rooms in 2014, which are areas located near lift lobbies and letter boxes, specially provided with seats and tables to facilitate informal small group interactions. Where large social community facilities, such as childcare centres, are required in precincts, HDB may integrate them in multi-storey carparks or construct them as standalone blocks. This will free up the limited void deck spaces for informal interaction.
Surveys of HDB residents have shown that community spaces provided in precincts are generally sufficient, and that residents are satisfied with such facilities. Nonetheless, HDB will continue to review the precinct provisions to ensure they are sufficient and support a variety of community events, in accordance with the changing demographics and needs of each HDB estate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Online Child Protection Module in Preschool Teachers Training Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the online child protection training module to train preschool teachers in handling child abuse cases can be made mandatory; (b) whether such a module can be made available earlier than late 2018; and (c) whether this training can be provided as part of the NITEC training course for preschool teachers.
Mr Desmond Lee: Preschool teachers are equipped with basic skills and knowledge to understand and detect child abuse and neglect during their pre-employment training at the polytechnics, the Institute of Technical Education or the various private training agencies accredited by the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA). In-service preschool teachers can also take up Continuing Professional Development courses related to the prevention and early intervention of child abuse.
In addition to this, the Child Protective Service (CPS) of the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has developed a Sector-Specific Screening Guide and a Child Abuse Reporting Guide to support professionals who work with children to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and determine the appropriate course of action. ECDA conducts training sessions for principals and educators in the early childhood sector to use these guides effectively.
To make such training resources even more accessible to professionals in the education, health and social service sectors, MSF CPS is working with the Social Service Institute to develop online training modules on child protection. The online child protection training modules are currently in their early stages of development. Further testing and enhancements are required before rollout, expected in late-2018. My Ministry will study whether the development of the training modules can be brought forward. We will also look at whether these modules can be incorporated as part of the compulsory training components for early childhood qualifications, over and above the existing training that is already being provided, to help trainee preschool educators understand and detect child abuse and neglect.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Affordability of Daycare Centres for Persons with Special Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how can the Ministry ensure that the day care centres for residents with special needs will continue to remain affordable for them.
Mr Desmond Lee: There are currently 26 Day Activity Centres (DACs) that offer day care services to adults with special needs. These are operated by voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs).
While fees are set by the DACs, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has put in place several measures to ensure that these programmes stay affordable for those who require them.
First, MSF revises the quanta of operating subsidies to the VWOs at the start of every financial year to keep pace with inflation. Second, subsidies are means-tested so that these services remain affordable to lower-income families. Third, guidelines on fee revisions are issued to the centres to prevent sharp fee hikes.
Apart from fees and Government subsidies, the operation of these centres is also supported by Government grants, such as the Community Silver Trust, which provides dollar-for-dollar matching on donations raised by VWOs.
We will continue to monitor the fees charged by VWOs for programmes that we fund to support persons with disabilities and their families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequacy of Common Areas to Use for Funeral Wakes in View of Ageing Population and Smaller Void Deck Space","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources given the ageing population and limited common void deck space available for funeral wakes in some newer HDB precincts (a) whether this has affected the Government's forecast for funeral parlour capacity requirements; and (b) how the Government will ensure adequate funeral parlour capacity in the years ahead.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Today, funeral wakes in Singapore are mostly held at Housing and Development Board (HDB) void decks and precinct pavilions. A smaller proportion of wakes are held in places of worship, private home compounds and purpose-built funeral parlours. Overall, there are sufficient wake spaces available to those who need them.
HDB has traditionally planned and designed new HDB precincts to ensure that they meet the needs of the community. The National Environment Agency also works closely with other Government agencies, such as the Ministry for National Development, the Urban Redevelopment Authority and HDB to ensure the provision of sufficient land for the development of funeral parlours.
My Ministry will continue to monitor the demand for funeral spaces and ensure that there are sufficient wake spaces even as Singapore's population grows and ages.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Relevance of Annual Great Singapore Sale Given Popularity of Online Shopping","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) in view of the prevalence of online shopping portals, whether the annual Great Singapore Sale spearheaded by the Singapore Tourism Board is still relevant.
Mr S Iswaran: The retail industry has been undergoing disruption and change worldwide, with evolving consumer preferences and the increasing prevalence of e-commerce. Singapore's retail landscape has also experienced similar shifts.
The Great Singapore Sale (GSS), which is a marketing campaign organised annually by the Singapore Retailers' Association (SRA) and supported by the Singapore Tourism Board (STB), needs to evolve in response to changes in the retail landscape, where shoppers have many more opportunities than before to obtain deep discounts on attractive merchandise.
To enhance the retail industry's vibrancy, we had worked with industry stakeholders to develop the Retail Industry Transformation Map, launched last September. One key strategy is the need to foster the growth of a vibrant mix of highly-productive retailers who can reach out to different consumer groups online and offline. With e-commerce becoming an important catalyst of the retail industry's growth, traditional brick-and-mortar retailers need to adopt online strategies to reach out to more tech-savvy consumers both locally and internationally.
Likewise, GSS also stands to benefit if it builds an online presence amidst the shifting retail landscape, complementing its usual offline marketing efforts. It is encouraging that SRA commissioned the GoSpree mobile application for GSS 2017, which connects consumers to exclusive shopping bargains not only from established retailers, but also emerging local brands. Many retailers promoted their in-store deals via the application, which has a geo-tagging function that allows e-coupons and deal alerts to be sent to shoppers near participating stores.
Over the years, GSS has made an impact on the retail calendar and built mindshare amongst local and international shoppers. STB will continue to work with SRA to update and refresh GSS. We are considering how to further leverage technology to strengthen consumer outreach. At the same time, GSS also has potential to be reinvented as a lifestyle event going beyond shopping, through collaboration with the dining and entertainment sectors. Some local attractions and hoteliers had listed promotions on the GoSpree application this year, and we hope to bring more onboard in the coming years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of EntrePass Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) since the implementation of the EntrePass scheme in 2003, how many applications have been approved; (b) what types of startups are they; (c) what are the outcomes of their startups so far; and (d) what is being done to attract more suitable startups.
Mr S Iswaran: The EntrePass was introduced in 2003 as a work pass for foreign entrepreneurs to start and operate a new business in Singapore and enhance the vibrancy of Singapore's overall entrepreneurial landscape. To date, more than 7,000 unique EntrePass applications have been approved for founders of startups in diverse sectors ranging from manufacturing, information and communications, financial services, wholesale trade, retail and food services.
Foreign startups add to the vibrancy of the local startup ecosystem as they complement local skillsets through the cross-fertilisation of ideas and networks and catalyse new partnerships to bolster Singapore's position as a leading startup hub. They also create good jobs for our people. As of August 2017, there are approximately 15,000 workers employed by startups founded by EntrePass holders.
As announced at the Ministry of Trade and Industry's Committee of Supply debate earlier this year, the scheme has been enhanced to strengthen Singapore's ability to attract a larger pool of global entrepreneurial talent at different stages of starting up. Under the enhanced scheme, the evaluation criteria for global startup founders have been broadened to give due consideration to their entrepreneurial and investment track records, business networks and achievements in their areas of expertise. The founders will also have up to a year to explore opportunities here before setting up their companies. In addition, with the extension of the validity period of each EntrePass from one to two years, after the first renewal, EntrePass holders will have more certainty in their efforts to scale up their businesses.
In addition to the EntrePass scheme, the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) Singapore has undertaken other initiatives to attract and anchor promising global startups. Earlier this year, SPRING Singapore launched Startup SG as a brand identity to position Singapore as a leading hub and launchpad for startups to scale and grow in the region and globally. Startup SG serves as an overall framework for easy access by entrepreneurs to the Government's assistance schemes for startups, spanning mentorship for first-time entrepreneurs, grant support to fast-track the commercialisation of technology solutions, Government co-investment to catalyse private equity, and resources for incubators and accelerators.
The Government will continue to work closely with the private sector in this effort. An example is the recently established Action Community for Entrepreneurship International Centre (ACEIC; pronounced \"ay-sic\"), which serves as a landing pad and resource centre for local startups expanding abroad, as well as foreign startups to base in Singapore with access to the appropriate networks to connect to the region.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inward-facing Dashboard Cameras for Protection of Passengers and Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry will consider regulating the use of dashboard cameras that face passengers in taxis and private hire cars so as to protect the privacy of passengers; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider protection for drivers against rogue passengers without compromising the privacy of passengers.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Approval must be sought from the Land Transport Authority (LTA) before inward-facing cameras can be installed in taxis and private hire cars. LTA will approve the installation if there are sufficient safeguards for passenger's privacy. For taxis, taxi companies have to undertake to ensure that the camera recordings can only be accessed by authorised personnel and will only be used for investigation purposes. Private hire car companies that wish to install inward-facing cameras must likewise seek approval from LTA and comply with similar requirements.
Taxi or private hire car drivers who encounter rogue passengers can approach their taxi or private hire car companies or the Police for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Summons for Errant Riders of Personal Mobility Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Transport whether motorcyclists, cyclists or riders of personal mobility devices who ride recklessly or dangerously in void decks of HDB blocks or on pedestrian footpaths can be issued with a summons by LTA once they are captured on camera or video by residents or Town Council personnel who thereafter submit these as proof of reckless or dangerous riding.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We welcome the submission of photographs and videos to enhance the Land Transport Authority's (LTA’s) enforcement efforts against reckless riding. When the Active Mobility Act comes into force at the end of this year, reckless riders will be liable for fines up to $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.
At the same time, LTA has embarked on a nationwide communications campaign and is working with volunteers and stakeholders, such as interest groups and retailers of personal mobility devices, to raise awareness of the new active mobility rules.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulating Transaction Fees and Platform Rental Fees Charged by Cashless E-payment Platform Providers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Prime Minister whether the Ministry will regulate transaction fees and platform rental fees charged by cashless e-payment platform providers by mandating caps on such fees so as to accelerate the widespread adoption of e-payment by small and medium enterprises and consumers.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked if the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) will regulate transaction fees and platform rental fees charged by e-payment platform providers, so as to accelerate the adoption of e-payments.
Transaction fees vary across different types of payments, whether it is cash, cheques, debit cards, credit cards, Network for Electronic Transfers (NETS), stored value cards, e-wallets or PayNow. The cost of using cash or cheques is actually relatively high, and this is, in fact, one of the motivations for promoting e-payment.
We are, in fact, taking a multi-pronged approach to promote e-payment. This includes:
(a) putting in place infrastructure, such as Fast And Secure Transfers (FAST), to ensure an open architecture;
(b) ensuring the interface is convenient and easy to use;
(c) stipulating standards when necessary, such as the impending common quick response (QR) code standard for Singapore (SGQR), so that a merchant just needs one QR code to receive all types of e-payment;
(d) promoting adoption of e-payment amongst merchants and consumers; and
(e) keeping cost of e-payment as low as possible, which is what Assoc Prof Daniel Goh has asked about.
To keep fees at a reasonable level, it is important to ensure there is enough competition. Hence, we have always insisted on an open architecture system so that e-payment will not be monopolised over time by one dominant player.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) worked with the banking industry to develop PayNow. Today, it enables convenient and safe peer-to-peer transactions, and we are now working to extend PayNow to businesses as a cheaper way to make e-payments. PayNow will use the SGQR for e-payment transactions, which means there is no need for any point-of-sale terminals or any rental fees involved for this equipment.
NETS has recently announced plans to roll out NETS Pay, which offers a wide range of solutions for merchants to receive payments from consumers at an affordable rate. NETS Pay will add to the range of low-cost e-payment solutions available in the market.
The Government has also been engaging various stakeholders to raise awareness of the available e-payment solutions and, hence, help drive further adoption. Businesses need to be aware of the advantages of various e-payment solutions and identify a solution that would best suit their needs.
As of now, our focus is to ensure these low-cost options are available and spur competition to keep cost affordable to small businesses. It will minimally be cheaper than having to handle cash. As to whether we should regulate the fees for e-payment, we are studying the experience of other jurisdictions and will study them carefully.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prevalence of Cryptocurrency in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister (a) how prevalent is the use of cryptocurrency in Singapore; and (b) what measures will MAS introduce to regulate Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs).
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): We are familiar with money, that is, notes and coins, as a medium of exchange, an intermediary instrument used to facilitate transactions. I make a television (TV), sell it for money, and then use it to buy a pair of shoes. Money becomes a medium of exchange because all of us put our trust in its reliability. The Central Bank issues these notes and coins and makes them legal tender. Legal tender means that the medium of exchange is recognised by law to be valid for meeting a financial obligation.
With advancement in technology, new virtual means of payment have emerged, such as cryptocurrency, which is a form of digital token secured by cryptography. They are not legal tender. But some people put their trust in them and use them as a means of payment. Hence, Bitcoin and Ether have been adopted by people in some communities to pay one another or to pay for goods and services.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has been monitoring the use of such virtual currencies. Their use is not prevalent in Singapore; about 20 Singapore retailers like restaurants and online shops currently accept Bitcoins. This is unlike places like Japan, where the use is more popular. Likewise, in the Singapore financial industry, use of virtual currencies as a mode of payment is not significant. Trading is generally for speculative investment purposes, and the volume is low compared to other countries, such as the United States (US), Japan and Hong Kong.
Similar to most jurisdictions, MAS does not regulate such virtual currencies per se. However, we regulate the activities that surround them if those activities fall within our more general ambit as financial regulator. Let me give two examples.
First, virtual currencies, due to the anonymous nature of the transactions, can be exploited for money laundering and terrorism financing risks. MAS is working on a new payment services regulatory framework that will address these risks.
A second example is fundraising. Virtual currencies can go beyond being a means of payment and evolve into \"second generation\" tokens representing benefits, such as ownership in assets, like a share or bond certificate. The sale of such \"second generation\" tokens to raise funds is commonly known as an initial coin offering, or ICO. A number of ICOs have been structured out of Singapore in recent months.
These are financial activities that fall under MAS’ regulatory ambit. Hence, on 1 August 2017, MAS clarified that if a token is structured in the form of securities, the ICO must comply with existing securities laws aimed at safeguarding investors’ interest. So, the requirements of having to register a prospectus, obtain intermediary or exchange operator licences, will apply. These intermediaries must also comply with existing rules on anti-money laundering and countering terrorism financing.
MAS has not issued new legislation specifically for ICOs. We will continue to monitor the developments of such offers and consider more targeted legislation if necessary.
Some consumers may be attracted to invest in virtual currencies and digital tokens due to their recent exponential rise in value. However, as a financial regulator, our focus is securitised interests in assets, such as shares in a company. MAS does not and cannot regulate all products that people put their money in, thinking that they will appreciate in value. But recognising that the risks of investing in virtual currencies are significant, MAS and the Commercial Affairs Department have published an advisory alerting consumers to these risks and are working together to raise public awareness of potential scams.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Correlation between Students' PSLE Performance and Secondary School Results","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Education (Schools) whether there is a correlation between students' PSLE performances and secondary school results.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: A student who has built a stronger academic foundation at a lower level will be better prepared to access and acquire new knowledge at a higher level. Hence, students' academic performance in secondary school is positively correlated with that in primary school, including their Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) performance.
However, the academic performance of students is simultaneously also affected by many other complex factors. These include student motivation, peer influence and the support from home, schools and the broader community. All together, these other factors contribute more to a student's secondary school academic performance than what he or she scored in PSLE four or five years before.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Quotas for Admission of Students from Different Performance Bans to Reduce Monopoly of Elite Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Education (Schools) whether the Ministry will consider introducing quotas for students in the top, middle and bottom performance bands for admission into Secondary 1 so as to create a more inclusive environment for students and reduce the monopoly of elite schools.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Most secondary schools already take in a full spectrum of Express, Normal (Academic) and Normal (Technical) students. This approach is appropriate and serves the students’ learning needs.
We do not believe that schools need to be identical in student profiles to be inclusive. A diverse school landscape allows for variety in school types and educational provisions, to match different student needs.
For instance, some Normal (Technical) students benefit from a more customised curriculum and pedagogy, as well as additional socio-emotional learning support through whole-school activities. This is why we set up the specialised schools Crest and Spectra, which also have facilities customised for their unique curriculum and pedagogy.
We also have Specialised Independent Schools, which cater to students with talents and strong interests in specific fields, such as the arts and sports. Integrated Programme schools provide six-year programmes to cater to academically strong students who can benefit from more flexibility in pursuing broader learning experiences.
What is common for all students, regardless which school they attend, is our strong emphasis on values and Character and Citizenship Education. All schools provide their students with ample opportunities to interact and make friends with peers from diverse backgrounds, for example, through co-curricular activities and Values In Action learning experiences. This remains core to our education mission, as we aim to nurture our students to be good citizens who respect others, and build an inclusive community and nation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging Health Checks to Create Greater Awareness for Risk of Diabetes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will collaborate and partner more organisations and corporations to provide for increased opportunities for health checks and tests that will raise more individuals' awareness of the risk of diabetes.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: We have been collaborating with community partners, employers and healthcare institutions to encourage Singaporeans to go for health screening. Our healthcare clusters also conduct community health screening programmes and encourage patients to go for screening when they visit polyclinics and general practitioners. These efforts have benefited more than 40,000 residents in 2016.
The Health Promotion Board works with businesses and unions to conduct onsite screening for employees. One example is the \"Check Car, Check Body\" programme which offers health screening to taxi drivers while they wait for their taxis to be serviced at the service centres. To date, we have reached out to over 200,000 workers, including taxi drivers and bus captains. We welcome the participation of other corporations in these programmes to benefit even more workers. Besides workplaces, we also tap on networks of the People's Association and grassroots organisations to educate Singaporeans about the importance of going for regular health screenings.
The Ministry of Health will continue our partnerships with these organisations to enhance the coverage of diabetes screening. This is a key component of the War on Diabetes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government's Policy Stance on Telemedicine and Teleconsultation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Teo Ser Luck asked the Minister for Health in view of recent developments in technology application in the healthcare sector, what is the Ministry's policy and regulation with regard to (i) tele-consultation between doctors and patients and (ii) telemedicine in areas of prescription, treatment and diagnosis.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Telehealth platforms enable patients to receive care in convenient locations of their choice. Patients can receive more timely advice and intervention to manage their conditions without having to schedule an appointment to visit a healthcare institution. This reduces the caregiver burden and empowers individuals to take an active role in their health.
In 2015, the Ministry of Health (MOH) issued a set of National Telemedicine Guidelines to guide healthcare providers in the safe and appropriate delivery of healthcare services through telemedicine. This is complemented by the Singapore Medical Council's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines and accompanying Handbook on Medical Ethics issued in 2016 that set out the standards of care required of doctors practising telemedicine.
Based on the guidelines, the standard of care expected of doctors providing telemedicine should be comparable to what patients would receive in a face-to-face consultation. Doctors providing care via virtual platforms have a responsibility to ensure that the remote diagnosis made is accurate and that patients receive appropriate medical advice and management for their conditions. If in doubt, doctors should offer to see the patients face-to-face to conduct a physical assessment or refer the patient to the nearest clinic or healthcare institution.
Today, telemedicine is typically offered as an extension of care for stable patients, taking place after a doctor has had an initial face-to-face consultation with the patient and is satisfied that the patient is suitable to be followed up via telemedicine. As telemedicine services continue to evolve, MOH will monitor the developments and review our policies and regulations so as to enable new care models that are beneficial for patients, while ensuring their safety and welfare at all times.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Delay in Upgrading North-South and East-West MRT Lines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Government was consulted regarding the delay in upgrading the North-South and East-West MRT lines that was initially slated for 2002 as announced by SMRT's then managing director in July 1997 but was only proceeded with in 2012; and (b) why did the Government allow the said delay.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Under its original licence to operate the North-South and East-West Lines, the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) owned the rail operating assets and was solely responsible for renewing and upgrading these assets, so long as it met the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) regulatory requirements for system performance and reliability. Its decision on the intended timing of the replacement of the signalling system was internal and was not in breach of the terms of its licence.
We have since transited SMRT's rail lines to the New Rail Financing Framework (NRFF). Under NRFF, LTA owns the operating assets, putting it firmly in the driver's seat for asset renewals and upgrades.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Communication Protocol for Delays on Train Lines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the usual communication protocol to the public when delays occur on train lines operated by SMRT or SBS Transit; and (b) whether there have been any instances where the operators have eschewed from making any public announcements of such delays in the last two years.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) requires the rail operators to inform passengers of any delay exceeding 10 minutes during peak hours and exceeding 15 minutes during off-peak hours, without exception. This is done through announcements in stations, on board trains, on the operator and LTA websites, as well as through mainstream and social media.
For delays that require longer recovery times, additional information will be provided to help commuters plan their journeys better. Over the last two years, there have been no cases where LTA has found the operator liable for failing to meet these requirements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safe Riding Programme for Students who Cycle to School","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) what is the current demand for bicycle parking in schools; (b) whether students are allowed to ride e-bikes to school; and (c) what is the take-up rate of the Safe Riding Programme in schools since its inception.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: The Ministry of Education (MOE) does not actively monitor the demand for bicycle parking in schools. From schools' observations, the demand is generally low. While schools do not prohibit students' use of e-bikes, students are generally advised not to bring expensive items to school. In addition, for all riders and pillion riders of e-bikes, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) stipulates a minimum age of 16 years.
LTA's Safe Riding Programme will be launched at the end of this year. MOE will work with LTA to offer the programme to students in secondary schools who are able to ride a bicycle.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Frequency of Infringement of Bus Lane and Bus Priority Box Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of infringements for the Bus Lane and Bus Priority Box Schemes in 2016 and 2017; (b) how do the enforcement officers determine an infringement for the Bus Priority Box Scheme; and (c) what efforts has LTA taken to improve public awareness of the schemes.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: It is an offence for motorists to drive or leave a vehicle on a Bus Lane during restricted hours or not to give way to buses or stay in a Bus Priority Box. Between January and August 2017, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) enforcement officers, through the help of cameras, detected around 13,000 Bus Lane infringements and 700 Bus Priority Box infringements. This is a 30% and 70% reduction respectively, compared to the same period in 2016.
Information on the schemes is regularly broadcasted on LTA Traffic News and presented on the LTA and One.Motoring websites. To further increase public awareness of the schemes, banners are also put up at affected locations to alert and remind motorists.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Widening of Footpaths in Silver Zones","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Transport (a) to date, how many Silver Zones have had their adjacent footpaths widened; (b) whether the widening of footpaths along Silver Zones is part of the Silver Zone initiative; and (c) if not, when will LTA implement the widening of footpaths for all Silver Zones.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Widening of footpaths is part of the Silver Zone programme, which aims to enhance road safety for the elderly. Of the 11 completed Silver Zones, seven already have widened footpaths or dedicated cycling paths to complement existing footpaths.
Going forward, new footpaths will be at least 1.8 metres wide, compared to today’s standard of 1.5 metres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accidents Involving E-bikes and Personal Mobility Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of accidents involving e-bikes and personal mobility devices this year; (b) what is the number of injuries or fatalities that have resulted from these accidents; and (c) what are LTA's plans to reduce or mitigate such accidents from occurring.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: For the first half of this year, there were about 90 accidents involving power-assisted bicycles (PABs) and personal mobility devices (PMDs), resulting in four deaths and about 90 injuries. The majority of these accidents took place on the roads.
With the passage of the Active Mobility Bill, rules on safe riding behaviour, including speed limits and device specifications, will come into force by the end of this year. There will be stiff penalties for offences, such as reckless riding. In the meantime, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) is stepping up its enforcement efforts and has issued over 1,400 advisories for unsafe riding. LTA has also commenced registration of PABs.
We will continue to complement enforcement efforts with public education and outreach programmes. The Safe Riding Programme will be launched to educate cyclists and PMD users on safe riding practices. More than 800 people have volunteered for the Active Mobility Patrol Scheme and are helping to educate fellow residents on safe riding practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Opening of Artic and Other Regional Trade and Connectivity Routes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport with the increasing viability of the Arctic shipping route and the potential opening of other regional trade and connectivity routes (a) how is Singapore repositioning itself to meet such challenges; and (b) how will PSA need to transform to thrive in the new trade landscape.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: At present, it is too early to determine the long-term impact of the opening of the Arctic shipping routes on the port of Singapore. Current commercial viability of these routes is low for a number of reasons. Sailing through the Arctic is still largely confined to the summer months, making it difficult to operate scheduled services, which is critical to container shipping. There are also limited opportunities for shippers to lift and drop off cargo as areas enroute through the Arctic are largely unpopulated. Further, ships sailing through the Arctic require specialised ice-breaking equipment and have to pay higher insurance premiums due to the extreme conditions. In 2016, only 19 sailings were made through the Northern Sea Route, which is the main Arctic sea route.
Regardless of the competition posed by the Arctic shipping routes and other regional trade and connectivity routes, our priority has been to ensure that the port of Singapore continues to improve its competitiveness. We have plans to increase port capacity, so that Singapore has the capacity to meet the long-term needs of container lines. To this end, development on the new Tuas Terminal has commenced and, when fully completed, this terminal will be able to handle up to 65-metre twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs).
The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore is also working closely with the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) to build a better port through investing heavily in technology. For instance, PSA has deployed a fully automated yard crane system at the new berths at the Pasir Panjang Terminal to enhance efficiency, reliability and workplace safety.
The Government will continue to monitor global developments and work with industry partners to ensure that Singapore retains its edge as a global hub port and international maritime centre.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accidents Involving Unauthorised and Illegally Modified Power-assisted Bicycles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) of the number of accidents involving power-assisted bicycles in the past two years, what percentage of these cases involve power-assisted bicycles which have not been authorised for use in Singapore or have been illegally modified; (b) whether any penalty has been imposed in all these cases, specifically for unauthorised use or illegal modification; and (c) if so, what have been the penalties imposed.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We currently do not track the number of accidents involving power-assisted bicycles (PABs) that are non-compliant for use in Singapore or have been illegally modified. However, moving forward, the Land Transport Authority will work towards tracking such cases as part of enforcement actions against errant PAB users.
Users of non-compliant or illegally modified PABs may be fined up to $5,000, or jailed up to three months, or both, for the first offence. For subsequent offences, the offender may be fined up to $10,000, or jailed up to six months, or both.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Vessels Using/Transiting Strait of Singapore and Other Waters under Jurisdiction of Singapore Vessel Traffic Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport in each of the past 10 years (a) what has been the number of vessels using and/or transiting through the Strait of Singapore and other waters under the jurisdiction of the Singapore Vessel Traffic Service; and (b) what has been the number of reported collisions, sinkings, groundings and contacts with fixed objects involving one or more vessels in the Strait of Singapore and other waters under the jurisdiction of the Singapore Vessel Traffic Service.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Singapore Strait is a busy waterway with 84,000 vessels transiting through it in 2016. The Singapore port is also a major transhipment hub and receives an average of 380 vessels a day, or close to 139,000 vessels a year.
Despite the heavy traffic, the number of major incidents has dropped over the years, from 13 in 2011, to one each in 2015 and 2016. Please see Table 1 below.
Table 1: Vessel Traffic and Major Incidents in Singapore Waters
5 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Transport (a) what factors does LTA consider when the pre-defined time period for pedestrians to cross at signalled pedestrian crossings is increased; and (b) whether LTA will consider increasing such pre-defined time period by up to five or 10 seconds in mature neighbourhoods or at roads that cannot be enhanced as Silver Zones due to the high volume of traffic, due to an increasing elderly population.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The main factor is the width of the road. All signalised pedestrian crossings are programmed with a steady green man time of six to 10 seconds, and a flashing green man time of one second per metre in road width.
Pedestrian crossings that are used by high numbers of seniors or persons with disabilities have the Green Man Plus scheme. When these pedestrians tap their concession cards on the reader, they will have more time to cross. Depending on the width of the road, the green man time can be extended by up to 13 seconds. There are currently 760 Green Man Plus crossings, and we will increase this number to 1,000 by end-2018.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Strengthen Singaporean Core","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether he can provide an update on the Ministry's efforts in strengthening the Singaporean Core and, in particular (i) the total number of companies on the watchlist and (ii) the number of 'triple weak' companies where executive measures have been taken against them; and (b) whether the Ministry will take harsher measures against recalcitrant companies, such as a moratorium on obtaining Government contracts or penal sanctions.
Mr Lim Swee Say: To encourage employers to strengthen the complementarity of foreign manpower with our local workforce instead of substituting foreigners for local workers, we take into consideration whether the employers have treated our local workers fairly when we process their applications for Employment Passes (EP). While the vast majority of employers are fair, there is evidence that a small minority are not. For these employers, we subject their EP applications to further scrutiny under the Fair Consideration Framework Watchlist.
We currently have about 300 firms on the Watchlist. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices has been working with them to improve their human resource (HR) practices. More than 60 firms have already made significant improvements and exited the Watchlist, while 25 firms that remain uncooperative have had their work pass privileges curtailed. In all, about 1,700 EP applications were either withdrawn by the firms or rejected or withheld by the Ministry of Manpower. Over the same period, these firms considered Singaporeans more fairly and hired about 1,700 more Singaporean professionals, managers, executives and technicians. We will continue to help them improve their HR practices.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are progressive employers who believe in strengthening their Singaporean Core and nurturing human capital as their core asset. We have recognised over 70 of them under the Human Capital Partnership Programme. We support them proactively with relevant grants and incentives under various Government schemes to develop their employees and strengthen their Singaporean Core. Their work pass applications are also processed more timely. We will continue to grow the community of progressive employers with our tripartite partners and sector agencies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Auto Inclusion, Application and Funding for Adapt and Grow Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider auto-inclusion, auto-application and auto-funding for the Adapt and Grow schemes, such as the career support programmes, instead of making employers and companies apply for the schemes.
Mr Lim Swee Say: A vast majority of jobseekers and employers are able to find suitable matches on their own through recruitment agencies, job advertisements, job portals or their own networks. Adapt and Grow schemes, such as the Professional Conversion Programme and the Career Support Programme, are intended to provide targeted help for jobseekers who need additional assistance to overcome skills requirements or wage expectation mismatches. These schemes provide substantial training and temporary wage support to help jobseekers (especially mature and/or long-term unemployed) and their prospective employers to bridge gaps in skills or wage expectations, so that they can better secure job matches.
Auto-inclusion, auto-application or auto-funding approaches would not only require significantly more public funding but also weaken our efforts in targeting support at those who truly need the extra assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Annual Foreign Worker Levies Collected","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the annual breakdown of foreign worker levies which have been collected each year since 2012; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider channelling some of these levies into a fund to provide subsidies for (i) households who need foreign domestic workers (FDWs) but are unable to afford the costs or (ii) financial assistance to FDWs who require help in exceptional circumstances.
Mr Lim Swee Say: The annual breakdown of foreign domestic worker (FDW) levies collected since 2012 is as follows:
Similar to other sources of Government revenue, the levies collected go into the Consolidated Fund. This is then used to fund all areas of Government expenditures, including financial assistance schemes to support households in need.
One such assistance scheme is the FDW Grant administered by the Agency of Integrated Care. Eligible households with family members who require permanent assistance with three or more Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) can apply for an FDW Grant of $120 per month. This grant is means-tested and can be used to offset the cost of hiring an FDW. Since 2012, over 17,000 have benefited from the FDW Grant.
Additionally, Singaporean households with children, elderly persons or persons who require help with at least one ADL are offered a concessionary FDW levy rate of $60, much lower than the full FDW levy rate of $265.
FDWs who are in need of financial assistance can already turn to non-government organisations (NGOs) like the Centre for Domestic Employees. These NGOs play an important role and have raised funds to provide humanitarian aid to FDWs. Instead of the Government providing direct financial assistance to FDWs, we should continue to support the work of these NGOs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Workers Re-employed over Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the proportion of workers re-employed over the last five years, and (b) what is the proportion of re-employed workers who are re-employed without wage adjustments.
Mr Lim Swee Say: Based on the Ministry of Manpower's Labour Market Supplementary Survey, from 2012 to 2016, over 98% of private sector local employees who wished to continue working were offered re-employment at age 62. This included over 95% who accepted re-employment in the same job, be it on a new or existing contract.
Of those who accepted re-employment in the same job at age 62, around 96% did not receive any cut in basic wages in 2012. This proportion rose to 98% in 2016.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Policy on Use of Smartphones in Army Camps","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Defence since the relaxation of the policy on the use of smartphones in army camps in March 2016, how many SAF personnel have taken up the offer and disabled or sandblasted the camera lens on their smartphones so that they can use the phones in the camps' red zones.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The security zoning system was introduced in September 2012 to allow Servicemen to carry camera-equipped mobile phones into the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) camps to facilitate the use of information technology, whilst protecting the security of sensitive information in SAF premises. Under the security zoning system, camp complexes are divided into Red and Green Zones. Our Servicemen are allowed to bring in camera-enabled mobile phones into Green Zones while no camera-enabled devices are allowed into Red Zones. Unauthorised photography and videography remain prohibited in both zones. Our Servicemen are briefed on the importance of maintaining information security and are aware of the need for individual responsibility to abide by the requirements.
SAF has progressively refined security zoning in SAF camps and premises, balancing the need for security with greater flexibility for Servicemen. The security zoning has worked well and has not compromised security. Since 2012, we have consolidated spaces involving sensitive and classified information into Red Zones, while allowing Servicemen who work in the less-sensitive Green Zones greater flexibility to use their camera-enabled mobile phones. On 1 March 2016, further revisions were made to enable Servicemen to bring tablets and laptops into Green Zones. For Red Zones, camera-enabled mobile phones whose camera functions have been disabled in compliance with the SAF's standards are allowed.
For SAF personnel working in camps that have both Green and Red Zones, less than 10% of the population disable or sandblast the camera lens of their mobile phones because (a) the majority of the Servicemen operate within Green Zones; (b) Servicemen with camera smartphones may choose to deposit their phones in locker facilities before entering Red Zones; and (c) some Servicemen prefer to use non-camera smartphones. For the remaining Red-zoned camps, about three-quarters of the Servicemen disable their camera on the smartphone and the remaining one-quarter prefer to use a non-camera smartphone. These smartphones are subjected to security checks and verifications.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subsides for NSmen to Buy Personal Tablets and Laptops for E-learning Use","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Defence whether the Ministry will consider giving subsidies for NSmen to buy personal tablets and laptops for e-learning use, given the relaxation on the usage of electronic devices in army camps.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: As part of the 3rd Generation Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) learning transformation, the SAF uses digital learning tools via its LEARNet platform, which allows National Servicemen to access online training content for self-directed learning. National Servicemen who need to access LEARNet for e-learning will be provided with the necessary electronic devices. For instance, recruits in the Basic Military Training Centre (BMTC) are issued tablets to access e-learning modules on weapon handling and individual field craft during their Basic Military Training.
As these devices are provided, there is no need to use their own personal electronic devices to access the online training materials, and hence no subsidy is provided. NSmen from low-income households who require financial assistance to purchase electronic devices can benefit from the Infocomm Media Development Authority's Home Access Programme. Under the scheme, eligible families are provided with home Internet access and basic computing equipment, such as a tablet, at subsidised rates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"E-registration with Ministry of Foreign Affairs for Singaporeans Travelling Abroad in View of Threats to Global Safety","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in view of the increasing threats to global safety, what are the Ministry's plans to get more Singaporeans to e-register with the Ministry when they travel.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) encourages Singaporeans to eRegister their overseas travels through the MFA website or MFA@SG mobile application in our public outreach and messaging. To get more Singaporeans to do so, we will continue to make it easier and more convenient for them. For example, we have reduced the number of fields required to make the process more user-friendly.
The MFA App is now linked to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) SGSecure application. We have also collaborated with SATS Ltd to allow Singaporeans to eRegister via SATS' new travel application, and we are open to work with other partners to improve our consular services. We will continue to leverage technology to offer more convenient online platforms. One of our current priorities is to finalise the MFA Chatbot – in collaboration with Govtech – which can interact with users through conversational channels on social media platforms, such as Facebook Messenger, and allow users to eRegister. While we continue to explore different platforms for eRegistration, we are mindful that it is essentially a voluntary exercise. As our resources are often stretched and focused on providing assistance to those in genuine need during crises and emergencies, we also urge Singaporeans to do their part by taking precautions and practising personal responsibility by staying vigilant, observing local laws, purchasing travel insurance, and staying in touch with family and friends when overseas.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Motorists and Taxi Drivers Committing Same Traffic Offence in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many motorists have committed the same traffic offence (i) once, (ii) twice and (iii) more than thrice in each of the past three years; (b) what is the percentage of such offenders against the total number of licensed motorists; (c) how many of such offences have been successfully appealed against; and (d) what is the percentage of successful appeals out of the total number of offences in each category.
14 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many taxi drivers have committed the same traffic offence (i) once, (ii) twice and (iii) more than thrice per year in each of the past three years; (b) what is the percentage of such offenders against the total number of licensed taxi drivers; (c) how many offences have been successfully appealed against; and (d) what is the percentage of successful appeals out of the total number of offences by taxi drivers in each category.
Mr K Shanmugam: The majority of motorists who committed traffic violations were not repeat offenders.
For the most common traffic violation of speeding, in the past three years, 4.7% of all licensed motorists were first-time offenders, 0.6% had offended twice, while 0.1% had offended more than twice.
The numbers are lower for other violations. In the past three years, for running a red light, 1.6% of all licensed motorists were first-time offenders, while 0.02% were repeat offenders.
The proportion of taxi drivers who were traffic offenders was higher.
For speeding, in the past three years, 8.9% of all taxi drivers were first-time offenders, 2.2% had offended twice, while 0.8% had offended more than twice.
For running a red light, 2.7% of all taxi drivers were first-time offenders, while 0.1% were repeat offenders.
The Traffic Police (TP) has continually engaged motorists, taxi drivers, the taxi companies and National Taxi Association (NTA) on safe driving practices. For example, TP has collaborated with taxi companies to remind taxi drivers of accident-prone and enforcement areas through the Mobile Data Terminals in taxis. To reduce speeding and beating of red lights, TP has erected more prominent warning signs of the use of enforcement cameras.
In respect of appeals, it has to be noted that traffic violations impact on the safety of other motorists and pedestrians. Very few appeals are acceded to, and only where there are very strong extenuating factors, such as a medical emergency.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Response Time by Emergency Services to Road Accidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) since 2015, what has been the average response time by the emergency services to road accidents involving injuries and fatalities; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider new systems, such as eCall, which is an emergency call feature installed in all cars sold within the EU, to reduce the response time by automatically calling the nearest emergency centre.
Mr K Shanmugam: Over the past three years, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) responded to road traffic accidents that required rescue operations (such as the extrication of trapped victims), within eight minutes, 90.1% of the time. SCDF responded to other road traffic accidents that required ambulances to attend to injuries but did not require rescue operations, within 11 minutes, 84.6% of the time. These were within SCDF's target response times for rescue and ambulance calls respectively.
An eCall system involves the installation of an in-vehicle device, which will automatically contact and send its location to a helpline in the event of an accident. The eCall system can help to improve response time, but it also faces implementation challenges, such as high false alarm rates. SCDF will continue to monitor the development of the eCall system as well as other technologies and study their applicability to Singapore.
SCDF must always be ready to respond to emergencies promptly. False alarms, non-emergency and nuisance calls bog down SCDF's \"995\" call centre, impose additional load on SCDF's resources, and deprive persons in distress of timely intervention from SCDF. We urge members of the public to exercise civic responsibility and call \"995\" only when necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Juvenile Delinquents by Gender since 2013","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Home Affairs in respect of annual statistics for juvenile delinquents since 2013 and by gender (a) what are the five main categories of crimes committed; (b) what are the distributions by age groups (below 13, 13-14, 15-16, above 16); and (c) what are the distributions by racial groups.
Mr K Shanmugam: The youth crime situation in Singapore is under control. The number of youth offenders arrested has gone down in the past decade by about 35%, from 4,280 in 2006 to 2,788 in 2016.
Shop theft, bicycle theft, other forms of theft, rioting and sexual penetration of minor under 16 years old were the most common offences.
The age and gender distribution of youth offenders from 2013 to June 2017 is in the table below.
There is an over-representation of minority races among youth offenders. The Police work with self-help and community groups, including the Council on Education for Muslim Children (Yayasan MENDAKI) and Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA), to address these concerns.
Indeed, youth crime is a multifaceted problem that requires a multi-agency approach for effective and lasting results. Educational institutions, other law enforcement agencies, the social services sector and parents all have a role to play. The Police will continue to work with relevant stakeholders and partners to keep our youths away from crime.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sugar Content in Formula Milk","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry currently monitors or regulates the amount of sugar in infant and children's formula milk so as to prevent an excessive preference for sweetness in later years.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Based on a recent survey by the Health Promotion Board (HPB), none of the infant formula milk for children from 0 to 12 months contained any added sugar. As for formula milk for children one year and above, two products contained added sugar of around two grammes per 100 millilitre (ml) of milk. Another product, a high-calorie formula for supplemental nutrition, contained seven grammes of added sugar per 100 ml of milk.
HPB recommends that children aged one year and above can take full cream milk, if they are eating and growing well. HPB further recommends that parents planning to give their children high-calorie formula milk as a nutritional supplement should consult their child’s paediatrician or nutritionist.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Withdrawal of Subsidies for Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health under what circumstances will subsidies for the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund be withdrawn if there are no changes in one's household income.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Under the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF), Singaporeans aged 60 and above can apply for means-tested subsidies to offset the cost of assistive devices, home healthcare items and transport services to Ministry of Health (MOH)-funded eldercare and dialysis centres. They would need to meet the scheme’s household monthly income criteria and assessed by qualified healthcare staff to require the equipment or services to live independently in the community.
As long as they continue to receive care services and the eligibility conditions continue to be met, the SMF subsidies will not be withdrawn. Seniors with queries or appeals on SMF can contact the Agency for Integrated Care.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Study on Archaeology in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the progress of the study on archaeology in Singapore that has been undertaken to address gaps in law and regulations in this field; and (b) when can the findings and recommendations of the study be published.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The review carried out by the National Heritage Board (NHB) of its legal powers on archaeology is ongoing.
NHB met members of the archaeology community in 2016 to gather feedback on proposed legislative amendments to the NHB Act and NHB's archaeology related strategies and initiatives. Based on feedback gathered from these engagement sessions, we agreed that there is a need to do the following: (a) clarify the ownership of archaeological artefacts recovered; (b) put in place regulations or guidelines governing how Singapore conducts archaeological excavations; (c) report all archaeological finds to NHB; (d) ensure that archaeological excavations or investigations are conducted at an early stage or in tandem with development works where necessary; and (e) protect maritime archaeological sites and artefacts.
NHB is exploring legislative changes to the NHB Act to address the above issues and will be organising another session with the stakeholders in October 2017 to seek their views for the various legislative changes, strategies and initiatives that are being proposed to protect Singapore’s archaeological heritage.
NHB will also seek feedback on its approach and strategies for archaeology during the public consultation phase for the broader Heritage Plan for Singapore in early 2018. Following this, the final strategies and initiatives regarding archaeology will be announced next year, at the launch of the Heritage Plan for Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of HDB's Goodwill Repair Assistance Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the Goodwill Repair Assistance Scheme to (i) have HDB bear the full cost of repairs for ceiling leaks/structural defects resulting from normal wear and tear or (ii) have only the unit owner who had carried out internal renovation works that may have led to the ceiling leaks, to co-share the cost of the goodwill repairs with HDB.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Flat owners are responsible for the maintenance of the interior of their flats. The repair of leaks in the party structure (that is, the floor slab between flats) is a joint responsibility between the upper- and lower-floor flat owners. Hence, when there is a leak, both upper- and lower-floor flat owners will need to liaise with each other to investigate and carry out repairs.
Notwithstanding, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) does offer assistance to affected flat owners through the Goodwill Repair Assistance (GRA) scheme where HDB pays 50% of the ceiling leak repair cost, while the remaining 50% is shared equally between the upper- and lower-floor flat owners. There is no plan for HDB to bear the full cost of repairs under the GRA scheme, as this would remove the responsibility of flat owners for the maintenance and upkeep of their flat.
GRA provides assistance to flat owners to repair ceiling leaks and spalling concrete due to natural wear and tear. For cases where investigations ascertain that leaks are due to renovations carried out at the upper floor flat, the upper floor flat owner will be fully responsible for rectifying the leak and will have to bear the full cost of repair.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Environmental Impact Assessment/Studies for Land Acquisition for Expansion of Tengah Air Base","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether any environmental impact assessment or studies have been done in relation to the land acquisition for the expansion of Tengah Air Base.
Mr Lawrence Wong: An environmental study will be carried out before the land preparation works for the expansion of Tengah Air Base (TAB) commence. The study will guide the implementation of mitigation measures to minimise the potential impact of the TAB expansion on flora and fauna in that area.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Flat Owners Illegally Acquiring Another Property within Minimum Occupancy Period and Selling Their HDB Flat Thereafter","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will update its powers under the Housing and Development Act to enable it to take enforcement action against flat owners who, within the minimum occupancy period, acquire an interest in another property in contravention of HDB regulations and thereafter sell their HDB flat to prevent the flat from being acquired under section 56(1) of the Act.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats are public housing and are meant for owner occupation. The purchase of another property by an HDB flat owner within the minimum occupation period is an infringement under the Housing and Development (H&D) Act. The penalty for such infringements is the compulsory acquisition of the HDB flat under section 56 1(b) of the H&D Act, or the imposition of a financial penalty on the flat owners under the Housing and Development (Financial Penalties) Rules 2015.
HDB monitors and takes enforcement actions against flat owners who acquire an interest in another property in contravention of HDB regulations. In addition, there are safeguards in place to prevent such flat owners from selling their HDB flat, to prevent the flat from being acquired under section 56 (1) of the Act. The flat owner will only be allowed to sell the HDB flat after investigations on any suspected infringements are completed and the appropriate action taken. At this juncture, HDB has sufficient legislative powers to take action against such flat owners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Escalator Accidents in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many escalator accidents have happened in the past three years that have not been due to user behaviour; and (b) whether there has been an improvement in escalator safety since the introduction of a stricter maintenance regime in November 2016.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Since the mandatory reporting of escalator incidents started on 1 November 2016, there have been 13 incidents due to technical faults (that is, not due to user behaviour).
As the tightened maintenance regime was only put in place in November 2016, we are still monitoring its effects. Improving escalator safety goes beyond having a robust maintenance regime. Everyone – the authorities, owners, escalator contractors, and the public – has a role to play. The Building and Construction Authority has been working with building owners and transport operators to raise public awareness on the safe use of escalators.
The public also has to exercise due care when using escalators. This includes safe practices like holding onto handrails and not leaning on the sides of the escalators. Users with prams or bulky items, as well as the elderly and the infirm, should also try to take lifts where possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Noise Level Breaches at Construction Sites","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) in the last five years, how many construction companies have breached the rules on (i) noise levels at construction sites, (ii) dengue breeding at work sites and (iii) causing disamenities by working on Sundays and public holidays; and (b) what proportion of these companies are recurrent offenders.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Environment Agency (NEA) stipulates maximum permissible noise limits for construction sites. In September 2011, NEA introduced the \"no-work rule\" whereby work activities are not permitted at construction sites located within 150 metres of residential premises and noise-sensitive premises, such as hospitals and schools, on Sundays and Public Holidays. In January 2017, the \"no-work rule\" was adjusted to permit a list of quieter works, such as painting and wall plastering, in such sites on Sundays and Public Holidays.
Between January 2013 and June 2017, NEA penalised 411 construction companies for exceeding the noise limits at construction sites and 723 companies for breaching the \"no-work rule\". Of these, about half were repeat offenders. The maximum penalty for violating the construction noise limits or the \"no-work rule\" is a Court prosecution with a fine not exceeding $40,000.
Besides enforcement, NEA has set up a fund to encourage and incentivise the construction industry to control and reduce noise at source. The Quieter Construction Fund provides subsidies to contractors who invest in quieter construction technologies, noise control equipment and other innovative solutions.
Construction sites with poor housekeeping are potential grounds for mosquito breeding. Over the last five years, NEA carried out over 45,500 inspections of construction sites and issued more than 4,500 summonses to contractors for mosquito breeding. Over 420 Court prosecutions have also been taken against errant contractors for repeat offences and more than 380 Stop Work Orders have been issued. The majority of these enforcement actions were taken after 2013 as a result of a tightened enforcement regime.
Notwithstanding the attention given to construction sites, many mosquito breeding sites are, in fact, found in homes. It is, therefore, important for everyone, including businesses and home owners, to remain vigilant and play his part to prevent mosquito breeding.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Location of Hawker Centre to be Built in Bukit Batok Town","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what will be the location of the hawker centre to be built in Bukit Batok Town; and (b) what is the expected date of completion of the hawker centre.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Bukit Batok is one of the towns identified to have a new hawker centre by 2027. My Ministry is at the early stages of planning for this centre and we will provide more details on the location and timeline when the plans are ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Enforcement of Two-hour Rule on Disposal of Leftover Cat Food in Public Spaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources for the past three years, how effective has enforcement been in ensuring cat feeders abide by the two-hour rule of disposing any leftover cat food in public spaces.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Environment Agency (NEA) oversees the cleanliness of public spaces in Singapore. Food left behind from the feeding of stray animals may attract pests, such as cockroaches and rats, and endanger public health. Containers with stagnant water also enable mosquitoes to breed.
Members of the public who feed stray animals without clearing the leftover food or food containers may be fined up to $2,000 for the first offence under the Environmental Public Health Act.
Over the past three years, the NEA has received about 1,600 cases of feedback on the feeding of stray cats. In most cases, the cat feeders were compliant in clearing any leftover food within two hours. NEA had to proceed with enforcement action in only two cases where the cat feeders refused to comply with NEA's instructions to clean up after the feed.
NEA and the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) also request Town Councils to dispose of the leftover food and litter to safeguard public hygiene and to put up advisories to remind their residents to clean up after feeding. In addition, both NEA and AVA will continue to work with animal welfare groups, such as the Cat Welfare Society (CWS), to ensure proper stray animal feeding practices. AVA is also working with CWS to produce a community engagement handbook which includes information on responsible feeding practices. The handbook will be distributed to community cat carers and volunteers.
Everyone has a part to play in keeping our public spaces clean. We would like to urge all animal feeders to act responsibly and clear any leftover food or containers after feeding stray animals in our public spaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcome of Pilot Installation of Food Waste Digesters in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the outcome of the pilot installation of food waste digesters in schools; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider installing such food waste digesters in more schools and other places, such as hawker centres and coffee shops, to promote recycling.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In April this year, the National Environment Agency (NEA) launched the \"Love Your Food @ Schools\" Project to encourage schools to establish a culture of not wasting food. To complement this food waste reduction effort, NEA partnered 10 schools to pilot the use of food waste digesters, and to involve them in a range of activities, such as food waste segregation, educational talks on food waste, and learning journeys for neighbouring schools and community partners.
We have seen positive results in participating schools. For example, food waste has been reduced from 18 kilogrammes (kg) to less than 10 kg per day in Greendale Primary School, and from 24 kg to 18 kg per day in Admiralty Primary School. The pilot is expected to last two years. At the end of the pilot, we will evaluate the closed-loop food waste management programme and consider future plans for other schools.
My Ministry sees potential for greater use of food waste digesters. They could be deployed in hawker centres and coffee shops as the Member has suggested, or other premises, such as shopping malls. However, we recognise that there are economic and practical constraints, such as the cost of the digesters and availability of space. Currently, we are conducting a pilot at Block 628 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 4 Market to digest food waste generated by stallholders and patrons onsite. Under the contract for Public Waste Collection in the Pasir Ris-Bedok sector, onsite food waste treatment will be made available at two hawker centres – Block 58 New Upper Changi Road hawker centre and Block 16 Bedok South Road hawker centre. We will deploy food waste digesters at other hawker centres where suitable.
We hope to see more businesses implement food waste reduction initiatives and adopt onsite food waste treatment solutions. Businesses interested in installing onsite food waste digesters may also apply to the NEA's Reduce, Reuse and Recycle (3R) Fund for support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Racial and Household Income Distributions of Students in Primary and Secondary Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) what percentage of the racial and household income distributions of students in the primary and secondary schools differs from the national racial and income distributions; (b) whether such differences have an impact on the schools' results; and (c) what measures are in place to assist schools where there is a negative impact from the difference in racial and income distributions.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: While all our primary and secondary schools deliver the national curriculum, they may vary in terms of the distinctive programmes they offer, their culture and other characteristics. Together, these factors influence parent and student choice and contribute to variations in the ethnic and socio-economic profile of students in each school.
Today, about one in 10 schools differ noticeably from the national norm in terms of racial distribution, excluding the Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools, which would naturally have a much higher proportion of Chinese than the national norm. The numbers have remained stable over the last few years. The Ministry of Education (MOE) currently does not collect information on students’ household income across the system.
Worldwide, socio-economic status, or SES, is known to correlate positively with students’ academic performance. As for ethnicity, while we see differences in the performance of students from the different ethnic groups, the performance of Malay students at the national examinations has improved over time, closing the gap with the students from other ethnic groups.
However, SES and ethnicity are not the key determinants of student performance. Many other factors contribute to student achievement, including student motivation, as well as support at home and from the broader community, and the quality of school experience.
What is more important is that MOE is committed to providing a quality education for our students, regardless of their background. All school leaders and teachers undergo quality and continuous professional development, and good practices are disseminated across schools, and high-quality curriculum resources are centrally provided. MOE also resources schools based on their needs and student profiles. For example, depending on the profile of the school, more manpower may be provided for counselling and student support and levelling-up programmes, such as the Learning Support Programmes and the School-based Dyslexia Remediation Programme. Financial assistance has also been enhanced to ensure that needy students can continue to access education. MOE also partners the community, including Self-Help Groups (SHGs), to reach out to families or students who need additional assistance beyond MOE.
Through these efforts, our schools have shown results in enabling their students, regardless of their background, to excel and perform beyond expectation. According to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a series of international studies conducted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Singapore consistently has one of the highest percentages of resilient students (that is, students from disadvantaged background but achieve good performance in school) among the participating countries. MOE will continue to ensure that an education in our schools remain accessible to all Singaporeans and that no one will be left behind.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Passing Rate for National Physical Fitness Award/Assessment Scheme in 2007 and 2016","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) what is the passing rate for the National Physical Fitness Award/Assessment (NAPFA) Scheme in 2007 and 2016; (b) whether students are adequately prepared in schools for the annual assessment; and (c) for students who are unable to manage the 2.4-kilometre walk-run, how do schools assist them in coping within their ability.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Since the review of the National Physical Fitness Award (NAPFA) scheme in 2014, the NAPFA test has been reframed as an educational tool to teach students the various components of fitness, and how these contribute to active and healthy living. The frequency of the NAPFA test for students has correspondingly been revised from an annual test to alternate year testing from Primary 4 onwards.
Fitness training is, therefore, integrated into all physical activities within the Physical Education (PE) curriculum. Specific knowledge and skills on training for fitness are imparted as part of the Physical Health and Fitness component.
Aligned with this, schools teach students how they could train for fitness, including for the 2.4-kilometre Run-Walk by building from low intensity training and progressing gradually towards the actual NAPFA test. Students are also taught to set personal targets appropriate to their individual ability, with the focus on self-improvement rather than passing the NAPFA test.
The reduced emphasis on the NAPFA test and test frequency allows students to use the freed-up time for more diverse physical activities. It also encourages them to enjoy physical activities and sports during PE lessons and develop lifelong habits for sustaining health and fitness. As the NAPFA test is meant as an educational tool, and not as a national fitness index for students, there is no basis for comparing NAPFA test passing rates nationally over time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Highest Level of Mainstream Education Attained by High-functioning Intellectually-disabled Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) to date, what is the highest level of mainstream education attained by high-functioning intellectually disabled children; and (b) what is the support given to assist high-functioning intellectually disabled children to remain in mainstream schools.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: \"High-functioning intellectually disabled\" children would be referring to those with mild intellectual disability. Students with intellectual disability usually show significant limitations in cognitive and daily living skills, as expressed in conceptual, social and practical adaptive functions. They may also have emotional and motivational problems arising from persistent difficulties in learning.
Typically, the needs of students with intellectual disability are best served in the Special Education (SPED) schools as they have customised programmes where these students are taught by specially trained teachers who can cater to their specific learning needs and supported by allied professionals, such as allied health, paramedical, social and psychological support and post-school transition support.
These schools also offer a customised curriculum with a vocational education programme to equip students with independent living and workplace readiness skills. Some of these students eventually attain vocational certification and/or progress to the Institute of Technical Education (ITE).
There are two SPED schools offering vocational certification programmes for students with mild intellectual disability – APSN Delta Senior School and Metta School which offer the Workforce Skills Qualifications and the ITE Skills Certificate, respectively. Generally, the students are able to be gainfully employed upon obtaining their vocational certification.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Infographic on Usage of National Manpower, Training and Upgrading Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) whether the Ministry will consider issuing an infographic annually to update individuals and companies of their usage of national manpower, training and upgrading schemes and subsidies, such as those under Adapt and Grow and SkillsFuture.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Agencies, such as SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) and Workforce Singapore (WSG), actively promote their schemes and programmes to encourage take-up. They do so with the help of industry associations and unions. We also encourage employers to invest in the workforce, and to build companies' capabilities to invest in human capital development. This is done through programmes, such as the SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative, and the SkillsFuture Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) Mentors programme.
Later this year, we will launch the MySkillsFuture portal to empower Singaporeans to chart their own career and learning pathways. Individuals will be able to use MySkillsFuture to regularly check on their usage of their SkillsFuture Credit. We will also be launching the SkillsFuture Advice for Individuals programme to provide advice at the community level on how Singaporeans can benefit from the different SkillsFuture and Adapt and Grow programmes.
Given the various outreach efforts, and that the schemes are constantly evolving, we do not plan to issue individualised updates on annual utilisation of such programmes. However, we certainly hope that individuals and companies take an active interest in upgrading themselves and leverage the various programmes and schemes available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Juvenile Offenders Admitted into Juvenile Homes since 2013","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many juvenile offenders have been admitted into juvenile homes each year since 2013, by gender; and (b) what is the average length of stay in the homes, by gender.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the Children and Young Persons Act, juveniles who commit offences may be ordered by the Youth Court to be sent to a Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre (JRC) or a Place of Detention. Those sent to a Place of Detention are typically also placed on probation.
The Singapore Boys' Home (SBH) and Singapore Girls' Home (SGH) function as both types of facilities. The number of juveniles admitted to SBH and SGH each year is in Table 1 below.
Of the juvenile offenders who were discharged from the JRC between 2013 and 2016, the average duration of stay was 20 months in SBH and 24 months in SGH. In that same period, the average duration of stay for those discharged from a Place of Detention was three weeks each in SBH and SGH.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension or Permanent Waiver of Application Fee for Lasting Power of Attorney Form 1","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry intends to further extend or permanently waive the application fee for the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) Form 1 beyond the 31 August 2018 extension; and (b) how many new LPA Form 1 applications have been received by the Office of the Public Guardian since the August 2016 announcement of the extended fee waiver for LPA Form 1 applications for Singaporeans.
Mr Desmond Lee: More Singaporeans are taking steps to safeguard their future by making a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). The LPA empowers a person to appoint someone reliable and trustworthy to act on his behalf should he lose the capacity to make decisions.
We first waived the LPA Form 1 application fee from 1 September 2014 to 31 August 2016. We subsequently extended the fee waiver from 1 September 2016 to 31 August 2018. From 1 September 2016 to 31 August 2017, we have received 11,503 unique LPA Form 1 applications.
We are currently studying how effective the application fee waiver and other measures have been, so far, in encouraging people to make their LPAs early.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of ComCare Applications Withdrawn after Submission","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) for each year from 2011 to 2016, what is the number of ComCare applicants who have withdrawn their applications after having submitted them; and (b) what is the breakdown of the reasons for their withdrawal.
Mr Desmond Lee: Between 2011 and 2016, the proportion of ComCare applications that were withdrawn after submission averaged about 2% per year.
Applicants may withdraw their applications because they subsequently find a job and hence no longer require help. They may also withdraw their applications because they do not want to share the necessary documents or allow us to speak with their family members to better understand their financial situation.
Whatever the case, we will always advise the applicants that they can return to the Social Service Office should they change their minds and decide to step forward for assistance in future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Children below Age of Four Diagnosed with Special Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current percentage of children below the age of four who are diagnosed with special needs; and (b) of these, how many have been diagnosed with intellectual disabilities.
Mr Desmond Lee: Child development programmes in our public healthcare system are provided by KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH) and National University Hospital (NUH). These programmes extend medical diagnosis, assessment and early intervention services to children aged 0 to six years old who have developmental needs and behavioural issues. In 2016, 2,170 children under the age of four (or about 1.4% of the cohorts) were diagnosed with varying degrees of developmental issues and needs.
It is difficult to make a firm diagnosis of intellectual disability for very young children, except for those with specific genetic conditions, severe autism and severe cerebral palsy that are known to cause intellectual disabilities. Some will grow out of their developmental challenges after early intervention.
Early intervention remains a key area of focus for children with developmental needs to maximise their potential. Besides KKH and NUH, early intervention services in the community are provided through the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF)-funded Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) and Development Support (DS) programme for children with milder needs in preschools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Children Referred to Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in the last five years, what is the number of children referred to the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC); (b) what is the current average waiting time for the child to be enrolled in EIPIC centres upon application; and (c) whether there are initiatives in place to enhance the curriculum for EIPIC and building the capabilities of the educators who deliver the programme.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) provides developmental and therapy services for infants and young children at risk of moderate to severe developmental delays. Early intervention maximises their developmental potential and minimises the risk of secondary disabilities developing.
There are currently 21 EIPIC centres run by 10 voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) located across Singapore. From 2012 to 2016, a total of about 6,500 children were referred to EIPIC centres, or approximately 1,300 children annually.
The average waiting time for enrolment in an EIPIC centre today is approximately five months, a reduction from the six months' waiting time in 2016. By 2018, there will be 500 more EIPIC places, bringing the total to 3,200 places. This should bring down the waiting time further.
Parents may also consider enrolling their children in selected private early intervention centres under the Pilot for Private Intervention Providers (PPIP) programme. This serves as an alternative to VWO EIPIC centres. Children enrolled in these centres are similarly subsidised for the early intervention programme.
Currently, children with mild developmental needs are supported through the Development Support (DS) programmes in selected preschools. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) is studying how DS can be enhanced to support children with moderate developmental needs within the preschool setting. This will facilitate timely support and intervention for children with mild to moderate developmental needs in their natural setting.
All EIPIC teachers must hold an Advanced Diploma in Early Childhood Intervention (Special Needs) (ADESN).
MSF is currently working with the National Council of Social Service and SkillsFuture Singapore to develop the Skills Framework for Social Service (SF-SS), which will be ready in 2018. The framework will include a skills map that articulates the skills and competencies required to enter the profession and progress as EIPIC teachers, as well as professional development programmes that EIPIC teachers can take on for skills upgrading and mastery. This will better equip both existing EIPIC teachers and potential entrants to identify relevant training opportunities and plan their professional development pathways.
MSF has also appointed consultants from KK Women's and Children's Hospital and National University Hospital to help EIPIC centres build capabilities and enhance early intervention standards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":1418,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mrs Josephine Teo","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171002/vernacular-Josephine Teo(1).pdf","fileName":"Josephine Teo(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1419,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171002/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh(2).pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh(2).pdf"},{"vernacularID":928,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171002/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah(3).pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah(3).pdf"},{"vernacularID":929,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171002/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah(4).pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah(4).pdf"},{"vernacularID":930,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171002/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah(5).pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah(5).pdf"},{"vernacularID":931,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171002/vernacular-Thomas Chua Kee Seng(6).pdf","fileName":"Thomas Chua Kee Seng(6).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}