1 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what approach will the Ministry take in respect of seniors who are eligible for but refuse to participate in the Lease Buyback Scheme that would have otherwise supplemented their payouts under CPF LIFE but, in turn, seek financial assistance from the Ministry's help schemes which may be available to them on the basis of their low household income.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, ComCare is part of our multiple layers of assistance to support low-income individuals and families. It is intended to provide for basic needs, enable self-reliance and complement family and community support.
ComCare applicants with assets that can be monetised are encouraged to tap on them first. There is a referral process in place for the Social Service Offices (SSOs) to refer ComCare applicants who are assessed to qualify for the Lease Buyback Scheme to the Housing and Development Board for further advice. Low-income seniors who are in financial need and are in the process of applying for the Lease Buyback Scheme or need time to think through their options, may receive ComCare support to tide over their difficult circumstances in the interim.
We recognise that some seniors may have good reasons for not taking up the Lease Buyback Scheme. For example, they may prefer to sublet a room to generate additional income or keep the unit for their children who are permanently unable to work. In such cases, the SSOs will continue to provide the seniors with financial assistance for basic needs under ComCare and link them up with other relevant assistance and social services.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Minister for his response. I have a supplementary question, really a broader question. How do we help seniors from families who, on one hand, do not have enough money, and on the other hand, they have assets which are of some value? These people usually tend to be in situations where they have dysfunctional family relations, especially with children who may not necessarily help them. To illustrate, I had a case where the couple did not have sufficient financial assistance from their children, but when I suggested the Lease Buyback Scheme to them, they demurred, stating that they would rather let the flat be passed on to their children.
\tMr Desmond Lee: Every case is unique. There may be some commonalities but, working on the ground, I think Members would know that each family's circumstances would differ. The key is that ComCare support provides, in a way, a safety net. After individuals have exhausted their own means, have relied on family but find that it is inadequate, the state will come in to provide support.
So, it is not a science. There is no standard operating procedure which drives inexorably in any one direction. We have certain guidelines and procedures. We could say, \"Well, if you have assets that you can monetise, you have a spare room, and you are comfortable doing so and that supplements your income, then we will top up.\" We top up in different ways – whether it is ComCare, interim assistance, MediFund, rental assistance, food assistance, Government scheme, a local community scheme, a community voluntary welfare organisation-based scheme – these will all then chip in, and, in a coordinated way, we will render assistance to the senior.
But there may be various reasons why some seniors that we seek to assist face challenges adopting some of the proposals that we put before them. And I think the key is to adopt the social work approach, understand their mindset, understand what their concerns are, journey with them along the way, see if they can be persuaded, and, if they cannot, why not? And ultimately, see how we can better allow the individual to tap on his or her assets, to be able to rely on his family if possible, and with the help of the Commissioner of the Maintenance of Parents if need be, for conciliation. Then, ultimately, the state will come in to provide that safety net support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Day Activity Centres for Special Needs Persons","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many Day Activity Centres (DACs) are there currently; (b) how many young adults aged 18-21 are enrolled in the DACs currently; and (c) how many special needs trained educators or caregivers are there in the DACs.
\tThe Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Sir, Day Activity Centres (DACs) are community-based day facilities that provide long-term care support for adult persons with Disabilities (PWDs). DACs equip PWDs with skills to enable them to live as independently as possible at home and within the community. There are currently 30 DACs. As of August 2018, there are about 1,200 clients, of whom about 200 or 17% are young adults between the ages of 18 and 21.
Clients attending DACs are supported by a care team comprising professionals and direct care workers. The professional staff includes psychologists, therapists and social workers, and they formulate the care plans as well as supervise and conduct activities, such as behavioural modifications, therapy and counselling. The direct care workers, who are known as DAC training officers, support the clients and assist the professionals in their day-to-day activities.
There are a total of about 70 professionals and 250 direct care workers across the 30 DACs. Apart from being equipped with professional training and direct care knowledge, the staff working in DACs also attend courses to improve their skills in communicating with PWDs and understanding their needs.
Mr Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Minister of State. I understand that a number of caregivers had previously experienced some form of challenges and difficulty in enrolling their children who are aged 18 and above into DACs after they have graduated from special education (SPED) schools. So, my question to the Minister of State is whether there are enough places to meet the demand and whether there are enough DAC professionals to attend to these young adults in the DACs. And what is the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) doing to ensure that parents and guardians are aware of the various options available for young adults aged 18 and above after they graduate from SPED schools. That is my first supplementary question.
My second supplementary question is whether there are plans to consolidate all the DACs into specialised centres for further training for such young adults to better prepare them to be work-ready, and if there are plans to ensure that there are targeted SkillsFuture certification programmes for them so that, ultimately, they can be independent.
\tMr Sam Tan Chin Siong: I thank the Member for the very long and lengthy questions. Let me attempt to answer them. I shall try to answer the last question first. Consolidation of the DACs. Sir, there are now 30 DACs in Singapore and they are operated by 15 voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs). All these VWOs have their own background, culture, strengths, expertise and capabilities. So, I think it is not so feasible nor practical to try to artificially consolidate them just to make sure that they are able to deliver quality programmes and services.
What MSF does is that we issue guidelines and standards to all the DACs to ensure that they will follow a certain regime and protocol when they roll out the programmes and services to their clients. MSF also conducts periodical onsite audits to check on DACs to ensure that standards are met. For some of the DACs which fail to meet the standards, MSF officers will work together with the DAC management to identify the gaps to develop the service improvement programmes so as to make sure that they are able to meet the requirements and better serve their clients.
As to SkillsFuture training, this is, indeed, something that we are looking at. Under the Enabling Masterplan 3, MSF has been discussing and working with the Ministry of Education (MOE) and SkillsFuture Singapore to identify suitable employment-related training. We will conduct these training when the feasibility studies are concluded to make sure that the clients at the DACs will be given the opportunity for lifelong learning under the SkillsFuture Framework. For those who need to work, such SkillsFuture-certified courses will enhance their employment prospects.
So, this is work in progress. Once ready, that will be another step to give a leg-up to the clients at the DACs.
As to the Member's first supplementary question of post-18 transition, we are aware of the challenges faced by PWDs and also their caregivers. When they finish their SPED education at age 18, where do they go? We have been working with MOE and SPED schools to identify upstream orientation programmes. We have also been discussing and organising with the DACs to stage exhibitions, talks and sharing experiences by caregivers at the SPED schools and also to conduct orientation programmes for their caregivers before the age of 18. We are also working closely with MOE on this aspect. The purpose is to make sure that before they reach the age of 18, the caregivers are given the understanding and also to be better prepared for them to make a decision, post 18, which DAC to go to and so on and so forth. This is also work in progress.
There was another part of the Member's supplementary question, the different options. If I may invite the Member to elaborate on this.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar: The options among the different DACs if they wish to specialise in specific areas. It ties in with my other question on SkillsFuture certification.
Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong: Thank you. Different DACs offer different types of services and programmes so that they are able to offer a myriad of courses and training to meet the different and diverse needs of PWDs. There are quite a lot of options available. As mentioned just now, the important thing is to provide adequate information to PWDs and their caregivers so that they understand the range of services and programmes offered by the different DACs so that they will be able to make an informed choice of which DAC to go to when they reach the age of 18.
Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): From my other life, which is running a DAC as a volunteer, I know that the cost of running DACs is very high. It can go up to almost half a million dollars of deficit each year for less than 50 people who have moderate to severe disabilities. I think the need will go beyond 21 years old.
I was wondering if MSF would consider assembling a small task force to look at the challenges facing this group of adults beyond 18, 21, and look at how to configure solutions that will involve not only the people sector, but also the public and private sectors, and other donors and foundations that can come together. This solution would not be easy and will be quite costly. And we need to get rid of some boxes of thinking to come to a better solution, because the needs are going to increase, going to be more costly, and there is no way that anyone, VWO, any kind person or organisation that can do it on their own. So, I would like to ask the Ministry to consider setting up a small task force just to specifically look at this very challenging area of the special needs community.
\tMr Sam Tan Chin Siong: I want to thank the Member for that very passionate plea. We share the same passion. We also share the same commitment in wanting to uplift PWDs in our community. The Member has hit the nail on the head. To enable, to uplift this segment of our population, it needs to go beyond the DACs, it needs to go beyond the Government. It really needs the community to come together, working together with the DACs and with the Government to ensure that we would be able to provide adequate support, not just to PWDs but also the DACs running the services and programmes for them.
The answer to the Member's question is yes, we are open to discussing how we can work together with the community, the donors, the DACs to make sure that we will be able to provide adequate and affordable services to their clients. So, when we do, indeed, form a task force, I would be happy to invite the Member to serve on the task force so that we can work together and the Member can provide her perspective and insights on how we can work together collectively to make Singapore a more inclusive society for all, including those with disabilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Further Help by ASEAN to Resolve Situation in Rakhine State","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in light of the two reports presented by the UN Fact-Finding Mission in September 2018, how can ASEAN further help to resolve the crisis related to the Rakhine State, which has caused a catastrophic human tragedy in and around Myanmar.
4 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in light of the two reports presented by the UN Fact-Finding Mission in September 2018, whether Myanmar can be compelled to abide by Articles 14, 15, 22, 28, 31(2), read with Article 2, of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration as well as Article 2, paragraph 2(i), Article 20, paragraph 4 and Article 7, paragraph (2)(e) of the ASEAN Charter.
5 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether Singapore will (i) send another consignment of humanitarian supplies to Bangladesh to provide aid for Rohingya refugees this year and (ii) consider increasing Singapore's financial contribution to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) next year.
\tThe Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will take Question Nos 3, 4 and 5 together?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Thank you. The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed a fact-finding mission in March last year. This fact-finding mission on Myanmar published its full Report on 18 September. This Report contained harrowing accounts of brutal and shocking atrocities committed in the Rakhine State that led to an outflow of refugees to Bangladesh.
\t
\t
I just returned from New York yesterday. On 29 September, we had an Informal Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Foreign Ministers' meeting. In fact, because this topic was so sensitive, we convened a smaller group consisting of only the Ministers. We expressed our grave concern with these alleged acts of violence that had led to loss of lives, injuries, destructions of homes and displacement of large numbers of people. And to be brutally honest, this is a man-made humanitarian disaster and something which should not be happening in this day and age.
The Foreign Ministers urged the Myanmar government that since the Myanmar government has appointed an Independent Commission of Inquiry, that this Independent Commission of Inquiry should be given a full mandate to investigate, and to hold all those responsible fully accountable. We also called on both Myanmar and Bangladesh which have, in fact, signed an agreement in November last year that they should provide for the voluntary, safe and dignified return of refugees. But to date, not a single refugee has returned under the aegis of that agreement. So, we emphasised that a key milestone now must surely be the start or the commencement of a repatriation of refugees to Myanmar. So, we are going to have to wait and see and hope that this will begin shortly.
We also urged the government of Myanmar to step up its implementation of all the recommendations of the Kofi Annan Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, because the root causes of this conflict need to be addressed. And a conducive environment needs to be created so that all affected communities can rebuild their lives.
You need circumstances in which there are opportunities for reconciliation for assurances of justice and equality and, ultimately, for better prospects for all communities. Otherwise, this long-term intercommunal complex situation will fester. And if this festers, it will create more opportunities for extremism and, ultimately, terrorism, which will not respect boundaries, and will represent a clear and present threat throughout Southeast Asia and beyond.
In the meantime, the refugees in Bangladesh deserve and need assistance. Members will recall that, in fact, last year, we had sent a consignment of assistance to the refugees in Bangladesh. Depending on assessment of their future needs, we may have to do so again. In the meantime, I know that the private sector and people sector organisations within Singapore are also sending appropriate assistance to Bangladesh.
I want to emphasise that, ultimately, the responsibility for resolving this must lie with the government of Myanmar; and this is a responsibility that we will hold them to account. And they do need to do the right thing and to do the right thing for all the vulnerable, defenceless and innocent victims. It is also a salutary warning to all of us in Southeast Asia. Race, language and religion are live issues and can always be exploited for short-term political gains. But an unfair share of the burden and of the injuries are sustained by defenceless people.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
\tMr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his insightful answer. This is a catastrophic human tragedy. Following the UN Fact-Finding Mission report in September of this year, the UNHRC took the additional step of deciding to set up a team to investigate further alleged atrocities. May I ask what is Singapore's position on the setting up of this team and what is ASEAN's perspective of the alleged atrocities?
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: Singapore is not currently a Council member on UNHRC. So, these decisions, we are not party to. The unfortunate fact is that the Myanmar government does not recognise or accept the decisions, in particular, with respect to this particular situation. For instance, the Fact-Finding Mission did not have any cooperation from Myanmar. So, all the accounts which are contained in the report are based on interviews conducted with refugees outside Myanmar.
My approach to this is to be practical. That is why we focus on the fact that Myanmar herself has appointed an Independent Commission of Inquiry. In this Independent Commission are two foreigners – one, a Filipino ambassador and another one from Japan. Both of them have reputations for being fiercely independent. As of now, we are waiting for the Independent Commission to begin its work, submit its report, and we will listen with great interest, particularly to the two independent members of the Commission.
I think we have to be practical and we have to look for every opportunity in which not to inflame the situation, but nevertheless, can hold people who are responsible fully accountable. So, let us wait and see.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I thank the Minister for the reply. In his reply, I think he said that he was doing assessment on the ground to see whether to send a second consignment to Bangladesh. Can I just check when this assessment will be completed? I understand that the United States (US) had done an assessment and, just last week, they announced that they will double the aid to refugees in Bangladesh and Myanmar. I have been on the ground in the refugee camps in Bangladesh. I have seen what conditions they are living in. I have heard the stories firsthand of how much they have suffered, seen children with bullet wounds and how they have been scarred for life. And the people there really do need help.
I understand that there had been many landslides recently as well. So, I am really hopeful that Singapore will provide this second consignment of humanitarian aid.
There is a second part of my Parliamentary Question (PQ), and it is whether we will increase our financial contributions to UNHRC so that we can help refugees around the world rebuild their lives.
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: The answer to the first question is that we are in touch with the Bangladesh government. Again, at the UN meeting last week – in fact, there were several side meetings as well – my sense is that there are commitments for additional humanitarian assistance by various countries, including, as the Member quite rightly said, the US.
But my concern goes beyond just humanitarian assistance. You actually need a long-term solution. And a long-term solution is a political solution. In addition to that, you also want to have deterrence from future bouts of violence. That is why having Independent Commissions of Inquiry and holding people accountable are important.
The Member's second question on our support for UNHCR, we are one of the countries that make voluntary contributions. We have raised our contributions in 2016. But I do not want to over inflate the importance of that. We will do our part and we will work with UNHCR.
Mr Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister. While I understand that we need time to let the independent Commission of Inquiry to take place but, beyond that, Singapore is the ASEAN Chair. So, what else can we do?
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: I think there was a related question that Member Christopher de Souza also had asked. Is there force of law? Can Myanmar be compelled? And the short answer to that, as far as ASEAN is concerned, is no. But what we can do is through moral suasion, persuasion, transparency and keeping this on the agenda. And also telling the Myanmar government that we want and hope for a long-term viable, good outcome, and that ASEAN stands ready to help.
Specifically, what we said last week to Myanmar was that we expect the voluntary repatriation to begin soon, and ASEAN stands ready to help to facilitate that in any way possible.
But Members also need to understand that ASEAN is an association that makes decisions by consensus. Once you understand that every decision requires consensus, it effectively means every single country has a veto. So, that acts as a constraint to the legal options available. As I have said, in any case, ultimately, the long-term solution for this is a political solution. And politics must involve discussion, disagreement, dispute resolution if need be, and hoping that, in the long run, cool heads will prevail and people will do the right thing. Compulsion, tempting as it is, usually almost never works in these sorts of situations.
Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I do understand that a long-term political solution is needed. But while the rest of the world debates and gives advice and coaxed and persuades through moral suasion, is there something that Singaporeans can do more? I know that it is a controversial topic if we want to use taxpayers' money to do more, but can the Government – the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) or the Ministry of Education (MOE) – organise local efforts so that we can raise funds and people can contribute for a cause that is bigger than themselves? I thought this would be a great chance for us to look beyond Singapore, what we are blessed with, and look at how we can contribute to what are called disasters in the world.
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: I thank the Member for that supplementary question. Actually, Singaporeans have been. It is not just the Government. We typically set aside seed funding. But I think the Member may be aware that there has been fundraising. I think more than a million dollars have been given. There is probably a lot more that we are not even aware of.
Singaporeans do care. They do express their care. Whilst in the totality of it, we are probably a drop in the ocean. But I just wanted to commend that the attitude that the Member has always espoused, in fact, is being practised. I would expect that more assistance will flow. And we will work together with the people sector on this.
As I have said, this sort of situation should not be happening in this day and age. It is a stark reminder that we do not live in a perfect world. But let us not make things worse. That is why I do not take an unnecessarily provocative and combative approach to this issue. Second, have sufficient levels of transparency and accountability. Third, address humanitarian assistance in the short term. And fourth, try to promote a longer-term political solution.
\t
But again, for Members who go back in history, this problem has been there probably for about 200 years. It is not something that will be resolved even in 200 days. So, you do need a sense of realism, without giving up on hope and without giving up that sense of solidarity with fellow human beings. So, we will continue to do our best.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Difficulty to Sell HDB Flats Affected by Ethnic Integration Policy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will issue monthly guidelines for buyers and sellers of HDB flats under the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) on the pegging of the fair market value of these flats at a certain percentage of the last transacted price in the open category; and (b) in the past three years, what is the average discounted price of EIP flats transacted compared to prices in the open market.
7 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will consider introducing a policy akin to the Lease Buyback Scheme where HDB buys back flats belonging to non-Chinese flat owners when these owners are unable to sell their flats due to the Ethnic Integration Policy.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 6 and 7 together.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: The Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) was introduced in 1989 to ensure a balanced mix of ethnic groups living in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, so as to promote racial harmony and strengthen social cohesion. It applies to the sale and purchase of all new and resale HDB flats and is implemented for all ethnic groups.
The saleability of a flat in the open market is dependent on many factors and not just the EIP. While home owners may have their own expectations of how much their flat can sell for, flat attributes like location, storey height, physical condition of the flat, remaining lease and market sentiments would naturally be considered by prospective home buyers. To help home owners and buyers make an informed decision in their price negotiation, HDB provides daily updates of transacted prices of resale prices at the HDB InfoWEB.
For those who are unable to sell their flats, HDB may grant them an extension of time and advise them to be realistic with their asking prices. HDB will continue to exercise flexibility for households with exceptional circumstances. The EIP is an important policy that is applied to all ethnic groups consistently. There are no plans to buy back flats from flat owners who claim that they are unable to sell their flats due to EIP.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the hon Minister for answering my question. I would just like to clarify that I fully support the EIP. But in relation to my question, why did HDB in the first instance have this extension option on a case-by-case basis? The feeling is, is it not because it recognises the EIP, the market can be squeezed by the buyers in principle? And the large number for appeals for extension, possibly, says something about the market. So, that is my first supplementary question.
The second is: I have been seeing a lot of residents from the minority ethnic groups, they are unable to sell their flats. Not so much unable to sell their flats, but also the ability to sell their flats at a high price. So, it is usually squeezed to the extent that they are only able to sell their flats at a much lower price than the market. So, my worry is about whether this policy could potentially contribute to this squeeze actually worsening over time, and we are worsening the cycle for some of those involved in the EIP.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, in relation to the impact that EIP has on the market, we really have to look at it on both sides, both the purchase and the sale transaction.
In some instances, on the purchase side, it may help the buyer because the price may well be slightly lower; and on the flip side, of course, on the sales side, it sometimes may be more difficult. So, it really depends on the circumstance and on the nature of the transaction and for that particular location, which are the binding EIP limits. So, it can vary.
We put out data, information as far as possible to help facilitate the matching of demand and supply in the marketplace, and I think that is the right approach. But as I said earlier, we do monitor the situation carefully. We will extend assistance to those who need more time and we will continue to exercise flexibility for those who are in extenuating circumstances.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): I would like to ask the Minister. The Minister said that when the buyer buys the flat, do they get a discount, especially if they buy from HDB? Because my understanding is that they do not get a discount if they buy straight from HDB, but because of this EIP, it has squeezed demand for flats, and because of the squeeze on demand, the prices are affected. And prices come down, so why should the sellers be prejudiced because they are affected by the EIP in having to sell at a lower price, unless they are correspondingly given a discount when they first buy the flat, which is why I asked whether would HDB then step in to treat them as if this is a Lease Buyback Scheme.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. I was referring to the resale market. In the Build-To-Order (BTO) market, the prices are uniform. But in the resale market, when you make a purchase, the EIP can have an impact, just as when you make a sale decision, the EIP can have an impact. We recognise that there will be impact in the market with an EIP. This is bound to happen.
So, as I said, we will continue to monitor this very carefully to make sure that while we all recognise the merits of having an EIP system, we want the housing market to also be fair to all Singaporeans at the same time, and not to affect any particular group disproportionately. So, we will continue to monitor the system, make sure it works well, achieves the goals that we want it to achieve, and, where possible, continue to exercise flexibility in the way we administer the scheme.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat: I would like to thank the Minister again for the answer just now. Just a follow-up in relation to my question. In the meantime, while we try to list some of the concerns of the residents that are having difficulties in selling, my suggestion is maybe by having a sharing of monthly guidelines for buyers and sellers in particular for the EIP scheme, will that in some way be a valuable suggestion in terms of the Ministry of National Development nudging buyers and sellers in that EIP locale to reduce the squeeze on the pricing of the units?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, whatever we can do, particularly where it involves putting up more information in the marketplace to better help the matching of demand and supply, is worth considering, and so whatever we can do to provide more information to facilitate a better marketplace, those are things we will certainly consider and try our best to support.
Mr Speaker: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.
\tMr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I see more of such cases in my Meet-the-People Sessions, especially in recent months. HDB does give extension of time, but the common feedback is that despite extension of time, there are no viewers. So, if there are no viewers, that means there is no offer at all. Can I ask the Minister whether there are any other ways to help these residents, especially those who have tried for many months and even years to sell their flats, especially if they are elderly?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I appreciate Mr Chong raising the issues that residents face. We really have to look at it case by case, because there are indeed instances where the residents have said they find it difficult. But we have seen recent transactions within that same neighbourhood where transactions have taken place. So, we really have to look at the specific location, the specific appeal, and we will, like I said, do our best to assist those cases.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Can I clarify with the Minister if there are any statistics available on the number of minorities who own such HDB flats? How much feedback has gone to HDB about their inability to sell their unit because of the EIP policy? Is there any data the Minister has on hand?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: We have between 2015 and 2017, received about 1,600 appeals for waiver of EIP. So, those are the statistics I have that are available. If Mr Pritam Singh would like to ask more in-depth questions on other data, we can easily follow up in a separate Parliamentary Question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposed Watchlist for Companies that Discriminate Based on Attributes Like Gender and Ethnicity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap –
8 To ask the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry maintains or plans to set up a watchlist for companies that engage in discriminatory employment practices not related to nationality but to other attributes, such as gender and ethnicity.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Question No 8, please.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) takes a serious view of all forms of workplace discrimination. Some forms of discrimination, including those related to gender and ethnicity, are more readily substantiated by specific actions, such as verbal utterances or written job advertisements. In cases involving such discrimination and substantiated through investigations, MOM can and has debarred the errant employers from making Work Pass applications, without first putting them on a watchlist. For cases where discrimination involves nationality bias, which is less readily apparent, MOM puts the employers on a watchlist and scrutinises their Work Pass applications for irregularities. We may subsequently debar them if they fail to cooperate to improve their human resource practices.
We expect all employers to abide by the principles of fair and merit-based employment practices outlined in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) will engage companies on whom we have received complaints or feedback and guide them to improve their employment practices.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her answer. Just two supplementary questions. How many companies are currently on the watchlist on discriminatory practices? And what proportion of those companies on the watchlist are there for nationality-based discriminatory practices, as opposed to suspected discriminatory practices on other dimensions?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I would like to recap that the Parliamentary Question that was raised by Mr Faisal Manap was to ask whether a watchlist could be set up for companies that engage in discriminatory employment practices, not related to nationality, but to other attributes, such as gender and ethnicity.
I would like to assure the Member that all employers are required to abide by the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices to uphold fair employment practices that are open, merit-based and also non-discriminatory.
Where guidelines are breached, such as where there is discrimination on the basis of gender or ethnicity, TAFEP will then report such cases to MOM, and MOM will then impose sanctions, which can be issuing stern warnings, or even curtailing the Work Pass privileges of the employer. And that has a direct impact on the employers. So, where it comes to any feedback on workplace discrimination and it is mentioned about gender or ethnicity, I have explained earlier that perhaps because it is a bit more readily apparent, in fact, we do not even need to wait for a watchlist. TAFEP will report to MOM, and we can curtail the Work Pass privileges of the employers. That is an even more direct impact than putting out a watchlist.
But having said that, I would want to reassure the Member that MOM works very closely with TAFEP, employers and also human resource practitioners to build inclusive workplaces and to eradicate any form of work discrimination. And we urge workers who face any such occurrences, whether it is gender, ethnicity or even nationality bias, to please promptly report the matter to TAFEP or MOM. We will certainly take every feedback that is surfaced to us, any complaint, we will take it very seriously and investigate very thoroughly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Generational-correlated Drug Offenders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs in respect of recent studies which show that children having drug-abusing parents are more likely to take drugs later in life (a) what is the current number of generational-correlated drug offenders in Singapore; and (b) whether there are measures put in place to prevent the generational cycles of addiction.
10 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many drug offenders have children at home; (b) what rehabilitation support is provided to youths and children of parents who are found guilty of drug-related crimes; (c) what outreach activities are in place to encourage youths to stay drug-free; and (d) what is being done to increase vigilance and awareness of drug-related activities in the community.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 9 and 10 together.
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tMr Amrin Amin: We do not track the number of drug offenders who have children at home, nor the number of children of drug offenders who become drug abusers later in life. But we recognise that the latter is a real risk.
To address this, measures have been put in place to support families and children of offenders and ex-offenders. Singapore Prison Service works with community partners to provide them social support. Partners, such as Focus on the Family, The Salvation Army and Singapore Children Society. run family-bonding programmes within prisons. These programmes equip inmates with the relevant knowledge and skills to improve their relationship with their families and children during incarceration.
\t
Member agencies in the Community Action for Rehabilitation of Ex-Offenders (CARE) Network, run programmes, such as the Yellow Ribbon Fund’s Yellow Brick Road and the Industrial and Services Co-operative Society Ltd (ISCOS) Fairy Godparent programmes. These programmes provide tuition support to improve the children's academic performance, befriending and mentorship programmes to develop the children’s socio-emotional competencies, and parenting skills workshop to improve the caregivers' parenting abilities.
In addition, the Home Team introduced the Youth Engagement Programme (YEP) in 2012 to reach out to at-risk youths and keep them meaningfully occupied through sports and youth camps. Under YEP, officers from the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) also serve as mentors and conduct crime and drug prevention talks.
CNB works with the Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs), polytechnics and universities to establish youth advocacy against drug use.
CNB also works with the National Council Against Drug Abuse (NCADA) to raise awareness of the harms of drugs among youths. NCADA has established the United Against Drugs Coalition. This is a coalition of corporate and community establishments, such as clothing and food and beverage (F&B) companies popular among youths. NCADA engages these establishments to propagate the anti-drug message to their young customers.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is also working closely with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and other Government agencies and community partners in an integrated approach to support at-risk children and youths, offenders and their families. To this end, the National Committee on Prevention, Rehabilitation and Recidivism (NCPR) was set up in April 2018, co-chaired by the Minister for Social and Family Development Mr Desmond Lee, and Second Minister for Home Affairs Mrs Josephine Teo. The Committee facilitates collaborative efforts in research and data sharing, helps develop the capacity of organisations to support rehabilitation and coordinates efforts to address issues of offending and re-offending.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I have two supplementary questions. First, tackling generational cycles of addiction requires many helping hands. Can we leverage their extended families or the community, such as school counsellors or the many community befrienders that we have, to strengthen the current efforts? Second, can the Ministry also consider assigning a dedicated case manager to each of these at-risk children when their parents are arrested, so that proper support and care can be provided to them at an early stage?
\tMr Amrin Amin: I thank the Member. We certainly agree with the many-helping-hands approach. There have been many of such efforts ongoing, actually. As I mentioned about the CARE Network, this network has worked in partnership with grassroots volunteers, family service centres and other voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), and have been providing support to children of inmates and ex-offenders. I also mentioned about the family bonding programmes run by the various community partners, such as the Salvation Army and Singapore Children's Society, which are targeted at inmates, children and caregivers.
We have also launched recently in July 2016 a CARE Network Children Support Programme. One of the key features of the programme is to provide case management services to enable more effective assessment of the needs of children of inmates and ex-offenders and channelling them to the relevant VWOs for follow-up. Nevertheless, the thrust of the suggestion for us to do more and better has been well-noted and this is what the NCPR Committee will be reviewing and discussing, to see how we can intensify efforts to ensure that we can prevent intergenerational offending.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I have seen cases where residents go in and out of jail because of drug offences. I am aware that they have very young children at home. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary in cases where there are repeat offenders or in some cases both parents are drug addicts and repeat offenders, can there be a more systematic and proactive way of giving help to the children at home, to make sure that the children are not adversely affected?
\tMr Amrin Amin: I thank the Member. We certainly agree with the need for more help to be given to children of ex-offenders, in particular, the sad situation when both parents are incarcerated. So, we have to do our best in an imperfect situation because we recognise that parents play a very big role in the lives of children.
Given this imperfect situation, relatives would have to come in, the community would have to rally and help to fill in the gaps. One of the projects that we have is the Yellow Ribbon Community Project where grassroots volunteers visit family, gather information on their needs and link them up to the grassroots advisors, as well as to existing support structures, such as the Residents' Committee and various other avenues of help, including the Community Development Councils (CDCs).
Recently, we enhanced the Yellow Ribbon Community Project (YRCP) – we call it YRCP 2.0 – and we have been training volunteers so that they can make a greater impact. One of the key areas we are training them is to give them the skills and support to ensure that they can play a role in rekindling familiar bonds, providing positive pro-social support and better identifying vulnerable children.
And as I mentioned, one of the roles of NCPR is also to see what else can be done. We recognise their gaps and it is something that we got to make the best of in an imperfect situation.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned just now that we are currently not collecting data on the generational-correlated offenders. So, I am just wondering whether MHA can start collecting such data, so that all the programmes that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, we can see whether it is working, and we can start to see whether the trend is going up or going down as well.
\tMr Amrin Amin: I thank the Member. We are definitely looking into that. But it is quite a challenge because some of these families, there has been a breakdown in family relationships. For some of them, they have not been in touch with their spouses and may not know where their children are. But we are, nevertheless, trying. We have a rough sense, but we are not able to share because there needs to be more work put in into this.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah: Sir, just now, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the community and the advisor can come in to help. Yes, definitely, we would be very keen to help. But from my last 12 years as an advisor, I never get any information on this. So, I am just thinking, maybe the first cut of help should come from those who know about the case – the agency which comes in to help. And then, if you think that the community or the advisor can help, then refer those cases to us.
We are very concerned about the children. Because you would know who the repeat offenders are. When they go in, you can check the background and then can also check whether they have young children at home.
\tMr Amrin Amin: Over 80 constituencies are involved in our YRCP. I will check whether the Member's constituency is part of it. But through this programme, the grassroots volunteers actually receive information from Prisons, and there have been regular house visits done. So, we have got quite a number of volunteers. So, I will certainly check whether the Member's constituency is involved, and we will link the Member up with the right resources to ensure that the Member's residents will get the support they need.
Mr Speaker: Mr Cedric Foo.
\tMr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): Mr Speaker, Sir, for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. Ideally, family should be the rightful caregivers for children, but we know that our society is not ideal and there are some dysfunctional families where the children may be better off if they are housed in a boarding school, say, on weekdays, and they go back on weekends. Would the Ministry consider such a concept?
\tMr Amrin Amin: We will consider that. But for now, we would look at family as the first line of defence, in particular. Even when their parents are incarcerated, there are others like grandparents, aunts and uncles, who can help. We would actually look to family as the first line of defence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requirement for Manufacturers of Health Supplements to Provide Test Results from Accredited Laboratories to Support Advertising Claims","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider requiring manufacturers of health supplements to provide test results from accredited laboratories to back up their advertising claims in order to prevent inaccurate representation.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) takes a risk-based approach in regulating the different categories of health products, and that includes the health supplements that Dr Chia Shi-Lu speaks about.
Health supplements are used to support general well-being, and not for the purposes of preventing or treating diseases. Dealers are allowed to use authoritative reference texts, such as official publications issued by authorities and published literature, to support and substantiate their product claims. This approach to advertising claims for health supplements is similar to those adopted in the United States, Australia, Canada and Japan.
However, advertisements on health supplements which claim to prevent or treat diseases are not allowed. When detected, these advertisers will be ordered to stop the publication of these advertisements. Non-compliant advertisers may face a maximum penalty of a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment up to two years or both.
In addition, HSA also educates the public to be cautious of exaggerated advertising claims through consumer advisories.
Mandatory testing by dealers to back up advertisement claims, therefore, is not being considered at this time.
Mr Speaker: Dr Chia Shi-Lu.
\tDr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): I want to thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. I have three supplementary questions. First, since HSA already has guidelines, would the Ministry of Health consider making sure that we do some legislation to back it up? With regard to the issue about the test results, I understand that what HSA does now is that they actually test these supplements for toxic substances. I am not sure what the testing or monitoring regime is. Perhaps the Senior Minister of State could enlighten the House on what some of these monitoring regimes are.
But as I understand it, they do not also test whether these supplements actually contain what they profess to contain. So, for example, if a product says \"I contain X grammes of this active ingredient\", do we actually know that this product actually contains X grammes of this ingredient? Because there have been many cases over the years all over the world when independent testers actually test these products, they do not actually contain the health ingredients that they say that they do.
Finally, the last question is: if consumers do actually get side effects or adverse effects from consuming these supplements, what are their recourse for mediation or where can they turn to? Is it just caveat emptor or do they have some avenues they can turn to for redress?
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I will deal with all three of the supplementary questions together. Health supplements, by definition, they contain minerals, usually vitamins, amino acids, and largely comprise substances that are natural from animal or plant extracts. And so, to that extent, when Dr Chia Shi-Lu speaks about the guidelines, there are guidelines and they are published, and Dr Chia may know that they are published for the industry's reference, and they do provide recommendations along the lines of the safety and quality standards: what ingredients are allowable and the claims that can be made about those ingredients, and also the heavy metal and microbial limits and weight of these items.
HSA also provides guidelines on what precise information can appear on the labels to those items. In addition, Dr Chia Shi-Lu speaks of the post-marketing surveillance. That is being done by HSA. So, there is a post-market surveillance that monitors the safety of these products as they hit the shelves. They also allow HSA to initiate timely product recalls should there be any adverse reaction.
As I mentioned earlier, HSA takes a risk-based approach to identifying what this sampling of the health products would take, what scope it would cover, and also takes an active step in looking at this in sampling, to test them for toxic heavy metals and other prohibited ingredients.
The post-market surveillance testing for health supplements is also complemented by an adverse reaction monitoring, which Dr Chia Shi-Lu also mentioned in his third supplementary question. And all that taken together allows HSA to surveil the market. Whether or not these guidelines should eventuate into legislation, I would not rule that out but, at this point in time, there are no plans to do so.
As for whether or not the consumers of these items have a recourse subsequently, obviously it is, to some extent, caveat emptor when you buy but, certainly, HSA would welcome complaints that are being made. And as I mentioned, adverse reaction monitoring is being carried out. So, the sense of the market, the information and intelligence gathered from the market would help HSA in making those assessments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effects of Prolonged Exposure to Second-hand Smoke","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the health effects of prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke; (b) how many diagnoses of conditions related to second-hand smoke exposure are there each year in the past five years; (c) how many people in Singapore die because of second-hand smoke each year in the past five years; and (d) whether the Ministry will start collecting such data if it is currently not available.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Health): Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, also known as second-hand smoke, is associated with health conditions similar to those faced by smokers. These include eye, nose and throat irritation, increased risk of respiratory infections, worsening of pre-existing respiratory problems, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And also, increased risk of heart disease, stroke and some cancers, such as breast and lung cancer.
In individuals, it is often not possible to definitively attribute disease conditions specifically to exposure to second-hand smoke, because the individual may also have other risk factors. At the population level, the Global Burden of Disease 2016 study estimates that tobacco use contributes to approximately 7% of the total disease burden in Singapore, of which 1% is due to second-hand smoke and 6% due to active smoking. Disease burden refers to the number of years of healthy life lost, due to premature death as well as living in ill-health. From the same study, six persons die each day from active smoking or exposure to second-hand smoke. The results of the same study in 2010 are similar to the one in 2016.
Tobacco use, including cigarette smoking and second-hand smoke, remains a leading contributor to the burden of disease in Singapore. The Ministry of Health (MOH) will continue to monitor the effects of tobacco use and press on with its multi-pronged approach to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use in Singapore. This includes public education, provision of smoking cessation and tobacco control legislation.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I think many people are aware of the dangers of smoking. But I think very few are now aware of the dangers of second-hand smoke. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned a bit about the outreach efforts. So, I am just wondering whether MOH should be increasing our outreach efforts to make sure people are aware of the dangers of second-hand smoke and also what they can do to prevent inhaling second-hand smoke.
\tMr Amrin Amin: Currently, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) has developed online and print resources, for example, brochures, posters, to raise awareness on environmental tobacco smoke. And through I Quit roadshows, HPB health ambassadors also share with the smokers and their family members on the harmful health effects of the environmental tobacco smoke and encourage smokers to quit smoking. But we note the suggestion and we will see what we can do to increase outreach in that area.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: One last query. I have asked actually how many, but I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary replied with a percentage. Could I just get an absolute number of how many people are actually affected by second-hand smoke in terms of death or diagnosis? I know that the figure in Japan is that 15,000 people die every year because of second-hand smoke. So, I am just wondering whether we have the statistics for Singapore.
\tMr Amrin Amin: I apologise, I do not have the exact numbers. I just have the percentages. I can touch base with the Member separately. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health\", Official Report, 2 October 2018, Vol 94, Issue No 84.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Airline Pilots Consuming Alcohol or Drugs before Boarding Aircraft in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the past 10 years, whether CAAS has detected any case of duty airline pilots consuming alcohol or drugs before boarding aeroplanes in Singapore; (b) whether there are adequate laws that deter such behavior; and (c) whether all airlines operating out of Singapore airports have a sufficiently robust standard operating procedure to conduct random test to detect such errant pilots.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, most civil aviation regulators, including the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), hold their airlines responsible for ensuring that their pilots do not operate aircraft whilst intoxicated. Specifically, CAAS requires Singapore carriers to ensure that their pilots do not consume any alcohol at least eight hours before flight, wherever they operate in the world.
In addition, Singapore has strict rules for pilots who fly out of our airports, regardless of whether they are operating Singapore or foreign registered aircraft. Every pilot has the responsibility to ensure that he does not operate a flight while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Doing so is an offence under the Air Navigation Order and carries a penalty of up to $100,000 and/or five years' imprisonment upon conviction. Based on records from CAAS, there has not been any case of pilots consuming alcohol or drugs before boarding aeroplanes in Singapore.
To proactively identify and manage individuals that may have alcohol-related issues, Singapore carriers have set up peer support groups. These support groups provide a non-punitive approach for pilots to seek support and treatment. Such peer support groups are recognised internationally as an effective measure to identify such pilots at an early stage to rehabilitate them, or to remove them from flying duties where necessary.
Operating an aircraft while intoxicated is a serious matter. CAAS is reviewing the regulations and procedures to more strongly deter such behaviour.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Speaker, can I just clarify that there is no standard operating procedure to do random checks on pilots before they board airplanes? That is the first question. The second question is: what are the measures that prevent or make sure that the pilot does not consume alcohol while they are on the plane?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: Like I mentioned, pilots are bound by the Air Navigation Order where they are not supposed to consume any form of drugs or psychoactive substances or alcohol if they are performing any flying duty. Right now, under the Air Operator Certificate requirements, Singapore carriers have to instruct the pilot to abstain from alcohol consumption at least eight hours before flight, in what we call bottle to throttle time.
There is currently no random blood testing conducted in Singapore. However, there are spot checks specifically performed by CAAS during ramp inspections. And so far, CAAS has conducted over 900 such ramp inspections since 2013 and has not detected any pilot showing signs of alcohol intoxication.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Airlines and Relevant Authorities Safeguard Passenger information","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport in light of the recent British Airways data breach (a) whether local airlines are knowledgeable about such data breaches; (b) whether there have been any hacking attempts in the past three years; (c) how are local airlines working with other international airlines and relevant authorities to safeguard the information of local and international passengers; and (d) whether existing air passenger protection legislation can be beefed up to protect passengers' rights in the event of a cybersecurity breach.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, the recent British Airways (BA) data breach and the SingHealth cyberattack are sharp reminders that with the greater adoption of digitalisation, all industries face cybersecurity threats. Our operating assumption is that our airlines will be targets, and they must do their best to protect themselves against such threats, and have a robust plan to prevent, detect and recover should an attack succeed. They must also exercise their plan regularly so that all staff are fully aware of such a threat and take it seriously.
The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), as the cybersecurity lead for the aviation sector, works closely with Singapore carriers to strengthen their cybersecurity capabilities. CAAS also regularly shares cybersecurity-related information, including from the Cyber Security Agency, and best practices with them, and conducts joint cybersecurity exercises.
The Singapore carriers' approach includes safeguarding their systems to prevent, detect and respond to hacking attempts and mitigate the potential impact. They monitor cyber threats through their Security Operations Centres, and carry out regular testing of their websites for vulnerabilities and screening for malicious web traffic. They also closely monitor reports of breaches and collaborate with others on cybersecurity. They are part of the Aviation Information Sharing and Analysis Centre, a non-profit organisation that fosters the sharing of information on physical and cyber threats to aviation and best practices on mitigation, and they also participate in the Cybersecurity Workgroup under the International Air Transport Association.
With respect to the security of passenger data, Singapore carriers are also required to comply with the Personal Data Protection Act and the data protection regulations of other states which they fly to.
As regards the BA data breach, the investigation is still ongoing. As a precaution, Singapore Airlines (SIA) has performed checks and confirmed that there are no unauthorised codes on its payment webpage. SIA is mindful that sophisticated attackers will continue to probe for vulnerabilities and will remain vigilant and conduct regular checks and penetration tests on all scripts on its website. It will also continue to observe stringent data security standards for credit card payment processing.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for answering my question. I have got a quick follow-up supplementary question to his answer. Essentially, my question \"(d)\". Are there any plans to beef up even further legislation to protect passengers in the case of a cybersecurity breach, if it does happen? We do not want it to happen, but in case it happens, are there any plans for further legislation for the air passengers' protection?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, we have enacted the Cybersecurity Act this year and aviation is one of the critical information infrastructure domains that will be affected by the operations of the Cyber Security Agency Commissioner. The Cybersecurity Commissioner appoints an Assistant Commissioner who can then look at this sector.
The implications of the Cybersecurity Act on the critical information infrastructure within the aviation industry will have an impact and will improve passenger safety as well as the safety of the operations of the industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Noise Emissions from Buses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Government is satisfied with the current noise emission levels of buses, especially when travelling through HDB and other residential estates; and (b) whether any further measures will be taken to encourage more considerate driving and to reduce noise emissions from buses.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, all public buses are required to meet the noise emission standards stipulated in the Environmental Protection and Management (Vehicular Emissions) Regulations. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) ensures compliance by stipulating stringent procurement specifications on vendors and strict maintenance requirements on public bus operators, including regular inspections to check that noise levels are within permissible limits.
Meanwhile, LTA will be conducting trials with 50 diesel-hybrid buses starting in late 2018 and with 60 electric buses from 2019. If they prove cost-effective, we will be able to migrate our buses to a quieter fleet.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. This question arose out of a request from a resident during house visits. I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State one supplementary question. What measures are being taken, or will be taken, or will the Government consider taking further measures to improve the driving habits of bus drivers, in particular, to reduce or keep down the noise level of buses while they are driving around residential estates?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for his supplementary questions. Just to put things in perspective, there are actually several measures that LTA prescribes to ensure that the noise emission levels from buses are kept to within permissible levels. One of which I have mentioned in my reply is the procurement specifications with regard to the buses that the companies purchased. Of course, the other will be the maintenance requirements.
On top of that, there are also other mitigating measures put in place. For example, our land development agency, such as the Housing and Development Board and Urban Redevelopment Authority have development guidelines to set back residential buildings away from major roads. Take, for instance, the building setback distance from expressways is 30 metres, and for major arterial roads it is about 15 metres.
In addition to that, land is also set aside for the National Parks Board to plant trees and shrubs along the road to absorb the traffic noise. With regard to specific driver behaviour, fortunately, the number of pieces of feedback of noisy buses received by LTA is currently quite low. Most of them largely pertain to public bus interchanges situated near housing estates when buses are departing in the early morning hours. LTA, together with the National Environment Agency, are working very closely with the public bus operators to see how we can regulate the movement of the buses in these interchanges so as to minimise the noise emitted that is causing inconvenience and disamenities to nearby residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Staff Response and Intervention in Incidences of Molestation on MRT Premises","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Transport whether incidences of molestation on MRT premises are treated as high priority for staff intervention when they are reported and what happened with the 12 September 2018 incident at Serangoon MRT station.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, Sir, on 12 September 2018 around 11.30 pm, a female passenger alerted the staff at the Passenger Service Centre at Serangoon Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station that she had been molested by a male commuter onboard the train and at the station. The staff informed the Singapore Bus Service Transit Operations Control Centre (OCC), and the Public Transport Security Command of the Singapore Police Force (TransCom) was alerted immediately. Their swift actions enabled the Police to subsequently arrest a male suspect. Investigations are ongoing.
We take a serious view towards all security incidents. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and TransCom will continue to work closely with the Public Transport Operators to ensure the safety of our commuters.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.\t
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State. Two questions. What is the protocol in such instances where the staff is alerted to the incident of alleged molestation? Does it involve giving chase or stopping the molester from escaping from the scene of crime? And are staff trained to handle the sensitivity of the victims who, understandably, would be emotionally distressed?\t
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. The protocol, without going into too many details, does not specifically instruct the staff to give chase. The first thing that the staff have to do is, of course, inform the network of support structures that we have, such as the OCC and TransCom, in case more resources and more assets are required to be deployed to the station. And certainly, the staff has a duty to the station and the responsibilities of the post as well. So, calling for help is the first part of the protocol.
There is the issue, of course, as to whether the perpetrator could become violent. And these are service staff of our Public Transport Operators. They are not trained to handle violent criminals and chase down and apprehend people like that. So, they also have to exercise some judgement about what intervention is appropriate for them.
Certainly, there is a significant amount of customer service training that the service staff undergo, including how to handle people who are victims of incidences like this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funding Models for Education and Training Programmes for Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Government will review the funding models for education and training programmes for Singaporeans; (b) whether the current funding model is optimal and effective (i) by classifying Continuing Education and Training (CET) and Pre-employment Training (PET) separately and (ii) in supporting the Skills Future and lifelong learning efforts; and (c) whether there are different values attached to CET and PET programmes.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Education (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Sir, pre-employment training (PET) is often referred to as education. It is a formative experience, to equip our young with a meaningful and carefully designed body of knowledge and skills, to help them become independent, contributing members of society. The focus is on values, civic consciousness, foundational skills like literacy and numeracy, and certain domain expertise to kickstart a career and a journey of lifelong learning.
Continuing Education and Training (CET), often referred to as training, is to build upon PET, to upgrade skills and knowledge, keep up with technology and changes in the industry, or even to pick up another set of domain expertise. The focus is on competencies at the workplace.
Sir, in general, policymakers throughout the world put more public resources on PET, because it influences children and the young, and has profound impact on nation and society. CET, on the other hand, is often more beneficial to the individual as it imparts skills and competencies which he can use at his workplace. Singapore is one of the few countries in the world that takes a lifelong learning approach and organises this within one Ministry.
For PET, most primary and secondary schools require minimal co-payment of school fees. Higher education at the Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs), polytechnics and autonomous universities also attract significant funding. Students who need additional help can further apply for bursaries and financial assistance.
CET is also funded substantially, but with greater gradation depending on the context and outcomes. For example, for a Professional Conversion Programme, which we are placing a displaced worker into a new industry, we fund it most generously, including wages, while he is undergoing training. We also provide more support to training of workers in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and older workers. Other training programmes may be funded at up to 70% to help defray the cost of training that can help a company or worker derive individual benefits.
While this is the broad consideration, the division between PET and CET is never neat. For example, adult learners may decide to attend full-time Nitec or polytechnic diploma programmes, while an individual who did not attend many years of formal education may undergo CET programmes as part of his formative education and skills upgrading.
The integration of SkillsFuture Singapore into the Ministry of Education (MOE) has raised the awareness of these complexities. By and large, the system is conceptually sound, and we will iron out the arrangements over time.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. Let me clarify my question. Essentially, it is a broader policy question with regard to how the Government is signalling our efforts to develop the culture of continuous learning in Singapore. But also, at the back of it, is actually due to some of my recent visits to ITE, talking to the teachers and students. They shared that there has been a rising number, as the Senior Minister of State has alluded to earlier, a rising number of adult learners going to Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and ITE.
And with regard to recent speeches by Dr Amy Khor, Senior Minister of State for the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources and the Ministry of Health in 2016, she highlighted this close linkage between PET and CET when she went to the Chemical Process Technology Centre (CPCT) where there was a Workforce Development Agency allocation of $8 million and 1,650 Post-Secondary Education Institution (PSEI) students actually benefited from these CPCT arrangement over three years.
So, the Government has actually worked to merge PET and CET together in some small cases like this. I was wondering what more can the Government do in terms of signalling more about how we can actually merge PET and CET in some grey areas or, in the future, what are the long-term strategies that Government plans to do, particularly in the sense of developing a culture of continuous learning in Singapore, going forward?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. The Member is right that the culture of lifelong learning does not stop at learning in school or in the IHLs. After the individual has left the IHLs, left school, we want this learning to continue for life. And that is why the lines between education institutions and workplace need to be further blurred so that for someone in school, in an IHL, we want to bring workplace requirements and workplace experiences into our schools and into our IHLs. Internships, job relevant skills – these are elements which we want to be able to bring into our schools and our IHLs.
The other way is equally important. We want to be able to bring our workers who have already started work, who have already left school, to go back and do further upgrading of skills, lifelong learning. This is why the direction that MOE has taken in recent years is to encourage our IHLs to not only focus on providing PET but to also look at being providers of CET and make that a core part of their mission. So, if we can do it this way, we are then able to have this two-way flow – what the workplace requires in terms of skills and experience, bring it into the schools and IHLs, and to be able to also bring our workers back to reskill, to upskill.
Sir, one very important enabler to allow this to happen is actually our strong tripartite partnership in Singapore and this is something which is not found in many other countries. But here, we have it. We want to continue to nurture and treasure this very strong partnership that we have built up over the years because it is very helpful. When it comes to retraining, we need the workers to be onboard, the Labour Movement. We also need the employers to be on board and that is why the Government, together with employers and union, we will continue to work on this. Because this is, as the Member said, a lifelong pursuit, changing the culture, making lifelong learning part of our DNA.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I just want to seek a clarification. For adult Singaporeans who want to pursue a second or third degree in, for example, skills that are in demand, like cybersecurity, data analytics, occupational therapy, speech pathology, do they get to receive subsidised fees when they enter our local universities? I have the impression that they are not; they do not get that because it is another bite of the cherry, depending on how many times they have received a subsidy. And if they do not get a subsidy, then, why not, because these skills are in demand?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Ms Denise Phua for raising this very important question. Indeed, we want to provide opportunities for adult learners who want to switch careers and who want to pick up a new skill, to be able to go through such lifelong learning and skills upgrading programmes. So, what we have provided are various schemes under the SkillsFuture movement. For example, we have the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy which provides up to 90% subsidy for Singaporeans aged 40 and above. And, in addition, mid-career individuals who wish to reskill and switch careers can tap on the Professional Conversion Programmes under the Adapt and Grow initiative, which provides training and salary support of up to 90% to the employers for the duration of the training.
So, these are all different schemes that the Government has provided to help our workers who need to pick up a new skill to be able to transit to a new career or, sometimes, just to pick up additional skills to do their current jobs in their current industries – do it at a higher level, do it better. So, we will look at such ways to support.
CET, even if you do not do it as part of one of these enhanced programmes, we still provide generous subsidies of up to 70%. If you join one of these programmes, there will be additional subsidies up to 90%. It also depends on the profile of the employer and the profile of the worker. Older workers, as well as workers who are working in SMEs, we do provide more funding support.
So, to answer Ms Denise Phua's question, the evolution of these various courses has to move in tandem with what the economy requires. So, when there are new requirements, there are new skills required, there will be new courses that will be added to the list and new courses that can be funded as part of SkillsFuture. So, it is an ongoing thing. It is something which I think we will continuously look at to see what we can do to continue to support our workers.
\tMr Speaker: If you can keep it brief, Dr Intan Mokhtar.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State. Following up on the hon Ms Denise Phua's question is that, increasingly, the lines between CET and PET are being blurred. For example, increasingly, more IHLs are introducing stackable modules or stackable courses that lead to a qualification like a diploma or degree. So, how then do you reconcile the funding models between PET and CET? Because you can have someone who already has a degree, but through stackable modules, you can get another degree, eventually.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Sir, we want to look at how do we help our workers to achieve the necessary skills that are relevant for their careers. Because the resources that we have are limited. So, when you divert resources into one area, it means you have less resources for another area. So, it depends on where you want to put your resources into. And in our case, a decision has been taken to, say, let us focus on helping workers who need to go through training because they are switching careers or they are displaced from their original jobs, to look for a new job.
We also want to look at how to help people who want to upgrade their skills, say, they have a National ITE Certificate (Nitec) or Higher Nitec, and they are going for a polytechnic diploma. Or, if they have a polytechnic diploma, they are going for a degree, how do we help them, in areas that are relevant to their work, to be able to do so?
For someone who is going for something that actually benefits an individual more, for example, if you are going for postgraduate degrees or you are going for your second or third degree, it is not that we do not fund you, but I think the funding will have to be calibrated, depending on the competing needs for different groups of individuals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin Amin, do you have an update?
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Mr Amrin Amin): Thank you, Speaker. Mr Louis Ng asked for the actual numbers of deaths per year attributable to tobacco use, anti-smoking and second-hand smoke. The number for 2016 is 2,278. [Please refer to \"Effects of Prolonged Exposure to Second-hand Smoke\", Official Report, 2 October 2018, Vol 94, Issue No 84, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the day.
[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":"Employment (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Employment Act (Chapter 91 of the 2009 Revised Edition) and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the 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":"Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment No 2) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment No 2) Bill introduces amendments to achieve two desired outcomes.
First, it seeks to streamline Court procedures to enhance efficiency, introduce flexibility in order to meet shifting trends and also accommodate the needs of individual cases.
Second, it empowers the Courts to better manage vexatious or tardy conduct in proceedings.
In the main, the amendments will allow the Courts to operate more effectively and efficiently, without compromising access to justice. This ensures that judicial resources are better allocated, and results in time and cost savings for litigants and lawyers alike.
I will now take the House through the key features of the Bill.
Technology has significantly changed the way we live and conduct our affairs. With the advancement of technology, we are able to accomplish tasks in a much faster and efficient manner. Similarly, if used meaningfully, technology has the ability to also make a positive impact on the way our Courts function.
Clause 2 of the Bill, therefore, provides that the Courts can conduct hearings via electronic means, such as live video link or live television link. Previously, apart from the provision of evidence by witnesses in civil proceedings, the law did not provide for the general conduct of hearings through electronic means. With this amendment, legal proceedings which do not require the physical presence of parties or their lawyers in Court can be conducted quickly and more efficiently via electronic means. This enhances the Court process and saves time.
The Bill also grants the Courts various powers so that they can swiftly dispose cases in the most appropriate manner.
Let me touch on a few of these provisions.
First, clause 6 of the Bill expands the range of cases that can be decided based on written submissions. At present, the Court of Appeal may decide any application for leave to appeal based on written submissions. Under this provision, it is now proposed that the Court of Appeal can determine (a) any application, and (b) in circumstances where parties consent, appeals from the Singapore International Commercial Court, based on written submissions.
The amendment only empowers the Court of Appeal to decide any application to it without hearing oral arguments. So, an application in contrast to substantive appeal. The scope of this amendment does not extend to cover other substantive appeals, except for those which emanate from the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) and, even then, in situations where parties agree.
Where the Court of Appeal is of the view that even with this power, oral arguments are necessary, it will continue to retain the power to, and will, in fact, hear such oral arguments before deciding the application or appeal.
Second, clause 7 empowers the Court of Appeal on its own motion to summarily dismiss certain matters in two situations.
First, where the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal or application; or second, where there is no merit in the appeal or application because the issue has been decided by the Court of Appeal in an earlier matter in which the appellant or applicant was involved.
This clause allows unmeritorious appeals or applications to be dismissed without expending unnecessary judicial time and resources. However, safeguards are put in place to ensure that the interests of the appellant or applicant are adequately protected.
In this regard, before a Court can summarily dismiss an appeal or application, it must give the appellant or applicant a reasonable opportunity to show cause as to why the appeal or application should not be dismissed and consider the representations of the appellant or applicant.
Next, we are also proposing amendments in relation to the admission of further evidence on appeal.
At present, further evidence can be admitted, on appeal, without leave of Court: one, in relation to interlocutory applications; and two, where matters occurred subsequent to the date of the earlier decision.
In line with efficient judicial administration, parties should be encouraged to present all relevant evidence at the first instance hearing so that cases can be disposed fairly, efficiently and also comprehensively based on available evidence. This is, of course, with the exception of matters or evidence which occurred after the date of decision as parties would not obviously have known about it.
Therefore, in this vein, clause 9 of the Bill proposes that leave of Court would be required before an application can be made to admit further evidence on appeal, except for matters which occurred subsequent to the date of decision.
This means that parties who seek to admit further evidence on interlocutory applications will now require leave of Court in order to do so.
This will ensure that only meritorious applications to adduce further evidence will be allowed to proceed.
In the same vein, clause 8 introduces a new requirement for leave of Court to make an application to discharge or vary incidental directions or orders made by the Court under section 36 of the Act. This is in respect of directions or orders which are ancillary to the main appeal and are unlikely to touch on the substantive merits of the case. The requirement for leave of Court ensures that Court resources would be directed appropriately to deal only with meritorious applications to discharge or vary.
In deciding whether to grant leave or not for a party to vary or discharge a direction or order under section 36, the Court of Appeal will consider if such directions and orders are, in fact, ancillary to the appeal, or whether they go towards the merits of the appeal. Leave would be granted where it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
Next, the Bill also seeks to introduce flexibility and efficiency in the Court process to allow for cases to be heard expeditiously and also have regard to the various shifting trends that may rise.
In this regard, clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill introduce amendments to allow for matters relating to, firstly, the coram of the Court of Appeal, and secondly, as to which matters are non-appealable or only appealable with leave to the Court of Appeal, to be moved from the primary Act into the Fourth to Sixth Schedules.
As to the coram of the Court of Appeal, section 30(1) of the Act states that the civil jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal shall be exercised by three or any greater uneven number of Judges of Appeal. Section 30(2) sets out the types of matters which can be determined by a Court of Appeal consisting of two Judges of Appeal.
Clause 4 of the Bill will seek to introduce a new Sixth Schedule which would set out the number of judges that would be required to exercise the civil jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal for different matters, as specified in that Schedule. The Members can be assured that when the matters are moved into the Sixth Schedule, they will continue to reflect the current position that is based on section 30.
As regards appeals on certain matters, the current section 34(1) and the Fourth Schedule set out the matters which are non-appealable to the Court of Appeal, while section 34(2) and the Fifth Schedule set out the matters which are appealable only with leave to the Court of Appeal.
By clause 5 of the Bill, matters which are non-appealable will now be set out in the Fourth Schedule, and matters which are appealable only with leave will be set out in the Fifth Schedule. So, part of the amendments seeks to consolidate all the items into one Schedule rather than have them appear in parts of the Bill and in the existing Schedule. The only exception to this would be section 34(2)(a), which sets out the jurisdictional monetary limit and threshold. This, because it deals with the question of jurisdictional monetary limit, will remain in the primary Act.
These amendments allow for a quicker revision of each of the above categories as amendments of the primary legislation would require more time to effect rather than the amendment of the Schedule itself. Placing these matters in the Schedules, therefore, allows more flexibility and speed as they can be amended by the Minister, in consultation with the Chief Justice. The Schedules can be revised swiftly to ensure that an efficient allocation of judicial resources can be balanced against the volume of appeals, so that the Court of Appeal can handle deserving cases expeditiously.
Let me touch on two further amendments in relation to, firstly, the monetary threshold for appeals from the District and Magistrates’ Courts; and secondly, the Rules Committee being empowered to make rules relating to the manner in which evidence is to be adduced.
On the first point, clause 3 increases the monetary threshold to $60,000 for decisions of the District and Magistrates’ Courts which are appealable with leave to the High Court.
At present, as some Members may know, decisions of the District and Magistrates’ Courts are appealable to the High Court with leave if the amount in dispute does not exceed $50,000. However, the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court is set at $60,000, which means that there are cases with claim values between $50,000 and $60,000 which would be appealable to the High Court without leave. The proposed amendment just seeks to ensure consistency and provides that there will be no automatic right of appeal for cases that fall within the $50,000 to $60,000 range.
As to the second point I raised earlier, clause 14 seeks to clarify that under section 80(2)(h), the Rules Committee is empowered to make rules relating to the manner in which factual, expert or opinion evidence is to be presented in Court.
I turn now to the next basket of amendments that deal with vexatious proceedings and tardy conduct in the legal proceedings.
Vexatious litigation is a drain on our Court resources. They draw away precious Court time from dealing with meritorious applications. The Court of Appeal has had the opportunity to define vexatious proceedings in recent case law, and these amendments do not seek to change that. Broadly, vexatious proceedings are those which are groundless and without merit. They may be initiated with the purpose of annoying or embarrassing the other party, and not for the purpose of having the Court decide on the issues.
Apart from wasting judicial resources, vexatious conduct, especially when instituted habitually and persistently, causes distress and annoyance to other parties to the proceedings as they are subject to a litany of baseless lawsuits and applications.
At present, section 74 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act provides the only recourse against such vexatious litigants. If a party has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable grounds instituted vexatious legal proceedings in any Court, it is the Attorney-General who has to make an application to the Court to restrain such conduct.
And upon the making of such a successful application, the High Court may order that:
a) either no legal proceedings be instituted by that party without the leave of Court, and/or
b) any legal proceedings instituted by that party in any Court before the making of the order shall not be continued by him without leave.
This current approach is limited in two ways. First, the Court and the affected party have no power to act on their own to apply under section 74 regardless of the degree of vexatious conduct, the impact it may have had on the affected party, as the application must be made by the Attorney-General. Second, section 74 carries with it severe consequences and may not be proportionate to or properly calibrated to meet the mischief in question in all cases.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
To address these limitations, clause 10 of the Bill introduces a new power to allow the Courts to make three different types of civil restraint orders to address varying degrees of vexatious conduct. The three different types of orders are as follows.
Firstly, a limited civil restraint order. This order may be made against a party who has made two or more applications that are totally without merit. The party will be restrained from making further applications in the particular proceedings in which the order is made, without leave of Court.
Secondly, an extended civil restraint order. This order may be made against a party who has persistently commenced actions or made applications that are totally without merit. The party will be restrained from commencing any action or making any application concerning any matter involving, relating to, touching upon or leading to the proceedings in which the order is made, without leave of Court for a period not exceeding two years.
Finally, a general civil restraint order. Such an order may be made against a party who has persisted in commencing action or making applications that are totally without merit, and in circumstances where an extended civil restraint order would not be sufficient or appropriate. The party will be restrained from commencing any action or making any application in any Court specified in the order, without leave of Court for a period not exceeding two years.
This gradated approach gives more nuance in managing vexatious litigants, taking into account the specific facts of each case.
The Court will also be empowered to stay the vexatious proceedings and order that no further documents be filed by a party if the filing of documents would be vexatious or otherwise for an improper purpose.
Under the proposed amendments, the High Court or Court of Appeal may make these orders: (a) on its own motion, which it presently cannot do; (b) on an application by a party, again, which it presently cannot do; or (c) on an application by the Attorney-General, which is the current position envisaged under section 74. Before an order is made against a party, that party will be given an opportunity to be heard by the Court.
In relation to proceedings before a lower Court, a party or the Attorney-General may make an application to the High Court for one of the abovementioned orders, so to the extent that this may appear in the district Courts or the magistrate's Courts, an application is made to the High Court. This power ensures that the High Court can also make the necessary orders to address vexatious proceedings occurring before a lower Court. It is more appropriate for the High Court to make such orders, instead of the lower Court, because the impact of such orders is potentially far-reaching and restrains a party’s ability to conduct legal proceedings.
The party against whom an order is made may bring an appeal to the Court of Appeal with the leave of the High Court or the Court of Appeal. Similarly, clause 11 amends the existing section 74 such that a person against whom an order is made under that section may appeal against the order with the leave of the High Court or the Court of Appeal.
These new powers were drawn from best practices in the United Kingdom (UK) and Canada. In moving from a single touchpoint for vexatious proceedings under section 74 to a gradated approach, Courts are now better equipped to manage varying degrees of vexatious conduct. This accords with notions of fairness and also proportionality as litigants are restrained to different extents based on the severity of their vexatious conduct, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach under the current section 74.
Finally, I would like to touch on some revisions on the imposition of late filing fees for non-compliance with the Rules of Court.
In addition to the powers to manage vexatious proceedings, clause 16 of the Bill also ensures the efficient disposal of cases by allowing the Courts to impose late filing fees for non-compliance with the Rules of Court, Court orders or directions and practice directions. Currently, there are no automatic sanctions against the late filing of documents, and this tends to delay legal proceedings.
These late filing fees seek to encourage parties and their lawyers to comply with the Rules of Court, Court orders and practice directions in relation to the filing of documents so that legal proceedings can be conducted and completed in a timely manner.
Sir, in summary, these amendments are part of our continuing efforts to improve civil procedure in Court proceedings in Singapore. This is an ongoing and worthy endeavour, for it has often been said, and in my view, correctly, that procedure is the handmaid of justice. By enhancing our Court processes, and strengthening Court procedures, while at the same time ensuring that the interests of litigants are safeguarded, these amendments will enable the Courts to continue to fulfil their mission of providing a just, efficient and effective avenue for all its users. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, the judiciary is an important institution. It helps to uphold the rule of law and plays an important part in the administration of justice. Its importance and function in society do not diminish over time. But how it operates may need to adapt with the times. For example, technology has been utilised by the Court to more efficiently and effectively manage cases. Launched in 2013, the eLitigation system gave a better overview of the case compared to the previous Electronic Filing System, which was more document-centric. In the same vein, clauses 2 and 19 of this Bill enables the Court of Appeal and the High Court to conduct hearings via live video technology.
This Bill is important as it provides the necessary adaptations and tools to ensure that judicial resources are used judiciously in a manner that can best uphold rule of law and administration of justice in an effective and meaningful manner.
In civil cases, property rights, livelihood and day-to-day provision may be at stake. Often, pending Court proceedings and unsettled disputes are disruptive to the individuals and businesses involved. Timeliness of a just outcome is, therefore, imperative. While a case is pending, landscapes of different industry sectors may change quickly, swiftly with commercial opportunities being lost or forgone.
At this juncture, Sir, allow me to declare that I am a practising lawyer.
There are three main areas of the Bill that I want to touch on. A common thread seems to be ensuring judicial resources are used judiciously while ensuring that parties’ substantive rights are protected.
The first is with regard to vexatious litigants. Clauses 10 and 11 introduce a greater range of tools to vexatious litigation. This is to restrain a vexatious litigant from bringing spurious claims or applications that might clog the judicial process and hinder the effective administration of justice. While better calibration is a good objective, would there be more disputes over the fine distinctions each order in the regime requires? For instance, the distinction between general and limited civil restraint order is that the general restraint order is limited to when the limited restraint order would not be sufficient or appropriate. Another question I have is whether it was intended to set out a new and different test of “totally without merit”? The original test of “without any reasonable ground” has been retained in section 74. If so, would the Senior Minister of State elaborate on the difference between, if any, and the objectives of the two tests?
The second area is development on the number of judges to constitute a coram under certain circumstances. This is provided through clause 4 and the new Sixth Schedule in clause 18. For instance, a single judge is necessary for a consent judgment, a judgment which the parties have agreed on. As this list is being placed into a Schedule, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what are some considerations that may be taken into account when this Schedule is amended, for example, what kind of trends, if any, will be considered and what factors will go into the decision regarding what level of judicial involvement, or what amount of judicial resources, are required?
The third area, Sir, is on appeals. The appeals process, according to Prof Pinsler in Principles of Civil Procedure, “ensures the integrity and correctness of judicial decision-making, preserves the certainty of the law through judicial precedent, develops jurisprudence and maintains public confidence in the administration of justice.” Therefore, the appellate function of the Court of Appeal is very important, and the amendments in this Bill must strengthen rather than reduce the Court of Appeal's ability to discharge its appellate function in an effective manner.
Clause 9 restricts new evidence that may be tendered on appeal. It requires all new evidence regarding things that happened before the trial to pass the stringent special grounds test. In particular, the distinction between interlocutory appeals and judgments is removed and seems to restrict the judge’s discretion to admit additional evidence. Therefore, would the good Senior Minister of State explain the rationale behind such an amendment?
According to clause 6, the Court of Appeal may decide an appeal from the SICC without an oral hearing only upon the consent of every party. Would the Senior Minister of State kindly elaborate on the rationale behind this?
Lastly, the Fourth and Fifth Schedules introduce more flexibility into what cases are non-appealable and appealable only with the leave of Court. The press release states that this amendment is to “allow the list of matters specified in the Schedule to be amended quickly to adapt to demands on the ground.” Previously, the rationale as embedded and enunciated by the Court of Appeal in Open Net Pte Ltd vs the Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore is as follows:
\"The purpose underlying the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (SCJA) regarding the right to appeal is that an appeal to the Court of Appeal will generally be as of right for orders made at interlocutory applications which have the effect of finally disposing of the substantive rights of the parties; while an appeal to the Court of Appeal will ordinarily be denied for orders made at interlocutory applications which do not finally dispose of the substantive rights of the parties, and which are deemed to involve established principles of law. The middle category which consists of orders made at interlocutory applications which lie in the middle of these two extreme situations may be appealed to the Court of Appeal only with leave of Court.\"
In light of this, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the rationale behind the categorisations has changed.
Sir, new times may call for new methods but not necessarily new principles. The amendments in this Bill are important as they provide the flexibility and tools for the administration of justice to adapt with the times, not to dilute the administration of justice but to ensure the processes remain efficient and effective. I believe, on the whole, the Bill does that, and therefore, I support it.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill, which updates our civil procedure framework. In particular, I welcome the clarification that the Court may hear matters through live video or television link.
This aligns the legislative framework with the tools already at the disposal of Court users, such as the Technology Courts, and Mobile Technology Facility Services for use in non-technology Courtrooms and hearing chambers.
The Bill also proposes a number of other amendments, which have been perceived by some members of the public as imposing limits on a litigant's right to be heard.
These amendments include requiring leave of Court before an application can be made to admit further evidence on appeal, allowing the Court of Appeal to determine a broader range of matters based on written submission, and allowing the Court of Appeal to summarily dismiss appeals or applications on its own motions.
While each amendment may be unremarkable on its own, the collective effect of all these amendments is to significantly encroach on the various aspects of the right to be heard.
The right to be heard is a fundamental rule of natural justice. We should be cautious when imposing any limits on that right. As such, I will be seeking clarifications on two matters.
First, the Minister's power to determine which civil matters may or may not be appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Second, the range of restraint orders that a Court may now grant for vexatious proceedings.
The rationale for imposing these limits and the scope of their application should be clear so that litigants do not feel deprived of their right to be heard. Justice must both be done and be seen to be done.
Sir, section 34 will be amended to allow the Minister to specify in the Fourth and Fifth Schedules which civil matter may or may not be brought on appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The amendment moves the determination of appealable civil matters further from Parliamentary scrutiny.
Changes to the Schedule can be decided by the Minister in consultation with the Chief Justice, as the Senior Minister of State has mentioned in his speech, without needing to be passed through Parliament. In its response to the public consultation conducted, the Ministry noted that there is sufficient accountability since the Minister is answerable to Parliament.
The rationale of moving the list of appealable and non-appealable civil matters from the main body of the text of the Act to the Schedule is to provide flexibility for amendments. However, this decision is a significant one that involves curtailing parties' rights of appeal, as was noted by respondents to the public consultation. Whether a civil matter should be appealable is a decision that warrants further deliberation and debate.
The amendment suggests that the need for flexibility outweighs the value of deliberation. Could the Senior Minister of State elaborate further on why the list of appealable and non-appealable civil matters might need to be amended so urgently that it justifies moving the decision out of Parliament's oversight?
Next, sections 73A to 73D are significant new additions to the SCJA which grants the Court more tools to restrain unmeritorious and vexatious proceedings and litigants. The new order that the Court may grant are intended to introduce a more nuanced approach to restrain a vexatious litigant. However, I am concerned that the expanded powers may have the converse effect of leading to the Courts being more willing to resort to restraint orders.
The new section 73C provides for an extended civil restraint order which restraints an individual from commencing an action or making an application which concerns any matter \"involving, relating to, touching upon or leading to\" the legal proceedings at hand. These are incredibly broad terms. Can the Minister elaborate on the factors that the Court should consider in determining whether a new action or application falls under an extended civil restraint order?
The wording of \"involving, relating to, touching upon or leading to\" in section 73C is taken from paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of the Practice Directions 3C of the UK’s Civil Procedure Rules. Is the scope of the language under the new section 73C intended to be identical to the interpretation the UK courts have taken of extended civil restraint orders under their Civil Procedure Rules?
The new section 73D(1) provides that the Court may make a general civil restraint order where an extended civil restraint order \"would not be sufficient or appropriate\". Can the Senior Minister of State elaborate further on what factors the Court should consider in determining whether an extended civil restraint order is sufficient or appropriate? Can the Minister also provide some examples of when an extended civil restraint order would be deemed insufficient or inappropriate?
Next, sections 73B(5), 73C(6) and 73D(6) allow a party subject to a restraint order to appeal where the High Court refuses to grant leave to commence an action or make an application. However, this right of appeal is in relation to the new application or action after a restraint order has already been made. Does the party have a right of appeal against the granting of the restraint order in the first place?
Under the UK’s Civil Procedure Rules relating to civil restraint orders, an application for permission to commence an action or make an application may be determined without a hearing. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify whether a hearing is necessary where a party applies for leave of Court to commence an action or make an application?
Under sections 73C(5) and 73D(5), the Court may extend the period for which an extended or general civil restraint order remains in effect if it considers it appropriate to do so. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify whether the Court has the power to do so on its own initiative or whether an application from a party is required? Can the Senior Minister of State also elaborate on the circumstances or factors to be considered in determining whether an extension is appropriate?
Sir, I appreciate that these amendments are intended to allow the Court to tailor procedures to meet the needs of individual cases. Nonetheless, flexibility should be exercised in a principled manner that respects the individual's right to be heard. I hope the Senior Minister of State will be able to clarify the above matters and provide litigants with greater clarity on when the provisions may or may not apply.
Notwithstanding the above concerns and clarifications requested, I do stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer whose primary practice is in litigation. I support the purpose behind the Bill, which is primarily to enhance the efficiency of the administration of justice whilst ensuring the litigants' legitimate interests are taken care of as well.
I have four queries on the Bill.
The first is in relation to the application to adduce fresh evidence on appeal. The proposed section 30 read with the 6th Schedule allows a Judge of Appeal sitting as the Court of Appeal to decide on an application to adduce fresh evidence in proceedings before the Court of Appeal. Now, by way of a comparison, in relation to an application for extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal, a two-judge panel will hear the matter.
The proposed section 36(3) of the SCJA provides that a full Court of Appeal can discharge the order. However, the application to discharge or vary the order made by a Judge of Appeal can only be done with leave in the first place by the Judge of Appeal. An order of a Judge of Appeal sitting alone refusing leave to adduce fresh evidence is final.
Given that the issue of whether or not to adduce fresh evidence can potentially have a bearing on the appeal, may I please ask what is the rationale of putting this issue before a one-judge Court of Appeal? My concern is that we may have a situation where a Judge of Appeal, at first instance, refuses to give leave, and he then entrenches his decision by refusing to give leave for an application to discharge before a full Court of Appeal. Then, we would not have the possibility, however remote it may be, that a Judge of Appeal may get it wrong, and then there is no avenue to revisit his Honour's decision.
Next, I ask about the policy of vesting amending powers with the Minister, as compared to the President.
As Members of this House will appreciate, our Government follows the Westminster model and the judiciary is a separate pillar of the Government. The proposed section 83(1) of the SCJA vests with the Minister the powers to amend the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Schedule via the Gazette after consulting the Chief Justice. This compares differently from section 34(3) where it is provided that the President may, after consulting the Chief Justice, amend the Court jurisdictional money limits, again, via the Gazette.
May I please ask what is the legal policy in deciding whether the Minister or the President is involved in exercising these amendment powers via the Gazette? My respectful opinion is that the good thing about using the Minister is that the Minister is ultimately accountable to Parliament, and that I believe is a point that the hon Member Mr Louis Ng made earlier.
Next, on the provisions allowing the Court of Appeal to decide via documents without the need for oral hearing.
I note that section 34A(2) deals with appeals from the SICC. May I please ask for a clarification dealing with documents-only appeals also extend to other divisions of the High Court?
And in relation specifically to the SICC, I note that it is provided that the documents-only appeal may be conducted when SICC issues an order for the same. May I please ask what are the circumstances in which the SICC would issue an order pertaining to whether or not an appeal should be heard by the Court of Appeal on a documents-only basis?
At first glance, in the absence of a consent order, it is rather strange for a division of the High Court to suggest to the Court of Appeal how it should conduct its proceedings in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Next, I move on to the measures for dealing with unmeritorious or vexatious proceedings.
I note that the proposed sections 73A to 73D are in addition to the existing section 74. The learned Senior Minister of State mentioned about the limitation of the existing section 74. He pointed out that section 74 may only be invoked through the application of the Attorney-General. I, however, note that the Attorney-General can also be an applying party under the provisions that will be introduced. May I please ask what will then be the interplay between sections 73A to D on one hand, and section 74 on the other hand, where the Attorney-General is involved in both?
The significant difference is that under section 74(2) of SCJA, the High Court has powers to assign a lawyer to the party who cannot afford to pay for a lawyer. This provision is not there in relation to the new section 73A to D. So, may I please ask why the same is not provided, given that the Attorney-General could be an applying party for either of these provisions? The equality of arms issue is a real one.
Finally, on the meaning of \"legal proceedings\" under section 73A(10) as compared to the existing section 74(5), I note that under the proposed section 73A(10), the definition of legal proceedings excludes criminal matters. That is not the case in relation to section 74(5) of SCJA. May I please ask why criminal matters are excluded?
In practice, we sometimes see vexatious litigants commencing private prosecution which are criminal in nature. The public prosecutor can intervene for each particular proceeding. But it may be useful to consider a situation where the powers contemplated under section 73A to D are extended to criminal proceedings, so that there could be a general restraint as the case may deserve. Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: This sounds like legal submissions. Senior Minister for State Mr Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for the comments and the wide-ranging number of suggestions and queries that have been raised. I will do my best to respond to them, also in the framework of the two broad baskets of revisions that have been introduced in this Bill.
Let me start with queries on clause 5 of the Bill. As Mr Louis Ng and Mr Murali Pillai and I think also Mr Christopher de Souza have noted, it shifts matters which are non-appealable in section 34(1) to the Fourth Schedule, and those which are appealable with leave from section 34(2) to the Fifth Schedule. Mr Louis Ng, in particular, sought query on why that was being proposed.
First, the amendments, as I said earlier, seek to consolidate all of these into one place. At present, you can find matters which are referred to, or necessary for leave to appeal, in the main body of the statute and also in the Schedule. And, likewise, for the matters which are non-appealable, also appearing in both places.
So, the first objective of these amendments is to put them all into one location, so that the Schedule itself, the Fourth and the Fifth, will house all the matters for which it is either non-appealable or appealable only with leave.
Second, moving them into the Schedules does allow for more flexibility and speed. As the Members will know, it takes more time to amend the primary legislation than it will be to change the Schedules. The Schedules will be revisited from time to time, and added to or removed from, by the Minister, in consultation with the Chief Justice. So, it is not just the Minister alone who will decide on what goes in, what comes out, of the Schedules.
Mr Louis Ng did raise a concern as to whether the Schedules will remove the items going in or coming out from Parliament's oversight. The Minister, ultimately, is accountable in Parliament to all Members, and this would apply to the decisions as regards what goes in or comes out of the Schedule. To the extent that there are any issues to be raised on this, Parliament can be the forum for this to be raised.
On a related note, Mr Christopher de Souza did question as to whether there is a change in the policy rationale as to how a matter or the basis on which a matter is classified as non-appealable or appealable only with leave, within the SCJA framework. I thank Mr de Souza for allowing me to clarify that the policy rationale in deciding whether a matter is classified as one or the other – non-appealable or only with leave – has not changed. Matters are and will continue to be carefully differentiated based on their importance to the substantive outcome and also, quite importantly, balanced against the appropriate allocation of judicial resources to deal with those matters.
Mr Murali Pillai queried why the power to amend the Schedules is vested in the Minister, but the power to amend the monetary limit under section 34(2)(a) is not. The reason, I referred to it in my original speech, is because it is consistent with sections 30 and 53(2) respectively of the State Courts Act, where it is the President who has the power to amend the monetary limits for the District Court and the Magistrates' Court, after consulting the Chief Justice. So, to that extent, that remains the province of the President and it finds its place in the main body of the statute, whereas the cases which go into the Schedules can be decided upon by the Minister in consultation with the Chief Justice.
I turn now to clause 4 of the Bill which introduces the new Schedule, the Sixth Schedule, which sets out the coram of the Court of Appeal when exercising civil jurisdiction in matters. Mr Christopher de Souza asked what considerations may be taken into account when deciding on the Schedule. The key considerations would be the appropriate amount of judicial resources which should be expended on a particular class of matter, obviously issues as to the complexity and the novelty of the matters raised will remain high on the list of priority. In fact, as Mr de Souza knows, the Courts already consider complexity and novelty in deciding when to constitute a coram of three or five judges in a Court of Appeal as the case may be, for both civil and criminal appeals. For instance, a coram consisting of three Judges of Appeal would generally not be necessary to deal with matters incidental to determining the merits of the application or the primary application. So, for example, applications which have bearing on seeking security for costs or applying to discharge solicitors, those do not need the full coram of three.
I turn now to deal with the question of further evidence in proceedings and I think all three Members touched on this. Mr Christopher de Souza, in particular, asked about the rationale as to why leave will now be required to admit further evidence. I would like to inform the Members that these revisions deal with the admission of new evidence, in relation to interlocutory matters. So, bear that in mind as you understand the concept and the construct on why these rules apply in this way.
Most parties, I think Members would agree, would have the opportunity of raising all the evidence. We have our hearings now conducted first with extensive exchange of cases in writing and then the submissions by the skeletals as well just before the hearing. So, several written opportunities would be afforded to the parties already before the hearing itself. To that extent, the parties are encouraged, and I think quite rightly so, given the limited resources we have for hearing time, to ensure that all the available evidence would be before the Courts, before the hearing itself.
And so, to that extent, when one is seeking to include further evidence in the appeal where that evidence was otherwise available to the party before the lower Court hearing, one has to be very circumspect about it and, in those situations, further evidence will only be allowed if leave is granted.
This is in contradistinction to those cases where, subsequent to the hearing itself, new matters develop and, in those situations, I think it is reasonable to assume that if they have a bearing on the outcome of the appeal, satisfying the usual test for admission of evidence, then the evidence would be allowed. I would stress that this process strikes a proper balance between the right of the parties to rely on and adduce further evidence, and also the appropriate use of judicial and Court time in dealing with these matters.
Next, I turn to dealing with matters that can be disposed of based on written submissions. Both Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Murali Pillai touched on this question, and asked questions as to why section 34A(2), which allows the Court of Appeal to decide matters based on written submissions, is only restricted to appeals from SICC. Mr Murali Pillai further pointed out that section 34A(1) already provides that the Court of Appeal has the power to decide on matters without hearing oral arguments.
Let me first clarify that section 34A(1) only empowers the Court of Appeal to decide any application to it without hearing oral arguments. The scope of this provision applies to potential applications which are ancillary to the main appeal. So, as I said in my opening speech earlier, they deal with applications, not the main substantive appeal itself. An example of such an \"application\" would be, going back to my earlier point, security for costs or applying to amend a part of the case, or trying to deal with the potential cost of the hearing. So, those are matters that are ancillary to, but not the main appeal.
As a general principle nonetheless, where oral arguments are otherwise useful to elucidate the issues and to facilitate a just and expeditious disposal of an appeal before the Court of Appeal, those will still take place.
That said, Mr Murali Pillai raised the question of SICC. SICC is set up to hear international and commercial matters which involve parties with no substantial connection to Singapore. Given that such matters may involve international parties or foreign registered lawyers, the parties may wish, on their own accord, to save time by obviating the need for the oral hearing to take place in Singapore. Further, any international judges on the coram would also not be required to travel to Singapore for that oral hearing.
Such a flexibility makes SICC a more attractive option for international parties to settle their disputes and also adds to the already existing suite of party-centric innovations, such as allowing foreign counsel to submit directly on foreign law without it having to be proven through expert evidence.
To ensure that this option is only exercised in cases where the parties consent, section 34A(2) provides that appeals from any judgments or order of the SICC can be decided without hearing oral arguments only if every party to the appeal agrees. In other words, the choice is made by the parties themselves, and not, as I think Mr Murali Pillai suggested, by the SICC, which yes, remains as a division of the High Court.
I turn now to the next basket of amendments which deal with controlling vexatious conduct. I would preface my response by reminding Members that the power to control vexatious conduct is already present. What is being sought to be introduced in these amendments are broadly two things: one, a gradated approach so that it is not a \"one-size-fits-all\" approach in section 74 of the SCJA as it is presently so; and second, it is to allow for parties, aside from the Attorney-General, to also make their application.
Clause 10 of the Bill introduces the new civil restraint orders. They are meant, in the first instance, to be used in situations where the litigants have persistently initiated proceedings that are groundless and without merit. So, the litigant has to do it more than once, multiple times, at least twice in the case of the first rung or the lowest grade of the orders, and also without merit. These are done often with the purpose of annoying or embarrassing the other party.
I wish to inform Members that the litigants who are held to be \"vexatious litigants\" by our Courts have so far been far and few, thankfully. In 2017, only four orders were made under section 74 of SCJA. To date, no such orders have been made in 2018. The policy intention behind these amendments is, as I mentioned earlier, to allow the Courts to have, and to be able to take, a more nuanced approach in terms of the orders that they make in managing the different levels of culpability of the vexatious litigants. And this allows the judges to have more regard to the individual circumstances of each case and to make those distinctions.
Second, in terms of how and when these orders are to be applied, it will be for the Courts to carefully consider all the facts and circumstances of each case before exercising their discretion on whether to do so or not. While I will clarify the ambit of each of these restraint orders shortly, the jurisprudence in this area must ultimately be left to be developed through the exercise of principled discretion by our judges, based on the actual facts and the context before them. Members would wish to note that this is also the position in the UK.
With these in mind, let me address the concerns raised by Members, which, as I have heard, broadly falls into three categories. First, the definition and applicability of each of the civil restraint orders; second, the procedural details subsequent to the grant of a civil restraint order; and third, the interaction and, as Mr Murali Pillai puts it, the interplay between the civil restraint orders and section 74 of SCJA.
Let me start by addressing Mr Christopher de Souza's concern that more disputes might arise because of the distinctions that are drawn in the three types of civil restraint orders. First, I wish to emphasise that each of the three types of civil restraint orders requires a distinct threshold to be met before they can be considered.
While some cases may inevitably throw out a factual matrix where the type of order to issue is not so clear-cut and not so cut and dry, I would say that the Courts would be well-placed to apply the letter and intent of the law to these new and potentially multifarious situations. And they would do so having regard to the issue at hand, to the party in question and to the conduct in question as well in each individual case.
It may be helpful to consider that these restraint orders have, in fact, been applied in jurisdictions like the UK, like I mentioned, and as far as we can tell, they have not faced issues with regard to the way in which one might distinguish the type of orders. The factors I believe are clear, and they have been considered in previous cases also in the UK. And our Courts will no doubt take reference too, although it will not be strictly bound by these cases, when they have regard to these applications with the specific facts before them in question.
Mr Louis Ng asked what factors the Court would consider when deciding whether an extended civil restraint order is sufficient or appropriate, given that a general civil restraint order will be issued if an extended civil restraint order would not be sufficient or appropriate. To answer Mr Louis Ng's query, one scenario in which the general civil restraint order would be imposed would be where, for example, a vexatious litigant adopts a \"blunderbuss approach\" to litigation. He may bring in a slew of grievances against different parties, within a short period of time, without focusing on a particular single grievance. The language that I have just quoted is from a UK decision applying their equivalent of the statute.
This, I believe, gives the Court an ability to appreciate, in a particular case, the number of cases that are filed, the number of times the Court has faced with applications by this litigant, the period of time within which it is done. So, for instance if you file five cases over 10 years, it is quite different from five cases over two months. So, the Court is able to appreciate that better in the context of the case. The Court would also look at whether it is widespread, whether it is indiscriminate and whether one raises a series of allegations which have, basically, no legal merit. Another example is if the litigant just takes an approach that seeks to sully the name of a potential party with no reasonable legal basis. So, all that comes into play and comes into the mix. And the flexibility of this approach allows the Court to attenuate its response based on the facts of the instant case before it.
Next, I would like to touch on the scope of the extended civil restraint orders under the new section 73C, a point that Mr Louis Ng raised, the question of the scope of the language under the new section 73C and whether it is intended to be identical to the interpretation the UK courts have taken under their Civil Procedure Rules, and the factors that the Court should consider in determining whether a new action or application falls under the extended civil restraint order. When construing the new section 73C, the position adopted by the UK courts may be persuasive, but our Courts are obviously not bound to follow their interpretation. Different considerations in different jurisdictions will obviously dictate differences in the approach.
Let me turn now to questions on procedure subsequent to the grant of a civil restraint order.
Mr Louis Ng asked if the Courts can extend the period for which an extended or general civil restraint order remains in effect on its own motion or if an application from a party is required.
The Court may exercise its power to extend the period for which an extended or general civil restraint order remains in effect on its own motion, or on the application of the Attorney-General or a party to the proceedings. On whether such extension is appropriate, the UK courts have considered whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there was reasonable apprehension of future vexatious conduct following the expiry of the original extended or general civil restraint order. And there is an authority on this if Members are interested, that is, Ashcroft vs Webster, which is a 2017 decision. So, one of the factors which the court will look at and have regard to in the UK would be the conduct of the party against whom the orders were made, subsequent to the making of the order.
Mr Louis Ng also asked whether a party will have a right of appeal against the grant of a civil restraint order. Under section 73A(9), a party against whom a civil restraint order is made may bring an appeal to the Court of Appeal with the leave of the High Court or the Court of Appeal.
Finally, Mr Louis Ng asked if a hearing is necessary where a party restrained under a civil restraint order applies for leave of Court to commence an action or make an application. The answer is yes, it would be. Where appropriate, the Court of Appeal, as you heard earlier, would be entitled to hear this also on paper. But it takes into account the gravity of the issue, the nuances in terms of the complexity and the novelty of the matter and then decide whether it will be assisted by oral hearing. All of these factors would come in to bear.
I now move on to Mr Murali Pillai's questions on the interplay between the civil restraint orders and section 74, and whether there remains a useful role for section 74.
The new civil restraint orders seek to complement, but not replace, the current powers conferred on the Courts by section 74. Section 74 does provide for a suite of measures to deal with vexatious litigants and allows the Court to have the flexibility of calibrating its response to the unique challenges posed by a particular case. Furthermore, unlike the new civil restraint orders, section 74 is not limited to civil proceedings. So, it also applies to criminal proceedings which the provisions in the SCJA Bill do not do.
Mr Murali Pillai also asked about the reason for not extending the application of the new civil restraint orders to criminal proceedings, in particular, private prosecutions instituted by vexatious litigants.
At present, we do not see a need to extend the operation of such civil restraint orders to criminal proceedings, given that, as I said earlier, the presence of section 74 which can be used. Notably, civil restraint orders are adopted from the UK, which only applies these orders to civil proceedings. If, however, circumstances change, and there is a proliferation of similar issues in the criminal proceedings space, then that matter can be revisited.
As for the issue of private prosecutions raised by Mr Murali Pillai, the control of these proceedings, ultimately, lies with the Public Prosecutor as well and the Public Prosecutor can intervene at any stage of the proceedings, as Mr Murali Pillai correctly pointed out. In fact, under section 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), the Public Prosecutor has the power to discontinue the private prosecution. So, to that extent, the power remains vested with the Public Prosecutor. And if it is vexatious and if there is otherwise any issue which causes concern to the Public Prosecutor, then those powers under section 13 of the CPC can be exercised. The concern, therefore, about any potential abuse by vexatious litigants who initiate private prosecutions can be adequately addressed by or within the existing criminal procedure framework.
Mr Murali Pillai also raised several other questions. First, in relation to the assignment of advocate and solicitor, and he asked why the new provisions relating to the civil restraint orders do not provide that the High Court shall assign an advocate and solicitor to the party against whom such an order is sought, unlike section 74. As I said, section 74 now remains in its place to deal with the most severe of cases which attract the most severe of restrictions and it also deals with criminal proceedings. A section 74 order is in force indefinitely while a general civil restraint order, which is the most severe of the three types of orders that we now have, is in force for a maximum of two years. A general civil restraint order can be extended, but only for a maximum period of two years at any given occasion.
Further, as I mentioned earlier, section 74 continues to apply to criminal proceedings and an order under section 74 has more severe consequences in such a scenario as it can potentially affect a person's life and liberty. Therefore, having regard to all these factors, it is more appropriate to ensure that legal representation is mandated in such cases. That is why section 74 provides for that. Nonetheless, legal aid and the other pro bono assistance will continue, subject to the usual requirements; they will remain available for all parties who require but are not able to afford legal representation.
I turn now to Mr Christopher de Souza's observation that the test under the civil restraint orders is \"totally without merit\" while the test under section 74 is \"without any reasonable ground\". And I think Mr de Souza sought elaboration on the differences between the two tests and the objectives.
Broadly speaking, the policy underpinning both provisions would be similar: to prevent abuse of Court processes and allow the Courts to strike a balance between giving effect to the rights of a litigant to have access to the Courts while protecting, on the other hand, the Courts and the counterparty from being inundated with the unmeritorious litigation to the detriment of other parties and also to the detriment of the efficient allocation and usage of Court resources.
I note that it is also the case in the UK that the \"totally without merit\" phrase or requirement is used for civil restraint orders, whilst the \"without any reasonable ground\" requirement is used for the equivalent provision to our section 74. So, we borrowed from that provision and we retained this distinction. This does not appear to have caused the UK courts any difficulty. But obviously, we will continue to watch this space as well.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments in the Bill seek to tailor our Court procedures to allow our Courts to function more effectively, more efficiently and also empower them to respond better to vexatious conduct as they see it occur in the context of proceedings. The modifications to Court procedures will improve the Courts' management of their caseload, which will go some way towards ensuring that parties resolve their disputes expeditiously, and that is also in line with enhancing the interests of justice. By arming the Courts with a suite of measures to respond to litigants who, having had their day in Court, abuse the right to be heard by pursuing vexatious proceedings, the Courts will be able to husband their finite resources better and channel them to where they are most needed.
There is no doubt that the improvement of Court procedures is and remains work-in-progress. As time goes by, we can expect to see further developments, such as in information technology and the like, which disrupt the way things are done today. Going forward, we will review the impact of the present amendments, continue to work with Members to consider if further improvements ought to be made. And, in doing so, we will also study the best practices of similar jurisdictions overseas to ascertain what best practices can be and should be imported into Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, on that note, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Income Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2018 covers 17 income tax changes announced in the 2018 Budget Statement as well as 19 tax changes arising from the periodic review of our income tax regime. Of the 19 non-Budget proposed tax changes, eight changes are proposed refinements to the income tax regime while the remaining 11 changes are technical amendments to remove obsolete provisions or to provide clarifications on the law.
We sought views from the public on the draft Bill from 20 June to 11 July 2018. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) evaluated all the feedback received and incorporated them where relevant to the draft text of the Bill.
Let me start by highlighting some of the key tax measures.
First, the existing Corporate Income Tax (CIT) rebate for the Year of Assessment (YA) 2018 will be enhanced by raising the rebate percentage from 20% to 40% of tax payable, and the rebate cap from $10,000 to $15,000. The CIT rebate will also be extended to YA 2019, at 20% of tax payable, capped at $10,000. This will help companies, especially smaller ones, cope with near-term cost pressures. Clauses 43 and 44 of the Bill provide for this change.
Second, adjustments will be made to the Start-Up Tax Exemption (SUTE) Scheme and the Partial Tax Exemption Scheme from YA 2020. The tax exemption under both schemes will be reduced from the first $300,000 to $200,000 of normal chargeable income. Exemption under the SUTE Scheme will also be lowered from 100% to 75% for the first $100,000 of normal chargeable income. Even with these changes, corporate tax will remain low for startups and smaller companies. In addition, startups and smaller companies can tap on a wide range of Government support measures to build capabilities and grow their businesses. So, clauses 32(f), 50(a) and 50(d) to (g) of the Bill provide for these changes.
Third, to encourage research and development (R&D) to be done in Singapore, the tax deduction for staff costs and consumables incurred on qualifying R&D projects performed in Singapore will be increased from 150% to 250%. This enhanced deduction will be available from YA 2019 to YA 2025. Clauses 16 and 17 of the Bill provide for the change.
Fourth, to further encourage internationalisation, the expenditure cap for the Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation claims, without prior approval from Enterprise Singapore or the Singapore Tourism Board, will be raised from $100,000 to $150,000 per YA from YA 2019. And clauses 14 and 19 of the Bill provide for this change.
So, these are the tax changes. They give effect to the announcements that were made in Budget 2018 this year.
As mentioned earlier, MOF also regularly reviews and refines the income tax regime. So, I will now highlight the three broad changes arising from this periodic review of the tax regime which are in the Bill.
First, we will enhance the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore's (IRAS') powers to investigate tax crimes. Tax offenders and criminal syndicates are becoming more obstructive and employing more sophisticated schemes to defraud the authorities and cover up their crimes. Currently, IRAS has powers to require persons to provide information, record statements and take possession of documents or items that constitute evidence of tax offences. Enhanced investigative powers are required to more effectively deal with serious tax offenders, as well as acts of obstruction which may hamper IRAS' investigations and prosecution. Such obstructive acts include taking flight, destroying or refusing to hand over evidence, and contacting other witnesses to collude or fabricate evidence.
The proposed amendments will enhance IRAS' investigative powers, by providing authorised IRAS officers with the (a) power of forced entry; (b) power to arrest without warrant; and (c) power to carry out body search; subject to conditions. I will refer to these as enhanced investigative powers in my speech. I should also note that investigation officers of other tax authorities, such as the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) have similar powers to facilitate their investigations. We will put in place safeguards in the way these enhanced legislative powers are exercised.
For example, the power to arrest without a warrant may only be exercised for an investigation of serious tax offences, such as tax evasion, or where a suspect attempts to destroy evidence with a view to hindering or obstructing IRAS' investigations.
The power of forced entry may only be exercised if entry cannot be gained to a building or place in two situations.
One, when it is for an investigation of a serious tax offence and there is reason to believe that there is in a place an item relevant to the investigation or prosecution that may otherwise be concealed, removed or destroyed, Or, two, when there is a reason to believe that a person liable to be arrested under the Act is in the building or place.
The power to carry out a body search may only be exercised on a person found in a place which IRAS has lawfully gained entry into for the purpose of investigating a tax offence and to search for items which may be relevant for investigation or prosecution. There is an additional safeguard for a woman to only be searched by a female officer.
All these enhanced investigative powers may only be exercised by officers authorised by the Comptroller of Income Tax. These authorised officers would receive training consistent with those in other law enforcement agencies, such as Singapore Customs.
The amendments will also expand IRAS' power to gather all information relevant to its investigations or prosecution of tax offences from any person. Currently, IRAS may gather information relating to a person's income, assets or liabilities only. The amendment will allow IRAS to gather all information as long as it is relevant to the investigation or prosecution. For example, this could include information relating to business transactions or information relating to accomplices.
In addition, the amendments will align the penalties imposed under the Income Tax Act for persons who obstruct officers acting in discharge of their duty with those for a similar offence under the Goods and Services Tax Act. Specifically, section 66 of the Goods and Services Tax Act imposes a maximum fine of $10,000 and imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both, for obstruction of officers.
Clauses 2(b), 3, 41, 42, 45, 46 and 47 of the Bill provide for all of the changes which I have just described.
The second broad change pertains to the proposed amendment of the Income Tax Act to allow IRAS to share with law enforcement agencies (LEAs) information that may be necessary for investigation or prosecution of serious crimes. Serious crimes are offences listed in the First and Second Schedules to the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act.
We need the proposed amendments as the activities of criminals, including syndicates, are often multifaceted. Their criminal activities may not be limited to tax evasion and may extend to other forms of illegal activities like drug dealing and corruption. A whole-of-Government approach is required to better tackle such serious crimes. Again, I would highlight that other countries, including Australia, Norway, Sweden and the UK, also allow for the disclosure of tax information to LEAs to combat non-tax crimes.
Under the proposed amendments, information shared is to be disclosed by the Comptroller to the head of an LEA for the purpose of investigation or prosecution of serious crimes. Unauthorised onward disclosure of such information would constitute an offence. And clause 4 of the Bill provides for the changes.
Third, we propose to amend the Income Tax Act to allow tax deduction for motor car-related expenses for private hire car (PHC) drivers. Unlike taxi drivers, PHC drivers are currently not allowed to claim tax deduction on car-related expenses. We have reviewed this issue with the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and taken into account feedback from various Members of Parliament during debates on this matter as well as the National Private Hire Vehicles Association.
In view that taxi and PHC drivers now provide similar point-to-point transport services, we will allow tax deduction on car-related expenses incurred by PHC drivers, against their driving income. Such expenses would include car rental and petrol, for example. And to keep compliance manageable, a PHC driver may claim tax deduction for expenses incurred to earn driving income based on a deemed expense ratio prescribed in the Income Tax Act. We consulted with the National Private Hire Vehicles Association and the National Taxi Association and have proposed to set the deemed expense ratio at \"60% of gross driving income\". The ratio is a proxy for all expenses incurred to earn driving income, including service fees paid to platform providers. Alternatively, the PHC driver may opt to claim tax deduction based on the actual amount of expenses incurred in earning driving income. So, they can opt for the deemed 60% deduction or they can claim tax deduction based on the actual amount of expenses incurred.
The convenience of a deemed expense ratio will be extended to taxi drivers. Like PHC drivers, taxi drivers will be allowed to opt for the deemed expense ratio to ease tax compliance. Alternatively, taxi drivers can choose to continue with their current practice of claiming tax deduction based on the actual amount incurred on relevant expenses.
Capital allowance for the purchase costs of cars will continue to be disallowed for PHC drivers. As for taxi drivers, almost all currently do not own their taxis and, therefore, do not claim capital allowance. Only about 80 individuals today own taxis. These taxis are the yellow-top taxis. For taxi drivers who own these yellow-top taxis, the capital allowance in respect of their taxis will be grandfathered.
These changes in tax treatment update our tax regime to allow deduction for car-related expenses incurred by PHC drivers, while maintaining support for our long-standing policies on car ownership under our tax regime. The proposed amendments will take effect from YA 2019, for income earned in 2018. Clauses 22, 23 and 24 of the Bill provide for the changes. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, PHC services, which in the days of old used to be one of the modes of transport for those in the better-off segment of society, are today an affordable transport option for many. And, in spite of various issues enshrouding PHC, the demand for their services has not abated. If at all, demand has, in fact, increased, and this is especially so for families with elderly and young children; and, also for those with less mobile family members, as maneuvering around with buses and trains still has its challenges. The convenience of almost door-to-door service, and with a driver to assist those on wheelchair, PHC is a good option.
So, PHC drivers provide a necessary transportation service for the public. They complement taxi drivers or compete with our taxi drivers. It depends on how you look at it. Hence, PHC drivers deserve to claim tax deductions and receive fair remuneration for their labour.
Early this year, when it was about time to file for income tax return, many PHC drivers whom I met – some I met at coffee shops, some they came to my Meet-the-People Session, and they asked why is it that the expenses, such as petrol, car parking are not allowed to be deducted against their income, and end up they have to pay higher income tax. And that is why I spoke on this issue in Parliament before.
And now, they should be happy to hear about this amendment. But they have one concern. They say that some of the PHC drivers are full-time drivers; some are part-time drivers. So, how is IRAS going to differentiate between these two categories of claims? So, can the Minister enlighten us?
For fuel claims, I think that is quite straightforward as mileage clocked for ferrying passengers will be recorded by the PHC's platform. But for parking and rental, it is next to impossible to identify how much of these expenses go into picking up passengers. And, once some PHC drivers are approved to provide courier services, there will be further blurring of lines between work and personal.
Undoubtedly, some PHC drivers are full-time drivers, and it would be somewhat unfair to deprive them of the same tax benefits as full-time taxi drivers.
Sir, observing the current trend, the point-to-point service sector will only keep expanding. PHC platforms are enhancing their services to meet the needs for more courier services. In the meantime, we are seeing more ad hoc couriers on our roads. These are people who drive their own vehicles from cars, vans to motorcycles. They pay for parking and, in the case of motorcyclists, they have to pay for high motorcycle Certificates of Entitlement (COEs), all of which come out of their own pockets. These are issues that I have already brought up in Parliament previously.
I think it is important that the Government recognise this trend and review the regulatory framework for this sector, including having an appropriate income tax regime for all these operators. If PHC drivers can claim income tax, will the Minister consider the inclusion of other self-employed delivery persons as well? Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] It is a good idea to give tax deduction to PHC drivers. However, PHC drivers are different from taxi drivers. There is no minimum mileage requirement. If the driver drives his car mostly for personal use, he could abuse the tax benefits. This would be unfair to the full-time drivers. I, therefore, suggest that for a PHC driver to enjoy the tax deduction, he must also meet a minimum mileage or number of jobs requirement.
In addition, people who use their own vehicle to provide courier services must pay for parking and a high motorcycle COE. To be fair, they should also enjoy tax benefits.
(In English): Sir, I support the Bill and I hope that it will come into effect before the filing of income tax for next year.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chen Show Mao.
Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): Sir, I wish to return to the implications for gig economy workers in the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill before us today.
To begin, I would like to express my appreciation that MOF has been responsive to public feedback to simplify and increase the allowed tax deduction on car-related expenses incurred by PHC drivers. Tax simplification is always welcome, both to promote compliance as well as to improve the efficiency of administration and enforcement.
Sir, the participants in our gig economy include many PHC drivers and taxi-drivers who constitute the largest category of our self-employed persons. And that is how we typically think about the gig economy worker – a self-employed person, an independent contractor, and not an employee protected by the Employment Act.
In fact, the Tripartite Workgroup Report whose recommendations on gig economy workers were recently accepted by the Government is intituled \"Support for Self-employed Persons\". And as the recommendations themselves make clear, we have focused on the risks of self-employment that have been laid bare and exacerbated in recent years by the gig economy, such as unstable income that can fluctuate much more sharply and quickly than for more traditional self-employed persons outside the gig economy, such as stallholders in a hawker centre.
Sir, gig economy workers can be a very diverse group – drivers, delivery persons, accountants, coaches. And the group includes substantial numbers among the lower-income, more vulnerable groups in our population. Because of the temporary and uncertain nature of gigs, these workers are more likely to be living from pay cheque to pay cheque and finding their short-time cash flow needs often trump their longer-term economic interest in saving for future retirement. The question is, how can we provide them with better support, including through income tax amendments?
The Government has accepted the Tripartite Workgroup's recommendations for \"Contribute-As-You-Earn\" model whereby a MediSave contribution is required as and when a service fee is earned. And intermediaries and corporate service buyers are required to make the deductions whenever they pay the self-employed person. With \"deduct as you go\" and consequently with smaller pay cheques, it is likely that short-term cash flow crunches will get worse for the gig economy workers, making it even more difficult and challenging for him or her to make voluntary Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions in a disciplined way.
As the Government studies the implementation of \"Contribute-As-You-Earn\", may I urge that it also look into tax incentives for self-employed persons to encourage them to make voluntary CPF contributions that will help with their retirement adequacy in future?
The Government has also accepted the Tripartite Workgroup's recommendation that the tripartite partners work with insurers to make available to self-employed persons insurance products that will provide daily cash payouts in the event of loss of income due to prolonged illness or injury. Will the Government consider tax incentives to encourage the take-up of such insurance products by gig economy workers, including along the lines of existing income tax relief for life insurance?
Sir, as I indicated, the provisions in this Bill that work to the greatest ease and benefit of PHC drivers are welcome. I urge the Government to examine more generally the overall regime of tax incentives faced by gig economy workers. Let us help this growing and often vulnerable group of workers with the support and protection that they, their dependants, their work and their enterprise deserve.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the general question a tax Bill should answer is whether it is fair, sustainable and improves the efficiency of the economy. I will discuss how, in my view, this Bill achieves these objectives.
The tax reform that will probably affect the most Singaporeans is the change in tax treatment of PHC drivers' income. Hon Members and the public have asked for PHC drivers to be treated like taxi drivers for tax purposes. At this point, I wish to declare my interest. I am a director of the Singapore Taxi Academy.
Now, the basic problem is that PHC drivers are taxed on revenue and not their net income presently. Since car operating costs are high in Singapore, their effective tax rate is much higher than it should be, given their net income. Let me illustrate the difference that this Bill's reforms will make.
Grab informs me that their full-time PHC drivers have gross revenues between $6,400 and $10,800 per month. This is before commissions and expenses. Today, PHC drivers can already deduct the commissions which are about 20% of fare revenue, on average. But even with these deductions, they would pay from about $2,000 to $6,000 in annual income tax. If we assume that drivers' net income is about 40% of gross revenue, the average tax rate for the more successful drivers could reach 12% of their net income. Sir, 12% of the net income is actually higher than the average tax rate for Singaporeans with chargeable income of $160,000 annually.
Under the proposed Bill, a full-time PHC driver will have a reduction in tax in the range from about $1,800 to $4,700 a year. This is an annual savings that is just like one month’s bonus for the drivers. Sir, I understand there are some 37,000 PHC driver licence holders. Their tax burden will be substantially reduced by this Bill. This Bill will also affect our 97,000 taxi driver licence holders, who can now choose to have their deductions computed by formula.
But, Sir, is this a handout, a subsidy of some type that is costing the taxpayer? I would say no. It is actually a reform that improves the efficiency of the economy. After-tax earnings should reflect the economic value of the work done. It is not efficient to tax PHC drivers more than we tax taxi drivers when they do the same kind of work. Tax reforms like this will encourage Singaporeans to seek the most productive types of work, and reduce the chance that their work decisions are distorted by the tax system.
Sir, this Bill will help our tax system address new challenges in our economy which the previous hon Members have spoken about. The scope and nature of work is changing. We are seeing an unprecedented shift away from full-time employment into alternative, flexible forms of work, such as freelancing and contract work. Economists Alan Krueger and Lawrence Katz show in a paper forthcoming in the Industrial and Labor Relations Review, that the proportion of US workers in alternative work rose from 10.7% to 15.8%, from 2005 to 2015. In Singapore, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) reports that in 2017, 8.4% of Singaporean workers were self-employed own account workers. This was an increase of 23,400 workers between 2016 and 2017.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the question is: is our tax system ready for these changes if and when they happen? Are the incentives right, so that Singaporeans neither rush to alternative work, nor do they shy away from it?
Bringing this back to the Tax Bill, one area we could consider for tax reform is to ensure employees and the self-employed are treated the same when it comes to social security costs. Consider medical costs. Many full-time employees are covered by company group health insurance. The company deducts the medical costs as business expenses. What about the self-employed? Except for MediSave, the self-employed do not enjoy tax deductions for personal medical costs. So, the problem is: employees effectively pay for medical costs from their pre-tax income, but the self-employed pay for it from post-tax income.
Although CPF contributions are not a tax, I do beg your indulgence to touch on this briefly. Retirement and housing are also very important social security costs and CPF contributions are tax deductible. However, the self-employed are not required to contribute to their CPF Ordinary and Special Accounts. They, therefore, earn higher take-home incomes, which may appear to make alternative work more attractive.
Sir, some say it may not matter, because the self-employed are free to voluntarily contribute to CPF for housing and retirement, and, of course, then they can enjoy the tax benefits. But, unfortunately, a wide body of research in behavioural economics suggests that people react to taxes and contributions which are visible or salient and they underreact to or ignore those which are not. A paper by Congdon, Kling and Mullainathan published in 2009 in the National Tax Journal provides a very good non-technical summary of this kind of research.
What is the relevance for alternative work? The problem is that take-home income is salient. The benefits of being an employee are not salient. The value of company-provided medical benefits, annual leave, staff training and so on are not salient to workers. The value of CPF contributions, which provide for the social security of our workers, are not salient. Income taxes and the benefit of income tax deductions are also not salient because our system charges taxes the year after income is earned.
On balance, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe alternative work, which fills your wallet with take-home income today, may sometimes be too attractive, especially for younger Singaporeans who may be tempted to forgo starting formal careers. And our tax system has a role to play in adjusting this balance.
Taken together, Mr Deputy Speaker, we must continue the work of restructuring our tax system for the future economy to ensure the incentives are right for all workers. In the future economy where income and jobs may vary highly year to year, we should seriously consider a pay-as-you-earn or contribute-as-you-earn income tax system, which will help to smooth take-home income for workers. We may even enlist the help of the alternative work platforms to arrange for these tax deductions and contributions to be made at the source, when income is earned. These are issues for another day, of course. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill and would like to thank the Minister for the proposed amendments, which will allow PHC drivers to claim tax deductions for car-related expenses.
This is an issue I, along with several other Members of this House, have raised previously and I am glad that we are finally levelling the playing field and ensuring that it is fair.
Sir, the Bill makes broad amendments as announced in Budget 2018. I would like to focus on three areas in particular. First, the extension of the tax deduction for qualifying donations. Second, the extension of the Business and Institutions of a Public Character (IPC) Partnership Scheme (BIPS). And lastly, IRAS' enhanced enforcement powers.
Sir, section 37 will be amended to extend the 250% tax deduction for qualifying donations until December 2021. I would first like to declare my interest as the Chief Executive of an IPC.
My interest notwithstanding, I support this extension in the spirit of giving and fostering a sense of community. Charities rely heavily on public donations, which empower us to make a difference in the community. The donations are our lifeline and, to be honest, fundraising remains a challenge for many of us, especially in recent times.
With this extension of tax deduction, I believe we can encourage more Singaporeans to give back and strengthen our community by donating more on issues we care about.
This deduction has been extended multiple times since it was first introduced as a temporary measure in 2009. Would the Minister consider formalising the deduction as a permanent measure after 2021? This would send a stronger statement of the Government’s commitment to support voluntary giving. It would also give the IPCs some greater assurance and stability.
Next, section 14ZB will similarly extend the Business and IPC Partnerships Scheme for another three years until December 2021. The Scheme complements the tax deduction for qualifying donations by encouraging employee volunteerism through businesses. Would the Minister similarly consider formalising the 250% deduction for businesses' expenditure when employees volunteer and provide services to IPCs?
Would the Minister also consider extending the scope of the Scheme? I have two suggestions on how this Scheme might be expanded.
First, owners of the businesses, such as sole-proprietors, partners and shareholders who are also directors of the same company, are not qualifying employees under this Scheme. Can the Minister clarify the rationale for this exclusion, and would the Minister consider extending the Scheme to owners of businesses? Business owners volunteering their own time and services can send a very strong message on the value of volunteerism to their employees.
Second, could the Scheme be extended to charities that do not have IPC status? IPC status allows charities to issue deductible receipts for qualifying donations to donors. As the Scheme pertains to giving through acts of volunteerism rather than monetary donations, expanding this scheme to non-IPC charities would not blur the fundamental distinction between IPC and charities.
IPCs are rightfully held to a higher standard of compliance and governance, which not all charities have the resources to meet. However, non-IPC charities continue to serve equally worthwhile causes and employees should be encouraged to volunteer with non-IPCs as much as with IPCs. In this regard, there does not seem to be a good reason for drawing a distinction between the two.
Lastly, clauses 2(b), 3, 41, 42, 45, 46 and 47 propose to enhance IRAS’ powers to investigate tax crimes. I support the intention and agree with the need to take a whole-of-Government approach to crack down on tax crimes, given the increasing sophistication with which these crimes are carried out.
It is also stated that “These powers under the proposed amendments will be exercised only by trained IRAS investigation officers and where necessary so that investigations are not impeded.” Could the Minister clarify what such training entails and share what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse of powers by IRAS officers? I understand the Minister has replied to some of these in his opening speech. Will these officers undergo training similar to what our Police Officers go through? I understand the Minister earlier mentioned that they undergo similar training to what our Singapore Customs officers go through. So, why not training that our Police Officers go through instead?
Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill which I note is giving more powers to investigators who are working to pursue those who are trying to evade paying taxes.
It is important that the investigation team be given more powers because, in today’s context, taxation is more complex. These criminals can be involved in major crime syndicates, including terrorist groups. I do not know whether the IRAS will be building up a new talent pool of investigators who will be armed under special circumstances, just as they do in the US Inland Revenue Service.
Or would IRAS tap on the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) or other agencies and appoint them as \"specially authorised officers\" under the proposed amendments to support them in any raids done on the premises? And what about interrogation rooms and holding centres where these arrested culprits are required to be held over a period while investigations are ongoing? Perhaps the Minister could clarify further.
Next, I will move on to the amendment affecting PHCs. The shared economy is an increasingly global phenomenon and, as more PHC services continue to take interest in our market, we can only expect this industry to grow. It is important to constantly review and improve the current infrastructure to ensure that the trend is moving in a positive direction. Changing the tax regime is one way to keep moving ahead.
I do not wish to make this issue into a case of taxi drivers versus PHC drivers because, in essence, allowing PHC drivers to claim tax deductions for expenses incurred on the job is simply about ensuring fairness. PHC drivers incur costs while providing an integral transportation service for the masses. It is only right that they are able to claim for operating expenses, just like other businesses and service providers.
I would like now to share some examples of my residents who find themselves in predicaments because of the existing tax regime.
One resident had been involved in three road accidents, resulting in three periods of downtime, during which he was unable to drive and earn an income.\tHowever, he was still required to pay for the rental of the car due to the contract that he signed with the rental company. This has resulted in an unfair situation where he has to pay for the job.
Meanwhile, another resident was having financial difficulties because not only does he find his tax liability too high, he also finds it a massive burden having to contribute to MediSave based on his inflated income, leaving him with little available income and cash to spare.
In another case, a resident's circumstances are even more dire. His total expenses for this year come up to $33,000. None of this can be categorised as deductibles and, on top of that, he has to make MediSave payments that keep on increasing and, therefore, he has problems meeting expenses for his basic necessities.
I have written to IRAS on behalf of these residents. But the outcomes were unsatisfactory. If car rental payments, along with other expenses incurred on the job were made tax-deductible, the situation would be fairer. A common impression about PHC drivers is that many of them have dual jobs, and are driving part-time to supplement their incomes, or to pay off vehicle ownership.
Then there is the controversy of the seating preference. For instance, a small number of PHC drivers do not like to be seen as drivers; they prefer their passengers to sit in front. So, some have questioned why should they be allowed tax deductibles if they do not identify themselves as providers of a professional service?
The reality is, I have met a number of residents who are full-time PHC drivers. They are driving full-time to support families, or to bridge a period of unemployment while waiting to hear from potential employers. They will share their grievances about the high costs of rental and fuel, while the income from their labour is fully taxable.
And there are many valid reasons for them to stay as PHC drivers instead of switching over to a taxi company. The most obvious one is age, and certainly some of them are not yet 30 years old trying to do something constructive while looking out for other career options, juggling housing loans and family commitments.
Then there are others who prefer the more flexible mileage requirements of PHC companies because they need to work longer hours, or the flexible hours are necessary to perform caregiving duties and so on.
Allowing PHC drivers to claim tax deductions for expenses will help them to manage their costs of living. And for taxi drivers who are previously deterred by the difference in the income tax regime, this would give them additional options, and having options is always a good thing for the future.
Of course, the other concern is that those who are working as PHC drivers are part of the gig economy that provides an income in exchange for labour, but this does not come with the typical benefits that are seen in full-time employment. Moreover, it is difficult for drivers to upskill and enhance their career portfolio in this industry. By amending the Income Tax regime in their favour, are we encouraging PHC drivers to remain where they are?
It will be good for everyone if the Minister could clarify whether there are plans to restrict the age limit. Will there be requirements for PHC drivers to undergo medical health screening to ensure that they are fit and healthy in the interest of public safety?
In my opinion, it is important to help make the jobs of PHC drivers affordable. They are providing a rather important service and they deserve a fairer tax regime. In the meantime, we must think of ways to help PHC drivers transit from the industry into another industry that they choose, if they wish to do so, and encourage them to keep on upskilling, but I suppose this would be a matter for another occasion, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Lawrence Wong.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the hon Members Mr Chen Show Mao, Mr Louis Ng, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira for their comments and also their support for the Bill. Let me address the questions that have been raised.
First, on tax deductions for qualifying donations and extension of the Business and IPC Partnership Scheme (BIPS) which were raised by Mr Louis Ng, the 250% tax deduction for qualifying donations was extended for three years until December 2021 to continue to encourage the spirit of giving. The total tax deductible donations received by IPCs from corporate and individual donors have risen by 26% from about $687 million in 2008 to $866 million in 2016. So, this is a very encouraging trend and we hope more can continue to come forward to give. Many donors contribute out of passion and heart for the community, and it is not just because of the tax incentives.
Having said that, the 250% tax deduction that we offer today is already one of the most generous tax deduction schemes worldwide. Countries like Hong Kong, America and Australia provide only 100% tax deductions for corporate and individual donations. So, we do not think it is necessary at this stage to make this tax deduction permanent. We will continue to study ways to encourage giving, taking into account the needs and maturity of the charity sector, the impact of tax deductions on donations and the tax revenue forgone. We also need to consider how the different deductions and reliefs benefit taxpayers in different income tax brackets.
Unlike tax deduction for qualifying donations, BIPS is a relatively new scheme that was first piloted in the second half of 2016 to encourage businesses to support their staff to volunteer. We extended the scheme for three years in 2018 until December 2021 as the take-up was encouraging. We want to encourage corporate giving, but we remain open to existing, new or different ways of doing so. So, let us monitor the progress of this scheme and study how best to further encourage corporate giving.
Mr Louis Ng asked if the scheme could be extended to allow for the wages of sole proprietors, partners and shareholders, essentially the business owners, to be claimable. The rationale for the scheme is for our businesses to encourage their employees to contribute their skills and time to the IPCs. Therefore, the focus is on the employees. In fact, the business owners of the company already benefit from the tax deduction given to their businesses when their employees volunteer in the IPCs under this scheme.
Mr Louis Ng also asked if the scheme could be extended to charities which are non-IPCs. Currently, only IPCs can issue tax-deductible receipts for qualifying donations. This is so because IPCs are subject to stricter standards in regulatory compliance and governance, compared to the non-IPC charities. We apply the same standards for BIPS as wages and related expenses associated with volunteering are also eligible for tax deductions, and we will continue to review how to make this scheme accessible and relevant to encourage corporate volunteering.
So, that is on the tax deductions for qualifying donations as well as the extension of BIPS.
Next, let me touch on tax deduction for motor car-related expenses for PHC drivers. As many Members mentioned just now, many of you have spoken up about the need for the tax deduction. We have taken in your feedback, reviewed this extensively and we are now making these changes. The tax changes update our tax regime in view that taxi and PHC drivers now provide similar point-to-point transport services.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the difference between part-time and full-time PHC drivers and whether some of them would have difficulties apportioning their expenses correctly. Indeed, this is a reason why IRAS has taken time to listen to feedback from different stakeholders and, instead of coming up with a scheme that may be complicated and different to administer, we have decided on a tax deduction based on the deemed expense ratio set at 60% of gross driving income. This ratio is a proxy for all expenses incurred to earn driving income and it applies to both full-time and part-time drivers. So, those who drive more would claim more, while those who drive less will claim less.
Nevertheless, drivers who still opt to claim tax deduction based on the actual amount of expenses incurred can do so if they wish to. And if they want to do that, they will need to keep proper records of the expenses and ensure the correct apportionment of these expenses between that incurred to earn the driving income and that for private use. But I would imagine, with this deemed expense ratio, many drivers would consider using it for their convenience and for ease of compliance.
I would also like to clarify, in response to the question raised by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, that currently, self-employed delivery persons are already allowed to claim tax deduction on expenses incurred on using motorcycles or commercial vehicles, such as vans. So, that is already claimable.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat shared about examples of residents who are PHC drivers who face difficulties in paying their income tax for YA2018 as well as their MediSave contributions. The tax changes will help them on a prospective basis. But for those individuals who may have difficulties with their existing obligations, I would advise that they contact IRAS and CPF Board, and the agencies will look into having a suitable instalment plan to assist them with their obligations, be it for tax or for MediSave contributions.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked about the regulations in respect of PHC drivers. He asked about age limits, medical health certifications. All of these really come under the purview of MOT and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) which set the regulatory framework for PHC drivers. For example, LTA already requires all individuals to pass a medical examination before they can apply for their Private Hire Car Driver's Vocational Licence (PDVL), and I am sure these regulations will continue to be updated and reviewed by MOT and LTA.
Next, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, Mr Chen Show Mao and Mr Saktiandi Supaat highlighted the need to consider this increase in people who are self-employed in light of the gig economy, and all of the Members rightly highlighted the concern that such self-employed persons may value more their take-home pay and put in less for their longer-term needs, be it for medical needs or for their retirement. I think Assoc Prof Theseira said this is actually a broader issue for another day, and truly it is, because it is a bigger issue than the amendments that are being contemplated in this Bill. The Government is very mindful of this issue and that is why we have mandated to start with MediSave account contributions by self-employed persons to ensure that they are able to meet their basic healthcare needs.
And as several Members have highlighted, MOM announced in this year's Committee of Supply that the Government would be implementing a \"Contribute-As-You-Earn\" model for self-employed persons' MediSave contributions whereby a MediSave contribution is required as and when a service fee is earned. Under this model, service buyers or intermediaries who contract with a self-employed person will deduct and transmit the MediSave contribution to the person's MediSave account whenever they pay a self-employed person. The Government, as a service buyer, will take the lead. So, we will implement the \"Contribute-As-You-Earn\" model, starting with a pilot by 2020. This will allow the Government to work through the implementation issues and help smoothen its subsequent implementation in the private sector. Of course, the issue is a far bigger one than just looking at the MediSave contributions alone, as many Members have highlighted. So, we will continue to look at different options, including incentives where necessary, to better ensure the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans who are self-employed.
Both Mr Louis Ng and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked some questions about IRAS' powers to investigate tax crimes. So, let me just address some of the questions they have raised.
In general, investigations of tax offences are conducted by IRAS officers. In cases involving both tax evasion and other offences, such as money laundering or corruption, IRAS may engage the relevant agencies, be it CAD or the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), to conduct joint investigations.
As I had mentioned earlier in my speech just now, the enhanced investigative powers in the amendment Bill will be exercised only by authorised IRAS officers and they will undergo training on the use and escalation of force and various other techniques that are relevant to the exercise of these enhanced investigative powers. The training programmes are similar to that received by officers of other law enforcement agencies. Mr Louis Ng asked if it is similar to that of the Police Force because I only mentioned Customs as an example just now. I would like to assure him that it is, indeed, similar to the training received by officers in the Police Force as well.
As mentioned earlier, the safeguards will be legislated to ensure that these enhanced investigative powers are properly exercised. These safeguards are consistent with those applying to other law enforcement agencies. For example, the power to arrest without a warrant may only be exercised for an investigation of serious tax offences like tax evasion or where a suspect attempts to destroy evidence with a view to hindering or obstructing IRAS' investigations.
In addition to these legislative safeguards, there will be clear guidelines and operational protocols on situations which allow for the exercise of these powers by authorised trained tax investigators. Together, these measures will ensure that the enhanced investigative powers are properly calibrated and only exercised when other means are found to be inappropriate.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about interrogation rooms and holding centres for suspects. There are already interview rooms in IRAS currently specifically catered for the questioning of suspects. In situations where the subject under investigation is required to be held for a longer period, he or she may be escorted to facilities in the Police Force.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. MOF will continue to review our tax regime and our schemes regularly to ensure their relevance and effectiveness. The changes to the tax regime for PHC drivers and enhancements to IRAS' investigative powers are the results of such policy reviews. I thank the various Members who have spoken on these issues before. We have taken in their feedback, we have put in place these changes and I believe they are for the better. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Lawrence Wong.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.25 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.03 pm until 4.25 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.25 pm
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act, or SOP Act in short, was introduced in 2005 to facilitate cash flow in the construction industry. The SOP Act introduced a fast and low-cost adjudication mechanism to deal with payment disputes.
For a typical construction project, the developer pays the main contractor, who, in turn, pays its subcontractors or suppliers. As a construction project can take several years to complete, progress payments are made periodically throughout the project duration. Parties along the value chain often fund their own work first and collect payment thereafter. So, it is critical that parties are paid in a timely manner for work done or goods supplied.
The Act has served the industry well. When the Act was first introduced, the industry was unfamiliar with how the adjudication process could assist them. Over the years, industry players are now more aware that adjudication is an effective mechanism to resolve payment disputes quickly, compared to arbitration or litigation which can be lengthy and expensive.
In the initial years of administering the Act, there were less than 100 applications per year. This has now increased to more than 400 applications per year since 2014. We are happy to see that the industry is increasingly using the Act to resolve their payment issues. As of mid-2018, the adjudication process has facilitated payments of over $940 million.
However, from time to time, there have been calls by stakeholder groups to amend the SOP Act to enhance the effectiveness of the Act in facilitating cash flow. So, we initiated a review of the SOP Act and have consulted stakeholders extensively over the last five years.
In all, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) conducted four rounds of industry consultations and six focus group discussions with stakeholders, including developers, architects, engineers, main contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, adjudicators and the Singapore Mediation Centre which administers the adjudication process.
However, different stakeholders may have different views and perspectives. For example, the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) Law Reform Committee published a list of proposed amendments to the SOP Act in September 2015. The Committee raised concerns that the current approach of allowing a limitation period of six years for claimants to submit a claim for work done was too long. In this regard, it suggested reducing the limitation period from six years to one year so that respondents would not have to manage claims for an unreasonably long period after works have been completed.
But the feedback from the industry was that one year would be too short as settlement of final payments for the projects tended to take much longer. Finally, we landed on a limitation period of 2.5 years or 30 months. This is a reasonable period, taking into account the time to settle final payment claims and the defects liability period, which typically ranges from 12 to 18 months.
This illustrates the approach that we have taken in coming up with the amendments that are before the House today. We have considered and incorporated feedback from stakeholders into our amendments where possible. In doing so, we have tried to strike a balance between the interests of the varied stakeholders while ensuring that the amendments enhance the effectiveness of the adjudication mechanism as a low-cost and speedy dispute resolution mechanism for the construction industry.
Broadly speaking, the amendments focus on three areas: first, expanding and clarifying the scope of the application of the Act. Second, handling of payment claims and responses. And third, enhancing the adjudication processes. Sir, let me go through some of the key features of the Bill.
First, we are proposing amendments that will expand the scope for more contracts to be applicable under the Act. Singapore has been making a big push to raise productivity and quality in the built environment. The Construction Industry Transformation Map (ITM) launched in October last year set out the strategies to help our construction industry move up the value chain and capture growth opportunities in Singapore and abroad. The scope of the SOP Act will be amended to support the Construction ITM.
Clause 3 will allow prefabrication works done overseas for local projects to be covered by the SOP Act. This is an important inclusion as our ITM envisages that by 2020, up to 40% of Singapore projects would incorporate productive construction technologies, and some of these may be sourced from overseas by Singapore builders.
Internationalisation is also a key thrust of our construction ITM. Given our small domestic market, firms will need to venture overseas in order to grow in size. So, clause 3 will also cover prefabrication works that are carried out locally for projects overseas. The coverage for local prefabrication works for export will only be applicable when both contract parties are locally registered entities. This will facilitate the enforcement of the adjudication determination in Singapore.
Another amendment, also at clause 3, will make clear that claims for work done or goods supplied before contract termination are valid. This is to address any ambiguity on the point as to whether claimants can apply for adjudication upon contract termination.
That said, we understand that it is common industry practice for contract terms to suspend payment until a later date if a contractor has defaulted, leading to the termination of the contract. When this happens, the SOP Act will pay heed to terms pre-agreed by parties. As such, clause 3 will require adjudicators to respect the contract clauses on suspension of payment for terminated contracts. This means that claimants that have defaulted on the contract will need to abide by contract terms, and they will be able to submit a payment claim under the SOP Act only after the conditions in the contract have been met.
Another issue that this Bill will address is the lengthening of the adjudication process due to submission of complex claims. We have observed that some claimants have started to include complicated prolongation costs, damages, losses or expenses when applying for adjudication.
This goes beyond the original scope of the SOP Act, which is intended to cover claims for work done or goods and services supplied. For example, one adjudication case took 129 days as the adjudicator needed more time to go through the claims for prolongation costs, which made up 70% of the total claimed amount. In contrast, a typical adjudication case takes only about 21 to 28 days from application to payment.
So, clauses 11 and 14 will make clear that adjudicators are to consider claims on damages, losses and expenses only when the claim is supported by documents showing the parties' agreement on the quantum of the claim, or a certificate or document that is required to be issued under the contract. Parties that wish to dispute on complex claims should consider other avenues, such as arbitration or litigation.
The second set of amendments will deal with the handling of payment claims and responses.
Currently, the Act requires claimants to serve payment claims according to the contract terms. Typically, a contract will stipulate a specific date or fixed period for payment claims to be served so that employers can better manage payment claims from multiple subcontractors. However, there have been past cases where claimants unintentionally serve their claims on the wrong date.
This technically invalidates the payment claim during adjudication. Such issues have also been raised before the Courts, leading to payment delays. To address this, clause 5 will provide that the payment claim will be valid even if it is served before the date or the period specified in the contract.
In such cases, the payment claim will be deemed as served on the contract specified date or on the last day of the fixed period. To illustrate, if a contract specifies that the payment claim must be made on the 29th of the month, the payment claim will still be valid if the claimant serves it before the 29th of the month. However, the respondent's deadline for payment response will only start running from the 29th of the month. If the claimant serves a payment claim on the 30th of the month instead of 29th, his claim will be treated as being served in the next month.
We have also heard feedback from the industry stakeholders on the need for the Act to clarify the status of repeat payment claims. Clause 5 will clarify that claimants are allowed to repeat a payment claim even without additional work done or goods or services supplied. This will preserve claimants' entitlement to seek payment through adjudication so long as the payment claim is served within the limitation period, is unpaid, and has not been adjudicated upon its merits.
The third set of amendments deals with changes to the adjudication process. Currently, the SOP Act only allows for respondents to apply for adjudication review if they disagree with the adjudication determination and wish to have it reconsidered. The SAL committee had proposed that claimants should also be eligible for adjudication review. This ensures parity between claimants and respondents.
So, clauses 12, 15 and 16 will allow claimants to also apply for adjudication review. With the amendment, it is possible to have a scenario where both the respondent and the claimant are entitled to adjudication review. If both parties submit a review application arising from the same determination, only one adjudication review will be conducted. Regardless of the party that initiated the review, the appointed review adjudicators will consider submissions from both parties in arriving at an assessment.
We are also updating the SOP Act to align it with Court decisions that were based on provisions in the Act. For example, there have been cases where claimants have made administrative errors in their adjudication applications, such as failing to provide an extract of the contract which was relevant to the payment claim when applying for adjudication.
However, the Court noted that the failure to submit such an extract did not prejudice the respondent and should not invalidate the application. So, clause 10 will empower adjudicators to accept an adjudication application that lacks certain information or documents prescribed in regulations, if the adjudicator is satisfied that the respondent is not materially prejudiced.
I will share another example where we have taken in the judgments from the Courts in our amendments. The SOP Act is meant to facilitate timely payment to claimants. At the same time, the Act gives respondents the opportunity to raise objections to justify non-payment to claimants.
Currently, the Act only states that the respondents cannot raise objections for withholding payment in the adjudication stage if these objections were not flagged earlier in the payment response stage. However, we are concerned that payment to claimants would be delayed in the event that respondents raise objections late in the adjudication process.
To that end, clauses 9, 11, 14 and 17 will make clear that any belated objections by respondents will be disregarded by adjudicators or the Courts, unless respondents can prove that their objections could not have been made known earlier. This is in line with comments made by the Courts in recent decisions and will also advance the intent of the Act to facilitate speedy dispute resolution.
Respondents that are affected by this amendment can still seek recourse through other channels like arbitration or litigation after paying the adjudicated amount.
We will also be making changes to improve the operation of the Act. Currently, the interest rate for late payment is often based on the interest rate stipulated in the contract. We have received feedback that interest rates set out in contracts can be as low as 1%, as subcontractors may have less bargaining power in setting the rates.
Such a low interest rate is ineffective in deterring late payments. So, clause 4 will set a minimum interest rate based on the rate specified under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, which currently stands at 5.33%. A higher interest rate will be used if it is stipulated in the parties' contract terms. This amendment will encourage respondents to pay claimants on time. This amendment will also bring our SOP regime in line with practices in other jurisdictions, such as New South Wales and Queensland.
Finally, we want to set out clearly the grounds under which an adjudication determination may be set aside by the Courts. This will allow parties to be more mindful about the dos and don'ts when preparing payment claims, adjudication applications and the relevant responses. In this regard, clause 17 will specify a non-exhaustive list of grounds on which parties can commence proceedings to set aside the adjudication determination.
These grounds are consistent with those that have been developed by the Courts over time. For example, if a claimant repeats a claim that is subsequently found to have already been adjudicated on its merits, the determination for the repeated claim may be set aside. The intention is to stipulate a non-exhaustive list, so the Act will not bar the development of case law.
Sir, when the SOP Act was first introduced, the intent was to preserve the rights to payment for construction companies. This remains the principle that underpins the amendments we are introducing today. With these amendments, we believe that the Act will continue to ensure prompt payment practices in our construction industry, and also put our firms in a better position to thrive in both domestic and overseas markets. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill, which refines the framework for efficient and low-cost adjudication of payment disputes in the construction industry.
I would, first, like to commend BCA on the public consultation that it conducted in June 2018 on the proposed amendments. Following the consultation, BCA provided responses to key feedback received and refined some proposed amendments after hearing the public's suggestions. I am heartened by BCA's engagement with the public in crafting this Bill and believe that the process has resulted in a stronger piece of legislation.
I have just three clarifications on the proposed amendments.
Firstly, the new sections 19(1A) and (1B) clarify that the adjudication review starts anew if all new review adjudicators are replaced.
During the public consultation, it was suggested that the adjudication review start afresh when the majority of the panel of review adjudicators is replaced. BCA responded that if the replacement adjudicators need more time to bring themselves up to speed, the review adjudicators can seek an extension of time subject to the consent of both the claimant and the respondent. If parties can consent to extending time to allow review adjudicators to be brought up to speed, why not also allow parties to consent to having the review start afresh?
Next, the new section 19(5A) clarifies that adjudicators can only consider damage, loss or expense items which are supported by documents showing agreement between parties on the amount or a certificate certifying the claim issued under the contract.
BCA had stated that this keeps adjudication speedy and low cost by removing the need for adjudicators to consider complex loss and expenses claims. The Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) has jurisdiction to hear a tort for damage caused to property, which includes claims for losses or expenses incurred by owners of property as a result of careless, reckless or improper acts by others. There is no requirement that the claims for losses or expenses be supported by written agreement on the amount. It is also able to hear claims arising from oral agreements.
The SCT is similarly intended to provide an efficient and inexpensive channel to resolve consumer-supplier disputes. The power of SCT to consider loss or expenses claims in the absence of clear documentation does not seem to impede the expediency of the tribunal. As such, can the Ministry of Finance (MOF) clarify why loss and expenses claims should be beyond the power of adjudicators to assess?
If these claims cannot be resolved by the adjudication process, parties have to resort to arbitration or litigation, as MOF has stated. As pointed out by BCA, these matters are slightly more complicated, which will incur even greater costs for parties if they have to adjudicate or litigate these claims. These are precisely the cases that require a simpler and cheaper dispute resolution process. It would be more efficient for all heads of claims relating to the same dispute to be heard by a single body.
Lastly, the new section 19(6A) clarifies that a respondent setting aside the adjudication determination can only raise a fresh objection to the payment claim if: one, new circumstances had arisen; two, the objections could not have been made earlier because the respondent could not have known of these reasons; or three, there was a patent error.
While the second limb implies that there should be no fault on the part of the respondent in failing to raise the objections earlier because they could not have known of these reasons, the first limb is not clear on the element of the respondent's fault. Can MOF clarify whether section 19(6A)(a) requires that the new circumstances arose out of no fault of the respondent?
Sir, clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the amendments which will help the subcontractors enhance their cash flow and minimise losses. However, many subcontractors had told me that they are likely to continue to suffer in silence and resort to the law only as a last resort as they are afraid to lose jobs from main contractors.
The amendments had taken the uneven balance of negotiating power between main contractors and subcontractors into account. I appeal to the Ministry and relevant Government agencies to consider extending advisory assistance to our subcontractors and guide them with familiarising themselves on their rights and deserved payments. They should and can work with the Government agencies to minimise their losses and avoid worsening their cash flow crunch and falling into financial difficulty.
The construction industry suffers from many problems and disputes. This Bill seeks a fairer allocation of risks to subcontractors and easier settlement of payment disputes. This is because in reality, there are many complex underlying issues which have been unresolved.
Besides unrealistic contract periods and tight manpower resources which have very serious safety implications, both during the process of construction and in the distant future, the parties involved pass the buck in pushing responsibilities for defects and payments.
One common example is the deliberate delay in payment by the owner and main contractor. To make the situation worse, the funds received by the main contractor for specific work done are diverted for other uses instead of paying the subcontractors. Some projects were tendered at a loss due to miscalculations. Others were tendered at unrealistic fees because the main contractors just wanted incoming funds to stay afloat for as long as possible. Occasionally, the owner runs into financial difficulty halfway through the construction.
Hence, I strongly urge the Ministry to further strengthen the regulations to ensure that the funds for a specific project are not allowed to be diverted for other uses. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State for National Development.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their comments and their support for the Bill. Let me address the issues raised.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether it is possible to allow parties to consent to starting the review afresh when a majority of the review adjudicators have been replaced or, in other words, when two out of three adjudicators on the panel have been replaced.
Presently, the Act does not set out the processes following the replacement of adjudicators. The amendments before the House provide clarity in situations where any of the review adjudicators are replaced. The intent is to ensure that the adjudication proceedings are not unduly delayed. In situations where the majority of review adjudicators are replaced, the remaining adjudicator that was involved from the onset can apprise the new adjudicators of the case, and there would be no need to start the adjudication review afresh.
Should a longer period be needed to make a determination, the review adjudicators may seek an extension of time, subject to the consent of both the claimant and respondent, as Mr Louis Ng has rightly pointed out. The review adjudicators are best placed to decide on the period of extension required, depending on the needs of the case. This is, in fact, more flexible than starting the review afresh, as the extension could be shorter than 14 days, which is the default period should a review be started afresh. This would avoid unduly delaying payment to the claimant.
I would also like to highlight that the appointment of a panel of review adjudicators is not common. This happens only when the adjudicated amount exceeds the response amount by $1 million or more. As such, we note that there have only been 15 such appointments since the introduction of the SOP Act in 2005. This is less than 1% of all adjudication cases.
Mr Louis Ng also noted that SCT has jurisdiction to hear claims on damage, loss and expense that are not supported by written document and asked why adjudicators must disregard such claims under the SOP Act. As mentioned in my earlier speech, this restriction is to reduce delays in the adjudication process. For example, we have seen delays of up to 129 days due to the inclusion of such claims. Allowing such claims to be heard under the SOP Act clearly goes against the intent of the SOP Act to provide speedy dispute resolution and facilitate cash flow.
There are also several key differences between claims under the SCT Act and the SOP Act. The quantum and corresponding complexity of the claims under both Acts are quite different. For instance, the claim limit for disputes brought to the SCT is $10,000, or $20,000 if all parties consent. When the SCT (Amendment) Act 2018 comes into operation, the claim limit will be $20,000, or $30,000 if all parties consent.
But there is no limit on the claim amount under the SOP Act. It is not uncommon for damage, loss and expense in a construction contract to exceed millions of dollars. Adjudicators under the SOP Act are also required to meet statutory timelines and complete their determinations within set timelines. In this regard, it is reasonable for such complex claims to be dealt with outside the ambit of the SOP Act.
Mr Louis Ng asked to clarify if the objections raised by respondents to a payment claim based on new circumstances must arise out of no fault of the respondents. The policy objective is, indeed, so.
The purpose of the amendment is to encourage respondents to raise any objections to payment claims at the earliest opportunity to facilitate the fast resolution of payment disputes between the parties. Thus, belated objections from respondents must not be within the respondent’s knowledge or control.
For example, if an adjudicator considers a claim for damage, loss or expense that is not supported by any document showing agreement of the parties, the adjudicator has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act in making the adjudication determination. In such an event, it would be considered a new circumstance beyond the respondent’s control, and he could raise this as a valid objection in a review adjudication or an application to Court for setting aside.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh has rightly pointed out that parties further upstream in the construction value chain typically have more bargaining power in negotiating contracts with their subcontractors. In this regard, the subcontractors may prefer more amicable settlement of disputes before resorting to adjudication, arbitration or litigation.
While the SOP Act cannot change such dynamics entirely, it has been useful in facilitating cash flow in the industry. By upholding the rights of parties in the industry to seek payment for work done or goods supplied, the Act has helped deter parties from delaying or withholding payment without valid reasons. But in order for this to be effective, claimants need to exercise their rights and apply for adjudication when required.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh has also suggested for the Government to extend advisory assistance and to raise awareness amongst subcontractors on their rights to payment. On this note, BCA will be enhancing the current guide on the SOP Act on its website to make it easier for contractors to understand. BCA will also work closely with industry associations to provide firms with information on how adjudication can be used as an effective means to settle payment disputes. In addition, BCA will also conduct briefings to familiarise the industry with the amendments that are before the House today.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh has also suggested to put in place measures to prevent funds meant for a construction project from being diverted for other uses. We have examined this issue as part of the review. One possible approach would have been to require the developer of a project to make payments into a project bank account, which parties can then draw down from for work done or goods supplied to the project.
One example is Queensland. In October last year, Queensland amended its equivalent of the SOP Act to require head contractors to establish project bank accounts for government building projects worth between $1 million and $10 million.
As such a move would affect many industry stakeholders and increase the administrative burden on companies, we will take more time to carefully study this approach and to monitor the effectiveness of Queensland’s model before deciding on the next steps. We will consult the industry when ready.
Sir, let me conclude by thanking Mr Louis Ng and Mr Gan Thiam Poh again for their thoughtful suggestions, and their support for this Bill. By taking on feedback and views from the industry players, the revised SOP Act should help to create a more conducive operating environment for all parties in the construction industry. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad.] (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":"Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Enacted in 1987, the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA) has been key to maintaining Singapore as the clean and green city that we enjoy. The principles and provisions of the Act underpin the National Environment Agency’s (NEA’s) work on public cleanliness and waste management.
We cannot take for granted our clean and green environment. The environmental services (ES) industry, which includes cleaning and waste management companies, face real challenges. The industry is struggling to meet the growing demand for their services, even with a 78,000-strong workforce across 1,700 companies. Many of the jobs are shunned by Singaporeans, who perceive them as dirty, demanding or dangerous. The industry is heavily dependent on foreign workers. For instance, a large proportion of jobs in the waste collection industry are filled by foreign workers. The local workforce is also ageing. On average, our local cleaners are 60 years old and our local waste collectors are 50 years old.
This is why we launched the ES Industry Transformation Map (ES ITM) last year. The ES ITM will drive innovation and wider technology adoption, upskill workers to take on better jobs, improve productivity and capture value overseas. These will improve working conditions and equip workers with relevant skills to thrive in the future economy.
The ES ITM will not take away the jobs of Singaporeans. As it is, there are simply not enough Singaporeans who want to join the sector. We need to grow a vibrant ES sector which can compete with the best in the world and provide more higher value-added jobs which can attract Singaporeans. This is the only way for us to reduce our reliance on foreign labour in the long run.
Sir, it is in this spirit that we move this Bill to update the Act. The measures which I will speak about will help address the challenges the ES industry faces, and ensure that Singapore continues to be a clean, green and liveable city for generations to come.
The Government has made a concerted push to expand the use of pneumatic waste conveyance systems (PWCS) in Singapore. PWCS is a tried and tested technology that uses air pressure to convey waste through sealed pipes from throw-points to a bin centre.
Earlier this year, I visited Hammarby Sjöstad, a sustainable community in Stockholm. Over there, they first implemented a PWCS more than three decades ago, in 1982, to collect waste from 3,000 apartments. Over the years, they have added another two PWCS in the area to serve 5,000 more apartments.
This shift to PWCS is akin to Singapore’s transition from night soil buckets to sewerage pipes in our early years. It replaces the need for cleaners to manually collect waste from individual apartment blocks and bring it to a bin centre, a common sight in many condominiums and Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates today. This will transform waste collection and allow us to improve the standards of cleanliness and public health, even with a shrinking workforce.
PWCS will bring many benefits. Disamenities to residents, such as pests and odour, are reduced as the entire system is enclosed. Developments and their cleaning contractors will save on manpower needed to transfer waste and clean spillages. These jobs will be replaced by higher value-added jobs, such as maintenance technicians and project engineers. These are jobs which we envision creating for Singaporeans under ES ITM.
We have been taking steady steps towards this vision. Earlier this year, we made it mandatory for new development applications for non-landed private residential developments with 500 Dwelling Units (DUs) or more to implement PWCS. This will add to the more than 140 private residential and commercial developments which have already done so on their own accord.
We will introduce a new Part IIIA to the Act to enable PWCS to be deployed at the district level, beyond individual developments. We call this a District Pneumatic Waste Conveyance System (DPWCS). We will implement the first DPWCS under these amendments at Kampong Bugis. As Minister for National Development Mr Lawrence Wong announced at last year’s Committee of Supply, this is part of plans to transform Kampong Bugis into a people-centric and car-lite precinct.
Legislation is necessary as private developers are unlikely to, on their own, come together to embark on a district-level system, thus missing out on the benefits from scale. Moreover, as DPWCS is best implemented on a greenfield site where the sale or redevelopment of individual plots are likely to take place at different times, it would otherwise be very difficult to coordinate its implementation.
By implementing PWCS at the district level, we can reap more economies of scale. For example, instead of having bin centres in each development, the district can share a central bin centre. NEA estimates that a condominium with 1,000 DUs that would no longer need a bin centre will save on space equivalent to one 5-room flat. Refuse truck traffic within the district will also be reduced, as refuse will only be collected from one bin centre, which can be located away from residents.
HDB and JTC are already implementing the PWCS at the district level. In 2015, HDB retrofitted 38 blocks in Yuhua estate under its Greenprint programme. Feedback from residents indicated that many were satisfied with the PWCS. For example, there was a reduction in odour and pests and an improvement in estate cleanliness. The lessons from Yuhua will be incorporated into the district-level PWCS in new estates, including Tampines North and Punggol. JTC is also exploring PWCS at the district level in their new business parks, such as the Punggol Digital District.
Section 31F will limit the new Part IIIA to premises which are not controlled or managed by a Town Council constituted under the Town Councils Act. There will thus be no change to the current arrangement where Town Councils manage PWCS in HDB estates.
Section 31G will allow the Minister to declare DPWCS areas where owners and occupiers of premises within the DPWCS area must use DPWCS.
Where needed, section 31H will allow the Minister to modify or revoke declarations of the DPWCS area. Before these powers are exercised, the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) and NEA will provide advance notice to affected stakeholders in the Gazette under section 31I. An avenue for written representation to the Minister is also provided.
Section 31J will provide powers to NEA to license the vendor that builds, operates or maintains the DPWCS. This minimises disruptions to residents served by the DPWCS by ensuring that the company taking on the project will be properly regulated. For example, one of the licensing conditions that we will require the licensee to comply with is the Singapore Standard for PWCS. The Standard will cover basic requirements for the construction and installation of the network and guidelines on maintenance.
Section 31K sets out the powers of the DPWCS licensee to carry out necessary works for the purposes of the DPWCS. For example, the licensee can conduct excavation works, provided the necessary approvals from authorities are obtained. These rights are similar to those provided to gas transporter licensees under the Gas Act.
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.\t[A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex A.]
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will be referring to this handout as I explain the next section which talks about three key components in the DPWCS.
Under section 31L, the Director-General will have powers to require owners or occupiers of premises within the declared area to connect to the refuse pipeline network. This \"refuse pipeline network\", indicated in brown on the handout, refers to the main DPWCS network which will be shared across the district. It will be owned and maintained by NEA or the DPWCS licensee. Individual premises would own their internal PWCS pipes. This is marked in blue on the handout and termed \"related internal assets\".
It will be the responsibility of the premises owners to maintain and operate the internal PWCS pipes. The connection to the refuse pipeline network will be demarcated by a “connection point” – the triangle in the handout. This will be considered part of the refuse pipeline network.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to ensure the financial sustainability of the DPWCS, the new sections 31M to 31O will give NEA the powers to require owners and occupiers of premises to pay connection charges and/or tariffs, where necessary. The connection charge will cover the capital costs of the DPWCS. The tariffs will cover the operating, maintenance and replacement costs.
Taking Kampong Bugis as an example, NEA will collect the connection charge from the Master Developer that is appointed to plan and develop the site. When a particular development, for example, a condominium, has been built at Kampong Bugis, the tariffs will be collected by the DPWCS licensee from either the developer or the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) when it is formed.
We will also make related amendments to sections 16(2) and 39(1) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA), so that connection charges and tariffs can be paid from the maintenance fund. It will also allow contributions from subsidiary proprietors to be raised for these payments.
Sections 31P to 31R will make it an offence to conduct works that break or would otherwise affect the ground without first ascertaining the location of refuse pipes in the DPWCS area. It will also be an offence to damage the DPWCS or affect its operations. Similar provisions are found in the District Cooling Act, Gas Act and Public Utilities Act. This is to minimise inconvenience and potential public health risks to residents in the district.
Section 31T will protect the DPWCS assets from distress or being liable to be taken in execution under Court processes, in cases where the DPWCS owner faces bankruptcy or insolvency. Under certain circumstances, the new section 31V will allow NEA to take over management of the DPWCS under a special administration order to ensure that the DPWCS will continue to function.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, waste collection is an essential service to protect public health, but the industry is facing manpower shortages. Through implementing PWCS, we will upgrade the waste collection industry and improve the environment for everyone. Even as we harness technology to enhance our ES, we must not forget the people behind them. A skilled workforce will be crucial for sustaining productivity growth as our labour situation tightens.
In 2014, we introduced the mandatory Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for the cleaning sector, to upgrade the skills and wages of our resident cleaners. This was done to boost the income levels of cleaners sustainably and improve productivity and standards in the cleaning industry. Within two years of the PWM being mandated, the real median gross salary of a full-time resident cleaner had risen from $1,100 per month to $1,200 per month. Many businesses were paying cleaners above the minimum PWM wage level to attract capable staff. Sectoral productivity also improved as companies adopted technology to save manhours and improve work conditions.
In 2016, the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners (TCC) proposed a suite of recommendations to build on this momentum. These included yearly wage adjustments between 2017 to 2022 to sustain wage growth, and an annual PWM Bonus to be paid from 2020, to encourage cleaners to stay on their jobs and raise their incomes. The Government had given its full support to the TCC's recommendations.
This Bill reaffirms that support by introducing the PWM Bonus as a licensing requirement for cleaning businesses. Through amendments to sections 80G and 80H of the Act, it will become mandatory for every licensed cleaning business to provide for the payment of a PWM Bonus to its eligible resident cleaners, regardless of the worker's performance. Cleaning businesses which do not comply will face financial penalties or risk losing their licence, similar to how other PWM-related offences are dealt with. The Commissioner for Labour (CoL) will, based on the TCC’s recommendations, specify in an order the minimum amount, frequency of payment, and eligible class of cleaners for the PWM Bonus.
Currently, the minimum quantum recommended by TCC is two weeks of the basic monthly wage. With the PWM Bonus, some 40,000 resident cleaners may receive up to 4% more in wages each year. Coupled with the scheduled annual wage increments, cleaners receiving PWM basic wages today could see their salaries increase by up to 7% each year from now till 2020, when the PWM Bonus is mandated. More details will be released in due course.
Sir, these amendments signal our continual commitment to improve the wages of our cleaners, even as the push for productivity continues. But our efforts alone will not be enough; employers and service buyers must also act responsibly and reward staff fairly. Only by working together can we realise our vision of a skilled and productive cleaning workforce.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill also seeks to enhance NEA’s operational efficiency and tighten penalties against certain public health offences. Section 98 will be amended for greater efficiency in serving documents required or authorised under the Act. Currently, regulatory documents, such as summonses, must be served by hand to only the secretary of an errant company. The amendments would enable these documents to be served onto any other like officer of that company, and at any location, in addition to the registered address of that company. Additionally, if the document is not intended for proceedings in Court, it can now be served by fax. Many other Acts, like the Environmental Protection and Management Act, similarly provide for such methods of service.
Amendments will also be made to section 86 of the Act to increase the penalties against uncooperative offenders who withhold their identification, from a maximum fine of $300 to $1,000 upon conviction. This will deter belligerent offenders from hampering NEA's enforcement efforts. A similar provision can be found in the Control of Vectors and Pesticides Act. Taken together, these changes will minimise abortive enforcement work and enable NEA to optimise limited resources.
Sir, Part VII of the Act currently provides for the licensing of swimming pools, while Part VIII provides for the licensing of funeral parlours, cemetery and crematoria, and for the management of human corpses. Serious public health implications may arise from the unlicensed operation of such facilities. To guard against these risks, sections 65 and 77 of the Act will be repealed so that stiffer penalties under section 103 of the Act, which provides for general penalties, will apply to offences under Parts VII and VIII respectively. This will effectively raise the maximum fine for non-compliance for both Parts from $2,000 for a first conviction to $5,000, in line with other offences under the Act where penalties are not expressly provided for.
The remaining clauses 4 and 8 in the Bill are made for legal clarity.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we must continually transform the ES sector to meet the challenges of the future economy. This Bill marks another milestone in our efforts to develop a productive ES sector that is innovative and forward-looking and provide good jobs with good pay for our workforce.
I have explained how we will leverage technology to manage our waste efficiently through DPWCS. I have also shared how we will help our cleaners upskill, upgrade and earn higher wages through our tripartite efforts, even as we automate many of the tasks.
We have made progress over the years, but more must be done. Businesses must proactively develop the skillsets of their workers in order to realise the benefits of a productive and committed workforce. Workers should also be nimble, adaptable and open to learning new skills. We will continue to support our stakeholders to transform the ES industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare my interest in this Bill as Chairman of the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners (TCC).
The graciousness of a society can be measured by how it treats the less fortunate in its midst. It would be a hollow victory for us to achieve success as a nation if we, as a society, do nothing to help the less fortunate when we have the means to do so.
A vulnerable group that needs our help is the 46,000 resident cleaners who work tirelessly to ensure that we live in an environment which is clean, safe and conducive for all of us and our families to live, work and play.
For the longest time, the basic salaries earned by our resident cleaners stagnated and remained low. Coupled with the lack of bonus payouts, our local cleaners had little left for savings after spending on local necessities. Other than statutory employment benefits, most employers also do not provide them with added welfare benefits or incentives. Overall, our cleaners had little job security and would have difficulty to save for a rainy day.
The plight of our resident cleaners has not gone unnoticed. Through the efforts of the TCC, things have been improving for them, with concrete steps being taken to improve their lot.
In 2014, members of the House passed the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill which boosted resident cleaners’ salaries through the introduction of the mandatory PWM.
In 2016, the problem of wage stagnation and wage reset were partially addressed when TCC recommended a sustainable wage increase that would see the income of our general local cleaners grow at an average of 4.6% per annum over six years. Coupled with the Workfare Income Supplement scheme, many resident cleaners today are seeing an increase in their take-home pay and Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings.
In 2017, the cleaning industry, as part of the ES sector, had also developed an ITM that would provide a blueprint to transform the industry, with workers playing an integral role.
A key strategy identified in the ITM was the need to sustain a strong and productive cleaning workforce by putting in place structures and processes to ensure workers in ES are Ready for new jobs, Relevant with new skills and Resilient to new ways of working.
Efforts to help the vulnerable workers in the cleaning industry are still a work-in-progress. Today, we are again presented with an opportunity to make a difference to the lives of this vulnerable group of workers. The passing of the amendments in this Bill will be another historic and landmark change for our resident cleaners. It will put an end to the common work grievance of many resident cleaners of not being paid bonuses.
One of the amendments of the EPHA is to mandate the payment of an annual bonus to Singaporean and Permanent Resident cleaners. This amendment recognises that part of the industry’s transformation will be underpinned by productive and well-skilled workers, and this compulsory PWM Bonus will be a great boost to sustain a strong and highly motivated cleaning workforce.
I am in full support of the Bill which will make the PWM Bonus a requirement and condition of NEA’s licensing condition regime. I am heartened that the PWM Bonus is not contingent on the workers’ performance and must be paid so long as the resident cleaner meets the criteria set out by TCC. This will ensure our resident cleaners will have a day or two every year for them to look forward to a bonus payout.
It is our hope that the PWM Bonus will serve as a motivational tool to encourage workers to stay longer with the same employer, as well as incentivise employers to invest in training their cleaners. As cleaners scale the PWM wage ladder, the rising wages will be accompanied by higher productivity and growth for the industry.
Even though the cleaning industry has been given ample notice on the implementation of the PWM Bonus which will take effect in January 2020, I would like to propose to NEA to give the employers a grace period of one year where the employers would be given a warning should they fail to comply with the mandatory PWM Bonus. However, full restitution must still be made to the affected cleaners if the employers fail to pay them the bonus. To provide greater clarity on the technicalities of the PWM Bonus payment, the TCC secretariat will issue an addendum report and a list of frequently asked questions later this year.
Efforts to improve the lives of our cleaners cannot be the sole responsibility of the industry stakeholders represented by TCC. While we may have heard of the common saying, \"It takes a village to raise a child\", I would say it takes the whole society to play our part to help our cleaners have better lives, for them and their families.
Improving the wages and skillsets of our cleaners are just the tip of the iceberg of what we can do to help them. While the PWM and payment of PWM Bonus would be made mandatory, unfortunately, TCC cannot mandate service buyers to shoulder the same responsibility in their procurement of cleaning services.
To all service buyers, my message is simple. You can buy services, but you cannot outsource your responsibilities! In my engagement with many cleaning companies, one common feedback is that the practice of cheap sourcing is still rampant amongst service buyers, both in the public and private sectors. The 1,300 cleaning companies will then respond by lowering their tender prices, with possibly putting in suicide bids to win contracts, much to the detriment of the whole cleaning industry in the long run.
With rising overheads and business cost, the only way to remain afloat is to pay the workers at the minimum PWM wages and not to give any other welfare benefits. This can lead to a vicious cycle where the level of service is compromised when service providers cut corners to remain in business and the workers would have low morale. With very low margins, there is little incentive for cleaning companies to invest in technology or training.
I would also like to urge all service buyers, whether they are commercial, industrial building owners, private condominiums or Government agencies, to work with their potential service providers to ensure the tender prices commensurate with the level of the service expected, the investment in technology and training needed and, at the same time, without compromising the welfare of the cleaners. This requires service buyers to truly best source beyond paying lip service.
Service buyers can discourage cheap sourcing by not awarding to the lowest bidder. This will send a clear signal to industry that it is quality and not price that matters. In addition, in line with this year’s National Wages Council recommendations, service buyers can do their part to help these cleaners by inserting a clause in their tender that the cleaners’ wages and benefits must be no worse off if they intend to change their service provider.
Cleaning companies must also do the right thing to ensure the long-term sustainability of the industry. Avoid suicide bids. Discourage cheap sourcing. Walk away if winning the contract entails you cutting corners for you to survive.
For the rest of us, we can also do our part to make the work of our vulnerable, elderly cleaners easier by not littering, returning our trays, exercising our civic consciousness in using public amenities, and many others. We live and breathe in the same space and it is our collective responsibility to create a pleasant environment for ourselves and our loved ones.
The manpower challenges faced by the ES industry is real as we face an ageing population. As such, we need to take concrete steps to transform the industry into a technologically-driven and skilled sector ready to meet the demands of the future.
Hence, I am also supportive of another key proposal of the Bill, which is, to introduce a framework to implement DPWCS. This system will rely on air pressure to convey waste via pipes to a bin centre, eliminating the need to manually haul refuse. This leads to greater productivity. It will also eliminate disamenities, such as pests and odours, that may arise from open refuse collection and improve the livability of residents in the direct vicinity.
I understand that DPWCS has been implemented in new towns, such as Bidadari and Tampines North. The proposed amendments will facilitate its implementation in areas with private developments, such as the future Kampong Bugis area.
Nevertheless, I would like to ask what the plans are to mitigate the problems faced by other countries that had used the DPWCS. What has been the experience of other cities using DPWCS in terms of the cost effectiveness and lifecycle of the system? What contingencies would be put in place should the DPWCS fail to operate for whatever technical reasons?
Such problems, if faced in private developments, can be costly to rectify and may place a huge financial burden on the MCST. What support could the Government provide to ensure the DPWCS in private developments can be sustainably managed in the long run? Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many resident cleaners usually do not get to enjoy annual salary bonuses because in the Employment Act, the payment of the Annual Wage Supplement, also known as the 13th month bonus, is not mandatory.
At the end of each year, the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) U Care Centre receives many enquiries from resident cleaners who asked why they do not receive any bonuses. This group is very hopeful that they can receive a bonus so that it can help defray the costs of living for their families.
Therefore, I support the amendments to this Act because it will make it mandatory for cleaning companies to provide a PWM Bonus to every resident cleaner. Although the amount is equal to just two weeks' salary, this is an important first step because it ensures that this group of low-wage workers can receive a year-end bonus. Such guarantees are not present in other jobs for this group of workers.
(In English): In conclusion, notwithstanding my concerns on DPWCS, these amendments are steps in the right direction. And we must continue our tripartite efforts to engage the Government, businesses and workers to create an industry that is ready to tackle the challenges of the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chen Show Mao.
Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): Sir, this Bill before us provides, among other things, for an enhancement to the PWM as applied to workers in the cleaning sector. A licensed cleaning business will now be required to pay an annual bonus, on top of wages, to its cleaners. This will be mandatory for cleaners who are Singaporeans and Permanent Residents and is encouraged in the case of cleaners who are foreigners.
As Members know, PWM, developed by the tripartite committees, took effect beginning 2015 with the aim of uplifting low-wage workers in the cleaning, security and landscape sectors. In these sectors, wages had stagnated due to widespread cheap sourcing and due to the more limited scope for collective bargaining, as prices are locked in once service contracts are signed, which are typically for the long term.
The PWM aims to secure for the workers a minimum starting wage and also increases in future wages in line with training and improvements in productivity and standards.
In this light, I welcome the provisions in this Bill instituting an annual bonus for cleaners, which will carry a minimum amount to be specified by the Commissioner of Labour. Cleaners, like many other low-wage workers, often live from pay cheque to pay cheque and find it difficult to save for the future.
Today's Bill takes a step in the direction towards minimum wage protection for low-wage workers in the cleaning sector, consistent with helping businesses better attract and retain their workers. The fact that we are passing today enhancements to the PWM in the cleaning sector offers some cause for optimism that the wage model is taking root in the sector, it is adapting and growing and making progress.
Indeed, PWM has very recently been extended to workers in a fourth sector: lift technicians. And there, it has grown its own variant of a two-track-roadmap for the provision of more senior workers, as a supervisor or as a specialist technician. Short of a national minimum wage plan pegged to household expenditures on basic needs, I urge the Government to take the lead in further adapting and extending its PWM to cover more sectors of our economy to better support more low-wage workers, so that they have, along with a ladder ahead of them, a floor beneath.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I declare my interest as Chairman of the Nee Soon Town Council and I stand in full support of this Bill.
The proposed amendments will help to make a significant difference in the lives of our cleaners. Our cleaners play a vital role in our community, and yet some receive very little appreciation for the work they do for us and, for some, they receive very little income as well. This Bill is a positive step forward and helps to ensure that our cleaners' work becomes a little bit easier and they also feel more appreciated.
I worked with our cleaners in Nee Soon East and will share some of their stories in this speech. I will also make some suggestions on how we can help our cleaners further and seek some clarifications.
Sir, this Bill proposes to utilise air pressure to move waste through pipes to a bin centre, which replaces the older and more labour-intensive way of clearing waste. It is an encouraging step to move towards using cleaner and more efficient processes. It will benefit our cleaners, and we can benefit from a reduction in odour issues, improve overall hygiene and our living environment.
I am glad that the Government is footing the bill for the installation of PWCS. However, it will be the Town Council who will maintain it and our maintenance costs might go up. Can I ask if the Government will be providing any grants to the Town Councils to help offset the possible increased maintenance costs at least for the first few years?
Next, since the introduction of PWM in 2012, companies across industries have gradually rolled out the changes to positively benefit low-wage workers. In the Occupational Wage Survey conducted by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), it indicated that the median basic and gross wages of full-time resident cleaners grew by 9% and 12% per annum respectively from 2012 to 2015.
I support the proposed move of this Bill to take the PWM a step further by mandating the payment of an Annual Bonus. In my interactions with Nee Soon East residents who are cleaners, they have expressed appreciation of this change.
Sir, it is important for all of society to move forward together. Where market forces place a downward pressure on wages of certain sectors, like cleaning, it is important for the Government to intervene. The PWM and now the Annual Bonus are a step in the right direction and help to lift the income levels of lower-wage workers.
I do have some questions and clarifications about the enforcement of PWM. How are employers who game the system in order to skirt wage increments flagged out? What are the penalties or other enforcement mechanisms in place to put pressures on companies to implement recommendations and adhere to the PWM? Can the Senior Minister of State also clarify whether the wages and benefits under the PWM are reset for those who perform the same job functions and roles when the cleaning service providers are changed?
Sir, the PWM is a very positive step forward for cleaners. But the issue now is that it does not apply to all cleaners. For example, I understand that PWM is not mandatory for a cleaner who is hired directly by a food and beverage (F&B) establishment. If the same cleaner is employed by a licensed cleaning company and is sent to the same F&B establishment and does the same exact work as a cleaner, PWM then becomes mandatory.
I appreciate that it might not be easy for us to legislate that PWM is mandatory for all local cleaners regardless of who hires them. But can the Senior Minister of State clarify what MEWR is doing to plug this gap? This is important for cleaners like Ah Eng whom I had the privilege of working with when I gained some experience as a coffee shop cleaner. She has been a cleaner for the past two decades and, as I shared on Facebook, \"She was so hardworking, so caring and so dedicated. She taught me a lot and a lot more than cleaning a coffee shop.\"
Ah Eng's husband passed away when her two children were still young and she single-handedly brought them up through working as a cleaner. Hers is a story of resilience, sacrifice and hard work. I understand that she is currently hired directly by the coffee shop and, as such, PWM is not mandatory for her and she may not receive the Annual Bonus proposed in this Bill. I honestly think this is not fair and I sincerely hope that the Senior Minister of State can look into this and ensure that local cleaners like Ah Eng can benefit from the PWM as well.
Our foreign cleaners also do not benefit from PWM. But I am grateful that MEWR has encouraged employers to incorporate the principles of progressive wages into the wage structure of their foreign cleaners. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State what percentage of our cleaners are foreigners and how many cleaning companies actually apply the PWM to foreign cleaners? If such data is not currently collected, would the Ministry consider collecting this information?
The PWM is also about increasing productivity and standards. MOM states that, \"higher productivity increases business profits for employers. Service buyers also enjoy better service standards and quality.\"
But if we leave out our foreign cleaners from the PWM and, bearing in mind that they likely form the bulk of the cleaning sector and workforce, how then will we achieve higher productivity, improve profits and enjoy better service standards and quality?
Can I ask if MEWR is looking into this and how to further encourage companies to adopt progressive wage principles for foreign cleaners? Can I also suggest that MEWR studies what is being done in the construction sector and see if we can implement similar policies for the cleaning sector?
In the construction sector, the Higher-skilled (R1) scheme encourages employers to help their workers upskill. This increases the quality and productivity of the workforce and provides wage progression pathways for higher skilled Work Permit holders.
Employers can upgrade their Basic-skilled R2 workers to Higher-skilled R1 workers by meeting minimum experience, minimum wage or certificate requirements. As incentives, employers pay a lower levy and enjoy an extended employment period for the Higher-skilled worker. Will MEWR consider this for the cleaning industry?
Further, at least 10% of construction workers must be higher-skilled R1 workers. Would the Senior Minister of State consider similarly making it a condition of cleaning business licence that 10% of their foreign cleaners must be higher-skilled workers who again meet minimum working experience, minimum wage or certification requirements? This could address my earlier point and might help us achieve higher productivity, improve profits and enjoy better service standards and quality in the cleaning sector.
Sir, I have also worked with our cleaners at the Nee Soon Town Council and experienced firsthand how difficult their work is and how backbreaking the work is. I worked with Hanif who is from Bangladesh and has been a cleaner for the last 12 years. I learnt a lot from him, how difficult his life has been and yet how he is so full of smiles and so dedicated about making sure he does his job well for us. His enthusiasm for life was infectious and residents love him and treat him not as their cleaner but as their good friend and, for some, their family member.
I had dinner with Hanif's family when I was in Bangladesh earlier this year and I saw firsthand how proud they were of him and most of all, how much they miss him. Like all of us, Hanif works hard and sacrifices for his family. Hanif got married recently and his wife is now expecting their first child.
Sir, I got to experience Hanif's work as a cleaner, but I doubt we can ever fully appreciate how difficult it must be for him to be so far from home and for so long. How difficult it must be to not be with his wife who is now pregnant and how difficult it must be to not be there for his or her childhood.
Sir, our cleaners like Ah Eng and Hanif do a lot for us for very little. They help to ensure we have a clean environment to live in, to work in and a clean environment to enjoy our food and drinks in. They are sometimes a forgotten group of people, and we need to make sure they are fairly treated.
I am thankful that this Bill highlights the important work they do for all of us. It recognises their efforts and shows how much we appreciate all that they do for us. Sir, \"being told you are appreciated is one of the simplest and most uplifting things you can hear\". Let me end by saying a big and heartfelt \"thank you\" to all cleaners in Singapore. Sir, I stand in full support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Deputy Speaker, Sir, clause 5 of this Bill proposes to add a new Part IIIA to the EPHA, to make it mandatory for designated areas to install and use PWCS. PWCS has the potential of improving the efficiency and standard of waste disposal. For instance, if successful, this would reduce the need for manpower in waste management and provide a cleaner living environment for all.
The new Part IIIA will enable the Government to designate areas for the implementation of DPWCS. The proposed section 31G provides that when these areas are designated, owners and occupiers of every premises within the DPWCS area must use the PWCS for that area on pain of punishment.
I have three queries to raise about this.
First, the status of DPWCS vis-à-vis HDB blocks. Currently, Town Councils manage the common areas in HDB estates, which would include bin chutes and parts of the waste disposal system serving HDB blocks. According to a Parliamentary answer given in September 2016, HDB has implemented the PWCS in selected new HDB developments where feasible, including Tampines North, Punggol, Bidadari and Sengkang. The Ministry of National Development (MND) also said that HDB was studying the feasibility of implementing PWCS in other new housing estates. It was further stated that for existing estates, HDB would have to assess the outcome of a pilot run in HDB blocks in Yuhua, before deciding whether to roll out the PWCS in other existing estates.
Yet in this Bill, section 31F provides that the DPWCS will not apply to premises controlled or managed by the Town Council. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to please elaborate further on the implications of this exclusion under 31F.
On a related note, is it the case that PWCS will not be made mandatory for HDB estates? Is there a difference in the treatment of new blocks? And is it the case that old blocks will not be required to be retrofitted for PWCS?
My second query is how DPWCS areas will be designated. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to clarify how section 31G will operate. Earlier, she mentioned Kampong Bugis as the first district that has been chosen for the implementation of the DPWCS. I would like the Senior Minister of State to clarify whether the selection of the district is on an ad hoc basis. Are there any criteria used to select the areas for DPWCS and is there a systematic plan to cover all areas in Singapore eventually?
Lastly, I am concerned about the cost implication of DPWCS for home owners. It is quite clear that owners of premises will have to incur significant costs to make their properties PWCS-ready. The proposed section 31L will empower the Director-General of Public Health to impose requirements on home owners to retrofit existing building infrastructure, maintain and operate certain internal assets, to connect these up to refuse pipeline networks and so on. The proposed sections 31M and 31N refer to new connection charges and tariff charges.
Can the Government give any indication as to the expected cost of the mandatory DPCWS to existing homes? How much of a burden will this impose on smaller condominiums which do not enjoy economies of scale? In the case of condominiums, there may be particular difficulties if strata-titled owners do not agree to contribute more monies to fund the retrofitting and other costs required, for example, if there is an impending en bloc sale. How will the Government handle such a situation?
Finally, I would like to refer to the diagramme helpfully distributed by the Senior Minister of State earlier, and I would like her to confirm that landed properties will not be required to be retrofitted for PWCS.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Irene Quay.
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand to support the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill. I would like to take the opportunity to thank MEWR for their efforts in introducing the PWCS in Singapore. I think the benefits are tremendous, as mentioned by quite a number of Members. On top of it, we can also hope that it helps to reduce infestation of pests, reduce carbon emission and even, in future, help with separation of wastes for recycling.
I have four points for clarification.
Would the Senior Minister of State clarify, with regard to the implementation of this system, taking into consideration the high capital cost balanced with the manpower and truck cost savings? What will be the eventual bill payable by residents compared to the current manual handling process? What is the average payback period for implementing such a system at district level? What will be the downtime plan in the event of prolonged pipe blockage or other system failures? And lastly, what types of wastes cannot be handled by this system, for example, hazardous chemicals, or residents throwing spongy items that may block the pipes, and how is the Ministry intending to educate the public on this?
Notwithstanding my request for clarification, I am in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, one of determining factors of decent living standards is a healthy and hygienic environment. This is especially so in a densely populated city state like Singapore. Many young Singaporeans take our clean and green environment for granted for they have not been through the days when viruses could spread by indiscriminate spitting, when the river stank of manure, when you could not walk a foot without encountering rubbish or dog poop. A lot of hard work goes into achieving our current state of affairs.
It is heartening to note through the amendments to the EPHA that the Government has been reviewing and exploring new ways to manage our waste. While many housing estates already enjoy a functional and fairly effective waste management system, the area around the bin centre is still a place we do not consider to be pleasant due to the stench and the pests lurking around the area.
With the new DPWCS, this problem will, I hope, be eliminated. And with this system, we also reduce our dependence on foreign manpower to move the refuse and drive the refuse trucks, amongst others. Nevertheless, this system does not come cheap. A news report in 2015 stated that the PWCS costs over $11 million, and this was for Yuhua alone. May I ask if there have been any changes to the cost of the technology since then? More importantly, I am concerned about whether the cost for implementing the system will be passed on to residents in any form.
I look forward to more efficient waste management. However, we should not rest on our laurels when it comes to cultivating good habits of not littering. At this point in time, technology is not sufficiently extensive to replace work done by humans. The cleaners in my Nee Soon South estates conduct their cleaning three times a day, yet residents are still complaining about the cleanliness. In fact, the cleaning of many public areas is done before 6.00 am, and many residents do not realise that because they would not have left home at that time of the day. And, throughout the day, residents and visitors continue to litter or leave their bags of rubbish in public places, which leads to the misconception that the Town Councils are not adequately managing the cleanliness of the estate.
We can hire many cleaners and we can deploy more technology for quick solutions. But ultimately, there are many more residents than cleaners. So, if residents do not do their part to keep the place clean, the estate will never be as spick and span as they wish it to be. Even a small group of inconsiderate residents is enough to make the estate perpetually dirty. If one day, the technology breaks down or foreign workers are not available, I shudder at the thought that we will become one big rubbish dump for that day.
It is crucial to drive home the possibility of this unpleasant scenario to Singaporeans. In Nee Soon South, I do litter-picking with residents once a month. We take turns to do litter-picking at different zones. We will stop cleaning for 24 hours before litter-picking. We are also the constituency that started the No Cleaners Day in 2013. This is to enable residents to experience how much rubbish there is when there are no cleaners available and how difficult it is for cleaners to keep the place clean. Through such exercises, I hope to create awareness and motivate residents to inculcate good habits of not littering.
Naturally, this applies not just in residential blocks, but also in places where people congregate. Often, in open spaces and parks on weekends especially, we see lots of plastic bags and leftover food. I am aware that in some places, extra bins, and sometimes manpower, are deployed to handle the increased amount of rubbish. However, are there more cost-effective and long-term solutions? Perhaps the Ministry can deploy more officers to high-traffic areas on weekends to conduct outreach and implement fines if offenders refuse to listen.
I note that the Bill will also mandate a PWM Bonus for resident cleaners. I applaud the Government for leading by example to reward cleaners for their laborious work.
But can we do more? Paying our cleaners higher salary and bonus, of course, is a welcome move. However, I think what is more important is to respect them. We need to respect our cleaners. Some residents think that just because they have paid the Town Council service and conservancy charges, the cleaners will have to clean up their mess after they have enjoyed a round of drinks with their friends at the void deck. They just leave the place and then leave behind beer bottles, peanut skins and so on and expect the cleaners to clean up the mess. This is very disrespectful to our cleaners.
We can also lighten the workload of our cleaners, for example, in our office. After a meeting, we can help to clean the used cups or the litter on the table. Certainly, we can do more and we ought to do more. Sir, in Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] PWCS can manage waste disposal more effectively, sparing residents from the stench and cockroaches. Residents will welcome it.
However, it will cost $11 million to install this system in Yuhua alone. If it is introduced island-wide, how much will it cost? Will the cost be passed on to the residents? It is good that the cleaning companies must now pay bonus to our resident cleaners. However, can we do more? Of course, paying our cleaners higher salary and bonus is a welcome move, because their work is not easy. But what is more important is to respect them. It is not right that just because you have paid service and conservancy charges, you can do whatever you want, such as leaving beer bottles and peanut shells behind for cleaners to clean up after eating and drinking with friends at the void deck. This is very disrespectful to our cleaners and should be frowned upon. We can also help lighten the workload of the cleaners. For example, after a meeting, we can pick up used cups or the litter on the table ourselves.
No matter how good the technology is, and how many cleaners we have, if people continue to litter, our environment will still be dirty. Hence, we must treat the public space like our own home and maintain the virtue of environmental cleanliness. This will help lighten the workload of our cleaners.
(In English): Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I strongly support the amendment to implement the PWM Bonus under NEA's licensing regime for cleaning businesses. The annual bonus for Singaporean and PR cleaners is greatly welcomed.
We can certainly see the changes brought about by technological advances and automation in the cleaning sector, as in many other sectors. These new machineries and systems will make our cleaners' work less demanding physically. Our cleaners will have to learn new skills to operate these systems and such specific skillsets are expected to lead to higher productivity and wages.
My concern is for our resident cleaners who are elderly. While they would certainly like to be more productive and earn higher wages, due to their age, they are understandably worried about their abilities to absorb new information and training. Many candidly shared with me that they feel intimidated and fearful, especially those who had little formal education. They lack the confidence to undergo upgrading of their skills.
If we examine the statistics, we can see that more and more of our elderly are staying in the workforce. Between 2013 and 2017, the number of employed residents aged 62 and above rose by 38%, from 166,800 to 230,500. In the same period, those aged 67 and above jumped by 64%, from 61,700 to 100,900. Of the employed residents aged 67 and over in 2017, 80% held secondary and lower qualifications, and 52% were employed as production and transport operators, cleaners and labourers.
Hence, specifically, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, in 2017, how many resident cleaners we have in Singapore; how many of the resident cleaners are aged 62 and above, and 67 and above; how many foreign cleaners we have; and what the average age of a foreign cleaner is.
The reason for these queries is to obtain a clearer picture of the manpower profile in the cleaning industry. How would an employer or contracting company determine productivity when assessing a resident and foreign cleaner doing the same job? Would the training be the same for an elderly and a much younger cleaner? How would a trainer deal with language issues in the process of communicating, considering that many elderly cleaners are more proficient in their mother tongue and dialects? Would the ability to read and understand instructions and labels, usually in English, have an impact on the future work of our cleaners? Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Next, I urge the Government to take a more proactive role to engage our elderly cleaners and understand their concerns. From the dialogues with them, please use the feedback to improve training programmes, customising them if necessary. Such interactions also provide opportunities for our Government agencies to encourage them to embrace skills upgrading, so that psychological barriers will be lowered and they will be more receptive to training and new ways of doing their jobs.
(In English) Finally, I also appeal to the Ministry to ensure that our cleaners do not continue to be disadvantaged by the subcontracting culture in the cleaning sector. Such common practices may depress the wages of our cleaners and fail to recognise their experience and higher skillsets as clients go through a merry-go-round of cleaning contracting companies. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome and support the primary aims of the Bill, which is to establish the establishment, operation, licensing and regulation of DPWCS, and to introduce the PWM Bonus for cleaners.
On DPWCS, the benefits of it are plain to appreciate, and the hon Senior Minister of State has enumerated them in her speech. I do not propose to repeat them. But I would also add that this system would go a long way in helping our Government achieve its stated intent of reaching 70% recycling rate by 2030. As the hon Member Ms Irene Quay just mentioned, this is because the DPWCS supports separation of waste. This also follows the example in a number of other countries, as mentioned by the learned Senior Minister of State, such as Sweden, South Korea and the United Kingdom.
I have four queries on the DPWCS.
First, as mentioned by the learned Senior Minister of State, there was an HDB pilot run in several locations in Singapore. The feedback is generally very positive but there were two concerns raised. One is in relation to the sound of the system, the suction noise, and the other one is smell that may arise from time to time from choked pipes.
Will there be standards ascribed for the licensees to follow via subsidiary legislation? Also, gleaning from the experience of other countries, a point that hon Member Mr Zainal Sapari made, will there also be quality of service standards in terms of effecting recovery?
Next, on the issue of cost that was highlighted by the hon Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Sylvia Lim, what would be the expected lifecycle cost of DPWCS? Would it be lower compared to the current system?
I gather from the HDB pilot that there was an MND grant provided to the Town Council to deal with extra costs associated with the implementation of the pilot. Will there be a similar situation under DPWCS?
I further note that under sections 31M and N that there will be connection and tariff charges. What would be the expected costs for the residents? Will there be regulation or guidance given to licensees on how the tariffs should be implemented for residents?
Next, on the issue of scale. I note that the proposed section 31F excludes premises controlled or managed by a Town Council, a point highlighted by hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim. May I please ask what is the rationale for excluding HDB estates? Should NEA not be the agency to regulate all DPWCSs in housing estates, public or private, just like the regulation of water pipes?
Does NEA also contemplate having a DPWCS that serves both public and private estates, such that residents can enjoy a higher level of scale and potentially higher cost savings as well?
Finally, what incentives can be provided to existing estates to convert to PWCS, recognising the environmental and hygiene benefits of the system? Can NEA consider something similar to the HDB pilots like, for example, MND grants?
I move on to the introduction of the PWM Bonus. I fully support the amendments which adopt the recommendation of the TCC chaired by the hon Member Mr Zainal Sapari. This amendment directly helps these cleaners better cope with cost-of-living issues.
I am concerned, however, about the impact vis-a-vis existing cleaning contracts with margins already locked in, a point that Mr Chen Show Mao highlighted just now. I note that under the proposed section 80H(6) of the Bill, the Director-General will have the power to postpone the effective date of specified amount by the Commissioner for Labour.
What would be the considerations the Director-General have in mind before exercising this power? How would he strike the balance between ensuring that the cleaners benefit from these wage increases on one hand, and also deal with the predicament of cleaning contractors who are already locked in on the price of cleaning contracts, which still have a significant performance period to perform?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. The implementation of DPWCS is a great step towards greater efficiency and a higher standard of hygiene in the treatment of our refuse collection. It will boost productivity of our cleaning system substantially. This is especially important in view of the difficulties we face in attracting and retaining workers in this sector and our ageing population. The pneumatic system will reduce smell and exposure to pests, such as rats and cockroaches, which are common in open refuse collection systems. I am glad to note that the amendments will provide for the implementation of PWCS on a larger scale and bring more residences under the system.
What I would like to raise for the attention of the Ministry is the maintenance and repair issues for this more complex system of refuse collection. What measures are in place to enable vendors to detect faulty mechanics in the system which can ultimately lead to malfunction? I had encountered an isolated mechanical fault which caused the breakdown of the compactor, leading to the failure of discharge of waste at one of the rubbish chutes in my constituency early this year. The compactor broke down without the awareness of the collector. Are the workers adequately trained to recognise signs of trouble, especially if it is hidden within the system, so that they can alert the maintenance and repair team as soon as possible? Once the system or mechanics break down, what are the contingency plans to ensure refuse continues to be collected and removed to prevent hygiene problems? Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the new regulations to build PWCS in more areas in our country. PWCS uses pneumatics to transport refuse to a central collection centre through pipes, greatly reducing the reliance on manpower, and also reduce foul odours and cockroaches and rats. I am worried that there are some bad apples among residents who throw oversized items into the refuse chutes, causing blockages, leading to system failure. I hope the Ministry would put more effort into public education to teach residents how to use this new system in the correct way to ensure its smooth operation.
I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, up to now, how many residents in the trial district have asked for assistance to retrieve valuables which they have accidentally thrown into the rubbish chute. Is there a way for the system to retrieve valuables accidentally thrown away within a short time? I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State. I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Chia Shi-Lu.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the two main proposals introduced in this Bill are both timely and necessary for the transformation of our cleaning industry. With the implementation of DPWCS and, more importantly, compulsory annual bonuses to our Singaporean and PR cleaners, we can look forward to a more productive and supportive work environment for our cleaners.
The cleaning sector is an important and indispensable part of our economy, not only in its contribution to our environmental hygiene and disease prevention, but also in maintaining our infrastructure and facilities. ES enables other sectors and industries to function smoothly and efficiently. It is a particularly labour-intensive sector, which is worrying for us as we face manpower shortages amidst an ageing population. In addition, as more and more of our younger generation receive higher education and the variety of jobs open to them increases, there might be fewer who are willing to take on traditional cleaning sector jobs.
Fortunately, technology will play an increasingly bigger role in ES. Automation will help to boost productivity and take over an increasing number of the less pleasant chores. PWCS is a case in point. It does away with manual refuse haulage altogether – an essential but laborious, repetitive and unpleasant task – and substantially reduce the disamenities, such as foul odours and pests. The PWCS is thus a game changer for refuse collection, in much the same way the onsite sewerage system that we all took for granted was for waste collection just over 30 years ago.
However, just as we need to continue to educate and remind our residents that nothing except human waste and toilet paper should be flushed down the toilet, we have to teach residents what should and should not be thrown into refuse hoppers.
Last year, for instance, we read about how a monster \"fatberg\", which was 250 metres long and weighing 130 tonnes, blocked a sewer in London, and required about three weeks to dismantle, using pneumatic equipment. For those who may not be aware, \"fatbergs\" are formed by things which should not be thrown into toilets like plasters, sanitary towels, nappies, condoms, all of these things that we have always been told not to do; it can lead to things like this.
This public education exercise has to be held in conjunction with recycling initiatives and also the provision of conveniently located disposal areas for bulky items. And here we need all residents’ civic cooperation to prevent blockages and keep the PWCS functioning smoothly.
I am also happy to support the payment of mandatory PWM Bonuses to all our cleaners, whether they are hired directly by organisations or work at contracting companies. I hope that the adoption of progressive wage practices in the cleaning industry will lead to more stability in employment, and also continuous skills upgrading and greater productivity.
In tandem with technological advances and innovation in the cleaning industry, cleaning will evolve as a profession. Specific skills will be needed to operate more complex machinery and systems and the remuneration will adjust up accordingly. For example, in future, autonomous vehicles will be used to clean buildings and streets. Our cleaners’ jobs will then be running these fleets of cleaning bots, which require very different skillsets. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I appeal to the Government to implement and enforce more stringent measures to protect our workers in the cleaning sector. They face many risky situations and hazardous materials in the course of their work, including chemicals they have to work with, physical hazards, and micro-organisms, such as viruses, bacteria and moulds. Employers and contractors must be held accountable for measures to protect our cleaners' health and safety. We should also monitor their workloads and schedules to prevent exploitation.
By improving the treatment and work conditions of our cleaners, companies will benefit from retaining and attracting experienced and better qualified staff, who will contribute to higher productivity and quality services for clients. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our cleaners have had better wages since we introduced the PWM for the Cleaning Industry. Through vigorous tripartite efforts, and especially by the hon Member of Parliament Mr Lim Swee Say and relentless, passionate advocacy of my fellow unionist Mr Zainal Sapari, we had reversed the downward spiral of decreasing wages. There is now a ladder that the 46,000 cleaners can work towards higher wages.
We can add on and strengthen this ladder today. The proposed PWM Bonus will mandate that cleaning companies must pay out an annual bonus to our Singaporean and PR cleaners. This is good news for our cleaners whose work is often undervalued, and wages tend to be sticky because of competitive market forces and workers' lack of bargaining power.
This bonus ensures that economic gains are shared more equitably with them. Would this result in a near-term increase in the cost of cleaning? The answer is probably yes. But it would also spur our companies to look into suitable technologies to help our cleaners do their work better and it also promotes greater retention for workers to scale the ladder over time.
We must be under no delusion that this ladder is neither a panacea nor a foolproof way of raising our cleaners' wages. In fact, our work is not anywhere near done. This ladder and PWM Bonus can be defeated or circumvented. For example, when service buyers ask for prices without the accompanying technological improvements, then it must necessarily mean that workers must now perform more duties. Coupled with the competitive cleaning landscape, workers might end up doing a lot more than expected. How can the Ministry ensure that our workers are not disadvantaged inadvertently as a result of this Bonus?
Many of the cleaners are also older and less educated. How can the Ministry ensure that the cleaners are aware of this mandatory bonus? And since this bonus is mandatory, I suggest that the Ministry work with CPF to flag out companies that do not pay the PWM Bonus. This can help to weed out unscrupulous employers. At the same time, we can better protect the interests of the workers. While the implementation details are being developed, I hope that the Ministry can prevent companies from putting in onerous work demands for cleaners to qualify for the PWM Bonus. For example, some companies might attach attendance and medical certificate records as prequalifiers for the PWM Bonus.
Many writers, observers and residents have often lamented that the cleaners' work is difficult but the wages are low. And this is, indeed, the case. Even with this PWM Bonus, we would still like for their wages to improve. Much of this is pure economics. The consumers and, hence, the market, does not place a high value on cleaning services. There is a consequent commoditisation of cleaning services. For example, when service buyers consume such cleaning services, they often look for the cheapest contract. In fact, they hope that they can be cheaper with every contract renewal.
While there is, indeed, room for productivity gains, much of the cleaners' work has a productivity limit. For example, there is limited foreseeable technology to help a cleaner clear the table faster. Therefore, our lamentations must be consistent with our consumption patterns. As Member of Parliament Zainal Sapari elegantly stated, \"You can outsource your services, but you cannot outsource your responsibilities.\" Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to continue in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, since we introduced PWM, we have successfully reversed the downward spiral of our cleaners' wages. Through the efforts of the tripartite partners, former Minister Lim Swee Say and my fellow NTUC colleague Mr Zainal Sapari, a solid foundation has been laid for our cleaners. Upon this very strong foundation, we can continue to seek more benefits for our workers. The mandatory PWM Bonus can further increase the wage of our workers and promote fairer sharing of profits between employers and their workers. Although there might be sporadic cost increases, it will spur employers to adopt technology to improve productivity. We, as consumers, also have the responsibility to ensure that outsourced cleaning contracts must stay relevant. Not only do we want value for money but also treat our cleaners fairly.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the way ahead is one where we must continue to build on the efforts of the Tripartite Committee on Cleaning. We must strengthen PWM and not undermine it with our consumption habits. The PWM Bonus is a step in the right direction in helping our workers. With this, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for the opportunity to speak on this amendment Bill. While I generally support the amendments proposed, there are two areas within the Bill that I would like to speak on.
The first pertains to clause 4 to amend section 17 of the Act. Littering in public places remains a concern, despite us having sufficient rubbish bins in and around Singapore. There are those who choose to throw their refuse near or just next to a rubbish bin instead of into it, something that many of us, as grassroots advisers or Town Councillors, have observed or received residents’ feedback on. I understand that it remains prohibited to “throw litter in a receptacle not provided for the deposit of refuse and rubbish”.
Hence, I support the amendments to section 17 to further specify the prohibition against throwing refuse in any public place. However, there are make-shift rubbish bins which good Samaritans and individuals create to collect rubbish during community events or private functions, such as a makeshift rubbish bin made using cardboard boxes or pails lined with plastic bags. I would like to confirm these are allowed and do not contravene the current legislation.
In addition, I would also like to urge the Ministry to do more to clamp down on errant litterbugs, particularly high-rise litterbugs, who have no qualms about throwing both big and small items out of their flat windows, as well as motorists who throw their cigarette butts willfully out of their vehicle windows or from their motorcycles onto the road or central road dividers.
I have raised the latter in an earlier Parliamentary Question in March this year and I recognise the difficulty in enforcing littering fines on such errant litterbugs as the action is fleeting and the litterbug is usually on the move while on the roads, hence difficult to capture on video camera, for instance. However, I hope the Ministry can work with the Ministry of Transport for LTA, and the Ministry of Home Affairs for the Traffic Police, to implement strict enforcement actions that can effectively deter such errant motorist litterbugs from littering our roads and causing inconvenience by starting bush or shrub fires on central road dividers or road sides, when they throw their cigarette butts. Such roadside and road divider fires number about 350 a year. This is not a small number, and inconsiderate acts leading to such fires should be clamped on decisively. May I propose that smoking while driving or riding be prohibited so as to minimise the probability of littering the roadsides and road dividers with lighted cigarette butts. In addition, for driving or riding safety, these motorists should not be holding a lighted cigarette anyway. They should always have both their hands on the steering wheel or handlebar at all times.
As for high-rise litterbugs, while NEA is trying its best to be able to catch these litterbugs in the act through the deployment of video cameras or closed-circuit television (CCTV), I understand that there are insufficient video cameras or CCTVs available to be deployed for such purposes. This is to the extent that the duration in which a particular video camera or CCTV can be deployed is limited to just five to seven days at any one particular location. This is too short a time to catch the litterbug in action.
Will the Ministry be investing in and deploying more of such video cameras or CCTVs for the purpose of catching highrise litterbugs in the act? Residents consistently share such acts of high-rise littering happening in our housing estates. Just last week, while looking out the window of my third floor flat, I saw a medium-sized plastic bag falling right in front of my eyes. It seems that high-rise litterbugs are undeterred, despite NEA’s enforcement and our public education efforts.
The second area I would like to speak on is the introduction of the PWM for Cleaners, as highlighted in clauses 2, 6 and 7 of the amendment Bill.
While I support the introduction of the PWM for Cleaners, I would like to ask the Ministry how do we define work performance? For example, Town Council cleaners sweep the floor of our housing estates every day but there are inconsiderate individuals, residents or otherwise, who litter, be it late at night or in the wee hours of the morning. How do we expect the cleaners to keep up with cleaning the housing estate at all hours of the day 24/7? It cannot be the case where just because we find some litter in the estate it means that the cleaners have not done their work properly.
The onus is on each and every one of us to keep our housing estates clean by not littering and by throwing our rubbish in appropriate places, such as waste bins and rubbish chutes, as well as cleaning up after ourselves. I am concerned if the inconsiderate acts of others will inadvertently have a significantly negative effect on the income of our cleaners, especially in terms of income related to their work performance.
Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the suggestions and concerns I have raised, I support the amendment Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mr Deputy Speaker, let me thank Members for speaking in support of the Bill. They have also raised many thoughtful comments, which I will now address.
Mr Murali Pillai asked how connection charges and tariffs will be determined and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked if residents would have to foot these costs. Let me give an overview of the costs and how they will be recovered.
First, the connection charge will cover the capital costs. In Kampong Bugis, NEA will collect this from the Master Developer. The connection charge will be small compared to other costs like land costs and construction costs. In fact, it will be a very small proportion. It will be made known to bidders when the site is launched for sale so that this would be factored in their bids.
Second, a monthly tariff will be collected from owners of premises within the district, such as the MCSTs. This will cover operational and maintenance expenses for DPWCS. The MCSTs will then collect payments towards this tariff from subsidiary proprietors under the MCST as part of their monthly maintenance fees.
To keep overall costs competitive, NEA will appoint the DPWCS licensee for Kampong Bugis through an open tender. The tariffs will take into account factors, such as gross floor area (GFA) and amount of refuse generated for the different types of premises. So, for example, the tariffs for residential premises will be different from that for commercial premises.
Ms Irene Quay, Mr Zainal Sapari and Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about potential cost increases arising from DPWCS. We will make every effort to ensure that the costs of waste collection remain affordable. But we also have to balance short-term costs with long-term sustainability. Waste generation in Singapore grew from 5.6 million tonnes in 2007 to 7.7 million tonnes in 2017, a 40% increase over the last decade. This trend is likely to continue as Singapore’s population and economy grow. If we do not adopt technology but continue to manage waste the way we do today, we will need a proportionate increase in manpower which we cannot meet without turning to more foreign labour, given our manpower constraints.
We know that Singapore’s workforce is shrinking and ageing. Manpower costs across all sectors will continue to rise. The challenge is even more acute in the ES industry, which many Singaporeans, as I had noted earlier, perceive as dirty and unappealing, and shun away from. We might not be able to find workers, even if we were willing to pay for them.
Members would agree with me that increasing our reliance on foreign workers to collect waste is not a sustainable solution. So, we need to start putting in place systems now, such as the PWCS to automate waste collection, which will allow our workers in the ES industry to take on higher value-added jobs.
From our recent consultations with industry players, the operating costs for PWCS comprise only a very small proportion of the total maintenance expenses for a condominium. Hence, the PWCS will not significantly affect the residents’ maintenance fees. Condominiums with PWCS will also benefit from reduced pests and odour, and manpower savings from not needing to manually transport waste within the premises.
At the district level, premises will also enjoy more cost savings due to economies of scale through shared bin centres, air and ventilation equipment, and pipe networks. In greenfield sites, these benefits would be even greater, as the planning and construction of the network will be done from the start without retrofitting. This is seen in other cities, including several in South Korea, where DPWCS are implemented on greenfield sites.
For these reasons, we expect the cost borne by each dwelling unit (DU) for the DPWCS at Kampong Bugis to be lower than that at Yuhua, which is a brownfield site that required extensive and more costly retrofitting works, as mentioned by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah. Over the longer term, as PWCS is used more extensively in Singapore and with technological advancements, we can expect the cost of DPWCS to decrease.
As mentioned in my opening speech, NEA estimates that a 1,000 DU-unit condominium would save GFA equivalent to a 5-room HDB flat by eliminating its bin centre. In Kampong Bugis, this translates to the Master Developer saving 20% of the GFA used for bin centres, which could then be diverted to saleable units or facilities for residents. Residents will also benefit from a cleaner and quieter environment due to reduced truck traffic.
Mr Murali Pillai asked whether the Government would consider subsidising existing private developments to implement PWCS within their estates. Currently, the costs of conveying waste from individual chutes to bin centres in private developments are borne by residents through their monthly maintenance fees. So, the Government does not subsidise this and we have no plans to do so.
Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Zainal Sapari spoke about operational concerns related to DPWCS in Singapore and other cities, such as suction noise and smell from choked pipes. I would like to assure Members that we take these concerns seriously. PWCS itself is a tried and tested technology and has been used in countries, such as South Korea and Sweden, for many years. To date, some 140 condominiums and commercial developments in Singapore have also used PWCS with only minor operational issues. Where disamenities occur, we will study and address them. For example, chokages have been addressed by improving the design of refuse chute hoppers, and odour, by ensuring the regular replacement of odour filters.
Let me share with Members the experience of a district in Gwacheon City, which is in Seoul. Residents were initially concerned when they saw the shared bin centre in the middle of the district. They were concerned that the bin centre would affect the aesthetics of the area, and whether there would be odour problems. These concerns were cleverly addressed by integrating the bin centre into a landscape garden, which residents welcomed.
This illustrates the importance of resident-centric designs. The PWCS retrofitting project at Yuhua faced design limitations as it was in an existing estate with limited space. As a result, the bin centre had to be located in the middle of the estate, surrounded by blocks of flats. HDB has introduced acoustic mitigating measures and odour treatment solutions to address the noise and smell issues at the bin centre. Public education efforts were also intensified to remind residents of items that cannot be disposed of in the PWCS. This would prevent chokages that give rise to odours.
More importantly, the learning points from Yuhua have been incorporated into the Government's upcoming projects. These include the PWCS at the new HDB estate at Tampines North, where the bin centre will be located at the edge of the district, away from residents. Other effective design features include placing refuse hoppers outside of flats and sizing refuse hoppers to limit the size of items that can be thrown into the chute, thereby preventing chokage.
New developments, such as those in Kampong Bugis, will incorporate such planning and design features that will facilitate the smooth operation of the PWCS.
Another cause of disamenities is improper maintenance of the PWCS. To address this, NEA is jointly developing a Singapore Standard for PWCS with HDB, Enterprise Singapore (ESG) and other stakeholders. The Standard covers proper maintenance of PWCS, such as recommendations to replace air filters every six months, so that they remain effective in removing unpleasant odours. PWCS vendors must also provide operation and maintenance manuals to managing agents and MCSTs and provide basic training to the staff of the managing agents.
As Ms Irene Quay, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Dr Chia Shi Lu highlighted, users of DPWCS have a role to play in preventing chokage and its associated issues. They must use the DPWCS correctly and avoid throwing bulky or long items, such as pillows or brooms into the chutes. NEA will support such efforts to educate residents on the correct way to use the PWCS, as we are already doing at private developments which have adopted PWCS.
For instance, signage could be placed at throw-points to educate residents on proper usage. NEA has also amended the Code of Practice on Environmental Health to introduce a refuse chute hopper design that limits the size of items that can be thrown into the chute.
Mr Zainal Sapari, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Irene Quay highlighted the need for prompt detection of faults in the PWCS and the importance of contingency plans in the event of breakdowns. It is our priority that our residents have reliable waste collection services and NEA will ensure this through licensing conditions on the DPWCS licensee. In the event of a prolonged disruption in the main DPWCS network, the licensee must ensure continued service, such as through manual waste collection. These contingency plans are similar to those in other countries, such as South Korea. PWCSs are also equipped with sensors and monitors to alert operators of any system faults so that they can carry out prompt remediation.
Even as we prepare for contingencies, it is pertinent to note that most chokages are cleared within two to three hours in existing developments that use PWCS in Singapore.
Mr Murali Pillai, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Louis Ng spoke about the Town Councils' role in managing PWCS. Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Sylvia Lim also asked why the Bill excludes Town Council-managed premises. This is because HDB has already been playing an active role in implementing PWCS in public housing estates. Hence, the current Bill focuses on enabling DPWCS to be implemented on sites comprising private developments.
NEA and HDB are also collaborating closely on implementing PWCS and will be adopting the Singapore Standard for PWCS in the new projects.
Mr Louis Ng spoke about potential increases in maintenance costs to Town Councils due to PWCS. While this Bill covers private developments only, we understand that HDB works closely with Town Councils to address this. For example, as mentioned by Mr Murali Pillai, MND is providing a temporary grant to Town Councils to help offset costs until the PWCS industry attains economies of scale. In addition, Town Councils will enjoy savings from PWCS due to the reduced manpower requirements for refuse collection and cleaning. Indeed, they are already seeing this but in the initial phases, because the PWCS is only applied to a particular part of the constituency, the savings in collection costs cannot be passed through directly and, therefore, the temporary grant is given. Whereas in a private development, the costs can be directly offset in the maintenance fees payable.
We welcome Mr Murali Pillai's suggestion to extend the scope of DPWCS, by combining public and private estates to allow for greater economies of scale. This is something we can explore in future after we gain more experience in implementing DPWCS.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked how we intend to roll out the DPWCS areas under section 31G. Our plan is to implement the DPWCS at Kampong Bugis, a greenfield development site that will enable the DPWCS to be planned and integrated from inception. We currently have no plans for a nation-wide rollout of the DPWCS to existing developments or brownfield sites. Our priority is to implement the Kampong Bugis DPWCS well and ensure that it operates smoothly. With the experience gained, we will continue to enhance the development and management of PWCS in Singapore by working with the relevant agencies on suitable areas, taking into account site, technical and financial considerations.
Ms Sylvia Lim also asked about extending to landed estates. One of our considerations in implementing DPWCS is the financial viability and sustainability of the system. Currently, we do not think that there are sufficient economies of scale to implement DPWCS in landed estates for the system to be financially viable. We will focus our efforts on non-landed developments, such as Kampong Bugis. Let me also assure everyone, including residents of existing developments, that we will not take such actions implementing DPWCS in an area lightly. It will be carefully and judiciously considered. We will work with the planning agencies to identify suitable areas and take into account not just the site and technical feasibility but also cost considerations. We will only implement DPWCS if it makes sense, if it benefits the residents. So, I want to assure everyone that we are not going to impose DPWCS in all developments. It will be judiciously done and costs will be a key consideration.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will now address Members' questions about the PWM Bonus.
Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Louis Ng asked about the profile of the cleaning workforce. There are currently more than 40,000 resident cleaners and 17,000 foreign cleaners. Their average age is 60 years old and 37 years old respectively. The composition has remained stable over the past three years.
The Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners (TCC) has been rallying all stakeholders to support measures to uplift the skills and wages of cleaners, including the PWM Bonus. To raise awareness among workers, a need highlighted by Mr Desmond Choo, the unions have been conducting roadshows and briefings and have reached out to more than 6,500 workers. More sessions are being planned, and cleaning businesses have also been reminded to inform their workers.
Let me express our appreciation to Mr Zainal Sapari for championing the interests of our cleaners as Chairman of the TCC. Thanks to the TCC's efforts, some cleaning businesses have already factored in the PWM Bonus in their contracts that extend beyond 2019. Others, such as 800 Super Holdings Limited, have also been giving out additional bonuses to motivate and appreciate their workers. Indeed, I hope more businesses will do the same. I also support Mr Zainal Sapari's heartfelt call for service buyers to safeguard the welfare of their cleaners.
Several Members asked how the PWM Bonus will be enforced, and how errant businesses would be flagged out. NEA and MOM routinely inspect the records of cleaning businesses to ensure compliance with the PWM requirements. This includes making sure payslips are issued and training records of cleaners are kept.
Mr Murali Pillai was concerned how existing cleaning contracts will be affected and what considerations the Director-General of Public Health will take into account before invoking the powers to postpone the effective date of the PWM wage requirements. Mr Zainal Sapari also suggested giving a grace period for businesses which do not pay the PWM Bonus when the requirement takes effect.
The TCC had consulted service buyers and providers extensively and deliberately recommended that the PWM Bonus be implemented only in 2020. This was to give cleaning businesses ample time of more than three years to adjust their service agreements accordingly. As such, all cleaning businesses will be required to pay their resident cleaners PWM Bonus from January 2020. For cases of non-compliance, NEA will review their circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
Mr Louis Ng raised concerns about cleaners' wages being reset when a contract ends and there is a change in service provider.
The TCC shares such concerns and had, therefore, proposed the yearly PWM wage increments, which would steadily lift wages at all skills levels for cleaners entering into contracts after 1 July 2018. We urge cleaning businesses and service buyers to recognise the skills and experience of workers and pay them fairly.
By investing in productivity enhancements and technology, businesses can afford to sustain higher wages for their workers. The Government will continue to support cleaning businesses in pursuing productivity projects through various schemes, such as the ES Productivity Solutions Grant (ES PSG). Under the ES PSG, cleaning businesses can receive support for up to half the cost of eligible productivity enhancement solutions, up to a maximum of $250,000. Service buyers should also reject cheap-sourcing in favour of performance-based contracting. This will encourage cleaning companies to invest in productivity measures without compromising the interest of cleaners, a concern highlighted by Mr Desmond Choo.
Besides ensuring fair wages, we need to help our cleaners upskill and keep up with industry demands. Ms Joan Pereira asked whether training is tailored to the needs of all cleaners. All cleaners attend a basic cleaning course before starting out. The courses are offered in various languages, including English, Mandarin and Malay. To facilitate learning, courses are designed to emphasise hands-on learning, which is best suited for the profile of the workers.
Cleaners continue to receive support after they start work. For example, Horsburgh Integrated Services groups new and experienced cleaners together to facilitate on-the-job training. Another example is Lifeline Cleaning Pte Ltd, where older workers comprise 80% of the staff. The company tapped the WorkPro Job Redesign Grant and successfully trained its cleaners to use machines to clean floors more efficiently. In fact, I recently met 67-year-old Mr Lee Thian Kok from Lifeline, who has learnt to operate automated cleaning devices that make his job easier and more productive.
Mr Lee exemplifies the spirit of lifelong learning and is proof that older cleaners are not disadvantaged. We will support workers of all ages to upskill and reskill and encourage more businesses to adopt these best practices.
Cleaning work must not only become more efficient; it must also become safer. Dr Chia Shi-Lu highlighted the need for tighter safety measures to protect cleaners at work. NEA and Workforce Singapore have jointly developed a list of enhanced tools, chemicals and machines that businesses can adopt to make cleaning more effective and safe for cleaners. Cleaning supervisors can also receive training under the Environmental Cleaning Workplace Skills Qualification (WSQ) framework to implement risk controls and educate workers on workplace safety.
Mr Louis Ng suggested extending PWM beyond the current pool of cleaners, to cleaners who are directly employed as well as foreign workers. PWM was designed to help cleaners employed by cleaning businesses earn higher incomes through upskilling. Previously, these workers saw their wages depressed as cheap-sourcing was prevalent across the industry. PWM sought to level the playing field, amidst a more comprehensive effort to raise wages of lower-income citizens across the board.
While PWM does not apply to cleaners who are directly employed, we urge employers who are doing well to share their gains and reward their workers fairly, adopting the key principles of PWM. Foreign workers are hired on different terms, and employers already bear other related expenses, such as additional levies and accommodation arrangements, for engaging them. While PWM does not apply to the foreign workers, again, we encourage employers to adopt the key principles of progressive wages when paying their foreign cleaners.
Regarding Mr Louis Ng's suggestions to adopt the R1 scheme for foreign workers in the cleaning sector, there is already such a scheme for the services sector which covers cleaning businesses. Under this scheme, employers enjoy lower levies and longer employment periods when they train and retain their foreign cleaners. Mr Louis Ng also proposed mandating a minimum proportion of R1 foreign cleaners; we will study this suggestion with MOM.
As for Dr Intan Mokhtar's suggestion of extending PWM to the F&B industry, I will convey it to my MOM colleagues to consider.
With regard to Mr Chen Show Mao's comments, I would like to clarify that PWM is not a national minimum wage, but a framework to raise wages in tandem with productivity improvements. It is applied to selected sectors prone to cheap sourcing, wage stagnation and market failure, such as the cleaning sector, the lift sector that Mr Chen Show Mao talked about, and the security and landscaping sectors where wages are lower.
Dr Intan Mokhtar also asked for stronger enforcement action against motorists who litter and cause roadside fires. The Penal Code Review Committee has proposed to introduce a new clause linking those who litter materials containing embers to a fire that subsequently occurs at that place. The Committee also recommends that higher penalties be imposed for causing fires by littering of materials that contain embers, such as cigarette butts. The Government will review the Committee's recommendations.
Regarding Dr Intan’s suggestion to deploy more surveillance cameras to tackle high-rise littering, NEA has deployed such cameras through our service providers more than 5,500 times over the past five years resulting in more than 5,000 enforcement actions. We will continue to be vigilant in tackling this issue, while also working with the community to foster collective responsibility and ownership of our shared spaces.
Dr Intan Mokhtar asked whether make-shift rubbish bins placed by good Samaritans to collect rubbish during community events or private functions would contravene section 17 of the Act. The answer is no. Section 17 is not intended to discourage such activities.
Finally, let me come back again to the reason for introducing provisions on the PWM Bonus. We want to recognise our cleaners who have played such a big part in keeping Singapore clean and green. As Mr Zainal Sapari said, there are many ways each of us can show our appreciation to the cleaners around us – by being considerate in the way we use public spaces, by picking up after ourselves, and by saying \"thank you\" to them. More importantly, as Dr Intan Mokhtar has emphasised, the onus is on each and every one of us to keep our housing estates clean. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has shown the way with the Nee Soon \"No Cleaners Day\". We must build a city that is truly clean because Singaporeans are gracious and mindful of their community and the environment.
Sir, to conclude, the EPH (Amendment) Bill is a milestone in our journey to transform our ES industry through innovation and technology. At the same time, we will upskill our ES workers and improve their livelihood and working conditions. All Singaporeans will benefit as we ensure a cleaner and greener environment in the years to come. I thank Members for their support of 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. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien.] (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 6.58 pm
to a date to be fixed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Legal Aid Applications by Family Members of Mentally Disabled for Appointment as Deputies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law with regard to the expanded means test applicable to mentally disabled persons who are unable to work, whether the Ministry can treat legal aid applications by family members of the mentally disabled persons for appointment as deputies to manage their personal affairs as applications being made for and on behalf of the mentally disabled, instead of the individual family members, thereby entitling the legal aid applications to be assessed on the expanded means test.
Mr K Shanmugam: A legal aid application for deputyship has to be made in the name of the family member seeking to be made a deputy, as deputyship proceedings in the Courts are commenced in the family member’s name. The application for legal aid should thus be assessed on the means of the applicant for deputyship. It is not possible for legal aid applications to be made for, or on behalf of, the mentally incapacitated person, and then to use that person’s means to support the legal aid application.
Legal aid is provided to low-income Singaporeans who cannot afford their own lawyers. To qualify for legal aid, the family member has to pass the means test. For the past three years, about 85% of legal aid applications for deputyship matters passed the preliminary means test.
We should add that the Ministry of Law intends to restructure the legal aid means test. This is intended to be achieved by the Legal Aid and Advice (Amendment) Bill which has been introduced. Instead of the applicant's disposable income, we will be seeking to use Per Capita Household Income (PCHI) to assess means. PCHI takes into account both the income of the applicant applying for deputyship and the income of the mentally incapacitated patient, if they live in the same household. We will also provide greater flexibility to provide targeted help to applicants with extenuating circumstances.
Finally, Singaporeans may wish to plan ahead and make a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). One key advantage of an LPA is that an individual, who has the requisite mental capacity, is able to choose his proxy decision maker and discuss the LPA with his family so that his wishes are made known in advance. Crucially, if there is an existing LPA, family members of that individual also need not apply to the Courts to be appointed as deputies to make certain decisions on behalf of the individual if he lacks mental capacity, thereby saving expenses and time. The fee waiver for Singaporeans making an LPA has been extended to 31 August 2020, to encourage more Singaporeans to make an LPA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Elderly Parents Rendered Homeless after Being Chased out of Adult Children's Flats Bought with Proceeds from Elderly Parents' Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for National Development in the last five years, how many cases have been brought to HDB's attention of elderly parents who have been rendered homeless after their adult children chased them out of their flats even though the flats owned by these adult children have been bought initially with the proceeds from the elderly parents' sale of their own flats.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) does not have data on the number of elderly who sold their flats, used the proceeds to help their adult children buy another flat, but were eventually chased out and rendered homeless.
Elderly parents whose children are not willing to support them may seek the assistance of Family Service Centres or the Office of the Commissioner for the Maintenance of Parents. If mediation is not successful, they can consider making an application for maintenance at the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents.
For elderly parents who are unable to obtain support from their children, HDB looks into their individual circumstances and will allocate a rental flat to those who have no other housing option.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expedite Upgrading Works in Common Areas of Private Estates under Estate Upgrading Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry can expedite and extend the upgrading works in the common areas of private estates under the Estate Upgrading Programme, especially in estates above 30 years old, with priority given to older estates.
Mr Lawrence Wong: For the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP), we do prioritise older estates, especially those with greater need and scope for significant improvement.
We are currently coordinating with other agencies that are planning upgrading works, to minimise inconvenience to residents. We will contact the Citizens' Consultative Committees to seek nominations for the next batch of EUP estates soon.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Licensing System for Ownership of Cats to Prevent Cat Abandonment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"
21 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will start a licensing system for the ownership of cats to prevent cat abandonment.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Pet licensing primarily serves to protect public health. As dogs are the most common cause of rabies transmission from animals to humans globally, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) requires them to be licensed to enable traceability for the purposes of disease control.
AVA has put in place several measures to deter pet abandonment. First, AVA conducts public education initiatives to promote responsible pet ownership, including school talks and community events. Second, AVA requires pet shops to do pre-sales screenings to assess and ensure that their customers are suitable pet owners. Finally, owners who are found to have abandoned their pets may be liable to a maximum fine of $10,000 and a jail term of up to 12 months, for first-time convictions. AVA investigates all feedback on alleged pet abandonment and will take enforcement action where required.
AVA will continue to work with stakeholders to review measures to promote responsible pet ownership and deter pet abandonment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dependants of HDB Flat Owners Who Have Benefited from Home Protection Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the past three years, how many dependants of HDB flat owners have benefited from the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) upon the death of the owner; (b) what has been the number of unsuccessful claims and what are the reasons; and (c) how many dependants have made appeals for HPS claims.
Mrs Josephine Teo: From 2015 to 2017, the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) has helped to pay the remaining mortgage for about 1,800 Housing and Development Board (HDB) lessees who died. Another 70 unsuccessful death claims were made. Out of these, 22 dependants submitted an appeal, of which one was approved.
The treatment of claims for HPS is in line with industry practice. Unsuccessful death claims remain a small minority and fall into three categories. First, serious pre-existing illness was undeclared when the HPS was purchased, and such declaration would have resulted in the HPS not having been extended in the first place. Second, the HPS cover had lapsed and was no longer in force when the policy owner died. This arises mainly because premiums remained unpaid despite repeated reminders from the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board. Third, the policy holder committed suicide within the first year of HPS cover.
In cases where the HPS claim are not successful, dependants can explore other options with HDB. They can seek HDB's assistance to reduce or defer mortgage payments until the family regains financial stability. HDB can also assist the family to right-size to a more affordable flat if they choose to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expected Timeframe for LTA to Complete Review with Stakeholders on Safety Requirements for PMDs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the expected timeframe for LTA to complete its review with stakeholders on safety requirements for personal mobility devices (PMDs) to mitigate fire risks; (b) whether the Ministry will impose a ban on PMDs and components that come from non-reputable sources in the interim; and (c) whether maintenance standards for PMDs can be made part of the Safe Riding Programme.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has studied the standards available today and determined that the UL 2272 standard is suitable for application for motorised personal mobility devices (PMDs) in Singapore.
To improve the safety of motorised PMDs and reduce fire risks, we will require all motorised PMDs intended for use on public paths to conform to the UL2272 standard. We will prohibit retailers from selling motorised PMDs which are not UL2272-compliant from July 2019 onwards. This provides retailers with a nine-month transition period to change their inventories and comply with the new regulation. Existing owners of motorised PMDs which are not UL2272-compliant can continue to use their devices until December 2020. They will thus have a grace period of over two years to make the transition to an UL2272-certified PMD. This takes into account the average PMD lifespan of below three years. Motorised PMDs which are not UL2272-compliant will be prohibited from use on public paths from January 2021 onwards.
Meanwhile, we strongly encourage owners of motorised PMDs to switch to UL2272-compliant devices in order to minimise the fire risk of their devices. When purchasing PMDs, consumers should seek out reputable sources and study their fire safety standards. They should not overcharge batteries, modify their PMDs or tamper with the electrical components of their PMDs. We will include such advisory information in the Safe Riding Programme curriculum.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Remaining Number of oBike Bicycles Left Abandoned in Public Spaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of remaining oBike bicycles left abandoned in public spaces, particularly in the private estates; (b) how does the LTA plan to remove these bicycles; and (c) when will these bicycles be completely removed from our public spaces.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Since oBike's exit on 25 June 2018, its liquidator, FTI Consulting, and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) have removed over 60,000 oBike bicycles. This has not been easy as the oBike bicycles do not have GPS transmitters to indicate their locations. Apart from systematic sweeps of residential areas, major roads and public transport nodes, many were found based on public feedback and reports by agencies. We thank Singaporeans for their feedback.
We estimate that there are less than a thousand oBike bicycles left in public spaces. Many of these are likely in less accessible areas within industrial estates or parks. LTA is working closely with FTI Consulting to remove the remaining bicycles by end of this month. Meanwhile, members of the public who come across oBike bicycles are welcome to report their locations to FTI Consulting via obikelocated@fticonsulting.com or LTA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sale of 2-room Flexi Flats or Studio Flats of Shorter Leases on Open Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) to date, how many 2-room flexi flats or studio flats of shorter lease have been sold in the resale market and what are the reasons for the sale; and (b) whether buyers who bought such 2-room flats can buy an additional lease to top up the balance of the lease.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Two-room flexi short-lease flats, and the earlier Studio Apartments (SA), are designed specifically for seniors to live out their retirement years. Before their purchase, seniors are made aware that these flats cannot be sold in the resale market. If they no longer need their flat, seniors can return the flat to HDB and receive a refund of the value of the unused portion of the lease.
Under the 2-room Flexi Scheme, seniors can buy a 2-room Flexi flat on a shorter lease of 15 to 45 years, as long as the lease can cover them and their spouse up to at least age 95. For example, a couple aged 60 have to buy a flat with a lease of at least 35 years. If they prefer a longer lease, they could have a lease of 45 years, to last them till age 105. Providing this option to seniors upfront mitigates the need for subsequent lease top-ups.
Seniors who own SAs, which were sold on fixed leases of 30 years, can apply to top up their lease by five, 10 or 15 years at prevailing market value, at any point in time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singles who Have Applied Successfully to Secure HDB BTO Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development in the past three years (a) how many singles have applied successfully to secure HDB's BTO flats; and (b) what has been the ratio of successful applications among singles, senior citizens and low-income families for 2-room flexi flats since they were launched.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) introduced the 2-room Flexi Scheme in November 2015. At least 40% of 2-room flexi Build-To-Order (BTO) flats in non-mature estates are set aside for the elderly aged 55 and above. The balance of up to 60% of the flat supply is divided equally between families and singles. Any quota not taken up by the elderly or families is allocated to singles.
From 2015 to 2017, the proportion of applicants who were invited to book a 2-room flexi flat increased from 52% to 84%. During this period, elderly, families and non-elderly singles made up about 33%, 7% and 60% respectively of those invited to book flats. Specifically, from November 2015 when the 2-room flexi flats were introduced to end-2017, more than 5,500 non-elderly singles booked a BTO 2-room flexi flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Restriction on Claims for Compensation for Structural Damage to Building during Construction","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry intends to maintain the current restriction of claiming compensation for damage to any building arising from the construction or operation of the railway or road tunnel to just structural damage and loss due to displacement resulting from structural damage and, if so, why.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) works closely with its contractors to minimise the impact of rail and road works on buildings. For example, prior to the commencement of construction activities, LTA undertakes engineering studies and site investigation works to ascertain the effects of the construction activities on the surrounding areas and pre-emptively carries out any necessary engineering protection works.
If damage is caused by LTA’s construction activities, LTA and its contractors will, as a general rule, try to rectify the damage and the issue of compensation, therefore, does not arise.
Should there be a need for compensation, the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act (LTA Act) lays out a framework for different types of compensation claims. The compensation framework is not limited to the types of claims mentioned by the Member. For example, in cases where LTA exercises its powers to enter private land to construct railways or public roads, compensation may also be claimed by owners of buildings which suffer damage, including non-structural damage, or building owners who are displaced.
In all cases, LTA will evaluate based on the circumstances and handle each case in consultation with the stakeholders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"High Shelters Spanning Across Public Roads","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) to date, what is the number of high shelters built on public roads and which span across roads with two lanes each way; (b) what is the average construction cost of such high shelters; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider building more of such high shelters across the island.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: I thank the Member for his questions. I have addressed them in my written reply at the 1 October 2018 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Requests for More High Sheltered Linkways Across Roads and Crossings\", Official Report, 1 October 2018, Vol 94, Issue 83, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Schedule for Implementing Extension of Home Improvement Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development whether he can clarify on the timetable for implementing the Home Improvement Programme extension for the HDB estates that are now eligible.
Mr Lawrence Wong: There are still around 80,000 flats built up to 1986 that are awaiting the Home Improvement Programme (HIP). We have been ramping up the pace of HIP to complete these projects and hope to complete the upgrading for these blocks by around 2021.
Once we have completed this batch of HIP, we plan to start on HIP for the blocks built between 1987 and 1997, which will cover about 230,000 flats. The exact timetable for implementing HIP for the newly eligible flats will be contingent on the Government’s fiscal position and budget availability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Level of Soundproofing of HDB BTO Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the level of soundproofing in our HDB BTO flats has declined in recent years with the use of non-concrete walls and with the more recent flat or building designs; and (b) whether the Ministry has any plans to improve the level of sound-proofing in new BTO flats.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Housing and Development Board (HDB) buildings are constructed using reinforced concrete in accordance with the prevailing building codes and industry norms. This ensures that our buildings are structurally safe and suitable for occupancy. While the design of HDB flats have undergone some changes and improvements over the years, such changes in design do not reduce the level of soundproofing in the flats.
As part of efforts to improve overall construction productivity, since November 2014, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has required all residential non-landed developments to use non-concrete drywalls for internal partitions, except for wet areas, such as the bathroom and kitchen areas. The drywall systems used in Build-To-Order (BTO) developments, which comprise a metal framework enclosed with gypsum plaster panels on both sides and filled with sound insulation material, provide comparable acoustic insulation as concrete walls of similar thickness.
To elaborate, the Sound Transmission Class (STC) is used to rate the acoustic performance of interior partitions. It is the decibel reduction in noise a partition can provide, with a higher STC value given for better acoustic performance. Interior walls using bricks or concrete have STC of about 40, which is considered suitable for residential units. The drywall systems used in new BTO developments since 2014 have a STC of at least 45, which is even higher.
Notwithstanding the flat design or the material used, in a high-density living environment like an HDB block, it is also important that residents do their part by being considerate, such as through keeping the noise level down, especially late at night, so as to provide a pleasant living environment for all.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Banking in Healthcare Institution for Volunteer Work Performed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider launching a pilot project for time banking in a healthcare institution whereby hours put into volunteer work can be converted into credits and deposited in a healthcare database for later use at the healthcare institution where the volunteer work took place.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Volunteers play an important role in the public healthcare system. We have around 2,000 volunteers of all ages across the public healthcare institutions (PHIs) who contribute their time in areas ranging from cancer support, to organising recreational activities for patients, and providing care and pastoral services. These volunteers include ex-patients, members of the public, students and even staff, who do so out of their passion to serve.
Our PHIs regularly review their volunteer management practices to incorporate new ideas where feasible and appropriate. Whilst the concept of time-banking is an interesting one, it is important to ensure that we do not inadvertently crowd out the intrinsic motivation of our volunteers to serve others.
Our PHIs show recognition and appreciation for our volunteers through various initiatives, such as annual volunteer celebrations, training to develop leadership and patient interaction skills, and recognition awards. We will continue to study the landscape to explore how to further improve the recognition of the efforts of our volunteers and learn from best practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation on Collation and Use of Behavioural Data and Patterns by Online Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Ministry sees a need to regulate in Singapore the collation and use of behavioural data and patterns from online platforms by introducing \"do not track\" legislation and, if not, why not.
Mr S Iswaran: Currently, some websites and online platforms track their users' behaviour by collecting data on their browsing habits and activities and use the data to serve targeted advertisements or improve browsing experiences.
Organisations should ensure that their collection, use and disclosure of users' behavioural data comply with the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (PDPA). In the event of a complaint, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) will investigate and take enforcement action if it assesses that there is a breach of the PDPA.
As Singapore's Digital Economy develops, we envisage that businesses will increasingly leverage such data to offer better, more innovative products and services that are tailored to their users’ preferences. At the same time, we recognise public concerns over the widespread collection of personal data by online platforms, and the potential misuse of such data.
There are tools and mechanisms already available today that provide a balanced and effective approach to prevent the unwanted tracking of individuals. For example, individuals who are concerned with tracking may block and delete cookies, or use plugins and browser extensions to prevent websites from profiling them. They may also request not to be tracked when browsing a website. Most modern browsers come with such functionalities. The Media Literacy Council also provides tips on basic ways in which users can guard against online tracking.
The Ministry of Communications and Information and PDPC will continue to monitor developments on this issue and ensure that our policies continue to safeguard individuals' interests while allowing data-driven innovation in the Digital Economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Transition Period for HDB Dwellers on Welfare Assistance to Adjust to Higher Rent from Salary Increase","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development for HDB dwellers who are under welfare assistance and who may have received some salary increase from their employment, whether a transition period can be given to them to help them make adjustments before they are asked to pay a higher rent based on their new salary.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) already provides a rent transition period to public rental tenants when their income increases. Households with monthly income below $800 pay the lowest rent tier which starts at $26 for a 1-room flat, or $44 for a 2-room flat. At tenancy renewal, HDB waives the rent increase for one tenancy term1 if the household's income crosses the $800 threshold but remains within the income ceiling of $1,500. At the subsequent tenancy renewal, even if the household’s income increases further, HDB will waive the rent increase for another tenancy term if the increase in income is low relative to the rent increase and the household remains within the income ceiling.
HDB works closely with Social Service Offices to support families placed on ComCare schemes under the Ministry of Social and Family Development. For households receiving Short-to-Medium Term Assistance (SMTA), HDB will determine the rent payable based on an individual assessment of their financial situation. Those receiving ComCare Long Term Assistance will automatically qualify for the lowest rent tier.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Tenancy terms are two years long, other than for elderly households where all members are above age 60, for whom tenancy terms are three years long."],"footNoteQuestions":["3"],"questionNo":"3"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans Awarded Scholarships by Foreign Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Education in the past three years, how many Singaporeans have been awarded scholarships by foreign universities.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Many established universities give out scholarships to deserving international students, at the undergraduate and post-graduate levels, such that they pay lower or close to no tuition fees. Some of the foreign universities that Singaporean students attend on such scholarships include the University of Cambridge, University of Hong Kong, Peking University, Fudan University and Waseda University. For some European countries, such as Austria, France, Germany and Norway, university tuition is either free or fees are significantly marked down for all students, including international students.
Schools do not actively track the number of their students who have been awarded scholarships by foreign universities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Effectiveness of Mental Health Education in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there has been a review of the effectiveness of mental health education in schools and, if so, what is the outcome of the review; and (b) whether there are any plans to expand mental health education and support for young adults in institutions of higher learning in addition to existing support structures in schools and non-profit organisations.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Education monitors the well-being of our students and is committed to ensuring that students who require support receive the assistance they need.
There is a mental health programme in place. In schools, mental health education has been enhanced through socio-emotional learning in the Character and Citizenship curriculum. This is to raise awareness of mental illnesses, encourage help-seeking behaviour, reduce stigmatisation, and also to help students to be able to identify friends who may be suffering from it.
Schools have also increased the number of mental health programmes, such as talks and exhibitions, which foster greater awareness of mental health issues. Every school is now resourced with at least one counsellor whose responsibility includes supporting students in distress.
Similarly, our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are doing more. Students are equipped with basic knowledge of mental wellness through curricular and co-curricular programmes. For example, students in Republic Polytechnic and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) attend compulsory LifeSkills modules which focus on promoting socio-emotional well-being and strategies on stress management.
Schools and IHLs have also put in place increased measures for early detection and intervention. This includes emergency hotlines and counsellors to provide support for students. Peer supporters are also trained in active listening skills, identification of distress signs, and to refer distressed peers to trusted adults.
In addition, Health Promotion Board provides mental health awareness briefings and resources for teachers and school counsellors annually. These enhance their understanding of mental health issues, its impact on students as well as provide strategies on how to support students better.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Work Permit Holders Hired under Direct R1 Pathway or Market-Based Skills Recognition Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the last three years, how many Work Permit holders are hired under the Direct R1 Pathway or Market-Based Skills Recognition Framework; (b) how does the Ministry verify that workers hired under the two schemes are paid at least the minimum salary of $1,600; (c) how many employers have been charged for false salary declarations relating to these schemes; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider requiring Work Permit holders on these schemes to be paid electronically to verify that they are paid the minimum salary as is done for S-Pass holders.
Mrs Josephine Teo: As at the end of 2017, there were 91,700 Work Permit holders granted R1 (Skilled) status on account of their skills or years of experience and meeting a minimum salary criterion.
As part of the application for or renewal of Work Permits, employers are required to declare that the indicated salary is true, and they are warned that failure to pay the declared salary or providing false information is an offence. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) conducts random inspections to detect non-compliance. In addition, when foreign workers lodge complaints of underpayment of salary or kickbacks, MOM also investigates the employer for making a false declaration in their application.
In 2017, 61 employers were investigated for falsely declaring the salary in a Work Permit application involving the R1 qualifying routes raised by the Member. Of these, 18 employers were either prosecuted or issued with an Administrative Financial Penalty. Their work pass privileges were also suspended.
All employers are already required by law to pay their foreign workers through electronic means if the worker requests for it. The Migrant Workers' Centre is stepping up education efforts to encourage workers to make such requests. They are also making arrangements to help foreign workers to open bank accounts. In addition, as earlier announced, MOM is consulting with stakeholders on the further step of making electronic payments of salaries mandatory for all Work Permit holders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking of Financial Situations of Comcare's Assistance Recipients after Gaining Employment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry tracks the financial situations of Comcare's short- to medium-term assistance recipients after they gain employment; and (b) how many recipients of such Comcare assistance reapply for assistance within a year after the end of their assistance.
Mr Desmond Lee: ComCare is part of the multiple layers of assistance provided by the Government to support low-income individuals and families. Other programmes include Workfare, medical and education subsidies, and housing assistance. Households that require help to tide over periods of difficulty are provided Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA), which provides financial assistance for daily living expenses, help with household bills, and other forms of support, such as referrals to Workforce Singapore’s Careers Connect for employment assistance or to Family Service Centres for casework and counselling.
Social Service Offices (SSOs) keep track of clients' situations while they are receiving ComCare assistance. Those who have gained employment while on ComCare assistance may still receive assistance for a period of time as they work towards financial stability in their new jobs. SSOs may also continue to provide assistance if their clients' incomes from work are assessed to be insufficient for their household living expenses, for example, those who are in part-time jobs.
There are various reasons why clients reapply for assistance, such as when they face new challenges in their family, work or health circumstances. We do not have readily available data for households that gained employment while they were on SMTA and subsequently reapplied for ComCare within a year after SMTA ended.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Waiting Time Required for Registration of Lasting Power of Attorney","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the average waiting time required for the registration of a Lasting Power of Attorney by the Office of the Public Guardian from submission until notification of successful registration; (b) what are the reasons for the waiting time required; and (c) whether the Ministry has any plans to reduce the waiting time.
Mr Desmond Lee: The average waiting time required to register the Lasting Power of Attorneys (LPAs) received in June 2018 is approximately 60 working days. This includes the mandatory six weeks' waiting period required under the law.
Applications to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) to make LPAs have doubled, from an average of 950 per month in 2016 to an average of 1,928 per month for the first seven months in 2018. OPG has increased its resources to handle the rise in applications, and the waiting time has shortened. Currently, LPAs can only be made in hardcopy, which requires manual processing. This impacts efficiency. OPG is undertaking a Business Process Re-engineering study, with a view towards developing an online, more citizen-centric LPA system, which should cut down processing time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":116,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181002/annex-DPWCS Diagram Handout.pdf","fileName":"DPWCS Diagram Handout.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":243,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zainal Sapari","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181002/vernacular-2 Oct 2018 - Mr Zainal Sapari - Env Public Health Bill.pdf","fileName":"2 Oct 2018 - Mr Zainal Sapari - Env Public Health Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":244,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181002/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah Environment Health 2 Oct 2018-Chinese (vetted).pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah Environment Health 2 Oct 2018-Chinese (vetted).pdf"},{"vernacularID":245,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181002/vernacular-Joan Pereira Environment Health 2 Oct 2018-Chinese (vetted).pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira Environment Health 2 Oct 2018-Chinese (vetted).pdf"},{"vernacularID":246,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181002/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh Environment Health 2 Oct 2018-Chinese (vetted).pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh Environment Health 2 Oct 2018-Chinese (vetted).pdf"},{"vernacularID":247,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Chia Shi-Lu","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181002/vernacular-Chia Shi Lu Environment Health 2 Oct 2018 -Chinese (vetted).pdf","fileName":"Chia Shi Lu Environment Health 2 Oct 2018 -Chinese (vetted).pdf"},{"vernacularID":248,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Desmond Choo","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181002/vernacular-Desmond Choo Environment Health 2 Oct 2018-Chinese (vetted).pdf","fileName":"Desmond Choo Environment Health 2 Oct 2018-Chinese (vetted).pdf"},{"vernacularID":33,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181002/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah Income Tax 2 Oct 2018-Chinese (vetted).pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah Income Tax 2 Oct 2018-Chinese (vetted).pdf"},{"vernacularID":34,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Saktiandi Supaat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181002/vernacular-2 Oct 2018 - Mr Saktiandi Supaat - Income Tax Bill.pdf","fileName":"2 Oct 2018 - Mr Saktiandi Supaat - Income Tax Bill.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}