1 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Education (a) how are soft skills inculcated, nurtured and evaluated in our education system; (b) how is the impact of e-learning and digitalisation on soft skills acquisition being assessed; and (c) what measures are being taken to ensure that soft skills continue to be learned amidst COVID-19 safe distancing measures including in higher education.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, soft skills like critical and inventive thinking, collaboration and information skills, civic literacy and interpersonal skills, are part of what educators around the world commonly term as 21st Century Competencies, or 21CC. MOE strives to develop 21CC in every student to enable them to thrive in a fast-changing and increasingly inter-connected world. These competencies are developed through both curricular and co-curricular activities.
For example, through group work, students learn communication and collaboration skills and how to manage relationships with peers. In learning humanities, students develop stronger global awareness and cross-cultural understanding. In learning sciences, students are exposed to the inquiry process and inventive thinking of scientists. Beyond the classroom, co-curricular and Values-in-Action activities are platforms that enable students to deepen their mastery of 21CC through rich and authentic learning opportunities.
When students progress to the Institutes of Higher Learning or IHLs, they continue to develop soft skills through their course programmes and applied learning opportunities such as industry attachments, internships and community service programmes. In addition, the IHLs are enhancing their curriculum to provide students with more multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary exposure. This will help broaden students’ perspectives and encourage trans-disciplinary thinking and approaches to problem-solving.
Schools and institutions gauge the impact on student outcomes through regular programme reviews as well as student feedback. In recent times, with greater use of technology and digital platforms, soft skills can be nurtured through online and offline learning experiences that reinforce each other. For example, students learn interpersonal and collaboration skills through both in-person group work and through the use of online collaboration tools.
Even with safe management measures in place, our schools and IHLs seek to ensure that students spend sufficient time in face-to-face interactions, be it in classrooms, CCAs or other activities, so that they can benefit from a more holistic education experience. For example, schools will be allowed to further resume activities that are held outside of school and those that involve fixed inter-mingling of students across schools, during their post-exam period. IHLs have also progressively increased the number of students allowed back on campus for in-person learning. Classes and consultations, previously conducted online, are allowed to resume, with no more than 50 persons per class.
MOE is taking incremental steps to resume more of such in-person activities safely in schools and IHLs. We will continue to help ensure that our students and graduates are future-ready by progressively developing their soft skills at each stage of the education journey.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer and I would like to put two supplementary questions to the Minister for Education. Firstly, I would like to ask the Minister what measures are in place to identify students who may benefit from additional coaching and support in the development of soft skills, in the same way that today, for more technical skills or curriculum-related material, students who need extra help are being identified. So, how are students who need extra development in soft skills identified?
The second question, Mr Speaker, if I may ask the Minister, what measures are being taken to ensure that students from less advantaged backgrounds, students who are starting with less, that these students continue to have good opportunities to build social networks, to build social capital and to develop soft skills in a variety of domains? I raise this, Mr Speaker, because there is a good body of evidence from researchers such as David Deming or Catherine Weinberger on the role of soft skills synergising with technical skills. And this is all the more important today in our uncharted new 21st century COVID-19 world.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, with regard to the first question, this is an on-going process. The teachers in the classrooms continue to identify students who are weaker and who may need more help, and will pay more attention to them. This applies, of course, to their mastery of subjects, but it also applies to soft skills.
For example, students that may benefit from more coaching when it comes to communication skills – that is something that the teachers would really be able to identify and they can provide more help, be it through their lessons in class or by giving them more opportunities.
The importance of the 21CC, which I highlighted just now, is integral to the teaching and learning process in schools. The school leaders and educators are fully aware of this and will continue to make sure they identify students who are weaker, who will need more help and can benefit from more help.
On the second point, we are also mindful that there will be students from certain backgrounds who may lack the exposure and the opportunities. That is why schools also pay a lot of attention to this segment of students to try and uplift them and provide them with more opportunities. This is work in progress. Certainly, we will continue to try to do better at this – provide more systematic uplifting programmes, more exposure, more opportunities for these students. It is a continuing process.
We already allocate more resources to help these students. We make sure that there are more programmes in place to help these students and we will continue to do so. And I would say that this effort cannot be done by schools alone. We also need help from the community, we need help from industry, so that together, we can provide maximum opportunities to help students who can benefit from such help.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training Safe Distancing Ambassadors for Easing of COVID-19 Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment as we move towards further easing measures in the community, how will the social distancing ambassadors be aided to enforce rules on the ground as there will be more grey areas on when and how to mask on.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, since the start of the circuit breaker period, agencies have continued to deploy Safe Distancing Ambassadors and Enforcement Officers to advise the public and enforce on safe distancing measures. These measures are critical to safeguarding public health and protect ourselves and each other, even as we gradually open up our economy and social settings.
Even though caseloads are currently low, we must not let our guard down. We will need to stay nimble and calibrate our measures appropriately. For example, we recently lifted the odd or even entry restrictions at the four popular markets but stepped up our enforcement at F&B hotspots.
In line with this, our Safe Distancing Ambassadors and Enforcement Officers are regularly updated on the safe distancing measures, including the rules of engagement with premises operators and members of the public. They are briefed by their team leaders and supervisors on adjustments to the measures and provided reference material through their mobile devices. They are also deployed in teams of at least two, where a more experienced officer will be partnered with a newer one to provide support and guidance.
Mask wearing will remain an important measure for public health to protect ourselves and those we come into contact with. Mask wearing will remain mandatory for anyone leaving their homes. A recent study by A*STAR found that small particles from a person’s cough could travel more than one metre within eight seconds if no mask was worn. On the other hand, wearing a mask would help reduce the spread of the virus, by significantly reducing the droplets and aerosols ejected from a person’s nose and mouth. Everyone should put on your mask at all times, including putting your mask back on immediately after activities such as eating, drinking or engaging in strenuous exercise. You should also keep your mask on when seated before you start consuming your food or drink or before you begin your workout.
We have been able to contain the COVID-19 situation with the co-operation of the community and business operators. I urge everyone to continue to play your part in adhering to these safe distancing measures and to co-operate with the Safe Distancing Ambassadors and Enforcement Officers, so that we continue to keep community transmission of COVID-19 under control.
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for her response. I think we are not disputing the need to put on masks and also to have safe distancing. But I suppose the hardest part is the duty of the safe Distancing Ambassadors because everybody has to play their part. But I have already received quite some feedback from residents, for example, at a very popular hawker centre in the market. The point is, the Safe Distancing Ambassadors use judgement to give advsiories, for example, when exactly must they put on the mask. It is a matter of timing. Some people say immediately; once they put down their chopsticks and utensils, they need to immediately put on the mask; and there were Safe Distancing Ambassadors who told them as such. There are others who used their discretion and felt that some people can some conversation before they put on the mask.
As a result of these varying differences, I think it makes it very challenging on the ground, especially as we move towards Phase 3 – I am not sure when that is – and you increase the number of people who can come out to dine. I think this is the biggest challenge that people would face on the ground, including those in exercise corners as well.
I just wanted to ask the Minister what other measures can be done to aid the Safe Distancing Ambassadors and also for the public not to make things difficult for the Safe Distancing Ambassadors.
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for that supplementary question. I agree that sometimes, it is difficult for the work of the Safe Distancing Ambassadors to enforce all the rules.
The rules are quite clear – which is, immediately after you have finished eating, you should put on a mask. But of course, the Safe Distancing Ambassadors are not everywhere at all times to ensure that. So, a lot depends on all of us, as customers, as patrons at hawker centres to do our part.
Ultimately, the rules are really to support our own health, to support our neighbours' health, our family's health. So, my point is, the Safe Distancing Ambassadors are there to remind people. Very often, we would like to see that with some advice and with some reminders, patrons will put back their masks and the majority of them do. I just want to reiterate that the rules are quite clear. As informed by science, the more we are able to protect ourselves through masks, the safer we are. So, it is advised that everybody put on your mask as much as you can, as soon as you can.
\t
However, the Safe Distancing Ambassadors are there to remind; sometimes to enforce. We hope that reminders will work; if not, then in some cases, after repeated reminders, we may have to enforce. Hopefully, such circumstances will reduce over time. Even as we relax and as more activities are being allowed, I think the wearing of masks is still important for us to observe.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"More Assistance for Low-wage and Elderly Jobseekers and for Students Majoring in Aerospace, Aviation and Hospitality","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry can require career coaches to handhold jobseekers, especially our low-wage workers, till they find jobs as it is reassuring to jobseekers knowing that there are employment professionals they can turn to who can provide guidance and support to them.
4 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the slowdown in the aviation sector, how will the Ministry help students majoring in aerospace, aviation and hospitality who are graduating in 2021.
5 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Manpower by the end of the Job Redesign Grant in March 2020 (a) what is the total number of applications received and how many jobs have been successfully redesigned for elderly workers; and (b) what are the lessons learnt that have been incorporated into the Job Growth Incentive to increase the participation of companies to redesign jobs for the elderly.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 3, 4 and 5 together, Sir.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their concerns about different groups of workers and jobseekers in the current economic climate.
The Government is providing substantial employment support to help Singaporeans stay in work, such as through the Jobs Support Scheme and programmes to help them be re-skilled and redeployed to new roles.
Through the National Jobs Council, we have curated about 117,500 jobs and skills opportunities under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package to help local jobseekers acquire new skills to move into new careers or sectors. Around 33,100 jobseekers have been placed thus far and the efforts are continuing. In this period of weakness in the job market, these efforts have been a very useful supplement to the normal recruitment activities that take place on their own.
Ms Joan Pereira asked whether more personalised support can be given to jobseekers, especially low-wage workers. We appreciate this is not an easy time for jobseekers. To help them in their search, we have very quickly expanded the touchpoints to be readily accessible in every HDB town.
When they first visit our touchpoints, jobseekers are provided with basic career advisory and job search assistance, and are also invited to take an assessment on their career readiness. Jobseekers may be assessed to require more intensive support before they are ready to start the job search, or may request for more support even if they are assessed to be ready. Such jobseekers are provided with one-to-one career coaching.
Our career coaches provide tailored support to these jobseekers, which may include referring them to supplementary programmes, such as motivational or interview training workshops. At an appropriate time, career coaches will help them be matched to suitable opportunities. This process takes longer for some jobseekers than others. Our career coaches will hand-hold the jobseekers while helping them find their footing and gain independence. Post-placement, our career coaches conduct check-ins to ensure that they are settling well into their new workplaces.
WSG has also been proactively reaching out to all applicants for the COVID-19 Support Grant or CSG and, together with the MSF and the People's Association, to families living in rental housing. Households that need employment assistance are referred to WSG. Through these targeted outreach efforts, about 6,000 individuals have taken up our career matching services, which may include one-to-one coaching for those less job-ready.
Mr Sharael Taha asked how many senior workers have benefited from the WorkPro Job Redesign Grant or JRG. From scheme enhancement in July 2016 to grant closure in March 2020, the JRG benefited over 2,500 companies and 24,000 senior workers.
With employers today having a better appreciation of job redesign to create more inclusive workplaces, we have discontinued WorkPro JRG. This does not mean there is no longer a need for job re-design, but it can be equally well-supported through the Enterprise Development Grant and Productivity Solutions Grant or PSG. In fact, the PSG will be further expanded later this year to support job redesign consultancy services, on top of companies' own job redesign efforts.
Whether through the JRG or other programmes, the Government will provide a higher level of support to employers of seniors to help such workers stay in work.
For example, the recently announced Jobs Growth Incentive provides employers of new hires aged 40 and above double the wage support for other new local hires. The Government will underwrite 50% of their salaries, up to the first $5,000, for 12 months. This comes on top of the Special Employment Credit for workers aged 55 and above.
Where seniors need skills top-ups to be recruited or retraining to support business transformation, the level of funding is generally higher. Employers that formalise a higher retirement age or part-time re-employment in their HR policies can also enjoy grant support.
These initiatives together help to address employers' concerns about the cost of seniors in their workforce and the practical adjustments they must make to have age-friendly workplaces. In every way possible, we will try to enhance the attractiveness of seniors so they can keep working if they wish.
Mr Desmond Choo is looking ahead to next year. He asks what is being done to prepare students majoring in aerospace-, aviation- and hospitality-related disciplines who are graduating in 2021.
Like Mr Choo, we are closely monitoring the employment outcomes of graduating students. MOE's Graduate Employment Survey for graduates in 2020 will be published in the first quarter of 2021. This will give some indication as to the prospects for the cohort graduating in 2021.
In the meantime, the Institutes of Higher Learning or IHLs have started comprehensive career guidance and assistance programmes to prepare students who are graduating next year. In particular, they will get help to navigate adjacent career opportunities. Meaning, those that are not specifically targeted at their disciplines but adjacent to it. We are organising career fairs that feature job openings in adjacent sectors which will make good use of the graduates' education and skills. The IHLs are also introducing new electives for students to equip them with emerging cross-sector skills such as data analytics and visualisation, programming as well as digital marketing – skills which are sought after generally.
As a pre-emptive move to supplement job availability, the Government introduced the SGUnited Traineeships Programme which has curated more than 21,000 traineeship places from about 3,300 host organisations. In general, employers are open to accepting good candidates across a range of disciplines. Candidates will also have better opportunities if they are open to trying out positions outside of the disciplines they are trained in, or look beyond positions that many applicants have focused on. We will continue to watch the situation closely and adjust the programme accordingly.
Mr Speaker, I understand the challenges that workers and jobseekers are facing at this time. Advance estimates for the third quarter show a rebound in local employment. Although there may still be retrenchments and job losses, it is not all gloom and doom.
Pockets of businesses are recovering and hiring, and we will make every effort to help affected Singaporeans get back to work. This is what they usually want and central to how we sustain support for Singaporeans on an on-going basis.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Minister for her reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, could MOM supplement the SGUnited jobs initiative with more manned hotlines, where jobseekers can dial in for career advice and job-matching? This would be very helpful for our workers. Second, again to help our older low-income workers, it would be helpful if the Ministry makes provision for career coaches to be conversant in the mother tongue languages and even dialects, if this is not already done.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Pereira for her two questions. The second one, our career coaches are already equipped with a number of languages. So, if they come across a client whom they have difficulty conversing with because of the language barrier, they will certainly refer the client to another colleague, in order to be able to provide the requisite assistance to the jobseeker.
To the question of hotlines, WSG has manned phone lines for jobseekers who would like to dial in for more information or who wish to seek further assistance. These are available from Mondays to Fridays between 8.30 am and 5.30 pm, as well as on Saturdays from 8.30 am to 1 pm. Jobseekers may also submit their enquiries via WSG's feedback portal.
But I would like to thank Ms Pereira for her suggestion and that is to make this line more readily known so that jobseekers know that this is an avenue that they can also look for. So, I thank her for the suggestions and I will work with WSG to see how best to do so.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Shareal Taha.
\tMr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank Minister Teo for her reply. I appreciate the efforts of the Government in supporting re-employment and in redesigning jobs. While we have been encouraging companies to redesign job for seniors through various grants and schemes throughout the years, the pace at which companies are proactively redesigning jobs, I think that can be improved.
At present, with 16.8% of population above the age of 65, what more can we do to nudge companies to proactively redesign jobs to ensure gainful employment for our ageing population. And also, can both MOM and MTI consider including job redesign for seniors, including work-from-home, job-sharing, micro jobs as one of the key elements in the Industry Transformation Map. So, jobs for seniors become actively designed for the transforming industries.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I really thank Mr Sharael Taha for his concerns about our senior workers. They have been very much a focus of my Ministry's work. The hon Member mentioned that in the Industry Transformation Maps or ITMs, can we make special emphasis and give special consideration to this group of workers. In fact, the ITM has a very deliberate track called the jobs and skills track that looks at different segments of our workforce, whether they are the low-wage workers or seniors or PMEs or women. Actually, there are specific work programmes that are targeted at enabling each of these segments to stay productive at work and also to upskill them so that, if they so wish, they can remain in the workforce. There are specific work streams to address each of these workforce segments.
To his question about whether we can get the employers to step up their redesign efforts, it is very much aligned with the Government's thinking. Our experience is that for the companies that already have a very large segment of their workforce that are in their 40s, 50s and perhaps even older, these companies do recognise the need for them to step up in terms of redesigning the work. They know very well that when their seniors retire and if the seniors retire because not enough effort has been put into redesigning the workplace, then they stand to lose a very valuable part of the workforce. I have actually visited a lot of companies that are quite deliberate in how they go about doing so.
The issue is not so much willingness; the issue is much more about the ability to do so, which is why under the Productivity Solutions Grant, we decided to add in an additional element. Meaning that the companies need not only depend on their own understanding of how to do job redesign. We are actually prepared to fund a consultant coming on board to help them think through the job redesign process.
\t
So, we will continue to look for opportunities to strengthen our companies' abilities to conduct job redesign because, if you look at our senior employment rate, it has actually improved over the decades. We want to make sure that we build on these gains. Seniors also tell us that they wish to continue working and job redesign is one part of it; skills enhancement is another part of it. And another very practical thing that seniors also tell us is that whilst they want to continue working, it may not be to the same intensity as before. So, in addition to job redesign, we have also invested in efforts to ask companies to see how those jobs can be designed in such a way that even on a part-time basis the seniors can continue.
So, we will continue to look out for more opportunities to enhance senior employment.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for sharing what the Government is doing in terms of the salaries for senior workers, but could I ask whether MOM has detected any pay gap between what a senior worker is getting for the same job as compared to a younger worker?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, if at all, many employers are worried about the higher cost of keeping the seniors in their workforce simply because, over the years, as they have gained in experience and if the company has been doing reasonably well, usually, there are wage increases. It has tended to be more of that sort of nature of difficulties.
There are, of course, also certain reasons why some seniors may not be able to move on to jobs that pay higher. That could be a question of their skills deficits. And one of the things that we have noticed, for example, is that when we were carrying out the work for the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers, more so than other segments of the workforce, seniors are very dependent on what their employers indicate to them are training needs. And apart from what the employers indicate as training needs, seniors are less likely to initiate training on their own. That may be one reason why it has been harder for them to access a wider range of jobs. But for the same work, actually, the bigger risk has been that the seniors, not necessarily having a lot more skills and competencies, earn more.
So, we have, over the years, worked very hard to try and encourage companies to move towards a competency-based wage structure rather than a seniority-based wage structure. A seniority-based wage structure certainly gives an individual the sense of comfort that, as he advances with the company, he is being recognised. But it can also work against him later on when the companies then look at the entire workforce and find that, perhaps, compared to their younger colleagues, the senior workers are much more highly paid and, if they do not make a concerted effort to work with the unions to restructure the salary accordingly, then, later on, when it comes to continued employment, that actually could be a difficulty.
It is also why, instead of just raising the statutory minimum Retirement Age, we have chosen to complement it with the Re-employment Age because, in re-employment, you can get a person to stay in work but not necessarily in the same job and not necessarily at the same pay. This way, it allows for the employer and the senior workers to reset the terms upon which they can continue this employment.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I thank Minister Teo for clarifying the efforts by the Ministry to support our elderly jobseekers. If I may riff off the Member Mr Sharael Taha's question. I am wondering what the Ministry in particular has done to support older jobseekers who have lost their jobs at an age relatively close to retirement. So, perhaps something like in 61 or 62 but who still wish to continue working not so much in a different job which requires redesign but actually within the same job and they may be facing certain kinds of discriminatory practices because they are close to the retirement age.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, if the Member, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim knows of instances where an older person has been discriminated against for jobs, I would encourage him to refer them to MOM. We will certainly investigate. By and large, if you look at how we help jobseekers, whether they are younger or not so young, if they want to get back into the same job role or same sector which has already seen quite a lot of displacements, then the barriers will be quite high because the fact that they were displaced does suggest that, in that particular sector, it is already not doing so well. So, it is not targeted specifically only at more senior jobseekers. All jobseekers will benefit from keeping an open mind and being willing to consider transiting into other sectors.
One thing that we have found to be quite encouraging is that where the senior workers are willing just like any other jobseeker or jobseekers of any other age and the employees can see the enthusiasm and the willingness to learn, actually, quite a large number of them have been able to take part in our conversion programmes and to enter new job roles or new sectors. I have very often encountered participants in our Professional Conversion Programmes or our Place-and-Train programme who are in their late 50s and even in their early 60s. The oldest participant in a PCP programme that I have encountered, if my memory serves me right, was something like 67 years old. So, more and more, we also find that employers recognise that if they are open to hiring people who bring with them very rich experiences, then, in fact, they serve as a mentor to the younger colleagues in the organisation and they actually work well together.
But having said that, I do recognise that seniors have concerns about ageism. And whenever there are cases where they felt that they were not fairly considered, we would encourage them to approach MOM and we will reach out to the employer to understand how to support them better so that all jobseekers know that they are being considered fairly.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I thank the Minister for the reply. I have just two points of clarification. For the students who are still studying, naturally, I think they are quite worried about the employment situation when they come out. Just two points.
One, for those who are still studying, they have reflected that there is a lack of internship and attachment opportunities. So, that might affect their employability when you come out. They are naturally worried that when they come out, would they still be able to have as good a set of skills in the marketplace and will going to adjacent sectors erode their competencies over time.
The second point is that they will come out in 2021, competing with existing workers with experience and they do not have those. I wonder if the Ministry can come up with programmes that will allow them to not only just maintain their current competency but also to catch up with their assisting peers in the industry so that we do lose our aviation, aerospace and hospitality competency over time.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I appreciate Mr Desmond Choo's concern. I was in MOT when we encouraged many Singaporean youths to take up opportunities in this sector because we considered the growth prospects to be very promising. Singapore is booming as an air hub and we are working very hard to allow our air hub to recover and I certainly hope that the situation stabilises to the point where there is better clarity to all the young people who have taken on opportunities in these sectors for training.
The situation is quite interesting. Since Mr Choo asked, I had also enquired what about internships right now as they give a useful indication as to the adaptation that we can make. If we take Aerospace Engineering, for example, for the current cohort that need to go for internships, about half have still been able to secure internships that are related to their discipline of study, meaning that they are interning in roles that are related to Aerospace Engineering. So, that is a good thing. Of course, it would be better if all of them were to be able to do so. But, given the circumstances where the companies' activities have gone down a lot, that would not be realistic. But half of them still being able to get such an internship is not bad. The other half, what have we done? We have not given up on helping them.
Their skills in engineering are actually very widely usable in other sectors. In manufacturing. for example, there is great value in applying the disciplines of Aerospace Engineering. So, with the combined efforts of different agencies coming together, in fact, all of them have been able to secure internship positions, not all of them in Aerospace Engineering but, in the other areas, it is also very meaningful way for them to acquire experience before they graduate. This is on Aerospace Engineering.
In Aviation Management, not bad, too. About 60% have got useful skills that allow them to intern in roles that tap on their understanding of business management, for example. So, they have been able to get meaningful internship opportunities even if it is not directly involved in Aviation Management. So, that gives us a sense as to how the collective efforts of the agencies involved, together with the students' own willingness to step out of their comfort zone, they have been able to secure meaningful internships which, we believe, will enable them to be better positioned for the job market. And if jobs continue to be in short supply for such students then, certainly, we will look at how the SGUnited Traineeship Programmes can be continued. This is in relation to how these students can be taken care of.
Mr Desmond Choo had a second part of his question and, that is, subsequent to these opportunities, supposing these students would like to return to their areas of study or return to an area of work that is more related to their discipline, will there be opportunities to do so? I think our record has been that whenever the industry has a need and there are people who would like to join the industry, then we will make available career conversion programmes and, if there is a demand for such students to return to the sector and some top-up is required, then I would like to assure Mr Choo that every effort will be made to avail such programmes to them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Drivers of Cost Increases in Healthcare","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health what are the key drivers of cost increases in healthcare and what is the target to keep cost increases in the next five years to a publicly announced range.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, Sir, several factors contribute to healthcare cost increases.
First, our population is ageing. Older patients tend to have more co-morbidities and complications, requiring more medical attention, more medications, procedures and longer hospital stays. For example, in 2019, the average stay in our public hospitals for those aged 65 and above was 6.9 days, compared to those who are below 65 where the average stay was about 3.9 days. So, it is almost a doubling of the number of days of stay.
\t
Therefore, as we grow older, we are likely to spend more on healthcare. And collectively, as we have increasingly more older persons in our population, our overall expenditure on healthcare will also rise correspondingly. For example, MOH's expenditure on the long-term care sector increased from $296 million to $723 million between 2013 and 2018. Or if you work it out, it is a 20% increase per annum.
Second, with medical advancement, new treatments will become available. Previously untreated conditions may now become treatable. Older treatments that were less costly may now be replaced by better but more costly new treatments. These advances can improve life spans and the quality of life, but they come at a price. For example, Total Knee Replacement surgeries have become more prevalent among those aged 65 and above over the last 20 years, rising from 187 patients for every 100,000 people aged 65 and above in 1999, to 499 patients in 2019. That is a 2.7-times increase in the prevalence rate over that time period. Previously, when such procedures – this kind of total knee replacements – were not widely available, elderly suffering from knee conditions would have to bear with poor mobility, which can affect their quality of life.
Third, operating costs may increase over time. For example, manpower costs account for about 60% of healthcare costs. Healthcare workers who do important work, must be appropriately recognised and remunerated. Eventually, increases in manpower cost will translate into higher overall healthcare cost.
While these factors are likely to put pressure on healthcare cost, we can work together to moderate the increases to ensure our healthcare system remains affordable and sustainable. Managing healthcare cost has been a key priority of MOH. The three Beyonds – Beyond Healthcare to Health, Beyond Hospital to Community and Beyond Quality to Value – are key strategic planks that guide the transformation of our healthcare system to one that is future-ready and sustainable.
By looking after our health, we can avoid or delay the need for healthcare, reduce our healthcare bill, and more importantly, we can enjoy a better quality of life. For example, we declared the War on Diabetes, to get all of us, to not only better manage our chronic conditions, but to also choose healthier meals and more active lifestyles. We enhanced Screen for Life subsidies to encourage Singaporeans to go for regular health screenings, to detect and manage health conditions early. These efforts will help us to live long and live well, and avoid future complications that will require much more costly healthcare services.
When we go beyond Hospital to the Community, we ensure that we do not overuse expensive hospital care when we do not need it. We have therefore invested in raising capacity and capability in the primary care and the intermediate and long-term care sectors, so as to provide care that better meet the needs of patients. CHAS Green card was introduced last year and MediShield Life coverage to inpatient hospice care was also introduced in April this year, being part of this overall strategy.
Moving Beyond Quality to Value calls for all of us to be better informed and to be more discerning in how we consume healthcare. Are we stretching our healthcare dollars by choosing therapies that are cost-effective and well supported by clinical evidence? So, we established the Agency for Care Effectiveness or ACE to evaluate healthcare technologies and issue guidances on drugs and other technologies to share with both the public and private healthcare sectors. The Agency for Logistics Procurement and Supply or ALPS was set up to aggregate demand and secure better prices for drugs and other supplies, as well as streamline and reduce supply chain costs. We continue to put emphasis on raising productivity and tapping on technology where available.
We introduced fee benchmarks for common surgical procedures in November 2018 to guide private sector doctors and healthcare providers in charging appropriately and to enable patients to make better informed healthcare decisions. This complements MOH's annual publication of hospital bill sizes. Both the bill size publication and fee benchmarks are available at the MOH website.
Finally, we provide substantial subsidies to cushion the impact of healthcare cost on patients. To help patients pay for the remaining share of their costs, we have MediShield Life and MediSave. For Singaporeans who need extra help, there is MediFund. So, this constitutes our S plus 3M Framework – subsidies plus 3Ms.
As I have laid out, while there are measures we can take to manage healthcare cost, there is unfortunately, no silver bullet. We will need a sustained effort over many years and for all stakeholders to play their part and do so together. We will ensure that Singaporeans will always have access to good quality healthcare that is appropriate and affordable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjustments in Medishield Life Premiums Given Difficult Climate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the justification for the impending increase in MediShield Life premiums; and (b) what strategies are being deployed to control escalating healthcare costs.
8 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the basis for the increase in MediShield Life premiums; (b) how can the premiums be kept affordable especially for the seniors; and (c) what are the assistance schemes available to help seniors who are unable to afford the premiums.
9 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health whether the full actuarial report for the current MediShield Life scheme and the proposed MediShield Life scheme revisions, including actuarial assumptions used, can be made available.
10 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Health (a) in the last 20 years, how much have daily ward charges and daily treatment fees in public hospitals increased; (b) how much have prices of standard drugs, tests and investigations increased in the same period; and (c) based on the proposed revisions to MediShield Life, how much is the expected real increase in MediShield Life coverage, net of medical cost inflation.
11 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the actuarial formula for the required reserves in the MediShield Life Fund; (b) whether it is unusual by international standards for a health insurance scheme to increase its premiums by 35% in a single adjustment; and (c) what is the total premium paid by a Singaporean for MediShield Life in his lifetime assuming the premiums are compounded at 2.5% interest and 4% interest respectively.
12 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health in respect of the increase in premiums following the review of MediShield Life (a) what is the surplus or loss since introduction of MediShield Life in 2015; (b) whether the Ministry can introduce more flexibility so that premiums are paid based on choice of coverage and illnesses covered; and (c) how will the Government guarantee coverage of an elderly when they default on the premiums mid-way through medical treatment.
13 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health for Singaporeans who are retrenched or self-employed with significantly reduced income during this period, both of whom will be concerned about their MediSave sufficiency to cover the increases in MediShield premiums for the years ahead, whether the Ministry will review and supplement targeted subsidies to ensure that there are no further financial hardship to these groups.
14 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Health whether he can elaborate about the Government's plans to support persons who are not able to afford the increase in MediShield Life premiums even after subsidies.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 7 to 14 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, MediShield Life is a basic health insurance scheme that provides Singaporeans with universal and lifelong protection against large hospital bills. The key word here is universal and lifelong.
It has strengthened our larger healthcare financing framework to keep healthcare affordable, together with Government subsidies, MediSave and MediFund. Again, it is the 3M + S, that I said so earlier, in the previous question. About eight in 10 patients today need to pay $100 or less in cash for their subsidised hospitalisation bills.
To ensure that the scheme remains sustainable and relevant to Singaporeans, the MediShield Life Council has recently proposed enhancements to benefits and adjustments to premiums.
Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about the reasons for the premium increases, while Mr Gerald Giam asked about the assumptions behind the premium pricing. Premiums have been kept unchanged for the first five years of MediShield Life, in line with our earlier public commitment. They need to be adjusted to ensure that the MediShield Life Fund remains solvent and sustainable so that it can meet its obligations to all policyholders. Premiums are priced by actuaries based on established actuarial principles, taking into account claims experience such as utilisation rates and cost of medical treatment, scheme benefits, amongst many other factors.
There are three key drivers of the premium increases, which I will now elaborate.
Since its launch, MediShield Life has been providing more payouts and greater protection for more Singaporeans. The number of claimants has increased by about 30% and the annual payouts have increased by about 40% over the last four years.
Mr Xie Yao Quan asked about the growth in hospital charges over the last 20 years. Between 2001 and 2019, the average hospitalisation bill size in public healthcare institutions has increased by about 6% a year on average, and this is affected by medical cost inflation, demographics and medical advancements over these years. This growth in utilisation and payout accounts for about two-third of the premium increases.
One-quarter of the premium increase is from refreshing the claim limits to ensure that Singaporeans continue to be adequately covered for the majority of subsidised bills. The remaining portion of the premium increase, which is about just under 10%, supports the benefit enhancements including those implemented since 2018, such as the extension of coverage to inpatient hospices and serious pregnancy complications.
As premiums are priced taking into account multiple factors, which inevitably vary from country to country, it would not be appropriate to compare MediShield Life's premium increases with other national health insurance schemes, which Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested.
It would also not be meaningful to compute how much premiums a Singaporean will need to pay over his lifetime, simply by assuming a fixed compounding factor each year. Future premiums would depend on how the underlying drivers, which I have just illustrated, evolve. And this depends on many factors including what we can achieve together to manage healthcare cost. The amount of premium subsidies an individual would receive will also vary over his lifetime, depending on his financial circumstances.
Several Members including Ms Ng Ling Ling and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the support for those who face difficulties with their premiums. I would like to assure Members that MediShield Life provides coverage for all Singaporeans, for life. Several financial support schemes are available to ensure that no Singaporean will lose their MediShield Life coverage, or be denied access to appropriate care, just because of an inability to pay their premiums.
To ensure premiums remain affordable, the Government provides premium subsidies of up to 50% for lower and middle income households. All Merdeka Generation seniors receive additional subsidies of up to 10% on top of these premium subsidies and all Pioneer Generation seniors receive special subsidies of up to 60%. Taken together, about 35% of the total premiums collected were paid for by the Government through various subsidies and support schemes in 2019.
For the elderly aged 65 and above, the contribution from the Government is even higher, at about 50% of their premiums. To illustrate this, the revised premium for a 62-year-old lower income Merdeka Generation or MG senior is $1,020 before subsidies. This is the annual premium, which therefore equates to less than $90 a month. After taking into account the premium subsidies and additional MG subsidies, the net premium payable per year is $663, or about $55 a month. Additionally, the MG senior will receive annual MediSave top-ups of $200 for MGs from 2019 to 2023, which can be used to pay for his premiums. After this additional $200 offset, the effective premium payable for this MG senior will be $463 a year, or less than $40 a month.
Premiums can be fully paid for by MediSave and the vast majority of Singaporeans have sufficient MediSave for their premiums. Family members can also utilise their MediSave to help pay the premiums for their loved ones. Singaporeans who continue to face difficulties even after subsidies and have limited family support can apply for Additional Premium Support or APS. This includes those who are mid-way through medical treatment or have experienced a recent job loss or a reduction in income, as pointed out by Ms Ng and Mr Yip. Certainly, a concern that many Singaporeans have during this COVID-19 crisis. If approved, Additional Premium Support will cover all outstanding premiums as well as their future premiums.
The Government had considered deferring the MediShield Life review and consequent premium increases given the current difficult economic situation with COVID-19. However, I must emphasise that it was important that MediShield Life remains solvent and sustainable so that it can meet its obligations in time to come when policyholders make claims. Its coverage also has to be updated and enhanced to remain relevant to the healthcare needs of Singaporeans. The MediShield Life Council therefore recommended that premiums should be adjusted accordingly.
Nonetheless, in recognition of the challenges faced, the Council further recommended that the Government should provide additional subsidies to help Singaporeans during this exceptional period. The Government has therefore provided a COVID-19 subsidy for all Singapore citizens in the next two years, which will pay for the bulk of the premium increase in the first year. Taken together with existing premium subsidies and support, the net increase for all Singapore Citizens will be no more than about 10% in the first year after the MediShield Life review is implemented.
The MediShield Life Fund has to be self-sustaining and based on sound actuarial principles. Premiums collected have to cover potential current and future claims, including amounts set aside to support future commitments as well as provide a buffer against unforeseen contingencies such as unexpected spikes in hospitalisations due to disease outbreaks.
As policyholders age, claims are likely to increase and so will premiums. A key feature in the MediShield Life scheme is to distribute premiums more evenly throughout the policyholders' lifetimes. Part of the premiums paid by policyholders during their working ages are set aside to provide for future premium rebates, which will help to moderate premium increases in their older ages. This constitutes the bulk of future commitments set aside in the reserves. As the majority of policyholders are relatively young today, the amount set aside has been increasing. Other commitments include future payouts for diseases currently under treatment and will require multi-year care, such as renal failure and cancer.
Between 2016 and 2019, a total of S$7.5 billion in premiums were collected. This comprises $4.4 billion in premiums collected from policyholders, and $3.1 billion from the Government in terms of premium subsidies and other forms of premium support provided to keep premiums affordable, which also went into the Fund. In this same period, a total of $3.5 billion in claims were paid out, while $3 billion was set aside for future premium rebates.
\tMr Yip asked about the surplus or loss ratio of the MediShield Life Fund. The Incurred Loss Ratio or ILR of the Fund was an average of 104% over the period from 2016 to 2019. This means that the total premiums collected was slightly less than the total monies required to ensure that the Fund is able to meet current claims and future commitments.
Mr Leong asked about the formula for computing the Fund’s reserves. The reserves are computed by external professional actuaries in accordance with the Monetary Authority of Singapore or MAS’s requirements and in line with industry standards. For more details, the Member can refer to the Insurance (Valuation and Capital) Regulations 2004.
MediShield Life, I must emphasise, is a not-for-profit Scheme. All premiums collected are placed in the MediShield Life Fund which are used solely for the benefit of policyholders and in the administration of the Scheme. Information about the Fund size, reserves and Incurred Loss Ratio is published on the MOH website. The financial accounts for the Fund are also audited by an external auditor and submitted to Parliament every year for transparency.
Mr Yip asked whether Singaporeans can pay premiums based on the choice of coverage and illnesses covered. MediShield Life focuses on the basic needs of Singaporeans and apply equally to all policyholders. Those who prefer to have better coverage and are willing to pay higher premiums can consider private Integrated Shield Plans or IPs.
Sir, slowing the rise in healthcare costs is key to maintaining the longer term affordability and sustainability of MediShield Life premiums and the overall healthcare system. Everyone has to play a part. Together, appropriate care can remain affordable for all Singaporeans.
\t
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the elaboration. He mentioned a number of factors that were key in driving the premium increase including medical inflation and so on. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether MOH would develop a transparent framework where you actually itemise the factors that contribute to the premium increase – just like the Fare Adjustment Formula used by LTA to justify the transport fare adjustment is being done. This is to allow a level of transparency of factors when MediShield Life premium increase. That is the first supplementary question.
The second question also touches on a number of points that the Senior Minister of State mentioned. To me, the best way to control healthcare cost is for the population not to fall sick in the first place by staying healthy. As MediShield Life premiums are universal and their contributions mandated, how can the healthcare system evolve to a model where Singaporeans are incentivised to live a healthy lifestyle, perhaps by enjoying lower premiums based on the individuals' history of healthy living habits and lower consumption of healthcare services?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. I think these are important questions that may be on the mind of many people and public as well. Ideally, it would be good to have a single formula that can address some of these various factors that drive inflation and costs, that translates to higher premiums. But the difficulty is that year-to-year, decade-to-decade, it is very hard to predict ahead of time what kind of technology will drive clinical practice.
In the early years, when I was a student, CT scan was not ubiquitous. When we see somebody in the A&E, if you get a head injury, the default is just a plain X-ray of the skull. That probably cost about maybe $15-$20 to do a skull X-ray, but it does not tell you very much unless you have a bone fracture. It cannot tell you there is bleeding inside your brains, whether there is traumatic soft tissue injury.
Today, it is almost unthinkable, just barely 20 years later, that you do not do a CT scan of the head for somebody with a significant head trauma. But the cost factor for a CT scan is actually in the range of hundreds of dollars. That is easily a 10- or maybe a 100-fold increase in the cost factor.
But at that point in time, you cannot really factor in just one single thing, a CT scan, the magnitude of utilisation, the pervasiveness and the cost factor from the technology, how it can be applied clinically, because this also depends on clinical guidelines as well.
So, as opposed to a transport fare formula, where the parameters and the variables are a little bit more fixed and more predictable, healthcare inflation takes into account many unforeseen kind of variables that will come along the way. Even medications, for example, Hepatitis C used to have not much treatment except for liver transplant. But today, there is drug on the market that one pop of a pill – it costs about $600,000 a pill, a dose of treatment – can potentially eradicate Hepatitis C.
That magnitude of inflation is something you cannot predict ahead of time and the pervasiveness of the disease prevalence that requires you to use this treatment is again very hard to scope into one formula that addresses a broad spectrum of needs.
So, I think it will be very, very hard to have a single formula to have that level of clarity. But the actuaries that use some of these current data to project will make adjustments over time and this is why we need to review our premiums on a regular basis, yearly, if not, every couple years, to take into account new treatment on the horizon, new changes in clinical practice, new utilisation patterns, so that we can reflect the premiums accurately.
The second question on how to incentivise better behaviour. Well, actually the flip side is true. Today, if you have no good behaviour, you actually have premium loading, which is what most insurers in practice would practise. If you have a diagnosis and you want to continue to be covered for the condition or you want to add on a condition that was previously not covered, the insurer will do a premium loading to add on the coverage for the condition. In that sense, it is an incentive to be healthy, so that you do not have a premium increase on the individual basis; not necessary a premium rebate, but you do not want to have a premium increase, by keeping healthy.
In order to encourage our people to adopt a healthy lifestyle and be healthy, there can be other schemes that the Government can do outside of the scope of insurance to encourage good behaviour. You can give vouchers, for example, or give some form of incentive for people who clock 10,000 steps a day, who have good diabetic control and sugar intake; you can give them some incentive like maybe $100 NTUC vouchers a year or something like that. So, there are other ways to incentivise good behaviour without distorting the actuarial calculations for a fund that needs to be sustainable and needs to be solvent.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I do not think the Senior Minister of State has answered my question about whether the full MediShield Life actuarial report can be made available. I asked for the actuarial report because it is key to accurately compute the premiums and benefits. It contains mathematical and statistical models designed to evaluate risk and probabilities, which are a bit complex to explain in a reply to a Parliamentary Question.
Has the Government studied how other countries release the actuarial reports for the national insurance schemes? For example, Taiwan's National Health Insurance Administration is required by law to release an actuarial report every five years, and their latest report is available on their website. It covers calculations for potential and current and future claims and a detailed sensitivity analysis to model how claims will vary in various economic scenarios.
So, can I urge the Government to release a report like this, so that independent actuaries can analyse it. This will go a long way to improve transparency and help Singaporeans understand the calculations behind the MediShield premiums and benefits instead of being asked to take the Government's word for it.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for his question. I think the answer should be do not just take the Government's word for it. Take the words of the professionals who are experts in this field. I think very few people are actuarial experts who can understand the nuancing and the very complicated calculations that goes behind the scenes.
I would say that MediShield Life premiums are, first of all, proposed and calculated by external actuaries. That means, they are independent of the Government, they are a set of actuarial consultants who craft up the series of premiums that they think, based on data and assumptions that they made, that would be fair for to charge to the policyholders. That is the first thing.
Secondly, the size of the funds, the amount we collected and the amount we pay out are actually also externally audited. So, it is not the Government's word, it is an external auditor who takes a look at the funds and calculate the loss or the surpluses.
Finally, whatever the report is, it will be reported to Parliament on an annual basis for the purpose of transparency. So, I think this is not just the Government's words, this is based on external experts, external auditors and transparently reported in Parliament.
But I take the Members point that, over time, we may have to have a better system of looking at how these assumptions, calculations, need to evolve. But this Scheme is a new Scheme. It has only been about four to five years running and we are collecting data as we go along.
Much of the outcomes will have to depend on how the claims have been paid out, what is the actual lived experiences of patients and how much claims and the percentage of bills that are incurred as well.
So, over time, we could perhaps engage different consultants to take a look to challenge the assumptions to do another calculation at the appropriate time, to make sure that we are still on track. We can also speak to the consultants and see if they are able to publish some of these data in an academic way. But again, this will not be something that most lay people will understand. Nonetheless, the key information that is available are already published transparently on the MOH website and those who are interested can take reference from there.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, MediShield Life is a national scheme administered by CPF. I suppose the most obvious reason is because if we offer this to the private sector, there will be no takers, given the terms where, amongst others, it covers seniors, those with pre-existing conditions and also at a premium that is affordable to the lower income groups.
So, I wanted to ask the Senior Minister of State whether he has the data to give us a sense of how are the MediShield premiums compared to the levels of other countries with similarly-run national schemes; whether are we priced at the level that is affordable to our lower income groups?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for this very important question. As a doctor who has been practising for about 20-odd years, I can tell you what is the saddest thing we see in the clinics. The saddest thing we see is when you see a poor patient or family who has limited means coming to a hospital for a catastrophic illness and they are devastated by the worries of healthcare bills. And the sad thing we always talk about in the doctors' tea room is that, sadly, the people who needs the insurance the most are the ones who cannot afford it.
This is why MediShield Life was conceived to be a universal Scheme to make sure that no single Singaporean will be left behind, even the poorest and the lowest of income; through whatever means: MediSave contributions, through MediFund, through additional premium support. We will make sure every Singaporean patient has a basic medical insurance to cover them for catastrophic bills.
The second kind of condition which we see many private insurance exclude are actually congenital conditions. The moment you are born with a congenital condition, you are already disadvantaged for life. No insurance will probably take you on unless you are prepared to pay an arm and a leg for a very high premium to get that coverage. Many of us who have insurance plans will also know that later on in life when you have the means to buy an insurance plan, but you already have a pre-diagnosed condition, the insurance will take you on but exclude those conditions from coverage as well.
I think these are the important features of MediShield Life that we got to take into account that is different from any other insurance plans out there, especially in the private sector. So, pervasive coverage, all Singaporeans, all disease, conditions, for life. Again, \"for life\" is another important feature because many private insurance plans do not cover you beyond a certain age because they know once you reach a certain age, your disease prevalence goes up, your risk of claim goes very high and your chance of a severe illness is very high as well, and nobody wants to provide coverage. So, private insurance plans tend to cherry-pick.
If we look at how MediShield Life is constructed, therefore, it is a very unique pervasive universal health coverage plan. If I were to make a comparison to, say, a healthcare plan from another country, I think it is very hard to find something that is exactly the same. But for purpose of comparison, if I can share some premium data from Hong Kong's VHIS, which is Hong Kong's government-backed Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme. So, first it is Hong Kong, which is an Asian country, pretty much similar to Singapore in terms of social construct and healthcare system, which is quite similar, in the British-base kind of healthcare system. But bear in mind, this is a voluntary healthcase system. Theirs is not universal. Even then, for a voluntary healthcare system, the premiums compared to the revised MediShield Life premiums coming on stream before subsidy add-ons – that means just the raw premiums after the revision – the premiums range from being 34% to 143% higher than our MediShield Life. Or you can work it out – it is about 76% higher on average across the age bands.
So, Hong Kong's healthcare insurance system which is voluntary, on average, at least 76% higher than our premiums. At the lowest end, at the one to 20-year-old age range, our revised MediShield Life premium before subsidy is S$145 a year. The Hong Kong premiums is S$352. So, it is easily close to two times or more.
\t
At the extreme end of the age range, at more than 90 years old, the MediShield Life premium for Singapore citizens more than 90 years old before any form of subsidies is S$2,055. The Hong Kong one equivalent is S$3,767.
So, even before subsidies, our premiums for universal coverage, for all conditions, for life, no exclusion, is already much cheaper than the one that Hong Kong has. But bear in mind that for the older group, especially those which I said is above 90 years old, they belong to the Pioneer Generation group where there is already additional premium subsidies, premium discounts, MediSave top-ups. Virtually, it is almost a free healthcare insurance for those who are at the extreme end of age range for the Pioneer Generation.
I hope that gives the Member a clearer idea of the comparisons that we have.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I am heartened to hear that there are various subsidies for the premium increases, including the COVID-19 subsidies. I would like to ask about the plans of the Ministry on how they plan to communicate and promote awareness of such subsidies for the premium increases.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, this is where we need the help of all the Members in this House. As Members of Parliament, as Advisors to the grassroot organisations, as key touchpoints within the community, we hope that all Members in this House, having understood what is being said earlier, would help to communicate this to your residents. The Ministry will also push out a series of communications through case illustrations, through engagement with the public, through press releases and perhaps also through write-ups in the media to help share some of this information to the public. So, we look forward to your support and continued partnership.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his detailed information on the current situation. However, I do not think he has answered the questions we asked. I think what we are saying is that we need more transparency in the system. The Member Mr Gerald Giam has also asked for the future liabilities estimation.
I would like to urge the Senior Minister of State not assume that the people outside, in our country, do not understand the calculations of the acturians. When the data is disclosed, there will be people who are able to make an informed judgement. We really need to have more information about the system in order that we come out with more ideas to arrive at a better system in our country.
The situation that is described by the Senior Minister of State is still not quite — Based on the feedback we have received from the ground, the situation of our healthcare system is still a source of a lot of stress to our people. As a result, we are here to get more information. That is why disclosure and also the affordability are two very important issues.
If I may ask one additional question here, is that, the various components that the Government has contributed to the MediShield Life Scheme, which was shared just now, about over $3 billion over the last five years, I think that is what the Senior Minister of State said, can we categorise them under pre-existing conditions, low-income and the ageing factor? If possible, what are the respective contribution based on these components? Because at the point when MediShield Life was brought in in 2015, the Committee said that the Government will contribute $850 million to support the pre-existing conditions. So, one of the key components of the financing of the scheme is that, will the Government continue to finance these pre-existing conditions going forward; and in the past five years, how much was it?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, if the Member were to listen carefully to what I said earlier, I already said that 35% of the contribution within a fund came from Government subsidies and all sorts of premiums contribution by the Government as well. So, that itself is a sizeable commitment from the Government. Today, there are already about $7 billion or so inside, of which 35% of it comes from the Government. That is way more than $800 million that he was talking about. We are contributing in the billions here.
The second thing is we do welcome ideas from experts who can actually help us to also refine the Scheme as we go along. But bear in mind this is a very new Scheme and we just started for the last four to five years. As we go along, we will try and share more data as possible and involve more actuarial consultants to try and help us to look for new possibilities and new ways to look at some of these things.
But let me just say that for the purpose of transparency, the Member must note that this is not proposed by Government. This is an external consultant who proposes the premiums, audited by an external auditor and report this yearly in Parliament where Members get a chance to question about the proportioning of the Fund and the usage.
I think transparency is not an issue here. We will try and work with the actuarial consultants to see whether some of these publications can go on to the academic circles, for people to take a look as well. But bear in mind that what you do in academia, what you look at, has to marry with the actual reality. As I was explaining earlier to Ms Foo Mee Har's question, some of these conditions are always evolving. They are changing. We know we have an ageing population so the dynamics will change. Today, we are trying to fight the war of diabetes because we know diabetes leads to many more downstream consequential problems. A person may claim for an amputation of a left leg today. There is no telling tomorrow next year that he will have amputation of the other leg. Following, year after that, he may have one kidney failure or two kidney failures and going on to dialysis and following that, a transplant of the kidneys as well. Some of these things will have to evolve. It is not as if is hard-coded in science. It is a dynamic process. You cannot just predict so well ahead of time when a person lose his second leg or will have a kidney transplant.
When we talk about stress, I think it is important to remember my emphasis that this is universal, this is for life and importantly, no Singaporean will be denied coverage if you cannot pay premiums. We will find means to subsidise, to cover with MediFund or additional payment support if needed. Twenty-odd years as a doctor in the hospital, I have not seen a single patient who has been declined treatment on the account of inability to pay. And many of these predate even the era of MediShield Life. I can tell you, with MediShield Life, this will provide an even greater cushion and hopefully a lot more comfort to many of these patients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Portion of Average Bill for Surgical Procedure Paid Via MediShield Life and Via Out-of-pocket Payments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Health (a) what portion of an average bill for a surgical procedure in each Table for Surgical Procedures, including pre-operation scans, medical tests and other work-ups as well as post-operation rehabilitation, is paid through MediSave; (b) what portion of this average bill is paid out-of-pocket; and (c) whether MediShield Life coverage for surgical procedures can be further enhanced for a member above 80 years old, beyond the present recommended deductibles for day surgeries.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Health): Sir, surgical procedures may be undertaken as part of an inpatient or day surgery episode. The Government provides significant subsidies of up to 80% for both the surgical procedure and the daily hospital charges, which include any number of tests, scans and rehabilitative services which may be required as part of the treatment episode.
MediShield Life is targeted at helping patients with more costly bills. For hospitalisations involving a more complex surgical procedure, it will cover about 15% to 20% of the total bill in a subsidised ward on average, while MediSave pays for about 5% to 10%. About 3% of the bill is then paid for in cash.
For example, an average subsidised bill for a heart artery bypass surgery, a much more complex surgery, would cost probably about $33,000 before subsidies, where MediShield Life pays for about $7,300, MediSave covers about $1,600, and the patient pays the remainder of about $200 in cash. The bulk of it is still taken care by subsidies and the remaining by the other components I just illustrated.
Overall, for all treatments, including less complex surgeries, eight in 10 of all subsidised hospitalisation bills incurred by Singaporeans were paid $100 in cash or less. So, eight in 10 Singaporean subsidised bills cost less than $100 in cash.
The MediShield Life and MediSave claim limits for surgical procedures are pegged to the complexity of the surgery required, as indicated in the Table of Surgical Procedures. The MediShield Life claim limits for surgical procedures were recently increased in January this year to keep pace with rising healthcare costs and provide better coverage for more complex surgical procedures. The MediShield Life Council has recommended further adjustments to the claim limits for daily ward and treatment charges as part of the ongoing MediShield Life Review. And we will also review MediSave limits in tandem with this. These adjustments will help to cover more of the inpatient or day surgery bill. In addition, the Council has also recommended to raise the policy year claim limit from the current $100,000 to $150,000 for that year. This will help older patients with exceptionally large bills due to long or multiple periods of hospitalisation within that same year. We will continue to review the MediShield Life and the MediSave limits regularly, to ensure they remain adequate in protecting Singaporeans, while keeping the premiums affordable.
MediFund, as I said earlier in a previous reply, is available for needy Singaporeans who require additional financial assistance to pay for their healthcare bills after subsidies, after MediSave and after MediShield Life. No Singaporean will be denied appropriate healthcare due to their inability to pay. So, I want to emphasise that point again – no Singaporean will be denied appropriate healthcare.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
\tMr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I have one supplementary question. I recently saw an estimated bill for a procedure in the highest surgical table, table 7, and assuming a C class ward stay, the out-of-pocket expense, meaning the cash outlay after MediSave and MediShield Life claim was estimated to be $9,000.
My question is: were outlier surgical bills in the scope of the Council's review? And, if so, what were the conclusions of this review regarding the adequacy of MediShield Life coverage for such outlier bills?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I think such outlier bills will be unusual and I think it is useful if the Member can perhaps share the information through an email with the data. Because the policyholder has a deductible a year and the deductible, usually, is in range of $3,000. Anything beyond that, MediShield Life kicks in. So, for the policyholder to have to pay $9,000 in cash, I think it is quite unusual. So, we do need to take out a look at the specifics of the case whether they have required very esoteric or specialised treatment even though they may be a C Class patient where certain treatments would not fall within the scope of the usual subsidies, for example. I think that is something we can do.
And if the person does have difficulties paying the bill with cash, then this is where we need to get a medical social worker involved and see if MediFund can be a way to help defray the cost and help this person to settle the hospital bills and continue the treatment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Distribution Methods for Budget 2020 Grocery Vouchers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with regard to the recent theft of Budget 2020 grocery vouchers from residents' letter boxes (a) whether the Government has explored other distribution methods to issue the grocery vouchers seamlessly and securely to residents; and (b) whether technology can be used to provide seamless distribution of the grocery vouchers or future vouchers to households, for example, using PayNow.
17 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what are the reasons for sending the Budget 2020 grocery vouchers by post to eligible recipients; and (b) whether the Government has made any assessment on the risk of lost or stolen grocery vouchers.
18 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many sets of the $150 Budget 2020 grocery vouchers have been given to Singaporeans; (b) how many sets have been stolen; (c) whether other ways of distributing the grocery vouchers instead of posting them have been considered; and (d) whether digital distribution of the vouchers have been considered.
\tThe Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 16 to 18 together.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: The Grocery Vouchers scheme aims to help less well-off Singaporeans with their household expenses during this period of economic uncertainty. All Singaporeans aged 21 and above in 2020 living in 1- and 2-room HDB flats, who do not own more than one property, are eligible. This group of recipients is largely older, with the majority aged 55 and above.
About 150,000 sets of Grocery Vouchers, each worth $150, were mailed out via tracked registered mail to eligible Singaporeans in October this year. Of these 150,000 sets, the vast majority reached their intended recipients smoothly. Two hundred and twenty-nine sets, or less than 0.2%, have been reported as stolen as of 28 October 2020. The Police are investigating the reported theft cases and have made 55 arrests as of 28 October 2020. Based on SPF's investigations, the thefts appear to be opportunistic and the cases are not linked. In some cases, the recipients had left their letter boxes unlocked.
The small number of vouchers reported as stolen have been voided and replacement vouchers are being issued to eligible recipients. We encourage everyone to keep their letter boxes locked and repair any damaged letter boxes to avoid theft.
On the choice of the delivery mode, we balanced between public health constraints amidst COVID-19, reasonable convenience for the recipients and security. Some of the recipients may not own a smartphone, have a mobile data plan, or be digitally ready. If digital vouchers were used, more time and effort would have been needed to first provide appropriate digital interfaces, before the recipients can receive the intended support with their household expenses. That said, as digital literacy improves among older Singaporeans, we may be able to consider digital vouchers for this group in future.
We also considered the option of self-collection at the nearest Community Club or Centre, but this would create additional inconvenience for senior citizens, especially those with mobility issues. There may also be crowding at the collection points.
On balance, we sent the grocery vouchers via registered mail for optimal convenience to the intended recipients. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for safe distancing, SingPost adopted contactless delivery measures earlier this year, including the redirection of registered mail services to the letterboxes. SingPost will monitor and verify successful deliveries to recipients' letterboxes, with a photo taken by the postman as proof of delivery.
To mitigate theft and fraud, each voucher has unique features which enable us to identify the intended recipient and trace any voucher to specific locations and time of transaction. That said, we will continue to review the on-going disbursements to balance between security and convenience for recipients.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for Transport.
\t
\t[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 20, 22-24, 29-30, 32, 34-35, 37-39, 41-42, 44, 50, 52, 54-55, 58-66, 69, 71-72, 74 and 77-80 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 19, 21, 25-28, 31, 33, 36, 40, 43, 45-49, 51, 53, 56-57, 67-68, 70, 73, 75-76 and 81 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 3 November 2020.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Payment Services (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Payment Services Act 2019 (Act 2 of 2019)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Transport (Mr Ong Ye Kung) on behalf of the Prime Minister 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":"Multimodal Transport Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to give effect to the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Multimodal Transport signed at Vientiane, Lao People's Democratic Republic, on 17 November 2005 and for related purposes\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat) on behalf of the Minister for Transport read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) First Reading. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, I have a Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill, to be laid upon the Table.
[(proc text) Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Bill, laid upon the Table by the Second Minister for Law. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The Certificate is in order. Minister, please proceed.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you. Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled \"An Act to amend the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020.\"
[(proc text) Bill read the First time. (proc text)]
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, copies of the Bill have been provided to the Clerk, who will distribute it to Members now. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Speaker: Minister, second reading when?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it. Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Personal Data Protection (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister Iswaran.
The Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time”.
Sir, the Personal Data Protection Act, or PDPA, was enacted in 2012. Since then, there have been profound changes in the data landscape, most notably in the sheer variety and volume of data that is being generated and its economic significance. The typology of data is diverse – ranging from personal and machine-generated to meta data – with different risk implications.
The volume of data is growing at an unprecedented rate. Today, Tera/Peta/Zetta bytes of data – you can pick your prefix – are being generated by ubiquitous Internet-of-Things or IoT devices and sensors, our real and virtual world activities, and smart machines in manufacturing and supply chains. The International Data Corporation estimates that the volume of data that will be created in the next three years will eclipse the total data generated over the past 30 years.
Data is also a key economic asset in the digital economy. Data analytics provides valuable insights that inform decisions, generate efficiencies, enhance products and services, and power innovation. It is a critical resource for emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, which hold much transformative potential.
Our regulatory architecture must evolve and keep pace with these magnitudinal shifts. For example, we have initiated digital economy Agreements to position Singapore as a key node in the global network of digital flows and transactions. The proposed amendments to the PDPA are another step to ensure our legislative and regulatory regime is fit for purpose for a digital economy with a complex data landscape.
Our digital economy must be built on a solid foundation of trust. Consumers must have the confidence that their personal data will be secure and used responsibly, even as they benefit from digital opportunities and data-driven services. Organisations need certainty to harness personal data for legitimate business purposes, with the requisite safeguards and accountability. The proposed amendments to the PDPA seek to strike this balance so as to maximise the potential benefits and minimise the risks of collecting and using personal data.
In drafting the Bill, we have studied the data protection practices in jurisdictions like Australia, Canada, the European Union, Hong Kong and New Zealand. The proposed amendments also incorporate valuable feedback received through four public consultation exercises.
Sir, I will elaborate on the amendments which aim to: first, strengthen consumer trust through organisational accountability; second, ensure effective enforcement; third, enhance consumer autonomy; and fourth, support data use for innovation.
Firstly, to strengthen consumer trust, organisations must undertake responsibility for the personal data in their possession or control. Today, this principle of accountability is implied in sections 11 and 12 of the PDPA. Clause 4 of the Bill inserts a specific reference to accountability at Part III to make the principle explicit and to underscore its centrality.
This shift towards an accountability approach is in line with international trends and best practices in data protection laws. It supports interoperability, allowing multi-national corporations to more easily adapt global best practices in Singapore, and minimises compliance costs for Singapore-based companies which are expanding globally.
To further strengthen organisations’ accountability, clause 13 introduces a system for mandatory notification to the Personal Data Protection Commission, or PDPC, when a data breach occurs.
Under this Clause, organisations must notify the PDPC of data breaches that are of significant scale. In addition, organisations must notify both the PDPC and affected individuals when data breaches result, or are likely to result, in significant harm to individuals. This places the onus on organisations to assess the scale and impact of data breaches, ensures they are duly accountable to individuals for the personal data in their care, and empowers individuals to take timely measures to protect themselves if a data breach occurs.
Sir, the Bill also incorporates the recommendations of the Public Sector Data Security Review Committee in its report of November 2019.
First, clause 3 removes the current exclusion for agents of Government, thereby making clear that all private sector organisations are subject to the PDPA, even when they are acting on behalf of public agencies.
Second, the Bill strengthens individual accountability for the egregious mishandling of data. Clause 22 sets out new offences for (a) disclosure of personal data; (b) use of personal data that results in personal gain for the offender or another person, or harm or loss to another person; and (c) re-identification of anonymised information. Related amendments will also be made to the Public Sector (Governance) Act and the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act to align the public and private sector data regimes.
While the primary responsibility and liability for breaches of the PDPA rest with organisations, these new offences are aimed at individuals who know that their actions are not authorised or who act recklessly. The clause provides for defences to the new offences, such as independent testing of anonymisation deployed in information security systems. Also, these offences should not apply in situations where the conduct is solely in the nature of a private dispute, which should continue to be resolved through civil suits or other forms of dispute resolution.
Sir, let me now move to the second cluster of amendments, which seeks to enhance the flexibility and effectiveness of the PDPC’s enforcement.
Clause 23 introduces section 48L, a statutory scheme under which the PDPC may, in lieu of a full investigation, accept written voluntary undertakings from organisations to remedy breaches and prevent their recurrence. For example, such undertakings may be accepted when organisations with effective monitoring and breach management systems notify the PDPC of a data breach, and undertake in writing to implement their breach management plan.
Several jurisdictions, like Australia, Canada and the UK, accept voluntary undertakings as part of their enforcement regimes. The PDPC will exercise this option only if it assesses that it will achieve an outcome similar or superior to a full investigation. For transparency, the undertakings, as well as the PDPC’s decisions and considerations for accepting them, will be made public. In the event of non-compliance, the PDPC may issue a direction requiring the organisation to comply with its undertakings, or initiate investigations.
Section 48G of clause 23 empowers the PDPC to establish dispute resolution schemes for the resolution of customer complaints. The PDPC may also direct complainants and organisations to attempt to resolve disputes via mediation, without the need to secure the consent of both parties.
Clause 37 empowers the PDPC to require the attendance of an individual or employee to give statements and produce documents that are relevant to its investigations.
Clause 24 increases the maximum financial penalty for breaches of Parts III to VI, and the new Parts VIA and VIB, to 10% of an organisation’s annual turnover in Singapore or $1 million, whichever is higher. This penalty framework is similar to that in other domestic regulation and legislation, including the Competition Act and the Telecommunications Act.
During public consultations, concerns were raised about the higher financial penalties. I would like to assure Members, as well as the broader community, that the PDPC will ensure that financial penalties imposed are proportionate to the severity of the data breach. The Bill also provides for Ministerial discretion to review the effective date for these penalties to commence and we intend for the revised financial penalty cap to take effect no earlier than one year after the Act comes into force.
Sir, I also wish to highlight, at this juncture, that I will be moving a Notice of Amendment during the Committee Stage to address a clerical error in clause 24 of the Bill.
Clause 23 sets out amendments providing for the enforcement of the Do Not Call or DNC provisions under the same civil administrative regime as the data protection provisions. The new Part IXA of clause 22 also prohibits the use of dictionary attacks and address-harvesting software when sending messages to telephone numbers. Under clause 24, the maximum financial penalty that may be imposed on an organisation is 5% of annual turnover in Singapore or $1 million, whichever is higher, and $200,000 for an individual.
The new section 48O under clause 23 of the Bill updates the current right of private action by a person who suffers loss or damage directly as a result of a breach of the data protection provisions. The right of private action will be extended to organisations and public agencies that suffer direct loss or damage arising from contraventions of the new business-to-business obligations in the Bill.
Sir, the third set of amendments confers consumers with greater autonomy over data generated by their use of services and more control over how they receive commercial communications.
Under the PDPA, individuals have the right to access their personal data, and request for corrections to be made or a copy to be provided. Clause 14 extends this right by providing for a new Data Portability Obligation, which will enable individuals to request for a copy of their personal data to be transmitted to another organisation. Data portability is expected to spur competition and benefit consumers by encouraging the development of substitute as well as novel services.
Sir, though data portability has been introduced in practice in jurisdictions like Australia, California and the EU, it is a relatively new concept in Singapore. The PDPC will therefore work closely with all stakeholders for a phased implementation. Regulations will be issued in the coming months on the categories of data that should be portable and other technical and consumer protection details.
Clauses 22 and 41 update both the PDPA and the Spam Control Act to rationalise and harmonise the requirements across all modern digital channels for direct commercial communication with consumers. The options for direct communications have evolved since the enactment of the PDPA’s DNC provisions and the Spam Control Act’s spam control provisions. For example, instant messaging on mobile devices has become the communication channel of choice for many consumers. With the proposed amendments, organisations can offer consumers a unified experience in managing their subscription to commercial communications. The Bill also recognises the development of an industry of third party DNC checkers, and delineates the responsibilities and obligations of DNC checkers and the organisations that commission them.
Sir, the final set of amendments aims to provide organisations greater clarity on the use of personal data.
Currently, the PDPA recognises organisations’ need to use personal data for legitimate purposes, and accommodates them through exceptions to the consent requirement, or as deemed consent. For all other purposes, organisations have to obtain consent from the individual.
The proposed amendments update, restructure and clarify the lawful purposes recognised as exceptions under the PDPA, and the deemed consent provisions. Let me elaborate how changes to exceptions and deemed consent accommodate modern commercial arrangements and essential purposes such as security, and support business innovation.
Multiple layers of contracting and outsourcing are common in modern commercial arrangements. Clause 6 therefore expands deemed consent to cater for scenarios where personal data is passed from an organisation to successive layers of contractors for the organisation to fulfil the contract with its customer. Crucially, organisations relying on deemed consent for contractual necessity can only collect, use and disclose personal data where it is reasonably necessary to fulfil the contract with the individual.
Clause 31 introduces the First Schedule to the PDPA, which sets out a new exception to consent for these legitimate uses of personal data. To rely on this exception, organisations must conduct an assessment to eliminate or reduce risks associated with the collection, use or disclosure of personal data, and must be satisfied that the overall benefit of doing so outweighs any residual adverse effect on an individual. To ensure transparency, organisations must disclose when they rely on this exception. One of many potential use cases is anomaly detection in payment systems to prevent fraud or money-laundering.
The next set of enhancements supports innovation and introduction of new services.
The new First and Second Schedules introduced in clauses 31 and 32 make clear that organisations may use personal data for business improvement purposes including: operational efficiency and service improvements; developing or enhancing products or services; and knowing the organisations’ customers. As a safeguard, this exception can be relied upon only for purposes that a reasonable person may consider appropriate in the circumstances and where the purpose cannot be achieved without the use of the personal data.
Businesses have asked for this exception to also apply to entities within a group as they may consolidate corporate or administrative functions, or concentrate research and development expertise in a single unit that supports the entire group. Recognising this commercial reality, Part 5 of the new First Schedule in clause 31 allows related corporations to collect and disclose personal data among themselves for the same purposes. The Bill provides for additional safeguards for intra-group sharing by requiring related corporations to be bound by a contract, agreement or binding corporate rules to implement and maintain appropriate safeguards for the personal data.
The current research exception has also been revised in clause 32 to support commercial research and development that is not immediately directed at productisation, in other words, going upstream. This could apply to research institutes carrying out scientific research and development, educational institutes embarking on social sciences research, and organisations conducting market research to identify and understand potential customer segments.
Clause 7 introduces the new section 15A, which expands the consent regime by introducing deemed consent by notification. Under this provision, organisations may notify their customers of the new purpose and provide a reasonable period for them to opt out. Before doing so, organisations must conduct a risk assessment and conclude that the collection, use or disclosure of personal data in this manner will not likely have an adverse effect on the individual.
To illustrate, this would be useful for organisations that wish to use the personal data of existing customers for new purposes. For example, a financial institution may want to use voice data as an alternative means to authenticate and verify its customers. With these amendments, the financial institution can notify its customers of the intended use of their voice data, provide a reasonable opt-out period, and a contact number for customers’ queries. It should be noted that the individual may still withdraw his deemed consent any time after the opt-out period has lapsed.
The PDPC will put in place safeguards to ensure that organisations work with anonymised data as much as possible, clearly assess and address any potential adverse effects on individuals, and continue to seek express consent for sending direct marketing messages.
Sir, in summary, the proposed amendments to the PDPA will strengthen consumer trust with greater accountability for the protection of personal data; it will give greater certainty for organisations to use data for legitimate business purposes with the requisite safeguards; and it will ultimately enhance Singapore’s status as an important node in the global network of data flows and digital transactions. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill.
The world is undergoing massive digital transformation. The Fourth Industrial Revolution has perhaps already induced the fifth. Singapore is also set on this path as we strive towards becoming a Smart Nation.
The global digital race is intense. The risk of winner takes all is there and if this happens, where does that leave us. Therefore, there is urgency for us to transform and the urgency for us to transform is also increasing, in large part due to the on-going COVID-19 pandemic. According to a McKinsey study published in October 2020, companies surveyed across all sectors and regions digitised 20 to 25 times faster during COVID-19.
A consequence of digitalisation is that firms and people become more connected globally. This interconnectedness means access to bigger markets, which can be a boon for our talents and firms.
Singapore is thankfully at the forefront in Asia for having the right conditions to embrace a digital economy and smart nation. For example, in the IMD World Digital Competitiveness 2020 ranking, Singapore came in second, just behind the US.
Against this background, we can understand the explosion of data in Singapore and the importance of data to our digital economy. Data is vital to innovation.
Intuitively, data for innovation and data protection seem to conflict with each other. We need data to create and optimise products, processes and business models. Hence, there must be sufficient room for harnessing and using data. Too much controls leads to high compliance costs and distracts firms from innovating. Start-ups may also find it stifling.
Yet, data protection, specifically personal data, is essential to protecting the privacy and interests of our citizens.
Prior to the introduction of PDPA in 2012, public awareness of personal data protection was generally lower. Anecdotally, we can easily recall instances in which people trustingly and freely share NRIC numbers and other personal information with various parties for various purposes. Consequently, besides receiving unwanted marketing material, they also become vulnerable to scams and crimes.
Having laws and a mechanism to sufficiently protect personal data engenders greater trust. A clearly defined framework and laws that are effectively enforced will build consumers' confidence. One study of GDPR on how data protection regulation affects start-up innovation, published in November 2019, suggests that while the regulation appears to obstruct certain business models and technologies, it also clearly stimulated a certain amount of innovation and market opportunities.
More studies may be needed to study the effects of regulation on innovation. But we can agree that data protection regulation builds trust.
A healthy dose of trust enables meaningful data to be shared and drives innovation. This forms a virtuous cycle. Therefore, a balanced approach to regulation is important. Singapore needs high quality do-good innovations. Facilitating the use of data in a way that does not erode consumer trust will enable Singapore to innovate better and faster, and stay competitive.
Furthermore, firms are no longer confined to Singapore with growing global connections. They can operate out of Singapore and still access markets around the world. With the rise of cross-border e-trade and e-commerce, putting in place the right data laws will enhance our interoperability with global frameworks, thereby making it easier to do business and allow cross-border data flow. The idea of \"if it works in Singapore, it works everywhere\" will be very helpful in strengthening Singapore's position as a regional and global innovation hub.
Hence, I generally welcome the amendments to the PDPA. A balance in this approach is hard to strike and I do note that four consultations had been conducted to date and I believe that this effort is to precisely to try to strike this balance. But I do have four key concerns and would like to seek the Minister's clarifications.
First, the introduction of data portability and extension of spam controls and DNC provisions to all direct communication platforms would give consumers more control over their own data. But contraventions will now be dealt with as a civil proceeding in Court. I believe that this was originally a criminal proceeding. My concern is that this perceived \"step down\" will diminish the importance of personal data protection and the severity of breaching the law. Therefore, it risked undermining consumer trust. Can the Minister explain the rationale for this change?
Second, the deemed consent will now be enabled in this amendment. I understand this to be a move to avoid unnecessary inefficiencies in contracts with multiple layers of outsourcing. But I am also concerned, whether this will weaken consumer protection and therefore again, consumer trust. I note the measure that are put in place in Minister's speech earlier, I am just wondering what kind of risk-assessment and disclosure are we talking about. Would the Ministry regularly review whether these mechanisms are sufficient in providing sufficient protection and control to the consumers?
Third, the amendment facilitates the collection, use or disclosure of personal data for a broad range of business purposes such as enhancing goods or services, operational processes, personalised services and research and development. Clearly, sufficient flexibility in harnessing and using data is needed for innovation. But many actions can be categorically explained as addressing one of such purposes. How will the Government prevent abuse in a more upstream manner? Again, I say this because I know that enforcement has been enhanced, even individuals can be liable for breaches, but, I am wondering, whether it can be more upstream to provide enough guidelines to have more controls in place to prevent this in the first place.
I understand that it can be too tedious and time consuming for enterprises to keep applying for Government's approval for every relevant business decision. That would be counter productive to innovation. But, might there be a \"whitelist\" or \"blacklist\" that clearly articulates the boundaries, the \"dos\" and \"don’ts\", for the firms?
Fourth, finally, will the \"relaxation\" in the collection, use or disclosure of personal data for commercial innovation purposes in this Amendment be applied to the Government and public service? If so, what measures are in place to ensure consistency and avoid double standards in terms of data protection policy, standards and enforcement? The Government, as a body with regulatory powers and control over significant resources, will have to exercise greater discipline, caution and demonstrate transparency when handling personal data. A better understanding of how the Government handles personal data will no doubt strengthen public trust. Notwithstanding my concerns, I support the Bill.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the Personal Data Protection (Amendment) Bill is a much welcome update, eight years after the original Bill was first introduced in 2012. Eight years is a long time in the digital age. Technology has advanced by leaps and bounds and such technological improvements have also significantly changed our lives.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
Singapore has one of the highest Internet penetration rates in the world. Eighty-eight percent of the population are Internet users and spend close to seven hours a day on the Internet on average. They 8.9 million mobile connections, approximately 1.5 times more than the country's population. The easy access of the Internet allows people to engage in content sharing, online shopping, access gaming sites and social media platforms amongst others.
The law, too, has to keep up with the times. With increasing usage of such digital platforms comes increasing risk of personal data breaches. Most Singaporeans use their smartphones for social networking or to search for information. And as a result, the number of scammers, impersonators and cyber attacks has jumped nine folds in the last three years with 672 cases in the first 11 months of 2019, with over half the victims in their 20s to 40s. In fact, just a few days ago, personal information from 1.1 million RedMart customers were stolen from Lazada, an e-commerce platform. Personal data such as names, phone numbers, emails and physical mailing addresses were being sold online.
While I appreciate the effort to enhance the legal framework for the collection, use and disclosure of personal data, and to strengthen the accountability of organisations in respect of handling these data, I believe that there is still room for further refinement, namely in strengthening protection against unsolicited communication, clarifications on deemed consent and individuals rights under data portability.
Firstly, protection against unsolicited commercial messages. Mr Speaker, there are multiple safeguards in place within the original PDPA, with the intention to protect data privacy of individuals. One of such safeguards is the Do Not Call Registry when an individual can opt to be excluded for marketing or promotional messages. However, even with such safeguards in place, most Singaporeans still get unsolicited calls and messages from telesales agencies, moneylenders, illegal gambling advertisements and even phishing scam calls claiming to be from SingPost or DHL, asking them to collect the parcel.
Improved controls for unsolicited commercial messages and the section 43, would thus, be welcomed by consumers. A few years ago, I have personally lodged a Police report over persistent and unlicensed moneylending messages, but I was subsequently told by the Investigation Officer that the perpetrators are based overseas and that there is not much that we can do.
I acknowledged that some of these calls and messages are from overseas or even from masked numbers. However, some are actually conducted from local numbers and since 2005, it is compulsory to present customer details to telcos when purchasing both a prepaid and postpaid SIM card. Now, with the revised Bill when organisations have breached the PDPA Act, they could have to pay a penalty of 10% of their annual Singapore turnover or up to S$1 million dollars, whichever figure is higher.
However, I would like to ask, how can we better protect Singaporeans against unsolicited messaging and fraudulent communication from criminal syndicates, especially the elderly who are at risk of such scams. In particular, how does the Commission intend to take action against parties that are not even based in Singapore.
Second is the topic on deemed consent and deemed consent by notification. Mr Speaker, under the section of deemed consent, organisations are allowed to pass information to a third party for the fulfilment of the contract between the person and the organisation. While this makes sense, we should question if there are any mitigating factors to prevent the unwanted spreading of personal particulars or information from the third party organisation to subsequent parties for their benefit. For example, targeted marketing strategies as well as also raising the possible issue of increased risk of the spread of personal information. With personal data held by multiple parties across multiple jurisdictions potentially, the risk of the data leak is much higher and data protection is only as strong as the weakest link.
Furthermore, in the newly added section 15(a), deemed consent by notification, organisations are now able to collect information on the individual as long as the organisation has taken reasonable steps to inform the individual the organisation's intent, purpose to collect, use or disclose the person's data. The organisation itself also has to make sure that this is not likely to have an adverse effect on the individual. Individuals also have the right to opt out or withdraw consent within a reasonable period.
Mr Speaker, this system reduces the power of individuals relative to organisations who have the power to determine if the collection use and disclosure of personal data have any adverse effect on the individuals.
Section 15(a) also gives organisations the freedom to determine whether or not there is any adverse effect on the individual, which may not always be interpreted in the individual's favour. The new provision does serve as an exception to the consent obligation and moves the data protection framework away from express and explicit consent to implicit consent from individuals. For example, online shopping algorithms are designed to identify the type of product a person is interested in and to suggest to the person, items that he or she may like to purchase. If a person for example, has conditions that decreases his overall well-being with these advertisements, for example, having compulsive buying disorder, is that deemed as an adverse effect that should be intervened?
An organisation needs to identify and implement reasonable measures to eliminate or reduce the probability of the adverse effect. What are some of the ways that these can be executed in reality?
Further, what is regarded as a reasonable period for individuals to opt out? Are businesses allowed to determine this or will the commission be providing some guidance on the general timeframe?
Perhaps, we could adopt the practice from the European General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR, where there are specific categories of data in which processing such data is prohibited unless explicit consent is given by the individual. The PDPC could consider something similar by carving out exceptional categories of data where deemed consent by notification, cannot work or requires express consent.
Lastly, on the new Part VIB on data portability. The introduction of the new data portability obligation is a welcome one, where an organisation must at the request of an individual, transmit his or her personal data that is in the organisation's possession or under its control to another organisation in a commonly used machine-readable format. However, while the individual can request for his or her data to be transferred from one organisation to another, individuals themselves do not have the specific right to receive a copy of such data in a machine-readable format before it is ported over. This may pose issues for individuals that may want to limit or select the data they would like to hand over to the receiving organisation. And this will be unlike Article 20 of the European GDPR, which gives individuals the right to receive the personal data concerning him or her.
I acknowledge that there is an \"access request\" under section 21 of the current PDPA, where individuals may be able to get a copy of their personal data that is under the possession of the originating organisation. However, it is unclear to what extent this will apply hand-in-hand with the data portability obligation. Further in this digital world, it is often been said that, \"the Internet never forgets\". Could we perhaps go one step further and that in addition to data portability and access to one's personal data, can the individual be granted the right to request organisations to delete personal data at his or her request? This would then truly give meaning to the phrase under section 26G and that is to provide individuals with greater autonomy and control over their personal data.
Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, the updated PDPA is the right step in ensuring the data security of Singaporeans. What has perhaps not been fully addressed is firstly, the ability to enforce such rules to protect against unsolicited messages, particularly from overseas parties; secondly, the power imbalance between organisations and individuals under a deemed consent opt-out regime; and finally, the individual’s rights to his or her data. In this rapidly evolving digital age, it is imperative that we constantly assess and fine-tune the PDPA, in order to maintain the effectiveness of its safeguards.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the acceleration of digitalisation in almost every aspect of our lives. Hence, it has become even more important for us to ensure that our data protection legislation is keeping pace with advances in information technology.
Recent data breaches, which affected 1.1 million Redmart and 2.8 million Eatigo accounts, highlight once again the dangers lurking in the shadows of Internet space and the importance of cybersecurity and remedial procedures. I understand that users were informed quite quickly and were thus able to take measures to protect themselves, such as changing their passwords.
Different organisations have very different attitudes towards data protection. Therefore, I am very glad that the Bill’s amendments will make it compulsory for all organisations to notify the Personal Data Protection Commission or PDPC and affected individuals of data breaches. This will compel all companies to step up controls or risk heavy financial penalties.
However, I note that notifications are only required where there are significant number of people affected, which had previously been proposed at 500 or more, and where there could be significant harm for affected individuals, such as compromised NRIC and credit card numbers.
I would therefore like to ask the Minister why notifications to PDPC need be made only when the breaches involve a prescribed number of people? I feel that as long as an individual is affected, PDPC should be informed. I note that the current online reporting form for data breaches is already quite a simple one-page form that takes about eight to 10 minutes to fill up, and hence reporting should not be too onerous for organisations. Of course, any individual acting in a personal or domestic basis will not be caught by these obligations, as such a case is already excluded from the Act.
In addition, the Bill specified that PDPC must be notified within 72 hours and affected persons, without undue delay. This in effect means that there is no timeframe set for notifying individuals. I feel that there should be a clear deadline so that individuals can do the needful to protect themselves. Time is of the essence. The longer it takes to inform them, the greater the potential damage, and the PDPA is not simply a notification regime, but is also an Act that protects individuals and their data. Individuals may also need to take their own steps to change, mask or protect their data, including those on other platforms, especially if the leaks involve their digital identities, which are increasingly interlinked. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In addition, the Bill specified that PDPC must be notified within 72 hours, and affected persons, without undue delay. This in effect, means that there is no timeframe set for notifying individuals. I feel that there should be a clear deadline so that individuals can do the needful to protect themselves. Time is of the essence. The longer it takes to inform them, the greater the potential damage, and the PDPA is not simply a notification regime, but is also an Act that protects individuals and their data. Individuals may also need to take their own steps to change, mask or protect their data, including those on other platforms, especially if the leaks involve their digital identities, which are increasingly interlinked.
(In English): I welcome more stringent controls over spam and telemarketing through related amendments to the Spam Control Act or SCA. The SCA will be updated to protect users from unsolicited messages, particularly bulk commercial texts sent to instant messaging accounts, such as WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger. The most common messages make offers of loans, gambling and betting.
My question is how the Ministry would deal with perpetrators from overseas. How can they be caught and what recourse do our people have, besides blocking these numbers as and when they attack? Would the Ministry be able to explore cross-jurisdictional cooperation with countries where these overseas numbers have originated from, so that there is a possibility of either bringing these syndicates to justice or at least to shut them down?
Finally, I urge PDPC to check and conduct selective audits to ensure that all companies that collect consumers’ personal data have a tight regime in protecting the data collected. If there are gaps, would PDPC consider providing more resources and experts at a reasonable or low cost to help and guide these companies, since prevention is always better than cure? Sir, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the digital landscape of Singapore is constantly evolving. Cross-border data flows and data capitalisation is increasing the importance for business competitiveness.
The current regime of consent-based data protection faces challenges from the rapid, technological developments. In addition, the recent data breaches suffered by the likes of Lazada, Razer and Eatigo evidenced the need for solid personal data protection laws. Personal data protection laws must offer adequate protection to individuals but still allow businesses to remain agile and competitive. The amendments to the PDPA to shift towards a risk-based accountability approach is practical and in line with modern economy and global data protection laws. These amendments should attend to a basic tenet of protecting the rights of individuals.
I wish to clarify on two points.
Under the Bill, organisations may process personal data without the consent of individuals in circumstances classified as \"legitimate interests\". This concept may be ambiguous in certain contexts. Without further guidance on the scope of legitimate interests, especially for vulnerable segments such as children be provided. This will ensure that individuals are protected and companies can comply to requirements efficiently and responsibly.
Secondly, the Bill requires organisations to notify PDPC of data breaches that result in or likely to result in significant harm to affected individuals or it is of significant scale. Organisations will also be required to notify affected individuals if the data breach is likely to result in significant harm to them. The concept of significant harm and significant scale may again ne very ambiguous. As such, would further guidance of the concept of significant harm and significant scale be provided. If significant scale constitutes prescribed number, can I clarify on how this number is obtained? I agree with the need to strengthen the accountability of organisations and enabling of meaningful consent as reflected in the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.15 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.55 pm until 4.15 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm.
[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I speak, I would like to declare my interest as a director and shareholder of a technology company which manages and safeguards customers' personal data.
The protection of personal data is a concern of all Singaporeans, particularly when they learn about mass data breaches suffered by public agencies and private companies, both here and abroad.
There is now greater public awareness among members of the public and organisations of the need to safeguard personal data. The public has a right to demand strong protection of their personal data. At the same time, policy-makers have to be aware of the business costs of complying with stringent regulations. It is thus necessary to make periodic amendments to the Personal Data Protection Act or PDPA and the Spam Control Act to bring our data privacy regulations more in line with current realities and global norms.
I will focus on three areas in my speech.
First, ensuring that personal data is protected where it matters to citizens, yet without unnecessarily burdening business with regulations.
Second, aligning the PDPA with the GDPR, the European Union's general data protection regulation to avoid conflating rules.
Third, harmonising the Government's data protection rules with the PDPA to ensure that Government agencies safeguard personal data the same way as it expects private sector companies to do.
Everyone wants their personal data protected from prying eyes and unwanted marketers. No one likes being interrupted by unsolicited phone calls from people they do not know, trying to sell things that they do not want or tricking them into sharing confidential information. They certainly do not want scammers using their NRIC address or credit card numbers to take up unauthorised loans, buy stolen goods or, worst of all, sell their personal data on the dark web.
We had made good progress in personal data protection since the introduction of the PDPA in 2012. However, some things are still slipping through. For example, despite being on the Do Not Call Registry since 2013, I still get phone calls or text messages from individuals offering cheap loans, access to illegal gambling sites or asking me to pick up packages which I never ordered.
More than 46,000 complaints on unsolicited calls and text messages had been made to the Personal Data Protection Commission or PDPC since 2017. I have met residents who were scammed of tens of thousands of dollars by swindlers who persuaded them over the phone to reveal their Internet banking passwords or one-time PINs. Still others had loans in their names taken up with loan sharks because their NRICs were misused. For most Singaporeans, these are the biggest concerns with regard to personal data privacy.
On the other hand, fewer people are concerned about what kind of cookies a website is using to track them and many find cookie notices on websites nowadays more of an irritant than a privacy protecting measure.
There is a debate going on about how to stop big tech companies from hoovering our personal data in order to serve us tailored advertisements. This is a valid concern but not something that keeps the average citizen awake at night. Privacy regulations should therefore give greater focus to the areas of data privacy that matter most to Singaporeans.
I will now move on to discussing the PDPA and GDPR. The general data protection regulation is a wide-ranging personal data protection legislation from the EU which has extraterritorial effect. The GDPR applies not only to European companies but also to Singapore companies that offer goods and services to individuals in the EU, even if those companies do not have an EU presence.
The PDPA covers much of the GDPR but there are many requirements in the GDPR that are more stringent than that of the PDPA. For example, the GDPR provides extra protection for special categories of data, which include data about an individual's race, religion, political opinions and health information. The PDPA does not specifically define what constitutes sensitive personal data although guidance from PDPC suggests that personal data of a sensitive nature should be accorded a higher level of protection as a matter of good practice. The GDPR also sets a more stringent standard for consent, which must be obtained in a clear, open, specific and transparent manner.
Despite its less prescriptive approach compared to the GDPR, the PDPA's model may be preferred by countries whose approach towards privacy is closer to Singapore's than the EU's. However, we should guard against the PDPA acquiring a reputation of providing a GDPR-minus standard of personal data protection. It would be much better if the PDPA were known internationally as a law that strikes the right balance between data protection and business efficiency.
While the PDPA may not be identical to the GDPR, it should not have provisions or interpretations which are in conflict with the GDPR. This way, Singapore businesses, which need to comply with the GDPR will be able to rest easy, knowing that they also comply with the PDPA.
Based on my analysis of the PDPA, I am glad to note that this currently appears to be the case. I hope that this approach will continue through future amendments to the PDPA.
My last point concerns the personal data protection obligations of the Government. Unlike the GDPR, the PDPA specifically exempts the Government from having to comply with it. The Government has explained that this is because it has its own set of data privacy standards, which are set out in the Public Sector Governance Act or PSGA, the Official Secrets Act or OSA, the Banking Act, the Income Tax Act or ITA, the Statistics Act and the Instruction Manual 8 or IM8, among others.
I have worked with the Government both as a civil servant and a government contractor, and I am well aware of the robust rules and practices in place to safeguard personal data. However, complying with a different set of data protection rules from the private sector is problematic for several reasons.
First, the data protection provisions in the various Acts differ in their standard of protection. For example, the maximum fines for violations of the different statutes range from $1,000 to $250,000. This is not surprising since these laws were enacted long before the PDPA and without the specific purpose of general data protection in mind. Having public data controllers governed by a hodge podge of separate legislation is likely to lead to differing standards and gaps in coverage.
Second, the lack of a single set of rules governing privacy leaves individual data owners unclear as to what level of personal data protection they are entitled to. Most individuals concerned about privacy would be more familiar with the protections provided under the PDPA than what is provided for under the PSGA, OSA, ITA, IM8 and others. In fact, the IM8 is not even a public document that ordinary citizens can access.
The Government's exemption from the PDPA could lead to concerns among citizens about how their sensitive data is being used by the Government. For example, many are now worried about how the information collected by SafeEntry and Trace Together will be processed. Others continue to worry about how our security services may be collecting and sharing sensitive information about citizens with little independent oversight.
Third, the Government regulations cover mainly internal checks on the Government Ministries and agencies, and criminal and disciplinary consequences for individual officers. A citizen who has incurred damages as a result of a data breach by a Government agency has little recourse to pursue civil remedies against that agency. The PDPA, on the other hand, grant such recourse against offending organisations. This could be seen as a lower threshold of accountability on the part of the Government should data beaches occur.
Why should public data controllers be treated differently from private data controllers. I believe there is merit in having a universal standard of personal data protection that applies to both private as well as public data controllers. If there is a need to maintain discretion because of national security reasons, these exemptions can be explicitly written into the PDPA.
I hope the Government can eventually harmonise the data protection clauses in the separate legislations and bring them under the umbrella of the PDPA and make the PDPA apply to Government agencies as well.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the overarching goal of data protection legislation is to ensure that personal data is not misused in a way that causes harm to individual. This can be achieved without causing undue inefficiencies in the functioning of businesses or the Government. We need to continue to update the PDPA to keep up with the realities on the ground. The Government should hold itself to the same level of data privacy standards, procedures and accountability it expects of private sector companies. Sir, I support the Bill.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Personal Data Protection (Amendment) Bill.
Sir, with the increasing demand and trend for personalisation of products and services and the pace of digitalisation in many aspects of everyday life and work, sharing personal information is increasingly a requirement for us to be able to gain access to a service, obtain a benefit or even to participate.
Against this backdrop, the Personal Data Protection (Amendment) Bill is timely. This looks to ensuring the protection and responsible use of personal data by organisations. Clear accountability on what data is collected, used and disclosed digitally or even physically, will help in building consumers' trust. For businesses, having clarity on the use of personal data and the trust of consumers will give them the confidence to use the data to innovate and improve services.
With advancement in technology, the volume of personal data collected and aggregated is vast and growing. With capabilities like data analytics, machine learning and artificial intelligence making sense of the data and using it to gain valuable insights is real. If used appropriately, this can provide benefits but it can also be exploited for not so well-meaning purposes.
To strengthen trust and at the same time derive the value of data, we need to balance and handle the \"right to data privacy\", \"data security\" and \"the proper use of data to innovate\". These objectives may seem at odds.
My speech will focus on trust which I believe is core to achieving the objectives of this Bill. I will speak on two aspects of the proposed amendment which are key to protecting data while appropriately enabling the leverage of data for innovation.
First, the strengthening of organisational accountability. This will enchance the protection for indivduals and is key to building trust with individuals on how their personal data is used.
Second, amendment of section 15 regarding \"deemed consent\" and changes to the exceptions and the new section 15A \"deemed consent by notification\" and a reasonable period and manner for the individual to withdraw consent.
Let me touch now on strengthening of organisational accountability.
The amendments proposed in the Bill will make mandatory and will require organisations to report data breaches to the Personal Data Protection Commission or PDPC, if such breaches are likely to result in significant harm or impact to individuals, and/or are of a significant scale. Organisations must also notify affected individuals when a data breach is likely to result in significant harm or impact to them, regardless of the scale of the breach.
Why is this important? Cybercrime statistics show that data breaches continue to rise. And just to cite one example, on SafeatLast Editor's Choice, one of the key cybercrime statistics, that a hacker attack takes place every 39 seconds. So, you can imagine, as I am speaking here, by the time I finish my speech, the number of attacks that have happened. So, notification to individuals is important because it will allow them to take timely mitigating measures but also it is important that there is notification because it allows the national actions, both of the organisations and other organisations impacted to take the necessary actions.
To signal the importance of organisational compliance and the proper handling of personal data, irresponsible organisations will face a higher financial penalty cap of 10% of annual gross turnover in Singapore or $1 million, and if I heard the Minister correctly, whichever is higher. The Bill also includes the introduction of offences for the mishandling by individuals of personal data and fines and imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.
With increased accountability, offences and penalties – while I do agree that it is necessary – there may also be a danger of organisations becoming overly risk averse to protect themselves. This seems a little strange but one would say it is okay for organisations to protect themselves. If they do all the right things, individuals will be protected. It really depends. If the scale is on organisations protecting themselves from being penalised or against enforcement, we may also lose the focus on actually protecting consumer's data privacy and risks. This may also have a negative impact on the desire to use data appropriately to innovate and improve productivity.
The Bill's introduction to require organisations to conduct risk assessments to identify and mitigate the adverse impact on individuals is the right approach because it balances this, because it allows organisations to analyse what is the real risk and really then make that decision of being able to notify and then decide to innovate. I will later touch on this in my speech on the point about \"deemed consent\" associated with the risk assessments.
These amendments to strengthen accountability of organisations are necessary as they give businesses clear guidelines on how they handle personal data. We must, however, recognise that there will be compliance costs associated. Given the value of personal data and the inherent risks, I think it is important that organisations take the responsibility and it is a necessary cost of doing business. But with the current economic challenges, can the Minister also share if there will be any support given to businesses in managing the increased cost of compliance and also the increased complexity of compliance?
Let me touch on the amendments to section 15 and the point about \"deemed consent\" and the new section 15A \"deemed consent by notification\".
As businesses may need to partner, subcontract and outsource services to deliver their contractual obligations to customers, the amendments proposed for section 15 introduces deemed consent by contractual necessity. I think this is important because it does recognise a new business model and facilitates collection, use and disclosure of personal data by organisations with their contractors and partners to enable better understanding of customers for more effective performance and fulfillment of contractual obligations to customers.
But let me now touch on the introduction of the new section 15A relating to deemed consent by notification. What is required of an organisation if it wishes to rely on this new section 15A to obtain deemed consent by notification is that they need to conduct risk assessments to identify and mitigate adverse effects that the collection, use and disclosure of the personal data may have on individuals.
This will allow them to collect and process personal data to use, to improves services as well as productivity research purposes and also for fraud detection and security. All these are good. I do support and agree that there are benefits for consumers when organisations use data to innovate.
I do, however, have questions on how we ensure that deemed consent by contractual necessity and by notification does not lead to unintended and more importantly, uninformed consent?
The requirements outlined in the Bill for notification, the manner and the period for individuals to opt out are fairly broad. I agree that it should not be prescriptive but there must be measures to ensure that individuals fully understand that they are deemed to have given their consent for the use of their personal data if they do not opt out. And I am glad that the Minister, in his speech did say that the individuals can also withdraw consent even after the opt-out period. I think this is important.
Why am I saying this? Because many of us today, we just tick that box that says \"I consent\" but not realising that actually, even when you do not do it, it is deemed consent and therefore it is an uninformed consent. What I am asking for is, ensuring that there is informed consent, not necessarily that we take away deemed consent because, at the end of the day, what is important is consumer trust. And if consumers understand that fundamentally, then the protection and the appropriate use of information will be there because organisations will have that confidence to use the data.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I must admit that when I first reviewed the amendments proposed in the Bill, I was concerned with the challenge of how we can achieve the protection of personal data while still allowing the effective use of personal data for innovation because they seem at the opposite of each other.
But having worked through the details of the Bill, and I must admit that there was quite a lot of details on the Bill, I see that it does strive to achieve the difficult balance of protecting consumer personal data and, at the same time, not limit the use of data to innovate and deliver greater benefit. In today's day and age and the role that Singapore plays, I think it is important.
I do want to make a special mention to the team that worked on this because, clearly there was a lot of work put in and a lot of thought given in terms of that balance because when I first started looking at this amendment Bill, I actually had the very opposite feeling about it. But having gone through the details, I think there has been very good thought given to strengthening of accountability but at the same time, not limiting that use of data for innovations while protecting individuals' privacy.
I believe that success will be achieved when individuals trust that their personal data is protected. And this will in turn gives organisations confidence to use and leverage the data for insights to deliver value. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the PDPA Bill seeks to update the original PDPA Act to strengthen data privacy protections and individual data autonomy, ensure greater accountability on the part of organisations and enhance the power of the PDPC.
I do not oppose the Bill and agree with the comments expressed by my Parliamentary colleagues Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Louis Chua Kheng Wee. I shall focus my speech on just a few areas where I would like to pose technical clarifications and suggestions.
Firstly, Sir, I would like to speak on the mandatory data breach reporting guideline.
I suggest that the we could, in section 26B, provide a clearer and more precise definition of \"significant harm\" to an individual that would warrant notification. In other words, it would be helpful if the Government could provide a statutory definition or further guidance as to the factors that are to be taken into account in assessing the nature of the \"harm\" and any relevant thresholds before the PDPC would hold the view that \"significant harm\" has been occasioned, so that organisations have clarity in their assessment as to when a data breach will be considered a notifiable data breach. The definition provided in section 26B subsection 2 currently seems rather broad.
Also, on this point, allowing for exemption of organisations by the PDPC from notifying affected individuals of data breaches in the new section 26D is problematic. In this clause, the obligation to notify affected individuals can be waived \"subject to any conditions that the [PDPC] thinks fit\".
Given that such an overly broad \"escape\" clause may undermine the legal spirit of the mandatory data breach notification requirement, I would like to ask: what are circumstances in which the Government may activate this clause, and would the Government consider tightening and carefully circumscribing the scope and use of this clause, to reduce any potential for abuse and the perception of arbitrariness?
Secondly, Sir, the amended Bill creates new offences to hold individuals accountable for egregious mishandling of personal data on behalf of an organisation or public agency.
The thrust of the PDPA is to hold businesses responsible such that risk can be treated as a business cost rather than something to be potentially placed on individual \"scapegoats\" who may have little bargaining power as employees.
With new offences for the unauthorised mishandling of personal data by individuals, including employees, there is the possibility that \"scapegoating\" may happen. Junior employees with lesser bargaining power may be held liable, while higher ranked employees and the organisation itself may face reduced accountability thereby.
While the amendments spell out possible grounds of defence that the accused individual may take, has the Government given some thought to what additional measures should be put in place to prevent such \"scapegoating\"?
Thirdly, I would like to speak about what has been referred to, in the context of the GDPR, as the \"right to be forgotten\".
I would suggest further extending the retention limitation obligations in the PDPA to be aligned with Article 17 of the GDPR, where individuals may interface with an organisation to request the deletion of data and where withdrawal of consent may lead to an obligation to immediately delete personal data. Sir, such an obligation seems to me to be not overly onerous on businesses.
Fourthly, businesses, especially SMEs, sole proprietorships and some not-for-profit organisations, may experience difficulties in adhering to these new, more rigorous regulations.
I would like to ask when this Bill will come into effect and would the Government consider allowing for a transition or grace period? Such a suggestion would be in line with, firstly, the previous 18-month transition period adopted before most of the substantive provisions of the PDPA took effect when it was enacted in 2012; and secondly, the two-year transition or sunrise period which was given when the GDPR was adopted by the European Union in 2016, during which\ttime there was delayed enforcement so that organisations would have time to prepare.
During this transition period, the PDPC could consider providing greater support to SMEs and volunteer organisations in several respects.
Firstly, training of staff to understand the new requirements imposed and guidance to introduce new processes and frameworks in compliance with those requirements.
For instance, in the 2018 SingHealth data breach, the delay of 28 days in the reporting of the incident to senior management could be attributed to lack of staff training and absence of a reporting framework to some extent.
Voluntary organisations, in particular, may benefit from such training as they may lack knowledge of these requirements. For instance, in 2019, Henry Park Primary School Parents' Association was found by the PDPC to have been negligent in failing to make reasonable security arrangements to protect members' personal data and appoint a Data Protection Officer.
Secondly, Sir, the PDPC could, during this transitional period, provide guidance and possibly subsidies for adopting compliant IT systems, to reduce the compliance burden on these organisations while encouraging good data protection practices.
This would be particularly helpful for SMEs and business-to-business or B2B companies in Singapore, as these often store data in an unstructured way, using folders in an ad hoc fashion. As such, if a data breach were to happen, the data review process could be particularly complex, time-consuming and costly for them. Thank you.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Alright. Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a member of the Data Protection Advisory Committee of the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC).
I rise in support of this Bill, which seeks to achieve the twin objectives of strengthening consumer confidence that their personal data will be used responsibly; and enabling organisations to confidently harness personal data for innovation which, in turn, would benefit our citizens and Singapore's economy. It has been eight years since the PDPA was enacted in 2012. The objective then was to provide a baseline standard for data protection in the private sector.
This Bill seeks to introduce, inter alia, the concept of organisational accountability, mandatory data breach reporting to the PDPC, new requirements for organisations to conduct risk assessments, a new data portability obligation to enhance consumer autonomy, a higher financial penalty cap, enhanced enforcement of the Do Not Call provisions and new exceptions and definitions of consent to facilitate the use and movement of data by organisations.
Undeniably, there will be some who will question the timing and impact of these proposed amendments. After all, we are only starting to see the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic unravelling and facing a probable imminent global recession. These amendments will necessitate changes in an organisation’s policies, systems and processes. With organisations already trying to cope with stretched resources and trying to avoid going belly-up, measures, such as stiffer fines for data breaches or making it mandatory for organisations to notify the PDPC, may seem counterproductive. Nevertheless, I support the proposed amendments for the following reasons.
These long-contemplated amendments are vital and tabled none too soon. As we have read in the news, e-commerce and tech companies are looking to expand or invest in Singapore, using Singapore as a launchpad for expansion, not only into the ASEAN region but globally as well. Singapore has hereinafter taken steps to establish and position itself as a data hub. There is, therefore, no better time than the present to refine our data protection regulations as we continue in our race to lead in a data-driven economy.
We must recognise and seize these opportunities to ride the tech wave. Speaking also as the Assistant Secretary-General of NTUC, the creation of job opportunities and the sharpening of Singapore’s innovation capability, without question, would, and can only, be advantageous to our workers in this current economic climate. The refinement of our data protection framework and policies that support the growth of our digital economy is an essential element in our nation's overall blueprint for the future and for continued growth. With our infrastructure and links to the region and the world, we are in a good position to ride the tech wave and to continue tapping and building on our potential and strengths.
Furthermore, data protection laws are still in an early evolutionary stage globally. These proposed amendments seek to bring our data protection laws in greater alignment with the global standard. Indeed, our aspiration is not just to keep up with the data protection regulations like the GDPR. We have more than a fighting chance of becoming one of the leading authorities in data protection in the region and in the world.
At the same time, consumers are increasingly aware and concerned about the way their personal data is being collected, used and shared. They demand for convenience, speed, personalised user experience, flexibility and, at the same time, greater confidence and assurance in the way their personal data is safeguarded and used. I hope this set of changes will let consumers be assured in this respect. This is especially important, in light of the recent compromise of 1.1 million user accounts of RedMart, Lazada's online grocery store and other e-commerce platforms.
Firstly, the framework for the collection, use and disclosure of personal data will be updated to enable consent to be sought when meaningful and necessary. Where consent is not sought, safeguards will be put in place for organisations to be held accountable for their practices. For example, with the introduction of the notification with opt-out option, organisations will be able to obtain meaningful consent from consumers and use this data in new ways. However, organisations must first ascertain that there is no adverse effect on the individual before obtaining consent in this manner.
Even as businesses are given more scope to leverage data, consumers will still have flexibility and the ability to opt out if and when they so choose. Express consent will still be required for organisations to send direct marketing messages and updates to the Spam Control Act and Do Not Call or DNC provisions will allow consumers greater protection from unwanted communications across all direct communication platforms, that is, voice calls, SMSes, instant messaging and emails. At the same time, with the new Data Portability obligation, consumers no longer need to worry about being locked-in to a single service provider and can easily switch to new services.
For businesses concerned with the increase in the limits of financial penalties, I think there is no cause for alarm, as this is targeted towards irresponsible organisations in the most serious cases. Similarly, the introduction of new offences is only intended for individuals who egregiously mishandle personal data and not where employees are acting within the scope of their employment, or for data professionals, cybersecurity specialists, artificial intelligence engineers or researchers carrying out legitimate activities.
While I am supportive of the amendments to this Bill, I would be grateful if the Minister could address the following concerns.
First, the costs and investment in complying with the new data portability obligation may be significant. Will organisations, especially SMEs, receive any assistance in this regard? Can the Minister share how MCI or PDPC plans to help reduce the compliance burden on organisations?
Second, the proposed amendments seek to remove the exclusion for organisations acting on behalf of public agencies from compliance with the PDPA obligations. Can the Minister elaborate on the impact of this amendment and how organisations, acting as the data intermediaries of public agencies, can be accorded protection in the performance of their tasks? Can such organisations reasonably comply with their obligations under the PDPA, given that public agencies, that, the principal, are not subject to the provisions of the PDPA?
Third, the proposed criminal offences against individuals for the mishandling of personal data have been drafted rather widely. Would the Minister provide some guidance on when and how these provisions would apply?
Sir, clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, since we passed the Personal Data Protection Act in 2012, the Personal Data Protection Commission has been busy. It has investigated numerous data breaches and received a record-breaking 4,500 complaints last year. Data protection has become only more concerning and this Bill helps address those concerns.
I am heartened by the amendments requiring organisations to inform people who are affected by data breaches and to help people port their data to other services. These changes will help Singaporeans feel a greater sense of control over their data. Many will welcome these enhancements. That said, I have three points of clarification on this Bill.
My first point is on data breaches. The Bill introduces a requirement for organisations to notify the Commission and affected individuals in certain instances where there is a data breach. One instance is when the data breach results in, or is likely to result in, significant harm to an affected individual. I understand the Commission intends to prescribe classes of personal data considered likely to result in significant harm to individuals. Beyond this, can Minister clarify what other circumstances will be prescribed to help organisations assess whether a data breach may lead to “significant harm” to affected individuals under section 26B?
Further, can Minister clarify what standard the Commission will apply when it reviews an organisation’s assessment on whether a data breach is notifiable? An organisation may decide not to notify affected individuals of a data breach because they assess that there was no significant harm caused and the breach was not of a significant scale. If the Commissioner later disagrees with this assessment and reviews the organisation’s assessment, will the Commissioner do so by holding the organisation to the standard of a reasonable person? Can Minister also clarify whether the Commission will consider a good-faith, systematic assessment by an organisation as a mitigating factor in deciding whether and how much to penalise the organisation for failing to notify the Commission of a data breach?
My second point is on the definition of adverse effect. The Bill now allows organisations to avoid asking for consent in certain cases. In several cases, they have to assess whether their action will have an “adverse effect” on individuals. Under section 15A, organisations have to assess the extent of adverse effect to decide whether deemed consent by notification is sufficient consent. Under section 17, organisations have to weigh such adverse effects against the “legitimate interests” of the organisation or of other people.
Can Minister define what it means to impose an “adverse effect” on an individual and what are some examples of it? Such clarity is important because organisations will likely face practical challenges in identifying every possible adverse effect on an individual, and a wrong assessment may lead to harsher penalties for them.
In line with the Act’s shift to a risk-based accountability approach, I would also suggest applying a standard of reasonableness when determining whether organisations have fulfilled their obligations. In other words, they should be required to assess the “adverse effect” on an individual only to the standard of a reasonable person.
Finally, can Minister also clarify the intended differences between “significant harm” and “adverse effect” on individuals? It will help organisations comply with the new Act.
My third point is about data porting obligation. The Bill empowers individuals to make data porting requests. This means individuals can ask organisations to send their personal information to other organisations. Organisations can say no only under conditions outlined in the new Twelfth Schedule. Will the Commission be releasing guidelines and examples to help organisations understand whether each of the conditions applies to them? The guidelines should especially clarify three conditions.
First, these guidelines should clarify when the data would “reveal confidential commercial information” that could “harm the competitive position of the organisation”. I am sure many companies will be keen to cite this condition if they are asked to transfer data to a competitor.
Second, the guidelines should clarify when the data is “trivial”.
Third, the guidelines should clarify when the data porting request is “frivolous” or “vexatious”.
Data porting is a new concept to many organisations in Singapore. Organisations will benefit from greater clarity on what counts as trivial, frivolous or vexatious.
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. The Bill is a timely and necessary effort to strengthen personal data management. The pandemic has accelerated the need to go digital. This results in the sharing of personal data with businesses in exchange for their products and services. And unless the data is carefully protected, it will expose many people vulnerable to cybercrimes. According to a July CNBC report, large-scale data breaches have grown in intensity and frequency in 2020. The number of breaches rose by 273% in the first quarter, compared to the same period last year. This is largely attributed to more businesses being conducted online during the COVID period.
I appreciate the move to enhance the Do Not Call provisions. The popularity of instant messaging platforms like Whatsapp, Telegram and WeChat has surpassed that of SMSes. During lockdowns, these are the platforms that residents use to communicate with each other, especially between seniors and their families.
But many of these platforms have been abused to spread fake news, commit fraud and scams. They can even spread malicious links containing malware. We hear of scammers making phone calls supposedly representing MOH during this pandemic. Many seniors, including several from my constituency, have reported falling prey to scams and unsolicited advertisements. Many of these fraudulent messages are from overseas sources. And some phone numbers have been spoofed to conceal the perpetrator’s actual number. As such, it is impossible to report them to the authorities, or to block them on your handphone. May I ask how would the Ministry help to safeguard our citizens against these perpetrators? If not, what can be done to safeguard the interests of phone users?
Despite success in the reduction of unsolicited marketing messages from commercial companies, users are at greater risk of more sinister problems. These include scams via robo-calls and text messages from unlicensed moneylenders and online gambling. The frequency of such messages has increased. The culprits prey on the vulnerable. They also exploit the desperation of victims during this challenging period.
I met Mdm K, a young professional, at my Meet the People Session, or MPS, last week, who fell victim to an online scam and was swindled of her $100,000 life-savings. She got a message from an overseas company offering her an investment proposal that promised her 20% annual returns. She did some simple checks on the company. After some brief interactions over email, she decided to wire across the money to the company. She has not heard from the company since. She went to file a police report. If someone like Mdm K can fall for such a scam, other residents like seniors are at an even higher risk.
The Government’s amendments for the PDPA and Spam Control Act will only work on legitimate businesses. This case highlights that the Government today has no reach to those entities with criminal intent and especially those that originate overseas. As such, consumers will need to exercise caution. And this may be an area where technology can provide a solution. Email spam filters is a good example. It works well for emails. We should encourage our entrepreneurs to think of similar solutions for phone and SMS apps.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the higher compliance required of businesses on data protection also leads to higher business costs. Several businesses are new to e-commerce. Many invested a large sum of money to pivot their businesses. For them, there is still a steep learning curve to scale. They have to now deal with this new enhanced responsibility. Undoubtedly this would be an added burden on their operations and finances. They may then pass on the additional costs to the consumers. Can the Minister share how can Government help them to meet the new requirements without imposing too much on these businesses’ finances?
As regulations for companies to gain access and share data for innovation is relaxed, good data collection and protection practices will be increasingly pertinent. Big Data has been mostly lauded for its contribution to innovative product development and improved user experiences. But there are growing privacy concerns. Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica data scandal was a wake-up call.
As such, the Government must invest in creating a strong eco-system that protects our data. The efforts must be transparently communicated to consumers to retain their faith in the system. We must be more discerning of the types of information that can be collected and shared, with or without consent. For instance, it is a common marketing practice to entice consumers to sign up for a promotion or a freebie. They provide highly personal information in return. And consumers are required to mark a little box at the end of the form, giving consent to use the data for marketing purposes. It is well and easy to say, if you don’t feel comfortable handing over your information, you don’t have to. No one is forcing you to sign up. But these marketing techniques leverage a common human weakness. And this is the inclination to act on a good deal. And at that moment, sharing one’s personal information may seem of little consequence until a data breach happens. Many Members today have highighted the data breaches at Lazada and Eatigo, affecting millions of accounts. It is therefore critical, as part of measures to enhance data protection, that we do more to prevent the indiscriminate collection of highly personal data.
That said, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the use of consumer data to spur innovation. The development of more exciting, relevant products and services will open up new business opportunities and new markets. This also translates into jobs for Singaporeans.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to quote Bill Gates, “Power comes not from knowledge kept, but from knowledge shared”. In conclusion, I believe an enhanced eco-system of data sharing for spurring innovation will give rise to some powerful and exciting developments that are unique to Singapore. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the rapid advancements made in technology over the past decade has drastically changed our digital landscape as well as our economy. The pandemic has also highlighted the critical need for digitalisation at the personal, as well as organisational level. We have done well to keep abreast with this development.
However, if Singapore wants to keep its leading position in the international digital economy, we must recognise the key role that data privacy plays in the digital economy.
Currently, knowingly or unknowingly, personal data is already being shared and traded. When consumers share personal data, there must be robust safeguards to protect their privacy so that we can increase trust and level of participation by one and all in the digital economy.
We must at the same time be mindful that as an innovation hub, businesses and organisations must be able to harness data confidently in their search for creative solutions and ways to improve consumers’ experiences, products and services.
In order to enhance the protection of consumer data, we must support increased accountability by organisations and businesses. There was no legal requirement or compulsion to inform the consumer of information breaches. To use the recent Lazada data breach of 1.1 million users and the Eatigo data breach of 2.8 million users as an example, we have a sense of how massive and widespread such breaches can be. Lazada has been forthcoming in this instance and had actively monitored their data security systems, while Eatigo was able to detect the breach after it’s users’ data was put on sale online.
This should convince us that we cannot leave consumer data security to chance, hoping that businesses and organisations will act in an ethical manner whenever information breaches happen. With the amendments, when there is a breach of significant scale or may cause harm to the individual, there is a framework for these businesses and organisations to assess if both the Commission and the individuals concerned must be informed. This strengthens the confidence of consumers in the organisation’s ability to protect their privacy.
Consequently, affected parties can take simple measures like changing their passwords to afford immediate protection to their data. However, we all agree that any data breach is unacceptable and as such, stiff financial penalties is needed to deter poor handling of data security.
Data portability would benefit both consumers and businesses. Ease and security of data portability provides consumer autonomy over their personal data, and plausibly, increase the consumer participation rate in the digital economy. At the same time, it can provide access to data for businesses to better serve their customers’ needs or to provide innovative solutions for their clients.
However, how do we prevent companies from exploiting this ease of portability to manipulate customers and shape their behaviour? How can we protect consumers from exploitative and manipulative marketing techniques once businesses get a hold of consumer data? Do less tech-savvy customers, such as our senior citizens and other vulnerable groups understand the implications when they consent to port their data over? At which point does using portable data for highly personalised service becomes exploitation for profit-making purposes, especially if it is used to exploit an individual's pre-existing condition such as compulsive buying disorder? What if a customer just wants part of his data to be ported? These are important questions we need to answer to assure the public that their privacy is protected.
To illustrate these concerns, take for example a vulnerable consumer giving consent or is perceived to have provided deemed consent to an e-commerce site to port his data. The e-commerce vendor proceeds to use it and may even proliferate the data indiscriminately, and he falls prey to questionable marketing techniques. How do we protect the vulnerable who are less digitally savvy?
I think we can all agree that spam marketing messages in the form of voice calls, text and fax messages are a nuisance and not to mention highly intrusive. Thus, I am supportive of such Do Not Call provisions or DNC under the PDPA. The DNC already prohibits businesses and organisations from sending Instant Messages or IMs, SMS and so on, to Singapore-based telephone numbers which have been registered with the DNC registry.
However, considering that the digital economy is global in nature and is not bounded by the jurisdiction of nation-state borders, how do we enforce these DNC provisions to overseas companies? Are there even ways to minimise the ability of overseas businesses from spamming our consumers? Conversely, how do we ensure that Singapore registered businesses and organisations handle their data ethically when they port them over to overseas vendors and partners? What safeguards do we have to ensure that the data is not proliferated and subsequently manipulated for commercial gains from overseas?
Increasingly, there is the necessity in providing disclosure of personal and even organisational data by a business to its partners or contractors in order to assess and review contractual performance. This may result in multiple layers of outsourcing. Businesses and organisations can then use this disclosed data for their own purposes. However, when businesses and organisations require such data, there should be pre-arranged stipulations such that there is either a time-bound or scope-bound condition in order for the disclosed data to not be traded or sold to other organisations. This would go towards making data disclosure more secure and again, increase participation in the digital economy. It also avoids the situation where disclosed data is knowingly or unknowingly used by other organisations for their own purposes other than that which was agreed upon by the initial contractual obligation.
In addition, if a Singapore-based company then discloses data to its overseas vendors, how do we then ensure that the overseas vendor do not use the data beyond the scope of the original intent, especially when we are then unable to hold them accountable?
In conclusion, with the amendments, we are arguably in a much better off position than we were previously. There is a measure of increased protection for the consumers, as well as more punitive consequences for businesses and organisations who have not taken adequate safety precautions when using data that is made available to them.
To enhance the amendments to the Bill further, I propose considering the following.
One, more must be done to educate the vulnerable so they are aware of what they are consenting to. This would help ensure that all are protected and not unfairly taken advantage of.
Two, guidelines are also to be drawn up to help ensure the ethical use of data. These guidelines should be based on ethical considerations and not on commercial or profit interests of businesses and organisations.
Three, digital literacy programmes for youths should include the awareness of personal data protection, as well as ethical considerations. Our youths are entering a world where the digital landscape is ever evolving. We will have to depend on them to define how data is being used ethically.
Four, potentially, an accreditation system can be used, to give consumers some assurance that their data is secure when dealing with companies that meet, or even surpass, standards, and also to forewarn them to exercise caution when dealing with companies that do not meet these stipulated standards.
And finally, fifth in the absence of the possibility for enforcement, we need to explore ways to protect consumer data from being used or proliferated by foreign companies and businesses.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I continue my speech in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] With this amendment, we are protecting consumer data security in addition to ensuring that businesses and organisations act more responsibly when using data. This amendment will hopefully increase consumer trust and level of participation in the ever-evolving digital economy. There are measures to increase protection for the consumers as well as more punitive consequences for businesses and organisations who have not taken adequate safety precautions when using the data that is made available to them. However, I would like to suggest the following.
First, we must enhance awareness and educate those who are less digitally capable within our community so that they can be aware of what they are consenting to. This will help ensure that they are protected against those who try to take advantage of them.
Second, guidelines must also be drawn up to help ensure ethical use of data by businesses and organisations.
Third, we also need to educate our youths with literacy programmes that include awareness of personal data protection as well as ethical considerations in a digital economy. Our youths are entering a world where the digital landscape is constantly evolving. They must be strengthened with positive values. We have to depend on them to define how data is used ethically in the future.
Finally, we must also have an accreditation system to give assurance to consumers that their data is safe when they transact with companies that meet the standards, as well as forewarn them to exercise caution when dealing with companies that do not meet the stipulated standards.
Given that Singapore is at the forefront of data privacy laws, especially in this region, we need to have a level playing field between Singapore companies and foreign companies. We should not stifle innovation too much but we must do our best to protect consumers from manipulative and exploitative practices. We must give consumers the choice and control over their personal data and how it is used.
As consumers and business owners, we must bear the responsibility and further strengthen our understanding of data usage and data privacy, and we must continue to use data to drive innovation in order to transform our economy.
(In English): In summary, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, given that Singapore is at the forefront on data privacy laws especially in our immediate region, we need a level playing field between Singapore companies and foreign companies. We cannot be overly restrictive but we must still do our utmost to protect our consumers from intrusive, manipulative and exploitative practices. We need to give consumers the choice and control over their personal data and how it is used. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to strengthen the accountability of organisations when handling and protecting personal data and to provide individuals with greater autonomy over their personal data.
Mr Deputy Speaker, despite the introduction of the PDPA in 2012 some eight years ago, we continue to see worrying lapses and breaches of personal data by commercial entities. Recent examples include: (a) a data breach by Grab, where the details of over 21,000 GrabHitch drivers and passengers were leaked due to an update of the mobile app; (b) a marketing email sent out by electronics retailer, Courts unwittingly exposed the personal data of over 76,000 customers, and (c) even the Central Depository, whose staff had mailed dividend cheques to outdated addresses, putting at risk the personal data of over 200 account holders.
Given the potential severity of these continued breaches, I am supportive of the Bill's proposed increase in financial penalties, from the current cap of $1 million to 10% of the organisation's gross annual turnover. Creating a strict data protection regime and strengthening our enforcement will also be vital in boosting Singapore's position as the region's premier data hub.
However, going back to the data breach by Grab that I mentioned earlier, I note that this was Grab's fourth instance in two years, where the company was in breach of the PDPA, and in this latest case, the company was given a fine of $10,000. Some would see this as a small amount for such a large company. I would like to ask what was the largest penalty that the PDPC had imposed on an organisation for a data breach under the current regime. I would also like to know if the PDPC intends to punish repeat offenders more severely, as repeated offences simply go to show that the organisation has not implemented the necessary safeguards to properly protect personal data, despite previous reported lapses.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am also supportive of the Bill's proposal to further tighten the rules around telemarketing and unsolicited spam calls and text messages. Many residents have told me that they continue to receive spam calls and text messages related to online gambling and unlicensed moneylending, despite having registered their phone numbers in the Do-Not-Call or DNC registry. This makes them question what was the point of registering their numbers in the DNC registry in the first place. I therefore support the proposed enhancements to the Spam Control Act 2007 and the DNC provisions, which will serve to provide consumers with more protection from unwanted communications across various platforms.
Despite the enhancements, we need to recognise that many spam text messages and calls originate from scammers or unlicensed moneylenders based overseas. I hope that the Ministry could work with our telcos to explore the use of technology to prevent such unsolicited messages, which often contain malware links, as well as spam robo-calls.
In the United States, their mobile and broadband providers have worked with the government to create a new protocol called STIR/SHAKEN, which provides a secure mechanism for service providers to cryptographically sign and verify the Caller ID for calls made over the Internet. This has seemingly helped to combat Caller ID spoofing. Could the Ministry explore implementing similar technology here?
Mr Deputy Speaker, as we debate about the importance of securing the personal data by organisations, the reality is that individuals too have a part to play in ensuring that their personal data is safeguarded. Consumers need to be personal-data-literate and understand what they are consenting to when they tick off the checkboxes under a company's User Agreement. Often, many consumers do not fully read the terms and conditions, as they are written in small font sizes and clauses are often hidden behind many technical jargons. Hence, many simply just check the accept button, not knowing that they would then unwittingly give up their personal data, sometimes in perpetuity, to these commercial entities. We therefore need to educate consumers about personal data literacy, even as the PDPC works to ensure that businesses safeguard data responsibly.
I would also like to urge the PDPC to publish guidelines on how companies should highlight their key User Agreement terms and conditions in a simple and upfront manner, preferably in large font size, and make clear to consumers about the categories of personal data that these companies will collect and how they intend to use them.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, while I am generally supportive of the Bill's proposed amendments, I am, however, concerned about the timing of Bill and its impact to businesses. The proposed amendments to the PDPA are significant and it is likely that many organisations will incur additional costs in adapting to these new regulations. For example, companies will have to undertake an extensive review of their data protection procedures to ensure that they meet the Bill's expanded scope of \"deemed consent\", as well as ensure that their current systems are able to comply with the new data portability obligation.
Many businesses are already reeling from the impact of COVID-19 and they are worried about the cost of adhering to the revised regime. To alleviate these concerns, will the Ministry consider providing some form of assistance to these organisations, especially our SMEs or consider perhaps a grace period for the new regulations, so that companies have a longer runway to plan for their organisation's compliance to the latest PDPA rules?
Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposed amendments to the PDPA are timely as we seek to transform our economy for the post-COVID-19 future. However, I do think that we need to mete out more deterrent penalties to organisations that continually fail to safeguard the personal data of consumers, as having a stringent data protection policy is important to further strengthen Singapore's position as the region's leading data hub. We also need to focus on educating Singaporeans about personal data literacy, as more organisations seek to collect and monetise our personal data. With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. Personal data protection is essential for today's increasingly data-driven economy to function effectively. Without adequate safeguards regulating the usage and protection of data, consumers' confidence can be eroded, making it difficult for legitimate companies and entities to operate optimally. Like what the hon Mr Sharael Taha had said, Lazada's recent data breach affecting 1.1 million users or approximately one-fifth the population of Singapore is a timely reminder.
The amendments bring Singapore's data protection regime a step closer to the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR. The latter has been internationally regarded as the gold standard for the protection of consumer data.
Notwithstanding the expanded responsibility of organisations under the amendments, I am glad to know that many of the businesses consulted welcome the amendments. This demonstrates their cognisance of the value of a robust data privacy regime, especially with the rise of malicious cyber-actors.
I believe that the amendments have tried to carefully balance the interests of both consumers and businesses. Individuals will have greater control over their data with, for example, the new data portability obligation and the tighter rules on telemarketing with the enhanced DNC provisions. Furthermore, the strengthened penalty regime under the amendments will drive an appropriate investment by companies into data protection and compliance efforts. At the same time, sufficient flexibility is provided through the exceptions to consent provisions to meet commercial needs.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I seek a few clarifications and will make a few suggestions on the amendments for the Ministry's consideration.
Firstly, I seek clarification on the legitimate interest exception to consent. Per Part 3, section 1(2)(a), the legitimate interest is viewed from an organisation's perspective. This inadvertently encompasses a subjective determination on the part of the organisation in assessing whether their legitimate interests outweigh potential adverse effects on an individual. While section 2 to 10 provides some circumstances whereby the collection, use or disclosure of personal data is necessary, these circumstances may be limited in scope, except for section 2 where the meaning of \"evaluative purposes\" is seemingly ambiguous. As such, I seek the Ministry's direction to provide guidance on what constitutes \"evaluative purposes\".
Furthermore, to minimise disputes, perhaps the Ministry may consider looking into prescribing broader, objective guidelines on what constitutes legitimate interests to firstly, ensure greater ease of compliance for organisations who seek to rely on this exception and secondly, enhance consumers' understanding of their rights. Lastly, considering that the collection, usage and disclosure of personal data are central to the business models of data collection and survey companies, I would like to clarify with the Ministry if the availability of this exception should similarly apply to such companies.
My second clarification relates to the new Data Portability Obligation. This is a important advancement in Singapore's data privacy regime, allowing individuals to regain more control over their data. However, my concern with this obligation lies within its potential impact on businesses costs and operations. Some businesses consulted have cited significant compliance costs, efforts and manpower requirements in meeting these new regulations. This includes tailoring current processes for larger businesses and the construction of new technological structures for smaller businesses. With the global economy experiencing a hard hit from the COVID-19 pandemic, many SMEs are already struggling to stay afloat. In light of this, I have three suggestions to make.
Firstly, could the Ministry consider a transitionary period in relation to the data portability obligation especially for the SMEs? This would help businesses to tide through the COVID-19 crisis and provide an appropriate duration of time to comply with this new obligation.
Secondly, I am concerned about the hardship SMEs and smaller businesses may face in adhering to this obligation. Could the Government support SMEs in setting up basic technological structures to do so? Perhaps the Government can work with unions and trade associations or TACs, for these support platforms to help smaller businesses comply with the new obligations imposed. The unions and TACs can also update businesses, train them, especially SMEs, on the revised amendments. NTUC’s Learning Hub currently conducts data-protection related courses and the scope of courses can be expanded to complement the amendments made to the Act.
In addition, section 26H affords consumers the avenue to apply to the Commission to review a porting organisation’s failure to transmit the applicable data within a reasonable period of time. Instead of a subjective measure of time, could the Ministry prescribe a stipulated duration of time to fulfil the porting request, with the subjectively determined \"reasonable time\" only applying in situations where businesses require more than the stipulated time to do so? This would better help businesses and consumers manage their duties and expectations respectively, reducing unmeritorious complaints to the Commission.
My third point of clarification relates to the increased financial penalties under the amendments. The maximum financial penalty that can be meted out is a fine amounting to 10% of the defaulting organisation’s annual turnover in Singapore. For comparison, the contravention of Personal Data Laws in Hong Kong attracts a maximum financial penalty of HKD$1 million; in Malaysiam it is RM$300,000 and in the Philippines, it is PHP$5 million.
The worry, which has been similarly reflected during the public consultation, is that the maximum fine that can be imposed might be too large compared to worldwide standards, especially in Asia. Could this disadvantage Singapore as an offshore destination, where MNCs might choose other Asian countries over ours to set up operations? While the penalty imposed on a contravening organisation will vary naturally according to the facts, this might artificially create the impression that the financial penalties under Singapore’s data privacy regime are much harsher compared to those of its neighbours. In light of this, can the Ministry reconsider the maximum financial penalty that it is imposing on defaulting organisations to better align with the standards in neighbouring Asian jurisdictions or competing economies?
Lastly, I propose an explicit recognition of the right for individuals to the erasure of their personal data, for the consideration of the Ministry. The right to erasure is recognised in other jurisdictions, such as the EU’s GDPR. Article 17 of the GDPR affords individuals the right to obtain from data controllers the erasure of personal data and the obligation on controllers to erase the concerned data without undue delay under certain circumstances. For example, where the personal data is no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or otherwise processed.
Similarly, under section 25 of the PDPA, the retention limit obligation is imposed on organisations. Under this, organisations shall cease to retain personal data where the purpose for which that data was collected for is no longer served by the retention of personal data and where the retention is no longer necessary for legal or business right.
This obligation seems to complement an individual’s right to withdraw consent in section 16. However, while consumers can withdraw consent of the use, collection and disclosure of their data, with organisations thereafter obligated to cease to do so, this does not squarely extend to the right of consumers to direct organisations to erase their data. In furtherance of the amendments’ overall objectives, the imposition of this provision assigning an individual the explicit right of erasure is arguably another step ahead to afford greater autonomy to individuals over their personal data. The viability of such a provision is, of course, subject to the further perusal of the Ministry, especially with regard to under what circumstances may such a right be circumscribed or exercised.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions, I reiterate my support for the Bill. I am confident that by passing the Bill, the House would be taking a big step ahead in priming Singapore in our shift to a data-driven economy.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary.
The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Gerald Giam has brought up several matters associated with the public sector governance of data and data privacy, data security. I thought I might deal with some of them although they are not directly connected with the Personal Data Protection (Amendment) Bill which we are debating today.
There are some matters of confusion, conflation and, perhaps, a misunderstanding, and I hope I can bring some clarity and understanding to the debate.
The first point I would like to clarify is Mr Giam's assertion that somehow the Government believes that the standards for Government need to be lower than for the private sector. We completely disagree. We believe the standards for the Government should be as high, if not, higher than for the private sector. That is why, several years ago, when there was a Government data security policy in IM8 and there was not something for the private sector, we enacted the PDPA to improve standards for the private sector.
Mr Giam also suggests that, perhaps, we should treat Government and treat businesses the same way, that the same tools and the same behaviours would either be useful or expected in the private realm and the public sector. This is not so. We expect Government to behave as one service, servicing residents, servicing our citizens, servicing our country as one entity. We expect the private sector to behave as individual entities and there needs to be an appropriate separation and gap in data sharing between private entities.
We have, in Mr Giam's assertions, another confusion. He talked at the beginning of a high compliance burden for public sector officers and then asked later on whether the standards are high enough. The high compliance burden is precisely because the standards are high and, perhaps, more burdensome than for the private sector. Nevertheless, there is internal coherence despite the many different Acts and rules and laws that he cited, which are correct.
Internally, within the Government, the data security and data privacy space is looked after by the Government Data Office, a single point of contact. There is internal coherence, so that we can operate as one Government. Externally, for members of the public that are concerned about their data security, they also have one point of contact – the Government Data Security Contact Centre or GDSCC. That was established and launched publicly on 30 April this year. Members of the public can contact that single point of contact if they are concerned. But if they contact any other arm or organisation within Government, we have our Government working as one through a No Wrong Door policy. And that is enabled precisely because there is sharing of data across Government.
Nevertheless, whoever they contact, they will be referred to the Government Data Office and GovTech to handle the matter.
On the issue of our Government data policy lacking transparency – Mr Giam referred to it; it is IM8 – the Government's personal data policies were published on 30 April this year. It is available on the Smart Nation website and it is there for scrutiny and for examination. And we can debate and discuss this further if he wishes.
Another point of conflation and confusion that I would like to clarify, the monetary fines that are in the PDPA are fines; they are not redress to the individual. They are fines imposed by the regulator on the private sector entity. There is no specific provision for compensation to the individual as a result. The individual would need to pursue legal action if they were looking for compensation.
Mr Giam suggested that there needed to be some corollary of compensation within the public sector for these fines that the PDPA imposes, should there be a data breach. I just want to be clear that the fines are fines from the regulator and if in the private domain, an individual wishes to pursue compensation, they would have to take legal action in order to do so.
For the Government, there is no special provision or exception or protection for the conduct of the Government or Government officers with respect to data; there is no special carve-out there.
So, let me be clear. The PDPA and the PSGA – the IM8 provisions that Mr Giam referred to – are aligned in terms of standards, the expected behaviour of the officers and entities. And they are aligned where there is a single point for people to complain: the PDPC versus the GDSCC. There is an option for individuals to pursue mediation and an option for individuals to pursue action for compensation.
One of the key other points of confusion I want to address is this idea that the PDPA is equivalent to the PSGA or the Public Sector (Governance) Act, when taken together with a whole series of other laws such as the Official Secrets Act, the Income Tax Act, the Statistics Act. This is not so.
The controls are equivalent between the PDPA and the PSGA. These other laws are then on top of the PSGA, governing and controlling behaviour within specific domains. They also apply to the private sector; for example, the Income Tax Act will apply to certain private sector entities as well. So, the equivalence is between the PSGA and the PDPA.
The key issue is then how do we want Government to behave and how do we want our private sector entities to behave. What we want within Government is for sharing of data to achieve that No Wrong Door, One Government responsiveness to citizens, for policy, for execution and implementation as well as for communications. For that, we need to encourage sharing of data. And because Government has roles that do not exist in the private sector, there are additional controls, because of the additional sensitive data that Government has access to. And hence we take this very, very seriously. How seriously do we take it? We prosecute and I give you three examples.
In April this year, we had a civil servant arrested as a result of leaking COVID-19 case numbers, for accessing a Government COVID-19 database without authorisation to retrieve confidential records and giving that information to a friend. This person was arrested as a result.
Another example also in April. A public servant and her husband arrested for wrongful communication of information, which was about the implementation of home-based learning by schools.
And in December 2017, an HDB officer was fined $2,000 for giving confidential information on HDB resale transaction time and changes to the valuation process to a Straits Times journalist.
We take this very, very seriously and the public sector officers who handle our data, on behalf of our citizens, know that we take this very, very seriously.
The separation of the public and private sector data protection regimes in Singapore remains relevant. It remains necessary for us to keep achieving the outcomes that we want to achieve in terms of good policy, responsiveness to citizens, operating as One Government. It has to be used in a way that drives trust and helps us be effective in maintaining that trust with our citizens.
Nevertheless, we always review these provisions. As we are reviewing the PDPA today, we will regularly review the PSGA as well as other legislation to ensure that they remain relevant and effective in safeguarding personal data for both the public and private sectors.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam, you have a clarification?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to clarify with the Senior Minister of State that I did not say that the standards for Government should not be higher. In fact, I agree with the Senior Minister of State that the Government standards should be the same or higher than what it expects of the private sector.
In fact, I support the No Wrong Door policy. With regard to data sharing between agencies, I think that is a good thing and it is important for the convenience for our residents. But this provision can also be made within the PDPA, so that Government agencies are allowed to share data between each other. So, why can the myriad of legislation not be brought under the PDPA, so that Singaporeans, public sector officers, will be able to know that there is this harmonised set of data privacy standards that they should all comply with and that they are held to the same standard?
Now, let me first clarify again that I am not saying that currently the Government is operating at a lower standard. Like I said in my speech, in my experience as a civil servant and my experience working as a government vendor in the past, the standards are very high. So, why can these all not be harmonised under one law, just like how they do it in the GDPR for Europe?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, Senior Minister of State Dr Janil, would you like to respond?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am glad that Mr Giam agrees largely with us. The issue then is what outcome would he achieve or would we achieve merely by putting it all under one legislation?
I doubt very much there is any confusion among the civil servants about the standards that are expected of them simply because we have two legislative frameworks. The issue is whether or not the outcomes in terms of the number of data breaches, the security that we have in our systems and the trust that our citizens have in our processes would be assisted by his approach, provided he continues to agree that we are effective at maintaining very high standards within the Government. The outcomes demonstrate that we are not doing too badly in our public sector.
The PDPC reports hacks and data breaches. I do not have all the numbers but I was looking at their website. For example, in 2018, in the private sector in Singapore, there were about 13 incidents of exfiltration of data through hacking and in 2019, it was 16 incidents. This is in the private sector. In comparison, in the public sector, we had three in 2018 and zero in 2019.
While hacking is not the only type of breach, we can also have, for example, an accidental loss, that is, inadvertent data breaches. On PDPC's website, in 2018, there were 2,700 instances in the private sector and 4,500 in 2019. I do not have the exact number, but I know it is at least one if not two orders of magnitude lower for the public sector. We do review them and we can happily get those numbers to Mr Gerald Giam and Members of this House. But it demonstrates that our system is not ineffective. People know that we have a robust protection regime as he has repeatedly said, that is, our citizens trust us to do the right thing and we must uphold those standards and have these high expectations of our public sector officers.
We are not alone in this world. There are other jurisdictions in countries, cities and states where they have different legislative frameworks for Government versus the private sector. It is not inherently a weakness. The issue is how you design both of those and whether you make it work for these outcomes. And let me say, categorically, the two are aligned to the same expectations and standards and we will refine them as needed to make sure that that is the case.
However, we believe that we need these two approaches because Government is not a private company nor should it behave as such and you cannot expect a private company to behave like Government. Mr Gerald Giam goes on about the burdens that he felt as a civil servant. If the private SMEs had to comply with all the regulations that he had to struggle with as a civil servant, they would not be able to do business in quite the same way and perhaps innovation and the ease of customer relations, the ease of coming up with new products would be impeded.
So, there is a difference in behaviour at the entity level and there is a difference of behaviour at an individual level. And so, we have to have the right tools to influence behaviour correctly on behalf of our citizens. That does not mean that we reduce our standards in any way and we have not done so.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister S Iswaran.
Mr S Iswaran: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Let me start by thanking all 13 Members who have spoken and for their support for this Bill. To be precise, actually, 11 Members have given explicit support and Mr Leon Perera and Mr Louis Chua, I am assuming, I have their deemed consent since I do not think that there is adverse effect on any individual. I also want to thank them for raising important issues this Bill seeks to address. And I think the comments of Members fall broadly into a few areas about: protecting consumers' personal data, endowing consumers with more control and a greater sense of autonomy and confidence while supporting organisations' legitimate use; and supporting businesses in the use of data for growth and innovation.
I think in the comments that have been made by Members, it is clear that we all appreciate and recognise that there is an inherent tension between these objectives, and the proposed amendments seek to strike a judicious balance between them.
In thinking about these issues and I do propose to address the specific questions raised by Members, it is important that we first recognise that this is a delicate and dynamic balance. It is delicate because if we over-correct in one direction, consumers may not retain their confidence and trust in the system. If we swing the other way, then we shackle our businesses and the very benefits that we seek for our consumers and for our economy will diminish. It is dynamic because technology is changing and the ways data is being generated and being put to use are also changing. And therefore, it is imperative that we find our own balance in the way we regulate the collection and use of data in Singapore.
And there are different jurisdictions with different models. GDPR has been cited by several Members. There is also the APEC CBPR. I do not think any one of these is universally acclaimed because each has its strengths and its weaknesses. And that is why, in this endeavour of moving this legislative amendment, we have sought to understand the different regimes and to ensure that Singapore is able to remain best-in-class and also ensure that we are nimble and remain interoperable, which is key to our positioning as a node in the international flow of data and digital transactions.
And that leads me to the second overall point I want to make, which is we must recognise that whilst legislation and regulation is important, it is not a panacea and neither is it foolproof. And therefore, what it means is whilst we can put in place rules that will govern the data practices and ensure that data is safeguarded to the best of our ability, we cannot eliminate the risk of data breaches.
So, it is important that we recognise that whilst the rules must be formulated and enforced, it must be complemented by good practices and that has to evolve over time so that we understand, as an overall economic system and as a society, our respective responsibilities and roles.
And that brings me to my third overarching point, which is that it is essential that we recognise all of us have a role to play and a responsibility to discharge in maintaining the security and the usability of our data regime and, in a sense, safeguarding the public commons.
So, Government formulates the rules and regulations, enforces, provides guidelines and adapts to changing market situations to ensure that we remain abreast, to the best of our ability, of the developments and ensure that we keep Singapore relevant in the context of a new digital economy.
Businesses must recognise that this is in their self-interest. It is not just about complying with rules or regulations. At the end of the day, in any competitive domain, businesses will be able to differentiate themselves by their data policy and they will be able to signal the quality of the institution by the kind of approaches they take to safeguard their customers' data. So, they must be accountable and responsible, recognising ultimately that it is in their self-interest.
And finally, individuals. I think all of us have the responsibility. Whilst some Members have talked about the so-called power asymmetry, ultimately, I would argue that consumers – individuals like you and me – we are not powerless by any stretch of the imagination. We can choose to decide whom to do business with or whom to give our custom. We can choose to decide what data we want to share. We can choose to decide whether we want to give consent and when we want to withdraw that consent. And, ultimately, we can decide when to sever the relationship if that is what we want.
So, I think we should not lose sight of that aspect as well. Ultimately, the legislation must be seen in that perspective. It is one part of an overall architecture that will ensure a vibrant digital economy, but also one where data is respected, it is safeguarded, but also used for appropriate purposes.
Let me now turn to some of the specific questions that have been raised by Members.
First, on protecting consumers and the data. I think it is important to emphasise PDPA recognises organisations' need to use personal data for legitimate purposes. And today, that is accommodated through exceptions to the consent requirement, or as deemed consent. For all other purposes, organisations have to obtain consent from the individual.
Current exceptions to consent cater for scenarios such as investigations and responding to emergencies. We are updating this list by adding business improvement and legitimate interests and updating the research exception for the benefit of consumers and organisations in the digital economy.
The Bill is also clarifying the deemed consent provision to cover multiple layers of subcontracting when needed to fulfil a contract and to facilitate organisations notifying customers and giving a reasonable period to opt out, before they use data for new purposes. And I would like to reinforce this point and a point that Ms Jessica Tan had also picked up, that ultimately, consumers can opt out at any time and they have the freedom to do so.
I want to assure Mr Desmond Choo that all private sector organisations can rely on these new provisions, regardless of the industry they are in. It is meant to apply uniformly.
And on the whole, the amendments regularise current practices, provide organisations with clarity and confidence to use data, while protecting consumers' interests. As Mr Yip Hon Weng has noted, this will also enhance Singapore's status as an innovation and commercial hub.
Some Members have asked about the safeguards for the new provisions. Stricter process safeguards are prescribed for the general legitimate interests exception and deemed consent by notification, while specific exceptions, such as business improvement and research, are tightly scoped. The safeguards have been designed based on the following principles.
Before relying on the legitimate interests exception, organisations have to conduct a risk assessment and be satisfied that the overall benefit outweighs any residual adverse effect to an individual. And before relying on deemed consent by notification, organisations must conduct a risk assessment to be sure that there is not likely to be any adverse effect on an individual. Individuals may withdraw their consent even after the opt-out period. The PDPC may also require organisations to produce these assessments for its review. Some Members have asked how these provisions might be operationalised. The PDPC has provided guidance on how to conduct risk assessments. It will also issue detailed guidance on the legitimate interests exception and how to identify adverse effect, which generally refers to any physical harm, harassment, serious alarm or distress to an individual.
Exceptions for specific purposes, such as business improvement and research purposes, are tightly scoped. For example, the business improvement exception supports internal use of data within an organisation or a group of companies, with clearly defined limits. And when it comes to sending direct marketing messages, organisations still need to obtain express consent. Mr Sharael Taha enquired about the safeguards for deemed consent by contractual necessity. Essentially, organisations can rely on this provision to share personal data only to the extent necessary to perform their contracts with the individual. So, that is the test.
Mr Desmond Choo asked about the “evaluative purposes\". This is actually an existing exception in the PDPA which has now been reclassified under the “legitimate interests exception”.
There has been another set of queries about how we can ensure or have confidence that organisations can be trusted to use personal data in good faith. I think this is an important point. I would start by saying firstly, we must recognise, more importantly, organisations must recognise that it is in their self-interest to safeguard personal data as that would foster consumer trust, strengthen their business reputation, and ultimately, their competitiveness and bottom line.
To support that and to ensure organisations take their obligations to protect data seriously, we are introducing both incentives and penalties – carrots and sticks, if you will. The PDPC will issue new advisory guidelines with examples and illustrations, so that organisations have ample notice of the expected standard of conduct.
As data breaches cannot always be prevented, the PDPC’s enforcement framework reinforces the importance of dealing expeditiously with data breaches to reduce harm, through measures like breach reporting and statutory undertakings.
Last year, PDPC investigated 185 cases, issued 58 decisions and ordered 39 organisations to pay a total of $1.7 million in financial penalties and that includes the highest financial penalty sums the PDPC imposed in 2019, which were $750,000 and $250,000 on IHiS and SingHealth respctively.
The Bill enhances PDPC’s investigation powers and raises the financial penalty cap, to improve the effectiveness of PDPC’s enforcement.
We are also creating market incentives, which can motivate organisations to practise high standards of data protection.
I agree fully with Mr Sharael Taha on the value of certification systems and that is why PDPC launched the Data Protection Trust Mark or DPTM in 2019, to make it easier for consumers to recognise organisations with accountable practices and create the demand for good practices along the entire supply and delivery chain. Organisations with the trust mark require their suppliers and contractors to also adhere to the same standards. It has a very beneficial ripple effect. There are signs, based on PDPC’s Perception and Awareness Study, that this is having a positive impact on the industry.
For secure exchanges of personal data with overseas entities, transferring organisations must put in place contractual arrangements or binding corporate rules, to ensure that receiving organisations provide a level of protection comparable to PDPA. Apart from contractual transfer mechanisms, the PDPC joined the APEC Cross Border Privacy Rules, or CBPR, and Privacy Rules for Processors systems. These are multilateral certifications which require participating businesses to implement data protection policies consistent with the APEC Privacy Framework.
Consumers also have a crucial role in safeguarding themselves. I think this is a point that I made earlier, and Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Melvin Yong have reinforced that.
That is why on the part of PDPC, it has reached out to almost 70,000 individuals, including youths, through school talks, exhibitions, community roadshows and events. I am also heartened that these efforts have yielded promising results with consumer awareness of the PDPA and PDPC increasing.
Mr Desmond Choo has proposed that a right of erasure be explicitly recognised. I believe Mr Louis Chua was also referring to this. Currently, section 16 of the PDPA provides for individuals to withdraw their consent at any time and the organisation would have to cease the collection, use or disclosure of the personal data unless otherwise required or authorised under any legislation. In addition, the PDPC can also direct an organisation to destroy personal data collected in contravention of the Act. So, we have the provisions. Whilst they are not identical to the right of erasure, I think they give a substantively similar effect.
On unsolicited messages, Mr Melvin Yong asked about our efforts to address spams and scams. In 2019, the PDPC received 2,255 complaints on unsolicited calls and text messages, and has taken action against 427 organisations. These actions range from issuing advisory notices and warnings, to prosecution in Court. The proposed amendments to the PDPA and Spam Control Act establish clear guardrails for sending unsolicited commercial messages, to safeguard consumer interests while permitting legitimate direct marketing.
Ms Tin Pei Ling and others have asked about the change in enforcement regime for DNC complaints – why we moved towards a civil administrative regime. The answer is that the assessment we had is that this would allow for a more efficacious enforcement. DNC infringements typically stem from commercial motives. Hence, directions and financial penalties are more effective in addressing poor practices by depriving offenders of the financial or commercial gains that they seek. So, it is not a step down. I think it is a more effective way of dealing with this problem.
To Ms Joan Pereira’s and Mr Sharael Taha’s queries, our response to spam that originates overseas will continue to be multi-pronged, comprising a mix of public education, industry self-regulation and international collaboration.
Scams, on the other hand – the letter makes all the difference; scams versus spams – scams are serious crimes and they are dealt with by the Police. They are enforced under laws like the Moneylenders Act for unlicensed moneylending; and Penal Code, for example, for cheating offences.
For transnational scams, the Police collaborates closely with foreign law enforcement agencies to investigate and, where possible, cripple these syndicates. MCI is part of the Inter-Ministry Committee on Scams formed by MHA to combat scam messages and calls. As many of these scams originate overseas, we have to rely more heavily on technological solutions, as Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Melvin Yong have noted. For example, IMDA has required all telcos to implement the \"+\" prefix for all incoming overseas calls since April this year to help consumers better identify and reject spoof calls. Telcos are also blocking international incoming calls that resemble our Government agency or emergency numbers. So, these are efforts to help consumers discern and avoid being duped.
I would urge consumers to carefully look at the numbers when they receive calls from overseas because I think this is one way. We cannot prevent these calls from coming in but we can put up red flags, and this \"+\" sign and some of these other measures are for that purpose. We will continue to support the Police in their efforts to tackle scams and other illegal activities.
There have been questions on compliance costs and higher financial penalties.
I think many have asked about what support we are going to give to organisations and clarity for compliance with the new provisions. First, these amendments mark the culmination of a multi-year journey. So, we would like to ask organisations to see this as part of their own investment and effort in building customer trust and commercial reputation. Instead of conducting selective audits for the few as suggested by Ms Joan Pereira, the PDPC will continue to support organisations by providing guidance, training and access to expertise, and recognising accountable organisations, to inculcate good data protection practices as broadly as possible. Essentially, we think a comprehensive upstream approach may be more beneficial.
On guidance, PDPC provides accountability tools and resources, such as guides on implementing data protection management programmes, conducting risk assessments and adopting a data protection-by-design approach when developing IT systems.
On training, PDPC has been building up data protection capabilities through the Data Protection Competency Framework and Training Roadmap. Since its launch in July last year, more than 6,200 people have been trained. Data Protection Officers or DPOs, trained under this framework will be able to implement robust data protection practices as well as support innovation.
On access to expertise, we know and recognise that SMEs may need more help to comply with their data protection obligations. So, we have developed the Data Protection Starter Kit for them and Data Protection-as-a-Service as an affordable alternative for SMEs to outsource some DPO functions. PDPC also makes simple data protection solutions available on its website for free.
We launched the DPTM last year to recognise organisations with good data protection standards. And to-date, 37 organisations have already been recognised.
There are some concerns about the reasonableness of the increased financial penalty cap. Mr Desmond Choo proposed aligning the financial penalty cap with other Asian jurisdictions. The objective here is to ensure that we achieve the requisite deterrent effect on organisations. And that is why the financial penalties have been calibrated in the way that I have described. The proposed maximum financial penalty is comparable with other domestic legislation such as the Telecommunications Act and Competition Act and signals that data protection is of that level of importance in the digital economy.
Some have asked – I think Mr Patrick Tay was one of them – whether in light of the current circumstances we can exercise some flexibility in how these penalties and other elements are phased in. As I mentioned earlier, we intend for the revised financial penalty cap to take effect no earlier than one year after the Act comes into force, and the Minister has the discretion under the Act to review the effective date. So, we will be informed by the overall circumstances because we are conscious of not wanting to unduly burden our companies. The revised penalty cap will apply to breaches that occur after the effective date.
On compliance costs for the Data Portability Obligation, we want to make sure that the approach is balanced and achieves the intended results. So, to address the concerns over the scope of data that can or has to be portable, we have basically intend to help organisations with this new obligation, and introduce the data portability obligation in phases and will issue Regulations and advisory guidelines to provide clarity. This is new for Singapore. So, we want to make sure we do this in a measured way, clear about where we want to go – our destination – but prepared to be flexible in the path.
On Mr Sharael Taha’s query on the safeguards for individuals, the regulations will prescribe consumer protection measures like cooling-off periods when porting certain types of data, in case consumers change their minds. To provide additional clarity on scope of implementation, we have also catered for the following:
(a) the scope has been narrowed to only cover individuals with whom the porting organisation has an existing and direct relationship;
(b) data portability will be scoped to user activity and user provided data in electronic form and will apply only to prescribed categories of data; and
(c) organisations are also not required to port data when the burden of porting, including the cost, is unreasonable.
Let me turn to mandatory data breach notification. In the Bill, “significant harm” refers to the impact of a data breach on affected individuals and is used in the context of a data breach notification. I think Mr Leon Perera, Mr Louis Ng and also Mr Shawn Huang had asked about this and I want to tell them that we plan to prescribe in the Regulations, a numerical threshold. This is something that has been developed through consultation and it is a numerical threshold of 500 individuals for what constitutes a data breach of a significant scale. This threshold is based on past enforcement cases and other jurisdictions’ practices as well.
The Regulations will also include categories of personal data which, if compromised in a data breach, will be considered likely to result in significant harm to individuals, such as identity theft or fraud. One example of such data is full name and confidential financial information.
We will give more guidance through the Regulations but I want to stress – because I think the question was asked how we derived at these numbers. I do not think that there is any rocket science or magic behind it. This is an exercise in judgement, working with the industry and learning from our experience and past practices to arrive at what we think is a reasonable threshold. And I think what will then have to happen is, we see it in practice and learn from experience, and adapt as we go along.
I want to assure Mr Louis Ng that PDPC will take a reasonable approach in exercising its powers proportionately and judiciously. PDPC's decisions are also subject to appeal to the Data Protection Appeal Panel and further appeals can be pursued in the Courts. So, there is recourse but in the first instance, PDPC will exercise due care and proportionality.
Ms Pereira suggested that organisations notify the PDPC of all data breaches and she also advocated setting a fixed timeframe for notifications to individuals. Setting such a threshold for notification is important, but we have to take into account the compliance costs on organisations and also focus the effort on potentially systemic issues. We have not set a fixed timeframe for an organisation’s notification to affected individuals of a data breach because data breach circumstances can be very varied. Our positions have been developed in consultation with the public and benchmarked against jurisdictions like Australia, Canada, the EU and California. I will not rule out anything, but I think in the first instance we want to move forward and see how this works in practice.
There was a question of whether PDPC will exercise its expanded powers appropriately. The new section 48J details a list of factors that the PDPC will consider before imposing financial penalties. To Mr Melvin Yong’s query, this will include whether the organisation had previously failed to comply with the PDPA which can be considered as an aggravating factor.
Mr Patrick Tay has raised a very important question on individuals’ mishandling of personal data: how the new offences would apply for mishandling personal data?
We intend for this to apply only to egregious cases. Employees and service providers who are duly authorised should not have to be concerned. Additionally, we recognise that roles such as teaching and research may require re-identification of anonymised data and hence we have provided for applicable defences for them in the Act.
We do not intend for these offences to apply in situations where the conduct is solely in the nature of a private dispute. For example, a relationship manager transfers his clients’ personal data to his new company with their consent, or a sales agent contacts his clients after commencing new employment. In such cases where the individual reasonably believes that he has the legal right to use or disclose personal data, he has a defence to the new offences. Such private disputes should continue to be resolved through civil suits or other forms of dispute resolution.
To ensure that these actions are not caught, we have provided for defences under clauses 22 and 38.
Ms Jessica Tan can be assured also that we will further set out in Advisory Guidelines the examples on how the new offences would apply so that organisations and workers have clarity and can continue to use data confidently.
Mr Patrick Tay asked about the removal of the exclusion for agents of Government. This makes clear that the PDPA applies to all private sector organisations. Currently, the exclusion of agents of Government has created a situation where the Government can only hold them to account via contracts or laws such as the Official Secrets Act. This gap can undermine security as such agents of Government may handle large and sensitive volumes of personal data.
The removal of the exclusion for agents of Government would provide much-needed clarity and certainty that private sector organisations are subject to the same obligations under the PDPA regime, regardless of the sector their customers are in.
My colleague, Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary, has explained in detail our approach towards the data regimes in the public and private sectors, so I do not propose to repeat those, but Ms Tin Pei Ling has asked about whether the two regimes would be aligned.
We will continue to ensure alignment of data protection principles where the policy intent is the same. The amendments further strengthen this by aligning the penalties and scope of offences for individuals’ egregious mishandling of personal data across the public and private sectors. In the same vein, the PDPC and the Smart Nation and Digital Government Office or SNDGO are working together to ensure the public sector data protection policies continue to be aligned with the relevant changes to the PDPA.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe I have substantively dealt with the issues that have been raised by Members.
If I may conclude, since the PDPA was enacted eight years ago, we have made significant strides in the extent we use data to make decisions and deliver services. Businesses are employing more sophisticated measures to safeguard personal data. Consumers are also more aware of the importance of data protection.
We need to adapt to the new landscape where digitalisation has shaped our world, bringing new opportunities but also new risks. This Bill is an important step in this direction. It aims to promote strong data governance to enable greater use of data for the benefit of our society and our economy.
What we want is equal emphasis on protection and innovation, so that consumers benefit from data-driven services and solutions, with trust that their data is used responsibly. And businesses use data confidently with proper accountability. And Singapore continues to be an important node in global data flows. 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 S Iswaran]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 23 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 24 – (proc text)]
The Chairman: Clause 24. Minister for Communications and Information.
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) In page 54, line 20: to leave out \"(6)\" and insert \"(5A)\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clauses 25 to 46 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported with 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":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\"
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day’s sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Apostille Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time”.
Sir, this Bill gives effect to the obligations under the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, also known as the Apostille Convention.
Sir, in my speech, I will explain why Singapore intends to accede to the Apostille Convention and also set out the key features of the Bill to this House.
Singapore's continued success depends very much on our ability to remain a vibrant international business and commercial hub. In a world that is at risk of turning inward, we have doubled down on our commitment to remain open and connected to the world.
We welcome the best companies from around the world to be sited in Singapore – bring their base into Singapore and do their business in, from, or out of Singapore.
We also encourage and support our own companies to pursue regional or even global ambitions.
This can only work by ensuring that the business environment is facilitative of cross-border transactions and activities.
The COVID-19 pandemic has not changed our approach, but has made it even more imperative that we remain open and connected.
Acceding to the Apostille Convention is a step in pursuit of this commitment. It signals in concrete terms to the international community that Singapore remains open for business.
Let me briefly explain what the Convention does.
Sir, cross-border transactions and activities often involve the use of public documents issued by public authorities from one state, to support transactions taking place in another state. For example, a person seeking to relocate or study abroad may need to produce identification documents, academic transcripts, proof of residency, proof of employment or income and other such similar supporting documents. Businesses seeking to acquire properties overseas may need to produce incorporation documents and also produce official business profiles.
Many states require that foreign public documents be “legalised” before they are recognised and accepted in those states.
Whilst differences exist amongst states, the process of “legalisation” typically involves the authentication of the signature, the seal or the stamp on a local public document by a series of different public officials along a “chain”, examining the document and reviewing at each step the different aspects of legalisation, where the ultimate authentication is recognised by the state of destination. This is oftentimes cumbersome and costly, and not to mention time-consuming as well.
The Apostille Convention replaces the process of “legalisation” with a one-step process involving a single certificate issued by the state’s designated Competent Authority. This certificate is known as an apostille.
The Bill gives effect to the obligations under the Apostille Convention domestically, so that Singapore can become a Contracting Party.
We will be in good company: there are 118 Contracting Parties to the Apostille Convention, including some of Singapore’s major trading partners such as the USA, the UK, India and the EU member states.
Acceding to the Apostille Convention bolsters Singapore's reputation as a bustling and interconnected hub, and will serve as a statement of Singapore's intent to remain committed as a global player in facilitating international movements, transactions and activities.
When Singapore becomes a Contracting Party to the Apostille Convention in 2021, other Contracting Parties will be obliged to waive the legalisation requirement for public documents issued by Singapore authorities and must accept the apostilles issued by Singapore's designated Competent Authority. This will save cost and time for persons who seek to use Singapore-issued public documents in other Contracting Parties. Likewise, Singapore's authorities will be obliged to accept apostilles in place of legalisation for incoming foreign public documents from other Contracting Parties, where applicable.
Sir, I will now take the House through the key features of the Bill. The purposes of the Bill are fairly straightforward and are three-fold.
First, the Bill provides for apostilles to be issued for Singapore public documents by Singapore's Competent Authority. In this case, the Singapore Academy of Law or SAL will be designated as Singapore's Competent Authority under the Convention and will be authorised to issue apostille certificates on Singapore public documents as defined in clause 14 of the Bill.
Presently, MFA performs the legalisation function in respect of outgoing documents issued out of Singapore. This function is needed for outgoing public documents intended for use in Contracting Parties with legalisation requirements, until Singapore becomes a Party to the Convention. This function will continue to be needed for outgoing public documents intended for use in non-Contracting Parties with legalisation requirements. The legalisation and apostillisation functions will thereafter be centralised in one agency – this is of course more user-friendly and also efficient. Clause 21(2) of the Bill therefore transfers the legalisation function from MFA to SAL.
The transfer of the legalisation function from MFA to SAL ties in with SAL's current authentication services, making it more convenient for the legal industry and the public. SAL is expected to take over the legalisation function from MFA by January 2021.
Second, clause 9 of the Bill expressly exempts public documents executed in other Contracting Parties from any requirement of legalisation. Our written laws do not currently require incoming foreign public documents to be legalised, before they are recognised and accepted in Singapore. As an administrative practice, however, some agencies would require foreign documents to be so legalised. Under the Bill, Government agencies may no longer require such foreign documents to be legalised if the documents come from a Contracting Party to the Convention. In its place, these agencies may require the apostilles.
Third, the Bill provides for the effect of apostilles issued by other Contracting Parties and facilitates, but does not require, their use. Clause 11 of the Bill provides that the origin of a foreign public document affixed with an apostille is presumed to be sufficiently proven, unless the contrary is established. This means that the apostille is presumed proof of: one, the authenticity of the signature on the document; two, the capacity in which the person signing the document has acted, in other words, the person's capacity to sign the document; and three, where appropriate, the identity of the seal or stamp that the document bears. The apostille does not, however, certify the contents of the underlying public document; neither is this the position for legalisation as well today.
The Bill also provides for the effect of apostilles, so as to facilitate their use. The Bill does not require apostilles to be used, unless as a replacement for the formality of legalisation which certain Government agencies may have imposed. This means that for foreign public documents which Government agencies do not require to be legalised, apostilles may not subsequently be required. The rationale behind this is to ensure that agencies do not take a regressive step by requiring the formality of an apostille, when previously there had been no other formality requirements needed. However, apostilles may be required for new classes of foreign public documents created after Singapore's accession to the Convention.
The Bill also contains a related amendment to the Evidence Act. While the Evidence Act is not contrary to the obligations under the Apostille Convention, this amendment will allow for foreign public documents from Contracting Parties to also be proved by an apostille being affixed on such documents. The proposed amendment clarifies that the operation of Part 2 of the Bill is not affected by the sections of the Evidence Act which relate to the way in which public documents are proven.
Sir, in conclusion, this Bill will facilitate cross-border use of public documents by abolishing the requirement of legalisation for public documents from fellow Contracting Parties; and secondly, replacing legalisation with the use of a one-step process involving the use of apostilles that will be internationally recognised and accepted.
These measures will streamline and modernise the process for authentication of public documents for recognition across different jurisdictions and no doubt, as I have said earlier, save time and expense for parties. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, hon Members may be forgiven if they view the debate on this Bill as boring, notwithstanding the valiant attempts of the speakers on this Bill, myself included. The fact is, that the topic of legalisation of public documents is hardly something that will excite one's senses.
I, on the other hand, am feeling elated. Why? Because, I suggested in this House that Singapore ratify the Apostille Convention by way of a Parliamentary Question that came up for answer in this House on 20 November 2018. Then, the hon Minister for Law informed this House that the Government was looking into this matter. About two years later, the Apostille Bill is presented in this House for consideration.
If passed, Singapore will likely become party to the Apostille Convention next year which incidentally is the 60th anniversary of the Convention. Whilst the subject matter of this Bill may be boring, it is one that can have positive impact for Singaporeans as outlined by the hon Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I be allowed to flash two slides on the LCD screen?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, most certainly, please.
Mr Murali Pillai: Obliged, Sir. It seems to me that it is not working. Never mind Sir, in the interest of time, I will just proceed. I was about to show the legalisation process, but thankfully, the hon Minister had outlined the legalisation process. Without the Apostille Convention, there are four, possibly five stages, which are required to be undergone before the document in the state of origin, is recognised in the state of destination.
With the Apostille Bill passed and Singapore's ratification of the Apostille Convention, this is reduced to a one-step process. That, as the hon Minister mentioned, translates to enormous savings of time and costs because you no longer have to go to the consulate authority to have the documents legalised. Not only that, as the hon Minister mentioned, the apostille once issued, is recognised in about 118 countries, which includes all the major countries in the world, the business centres in the world too. So, Singaporeans would get the benefit of the convention to have their vital documents issued by public authorities recognised in these countries. These documents include birth certificates, marriage certificates and death certificates
It also, as the hon Minister mentioned, strengthen Singapore's a attraction as a premier business and international dispute resolution hub. This is because, oversees public documents can also be readily recognised here, for business purposes as well as for legal proceedings here.
So, plainly there are many positives about this Bill. While Singapore may be a relatively late adopter of the Apostille Convention, it has an opportunity to be a leader in the digitalisation of the apostille process. Particularly in respect to two areas, e-Apostille and e-Registers.
The e-Apostille system enables Singaporeans to apply for a public document to be issued with an e-Apostille system online. Hopefully this can be done via SingPass in the near future. The e-Register system will enable a person to verify online the authenticity of an apostille issued by the Competent Authority, in this case, it is the Singapore Academy of law. It is plain to see how beneficial the digitalisation of the apostille processes will be for the users of this systems. The processes would be made more secure, efficient and of course environment-friendly too. I would be grateful for the hon Minister’s view on my suggestion.
I also have a query with respect to fees that will be charged for issuance of the apostille by the Singapore Academy of Law. I note that MFA currently charges $10 for the legalisation of each document. From my research, I noted that the average fee among Convention countries as at 2016 was 15 Euros, which translates to about S$24. However, there is a wide range from as low as one Euro to as high as 70 Euros. For the Apostille process to be cost-effective for fellow Singaporeans, the fee imposed should also be reasonable. I wonder whether the hon Minister will be able to guide us in this area.
Sir, before I end my speech, may I say that this is an instance of how backbencher Members of Parliaments can contribute in this House through our respective areas of specialised professional knowledge. I daresay that save for practising lawyers and to be fair, the hon Member Mr Louis Ng who would be speaking after me, not many would have heard of the Apostille Convention. In fact, many Members were asking about this in the Members' Room earlier today.
The vast majority of backbencher Members of Parliament on both sides of this House are not full-time Members of Parliament. Having a House of backbencher Members of Parliament, not of professional politicians but each of us holding different areas of knowledge and expertise ensures that we, as a House, do not have the same blind spots. Combined with a listening frontbench, we will be able to make better contributions to policy-making for Singapore and fellow Singaporeans. I support the Bill. [Applause.]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, like Mr Murali, I am extremely excited about this Bill as well. Sir, if this Bill is passed, Singapore will join 118 countries as a party to the Apostille Convention.
This Bill gives effect to our obligations under the Convention. This will streamline our processes for recognising foreign public documents and make it easier for our public documents to be recognised in other contracting states. With the apostille process in place, individuals will not have to go to two sets of government authorities to legalise foreign public documents. This will significantly cut down on bureaucratic processes, which I think we can all agree, is a good thing.
I just have four points of clarification to make.
My first point is on the criteria for disproving certified documents. Section 11 of the Bill provides that the origin of a foreign public document certified with an Apostille will be presumed to be \"sufficiently proven\" unless \"the contrary is proven\". The origin of a foreign public document, as Minister mentioned, is defined in section 7 as comprising three elements: the authenticity of signature, the capacity of the person signing and the identity of the seal or stamp. Can Minister clarify whether problems with just one element of the origin, such as the authenticity of the signature, is enough to cause the origins of the document to be insufficiently proven?
My second point is on the scope of verification that will be done by the Singapore Academy of Law or SAL before issuing an apostille. Generally, SAL is only supposed to authenticate the origin of the public document and not whether the document is valid. However, defects in the document’s validity may mean the document does not qualify as a public document. Can Minister share whether SAL will verify that the document complies with content and format requirements to qualify as a public document?
My third point is on apostille fraud which is a problem within the international apostille system. One example of apostille fraud is using an apostille to legitimise a fake document. This may be done, for instance, to legitimise a fake academic certificate issued by a degree mill. There are existing offences for forging documents or providing false information to a public servant, which potentially may cover instances of apostille fraud. However, apostille fraud is arguably even more serious given that it undermines the integrity of Singapore's systems on the international stage. While the Apostilles Convention itself does not provide for any penalties, the Apostilles Handbook makes clear that sanctions may be provided for by domestic law. Can Minister share the rationale for deciding not to introduce specific offences for apostille fraud under the Bill?
Finally, can Minister share whether Singapore will be adopting both the e-Apostilles and e-Registers system. An e-Apostille is an apostille that is issued in electronic format with an electronic signature. An e-Register on the other hand is a register of apostilles that is kept in electronic form and which is accessible online by the recipient of the Apostille.
COVID-19 has restricted cross-border mobility but individuals still have to get their foreign public documents authenticated. The e-Apostille and e-Register system have provided a convenient way to get around this problem for many other countries, such as Brazil, Bulgaria, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela and the US. However, adoption of these systems could also mean there are more opportunities for bad faith actors to interfere. If we are adopting both or either systems, can Minister share what steps will be taken to protect the integrity of the e-Apostilles or e-Registers given that the documents may contain extremely sensitive information?
Notwithstanding these points, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate at short notice. Before I start, let me first declare my interest as a notary public. And as a notary public myself, I have long wondered why Singapore has hitherto not been a party to the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents.So, I certainly support this Bill.
I note the transfer of existing legalisation apostille responsibility from MFA to the Singapore Academy of Law or SAL, and that pursuant to this Bill, once passed, SAL will be the body issuing the relevant certificate.
I have some concerns whether this will lead to an increase of the fees which are currently being charged by MFA for apostille related legalisation of documents. I say this, bearing in mind that in October last year, SAL made it mandatory for all documents requiring notarisation to be accompanied by a notarial certificate which would in turn be required to be authenticated by SAL and there were new mandatory authentication charges chargeable for all documents to be notarised.
While the intention for authentication is good and understandable, the change in the requirements resulted in additions to the process and paperwork, and additional charges to businesses and individuals.
So, I would like to seek the Minister's assurance that with the passing of this Bill, SAL will not increase the fees which are currently being charged by MFA in respect of any apostille certification charges.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. And I am very pleased to be speaking on this suddenly very exciting Bill. I think it is exciting because it is the last speech of the day.
But I want to thank Mr Pillai. I think it is true what he has said that his contributions from the backbench with his experience over several years, have contributed to our thinking on this. We looked more closely at the Convention and eventually, having satisfied ourselves that it is a Convention that we can accede to and that we have the necessary infrastructure in place to play the role as envisaged in the Convention, we have decided to proceed with this. So, thank you very much, Mr Pillai, for your contributions.
Sir, let me go directly to the questions raised.
First, on this question of the e-Apostille and the e-Register. Both Mr Pillai and Mr Ng raised this.
Sir, of course, we welcome the use of technology to enhance the processes as long as they are safe and secure. And I am pleased to inform Mr Pillai and Mr Ng that SAL, which is the designated Competent Authority, is already working towards digitalising the entire apostillisation process. And this would include the issuance of electronic apostilles, and the operation of electronic registers of apostilles that can be accessed online by recipients so that they can verify the paper apostilles or e-Apostilles that they have received and this, I think is the \"e-Register” that Mr Ng had in mind. Once this is ready, announcements will be made so that the process can then be explained and it will be known when this can be implemented.
Mr Pillai and Mr Tan raised the question of fees that will be charged once SAL takes over. For the apostille fees, SAL intends to charge $10 for each apostille certificate at the inception. So, whatever it starts off with, $10. And Members will note that this is the same fee as charged by MFA. So, to Mr Tan's query earlier, be aswe have sured.
The fee is being charged on the basis that SAL adopts the same manual, over-the-counter authentication services. I just want to note that private documents have to be notarised first before being authenticated by SAL. That is the process today anyway, and the apostille fee does not include the cost of such notarisation fees, if applicable.
Similar to other fees for services, SAL, like any other agencies, will regularly look at its fee structure and will conduct the review at some stage as to whether the fee structure is appropriate for the kind of services that it is designed to support.
Mr Ng asked whether if you have one element of the origin of a foreign public document not being satisfied, whether that would vitiate the entire document.
Clause 7 provides for three requirements and the three requirements go together to establish the veracity of that document that is being apostillised. So, if any one element is missing, then a document will not be able to be established. So, Mr Ng would note that, in particular, if the authenticity of the signature cannot be established, then that one fundamental aspect of the document's veracity is cast into doubt.
As to Mr Ng's about whether SAL will verify a document that complies with content and format requirements to qualify for a public document, for such Singapore public documents, SAL must be satisfied with the origin of the document before it issues the apostille. This is provided for in clause 17 of the Bill.
SAL will establish very clear procedures for every request for an apostille and is also building up a database of all the public specimen signatures of public officers who are authorised to sign public documents so that there can also be ease of verification. But that database is being built. I should just caution to add to Mr Ng's point that such an apostillisation, like legalisation, does not look at the underlying veracity of the contents. So, the truth or falsity of the contents of the document is not something that is certified by the apostillisation.
Mr Ng asked about offences for apostille fraud under the Bill.
It is a serious offence and I agree with Mr Ng, but there is an existing framework now in the Penal Code to deal with this. So, to Mr Ng's example of an academic certificate that is brought fraudulently or dishonestly, if one applies for an apostille on the basis of a false underlying document, then an offence under section 471 read with section 466 of the Penal Code, which is punishable with a term of imprisonment, that person can be charged under those offences. It is thus not necessary to create a separate set of offences to support only the apostillisation process.
Mr Ng would also note that one of the grounds on which the Competent Authority might refuse to issue an apostille is if there are, itself reasonable grounds, either on the face of it or upon review that the document has been falsified or is otherwise forged.
Sir, on Mr Murali Pillai's point on the Convention and acceding to the Convention, we have taken some time to study it, as I mentioned at the outset, to look at the details and also assess the merits. And we had extensive consultations with various domestic agencies and also stakeholders to ensure that we are ready with it and that upon accession to the Convention, we will be able to discharge the obligations. We have since done so and we are satisfied that we can adopt this regime.
The new regime will modernise and streamline the authentication process and, as I mentioned at the outset, facilitate the use of documents for cross-border purposes, saving time and expense for parties, both ways. Mr Deputy Speaker, with that, I beg to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker: There are no clarifications.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 12.30 pm tomorrow.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah] (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 6.57 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regular Reports and Training for Educators on Sexual Misconduct on Campuses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education (a) how is the Ministry supervising the Institutes of Higher Learning on their progress on fighting sexual misconduct or violence on campus; (b) whether the Ministry will consider regular reports on sexual misconduct or violence on campus; and (c) whether there is currently training being carried out for educators in Singapore on proper conduct with students.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The questions raised by Ms He Ting Ru follow the recent media coverage of the case involving a former teaching staff at the National University of Singapore (NUS) who was dismissed for being in an intimate relationship with an undergraduate, which is a clear contravention of NUS’s Code of Conduct for staff. Given the undergraduate’s allegations of sexual misconduct against the individual, a Police report was made and the investigation is underway.
The Autonomous Universities (AUs) and other Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), including our Polytechnics and ITEs, have a duty of care to their students and staff, which includes providing a safe environment for teaching and learning. MOE has been working closely with the IHLs to review and step up their efforts to tackle the issue of sexual misconduct holistically. The IHLs have enhanced efforts in four key areas:
First, they have enhanced their education efforts for students and staff to educate them on respect and appropriate behaviour. These include student briefings during orientation, online modules, face-to-face workshops, and regular outreach to build awareness.
Second, they have enhanced campus infrastructure, including expanding CCTV camera coverage and increasing the frequency of security patrols.
Third, they have strengthened support for victims, including enhancing training for first responders and enhancing counselling services.
Fourth, they have significantly strengthened their student disciplinary frameworks to impose tougher penalties for sexual misconduct.
The IHLs are committed to ensuring campus safety, and will continue to regularly review and enhance their processes and measures, in consultation with their students and staff.
Ms He has asked about training for educators on proper conduct with students.
At the IHLs, all faculty and staff are expected to uphold their institutions’ respective Codes of Conduct and regulations at all times. These Codes cover expected behaviours on- and off-campus, including respect for the rule of law and for others, and personal, professional and academic integrity.
As outlined in these Codes, staff must keep their relationship with students strictly professional. This is necessary to safeguard the integrity of the relationship between educators and students in support of the education mission, and ensures that staff do not place themselves in a position of conflict of interest. Staff are briefed, and reminded of these periodically.
Where allegations of serious misconduct are made, the IHLs will immediately require the accused individual to stay away from campus temporarily, if they assess that the alleged offender may pose a danger to any member of their community. If the case involves a student or staff from the same institution, the IHLs may also impose a No-Contact Order to ensure that the alleged offender is prohibited from contacting or being in the vicinity of the party making the allegations.
Ms He asked about regular reports of sexual misconduct on campus. A Police report is typically made for allegations of serious misconduct, and where the alleged offender is proven and charged in court, this will be a matter of public record.
Separately, the IHLs also conduct their own internal investigations to determine if the alleged offender has breached their Code of Conduct. Those who do so are subject to disciplinary sanctions, including possible suspension or expulsion of students, or dismissal of staff. MOE also monitors the trend of sexual misconduct cases involving IHL staff and students, and the IHLs are required to provide the necessary information.
In the course of addressing allegations, MOE expects institutions to be open and timely in their communications, while taking into consideration the facts of the case, the need to ensure the safety of their communities and safeguard the well-being and privacy of victims and other members of the community who are directly affected, and the need to ensure that Police investigations are not impacted.
MOE will continue to work closely with the IHLs to ensure that the well-being and safety of students and staff on campus are protected.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of National Wages Council 2020/2021 Guidelines on CPF Contributions on Local Employees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the National Wages Council 2020/2021 supplementary guidelines on the tripartite consensus not to reduce employers' CPF contributions, what is the potential disproportionate impact on local employees should there be such a reduction.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The National Wages Council (NWC) issued its Supplementary Guidelines on 16 October 2020, encouraging employers and employees to work closely together to minimise retrenchments. This is preferred over a blunt approach of reducing employers' CPF contributions across the board. Such an approach cannot take into account the varying circumstances of individual companies and employees, both in effecting the cut, as well as implementing the restoration. In addition, as CPF contributions are made only for local workers, a cut in employers’ CPF contributions places the cost reduction burden solely on a firm’s local workers, when it should apply to all its workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supply Disruptions Due to Increased COVID-19 Cases and Movement Control Order in Malaysia","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the rising number of COVID-19 cases in Malaysia and implementation of Movement Control Order in selected states of Malaysia (a) how will this development affect provision of goods and services to Singapore; and (b) how prepared has the Ministry been to meet supplies disruptions since the start of COVID-19.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: To combat rising numbers of COVID-19 cases, Malaysia has imposed a Conditional Movement Control Order (CMCO) in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, and Putrajaya since 14 October 2020. The CMCO does not affect economic activities such as logistics, which continue to operate. The flow of goods and services between Malaysia and Singapore has remained smooth. We have a mutual interest to ensure that supply chains function well so that essential supplies remain available to both countries and business disruption is minimised.
Nevertheless, as I shared with the House previously, we have strengthened our ability to withstand unexpected disruptions through a combination of strategies such as stockpiling essential items, diversifying our import sources, and increasing local production. We are also working closely with companies on their business continuity plans. I wish to thank everyone for their support and hard work during this unusual time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Making TraceTogether Compulsory","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health what are the specific reasons for deciding that TraceTogether will be made compulsory for certain situations given previous assertions that there are no plans to make it compulsory.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: TraceTogether has helped to identify about 25,000 close contacts of COVID-19 cases so far, of which 160 were eventually tested positive for COVID-19. It has reduced the time taken to identify and isolate a close contact from four days to less than two days now. We need to reduce this time taken further. This is essential to limit the spread of COVID-19 as it breaks the chains of disease transmission and limits the potential for large clusters and multiple generations of spread.
As of 1 November, we have almost 3 million individuals using TraceTogether - about 2.7 million have downloaded the app1, and about 570,000 residents have collected the TraceTogether Token since we started community distribution on 14 September. The effectiveness of TraceTogether increases as more users come onboard. Higher participation in the programme will give us greater confidence to move safely towards Phase 3 to further resume general economic and social activities.
To this end, while we have not made it mandatory for all residents to adopt TraceTogether at all times, we have been trialing the use of TraceTogether-only SafeEntry since August 2020. Visitors who choose to visit selected higher-risk settings were required to check in to SafeEntry by using either the TraceTogether App or Token. These included settings such as business-to-business events and live performances, where there is high human traffic, or where people are likely to be in close contact for prolonged periods of time. The use of TraceTogether has given us the confidence to increase the scale of participation at these settings – business-to-business events, for instance, have been allowed to involve up to 250 people on a pilot basis. Other settings where TraceTogether-only SafeEntry has been implemented – including live performances, cinemas, and places of worship – have also been allowed to resume with higher capacities. We will broaden TraceTogether-only SafeEntry to more venues such as malls, workplaces and F&B outlets in order to move towards Phase 3 safely.
As other countries around the world re-open, we have seen how the lack of a robust contact tracing system had contributed to a resurgence in cases, with some countries having to impose second lockdowns to limit the spread of the disease. In order to avoid the same situation happening in Singapore, we need to ensure comprehensive coverage of our digital tools. We thus strongly encourage everyone to participate actively in both the TraceTogether and SafeEntry programmes, so that we can safely resume activities and open up our economy. Let us all play our part to stay ahead of the pandemic and contribute collectively to keeping Singapore safe.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Those who have downloaded the TT app may have also collected TT tokens."],"footNoteQuestions":["24"],"questionNo":"24"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Managing Demand in Construction Sector Caused by Project Delays","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current state of demand in the construction sector and the extent of project delays and postponements; (b) whether the construction capacity has fully recovered; and (c) whether there will be sufficient capacity to meet additional demand due to backlogs from delayed projects.
Mr Desmond Lee: BCA projects that construction demand will be $18 to $23 billion this year, $10 billion lower than the forecast in January. COVID-19 has caused some delays to ongoing construction projects, and firms are facing some loss in productivity due to the need to adopt COVID-Safe measures on-site. That said, almost all projects and workers have resumed work. We expect construction demand to recover to some extent in 2021, supported by demand from public sector projects.
We understand that this is a difficult period for firms in the construction sector, and the Government has provided significant support under the Jobs Support Scheme and foreign worker levy waiver and rebates, in addition to the $1.36 billion Construction Support Package, to help construction firms tide through this period. We are mindful of the need to preserve industry capacity. For instance, we are working closely with the Singapore Contractors Association Limited (SCAL) to facilitate migrant workers whose work permits are expiring to continue working in Singapore. As the COVID-19 situation improves in certain countries, we are selectively allowing more construction work pass holders who were overseas to return to Singapore, subject to the appropriate public health management measures. MOM has also started accepting new work pass applications from countries with lower health risks. In addition, we are studying how to facilitate the entry of more work pass holders, while minimising public health risks.
We will continue to closely monitor the impact of the pandemic on the sector, and also help companies to transform and be less reliant on low cost manpower, so that the sector can emerge stronger.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Noise Mitigation Measures for Residential Areas Near Sembawang Air Base","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Defence (a) in the past year, how many complaints has the Ministry received from the public relating to noise from helicopter operations at Sembawang Air Base; and (b) in light of more residents working from home, what measures will be taken to mitigate noise pollution on a more permanent basis around Sembawang and Yishun.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Mindef had recently explained to Members of this House why it was critical for the RSAF to maintain its operational readiness for its fixed wing and fighter aircraft and that it had also done as much as possible for its pilots to train overseas or using simulators. The current training profile just ensures that our pilots maintain their proficiency. These same considerations apply to helicopter operations which the Member has asked about. And as we do for aircraft, the RSAF minimises noise through careful planning of flight routes during helicopter training. Despite these measures, there has been an increase in the number of complaints received in the last few months on helicopter training as more residents work from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Our helicopter squadrons must also ensure readiness and be on standby 24/7 for search and rescue missions. In the past year alone, RSAF’s helicopters were activated 16 times for medical evacuation. For each call, our helicopter aircrew had to be airborne within minutes and find their way to the distress location, to perform an evacuation or rescue, often in difficult conditions such as choppy waters or inclement weather. One such case in May last year was the rescue of Mr John Low, a Singaporean diving instructor who was cast adrift in the open sea for three days after his boat capsized. Upon receiving the call to action, the RSAF's helicopter search and rescue team swiftly brought Mr John Low, who was in critical condition, back to Singapore safely. I am sure we are all thankful that Mr Low has fully recovered and is in good health.
MPs will also remember that the RSAF's helicopters played important roles for security during events such as the inaugural Trump-Kim Summit in June 2018 and the 33rd ASEAN Summit in November 2018. The sight of Apache helicopters circling the skies over Sentosa, was a powerful deterrent against those bent on disrupting or causing harm during these high profile events.
These successful missions would not have been possible without the rigorous training that the men and women of the RSAF go through on a regular basis to maintain their skills, proficiency and a high state of operational readiness. I thank Members and Singaporeans for their continued support to maintain an operationally ready and capable RSAF, for the protection of Singapore and Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Approval and Profile of Applicants for Subsidies under Seniors Mobility and Enabling Fund for Hearing Aids","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the average waiting time for approval of subsidies under the Seniors Mobility and Enabling fund for hearing aids from time of application; (b) how much do hearing aids typically cost without subsidies; and (c) as Singaporeans live longer lives, whether there are plans to extend the subsidy beyond the first device.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Seniors’ Mobility & Enabling Fund (SMF) supports seniors as they age by providing eligible Singaporeans aged 60 years and above with means-tested subsidies to offset the cost of home healthcare items and assistive devices.
SMF applications are processed immediately. Once an application is submitted with all the required information, the application would typically be approved within a day if the applicant meets all the eligibility criteria.
A standard hearing aid costs around $3,000 to $3,200 before subsidies.
Currently, SMF subsidies support seniors with the purchase of their first device only. Nonetheless, we recognise that there may be circumstances where seniors may need a replacement device. In such cases, the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) will approve a replacement on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the senior’s circumstances.
My Ministry will continue to review the SMF parameters, in view of the changing and growing needs of our seniors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigations into Complaints that Retrenchments Do Not Adequately Comply with Advisories to Retain Strong Singapore Core","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to retrenchments from April to September 2020 (a) how does the Ministry investigate complaints that the retrenchments did not adequately comply with advisories to retain a strong Singapore Core; (b) what levers does the Government have to intervene in cases where the employer is assessed to have not complied with advisories to maintain a strong Singapore Core; and (c) whether employees who are permanent residents are considered part of the Singapore Core in the Ministry's assessments of retrenchments.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Retrenchments are never easy. I know this, having been involved in supporting retrenched workers for well over a decade, since I was in NTUC. It brings great stress to the workers, including to their families. This is why the retrenchment option should be taken only as a last resort.
Employers too, may struggle on the question of who to stay and who to let go. Ultimately, they have to go back to why this drastic step needs to be taken, for the business and the people it supports to have the best chance of survival, or to restructure for continued longer-term viability. If after the retrenchment, the business still falters, the workers who didn’t get retrenched will also be hurt.
The principle must therefore be to anchor decisions to help the business stay viable while taking special care of the workers, those that have to be let go as well as those that stay. This is often a very delicate balance.
To make that assessment, the employer needs to sort out the business direction. In times of uncertainty, that in itself, is not an easy question to answer. Then, the employer needs to look at the abilities of the staff, their skills, and how those are relevant to the business, or to pivot to new activities. These must be the primary considerations.
Having made that assessment, if the employer has to choose from equally capable staff of different nationalities, our advice to the employer is to upkeep the Singaporean core. This is contained in the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment. By and large, businesses understand and support this approach.
Employment data shows that the population of work pass holders have shrunk proportionally more than the resident workforce. As a share of our resident workforce, citizens remain the vast majority at 84%.
Should a complaint be filed with MOM that an employer has not made adequate efforts, we will engage the employer to review their workforce profiles before and after retrenchment. We consider the citizen, permanent resident and non-local shares of its workforce, and the reasons for any changes. We will also seek to understand the criteria used for selection, whether these are objective and rational. For the individuals concerned, we consider if the criteria were applied properly.
Where there are unfair practices towards Singaporeans, the Government will take the necessary actions against the employers, such as withholding financial support or suspending the employers’ work pass privileges. Under the Employment Act, employees who are wrongfully dismissed due to discrimination can also be compensated or reinstated.
More importantly, we are providing stronger support to employers for their local employees. Through the Jobs Support Scheme, Jobs Growth Initiative and other programmes, employers of local employees get generous wage and training support. For their citizen employees, there is the Special Employment Credit and Workfare.
We make every effort to help affected Singaporeans get back to work. This is usually what they wish for most. It is also central to how we sustain support to Singaporeans and their families on an ongoing basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steering Companies Towards Automation Due to Reduced Inflow of Foreign Labour","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with COVID-19 restrictions on the inflow of foreign labour (a) what is the Ministry doing to drive companies towards automation in tandem with the Government's financial assistance schemes to transform the economy; and (b) whether the Ministry will work with companies to draw up a timeline to automate their operations to qualify for financial assistance.
Dr Tan See Leng (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): The Government has a comprehensive range of grant, tax and loan support available to support companies in automation. This includes the Automation Support Package (ASP) and Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG).
Beyond financial support, facilitation and advisory services are available to help companies identify process re-engineering opportunities, match automation solutions to problem statements and implement solutions more effectively. Companies can turn to the e-Adviser for Government Assistance or any of our SME Centres for advice. For more complex projects, our agencies will work with businesses to chart out project milestones and timelines with the end-goal of supporting longer-term growth.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Regulate and Assess Design and Construction Carbon Footprint of New Buildings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to regulate and assess the design and construction carbon footprint of new buildings including materials, process and lifecycle maintenance requirements, and material recyclability to ensure that progressive and sustainable construction technologies are gradually being implemented.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the Building Control (Environmental Sustainability) Regulations, all new buildings and existing buildings undergoing major retrofitting works are required to meet minimum environmental sustainability standards. These include incorporating environmentally friendly practices for the planning, design, construction, and operation of the buildings, which serve to reduce their carbon footprint.
On top of this, the BCA Green Mark scheme recognises projects that go beyond the mandatory requirements. Under the scheme, developers are assessed on the resource efficiency of their building designs and their adoption of progressive construction methods and technology. The assessment criteria include the use of recycled materials and low-carbon concrete, and the calculation of the embodied carbon of the building materials.
Currently, 99% of construction waste is recycled. BCA is working with industry and the community to develop the next edition of the Singapore Green Building Masterplan, which aims to further raise environmental sustainability standards and reduce carbon emissions from buildings. We target to launch the Masterplan next year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Small but Persistent Number of COVID-19 Infections Amongst Foreign Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the reasons behind the small, but persistent, numbers of COVID-19 infection among our migrant workers; and (b) what are the measures that will be put in place during Phase 3 to prevent another spike among our migrant workers.
Mrs Josephine Teo: During dormitory clearance operations between May and August, we tested all workers using the most accurate tests we have – Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests. During the incubation period of the virus, the PCR test results may not be positive because the viral load was not high enough. A small number of migrant workers would have fallen into this category. That is why after the dormitory clearance operation, diligent adherence to Rostered Routine Testing (RRT) is now part of our strategy to ensure that the virus is detected early before any significant transmission. Every migrant worker is required to be tested every 14 days. We have added a risk stratification strategy that identifies high risk dormitories. We are also developing the capability to do 7-day RRT in these high risk dormitories; and this is what we are trialling now with the alternating 7-day Antigen Rapid Test/ 7-day PCR test. Once an infection is identified, we move quickly to quarantine and test all close contacts. Strict implementation of RRT can bring down the spread of the disease. Just after dormitory clearance in September, we were identifying 26 positive case a day on average; in the latest two weeks, the average daily positive case is less than one.
RRT is one critical part of our multi-layered strategy to prevent, detect and contain COVID-19 infections. Let me mention two other key layers of our strategy. MOM and MOH have launched the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) programme with the aim of getting dormitory operators and migrant workers to take greater ownership of their personal hygiene and living environment. The IPC programme assigns clear responsibilities and provides education and training to dormitory operators and dormitory residents so that they can each play their parts. The programme will strengthen the implementation of Safe Living Measures (SLM) in dormitories and reduce the risk of infection transmission. Such measures include the wearing of masks, safe distancing practices, staggered timings for the use of communal facilities and prevention of inter-mixing among dormitory residents. Under the programme, regular audits will be conducted to ensure compliance.
Another key initiative is to distribute more than 450,000 contact-tracing devices to all migrant and local workers living or working in dormitories, as well as those in the Construction, Marine Shipyard and Process sectors. We expect to complete the distribution by early November. The contact-tracing devices, are designed for the dormitory and worksite environment. These devices will improve contact tracing and the quarantine process when new COVID-19 cases are detected. The number on Stay Home Notice/ Quarantine Order, which includes the contacts of COVID positive cases identified over the past two weeks, has fallen to below 1,500. This is about 0.52% of the workforce living in the dormitories, while the remaining 99.48% are available to continue working safely.
The fight against re-emergence of COVID-19 in the dormitories is a shared responsibility of migrant workers, employers, dormitory operators and the Government. Rigorous adherence to RRT, SLM and IPC measures will create a safe living environment in the dormitories for our migrant workers as we gradually move into Phase 3.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Affordable and Comprehensive Insurance Coverage for Foreign Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider (i) mandating more comprehensive insurance coverage for migrant workers and (ii) providing a subsidy to help employers afford such additional coverage.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Employers are required to purchase and maintain a medical insurance of at least $15,000 per year for the inpatient and day surgery expenses of their Work Permit and S Pass holders. Over the past three years, about 95% of bills incurred by Work Permit and S Pass holders were below $15,000. MOM also encourages employers to consider higher coverage for their workers if they assess it to be desirable.
As outlined in MOM's Addendum to the President's Address, we intend to, among other things, develop an insurance programme to help employers manage unexpected large medical expenses of their migrant workers.
We are mindful of the cost impact of additional insurance on employers. Hence, we seek to strike a balance between reasonable coverage, and the cost of the associated premiums. This is a more sustainable approach, rather than depending on tax-financed subsidies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Quality of School-based Student Care Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the progress on providing student care centres in all schools; (b) whether the existing school-based centres are able to cope with the demand; and (c) whether there are efforts to enhance the programme offerings run by student care centres.
Mr Lawrence Wong: MOE has achieved our target of having a school-based student care centre (SCC) in all 185 primary schools this year, up from 170 in 2019.
The provision of school-based SCC places has largely kept pace with demand. Schools monitor the demand for school-based SCC places closely, and work with the service providers to expand their capacity, where appropriate, at a pace that does not compromise programme and service quality. Enrolment in school-based SCCs has increased from 3,000 in 2012, to 25,000 in 2019, and around 27,000 this year.
MOE works closely with our SCC service providers to ensure they offer programmes that promote holistic development of students, reinforce values taught by the school, and promote positive social interaction. For students with greater needs in our SCCs, schools work with community partners and the SCC service providers to further strengthen motivational support and resilience through meaningful programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints of Disamenities Caused by Littering, Smoking and Excessive Noise and Smells and Cases Resolved via Mediation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the last three years, what is the number of complaints on disamenities caused by neighbours such as high-rise littering, excessive noise or smells, and smoking; (b) what is (i) the percentage of cases that refuse mediation (ii) the number of repeated cases after \"successful\" mediation and (iii) the average time taken from mediation application to resolution of the case; and (c) whether there are plans to further enforce and control disamenities caused by residents and encourage neighbourliness.
Mr Desmond Lee: From 2017 to 2019, HDB received an average of about 4,400 cases of feedback relating to social disamenities each year. Most of the feedback related to noise generated in neighbouring flats from activities such as furniture being moved, items being dropped on the floor, and children playing or jumping.
For the same time period, an average of 735 cases per year were registered at the Community Mediation Centre (CMC). Typically, about 70% of such registered neighbour dispute cases did not progress to mediation, mainly because one or both parties declined mediation or did not respond to the invitation to mediate. In some cases, the parties involved may have decided to resolve matters between themselves.
Of the remaining 30% of cases that progressed to mediation, the settlement rate has consistently reached 80% or more, or about 186 cases per year on average, in the past three years. Of these cases, 27%, or around 50 cases each year on average, subsequently sought further mediation. The average time taken from registration to the settlement of CMC cases is 29 days.
It is not possible to maintain a harmonious and peaceful living environment without mutual respect and consideration among neighbours. When disputes occur, they are often best resolved by neighbours coming together to understand and address the cause of the friction between them. If the dispute persists, the neighbours will then be advised to seek mediation at the CMC to reach an amicable resolution.
If there is no improvement after mediation attempts, the relevant parties will be advised to file a case at the Community Dispute Resolution Tribunal as a last resort.
The Government reviews the framework for managing disputes from time to time, and will continue to refine this framework to better deal with neighbor disputes arising from disamenities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Standard Operating Procedure for Technical Teams to Follow When Investigating MRT Service Disruptions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the MRT service disruptions on 14 October 2020 (a) whether there is a standard operating procedure (SOP) for technical teams to follow when investigating such disruptions; (b) how will strict compliance with the SOP be ensured to prevent similar recurrences; and (c) what steps will be taken to ensure safe distancing at the bus stops during such disruptions.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for his question. LTA released its investigation findings on 28 Oct 2020 and I will address them in my reply at the 3 November 2020 Parliament sitting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review on Social Benefits for Lower and Middle Income Households","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what are the direct and indirect social benefits given to lower-income and middle-income households considering that lower-income and middle-income households receive proportionately more benefits than the taxes they pay; and (b) whether the Government will conduct a review on the current social benefits to ensure no one in lower-income and middle-income households has been left out and be more inclusive in support of the disadvantaged and less fortunate groups.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Government is committed to building a caring and inclusive society, bridging gaps and reducing inequalities for a fair and just society. Over the years we have steadily increased our social expenditure. We now spend three times as much on social programmes each year than we did 15 years ago.
The underlying philosophy of our system is that everyone contributes according to their means, and wealth is redistributed by the state. All Singaporeans benefit, but those with less receive more and those with the least receive the most.
a.\tLower- and middle-income households receive significantly more transfers and subsidies than the taxes they pay, whereas higher-income groups contribute far more in taxes than the transfers and subsidies they receive.
b.\tFor instance, the bottom 20% of households account for less than 10% of all taxes paid, but receive almost 30% of all benefits disbursed1. In contrast, the top 20% of households account for 55% of taxes, and receive a smaller amount – about 10% – of the benefits.
Handout 1: Share of Taxes and Benefits
I will now elaborate on how our lower- and middle-income households are supported in the areas of education, work, housing, retirement, healthcare, and social assistance.
First, education:
a.\tWe believe that the best form of support for all Singaporeans is developing the individual at every stage of life and giving them access to opportunities through good education and continued employment. Education from pre-school to Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) is heavily subsidised.
b.\tBy the time a Singaporean child reaches 16, he or she would have benefitted from more than $180,000 in education subsidies, including pre-school subsidies. Those who go on to an IHL, which most students do, benefit from another $15,000 to $22,000 in subsidies per year.2
c.\tStudents from lower-income families will receive more as:
i.\tFamilies can pay as little as $3 per month for full-day childcare, and have their primary and secondary school fees fully subsidised. Additional support is also available through the Opportunity Fund and for transport.
ii.\tWe have also recently enhanced tertiary bursaries for students from the 2020 Academic Year so that students from lower-income households pay fees as low as $150 per year for their polytechnic education, and can receive further support for their living expenses.
Second, work:
a.\tWe provide significant support to help workers stay employed as we believe that a job is the best form of welfare.
b.\tWe uplift the wages and productivity of lower-income workers through the Workfare Income Supplement scheme and Progressive Wage Model. We also made a Workfare Special Payment of $3,000 in 2020.
c.\tWe also provide help for lower-income workers to upgrade their skills and boost their career mobility through the Workfare Skills Support scheme.
Third, housing:
a.\tWe provide significant subsidies to Singaporean households for housing, with the bulk of the subsidies going to the lower- and middle-income. Heavily subsidised rental housing is available for the lower-income who are unable to afford to purchase a flat of their own.
b.\tThose purchasing an HDB flat for the first time can receive up to $160,000 in housing subsidies, including the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant.
c.\tIn 2019, about 85% of the bottom 20% of households owned a home, which is much higher than even the overall homeownership rates in many other countries.
Fourth, retirement:
a.\tWe support Singaporeans in meeting their retirement needs. The CPF system helps Singaporeans build their retirement wealth by providing risk-free interest rates of up to 6%. The Government provides regular top-ups to the MediSave accounts of lower-income Singaporeans and seniors through the GST Voucher scheme. Further, Silver Support helps seniors who had lower incomes throughout life and who now have little or no family support.
Fifth, healthcare:
a.\tFor healthcare, Singaporeans receive subsidies of up to 80% for hospitalisations, with the lower-income receiving more. Lower- and middle-income households also receive higher subsidies for outpatient treatment, and for MediShield Life and CareShield Life premiums.
b.\tTogether with MediShield Life and MediSave, 7 in 10 subsidised hospitalisation bills incurred no cash payment in 2018.
Lastly, social assistance:
a.\tSocial and community assistance is available to those with higher needs. ComCare provides Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance for lower-income Singaporeans who are temporarily unable to work or looking for employment and require financial assistance, as well as Long-Term Assistance for those unable to work due to old age, illness, or disability.
b.\tLower- and middle-income Singaporeans also receive support under the GST Voucher scheme, to offset some of their GST expenses.
c.\tWe also provide grants to the Social Service Agencies to run key programmes for the vulnerable, such as befriending services for Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) and seniors, at subsidised rates.
In this difficult time, the Government has taken unprecedented measures to provide Singaporeans relief from the economic impact of COVID-19.
a.\tAll Singaporeans benefited from the Care and Support Package in 2020, with more benefits going to the lower income.
b.\tOne in four households also received support for unemployment or income loss through the Temporary Relief Fund, COVID-19 Support Grant, or Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme. Nearly 80% of recipients came from households at the 60th household income percentile and below.
c.\tSingaporeans living in 2-room or smaller HDB flats, including rental flats, have also received $300 in Grocery Vouchers in 2020, and will receive an additional $100 in 2021.
d.\tThe Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme launched on 12 June 2020 has helped up to 400,000 lower-income Singaporean households – identified through various Government help schemes – with vouchers that can be used to redeem food, essential items, and services at local hawker stalls and heartland merchant shops near their homes.
We regularly review our policies to better support the needs of Singaporeans. In particular, we study if our schemes are reaching the intended groups, and also if adjustments are needed to the amount of assistance.
a.\tFor example, the Silver Support Scheme, which was introduced in 2016, will be enhanced from 2021 to benefit about 100,000 more seniors. The payouts will also be increased by 20%, to up to $900 per quarter, as announced in the Unity Budget in February 2020.
b.\tFor lower wage workers, the tripartite partners have agreed to form a Tripartite Workgroup on Lower Wage Workers, to study how to expand the Progressive Wage Model and provide wage growth and job progression opportunities to these workers. We look forward to their recommendations.
We will continue to review our social policies, taking into account the changes in our socio-economic landscape and our economic circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Taxes include direct and indirect taxes. Benefits disbursed include all Government transfers, subsidies, and rebates (e.g. implicit education subsidies, housing grants).","2 : Full-time Nitec / Higher Nitec courses:\t\t$14,900"," Publicly-funded full-time diploma courses:\t$16,700"," Publicly-funded full-time degree courses: \t$21,600."],"footNoteQuestions":["50"],"questionNo":"50"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allocation of Teaching Time for Maths and Science Subjects from Primary 3 to Primary 6","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Education in respect of Primary 3 to 6 students (a) how many hours are dedicated for new Mathematics and Science subjects in each year and by each level; (b) how much time is set aside for revision of concepts previously learnt in earlier years; and (c) whether the school curriculum allows time for students to have leisure reading time.
Mr Lawrence Wong: At Primary 3 to 6, schools are recommended to provide about five to six hours of curriculum time per week for Mathematics and 2 to 2.5 hours per week for Science. The exact amount will depend on the grade level of the students and whether the subject is offered at the Standard or Foundation level at Primary 5 and 6.
The Mathematics and Science curricula are designed to allow previously learnt content to be revised and reinforced before new concepts are introduced at higher levels. The curriculum time allocated to the subjects caters for this revision and consolidation of topics learnt. The amount of curriculum time set aside for this is not hardwired but would depend on the professional judgment of teachers based on the learning pace and mastery level of their specific profile of learners.
Reading is important for the holistic development of our students. The school curriculum encourages and creates opportunities for students to read widely, beyond the recommended texts. Many schools set aside time to encourage students to read for pleasure, such as by allocating one period a week within the primary English language lessons for reading. Schools also organise other activities to encourage students’ interest in reading English and Mother Tongue Language books for leisure.
MOE reviews the curriculum regularly for balanced and holistic development of students. This includes ensuring sufficient time for student learning while balancing the need for them to still have time for exploration and leisure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Shareholding Threshold to Qualify SMEs for Grants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) why a threshold of 30% local shareholding was set for qualifying SMEs for grants such as the Productivity Solutions Grant and Enterprise Development Grant; and (b) whether there are periodic reviews to this shareholding threshold.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Enterprise Development Grant (EDG) and solutions supported by Enterprise Singapore (ESG) under the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) are intended to support Singapore companies in their transformation, including by automating existing processes, as well as improving overall productivity. The minimum local shareholding criterion of 30% reflects this intent. ESG may consider exceptional cases based on factors such as the company's local employment and strategic importance to the economy.
The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) reviews this threshold periodically to ensure that it remains appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Sustainability of Convictions and Sentences After Amendment to Legislation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law what steps are taken by the Government to review the sustainability of convictions and sentences imposed against persons arising from a change in the applicable law as determined by a court of law.
Mr K Shanmugam: Under the law, the correctness of a decision is generally determined by reference only to the legal position as it stood at the time of the decision, and will not be affected by subsequent changes in the law. However, in exceptional cases, the Courts may take into account subsequent changes in the law to reassess previously made decisions, even if they were correct at the time they were made.
In 2018, we amended the Criminal Procedure Code to introduce a new statutory framework under which accused persons may apply to reopen concluded criminal appeals. Such applications will only be allowed in exceptional cases, where an accused person shows that there is sufficient material on which the appellate court may conclude that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Such material may include legal arguments based on a change in the law after the appeal had been concluded. This is necessary to strike the right balance between preventing miscarriages of justice and the need for finality in criminal proceedings where all appeals have already been exhausted.
Accused persons who wish to reopen their concluded criminal appeals after a change in the law may apply under this statutory framework. In the recent decision of Gobi a/l Avedian v PP [2020] SGCA 102 (Gobi (Review)), the applicant successfully applied under the statutory framework to reopen his concluded criminal appeal, after a change in the law. The Court of Appeal set aside the applicant’s conviction on the capital charge, and convicted him instead on a non-capital charge.
a. In PP v Gobi a/l Avedian [2019] 1 SLR 113 (Gobi (Appeal)), the applicant was convicted of importing diamorphine. The Court of Appeal held that he failed to rebut the presumption under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), which presumed that he knew the nature of the drugs. At the time of this decision, the law stated that the presumption under s 18(2) encompassed the doctrine of wilful blindness.
b. In a subsequent decision in Adili Chibuike Ejike v PP [2019] 2 SLR 254 (Adili), the Court of Appeal held that wilful blindness was a mental state falling short of actual knowledge, and therefore was incompatible with a presumption of knowledge. This decision was made in relation to the presumption under s 18(1) of the MDA i.e. that the accused had the drug in his possession and knew of the existence of the drug. The Court expressly declined to decide on the implications of its decision for the separate presumption under s 18(2) i.e. that the accused knew the nature of the drug. The Court noted that in two earlier decisions, it had previously decided that the presumption under s 18(2) encompassed the doctrine of wilful blindness.
c. In Gobi (Review), the Court of Appeal asked parties to submit on whether the reasoning in Adili extended to the presumption under s 18(2), and if so, what the implications were for Gobi (Appeal). The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) submitted that the reasoning in Adili could extend to the presumption under s 18(2). The Court agreed, and departed from its two earlier decisions by finding that wilful blindness was not compatible with the presumption under s 18(2).
d. The AGC submitted that there was no miscarriage of justice in Gobi (Appeal) because the AGC's case at trial and the appeal was consistently one of actual knowledge, and not wilful blindness. However, the Court ultimately characterised the case at trial as one of wilful blindness, and reversed its previous decision.
The AGC studies every decision issued by the Courts in criminal matters, to determine if the decision affects previously decided cases. For instance, where a change in the law could potentially affect prior decided cases, the AGC will assess how the change may affect those cases. Where necessary, the AGC will take the appropriate action to surface these cases to the Courts.
For example, in 2007, the CEO of AirOcean, Mr Thomas Tay, pleaded guilty to, and was convicted on, two charges under the Securities and Futures Act for non-disclosure and misleading statement offences. After the High Court overturned the convictions of three other AirOcean directors involved in the case, the AGC reviewed Mr Tay’s conviction and concluded that his conviction was not safe in the light of the High Court’s findings. On its own motion, the AGC applied to the High Court to set aside Mr Tay’s conviction on the ground that a serious injustice might have been occasioned. The court set aside Mr Tay’s conviction and ordered his fine of $240,000 to be refunded to him.
The AGC is studying the decision in Gobi, and undertaking a review of how the decision may affect previous cases and cases that are currently before the courts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment Dispute Cases Due to Abuse of the System by Foreign Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in each of the past three years, how many cases of employment disputes have been reported; (b) how many are the result of abuse by the foreign workers; and (c) whether the Ministry will review and enhance the current framework to prevent abuse by foreign workers or to prevent foreign workers from victimising their employers.
Mrs Josephine Teo: From 2017 to 2019, about 5,000 foreign work pass holders each year lodged salary claims with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM). Where such claims are disputed by employers, TADM will refer them to MOM for investigation. In 2019, MOM identified eight cases where the foreign workers had behaved irresponsibly during the salary claim process, such as making false salary claims or providing false information regarding their salary claims. Employers and workers alike have an obligation to act responsibly towards each other. Given the seriousness of the offence and to ensure strong deterrence, MOM had to cancel the work passes of the workers and impose a permanent ban on them from working in Singapore.
In addition, from 2017 to 2019, MOM took legal actions against eight foreign workers who were found to have made false work injury claims. They were either prosecuted or issued warnings for making false claims and giving false information to the Ministry. All of them were also permanently barred from working in Singapore.
We encourage employers and workers to maintain regular communications and good relations with each other and resolve misunderstandings before they escalate into disputes. MOM follows up on every claim whether they are filed by workers or employers. False allegations by either party are viewed seriously. We will continue to monitor the situation and take appropriate action.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Nursing Positions in Total Traineeships and Jobs Created","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the proportion of nursing positions under the 7,500 jobs and 1,600 traineeships that will be created from now till end-2021; and (b) what is the average training and on-boarding time needed for someone without a background in healthcare to take on these jobs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The healthcare sector continues to offer meaningful employment opportunities for Singaporeans, with up to 7,500 jobs and 1,600 traineeships, attachments and skills training opportunities available from now until end-2021. Of the 7,500 job opportunities, close to one-quarter, or about 1,800 of the positions are for nurses. These vacancies can be filled by fresh nursing graduates and those who are undergoing training through our Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) for nursing, as well as former nurses who wish to return to nursing practice.
The nursing PCPs support mid-career individuals without a prior healthcare background to make a switch into nursing. We have programmes at the NITEC, Diploma and Degree levels to train both enrolled and registered nurses. The conversion programmes take about two years to complete, and trainees will receive full course fee support, training allowance, and a Career Transition Bonus after they graduate. Trainees will be able to work in local public healthcare institutions or community care organisations after graduation.
The bulk of the remaining job opportunities are for support care, administrative and ancillary roles. Fresh graduates and mid-career jobseekers with or without healthcare backgrounds can apply for these positions. Depending on the role, new hires may have to go through the relevant onboarding training, which can include WSQ courses, in-house or on-the-job training. For example, new support care staff may have to go through a WSQ course in healthcare support that lasts between two to four months, while new hires into patient service associate roles may go for a WSQ course in administrative support, or undergo in-house training conducted by their healthcare employer. These can range from one to six months. Similarly, new or experienced hires taking on corporate functions such as finance or human resource may go for onboarding programmes in their first three to six months of work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profile of Imported COVID-19 Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the number of imported COVID-19 cases who are non-citizens for the respective time periods of September 2020, between July and September 2020, and since 7 April 2020; and (b) what is the breakdown of these cases by country of origin.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: There were 139 imported COVID-19 cases who are non-Singapore Citizens in the month of September 2020, 409 cases for the period from 1 July 2020 to 30 September 2020, and 575 cases for the period from 7 April 2020 to 31 October 2020.
The three countries with the highest numbers were India with 291 imported cases; Philippines with 111 imported cases; and Indonesia with 53 imported cases. We regularly review our border measures to manage the risk of COVID-19 importation. Pre-departure test requirement had been imposed for inbound travellers from India since 17 September, and for the Philippines and Indonesia since 20 October.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Development of E-sports and Gaming Industries in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the current number of game development companies operating in Singapore; and (b) what is the projected number of PMET positions that is needed to support the growing e-sports industry in Singapore.
Mr S Iswaran: The games development and e-sports industry in Singapore is growing, in tandem with its rise globally, especially in the Asian region. In Singapore, there are about 190 games development and publishing companies,1 many of whom are local players e.g. SEA Group, with a few multinationals e.g. Ubisoft.
There are diverse opportunities for PMET jobs in this industry, spanning job roles such as Software Programmer, Games Producer, Games Developer and Project Manager. Over the next two years, the industry will require about 2,700 info-communications and media professionals to support the games sector.2 To locally support the capability needs of this industry, the Government established DigiPen (Singapore) in 2017 as a specialised game school to teach students about digital animation and video game design. At the same time, IMDA is partnering companies to train for job roles to support the games industry and create new career opportunities for Singaporeans. One example is IMDA's partnership with SEA Group to train 500 Data/Business Analysts, Engineers, Product Managers and UI/UX Designers over the next two to three years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Data from DOS based on video game industry SSIC codes 58201 and 62012 as of March 2020.","2 : IMDA’s Annual Survey on Infocomm Media Manpower 2019. "],"footNoteQuestions":["61"],"questionNo":"61"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Temasek Holdings' Influence on SIA Over Its Practice of Fuel Hedging","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Leon Perera asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government will seek to use its influence as the shareholder of Temasek Holdings to require that SIA reviews its practice of fuel hedging.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: We have discussed the relationship between the Government and its investment entities many times in this House. Ms Sylvia Lim had a similar question earlier in October on whether the Government will use its shareholder influence to accomplish other objectives.
Our answer remains unchanged. The Government maintains an arm’s-length relationship with its investment entities. We do not direct or influence their commercial or operational decisions. This principle applies likewise to their portfolio companies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Letters to Inform Citizens of COVID-19 Help Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of the many key schemes under the COVID-19 measures for individuals and households, whether the Ministry can send letters to all Singapore Citizens detailing what they will receive so as to prevent confusion amongst our elderly who may not be up to date with the news.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Government shares the Member’s desire to inform Singaporeans about the various benefits and help schemes that they are eligible for, and has undertaken communication and outreach in various forms.
In July 2020, we distributed a Budget booklet to all households, describing the support measures announced at the Unity, Resilience, and Solidarity Budgets. For each scheme (like Workfare Special Payment, GST Voucher), customised letters are sent to each eligible citizen. For the Care and Support Package which has different components and payout timelines, letters to eligible beneficiaries provide information on what they can expect to receive. For GST Voucher – U-Save and the Solidarity Utilities Credit, we informed households of how much they would receive through additional inserts in their monthly utility bills from SP Services.
As some COVID-19 support measures are provided on an application basis, we stepped up our efforts to communicate these schemes so that those who needed additional support would be aware of how to apply for them. For instance, posters and infographics were put on the Digital Display Panels located within HDB estates.
Information on the various COVID-19 support schemes was consolidated on the \"Support Go Where\" website, with links to the various schemes’ application webpages, where relevant.
The Silver Generation Office (SGO) and its volunteers have also been actively reaching out to seniors, continuing over telephone during the Circuit Breaker period, to inform seniors of the support schemes available.
We will continue to improve the ways we inform fellow citizens of the help available to them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for ASEAN to Move Forward to Support Renewable Energy Production","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what are the plans for ASEAN to collectively move towards and support more renewable energy production in the region.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: ASEAN energy cooperation is guided by the ASEAN Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation, or the APAEC. It sets out various capacity building initiatives and measures to advance regional energy cooperation. Currently in the fourth instalment, the APAEC 2016 to 2025 pursues the enhancement of energy connectivity and market integration in ASEAN to achieve energy security, accessibility, affordability, and sustainability for all ASEAN Member States. As part of this plan, ASEAN aspires to increase the proportion of renewable energy in its primary energy supply from 13.6% in 2015, to 23% by 2025.
The APAEC 2016-2025 comprises two phases. The first five-year phase comprises short to medium term goals to enhance energy security cooperation, connectivity and integration. On the renewables front, ASEAN published the first Renewable Energy Outlook for ASEAN, and organised capacity building programmes and energy policy dialogues on best practices and financing related to the deployment of renewables in the region. According to the fifth ASEAN Energy Outlook published in 2017, wind capacity in ASEAN is projected to increase from 0.6 gigawatt in 2015 to 6 gigawatts in 2025. Similarly, solar PVs are expected to increase its capacity from 1.3 gigawatt in 2015 to 10 gigawatts in 2025.
The next five-year phase of the APAEC seeks to accelerate energy transition and strengthen energy resilience through greater innovation and cooperation from 2021 to 2025. Renewable energy will continue to be a key focus. ASEAN plans to deepen cooperation with Dialogue Partners and International Organisations on renewable energy initiatives, including supporting biofuel and bioenergy development.
Singapore is also doing its part to promote renewable energy development in the region. During Singapore's Chairmanship of the ASEAN Ministers on Energy Meeting (AMEM) in 2018, the ASEAN and the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to establish dialogues and joint activities to promote renewable energy in the region. In August this year, the Energy Market Authority co-organised a Regional Training Programme on Sustainable Energy Policies in Smart Cities with the International Energy Agency. The Programme explored policies promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy sources in smart city planning. Singapore and the International Energy Agency also co-hosted the second Global Ministerial Conference on System Integration of Renewables during the Singapore International Energy Week, to promote dialogue in the acceleration of renewables integration.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Consumer Electricity Market Share by Retailer","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the breakdown of the consumer electricity market share by retailers and SP Group; (b) what percentage of SP Group's electricity supply to consumers is covered by the vesting contracts; and (c) what is the expiration schedule of the vesting contracts by electricity production.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Forty-eight per cent of around 1.4 million household consumers and 46% of around 175,000 business consumers have switched to a retailer, as of end-September 2020. The remaining 52% of household consumers and 56% of business consumers remain with SP Group on the regulated tariff.
The electricity that SP sells to consumers is covered by vesting contracts. SP acts as an intermediary – the payments for electricity are fully passed on to the generating companies with the vesting contracts.
The vesting contracts will expire in June 2023. EMA is studying options for the regulated tariff after the expiry of the vesting contracts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fixing Defects Due to Design or Construction Flaws After Defects Liability Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB will consider defects that are identified after the expiry of the defects liability period but which clearly result from systematic design or construction defects by a single sub-contractor to still fall within the scope of reasonable rectification action; and (b) whether HDB will consider availing funds under the Home Improvement Programme for cost-sharing between lessees that experience such systematic defects especially with demonstrated financial need.
Mr Desmond Lee: It is not clear what the Member means by \"systematic\" design and construction defects. However let me explain the general approach to defects in HDB flats.
Design and construction defects identified within one year of completion of the BTO flat will be repaired by the building contractor as part of their responsibility under the Defects Liability Period (DLP). This is a standard industry practice for both public and private housing.
For issues reported after the DLP, HDB will investigate the likely cause and advise flat owners on the follow-up action based on the specific circumstances of each case. If the reported issues are caused by wear and tear, or a lack of proper maintenance, the costs of repair should be borne by the flat owners, as it is their responsibility to maintain and repair the fixtures and fittings of their flat. Where it is clear from technical engineering assessments that the reported issue is attributable to the contractor’s workmanship or arises from a design issue, HDB will rectify the issue. In HDB’s experience, issues arising many years after the DLP tend to be the result of wear and tear over time, much of which could be mitigated through regular maintenance.
Even though it is the home owners' responsibility to maintain their flats, HDB introduced the Home Improvement Programme, or HIP, to help owners of older HDB flats to address common maintenance issues in such flats. Currently, HIP includes items such as the repair of spalling concrete, and the repair of vertical wastepipes within the toilets if required. This is why we have certain age norms for blocks to be scheduled for HIP – currently those completed up to 1997. HDB reviews the items included in the HIP periodically to ensure they remain relevant to the needs of residents.
The HIP programme is scoped and budgeted to meet the cost of the items provided under HIP. It is not intended to cover design or construction defects in general. As explained earlier, HDB has a separate process to deal with such issues.
Flat owners who require financial assistance with household repairs can seek assistance from grassroots organisations and Community Development Councils.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Favourable Interest Rates Offered for CPF Savings to Preserve Retirement Adequacy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Manpower whether the favourable interest rates provided to CPF members amidst record low market interest rates will prevail to preserve retirement adequacy.
Mrs Josephine Teo: CPF interest rates are pegged to returns on investments of comparable risk and duration in the market. Hence, changes in the yields on market instruments such as Singapore Government Bonds and fixed deposits will automatically have an impact on CPF interest rates through the interest rate pegs.
Based on this interest rate peg formula, the current computed interest rate would be about 0.6% for the Ordinary Account (OA). However, CPF members currently enjoy a significantly higher rate of 2.5%, as this is the legislated minimum.
The legislated minimum of 2.5% also applies to the Special, MediSave, and Retirement Accounts (SMRA). On top of this, the Government has maintained a floor interest rate of 4% for the SMRA since 2008. This is considerably higher than the current computed interest rates of about 2.4% for the Special and MediSave Account (SA and MA), and 3.0% for the Retirement Account (RA). In September, the Government announced that the 4% floor would be extended till December 2021. In addition, to help further grow CPF savings, extra interest continues to be paid on the first $60,000 of a member’s combined balances (capped at $20,000 for the OA).
The interest rates on the OA, SA and MA are reviewed quarterly while the interest rate on the RA is reviewed annually, taking into account market conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Competitive Analysis of Integrated Shield Plan Products","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the market for Integrated Shield Plan (IP) insurance products has been studied from a competition perspective and, if so what are the findings; and (b) whether such competition study has considered the situation of existing IP insured who wish to change their IP provider.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MediShield Life is a basic health insurance scheme that provides Singaporeans with universal and lifelong protection against large healthcare bills. Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) provide optional additional coverage on top of MediShield Life. The IP market currently has seven IP insurers, all of whom have a similar range of IP offerings. MOH publishes the comparison of insurers’ benefits, premiums, terms and conditions and claims processing duration, to improve transparency and help consumers make informed decisions, including the choice of an IP plan.
IP policies and premiums are determined by private insurers based on their own commercial and actuarial considerations, as well as competitive factors especially for new policy holders. As is the case with most private healthcare insurance, new policyholders may be subject to underwriting, and their policy offers may also be subject to exclusions or premium loading if they are found to have pre-existing medical conditions. This applies also to existing IP policyholders who wish to change insurers. Nevertheless, MediShield Life covers all Singaporeans, including any pre-existing conditions regardless of their IP plan or exclusions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases under Restriction on Re-issue of Option to Purchase for Same Unit to Same Purchaser","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development with regard to URA's announcement on the Restriction on Re-issue of Option to Purchase (OTP) for the Same Unit to Same Purchaser, what is (i) the total number of such cases over the last two years (ii) the average length of time taken to exercise OTPs for successful cases (iii) the number of cases that were eventually aborted (iv) the current number of cases outstanding and (v) the average number of weeks that developers have committed to purchasers for the re-issuance of OTPs.
Mr Desmond Lee: Since January 2019, 5,500 private housing transactions had Options to Purchase (OTPs) for the same units re-issued to the same purchasers. Close to 70% of these re-issued OTPs have been exercised, on average less than six months from the date the first OTP was issued. Only about 1% of the re-issued OTPs eventually lapsed.
Given the current economic uncertainties, it is even more important for purchasers to be financially prudent and to secure the necessary financial resources before they commit to new property purchases. To reduce risk to purchasers, URA has, from 28 September, prohibited developers from (i) providing upfront agreement to purchasers to re-issue OTP, and (ii) re-issuing OTP to the same purchaser(s) for the same unit within 12 months after the expiry of the earlier OTP. Nevertheless, to minimise the impact on existing purchasers, URA will allow developers to honour their previous commitments to the purchasers, which were made prior to these changes.
For purchasers who require more time, such as to complete the sale of their existing property to finance the new property, URA is prepared to grant extensions of OTP validity, so there is no need for the developer to reissue the OTP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Securing Medical and Accident Protection for Ride Hailing and Delivery Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there are plans to ensure that ride hailing and delivery platforms play an active role with their platform partners to strengthen and secure medical and accident protection of their partners, develop pathways to acquire skills and build up their platform partners' ability to retire; and (b) whether there are plans to ensure fair and reasonable access to the platform and sufficient protection of these platform partners from taking on unnecessary business risks.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Government, the National Private Hire Vehicles’ Association (NPHVA) and ride-hail operators have been working together to ensure that drivers and riders are adequately covered by insurance, as a matter of good industry practice. Today, Grab and Gojek are providing their drivers with medical, accident and also Prolonged Medical Leave insurance to cover them for income losses from extended periods of illness. This complements tripartite efforts, such as the taxi Drive and Save scheme and the GrabCar Driver Medisave Match programme, which encourage drivers to make regular contributions to their Medisave.
Regulations also play a part. From 1 December 2020, food delivery platform operators will be required by law to insure their riders using active mobility devices against third-party liability, to cover expenses arising from accidents that can occur in the course of work.
As part of our national SkillsFuture movement, ride-hail operators have also been supporting their drivers to pick up new skills. For example, Grab recently partnered Ngee Ann Polytechnic, the Employment and Employability Institute and the NPHVA to roll out training programmes. It has also developed a career portal to help drivers who wish to transition out of driving.
Under the new Point-to-Point Transport (P2P) regulatory framework, P2P operators are not allowed to impose exclusivity restrictions on their drivers. That way, drivers can work for multiple platforms at the same time. We will continue to strike a balance between providing flexibilities to drivers and ensuring that platform operators continue to have an incentive to innovate and differentiate themselves in providing good services to commuters.
77 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the Government's response to the Financial Action Task Force's (FATF) report on Money Laundering and the Illegal Wildlife Trade; and (b) what steps does the Government intend to take to address the findings in the report.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Illegal wildlife trade (IWT) is a transnational crime. As IWT generates criminal proceeds for their perpetrators, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) report that Mr Louis Ng refers to does focus on combatting money laundering (ML) linked to IWT.
Singapore was in fact a member of the project team for the report and supports its recommendations. We contributed case studies to support the FATF deliberations.
Our whole of government approach is consistent with the recommendations in the FATF report. Several agencies, including the Commercial Affairs Department, National Parks Board and the Monetary Authority of Singapore work together to combat ML linked to IWT. Let me elaborate.
We have enacted laws and regulations that target IWT and associated ML.
a. Under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (ESA) and the Wildlife Act (WA), it is an offence to trade wildlife without the requisite permits.
b. The laundering of proceeds for ESA and WA offences is an ML offence under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act.
Singapore enforces these laws robustly. The relevant agencies regularly exchange information, typologies and intelligence, and coordinate on joint operations and training. They have also formed close working relationships with foreign counterparts. Through this close collaboration, Singapore has intercepted shipments and achieved several successful seizures of illegal wildlife cargo. These actions have disrupted criminal syndicates and prevented them from benefitting from the proceeds of IWT.
Public-private partnerships also play an important role in our efforts to combat IWT and ML. We have enhanced the collective understanding of IWT risks by sharing case studies and red flag indicators with banks, traders, and agents that apply for trade permits. This has helped them to better detect and report suspicious fund flows linked to IWT.
While we have made a number of prosecutions for IWT over the years, there has been no indication that there are major IWT syndicates operating out of Singapore. In the investigations, we have also not found ML linked to IWT occurring in or connected to Singapore.
Notwithstanding, we will continue to be vigilant to the threat posed by IWT and related ML.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maximum Residue Limits for Ractopamine in Meat Imported into Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the rationale for SFA's latest revised position on the maximum residue limits for ractopamine in pork and cattle imported into Singapore; (b) what are the known and possible health risks arising from consuming meat with such residue limits of ractopamine including risks for young people or any vulnerable group; and (c) whether SFA is concerned that ractopamine is banned in various other countries.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Importers of meat and meat products are required to ensure that the food they import comply with the regulatory standards set by SFA, so as to ensure that the food is safe for consumption. These standards include the maximum residue limits for substances found in the food. When considering new regulatory standards or when reviewing existing regulatory standards, SFA takes reference from international standards-setting bodies such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), which was established by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO).
Ractopamine is an additive that is used in animal feed to promote growth in approved food animal species, namely pig and cattle which are raised for their meat for human consumption. The Codex had considered the safety of ractopamine before adopting the existing maximum residue limits for ractopamine in meat and other organs. Codex’s scientific expert panel, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), had conducted comprehensive risk assessments in 1993, 2004, 2006 and 2010 which studied the toxicity of ractopamine, the levels of residue found in food animals that were fed with ractopamine and the amount of ractopamine consumed by humans as a result of consuming meat and other organs from these animals. JECFA concluded from these assessments that ractopamine is safe for use in food production. SFA’s decision to align to the Codex standards for ractopamine in meat and other organs was made only after careful consideration, taking into account the safety assessments done by JECFA as well as SFA.
Based on these safety assessments, the intake of ractopamine through residues in meat and other organs within the regulated limits set by SFA would not pose a health risk, even if the meat and other organs are consumed over a long period of time.
Countries set their own standards based on their own risk assessments and considerations and it would be inappropriate for us to comment on them. Although it is not mandatory for countries to align their standards with Codex standards, it is important to note that the Codex standards have been recognised as reference standards for international trade under the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures. While some countries have banned ractopamine, many other countries including developed ones such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and Canada have adopted similar limits for ractopamine as Singapore.
SFA will continue to monitor the scientific developments on the safety of ractopamine and will review our regulations where necessary to safeguard food safety and public health.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Fire Incident in MRT Tunnel on 16 October 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the fire in the MRT tunnel between Orchard and Somerset stations on 16 October 2020 (a) how many engineering locomotives were in service then; (b) whether the damaged engineering locomotive will impede maintenance works by SMRT; and (c) what safety measures are in place for fighting MRT tunnel fires.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: During engineering hours on 16 October 2020, a small fire started on a locomotive that was travelling in the MRT tunnel between Orchard and Somerset stations. It was immediately put out by SMRT’s maintenance staff using on-board fire extinguishers, before SCDF arrived at the scene. The situation was resolved within 20 minutes.
The fire was caused by lubricant oil that leaked from a broken gasket and combusted upon contact with the locomotive's hot exhaust pipe. There was no damage to other parts of the railway and the incident did not affect train services nor SMRT's maintenance ability. SMRT is conducting a fleetwide check of all the gaskets and critical components on their locomotives, and will initiate a review with the equipment supplier, who had earlier replaced the gaskets in July 2020.
All underground tunnels are equipped with ventilation fans which can expel smoke and supply fresh air. All trains and locomotives have fire extinguishers on board, with all MRT staff trained in basic firefighting and first aid. There is water supply in all stations and tunnels for firefighting. Standard Operating Procedures are in place to evacuate commuters in times of emergency.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timeline between Issuance of Summonses for LTA Offences and Date of Offence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the median time period from the date of offence to the date a summons is issued by LTA to alleged offenders; and (b) whether LTA has guidelines in place to ensure that summonses are not issued more than three months after the date of offence.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Approximately 99% of all summonses are issued by LTA within two weeks upon confirmation that an offence has been committed. These include common offences, such as non-payment of Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) charges, illegal parking, and travelling along bus lane during restricted hours.
For non-straightforward cases, LTA may need more time. For example, some offences, especially more serious ones, require more time to complete thorough investigations before the appropriate summonses are issued. This is to ensure fairness to all parties, and to avoid prejudicing the outcome of investigations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Employees' Citizenship in Civil Service and Statutory Boards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister what is the current number of employees in the Civil Service and statutory boards who are (i) Singapore citizens (ii) permanent residents and (iii) foreigners.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): As at 31 December 2019, there were 138,126 Singapore citizens, 5,306 permanent residents and 3,160 foreigners employed in the Civil Service and statutory boards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Flexibility to Refinance Private Properties arising Due to Medical Emergencies for Those Aged over 70 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider introducing more flexibility for those aged over 70 years to refinance their private properties so that they can invest more or tide over cash flow problems that may arise due to medical emergencies.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The Government has introduced several measures over the years to help Singaporeans monetise their housing assets so as to meet their financial needs.
In March 2017, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) announced that mortgage equity withdrawal loans need not be subject to the total debt servicing ratio framework if the loan amount is less than 50% of the market value of the property. This measure is particularly relevant to retirees who wish to monetise their housing assets.
MAS has also not set any age limit on borrowers who can apply for mortgage equity withdrawal loans. However, like all loans, financial institutions will conduct credit assessments and, in some cases, they may request for a joint borrower or guarantor to be named. To facilitate such loan arrangements, MAS does not require that a joint borrower of a mortgage equity withdrawal loan be the owner of the underlying property.
We encourage individuals facing cashflow pressures to discuss with their financial institutions the possible relief options.
Besides mortgage equity withdrawal loans, there are other ways for older Singaporeans to monetise their housing assets, such as renting out the property or a room for rental income, right-sizing, or applying for the HDB Lease Buyback Scheme.
The Government will continue to review how monetisation of housing assets can best be facilitated to support the retirement needs of Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans Who Do Not Have a SingPass Account","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Prime Minister (a) what percentage of seniors aged 65 and above do not have a SingPass account; and (b) whether the Smart Nation Digital Government Office will be exploring ways to allow seniors without a computer or smartphone to register for SingPass without having to physically register at a counter.
4 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister what is the (i) number and (ii) proportion of Singaporeans who do not have an active SingPass account, broken down by age group.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): All Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents aged 15 years old and above are eligible for a SingPass account. Of these 3.6 million eligible Singapore Residents, 3.45 million (or about 96%) have a SingPass account.
Among seniors aged 65 and above, close to 90% have SingPass accounts, up from approximately 80% in 2017. Among seniors with SingPass accounts, 69% are active SingPass users who have used the account in the past 12 months. The adoption of SingPass by age groups is at Table 1.
Eligible residents may set up a SingPas account via the SingPass website or at any of the 45 SingPass counters located at Community Centres/Clubs and selected Government agencies island-wide. Seniors without computing devices can also access the SingPass website and register for SingPass via the CitizenConnect Centres (CCC+) located at the Public Service Centre @ Our Tampines Hub and 25 Community Centres/Clubs.
Our goal is an inclusive Smart Nation that enables all to benefit from technology. To achieve this, the Government has several initiatives to improve digital inclusiveness. The SG Digital Office is supporting seniors to pick up digital skills, including the use of SingPass Mobile for Government digital services. Low income seniors may also approach the SG Digital community hubs to apply for support under the Mobile Access for Seniors scheme, which offers eligible seniors a subsidised smartphone and mobile plan.
5 Mr Leon Perera asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how frequently does the Government consider revisions to the minimum individual income level for taxation, which was last revised in 2001; and (b) whether the Government will consider raising the minimum individual income level for taxation in light of inflation.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Under our personal income tax regime, the first $20,000 of a tax resident individual's chargeable income (that is, taxable income after netting off tax deductions and personal income tax reliefs) is not taxed.
This $20,000 threshold, together with our progressive tax rates, tax reliefs, and tax rebate, ensures that low- and middle-income earners pay no or low income taxes. Currently, about half of our workers do not pay personal income tax. Among the individuals who do pay personal income tax, 80% of them have an effective tax rate of less than 4%.
The Government reviews our tax system periodically, and will continue to do so to ensure that our personal income tax regime remains competitive, fiscally resilient and progressive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accidents involving Group Cycling and Measures to Manage Safety of Road Users","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) over the last three years, what is the number of accidents involving casual and competitive cyclists cycling in large groups on public roads; and (b) what is the Ministry's approach in managing the safety of road users amidst the growing appeal of group cycling.
Mr K Shanmugam: From 2017 to 2019, there were 1,556 accidents involving cyclists that resulted in injuries or fatalities. The number of such accidents has decreased from 596 in 2017 to 459 in 2019. As a percentage of all road accidents that resulted in injuries or fatalities, it has also decreased, from 8% to 6% over the same period. The Traffic Police (TP) does not track if the cyclists involved in these accidents were in large or small groups.
TP adopts a three-pronged approach of enforcement, education and engagement to enhance road safety for cyclists.
TP conducts regular enforcement at hotspots as well as at locations reported by members of the public where unsafe road behaviour by cyclists is observed. TP will take action against cyclists who ride in a disorderly manner and without due regard for the safety of others. First-time offenders may be fined up to $1,000, imprisoned for up to three months, or both. Repeat offenders may be fined up to $2,000, imprisoned for up to six months, or both.
On education and engagement, TP has been working with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and community partners such as the Safe Cycling Task Force. This includes disseminating safe cycling publicity materials, and specific advisories for group cycling that state that only up to two cyclists are allowed to ride abreast in one lane, when cycling on roads with two or more lanes. On roads with a single lane, cyclists should always ride in a single file unless overtaking. TP also conducts regular road safety talks with motorists to educate them on safe driving practices, including when encountering cyclists riding on roads.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Collection of Evidence for Offences under Section 27A of The Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance Act)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs how does the police collect evidence for offences under section 27A of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act where a person cannot be naked in a private place while being exposed to public view.
Mr K Shanmugam: To investigate offences of a person being naked in a private place while being exposed to public view, Police may conduct ground enquiries and interview the offender and parties involved to collect the necessary evidence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Scam Cases Involving Local Scammers Reported in First Eight Months of This Year and Plans to Increase Criminal Penalties Against Scammers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) of the more than 10,000 scam cases reported in the first eight months of the year, how many cases involved local scammers; and (b) given the rising trend where millions of dollars are lost to scams annually, whether the Ministry intends to increase criminal penalties against scammers.
Mr K Shanmugam: Of the 10,402 cases of scams reported between January and August 2020, fewer than 10% were perpetrated by citizens and permanent residents (PRs). In this period, 538 citizens and PRs, accounting for 636 cases, were arrested, with 59 charged for various offences and 29 warned by the Police, based on the investigations done thus far.
Depending on the facts of the case, scammers may be charged for one of the cheating-related provisions under Sections 415 to 420 of the Penal Code, which carry maximum imprisonment terms of between three and 10 years. MHA's assessment is that the penalties are sufficiently severe.
The main challenge in combating scams is their trans-national nature. Most of the scammers are based overseas, and not within our reach. We have been collaborating with foreign law enforcement agencies to detect and dismantle scam syndicates. MHA is also stepping up efforts on scam prevention through education and raising awareness, and working with partners such as banks and remittance companies to detect and stop scams before they happen.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requests for Non-spousal Sponsorship for Long Term Visit Pass in Each of Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
9 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Home Affairs in each of the past five years, how many Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP) applicants have requested for non-spousal sponsorship for their LTVP renewals.
Mr K Shanmugam: In the past five years, the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) received an average of 24,255 applications each year from Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) holders who requested for the renewal of their pass through non-spousal sponsorship. These LTVP holders include children and parents of Singapore citizens and permanent residents. The breakdown of applications per year from 2015 to 2019 is as follows:
10 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Law with regard to Writ of Seizure and Sale (WSS) proceedings for non-commercial cases that are currently on hold (a) what are the concerns that are holding back the WSS proceedings that have been paused at different stages; (b) what is the expected date of resumption for these WSS proceedings; and (c) what arrangements are in place to handle the backlog of cases accumulated since the circuit breaker period.
Mr K Shanmugam: We understand the question relating to \"Writ of Seizure and Sale (WSS)1 proceedings for non-commercial cases\" to refer to cases where a WSS is issued for the seizure of movable property on premises used for non-commercial purposes or the premises of a non-commercial entity.
All enforcement actions, including WSS proceedings in non-commercial cases, were put on hold during the circuit breaker period from 7 April to 1 June 20202 in accordance with the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Control Order) Regulations 2020 (\"the Control Order Regulations\") in force at that time.3
Following the phased exit from the circuit breaker period, and the establishment of the necessary safe distancing and other applicable measures for the safe resumption of enforcement actions, WSS proceedings for non-commercial cases have resumed.
The Supreme Court and State Courts bailiffs have since completed execution of the seizure stage of all WSS proceedings for movable properties in non-commercial cases that accumulated during the circuit breaker period.
The next step in WSS proceedings is the sale of the seized movable properties, which is conducted via physical auctions. These are held at the premises where the movable properties were seized, to avoid incurring extra costs for transport and storage and to reduce the risk of damage.
These physical auctions are conducted by external auctioneers and typically involve more than five people – the auctioneer, the bailiff, potential bidders and the judgment creditors' representative(s). Given the number of individuals involved, physical auctions for seized movable properties located at places of residence have been put on hold, in line with the Control Order Regulations.4
The courts will resume the auctions when such activities can be conducted safely in accordance with the Control Order Regulations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The WSS is a legal mechanism available to judgment creditors to recover monies that are owed to the judgment creditor under a judgment or order of court. WSS proceedings entail (a) an application to court, (b) seizure of property of the judgment debtor by the court bailiff, and (c) the sale of the seized property with the proceeds being used to satisfy the judgment debt.","2 : Supreme Court Registrar’s Circulars No. 4 and 5 of 2020 and State Courts’ Registrar’s Circulars No. 8 and 9 of 2020.","3 : Regulation 4 of the Control Order Regulations required any judgment debtor to deny entry to persons who would ordinarily be involved in the process of seizing property – e.g. judgment creditor’s representatives or third parties such as auxiliary police officers or locksmiths.","4 : Regulation 4(4) of the Control Order Regulations."],"footNoteQuestions":["10"],"questionNo":"10"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Duration Taken for Dissolution of Marriage and Ancillary Matters Stage and Applications Made for Court Orders for Enforcement for Maintenance, Custody and Settlement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Law for women who have filed for divorce in the past three years, (a) what is the average duration taken respectively for the dissolution of marriage stage and the ancillary matters stage; and (b) how many applications have been made for court orders for the enforcement for maintenance, custody and settlement out of the total number of divorces.
Mr K Shanmugam: Civil divorces filed in the Family Justice Courts (FJC) may either proceed on the simplified track or the non-simplified track. The average duration taken depends on the track that the divorce application proceeds on.
A divorce proceeds on the simplified track if parties consent to the divorce and agree on all issues relating to the divorce, including the ancillary matters.
The average duration for the dissolution of marriage on the simplified track (i.e. the time taken from the filing of the divorce application to the grant of the interim judgment) for applications filed by women is less than one month. This has been consistent for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019.
The statistics are as follows:
Where the divorce proceeds on the non-simplified track, for applications filed by women in the past three years:
(a) the average duration taken for the dissolution of the marriage ranged from three-and-a-half to four months;
(b) the average duration for the ancillary matters stage (i.e. the time taken from the first ancillary matter hearing to the last ancillary matter hearing) for concluded applications fell from 54 days in 2017 to 12 days in 2019. However, it is to be noted that 2019 figures are subject to update as some of the applications are still ongoing.
(c) the average duration from the filing to the conclusion of the ancillary matters stage for concluded applications fell from 444 days in 2017 to 271 days in 2019. However, it is to be noted that 2019 figures are subject to update as some of the applications are still ongoing.
The statistics are as follows:
The FJC does not collect data on enforcement of maintenance that arises specifically pursuant to divorces. However, the statistics on the total number of applications for enforcement made under section 71 of the Women's Charter are as follows:
Applications for enforcement of custody and those made pursuant to a divorce settlement agreement are typically done by way of contempt proceedings. Data on such applications is not collected. Generally, the instances of such applications are low.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Community Dispute Resolution (CDRT) Claim Submissions between 2017 and 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Law (a) what is the number of Community Dispute Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) claim submissions in 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively, broken down by age group; and (b) what avenues of access to CDRT processes and the Community Justice and Tribunals System are available for elderly Singaporeans without IT access or SingPass.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of claims filed with the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) from 2017 to 2019 is as follows:
The CDRT does not track the age of its applicants and is hence unable to provide a breakdown of applications by age group.
Nevertheless, the State Courts pays close attention to litigants who may need extra assistance, including elderly litigants, and takes additional effort to assist them better.
The CDRT processes have been designed to ensure accessibility for litigants. Application forms are simplified, and proceedings are judge-led. All CDRT applications are done online, via the Community Justice and Tribunals System (CJTS), which allows individuals to file a claim at their own time and convenience, and from the comfort of their own home, using their SingPass. This also benefits those who may face mobility issues.
Individuals who have difficulties accessing and navigating the CJTS, can reach out to the State Courts' Registry for assistance, over the phone, via email, or in person at the State Courts' premises. They can also make an appointment for the State Courts Registry staff to assist them to use computer terminals at the State Courts' premises to file the application.
Where an individual is unable to file or present his case by reason of old age, illiteracy or infirmity, it is also possible for a third party, who is duly authorised in writing and approved by the CDRT, to file a claim and make representations on behalf of the individual. In addition, under the Community Justice and Tribunal Divisions Friends Scheme, individuals can apply for a family member, friend, or volunteer to assist with the filing of a claim, and also to provide support throughout the CDRT process.
Apart from that, there are various programmes that offer solutions to assist litigants-in-person who require help navigating the justice system. One such programme is the Community Justice Centre.
Even as we make the CDRT accessible, the Ministry of Law encourages individuals to consider legal proceedings as a last resort to resolve neighbour disputes. Often, neighbour disputes can be resolved quickly and efficiently if neighbours are willing to discuss their grievances directly or have a mediator help them to do so. This will help prevent the matter from escalating into a legal dispute unnecessarily, and strengthen the parties' relationship in the long-term.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Medisave Balance for CPF Members above Age of 55 who Passed Away in 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Health in respect of CPF members above the age of 55 who have passed away in 2019 (a) what is their remaining MediSave balance (i) in total and (ii) in average amount per CPF member; and (b) where do these savings go to subsequently.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MediSave helps Singaporeans set aside part of their income over their working years to save up for healthcare expenses in old age, when their healthcare needs are typically higher. Singaporeans aged 55 and above who passed away in 2019 had remaining MediSave balances of about $300 million in total. About half of them had $10,300 or less in their MediSave accounts. These include younger members who passed away before they had drawn down their savings significantly. The remaining MediSave balance on demise is lower at older age groups, for example, for those who passed away at age 85 or older, about half had a balance of $6,300 or less.
For those who have passed away, their CPF savings, including MediSave balances, will be distributed to their beneficiaries in cash according to their CPF nomination or through the Public Trustee's Office if no CPF nominations were made.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Higher Annual Deduction Limit for Flexi-MediSave or Higher MediSave Withdrawal Limit for Those Above 70 Years Old","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider introducing a higher annual deduction limit for Flexi-MediSave or a higher MediSave withdrawal limit for those above 70 years old for outpatient consultation and medication.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Flexi-MediSave scheme allows Singaporeans aged 60 and above to withdraw up to a combined total of $200 each year from their own or their spouse's MediSave accounts to pay for their outpatient medical treatments at public Specialist Outpatient Clinics, Polyclinics, and General Practitioner clinics under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS).
In 2019, fewer than 2 in 10 of those eligible to use Flexi-MediSave reached the annual $200 limit. This similar pattern was observed for those aged 70 and above. We will continue to review the MediSave withdrawal limits regularly, to ensure that they remain relevant and adequate for patients of all ages.
Nevertheless, elderly patients who cannot afford their treatment after subsidies and MediSave can approach the medical social workers for MediFund and other financial assistance. No Singaporean will be denied access to necessary and appropriate healthcare because of an inability to pay.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reduce Waiting Time for Seniors to get a Pair of Dentures from Government Dental Clinics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will look into reducing the waiting time needed for seniors to get a pair of dentures from government dental clinics.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Dental patients who require immediate treatment will be attended to immediately. While most dental conditions are diagnosed and treated at the same sitting, the denture-making process requires several clinical appointments as well as multiple dental laboratory steps and involvement to deliver the completed dentures to the patient to ensure proper fit. In such cases, appointments are scheduled based on case complexity and urgency.
The introduction of the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) in 2012 has improved the accessibility and affordability of dental care, including denture treatment, at private dental clinics. The number of private dental clinics participating in CHAS has increased from 290 in 2012 to over 700 currently. Polyclinics also inform patients about the availability of CHAS dental clinics, where eligible patients, including Pioneer Generation (PG) and Merdeka Generation (MG) seniors, have the option to seek denture treatment at CHAS dental clinics.
Additionally, the Ministry of Health has partnered with Temasek Foundation to roll out Project Silver Screen (PSS), a nationwide functional screening programme for Singaporeans aged 60 years and above to detect age-related decline in vision, hearing and oral health, and provide timely interventions to improve the seniors' quality of life. Under the PSS programme, seniors who require dentures would receive vouchers to defray the out-of-pocket costs for their treatment post-government subsidies. This complements the Government's existing efforts in ensuring that denture treatment remains accessible and affordable for seniors.
We will continue to monitor and meet the dental care needs of Singaporeans at the appropriate settings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allow More Flexibility on Use of MediSave for Dental Procedures not Involving Surgeries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider allowing more flexibility for the elderly to use MediSave for dental procedures not involving surgeries such as the making of dentures or root planning to treat advanced gum disease.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MediSave is primarily intended to help Singaporeans afford the co-payment for their more costly medical expenses after subsidies and MediShield Life, such as hospitalisations, day surgeries, and selected outpatient treatments. In recent years, we have introduced greater flexibility in MediSave use for the elderly, such as by raising the withdrawal limits for those with complex chronic conditions, and lowering the age threshold of the Flexi-MediSave scheme, allowing more elderly to benefit. However, each extension in the use of MediSave must be carefully balanced against the need to keep contribution rates reasonable for all Singaporeans.
MediSave can currently be used to pay for dental day surgical treatments, which generally incur higher out-of-pocket costs. This ensures that MediSave can be used on a targeted basis to offset the largest bills. At the same time, a range of measures are available to improve the affordability of non-surgical dental treatments. Singaporeans can benefit from subsidised dental treatments at our public healthcare institutions, including 10 polyclinics, and may be referred to the National Dental Centre Singapore and National University Centre for Oral Health Singapore for complex treatment if they require specialist care. At dental clinics which are part of the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), eligible Singaporeans may also tap on CHAS dental subsidies for selected procedures, including the making of dentures. These healthcare financing schemes work in tandem to ensure that necessary treatments are affordable to all Singaporeans.
Nevertheless, elderly patients who cannot afford their dental treatment after subsidies can approach medical social workers for MediFund and other financial assistance. No Singaporean will be denied access to necessary and appropriate healthcare because of an inability to pay.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Greater Subsidies for Medication Needed by Higher Number of Seniors and Retiress","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will look into greater subsidies for dementia medication and other types of medication needed by a higher number of seniors and retirees.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government seeks to ensure affordability and accessibility of drugs that are assessed to be clinically and cost-effective for patients who need them. Such drugs are included in the Standard Drug List (SDL) or Medication Assistance Fund (MAF), and would include medications for dementia, as well as other common conditions that our seniors could be suffering from, such as lipid disorder and hypertension. Eligible patients can receive up to 75% subsidy for these drugs at the Public Healthcare Institutions (PHIs). Pioneers and Merdeka Generation seniors are further entitled to an additional 50% or 25% off their post-subsidy bills for their medications respectively.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) regularly reviews the list of subsidised drugs to ensure that it remains updated and relevant to cater to local population needs. 15 drugs for dementia and common chronic conditions were added to the list of subsidised drugs over the last three years. For example, the listing of Donepezil in 2017 (a medication commonly used to treat dementia) on the SDL has reduced the co-payment at PHIs from $12 to $3 per month for patients eligible for subsidies of 75%.
For patients who visit GP clinics, they also receive subsidies via the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) which helps defray the cost of treatment and medication, including for 20 chronic diseases, such as dementia. A new CHAS Green card was introduced in November last year while the annual subsidy cap for CHAS Blue and Orange cardholders with complex chronic conditions was also increased from $500 to $520 and $300 to $320 per year respectively. Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation seniors can also receive special subsidies to defray the cost of medical care at CHAS clinics.
MOH will continue to review the measures and support for patients regularly, to ensure affordability and accessibility to healthcare services and medications. For those who face difficulties with their medical bill, MediFund is available at our PHIs to support them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allow Usage for MediSave for Certain Treatments at Selected Traditional Chinese Medicine","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider allowing seniors to use MediSave for certain treatments at selected Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) clinics approved by the Ministry and, if not, what are the considerations for not allowing MediSave to be so used.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MediSave helps Singaporeans set aside part of their income over their working years to save up for their basic healthcare needs in old age, including larger medical expenses such as hospitalisation episodes and recurring outpatient treatments, as well as premiums for national health insurance schemes. While we have extended coverage to a wider range of mainstream evidence-based treatments in recent years, especially to better support seniors with chronic conditions, any further extension must be carefully balanced against the need to ensure that Singaporeans' MediSave balances are not depleted prematurely.
In light of the above, we have adopted other measures to enhance access to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), which plays a complementary role in our healthcare system. MOH provides support for enhancing TCM capability and professional development like funding and support for TCM continuing education and research. Funding is also available to TCM clinics to encourage digitalisation and upgrade clinic facilities for a safer and elderly-friendly clinic environment. Moreover, charitable TCM establishments with Institution of Public Character (IPC) status benefit from tax exemption and are eligible to receive tax deductible donations, which enable them to provide affordable TCM services in the community.
We will continue to review our financing schemes in tandem with these measures to ensure that seniors are able to afford the care they need. No Singaporean will be denied access to necessary and appropriate healthcare because of an inability to pay.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 Infection Cases Tracked from TraceTogether Tokens and Utilisation Rate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, how many COVID-19 infection cases have been successfully tracked from the TraceTogether tokens; (b) how does the Government track the actual utilisation rate of issued TraceTogether tokens; and (c) whether there are plans to integrate the SafeEntry feature into TraceTogether tokens.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: TraceTogether has helped to identify about 25,000 close contacts of COVID-19 cases so far, of which 160 were eventually tested positive COVID-19 cases. It has enabled the early identification and isolation of cases, faster than would have been possible with manual tracing.
We started the community distribution of TraceTogether tokens on 14 September. As at 1 November, 570,000 residents have collected their tokens. In addition, about 2.7 million have downloaded the TraceTogether app1 , which serves the same function as the token.
The effectiveness of TraceTogether increases as more users come onboard. We therefore encourage more Singaporeans to join the TraceTogether programme either by downloading the app or collecting and wearing the token. We have also introduced TraceTogether-only SafeEntry for selected higher-risk settings, and will extend this to more venues such as malls, F&B outlets, and workplaces towards the end of December.
We have started to integrate the SafeEntry feature into the TraceTogether Tokens. The QR code on the back of the TraceTogether Token may be used for SafeEntry check-ins. This QR Code can be scanned in lieu of the NRIC for entry into a SafeEntry venue. We will continue to study deeper integration of the two systems, in order to minimise public inconvenience even as we shore up our digital tracing capability so as to open up our economy and resume activities safely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Those who have downloaded TT app may have also collected TT tokens."],"footNoteQuestions":["19"],"questionNo":"19"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Projected Costs of Primary and Secondary Healthcare Services for Next Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the current projections on the cost of primary and secondary healthcare services for the next five years; and (b) whether there are active plans to flatten the curve of rising medical cost and medical insurance.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: From 2012 to 2017, National Healthcare Expenditure increased from $13 billion to $22 billion at a rate of about 11% per annum. Healthcare costs are rising due to various factors. First, with an ageing population, we have more seniors who require more medical attention. Second, medical advances in the form of better drugs and other technologies, which may promise better patient outcomes and quality of life, often come at a price. Third, operating costs such as salaries of our healthcare workers may increase over time.
MOH will continue to work with stakeholders to manage healthcare costs so that healthcare remains affordable for Singaporeans. This includes healthcare costs in the primary and secondary care settings, such as our General Practitioner (GP) clinics, polyclinics and specialist outpatient clinics.
For example, chronic disease prevalence will rise as our population ages. In line with our strategy to shift care from the hospital to the community, we can anchor chronic care management in primary care for better outcomes and avoid more expensive specialist outpatient clinics and hospitals when it is not required. Therefore, in November 2019, we enhanced the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) to provide increased subsidies for chronic disease management to all Singaporeans at all CHAS GPs regardless of income in support of this shift.
We will also need to strengthen primary care capability in managing chronic diseases to help prevent complications, avoid hospital admissions and help avoid unnecessary healthcare bills. MOH launched the Primary Care Networks (PCN) scheme in 2018 to encourage private GP clinics to organise themselves into networks to support more holistic and team-based care. This allows the anchoring of care with a regular family doctor, which would enable the doctor to better understand the patient’s health history and facilitate early identification of conditions. This helps to improve, control, as well as prevent complications that require costly treatment downstream. MOH is also actively leveraging technology to transform our care models. For example, we are adopting telehealth to facilitate service delivery and make it more convenient for patients so that they do not miss their appointments.
Another key strategy MOH has embarked on to manage the rise in healthcare costs is to enhance support for preventive care to keep Singaporeans healthy. For example, we enhanced the subsidies for the Screen for Life programme in 2017 to encourage Singaporeans to go for early screening and timely follow-up to reduce complications. We also recently introduced enhanced subsidies for nationally recommended vaccinations at polyclinics and CHAS clinics island-wide, to better protect Singaporeans against vaccine preventable diseases.
In addition to these initiatives, MOH is also managing drugs costs. The Agency for Logistics Procurement and Supply (ALPS) was set up to aggregate demand and secure better prices for drugs and other supplies, as well as streamline and reduce supply chain costs. We are also encouraging the appropriate use of drugs, including the use of cheaper generic drugs when they are equally effective as branded alternatives.
MOH has rolled out various measures to help Singaporeans pay for their primary and secondary care bills. As mentioned above, MOH has progressively expanded CHAS over the years. Pioneer and Merdeka Generation seniors are also eligible to special subsidies for medical care at CHAS clinics. In 2018, MOH increased the annual MediSave withdrawal limits for outpatient treatment from $400 to $500 and lowered the minimum age for Flexi-MediSave age from 65 to 60.
Healthcare providers play a major role in ensuring that quality and affordable care is delivered to Singaporeans. Since May 2017, MOH has issued appropriate care guidances on medical treatments and drugs, to guide healthcare providers in making decisions that are based on clinical and cost effectiveness. In addition, MOH has also introduced fee benchmarks for common surgical procedures in November 2018 and published them on our website to guide private sector healthcare providers in charging appropriately.
Ultimately, the most effective way to manage healthcare costs is for Singaporeans to stay healthy. MOH has worked closely with our partners, including the Health Promotion Board, to promote healthy living habits. We will continue to invest in preventive health efforts such as our War against Diabetes, to tackle upstream behavioural risk factors and keep the population in good health. To achieve this, everyone has to play their part and take good care of their health and wellness.
Collectively, these efforts form part of MOH's continual focus to ensure quality and affordable healthcare services for all Singaporeans. We will continue to work closely with our stakeholders to achieve this goal.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount Spent on Developing SafeEntry System, TraceTogether App and TraceTogether Tokens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) how much has been spent on developing (i) the SafeEntry system (ii) the TraceTogether app and (iii) the TraceTogether tokens including their production and distribution; and (b) whether the Ministry has allocated funds for, or envisages further developmental costs associated with, such contact tracing systems and, if so, how much it is estimated to cost.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: \tSafeEntry and TraceTogether are important digital contact tracing tools that augment and improve our contact tracing capabilities. They work together to provide the initial list of close contacts of COVID-19 positive cases for our contract tracing teams to work on. This has enabled us to reduce the time taken to identify and isolate a close contact from four days to less than two days. This is essential to limit the spread of COVID-19 as it breaks the chains of disease transmission and limits the potential for large clusters and multiple generations of spread. As at September 2020, we have spent $2.4 million on developing the TraceTogether app; $5.2 million for SafeEntry; and $6.2 million for development and procurement of TraceTogether Tokens.
Beyond this, we will continue to invest in enhancing SafeEntry and TraceTogether, such as exploring potential solutions to improve the convenience of SafeEntry check-ins, and also to acquire more TT tokens to meet the needs of our population. The actual amount spent will depend on several factors, including the actual number of residents who need a token.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dental Services for Community Health Assist Scheme Orange Card Holdes to Include Tooth Extractions and Fillings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health whether the range of dental services for Community Health Assist Scheme orange card holders may be widened to include tooth extractions and fillings whilst maintaining the current subsidy limit of $50 to $170.50 per procedure.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Today, Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) Orange cardholders are eligible for CHAS subsidies ranging from $50 to $170.50 for selected dental procedures, including dentures, root canal treatments and crowns. Subsidies are made available to CHAS Orange cardholders for these dental procedures as they are more costly, whereas less expensive procedures like tooth extractions and fillings are expected to be more affordable.
Singaporeans can also access affordable basic dental care for a wide range of services, including tooth extractions and fillings, at polyclinics. Patients who require more complex dental care or require dental specialist treatment may be referred for subsidised dental care at the National Dental Centre, Singapore or the National University Centre for Oral Health, Singapore.
We will continue to review our subsidy framework regularly, including the coverage of dental services for CHAS cardholders, to ensure continued affordability and accessibility of dental care at the appropriate settings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate for Seniors Go Digital Programme amongst Low-income Seniors and Measures to Educate Seniors on Online Scams and Digital Crimes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the take-up rate for the Seniors Go Digital Programme amongst low-income seniors; and (b) what are measures put in place to educate seniors on online scams and digital crimes, especially in the e-payments component of the seniors' Digital Literacy Programme.
Mr S Iswaran: Since the SG Digital Office (SDO) was established in June this year, it has mobilised 1,000 Digital Ambassadors (DAs) to engage more than 36,000 seniors at 35 SG Digital Community Hubs at community centres and libraries island-wide. Amongst these seniors, 1 in 10 are low-income seniors and have benefited from subsidised mobile devices and data plans through the Mobile Access for Seniors scheme.
While we help seniors be digitally connected, we must also ensure that they do so safely. Cybersecurity education is therefore part of the core curriculum in the Seniors Go Digital programme and is embedded in every engagement with seniors.
Seniors are taught to identify online scams, cyber threats and online falsehoods, as well as the importance of personal data protection. For example, in the case of digital banking, seniors are advised to enable transaction alerts and not to disclose One-Time-Passwords to anyone. Seniors who prefer hands-on learning to build confidence can also sign up for an e-payment learning journey and be guided by DAs to make their first e-transactions.
Online resources and webinars are also available on the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA) website for seniors who wish to learn more. These tips and advisories are developed jointly with the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore, Singapore Police Force and the Media Literacy Council. We will continue working with relevant agencies to identify new topics as the online ecosystem evolves, and ensure that all Singaporeans are able to access the digital world safely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subtitles for All News Broadcast on Free-to-air TV Channels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether subtitles will be included for all news broadcast on free-to-air TV channels and, if so, when can this be introduced.
Mr S Iswaran: All prime-time news bulletins on Mediacorp's free-to-air TV Channels 5, 8, Suria and Vasantham are subtitled. These news bulletins are broadcast daily in the four official languages and enjoy the highest viewership. News is thus readily accessible to viewers in Singapore in their language of choice through free-to-air TV.
The Government recognises the importance of subtitles in enabling access to news and information for the elderly and hard-of-hearing. Together with Mediacorp, we will continue to explore options and assess technological solutions to build on our current efforts, and will progressively expand subtitling as practical solutions emerge.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts at Digital, Media, Privacy and Political Literacy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether he can provide details about current efforts at digital, media, privacy, and political literacy; (b) what are the measures and assessments of the effectiveness of these efforts; and (c) what are the next steps for review and improvement, timelines and roadmap given growing threats of hacking, data leaks, and misleading information from content farms.
Mr S Iswaran: Hacking, data leaks, and misleading information are global threats in the fast moving digital space. The Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) aims to promote digital literacy - including awareness of cybersecurity, personal data protection, and misinformation - to help Singaporeans be discerning in their use of technology and in navigating online content.
All of us – the Government, businesses and the general public – have a role and the responsibility to take steps to mitigate the risks in the digital space. It was in this spirit that the Government launched Digital Defence as the sixth pillar of Total Defence in February 2019. MCI and our agencies work closely with stakeholders in the private and people sectors to promote digital, media and privacy literacy.
For example, MCI consulted stakeholders, including subject matter experts from the Media Literacy Council (MLC), to launch the Digital Media and Information Literacy Framework in July 2019, which aims to inculcate an appreciation of the benefits and risks of technology. A review of the framework is underway and expected to be completed by the first quarter of 2021.
The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) runs the annual National Cybersecurity Awareness Campaign, which provides tips for internet users to safeguard their digital assets. CSA also published the Safer Cyberspace Masterplan in October 2020 to secure Singapore’s core digital infrastructure, safeguard activities in cyberspace, and promote good cyber hygiene practices.
The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) launched the Data Protection Competency Framework and Training Roadmap in 2019 to enable Data Protection Officers to strengthen data protection practices in their organisations. MCI and PDPC have recently completed a review of the Personal Data Protection Act and will propose amendments to enhance organisational accountability in the protection of personal data.
The MLC runs the annual Better Internet Campaign which covers issues such as cyber safety, discernment of online information, and cyber bullying. This is reinforced by the National Library Board's \"Source. Understand. Research. Evaluate\" (S.U.R.E.) programme, which teaches students, working adults and the general public to be responsible producers and consumers of information.
Ground-up campaigns initiated by our citizens are an important complement to the Government's efforts. For example, a group of students from the Nanyang Technological University ran a campaign called \"Sure Anot\" earlier this year to combat fake news. We look forward to more of such efforts.
Collectively, these and other initiatives help nurture a discerning and vigilant community of netizens, which is the best defence against evolving threats in a dynamic landscape. MCI and our agencies will continue to work with all stakeholders and partners in this important effort.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tax on Plastic Packaging Products in View of Negative Environmental Impact","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider introducing a tax on plastic packaging products in view of their negative environmental impact.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Addressing packaging waste, including plastic packaging, is a priority for my Ministry. We take a multi-pronged approach, from encouraging upstream reduction in excessive consumption, to ensuring proper end-of-life management.
We have announced the introduction of an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework in Singapore to manage packaging waste including plastics, which will be implemented no later than 2025.
We are actively studying and considering various EPR approaches, taking reference from the experience of other jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions price in the environmental costs via a tax. Under this approach, there is no obligation for producers to ensure the subsequent collection and recycling of the packaging waste. Other jurisdictions require producers to pay an appointed organisation for take-back of packaging waste and to ensure that the waste is recycled properly. Finally, some other jurisdictions impose collection or recycling targets on producers and downstream recyclers. Compared to the tax approach, the two latter approaches provide more certainty on waste recovery outcomes, create an incentive for producers to reduce their packaging usage, and improve recycling facilities and processes. This will promote a circular economy approach to packaging waste management.
We are still developing the EPR framework for packaging waste and will share further details when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"More Enforcement Action Taken against High-rise Litterers and Litter Bugs at Parks and Common Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether more enforcement action can be taken against high-rise litterers and litter bugs at our parks and other common areas.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: All of us must play our part to keep Singapore a clean, green, and sustainable home. Fostering social responsibility by not littering is key to keeping our public spaces clean. Public cleanliness and hygiene are particularly important as our line of defence against the COVID-19 pandemic.
We take firm enforcement action against those who litter. In 2019, the National Environment Agency (NEA) took enforcement action against some 27,000 persons for littering at public spaces and high-rise littering. NEA will continue to step up enforcement with the help of technology such as surveillance cameras and data analytics. NEA has also been increasing its enforcement presence in hotspots, including deployment of more uniformed enforcement officers to deter litterbugs.
For parks and nature areas under NParks' management, NParks took enforcement action against some 620 persons for littering in 2019. Most of these cases were at littering hotspots and areas where large numbers of individuals congregate. NParks targets enforcement efforts at such areas, leveraging technology such as surveillance cameras. On the whole, most park visitors practise good etiquette and are considerate of other park users.
It takes collective effort to uphold high standards of public cleanliness. While the Government continues with education and enforcement efforts, we seek everyone's cooperation to keep Singapore clean and safe.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Waste Generation since Launch of Zero Waste Masterplan and Lifespan of Semakau Landfill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how is the 2035 lifespan of Semakau landfill determined; (b) in the past 10 years, how much of the waste generated is domestic waste versus industrial waste and what are their respective growth rates; and (c) what has been the reduction in waste generation since the launch of the Zero Waste Masterplan in 2019.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) projects the amount of waste disposed of at Semakau Landfill, which comprises incineration ash and non-incinerable waste. This figure is then compared with the remaining space at Semakau Landfill to estimate its lifespan.
Domestic waste comes from households and trade premises, while non-domestic waste comes from commercial and industrial premises. On average for the past 10 years, close to 30% of the waste generated was domestic waste, and the remaining 70% non-domestic waste. In 2019, about 7.2 million tonnes of waste were generated compared to 6.5 million tonnes in 2010, reflecting an average annual growth rate of about 1%. Between 2010 and 2019, domestic waste generation decreased by about 9% while non-domestic waste generation increased by about 20%.
2019 was designated as Singapore's Year Towards Zero Waste. The Zero Waste Masterplan, which was launched in August 2019, maps out our key strategies to adopt a circular economy approach, and targets to reduce the amount of waste we send to Semakau Landfill by 30% by 2030. These include regulatory measures such as Extended Producer Responsibility frameworks, as well as educational and engagement efforts with people, private, and public sector partners, such as the \"Say Yes to Waste Less\" campaign to discourage the use of disposables.
While the Zero Waste Masterplan was produced with a 2030 time horizon, we have seen some initial promising signs in overall waste generation. For example, the rate of growth in waste generation has slowed over the past decade, with absolute reduction in overall waste generated in the last three years from 7.8 million tonnes in 2016 to 7.2 million tonnes in 2019. We will regularly assess the progress and outcomes of our initiatives in the next few years as more data become available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Revenue Generated and Value Added per Worker in Cleaning and Landscape Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Trade and Industry from 2014 to 2019 (a) what is the annual revenue generated by the cleaning and landscape sectors respectively; and (b) what is the value added per worker in each of these sectors.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Between 2014 and 2019, the total revenue of firms in the cleaning and landscape sectors averaged $2.1 billion and $0.5 billion per year respectively, while their nominal value-added per worker averaged $23,300 and $24,500 per year respectively.1 The yearly data for the two sectors are provided in Tables 1 and 2.
30 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with China's launch of the blueprint for Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area and Shenzhen given greater autonomy for development, how can Singapore and its companies participate in the growth of the cluster.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In October 2020, the Chinese Government released a five-year implementation plan for comprehensive pilot reforms across diverse sectors in Shenzhen. These reforms to promote Shenzhen and the broader Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA)1 into a vibrant world-class city cluster offer opportunities, and new areas of collaboration for Singapore companies to work with GBA enterprises.
Singapore companies keen to explore these opportunities can leverage Singapore's strong economic ties with GBA cities through various government platforms and projects. These cover many areas of cooperation spanning trade and investment, smart cities, financial services, talent strategy, innovation, and intellectual property (IP). Through these platforms and projects, which provide regular touchpoints with the Chinese government and enterprises, Singapore companies can actively engage and collaborate with potential GBA partners.
For example, at the Guangdong provincial-level, we have the annual Singapore-Guangdong Collaboration Council (SGCC) meetings co-chaired by Minister for Transport Ong Ye Kung and Guangdong Governor Ma Xingrui, which brings together leaders, government officials and private sector representatives from Singapore and Guangdong.
In Guangzhou, close to 50 Singapore companies have established a presence in the China-Singapore Guangzhou Knowledge City (CSGKC), using it as a useful entry point to tap growth opportunities in the GBA. The International IP Innovation Service Centre (ISC) in the CSGKC2 also provides Singapore companies access to IP services in China that assist them in penetrating markets in the GBA and beyond, while enabling Chinese enterprises to leverage Singapore’s IP offerings to expand internationally.
More recently, the Singapore-China (Shenzhen) Smart City Initiative (SCI) launched in October 20193 serves as an important pathfinder collaboration for Singapore and Shenzhen companies and agencies to work together in the digital space. Notably, industry-led initiatives such as the OneSME platform, launched in September 2020 under the SCI, will help Singapore's SMEs expand their overseas reach and tap on a larger ecosystem of buyers, sellers, and business partners across China.
Singapore companies are encouraged to tap on our strong existing networks, including our platforms and projects with GBA cities and businesses, to leverage the GBA's development to capture new opportunities and forge new areas of growth.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The GBA comprises nine cities in Guangdong, as well as Hong Kong and Macao, with an estimated Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of US$1,680 billion in 2019. Source: Hong Kong Trade Development Council Research.","2 : The ISC was established in July 2020 with the support of Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) International, which is IPOS’ enterprise engagement arm.","3 : The SCI was launched at the 15th Joint Council for Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC) in October 2019. The JCBC, which is co-chaired at the Deputy Prime Minister-level, is the apex bilateral cooperation platform between Singapore and China. The SCI comprises three pillars: (i) digital connectivity; (ii) innovation and entrepreneurship; and (iii) talent exchange and development."],"footNoteQuestions":["30"],"questionNo":"30"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate of Households Switching Over to Open Electricity Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how does the Ministry intend to encourage the 53% of households still not on the Open Electricity Market to switch over, for electricity savings and lower price volatility; and (b) whether any target take-up rate has been set.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: As at end-September 2020, 48% of around 1.4 million households have switched to buying electricity from a retailer in the Open Electricity Market (OEM). This is significantly higher than the first-year switch rates observed in other jurisdictions, such as Japan, France and the UK.
The OEM was introduced to provide consumers with more choices in their electricity purchases beyond the regulated tariff. OEM retailers offer different price plans and services from SP Group, and may also impose different contract lock-in periods and charges. Retail prices also change over time and may rise above the regulated tariff in future. Consumers also have different needs, which can vary with time. Hence, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) does not have a target take-up rate for the OEM.
Consumers should consider their electricity needs and preferences, before making a decision whether to switch to OEM retailers. To this end, EMA's priority is to raise awareness and educate consumers about the OEM, including the options available, and the safeguards put in place to protect their interests. EMA ensures that retailers include all key contractual terms in a Fact Sheet during the contracting process. Consumers can also use EMA's online Price Comparison Tool (compare.openelectricitymarket.sg) to compare Standard Price Plans. In addition, EMA conducts regular Consumer Satisfaction Surveys and publishes the satisfaction ratings of each retailer regularly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Season Parking Fee Waiver for Private Bus/Coach Season Pass Holders at All Government-owned Carparks after 2 October 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the season parking fee waiver for private bus/coach season pass holders at all Government-owned car parks will be extended after 2 October 2020.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Current private bus (including coach) season parking holders at all Government-owned car parks received a six-month waiver of season parking fees from 1 May to 31 October 2020 as announced on 26 March 2020. This waiver has been extended till 31 March 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ratio of Foreign Recipients of Tuition Grants, Scholarships and Full-paying Students in Autonomous Universities and Their Income and Residency Status Post-Graduation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the current ratio of foreign recipients of tuition grants versus foreign recipients of scholarships versus full-paying foreign students in our autonomous universities; (b) what is the average post-graduation income for the former two categories versus full-paying foreign students; and (c) what is the ratio of graduates from each category who have gone on to secure permanent residency and citizenship status.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The number of international students in our Autonomous Universities (AUs) who receive undergraduate scholarships and tuition grants form less than 10% of each intake. In addition, some international students at the undergraduate level do not take up tuition grants and pay full fees.
On average over the past three years, the proportion of international students on tuition grant only, those on a combination of tuition grant and scholarships, and those who are full-fee paying stands at about 60%, 25% and 15% respectively.
Recipients of tuition grant and scholarships are required to work in Singapore after they graduate as part of their bond obligations. Based on our surveys, the median gross starting salaries of international students with tuition grants and scholarships are comparable to that of undergraduates as a whole. We do not track the salaries of full-fee paying international students as a specific group.
Most international students have sunk roots in Singapore. Based on the data for the graduation cohorts of 2012 to 2014, about 75% of scholarship holders and 60% of tuition grant recipients have been granted permanent residency. Around 10 to 15% of them convert to citizenship within five years of graduation. We do not track PR or citizenship status for full-fee paying international students. For those who eventually choose to leave Singapore, they continue to be part of our valuable global network, through the friendships and links forged during their studies.
This is like Singaporeans who have studied in overseas universities who retain ties to their universities and countries of study when they return to Singapore. Some of our Singaporean students may also have received financial support from their overseas universities or foundations. We also have several foreign universities who run programmes from campuses in Singapore, catering to both foreign and local students. These programmes also contribute to Singapore's attractiveness as a place for international educational exchanges, and enable our AUs to remain connected to this global education network.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals from Education Officers against Performance Management System of Stack Ranking in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education with regard to the performance management system of stack ranking, what is the annual number of appeals in the last five years from Education Officers who appeal their performance grade.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In any appraisal system, there will always be employees who will feel that they have done better than how they have been assessed. Over the last five years, well below 1% of the teachers would appeal against their performance grades annually. Each appeal is taken seriously and looked into carefully by the Ministry. In addition, we have put in place checks and balances to ensure the deserving officers are duly recognised for their work. For instance, to complement individual assessments by the direct supervisors, inputs from the indirect supervisors are also taken into consideration. This helps to ensure that there is sufficient objectivity, fairness, rigour and discipline in the process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Plan to Provide All Secondary School Students with Laptops by 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education (a) whether details can be provided with regard to the plan to provide all secondary school students with laptops by 2021; (b) whether there will be direct provision of a standard laptop; and (c) whether there will also be complementary digital support measures to support the rollout of these laptops in schools.
36 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the plan for integrating the usage of laptops into the secondary school curriculum; and (b) whether such integration will be via a national syllabus or to be decided on a school-by-school basis.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Ministry of Education (MOE) had announced earlier this year that as part of the National Digital Literacy Programme, every secondary student would have their own Personal Learning Device (PLD) by end 2021. Complemented by enhanced internet connectivity that we will provide to schools, PLDs will better support teaching and learning and develop students' digital literacies.
The tender for the PLDs has just been awarded and MOE is in the process of finalising the implementation details with the vendors involved. Schools will be able to select from a range of device types in order to best meet their teaching and learning needs, as the intent is for all students in the school to be using the same PLD. We will provide more details on the roll-out of PLDs to schools by January 2021.
The secondary school curriculum already incorporates the use of digital tools for teaching and learning, many of which are integrated into the Singapore Student Learning Space (SLS) platform. PLDs will complement these existing tools to enhance both in-class and home-based learning. MOE will provide schools with guidance on the effective use of PLDs. However, schools will have the autonomy to customise their integration of PLDs to better meet the learning needs of their students.
With the roll-out of PLDs, MOE will also provide further support to schools in the following areas:
Enhanced Cyber Wellness education under the revised Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum, to help students manage their use of PLDs in a safe and responsible manner;
Learning resources for the development of digital literacies to enable students to develop the dispositions, knowledge and skills to thrive in the digital environment;
Guides for students and parents, including tips on developing digital literacy and how parents can partner schools to support students' learning with PLDs; and
Additional technical support personnel for schools to ensure a smooth digital learning experience for students and teachers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Singaporean Children Born to Long Term Visit Pass Holders versus Singaporean Women in Past 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in each year of the past 10 years (a) how many Singaporean children have been born to Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP) holders versus Singaporean women; (b) how many divorces have happened between couples, at least one of whom is an LTVP holder, who have Singaporean children; and (c) what are the comparable national-level figures for the same period of time.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Table 1 shows the number of Singapore Citizen (SC) children born in Singapore to female Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP) holders and to SC women between 2010 and 2019.
Data on divorces between SCs and LTVP holders with at least one child under 21 years old between 2010 and 2019 is unavailable. The Family Justice Courts and the Syariah Court do not track divorce by the type of immigration passes held by Non-Resident parties.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : These refer to children born to female LTVP holders who are legally married to male SCs. Figures are based on those whose mothers’ FIN numbers (not a mandatory data field) were indicated at the point of birth registration."],"footNoteQuestions":["37"],"questionNo":"37"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expected Timeline for Completion of Conversion of All Street Lights to LED Lighting","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport what is the expected timeline for the completion of the conversion of all street lights to LED lighting, in light of COVID-19 related disruptions to public works.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: To date, LTA has converted 43% of the lights on public streets to LED lighting, and expects to complete the island-wide conversion by end 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation of Driver Assignments by Private Hire Car Operators to Minimise Unnecessary Travelling Time by Drivers and Pollution","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
39 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA regulates how private hire car operators carry out their driver assignments for all booked trips; (b) if so, whether LTA requires private hire car operators to assign booked trips to their drivers nearest to the pick-up locations, to minimise unnecessary travelling by drivers; and (c) if not, whether LTA will consider having such requirements to minimise unnecessary travelling time and pollution.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: LTA does not regulate how private hire car (PHC) operators assign booked trips to their drivers. PHC operators have their own algorithms, but commercially, it will make sense for them to match passengers to available drivers who are closest to them, so as to minimise passengers' waiting time and maximise the trip allocations on their platforms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Number of COEs Going to Singapore Citizens, Permanent Residents and Foreigners from 2000 to 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport from 2000 to 2019, what is the annual number of COEs going to (i) Singapore citizens (ii) permanent residents and (iii) foreigners.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The complete Certificate of Entitlement (COE) records date back to 2002. Since then, the breakdown of COE allocations on average every year are: 22.5% companies registered in Singapore, 77% to Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, and 0.5% to foreigners. The Land Transport Authority does not track the detailed breakdown of COE allocation between Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors Pushing Up Motorcycle COE Prices in Last Few Months and Cooling Measures to Ensure Affordability for Lower Income Group","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport (a) what factors have been pushing up motorcycle COE prices in the last few months; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider implementing cooling measures to ensure that this mode of transportation remains affordable for the lower income group.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The quota premium is dependent on the supply of and demand for the Certificates of Entitlement (COEs). As the Vehicle Growth Rate for motorcycles has been 0% per annum since 2018, the supply of Category D COEs depends on the number of motorcycles deregistered in the preceding months.
As COE bidding was suspended from April to June 2020 due to COVID-19, there was pent-up demand. Hence, when we returned the unbidded COEs accumulated from April to June 2020, we frontloaded one-third of them from July to September 2020, and will distribute the rest in the next nine months, from October 2020 to June 2021.
Category D COE prices have held quite steady at around $7,300 to $7,700 over the last six bidding exercises, but still higher compared to pre-COVID 19 levels.
We are mindful that many lower income Singaporeans require a motorcycle to go about their work. That is why motorcycles are subject to much lower Additional Registration Fees and road tax compared to cars. We will continue to monitor the situation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evaluation Criteria for Joint Industry Projects Called by Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore for Resilient and Competitive Maritime Sector Post-COVID-19","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Transport what are the criteria by which industry projects and the Joint/Collaborative Industry Projects topic contributors will be evaluated and selected by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore in the call for joint industry projects to build a resilient and competitive maritime sector post-COVID-19.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: From 26 May to 31 July this year, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and the Singapore Shipping Association (SSA) made an open call for joint industry projects to encourage our maritime stakeholders and technology community to collaborate on innovation projects. Applicants could propose any projects that address challenges and opportunities brought about by COVID-19 to enhance resilience and competitiveness for the maritime industry.
The published eligibility criteria for applicants were as follows:
(a) Incorporated in Singapore under the Companies Act (Cap. 50) or is a classification society appointed as Recognised Organisation under the Merchant Shipping (Authorised Organisations) Regulations;
(b) Has at least two industry partners in the project; and
(c) The project is to be carried out in Singapore.
The published evaluation criteria for the projects were as follows:
(a) Relevance and impact to the maritime industry;
(b) Innovation and differentiation from existing solutions;
(c) Capability development in Singapore;
(d) Local value capture; and
(e) Team competency.
Qualified projects are being evaluated by a committee comprising MPA officers and industry experts, in consultation with SSA. The results will be announced in November 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incident Rate of Commercial Vehicles in Past Five Years and Regulations and Mitigation Measures Planned","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the past five years, what has been the incident rate of commercial vehicles; and (b) whether there will be regulations requiring heavy commercial vehicles travelling at speeds over 70km per hour to be equipped with lane departure warning, front collision warning and electronic braking systems.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The percentage of heavy commercial vehicles involved in accidents resulting in injuries and fatalities has decreased over the past five years, from about 1.7% of the heavy commercial vehicle population in 2015 or about 800 accident vehicles, to about 1.3% in 2019 or about 560 accident vehicles.
Under the Road Traffic Act, heavy vehicles with a maximum laden weight greater than 12,000 kilogrammes are required to be fitted with speed limiters that prevent them from exceeding the speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour. This means that heavy vehicles are not able to travel above this speed unless the speed limiter has been deactivated or tampered with. The Traffic Police (TP) conducts regular enforcement operations along routes frequented by heavy vehicles to enforce against speeding and tempering of speed limiters. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and TP will continue to study ways to improve road traffic safety, including the technologies suggested by the Member, bearing in mind their effectiveness and impact on businesses and commuters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons Carparks Not Upgrading Their Systems to Accept Specification for Contactless e-Purse Application Cards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many car parks do not accept CEPAS (Specification for Contactless e-Purse Application) cards; and (b) what are the reasons why these car park operators do not upgrade their systems to accept CEPAS cards.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Out of some 3,300 carparks that use the Electronic Parking System, only one does not accept CEPAS cards for payment. This is a decision by the carpark owner, who chooses which payment modes to accept, taking into account factors such as cost and motorist experience.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Build More Sheltered Walkways Beyond Current Parameters Set by LTA's Walk2Ride Programme to Encourage More Residents to Walk or Cycle","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
45 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport whether there are plans to build more sheltered walkways beyond the current parameters set by LTA's Walk2Ride programme, i.e. 400 metre radius of MRT stations and trip generation hubs or 200 metre radius of transport nodes or education facilities, to encourage more residents to walk or cycle.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: LTA's covered linkway programme is intended to connect large numbers of commuters to major public transport nodes like MRT/LRT stations and bus interchanges. As such, LTA focuses on building covered linkways near these transport nodes. This allows the prudent use of public funds to benefit more commuters.
46 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower since Phase Two of Re-Opening began (a) what has been the total number of migrant workers who have been issued Stay Home Notices and Quarantine Orders; and (b) whether there have been cases of transmission across groups of migrant workers staying in different locations.
Mrs Josephine Teo: To detect new COVID-19 cases and contain the infections quickly and decisively, we have a multi-layered strategy, of which Rostered Routine Testing (RRT) once every 14 days is a critical part to detect COVID-19 early. These workers come primarily from the construction, marine and process sectors. 98% of workers have been scheduled for RRT, and employers are required to ensure that their workers continue to undergo RRT every 14 days, in order to safeguard their health and that of the wider community. We have also been working with employers, dormitory operators and migrant workers to put in place Safe Living, Safe Working and Safe Rest Day measures to prevent new infections. These measures have been effective in bringing down the number of cases and has kept transmission across dormitories to a minimum.
As workers spend time either at their worksites or in their dormitories, these dormitory, worksite and transport measures are necessary to reduce the risk of transmission. We are very watchful for transmission across dormitories or worksites. So far, we have not detected any cross transmission since migrant workers resumed work from August.
Since dormitories were cleared on 11 August 2020, about 53,000 migrant workers have been issued Stay Home Notices/Quarantine Orders (SHN/QOs). SHN/QOs are issued to contacts of persons who have been tested positive for COVID-19. The duration of SHN/QO is typically two weeks. As expected, in the first round of RRT in August, a number of COVID positive cases were detected resulting in their contacts being placed on SHN/QO. The RRT and SHN/QO process has allowed us to identify these cases early and isolate their contacts quickly, helping to bring down the number of positive cases, which has also correspondingly brought down the number of contacts that need to be placed on SHN/QO. The number on SHN/QO, which includes the contacts of COVID positive cases identified over the past two weeks, has fallen to about 4,000. This is about 1.38% of the workforce living in the dormitories, while the remaining 98.62% are available to continue working safely.
The Ministries, employers, dormitory operators and migrant workers share the same objective – to resume work at the worksites as smoothly as possible while maintaining the health and safety of the migrant workers and of our community. We would like to thank our employers, dormitory operators and migrant workers for their cooperation and remaining vigilant. By working together, we have been able to bring down the number of cases. The incidence rate of COVID positive cases from RRT has fallen from 0.27% in August, to 0.09% in September, and to 0.03% in the first week of October.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on CPF Members' Investment Portfolios and Plans to Review List of Investment :Products under CPF Investment Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what has been the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on CPF members' investment portfolios so far; and (b) whether the Ministry will review the list of investment products under the CPF Investment Scheme for better protection of CPF members.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The primary purpose of CPF is to help members save for retirement. Members can earn risk-free interest of up to 6% per annum on their CPF balances. Members who are prepared to take some risks to earn potentially higher returns may do so through the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS).
The CPFIS provides members with the flexibility to diversify their investments to enhance their retirement nest egg. At the same time, as members' retirement monies are involved, safeguards have been put in place.
First, while members can choose from a list of diverse investment options, higher-risk products such as hedge funds are excluded. This list of CPFIS products is reviewed on an ongoing basis to ensure that it remains relevant to members' needs.
Second, investment-related fees, which erode returns, are kept low for CPFIS funds. In fact, since the start of this month, CPFIS sales charges have been removed and the cap on CPFIS wrap fees has been reduced to 0.4% per annum.
Nevertheless, these safeguards do not guarantee that investments will do well. The COVID-19 pandemic is a reminder of the risks that come with investing. The resulting global market volatilities are reflected in the average quarterly performance of CPFIS-included unit trusts and investment-linked insurance products, which saw a drop of 12.96% in Q1 2020 before rebounding by 11.58% in Q2 2020. Investors, including those participating in CPFIS, may be better or worse off, depending on their timing and selection of investments during this period.
Ultimately, the CPFIS is for members who have the knowledge and time to invest and are prepared to take the risks. The CPFIS Self-Awareness Questionnaire introduced in 2018 will continue to help prospective CPFIS participants gauge their readiness to invest their CPF monies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount of Late Payment Interest Collected by CPF Board to Date since Inception","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower what is the amount of late payment interest collected by the CPF Board (i) each year from 2009 to 2019 (ii) since inception and (iii) in 2020 to date.
Mrs Josephine Teo: A late payment interest of 1.5% per month is currently charged on employers to deter them from paying CPF contributions late for their employees. The interest rate is broadly in line with other late payment penalties imposed on employers for foreign worker levy and GST. The late payment interest collected is used to cover the interest that the employees should have earned if the CPF contributions were paid on time. It is also used to partially offset the costs incurred by the CPF Board when recovering these late contributions.
If we expressed the amount of late payment interest collected as a percentage of CPF contributions, the ratio has hovered at around 0.05 to 0.06% for the past 10 years including the first half of 2020. The amount of late payment interest collected each year is published in CPF Board's annual reports.
We understand that some employers may face difficulties making CPF contributions on time during an economic downturn. The CPF Board will extend assistance to these employers on a case by case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Working with Employers to Inform Laid-off and At-risk Workers of Job Search Avenues and Government Support Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Government will work with employers who have laid off or are laying-off workers to inform workers of job search avenues and Government support schemes, specifically to support mature workers who may not be Internet-savvy or English-literate.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Employers who employ at least 10 employees are required to notify the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) if five or more of their employees are retrenched within any six-month period. The Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation, comprising representatives from the MOM, Workforce Singapore (WSG), National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (NTUC's e2i), proactively reaches out to affected local workers to offer them employment assistance. This includes providing information kits on career resources and briefings on available employment facilitation. WSG and NTUC's e2i career coaches also offer career advisory and one-on-one coaching to help affected workers transit to new opportunities.
The Member asked about additional support for mature workers who may not be internet-savvy or English-literate. Collaterals are provided in various languages at the career centres such as WSG's Careers Connect and the 24 SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres. Career ambassadors and career coaches conversant in vernacular languages or dialects are also on hand to share available information and resources to assist jobseekers.
The Taskforce, with the support of the Ministry, is committed to helping every retrenched jobseeker access available jobs, traineeships, attachments and training opportunities under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Access to and Use of Recreation Centres by Migrant Workers Cleared for Work","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower for an update on the use of recreation centres by migrant workers who have been cleared for work (a) what percentage and how many migrant workers who have been cleared for work have been able to utilise recreation centres on their off days; (b) for those who are cleared for work but have not returned to work, whether they are given a schedule for access to the recreation centres; and (c) what is the approximate timeline for allowing migrant workers to return to their usual social and recreational spots on their off days.
Mrs Josephine Teo: In August 2020, the Ministry of Manpower began trials to allow eligible migrant workers residing in dormitories to visit Recreation Centres (RCs) for social activities, leisure and personal errands. There are eight RCs which were purpose built to serve migrant workers, and they provide key services and amenities such as food courts, minimarts, remittance, barber and telco services. The visits to RCs have been done in a measured way to ensure that the residents and the broader community are kept safe and healthy. Visits have to be booked, and timeslots are allocated to ensure that there is no overcrowding of the RCs.
Dormitory residents may be eligible to visit RCs once a week, if there are no COVID-19 infections in their dormitory, and they have either recovered from COVID-19, or have tested negative within 14 days prior to their RC visit.
As of late October, we included about 150,000 dormitory residents in a trial (about 50% of total residents in dormitory). To date, 20% or 30,000 dormitory residents have visited the RCs. From 31 October, access to RCs has been expanded and all dormitory residents cleared for work are eligible to visit RCs on their rest days.
We will study how best to support the migrant workers' recreational needs through this pandemic, taking into account the risk of transmission due to large social gatherings and prolonged interactions in uncontrolled settings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of CPF Basic Retirement Sum Requirements in Light of Economic Crisis Caused by COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower whether the CPF Basic Retirement Sum requirements for the cohort of Singapore residents turning 55 years of age in 2021 or later will be reviewed in light of the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic which has affected CPF contributions.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) provides members with monthly payouts that cover basic expenses throughout their retirement years. CPF members aged 55 and above can withdraw up to $5,000 from their CPF savings, or more if they have set aside their Full Retirement Sum or BRS, with property pledge. For members turning age 65 from 2023, they can also withdraw up to 20% of their Retirement Account savings1 upon reaching age 65. Members who have less than their BRS are not required to top up their CPF accounts in cash.
BRS takes reference from the actual expenditure of lower-middle quintile retiree households and is adjusted for long-term inflation and some improvements in standard of living. It reflects the long term needs of the member rather than short term fluctuations.
We understand many Singaporeans face financial difficulties in this current environment. Our priority is to help Singaporeans stay employed to continue receiving CPF contributions. This is in line with the guidelines issued by the National Wages Council, which strongly encourage employers to retain employees through cost-saving measures, retraining and redeployment to new jobs within the company. The Government has also provided targeted assistance to save jobs and livelihoods such as through the Jobs Support Scheme, which provided salary support to help companies to retain employees. We have also ramped up job redesign reskilling and redeployment programmes as part of the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package.
Apart from the above support, the COVID-19 Support Grant and Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme have also helped Singaporeans with short-term cash flow support. Lower income workers and households get more support through the Workfare Special Payment and grocery vouchers. The HDB and banks are providing mortgage relief to flat owners who faced difficulties paying monthly instalments in cash or using CPF.
We will continue to review BRS keeping in mind the long term retirement needs of Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Includes the first $5,000 that members can withdraw from age 55."],"footNoteQuestions":["51"],"questionNo":"51"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Jobseekers Who Sought Assistance at SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres since Inception and Their Success Rate and Profile","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower since the inception of the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres (a) how many jobseekers have sought assistance with the centres; and (b) how many have been successfully placed with jobs, with a breakdown of jobseekers' highest education levels and age groups.
Mrs Josephine Teo: To help our local jobseekers access the available opportunities under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package, Workforce Singapore (WSG) has brought career matching services closer to the heartlands. WSG launched the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres in phases since early July. By end-August, one centre had been set up in each of the 24 HDB towns.
As of end-September, Career Ambassadors at these centres have advised around 6,000 jobseekers. As jobseekers are reached through multiple channels and assisted through a variety of means, it is therefore more useful to consider their collective impact. Between January and September this year, we have provided career matching services to about 51,700 jobseekers through various touchpoints such as the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres, as well as WSG’s and NTUC's e2i's five permanent career centres. Since the launch of the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package in April 2020, we have placed 33,100 jobseekers into job, traineeship, attachment and training opportunities. This is in spite of a two-month lockdown and the deep economic recession. The breakdown of jobseekers placed into these opportunities by highest education qualifications and age is not available, but we have provided the breakdown by occupational profiles in Table 1 below. Majority of the jobseekers placed into jobs are in non-PMET roles.
We will continue to curate more opportunities, while seeking to increase placements of jobseekers.
53 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Manpower in each year of the last five years, how many Letter Of Consent applications by unique applicants has the Ministry received from Long Term Visit Pass holders.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Prior to December 2018, Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP) and LTVP+ holders need their employers to apply for Letters of Consent (LOCs) for them to work in Singapore. Since December 2018, LTVP/LTVP+ holders who are spouses or unmarried children (under 21 years old) of Singaporeans or Singapore Permanent Residents and who wish to work are granted Pre-Approved LOCs (PLOCs). PLOC holders can work for any employer who is only required to notify MOM at the start of employment. The breakdown of unique applicants per year is as follows:
54 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current breakdown of employees, by residential status and occupations, who are working for managing agents of Management Corporations Strata Titles (MCSTs); and (b) whether there are mandatory training or certifications that these employees must attain in order to manage strata-titled properties.
Mr Desmond Lee: The employment data of firms providing managing agent (MA) services to management corporations (MCSTs) is summarised in the Table. These firms may also be servicing non-MCST clients, and some may also provide non-MA services.
To improve the professionalism and competency levels of MAs, BCA has worked with the Association of Property and Facility Managers and the Association of Strata Managers to develop voluntary accreditation schemes for firms and individuals providing MA services, with a focus on those servicing MCSTs. These schemes comprise training programmes, which are guided by a competency framework drawn up by BCA. The associations have implemented their training programmes since July this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Percentage of Families Living in HDB Rental Flats Subsequently Moving on to HDB Home Ownership","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development what is the average percentage of families living in HDB rental flats who subsequently move on to HDB home ownership and how long does this typically take.
Mr Desmond Lee: The number of public rental households who moved into their own homes per year has increased steadily from about 500 in 2013 to about 950 in 2019. The 950 households constituted about two percent of all public rental households in 2019. Their median length of stay in public rental was about seven years. Another 2,000 public rental households have booked a flat and are awaiting the completion of their new homes.
HDB will continue to actively support tenants who are financially ready to buy a flat, including advising them on the grants and schemes they can apply for. To further strengthen the support provided to tenants, HDB has also launched and enhanced the Fresh Start Housing Scheme, and established the Home ownership Support Team to closely guide public rental households in their home ownership journey. HDB will also continue to work in close partnership with MSF to provide coordinated support to rental tenants, including under ComLink.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timeline for Replacement of All Laundry Pole Holders with Elderly-friendly Drying Racks in HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"56 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will consider replacing all laundry pole holders with elderly-friendly drying racks in HDB flats in the immediate future instead of waiting for the Home Improvement Programme.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB has been progressively replacing pipe socket laundry pole holders with external clothes drying racks under its upgrading programmes, covering almost 450,000 flats to date. HDB is now implementing the extended Home Improvement Programme for some 230,000 flats built between 1987 and 1997. Because of the large number of flats involved, the work will have to be done progressively in phases, over the next 10 years or so.
In addition, there are some older flats which were previously upgraded under the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP), and are still using the pipe socket laundry pole holders. We are studying the possibility of replacing the pipe socket holders in these flats with other clothes drying rack solutions.
In the meantime, residents in flats with pipe socket laundry holders can consider other clothes drying solutions, such as indoor free-standing racks, which are easily available in the market in a range of options to suit their needs and preferences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prioritisation Criteria for Electrical Load Upgrading Programme for Neighbourhoods and Blocks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"57 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for National Development (a) how is the electrical load upgrading programme for neighbourhoods and blocks prioritised; and (b) when will all electrical load upgrading works for blocks fitted with the older standard 30-amps switch be completed.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the Electrical Load Upgrading Programme (ELUP), HDB will upgrade the unit electrical power supply for about 1,500 older HDB blocks from 30 amperes to 40 amperes.
Whenever possible, HDB will prioritise ELUP for blocks that have been selected for the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) and Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) to minimise inconvenience to residents. Blocks within close proximity will also be grouped together for the upgrading, so that fewer new electrical substations are required to serve a larger number of blocks.
Given the large number of flats across Singapore which need to be upgraded under ELUP, the upgrading works will be carried out in phases. HDB targets to complete ELUP in about 10 years' time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Curriculum and Pass Criteria for Council for Estate Agencies' Real Estate Salespersons Examination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"58 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether every Council for Estate Agencies' Real Estate Salespersons Examination is subject to a fixed quota for a pass regardless of how well students of each cohort may actually have performed; (b) whether all students who have signed up for the course leading to the examinations are provided with all the materials that form the examination content; and (c) whether students are required to acquire knowledge outside of the materials provided in order for them to pass the examinations.
Mr Desmond Lee: Individuals who wish to register as property agents are required by the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) to pass the Real Estate Salesperson (RES) examination. This ensures that property agents have the necessary knowledge to advise their clients on property transactions, thereby safeguarding consumer interest. This is particularly important because for many Singaporeans, buying or selling a property is one of the largest financial transactions they may make in their lifetime.
CEA does not set a quota for the number of candidates who may pass the RES examination. The RES examination syllabus is published on CEA's website so that candidates and course providers are aware of the topics tested in the RES examination. Specifically, candidates will be tested on their knowledge of the latest laws, regulations and policies related to real estate, and their ability to apply their knowledge to practical situations. CEA also requires the course providers to develop teaching and course materials which are in line with the examination syllabus.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Rainwater Harvesting Systems under HDB Greenprints @ Yuhua Programme to Mature Housing Estates to Minimise Potable Water Usage for Common Area Washing and Watering of Plants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"59 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can explore the extension of rainwater harvesting systems, first piloted under the HDB Greenprint @ Yuhua programme, to mature housing estates so as to reduce the use of potable water for common area washing and watering of plants.
Mr Desmond Lee: As part of national water conservation efforts, HDB constantly explores new water saving initiatives for both new and existing estates.
The Rainwater Harvesting System (RHS) pilot at Yuhua estate showed that the RHS was not cost-effective, as it involved the installation of a water tank and treatment systems at the ground level of each HDB block. HDB has since developed the Urban Water Harvesting System (UWHS), which integrates the rainwater harvesting tank and treatment system with a detention tank to reduce implementation costs. Besides allowing rainwater to be harvested for non-potable uses like the washing of common areas, the UWHS also slows down stormwater discharge to mitigate flood risk.
HDB has introduced the UWHS to all suitable BTO projects launched from August 2018. In addition, HDB will pilot the UWHS in some existing HDB estates under the HDB Green Towns Programme that was announced earlier this year. HDB is currently working with PUB to identify suitable locations for the pilot, taking into consideration cost effectiveness and technical feasibility. If the pilot is successful, HDB will roll out the UWHS on a wider scale in existing estates, where applicable.
HDB will continue to explore new practical water saving solutions to promote water conservation in HDB estates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Disbursement of $55 Million to Arts Sector since Its Announcement in March 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"60 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how much of the $55 million announced in March 2020 has been disbursed to the arts sector; (b) through which policies have they been disbursed; and (c) what is the plan and timeline to disburse the rest of the monies.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The $55 million Arts and Culture Resilience Package (ACRP) seeks to safeguard livelihoods, retain important capabilities and talent in the arts and culture ecosystem, and help position the sector for the post-COVID recovery. This has been done through several grant schemes and other initiatives, which to date have generated over 10,000 work and training opportunities (of which almost 4,000 were for freelancers) and supported close to 1,200 digitalisation projects and programmes by local artists and organisations. The grants and initiatives include the:
ACRP Operating Grant to support arts and culture organisations, and those in closely-related sectors, which hold key capabilities in our ecosystem. This Grant is expected to benefit over 300 organisations, and we hope recipient organisations will provide work opportunities for their freelancers.
Capability Development Scheme for the Arts (CDSA) for arts and culture organisations and practitioners to upskill and prepare for a post-COVID-19 recovery.
Digitalisation Fund (DF) to support arts and culture groups and practitioners, cultural institutions, and cultural festival organisers to go digital with their arts and culture content, through the following three components:
Digital Presentation Grant for the Arts (DPG) to support ground-up efforts by artists and arts groups to present their work in digital form.
Commissioned work and partnerships to support larger-scale digitalisation of key festivals and events.
Digitalisation of our museum exhibitions and collections so that Singaporeans and international visitors alike can experience and learn about our heritage without leaving their homes.
Rental waivers for eligible tenants on government-owned properties of up to four months to help arts and culture organisations and practitioners defray costs.
Venue hire subsidy of currently 80%, at eligible venues for activities permitted to resume in Phase Two to help arts and culture organisations and practitioners manage overheads.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4141,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201102/vernacular-Joan Pereira PDPA 2Nov2020 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira PDPA 2Nov2020 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4142,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sharael Taha","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201102/vernacular-2 Nov 2020 - Mr Sharael Taha - PDP (A) Bill.pdf","fileName":"2 Nov 2020 - Mr Sharael Taha - PDP (A) Bill.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}